Well, Chico, you certainly qualify as a little sociopath that diseases forums. No ad hominem. Just observation.

Sociopaths tend to play games; are not earnest with the truth. Can never be genuine truthseekers because of that. The episode with Heebert, for example, is documented evidence of a diseased mind.

Sociopathy is a givens. Overanalyzing it will not save this planet from devolving into one fit for rule by apes.

Maybe you should change your name to Nero and commence playing a stringed instrument while Rome burns. The fiddle is taken, so might I suggest a ukelele?


Pax

It's certainly wise to question everything and dismiss nothing. No one is beyond questioning. But you missed the real "little sociopaths". You missed Bill Ryan at Avalon, King Richard at Nexus, and Atticus at agora1society.org (formerly atticus1.org). I was there to expose each one, and I got banned by each one. It seems I have the background to recognize sociopaths. You clearly do not.


Sociopathy still remains hidden to most people. The majority don't even know it exists, much less that it dominates our leadership positions. What you call over-analyzing, I call researching, educating, and exposing.


I'm sounding the alarm, but you are covering for the arsonists.

Im not sure who Paula Bennet is, but I bet you shes a fat bureaucratic automaton taking orders from another compartment. And the poor are the ones censored, repressed and used as fodder to further this systems lie.

Shame on Paula Bennett, Abandoing NZ Families

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NnLnhE98eg

Speaking of families, the ruling sociopaths are targeting families as part of their "divide and conquer" strategy of enslaving non-sociopaths.


Now that is a great scam to justify indenturing the parents in order to "save" the children. So how do they justify taking your children?


Will sociopaths ever stop in their quest to control everything?

Don't be silly. Of course they won't. Control and manipulation is their raison d'être.

The state has incredible power to incriminate and destroy peoples lives. Incredible shite...

I once remember you telling me - in one of our very first skype conversations - that when you were a child, you put a magnifying glass on a frog (or some unfortunate small animal), e.g. to see whether it would heat up. I had the same curiosity, mind you, but I put my magnifying glass on dry leaves, scraps of paper, and even my own skin to quell my curiosity about Sun rays and focal lengths. To wit, there are clues in childhood that point to our empathic or sociopathic natures.

You've accused me of being a sociopath on a regular basis - as if repeating the lie will transform it into a truth.

You once posted a series of my avatars on different forums, here on United Sheeps, e.g. to hoist a charge of narcissism against me. That's the limbo stick standard you operate by.

You claim to be a truthseeker but you have yet to come clean on Heebert when some basic truths were requested of you.

You and banana boy had visited all kinds of so-called truth forums in the past, for the sole purpose of steering discussion away from the salient facts and plunge it into a cesspool of dueling personalities. Truth be damned if it ever got in the way of your tangential pursuits.

Etc.




Get off your one-gallop horse on a one-horse gallop, monomath. Most people already experience sociopathy daily in their lives, being targeted for abuse by sociopath relatives, sociopath co-workers, and sociopath managing bosses. These are Prozac times, as it were, as people try and cope with the daily stresses by ingesting all kinds of false elixirs and seeking great escapes. A one-subject animal on a one-subject forum isn't going to enlighten anybody about sociopathy that most people don't already know.

People are smarter than you think, Chico ... they understand the sickness that has overrun society. But most people are also scared of doing anything that might offend the powers that be. So it's not a question of awareness as much as a question of cowardice.

Those that claim to be truthseekers here in these sundry forums are mostly cowards and/or shills of the status quo. A few are the rare breed and far between. You'll know both the rare and common types by their respective contributions. Your contributions thus far have been to affirm the status quo that many already understand.

You're a Great Dane with the stentorian bark against the most common, the most obvious, and the trivial truths ... but when it comes to the important truths such as exposing the masterminds of the power plays and pyramids, e.g. the Rothschild bankstering brand and its blueprints for full spectrum dominance, you're as quite as a dog whistle on the human ear.

As for the topic of sociopathy, you're an incessantly yipping chihuahua.

No ad hominems. Just observations and poetic license.



Indeed. Don Ho was sounding the alarm, too, and with equal flair:


Pax

No, I've done much more than that -- I've presented evidence of your recent sociopathic behavior. Accusations are of no value without good supporting evidence. I didn't make any accusations until there was a preponderance of evidence to support those accusations.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about.


Being the victim of abuse does not imply a true understanding of sociopaths. What a stupid argument. You are really slipping to appalling depths of unreasonable rhetoric.


That tells me that they do not at all understand the sickness that has overrun society. When you really understand, there is no fear. There is only the drive to excise the evil and set things right.


Wrong again. Been there, done that, and for a long time. I have many blogs addressing the problems the banksters present, posted long before I ever joined a forum. I've moved beyond that, because the problem is not banksters, it's sociopaths. Some of the sociopaths are bankers, some are priests, some are lawyers, some are politicians, some are CEOs, and some are forum gatekeepers. You only see banksters. And you accuse me of being on a "one-gallop horse on a one-horse gallop"? You are like the one-eyed Cyclops, after Ulysses poked out his eye!

\

That's not evidence of anything. That's taking things that I wrote over an extended period of time; stripping them of narrative; presenting them with a new narrative conjured in your own mind; and making sundry accusations. In a legal court, that would be libel, but I'm not the litigious kind. In this kangaroo court of a forum that you had assembled as a private power pyramid, you know, to quench that fascist tendency embedded in your nature, it has become a sort of an anthem, you know, "The Sociopath Avuncular". (Which reminds me, do I have to stand up and put my hand on my heart as I listen to my derogation as a sociopath every second post?)

The problem here, Chico, is that you are a fundamentally dishonest person, at least, that's my poinda vyoo right now. I'm still trying to get a handle on who this Chicodoodoo fellar is.

For instance, you portrayed me as someone who supports Monsanto because I dared to expose Prop 37 for what it is, an exercise to legitimize discourse about GMO foods (to the detriment of the poor who wouldn't have had the luxury of benefiting from food labels had the proposition passed). You made that absurd claim all because I happened to cite a poll conducted by a pro-GMO group, e.g. GMCompass, that involved fruit market buying habits (and demonstrated the viability of GMO foods versus organic foods and natural foods). You implied that the poll was invalid by virtue of conflict of interest; while at the same time you ignored conflict of interest by supporting surveys conducted by an anti-GMO group, e.g. GMWatch, that showed a ridiculously high number of Americans supporting the labeling of foods (e.g. a contrived poll with leading questions to achieve a desired result).

I'm sure it has occurred to you that all organized suffrage above a threshold scale is fraudulent. The voting system is in place mainly to divide and conquer from the top (which commissions both sides of the plebiscite). But you are a fundamentally dishonest person, so you overlook this virtual fact. No different with Prop 37. It is way above threshold scale; and both sides have been bought and paid for by Monsanto et al. Which is why I warned against participating in the whole poll charade ... while you barked in support of it, because that's what system lapdogs do.

Even after I apprised you that the Prop 37 was an attempt by the power pyramid (e.g. Monsanto) to shift debate from issues of toxicity to issues of the marketplace, you chose to ignore my warnings. And your dishonesty pushed me further by suggesting that I supported Monsanto. One of the ways that fundamentally dishonest persons operate, Chico, is to constantly displace the true narrative with their own fabricated narrative. And I can't think of any FDP that is not also a sociopath. Can you? I would hazard that fundamental dishonesty prevents you from coming clean on Heebert.




One doesn't stop banging the drum when the enemy is advancing ... unless, of course, one is a coward that's afraid the loud noise will pinpoint one's personal position to the enemy.

The drum in this case is the Rothschild bankstering brand, not sociopathy. Sociopathy is a strawman to whip and a false Moon to howl at.

To wit, it is not generalized sociopathy that is endeavoring full spectrum dominance; it is the specific sociopathy of the Rothschild bankstering brand. As a rule, the masses are cowards, not sociopaths ... so studying the ruling fears of the masses is more important than studying their exceptional sociopathy. As for the banskters, we don't need to study them any further. We need to stop their advance towards full spectrum dominance.

Kapiche?

Pax

ps: Come clean on Heebert, Chico ... or your integrity will never have a chance to develop and get better.

ps2: I really wish you would prove me wrong in my fledgling theory (of you being a fundamentally dishonest person). And I must stress, it is just a theory. A theory based on your behaviors on these so-called truth forums. What a wonderful turn of events it would be if it is proven wrong.

agreed.

You just demonstrated that with your farcical spin of the Proposition 37 debate that is recorded on this forum in its entirety, completely uncensored (as is everything at UP). You do the "twist and shout" dance so often that we have come to associate it with you. A forum search of "twist and shout" will confirm that.


Deception and manipulation is a way of life for sociopaths. UncleZook has been "busted" for this so many times that we might soon run out of letters in the alphabet.


One of the problems with banning people is that you often silence them. Given your never-ending curiosity about Heebert, it's really a shame that you practice censorship at Universal Spectrum.


You had best hope, to avoid being permanently labelled a Fundamentally Dishonest Person, that the Rothschild bankstering band don't turn out to be sociopaths.


What are you, some kind of sociopathic Mafia type? Is this your latest "mask of normalcy"?