Yes, sociopaths expose themselves without even realizing it. We've seen it right here in the forum many times. It's still happening.

Sociopaths are parasites. They leech off of society, even when they don't have to.


We can expect the same from Hillary, since she is also a sociopath.


What about George H. W. Bush and his bumbling son GW? Aren't they sociopaths, too? Wouldn't it be likely that they are also parasites? Well, yes.


For sociopaths, who lack empathy for others, it's just a game to see how much they can get away with. Besides, with their superiority complexes, they feel entitled.

Compare and contrast.

One way to understand how crippling it has been for humanity to be led by sociopaths for centuries is to look at what occurs when the saints lead. The saints are those people on the opposite side of the bell curve from the sociopaths. They are the non-sociopaths with abundant empathy and compassion, small egos, natural humbleness and honesty, who see others as equals, literally extensions of themselves. They lead by example instead of by force, and because this is disruptive to the game sociopaths play, the saints are deliberately undermined and suppressed. As a result, it is hard to find examples of saints leading. But when you do find them, it is like seeing for the first time. That experience of vision is breathtaking and awe-inspiring. Only then can you realize how far down the sociopaths have dragged us.

I got to compare and contrast on my third viewing of the video in this post. If the saints had a way to undermine and suppress the sociopaths, what an entirely different world this would be. It would be the world of abundance for all that Michael Tellinger envisions. Of course, it is not in the nature of saints to undermine and suppress others. This is a characteristic of sociopaths, not saints. Saints would try to redirect sociopaths into activities where their lack of empathy and deceptive manipulations could benefit humanity. Try to think of such an activity and you will understand the dilemma that saints face. Sociopaths have no equivalent dilemma. Thus the path of evil is unencumbered compared to the path of good, which helps to explain how the 1% can lord over the 99%, which is what we see today.

Brian O'Leary ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) was a major proponent of free energy, who easily recognized how crucial free energy is for humanity to progress to the next evolutionary level, and yet he said the following:


Evil is the right word. Evil comes from humanity, specifically from humans lacking empathy that we have identified as sociopaths. So Brian O'Leary was right to say he would oppose free energy unless we can ensure that sociopaths do not hold the reigns of power, because the ruling sociopaths would abuse their power and misuse free energy. They would use it against us and for their own private benefit. They already do.

So it's like I've always said -- no matter what solution you come up with, it won't work for long unless sociopaths are identified and disqualified from positions of power and control! Sociopaths are the root problem. All other major problems either derive from them or are exacerbated by them.

Free clue: The Powers That Be already have access to free energy. They just don't want to share it because that would threaten their energy cartels. I think Brian O'Leary is a good man trapped in a bad situation, e.g. he was an insider. Insiders are not allowed the same latitude in speaking their minds as outsiders. So O'Leary is doing his best to rationalize the lack of free energy development for general public consumption. Fortunately, I'm not an insider. I just happen to read tea leaves with some discernment and without apology. While that may be a nuisance to the Mastards (the master bastards), they are not readily threatened by outsiders because our lack of inside knowledge confers on them a protective shield in plausible deniability. The Mastards and their minions have further coated this protective shield with a chemical called "conspiracy theorist".

If one dares to read the tea leaves too precisely ... some resolution is taken away from them by labelling them as conspiracy theorists. Not unlike another protective shield coating, namely, the chemical called "antiSemitism", which invariably reflects on those probing too closely to the nucleus of the Khazarian conspiracy.





The secretive organization of Khazarian banksters is pushing us to FSD. The legerdemain is to re-orient the culpability vector away from the Khazarian conspiracy and towards a timeless battle between good and evil.




Sociopaths are a problem that is built-in as part of the human condition. They exist in all races and all cultures. Only evolution can determine which way we are headed as a species. Not unlike the giraffe that sprung a neck because the environment took juicy leaves to the high trees, the evolution of the human species towards good and away from evil will depend on the amount of virtue in the environment. Timescales notwithstanding, don't expect Las Vegas to blossom into a bastion of goodness any time soon ... and don't expect badness to overrun the kitchen staff laying out the bread and bowls in soup kitchens either. The respective environments will foster the respective evolutions.

Which brings us back to what is actually causing the abundance of evil we see in the world today ... and that is the Khazarian conspiracy, which has been socially engineering the global environment for over a hundred years now. To wit, the incessant celebration of vices, combined with the incessant derogation of virtues ... is a Maglev rail ride into the poxed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, all expenses paid by the Khazarian bankster conspirators.

The devil is in the tribal organization. The devil is also in the human condition. The difference? Well, he's been comparatively counterbalanced in the human condition, e.g. by countless singing angels on the wing and a similar tally in a choir on the pinhead. By contrast, there has been no such neutralization of the secretive sinister tribal organization ... and it is in this sinister organization that the devil is collecting his dues.

Truthseekers are here to neutralize the sinister organization. Gatekeepers are here to support it. Neither the truthseeker nor the gatekeeper has the ability to effect substantial changes in the human condition. That is the purview of evolution. So grab a seat and let the intermission bring the glazed nuts and peppered popcorn. We are witnessing the battle of good versus evil, deja vu all over again one more time.


Pax

I already said that, Zook. Why do you make it sound like you're giving us new information, when you're not? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because I have already pointed out why sociopaths behave the way they do.


That is correct.


That is incorrect. We have the ability to steer our evolution ourselves. Organized sociopaths are already doing that, but they are steering us down a dead end.


You still don't get it, do you. I put it right in front of your eyes over and over again, and still you see nothing. Look at it again, Zook. "No matter what solution you come up with, it won't work for long unless sociopaths are identified and disqualified from positions of power and control!" Remove the Khazarian bankster conspiracy, and another conspiracy run by sociopaths will fill the void. This will always happen as long as sociopaths, the small minority, remain unmanaged by the non-sociopaths, the large majority.


It's not a battle, it's a rout. Wade Frazier, Brian O'Leary, and others have been telling us as much, as has the true history of humanity. Good is no match for evil when good is effectively blind, the victim of the sociopaths' cunning program of deception and manipulation. The root problem is the sociopaths. That is where evil originates.

Read again. I was addressing the late Brian O'Leary's comments about the PTB abusing free energy if they had had it. To which I answered they've already got it, which makes O'leary's statement meaningless.



No. Your opinion doesn't matter here. The proof is in the pudding. Good and Evil have been with us since the dawn of human organization. There's virtually nothing you or I can do about it. Well, there is something we can do to diminish evil to some extent, and that is to clean up our physical and spiritual environments. I point you back to my giraffe metaphor. The high trees created a need for adaptation. The giraffe adapted. But even that took time on an evolutionary scale. We don't have that time. FSD tyranny is around the corner if not upon us. The Khazarian conspiracy is unleashing evil into the environment at a prolific rate. The entertainment industry has been a most potent vessel in toxifying our psychology. Sex and violence are prominent in this polluted psychology. Of course, constant stimulation by the agencies of sex and violence is forcing our brains to adapt to accommodate this stimuli. Ergo, we are headed in the wrong direction on the Good versus Evil continuum axis.

You can natter all you want about sociopaths being the reason for our current global corruptions ... but the fact of the matter is, it is secretive sinister tribal organization that is dumping vast quantities of toxic psychological waste into our environments, not sociopaths per se. Our sensible option then is not to chase down the individual sociopaths per se (as you prefer), that is a waste of time and intellectual resources ... but to go after the polluting organization and neutralize it (as I prefer).

My method has greater capacity to clean up the environment; and a cleaner environment will then necessarily feedback and diminish the amount of evil being incubated in the species. More empaths and fewer sociopaths will be generated in a cleaner environment.



You don't get it Chico, because you don't understand the difference between a timeless problem and a time-dependent problem. The higher priority task is to clean up the environment; and that can only be done by breaking up the structure that is polluting it. An organized structure is currently polluting the environment; replacing this structure's handlers is not going to break the structure. The structure will keep on polluting under new management. Sociopaths are interchangeable and easily replaceable. It is more difficult to replace an entire structure. In that one difference alone, we gain some time for Good to organize against Evil.



I'm having significant doubts about the sincerity of Wade Frazier. In the best case, he has an insulated view of the world. Just visit his website and have a gander at his worldview. The fact that he endorses Bill Ryan is also a big red flag.

Brian O'Leary is no longer with us but I think he was a genuine good spirit. We could use more Brian O'Learys in this world. But even O'Leary had some strange affiliations, e.g. Sai Baba. Sai Baba is an unmitigated fraud and money scammer. I think O'Leary came to his senses in his later days about Sai Baba. So his early association can be properly attributed to youthful indiscretion. But here's the curious thing about Wade Frazier, who claims to be a friend of Brian O'Leary. Why would Wade - as late as 2010 - exhibit a photo of Brian and Sai Baba together on his website? If I had been O'Leary's friend, I would have used any of a thousand different photos to help promote an understanding of who Brian was ... not a photo that would trap Brian in a youthful indiscretion. The photo's near the bottom of the page.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#personal

Anyhow, this red flag - as small as it is - adds to the preponderance of suspicions that I am experiencing about Wade. Other elements in the preponderance include his endorsement of CIA shill Noam Chomsky (who Wade claims as a mentor elsewhere on his Healed Planet website); his easy friendship with Bill Ryan; his endorsement of the official narrative of the Moon Landings (which boggles the rational mind because there is solid evidence that many of the Moon photos were faked, which then begs the question if all weren't faked; here, I myself remain agnostic about the Apollo missions, but agnosticism or warranted uncertainty is still better science than unwarranted certainty - you see, Chico, I do entertain uncertainty when it is warranted); and of course, Wade's own narrative of the Holocaust which has a dearth of factual basis.

Here's another tract that exposes his lack of scholarship. Wade thinks that the Bolshevik Revolution was an unintended consequence of WW1. Say what??!

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm

beginExcerpt
World War I had unintended consequences, one of which was the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. As with all revolutions, early idealism soon gave way to “realism” and bloody power grabs. Initially, however, Russia pulled out of World War I and the imperial game, which is about the only reason that Turkey exists today. Lenin advocated the opposite of the Empire Game, and a Marxist government ended up inspiring many colonial peoples to try the same thing, which made imperial powers uneasy. The USA landed troops at Vladivostok and Archangel in 1918, to try putting down the Russian Revolution and had 500 casualties at Archangel. Astute observers call that the real beginning of the Cold War. Capitalism, born of colonialism, waged war against communism for the next 70 years.
end

The Russian Revolution was orchestrated top to bottom by the moneylending elites ... who placed the Czar in disfavor once he refused their demands for a central bank in Russia. This disfavor turned into a sinister plan to destroy the Russian monarchy. The Khazarian moneylenders manipulated Tsarist Russia into WW1, overextended the Tsar, then turned his own people against him using Wall Street money (Jacob Schiff, Rothschild agent) and Khazarian monkeys like Lev Bronstein (Trotsky). The Bolshevik Revolution was in fact a planned hostile Khazarian takeover of Russia. http://www.age-end.com/Gen-CSS/Khazar-B ... ection.htm

And Wade would have us believe that it was an unintended consequence of WW1.

As Norman Dodd exposed (in the 1909 Carnegie Endowment For International Peace meeting minutes) ... wars were being manufactured by the elites to change civilization. Czar Nicholas had no place in the new landscape of post-WW1. He was summarily disposed of.

But if you want to get indoctrinated into Wade's level of scholarship, hey, that's your burden to bear. But don't say I didn't give you a fair warning.



Pax

No, it doesn't make it meaningless. Don't be so anal. You think O'Leary didn't "know" the ruling elites already have free energy? He was expressing a concept about the mindset of the Powers That Be, who are sociopaths, and who will always pursue selfish power and control at the expense of the rest of humanity, no matter whether it is free energy or what-have-you.


Spoken like a true sociopath with no real empathy. Believe me, almost everyone can see that it's only your opinion that matters.


That's not the issue. Light and dark have been with us always, too, but we fill our dwellings with light and minimize the dark. What's important is the proportion of good to evil. Good should be abundant, and evil should be minimized. That will not happen with sociopaths ruling us. It will only happen when sociopaths are disqualified from ruling.


That "secretive sinister tribal organization" is made up of sociopaths. That's precisely why it is secretive, sinister, tribal, and organized. Sociopaths specialize in spreading psychological programming into our environments. It's what they do -- deception and manipulation.


Wrong. This is a time-dependent problem, very much like a seismograph. The more power and control the sociopaths have, the more violent the tracings. We can have smooth sailing by properly managing sociopaths, by identifying them and denying them power and control.


There's that trademark lack of empathy of yours, Zook, condemning others because they may be mistaken. We all make mistakes, all the time, and we don't even know it. We are all born into this world of lies as trusting, innocent babes. We don't know what the real story is, or was. We are taught the prevailing dogma, and if we learn well, we think we are experts with the hard-earned right to correct others. You are a prime example. You think you know everything about the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution, but all you have to go on is other people's stories. You weren't there, you didn't experience any part of it, much less all parts of it from every point of view. You've reduced it down to oversimplified rules of thumb and "black or white" binary thinking. And if somebody's story doesn't match yours, he's a gatekeeper, or a bankster minion, or of "questionable scholarship". It's disgusting, at least to a non-sociopath.


And there's your notion of empathy again, giving me "fair warning" that I risk sinking to "Wade's level of scholarship". Good try, Zook, but you still don't understand empathy.

Here's O'Leary's quote again:
Because I, too, would be actually opposed to the development of free energy if The Powers That Be continue to be in power, because they would abuse it.

O'Leary makes a meaningless statement because TPTB continue to be in power, and if free energy is available to them, and it is, then they are already abusing it. So when O'Leary remarks that he opposes free energy - on the grounds that someone might abuse it - well that remark becomes meaningless because someone is already abusing it, e.g. TPTB. There needs to be a valid reason for him to oppose free energy in the public domain, else it becomes an emotional appeal to keep such technologies secretive under the ongoing control of those who have a track record of abusing technologies, e.g. TPTB.

To wit, his stance is fundamentally not different from the emotional appeals embarked by the gun control lobby, which entrusts protection to the security forces (which have been subverted for the purpose of protecting the interests of the bad guys, e.g. TPTB) ... and which opposes the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Read the quote again. It's not written in Portugese.



Let's explore the logical consequences of your remark above. Nowhere in my statement had I implied that my opinion was relevant and yours was not. I even stated that "there's nothing you or I can do about it" ... which means neither of our opinions matter.

Here's my statement again:
No. Your opinion doesn't matter here. The proof is in the pudding. Good and Evil have been with us since the dawn of human organization. There's virtually nothing you or I can do about it.

I was alluding to the power of abstract pscyhology (metaphysics??). Yet you decided to personalize it - as you almost always do - and take offence by pretending that I was excluding your opinion and only allowing my own. And from this fragile bridge of personal affront, you walk to the far side to hurl another baseless charge of "Sociopath!" against Uncle Zook. So what else is new?



Polemics. What? You expect me to disagree with the obvious?

Well, there's something even more obvious, Chico ... sociopaths will only stop ruling us if we break their organization, and not by tickling the toes of each and every member in the organization until each surrenders with a frantic appeal and exclamation: "Stop! Stop! I'm the monkey and you're my uncle!"

Without organization, any sociopath (large and small) can be isolated and neutralized. With organization, however, even the smallest sociopath in Lilliput can reach a scale overwhelming the largest empath in Brobdingnag. And tickling toes will only make them more alert ... and more angry ... and more expressive of their sociopathy. When you poke a hornets' nest, you better be prepared to destroy it, not handcuff each hornet that comes buzzing out. As it were. Or you can leave the hornets' nest alone and hope that it will leave you alone. Of course, the hornet metaphor ends there, for the Khazarian-led cartel is not content with leaving you alone. Its power resides in the continual parasitic feeding on the masses. And it is planning to cull you in the long run.



The component units are nothing outside the component. They are just units. Sociopaths are nothing without their organization. My arguments are about breaking one specific organization, because it is the most dangerous, the most incubated, the most ambitious, the most evil, etc. ... ever to visit this Earth during the long history of mankind, and they've been here for only a fraction of the fraction of humantime, e.g. about 250 years or thereabouts. By contrast, the component units have been with us since the dawn of mankind.

Question begs, when our collective future is threatened by an organization straddling a blip of human time ... what kind of Cupid seeks resolution by concentrating focus on component units that have straddled the entirety of human time?

The answer is not very flattering, I assure you.



Again, your opinions are dwarfed by the reality of the human condition, which has neither solved its sociopaths by managing them nor evolved off their presence (e.g. evaporated it off like undesired water in freeze-dried processes).



Well, get out there and read the fcuking accounts (from all available sources) and make a discerned estimation of what the Bolshevik Revolution was all about ... for the same fcukers behind that episode in world history are still performing their deceptions and murder today. And if you still haven't a fcuking clue, don't get involved in the discussion ... and that is Wade's major mea culpa. It's excusable if he hasn't researched it and seeks sanctuary in silence; but if he has, then it is inexcusable for him to spread disinformation about it (wittingly or unwittingly). The fact that he has indeed expressed an opinion about Bolshevism, then necessarily obliges him to get the facts right. He plain fat got the facts wrong. And don't give me no fcuking bullshit about uncertainty ... because any proper research of all the available sources leaves no doubt about Bolshevism as a pre-planned event, not a byproduct of WW1.

Wade deserves to be skewered for spreading disinformation. Millions had been slaughtered by the pre-planned Bolshevik revolution ... I am here to find some measure of justice for those poor souls. And we know it was planned as per Norman Dodd's exposee of the minutes of the 1909 Carnegie Endowment For International Peace meeting. I could care less than two atoms about hurting Wade's, or Wade's friends' feelings; for if it comes down to bringing the truth out versus burying it deeper with disinformation, I'll side with the truths a hundred times out of a hundred. Which is why I have more pencils than friends, in a manner of speaking. Critical mass in awareness is our only real hope of turning the worm against the FSD tyranny.

Wade's scholarship has gaping holes in other areas as well. So it's not a question of not allowing him one mistake (a very serious one at that) ... but allowing him to spread disinformation in multiple areas. Disinformation poses an obstacle in the quest for critical mass of awareness.



More unmitigated bullshit from the Prevaricating Poobah of Divergence and Uncertainty.

FWIW, I wasn't there at Dealey Plaza in Dallas either, but I have a good understanding of the evil organization that assassinated JFK. It is frustrating to an empath like myself to see a gatekeeper like yourself isolate items from the preponderance and pretend that the preponderance doesn't exist. Disgusting? Not really ... I've become used to your gameplaying.



You never did understand empathy, Chico. And I don't waste time trying to understand it. I just practice it; which is why I try to make people aware of the evil organization. Good people don't make excuses for the evil organization. Wade is willing to give the Khazarian conspiracy a blank cheque while he embarks on a mission to rehabilitate the devils behind it. And you spend your time attacking those with discernment; at the same time, apologizing for those who've been sent down by the banhkster power pyramid to create confusion, uncertainty, disinformation ... ultimately, chaos in the mind (e.g. ideological subversion as Yuri Begmenov put it) from which the Khazarian conspiracy can extract the last of the Hegelian pegs: order.


Pax

My poor Zook. With your reading comprehension, it might as well be written in cuneiform. All this time, you thought the statement was meaningless because the PTB already have free energy, and they already abuse their possession of it, which set up a confounding contradiction in your mind. But free energy is not the subject of the sentence, which is why the meaning escaped you. The subject is development. Free energy has not been developed, and Brian is meaning it has not been developed in the public arena, as the earlier context was about it being suppressed from the public arena.

If this is a typical example of your poor reading comprehension, and we have seen this happen a number of times now, do you realize what it means with respect to all the "discernment" you flog people with?

You would do well to understand the faulty framework that supports your certainty when your reading comprehension is so untrustworthy.


You dismiss my opinion with a definitive "No." Then you immediately state that my opinion doesn't matter. Then you expound on your opinion at length. And now you claim that "nowhere" did you imply that your own opinion was relevant and mine was not.

Not only is your reading comprehension faulty, but so is your writing comprehension.


You're not even close to obvious. You are, as usual, obfuscating. It is not sufficient to shut down one of their organizations. You have to prevent them from organizing! This can be done by 1) identifying all sociopaths, and 2) disqualifying them from positions of power and control. If you know of a better way, I'd love to hear it. Taking out their top organizations will slow them down temporarily, but they will always build new organizations that present the same threat to humanity.


That's like saying atoms are nothing outside of the crystal lattice. Don't you realize those same types of atoms can rearrange to form other structures? You are so dense, Zook. Sociopaths are dangerous individually, and they are exponentially dangerous when organized. Destroying their organization sets them back a little, but they will always build another.


Humanity has never had the knowledge or the tools to manage sociopaths, but now we do! It was the same with going to the moon -- an impossible dream until the mid-20th century, and then everything came together. As for "evolving off their presence", I've already pointed out that sociopaths are ensuring, through their directed unnatural selection (junk food, junk medicine, junk economics, junk environment, junk politics, junk justice, etc.), that we evolve towards their deviancy.


I've done that, and so has Wade, and so have you, and yet the conclusions we will come to will all be different due to what we read, our understanding of what we read, our trust in what we read, our experience base, our collection of important life lessons, our different strengths and weaknesses, and our psychology, among thousands of other factors. Your tendency to oversimplify and think in binary terms leads you to flawed conclusions and blinding certainty. I've pointed this out to you so many times, yet I might as well be talking to "the hand", because you cannot see it.


You could easily replace "Wade" with "Zook" in the above quote, and the statements would still be just as true and just as false.


I agree that you don't waste time trying to understand empathy. For any sociopath, that would be a real puzzle. I disagree that you practice empathy. You mimic it, you attempt to blend in with empathetic people by copying their behavior, but you don't get all the nuances quite right, which is why I am able to expose your slip-ups so readily now.

Look Zook, sociopaths are people too. They have a place among humanity, but it's not in positions of leadership or power and control. My solution treats them with the respect every human deserves, and that respect is born out of empathy, something sociopaths lack and cannot exercise. You have no empathy for Wade because his truth is different from yours. I have much empathy for you for the very same reason, precisely because our truths are different! I know you can't understand that, but that's because your psychology lies closer to the sociopathic end of the bell curve, whereas mine lies farther from that end. My empathy makes me take the time to engage with you (mostly patiently, though not always) rather than dismiss you like you dismiss Wade and so many others. The difference is readily discernible, but despite your admiration for your own discernment, you can't see it. It simply confirms your psychology, which turns out to be a common one on forums among vocal members, moderators, and administrators.