So many words, so little substance. Still, Zook, it is a cunning denial. Your psychology does not disappoint, which is why I say sociopaths always reveal themselves, if only we know what to look for.

Your main argument seems to be that there is a mix of sociopaths and non-sociopaths in this one "edifice" organization. This is mostly wrong. Sociopaths screen out non-sociopaths at every level of the hierarchical ladder that leads up to the top. The end result is a private club of like-minded psychological deviants (sociopaths) that rule. Nor is there just only one "edifice" organization that must be dismantled. There is a whole hierarchy of organizations headed by sociopaths. If you remove the current capstone organization, one below it will take its place. That is why trying to solve the problem by controlling organizations is a complete waste of time and effort.

Then you weave your insidious propaganda using your old ploy of guilt by association. You connect psychology to a Talmudist agenda in order to dismiss the entire science of psychology, just so you can trash the whole concept of sociopaths. This is hardly different from summarily dismissing any idea coming from someone who has been fooled by any aspect of 9/11, another one of your stupid ploys.

Then, surprise surprise, you reflect all criticisms of you back onto me without any real evidence to support this reversal (as usual) and conclude that I am the gatekeeper who must obviously be working for the capstone sociopaths.

Old dog, have you no new tricks?

You have a well established track record when it comes to discrediting psychology, Zook.


You discredit psychology so that you can discredit the study of sociopaths. You don't discredit psychology when it comes to the study of awe or love or other human characteristics. Just sociopaths. So when it comes to sociopathy ( 1 2 3 4 ), psychology is a load of bunk, according to Zook.

Now why would that be?

Too bad I can only get the first 14 minutes of the interview.

In the first minute, we have the narrator's admission that "People of this culture today bear scant resemblance to those of thirty years ago ... it's a whole different game!"

And I agree with Rense. The increase in psychopathy is primarily a cultural phenomenon. A direct result of social engineering and the larger organized bankster design, which seeks ideological subversion of entire societies (as Yuri Begmenov once warned against in the E. Griffin interview of years gone by). The channeling of the species into the next cycle of Sodom and Gomorrah, as it were.

I also agree with the implied argument by Cross that although psychopaths had existed long ago, e.g. during the time period of the founding founders, the mass media was not available like it is today, e.g. so that psychopathy was limited in its scope back then. Psychopathy has actually existed since the dawn of human civilization, and before that, in the survival instincts of earlier mankind. It's not a new phenomenon; it's statistically abnormal (even today with the ubiquity of designed mass media programming); and it's primarily environmental, with the primarily genetic cases accounting for less and less of the psychopathic pie share, e.g. as the environmental phenomenon continues to chew up more and more of the collective mindset.

The one big problem I do have with the video clip is that it latches almost exclusively to the outcome of socially engineered design, and makes very little effort to identify the social engineers behind the increase in collective psychopathy. If collective sociopathy is a problem, and it is, you'd think the source of the problem would be located in those doing the manipulation, not in those being manipulated. The video is woefully inadequate in addressing the problem of psychopathy (which is largely environmental in 2015).

Popular culture and the ME-generation meme did not just appear out of thin air one dark and stormy night; it was put there by the social engineers. I remember those obnoxious Andre Agassi commercials of 20 years ago, and the equally obnoxious movie Wall Street (with Michael Douglas) ... not to mention the entire period of the Reagan-Bush Bush-Clinton presidencies when the BCCI and Savings and Loans crisis exposed the depth of the profligacy of self-interest. The Golden Rule was/is nowhere to be found. That sorta thing.


"Not just with ISIS and ISIL ..."

The above betrays Jeff Rense's own subtle gatekeeping role in the overall social engineering of the culture. Gatekeepers are part of the environmental or collective psychopathy. Gatekeepers, as a rule, are environmental psychopaths, not genetic ones. Rense is being two mutually-contradicting things at once: (1) righteous against collective psychopathy; and (2) expressing environmental psychopathy by toeing the establishment line as pertains to the reporting on the ISIS and ISIL psychological operations by the bankster empire.

A genuine truthseeker and nonpsychopath would never mention ISIS without also disclaiming that it's an unmitigated fraud. It's too important a disclaimer to be casually omitted. Not to mention that unwarranted uncertainty about anything buys time for the ongoing deception; and that is a subtle obstruction of the truths.


"A fun way of understanding psychopathy ..."

So that the apparent dumbed-down society can relate to what's going on (??). Here, Cross disclaims and eliminates any personal responsibility for his narrative of psychopathy by maintaining that it's fictional. How many of these condescending know-it-all psychobabblers have we seen being promoted widely on the sundry informational wastelands?

Ask yourself this: have we really arrived at a clearer understanding of psychopathy by watching this Rense interview of Mike Cross?

Or is Cross confusing things even further by broadening the scope of such shortcomings as found in normal people (e.g. vanity, unchecked ego, manipulative tendencies, selfishness, pretenses, temper, etc.) so that these shortcomings cross over a threshold level - of the same things - that is found in primarily genetic psychopaths? Thereby removing the thresholds and blurring any real distinctions between primarily genetic and primarily environmental psychopaths? Who profits by this state of confusion if not the genetic psychopaths who can now hide and operate amongst the environmental psychopaths, the latter acting as human shields of sorts for the former?

To Cross's credit, he did say that his writings were largely fictional.

Pax

Good post, Zook! Bravo.


Yes, the sociopaths are molding us in their image. If we can all be turned to the dark side, the dark side becomes the status quo.


Yes, yes, and no. There is a fundamental difference between the hard-core sociopaths, who lack the brain circuitry for empathy, and the soft-core sociopaths, who are basically brainwashed. The root problem is the hard-core sociopaths, who are the force behind brainwashing the rest of us.


I'm glad you agree. Now you can easily realize the importance of my two-step solution, 1) identify the sociopaths, and 2) disqualify them from positions of power and control.


Are you impersonating me? They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...


Actually, Rense knows ISIS is a fraud and has expressed it publicly many times. But you are quite right in picking up on the subtly disingenuous nature of Rense, because Rense is indeed a sociopath. I've read the accounts of some of his ex-wives, and there is little doubt of his true nature behind closed doors. But he is a "mild" sociopath, much like yourself, and these kinds of sociopaths can be very useful to society, if their "talents" are properly channeled. Of course, the same can be said of the hard-core sociopaths, if we can ever gain control over them.


Yes, it is sometimes necessary to present reality in a fictional form to get past the gatekeeping censors.


That's why I was disappointed to have only 14 minutes of the interview. If only Jeff Rense wasn't so driven by his sociopathic desires for money, fame, and power, we would have greater opportunity to pursue a deeper understanding of psychopathy through his work.

You're trapped in your own delusional state, Chico. Nothing I can do about it. For you really don't know what to look for when measuring sociopaths. You cast a wide net. The net is far too wide and its mesh size far too small, that you end up catching a lot of nonsociopaths when you're out fishing for sociopaths. Your mesh size is also responsible for catching a lot of empaths that get tangled in it just for expressing human moments of vanity, ego, stubbornness, prejudice, charm, exaggeration, anger, immodesty, judgement, etc.

That said, the wise man often finds traction by accommodating the fool and the fisherman, not by antagonizing him. So be it.



The organization is more than just the ladder. It's a power pyramid with a base, a ziggurath, and a capstone. The ladder is just a vertical transport vehicle from power station to power station in the overall hierarchical assembly. The thirst for power is what largely separates the sociopaths from the empaths in the 2-set resolution of psychologies. As a rule, empaths fall to the base in any power pyramid (e.g. because they lack the thirst); and sociopaths rise because they are saddled with the thirst.

In the 4-set resolution of psychologies, both sociopaths and nonempaths generally rise upwards in any power pyramid. Sociopaths rise primarily because they have the thirst for power. Nonempaths rise primarily because they have the cold, efficient, analytical ability. Nonempaths tend to rise to the very top because efficiency trumps the thirst for power (as a rule with many exceptions). Sociopaths can be equally cold and calculating, but their inefficiency - generated by ping ponging from states of high emotion to zero emotion - often reduces their ability to climb.

Your guess is as good as mine as to which psychological type actually occupies the highest perches in the specific Talmudic bankster grand power pyramid ... because familial connections can elevate inefficiency over efficiency.

To complete the thought, nonsociopaths and empaths (e.g. in the 4-set model of psychologies) generally populate both the ziggurath and the base because they lack the thirst for power. The less ambitious of either 4-set psychology tend to populate the base; and the more ambitious, the ziggurath. In any power pyramid, it's the rare nonsociopath or empath that occupies any position above the ziggurath. Lacking the thirst for power, the capstone is effectively closed for nonsociopaths and empaths. For those genetic nonsociopaths and genetic empaths that are born into the capstone, because the thirst for power is missing in them, they will be quickly removed form the capstone and relegated to figurehead positions in the ziggurath.

Random, free-ranging instances of all four psychological types (sociopaths, nonempaths, nonsociopaths and empaths) populate the ziggurath and the base, but primarily the base. For the random sociopaths, their thirst for power is not enough if the circumstances to rise are not there. For the random nonempaths, their efficiency is not enough if the circumstances to rise are not there. For the random nonsociopaths, their lack of thirst combined with a lack of circumstances keeps them low on the power pyramid. For the random empaths, their lack of thirst alone keeps them lowest on the power pyramid. In all four cases, rules with exceptions.



The above analysis is overly simplistic. It lacks the parametric depth to process the complexity of the actual existing corrupted global system and its grand centralized Talmudic bankster power pyramid. The objective evidence reveals that only one edifice is pushing for full spectrum dominance; not multiple edifices competing for planetary dominance. Ignoring this singular dominant organization and focusing truthseeking resources on a time immemorial proposition such as sociopathy (previously incarnated as "bad seed", "devil-marked", "dark-natured", "possessed", "wild", "incubus", etc.) ... is every bit the fool's pleasure.



I recognize the existence of sociopathy on its time immemorial tracks. I don't dismiss its presence (as you deliberately misreport; and it's deliberate because I had already made my position quite clear many times over). I dismiss its import as pertains to the current global corruptions. The organization has at least an order of magnitude significance over any claim of sociopathy as the primary causal factor. Meek minds are too soft and/or too frightened to tackle the big monster (the organization); so they prefer fixating on the safer virtues of tackling the small monster (sociopathy).

And because you don't want to hear the obvious, Chico, you take defensive measures ... like casting a wide net with a microscopic mesh size on a fishing expedition for sociopaths. The microscopic mesh is your Linusian comfort blanket.



I recognize the unassailable fact that, in the year 2015 AD, no one with any measure of intelligence ... has wiggle room left to escape into, on the matter of 9/11/2001, specifically, of the attacks being an Inside Job. The evidence is so complete wrt Zionists orchestrating the attacks, that it now takes willful ignorance, not just natural ignorance, to be fooled. Indeed, this is an example of the very psychopathy that Mike Cross warns about, e.g. collective or environmental psychopathy. From a dollar a pair to a dime a dozen, the sycophants of yore have risen to become psychopaths in legion. And it's this new breed of environmental psychopaths - to be distinguished from the true breed of genetic psychopaths - that make and hold the last stands against the evidence of 9/11/2001.

And these titwits then deserve our contempt across the spectrum of ideas - as a first resort - until they can show that they are capable of processing evidence with any integrity. Only then does it make rational sense to release them of their self-earned contempt, and accord respect. Someone who cannot measure something as easy as 9/11/2001, should then not be expected to measure anything more difficult, like ideas. As a rule with few exceptions, you can dismiss the opinions of these clowns outright and not lose anything valuable.



Integrity is not a trick. It's an essence one is born with. But hey, if delusional reality is your boat, Chico, float it.
Tall waters are obliged to float the deep delusional boats.


Pax

Of course you would say that. You are caught in that net and need a way out.


Your 4-set nonsense is just obfuscation. There is no difference between socoiopaths and "nonempaths", or between non-sociopaths and empaths. You just spout disinformation to make people's eyes glaze over so you can then suggest they suffer from "meek minds" if they don't fully comprehend your nonsense. Look at this crap:


I praise you for a rare, semi-lucid post, and you follow it up with utter garbage. Have you no shame? Answer: sociopaths don't feel shame. It's just game-playing, jockeying for position in the pursuit of power and control.


This is pure idiocy. You ignore the many working heads of the hydra: the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Group, the Bilderbergers, the intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad, MI-5, MI-6, NSA, etc.), the City of London, the Vatican, the Rothschild central banks, and many others. They don't compete, they cooperate! Behind all of these hydra heads is a common psychology known as sociopathy.


The evil organization is a symptom arising from evil psychology, just as the good organization is a symptom arising from good psychology. First there is mind, and that determines the flavor of the organization. It is so obvious, yet you cannot see it. I suggest that too is a symptom of the difference in our psychologies.


Thou doth protest too much. So, anyone still fooled by the 9/11 psy-op is brain-dead, according to the great and powerful OZ, er, I mean ZOOK. You're as bad as the sociopaths who claim anyone that doesn't believe the official 9/11 fairy tale story is a conspiracy nut. Same method, same psychology.


And, like Bill Ryan, you lay solitary claim to the high ground of integrity. You are really something, Zook. As always, you can't help but expose yourself.

In your net, whose mesh size catches everything from sociopaths to empaths and their shadows. Is that supposed to mean anything?



Intellectual fortitude was never your thing, Chico.

You'll support any kind of nonsense (e.g. Martha Stout's conjectural spoutings); and when a rebuttal is made by extending those same conjectural spoutings using legitimate mathematical extenders ... here, two objects A and B imply the potential existence of two more objects, (-A) and (-B); when A does not equal (-B), and B does not equal (-A), then we have 4 unique objects ... then you resort to whining.

Free clue: A does not equal (-B), where A=sociopaths; (-A)= nonsociopaths; B=empaths; (-B)=nonempaths.

Sociopaths are not nonempaths (and vice versa). Lacking empathy does not mean having sociopathy. To complete the thought, empaths are not nonsociopaths (and vice versa). Lacking sociopathy does not mean having empathy. The major clue is in the degrees of separation on the continuum axis, one bookended by sociopathy at one end and empathy at the other end.

CONTINUUM AXIS:
degrees of sociopathy ______ neutral center ______ degrees of empathy.

But where do nonsociopaths and nonempaths fit in?

Well, if we define the entire axis to be an axis of sociopaths, and we use quartiles to separate 4 unique intervals for 4 unique classes/objects on this axis of sociopaths ... then we have sociopaths ranging from the 100% brand of sociopaths to the 75% brand. We have nonempaths ranging from the 75% brand of sociopaths to the 50% brand. We have nonsociopaths ranging from the 50% brand of sociopaths to the 25% brand. Finally, we have empaths ranging from the 25% brand of sociopaths to the 0% brand. The 0% brand of sociopath is just a fancy name for the complete or 100% empath.

Alternatively, if we define the entire axis to be an axis of empaths, and we use quartiles to separate 4 unique intervals for 4 unique classes/objects on this axis of empaths ... then we have sociopaths ranging from the 0% brand of empaths to the 25% brand. We have nonempaths ranging from the 25% brand of empaths to the 50% brand. We have nonsociopaths ranging from the 50% brand of empaths to the 75% brand. Finally, we have empaths ranging from the 75% brand of empaths to the 100% brand. The 0% brand of empath is just a fancy name for the complete or 100% sociopath.

Qualitatively, the continuum axis would look like this in the 4-class modeling:
Sociopaths ___ Nonempaths ___ Nonsociopaths ___ Empaths.
(Note that the nonempaths are on the sociopath side of axis; and the nonsociopaths are on the empathic side of the axis.)

In the simplified 2-class modeling, the continuum axis would look like this:
Sociopaths ___ Empaths

The clue is in the modelling. The clueless reside outside any modelling.



You lack intellectual fortitude, Chico ... and so bear whatever shame that carries. You are the phony here. I gave you a cogent rebuttal to the ad hoc conjectural spouting by one of your luminaries, Martha Spout. Instead of appreciating the merits of the rebuttal - or exposing its deficits - you've shrunk back into your sandbox to fling more sand. So be it.



All of the heads belong to the same hydra, e.g. the same edifice. I really do wonder about your ability to process information. The hydra is the organization. The push of truthseeking resources into the vast vacuous domain of human psychology is being done to keep the masses charmed, nattering, and munching on the pasture grasses ... while the organization prepares its next expansion. The meek cannot resist this push. That's a salient fact, Chico.



More accurately, a difference in our comparative discernment. I discern the timelessness of general mind failings, and too, the immediacy of specific bankster organization ... and recognize that only one is pushing for full spectrum dominance. You don't.



The defense of unwarranted uncertainty huffs and puffs yet again. So be it.



The Bill Ryan canard and messenger smear campaign, e.g. when confronted with superior discernment and analysis. Classic Chico. But hey, no one said that sanctuaries should observe or preserve reality. More power to your confabulated states of mind and fealty to micro-mesh sociopath fishing.


Pax

That's right, Zook, it's a continuum. It makes no sense to divide it into fourths, or tenths, or any other number of portions. All of your divisions are arbitrary, and you cannot accurately define the attributes of any individual on the continuum. You can only make general observations, which is why defining empaths and nonempaths as distinct from non-sociopaths and sociopaths respectively is a deception and a manipulation consistent with your own sociopathy.

And by the way, the center is not neutral. It doesn't make any sense to define it as such. This shows the error in your tendency to reduce things to mathematical terms which aren't mathematical. Sociopaths tend to do this.


That's right, Einstein. That makes the edifice the psychology and not the organization.

It was a qualitative illustration, not a quantitative one. The qualitative modelling could have been equally rendered using any quantile (e.g. median, tercile, quintile ... decile ... percentile).

In real life, any object or parameter of study would be expected to be distributed according to the Gaussian normal distribution. The study of psychological makeup is no different.

In a 2-set modelling, sociopathy would be the entire left side of the neutral center (e.g. median) ... and empathy, the entire right side.

In a 4-set modelling, sociopathy and nonempathy would both be on the left side of the neutral center (e.g. the median which is also the tail end of the 2nd quartile) ... and nonsociopathy and empathy would both be on the right side. More the further, nonempathic and nonsociopathic cases would be closer to the median then either sociopathy or empathy ... and would have substantially greater populations.

Indeed, the Gaussian normal distribution would push sociopathic cases beyond the 1st standard deviation of psychological makeup to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th deviational outliers on the left side; equally, push empathic cases beyond the 1st standard deviation to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th deviational outliers on the right side. In the extreme degrees, we see the general separation of the genetic sociopaths and empaths from the environmental sociopaths and empaths ... because the genetic cases tend to exhibit psychological characteristics beyond a threshold level.

There is more to the mathematical modelling of psychological makeup then you are able (or willing) to grasp, Chico.

FWIW, my own psychological makeup belongs to the community of 3rd deviation empaths ... my reactive temper prevents me from becoming part of the truly gifted community of 4th deviation empaths, e.g. the saints.

If I were to hazard a guess about you, your psychological makeup appears to belong within the 1st standard deviation. I'm just not sure which side of the median. As such, you're either a nonsociopath on the empathic half of psychological makeup; or a nonempath on the sociopathic half. To be sure, an undistinguished middling brand. Ironically, my uncertainty about your locus on the psychological makeup axis, is a best case scenario for yourself. There are those that have privately suggested to me that you exhibit tendencies that are common to 2nd deviation sociopaths or worse. But I see enough hiccups of empathy from you, here and there, that suggest to me that you're probably no worse than a garden variety nonempath, and no better than a garden variety nonsociopath.

From boring dirt worms to slithering grass slugs to frenetically flying lemon moths to milk-spotted fluttering butterflies ... the garden runs the gamut of possibility even within the mundane confines of the 1st deviation, wot? I do have uncertainty about your psychological profile, Chico, but it's of the warranted kind.



Not at all. I explained myself quite clearly. You're attempting to withdraw from a resounding defeat - on your own battlefield, e.g. popular psychology - by drawing close the curtains of semantics. So be it. Those living in the perpetual fog are not expected to appreciate clarity. I do get that. FWIW, the statistical center is the neutral point from which standard deviations originate and either go right and positivity ... or left and negativity.



Phony facepalms such as this ( ) and these ( ) cannot reverse the fact that psychologies exist whether an edifice exists or not. By contrast, the organization only exists because it's an edifice.

Pax