The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: Twilight of the Psychopaths
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Twilight of the Psychopaths
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fr...02073.html
by Dr. Kevin Barrett

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” – John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman

When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.

Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.

Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.

The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:

1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers;

2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits);

3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.

Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.
Political Satire


Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)

Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.

The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.

How could that be? In Political Ponerology, Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths.

So-called conspiracy theorists, some of whom deserve the pejorative connotation of that much-abused term, often imagine that secret societies of Jews, Jesuits, bankers, communists, Bilderbergers, Muslim extremists, papists, and so on, are secretly controlling history, doing dastardly deeds, and/or threatening to take over the world. As a leading “conspiracy theorist” according to Wikipedia, I feel eminently qualified to offer an alternative conspiracy theory which, like the alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11, is both simpler and more accurate than the prevailing wisdom: The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.

Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as that power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld—the criminal syndicate or overlapping set of syndicates that lurks above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it. In 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, we are seeing the final desperate power-grab or “endgame” (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men, economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops experts and PR specialists—in short, the whole sick crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared. It was their terror of losing control that they projected onto the rest of us by blowing up the Twin Towers and inciting temporary psychopathic terror-rage in the American public.

Why does the pathocracy fear it is losing control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, “If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” Given that Bush is reported to have participated in parties where child prostitutes were sodomized and otherwise abused, among his many other crimes, his statement to McClendon should be taken seriously.

Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others’ emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.

Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the normal human being — a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish — militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely as possible.

Above all, we need to inform the public about how psychopaths co-opt and corrupt normal human beings. One way they do this, is by manipulating shame and denial — emotions foreign to psychopaths but common and easily-induced among normals.

Consider how gangs and secret societies (psychopaths’ guilds in disguise) recruit new members. Some criminal gangs and satanist covens demand that candidates for admission commit a murder to “earn their stripes.” Skull and Bones, the Yale-based secret society that supplies the CIA with drug-runners, mind-rapists, child abusers and professional killers, requires neophytes to lie naked in a coffin and masturbate in front of older members while reciting the candidate’s entire sexual history. By forcing the neophyte to engage in ritualized behaviour that would be horrendously shameful in normal society, the psychopaths’ guild destroys the candidate’s normal personality, assuming he had one in the first place, and turns the individual into a co-opted, corrupt, degraded shadow of his former self — a manufactured psychopath or psychopath’s apprentice.

This manipulation of shame has the added benefit of making psychopathic organizations effectively invisible to normal society. Despite easily available media reports, American voters in 2004 simply refused to see that the two major-party presidential candidates had lain naked in a coffin masturbating in front of older Bonesmen in order to gain admission to Skull and Bones and thus become members of the criminal overworld. Likewise, many Americans have long refused to see that hawkish elements of the overworld, operating through the CIA, had obviously been the murderers of JFK, MLK, RFK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X, ChÈ, AllendÈ, Wellstone, Lumumba, Aguilera, Diem, and countless other relatively non-psychopathic leaders. They refuse to see the continuing murders of millions of people around the world in what amounts to an American holocaust. They refuse to see the evidence that the psychopaths’ guilds running America’s most powerful institutions use the most horrific forms of sexualized abuse imaginable to induce multiple-personality-disorder in child victims, then use the resulting mind-control slaves as disposable drug-runners, prostitutes, Manchurian candidates, and even diplomatic envoys. And of course they refuse to see that 9/11 was a transparently obvious inside job, and that their own psychopath-dominated military-intelligence apparatus is behind almost every major terrorist outrage of recent decades.

All of this psychopathic behaviour at the top of the social hierarchy is simply too shameful for ordinary people to see, so they avert their gaze, just as wives of husbands who are sexually abusing their children sometimes refuse to see what is happening in plain view. If deep, deep denial were a river in Egypt, American citizens’ wilful blindness would be more like the Marianas Trench.

But thanks to the power of the internet, people everywhere are waking up. The only obvious non-psychopath among Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul, also happens to be the only candidate in either party with significant grassroots support.

If “love” is embedded in the Revolution Ron Paul heralds, that is because Dr. Paul — a kindly, soft-spoken physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies — implicitly recognizes that government is the invention and tool of psychopaths, and therefore must be strictly limited in scope and subjected to a rigorous system of checks and balances, lest the psychopath’s tools, fear and hatred, replace love as the glue that binds society together.

The decline in militarism since World War II in advanced countries, the spread of literacy and communications technology, and the people’s growing demands for a better life, together represent a gathering force that terrifies the pathocracy, (those alternately competing-then-cooperating gangs of psychopaths who have ruled through lies, fear and intimidation since the dawn of so-called civilization).

Since nuclear weapons have made war obsolete, the pathocracy is terrified that its favourite social control mechanism — ritualized mass slaughter — is increasingly unavailable. And if war was the great human tragedy, the pathocrats’ pathetic attempt at a war-substitute — the transparently phoney “war on terror” — is repeating it as sheerest farce.

Truly, we are witnessing the twilight of the psychopaths. Whether in their death throes they succeed in pulling down the curtain of eternal night on all of us, or whether we resist them and survive to see the dawn of a civilization worthy of the name, is the great decision in which all of us others, however humbly, are now participating.

About the writer:
Dr. Kevin Barrett, co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth, LINK, has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. Barrett became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and conducting follow-up research that convinced him Griffin had accurately summarized evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job.

In the summer of 2006, Republican state legislators and Fox newscasters demanded that Barrett be fired from his job teaching an introductory Islam class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but the University refused to buckle, and Barrett got high marks from his students. He has appeared in several documentary films, lectures widely on 9/11 and hosts three radio programs on three different patriot networks.
to me this is the definition of society not civilization. And we've been here in the States anyway, long diagnosed as having - being a narcissistic sociopathic 'society'... nothing civilized about narcissistic socio/psycho pathic behaviors.

Quote:Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.

Johnny boy got the terminology correct in the first word of this article.
There's a reason I call it 'syphilisation'.

We were better off in the Stone Age.

As soon as time travel is invented, l want a one-way ticket to the neolithic.


Sayonara™ <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hi.gif" alt="Hi" title="hi" />
Quote:"The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.

Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as that power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld—the criminal syndicate or overlapping set of syndicates that lurks above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it."

Great article SJ !!! Applause
That the micro is so aptly matching the macro shouldn't
be a surprise any longer...

Wayha, who do you think will be left in your stone age world
the psychopaths or the healthy normals???
Who do you think will be the likely survivors?

On another note, I happened to read this yesterday, kind of fits
by Laura Nader who is a a Professor of Anthropology
at the University of California, Berkeley and quite
as an interesting an activist as her brother Ralph..

Laura Nader: Speaking out
When silence is part of the problem

Profile by Gamal Nkrumah

"What was proven in the last election is that the United States is not an electoral democracy, by which I mean the two parties' stranglehold on power has made it impossible for other voices to be heard."

The statement is typical of Laura Nader, a woman who could never be accused of mincing her words, certainly not when talking about the American political establishment.

Yet she is exactly the kind of person with whom it would be churlish to mind being stuck in a corner with at a party.

Dignified and unassuming, Nader exudes a natural charm. Her simple and sombre-coloured clothes hint at a practical and down-to-earth personality. Yet she speaks with authority.

"Americans need to start practising democracy," she insists.

Nader, who is in Cairo at the invitation of the American University, spins a gripping philosophy out of a stack of forgotten facts.

"Corporate secular fundamentalism shares some of the traits of religious fundamentalism: conviction of righteousness, certainty of the truth, intolerance of difference, evangelising zeal and a paranoid mindset."

"The term corporate fundamentalism is used to describe an agenda with totallising tendencies through advertising, television, the Internet, billboards, the polluting of public spaces," she explains.

"The marketing onslaught targeting young people in the US operates 24 hours a day, every day, and is driven by tens of billions of dollars in sales and profits. American parents have neither the resources nor the organisations to protect their children from this commercial onslaught even if they want to."

Nader becomes animated in her eagerness to explain the philosophy behind her thinking. America, she argues, has not changed much since the days of slavery.

"Washington DC Library of Congress before a meeting. A group of people, all black, set up the room. Then they leave and in come the academics and writers, all white. What has changed since the Civil War? Nothing has changed. The black people who set up the conference room are not slaves, but they're still doing the tasks that slaves did."

It is a telling anecdote, delivered by a woman who has no patience for those she regards as stooges.

"The Black Caucus are Zionists. They are one generation away from civil rights and they have forgotten what civil rights are."

Condoleezza Rice is, in Nader's words, a "power slave".

So what can be done?

For Nader, academic activism assumes centre stage.

"In a course I teach on controlling processes, the students are assigned a term paper in which they are encouraged to locate a controlling process in their everyday life and describe how that control works."

Advocating anthropology as a vehicle for political thinking, Nader encourages her students to challenge assumptions.

"Our founding fathers placed the war-making power in the hands of Congress where decisions could be openly debated. Slowly we are coming to realise that a dozen unelected men and one woman are making decisions that can compromise the lives of American fighting forces, the lives of the Iraqis we say we want to liberate, the future of American schools, healthcare, our relations with old allies -- the costs of war are unfathomable."

"Today we face the consequences of the unilateral invasion of a sovereign country, which at the time of the invasion posed no threat to the US," she stresses. "The Bush administration is blind to facts in Iraq."

In the academic world, especially as regards the Middle East, American foreign policy and the designs of the Bush administration have caused much scratching of heads. What, I wondered, would be Laura Nader's take on the post 9/11 world?

Nader didn't wait for my questions before proceeding to outline her political outlook.

"Many people don't vote in the US because there is not much difference between the two parties. My father used to say, 'one tree and two branches'."

::

She lambastes "the terrible tyranny that is typified by American business", quoting the British anthropologist Sir Edmund Leach. She characterises "corporate fundamentalism" as being brutally indifferent to anything that threatens profits as it entreats most of the world's people to "accept an unjust economic order in which they have no power, promising rewards in some rosy future".

Drug companies, which are "redefining the way psychiatric medicine is taught and practised", are a particular bugbear.

She recounts the example of one of her students whose prize- winning essay focussed on how educational authorities connived with pharmaceutical companies to impose anti-depressants such as Prozac on students. She maintained that she was simply going through a difficult time and just needed to speak with someone, yet the pressure to prescribe anti- depressants was enormous.

"I'm concerned about the lack of critical thinking among young people in particular. At Berkeley they can easily be picked up by cults."

"Most students are not savvy. They have no critical judgement. I started a new course on controlling processes. It is a very popular course. I ask my students to list the controlling forces they see at work. I urge them to look carefully around them in search of these controlling processes."

"One student wanted to know why the system wanted her to be happy. She was put on prozac by the university authorities. The system had a vested interest in seeing her happy all the time, even if this happiness was artificial and drug- induced.

Why do we have to be happy? Nobody is watching out for the young. They really are lost."

For Nader the moral of the story is clear -- it underlines "the alliance between pharmaceutical companies and the educational and political realms which teaches children to depend on drugs to fit in with what is acceptable behaviour in society."

"It is," says Nader, "a form of social standardisation."

And the antidote to manipulation by governments, or big business, she argues, is for students and employees not to be obedient and subservient.

"We live in a time heavy with ideology and propaganda, so it behooves all of us to question accepted wisdoms, in the academy especially."

::

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/726/profile.htm

Very interesting woman ~ on control prcesseses
http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/C ... _Nader.asp
Quote:I happened to read this yesterday, kind of fits
by Laura Nader who is a a Professor of Anthropology
at the University of California, Berkeley
Man oh man, did she stray off the Reservation, or what?
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
I had never been introduced to her before
I am profoundly impressed by her life work in getting to know her..


..."Nobody is giving the sort of positive vision. You have the books called "Nuclear Nightmares" and the movies and so forth to tell you how terrible it's going to be afterwards; we won't be around to see it. But nobody is really developing a vision of the advantages of a peaceful society. In fact, they're making the opposite argument that there are more advantages to being a warring society and having a war economy than to have a peace economy. There's simply no evidence for that."
Laura Nader


Nader:Well, conventional war may have some of the same elements that lead us to a nuclear war: greed, ideological differences, the need for new territories either for markets, commercial markets, or literally new land areas, the push towards increased population, and what to do, and so forth. Those may be the same for conventional war or modern day nuclear, but the difference is that the consequences are so dramatically extraordinary for nuclear that if we think of the reasons that take us to war resulting in the same consequences, both in conventional and in nuclear war, it's an erroneous and self-deceptive reasoning. I think that when we're talking about conventional war, we're talking about possibilities for one side or the other surviving, and when we're talking about nuclear war, we're having to address the question of whether it's war or suicide.

Whiteley:In applying this concept of drift to peace in a nuclear age, you've indicated that not only is it a series of unplanned decisions that add up, but there are at least three concepts that help one understand how we got to be where we are. The first was institutionalized insanity. What is that?

Nader:Well, I ran across the thought of institutionalized insanity - the idea came to me as I participated in panels, government commissions, and so forth - and watched how small insulated groups - particularly small insulated groups that are same sex (in this case usually male) how they operate to develop a culture of the group that if the outside were to look into that group they'd say these people are absolutely mad. So that when they bring in an odd scientist or two to look at what they're doing, the person may say well, this is absolutely insane, you shouldn't be doing this. But it is not considered insane by the group simply because they're so well-insulated.

Let me give you an example from an area that's not directly on war, but tangential to it. When I was participating in the energy research it became very clear that the people on those committees were only intent on talking about one kind of energy form; they were talking about nuclear energy. People simply did not talk about alternatives to nuclear. And if you did, you were thought to be aberrant, odd, and under some circumstances, maybe insane yourself. So insulated groups, usually of same sex, that do not allow outsiders in to effect or question, very often evolve a kind of behavior that I would call institutionalized insanity, like thinking we're going to win a nuclear war.

Whiteley:Now, within a democracy, theoretically, groups such as that cannot be in dominant positions of power; that it's the people themselves who grant the power to their representatives to reflect their wishes. What is not working the way it should?

Nader:Well, what is not working is that we have specialization in a modern complex society. We have the need for secrecy that accompanies sometimes this specialization that not only leaves out the population that should be monitoring their congressmen and so forth, but it leaves out the Congress. So that decisions that may be generated from the executive branch in a democratic society are not only not being scrutinized by the people, but they're not even being scrutinized by our elected representatives. And this suggests of course that we need a new distribution of responsibility for looking at preventing dangerous directions towards nuclear war, or even towards conventional war from happening.

Nader:Organizations tend towards insisting upon their own survival. The goal of the organization becomes surviving, and so if you link the necessity for an organization like the DOD or any Washington agency to survive, with the insulation of the organization, then you have the institutionalized insanity coupled with the organizational survival issues that lead people to act in ways that they would normally perhaps not act. It is a generally accepted fact that organizations, no matter what their original goal, will end up with the primary goal being the survival of that organization. And this is why in Washington you often see agencies that should be cooperating not cooperating, because they're both out to maintain the survival of a particular organization.

Whiteley:Okay. A third basic concept for you is the notion of short-term self-interest.

Nader: Yes, short-term self-interest - here I'm referring to a view, say in the defense industry, that the way we're going to run the economy in this country is to stimulate the development of weaponry, and this is how to stimulate the economy. I think this is a very short-term view because it does not take into consideration what the basic issues are. I would say that in this country we never really worked out a solution to the Great Depression, except to go to war.

Whiteley:You've written about the problem of ideology in the nuclear age as an additional problem to be overcome in seeking peace. What do you mean?

Nader:Well, people often ask why is it that the USSR and the USA, in this case, are opposing one another when both countries are extraordinarily rich in natural resources. Neither country needs extra territory. There doesn't seem to be the usual reasons for the necessity for these two countries to oppose each other unless you begin to look at the ideology. And the ideology is mutually exclusive, one of the other, so that the democratic ideology says that everybody should have the same kind of government that we have, and we're even talking now about the kind of government that we should force upon the Soviets. And similarly, the Soviets have an ideology to say that the communist ideology should spread throughout the world. And you find here opposed two ideologies that refuse to allow for both ideologies to exist in the world. So it's a war of ideology.

Whiteley:In one of your papers on the topic of peace, you began with the notion of gender, that the fact that it's almost all men associated with the defense establishment is an essential part of the problem. What is the evidence for that?
Quote:
...it's very important for men to exhibit their prowess and their courage and their strength in a context of warfare. If you look around the world and you look at matrilineal societies where women are more predominant, there seems to be less of a need for men in matrilineal societies to take that macho role.


Nader:Well, I think that we need to look at that in order to discover what the implications are, the significance of the fact that the people who make decisions about war in our country and in the Soviet Union, for example, are males. In our country they're white males, usually white middle-age males. These two countries share in common a patriarchal heritage. European society is the base of patrilineal, patriarchal societies which means in terms of war that it's very important for men to exhibit their prowess and their courage and their strength in a context of warfare. If you look around the world, and you look at matrilineal societies where women are more predominant, there seems to be less of a need for men in matrilineal societies to take that macho role.

But it still remains for us to explain why it is that these organizations, in all of the Superpowers that lead us to the brink of warfare, or drift us to war, are usually males. In our own country, I've been concerned when I meet up with the military that they're also depressed males. This is something that should be addressed, and it should be seriously examined to see what the consequences are. I think we've refused to look at the maleness or the femaleness. Now this isn't to say that males are more prone to war and women are not prone to war. I want to make that clear. It's to say that there is a male construct that forces upon men, in this case, a way of behaving that is part of what I call "the drift to war."

Whiteley:As you have examined "the drift toward war" in other societies, and anthropologists have studied those societies that tend to be more peaceful than those societies that aren't, what have you learned?

Nader:Well, I learned something from the first fieldworker I ever sent out. I was working myself among the Zapotec Indians of southern Mexico in a village which was renowned for being peaceful. There was very little homicide or violence of any dramatic sort in that village. And I assumed at the beginning that this was characteristic of small face-to-face societies. The first fieldworker I trained I sent to New Guinea, to the highlands of Indonesian New Guinea, and he was working with a population of the same size that was prone to violence, and prone to escalation to war. And so right there we had an interesting test of the hypothesis: if smallness has anything to do with whether you're violent or not. And I think scale does not, at that level, have anything to do with whether a society is violent. So I began to look at what made his society violent, and what made the Zapotec peaceful. And I looked at such things as what I call cross-linkage, which is that among the Zapotec they have a number of ways which link the people, cross-link them much as the Swiss are cross-linked, as an example of a society that is cross-linked.

Whiteley:What does that mean?

Nader: That means that in Switzerland you have German-speaking Catholics and French-speaking Catholics, so you don't divide the Catholics and the Protestants into opposing groups because they're linked through language. The opposite would be an example such as the Canadian example, where you have English-speaking Protestants and French-speaking Catholics, and where you have that kind of a dual division, you are prone toward hostility and oppositions. In the New Guinea village that Klaus-Friedrich Koch studied they have this kind of an opposition and they had no possibility for third parties, so there were no judges in that town that could hear conflicts. Immediately when a conflict occurred between two parties it escalated because there was no third party for it to go to. So I'm very interested in the structure - the internal structure of a society, as that makes a group prone towards war or away from war. Some people think, for example, that the nation state is an inherently unstable type of organization that is part of a "drift towards war." Because when you have in either country internal problems, the temptation to solve internal problems by outward attack is there to be used by anybody who wants to use it.

Whiteley:In a nuclear age where there's very little margin for error in nations' vital self-interest, we do not have an effective rule-of-law on a world basis. Any state can say I will not allow "X" dispute to be heard by the World Court. Now, are there learnings from anthropology about how you can preserve one's national independence on vital matters, and have more viable peaceful ways of resolving conflicts between sovereign entities on the other?

Nader:I suppose this is where you have to develop non-national cooperation, the so-called people-to-people movements in the different nations, that begin to create the forces necessary to build a different kind of ethic. That is a long-term device and we're at the brink, and so we also have to accompany such devices with short-term incentives. And I am increasingly drawn to the arguments of Seymour Melman on economic incentives to draw people away from nuclear war or the use of societal resources for warring purposes; that somehow, we seem to be on a suicide bent. If you were to look at what's happening in the Superpowers as a social scientist, I think that we really are no longer talking about war, and therefore can't talk about using law or the usual ways as the sole direction to trying to do something about it.

When you have this kind of technology which is bound to obliterate the producers of it and the consumers - we're all consumers of the technology - you're just - you have to look at things that happen like Jonestown. Jonestown happened in the United States, and they were educated people who followed him, and they all died. They thought they were participating in a renewed view of - participating in a religion that would renew them in the world, but they all followed Jones to their death in Jonestown. And I think the fact that this happened in and with Americans is like - it's a signal to us to really think about whether the question of nuclear war is about patriotism, or whether it's not really a death wish.

from an interview with Laura
http://members.fortunecity.com/lohan/in ... nader.html
Quote:Wayha, who do you think will be left in your stone age world
the psychopaths or the healthy normals???
Who do you think will be the likely survivors?

Here's the thing:

SJ's article was great, but l think it is too biased towards pacifism, which is unnatural and therefore unhealthy.

Also from my point of view, it is not a matter of psychopaths creating syphilisation as much as it is the opposite -

Syphilisation is unnatural, and creates psychopaths, who in turn infect it like a virus for the means of perpetuating their psychopathy.


Simple version: how would cromagnon man react to The Rat™? He'd club her like a baby seal.

Psychopath problem solved, and within the parameters of Natural Law, which JMO is the healthy way.
Quote:...it's very important for men to exhibit their prowess and their courage and their strength in a context of warfare. If you look around the world and you look at matrilineal societies where women are more predominant, there seems to be less of a need for men in matrilineal societies to take that macho role.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lol.gif" alt="Lol" title="lol" />

How well do you know your frontier history?

The women could be just as vicious as the men. Read about Queen Esther some time for only one example.
Quote:[quote author="hrm"]

Wayha, who do you think will be left in your stone age world
the psychopaths or the healthy normals???
Who do you think will be the likely survivors?

Here's the thing:

SJ's article was great, but l think it is too biased towards pacifism, which is unnatural and therefore unhealthy.

Also from my point of view, it is not a matter of psychopaths creating syphilisation as much as it is the opposite -

Syphilisation is unnatural, and creates psychopaths, who in turn infect it like a virus for the means of perpetuating their psychopathy.


Simple version: how would cromagnon man react to The Rat™? He'd club her like a baby seal.

Psychopath problem solved, and within the parameters of Natural Law, which JMO is the healthy way.[/quote]


I get it..
Thinking I better be standing beside some cromag when TSHTF
but then again, are you saying that ancient man prior to civilization
failed completely to display psychopathic behavior...

Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans?
and my note: for the purpose of this convo
Is cannibalism a early indicator of psychopathology in HUmans ??!!?


for National Geographic News
April 10, 2003

Summary: Genetic markers commonly found in modern humans all over the world could be evidence that our earliest ancestors were cannibals, according to new research. Scientists suggest that even today many of us carry a gene that evolved as protection against brain diseases that can be spread by eating human flesh.

Fried human, barbecued human, broiled human, raw human…were these items on the menu of the day for our prehistoric ancestors? Quite possibly, according to genetic researchers.

Scientists from England, Australia, and Papua New Guinea say that cannibalism is the most likely explanation for their discovery that genes protecting against brain diseases that can be contracted by eating contaminated flesh have long been spread throughout the world.

A growing body of evidence, such as piles of human bones with clear signs of human butchery, suggests cannibalism was widespread among ancient cultures. The discovery of this genetic resistance, which shows signs of having spread as a result of natural selection, supports the physical evidence for cannibalism, say the scientists.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nibal.html
Quote:
Quote:...it's very important for men to exhibit their prowess and their courage and their strength in a context of warfare. If you look around the world and you look at matrilineal societies where women are more predominant, there seems to be less of a need for men in matrilineal societies to take that macho role.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lol.gif" alt="Lol" title="lol" />

How well do you know your frontier history?

The women could be just as vicious as the men. Read about Queen Esther some time for only one example.

Now be taken Laura's quotes outta context Wayha
I know women can be tough with the knife to the gut
The author was speaking of the contemporary corporate shills and guv types now
running the show, not of individuals..

Wasn't intended to be a invitation to bash either sex
but as a correlation to the original post of SJ's
Quote:I get it..
Thinking I better be standing beside some cromag when TSHTF
but then again, are you saying that ancient man prior to civilization
failed completely to display psychopathic behavior...

Not at all.

But it wasn't the norm like it is now.
Wahya, Your view is always appreciated at least to me.

We know history is rewritten by those in power..

Historically psychopaths have always been in power. Only those who have that desire to violently control others get that power.

Normal peeps just do not have the desire to control others, but I am considered abnormal Rofl
Quote:Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.
There is no Civilization without agriculture! And people didn't practice agriculture in a big way until after the last Ice Age...around 7000 years ago. Hunter/gatherers didn't need slaves, they only had to work to feed and clothe themselves for a few hours a day. Agriculture is the worst mistake our species ever made.
Why, yes I.M., yes you are !
Let's agoagathring the nutts and berries in de wild

c'mon Janey...

and remember, do not speak of Bush in a personal manner *shakes finger*

Vanity and the Psychopath - a brief note on the tying together the concepts of vanity, the ego, Narcissus, role play and the social aberration of the psychopath after an inspiring watch of "The Devil's advocate". In this film the main character, Kevin (Keanu Reeves) is a defense attorney who relentlessly adheres to the strategy of winning. As his defense cases progress he does not shy away from stepping over ethical roadblocks that are thrown on his way. Losing is not an option to Kevin, under any circumstances. The underlying motive seems to be that his ego will not allow loss (of face) or defeat (of any kind). In general, to a lot of people, the ego seems to be reluctant to allow you to forgive yourself in the case you are responsible for loss or failure. When it comes to personal suffering it's always easier to blame others rather than taking a close look at yourself first. And yet the ability to forgive oneself is crucial to functioning as a real or authentic human being because if you cannot forgive yourself you will not be able to forgive others and, as such, this is the basis for the development of spite and bitterness towards the fellow human being. To me, the obsession of winning appears to be a creative recipe for the psychopath: someone who has no qualms about, or conscience problems over, hurting other people (or worse) as long as getting higher up the food chain or pecking order is the perceived desired goal. Kevin is a person who worships an image (courtesy of his ego) he himself adopted rather than seeking to nurture and developing the pure authentic self, who has unique individualistic aspirations. He is consumed by clinging on to this image of unconditional winning cost what it may. It is like the story of Narcissus who was so mesmerized by and hopelessly in love with his own mirror image and his warped mind drove him to kill himself upon discovery the image was illusory. It was his own Ego that deluded and deceived him to the point of fatality. In similar vein, as portrayed by the movie, narcissism would cause Kevin's demise, if he indeed were to choose to take on the image of a ruthless wanna-be winner. Consequently, the movie struck me as an alarming wake-up call to humanity. The message being: We stand to become psychopathic monsters in our obsessive reverence of images of vanity. In other words, by being both prevalent and detrimental, it is vanity that is killing and tormenting humanity. "Vanity is definitely my favourite sin", admits the Devil (Al Pacino) in the closing scene of the Devil's Advocate, after he successfully placed a new strangle-hold on Kevin who just previously backed away from a possible psychopathic future upon taking on the role of a relentless and unscrupulous attorney. The wry and sad message to humanity seemingly being that vanity and happiness are but mutually exclusive concepts. Is it a coincidence that the most wealthy and the most powerful people around are also likely to be the most vain and biggest snobs around? Even these people are caught into the type of spiritually immature, myopic and psychopathic role play that unfortunately seems to be the default way of being to a lot of people throughout all strata of society. Being an authentic human being, who truly lives a live of truth and as such is untroubled by an artificial and possible psychopathic role play, must be quite a rare phenomenon in this perverted and corrupted world we live in. It is as if those who accumulated the most wealth and power are being tormented by the heavy burden of maintaining the inflated protective Ego that comes with it. The more you have the more you have to exert yourself trying to hold on to it. Fear of losing kicks in not seldom to the point of paranoia. Fear also easily leads to ("defensive") aggression and disproportionate fear (paranoia) may trigger adoption of irresponsible and ethically challenging protective measures, especially if the paranoiac is also a wealthy megalomaniac. As such, the paranoiac and the psychopath may not be too far apart on the behavioristic spectrum. It seems that poor people aren't the only kind of people who suffer after all. Perhaps this forms a basis of envy in which the rich and powerful seek to persecute and crush those who are satisfied with less and live a life of simplicity. I wonder what the causative factor would be for the trait of psychopathy to emerge and even flourish if it ultimately is so detrimental to the habitat. Maybe the answer can be found in the type of world we live in, because in a world where the winner takes all and the losers are but weepers it is the very design of society which should be held at least in part accountable for churning out psychopaths on a regular and perennial basis. It is the type of dog-eat-dog system, making one feel less worthy if you are not either already at the top or working zealously towards it, which provides the psychopath both with ample breeding ground and rationale for existing.

LINK
Quote:Wahya, Your view is always appreciated at least to me.

We know history is rewritten by those in power..

Historically psychopaths have always been in power. Only those who have that desire to violently control others get that power.

Agreed™

But here's another thing... don't stereotype psychopaths as violent. The propensity for violence is not what defines them; rather it is the lack of normal emotion, empathy, and the keen ability to manipulate.

By expecting a psychopath or sociopath to use violence primarily, you are dangerously underestimating them.

Was Sitting Bull a psychopath? Was Vercingetorix? How about Robert E. Lee?

Or on the other hand, how about Rasputin? Gandhi? Al Capone?

Where is that line drawn?

The best psychopath/sociopath archetype of contemporary religious mythos is the AntiChrist... who defines himself at first as a peacemaker.
Quote:There is no Civilization without agriculture! And people didn't practice agriculture in a big way until after the last Ice Age...around 7000 years ago. Hunter/gatherers didn't need slaves, they only had to work to feed and clothe themselves for a few hours a day. Agriculture is the worst mistake our species ever made.

Bingo.

Give that lady a plate of nachos. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
The violent psychopaths are the not-so-bright ones who get caught, jailed, and studied. The other kind get other people to do their violence for them.
Quote:[quote author="I.M. Huami"]Wahya, Your view is always appreciated at least to me.

We know history is rewritten by those in power..

Historically psychopaths have always been in power. Only those who have that desire to violently control others get that power.

Agreed™

But here's another thing... don't stereotype psychopaths as violent. The propensity for violence is not what defines them; rather it is the lack of normal emotion, empathy, and the keen ability to manipulate.

By expecting a psychopath or sociopath to use violence primarily, you are dangerously underestimating them.

Was Sitting Bull a psychopath? Was Vercingetorix? How about Robert E. Lee?

Or on the other hand, how about Rasputin? Gandhi? Al Capone?

Where is that line drawn?

The best psychopath/sociopath archetype of contemporary religious mythos is the AntiChrist... who defines himself at first as a peacemaker.[/quote]


You caught me <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />

Indeed, I do equate psychopaths with violence, not necessarily as primary though.. It is just a tool and usually cloaked in things that others use and sometimes agree to by some collectivist nonsense. Like the fake kourts, justice is a far second, the "appearance" of justice to the sheep is what is important. If I had that particular judicial "canon" handy I would quote it, funny word cannon too.

I draw the line if somebody forces me to participate in something I do not want to. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/editsmily.gif" alt=":edit:" title="" /> opps I do not care what you call it. If I did not "knowingly" agree to it is wrong, period, and if somebody else did not agree to it ,same thing I have no right to "enforce" it.
Quote:I draw the line if somebody forces me to participate in something I do not want to. I do care what you call it. If I did not "knowingly" agree to it is wrong, period.

:wahya: Raise yo fist an' resist™ <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/ninja.gif" alt=":wahya:" title="ninja" />
:ARRR:
Quote:SJ's article was great, but l think it is too biased towards pacifism, which is unnatural and therefore unhealthy.
It said, "peacefully and cooperatively". What the hell would we know about peace, except in our imaginations? We've been immersed in the war machine culture all our lives. If you're my age, your toys were plastic soldiers and toy guns, and your father and grandfather and other male relatives were war veterans. You've had global thermonuclear war hanging over your head since you were a little kid and lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we had atomic bomb drills in school and were taught to pay attention to which buildings had the black & yellow Fallout Shelter signs. And just when you thought all that insanity was done with, there was Vietnam and the draft.
from the OP text

"— ritualized mass slaughter —
is increasingly unavailable. ..."

Not so, watch em volunteer and line up for the vaccines.
Then there will be the mandatory vaccines,
for the diseases created by the psychopath Pharmaterrorists.
Slow death and early death replaces quick war death,
with potential for far higher numbers.

"....And if war was the great human tragedy,
the pathocrats’ pathetic attempt at a war-substitute —
the transparently phoney “war on terror” —
is repeating it as sheerest farce...."


The next step after war on terror is the alien threat.
It mobilizes vast resources into space weaponry,
and that is happening right now with military satellite tech.
See Dr P's book "Planetary Defense" for an example
of corporate military science pitching the alien threat.


International political psychpopaths
International Criminal Clown War

Internet psychopaths want control of your mind and internet focus time.
The Rat....etc.

wahya sez
"...Simple version:
how would cromagnon man react to The Rat™?
He'd club her like a baby seal..."

:applause:

croMagnon man also got a cat and a dog,
and the Egyptians killed snakes with cats.

Catman-Do....was a high mountain sumbitch....ha!
katmandu...haha

So was the onset of domestication of animals
to ease the burden of man's work...the beginnings of...
Syphillaxation?


:dunno:


Either way, cat or club
you kill the rat.

LOL
Quote:wahya sez
"...Simple version:
how would cromagnon man react to The Rat™?
He'd club her like a baby seal..."

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />

croMagnon man also got a cat and a dog,
and the Egyptians killed snakes with cats.

Catman-Do....was a high mountain sumbitch....ha!
katmandu...haha


ah so,

Homey sez ...
man/woman who steps in kat man du
may wake up in deep doo doo
find out high mountain was a molehill
and he'd/she'd just been pissing in the wind

Wasting time all along...


Rats don't have a very long half life, after all....



.


.
My post was not directed to you, and was neutral.
I do not like your condescending repertoire.

You got a few things wrong in your Shoodoodoo

"...find out high mountain was a molehill..."

find out high molehill was a mountain

"...and he'd/she'd just been pissing in the wind
Wasting time all along..."

and she had been kissing the wind
tasting eternal time all along.


"...rats don't have a very long half life after all..."

the Rat is the square root of Psychopath,
that is why there is a tag team
of psychopaths.
They said to you, Tag, you are It, and you got nailed to the walls.
Naievely on your part it was a self crucifiction really.
Hook line and stinker.

and Cat Man Do came to the rescue....several times
Cat Man too independant for you.

Go kiss the wind for good luck,
never know where it will land.
Maybe a rising star will catch it.
Blessings.
Cat man evidently has some ego bourne problems, as hrm was speaking self metaphorically, as is evidenced by her
inclusion of he/she etc. etc. I think hrm like cat man not other way around

Cat man seems sort of stuck on hrm, not independent at all, sure follows her around waving his big stick, wooah, wooah !

Cat man maybe took words wrong, should baste in some of that eternal lovelight he preaches about long enough for it to
prune up his skin and really sink in, deep, sink in and change his tune and sing pretty song again.



:naughty:
You talk like caveman. Me like.

Got club? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/thwak.gif" alt=":thwack:" title="thwack" />
Quote:Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)

I'm not sure how I want to comment on this. Several things are running through my mind...

1.) These numbers don't hold up for the current time.

* There are far more violent types around these days...they are the largest government contractors. The security industry...Blackwater, et al. When you add the number of violent criminals to the number of security/police/homeland security/atf/fbi...(you get the idea)...there are a lot of people willing to take a shot at another human these days.


2.) Those historical numbers, once quantified, have been manipulated in order to give us the outcome that we are now experiencing (a population that is out of control, by necessity, needs control=police state=government security contracts)

3.) Given the present number of psychopaths, the security industry was a 'given.' Considering the personality that it takes, the fact that corporations built for these types are so huge (Dyncorp/Blackwater/Haliburton/GE) is a very chilling fact to ponder.

Lastly...let us not confuse a psychopath and bravery.

There are those who fought for a greater purpose than the sanctity of human life. It is a basic human right to have the option to chose which purpose you are willing to die for (including the option not to have such a purpose).
[quote author="Wahya"]You talk like caveman. Me like.

Got club? :spank: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/arsespank.gif" alt=":spank:" title="spank" />
[quote author="Guest"]Cat man evidently has some ego bourne problems, as hrm was speaking self metaphorically, as is evidenced by her
inclusion of he/she etc. etc. I think hrm like cat man not other way around

Cat man seems sort of stuck on hrm, not independent at all, sure follows her around waving his big stick, wooah, wooah !

Cat man maybe took words wrong, should baste in some of that eternal lovelight he preaches about long enough for it to
prune up his skin and really sink in, deep, sink in and change his tune and sing pretty song again.

Rofl
You even thought Son of the Dawning was in Ohio
outside your house at one point fer Chris' sakes.
Freaking lame. Don't deny it.
Bricks

The last 3 times I posted wondeful things and images
from a completely neutral standpoint on your thread
you attacked me for no good reason whatsoever.
enuff is enuff

I notice that your old friend Serendipity is here right on cue
in the psychopath thread.

Hi
Quote:[quote author="Wahya"]You talk like caveman. Me like.

Got club? :spank: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/arsespank.gif" alt=":spank:" title="spank" />

Me agree™

Me now cook sabertooth swamprats on fire, feed cave-wolf.

Him lick chops.
AND SINCE DONALD CAN STILL POST HERE
INDIA CAN BE ALLOWED BACK
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Quote:[quote author="Guest"]Cat man evidently has some ego bourne problems, as hrm was speaking self metaphorically, as is evidenced by her
inclusion of he/she etc. etc. I think hrm like cat man not other way around

Cat man seems sort of stuck on hrm, not independent at all, sure follows her around waving his big stick, wooah, wooah !

Cat man maybe took words wrong, should baste in some of that eternal lovelight he preaches about long enough for it to
prune up his skin and really sink in, deep, sink in and change his tune and sing pretty song again.

Rofl
You even thought Son of the Dawning was in Ohio
outside your house at one point fer Chris' sakes.
Freaking lame. Don't deny it.
Bricks

The last 3 times I posted wondeful things and images
from a completely neutral standpoint on your thread
you attacked me for no good reason whatsoever.
enuff is enuff

I notice that your old friend Serendipity is here right on cue
in the psychopath thread.

Hi



You know something
I am so done with you and
your psycho stalker friend India aka The Goddess
whose luscious and lovelite posts have been
screen captured for posterity and future prosecution
as India's most pathetic and sickening cybermeltdown
crossed the line into criminal cyberstalking quite some time ago

The entire time i have been involved in a most personal
relationship with you, while I might add going through
some of the most extreme real life situations
I have ever encountered and which you were fully
aware of I have been maliciously slander, stalked and harassed
on the internet forums at large and on this forum in particular

Other women, who may be beguiled by your lame and impotent act
should beware as you are not what you purport to be in the least

Through this all I have, up until most recently remained both open
hearted to you and supportive of your research
To that end I have assisted you in developing your recent pdf
in a substantial way and actually, if it were the to be known,
gave you the original challenge of becoming a Jaguar Priest..

Despite the allegations above that I suffer from depression
I have in fact after loosing everything in the past several years
Meaning my home, business, material possession and immediate family members
remain strong, focused, standing and in a remarkably positive mindset.

These reading might wonder what would have
happened to cause one to loose everything

To satisfy their curiousity, I have spent the past several years
stepping away from my own life to care for my Mother who
suffers from Alzheimer's and at the same time protect her
from my brother who is also dying from late stage alcohol
and drug addiction..undoubtedly this is something many here
have first hand knowledge about as well..

Believe me when you step away from your own life to do this
all remnants of your former life as you knew it will indeed be
Self service can come with a high material price tag
however the gifts you acquire are immeasurably priceless

What makes Vianova's slamming missive above so horrifically abusive
is that he having been my primary supporter in this battle, knows all this
As does the Gardener who has steadfastly stood by my side

I defy anyone of you here to have stood as fastly as I have
given the very real and tragic situation in my family and the fact
that I have been stalked and harassed here in forumlandia
seemingly Vianova by those associated with you..

People who harrass, stalk and otherwise act in the manner
that some have displayed on this and other boards
typify the type of psychopathic behavior that is being discussed on this thread...

We all know you are just itching to provide us with one of your
ever so predictable and vicious V for Vendetta flounces

so have at it
we're all tired of walking on your eggshells..

For the record I did not get in a psychofuck tiff with
anyone on that pyramid thread..as I recall, they rather did with me though
and I really, truly was talking about my experience in the post above
that so set you off..

and No Wook India cannot come back
India is sick, very sick
NO HRM
WHY DON'T YOU FORGET ABOUT V
AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
INDIA'S POSTS WERE HARMLESS

GOOD BYE
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wall.gif" alt="Wall" title="wall" />
Pages: 1 2