No, not per my teaching. She did it on her own, because of her own realization. After she did this, I just pointed out that this is the way sociopaths behave.

You don't know the "purported" story, Zook, but that doesn't stop you from making things up to advance your sorry arguments. This is just one example of many.


Sorry, Zook, but to be suspected of being a sociopath requires that you meet specific criteria that are well documented in this forum. It is not dependent on agreeing or disagreeing with my arrangement of the world. Many others have set the criteria, not me.


Likewise, whether I am friends or not with a suspected sociopath does not enter into the diagnosis.




Yes, you've used this strategy of reflecting all my observations of you back onto me since the very beginning. If the shoe fit (meaning your accusations against me were accurate), your behavior would be justified. But if the shoe doesn't fit, then your behavior would be sociopathic. That's why I say you expose yourself.


Yes, of course, that's it! You are such a non-sociopath that it is easy to mistake you for a sociopath! Brilliant argument, Zook. Spoken like a true sociopath, once again.


Sociopathy is an emotional deficiency, a kind of mental illness. Though it seems a rather insignificant deviancy from "normal", it has managed to turn the world upside down, so that sane becomes insane. Am I awed by that? You better believe it.

Zook is suggesting that normal people can identify sociopathy and if you are curious about it there is something wrong with you. It's amazing shit...

Irrelevant. The interpretation I made is essentially correct. You are dancing around that interpretation to find a mountain on a molehill.



I never claimed to know the purported story ... I merely extracted the relevant facts from your posting. The exact details of the story may indeed vary, but that's neither here nor there. You want to pretend that I changed the relevant facts, which I did not. NIce try. But your original post contains all the information that people need to know to understand that you are prevaricating again.



Setting criteria ... and mapping criteria are two different beasts. You, Andy, and Mags are the only ones that had ever mapped the given criteria to Zook's behavior. I've never been called a sociopath except on this forum and by you three clodhoppers. Alas, maps drawn by fools are best used to locate foolsgold.




You can suspect all you want. Paranoids suspect all kinds of things. Your diagnosis of Serena's gender is probably worth more than your diagnosis of Zook's sociopathy. But that ain't worth diddly.



No strategy. Unlike you, I'm not preoccupied with attacks on the messenger. Ideas are what interest me. But I will punch back with justified reactive temper when proactive tampers are hurled in my direction. And I will attack those messengers who play games; perform psyops; promote disinformation; disseminate lies; etc. ... at the expense of truths and ideas. So you see, Chico, I only go after the messenger when they go against the observable truths. By contrast, you go after the messenger as a first resort ... or when they go against the
observable lies.

The archives here at Chico's forum is replete with your preoccupation with attacking truthseekers, using the argument of uncertainty ... and support for the observable liars, using the tactic of isolation from the preponderance as well as from the liars' associations.

In any event, my mere suspicion of your potential sociopathy has more credibility in it than your conviction of my potential sociopathy. We've already seen that you often convict on the scantiest of evidence. The only emperor here is you ... so it stands to reason that the only naked emperor is also you. You have exposed yourself plenty in the past six months or so.



Not at all ... the vast majority of people that know me would laugh at your characterization of me as a sociopath. They would also be wondering whether you are on mind-altering drugs. I'm not kidding, Chico. I wish I were.



I'm not. I'm sickened by sociopathy. Which is why I'm trying to right this world again in my own small way. And I understand that righting this world will require something beyond millennia of studying sociopathy. It's time to punch the bully in the nose.

You, of course, want to extend the study into the next millennia. Perhaps you have secret fantasies of what it would be like to live under FSD.

Pax

This is incredible stuff. He admits never knowing the story yet he can know fact to tell truth.




I can't even go on anymore. Im sorry Zook...


Chic can you explain what Zook is clamoring about with Serenas sexuality to divert from his psychopathy.



Thats some good stuff Zook. Nice swing...


Not even close Zook. You constantly miss the moral of the point, and then use your mania to cover it up. This is because you are missing some social empathic component and then sublimate that truth into the truth of your pathology. Your pathology of course portraying a man who seeks the truth.




Vast amount of your close personal people would have no idea of your sociopathy Zook, but you say it like it disqualifies you.


You would likely be just inclined to call the Homeland to purport your finding. Im sure you could do it anonymously. Andy got to that point too...


Bizarre stuff. He again suggests sociopathy is a root cause, but then does the opposite to help identify it, less cover it up.


Its a real good tell of the pathology here. He "splits hairs" over what should be a gestalt point causing delays in synthesizing points of view. This is incredibly dangerous stuff as this allows for sycophants to then redirect human centralization and awareness. He then suggests studying sociopathy is useless because its been studied for so long?

Here's Chico's purported story:
I wish I could tell you how amazing it is for me. I just had a long conversation with the girlfriend of one of my friends. I discovered a few weeks ago that he is a sociopath, though I didn't have a clue on my own. It was only through her eyes that I learned the truth. What Zook just did to me, which you quoted, was a mirror image of what my friend does to his girlfriend. It wasn't two hours ago that she pointed out how he accuses her of the identical things that he actually does! She said she could take those false accusations made against her, substitute his name in for hers, and the accusations would then be true.

The synchronicity of all this converging on my life at this time is truly awesome. I really feel blessed, like I am being showered with gifts of insight.

Essentially, the story is about projection, not sociopathy, although Chico wants to make it about sociopathy.

The girlfriend claims to be the victim of her boyfriend's false accusations against her. Insists that the boyfriend is projecting his own behavior upon her. Chico, the resident sociopathologist had already diagnosed the boyfriend's behavior as sociopathic, a few weeks earlier. Yet it wasn't only two hours ago that she confides to Chico about the projection. So what do we have? Well, we have the girlfriend offering a perspective of projection. But anyone can project behaviors unto others ... it doesn't take a sociopath to do that. But that doesn't stop Chico from identifying projection as a property of sociopaths. No doubt he tells the girlfriend that the boyfriend is a sociopath. Chico doesn't have much tact when it comes to such matters, you iknow. If you so much as pick your nose with the wrong finger you become a sociopath in Chico's World. In any event, the reasonable expectation is that the girlfriend will now go around thinking that her boyfriend is a sociopath, thanks to Chico, the friend of a man in a relationship with a woman, a relationship which must now navigate a new term in their personal vocabulary: sociopath.

My quick parsing may have overlooked the exactness of the smaller details ... but it pegged the important stuff right on the sweet spot.

The important facts to be considered here is who initiated the manipulations and projections (the boyfriend) ... who discovered them (the girlfriend) ... and who categorized them for her (Chico, the friend of the boyfriend).

That said, how does this apply to the standoff between Chico and Zook? Well, clearly, Chico had initiated the manipulations and projections. The archives attest to this fact. Take them all the way back to the sockpuppet era even. He was always playing a game. And he was always projecting the behaviors he has accused me of. If he thought that consolidating forces with a banana plant and a tribal animal would allow him to rewrite history, the archives stand in his way.

By contrast, I'm a straight shooting son of a hitch (Mom and Dad, circa May of 1962). I don't do games.

And clearly, I had discovered his projections and continue to do so each time he calls me a sociopath. Where the two cases differ, is that Chico has not yet categorized the behavior of the person who initiated the manipulations and deceptions, namely, himself. For there is no other initiator here. So the story lacks value as it applies to the standoff between Chico and Zook (with Zook as the sociopath). It does carry value if we have Chico as the sociopath, but like I previously stated, I need more evidence to make that case.

Right now, the two most plausible arguments remain that Chico is either a gatekeeper working for the bankster empire ... or a hapless sot with piss poor discernment who is lashing out in frustration by calling anyone and anything that he finds disagreeable to be sociopathic. I think the word sociopath needs to be reserved for those that are truly sociopaths ... else it cheapens discourse. But hey, that's just me.



I never asked you to come this far. You're wasting everybody's time with your selective trivial understanding of what Chico wrote.



Watch the videos that Chico provides. Or keep on pretending to be affronted. Your choice, Mags.



Listen, the day a tribal animal lectures anyone about empathy is the day that Hell freezes over. And I'm not talking Jews, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Teletubbies and what not, Mags ... I'm talkng about the Zionist-dense bankster tribe which includes low level fifth column minions in it, like yourself.

Go ahead, prove me wrong and I'll retract the label of tribal animal. Even apologize for using it. Demonstrate a capacity to understand who Daniel Ellsberg really is and the specific interests that he is really working for. You can't, can you? Or you won't. And you have the audacity to talk about morality with me? Sheeeeeeeeeeesh.

I know empathy. Empathy is a good friend of mine. And son, you're no empathy.



Just because Chico advances an agenda to label Zook a sociopath, evidence notwithstanding, doesn't mean the titwits have to suckle on it. Well, wait a minute, I guess it does.



Nice try. In any event, those who can read are not buying your not so subtle insinuations.



Go and read all the posts where I talk about the futility of chasing the unsolvable ... while ignoring FSD which is almost upon us.



Yes, useless for the time allocation we have remaining. Knowing sociopaths is not enough. They must be defeated. That said, I'm not even sure sociopaths rule the roost. Go back and read my quad-category conjecture of sociopaths, nonempaths, nonsociopaths, empaths ... in it, I argue that those who run the big show are most likely to be mechanistic, e.g. nonempaths. Sociopaths tend to be vampiric and cannot be expected to organize anything of scale.


Pax

As long as there is a big enough host the parasites will continue to gorge and not attack each other. Your a dimwit Zook. You try to obfuscate the moral point by giving some delusion of moral high ground, stamp your feet, jump up and down and fool people to your ponzie scheme of pathology. It's pathetic shit.

Your a fish out of water.

Prove me wrong, Mags.

Daniel Ellsberg. Who is he? What has he done? Is he a moral individual?

Let's see what you know about morality.

Pax

Zook, can you not see your obvious hypocrisy? How will we defeat sociopaths if we do not know how to recognize them? If learning how to identify sociopaths is of no value, given the limited time before FSD (which is bogus as FSD has been with us for some time), then why is recognizing Daniel Ellsberg important? He's only one individual. How will spending time on him prevent FSD?

Really, Zook, you are so lost it is amazing. I'm glad you can at least provide us with a taste of what humanity is up against. Thank you for continuing to expose Chicodoodoo as whatever it is you think will advance your online stature. Andy tried the same thing, and he was much better placed than you for such an operation, and look how well that worked for him. Don't you think you should try another approach?

There is no hypocrisy in my exposition of the morally-corrupted, Chico. However, there is indeed hypocrisy in your stated claim of being an empath ... and your actual behavior of attempting to scuttle identification of those working in cahoots with the ruling nonempaths/sociopaths. A real empath works against ruling nonempathy/sociopathy ... not give it safe harbor.



Recognizing Daniel Ellsberg's morality is an important piece of the tapestry ... for he is intimately involved with two false flag operations that bookended the genocide of the Vietnamese people ... and he is indirectly involved with two others, one of which (Wikileaks) is responsible for informing a coverup of the ongoing genocide of the Muslim people (e.g. by redirecting blame away from the culpable Zionists that carried out the 9/11/2001 catalytic event to reshape middle east geopolitics in advance of FSD).

Spending time on Daniel Ellsberg is crucial because spending time on Daffy Duck or Serena Williams gender, isn't going to bring the masses to critical awareness. I've already outlined my argument of critical awareness in other threads ... it is the only bloodless chance we have of changing this world. After all, war (and bloodshed) rely on killing truth as a first casualty. But if we can keep truth alive for the people, then the people will not be so easily coerced in killing each other for the ruling nonempaths/sociopaths. I'm surprised that I even have to explain this to anyone of genuine truthseeking stripe. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised.



Not at all. Andy is a minnow in the truth waters. Promoting a minnow over a great blue whale ... is your not so subtle attempt at turning the debate on its head, a debate you had long been outclassed in. I think you know it. I definitely know it. And I'm confident that the objective readers that visit your forum know it.

As for what we are up against ... you, the bankster apologist with the 50/50 mixer, provide ample evidence of what we - the people - are up against. But as long as the people have eternal vigilance, you'll amount to nothing more than a gnat that annoys the path to the truths. So be it.


Pax

Sorry, Sherlock, but there is nothing a sociopath fears more than being exposed and becoming transparent to his victims. You are not the one working to expose sociopaths, and never have been, because it is against your personal interests, for obvious reasons. Rather, you have been doing everything in your power to sabotage my information about sociopaths:

"They've been around for millennia, there's no time to prevent Full Spectrum Dominance, forget sociopaths, look at Daniel Ellsberg!"


Granted, a thread is an important piece of the tapestry, but it doesn't tell you about who wove the tapestry, and why.


Not necessarily. Bringing critical awareness to the masses requires them to become aware of the deception being perpetrated against them. For the sheeple, the Followers who constitute 80% of the population, it might be more productive to expose Barack or Michelle Obama than to expose Daniel Ellsberg. The Followers are more likely to "wake up" if their current idolized leader is exposed, than if some unknown (to them) historical journalist is exposed.

Really, Zook, you don't seem to think anything through properly.




Overconfidence was always your strength and your weakness.