Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Confessions of a Sociopath 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
UncleZook wrote:
The behavorial sciences are soft sciences.

All sciences are incomplete. Your argument for "soft sciences" is just more Zook BS.

UncleZook wrote:
I repeat one cannot make wholesale claims about sociopathy without understanding the genetic basis for it.

Claims based on symptoms, cause and effect, correlation, and other observable effects are not necessarily wrong simply because complete knowledge is missing. You should know better than to make flawed arguments like this.

UncleZook wrote:
And one cannot make wholesale conclusions about sociopathy in the home by studying sociopathy in the public.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are slowly coming around to my philosophy of uncertainty, at least when you perceive a selfish benefit from it. :lol:

One can come to conclusions about sociopathy by studying sociopathy wherever it can be studied. It is really a study of individuals, who have both a public and private side, and who express their sociopathy differently in each context.

UncleZook wrote:
You provide no evidence that Loba (and others) ever did research on the home variety of sociopath.

You provide no evidence that you have studied Lobaczewski or his work, other than the video you recently discovered. I believe I posted that one back on Avalon.

UncleZook wrote:
We're not at the level of understanding gene expression for the behavioral sciences, so all we have are conjectures about gender-specific gene expression.

I'm sure you would have made the same argument against Mendel's work and would have dismissed his conclusions as well. Can you not realize what a fool argument you are making?

UncleZook wrote:
Sociopathy in the general public is not sociopathy in the general private. Kapiche?

This is a misleading distinction. Sociopathy is first an individual affliction. It becomes a disease of society once sociopaths organize and dominate positions of power and control.

UncleZook wrote:
In any event, if we assume that sociopathy has a gender-specific genetic foundation, then the Y-chromosome would exclusively carry it and there will be zero female sociopaths. The fact that female socioapths exist negates the assumption.

Jesus Christ, what an oversimplification! This is based on your "complete" knowledge of gender-based genetics, after pointing out that the science of genetic expression is woefully incomplete!

UncleZook wrote:
If any of the many people who know me (on the forums and in real life) actually read some of your portrayals of me, they would be smiling and wondering if you're not typing from an institution for the mentally meringue.

It's been my pleasure to know you across several forums and via Skype, Zook, and I do smile about it quite often. And I do consider this planet, led by clandestine sociopaths, to be very much an institution for the mentally meringue. So there is some truth in your clever piece of propaganda.

UncleZook wrote:
ps: Btw, if I had been a sociopath, as you ridiculous reiterate, I wouldn't be small variety and waste my time on these forums ... not with my brain. I'd be seeking the big carrots, as it were.

Hey, most sociopaths start at the bottom and work their way up. Very few of them make it to the top.

UncleZook wrote:
ps2: Yeah, yeah ... I'm inviting myself to a charge of narcissism ... but hey, I don't think even you would begrudge me my brain.

Heck, no. All of us have a brain, and all of us use it to various degrees with various results. Sociopaths believe their brains are superior, because they see the ease with which they fool others via lies and deception. Because non-sociopaths help others via truth and honesty, they have no such foolish belief. They understand equality, the common good, cooperation, and empathy for others. It's a whole different world, completely alien to sociopaths. Likewise, the world of the sociopaths, devoid of empathy and full of deceit and manipulation, is completely alien to non-sociopaths. Sociopaths use this alienation to their advantage, hiding their deviancy behind a mask of normalcy so that they can blend in and better deceive and manipulate. The dynamics are truly fascinating, and I for one am most grateful that you share some of your time here with us.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:54 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
Ruining people. I love the way the phrase rolls around on my tongue. Ruining people is delicious. We're all hungry, empaths and sociopaths. We want to consume. Sociopaths are uniformly hungry for power. Power is all I have ever really cared about in my life: physical power, the power of being desired or admired, destructive power, knowledge, invisible influence. I like people. I like people so much that I want to touch them, mold them, or ruin them however I'd like. Not because I want to witness the results, necessarily, but simply because I want to exercise my power. The acquisition, retention, and exploitation of power are what most motivate sociopaths. This much I know. -- "Confessions of A Sociopath", page 216

If you wonder why positions of power and control are dominated by sociopaths, this is one of the reasons. Sociopaths want power. They live for it. They want to control others, even enslave them. Non-sociopaths don't want power. It's a burden for them. They just want to live in peace and in freedom. Therein lies the battle of good versus evil, sociopaths versus non-sociopaths.

In the microcosm, for example the forums, we have had Bill Ryan, King Richard, and Atticus. As we've seen over at Universal Spectrum, they are still making the same old mistakes with power hierarchies, censorship, banning, and the like. The little sociopaths vie for power and control, and the other members accept it as normal.

Returning to the book, I was reading through the one-star reviews on Amazon. These are the people that really disliked the book. Many dislike the book because they are so alienated by the author's philosophy. Here's a portion of one of those reviews describing M. E. Thomas that reminded me of someone we know at United People:

Quote:
The more you read, the more she boasts of her superior intelligence, her exploits over other people and a bit of science is tossed in here and there supporting, explaining, and in many ways excusing her deplorable behavior and often making it seem superior to the rest of the "empaths" in our society. -- source

There's simply not enough love in the world, and M. E. Thomas and Zook seem made for each other, don't you think?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
UncleZook wrote:
The behavorial sciences are soft sciences.

All sciences are incomplete. Your argument for "soft sciences" is just more Zook BS.

Not at all. Soft sciences exist and are hugely dependent on the scientist's subjective biases during investigation. There is no standard definition of sociopathy; only subjective definitions. Pursuing the genetic components of sociopathy then is pursuing those genes one suspects are responsible for the sociopathy that one has defined.

In fact, there are so many genes responsible for so much brain abnormality, that studying the brains of apparent sociopaths and looking for commonalities in their genetic profiles; equally, looking for differences from the normative genetic profile ... only gets you one leg of the four-leg table. You still can't eat dinner on it. As it were.

Even the hard sciences are suffering from credibility problems these days, e.g. free energy not being allowed inside establishment science. So if establishment science funds research for establishment ends ... well ... do I have to draw you a big coloring book about it?

The establishment once promoted a fraud in Freud, created a whole boatload of deviants almost overnight ... then used Big Pharma to solve the deviancy. Problem. Reaction. Solution.

To wit, when soft science uses selective statistics to map vaguely descriptive definitions of sociopathy ... then starts sermonizing about great gender differences in sociopathy, I begin to roll my eyes and think to myself, "Here we go again ...".

UncleZook wrote:
I repeat one cannot make wholesale claims about sociopathy without understanding the genetic basis for it.

Claims based on symptoms, cause and effect, correlation, and other observable effects are not necessarily wrong simply because complete knowledge is missing. You should know better than to make flawed arguments like this.


I understand that most phenotypes have a polygenic basis. I also understand that correlation is not causation.
That statistics can correlate magnificently given the right input parameters and crafty researchers. I also understand that in my first hand experiences, I've encountered just as many chronic female manipulators as male. Indeed, if I were given the right amount of carrot and research resources, I could probably make a case for my argument using genetic markers. But then, I wouldn't want anyone to trust my results as the gospel truth. After all, no matter how much integrity I may or may not possess, I would still be burdened by the pursuit of a soft complex science. Kapiche?

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
And one cannot make wholesale conclusions about sociopathy in the home by studying sociopathy in the public.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are slowly coming around to my philosophy of uncertainty, at least when you perceive a selfish benefit from it. :lol:


Certainty and uncertainty are not yours to own, nor any attendant philosophies. That said, I tend to vector towards certainty. And you tend to vector away from it. Classical difference between the truthseeker Yours Truly and the prevaricator Yourself.


Quote:
One can come to conclusions about sociopathy by studying sociopathy wherever it can be studied. It is really a study of individuals, who have both a public and private side, and who express their sociopathy differently in each context.


Yes, I am studying a sociopath right now. I hope your private side is not as manipulative as your public side here on the forum. Hope springs eternal.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
You provide no evidence that Loba (and others) ever did research on the home variety of sociopath.

You provide no evidence that you have studied Lobaczewski or his work, other than the video you recently discovered. I believe I posted that one back on Avalon.


I'm asking for the actual evidence. I'm not interested on he says, she says, or he says that she says. So far, all you've provided are assertions of a 10-to-1 gender ratio ... tick tock ... tick tock ...

My own intuitions and experiences with sundry sociopaths don't support that ratio. Even on these many forums, the manipulative people are about even gender-wise. Is Kerry any less a sociopath than Ryan? In bigger politics, is Hillary any less a sociopath than Bill? Or how about the new Rutgers athletic director? Face it, given the opportunity in public office, both genders rise to the occasion to exhibit sociopathic tendencies. During Loba's lifespan, women hadn't had the same public opportunities as men ... so unless he studied sociopathy in the home, the 10-to-1 ratio is expected to have a significant error associated with it.

Once again, Loba wrote Political Ponerology, not Ponerology in Home Economics ... kapiche?

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
We're not at the level of understanding gene expression for the behavioral sciences, so all we have are conjectures about gender-specific gene expression.

I'm sure you would have made the same argument against Mendel's work and would have dismissed his conclusions as well. Can you not realize what a fool argument you are making?


Mendel experimented with observable and well-defined phenotypes. He worked the genes to change the phenotypes and made valid (e.g. scientific) conclusions. The fool argument is equating the hard science of Mendel with the soft science of Loba et al. Phenotypes of pea plants have simple gene loci ... phenotypes of brain expressions have a complex network of gene loci. Behavioral sciences have a further dilemma to overcome ... the link between proteins and behavior is so tenuous, that only the soft scientists are willing to make that linkage.

Evil speaks to the soul. Until one understands the soul in genetic terms, if it is even possible, then there is no scientific case at the core, rather, a lot of duck noises claiming links between proteins and so-called evil behavior. Once again, correlation is not causation.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Sociopathy in the general public is not sociopathy in the general private. Kapiche?

This is a misleading distinction. Sociopathy is first an individual affliction. It becomes a disease of society once sociopaths organize and dominate positions of power and control.


The gender gap is quickly closing as far as women in public positions of power is concerned ... and since the system is just as corrupt today as when women were scarce on the pyramid perches (if not more corrupt) ... one really has to wonder where the 10-to-1 ratio comes from. My guess is, from grossly incomplete and inadequate science.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
In any event, if we assume that sociopathy has a gender-specific genetic foundation, then the Y-chromosome would exclusively carry it and there will be zero female sociopaths. The fact that female socioapths exist negates the assumption.

Jesus Christ, what an oversimplification! This is based on your "complete" knowledge of gender-based genetics, after pointing out that the science of genetic expression is woefully incomplete!


Here's what you wrote earlier, Chico:
If multiple surveys of sociopathic behavior show much higher incidence in males than females, how would you interpret that? Is gender based gene expression so unusual? Ummm, no.


If it is gender based, that necessarily means exclusion of one gender and inclusion of the other. But your 10-to-1 ratio implies that both sexes experience sociopathy. The better term is gender-skewed expression, where disproportionately more gene loci for sociopathy - however vague the concept and the venture into its genetic basis - exist in male genetics than in female genetics. Minor semantic point, true, but I'm trying to get some clarity from you. On the one hand, you quote a 10-to-1 ratio; on the other hand, you argue for a gender basis for sociopathy. Muddled thinking on your part. But hey, soft science requires fog to deliver its conclusions. And I want to point that out.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
If any of the many people who know me (on the forums and in real life) actually read some of your portrayals of me, they would be smiling and wondering if you're not typing from an institution for the mentally meringue.

It's been my pleasure to know you across several forums and via Skype, Zook, and I do smile about it quite often. And I do consider this planet, led by clandestine sociopaths, to be very much an institution for the mentally meringue. So there is some truth in your clever piece of propaganda.


Anything I write must be framed as propaganda, e.g. to legitimize your poinda vyoo ... I'm used to it by now.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
ps: Btw, if I had been a sociopath, as you ridiculous reiterate, I wouldn't be small variety and waste my time on these forums ... not with my brain. I'd be seeking the big carrots, as it were.

Hey, most sociopaths start at the bottom and work their way up. Very few of them make it to the top.


More muddled thinking on your part. Do they ascend to positions of power (whether on small or large pyramids, is incidental, fwiw) ... or don't they? Make up your mind. In any event, if sociopaths and empaths were dispersed throughout the pyramid in the same fashion, then the world would not be as corrupt as it is today. That fact that it is unbelievably corrupt points to sociopaths being favored in the existing system. I think if I had been a sociopath - as your limbo stick standard of identifying sociopaths, claims - then I'd have no trouble rising in the corruption.

Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of your hyperextended thesis is simply this ... I prefer escorting insects out of the home to squashing them. When I had to use insect repellant a week and a half ago to deal with an ant problem in the floor boards beneath a large window (there must have been over a thousand winged ants that had built a home within my home, leaving me no other choice but to fumigate) ... I felt emotionally down for a few days. Killing lifeforms is never good for one's karma. Thing is, if there had been only a few dozen ants, I would have let them hop on a paper towel and shook them loose outside. But these were winged ants, and far too many to handle ... so I did what I did to protect my home space. All I can do now is hope for karma relief from the Universe that had presented me with the original problem.

Really, Chico ... your lack of prescience is astounding.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
ps2: Yeah, yeah ... I'm inviting myself to a charge of narcissism ... but hey, I don't think even you would begrudge me my brain.

Heck, no. All of us have a brain, and all of us use it to various degrees with various results. Sociopaths believe their brains are superior, because they see the ease with which they fool others via lies and deception. Because non-sociopaths help others via truth and honesty, they have no such foolish belief. They understand equality, the common good, cooperation, and empathy for others. It's a whole different world, completely alien to sociopaths. Likewise, the world of the sociopaths, devoid of empathy and full of deceit and manipulation, is completely alien to non-sociopaths. Sociopaths use this alienation to their advantage, hiding their deviancy behind a mask of normalcy so that they can blend in and better deceive and manipulate. The dynamics are truly fascinating, and I for one am most grateful that you share some of your time here with us.


Well, as a long-practicing empath ... I welcome the opportunity to interface with a practicing sociopath.

Pax

ps: Btw, I don't really begrudge you your fascination with the topic of sociopathy; after all, we're all trying to figure out who we are and why we are here. I hope you find yourself soon and check yourself into a clinic. Sarcasm aside, I really do wish the best for you, Chico.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:17 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
The best part of the book ("Confessions of A Sociopath") for me was the Epilogue. In the last few pages, M. E. Thomas argues that sociopaths are not monsters, are not the embodiment of evil, but are human. For the most part, I agree. Sociopaths may have a critical deficiency of empathy (and related characteristics), but most of the other characteristics that make up a human being are still present. All of us have deficiencies, to some degree or another. It comes with natural variability and the celebration of our differences. It's also part of the way Nature works, trying everything against a background of "survival of the fittest" to see what works. Nevertheless, we do frown upon some differences, and rightfully so. We define some differences as criminal because they run contrary to our general sense of empathy (succinctly expressed by our Golden Rule -- "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.") So empathy is a way for Nature to globalize and balance self-interest so that it is properly shared among most living things, as opposed to being monopolized by one living thing. The empathetic recognize the right of most living things to survive and flourish. But Heaven help the next mosquito I see that lands on my skin in search of a meal, because I'll squash it dead. Its freedom ends where my skin begins. It seems parasites do not place much emphasis on the Golden Rule. Neither do sociopaths.

So the problem is how to deal with sociopaths. In a nutshell, people that lack empathy have no business leading or ruling others, because it impacts so many of us negatively. Unfortunately, that's what most sociopaths want to do, and they are deviously skilled at hiding their true intentions. So again, in a nutshell, they hide and they damage others. So the solution lies in identifying them so they can't hide, and disqualifying them from positions of power and control so they can't damage others.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:01 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
UncleZook wrote:
There is no standard definition of sociopathy; only subjective definitions.

Much like gravity. Physics is a "soft" science, too.

UncleZook wrote:
I've encountered just as many chronic female manipulators as male.

Sociopathy requires more than just manipulation.

UncleZook wrote:
Once again, Loba wrote Political Ponerology, not Ponerology in Home Economics ... kapiche?

Did you ever consider that if you want to study sociopaths, you need to find them in their preferred environment? You aren't going to find too many of them in the household kitchen.

UncleZook wrote:
Behavioral sciences have a further dilemma to overcome ... the link between proteins and behavior is so tenuous, that only the soft scientists are willing to make that linkage.

Genes were pretty much unknown in Mendel's time. The link between genes and physical characteristics was tenuous at that time. The science was soft. It still is.

UncleZook wrote:
... one really has to wonder where the 10-to-1 ratio comes from. My guess is, from grossly incomplete and inadequate science.

It came from observation and measurement, which I admit is grossly incomplete and inadequate science, but it's the best we've got to work with.

UncleZook wrote:
On the one hand, you quote a 10-to-1 ratio; on the other hand, you argue for a gender basis for sociopathy. Muddled thinking on your part.

I'm just reporting what many psychologists have observed. Sociopathy has genetic and environmental triggers. It is not so simple that you can explain it, or its gender frequency, with your primitive discernment, try as you might.

UncleZook wrote:
More muddled thinking on your part. Do they ascend to positions of power (whether on small or large pyramids, is incidental, fwiw) ... or don't they? Make up your mind.

Stop your idiotic binary thinking. Some ascend, some do not. So go far, some do not. I don't have to make up my mind, I just have to observe and analyze. A mind that's made up, like yours, is a closed mind.

UncleZook wrote:
Unfortunately, the Achilles Heel of your hyperextended thesis is simply this ... I prefer escorting insects out of the home to squashing them.

You exhibit some empathy -- good. That makes you less of a sociopath. It's on a sliding scale, and many factors contribute to a diagnosis. It's also a soft science, as is all science and all human endeavor based on subjective sensory input. Could I be wrong about remarking on your sociopathic tendencies? Absolutely. That's why I put it out in the public domain for peer review. The feedback I get from others suggests I am not wrong, but even then, an idea does not necessarily gain truth as it gains consensus.

UncleZook wrote:
I hope you find yourself soon and check yourself into a clinic. Sarcasm aside, I really do wish the best for you, Chico.

:lol: Thanks. I wish the best for all of us, but I recognize that we are far, far from achieving it, mainly because sociopaths are leading us. I am trying to draw attention to this most critical of problems so that many minds can address it. I am sounding the alarm, because we are all in danger.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
More consequences of sociopathy. Perhaps we are living the evolution of sociopathy? A Technocracy. The question begs, what is not corrupted by sociopaths? And if good sociopathic behavior is disguised as rational and natural?

What type of world are we living in?

Electro Magnetic Warfare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlMLqzY ... 5B238E01D9

My conclusion:
Its a three prong approach. Electro magnetic frequency intermixing/charging the chemical attack on our species.
This is then compounded with propaganda.

We are being molded...

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:39 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
magamud wrote:
What type of world are we living in?

I know the answer to that -- an insane world.

Sociopaths were once called the "morally insane". They will use all means available to deceive and manipulate others. Without moral judgment (moral judgment requires empathy, which sociopaths lack), no possibility is off-limits. They would even poison our food, water, and air. And they have.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
magamud wrote:
What type of world are we living in?

I know the answer to that -- an insane world.


Give Cupid a cookie ... for discovering and stating the obvious.

Next question: why is the world insane? Any takers?
(Free hint: engineering.)

Quote:
Sociopaths were once called the "morally insane". They will use all means available to deceive and manipulate others. Without moral judgment (moral judgment requires empathy, which sociopaths lack), no possibility is off-limits. They would even poison our food, water, and air. And they have.


Or they would just make life miserable for those unfortunate to be trapped in relationships with them ... with immediacy informing misery. In fact, most sociopaths are of this garden variety ... and lack the power to poison anything of scale, certainly not larger than their immediate target's supplies of food, water, and air.

The problem, again, has never been sociopathy in and of itself ... rather, the things that allowed sociopathy to organize (e.g. secrecy; organizational pyramid geometry; fractional reserve principle and usury; centralization, privatization and monopoly; religion and the priesthood classes; etc.). To wit, without organization, sociopaths only grow in private gardens and in garden variety.

More the further, sociopathy only came into definition once memes started taking the human species beyond the savagery of the primitive genetic jungle (where natural instincts rule, and where the mighty lions are always right ... and the meekly impalas, always wrong). In short, what was once considered instinctive and animalistic, e.g. in the original natural environment of genes and survival of the fittest ... morphed in time and came to be known as manipulative and sociopathic, e.g. in the derivative man-made environment of memes and survival of the meek.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
magamud wrote:
More consequences of sociopathy. Perhaps we are living the evolution of sociopathy? A Technocracy. The question begs, what is not corrupted by sociopaths? And if good sociopathic behavior is disguised as rational and natural?

What type of world are we living in?
[...]

My conclusion:
Its a three prong approach. Electro magnetic frequency intermixing/charging the chemical attack on our species.
This is then compounded with propaganda.

We are being molded...


Mags, are you sure you're not a Luddite as well as a tribal animal?

Blaming technology and not the controllers of the technology. Pathetic.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Confessions of a Sociopath
Quote:
Zook will now have to look an extra move or two ahead


Calling me a tribal animal are you crook, while you use binary misdirection?
Quote:
Blaming technology and not the controllers of the technology. Pathetic.

Is it really either or? How stupid do you think people are crook? Zombie land?

You divert a fundamental dynamic into its parts and blame me for not knowing this common knowledge? And you need to jump up and down like a dancing bear to distract people long enough to get them onto your carrot with you holding the stick. Again you accusing me of the exact same thing you are currently doing. You prey upon the weak who dont explore philosophy, thinking Newspeak shock and awe techniques will draw volunteered consent? You dont think people can synthesize this information? Find the Gestalt principle? Your doing classic divide and conquer.

A technocracy is in play with its human counterpart. Like a gun or word is in front of the person. You think you can separate the two?

Your going to lose...

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Last edited by magamud on Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:56 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.