How about his thousands of Facebook fans? I'm not even one of them!

And all of his radio show listeners? Or his Youtube video viewers? I don't know how many that makes, but your list looks a tad biased.

Amazing. What is your first language, Chico? Certainly something other than English.

Can you read for any level of comprehension ... or do you just read things into what people write and expect everyone to do the same?

FTR, here's my statement again:

"You can't blame general sociopathy and psychopathy in the human condition for full spectrum dominance. Those generalities create localized chiefdoms, localized pyramids, and localized hubris on a high hill. And they are ubiquitous throughout the world, and unorganized. The putative localized region is the only thing they can offend or defend."

Now let me help you parse its actual meaning than the meaning you ascribe to it.

What it means is that general sociopathy (psychopathy) - the kind found in the garden variety sociopath (psychopath) - is insufficient to create a globalist sociopathic (psychopathic) controlling order.

A militarized version, an engineered version, a turbo-version, a modified version, etc. ... is required to create pyramid structures of scale. Some version of sociopathy (psychopathy) that is commensurate with the task of full spectrum dominance, is required to effect FSD. Alex Jones often alludes to the tyranny of the sciences or scientific dictatorship. The labcoat eugenicist would be an example of a modified version of sociopath (psychopath). Natural garden variety versions of sociopathy (psychopathy) that is found in many people, indeed, far more people than we would like ... cannot offend or defend any region beyond a small radius of influence.

Kapiche?

Perhaps modified sociopathy (psychopathy) derives its additional strength from the group dynamic. For example, a group of garden variety sociopaths (psychopaths) get together in secret and hatch a plan. The resultant sociopathy (psychopathy) is then much more than the sum of its parts.


Pax

ps: You can't be this obtuse ... so I must surmise that you are deliberately trying to be.

So it depends on what your definition of "is" is? Or in this case, "general"?

Aren't you the clever one. Bill Clinton thought he was, too.

That individual sociopaths would band together and organize couldn't be a feature of "general" sociopathy, could it? Why yes, it could. Sociopaths know they are different, frowned upon by society, isolated, and when they discover there are others like them, they find relief, solace, and self-confirmation in banding together into a club of "elites".

Thanks for helping me parse English, a language I often struggle with. You've been very helpful.

Nice redirect. But anyone that is competent in English would know the difference between Clinton's prevarications (as a prevaricator yourself, might you belong to the same order of water buffaloes??) and my proper English. Read the quote again and see if you can't understand it this time.


"You can't blame general sociopathy and psychopathy in the human condition for full spectrum dominance. Those generalities create localized chiefdoms, localized pyramids, and localized hubris on a high hill. And they are ubiquitous throughout the world, and unorganized. The putative localized region is the only thing they can offend or defend."

I clearly state that those generalities (of sociopathy) create the small problems. Not sociopathy creates said small problems. Know the difference and join the league of proper English speakers.

1. I do blame sociopathy and psychopathy in the human condition for full spectrum dominance. I do not understand how the adjective "general" negates that idea.

2. "Those generalities" refers to what exactly?

3. Localized pyramids are indeed ubiquitous throughout the world, but not all of them are unorganized or unconnected with other pyramids.

4. Since there are links between pyramids, and even organized groupings of pyramids, your last statement is untrue.


I'm working on it.

That's a false attribution. For it's not the general class or average sociopathy/psychopathy (gS/gP) that can bring about full spectrum dominance ... nay ... it's the exceptional organization of S/P that can do that, specifically, large scale. The large scale organization of sociopathy, alas, is not sociopathy (in any of its general numerous small scale senses).



They refer to the general organization of S/P (e.g. its default state of small scale organization). They do not refer to the exceptional organization of S/P. The general concept cannot possibly achieve full spectrum dominance. The exceptional concept can. The general concept is carried inside many individuals, potentially in all individuals. But it has no power beyond a small sphere of influence, the influence of a gaggle of gargoyles, if you will, certainly not enough to match ambitions of full spectrum dominance. For that, you need extensive organization and more than a gaggle. Only one group on this planet currently has that extensive organization: the banksters (and their default chameleon is the Zionists).



Full spectrum dominance will absorb all independent pyramids until the only viable power remaining is a single centralized power, e.g. a grand pyramid with a superelevated center. Small scale capacity S/P may build the local pyramids, true enough, but it's large scale capacity S/P that organizes them. The organization is orders more pernicious than the buildings themselves.

So it's shortsighted to think that understanding general sociopathy/psychopathy will find the solution. One must understand exceptional sociopathy/psychopathy to even have a chance at the solution.



Not at all. You're referring to the links between pyramids and clusters of pyramids ... and that speaks to large scale organization. My last statement only alludes to the localized pyramids and their spheres of influence outside the narrative of interpyramidal links. So, if we already have the links in place, then that shows how much of the original full spectrum dominance ambition has already been met by the ambitious empire. It doesn't negate my last statement. Not one bit.



Might have to work harder. You're still veering off course in the English channel. Perhaps you should anchor the yacht, and try the rowboat? If you like, I'll tow you in behind my speedboat.



Pax

The general concept invariably leads to the exceptional concept. It is a natural evolution. The general concept of running a family household leads to the exceptional concept of running a town, or a state, or a nation, or a world. The general concept of deceiving and manipulating people leads to the exceptional concept of doing the same to a town, a state, a nation, or a world. To claim "the general concept cannot possibly achieve full spectrum dominance" is simply false. You are weaving confusion by redefining the mean of words much like Bill Clinton did with the word "is".

Sorry, Chico ... it is you who is prevaricating and being Clintonesque.

When thresholds are involved, there is clear separation between sociopathy which has no power to effect full spectrum dominance ... and sociopathy which has the power. Eddies and whirlpools, as it were. Kindergartens and colleges. As it were.

Colleges must be understood and addressed on their level. Kindergartens, likewise, on their level. That said, the sociopathy that has power to effect FSD is a different beast than the sociopathy that has not ... even though one might have evolved from the other.

Which brings us back to what I've been saying all along. Although sociopathy exists from kindergarten to college, it is not the culprit behind FSD. By contrast, the organization of sociopathy once it has crossed the threshold, is indeed, the culprit. The bankster empire has organized beyond the threshold.

Either address that fact ... or kowtow in Clintonian fashion as you have been doing up to now.


Pax

No, it's a matter of degree. Wherever you define your "threshold", there is another threshold that precedes it. No matter how you slice it, sociopathy is at the core. The problem is not bankers, or politicians, or lawyers, or priests, or CEOs -- it is sociopaths.

If you wish to say the problem is organized sociopaths, do you then define the problem as one of organization? Is the solution to ban any type of organizing? Obviously not. The problem, at its root, is the sociopaths. If you wish to prevent organized sociopaths, you:

1. identify the sociopaths and
2. prevent them from organizing.

You cannot do step 2 without first doing step 1. In both steps, the root problem is sociopaths.

Sociopathy is a problem in the human condition. But that problem doesn't become lethal (for humanity as a whole) until it is organized sufficiently. If not organized sufficiently, then there is no problem for humanity as a whole. There is still a problem ... but it is confined to the handful of individuals directly affected by the sociopath.

Sufficient organization then is the virtual threshold.

The problem then is not bankers (who are insufficiently organized and only affect communities) ... but centralized banksters (who are secretly, seditiously, pseudo-Semitically and sufficiently organized and affect whole nations).

The garden variety sociopath next door is not responsible for full spectrum dominance. Equally, an organized cartel of sociopaths working in relative secrecy, are:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalis ... feller.htm

beginExcerpt

"The Council on Foreign Relations co-sponsors an assembly Rethinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order which is attended by 65 prestigious members of government, labor, academia, the media, military, and the professions from nine countries. Later, several of the conference participants joined some 100 other world leaders for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. The Bilderbergers also exert considerable clout in determining the foreign policies of their respective governments. While at that meeting, David Rockefeller -- co-founder (with Zbigniew Brzezinski) of the Trilateral Commission -- said in a speech:

'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries."

--June 5, 1991, Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton)www.mega.nu/ampp/bilderberg.html. [Main source: Dr. Dennis Cuddy, A Chronological History of the New World Order

end


If you don't appreciate the problem for what it is, namely, one of secret organization and not one of sociopathy ... then your solutions are tailored for the wrong problem set. Sociopathy is a necessary requirement but not a sufficient one. An infinite amount of sociopathy cannot deliver full spectrum dominance if it does not organize sufficiently. Secrecy is just one of the many vehicles that provide sufficiency.




Bingo!! That's exactly what it is ... organization. Sociopaths that don't organize sufficiently don't amount to much because they don't aspire to much.



That's extreme posturing. When one loses an argument, one should lose gracefully, not travel to the extremes to find examples that may breathe life into invalid arguments.

No one is arguing here about banning the Boy Scouts. I will accept your cheap political theatre, Chico, as a full concession and retreat.



The identification is a lot more specific than "sociopaths". When it is so specific that it locates the Rothschild banking cartel and its many chameleons (including its default chameleon, the Zionists) ... to then maintain a position of "still awaiting identification" ... is tripping the light fantastic.

Perhaps the bankster cartel figured this out and is pushing ahead with full spectrum dominance largely because it knows that the resistance is sufficiently filled with fence-sitters, thumb-twiddlers, navel-gazers, etc. ... frogs in the proverbial pot of water on a thermal hike ... that full spectrum dominance is only a matter of time.


Pax

ps: The root problem may, indeed, have sociopathy as an element ... but the existing problem is a set called hyperthreshold organization.