More on sociopathic, psychopathic personalities

The Personality Profile of A Leader

Followers Beware

by Cindy-Lou Dale

I was brought up to believe that all men are created equal. Equal? I find this a startling assumption as clearly, this is definitely not so. Humanity is unmistakably divided into two categories – good and evil; which is openly displayed in what we witness daily. Man’s humanity to man and more so their inhumanity to man; those who are vicious and animal-like, waging war and killing and those that are enlightened, peaceful and caring

Now, let’s look at the world leaders. See how many of their personality traits can you pick out of this profile.

Glibness/Superficial Charm - Language can be used without effort by them, to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers who exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

Manipulative and Cunning - They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies, as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality.
Pathological Lying - Has no problem lying coolly and easily. It is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt - A deep-seated rage, that is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims, and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions - When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion, it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love - While they talk about "God's love" they are unable to give or receive it. Since they do not believe in the genuineness of their followers' love, they are very harsh in testing their devotees and expect them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.

Need for Stimulation - Living on the edge, yet testing the beliefs of their followers with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy - Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the follower cannot believe their leader would callously hurt them, they rationalize the behavior as necessary for their (or the group's) own "good" and deny the abuse. When devotees become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "spiritual rape" to them.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency - Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability - Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their followers or others outside their group. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the followers.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity – Totalitarian leaders frequently practice promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their followers, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle - Tends to move around a lot or makes all-encompassing promises for the future. Many groups claim as their goal world-domination or other utopian promises. Great contrast between the leader's opulent lifestyle and the followers' impoverishment. Support by gifts and donations from the followers who are pressured to give through fear and guilt. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility - Changes their image and that of the group as needed, to avoid prosecution, to increase income, and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed, to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group, and a new twist on the scam.

Other related qualities: Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them; Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them; authoritarian; secretive; paranoid; only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired; conventional appearance; goal of enslavement of their victim(s); exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life; has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love); ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim.

You have just read the mind-manipulating personality profile of a sociopath and probably the personality profile of several prominent world leaders -- the very leaders who exercise their exceptional abilities to charm and seduce their followers, as well as the media. The self-same media that foolishly allows itself to be manipulated and hoodwinked and that, in turn, reports its misguided findings to the masses, whose reports we naively believe.

Excerpted from "The Mandela Myth"

US/Canada WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: The psychopathology of John Yoo: First person in Vanity Fair

Wow! Talk about a magazine article that is iconic; this is it.

The sounds of one hand clapping for the value of the EGO; as told by a sycophant in federal office.

It is useless to comment that here is the picture of PURE EVIL, but there ya go; that' s precisely what it is.

The worst part for me is when Yoo tells the interviewer (CIA lackey ??? ) that they aren't going to the park as "it's boring. Just a bunch of homeless people".

No, John, do not take a look at your handiwork - those homeless veterans forced to live in there. Don't think about their families. Show no remorse to those you have damaged, just do that spin and be part of the circular firing squad !! It's all of course, Ashcroft's and Gonezales' fault" Right? WRONG.

As a woman I have to say it: how could ANYONE in their right mind sleep with this man?

Deconstructing this mythology would take hours of my time. I'm not going to do that, but I wanted to make sure that the actual URL got posted. This article in and of itself is NOT free speech; it's a crime against humanity. This is thinly disguised HATE SPEECH.

And to watch this ritzo buy Lincoln cheaply makes me SICK to my stomache. Oh, lucky us! How will John Yoo warp those thoughts while he sits in PRISON ??

The FASCISTS lawyer. How friggin impressive. (Me, I prefer the high caliber lawyers of We the - all of the - People .. ) My fervant prayer is that they drown him out at the Berkley commencement .. and that he faces charges in Very Short Order.

GENEVA WILL PREVAIL

Now, dear reader, please go and write
a letter to the ICC.

The ICC has established its headquarters in The Hague, The Netherlands. The Court is currently located at ‘de arc’.

Address: Maanweg 174, 2516 AB, The Hague, Netherlands.
Postal Address: Po Box 19519, 2500 CM, Den Haag, Netherlands.

It's time us ACTIVISTS have a winning day.

This blog is going to add a WAR CRIMES
section now.

It's that time ..

Veeger

John Yoo: In His Own Words

Buzz up!

Go inside John H. Richardson's transcript of his interviews with John Yoo, author of "The Torture Memo."

By John H. Richardson

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/john-yoo

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

John Yoo served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, where he was involved in many of the legal issues concerning the war on terrorism.

John Yoo is a professor of constitutional law at the University of California-Berkeley. He is also the main author of what has come to be known as "The Torture Memo," the long-sealed internal White House document that defined precisely which aggressive techniques could be legally employed by CIA interrogators against suspected terrorists.

Earlier this year, Yoo sat down with Esquire author John H. Richardson for a series of lengthy interviews about the memo and about how Yoo -- a scholar by trade, a libertarian by temperament -- came to be the man behind it. Some of his words appeared in Richardson's June 2008 profile, "Is This Man a Monster?" Here we present his words in their entirety.

A note on the format: Because Richardson did not record many of his questions, they have been left out of this document. For the most part, we believe, this does not detract from the clarity or intent of Yoo's responses. Where this is not the case, we have added clarifying statements in brackets.

***

I was born in Korea, emigrated at 3 months, and lived in southern New Jersey and Philadelphia. I went to Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia for middle school and high school. It was founded the same year as the Constitution was written, 1789. I wore a little suit and learned Latin and Greek. Then I went to Harvard.

My folks were doctors. They wanted economic opportunity -- Korea in the 1960s was still mostly an agricultural economy. They didn’t want to live under a military dictatorship. They wanted to live in a democracy. But I don’t know if they were politically active. Once they were here they weren’t politically active. I don’t think either of them has ever given money to a political campaign. They vote -- they’re very proud, as lots of immigrants are, to vote -- but they’re not particularly Democrat or Republican.

I played soccer, tennis. By no means was I a jock. In terms of activities, at the school I went to sports are mandatory. I worked on the school paper. I did lots of stuff. Played chess, did tutoring. Didn’t do school government at all. And our school didn’t have political organizations, as far as I know -- we didn’t have a Republican or Democrats club.

I followed politics. I can remember Nixon resigning. I can remember the Vietnam War ending. I think I became politically aware under Carter and Reagan. I wasn’t one of these kids that worked on political campaigns.

I was very conscious of Reagan. I very much agreed with the policies he ran on. Being Korean, I think it was natural to support the candidate that was most anti-communist. But I also thought -- I wasn’t a property owner or making income or anything, but the message of lower taxes and smaller government made sense to me.

Certainly my parents were anti-communists. They were refugees during the Korean War, they saw terrible things that North Korea did. The North went all the way down, everybody really suffered and blamed it on North Korea, which I think is reasonable. So they were very anti-communist because of that.

Otherwise they were fairly libertarian, which is not uncommon for immigrants either. They don’t want government interfering very much in the decisions they make and the choices they make in life. Certainly I think Korea is much more of an authoritarian country, and you come to the United States because it offers you a personal freedom that is not so common abroad. I never sat down with them and talked extensively about it, I just get that sense.

I have a younger brother who has a Ph.D. in biology. Now he’s in the biotechnology industry. He’s two years younger than me.

Harvard. American history.

I don’t know, I was just interested in it. Harvard doesn’t give you a lot of guidance and the school I went to had a lot of emphasis on history. I took Latin and Greek, I was interested in classics.

I did very well in high school, obviously, to get into Harvard. I was at the top of the class. It was the only way you could get into Harvard.

The things I did in college were mostly about foreign policy. My area was diplomatic history, the history of U.S. foreign relations. So I took a lot of courses in that area and wrote my thesis on U.S.-European relations in the 1950s and 1960s. My thesis advisors were in that area, too.

It’s not a very popular area in history these days. It used to be a big deal. If you think, in pre-1960s it was diplomatic and political history and now it’s social and cultural history. Part of it was probably, again, being from Korea, sort of interested in -- the United States came to Korea and stopped an invasion. It was a generous act on the part of the country. Objectively, if it weren’t for the United States, the whole peninsula would be communist right now and living under the most appalling conditions.

At Harvard, I joined the school paper, the Harvard Crimson. Started writing for the editorial page. I guess I wouldn’t have thought of myself as conservative as opposed to just being Republican. I guess Harvard is such a liberal place that just being Republican set me apart. I guess that’s how you could say I became politically active, writing op-eds about the events of the day and taking a conservative approach to them. But I would never -- I didn’t come to it because I was a member of the Harvard Republicans, which I wasn’t, or through a very extensive reading of political philosophy. I didn’t read Leo Strauss when I was 12 years old. I just had very basic conservative or Republican instincts.

In college, I took political science, political philosophy, American history, had exposure to more systematic thinking on both sides of all these questions. Certainly the performance of the Democrats in the ’80s didn’t change my mind. Remember Mondale running? Dukakis running? Dukakis and Bush ran in my senior year of college, so I didn’t see anything to change my mind.

Mentors then? Thomas Schwartz, a professor at Vanderbilt in History. Brian Ballow, History in Virginia now. They were junior professors then, didn’t get tenure. I took courses from them about American foreign relations, American government, politics from 1900 on. They were very rigorous. A lot of the events we studied still had contemporary resonance, like the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. In those classes they were very demanding. You had to speak up and say what you think to defend your position.

In the Schwartz class we studied intervention in Korea, the Berlin airlift, the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam. The loss of China. A lot of these questions still had a lot of politically controversial -- they would call on you to state your point of view and defend it.

Yeah, I think so. Even by the early ‘80s most people thought the Vietnam War was a bad war and that we should have gotten out and should have gotten out earlier, that Johnson and Nixon had been terrible presidents for getting us involved. I thought by the early ‘80s it had become clear what had happened in Vietnam after the U.S. had left, what had happened in Cambodia and Laos -- I wasn’t part of the generation that fought about Vietnam, I was in the generation after that -- so I remember the argument was, Yes, it was militarily difficult and the United States took a lot of casualties, but look at the terrible things that happened after the United States pulled out. And you look at the Korean War, in Korea that didn’t happen, the United States didn’t pull out of Korea and you didn’t have what happened in Southeast Asia afterwards. And by the ‘80s South Korea had become an industrialized country and was becoming a democracy. So to me I sort of went, Well, is the conventional story about Vietnam really true?

But you’re still talking about questions that are politically hot button issues.

I don’t know. In Vietnam there was a lot of loss of life, suppression of civil liberties -- they’re still a communist dictatorship. You’re right, they’re trying to imitate China. But to me, when I look at the terrible things that are happening in Korea today and have been happening since the Korean War, if North Korea had taken over the entire peninsula, that would happen to a lot more people. You never would have had the success in South Korea that you see today. There’s a striking photo from space of Korea at nighttime and it’s all lights, and a completely black gap where North Korea is.

Iran-Contra? I remember that very clearly, watching the hearings on TV, I guess in the summer of ‘87. The other thing I remember very clearly from that period was watching the Bork hearings. It was sort of towards then that I became more interested in constitutional law, or just law, rather than just history or politics.

I had never read a book about constitutional law. The Constitution just appeared in my history courses, primarily about the Civil War. I just remember Bork, with his qualifications, and all the things he’d done. The hearings seemed -- I thought he was mistreated by the Senate. I was very struck by that.

But I also remember the Iran Contra affair, and I do remember being very disappointed in Reagan saying he didn’t remember authorizing it, but he must have authorized it. I still think what Congress did was perfectly constitutional -- they cut off funding for the Contras and Congress has complete control of the purse and the president can’t try to funnel money to the Contras in violation of that statute, so I thought that was perfectly legitimate by the Congress. Somebody in the administration definitely violated the law. Even after all the investigations no one seems to know if Reagan understood what he was doing or knew, but I think they violated the law.

I’ve never actually agreed with the views of the president’s constitutional defenders on Iran-Contra, although they are not many. Mr. Benson today expressed the view I have: Congress has lots of powers. They don’t use them often, but they have the complete power of funding.

I wasn’t a cultural conservative in the sense that I went to college and didn’t like the liberal culture of the day. I was definitely in dissent of the conventional politics of a college campus in the 1980s. Every now and then I would see people protesting this or that, and I thought, You’re at Harvard with all this opportunity all around you -- you’re wasting it by protesting. It seemed to me a waste of time. There was so much stuff you could do there. I think it was South African divestment then. It wasn’t that I agreed with apartheid at all, but to spend all that time protesting it just seemed to me a waste of the limited time you had. You’re lucky enough to be there.

I know other conservatives think college is too much drinking, too much smoking. That certainly wasn’t me at all. I don’t think I’ve changed my basic political views much since then. When it comes to domestic social policy, I’m basically a libertarian. I don’t want Huckabee to tell us what our morality should be. I feel Reagan was much more conservative on foreign policy or the economy but not on welfare rates or abortion.

In the op-eds I’ve written since I left the administration I’ve been quite critical of some of their social policies. I thought the gay rights amendment was ridiculous and I wrote a pretty long op-ed attacking it. I just don’t think the federal government should be deciding whether gay people can be married or not. And I don’t think the Constitution should be telling us whether gay people should be married or not. I think the states should decide, like they decide all kinds of questions about families. As a voter I would vote for gay marriage. I also wrote an op-ed about abortion. I said I don’t think the federal government should decide it, I think the states should decide it, and if it was voted on in California I would vote for abortion rights.

1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10

Gordon Brown gets up in the morning and puts socks on like the rest of us

New Problems and Old Friction Put British Premier in Political Jeopardy

Lewis Whyld/Pool, via Reuters

Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, is facing mounting pressure within his Labour Party after the party took a drubbing in recent polls.

By JOHN F. BURNS

Published: May 14, 2008

LONDON — Gordon Brown is still six weeks away from his first anniversary as Britain’s prime minister, a job he hankered after so keenly during much of his 10 years as Tony Blair’s No. 2 that the two men ended up barely able to speak to each other or agree on major policy issues.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Times Topics: Gordon Brown

Now, embattled at 10 Downing Street by the most dismal poll ratings for any prime minister in recent memory and sniping from Blair loyalists in the governing Labor Party, Mr. Brown is fighting for his political life.

Two weeks ago, in an election widely seen as a referendum on Mr. Brown’s national leadership, a joke-cracking Conservative with a flop-top haircut, Boris Johnson, romped to victory in London’s mayoral race over the hitherto popular two-term Labor incumbent, Ken Livingstone.

Mr. Brown faces another test in a May 22 parliamentary by-election, in a formerly safe Labor seat in the Midlands. The contest, centering on the industrial town of Crewe, appears to give the Conservatives a strong chance of their first by-election gain from Labor in 30 years. Political pundits predict that if the seat is lost, Mr. Brown could face a challenge for the Labor leadership.

A general election is due by the spring of 2010, and a flurry of recent opinion polls have shown a Conservative lead of 20 percentage points, spurring nervousness among Labor members of Parliament who fear losing their seats.

Analysts have compared Mr. Brown to the hapless John Major, the last Conservative prime minister, who was ousted in the Labor landslide of 1997.

Many of Mr. Brown’s political woes can be traced to economic problems associated with the credit crunch on both sides of the Atlantic. Britain has faced accelerating inflation, a weakening pound, upheaval in the banking sector and falling home prices. And he has not escaped a personal accounting for much of what has gone wrong, in part because he was chancellor of the Exchequer during the years of fast-rising public and personal debt that preceded the current economic turbulence.

After a hopeful beginning last summer, when Mr. Brown was widely praised for his handling of Britain’s worst floods in a generation, failed terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, an outbreak of potentially disastrous foot-and-mouth disease among cattle and an accelerated drawdown of British forces in Iraq, his fortunes have plunged amid a welter of policy miscues and economic setbacks.

The most damaging of these has been Mr. Brown’s decision as chancellor, in his final budget last year, to abolish a 10 percent income tax rate for certain workers — a change that critics, many of them within the Labor Party itself, say will hurt more than five million of Britain’s poorest people. On Tuesday, public anger over the tax issue led the Brown government to announce what amounted to a $5.3 billion tax cut for anyone earning less than $80,000 a year.

The latest salvos began exploding around Mr. Brown last weekend with the newspaper serialization of the memoirs of Cherie Blair, the wife of the former prime minister. In her book, “Speaking for Myself,” due for publication in the fall, she wrote that Mr. Brown had been “rattling the keys” to Downing Street over Mr. Blair’s head in the period before his third election victory, in 2005.

Mrs. Blair’s accounts of the feuding by the two were compounded when memoir excerpts from another veteran of the Blair years, John Prescott, were also published over the weekend. Mr. Prescott, who was deputy prime minister, said he had sought unsuccessfully for years to broker peace between the men, participating in “what must have been hundreds of phone calls, meetings, pre-summits, summits and dinners” with them.

In an excerpt from her book published on Monday, Mrs. Blair hinted that Mr. Brown might have leaked word to newspapers when she was pregnant with her fourth child, Leo, in 1998, suggesting that perhaps Mr. Brown, then still a bachelor in his mid-40s, wanted to spread the impression that Mr. Blair was too distracted by family matters to be effective as prime minister. A spokesman said Mr. Brown, now married with two small children, was “totally baffled” by the suggestion.

Perhaps more damaging was Mr. Prescott’s assertion that Mr. Brown was subject to repeated fits of anger, something Downing Street insiders have also suggested since he became prime minister. Mr. Prescott described Mr. Brown as “frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly,” and said that at times he could “go off like a bloody volcano.”

Together, the memoirs offered an unflattering portrait that seemed likely to reinforce the widespread sense that Mr. Brown was no match for the easygoing charisma of Mr. Blair — and perhaps for the 41-year-old Conservative leader, David Cameron. Many who have met Mr. Brown, including senior American officials, say he is more charming in person than the dour, somewhat grumpy figure he often seems on television.

For the Labor Party, the spectacle of some of the party’s most prominent figures feuding bitterly in public has been almost as damaging as the grim characterizations of Mr. Brown, drawing more comparisons to the last years of Mr. Major, when he presided over a government whose public support evaporated amid Conservative infighting, scandals and economic blunders.

Publishing industry insiders have said Mrs. Blair sped up the serialization of her memoir to take advantage of the turmoil embroiling Mr. Brown. British newspapers have said Mrs. Blair received an advance of $3 million for the book, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars for the serialization rights.

The dissension has exposed continuing fissures between the reformist “New Labor” wing associated with Mr. Blair, and a left-wing contingent that accepted Mr. Blair because of his ability to win elections but saw Mr. Brown, a Scot with strong leftist links, as a reluctant New Laborite who would return the party to a more socialist stance. Some of the harshest criticism of Mr. Brown has come from former Blair loyalists still bristling over the way Mr. Brown pushed their man to resign halfway through the term he won in 2005. They have pointed to one recent poll suggesting that 55 percent of people who voted Labor in 2005 favor Mr. Brown’s quitting the Labor leadership now.

Mr. Brown, stoic in the face of the attacks, has drawn some analogies of his own from the Conservative years in power, noting that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Mr. Major overcame poor opinion poll showings between elections to win new mandates in general elections. In the House of Commons, Mr. Brown has dismissed Mr. Cameron and the Conservatives as substituting political showmanship for substance, and predicted that British voters will turn back to Labor as his government introduces new social and economic policies.

He has also vowed not to quit.

No, we are going to have to PUSH him out and put him in a docket for war crimes.

HiLIARy updates for today (!!!!)

From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli and NBC's Mark Murray
At the Jewish Community Center in Pittsburgh this morning, Bill Clinton took questions from local press after shaking a lot of hands. NBC/NJ asked him about the WHYY radio interview in which he said the Obama camp was playing the race card.



Below is full transcript of the back-and-forth:

NBC/NJ: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

CLINTON: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

NBC/NJ: “On WHYY radio yesterday”

CLINTON: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”

NBC/NJ: “Respectfully sir, though, you did say …”

CLINTON: “Have a nice day.” [continues shaking hands with supporters]. I said what I said, you can go and look at the interview. And if you’ll be real honest, you’ll also report what the question was and what the answer was.”

NBC/NJ: “They asked you if you regretted your comparing Jesse Jackson to Barack Obama on the day after the South Carolina primary.”

CLINTON: “And I pointed out that I did not do that, and that I complimented them both. And that Jesse Jackson took no offense. And I called him myself, I said, ‘Did you find that offensive?’ And he said no.

Again, here is what Clinton told WHYY.

INTERVIEWER (RE: Jackson comment): “Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?"

CLINTON: "No. I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along.

If you need comic relief or TRUTH today, read the COMMENTS:
http://mparent7777-1.blogspot.com/2008/04/bill-clinton-being-himself-bald-faced.html

the KlusterfucK explained

Eco-economic Warfare and the Planned Collapse of Western Civilization

By Matthew D. Jarvie

Recently, when New World Orderly Bill Clinton was campaigning for his wife in Denver, he remarked that

�we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions �cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.� (Of course it's always about "the children" with these people.)

This is not simply Clinton's opinion, but that of his globalist handlers, who have for many years been using the issue of the environment and climate change as the pretext to grab private land and deindustrialize the West, sending US jobs over to third world countries such as the UN's "Most Favored Nation" of China.

To some of us who haven't swallowed the environ-mental lies being peddled by these criminal psychopaths, it's painfully clear to see that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with ushering in a fourth world system of socialistic, fascistic control. This will be a completely controlled system where people will be confined to overcrowded cities. The land surrounding these cities will be off-limits to the general public. Private property and vehicle ownership will be a thing of the past, and everyone will be made to live in single-dwelling, "eco-friendly" housing as mandated under Agenda 21. Everyone will be made to get along with their neighbor, and should you decide you're not a "team player" in the socialistic, multi-cultural society that you will be forced to adapt to, you will be deemed "mentally unstable" or "dangerous" and either jailed or killed.

Since most people will be out of work, there will be no money. Money will become credits, and these credits will be issued weekly by the state. This was discussed by Bertrand Russell, in his ironically-titled book Roads to Freedom (1918). Since this will be a completely automated control system, punishment will be able to be administered by the withholding of these credits should one dissent against this system. Under this totalitarian nightmare, the world's population will be greatly reduced by way of plagues, HAARP-induced famines and water shortages, and perpetual wars, to a more "manageable" number of peasants to serve the elite's utopia on earth. One-child policies will become mandatory and eventually the only humans born will be purpose-bred to serve the "Great Work."

This is what we are really looking at when we hear about "sustainability" and "slowing (or greening) the economy." Once you can better understand what's going on, you can see why oppressive communist countries such as China are awarded "Most Favored Nation" status by the UN. China, which has been under globalist control for the better half of the past 100 years, is merely the test bed for the system that will soon be installed in the US and across most of the world. The only difference is that the coming system will be more scientifically controlled, and of course technology will play a huge role in this.

The aforementioned quote by Clinton is fairly tame compared to what some of these elitists are calling for. Enter Maurice Strong...

Maurice Strong (pictured above) is perhaps most widely known as the co-author of the 1994 Earth Charter with the communist and former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev, who once stated that the threat of environmental crisis will be the "international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order." Strong's rise to prominence as internationalist gofer to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers goes back to 1946, when Strong was just 17 and working as a clerk at the United Nations in New York City. It was here that Strong was befriended and recruited by David Rockefeller. Despite his minimal credentials of only a high school diploma, Strong is moved up the ladder quickly following his introduction to Rockefeller, becoming a millionaire by his mid-20s, during the Alberta oil and gas boom. At the age of 25, Strong became the President of Dome Petroleum in Calgary. By the age of 35, he is the CEO of the Power Corporation of Canada. While at the Power Corporation, Strong hires Paul Martin and James Wolfensohn, both of whom would move up the ladder quickly and go on to hold high positions of power -- Martin as Prime Minister of Canada, and Wolfensohn as President of the World Bank. (Strong would later become an advisor to Wolfensohn at the World Bank.)

At the UN, Strong would go on to become Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Senior Advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and Chairman of the Earth Council. He would also become Chairman of the World Resources Institute, Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum, and a member of Toyota's International Advisory Board. Strong's most influential role to date, however, has been as the Secretary-General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED -- aka the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro. It was this conference that gave birth to the Earth Charter and Agenda 21, which would lay the groundwork for a completely managed global society run and managed under the auspices of the UN, under the guise of saving the environment.

It is people such as Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, and Ted Turner that are at the forefront of the UN's environmental/depopulation agenda, at least at the visible/gofer level. The four are also members of, or have close connections to the Club of Rome. It is the Club of Rome that has been guiding the environmental movement since its creation at the Rockefellers' estate in Bellagio, Italy in 1968. It's aim is to reduce a large majority of the global population, as well as manufacture crisis through which the world can be "united" under a one world government, as was admitted in their 1991 publication, titled The First Global Revolution.

Strong, along with Mikhail Gorbachev, is also at the forefront of the New Age movement being promoted from the highest levels of the UN. The purpose of the New Age movement since its introduction to mainstream culture by people such as Madame Blavatsky and Alice Bailey (the founder of Lucis Trust) has been to destroy Christianity, which is to be replaced by a new (but in reality very old) earth-based religion. This all ties in with the green agenda of depopulation, because the religion of Gaia worship sees mankind as a sort of parasite to earth. So what we have is a new religion, for a new system of control, for the New Age of Aquarius.

In May, 1990, Strong was interviewed by WEST magazine of Alberta, Canada. Strong finishes the interview with a very bizarre and apocalyptic narrative about a novel he wishes to write.

"Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists - they're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can't close. The rich countries...?"

(The author of the article then goes on to say...)

...and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window.

Strong's twisted little fantasy is a perfect example of the deranged, psychopathic mentality of these elitists. These people see the general public as cattle, and much of the public truly are like cows waiting in line to be slaughtered, blissfully unaware of anything other than the reality they're fed through the TV. We are now at the tail-end of what began (in terms of Western deindustrialization) as the post-industrial era of the 70s. Now that most of the United States' manufacturing capabilities have been sent abroad, the US (along with much of the West) is a predominately consumer nation riddled with debt and a deliberately devalued currency. The long-term goal of the elite has been to destroy the US economy (which will no doubt be felt across the board), because to bring in their new system they must destroy the old one. The planned chaos that will ensue will be used as the pretext to usher in a more controlled system and to implement the plans laid out in Agenda 21. When people like Clinton, Gore, and Strong speak about a slowing of the economy to "save the environment," they are conditioning us to a grim reality that lies ahead -- one in which they and their masters have been planning for a very long time.

http://sovereignsentience.blogspot.com/2008/02/recently-when-new-world-orderly-bill_11.html

Topic: psychopathology and ponerolgy

Discuss amongst yourself
or on the comments and
at least check out the link at the bottom ..
(If so inclined, it's right interesting!)

From my perspective as a reg. psychiatric nurse, it's good to see more MSM space given to this subject. With major world "leaders" clearly being psychopaths, we remain ignorant of these individuals at our peril. Isabel

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means&page=1

What "Psychopath" Means It is not quite what you may think

By Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz Scientific American December, 2007

We have all heard these phrases before. “Violent psychopath” (21,700). “Psychopathic serial killer” (14,700). “Psychopathic murderer” (12,500). “Deranged psychopath” (1,050). The number of Google hits following them in parentheses attests to their currency in popular culture. Yet as we will soon discover, each phrase embodies a widespread misconception regarding psychopathic personality, often called psychopathy (pronounced “sigh-COP-athee”) or sociopathy. Indeed, few disorders are as misunderstood as is psychopathic personality. In this column, we will do our best to set the record straight and dispel popular myths about this condition.

Charming but Callous

First described systematically by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941, psychopathy consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.

Not surprisingly, psychopaths are overrepresented in prisons; studies indicate that about 25 percent of inmates meet diagnostic criteria for psychopathy. Nevertheless, research also suggests that a sizable number of psychopaths may be walking among us in everyday life. Some investigators have even speculated that “successful psychopaths”—those who attain prominent positions in society—may be overrepresented in certain occupations, such as politics, business and entertainment. Yet the scientific evidence for this intriguing conjecture is preliminary.

Most psychopaths are male, although the reasons for this sex difference are unknown. Psychopathy seems to be present in both Western and non-Western cultures, including those that have had minimal exposure to media portrayals of the condition. In a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe “a man who … repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and … takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.” When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, he replied, “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”

The best-established measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), developed by University of British Columbia psychologist Robert D. Hare, requires a standardized interview with subjects and an examination of their file records, such as their criminal and educational histories. Analyses of the PCL-R reveal that it comprises at least three overlapping, but separable, constellations of traits: interpersonal deficits (such as grandiosity, arrogance and deceitfulness), affective deficits (lack of guilt and empathy, for instance), and impulsive and criminal behaviors (including sexual promiscuity and stealing).

Three Myths
Despite substantial research over the past several decades, popular misperceptions surrounding psychopathy persist. Here we will consider three of them.

1. All psychopaths are violent. Research by psychologists such as Randall T. Salekin, now at the University of Alabama, indicates that psychopathy is a risk factor for future physical and sexual violence. Moreover, at least some serial killers—for example, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Rader, the infamous “BTK” (Bind, Torture, Kill) murderer—have manifested numerous psychopathic traits, including superficial charm and a profound absence of guilt and empathy.

Nevertheless, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths. In the days following the horrific Virginia Tech shootings of April 16, 2007, many newspaper commentators described the killer, Seung-Hui Cho, as “psychopathic.” Yet Cho exhibited few traits of psychopathy: those who knew him described him as markedly shy, withdrawn and peculiar.

Regrettably, the current (fourth, revised) edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), published in 2000, only reinforces the confusion between psychopathy and violence. It describes a condition termed antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by a longstanding history of criminal and often physically aggressive behavior, referring to it as synonymous with psychopathy. Yet research demonstrates that measures of psychopathy and ASPD overlap only moderately.

2. All psychopaths are psychotic. In contrast to people with psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, who often lose contact with reality, psychopaths are almost always rational. They are well aware that their ill-advised or illegal actions are wrong in the eyes of society but shrug off these concerns with startling nonchalance.

Some notorious serial killers referred to by the media as psychopathic, such as Charles Manson and David Berkowitz, have displayed pronounced features of psychosis rather than psychopathy. For example, Manson claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and Berkowitz believed he was receiving commands from his neighbor Sam Carr’s dog (hence his adopted nickname “Son of Sam”). In contrast, psychopaths are rarely psychotic.

3. Psychopathy is untreatable. In the popular HBO series The Sopranos, the therapist (Dr. Melfi) terminated psychotherapy with Tony Soprano because her friend and fellow psychologist persuaded her that Tony, whom Dr. Melfi concluded was a classic psychopath, was untreatable. Aside from the fact that Tony exhibited several behaviors that are decidedly nonpsychopathic (such as his loyalty to his family and emotional attachment to a group of ducks that had made his swimming pool their home), Dr. Melfi’s pessimism may have been unwarranted. Although psychopaths are often unmotivated to seek treatment, research by psychologist Jennifer Skeem of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleagues suggests that psychopaths may benefit as much as nonpsychopaths from psychological treatment. Even if the core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change, their criminal behaviors may prove more amenable to treatment.

Psychopathy reminds us that media depictions of mental illness often contain as much fiction as fact. Moreover, widespread misunderstandings of such ailments can produce unfortunate consequences—as Tony Soprano discovered shortly before the television screen went blank.

Ed. Comment: It may be premature to suggest that psychopathy can be treated as Jennifer Skeem proposes. Dozens of other studies say otherwise.

Reader's comment: Item 3 states that psychopathy being untreatable is a myth. That itself is a myth because the state of a true psychopath is that it is their nature to be that way. They do not recognize anything wrong with themselves and thus will not succumb [to] the effects of treatment. (http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm)

It is like trying to treat a snake into not eating mice and rabbits and only vegetables. It just won't work. However, those that have been Ponerized (http://www.ponerology.com/) will benefit from psychological treatment and/or company with those who have a normal world view. A good book to read on the subject is "The Mask of Sanity" by Hervey Cleckley.