Redirecting attention away from your obvious game-playing ... is a manipulation in itself.



So let me get this straight, only sociopaths can detect sociopaths? Interesting theory. Then Sherlock must be a sociopath for having the uncanny ability of diagnosing the behaviors of Dr. Moriarty. Hmm ... I'll need to ride over to the next town for more rope, Chico. The local rope shop has run out. But keep exercising that jaw of yours.


Again, my discernment of Andy versus yours ... parallels my discernment of the world's problems versus yours. Mine rides with the spots on a sprinting Cheetah ... yours is ported on the back of a cargo turtle. We get to the same destination, true, but by the time you get there, totalitarianism is already munching on the spoils.



That's another pecadillo of those with poor discernment, they enjoy tossing apples with oranges, then proceed applying the squeeze on the collection, then declare fruit punch. "Come and get it, everyone!"

Bill Ryan is the understood standard of alternative media sociopaths. Andy is a garden variety sociopath. Zook exposed them both with a leopard's sprint to judgment. And was proven correct by subsequent events. By contrast, Chico's poor discernment befriended Andy for about two years ... even after Zook warned Chico about Andy periodically for about two years. Andy finally reveals himself to the piss poor discernment of Chico, later than sooner (how convenient). And now we are to trust Chico's discernment when he promotes that Zook is a sociopath? Let alone the fact that Chico's charges against Zook are spurious and contrived. But even if they had been real, for argument's sake, who really trusts Chico's judgment after his track record of piss poor discernment?



Best friend ... was used in the narrative of satire. You know it. I know it. Boy, you'll squeeze drama out of any statement I make, no matter how innocuous. But hey, I've come to expect it, Ye of Piss Poor Discernment.

As for the above lists of sociopaths purported by Chico ... Ryan is a sociopath. Atticus is a sociopath. Illie is a nonsociopath trapped in Milgram energy. Dennis the Menace is probably a nonsociopath trapped in Milgram energy. Pythonic Paul is a sociopath. I honestly don't know what category Gypsywoman belongs to ... she definitely has issues though. 9Eagle9 is a free-ranging nonsociopath. Richard is a nonsociopath. Andy is a garden variety sociopath, the kind you find under pavers and garden rocks. As for Zook, he shouldn't be commenting on himself lest he attracts an additional umpteenth charge of narcissism from Chico ...still, in my defense, I know who I am.

I'm a jester ... a Willy Wonka ... Heathcliffe on the crags of time ... a wannabe Sidney Carton ... a good writer ... and always aspiring to be better than I am (in whatever I do, really).

I'm a lot lower than the lofts assigned to me by my friends; and a lot higher than the depths reported by my enemies.

Pax

ps: So again, we see that Chico's piss poor discernment correctly identifies only half the people that he asserts are sociopaths. What a find rate! Terribly impressed. Not.

Not exactly, but sociopaths could detect each other and get together to improve their con, without any evidence of communicating. I think there is a hierarchal form to this, for example, mafia relations. The more heinous the crime the more power you can attain. So in essence the more devious the crime and the best you can keep it concealed, makes you the more valuable commodity. I think Manchurian candidate type programming comes from this area. So what I'm saying is, a Manchurian could easily be a high IQ wealthy individual who likes barbecue and sports. The programming comes from the environment, control the environment, control the individual.

You don't seem to get anything straight. I never said only sociopaths can detect sociopaths, nor would I. This is a typical example of the old Zook ploy of "twist and shout". Your sociopathic behavior is on display once again, Zook.


Speed is a handicap when you are so often wrong. Even when you are right for the wrong reasons, truth suffers greatly.


It was?! Are you sure you aren't backpedaling once again to avoid exposing your sociopathic nature? I understood exactly what you were saying. You were implying that there was some kind of alliance between Mags and me because we are seemingly aligned on the importance of recognizing sociopathy as the root of humanity's problems. That kind of superficial alliance is standard operating procedure among sociopaths, which is why you suspected it, being a sociopath yourself. I pointed out that both Mags and I apparently do not engage in that kind of behavior, which just further highlights the source of your suspicions. So naturally, you claim "satire" as your defense. Very cunning, my scheming sociopathic friend.


Once again, we see Zook claiming perfect discernment with absolute certainty, as if he alone holds the truth and is the standard to which all must be compared. Can you say "narcissistic sociopath"?

Chico stated:
As you will recall, only sociopaths appear to have an innate ability to recognize other sociopaths in short order.

The implication of your statement was that it takes a sociopath to recognize other sociopaths in short order. Don't morrisdance around your own statement. There is no twisting and shouting, here. Just more of Chico's inability to understand the consequences of his own statements. And Chico then uses his lack of ability as evidence of my sociopathy. Kinda cute, even by Cupid's high standards.



And it's a gift when one is so often right. Even when I'm wrong for the right reasons, the overall benefit to the betterment of the species is immeasurable.



Exactly. Which means I wasn't alluding to any real friendship ... but a friendship of convenience. That is satirical, as I indicated. Not backpedaling, as you portray. I'm really beginning to wonder about your ability to discern things, Chico. Are you high up in the Coloraduh Mountains where the air is thin ... and the dreams come off the hinges and get quite funky?



Sherlock was never a sociopath ... nor is Zook. And I doubt the similarities end there. Before you throw another fit about Zook's out-of-control narcissism, could I interest you in the fact that one must have a capacity to appreciate satire, to appreciate satire? No, didn't think I could.




The propagation of error starts with the first error ... and accumulates thereafter. You've accumulated so much error in your initial assessment of Zook (I hate talking in 3rd person singular, don't you?) ... that even if you wanted to set the record straight, people wouldn't waste time on your words. You know, crying boy to wolf's menu ... that sort of thing.



On the particular individuals listed above, I'm probably batting close to 1.000. Couple of home runs thrown in there as well ... so slugging percentage is probably also off the charts.

Pax

You get a zero for reading comprehension, Zook. Your statement is not at all the equivalent of my statement. You changed the meaning of my statement by rewording it so that you could build a "straw man" that was easily attacked. Again, you expose your psychology. My statement means exactly what it states, that sociopaths tend to recognize each other rather quickly, as opposed to non-sociopaths who are typically very slow to recognize sociopaths. That doesn't mean non-sociopaths can't recognize sociopaths, which is what your statement implies.

For someone who considers himself an accomplished wordsmith, you don't seem to comprehend the written word too well.


It's immeasurable because there is no "benefit to the betterment of the species".




What was that Andy used to say? Oh, yeah....

You're an intractable obfuscator. I know what you said and the context that you said it in. Your statement alleges that only sociopaths can detect other sociopaths (with the intrinsic understanding: with a particular speed). You even used the qualifying term in short order. I was limiting my remark to your statement including the qualifying term, not excluding it.

So my inquiry, "So let me get this straight, only sociopaths can detect sociopaths?" ... applies to the given context with the qualifying term, not in any other context.

I could have written it more completely as follows:
"So let me get this straight, only sociopaths can detect sociopaths (in short order)?"

As it is, I am not required to add the qualifying term; it's presence is assumed and integrated. To make matters worse, after your distortion, you build on it with innuendo. Par for your track record of obfuscation and messenger obsession, of course.




On the contrary ... your woeful understanding of context disqualifies you from evaluating my facility with the English language.




Good one. I appreciate wit ... even when it comes from unexpected places and perhaps when it comes from unexpected places. A rare treat has heightened flavor.



Yes, Andy ... and Winston Churchill ... quotable queensmen.

Pax

Here are excerpts from a critical article that discusses limited hangouts (written by Webster Tarpley). I encourage all to read the entire article so that you don't miss any of the jigsaw pieces. The amount of congruence in my own pattern recognition and Tarpley's expert analysis ... simply blows my mind away. I call it the king-archer template; Tarpley calls it the limited hangout; the true believers call it whistleblowing. Mind you, there are instances of genuine whistleblowers out there, but those are few and far between.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/18 ... angout-op/
beginExcerpt
In this analysis, we should also recall that limited hangouts have been around for a very long time. In 1620 Fra Paolo Sarpi, the dominant figure of the Venetian intelligence establishment of his time, advised the Venetian senate that the best way to defeat anti-Venetian propaganda was indirectly. He recommended the method of saying something good about a person or institution while pretending to say something bad. An example might be criticizing a bloody dictator for beating his dog - the real dimensions of his crimes are thus totally underplayed.
end

[...]

beginExcerpt
Limited hangout artists are instant media darlings

The most obvious characteristic of the limited hangout operative is that he or she immediately becomes the darling of the controlled corporate media. In the case of Daniel Ellsberg, his doctored set of Pentagon papers were published by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and eventually by a consortium totaling seventeen corporate newspapers. These press organs successfully argued the case for publication all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they prevailed against the Nixon administration.

Needless to say, surviving critics of the Warren Commission, and more recent veterans of the 9/11 truth movement, and know very well that this is emphatically not the treatment reserved for messengers whose revelations are genuinely unwelcome to the Wall Street centered US ruling class. These latter are more likely to be slandered, vilified and dragged through the mud, or, even more likely, passed over in complete silence and blacked out. In extreme cases, they can be kidnapped, renditioned or liquidated.

Cass Sunstein present at the creation of Wikileaks

As for Assange and Wikileaks, the autumn 2010 document dump was farmed out in advance to five of the most prestigious press organs in the world, including the New York Times, the London Guardian, El Pais of Madrid, Der Spiegel of Hamburg, and Le Monde of Paris. This was the Assange media cartel, made up of papers previously specialized in discrediting 9/11 critics and doubters. But even before the document dumps had begun, Wikileaks had received a preemptive endorsement from none other than the notorious totalitarian Cass Sunstein, later an official of the Obama White House, and today married to Samantha Power, the author of the military coup that overthrew Mubarak and currently Obama’s pick for US ambassador to the United Nations. Sunstein is infamous for his thesis that government agencies should conduct covert operations using pseudo-independent agents of influence for the “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” - meaning of those who reject in the establishment view of history and reality. Sunstein’s article entitled “Brave New WikiWorld” was published in the Washington Post of February 24, 2007, and touted the capabilities of Wikileaks for the destabilization of China. Perhaps the point of Ed Snowden’s presence in Hong Kong is to begin re-targeting these capabilities back towards the original anti-Chinese plan.

Snowden has already become a media celebrity of the first magnitude. His career was launched by the US left liberal Glenn Greenwald, now writing for the London Guardian, which expresses the viewpoints of the left wing of the British intelligence community. Thus, the current scandal is very much Made in England, and may benefit from inputs from the British GCHQ of Cheltenham, the Siamese twin of the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland. During the days of his media debut, it was not uncommon to see a controlled press organ like CNN dedicating one third of every broadcast hour of air time to the birth, life, and miracles of Ed Snowden.

Another suspicious and tell-tale endorsement for Snowden comes from the former State Department public diplomacy asset Norman Solomon. Interviewed on RT, Solomon warmly embraced the Snowden Project and assured his viewers that the NSA material dished up by the Hong Kong defector used reliable and authentic. Solomon was notorious ten years ago as a determined enemy of 9/11 truth, acting as a border guard in favor of the Bush administration/neocon theory of terrorism.
end


Webster Tarpley is an invaluable resource for the truthseeker. The above article hits all the buttons and lays down the real narrative behind Ellsberg, Assange, Snowden.


Pax

No it doesn't, because things are much more complicated than limited hangouts. Limited hangouts are only one of many levels of deception that are being used simultaneously.

Just the fact that the ruling sociopaths have to employ limited hangouts is evidence that they are struggling, that their dominance is being challenged, and that the people are making progress against the brainwashing they are used to receiving.

Things are always much more complicated than anyone can possibly understand. That's a givens. It then takes someone who is unaware of the scope of the givens, to keep pushing things back to the givens. For if they had understood the scope (e.g. understood the high complexity), they would also know that the complexity cannot be reduced without using approximations; intuitions; second, third and fourth-hand accounts; preponderance; circumstantial evidence; forensic evidence; prima facie evidence; etc. etc.

That said, those who attempt reduction of the complexity should be applauded ... and those that seek to maintain complexity by continuously rebuffing attempts to reduce it, should be held in contempt.

Truthseekers understand the givens and push beyond to the unknowns. Gatekeepers morrisdance in proximity of the givens.

Exposing limited hangouts helps reduce complexity. And those who deride said exposition ... are witting or unwitting agents of the bankster empire. Tarpley should be applauded. Chico should be tarred and feathered for his complicity with those who want to keep things complex, uncertain, and confused. IMO, of course.



So if you have no trouble identifying that the ruling nonempaths/sociopaths are using limited hangouts ... then why are you resisting my effort to bring one such limited hangout out into the open?

Are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Pax

You assume that everyone involved in a limited hangout is in on the con, that they are witting accomplices. That's like saying that anyone believing the government explanation of 9/11 is also a witting accomplice. Strangely, this is not far from what you believe, so it is evident why you make such errors.