"Her regular tantrums involve swearing, shouting, intimidation and threatens. She will
wear people down until, for a quieter life, they agree with her. Interestingly, what she threatens
to inflict on others is what she would find most damaging and hurtful to herself.
Equally interestingly, she feels criticism and humiliation intensely, even if none is intended
or given, and she will fight ferociously to defend what she sees as an attack, whether or not
there is one. Sometimes she will create a threat in her mind merely to defend and excuse what
she knows to be her own dreadful behavior."
Female sociopaths are a class of its own. They are much more manipulative than male psychopaths. We will distinguish the term
"sociopath" and "psychopath" based on physical violence: psychopath is sociopath who routinely or even predominantly uses physical
violence. Often they are criminals.
Female sociopaths rarely use physical violence and can much better mask their real intentions then make psychopaths. They are
more patient (although the term patience and sociopath are mutually contradictive -- they are after instant gratification) and can
hunt for a pray somewhat longer. Some of them considerably longer. And probably are more dangerous when you have them close
by. As a rule female sociopaths are much more vicious and vendettful than man sociopaths. You can lean a lot about female
psychopath by studying politicians. They are born
Machiavellians. And, unfortunately, this is not exaggeration. They can break important promises and betray the
partner, if it suits their needs, with such an ease that your jaw can simply drop. As bosses they cultivate "close circle"
which is often selected on the base of blind loyalty, sometimes sweetened by sex or a promise of sex "really soon". Most of
female sociopath are sexually promiscuous.
Typically, they are somewhat sadistic, especially toward women -- which means that they experience pleasure from suffering
of their victims. Like all sociopaths they are natural born, talented actors and have the astonishing ability to tell
bare-faced lies and remain calm, utterly shameless if caught. They also can preserve cool demeanor in really dangerous situation.
This is the case with psychopaths in general, but with female sociopaths you really see the master class of this art.
Ruthless and conniving they can extort favors using fake pregnancies, injuries to themselves, threats to kill themselves, etc.
They are really like a proverbial person, who killed her/his parents, and then asks for lesser sentence because she is now an
orphan. While they are adept in masking their real mean and cruel personality some signs and discrepancies in their acting and
in their life stories (which are always fictional) are often visible.
The problem is that due to their charm the victim typically fails to pay any attention to them.
Here this page might, probably, help as, hopefully, it provides a framework and several checklists for analyzing such a person.
A lot of tragedies could be avoided, if people who are facing something strange or inconsistent in behaviour simply take the time to
ask, "What else could this mean?” "Can it be explained as an attempt of manipulation, or bold faced lie?"
Paradoxically, most of the victims of female sociopaths are woman. So a female sociopath in the role of the manager is more
dangerous to female subordinates then to male subordinates. That can be quite indirect, but typically extremely vicious. Add to that
compulsive desire of winning at all cost (they are about power; such a natural born power addicts) and see other people just of
tools for achieving her goals. They use them and throw them our like paper plates for their meals.
The book is very weak. I agree that it was "dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated." Both the novel and the film romanticize sociopathic
violence and as such as distasteful. The wantonness of the film is nauseating...
But the urban dysfunctional and corrupt hell which the described neoliberal societies in summer of 2020 with with social cohesion
and morals falling so low that society can't even neither with banksters crimes, with the corruption of intelligence agencies, as well
as the street gangs violence makes film like an early warning about the dangers of neoliberalism.
It might also interpreted as a parable of what might happen with countries which rely on violence international politics.
Notable quotes:
"... the movie's sugar coating of violence and vicious sexuality, its romanticized depiction of the protagonist, Alex, and the critical acclaim and popularity, which the movie achieved, actually demonstrated how thoroughly society was degenerating into the amoral dystopia which Burgess had envisioned in his novel. ..."
"... The problem is that Kubrick seems to take pleasure in creating the violence and rape scenes which throws the whole movie off. ..."
"... psychopath obviously on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts. ..."
"... The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering to them. ..."
"... Pornography that pretends to criticize pornography had a particularly odious run with Netflix pedo-perverse "Cuties" last year. ..."
"... Degeneracy among the chattering classes has been with us since the beginning of man. I can't speak for Burgess but I've seen enough of Kubrick's work to find him a somewhat insightful and self-aware pervert and weirdo at best. ..."
"... Alex is a psychopath that is unleashed by the elimination of traditional morality. This new society that embraces tolerance to the point of mindlessness becomes his playground. ..."
"... I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without Harvard or Yale on your resume. In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College. ..."
"... One of the best sociopath roles. Maybe the most disturbing. Willams' best role. ..."
"... The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement. ..."
"... Sociopaths need not flourish in every system. It really depends on the criteria for selection. One of the problems with empowering the masses is that it gives a role to people with average and below-average levels of discernment in choosing who rises to the top, and that virtually guarantees that sociopathic con artists will rise into positions of prominence. ..."
For years now, readers have been urging me to review Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971), which adapts Anthony
Burgess' 1962 novel of the same name. I have resisted, because although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I
thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated, so I didn't want to watch it again. Of course I had first watched it decades
ago. But maybe I would see it differently if I gave it another chance. So I approached it with an open mind. But I was right the
first time.
A Clockwork Orange is set in Great Britain in a not-too-distant future. Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his three buddies are
violent hooligans who engage in rape, assault, robbery, and wanton destruction. The movie opens with an amphetamine-fueled crime
spree. They beat up an old drunk, brawl with another gang, run people off the road while joy riding, then use a confidence trick
("There's been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?") to invade a couple's home, whereupon they beat the man, rape
his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply
be killed.
Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely
breeds resentment. One night they decide to rob a wealthy woman's house. The old accident trick does not work, so Alex breaks in.
There is a struggle. She attacks him with a bust of Beethoven, so he kills her with a sculpture of a penis. Hearing sirens, he exits,
whereupon his ex-friends clobber him with a bottle and leave him for the police.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Alex is imprisoned for murder. He seeks to ingratiate himself with the authorities by feigning Christian piety. (As a violent
sociopath, he finds the Old Testament more to his liking.)
When a new Left-wing government comes into power, they want to free up prison space for political prisoners, so they introduce
an experimental cure for his violent sociopathy: the Ludovico technique, which is basically a form of Pavlovian conditioning. Alex
is the test subject. He is injected with a nausea-producing drug then forced to watch films of violence, including sexual violence.
Eventually, he can't even think of violence without becoming violently ill. Pronounced cured, he is released into society.
Newly paroled, Alex bumps into the bum that he assaulted, who recognizes him and wants revenge. He calls together his fellow bums
to beat Alex, whose Ludovico conditioning makes it impossible for him to fight back.
Ironic, huh?
Let that be a lesson to you.
When the mob of hobos is broken up by two cops, they turn out to be two of Alex's old gang, the very ones he humiliated. Eager
to exact further revenge, they beat him mercilessly and abandon him in the countryside. Alex is helpless to resist.
Ironic, huh?
Let that be a lesson to you.
Alex wanders through the countryside until he takes refuge at the home of the very couple he and his gang brutalized. Ironic,
huh? The husband was crippled by the beating. The wife has died and been replaced with a gigantic muscular dork named Julian. The
husband figures out who Alex is and drugs him. Then he and some of his friends, who oppose the government that introduced the Ludovico
technique, try to drive Alex to commit suicide, hoping to create a scandal that will embarrass the government. Alex throws himself
from a window and is severely injured but does not die.
To contain the scandal, the Justice Minister throws the cripple in prison and tries to win Alex's favor by tending to his wounds.
While unconscious, he is also given brain surgery to reverse the Ludovico technique. The happy ending is that Alex returns to being
a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism
to pure cynicism in the end. Apparently, the book's final chapter was "redemptive," but this was omitted as being contrived -- as
if that weren't true of the whole story.
But isn't this all redeemed by a "deep message" about human freedom? No, not really, because the moral psychology of A Clockwork
Orange is remarkably crude.
The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the
innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don't necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed
at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can
create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of
his violent sociopathy.
Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because
they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that. Alex does not feel
sick with empathy for victims, he just feels sick. And his physiological response makes no moral distinctions between violence meted
out to the deserving and the undeserving. When he is attacked, he can't defend himself, because even violence in self-defense makes
him sick.
Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn't exactly make such a "cure"
for crime implausible.
Burgess's "deep" objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues
that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex's freedom, which takes away his humanity. Alex, being a sociopath,
takes pleasure in hurting innocent people. The Ludovico treatment teaches him to feel disgust at violence.
But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex's behavior? Is that also a
dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so.
Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.
Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean
that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio
ad absurdum .
The Ludovico technique and Burgess' alternative both depend on a pat dualism between body and mind, which leaves no place for
what the ancients called virtues and the moderns called moral sentiments. For the ancients, virtue is rooted in habit. For moral
sentiments theorists, our ability to perceive the good is caught up in feelings like empathy and disgust. But to the Ludovico technique,
virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach. From the
chaplain's point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath's lack of virtue
or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.
But isn't Kubrick's treatment of this material brilliant? No, not really. Kubrick's treatment of sex and violence veers between
the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets,
and dreadful over-acting. The whole production reminded me of the comics of R. Crumb, who puts his prodigious talent to work churning
out pornography, grotesquerie, and world-destroying cynicism. Crumb obviously hates America. He especially hates women. Likewise,
the director of A Clockwork Orange obviously hates everything about Great Britain. He also takes particular pleasure in the
mockery and degradation of women. Handling such material with technical skill does not redeem it. Indeed, by making it seductive,
Kubrick actually it makes it worse.
A Clockwork Orange is violence-porn and porn-porn combined with a middle-brow, moralistic "message" and some classical
music. But these function merely as an alibi, like the interviews in Playboy . A Clockwork Orange is obscene in the
literal sense of the word: it should not be watched.
The Burgess novel explored a simple question: is it good enough if someone does the right thing (abhors gratuitous violence
and carnage) for the wrong reason (Pavlovian programming).
The novel incorporated a bastardized lexicon with a short unnecessary dictionary at the very end to help the reader along.
As with his also futuristic Wanting Seed, Burgess's Clockwork is a satire of the absurd lefty politics of his day. The novel has
aged well, as sixty years later the lefty politics of the day are even more absurd.
When Kubrick's movie version of "The Clockwork Orange" premiered, Burgess was asked what he thought of it. After a half century,
I cannot recall Burgess's exact words but they were to the effect that the movie perfectly illustrated the points he had made
in his novel.
Most naively interpreted this as an endorsement of the movie. However, Burgess was adept with words. I understood this to be
a subtle barb. Burgess's words had an alternative implication, i.e. that the movie's sugar coating of violence and vicious
sexuality, its romanticized depiction of the protagonist, Alex, and the critical acclaim and popularity, which the movie achieved,
actually demonstrated how thoroughly society was degenerating into the amoral dystopia which Burgess had envisioned in his novel.
OTOH, my personal opinion is that despite the moral repugnance which the movie engendered for me it is, like all of Kubrick's
movies, a cinematic masterpiece. It's an unfortunate fact that some art can be immoral and even hostile to truth yet still have
aesthetic virtue.
The problem is that Kubrick seems to take pleasure in creating the violence and rape scenes which throws the whole movie
off.
It's like he can't decide if Alex should be his unique and wonderful self even if it means raping and killing people. The scene
of him of setting his rank in the gang is a celebration of violence as an art form.
Kubrick clearly thought that Alex beating the woman with a giant d-k must have been great fun and anyone in the stodgy British
chattering class probably had it coming anyways. There seems to be nothing wrong with cruising the British countryside for a bit
of the ultraviolence as long as you have style and can show off your good taste by listening to Beethoven.
Are we supposed to pity Alex when the husband tries to kill him? Kubrick seems to think so but who could blame a husband that
wants to avenge his wife? According to Kubrick he is really boring and went gay anyways.
The movie is a mess but still worth watching as a sort of shock to the senses. Some say the book is better which while true
on a story level it's also a bit of chore since there is so much fictitious slang. My copy in fact had a compendium slang dictionary.
So you spend half the time looking up all these words that the author made up. Fun.
What I don't get is why anyone would want you to review the movie. I would put it towards to top of the 70s rape and violence
trash heap but that isn't saying much. If anything I have more respect for the blatantly violent biker flicks like Wild Angels
because they at least aren't trying to pretend that they have some deep message about society.
It's one of those movies that would have much worse reviews if a famous director wasn't attached to it. Great acting by Malcom
though and a shame he was surrounded by amateurs.
@Rahanpsychopath obviously
on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent
the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts.
The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering
to them.
It would be like creating a movie about the degenerate nature of porn but the first 20 minutes is a gang bang. Oh but the main
characters will later change and find complexity in their predicament. It's a social criticism of modern society you see.
This had to be one of the dumbest movies that I ever TRIED to watch. Was underway on a ship and they played this movie for
us to watch, got up and left after only maybe 15-20 minutes into the film. "Overrated" is too mild a word for it. GARBAGE FILM.
Out of 5 stars I don't even give it half a star.
Good review. I will add one positive point: It is relevant to current events. Roger Ebert pointed out that Kubrick is playing
with the idea that in a world where the ruling pattern of thought is criminal insanity, one might as well be criminally insane.
This turned out to be prescient, because the conversion to woke insanity has taken hold. I could give dozens of examples, but
I will stay with the Beethoven theme of the movie. Beethoven has recently been proclaimed an "above average " composer, and a
supremicist, worthy of cancellation. Oxford is now debating canceling musical notation if the world is crazy, might as well join
them.
@Mr. Ed is meaningless, the
client of the police algorithm is a woman with testicles, which she had implanted just to enjoy the testosterone boost, but still
identifies as a woman. Just like everyone, she only has virtual sex, because real sex is for degenerate fascist perverts known
as "piggies". The moment a piggie man and a piggie woman start making out, the closest electronic gadgets start blasting feminist
propaganda on how disgusting and humiliating it is for a woman to be banged by a man.
And of course, the new iPhuck 10 is a semi-AI sex toy for the upper middle classes, which randomly goes into various BDSM and
fetish modes, in order to comply with diversity mandates.
One reading of the film is as a dark, slanted allegory for England's history as a conquering nation from 1066 to its eventual
post-WW2 shrinking to be too afraid to fight or conquer anymore.
The droogs represent England, or English martial spirit. As the the film begins, they assault an old drunk hobo singing Molly
Malone (representing Ireland), a group of similar ruffians (representing Scotland) who are about to rape a girl and jump off a
stage (the Scottish Highlands, or perhaps just north of the English border generally) to fight the English, and, finally, successful
assault against a cultured, peace-loving old man and his beautiful wife (representing either Wales or France). In all the assaults,
the ruffians make no apologies, and, in fact, later, in sequence are seen walking around wearing various hats of other martial
nations, showing the same conquering, harsh martial spirit has been alive in others.
All of this is brought to a halt when their schemes get them caught. The leader of the martial spirit is brainwashed to hate
violence (English pols who apologize for creating an Empire and conquering and/or are now too milquetoast to fight, like Chamberlain),
while his former fellow cohorts abuse him (internal civil strife), as does his former victims (victim culture).
But there is an upside(?). By bringing him so low, the conditioning is broken, and his old violent martial spirit returns.
Anyway, that was just my symbolic reading, ignoring the other readings I've had of the film.
Pornography that pretends to criticize pornography had a particularly odious run with Netflix pedo-perverse "Cuties" last
year.
Degeneracy among the chattering classes has been with us since the beginning of man. I can't speak for Burgess but I've
seen enough of Kubrick's work to find him a somewhat insightful and self-aware pervert and weirdo at best.
I've always known this movie was trash and avoided it like the plague. What demented person's have been "urging" the author
to review it? Do they need somebody else's approval before they watch it? I never understood these type of people who make degenerate
movies like this and those by Quentin Terantino into movie classics. Who wants to watch more degeneracy when we already live in
a degenerate society? Just turn on the news and get your thrills.
A must read. Tip: Download his entire website (whitenationalism.com
), ((they)) are trying to scrub it off the web it seems. BTW below : Inner party/ IP–> Chosenites
Some snippets
"The very aversion therapy that the inner party psychiatrist was administering to Alex late in the movie to curb his criminality,
Kubrick was administering to his fellow tribesmen right from the opening scene, to curb their liberal universalist illusions.
The setting is in a future time in which the people speak a language which is a mixture of English and Russian. The protagonist,
Alex, is a high school dropout born and raised in a public housing project. Alex is what you would call a tabula rasa – a blank
slate – from a cultural standpoint. His parents have no culture at all, they are remarkably obedient and dull witted. Both parents
work and both spend all their free time in front of the telly, being passively entertained.
Alex's parents are exactly what the inner party wishes us all to become.
They work, they consume, and they are passive and obedient, with no thoughts of their own.
They are new socialist man – interchangeable parts with no sense of their own group identity or uniqueness – no traditions,
no culture, and no reactionary and troublesome notions to pass on to their children.
But their only son is another story altogether. He very much prefers active entertainment."
snip
"Differences in aesthetic preference and perception provoke and sharpen conflict rather than reduce it. Indeed, this idea
that high art is a universal which can lead humans into a uniform brotherhood of man is absurd. Thus, Kubrick's message that high
art is a differentiating mechanism – fraught with potential for conflict and competition – is broadly consistent with Professor
Geoffrey Miller's thesis in The Mating Mind, that our brains evolved primarily as ornaments of fitness in the highly competitive
sexual selection process.
Siamese twin to the Freudian attack is the Freudian promise, namely that peace and universal harmony can be attained through
sexual liberation and "free love." – if only sex can be stripped of the competitive and aggressive baggage imposed by repressive
society.
Alex's denoument occurs at another home invasion fraught with symbolic content. The home is occupied by a conspicuously IP
looking woman (the cat lady) with her house decorated with a conspicuously IP collection of erotic art objects and paintings.
When Alex enters, she becomes remarkably aggressive and assaultive, swinging a bust of Beethoven (his [European] art) as a
weapon against him, as he grabs one of her large phallic sculptures (her [Jewish] art) and deploys it to defend himself.
As this sexual/artistic combat is danced out to the tune of Rossini's Thieving Magpie, Kubrick explodes the Freudian myth of
peace and harmony through free sex so popular among his own tribesmen, ."
This is a pretty good assessment of Clockwork Orange. I think the movie could be used as a gauge of one's own growth. The first
time I saw it I was in my late teens. It wasn't that impressive but I sat through it and took in its lessons. I have watched it
maybe 3 times since then. The last time I watched it, somewhere in my mid-thirties, I didn't even want to finish it. I found it
that distasteful. In a similar way as a movie called Vulgar that was released about 20 years ago.
Last year's Joker movie was much less stomach turning than either of those movies.
I was around 15 when this movie came out and I never had a desire to see it because of its violence and homo/glitter rock make
up of the protagonist/antagonist played by Malcolm McDowell.
I've seen some of it over the last 50 years and still agree with the article even though I find some of the scenes now humorously
entertaining.
Now lets talk about Kubrick. He has made a number of great movies, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, etc. but where would he
be if not for Jewlywood? Yeah sure he started small but with hymie $ backing $. I put it to you that if he weren't a JOO (but
also being a Jew, lol) he would have been jerking off to boy porn or otherwise in the Bronx until his death. (Wry grin)
To sum up, a society that rejects morality and meaning in favor of utilitarianism (symbolized by the drab, horrible architecture),
hedonism (the ready availability of drugs and the tasteless, obscene decoration), and situational expediency, builds itself a
nightmare world, in which there is no beauty, subtlety, meaning, or decency. Its denizens are hopeless slaves to base instincts
and the fads of the moment.
Does any of that seem to resonate with our current situation?
It doesn't matter if backdrop resonates with our current situation or appears prophetic.
The problem is that Kubrick pandering to the same moral degeneracy that he is also trying to criticize.
Alex is a psychopath that is unleashed by the elimination of traditional morality. This new society that embraces tolerance
to the point of mindlessness becomes his playground.
Kubrick takes advantage of that same extreme tolerance by selling rape and violence. The first third of the movie depicts Alex
as the protagonist even though he rapes and kills for his own pleasure. It's acknowledged that he has access to a normal life
and rejects it on the basis of it being too conforming. How many movies lure the audience into celebrating a rapist as an individualist?
Later after the treatment fails we are supposed to identify with him as a victim of society. What about the people that he
raped and murdered? Are they not victims? We are supposed to forget about that and view him as morally superior to the system
that tried reprogramming him. Well this is exact same moral relativism that created the dystopia in the first place.
The truth is that Kubrick likes the world of Alex and would prefer living there over some stodgy traditional society. Sure
you might get raped or murdered by an individualist but you were probably some faceless chattering class White that lacked taste
and had it coming anyways.
Kubrick liked to shock people – he studied it, not just the photographic techniques, but also the psychology of inducing maximum
fear and terror in his audience. He hoped this would make his films more memorable, and it obviously did, while arguably better
films, such as
are almost completely forgotten now. Watched about 1/2 hour of Orange on video before turning it off. Can't imagine why anyone
would want to subject themselves to that on the big screen. 2001 is a masterpiece.
I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without Harvard or Yale on your resume.
In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College.
1. One can turn a sociopath into a normal person by making him sick while showing him movies of sex and violence. In other
words, there's no difference between empathy and/or good character and a sour stomach.
2. Freedom of choice is a necessary condition for morality and humanity (the old libertarian apology for moral laxness), which
means that sociopaths are better moral agents and more human than gentlemen, who through habit and moral sentiment are less "free"
to behave dishonorably.
3. A movie that decorates rape, wanton cruelty, cartoonish acting, and crude parody with little sprigs of middle-brow moralizing
is redeemed by it.
The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete
to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement.
Sociopaths need not flourish in every system. It really depends on the criteria for selection. One of the problems with
empowering the masses is that it gives a role to people with average and below-average levels of discernment in choosing who rises
to the top, and that virtually guarantees that sociopathic con artists will rise into positions of prominence.
The White Nationalist movement needs to weed out sociopathic types. Let the system have them.
@Priss Factor to the rest
of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he's a lousy leader, and his gang are lousy followers, because
sociopaths lack fellow feeling, which makes it impossible for them to feel loyalty and solidarity and difficult for them to understand
one another.
Hitler, by contrast, built a movement that grew into millions and inspired fanatical loyalty, in large part because he was
highly empathetic: he cared about people, understood people, and made people feel visible and understood by him. I know words
like "sociopath" or "madman" are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things in the real world, and they don't
fit Hitler.
The problem for White Nationalism and the dissident right is these movements attract very low-quality sociopaths. If you
look at very successful political movements (such as neoconservatism) you'll find that they attract sociopaths of much higher
quality.
No, extreme Jews are supported by rich Jews, whereas 'extreme' whites are rejected by successful whites.
Most Neocons are silly people. But they got backing.
Even is 'extreme' whites were all high-quality, they would be rejected by moneyed whites because Jews control the gods.
@Oscar Peterson imagine a
future with a wife and son. It's an abrupt change in 10 pages and Alex retains the self-pity that makes you wonder whether that
could really happen."
This is the version I read, and it is vital to the story.
ACO was published in 1962, and was astonishingly prescient. The movie inspired 1970's punk attitudes and the enormous cultural
impact which reverberates to this day. The Sex Pistols and 'Anarchy in the UK' were Alex' character for those who couldn't get
enough of him.
Like the protagonist, we can all look at our younger selves and see a different person. Johnny Rotten, like a real life Alex,
eventually got old, and now he waxes nostalgic for old England.
As long as it your socio-path, doing your dirty work, nobody cares about a sociopath. At one time 90% of the US supported the
Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, but now you cant find anyone who will state they did and they were wrong. Kubrick is brilliant because
he exposed our collective schizophrenia by letting us know how much we enjoy it.
Trevor Lynch: "Alex is part of a group of four, and when he starts acting the leader of the other three, he's brutal and high-handed,
which leads immediately to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he's a lousy leader "
Hitler could be treacherous and brutal too. Alex miscalculated, whereas Hitler, in the night of the long knives, didn't miscalculate.
The moral would seem to be that when you betray somebody, don't leave them alive so they can take revenge. Thus, you could say
that Alex's mistake was that he wasn't sociopathic enough . But then, not everyone can be a Hitler.
Trevor Lynch: "I know words like "sociopath" or "madman" are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things
in the real world, and they don't fit Hitler. "
Their meaning is in their social significance. They mean "I don't like you", and mark someone as outgroup. But there is no
objective definition of mental health, only various types of animal behavior. Either the behavior helps the animal survive, or
it doesn't. Raised in brutality, one becomes brutal. Raised in a technological society, we get the kind of "normal" white people
who celebrate their own racial destruction. In such an environment, "normality" is overrated. By feeding into this mentality,
your review is counterproductive.
Trevor Lynch: "The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument
to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement. "
Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.
Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.
There are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs to protect the flock.
In a well-run society, the sheepdogs cull the wolves. Healthy people don't need sociopaths. They need us.
The story of the Rohm purge is not Hitler calculatingly betraying Rohm, but Rohm betraying Hitler, who hesitated to believe
the worst of Rohm until it was almost too late.
Money quote: "Deceptive, predatory nature...'the psychopath is capable of concealing behind a
perfect mimicry of normal emotion, fine intelligence, and social responsibility a grossly
disabled and irresponsible personality'...American culture nurtures psychopathy."
Notable quotes:
"... Cleckley emphasized his subjects' deceptive, predatory nature, writing that the psychopath is capable of "concealing behind a perfect mimicry of normal emotion, fine intelligence, and social responsibility a grossly disabled and irresponsible personality." This mimicry allows psychopaths to function, and even thrive, in normal society. Indeed, as Cleckley also argued, the individualistic, winner-take-all aspect of American culture nurtures psychopathy. ..."
"... Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ..."
"... Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry ..."
The interviewer "scores" the subject on each of the twenty items -- parasitic life style,
pathological lying, conning, proneness to boredom, shallow emotions, lack of empathy, poor
impulse control, promiscuity, irresponsibility, record of juvenile delinquency, and criminal
versatility, among other tendencies -- with zero, one, or two, depending on how pronounced that
trait is. Most researchers agree that anyone who scores thirty or higher on the PCL-R is
considered to be a psychopath.
... Cleckley set about sharpening the vague construct of constitutional psychopathic
inferiority, and distinguishing it from other forms of mental illness. He eventually isolated
sixteen traits exhibited by patients he called "primary" psychopaths; these included being
charming and intelligent, unreliable, dishonest, irresponsible, self-centered, emotionally
shallow, and lacking in empathy and insight.
...
"Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror, and
humor have no actual meaning, no power to move him," Cleckley wrote of the psychopath in his
1941 book, "The Mask of Sanity," which became the foundation of the modern science. The
psychopath talks "entertainingly," Cleckley explained, and is "brilliant and charming," but
nonetheless "carries disaster lightly in each hand." Cleckley emphasized his subjects'
deceptive, predatory nature, writing that the psychopath is capable of "concealing behind a
perfect mimicry of normal emotion, fine intelligence, and social responsibility a grossly
disabled and irresponsible personality." This mimicry allows psychopaths to function, and even
thrive, in normal society. Indeed, as Cleckley also argued, the individualistic,
winner-take-all aspect of American culture nurtures psychopathy.
The psychiatric profession wanted little to do with psychopathy, for several reasons. For
one thing, it was thought to be incurable. Not only did the talking cure fail with psychopaths
but several studies suggested that talk therapy made the condition worse, by enabling
psychopaths to practice the art of manipulation. There were no valid instruments to measure the
personality traits that were commonly associated with the condition; researchers could study
only the psychopaths' behavior, in most cases through their criminal records. Finally, the
emphasis in the word "psychopath" on an internal sickness was at odds with liberal mid-century
social thought, which tended to look for external causes of social deviancy; "sociopath,"
coined in 1930 by the psychologist G. E. Partridge, became the preferred term. In 1958, the
American Psychiatric Association used the term "sociopathic personality" to describe the
disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . In the 1968
edition, the condition was renamed "general antisocial personality disorder." ...But the
problem is that "psychopathic behavior" -- egocentricity, for example, or lack of realistic
long-term goals -- is present in far more than one per cent of the adult male population. This
blurriness in the psychopathic profile can make it possible to see psychopaths everywhere or
nowhere. In the mid-fifties, Robert Lindner, the author of "Rebel Without a Cause: A
Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath," explained juvenile delinquency as an outbreak of mass
psychopathy. Norman Mailer inverted this notion in "The White Negro," admiring the hipster as a
"philosophical psychopath" for having the courage of nonconformity. In the sixties, sociopathy
replaced psychopathy as the dominant construct. Now, in our age of genetic determinism, society
is once again seeing psychopaths everywhere, and this will no doubt provoke others to say they
are nowhere, and the cycle of overexposure and underfunding will continue.
...Hare is urbane and well read, and during dinner he seasoned his clinical descriptions of
the psychopath with references to characters from film and literature. Harry Lime, the villain
played by Orson Welles in "The Third Man," is one example. "Iago was a classic psychopath," he
added. "The way Shakespeare wrote him. In films and plays he is portrayed as evil-seeming, but
he isn't written that way."
... Although psychologists don't call minors "psychopaths" -- they are "youths with
psychopathic traits" -- there is considerable evidence that the condition manifests itself at
ages earlier than eighteen; in a much cited 2005 paper, "Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk
for Psychopathy in Seven-Year-Olds," published in the Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry , Essi Viding suggests that the condition can be detected in early childhood.
Fledgling psychopaths are particularly interesting to researchers, because their brains are
thought to be more malleable than those of adults.
There are anti-human mimicks born, psychopaths, that literally have to study human
emotion, learn it and parrot it. That's why when one watches you, especially at first
encounter, it's so intense.
They are analyzing your every facial crease and body language trying to decode the human
and what it all means. When they lie they will sometimes pause to do this to see if it's
fully taking. They often can't tell if what they are saying is too absurd, they wait for you
to show them. They develop this skill over time.
What's even creepier, is that since they don't use empathy capacity and other human
tendencies, that brain capacity becomes devoted to their predatory nature, analyzing,
imitating and being phony. So they are damn near preternatural at it. They know your
weaknesses and needs immediately.
In addition to their dead, intense analyzing stare, they don't recognize that their stare
is too intense and that they often get too close. Like if this fatty had halitosis for
example, she would always just be at least a little too close to you.
They don't understand what it is about people that wants space They don't have that
feeling either. When you squirm and try to get away, they won't notice or care, unless they
are doing it on purpose to intimidate.
They can also lie with ease, because they don't have any of those things that makes people
moral. They are simply annoyances to them. It pisses them off that they have to pretend to
care.
🚫pinkos🚫 7 hours ago
There has NEVER been such a degenerate, America hating, incompetent, militant, and
cancerous political class as this current one.
SillySalesmanQuestion 8 hours ago (Edited)
As Cognitive Dissonance said last week... I am waiting.
Waiting for the endless wars to end, the endless lying, the media manipulation, the
twisting of facts, the lack of rule of law, burning, looting, murdering, rioting, the attacks
on our rights, freedom, liberties, and most of all, the presstitutes of the lying, scumbag
media, that perpetuates it all...
"We report the results of three studies that show: (1) those higher in narcissism are more
likely than those who are lower to see organizations in political terms (opportunity), (2) they
are more willing to engage in organizational politics (motive), and (3) they are more skilled
political actors (means)."
Nancy Pelosi has the gift of looking you directly in the eye and lying to you without even
a blink. This is sociopath behavior. Which may be the key to being a successful politician.
Obama had the same quality.
Quite different from Trump's bluster and bombast. You know he he hyper-ventilating. But
something more cold and deadly goes on with Pelosi and Obama - and because they both are true
believers that the ends justify the means, they are doubly dangerous.
At least when Biden lies, and often he does, he is so ridiculous if it quickly debunked.
Not as deadly sinister as Pelosi and Obama. They enjoy knowing they are lying to you.
Elizabeth Bartholet correctly point out blatant disregard of law and witch hunt atmosphere on MeToo movement. This aspect
is easily exploitable by female sociopaths who want to remove a men who did not reciprocate their "favors" or just represent
obstacle on their career path. Teachers are especially vulnerable to such a blackmail.
Notable quotes:
"... However, I am concerned that in the recent rush to judgment, principles of basic fairness, differences between proven and merely alleged instances of misconduct, and important distinctions between different kinds of sexually charged conduct have too often been ignored. Similar problems plagued the imposition of new sexual harassment guidelines for colleges and universities by the administration of former President Barack Obama. I was involved in attempts to push back against those guidelines and to develop at Harvard Law School our own policies, better designed to balance the important values at stake. ..."
"... My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts. ..."
"... Sometimes the alleged conduct is so egregious, or alleged patterns so suspicious, that suspension is warranted while facts are determined. Sometimes allegations are demonstrably credible by virtue of independent evidence. But where facts are in doubt or conduct is subject to different interpretations, efforts must be made to investigate what actually happened and how the different parties understood the events. ..."
"... I am also deeply troubled by over-expansive definitions of wrongful conduct. In the current climate, men are called out for actions ranging from requests for dates and hugs on the one hand to rape and other forced sexual contact on the other, as if all are the same and all warrant termination. ..."
"... The legal definition of sexual harassment in employment and education is a helpful guide to what sexual conduct should be the focus. It is illegal to engage in quid pro quo harassment, namely conditioning an employment or educational benefit on sexual favors. It is illegal also to create a "hostile environment" through unwelcome sexual advances that are severe or pervasive and that limit the victim's ability to enjoy employment or educational opportunity. ..."
"... Finally, I am concerned with the cynical exploitation of sexual harassment cases and related scapegoating of individuals. ..."
"... Corporate and political leaders, who must have been at least generally aware of these problems, did little to address them until this moment of public shaming. Now they dismiss alleged perpetrators overnight, often with no regard for the facts but clearly with significant regard for their corporate reputations and electoral strategies. ..."
"... All this puts real reform at risk. It undermines the legitimacy of action against serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power. It creates the potential for backfire. ..."
Like many others, I am outraged by the
egregious incidents of sexual misconduct made public recently through carefully documented journalism. I applaud the removal
of many alleged perpetrators who have clearly abused their positions of power, often through force and even violence. I celebrate
those who have stepped forward to call out sexual misconduct and demand changes in the degrading culture that has characterized working
conditions for women in too many settings for too long.
However, I am concerned that in the recent rush to judgment, principles of basic fairness, differences between proven and
merely alleged instances of misconduct, and important distinctions between different kinds of sexually charged conduct have too often
been ignored. Similar problems plagued the imposition of
new sexual harassment guidelines
for colleges and universities by the administration of former President Barack Obama. I was involved in attempts to push back against
those guidelines and to develop at Harvard Law School our own policies, better designed to balance the important values at stake.
My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of
claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts. Some argue
that women who speak out should simply always be believed. Others argue that if some innocent men must be sacrificed to the cause
of larger justice, so be it. I find this deeply troubling. I do not contend that mini-trials should always be required before action
can be taken. Sometimes the alleged conduct is so egregious, or alleged patterns so suspicious, that suspension is warranted
while facts are determined. Sometimes allegations are demonstrably credible by virtue of independent evidence. But where facts are
in doubt or conduct is subject to different interpretations, efforts must be made to investigate what actually happened and how the
different parties understood the events.
I am also deeply troubled by
over-expansive definitions of wrongful conduct. In the current climate, men are called out for actions ranging from requests
for dates and hugs on the one hand to rape and other forced sexual contact on the other, as if all are the same and all warrant termination.
I do not believe that all touching by a man in power is the same as touching that is clearly unwanted or the deliberate abuse
of power to obtain sexual favors. I do not believe that all romantic and sexual overtures should be banned from the workplace, even
between people on different hierarchical levels. Some recent cases involve
peremptory dismissal for behavior
that may involve nothing more than that. Women are not so weak as to need this kind of protection. Banning all such activity from
the workplace would reduce the quality of life for everyone, including women.
The legal definition
of sexual harassment in employment and education is a helpful guide to what sexual conduct should be the focus. It is illegal to
engage in quid pro quo harassment, namely conditioning an employment or educational benefit on sexual favors. It is illegal also
to create a "hostile environment" through unwelcome sexual advances that are severe or pervasive and that limit the victim's ability
to enjoy employment or educational opportunity.
Objective standards apply, so the question is whether a reasonable person in the position of the alleged perpetrator or alleged
victim would have thought the conduct was sexual harassment, not simply what the alleged victim subjectively felt.
Finally, I am concerned with the cynical exploitation of sexual harassment cases and related scapegoating of individuals.
The #MeToo movement has helped demonstrate to the world the toxic level of sex discrimination and sexual misconduct that have characterized
work life for too many women in business, entertainment, media, and government. Corporate and political leaders, who must have
been at least generally aware of these problems, did little to address them until this moment of public shaming. Now they dismiss
alleged perpetrators overnight, often with no regard for the facts but clearly with significant regard for their corporate reputations
and electoral strategies.
All this puts real reform at risk. It undermines the legitimacy of action against serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power.
It creates the potential for backfire.
Elizabeth Bartholet '62 is the Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
"... High-earning older couples also may have more complicated financial situations than younger couples, with both partners sometimes owning multiple 401(k)s, pensions and IRAs, making it hard to split everything equitably. And increasingly, divorcing clients own annuities, which are challenging to divide, says Jeff Kostis, president of JK Financial Planning, in Chicago, and a divorce financial planner. Every annuity contract can be different, and in some cases, couples may need to trade off other assets to avoid cashing out an annuity and losing much of its value. ..."
"... Some couples are tempted to simply split plans themselves. Or at the end of a long mediation session, with retirement plans last on the list, a couple may simply agree to a 50-50 split. But it's not that clear cut. ..."
For older couples who decide to split up, divorce can look very different than it might have in their younger years. Children
often are grown and out of the house, so child support and custody aren't an issue. And breakups after long marriages can sometimes
seem amicable rather than contentious; partners simply grow apart and decide to go their separate ways.
But with gray divorce on the rise -- the divorce rate for adults over 50 has doubled since the 1990s, according to the Pew Research
Center -- both partners need to understand how to correctly split up retirement plans and other assets. One partner may offer to
be generous, but that's not necessarily helpful. You need to follow specific rules for dividing 401(k) plans and IRAs, or one partner
could take an unnecessary financial hit or face an unexpected tax bill. And the closer you are to retirement, the more crucial it
is to get it right. "You can't afford to make mistakes," says Diane Pappas, a divorce financial analyst and owner of Solutions for
Divorce, in Boston.
High-earning older couples also may have more complicated financial situations than younger couples, with both partners sometimes
owning multiple 401(k)s, pensions and IRAs, making it hard to split everything equitably. And increasingly, divorcing clients own
annuities, which are challenging to divide, says Jeff Kostis, president of JK Financial Planning, in Chicago, and a divorce financial
planner. Every annuity contract can be different, and in some cases, couples may need to trade off other assets to avoid cashing
out an annuity and losing much of its value.
If you're facing a gray divorce, start by accepting that regardless of what agreement gets hammered out with your estranged spouse,
your finances are going to take a hit, Pappas says. Be realistic: You had one household, with a set amount of income. You're splitting
that into two households, on the same amount of income. "Something has to give," she says.
You'll also need to accept that retirement plans are among the assets you'll need to divide. Partners who hold retirement plans
don't always understand this, says Peggy Tracy, owner of Priority Planning, a tax preparation and financial services practice, in
Wheaton, Ill. "They're shocked they have to share it," she says. "They feel they are entitled to all the money." She has to explain
that yearly contributions to a 401(k), for example, came from a couple's mutual income, and a partner is entitled to a share.
Divide a Plan
Some couples are tempted to simply split plans themselves. Or at the end of a long mediation session, with retirement plans last
on the list, a couple may simply agree to a 50-50 split. But it's not that clear cut.
For both 401(k) plans and pensions,
you'll need a qualified domestic relations order, which is a judicial decree recognizing a divorcing spouse's right to receive all
or a portion of the account owner's qualified plan, says Colleen Carcone, a director of wealth planning strategies at TIAA, in Boston.
The QDRO is submitted to the plan administrator. A portion of the plan can then be transferred to the divorcing spouse's name.
When you split a 401(k) plan with a QDRO, you get a one-time divorce-related break. If you take some of the cash out, perhaps
for a down payment on a house, you will owe taxes on the distribution but not the 10% penalty for taking an early withdrawal under
age 59½. If you roll the money immediately into your own newly established IRA, you won't owe taxes or a penalty.
Before splitting a 401(k), be sure to check a partner's paystub to ensure he or she doesn't have an outstanding loan that's being
repaid through paycheck deductions, Tracy says. And change your beneficiaries, if you don't want your ex-spouse named for your plan.
For employer pensions, be aware that each employer has different rules on how or whether the pension can be split, Tracy says.
Plus, you'll need a professional to determine its value before you can divide it, a process that can take two or three months. Until
you have that information, don't set terms for splitting the pension, she says.
QDROs don't apply to IRAs . Division
of IRAs should be detailed in a divorce decree or separation agreement. The agreement then has to be submitted to the IRA custodian.
"You just can't sign a napkin over drinks," says Dave Stolz, a certified public accountant and financial planner, in Tacoma, Wash.
Understand the tax rules for splitting an IRA to avoid unexpected penalties. You can't take a one-time penalty-free distribution
from an IRA because of a divorce, Pappas says. Take some cash out and you will owe taxes on the distribution, plus the 10% early-withdrawal
penalty if you're under 59½. But if the money is rolled directly to an IRA, there is no penalty or tax.
All retirement plans aren't equal. A partner receiving traditional 401(k) assets will owe taxes on any distributions, so it's
not equivalent to getting the same dollar amount of Roth IRA assets. Roth IRAs are funded with after-tax contributions. Planners
usually separate Roth IRAs from other retirement assets and split them in half, says Tracy.
If your finances are especially complicated, you might consider a collaborative divorce. Each partner typically hires his or her
own attorney, but they jointly use a financial planner and coach. The goal is to divide the finances to best meet each partner's
goals, Kostis says. Sometimes that may mean unequal divisions of individual assets such as 401(k) accounts or cash accounts, so one
person has a more secure retirement and the other has cash to purchase a house.
For example, Social Security
benefits can't be included as a marital asset, by law, and the actual benefit can't be divided. A higher-earning spouse will have
a bigger benefit than a spouse who may have worked part-time to care for children. The higher earner might agree to provide monthly
support payments for a certain period of time to make up the difference, Kostis says. Or the couple might choose to trade off other
assets, perhaps from an investment account. "You set your own rules," Kostis says.
I'm the most beautiful, tremendous, huge, spectacular, unbelievable, unbeatable, magnificent narcicist of ALL times!!! No one
has ever seen one like me! And Obama is jealous. D. T
How
did Trump cause the problem ( example of the pilot) in the first place? Most politicians are covert narcissists. They pretend
to be nice but are even more evil.
He recognizes that all politicians lie and we continue to accept those liars as standard actors in politics. You should have
reviewed his conversations before getting into politics.
This talk of adaptive narcissism, healthy narcissism, healthy grandiosity, etc. This is an error in thinking. Kohut was wrong,
Kernberg is right. Narcissism is always and already a pathological defense. That it doesn't always turn into a full blown
personality disorder doesn't mean it's sometimes healthy. It may help one get by in late capitalist neoliberalism but that
says more about the ways in which narcissism has infected the cultural milieu that we all live in than it does about the
supposed adaptiveness of narcissism.
Of course he is a narcissist, as is virtually every politician, surgeon, celebrity, CEO......it comes with the territory.
Most also have varying traits of psychopathy...as do most people..so it depends on degree. Now if you are talking about a
full blown narcissistic psychopath all I can say is.....leave Hillary alone!
Of course, he's a narcissist. So is Pierre Trudeau, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, John Brennan, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, and
every car salesman ever. An interesting side-project would be going into the narcissist tendencies and traits of
Machiavellianism in the mass-media and "news"/ journalism industry. Some truly grandiose sense of entitlement within the
ALT-press that is interestingly coupled with a well-focused derision and merciless quality of scapegoating certain classes of
people and a ghastly tendency to be sure they "know the story" before actually having to research it. This came into play in
the falsified hate-hoaxes that are now so prevalent today in driving the Left.
Thank you for your clear explanation of narcissism and how it may be applicable to certain people in positions of
authority. I do not feel obligated to comment in regards to the individual who this may be about; If people are observant
and honest in their appraisal they should be capable of drawing some conclusions.
Wow!!! After listening to the doctor, it seems someone like Obama, and Hillary Clinton were actual Narcissist with the way
each were cold to people around them, each thought they were entitled to win in anything they did, each thought they were the
smartest person in any room they entered, each made decisions that cost lives, yet they both thought they both did nothing
wrong, and both made good decisions. Very interesting, would never have thought them to be Narcissists, but could have been as
bad or worse then Trump, who at least had success, and had a reason why he would act the way he did.
Dear Dr. Grande, I do really admire your objective professionalism, especially on this subject/object. You, to me at least,
are the anti-trump. I'm strengthened by the knowledge of minds like yours existing in this weird day and age. Also; when
you summarize the different traits between the grandiose and vulnerable types, I tend to fear being type A but with the
traits of type B. Makes no sense. Also, is me/myself, trying to scrutinise myself/me, a narcissistic trait in itself?
:confused-emoticon Enjoyed your educated perspective as always. Thank you.
Personality order/disorder matters but above that the motivation to push citizens rights over the Elites gaining popular
support OR gathering power via the Elites over the population are the main factors for president or any public office... These
two sources of power are the only sources of power....no mater how they are balanced or imbalanced per politician..
nearly always fascinating. Yet looking at this case, it appears as though you, Dr Grande are simply subtly cheering more
negativity. Some of it is off the charts. re: assuming multiple photos - including 2 famous public figures proves they "know
eachother" and the subsequent quick cut away on to more negativity. . it reminds us of msm news reporting . But sorry, coming
from you it's disappointing. We don't need to look hard to find the Pres running on (and on) verbally, it's vexing. Most of us
surely see a degree of bombastic narcissism. So sorry to see you pile on (even tho subtly). We've voted a long time to see
someone who's not afraid of his own supporters. thank you Pres for true & positive change, aimed at all factions. . and Dr
Grande here's to you finding value in it.
I had a neighbor with narcissism followed by dementia. It was hard! I work from home, guess who came knocking everyday to be
driven somewhere, regardless of whether or not I was busy with work or with another person. Good thing is, she paid well,
though there were plenty of times she came knocking asking for it back with some boohoo story - you can't believe how many
times a friend of hers has died... I took care of her for months, no way to get a day off even if you are hiding your car/not
answering the door, they are persistent. I never understood narcissism until then. How much they like a person could depend on
looks alone. They introduce them self's with their full name, yet never bother to learn the names of the people they interact
with every day.... The good thing about my neighbor, she called Trump the baboon on TV. I'm sure he was talking too much about
him self for her to like him. It's remarkable to see Trump behave in the same manner as 'the crazy lady'. I can't imagine
anyone working directly with him. Honestly, dealing with a narcissist is really hard. They lie, constantly, even about
non-important things. There is NO reasoning with them, no logical thinking capabilities, no normal conversations, they talk
(about them self/their lives, not much else) , you listen. it's their way or the high way. Even if that would mean crash and
burn said airplane
I have a good example of this if I was told the truth: My husband thought he was about to lose his job in another country
and there was an issue in the country's only hospital with the HVAC my (now ex-) husband was responsible for. The surgery
had to be shut down. Crystals found in the lines had to be sent away to another country to a lab to be tested. It took
three weeks and it took him several days or more to find them and decide this might be a clue to help explain why this
would happen. It seems the crystals blocked the lines, but I don't think they ever knew the reason why it happened. No one
had a clue. All aspects of the equipment had to be inspected thoroughly, including all the electrical and gas lines,
motors, computerized aspects, duct work, etc. Lots of testing and cleaning. The surgical equipment and the surgery itself
relied on the HVAC working perfectly. Some people had to be flown to the USA for surgery. It was a dangerous time. No one
knew in the end how it occurred, but my ex, who was very methodical, slow and thorough, got everything up and running again
after about six weeks and he was a hero, until other issues caught up with him
. While he kept all books, I never saw him read anything much, possibly dyslexic, learning by doing, but everyone has
always thought he is one of the best in his trade, apparently, and it seems wherever he goes, he is known, despite there
have always been issues with management and even fraud.
I think I know how this is possible? I admire the Industrial HVAC trade. In California he had the same reputation for
years, or so I was told, until he was apparently sited for working too slowly, but it seemed he often wasn't working at
all. He seemed to feel they were going to fire him, so he needed time to jump ship again. He came home big-eyed one
afternoon to tell me the HVAC in a local hospital where he cared for all the HVAC equipment had the same issues as the one
in Bermuda where the HVAC in the surgeries wasn't working properly and they had to shut down maybe three of five surgeries.
The NICU had to have 24/7 nursing care staff at each child's cot, for days, and they brought in portable generators while
he tested everything and sent crystals to a lab for testing a little nearer by, so I think it only took a couple of weeks
or so, maybe three, once the issue was found, but not entirely resolved as to how it would happen in the first place. It
generated a lot of work and once again he was the hero because he fixed the problem. IF what he told me was true.
He is very reassuring and sounds so professional, and he had a fair amount of time to negotiate employment with another
company, but I think he didn't want to leave, he was forced to. He refused to tell me what company he moved to. I know he
was easily embarrassed by not getting the deal he wanted with whom he wanted.
There were other times I believe he put people in danger, or caused "accidents," he could tell himself lies about, not only
causing upsetting harm to myself and our young ones, walking the knife edge of murder, and other times soul murder, but
mostly murder of our well being, through deliberate harm. I have thought of how much psychological abuse and coercive
control we endured, and how much he liked to hurt me emotionally, but much of his behaviour centred on him most likely
losing control of addictions like gambling and drinking and trying to fit in with a younger crowd, and then having anxiety
around getting caught and messing up responsibilities which he wanted so as to appear "normal," but didn't want to infringe
on the self-centred life he preferred. He also watched some part of YouTube, it seemed, where he could find about 36 hours
steady worth of either graphic fatal auto or air crashes, or this many hours of live suicides, or simply of Top Gear, etc.
which was watched a little less. I think anxiety caused him to lash out, even if methodically.
He always seemed to have a plan to harm in advance, if he needed to lash out. A small one for me was when he explained how
to pop a person's tires without them deflating until long after, which by that time I wanted to know why he wanted to know
that and how, and he smiled his sickly open-mouthed smirk and I swear showed me the exact same nail and screw as he later
used on my vehicle during the family court nightmare of false narratives he got away with for two years. I still don't
think they get it.
If our daughter told of him smashing her arm into the car door, he waited two or three weeks and smashed her head into the
ceiling by braking hard, so that we could not say anything for the false accusations that might come our way, but daughter
had a headache for three days, and so many other things that were safer not to speak about.
I cannot really imagine adaptive narcissism. My mother was a vulnerable narcissist, and I recently met up with a grandiose
narcissist. The latter is a successful individual on several levels, and I suppose he might be termed adaptive, if any
narcissist might be. But his behavior is harmful to others, and I know that from experience. I do not see his isolation from
others as a sign of a successful life overall.
When you're raised in a narcissistic household, chaos and toxicity seems normal. Or the status quo. This might explain why 40%
of Americans feel like America is great again.
Group can be organized by a sociopath to harm an individual. Especially typical in female grpups.
Notable quotes:
"... Instead, trashing has reached epidemic proportions. Perhaps taking it out of the closet will clear the air. ..."
"... The means vary. Trashing can be done privately or in a group situation; to one's face or behind one's back; through ostracism or open denunciation. The trasher may give you false reports of what (horrible things) others think of you; tell your friends false stories of what you think of them; interpret whatever you say or do in the most negative light; project unrealistic expectations on you so that when you fail to meet them, you become a "legitimate" target for anger; deny your perceptions of reality; or pretend you don't exist at all. Trashing may even be thinly veiled by the newest group techniques of criticism/self-criticism, mediation, and therapy. Whatever methods are used, trashing involves a violation of one's integrity, a declaration of one's worthlessness, and an impugning of one's motives In effect, what is attacked is not one's actions, or one's ideas, but one's self. ..."
"... This attack is accomplished by making you feel that your very existence is inimical to the Movement and that nothing can change this short of ceasing to exist. These feelings are reinforced when you are isolated from your friends as they become convinced that their association with-you is similarly inimical to the Movement and to themselves. Any support of you will taint them. Eventually all your colleagues join in a chorus of condemnation which cannot be silenced, and you are reduced to a mere parody of your previous self. ..."
"... This was communicated so subtly that I never could get anyone to talk about it. There were no big confrontations, just many little slights ..."
"... Each by itself was insignificant; but added one to another they were like a thousand cuts with a whip. Step by step I was ostracized: if a collective article was written, my attempts to contribute were ignored; if I wrote an article, no one would read it; when I spoke in meetings, everyone would listen politely, and then take up the discussion as though I hadn't said anything; meeting dates were changed without my being told; when it was my turn to coordinate a work project, no one would help; when I didn't receive mailings, and discovered that my name was not on the mailing list, I was told I had just looked in the wrong place. My group once decided on joint fund-raising efforts to send people to a conference until I said I wanted to go, and then it was decided that everyone was on her own (in fairness, one member did call me afterward to contribute $5 to my fare, provided that I not tell anyone. She was trashed a few years later). ..."
"... Three months later word drifted back that I had been denounced by the Chicago Women's Liberation Union, founded after I dropped out of the Movement, for allowing myself to be quoted in a recent news article without their permission. That was all. ..."
"... For the first time in my life, I found myself believing all the horrible things people said about me. When I was treated like shit, I interpreted it to mean that I was shit. My reaction unnerved me as much as my experience. Having survived so much unscathed, why should I now succumb? The answer took me years to arrive at. It is a personally painful one because it admits of a vulnerability I thought I had escaped. I had survived my youth because I had never given anyone or any group the right to judge me. That right I had reserved to myself. But the Movement seduced me by its sweet promise of sisterhood. It claimed to provide a haven from the ravages of a sexist society; a place where one would be understood. it was my very need for feminism and feminists that made me vulnerable. I gave the movement the right to judge me because I trusted it. And when it judged me worthless, I accepted that judgment. ..."
This article was written for Ms . magazine and published in the April 1976 issue, pp. 49-51, 92-98.
It evoked more letters from readers
than any article previously published in Ms ., all but a few relating their own experiences of being trashed. Quite a few of these
were published in a subsequent issue of Ms .
It's been a long time since I was trashed. I was one of the first in the country, perhaps the first in Chicago, to have my character,
my commitment, and my very self attacked in such a way by Movement women that it left me torn in little pieces and unable to function.
It took me years to recover, and even today the wounds have not entirely healed. Thus I hang around the fringes of the Movement,
feeding off it because I need it, but too fearful to plunge once more into its midst. I don't even know what I am afraid of. I keep
telling myself there's no reason why it should happen again -- if I am cautious -- yet in the back of my head there is a pervasive,
irrational certainty that says if I stick my neck out, it will once again be a lightning rod for hostility.
For years I have written this spiel in my head, usually as a speech for a variety of imaginary Movement audiences. But I have never
thought to express myself on it publicly because I have been a firm believer in not washing the Movement's dirty linen in public.
I am beginning to change my mind.
First of all, so much dirty linen is being publicly exposed that I doubt that what I have to reveal will add much to the pile.
To those women who have been active in the Movement, it is not even a revelation. Second, I have been watching for years with increasing
dismay as the Movement consciously destroys anyone within it who stands out in any way. I had long hoped that this self-destructive
tendency would wither away with time and experience. Thus I sympathized with, supported, but did not speak out about, the many women
whose talents have been lost to the Movement because their attempts to use them had been met with hostility. Conversations with friends
in Boston, Los Angeles, and Berkeley who have been trashed as recently as 1975 have convinced me that the Movement has not learned
from its unexamined experience Instead, trashing has reached epidemic proportions. Perhaps taking it out of the closet will clear
the air.
What is "trashing," this colloquial term that expresses so much, yet explains so little? It is not disagreement; it is not conflict;
it is not opposition. These are perfectly ordinary phenomena which, when engaged in mutually, honestly, and not excessively, are
necessary to keep an organism or organization healthy and active. Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination
which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of
honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or resolve
differences. It is done to disparage and destroy.
The means vary. Trashing can be done privately or in a group situation; to one's face or behind one's back; through ostracism
or open denunciation. The trasher may give you false reports of what (horrible things) others think of you; tell your friends false
stories of what you think of them; interpret whatever you say or do in the most negative light; project unrealistic expectations
on you so that when you fail to meet them, you become a "legitimate" target for anger; deny your perceptions of reality; or pretend
you don't exist at all. Trashing may even be thinly veiled by the newest group techniques of criticism/self-criticism, mediation,
and therapy. Whatever methods are used, trashing involves a violation of one's integrity, a declaration of one's worthlessness, and
an impugning of one's motives In effect, what is attacked is not one's actions, or one's ideas,
but one's self.
This attack is accomplished by making you feel that your very existence is inimical to the Movement and that nothing can change
this short of ceasing to exist. These feelings are reinforced when you are isolated from your friends as they become convinced that
their association with-you is similarly inimical to the Movement and to themselves. Any support of you will taint them. Eventually
all your colleagues join in a chorus of condemnation which cannot be silenced, and you are reduced to a mere parody of your previous
self.
It took three trashings to convince me to drop out. Finally, at the end of 1969, I felt psychologically mangled to the point where
I knew I couldn't go on. Until then I interpreted my experiences as due to personality conflicts or political disagreements which
I could rectify with time and effort. But the harder I tried, the worse things got, until I was finally forced to face the incomprehensible
reality that the problem was not what I did, but what I was.
This was communicated so subtly that I never could get anyone to talk about it. There were no big confrontations, just many little
slights.
Each by itself was insignificant; but added one to another they were like a thousand cuts with a whip. Step by step I was
ostracized: if a collective article was written, my attempts to contribute were ignored; if I wrote an article, no one would read
it; when I spoke in meetings, everyone would listen politely, and then take up the discussion as though I hadn't said anything; meeting
dates were changed without my being told; when it was my turn to coordinate a work project, no one would help; when I didn't receive
mailings, and discovered that my name was not on the mailing list, I was told I had just looked in the wrong place. My group once
decided on joint fund-raising efforts to send people to a conference until I said I wanted to go, and then it was decided that everyone
was on her own (in fairness, one member did call me afterward to contribute $5 to my fare, provided that I not tell anyone. She was
trashed a few years later).
My response to this was bewilderment. I felt as though I were wandering blindfolded in a field I full of sharp objects and deep
holes while being reassured that I could see perfectly and was in a smooth, grassy pasture. It was is if I had unwittingly entered
a new society, one operating by rules of which I wasn't aware, and couldn't know. When I tried to get my group(s) to discuss what
I thought was happening to me, they either denied my perception of reality by saying nothing was out of the ordinary, or dismissed
the incidents as trivial (which individually they were). One woman, in private phone conversations, did admit that I was being poorly
treated. But she never supported me publicly, and admitted quite frankly that it was because she feared to lose the group's approval.
She too was trashed in another group.
Month after month the message was pounded in: get out, the Movement was saying: Get Out, Get Out! One day I found myself confessing
to my roommate that I didn't think I existed; that I was a figment of my own imagination. That's when I knew it was time to leave.
My departure was very quiet. I told two people, and stopped going to the Women's Center. The response convinced me that I had read
the message correctly. No one called, no one sent me any mailings, no reaction came back through the grapevine.
Half my life had
been voided, and no one was aware of it but me. Three months later word drifted back that I had been denounced by the Chicago Women's
Liberation Union, founded after I dropped out of the Movement, for allowing myself to be quoted in a recent news article without
their permission. That was all.
The worst of it was that I really didn't know why I was so deeply affected. I had survived growing up in a very conservative,
conformist, sexist suburb where my right to my own identity was constantly under assault. The need to defend my right to be myself
made me tougher, not tattered. My thickening skin was further annealed by my experiences in other political organizations and movements,
where I learned the use of rhetoric and argument as weapons in political struggle, and how to spot personality conflicts masquerading
as political ones. Such conflicts were usually articulated impersonally, as attacks on one's ideas, and while they may not have been
productive, they were not as destructive as those that I later saw in the feminist movement. One can rethink one's ideas as a result
of their being attacked. It's much harder to rethink one's personality. Character assassination was occasionally used, but it was
not considered legitimate, and thus was limited in both extent and effectiveness. As people's actions counted more than their personalities,
such attacks would not so readily result in isolation. When they were employed, they only rarely got under one's skin.
But the feminist movement got under mine. For the first time in my life, I found myself believing all the horrible things people
said about me. When I was treated like shit, I interpreted it to mean that I was shit. My reaction unnerved me as much as my experience.
Having survived so much unscathed, why should I now succumb? The answer took me years to arrive at. It is a personally painful one
because it admits of a vulnerability I thought I had escaped. I had survived my youth because I had never given anyone or any group
the right to judge me. That right I had reserved to myself. But the Movement seduced me by its sweet promise of sisterhood. It claimed
to provide a haven from the ravages of a sexist society; a place where one would be understood. it was my very need for feminism
and feminists that made me vulnerable. I gave the movement the right to judge me because I trusted it. And when it judged me worthless,
I accepted that judgment.
For at least six months I lived in a kind of numb despair, completely internalizing my failure as a personal one. In June, 1970,
I found myself in New York coincidentally with several feminists from four different cities. We gathered one night for a general
discussion on the state of the Movement, and instead found ourselves discussing what had happened to us. We had two things in common;
all of us had Movement-wide reputations, and all had been trashed. Anselma Dell'Olio read us a speech on "Divisiveness and Self-Destruction
in the Women's Movement" she had recently given at the Congress To Unite Women (sic) as a result of her own trashing.
"I learned ... years ago that women had always been divided against one another, self-destructive and filled with impotent rage.
I thought the Movement would change all that. I never dreamed that I would see the day when this rage, masquerading as a pseudo-egalitarian
radicalism [would be used within the Movement to strike down sisters singled out
"I am referring ... to the personal attacks, both overt and insidious, to which women in the Movement who had painfully managed
any degree of achievement have been subjected. These attacks take different forms. The most common and pervasive is character
assassination: the attempt to undermine and destroy belief in the integrity of the individual under attack. Another form is the
'purge.' The ultimate tactic is to isolate her. . . .
"And who do they attack? Generally two categories. . . Achievement or accomplishment of any kind would seem to be the worst
crime: ... do anything . . . that every other woman secretly or otherwise feels she could do just as well -- and ... you're in
for it. If then ... you are assertive, have what is generally described as a 'forceful personality/ if ... you do not fit the
conventional stereotype of a 'feminine' woman, ... it's all over.
"If you are in the first category (an achiever), You are immediately labeled a thrill-seeking opportunist, a ruthless mercenary,
out to make her fame and fortune over the dead bodies of selfless sisters who have buried their abilities and sacrificed their
ambitions for the greater glory of Feminism. Productivity seems to be the major crime -- but if you have the misfortune of being
outspoken and articulate, you are also accused of being power-mad, elitist, fascist, and finally the worst epithet of all: a male-identifier.
Aaaarrrrggg!"
As I listened to her, a great feeling of relief washed over me. It was my experience she was describing. If I was crazy, I wasn't
the only one. Our talk continued late into the evening. When we left, we sardonically dubbed ourselves the "feminist refugees" and
agreed to meet sometime again. We never did. Instead we each slipped back into our own isolation, and dealt with the problem only
on a personal level. The result was that most of the women at that meeting dropped out as I had done. Two ended up in the hospital
with nervous breakdowns. Although all remained dedicated feminists, none have really contributed their talents to the Movement as
they might have. Though we never met again, our numbers grew as the disease of self-destructiveness slowly engulfed the Movement.
Over the years I have talked with many women who have been trashed. Like a cancer, the attacks spread from those who had reputations
to those who were merely strong; from those who were active to those who merely had ideas; from those who stood out as individuals
to those who failed to conform rapidly enough to the twists and turns of the changing line. With each new story, my conviction grew
that trashing was not an individual problem brought on by individual actions; nor was it a result of political conflicts between
those of differing ideas, It was a social disease.
The disease has been ignored so long because it is frequently masked under the rhetoric of sisterhood. In my own case, the ethic
of sisterhood prevented a recognition of my ostracism. The new values of the Movement said that every woman was a sister, every woman
was acceptable. I clearly was not. Yet no one could admit that I was not acceptable without admitting that they were not being sisters.
It was easier to deny the reality of my unacceptability. With other trashings, sisterhood has been used as the knife rather than
the cover-up. A vague standard of sisterly behavior is set up by anonymous judges who then condemn those who do not meet their standards.
As long as the standard is vague and utopian, it can never be met. But it can be shifted with circumstances to exclude those not
desired as sisters. Thus Ti-Grace Atkinson's memorable adage that "sisterhood is powerful: it kills sisters" is reaffirmed again
and again.
Trashing is not only destructive to the individuals involved, but serves as a very powerful tool of social control. The qualities
and styles which are attacked become examples other women learn not to follow -- lest the same fate befall them. This is not a characteristic
peculiar to the Women's Movement, or even to women. The use of social pressures to induce conformity and intolerance for individuality
is endemic to American society. The relevant question is not why the Movement exerts such strong pressures to conform to a narrow
standard, but what standard does it pressure women to conform to.
This standard is clothed in the rhetoric of revolution and feminism. But underneath are some very traditional ideas about women's
proper roles. I have observed that two different types of women are trashed. The first is the one described by Anselma Dell'Olio
-- the achiever and/or the assertive woman, the one to whom the epithet "male-identified" is commonly applied. This kind of woman
has always been put down by our society with epithets ranging from "unladylike" to "castrating bitch." The primary reason there have
been so few "great women ______" is not merely that greatness has been undeveloped or unrecognized, but that women exhibiting potential
for achievement are punished by both women and men. The "fear of success" is quite rational when one knows that the consequence of
achievement is hostility and not praise.
Not only has the Movement failed to overcome this traditional socialization, but some women have taken it to new extremes. To
do something significant, to be recognized, to achieve, is to imply that one is "making it off other women's oppression" or that
one thinks oneself better than other women. Though few women may think this, too many remain silent while the others unsheathe their
claws. The quest for "leaderlessness" that the Movement so prizes has more frequently become an attempt to tear down those women
who show leadership qualities, than to develop such qualities in those who don't. Many women who have tried to share their skills
have been trashed for asserting that they know something others don't. The Movement's worship of egalitarianism is so strong that
it has become confused with sameness. Women who remind us that we are not all the same are trashed because their differentness is
interpreted as meaning we are not all equal.
Consequently the Movement makes the wrong demands from the achievers within it. It asks for guilt and atonement rather than acknowledgment
and responsibility. Women who have benefitted personally from the Movement's existence do owe it more than gratitude. But that debt
is not called in by trashing. Trashing only discourages other women from trying to break free of their traditional shackles.
The other kind of woman commonly trashed is one I would never have suspected. The values of the Movement favor women who are very
supportive and self-effacing; those who are constantly attending to others' personal problems; the women who play the mother role
very well. Yet a surprising number of such women have been trashed. Ironically their very ability to play this role is resented and
creates an image of power which their associates find threatening. Some older women who consciously reject the mother role are expected
to play it because they "look the part" -- and are trashed when they refuse. Other women who willingly play it find they engender
expectations which they eventually cannot meet, No one can be "everything to everybody," so when these women find themselves having
to say no in order to conserve a little of their own time and energy for themselves or to tend to the political business of a group,
they are perceived as rejecting and treated with anger. Real mothers of course can afford some anger from their children because
they maintain a high degree of physical and financial control over them. Even women in the "helping" professions occupying surrogate
mother roles have resources with which to control their clients' anger. But when one is a "mother" to one's peers, this is not a
possibility. If the demands become unrealistic, one either retreats, or is trashed.
The trashing of both these groups has common roots in traditional roles. Among women there are two roles perceived as permissible:
the "helper" and the "helped." Most women are trained to act out one or the other at different times. Despite consciousness-raising
and an intense scrutiny of our own socialization, many of us have not liberated ourselves from playing these roles, nor from our
expectations that others will do so. Those who deviate from these roles -- the achievers -- are punished for doing so, as are those
who fail to meet the group's expectations.
Although only a few women actually engage in trashing, the blame for allowing it to continue rests with us all. Once under attack,
there is little a woman can do to defend herself because she is by definition always wrong. But there is a great deal that those
who are watching can do to prevent her from being isolated and ultimately destroyed. Trashing only works well when its victims are
alone, because the essence of trashing is to isolate a person and attribute a group's problems to her. Support from others cracks
this facade and deprives the trashers of their audience. It turns a rout into a struggle. Many attacks have been forestalled by the
refusal of associates to let themselves be intimidated into silence out of fear that they would be next. Other attackers have been
forced to clarify their complaints to the point where they can be rationally dealt with.
There is, of course, a fine line between trashing and political struggle, between character assassination and legitimate objections
to undesirable behavior. Discerning the difference takes effort. Here are some pointers to follow. Trashing involves heavy use of
the verb "to be" and only a light use of the verb "to do." It is what one is and not what one does that is objected to, and these
objections cannot be easily phrased in terms of specific undesirable behaviors. Trashers also tend to use nouns and adjectives of
a vague and general sort to express their objections to a particular person. These terms carry a negative connotation, but don't
really tell you what's wrong. That is left to your imagination. Those being trashed can do nothing right. Because they are bad, their
motives are bad, and hence their actions are always bad. There is no making up for past mistakes, because these are perceived as
symptoms and not mistakes.
The acid test, however, comes when one tries to defend a person under attack, especially when she's not there, If such a defense
is taken seriously, and some concern expressed for hearing all sides and gathering all evidence, trashing is probably not occurring.
But if your defense is dismissed with an oft-hand "How can you defend her?"; if you become tainted with suspicion by attempting such
a defense; if she is in fact indefensible, you should take a closer look at those making the accusations. There is more going on
than simple disagreement.
As trashing has become more prevalent, I have become more puzzled by the question of why. What is it about the Women's Movement
that supports and even encourages self-destruction? How can we on the one hand talk about encouraging women to develop their own
individual potential and on the other smash those among us who do just that? Why do we damn our sexist society for the damage it
does to women, and then damn those women who do not appear as severely damaged by it? Why has consciousness-raising not raised our
consciousness about trashing?
The obvious answer is to root it in our oppression as women, and the group self-hate which results from our being raised to believe
that women are not worth very much. Yet such an answer is far too facile; it obscures the fact that trashing does not occur randomly.
Not all women or women's organizations trash, at least not to the same extent. It is much more prevalent among those who call themselves
radical than among those who don't; among those who stress personal changes than among those who stress institutional ones; among
those who can see no victories short of revolution than among those who can be satisfied with smaller successes; and among those
in groups with vague goals than those in groups with concrete ones.
I doubt that there is any single explanation to trashing; it is more likely due to varying combinations of circumstances which
are not always apparent even to those experiencing them. But from the stories I've heard, and the groups I've watched, what has impressed
me most is how traditional it is. There is nothing new about discouraging women from stepping out of place by the use of psychological
manipulation. This is one of the things that have kept women down for years; it is one thing that feminism was supposed to liberate
us from. Yet, instead of an alternative culture with alternative values, we have created alternative means of enforcing the traditional
culture and values. Only the name has changed; the results are the same.
While the tactics are traditional, the virulence is not. I have never seen women get as angry at other women as they do in the
Movement. In part this is because our expectations of other feminists and the Movement in general are very high, and thus difficult
to meet. We have not yet learned to be realistic in our demands on our sisters or ourselves. It is also because other feminists are
available as targets for rage.
Rage is a logical result of oppression. It demands an outlet. Because most women are surrounded by men whom they have learned
it is not wise to attack, their rage is often turned inward. The Movement is teaching women to stop this process, but in many instances
it has not provided alternative targets. While the men are distant, and the "system" too big and vague, one's "sisters" are close
at hand. Attacking other feminists is easier and the results can be more quickly seen than by attacking amorphous social institutions.
People are hurt; they leave. One can feel the sense of power that comes from having "done something." Trying to change an entire
society is a very slow, frustrating process in which gains are incremental, rewards diffuse, and setbacks frequent. It is not a coincidence
that trashing occurs most often and most viciously by those feminists who see the least value in small, impersonal changes and thus
often find themselves unable to act against specific institutions.
The Movement's emphasis on "the personal is political" has made it easier for trashing to flourish. We began by deriving some
of our political ideas from our analysis of our personal lives. This legitimated for many the idea that the Movement could tell us
what kind of people we ought to be, and by extension what kind of personalities we ought to have. As no boundaries were drawn to
define the limits of such demands, it was difficult to preclude abuses. Many groups have sought to remold the lives and minds of
their members, and some have trashed those who resisted. Trashing is also a way of acting out the competitiveness that pervades our
society, but in a manner that reflects the feelings of incompetence that trashers exhibit. Instead of trying to prove one is better
than anyone else, one proves someone else is worse. This can provide the same sense of superiority that traditional competition does,
but without the risks involved. At best the object of one's ire is put to public shame, at worst one's own position is safe within
the shrouds of righteous indignation, Frankly, if we are going to have competition in the Movement, I prefer the old-fashioned kind.
Such competitiveness has its costs, but there are also some collective benefits from the achievements the competitors make while
trying to outdo each other. With trashing there are no beneficiaries. Ultimately everyone loses.
To support women charged with subverting the Movement or undermining their group takes courage, as it requires us to stick our
necks out. But the collective cost of allowing trashing to go on as long and as extensively as we have is enormous. We have already
lost some of the most creative minds and dedicated activists in the Movement. More importantly, we have discouraged many feminists
from stepping out, out of fear that they, too, would be trashed. We have not provided a supportive environment for everyone to develop
their individual potential, or in which to gather strength for the battles with the sexist institutions we must meet each day. A
Movement that once burst with energy, enthusiasm, and creativity has become bogged down in basic survival -- survival from each other.
Isn't it time we stopped looking for enemies within and began to attack the real enemy without? The author would like to thank Linda,
Maxine, and Beverly for their helpful suggestions in the revision of this paper.
New study links virtue signaling to "Dark Triad" traits. Being accused of "virtue signaling"
might sound nice to the uninitiated, but spend much time on social media and you know that it's
actually an accusation of insincerity. Virtue signalers are, essentially, phonies and showoffs
- folks who adopt opinions and postures solely to garner praise and sympathy or whose good
deeds are tainted by their need for everyone to see just how good they are. Combined with a
culture that says only victimhood confers a right to comment on certain issues, it's a big
factor in online pile-ons and one that certainly contributes to social media platforms being
such a bummer sometimes.
So: Here's some fun new research looking at "the consequences and predictors of emitting
signals of victimhood and virtue," published in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. The paper -- from
University of British Columbia researchers Ekin Ok, Yi Qian, Brendan Strejcek, and Karl Aquino
-- details multiple studies the authors conducted on the subject.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.396.0_en.html#goog_1646225288
NOW PLAYING
Weinstein Victims Fight Over Settlement
Time Spent On Video Streaming Apps Increased By A Third During Lockdown
Jada Pinkett Smith Denies Claims Of Open Affair
As Coronavirus Pandemic Spirals Out Of Control, Trump Muzzles Fauci
Weekly $600 Benefit Ends July 31 Unless Congress Can Agree
The Check Is In The Mail? How To Get Your Stimulus Check If You Aren't Getting A Tax Refund
Broadcasters unite to celebrate UK television
Women More Likely To Lie To Their Boss When Working From Home
Their conclusion? Psychopathic, manipulative, and narcissistic people are more frequent
signalers of "virtuous victimhood."
The so-called "dark triad" personality traits - Machiavellianism, narcissism, and
psychopathy - lead to characteristics like "self-promotion, emotional callousness, duplicity,
and tendency to take advantage of others," the paper explains.
And "treated as a composite, the Dark Triad traits were significant predictors of virtuous
victim signaling."
This held true "even when controlling for factors that may make people vulnerable to being
mistreated or disadvantaged in society (i.e., demographic and socioeconomic characteristics) as
well as the importance they place on being a virtuous individual as part of their
self-concept," the researchers note.
They point out that virtue signaling is defined as "the conspicuous expression of moral
values, done primarily with the intent of enhancing one's standing within a social group."
Meanwhile, victim signaling "may be used as a social influence tactic that can motivate
recipients of the signal to voluntarily transfer resources to the signaler," they explain. More
from the paper's theoretical background section:
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
An emerging literature on competitive victimhood documents the prevalence of victim
signaling by various social groups and provides evidence for its functionality as a resource
extraction strategy. For instance, victim signaling justifies victim groups seeking
retribution against alleged oppressors. Retribution often takes the form of demanding
compensation through some kind of resource transfer from nonvictims to the alleged victim.
Claiming victim status can also facilitate resource transfer by conferring moral immunity
upon the claimant. Moral immunity shields the alleged victim from criticism about the means
they might use to satisfy their demands. In other words, victim status can morally justify
the use of deceit, intimidation, or even violence by alleged victims to achieve their goals.
Relatedly, claiming victim status can lead observers to hold a person less blameworthy,
excusing transgressions, such as the appropriation of private property or the infliction of
pain upon others, that might otherwise bring condemnation or rebuke. Finally, claiming victim
status elevates the claimant's psychological standing, defined as a subjective sense of
legitimacy or entitlement to speak up. A person who has the psychological standing can reject
or ignore any objections by nonvictims to the unreasonableness of their demands. In contrast
to victim signalers, people who do not publicly disclose their misfortune or disadvantage are
less likely to reap the benefits of retributive compensation, moral immunity, deflection of
blame, or psychological standing and would therefore find it difficult to initiate resource
transfers.
The effectiveness of victim signaling as a resource transfer strategy follows the basic
principles of signaling theory . Signaling theory posits that the transmission of information
from one individual (the sender) to another (the receiver) can influence the behavior of the
receiver. Signals can refer to any physical or behavioral trait of the sender, and are used
by the senders to alter the behaviors of others to their own advantage.
Their results suggest that:
"a perceived victim signal can lead others to transfer resources to a victim, but that
the motivation to do so is amplified when the victim signal is paired with a virtue signal"
and "people high in the Dark Triad traits emit the dual signal more frequently."
"a positive correlation between the Dark Triad scores and the frequency of emitting the
virtuous victim signal."
"evidence of how these signals can predict a person's willingness to engage in and
endorse ethically questionable behaviors . frequent virtuous victim signalers are more
willing to purchase counterfeit products and judge counterfeiters as less immoral compared
with less frequent signalers, a pattern that was also observed when using participants'
Dark Triad scores instead of their signaling score," and "frequent virtuous victim
signalers were more likely to cheat and lie to earn extra monetary reward in [a] coin flip
game."
"that a dimension referred to as amoral manipulation was the most reliable predictor of
virtuous victim signaling."
"frequent virtuous victim signalers were more likely to make inflated claims to justify
receiving restitution for an alleged and ambiguous norm violation in an organizational
context."
The authors stress that they "do not refute the claim that there are individuals who emit
the virtuous victim signal because they experience legitimate harm and also conduct themselves
in decent and laudable ways."
Bullying knows no borders -- it occurs in every country in the world -- and its impact can
last long after the incidents end. We asked people from the TED community who have firsthand
experience of the problem to offer their best advice.
1. Asking for help is not a sign of
weakness
"Don't think that letting someone else know you're being bullied or asking them for help is
a sign of weakness or that it's a situation you should be able to handle on your own. Going
through it alone isn't a sign of strength on your part, because that's what the bully wants.
They want your isolation, they want you to feel helpless, and if they think they got you in
that position, then they're often emboldened. That was a mistake I made as a kid. It made
things worse. When you don't reach out, you feel like nobody understands what you're going
through and nobody can help you. Those monologues in your mind start getting louder."
-- Eric Johnson ,
sixth-grade teacher from Indiana and a TED-Ed Innovative Educator (
TEDxYouth@BHS Talk:
How do you want to be
remembered ?)
2. And telling someone about being bullied is not snitching.
"Often, kids have this fear of what they call snitching. But if you feel significant stress
when you come to school, if it's too hard for you to come into the building, or if you have the
fear that someone will bother you by saying something or touching you inappropriately, then you
must tell someone. This is not snitching -- you're protecting yourself."
-- Nadia Lopez ,
principal of Mott Hall Bridges Academy, Brooklyn, New York (TED Talk: Why open a school?
To close a prison )
3. Surround yourself with allies.
"Bullies tend not to want to bully someone when that person is in a group, so make sure
you're with friends, people you trust and connect with. Knowing you have defenders around you
who will stand up for you can really help."
-- Jen James, founding supervisor of the Crisis Text Line (Watch the TED Talk:
How data from a crisis text line is changing lives from Crisis Text Line founder and CEO
Nancy Lublin)
... ... ...
Rebekah
Barnett is the community speaker coordinator at TED, and knows a good flag when she sees
one.
@Kevin Barrett Psychologists from the University of Kent carried out three online
studies. Hundreds of people completed questionnaires on conspiracy beliefs
They showed conspiracies are likely to be attractive to narcissists
But while low self-esteem, narcissism and belief in conspiracies are strongly linked, it
is not clear that one causes the other, they add
@anon The people who hate conspiracy theories have such low self-esteem that they have to
keep running rigged studies designed to make themselves look good and their victims look bad.
"Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. Hatred
alone is immortal." ~William Hazlitt, 1826
No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified
hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all
evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological
spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire
categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. "Hate
facts" are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they
are denied despite their evident truth.
Hate, it would seem, just can't get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as "haters."
The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don't hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal
occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent.
Without hate, you have
no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the
wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely
possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab's detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick . Even
if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It's time for an exploration from
a justified hater.
The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals
The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn't offer a complete
explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge
except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god
is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a "perfect hatred."
Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is "a time to love, and a time to hate; a time
of war, and a time of peace." The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest
of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the "love thy enemy" section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44)
which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote
non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside "render under Caesar"
etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche's critique
of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts
of loving one's enemy and "turning the other cheek," seem rather tendentious.
[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton's assessment
of Nietzsche's fixation here that it was both "obsessive, if not tedious." See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy
(1995).
Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one's enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For
Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and
dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness,
and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal -- better to be rid of the enemy, yes,
but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow
is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary,
to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.
These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and
engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can't be fulfilled, thus involving
not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden
of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness.
When they "forgive their enemies" they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies .
[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly
in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate
retribution is frustrated. The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection
of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one
thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in
outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.
Unlike Nietzsche, I don't think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the
distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it
is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of
decadence in modernity...
Hate is found in most every scientific list of human emotions. Hate is natural. The universe put hate into our list of human options.
Sometimes hate is needed to spur action. Most people are not inclined to violence. But there comes a time when violence is called
for – and hate is appropriate.
Okay... he's not a psychoapath, Don. I'll settle malignant sociopathic narcissist, which
means by definition and demonstration that he would not know empathy were it to leap up and
smack him in the face. Liar? We can soften that too. He is a serial fantasists living in the
worlds he creates and like a spoiled child demands, raging when his wishes are not instantly
gratified.
His dictatorial moments would be familiar to anyone who ever worked at his jumped up mom
'n pop real estate shop. His blustering, bullying, blaming, bragging, bloviating, and
berating are on display each day now at the late afternoon campaign commercial
live-from-the-White-House. He's all yours Don.
If you are accused of harassment in the workplace, it is important to carefully consider
your next moves. Your initial reaction might be to vehemently defend yourself against the
claims; however, try to keep a cool and calm head and approach the situation professionally.
The more hotly you protest the charges and the angrier you get, the less inclined people may be
to listen to your side of the story. Talk to a Lawyer
Book a consultation with a lawyer. If the matter can't be resolved via simple mediation
within the workplace, you have to be sure to protect yourself and your job. A lawyer can advise
you of your legal rights and give you an idea of how to best proceed with such allegations
presented against you.
Write it Down
Provide a written account of what happened from your point of view. While this may differ
from the account of the person claiming the harassment, it is important that you at least get
your side of the story out. A written statement doing so gives human resources and/or
management something to refer to during the investigation.
Tell the Truth
Be honest. If you know you did what the accusers say you did, be honest and the ensuing
punishment may be less harsh. Talk to your manager about what happened, admit to what you did
wrong and provide solutions for how to avoid further incidents. Most important: stop the
"harassing" behavior immediately. The situation may worsen if it continues, whether you feel it
is actual harassment or not.
Provide Witnesses
Provide an alibi and/or witnesses, if the claims are not true. If someone says you harassed
them at a time when you know you were in a meeting or talking to someone in his office, then
say so. Supply the name of any witnesses who can provide you an alibi. If there were other
people around at the time that the alleged harassment took place, ask them to speak up on your
behalf.
Stay Calm
Avoid retaliating in any way. Particularly if you have been falsely accused, you may feel
angry, frustrated and more emotional than usual because of what you are going through. Don't
take any adverse reaction against the person that made the allegations or do anything that
might be perceived as retaliatory.
Draw Attention to Your History
Give an accounting of your track record with the company. If you've been accused of
something you know you didn't do and you have a clean personnel file, explain to your manager
that you've been with the company "X" amount of years, have never had a problem with another
employee and have always treated others with the utmost respect. Your record could work in your
favor.
Consult with HR
Consult with your human resources representative to determine how to best proceed according
to company policy. Explain your side of the story and focus on what you can do to resolve the
matter quickly and focus on your job. A human resources rep might be able to mediate in the
matter and get it settled without having to take things further; she may also advise you of the
steps you need to take or explain that there is nothing more you can do while the company
investigates.
Tip
Whatever you do, don't confront the accuser. This may provide additional fodder for the
allegations against you and anything you say might be misconstrued and used against you
later.
Also, don't discuss the case with other people in the workplace, as the gossip may in
turn spur the allegations against you.
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the
progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are
living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member
of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining
an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the
proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology.
Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy-
or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the
strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry,
rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of
one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of
language to private life.
Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long
sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his
nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when
Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the
so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the
Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election
year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions
and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp
mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was
impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the
questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater
interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus"
Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And
so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh
of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly
two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until
a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the
full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very
accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations
by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford
subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination --
but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in
extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the
same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation.
Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm
election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on
record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh
would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican
chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the
confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if
they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's
identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white
men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's
allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government
norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at
the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and
then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor
and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.
Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh
today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser
faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though
he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour
over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the
alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the
alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory
mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years
ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as
recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In
truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either
assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of
wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at
times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any
of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no
idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge
were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer."
Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of
alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged
suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36
years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of
felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago.
That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise
of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a
deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament,
and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are
ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden.
The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more
believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and
gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser,
a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under
which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special
considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras
and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a
victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving
her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was
Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed
into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond
from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face
cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender,
or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when,
as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any
more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant
named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet
or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for
unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does
not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought
"medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean
that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address
either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of
Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought
counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately
be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about
her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then
name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current
version.
Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient
facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential
social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident
pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased
as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting
that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime
-- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation.
Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee
that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the
committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the
Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s
vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the
all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at
parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the
"frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the
noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down
drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a
circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly
confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault
narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details
(schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of
the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her
earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she
had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an
accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her
charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another
sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she
followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could
either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative
after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during
the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only
difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to
be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness
Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had
charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the
larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in
a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and
should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence,
insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the
refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii
senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And
I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,
for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the
way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably
guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty
of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no
longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell
warned us about long ago.
All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?
Debt Slave , 16 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now
guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is
that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than
they did, right?
Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven
guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent.
I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe
he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in
the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia
that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom,
free speech may be next.
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's
goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private
restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!
opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full
Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that
government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex
crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away
from that part of his "swampy" past.
Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of
education...
CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to
protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page
seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.
my new username , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.
BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of
the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you
with it.
Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist
one, but nice try rewriting history.
Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become
SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
"... Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our civilisation such as the presumption of innocence. Accusers have to prove their charges. ..."
"... Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that. ..."
"... Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with this article. ..."
"... For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. ..."
Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our
civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.
Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe
can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that.
Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological
reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just
some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see
his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone
can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with
this article.
Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you
can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you
will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised
idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be
a shame.
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.
For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's
child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by
her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only
imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this
situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize
to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he
started strongly resembling his dad (her son).
False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.
Female psychopath are especially dangerous as "reverse sexual predators". Assumption that all women are honest in their
accusations is extremely naive. Revenge and other inferior motives are pretty common, especially in academic setting.
"A sense of walking on eggshells" is a sure sign of unhealthy psychopath dominated environment.
Notable quotes:
"... Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said. ..."
"... All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say. ..."
"... "If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," ..."
The #MeToo movement was supposed to make life easier for women in the workplace. It was all
about respect and making real abusers pay a price for their behavior. But is it possible to
have too much of a good thing?
One of the aims of the movement was to force a change in the conduct of men who said and did
sexually inappropriate things in the workplace -- a concept which few people could quibble
with. A year on from its beginnings, however, it seems the movement has morphed into something
else entirely -- and ironically, it's hurting both men and women.
The 'Pence Effect' and 'gender segregation'
The #MeToo movement has taken down men across a wide spectrum of industries -- but so far,
Wall Street has avoided a huge public scandal -- despite its reputation for being, well, a
fairly sexist and male-oriented environment. So why has it escaped the #MeToo
spotlight?
Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and
found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their
careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or
even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or
gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan
Stanley executive said.
Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who
previously admitted that he would never dine alone with any woman other than his wife. British
actor Taron Egerton recently also said he now avoided being alone with
women for fear of finding himself in #MeToo's crosshairs.
I remember when a woman I was friendly/kind with perceived me as someone who wanted
"more." She wrote me a message about how she was uncomfortable. I'm gay. https://t.co/7z0X7Dwzkp
All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust
#MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the
reporters say.
Hurting women's progress?
The most ironic outcome of a movement that was supposed to be about women's empowerment is
that now, even hiring a woman on Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according
to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might take something
said to her in the wrong way.
With men occupying the most senior positions on Wall Street, women need male mentors who can
teach them the ropes and help them advance their careers, but what happens when men are afraid
to play that role with their younger female colleagues? The unintended consequence of the
#MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of
the workplace to the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door
closed.
Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find
themselves facing another: Discrimination complaints.
"If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of
being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment
complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an employment
attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg.
Not all men are responding to the #MeToo movement by fearfully cutting themselves off from
women, however. "Just try not to be an asshole," one said, while another added:
"It's really not that hard."
It might not be that simple, however. It seems there is no escape from the grip of the
#MeToo movement. One of the movements most recent victims of the viral hashtag movement is not
a man, but a song -- the time-honored classic 'Baby It's Cold Outside' -- which is being banished
from American radio stations because it has a "rapey" vibe.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
Narcissists & the Compartmentalized Life (Part 1/2)
... .. ...
Invariably, online definitions describe compartmentalization as a defense
mechanism that a person uses to keep certain beliefs and relationships separated from one another so that
they don't conflict. For those who are particularly good at it, like narcissists and sociopaths, it means
being able to get away with just about anything including keeping one lover from ever finding out about
another or from lies ever becoming truly tangled.
Compartmentalization is what narcissists do before,
during, and after a Discard. Compartmentalizing is how the narcissist keeps partners (or only
certain
partners) from ever meeting his friends and family members. Compartmentalization is the perfect explanation
for how the
narcissist can just leave you
without giving a fuck why your
history with a narcissist
means absolutely nothing why he appears to simply vanish
during
a silent treatment
and why he's so adept using
the Cell Phone Game
to keep you at arms length even when you think you
are
"together".
Imagine the narcissist's twisted head
as being like a building that contains a whole bunch of empty rooms – or compartments – to which he is the
only key holder. Over time, the narcissist fills these compartments, each with a single scenario from his
life and each scenario having little or no knowledge about the existence of the other compartments. By
carefully keeping tabs on the contents of each compartment and by controlling all levels of communications
and interaction, the narcissist keeps the potential for conflict and confrontation to a bare minimum as he
moves from one to the other. The biggest benefit, of course, to compartmentalization is that the
narcissist can behave
one way while visiting one compartment and behave completely
differently when visiting another.
And since the narcissist is a
pretender extraordinaire
and master chameleon, the fact that he's has to basically lie
through his teeth during each visit isn't even an issue. In fact, that's the easiest part of the strategy!
In another article series on this site called
A Sociopath Exposes the Narcissist
, I use actual pieces of blog posts written by a very
popular online sociopath to prove my point about
how a narcissist thinks
. To prove my point about compartmentalizing, I'll use yet
another blurb from that same blog:
For me, my Game Theory is not only one fashion of handling life, it's also the concept
of compartmentalization. As many people have commented, trying to keep everything in order (in regards to
the lies, half-truths, manipulations, "games," etc.) would be exceedingly difficult (for a
sociopath/narcissist). And it would be, if the sociopath's mind operated as a normal person's. Everything
in my mind is organized sort of like folders (compartments) and folder groups that you might find in,
say, Windows Explorer; everything has its place. When a situation presents itself or I am with a certain
friend or friend(s), I simply "open" up that folder and behave accordingly.
When one's mind is organized
in such a way that no thought co-mingles with others, you don't have the problem of "remembering all of
the lies," because you have everything you need neatly stored away, waiting to be accessed at the right
time.
This same concept of compartmentalization applies in all walks of (my) life, whether it be love,
friendships, work, etc. Another benefit to compartmentalizing is that it enables oneself to keep track of
"friend circles", thus ensuring that none of these circles cross in any way; this can allow for you to
more easily adapt to any number of given situations per friend circle. For example, for each different
personality, I just find another lover (in addition to or instead of one you may already have). I find
myself involved in many different circles, but almost as a ghost; I can walk in and out of these circles
almost unnoticed and never be missed.
To imagine
life as a narcissist,
we must imagine ourselves moving in and out of these compartments
whenever it served a beneficial purpose. A narcissist might have separate compartments for you, his other
girlfriend(s), his work relationships, his family life, his guy friends, his time at the gym or in the band
or at the bar or home alone at his apartment.
Then, when it's convenient, he just moves in and out of the
little rooms like a snake, carefully closing the door behind him when he arrives and also locking it tight
when he leaves.
He might be giving you
the silent treatment
while hanging out in the compartment next door and you won't even
know it. Or he can be having a regular sex life with three different women who all think that they're his
only girlfriend. When a person is a
pathological liar
and has no empathy, sympathy, guilt, or remorse, compartmentalization
is the way to go!
The fact that a narcissist is capable of having a long-term relationship with
one person while carrying on a similar affair with one (or more) other persons is a constant source of angst
for all of us. And I believe it's not the cheating itself that is the biggest issue but rather the
narcissist's lack of conscience/emotion that appears to go with it. How
does
he do it without
feeling a single thing? When confronted with an affair, my ex was able to fake remorse for only a day or two
before he threw up his hands in exasperation and screamed "Get over it! I just didn't think it was any big
deal!"
Excuse me?
No big deal?
This way of thinking, of course, isn't normal because even
an asshole knows that cheating is hurtful. But the narcissist, in his non-emphatic way of thinking, doesn't
see it that way. So, as hurtful as my ex's response was to me, he was actually telling me
a snippet of truth
but at the time, I sure didn't see it that way either and it caused me great distress.
It all goes back to those stolen FBI files that ended up in HRCs possession in the first
week of BCs presidency.
SergeA.Storms , 2 hours ago
900+ if I recall correctly. Then Travelgate and the list over 50 years is extraordinary
for any criminal...wish we could talk to Barry Seal...
deFLorable hillbilly , 2 hours ago
I'm thinking it's a "Foundation Sponsor".
Lord Raglan , 2 hours ago
absolutely true. Great memory. Good for you! 450 FBI files of Congresspeople that were
lost for 3 years and then wound up found in HilldeKunt's White HOuse Office...........
"... But the third are the narcissistic and psychopathic leaders, whose motivation for gaining power is purely self-serving. ..."
"... Narcissistic leaders may seem appealing because they are often charismatic (they cultivate charisma in order to attract attention and admiration.) As leaders they can be confident and decisive and their lack of empathy can promote a single-mindedness which can, in some cases, lead to achievement. Ultimately though, any positive aspects are far outweighed by the chaos and suffering they create. ..."
"... Every potential leader should be assessed for their levels of empathy, narcissism or psychopathy to determine their suitability for power. At the same time, empathetic people -- who generally lack the lust to gain power -- should be encouraged to take positions of authority. Even if they don't want to, they should feel a responsibility to do so -- if only to get in the way of tyrants. ..."
"... Instead, anyone with a strong desire for power and wealth is barred from consideration as a leader. According to anthropologist Christopher Boehm, present-day foraging groups "apply techniques of social control in suppressing both dominant leadership and undue competitiveness." ..."
"... If a dominant male tries to take control of the group, they practise what Boehm calls "egalitarian sanctioning." They team up against the domineering person, and ostracize or desert him. In this way, Boehm says, "the rank and file avoid being subordinated by vigilantly keeping alpha-type group members under their collective thumbs." ..."
Throughout history, people who have gained positions of power tend to be precisely the kind of people who
should not be entrusted with it. A desire for power often correlates with negative personality traits:
selfishness, greed and a lack of empathy. And the people who have the strongest desire for power tend to be
the most ruthless and lacking in compassion.
Often those who attain power show traits of psychopathy and
narcissism. In recent times, psychopathic leaders have been mostly found in less economically developed
countries with poor infrastructures and insecure political and social institutions. People such as Saddam
Hussein in Iraq, MuammarGaddafi in Libya and Charles Taylor in Liberia.
But modern psychopaths generally don't become leaders in affluent countries (where they are perhaps more
likely to join multinational corporations.) In these countries, as can be seen in the U.S. and Russia, there
has been a movement away from psychopathic to narcissistic leaders.
After all, what profession could be more suited to a
narcissistic
personality than politics
, where the spotlight of attention is constant?
Narcissists
feel entitled to gain power because of their sense of superiority and self-importance.
Those with narcissistic personalities tend to crave attention and admiration and feel it is right that
other people should be subservient to them. Their lack of empathy means they have no qualms about exploiting
other people to attain or maintain their power.
Meanwhile, the kind of people who we might think are ideally suited to take on positions of power -- people
who are empathetic, fair minded, responsible and wise -- are naturally disinclined to seek it. Empathetic
people like to remain grounded and interact with others, rather than elevating themselves. They don't desire
control or authority, but connection, leaving those leadership roles vacant for those with more narcissistic
and psychopathic character traits.
Different types of leader
Yet it would be misleading to say it is only psychopaths and narcissists who gain power. Instead, I would
suggest that there are generally three types of leaders.
The first are accidental leaders who gain power without a large degree of conscious intention on their
part, but due to privilege or merit (or a combination). Second are the idealistic and altruistic leaders,
probably the rarest type. They feel impelled to gain power to improve the lives of other people -- or to
promote justice and equality, and try to become instruments of change.
But the third are the narcissistic and psychopathic leaders, whose motivation for gaining power is purely
self-serving.
This doesn't just apply to politics, of course. It's an issue in every organisation with a hierarchical
structure. In any institution or company, there is a good chance that those who gain power are highly
ambitious and ruthless, and lacking in empathy.
Narcissistic leaders may seem appealing because they are often charismatic (they cultivate charisma in
order to attract attention and admiration.) As leaders they can be confident and decisive and their lack of
empathy can promote a single-mindedness which can, in some cases, lead to achievement. Ultimately though,
any positive aspects are far outweighed by the chaos and suffering they create.
What is needed are checks to power -- not just to limit the exercise of power, but to limit its attainment.
Put simply, the kind of people who desire power the most should not be allowed to attain positions of
authority.
Every potential leader should be assessed for their levels of empathy, narcissism or psychopathy to
determine their suitability for power. At the same time, empathetic people -- who generally lack the lust to
gain power -- should be encouraged to take positions of authority. Even if they don't want to, they should feel
a responsibility to do so -- if only to get in the way of tyrants.
Models of society
This might sound absurd and impractical, but as I suggest in my book,
The Fall
, it has been done
before. There are many tribal hunter-gatherer societies where great care is taken to ensure that unsuitable
individuals don't attain power.
Instead, anyone with a strong desire for power and wealth is barred from consideration as a leader.
According to anthropologist Christopher Boehm, present-day
foraging groups
"apply
techniques of social control in suppressing both dominant leadership and undue competitiveness."
If a dominant male tries to take control of the group, they practise what Boehm calls "egalitarian
sanctioning." They team up against the domineering person, and ostracize or desert him. In this way, Boehm
says, "the rank and file avoid being subordinated by vigilantly keeping alpha-type group members under their
collective thumbs."
Just as importantly, in many simple hunter-gatherer groups power is assigned to people, rather than being
sought by them. People don't put themselves forward to become leaders -- other members of the group recommend
them, because they are considered to be experienced and wise, or because their abilities suit particular
situations.
In some societies, the role of leader is not fixed, but rotates according to different circumstances. As
another anthropologist,
Margaret Power, noted
: "The leadership role is spontaneously assigned by the group, conferred on some
members in some particular situation One leader replaces another as needed."
In this way, simple hunter-gatherer groups preserve stability and equality, and minimise the risk of
conflict and violence.
It's true that large modern societies are much more complex and more populous than hunter-gatherer
groups. But it may be possible for us to adopt similar principles. At the very least, we should assess
potential leaders for their levels of empathy, in order to stop ruthless and narcissistic people gaining
power.
We could also try to identify narcissists and psychopaths who already hold positions of power and take
measures to curtail their influence. Perhaps we could also ask communities to nominate wise and altruistic
people who would take an advisory role in important political decisions.
No doubt all this would entail massive changes of personnel for most of the world's governments,
institutions and companies. But it might ensure that power is in the hands of people who are worthy of it,
and so make the world a much less dangerous place.
Another problem with Trump negotiating tactics is that they require the counterparty to accept public humiliation.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump never offers positive incentives for cooperation, but relies instead on inflicting economic pain in an attempt to bully
the other government into submission. Of course, bullying tactics tend to backfire, especially when the bully's demands seem impossible
or unreasonable. ..."
"... His primary method and strategy is to be thuggish and bullish, then lie his way out of the consequences. The fact that he can
continue to behave as he did is because he has yet to experience the consequences of his actions. ..."
The latest threat to impose new tariffs on imports from Mexico shows that Trump is interested in using economic threats and punishment
mainly to pick fights, and then once he has picked the fight he cites the conflict he started as proof of how "tough" he is. He sets
conditions that other governments cannot or will not meet, and then seeks to penalize them for "failing" to agree to unrealistic
terms.
The problem isn't just that Trump is liable to reverse course and sabotage his own agreements once they are made, but that other
governments have absolutely no incentive to make an agreement with him in the first place.
Trump never offers positive incentives for cooperation, but relies instead on inflicting economic pain in an attempt to bully
the other government into submission. Of course, bullying tactics tend to backfire, especially when the bully's demands seem impossible
or unreasonable.
Yes, any clear minded American patriots should be talking about abuse of power by Trump, not just obstruction of justice.
His primary method and strategy is to be thuggish and bullish, then lie his way out of the consequences. The fact that
he can continue to behave as he did is because he has yet to experience the consequences of his actions.
ADamnSmith: Yes, I'm a psychologist. You've pretty much nailed it. I'd add that one of the
major reasons narcissistic sociopaths are dangerous is that they lack empathy for others.
From the comments it is clear that Kamala diplomatic skills are much to be desired.
Her style is very simple: Bullying and attempt to intimidate. It only works against betas. Typical trick: "Is it true you've stopped beating
your wife? Yes or no. Please answer the question. Think carefully about your answer."
During a Senate Intelligence hearing, things got heated between Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
and Republican senators on the committee.
" Subscribe to MSNBC:
http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
She slept her way into government sleeping with Willie Brown ex San Francisco mayor
Diane
Byers7 months
ago Lol what a low class, bottom feeding , smirking ghetto rump!!!!
She's lucky the Chairman didn't publicly reprimand her when she raised her
eyebrows and then talked over the top of him when he told her to suspend. She's just a
bully
The Home-wrecker (Harris) should be in jail, not the Senate (look up Willie Brown, then
do a little research on how Ms. Harris was GIVEN her Senate seat). You will be
amazed.
MSNBC.. what you are saying is completely untrue. Sessions was trying to answer her questions
honestly and when Kamala Harris realized she was not going to get the answer her engineered
question was designed to achieve, she immediately pressed on with her next question without
giving Session the chance to finish.
Typical smoke and mirrors witch hunt over something that
just does not exist. I would love to Kamala Harris question Lorreta Lynch... it would last for
48 hours
This happened in 2017 but Kamala is a very slow learner. Today, 9/13/2018, and she is
STILL the same Kamala "bully" Harris. Is she working for the citizens or simply trying to make
political points?
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
"Narcissism impairs the ability to see reality," said Dr. Julie Futrell, a clinical
psychologist... "...Advisers point out that a policy choice didn't work? He won't care. The
maintenance of self-identity is the organizing principle of life for those who fall toward the
pathological end of the narcissistic spectrum."
... ... ...
The psychological warning signs? "Scapegoating ..., degrading, ridiculing, and demeaning
rivals and critics, fostering a cult of the Strong Man who appeals to fear and anger, promises
to solve our problems if we just trust in him, reinvents history and has little concern for
truth (and) sees no need for rational persuasion."
The American Psychiatric Association says
that anyone exhibiting five of the following nine egotistical traits has
Narcissistic Personality Disorder .
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be
recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
Is preoccupied with
fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
Believe
that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with
other special or high-status people.
Requires excessive admiration.
Has a
sense of entitlement.
Is interpersonally exploitative.
Lacks empathy: is
unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
Is often
envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
"... I read this book over two nights and it unfortunately brought back my own experiences of working for a narcissist to the point of causing sleeplessness and indigestion. ..."
"... However the pattern of behavior at Theranos was ingrained and consistent - "an orchestrated litany of lies" as a judge has said in another matter. ..."
"... This is a similar personality type with a different set of risks. These people are common in finance and medicine: https://www.theatlantic.com... ..."
"... In the absence of a moral filter, says Martha Stout[1], "Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths...That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow–but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one." ..."
I wrote in
2010 at SST on the characteristics and dangers associated with narcissistic leadership. "Bad
Blood' by John Carreyrou chronicles the rise and fall of Theranos, a Silicon Valley healthcare
startup founded and run by Elizabeth Holmes, a card carrying narcissist if ever I saw one.
This
book, in my opinion, paints such a detailed and comprehensive picture of the way these
creatures operate that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of SST members who
may doubt my warnings of the dangers of allowing such folk near the levers of power in business
and, worse, Government.
I read this book over two nights and it unfortunately brought back my
own experiences of working for a narcissist to the point of causing sleeplessness and
indigestion.
Under the direction of the charismatic Holmes, Theranos burned through some $900
million in investors funds before being found out in 2015. Their blood testing business was a
sham that endangered patients. The company's key business strengths were the "reality
distortion field" Elizabeth Holmes projected over investors and directors and the twin weapons
of secrecy and fear they wielded over their employees.
Disbelievers my argue that start up
companies sometimes require desperate measures to stay afloat and that you cannot make an omelette, etc. etc. However the pattern of behavior at Theranos was ingrained and consistent -
"an orchestrated litany of lies" as a judge has said in another matter.
In the absence of a moral filter, says Martha Stout[1], "Politicians are more likely than
people in the general population to be sociopaths...That a small minority of human beings
literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow–but it
does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one."
My study of Chinese government revealed an important truth -- one that explains much about
that country's rapid rise: they find our amateur, promise-driven, personality-based
governance repulsive. They would no more vote for amateur politicians than for amateur brain
surgeons. To them charm, good looks, quick wits and rhetorical skill signify shallowness,
instability and glibness. Altruistic politicians have been fundamental to Chinese governance
for two millennia.
Their political stars have always been experienced, scholarly, altruistic problem-solvers
chosen on merit after decades of testing.
In 1000 AD, during our Dark Ages, with just one scholar-official for every eight thousand
citizens, China was harmonious, technologically advanced and prosperous. Emperors and
dynasties came and went while loyal, disciplined–often courageous–civil servants
lived far from family, serving in remote regions under terrible conditions.
Confucius'[2] moral meritocracy and the rigors of the job discouraged sociopaths and
officials integrity, efficiency and entrepreneurial energy made China the most advanced
civilization on earth.
So highly do the Chinese esteem their best politicians that they deified one whose legacy,
a water diversion project, has repaid its capital investment every twenty-four hours for
2,270 years. Millions visit his shrine, which is built overlooking his masterpiece, every
year to offer incense and sincere thanks.
The altruistic tradition is remembered in a Singapore Government White Paper, "The concept
of government by honorable men who have a duty to do right for the people and who have their
trust and respect fits us better than the Western idea that government power should be as
limited as possible."
And would-be members of China's Communist Party take an oath to "Bear the people's
difficulties before the people and enjoy their fruits of their labors after the people". They
often fail, obviously, but at least they've got something to shoot for–and a standard
that the other 1.3 billion non-members can hold them to.
[1] The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout Ph.D.
[2] The Doctrine of the Mean
"... What is killing the Army is exactly the same disease that is killing the American economy and has killed American politics,
and it is spreading internationally. That disease is the promotion or election of officials, be they Generals, CEO's or Congressmen
who have a variant of narcissistic personality disorder. ..."
"... Such folk self select for high office because they will do anything to get ahead without the slightest qualm, and that includes
lying, cheating, character assassination, backstabbing and outrageous flattery of their seniors. They mimic whatever behaviors they
need to exhibit to get ahead, but they don't "own' those behaviours. ..."
"... Isn't the medal quest a game tailor made for narcissists? ..."
"The idea has been allowed to take hold in the army that general officers are a race apart, not subject to the norms of ordinary
life and that nothing should limit their ambition, not even common sense. " It seems quite clear from this and other articles, that
the ROE are about covering General officers backsides, and nothing else.
What is killing the Army is exactly the same disease that is killing the American economy and has killed American politics,
and it is spreading internationally. That disease is the promotion or election of officials, be they Generals, CEO's or Congressmen
who have a variant of narcissistic personality disorder.
People so affected may be intelligent and hard working, but they cannot empathise with anyone. Normal human emotions, shame, love,
fear, embarrasssment, etc. are a mystery to them.
Such folk self select for high office because they will do anything to get ahead without the slightest qualm, and that includes
lying, cheating, character assassination, backstabbing and outrageous flattery of their seniors. They mimic whatever behaviors they
need to exhibit to get ahead, but they don't "own' those behaviours.
At the core of them, there is a gaping hole where empathy for their fellow humans should be. Furthermore, since only a narcissist
can or will work for a more senior narcissist, once the infestation starts it multiplies and filters up and down through the organisation.
Based on what I've read about the levels of frustration, lack of morale and junior officer turnover, I believe, it may be safe to
say that Petreaus and McChrystal are afflicted this way and most probably many officers below them and elsewhere in the Defence Forces
as well.
Since McChrystal no doubt thinks of his troops as no more than a pack of valuable hunting dogs, why would he possibly consider
muzzling them with restrictive rules of engagement to be a problem? "I mean it's not as if we actually have to succeed in doing good
in this god forsaken country, it's not as if the troops have to care about what is happening, I just need to construct the illusion
of success in Afghanistan sufficient to get my next promotion. Why can't the troops see things that way as well?" If you wish to
read about an extreme example of this type of behaviour look no further than the case of Capt. Holly Graf, whose narcissistic abilities
allowed her to rise to command of a Navy cruiser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Graf
To put it another way, the disease that permitted Goldman Sachs to sell bonds to investors while at the same time secretly betting
that the value of said bonds would fall is one and the same as that affecting the Army. The absolute give away, which I have not
yet heard of in the Army, is the mistreatment of subordinates. Of course the reason for the infestation of these folk in senior management
is our well meaning efforts to end discrimination. Unfortunately discrimination on grounds of character is now forbidden, and solid
evidence of good character provided by peers and subordinates is the only way to avoid promoting narcissists. To put it another way,
there are people I was at school and university with who were rotten then and are rotten now, but today such evidence is inadmissible
in promotion decisions. If you want a depiction of a Narcissist in high office, look no further than Australias current Prime Minister:
"The third example highlights Rudd's nascent contempt for most of the people who work for him and occurred days after his stunning
election win. Staff who had gathered for a briefing on their responsibilities were told their Great Leader would address them.
They were all on a high after the victory, but their excitement soon turned to dismay. They didn't get a version of the true believers
speech; instead, Rudd had one clear message: if any of their bosses stuffed up, it would be on their heads. They were the ones
who would pay the price. He told them they would be given their lines every day and their job was to ensure they and their bosses
stuck to the script. They were not to put a foot out of line. Or else. No mistakes or deviations would be tolerated. Thank you
and good night. Oh and the f-word, which Rudd loves dropping almost as much as the c-word, featured prominently in his little
lecture. Old hands who had worked for previous Labor administrations didn't hang around for very long after that. One referred
to him not by name but as "the megalomaniac from Queensland"."
Thank you all for your comments. I think I need to expand a few thing s alittle further.
Narcissism is not "Self Love", narcissism is a love of "reflected" love from others. Narcissus fell in love with his reflection
in the pool. While Narcissism is an essential part of all our personalities in the NPD disorder the demand for constant narcissistic
stimulation from other people consumes all other desires.
Now many people who suffer from this condition sublimate this need through hard work and apply great intelligence to it as
well. However there is a huge cost because of the character defects Narcissism causes - chief of which is an inability to empathise
with normal human beings.
There has been serious discussion in management theory that NPD sufferers can be valuable sometimes as managers can make ruthless
but necessary business decisions. However that cynical observation has to be balanced against the damage and loss of staff and
morale such a manager inevitably causes.
A classic example of Narcissistic behaviour was provided recently by the Chairman of an Airline, that for a whole year had
ruthlessly worked to lower wages and employment conditions for its workers. At Christmas time she gave some Forty senior managers
each a $600 bottle of wine (Penfold Grange Hermitage). Can anyone not imagine the multiple negative effects of such a gesture
on the ordinary airline staff?
It is too big a task to catalogue the everyday examples of people with this condition. The movie stars and celebrities for
example whose private lives, as seems normal with Narcissists, are a smoking wreck. Tiger Woods is a classic case.
However when we start talking about elected officials, or would be elected officials like Sarah Palin, we can see the serious
implications. Australias Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for example has micromanaged a series of massive policy failures at home and
now craves his narcissistic sublimation by impressing foreign dignitaries on every available occasion, earning him the nickname
"Kevin 747" for his propensity to jet off overseas to speak at the U.N., confer with President Obama, etc. His bad, narcissistic,
style of decision making has cost the nation a lot of money.
In the case of President Obama, what can we say about some one caught making an off the cuff remark about "The Special Olympics"
or who was caught ogling a girl who was not much older than his own daughters? Do we see a pattern here?
I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the "Suicidal Statecraft" that destroy nations is a by product of narcissistic leadership
- for example "The Habsburg Provocation" to "The honour Of France" that started the Franco - Prussian war.
At the General Officer Level, what can one say about Patton? A brilliant charismatic leader and strategist? What does the incident
of the shell shocked soldier say? McArthur? Petreaus? The supposedly sleepless McChrystal? I don't know.
By way of contrats, and Col. Lang will take me to task on this, I was struck on reading Gen. Schwarzkopfs autobiography, by
his apparent high degree of empathy with the average soldiers, even if he appeared far more uncompromising with the officer corps.
I also was struck by his solution to logistical squabbling between Corps commanders in the lead up to Gulf war One - a field promotion
of his logistics Chief from a Two Star to a Three Star General. Such a solution would be anathema to a narcissist.
I am amazed at a discussion of narcissistic personality disorder that to this point, at least, has not mentioned today's poster
child for this disorder -- Sarah Palin.
It would seem that narcissism is rooted in the notion of individualism, in that it expresses a love for the self over the group.
Interestingly and ironically, wasn't it the Catholic Church that championed individualism in the post dark ages era, as a mechanism/method
to disassemble the collectivist mentality of Germanic tribalism -- while at the same time replacing it with their own hierarchical
social/religious authority structure.
I think what Walrus says is essentially true, but would be better said by including the social context by which narcissism
or the cult-ification of individualism could be seen as generating its own kind of social order, or social hierarchy based upon
meritocracy, or the illusion of merit when equated with raw power.
Or perhaps in better words, individualism or narcissism must be seen in the context of being its own hierarchical social structure,
with its own construct of social (not individual) values that are internalized an acted upon by its participants.
And maybe, this why the "effects" of narcissism are so widespread and endemic in all of our institutions.
At least in the civilian world, there is an aspect to this personality trait that is not emphasized in Walrus' comment. A few
-- not all -- of those with a narcissistic personality traits are brilliant. Megalomania is one of the pathways to creativity,
albeit it usually ends w/ some kind of tragedy.
You can bring these people down, imo, and beat them at their own game but expect career sacrifice and do not expect fanfare.
And I would never under estimate their extreme talent.
Can't say about the military world nor do I want to know. But it sure seems to be that General Bragg at Chattanooga fulfilled
a lot of Dr. Dixon's categories in the article mentioned by S.Henning.
I don't understand all this hoopla about the greatness of Confederate Generals. Seems to be painting with too broad a stroke.
Foote does a magnificent job debunking the myth as he continually details the shortcomings of various Confederate Generals. Where
was Joe Johnston when Pembleton was suffering in the beleaguered city? Why isn't Ft. Bragg named Ft. Longstreet?
Re: SST wardrobe malfunction- seems it's just too much to ask that these seals, statuary, etc. be left as they are by prudish
pols (John Ashcroft, anyone?)
Personally, my idea would be if a change simply must be wrought, let's go in the other direction & have Virtus' appearance
match the one on the 1776 VA four dollar note:
Rules of Engagement are simply the manifestation of tasking a bureaucracy, whose only purpose is to killing the enemy, to construct
a puppet popular secular colonial government. It can't be done. "Winning Hearts and Minds", all over again.
There must be something that draws people to power who never learn from the past. On the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon,
there have been news stories that comment on the Vietnamese culture and their resistance to foreign Invaders. Yet, not one has
mentioned the real hard nosed fundamentalist culture that has defeated every invader and has never been conquered, the Afghans.
Well put. I didn't know about Holly Graf, and found her story interesting.The Wikipedia article about her included this:
Captain Graf's awards include a Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal and Meritorious Service Medal
with one bronze service star.
I'm not military, but that's some fairly heavy heroic hardware, especially for a seaman, no? Isn't the medal quest a game
tailor made for narcissists?
The leadership conundrum is a crucial issue. It also brings to mind Norman Dixon's Psychology of Military Incompetence (1975),
which I used to recommend to officers working under me in situations that reflected the problem. There is a good summary of this
book at the following link:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2004/v30n2/book_review.html
Unfortunately I think that narcissism has always been the flip side of leadership. Most of us don't need the fawning adulation
of our peers. And most of us have enough self-awareness to preclude us from exuding the self-confidence necessary for selection
as a leader.
Narcissism and the accompanying tendency to put self-interest above public interest is why the founding fathers instituted
a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, leaders find ways to circumvent or disable checks on their authority over time.
HOW DO THESE MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE GET THEIR JOBS????
Oh. Wait. Never mind. The Americam People are the victims here...that's right.
I forgot that for a minute and in forgetting that it seemed for a second like the American People might get the behavior out
of politicians that they consistently reward at the ballot box. How silly of me.
We have had to witness this plethora of Narcissism being carried to the extreme ever since 911. Instead of holding accountable
those responsible for failing to do their duties, the Narcissists in both our Congress and White House decided to create 'more'
Narcissistic 'castles in the sand' with their DHS, TSA, NORTHCOM, etc.. I can understand to a point DOD deciding to create NORTHCOM,
but I had always thought that was what NORAD was for. Alas, no NORAD accountability, heaven forbid. Let's create more $$$ sank-holes
like TSA, and America's very own version of an internal NKVD force known as DHS (as what many of my fellow Americans refer to
DHS as).
While the Narcissists in our White House and Congress eat their crumpets and drink their tea, everyday people who do show signs
of human life inside them (i.e. emotions, moral instincts,etc.) continue to be downtrodden by these bands of Narcissists who have
in effect altered the food chain. Accountability and responsibility are not in their Narcissist dictionaries.
Our moral instincts are not logically consistent. A recent classic experiment shows that people would, without hesitation, hypothetically
choose to flip a switch causing a speeding train to ploy into one person rather than into a group of people. But if the only way
to stop the train was to shove the fat man next to them into its path they wouldn't do it even though doing so would produce one
death rather than many.
It seems probable that in a combat situation a person of normal instincts would even more strongly favor the guy next to him
and and tend to kill more freely to protect him even though in an insurgency situation the ultimate success would seem to rest
on generating s little hatred among the populace as possible by killing as few bystanders as possible. Hence both the restrictive
rules of engagement and the sickening taste they leave in the mouth of those required to act to risk a buddy for a bunch of strangers.
You can reach restrictive rules of engagement by either route: a deep empathic understanding of the human emotions of the insurgent
population OR by an ant farm view which simply assigns no value to human life and emotions -- your own side or the others -- but
simply sees ROE as the best means to success.
An intriguing thesis and one with which I'm sure many would agree.
To keep it from turning into a never-ending and unresolvable debate, Walrus' argument would be strengthened significantly were
he to describe the behavior and measurement techniques to be used to assess 'moral character' and the criterion to be used to
determine the validity of the assessment results.
...Samantha was diagnosed with conduct disorder with callous and unemotional traits. She
had all the characteristics of a budding psychopath.
Psychopaths have always
been with us. Indeed, certain psychopathic traits have survived because they're useful in small doses: the cool dispassion
of a surgeon, the tunnel vision of an Olympic athlete, the ambitious narcissism of many a politician. But when these
attributes exist in the wrong combination or in extreme forms, they can produce a dangerously antisocial individual, or
even a cold-blooded killer. Only in the past quarter century have researchers zeroed in on the early signs that indicate a
child could be the next Ted Bundy.
Researchers shy away from calling children psychopaths; the term carries too much stigma, and too much determinism. They
prefer to describe children like Samantha as having "callous and unemotional traits," shorthand for
a cluster of characteristics and behaviors
, including a lack of empathy, remorse, or guilt; shallow emotions;
aggression and even cruelty; and a seeming indifference to punishment. Callous and unemotional children have no trouble
hurting others to get what they want. If they do seem caring or empathetic, they're probably trying to manipulate you.
Researchers believe that nearly 1 percent of children exhibit these traits, about as many as have autism or bipolar
disorder. Until recently, the condition was seldom mentioned. Only in 2013 did the American Psychiatric Association include
callous and unemotional traits in its diagnostic manual,
DSM-5
. The condition can go unnoticed because many children
with these traits -- who can be charming and smart enough to mimic social cues -- are able to mask them.
More than 50 studies have found that kids with callous and unemotional traits are more likely than other kids (three
times more likely, in one study) to become criminals or display aggressive, psychopathic traits later in life. And while
adult psychopaths constitute only a tiny fraction of the general population, studies suggest that they commit half of all
violent crimes. Ignore the problem, says Adrian Raine, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, "and it could be
argued we have blood on our hands."
Researchers believe that two paths can lead to psychopathy: one dominated by nature, the other by nurture. For some
children, their environment -- growing up in poverty, living with abusive parents, fending for themselves in dangerous
neighborhoods -- can turn them violent and coldhearted. These kids aren't born callous and unemotional; many experts suggest
that if they're given a reprieve from their environment, they can be pulled back from psychopathy's edge.
But other
children display callous and unemotional traits even though they are raised by loving parents in safe neighborhoods. Large
studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have found that this early-onset condition is highly hereditary, hardwired in
the brain -- and especially difficult to treat. "We'd like to think a mother and father's love can turn everything around,"
Raine says. "But there are times where parents are doing the very best they can, but the kid -- even from the get-go -- is just a
bad kid."
Still, researchers stress that a callous child -- even one who was born that way -- is not automatically destined for
psychopathy. By some estimates, four out of five children with these traits do not grow up to be psychopaths. The
mystery -- the one everyone is trying to solve -- is why some of these children develop into normal adults while others end up on
death row.
A trained eye can spot
a callous and unemotional child by age 3 or 4.
Whereas normally developing children at that age grow agitated when they see other children cry -- and either try to comfort
them or bolt the scene -- these kids show a chilly detachment. In fact, psychologists may even be able to trace these traits
back to infancy. Researchers at King's College London tested more than 200 five-week-old babies, tracking whether they
preferred looking at a person's face or at a red ball. Those who favored the ball displayed more callous traits two and a
half years later.
As a child gets older, more-obvious warning signs appear. Kent Kiehl, a psychologist at the University of New Mexico and
the author of
The Psychopath Whisperer
, says that one scary harbinger occurs when a kid who is 8, 9, or 10 years old
commits a transgression or a crime while alone, without the pressure of peers. This reflects an interior impulse toward
harm. Criminal versatility -- committing different types of crimes in different settings -- can also hint at future psychopathy.
But the biggest red flag is early violence. "Most of the psychopaths I meet in prison had been in fights with teachers
in elementary school or junior high," Kiehl says. "When I'd interview them, I'd say, 'What's the worst thing you did in
school?' And they'd say, 'I beat the teacher unconscious.' You're like,
That really happened?
It turns out that's
very common."
We have a fairly good idea of what an adult psychopathic brain looks like, thanks in part to Kiehl's work. He has
scanned the brains of hundreds of inmates at maximum-security prisons and chronicled the neural differences between average
violent convicts and psychopaths. Broadly speaking, Kiehl and others believe that the psychopathic brain has at least two
neural abnormalities -- and that these same differences likely also occur in the brains of callous children.
The first abnormality appears in the limbic system, the set of brain structures involved in, among other things,
processing emotions. In a psychopath's brain, this area contains less gray matter. "It's like a weaker muscle," Kiehl says.
A psychopath may understand, intellectually, that what he is doing is wrong, but he doesn't
feel
it. "Psychopaths
know the words but not the music" is how Kiehl describes it. "They just don't have the same circuitry."
In particular, experts point to the amygdala -- a part of the limbic system -- as a physiological culprit for coldhearted or
violent behavior. Someone with an undersize or underactive amygdala may not be able to feel empathy or refrain from
violence. For example, many psychopathic adults and callous children do not recognize fear or distress in other people's
faces. Essi Viding, a professor of developmental psychopathology at University College London recalls showing one
psychopathic prisoner a series of faces with different expressions. When the prisoner came to a fearful face, he said, "I
don't know what you call this emotion, but it's what people look like just before you stab them."
Why does this neural quirk matter? Abigail Marsh, a researcher at Georgetown University who has studied the brains of
callous and unemotional children, says that distress cues, such as fearful or sad expressions, signal submission and
conciliation. "They're designed to prevent attacks by raising the white flag. And so if you're not sensitive to these cues,
you're much more likely to attack somebody whom other people would refrain from attacking."
Psychopaths not only fail to recognize distress in others, they may not feel it themselves. The best physiological
indicator of which young people will become violent criminals as adults is a low resting heart rate, says Adrian Raine of
the University of Pennsylvania. Longitudinal studies that followed thousands of men in Sweden, the U.K., and Brazil all
point to this biological anomaly. "We think that low heart rate reflects a lack of fear, and a lack of fear could
predispose someone to committing fearless criminal-violence acts," Raine says. Or perhaps there is an "optimal level of
physiological arousal," and psychopathic people seek out stimulation to increase their heart rate to normal. "For some
kids, one way of getting this arousal jag in life is by shoplifting, or joining a gang, or robbing a store, or getting into
a fight." Indeed, when Daniel Waschbusch, a clinical psychologist at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, gave the most
severely callous and unemotional children he worked with a stimulative medication, their behavior improved.
The second hallmark of a psychopathic brain is an overactive reward system especially primed for drugs, sex, or
anything else that delivers a ping of excitement.
In one study, children played a computer gambling game programmed to
allow them to win early on and then slowly begin to lose.
Most people will cut their losses at some point, Kent Kiehl
notes, "whereas the psychopathic, callous unemotional kids keep going until they lose everything." Their brakes don't work,
he says.
Faulty brakes may help explain why psychopaths commit brutal crimes: Their brains ignore cues about danger or
punishment.
"There are all these decisions we make based on threat, or the fear that something bad can happen," says
Dustin Pardini, a clinical psychologist and an associate professor of criminology at Arizona State University. "If you have
less concern about the negative consequences of your actions, then you'll be more likely to continue engaging in these
behaviors. And when you get caught, you'll be less likely to learn from your mistakes."
It is very difficult for normal people to understand that one of distinguishing feature of psychopaths is that they simply do
not care about the laws and about moral principles. The only thing they care about is being caught, but even this is often not the
case for some of them. There is a category of psychopaths who display wanton disregard for laws ignoring possible consequences,
despite the fact that they are not completely stupid. For them they not only doe not exist, or they are just for
"deplorables" to borrow Hillary epithet for common people.
If this is the case for a female psychopath this is vey dangerous and not that easy to detect as we intuitively prescribe to
female less aggressiveness and better law obedience. Huge disappointments may follow.
Notable quotes:
"... I think your folly is that you are trying to rationalize greed. Greed is irrational, we inherited it from our irrational aggressively territorial cousins, monkeys. Remember Soros: he looks like he died a couple of weeks ago (I wish he did), but still grabs for more loot and resents those who get in his way, including Trump. When greed is powerless, it is simply ridiculous. When greed has power, it becomes evil. ..."
"... That's the downside of so-called market economy: the driving force is greed (apologists like to call it profit, bit semantics don't change the matter). Unregulated greed, like unregulated power of wind (hurricanes) and water (floods), is destructive, whereas properly regulated it can produce some good. ..."
"... Greedy elites are liars and mass murderers because they have no moral scruples: they would think nothing of lying or murdering people just to get more money. If they can enrich themselves by doing something good, they won't pass up that opportunity, either. ..."
I think your folly is that you are trying to rationalize greed. Greed is
irrational, we inherited it from our irrational aggressively territorial cousins, monkeys.
Remember Soros: he looks like he died a couple of weeks ago (I wish he did), but still grabs
for more loot and resents those who get in his way, including Trump. When greed is powerless,
it is simply ridiculous. When greed has power, it becomes evil.
That's the downside of so-called market economy: the driving force is greed (apologists
like to call it profit, bit semantics don't change the matter). Unregulated greed, like
unregulated power of wind (hurricanes) and water (floods), is destructive, whereas properly
regulated it can produce some good.
You also ignore the fact that all those MIC profiteers don't really want WWIII. They want
to keep stealing huge amounts of taxpayers' money on military contracts. For that they scare
the common folk with dangers that do not exist and regale them with "patriotic" BS they don't
believe in. Deep down they know that to enjoy their loot they must stay alive: unlike
pathetic politicians, the gods do not take bribes.
As to those people throwing rocks from the overpass of I-75, I think "Beavis and
Butt-Head" answers your question. Hopeless stupidity of people totally lacking imagination,
when it becomes active, is evil. But the people themselves are just unimaginative morons.
So, my point is there is no such thing as evil per se, there is greed and stupidity (often
the combination of the two) that leads to evil actions.
Greedy elites are liars and mass murderers because they have no moral scruples: they
would think nothing of lying or murdering people just to get more money. If they can enrich
themselves by doing something good, they won't pass up that opportunity, either.
You can call them evil, if you wish, but that worldview is the dead end: if there are
inherently good and inherently evil people, you simply cannot do anything about that. You can
promise rewards or punishments in the afterlife, but that would not prevent any crimes or get
murdered people back to life here on Earth.
If you look for causes of evil behavior instead, you have a chance to minimize or
eliminate those causes, thereby minimizing evil behavior. That does not negate the spiritual
nature of humans, unless by "spiritual" you mean supernatural.
So, from my perspective, the views you propound are essentially defeatist. Personally, I
do not think anyone is inherently predisposed to good or evil, you have to look for motives.
Then you have a chance to motivate good behavior and demotivate evil one.
However, let me tell you what I tell my students: if you are conventionally religious, you
don't want to discuss religion with me.
Mosleys unease with all these claims had grown since that morn- ing's discovery. For one
thing, in his eight months at Theranos, he'd never laid eyes on the pharmaceutical contracts.
Every time he inquired about them, he was told they were "under legal review." More important,
he'd agreed to those ambitious revenue forecasts because he thought the Theranos system worked
reliably.
If Elizabeth shared any of these misgivings, she showed no signs of it. She was the picture
of a relaxed and happy leader. 'Ihe new valuation, in particular, was a source of great pride.
New directors might join the board to relied the growing roster of investors, she told him.
Mosley saw an opening to broach the trip to Switzerland and the office rumors that something
had gone wrong. When he did, Elizabeth admitted that there had been a problem, but she shrugged
it off. It would easily be fixed, she said.
Mosley was dubious given what he now knew. He brought up what Shaunak had told him about the
investor demos. They should stop doing them if they weren't completely real, he said. "We've
been fooling investors. We can't keep doing that."
Elizabeth's expression suddenly changed. Her cheerful demeanor of just moments ago vanished
and gave way to a mask of hostility. It was like a switch had been flipped. She leveled a cold
stare at her chief financial officer.
"Henry, you're not a team player," she said in an icy tone. "I think you should leave right
now."
There was no mistaking what had just happened. Elizabeth wasn't merely asking him to get out
of her office. She was telling him to leave the company -- immediately. Mosley had just been
fired.
Theranos was a cult, pure and simple. There was the untouchable and manipulative leader, the loyal and unquestioning heavies, the
worshiping masses, and finally, the disillusioned few who attempted to escape, but were never able to break 100% free as long as the
Theranos thugs threatened with impunity.
Elizabeth Holmes invoked feminism to try to defend herself -- that's very typical for female sociopaths.
From reviews: " Elizabeth Holmes: narcissistic, a sociopath, suffering from delusions of grandeur, paranoid, a mean bully, retaliatory,
a pathological liar, exploitative and downright ruthless. She is living proof that 85% of workplace bullying comes from Women."
Notable quotes:
"... This is a real life thriller, the story of someone who is a true diabolical movie villain. Holmes is portrayed vividly as a paranoid sociopath who could also be disarming, charmingly manipulative, utterly ruthless and devoid of conscience. This is a tale of corporate greed and lack of regulatory oversight gone all awry. ..."
"... In the epilogue Carreyrou wonders if Holmes "fits the clinical profile" of a sociopath, but states he will "leave it to the psychologists to decide." Then while conceding that "she had a vision she genuinely believed in," he adds that "there's no question that her moral compass was badly askew." He concludes: "Her ambition was voracious and it brooked no interference. If there was collateral damage on her way to riches and fame, so be it." ..."
"... Holmes' single-mindedness, charisma and powers of persuasion are epic, but ultimately her lack of knowledge, morals and or any true empathy for patients are her undoing. What the future holds for her will be very interesting to see. ..."
"... It is true that dictatorial organizations that suppress dissent tend to become heavily politicized with leaders who are removed from problems at the bottom and sycophantic middle management and they tend to have higher levels of turnover as this one did. ..."
"... It is amazing that Ms Holmes was able to charm so many important people for so long. ..."
Elizabeth Holmes leveraged her family's high profile connections to draw in early investors and supporters, who were not very
inquisitive on details, nor very skeptical in nature. Drawing on the good name and reputation of these early supporters, she was
able to build an impressive roster of other supporters with stellar reputations in tech and venture capital circles. From there,
it was just a matter of stage managing the house of cards she was building.
Holmes crafted a Potemkin village that had fooled investors, customers, and visiting dignitaries. Her product demonstrations were
outright theater, staged managed illusions worthy of David Copperfield. Theranos employees in on the ruse were assured it was just
temporary, until the actual product could be perfected and the results repeatable. That day would never come. Those on the outside
who also worked in this field had well founded and grave doubts about how Theranos could be touting a product that seemingly defied
both logic and physics. Their suspicions, proven to be correct, was that it was too good to be true.
Without a trace of guilt or regret, she induced powerful tech workers to leave lucrative careers at other major tech firms, giving
up millions in stock options, to come work for Theranos, surely knowing the whole thing would collapse one day. When skeptical board
members asked to see data affirming the effectiveness of their product, Holmes would defer, saying those papers were in perpetual
legal review. Some employees, when they were no longer useful to her, or deemed disloyal, were immediately and unceremoniously marched
out.
This is a real life thriller, the story of someone who is a true diabolical movie villain. Holmes is portrayed vividly as
a paranoid sociopath who could also be disarming, charmingly manipulative, utterly ruthless and devoid of conscience. This is a tale
of corporate greed and lack of regulatory oversight gone all awry.
Very interesting read about the fraud that is Elizabeth Holmes. For those of us in the clinical lab industry, we knew that all
the tests she claimed could be performed accurately and less expensive from a capillary sample was just simply not true. It was
just a matter of time for the truth about her and the impossibility of what she claimed, to finally be revealed. Great investigative
reporting John Carryrou!
The first time I saw her was in the New York Times monthly "T" magazine. She was a young blonde with big blue eyes clad in black.
I poured myself another drink and checked out the article on her.
Turned out she was one of those Silicon Valley bright young things--name of Elizabeth Holmes, and she was supposed to be "one
of the five visionary tech entrepreneurs who is changing the world." Her game had something to do with blood tests. Seemed she'd
started one of those companies that "disrupt" business. Companies they call Unicorns that start up with over a billion and hope
to sucker the average Joe into buying stock in them. I admit this one made sense to me--blood tests are big business, and this
Holmes seemed to have found a way to run blood tests for multiple conditions on one device, and simply by taking blood with a
finger prick. No more needles in the vein.
I'll level with you. I didn't see how it was at all possible, but this was the mid teens, and I was just getting used to putting
my credit card in a slot in the machine instead of swiping it through. Always something new, right?
So I mentally tipped my hat to her and went on with my life. And then faster than Aaron Judge can loft one out of the park,
the Times issued a correction. There was some question about whether her technology worked at all. And before I could even bundle
up the print magazine for recycling she had been disappeared from the web version. So now I repegged her as a grifter and thought
no more about her until I read . . .
---
"Bad Blood." John Carreyrou is the reporter who had written the Wall Street Journal article that took down the Empress of Silicon
Valley. He takes you through the story and paces it like a film noir suspense tale. You know the kind--the one where you know
who the bad guys are from the starter's gun and you wait to see how they get caught. He begins in the middle with one of Holmes's
signature firings. She would abruptly fire anyone who began to catch on and/or didn't show enough adoration. Then he takes you
quickly through her early years (she dropped out of Stanford to start working on her invention--a portable blood-testing machine
that never did work properly) and on to the founding of her company. He describes her blue eyed unblinking stare, her unusually
deep voice (that, too, seems to have been put on), and those black turtlenecks that came from her adoration of Steve Jobs.
This Elizabeth, too, had a Raleigh--but she made the mistake the Virgin Queen never did: this dude was her lover, too. And
she made him #2 in her company. Nearly all saw through him, and feared him. Together they made the mistake of not letting employees
in the various departments communicate with those in other departments, which made research and development complicated more than
somewhat (yes, they did actually try to create this portable blood test machine the big con started only when they realized they
couldn't do it).
With charm, guile, promises, and an impressive board (Secretary of Defense Mattis and Henry Kissinger were once on it) that
had no voting power she had secured contracts from Safeway and Walgreens for walk-in wellness clinics, and kept getting investors
to hand money over to her. She finally went public. So Holmes had to produce . . . something. But she couldn't. And with that,
the whole thing started to unravel. Some of the people she hired realized the tests weren't working -- healthy patients tested
positive for conditions they didn't have. Or vice versa.
And they ratted her out . . . to Carreyrou, who exposed her in The Wall Street Journal. At that point, at about the two-thirds
mark, the author, previously writing in third-person omniscient, takes over the narration in the first person as the con comes
crashing down.
Even though you know how it turned out, it's all very suspenseful, filled with people departing the company escorted by armed
guards, lawyers practiced in the arts of intimidation who've been given more power than perhaps they deserve, and a few people
with the courage to expose fraud--fraud that could have harmed people.
In the epilogue Carreyrou wonders if Holmes "fits the clinical profile" of a sociopath, but states he will "leave it to
the psychologists to decide." Then while conceding that "she had a vision she genuinely believed in," he adds that "there's no
question that her moral compass was badly askew." He concludes: "Her ambition was voracious and it brooked no interference. If
there was collateral damage on her way to riches and fame, so be it."
---
NOTES AND ASIDES: Per IMDb: A film version based on this book is "in development." Adam McKay ("The Big Short") will direct.
I'm sure you will easily guess who will be playing Holmes.
I have followed Mr. Carreyrou's brilliant series of articles in the Wall Street Journal on Theranos over past several years, and
signed up for the book as soon as it was published. This is his first book, and it does not disappoint. It is a suspenseful read
that I tore through in just a few days. The story of Elizabeth Holmes is an extremely compelling one, and I understand that Jennifer
Lawrence is being considered to play her in a future film. Holmes' single-mindedness, charisma and powers of persuasion are
epic, but ultimately her lack of knowledge, morals and or any true empathy for patients are her undoing. What the future holds
for her will be very interesting to see.
My only complaint about the book, and it is a minor one, is that one of the most powerful stories from the WSJ was not told
in its entirety. There was a published story about Tyler Shultz, the grandson of George Shultz, that went into far more detail
about how he resisted the incredible pressure that the Theranos attorneys put him under. His grandfather refused to side with
him, and at first his parents refused as well, but they eventually realized that he was right and mortgaged their home to pay
for his legal defense. The bravery of that young man in his early 20's, to stand his ground against the most powerful law firm
in the country, his former Secretary of State grandfather and his own parents, moved me to tears. It is worth searching for that
story online. I feel confident that Mr. Carreyrou will score a third Pulitzer for his reporting on Theranos.
Few people mentioned in this book come out looking good. Holmes, her wacky boyfriend Sunny, Holmes's brother and his 'Frat Pack',
and certainly the 'great men' on the board of directors such as George Shultz and Henry Kissinger who really performed no oversight
of Holmes's and Sonny's actions in any way. They are all a big bunch of despicable clowns with broken moral compasses.
However, there are some good people here... one of whom is Shultz's own grandson who was one of the whistleblowers. It is a
bit of a sad story to read that George Shultz sided Theranos over his own grandson. A number of engineers and lab workers came
out and told their stories as well and we should be thankful they did. The shoddy lab conditions produced test results that misdiagnosed
many people.
And then there was David Boise.... the 'super lawyer' who hired people from Black Cube (former Israeli agents) to go out and
spy and intimidate people. There is a special place in hell for lawyers and I am sure there will be an even more 'special place'
for the likes of David Boise.
If you think everyone around you is a sociopath you might not want to read this book. It will only confirm your suspicions.
That said...I could not put the book down. I read it in one night until the sun came up.
I read this book because I know one of the professors whose lab she was associated with at Stanford. Its a pretty fascinating
story. I've worked in tech for 39 years and for about 7 different tech companies. I've seen some workplaces that have some of
the silo problems described here and some organizations that were quite dictatorial but I've not seen an organization that had
the extreme intolerance of dissent that this one had. The author does a good job of mapping out the landscape. An extremely persuasive
Ceo who was able to charm powerful people and leverage them into giving her credibility and a culture internally of extreme suppression
of dissent.
I've never experienced anything like the sorts of tactics used on departing employees to prevent them from commenting on the
internal issues. In my experience the management is primarily focused upon not having an employee take proprietary secrets out
the door and clearly this is a problem that has occurred, but here the Ceo and Coo seem to have wanted to suppress negative information
that included just negative comments about the general state of development of the devices and even wanted to prevent employees
from taking documentation of their own complaints about internal views about things like the robustness of laboratory practices
that had little real proprietary value to the company.
In the end Ms Holmes missed a key lesson from her idol Steve Jobs, the product has to work and it has to work well if you are
going to disrupt an entire industry. It sort of looks like Elizabeth followed an electronics or software playbook (in the extreme)
while not completely recognizing that this wasn't going to fly in the medical space.
It is true that dictatorial organizations that suppress dissent tend to become heavily politicized with leaders who are
removed from problems at the bottom and sycophantic middle management and they tend to have higher levels of turnover as this
one did.
i'd say that Mr Carryrou does an excellent job of bringing out the pathologies of this organization from the point of view
of the bulk of employees, what cannot completely be discerned is exactly how disconnected the leadership really was here.
It is amazing that Ms Holmes was able to charm so many important people for so long. In the end it was the reality of the
poor performance of the product that showed up, and it is fairly obvious that even had this author not started the fall, the fall
from grace was inevitable.
Oh my- this is a fantastic book. It is a quick read because it is so fascinating. I've followed Holmes since she was on the cover
of magazines wondering just what she was doing. I've worked on an IRB committee (research ethics),and the entire time I was reading
this book I was shocked at the lack of ethics on the parts of almost everyone in the story. They KNEW they were going to use this
machine; they knew it wasn't ready; they knew Holmes was lying and deceiving and then ritually firing people who found her out,
but not ONE person went to the FDA or even the SEC or FBI or whomever to say it was a fraud? And it was quite a fraud. One that
was using human beings in its testing. The writing is compelling, and the story is so unreal that you can hardly believe it is
true. Somehow it seems to boil down to greed. If this were fiction, you'd laugh in spots at how preposterous it seems. But it
isn't fiction. It is a terrible saga of deception and manipulation, and it proves that when money is involved, people see what
they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
This book is a mixture of jaw dropping hubris, charisma run amok, and the gullibility of those who should know better.
For those unfamiliar with this story, the short version is: Elizabeth Holmes, 19 years' old, drops out of Stanford to form
a company and then raises hundreds of millions of dollars based on her vision of how a single drop of blood tied to proprietary
technology could revolutionize medical diagnostics. The original vision became an almost beside the point issue to keeping everyone,
including her board members and employees, in the dark about failure - and failure it was.
The long story, this book, explains how the company, Theranos, valued at something like $9B at it's height in 2012 and 2013,
went to zero because the technology Elizabeth was selling to investors didn't actually exist. Frightening in its scope, Elizabeth
Holmes presented herself as a brilliant inventor, scientist and entrepreneur, a photogenic genius out to make people's lives better.
The private Elizabeth, paranoid and secretive, created a bizarre work environment where highly educated, qualified professionals
were fired for attempting to explain something she needed to know but didn't want to hear, or to express any opinion counter to
her own. She then threatened them, sending many into debt defending lawsuits made from whole cloth. Installing her boyfriend as
overseer, neither of them having any scientific qualifications or training, neither had real interest in building a team to work
towards a shared vision. Hundreds of millions of investor money were swallowed up with no resulting innovation. At first, they
obscured, then they lied and kept right on lying.
Although investors always risk disappointment, it's doubtful many expected a company with hundreds of millions of dollars to
work with accomplishing nothing at all. Unlike Bernie Madoff, who kept his scam close to the chest, Theranos hired specialists,
at one time as many as 800 employees, and then refused to let them work together.
John Carreyrou, relentless in his pursuit of this story, stood up to the constant threats and produced brilliant research and
what should be a cautionary tale for future board members, employees and investors, encouraging them to do some rudimentary investigation
before taking the "Well, he drank the kool-aid, so it must be good," attitude, but they probably won't.
My neck is sore from shaking my head, left-to-right, in total disbelief of all that happened with Elizabeth Holmes, Sunny Balwani
and Theranos. What a piece of work! I kept telling my husband about this book and he finally said, "Stop! I'm going to read the
book for myself."
Elizabeth Holmes: narcissistic, a sociopath, suffering from delusions of grandeur, paranoid, a mean bully, retaliatory, a pathological
liar, exploitative and downright ruthless. She is living proof that 85% of workplace bullying comes from Women.
The high-powered people that were totally Bamboozled by this woman is just incredulous – George Schultz, James Mattis, Henry
Kissinger, executives at Walgreen's, Safeway and too many others to mention here. Their level of incompetence and blind trust
makes them look pathetic.
Bravo to Tyler Schultz for standing up against the face of evil: Elizabeth and Sunny at Theranos, their high powered and intimidating
attorneys, his parents and his grandfather, George Schultz.
The book was easy to read. Despite having a HUGE cast of characters, they were easy to keep track of and John C. did a great
job reminding the reader of who this person was if mentioned later in the book. The technical lab stuff was clearly explained
and easy to follow.
John Carreyrou:
I agree with another reviewer that we will be needing a sequel. Even if we catch pieces of the future of this saga here and there
via the TV news, newspapers, magazines, Mad Money, "60 Minutes, etc., it just isn't the same until it is all pulled together like
you did in this book. You did a fantastic job! I can't wait to see you interview Elizabeth from prison just like Diana Henriques
did with Bernie Madoff.
Read this book. Or, rather, start to read it and you will never put it down. While I knew vaguely that the Silicon Valley wunderkind
Elizabeth Holmes and her company Theranos had run into major regulatory problems, I had no idea of the breadth and depth of the
fraud she and her co-conspirators committed. The Wall Street Journal reporter who first broke the story has now written a page
turning report that not only damns Holmes, but also people she fooled into supporting her such as the current Secretary of Defense
and two former Secretaries of State. And for those who believe, as I do, that David Boies' incompetence in Bush v Gore cost Gore
the election, will not be surprised to learn that he was one of the principal enablers of the fraud not just as her attorney,
but as a major shareholder and Board Member. I repeat, read this book. One last point that the author and more importantly his
original sources emphasize -- this was not just a financial fraud, but a fraud that put patients' lives at risk. Scary. So when
you hear about some magical new medical solution, make sure your BS meter is well tuned before you buy into the claims.
With the exception of military tacticians acting in defense against an aggressor, con men
are predominantly sociopaths. In order to carry out a "grift" against innocent people, an
extreme lack of empathy is required. Understanding the mind and motivations of sociopaths and
narcissistic sociopaths makes it possible to identify them faster and allows us to see their
con games ahead of time.
In terms of social control, elitist con men are highly preoccupied with preventing
spontaneous organization of rebellion. But this does not always involve the outright crushing
of dissent. Instead, the elites prefer to use co-option and misdirection (con games) to lure
rebellious movements to focus on the wrong enemy, or to trust the wrong leadership.
I am often reminded of the infiltration of the Tea Party movement by neo-conservatives in
the years after the 2008 election. Neo-con-men exploited the desire among Tea Party activists
for mainstream legitimacy and more widespread media coverage. They gave the activists what they
wanted, by injecting their own political puppets into the movement. It did not take long for
the Tea Party to abandon its initial roots in individual sovereignty and the Ron Paul campaign
and adopt a decidedly statist tone. The smart people left the movement early and went on to
launch their own efforts, but the goal of the establishment had been accomplished -- the grass
roots organized threat of the Tea Party was no more.
That said, the principles of conservative economics, small government and personal liberty
remain entrenched in the American psyche and continue to grow. These ideals have a life of
their own, and almost seem to act autonomously at times from any particular group or
leader.
"... I have seen this kind of methodology many times before in the world of sole owner entrepreneurial business. In that world egotism is king and the owner/wheeler dealer stands alone surrounded by underlings and consultants. For him they are nothing. They are expendable assets who exist only to serve his egocentric will and interests. They are there to be useful to him and can be disposed of whenever they are not. Trump operates exactly that way. Subordinates are disposable at will. Institutions mean nothing to such a man. He needs a secretary to run errands for him, not a chief-of-staff who will inevitably wish to be a "player." Anyone who takes the job is a fool. ..."
"... So, why has Trump done this? My present theory is that DJT is displeased with Dunford and wishes to hold over his head the threat of quick dismissal . This is a close analogy of the way people like Trump operate in business where it is routine to undermine subordinates for the purpose of creating insecurity leading to prostrate submission to the throne ..."
"... entrepreneurs are often know-it-all types who would have great difficulty surviving in a business that didn't consistently permit them to have their own way, all the while tolerating their difficult personalities. It seems many entrepreneurs rely on family members to varying degrees. ..."
"... I have no way of knowing if Trump's intuition is based in part on B movies, but it is surely based on his many-decades of experience in real estate development, primarily in cut-throat NYC, which likely accounts for his pugnacity and desire for loyalty. Long ago, someone sagely warned me that the first 3 letters of "contractor" spell CON. ..."
"... Considering the fact that this often goes under the title of intuition (with intuition also defined as educated guess), I am afraid there is very little "educated" in Trump's intuition, or "feel" for that matter. ..."
"... The other descriptive that I like is that these, usually men, wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night thinking of nothing except how to maintain their position. ..."
"... I have fought the notion that his constant creation of insecurity on my part was intentional. I've harbored these thoughts in my own personal wilderness for many years, but have never heard someone else discuss the same issues before. Sometimes a diagnosis has a clarifying value in its own right! ..."
IMO Trump has no real use for a chief-of-staff in the White House.
I heard Anthony Scaramucci (the little guy who was in the WH for a couple of days) say on
TeeVee yesterday that Donaldo has his own way of doing things that involves establishing a "hub
and spokes" system and that he needs people he trusts and who accept his personal judgment,
judgment based on his own "feel" for situations.
I have seen this kind of methodology many times before in the world of sole owner
entrepreneurial business. In that world egotism is king and the owner/wheeler dealer stands
alone surrounded by underlings and consultants. For him they are nothing. They are expendable
assets who exist only to serve his egocentric will and interests. They are there to be useful
to him and can be disposed of whenever they are not. Trump operates exactly that way.
Subordinates are disposable at will. Institutions mean nothing to such a man. He needs a
secretary to run errands for him, not a chief-of-staff who will inevitably wish to be a
"player." Anyone who takes the job is a fool.
In this context the case of the Trump announcement, a year in advance of his term's end, of
a replacement for the CJCS, General Joseph Dunford USMC is interesting. Trump has announced
that General Mark Milley, the present US Army Chief-Of-Staff, will succeed. The question is -
why announce now? And why announce this now with a "footnote" to the effect that the "transfer"
date will be announced at some future unspecified date? Milley is a loquacious, big, and
energetic man who is reportedly quite good at the backslapping, locker room chit-chat that
Trump is comfortable with. He undoubtedly has made a good impression on Trump in personal
contacts and impression is all important in dealing with Trump.
OTOH Milley is really not like Trump. He is an Ivy League product of Princeton and Columbia
Universities, is widely read in history, is personally as brave as a lion on the battlefield
and has a record of working well within the institutions of the armed forces for systematic
re-structuring of the Army. I will guess that the president doesn't really know much about
Milley. IMO he will inevitably and quickly be displeased with Milley when he is CJCS.
So, why has Trump done this? My present theory is that DJT is displeased with Dunford and
wishes to hold over his head the threat of quick dismissal . This is a close analogy of the way
people like Trump operate in business where it is routine to undermine subordinates for the
purpose of creating insecurity leading to prostrate submission to the throne. pl
Great analysis. I don't see Trump as malicious in his behaviour (nor perhaps do you), it's
just the way he has successfully navigated the property development shark tank. He loves his
country and I think he will be forgiven for a lot if he succeeds in perhaps not completely
draining the swamp but desiccating and shrinking it a bit.
Trumps is not the only way to do business. There is an Australian property development
billionaire (Frank Lowey) who seems to have succeeded in that field by crafting exceedingly
subtle "win/win" solutions, not the "win/lose, sturm und drang" Trump productions.
I don't see him as malicious either. He has an occupation induced personality deformity. I
agree that if he succeeds in some of these initiatives, a lot of this will be forgiven and
forgotten. Yes you can do this on a win-win basis. In my experience the Guggenheims do that.
I had never heard of the "hub and spoke" method of business management. Very interesting.
You wrote: "He needs a secretary to run errands for him, not a chief-of-staff who will
inevitably wish to be a "player." I have worked in that "secretary" position for a very small consulting firm. I can still
hear in my head my name being yelled and having to drop everything to run in and figure out
what new and important task I had to accomplish.
I had been hired to proofread the consultant's documents because no one nowadays teaches
"correct grammar." I did that, but much of my time was spent finding things and information
and people that he needed.
I pretty much agree with this assessment of entrepreneurs. It's been my experience, not only
as part of a mid-western mom and pop commercial real estate company, but also as a resident
who literally lives on a Main Street lined with small businesses, that entrepreneurs are
often know-it-all types who would have great difficulty surviving in a business that didn't
consistently permit them to have their own way, all the while tolerating their difficult
personalities. It seems many entrepreneurs rely on family members to varying degrees.
I have no way of knowing if Trump's intuition is based in part on B movies, but it is
surely based on his many-decades of experience in real estate development, primarily in
cut-throat NYC, which likely accounts for his pugnacity and desire for loyalty. Long ago,
someone sagely warned me that the first 3 letters of "contractor" spell CON.
I'll never forget the very first time I visited New York as a young girl, and a SoHo shop
keeper mocked me for speaking too slowly. It's a different world, lacking in gentility...
and who accept his personal judgment, judgment based on his own "feel" for situations
Considering the fact that this often goes under the title of intuition (with intuition
also defined as educated guess), I am afraid there is very little "educated" in Trump's
intuition, or "feel" for that matter.
Yes. Intuition is high speed reasoning based on a massive store of data and experience.
"Fingerspitzengefuhl?" The problem with Trump's "feel" is that it is based on B movies and
similar quality sources. In the military context this describes someone in whom knowledge has
become capability and who understand a battlefield by looking at it.
As long as you include all organizations under the umbrella term "business" this is exactly
accurate. Spend some time in an academic department.
The other descriptive that I like is that these, usually men, wake up in the morning and
go to sleep at night thinking of nothing except how to maintain their position. Trump must be
a very worried man at this stage. Worried and explosively temperamental. Who can he please?
He needs to toady to someone, and thus far the only people he's been able to toady to are VVP
and Kim. So, more campaign rallies and appearances on Fox. Not enough to keep him going.
Wartime President?
I was the Professor of the Arabic Language and Middle East Studies at West Point. That is the
oldest college of engineering in the US. It is not the same. There, my colleagues were trying
to screw me. It was not the bosses, head of department, dean, etc. In the entrepreneurial
sole owner setup the owner seeks to intimidate you to hold power over you.
You're right about the technique for getting rid of subordinates.
I worked for many, many years in a piranha tank and saw this behavior up close.
It was explained thusly:
"He was sold to the board and has a friend on the board, so I'll make his life miserable
until he gets the message."
Outright firing (except for cause) can get messy
Sole proprietorships usually have another dark side - family members.
Your analysis of Trump's "style" seems spot on.
Every day (sometimes every hour) is a new "adventure."
BTW, according to his autobiography, Herman Neumann, (Herman the German) VP for aircraft
engines at GE, had a sign on the office wall behind his desk: "Feel Insecure".
I appreciate all the insights this site provides, but none maybe greater, personally, than
your comments above: I've spent the last 15 years working at single proprietor consultancies
in a sales capacity, and my current boss treats me exactly as you pointed out above.
I have
fought the notion that his constant creation of insecurity on my part was intentional. I've
harbored these thoughts in my own personal wilderness for many years, but have never heard
someone else discuss the same issues before. Sometimes a diagnosis has a clarifying value in
its own right!
I do not recommend the book, but the foreword looks interesting and educational with some very relevant quotes ... Some of her ideas are very
questionable and it looks like
she does not understand the nature of
neoliberal rationality well and thus is trying to create alternative explanations, but still she
writes well and covers a lot of ground on her foreword.
You just need to take it with a grain of salt
Notable quotes:
"... Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all. If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction.... ..."
"... Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population. ..."
"... The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth. ..."
"... In the past several years, there are many more psychologists and psychiatrists and other mental health workers beginning to look at these issues in new ways in response to the questions about the state of our world and the possibility that there is some essential difference between such individuals as George W. Bush and many so-called Neocons, and the rest of us. ..."
"... Current day statistics tell us that there are more psychologically sick people than healthy ones. If you take a sampling of individuals in any given field, you are likely to find that a significant number of them display pathological symptoms to one extent or another. Politics is no exception, and, by its very nature, would tend to attract more of the pathological "dominator types" than other fields. ..."
"... If an individual with a highly contagious illness works in a job that puts them in contact with the public, an epidemic is the result. In the same way, if an individual in a position of political power is a psychopath, he or she can create an epidemic of psychopathology in people who are not, essentially, psychopathic. ..."
Nowadays the word "psychopath" generally evokes images of the barely restrained - yet
surprisingly urbane - mad-dog serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, of Silence of the Lambs fame.
I will admit that this was the image that came to my mind whenever I heard the word; almost,
that is. The big difference was that I never thought of a psychopath as possibly being so
cultured or so capable of passing as "normal". But I was wrong, and I was to learn this lesson
quite painfully by direct experience. The exact details are chronicled elsewhere; what is
important is that this experience was probably one of the most painful and instructive episodes
of my life, and it enabled me to overcome a block in my awareness of the world around me and
those who inhabit it.
... ... ...
If there is a psychological theory that can explain vicious and harmful behavior, it helps
very much for the victim of such acts to have this information so that they do not have to
spend all their time feeling hurt or angry. And certainly, if there is a psychological theory
that helps a person to find what kind of words or deeds can bridge the chasm between people, to
heal misunderstandings, that is also a worthy goal. It was from such a perspective that we
began our extensive work on the subjects of narcissism, which then led to the study of
psychopathy.
Of course, we didn't start out with such any such "diagnosis" or label for what we were
witnessing. We started out with observations and searched the literature for clues, for
profiles, for anything that would help us to understand the inner world of a human being -
actually a group of human beings - who seemed to be utterly depraved and unlike anything we had
ever encountered before. We found that this kind of human is all too common, and that,
according to some of the latest research, they cause more damage in human society than any
other single so-called "mental illness". Martha Stout, who has worked extensively with victims
of psychopaths, writes:
Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or
remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your
whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others
seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the
ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different
from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings,
hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from
any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your
cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their
personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.
In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered
liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to
the world. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of
people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered. How
will you live your life? What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the
corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)? The answer will depend largely on just
what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly
unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not -
favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human
beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are
somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are
motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites.
... Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all. If you are born
at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for
whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large
numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and
you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction....
Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population.
... The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed
to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial
personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1
percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality - and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United
States, considered "alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than
the rate of antisocial personality....
The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of
us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically
traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank
accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth. Yet
surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in
terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have
conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe
even put to death by our legal system. We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually
identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not
blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.
Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between concerting an ethnic genocide and,
say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence
is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner
mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as
immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish. Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last
piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and
methodically set about to hurt another person. Those who have no conscience at all are a
group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social
snipers.
The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant
than intelligence, race, or even gender. What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the
labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a
contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a
sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or
simple opportunity. What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly
empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions.
[2]
We did not have the advantage of Dr. Stout's book at the beginning of our research project.
We did, of course, have Robert Hare and Hervey Cleckley and Guggenbuhl-Craig and others. But
they were only approaching the subject of the possibly large numbers of psychopaths that live
among us who never get caught breaking laws, who don't murder - or if they do, they don't get
caught - and who still do untold damage to the lives of family, acquaintances, and
strangers.
Most mental health experts, for a very long time, have operated on the premise that
psychopaths come from impoverished backgrounds and have experienced abuse of one sort or
another in childhood, so it is easy to spot them, or at least, they certainly don't move in
society except as interlopers. This idea seems to be coming under some serious revision lately.
As Lobaczewski points out in this book, there is some confusion between Psychopathy and
Antisocial Personality Disorder and Sociopathy. As Robert Hare points out, yes, there are many
psychopaths who are also "anti-socials", but there seem to be far more of them that would never
be classified as anti- social or sociopathic! In other words, they can be doctors, lawyers,
judges, policemen, congressmen, presidents of corporations that rob from the poor t< give to
the rich, and even presidents.
In a recent paper, it is suggested that psychopathy may exist in ordinary society in even
greater numbers than anyone has thus far considered:
Psychopathy, as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941), is not limited to engagement in
illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as
manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity, and lack of guilt - characteristics clearly
present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys, politicians, and CEOs,
to name but a few (Bursten, 1973; Stewart, 1991). Our own examination of the prevalence of
psychopathy within a university population suggested that perhaps 5% or more of this sample
might be deemed psychopathic, although the vast majority of those will be male (more than
1/10 males versus approximately 1/100 females).
As such, psychopathy may be characterized ... as involving a tendency towards both
dominance and coldness. Wiggins (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings ...
indicates that such individuals are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit
others. The)' are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation-seeking,
Machiavellian, vindictive, and out for their own gain. With respect to their patterns of
social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing
themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others,
seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. This characterization is clearly consistent with
the essence of psychopathy as commonly described.
The present investigation sought to answer some basic questions regarding the construct of
psychopathy in non forensic settings ... In so doing we have returned to Cleckley's (1941)
original emphasis on psychopathy as a personality style not only among criminals, but also
among successful individuals within the community.
What is clear from our findings is that (a) psychopathy measures have converged on a
prototype of psychopathy that involves a combination of dominant and cold interpersonal
characteristics; (b) psychopathy does occur in the community and at what might be a higher
than expected rate; and (c) psychopathy appears to have little overlap with personality
disorders aside from Antisocial Personality Disorder....
Clearly, where much more work is needed is in understanding what factors differentiate the
abiding (although perhaps not moral-abiding) psychopath from the law-breaking psychopath;
such research surely needs to make greater use of non forensic samples than has been
customary in the past. [3]
Lobaczewski discusses the fact that there are different types of psychopaths. One type, in
particular, is the most deadly of all: the Essential Psychopath. He doesn't give us a
"checklist" but rather discusses what is inside the psychopath. His description meshes very
well with items in the paper quoted above.
Martha Stout also discusses the fact that psychopaths, like anyone else, are born with
different basic likes and dislikes and desires, which is why some of them are doctors and
presidents and others are petty thieves or rapists. "Likeable", "Charming", "Intelligent",
"Alert", "Impressive", "Confidence- inspiring," and "A great success with the ladies". This is
how Hervey Cleckley described most of his subjects in The Mask of Sanity. It seems that, in
spite of the fact that their actions prove them to be "irresponsible" and "self- destructive",
psychopaths seem to have in abundance the very traits most desired by normal persons. The
smooth self-assurance acts as an almost supernatural magnet to normal people who have to read
self-help books or go to counseling to be able to interact with others in an untroubled way.
The psychopath, on the contrary, never has any neuroses, no self-doubts, never experiences
angst, and is what "normal" people seek to be. What's more, even if they aren't that
attractive, they are "babe magnets".
Cleckley s seminal hypothesis is that the psychopath suffers from profound and incurable
affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest
kind. He is able to do whatever he wants, based on whatever whim strikes him, because
consequences that would fill the ordinary man with shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment
simply do not affect the psychopath at all. What to others would be a horror or a disaster is
to him merely a fleeting inconvenience.
Cleckley posits that psychopathy is quite common in the community at large. His cases
include examples of psychopaths who generally function normally in the community as
businessmen, doctors, and even psychiatrists. Nowadays, some of the more astute researchers see
criminal psychopathy - often referred to as anti-social personality disorder - as an extreme of
a particular personality type. I think it is more helpful to characterize criminal psychopaths
as "unsuccessful psychopaths".
One researcher, Alan Harrington, goes so far as to say that the psychopath is the new man
being produced by the evolutionary pressures of modern life. Certainly, there have always been
shysters and crooks, but past concern was focused on ferreting out incompetents rather than
psychopaths. Unfortunately, all that has changed. We now need to fear the super- sophisticated
modern crook who does know what he is doing - and does it so well that no one else knows. Yes,
psychopaths love the business world.
"Uninvolved with others, he coolly saw into their fears and desires, and maneuvered them
as he wished. Such a man might not, after all, be doomed to a life of scrapes and escapades
ending ignominiously in the jailhouse. Instead of murdering others, he might become a
corporate raider and murder companies, firing people instead of killing them, and chopping up
their functions rather than their bodies." (Harrington)...
... [T]he consequences to the average citizen from business crimes are staggering. As
criminologist Georgette Bennett says, "They account for nearly 30% of case filings in U.S.
District Courts - more than any other category of crime. The combined burglar)7, mugging and
other property7 losses induced by the country's street punks come to about $4 billion a year.
However, the seemingly upstanding citizens in our corporate board rooms and the humble clerks
in our retail stores bilk us out of between $40 and $200 billion a year."
Concern here is that the costume for the new masked sanity of a psychopath is just as
likely to be a three-piece suit as a ski mask and a gun. As Harrington says, "We also have
the psychopath in respectable circles, no longer assumed to be a loser." He quotes William
Krasner as saying, "They - psychopath and part psychopath - do well in the more unscrupulous
types of sales work, because they take such delight in 'putting it over on them', getting
away with it - and have so little conscience about defrauding their customers." Our society
is fast becoming more materialistic, and success at any cost is the credo of many
businessmen. The typical psychopath thrives in this kind of environment and is seen as a
business "hero". [4]
The study of "ambulatory" psychopaths - what we call "The Garden Variety
Psychopath" - has, however, hardly begun. Very little is known about subcriminal psychopathy.
Some researchers have begun to seriously consider the idea that it is important to study
psychopathy not as a pathological category but as a general personality trait in the community
at large. In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less different type of
human.
Hervey Cleckley actually comes very close to suggesting that psychopaths are human in every
respect - but that they lack a soul. This lack of "soul quality" makes them very efficient
"machines". They can write scholarly works, imitate the words of emotion, but over time, it
becomes clear that their words do not match their actions. They are the type of person who can
claim that they are devastated by grief who then attend a party "to forget". The problem is:
they really do forget.
Being very efficient machines, like a computer, they are able to execute very complex
routines designed to elicit from others support for what they want. In this way, many
psychopaths are able to reach very high positions in life. It is only over time that their
associates become aware of the fact that their climb up the ladder of success is predicated on
violating the rights of others. "Even when they are indifferent to the rights of their
associates, they are often able to inspire feelings of trust and confidence."
The psychopath recognizes no flaw in his psyche, no need for change. Andrew Lobaczewski
addresses the problem of the psychopath and their extremely significant contribution to our
macrosocial evils, their ability to act as the eminence grise behind the very structure of our
society. It is very important to keep in mind that this influence comes from a relatively small
segment of humanity. The other 90-some percent of human beings are not psychopaths.
But that 90-some percent of normal people know that something is wrong! They just can't
quite identify it; can't quite put their finger on it; and because they can't, they tend to
think that there is nothing they can do about it, or maybe it is just God punishing people.
What is actually the case is that when that 90-some percent of human beings fall into a
certain state, as Lobaczewski will describe, the psychopaths, like a virulent pathogen in a
body, strike at the weaknesses, and the entire society is plunged into conditions that always
and inevitably lead to horror and tragedy on a very large scale.
The movie, The Matrix, touched a deep chord in society because it exemplified this
mechanistic trap in which so many people find their lives enmeshed, and from which they are
unable to extricate themselves because they believe that everyone around them who "looks human"
is, in fact, just like them - emotionally, spiritually, and otherwise.
Take an example of how psychopaths can directly affect society at large: the "legal
argument" as explicated by Robert Canup in his work on the "socially adept psychopath". The
legal argument seems to be at the foundation of our society. We believe that the legal argument
is an advanced system of justice. This is a very cunning trick that has been foisted on normal
people by psychopaths in order to have an advantage over them. Just think about it for a
moment: the legal argument amounts to little more than the one who is the slickest at using the
structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is believed. Because
this "legal argument" system has been slowly installed as part of our culture, when it invades
our personal lives, we normally do not recognize it immediately. But here's how it works.
Human beings have been accustomed to assume that other human beings are - at the very least
- trying to "do right" and "be good" and fair and honest. And so, very often, we do not take
the time to use due diligence in order to determine if a person who has entered our life is, in
fact, a "good person". When a conflict ensues, we automatically fall into the legal argument
assumption that in any conflict, one side is partly right one way, and the other is partly
right the other, and that we can form opinions about which side is mostly right or wrong.
Because of our exposure to the "legal argument" norms, when any dispute arises, we
automatically think that the truth will lie somewhere between two extremes. In this case,
application of a little mathematical logic to the problem of the legal argument might be
helpful.
Let us assume that in a dispute, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is
obvious that lying does an innocent person no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent,
the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess "I did it". But lying is nothing but good for
the liar. He can declare that "I didn't do it", and accuse another of doing it, all the while
the innocent person he has accused is saying "I didn't do it" and is actually telling the
truth.
The truth, when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad,
especially if the innocent person is honest and admits his mistakes.
The basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always
shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth. Under most
circumstances, this shift put together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted
in such a way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage always
resting in the hands of liars - psychopaths. Even the simple act of giving testimony under oath
is a useless farce. If a person is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person.
However, swearing an oath acts strongly on a serious, strongly on a serious, truthful witness.
Again, the advantage is placed on the side of the liar.
It has often been noted that psychopaths have a distinct advantage over human beings with
conscience and feelings because the psychopath does not have conscience and feelings. What
seems to be so is that conscience and feelings are related to the abstract concepts of "future"
and "others". It is "spatio-temporal". We can feel fear, sympathy, empathy, sadness, and so on
because we can imagine in an abstract way, the future based on our own experiences in the past,
or even just "concepts of experiences" in myriad variations. We can "see ourselves" in them
even though they are "out there" and this evokes feelings in us. We can't do something hurtful
because we can imagine it being done to us and how it would feel. In other words, we can not
only identify with others spatially - so to say - but also temporally - in time.
The psychopath does not seem to have this capacity.
They are unable to "imagine" in the sense of being able to really connect to images in a
direct "self connecting to another self' sort of way.
Oh, indeed, they can imitate feelings, but the only real feelings they seem to have - the
thing that drives them and causes them to act out different dramas for the effect - is a sort
of "predatorial hunger" for what they want. That is to say, they "feel" need/want as love, and
not having their needs/wants met is described by them as "not being loved". What is more, this
"need/want" perspective posits that only the "hunger" of the psychopath is valid, and anything,
and everything "out there", outside of the psychopath, is not real except insofar as it has the
capability of being assimilated to the psychopath as a sort of "food". "Can it be used or can
it provide something?" is the only issue about which the psychopath seems to be concerned. All
else - all activity - is subsumed to this drive.
In short, the psychopath is a predator. If we think about the interactions of predators with
their prey in the animal kingdom, we can come to some idea of what is behind the "mask of
sanity" of the psychopath. Just as an animal predator will adopt all kinds of stealthy
functions in order to stalk their prey, cut them out of the herd, get close to them, and reduce
their resistance, so does the psychopath construct all kinds of elaborate camouflage composed
of words and appearances - lies and manipulations - in order to "assimilate" their prey.
This leads us to an important question: what does the psychopath really get from their
victims? It's easy to see what they are after when they lie and manipulate for money or
material goods or power. But in many instances, such as love relationships or faked
friendships, it is not so easy to see what the psychopath is after. Without wandering too far
afield into spiritual speculations - a problem Cleckley also faced - we can only say that it
seems to be that the psychopath enjoys making others suffer. Just as normal humans enjoy seeing
other people happy, or doing things that make other people smile, the psychopath enjoys the
exact opposite.
Anyone who has ever observed a cat playing with a mouse before killing and eating it has
probably explained to themselves that the cat is just "entertained" by the antics of the mouse
and is unable to conceive of the terror and pain being experienced by the mouse. The cat,
therefore, is innocent of any evil intent. The mouse dies, the cat is fed, and that is nature.
Psychopaths don't generally eat their victims.
Yes, in extreme cases of psychopathy, the entire cat and mouse dynamic is carried out.
Cannibalism has a long history wherein it was assumed that certain powers of the victim could
be assimilated by eating some particular part of them. But in ordinary life, psychopaths don't
normally go all the way, so to say. This causes us to look at the cat and mouse scenario again
with different eyes. Now we ask: is it too simplistic to think that the innocent cat is merely
entertained by the mouse running about and frantically trying to escape? Is there something
more to this dynamic than meets the eye? Is there something more than being "entertained" by
the antics of the mouse trying to flee? After all, in terms of evolution, why would such
behavior be hard-wired into the cat? Is the mouse tastier because of the chemicals of fear that
flood his little body? Is a mouse frozen with terror more of a "gourmet" meal?
This suggests that we ought to revisit our ideas about psychopaths with a slightly different
perspective. One thing we do know is this: many people who experience interactions with
psychopaths and narcissists report feeling "drained" and confused and often subsequently
experience deteriorating health. Does this mean that part of the dynamic, part of the
explanation for why psychopaths will pursue "love relationships" and "friendships" that
ostensibly can result in no observable material gain, is because there is an actual energy
consumption?
This suggests that we ought to revisit our ideas about psychopaths with a slightly different
perspective. One thing we do know is this: many people who experience interactions with
psychopaths and narcissists report feeling "drained" and confused and often subsequently
experience deteriorating health. Does this mean that part of the dynamic, part of the
explanation for why psychopaths will pursue "love relationships" and "friendships" that
ostensibly can result in no observable material gain, is because there is an actual energy
consumption?
We do not know the answer to this question. We observe, we theorize, we speculate and
hypothesize. But in the end, only the individual victim can determine what they have lost in
the dynamic - and it is often far more than material goods. In a certain sense, it seems that
psychopaths are soul eaters or "Psychophagic".
In the past several years, there are many more psychologists and psychiatrists and other
mental health workers beginning to look at these issues in new ways in response to the
questions about the state of our world and the possibility that there is some essential
difference between such individuals as George W. Bush and many so-called Neocons, and the rest
of us.
Dr. Stout's book has one of the longest explanations as to why none of her examples resemble
any actual persons that I have ever read. And then, in a very early chapter, she describes a
"composite" case where the subject spent his childhood blowing up frogs with fire-crackers. It
is widely known that George W. Bush did this. The subject is also described as graduating
college with a С average - which Bush did at Yale - so one naturally wonders ...
In any event, even without Dr. Stout's work, at the time we were studying the matter, we
realized that what we were learning was very important to everyone because as the data was
assembled, we saw that the clues, the profiles, revealed that the issues we were facing were
faced by everyone at one time or another, to one extent or another. We also began to realize
that the profiles that emerged also describe rather accurately many individuals who seek
positions of power in fields of authority, most particularly politics and commerce. That's
really not so surprising an idea, but it honestly hadn't occurred to us until we saw the
patterns and recognized them in the behaviors of numerous historical figures and, lately,
including George W. Bush and members of his administration.
Current day statistics tell us that there are more psychologically sick people than
healthy ones. If you take a sampling of individuals in any given field, you are likely to find
that a significant number of them display pathological symptoms to one extent or another.
Politics is no exception, and, by its very nature, would tend to attract more of the
pathological "dominator types" than other fields. That is only logical, and we began to
realize that it was not only logical, it was horrifyingly accurate; horrifying because
pathology among people in power can have disastrous effects on all of the people under the
control of such pathological individuals. And so, we decided to write about this subject and
publish it on the Internet.
As the material went up, letters from our readers began to come in thanking us for putting a
name to what was happening to them in their personal lives as well as helping them to
understand what was happening in a world that seems to have gone completely mad. We began to
think that it was an epidemic, and, in a certain sense, we were right. If an individual
with a highly contagious illness works in a job that puts them in contact with the public, an
epidemic is the result. In the same way, if an individual in a position of political power is a
psychopath, he or she can create an epidemic of psychopathology in people who are not,
essentially, psychopathic. Our ideas along this line were soon to receive confirmation
from an unexpected source: Andrew Lobaczewski, the author of the book you are about to
read.
I received an email as follows:
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.
I have got your Special Research Project on psychopathy by my computer. You are doing a
most important and valuable work for the future of nations ...
I am a very aged clinical psychologist. Forty years ago I took part in a secret
investigation of the real nature and psychopathology of the macro-social phenomenon called
"Communism". The other researchers were the scientists of the previous generation who are now
passed away.
The profound study of the nature of psychopathy, which played the essential and
inspirational part in this macro- social psychopathologic phenomenon, and distinguishing it
from other mental anomalies, appeared to be the necessary preparation for understanding the
entire nature of the phenomenon. The profound study of the nature of psychopathy, which
played the essential and inspirational part in this macro- social psychopathologic
phenomenon, and distinguishing it from other mental anomalies, appeared to be the necessary
preparation for understanding the entire nature of the phenomenon.
The large part of the work, you are doing now, was done in those times ... I am able to
provide you with a most valuable scientific document, useful for your purposes. It is my book
"Political Ponerology - A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes". You
may also find copy of this book in the Library of Congress and in some university and public
libraries in the USA.
Be so kind and contact me so that I may mail a copy to you.
Very truly yours!
Andrew M. Lobaczewski
I promptly wrote a reply saying yes, I would very much like to read his book. A couple of
weeks later the manuscript arrived in the mail.
As I read, I realized that what I was holding in my hand was essentially a chronicle of a
descent into hell, transformation, and triumphant return to the world with knowledge of that
hell that was priceless for the rest of us, particularly in this day and time when it seems
evident that a similar hell is enveloping the planet. The risks that were taken by the group of
scientists that did the research on which this book is based are beyond the comprehension of
most of us.
As I read, I realized that what I was holding in my hand was essentially a chronicle of a
descent into hell, transformation, and triumphant return to the world with knowledge of that
hell that was priceless for the rest of us, particularly in this day and time when it seems
evident that a similar hell is enveloping the planet. The risks that were taken by the group of
scientists that did the research on which this book is based are beyond the comprehension of
most of us. Many of them were young, just starting in their careers when the Nazis began to
stride in their hundred league jackboots across Europe. These researchers lived through that,
and then when the Nazis were driven out and replaced by the Communists under the heel of
Stalin, they faced years of oppression the likes of which those of us today who are choosing to
take a stand against the Bush Reich cannot even imagine. But, based on the syndrome that
describes the onset of the disease, it seems that the United States, in particular, and perhaps
the entire world, will soon enter into "bad times" of such horror and despair that the
Holocaust of World War II will seem like just a practice run.
And so, since they were there, and they lived through it and brought back information to the
rest of us, it may well save our lives to have a map to guide us in the falling darkness.
Age discrimination has been standard operating procedure in IT for at least 30 years. And
there are no significant consequences, if any consequences at all, for doing it in a blatant
fashion. The companies just need to make sure the quota of H1B visas is increased when they
are doing this on an IBM scale!
Age discrimination and a myriad other forms of discrimination have been standard operating
procedure in the US. Period. Full stop. No need to equivocate.
"... In the early 1980's President Regan fired the striking air traffic controllers. This sent the message to management around the USA that it was OK to abuse employees in the workplace. By the end of the 1980's unions were totally emasculated and you had workers "going postal" in an abusive workplace. When unions were at their peak of power, they could appeal to the courts and actually stop a factory from moving out of the country by enforcing a labor contact. ..."
"... The American workplace is a nuthouse. Each and every individual workplace environment is like a cult. ..."
"... The American workplace is just a byproduct of the militarization of everyday life. ..."
"... Silicon Valley and Wall Street handed billions of dollars to this arrogant, ignorant Millennial Elizabeth Holmes. She abused any employee that questioned her. This should sound familiar to any employee who has had an overbearing know-it-all, bully boss in the workplace. Hopefully she will go to jail and a message will be sent that any young agist bully will not be given the power of god in the workplace. ..."
In the early 1980's President Regan fired the striking air traffic controllers. This
sent the message to management around the USA that it was OK to abuse employees in the
workplace. By the end of the 1980's unions were totally emasculated and you had workers
"going postal" in an abusive workplace. When unions were at their peak of power, they could
appeal to the courts and actually stop a factory from moving out of the country by enforcing
a labor contact.
Today we have a President in the White House who was elected on a platform of "YOU'RE
FIRED." Not surprisingly, Trump was elected by the vast majority of selfish lowlives in this
country. The American workplace is a nuthouse. Each and every individual workplace
environment is like a cult.
That is not good for someone like me who hates taking orders from people. But I have seen
it all. Ten years ago a Manhattan law firm fired every lawyer in a litigation unit except an
ex-playboy playmate. Look it up it was in the papers. I was fired from a job where many of my
bosses went to federal prison and then I was invited to the Christmas Party.
What are the salaries of these IBM employees and how much are their replacements making?
The workplace becomes a surrogate family. Who knows why some people get along and others
don't. My theory on agism in the workplace is that younger employees don't want to be around
their surrogate mother or father in the workplace after just leaving the real home under the
rules of their real parents.
The American workplace is just a byproduct of the militarization of everyday life. In the
1800's, Herman Melville wrote in his beautiful book "White Jacket" that one of the most
humiliating aspects of the military is taking orders from a younger military officer. I read
that book when I was 20. I didn't feel the sting of that wisdom until I was 40 and had a 30 year old appointed as
my supervisor who had 10 years less experience than me.
By the way, the executive that made
her my supervisor was one of the sleaziest bosses I have ever had in my career. Look at the
tech giant Theranos. Silicon Valley and Wall Street handed billions of dollars to this
arrogant, ignorant Millennial Elizabeth Holmes. She abused any employee that questioned her.
This should sound familiar to any employee who has had an overbearing know-it-all, bully boss
in the workplace. Hopefully she will go to jail and a message will be sent that any young agist bully will not be given the power of god in the workplace.
Scotch Bingeington , Oct 22, 2018 5:00:53 PM |
link
B, amazing work again, thrilling to read. Though this is a yet unfolding story, you manage to
write about it in a profound way.
Regarding the manner in which MbS operates here and subsequently reacts towards other
people's reactions is certainly telling, at least to me. First off, the coercion -- "come
back or else " -- flat out. The ruthlessness vis-à-vis the victim, the complete
disregard for that individual's life. The crassness of the methods applied. The carelessness
concerning the risks and the half-assed way in which this exercise, by and large, was carried
out. Once word got out, being utterly taken by surprise that this murder should draw so much
attention and should shock and outrage people -- like, at all! Followed by, of course, a
sudden switch from ever-so-charming to furious rage.
That's textbook psychopathic behavior. MbS is a psychopath. I don't mean that as an
insult, but as the descriptive term and category that it is. It was already palpable in all
the other incidents, which was duly pointed out here by people at the Moon. To me, it's also
in his eyes.
But the thing is, as such, MbS is a befitting representation of his country. The
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the way that it works, how it's organized, its history, its outlook
on the world -- it's the equivalent among states of a psychopath.
I certainly agree, the
sooner MbS gets kicked off the stage, the better for them and for us. But he'll be replaced
and SA will still be the equivalent among states of a psychopath -- and act accordingly.
There's much more to be done than just put an end to MbS' games. In that vein, I'd be
appalled if Russia were to seriously consider sucking up to SA should they break away from
the US orbit.
What's clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence.
There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result
of being wrongfully accused.
The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue
reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual
assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the
Home Office
suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected
to be false.
Studies
carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a
person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma"
from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc)
stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.
So does alcohol.
Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high
school and in college?
"... The editor of a major paper once told me that he never allowed a woman into his office unless the door was open and a third person present. Why? If a disgruntled reporter says, "He groped me," it will go viral. (Joyful headline headline in competing paper: "Editor of Daily Blatt allegedly .") Months of furor will ensue. He will have large legal bills. The suspicion arising from that "allegedly" will never die. The paper's board may well decide that regardless of guilt he is having too serious an affect on the advertisers. He will be permitted to resign, never to get a similar job. The Daily Blatt will settle as quietly as possible for a quarter million. ..."
False accusations of rape are not uncommon. A few gain national attention. Most do not. A
few: Tawana Brawley , a black
woman, was gang-raped by four white (of course) men, except that she wasn't. Next there is the
Duke Lacrosse
case , Then at Rolling Stone a feminist writer and a magazine not greatly given to
fact checking published the story of rape at the University of Virginia, also discredited.
It cost them a libel settlement. And so on.
Again, if the accused men and boys had been guilty, long prison terms would have been a good
idea. But they weren't. The presumption of guilt for men and innocence for women are convenient
for those who want to prevent confirmation of a judge but do not reflect reality. People,
assuredly to include women, use what power they have to get what they want.
The editor of a major paper once told me that he never allowed a woman into his office
unless the door was open and a third person present. Why? If a disgruntled reporter says, "He
groped me," it will go viral. (Joyful headline headline in competing paper: "Editor of Daily
Blatt allegedly .") Months of furor will ensue. He will have large legal bills. The
suspicion arising from that "allegedly" will never die. The paper's board may well decide that
regardless of guilt he is having too serious an affect on the advertisers. He will be permitted
to resign, never to get a similar job. The Daily Blatt will settle as quietly as
possible for a quarter million.
Meanwhile, the Kavanaugh carnival is up and running. Now, Lord save us, we have USAToday trying to nail Kavanaugh for yes pedophilia. The evidence? Ain't
none. None needed. Hey, we're talking the American media.
Nuff said. I predict the soon headline: "Berkeley sychotherapist recounts seeing Brett
Kavanaugh leading the entire Marine Division in gang-raping thirteen-year-old autistic
orphans."
Gateway Pundit and the crack sleuths
at /pol/ are both
reporting on something veeery interesting about Christine Ballsy-Fraud: that second door on her
home she claimed was the trigger for her remembering sexual abuse by Kavanaugh? it's likely all
made up and the truth is that she was trying to hide her illegal landlord activity from
authorities.
Here's an accomplished woman, Margot Cleveland, who has thoroughly analyzed Ballsy-Fraud's
testimony and come to the conclusion that her constant story changes to stay one step ahead of
any defense against her accusations that would attempt to falsify her recollections is the best
evidence that Ballsy-Fraud was LYING UNDER OATH:
There are sociopaths among us. Most people don't know when they've met one. The sociopath is
adept at concealing herself through mimicry of normal people. So when a sociopath like CBF
sheds crocodile tears in front of Congress, normies think she's credible. They can't fathom
anyone who would blatantly lie about a good man and destroy him before an audience of
millions.
But these soul-killers exist, and normies had better wake up real quick to the fact that
their inability to fathom anyone so radically and malevolently unlike themselves doesn't mean
sociopaths don't swim among them, preying on their gullibility and integrity.
They do.
And they have like-minded kin in Congress who will cover for them.
I will be vindicated in my very early assessment of Ballsy-Ford as a psychopathic liar who
made up her accusation out of thin air.
And I will be vindicated in my very early assessment that it was wrong of the GOP and assorted
pants-wetters and pedestal polishers on the Right to sacrifice Roy Moore to the jackals and
embolden the Leftoid Fuggernaut to even greater slanders against innocent men.
Mitchell the "veteran prosecutor" also failed to ask Ford who hosted the party where the
alleged assault took place.
This is an important question. Maybe the most important question.
No one should be expected to remember their high school friends' home addresses, just like
no one should be expected to remember every person who attended a specific high school
party.
One thing ANYONE who suffered a violent attack would remember is WHO OWNED THE HOUSE where
the attack took place.
High school parties generally are hosted by a the same people throughout a students high
school years. It's not like everyone in class takes their turn throwing a kegger.
As anyone who drank to get drunk at parties in high school will tell you, it was always
the same handful of kids, maybe three or four, who let their friends drink alcohol in their
parents' home.
Narrowing down exactly who owned the home where the alleged attack took place should be
easy due to the fact that, according to Ford, it was more of a small get together than a full
blown party.
All investigators should need to do is ask the known attendees, under oath, whether or not
they hosted the party where the alleged attack took place.
The fact that Ford's testimony includes exactly one person whose name she cannot remember
is NOT a coincidence.
The phantom attendee was created out of thin air to give Ford an out if the known
attendees claimed the attack did not occur at their homes.
There are so many things wrong with this political farce. Liberal mental illness, as with
any case, is a given, automatically assumed.
Flip flopping dufuses on the other side, weakness, gross ineptitude.
The entire system needs to be culled via a massive firestorm; no one or thing left
standing.
Cassander , 1 day ago
@BGO -- Re your first sentence, Mitchell notes in her memo "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity".
I think this covers your point implicitly. If she doesn't remember what house it was, how can
she remember whose house it was?
Just thought you were going a bit hard on Mitchell, whose memo seems pretty damning to
me...
BGO , 1 day ago
Asking *what* house and *whose* house are two ENTIRELY different things.
Think about the most traumatic experience of your life. You know EXACTLY where the
traumatic experience took place, right?
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
VWAndy , 22 hours ago
Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They
have gotten away with it before.
Barney08 , 1 day ago
Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated
ditz.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments.
Her voicing was a tell that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person
who holds a doctorate and travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
All Comments 833
NaturalOnly , 10 hours ago
It is not a matter of proving he is guilty to be prosecuted and go to jail. I think he did
it. I think we all do stupid stuff when we are young and drunk. By all accounts he was a
boozer.
There are a ton of people who would like to be on the Supreme court, why shove this guy
down everyone's throat? He was an a$$. He needs to go away.
At first I thought this was all about politics. It might be a little. But women are sick
of being victimized by men who get by with it. He should not get by with this.
Mzhen , 10 hours ago
No. Corroborating. Evidence.
Mike in Tokyo Rogers , 9 hours ago
Illogical and emotional "reasoning."
merlinfire , 2 hours ago
"I think he is guilty despite the evidence, so he must be guilty, despite the
evidence."
Mzhen , 11 hours ago
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up.
She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too.
And as a teacher she must be a real screwball.
Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these
people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn
as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly
not members.
Brazillionaire , 14 hours ago
I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if somebody already brought this up... can
this woman (who was 15) explain why she was in an upstairs bedroom with two boys? Did they
drag her up the stairs? In front of the others? If she went willingly, for what purpose?
Some things reign eternal... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old
drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! Thank you
for paving the road to ruin! Don't forget to breathe in-between. You ARE the FACE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GIRL! Suck it up, Buttercup!
alfbell , 15 hours ago
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RED WAVE!! RED WAVE!!
RighteousRampage , 15 hours ago
Yes, we all got to see Kavanaugh PMS'ing on national television. No need to shout about
it.
alfbell , 15 hours ago
I BELIEVE!!
... that America's institutions are being torn down by Leftists. The attempt to create a
new totalitarian regime has been upon us for decades and is now perfectly clear.
We will not say goodbye to morality.
We will not say goodbye to science.
We will not say goodbye to democracy.
We will not say goodbye to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Logic,
Decency, etc. etc. etc.
MAGA!
AHBL , 15 hours ago
Morality: Your dear Leader cheated on 3 different wives, one of them with a
prostitute,...while she was pregnant (or had a 4 month old, I forget); filed for bankruptcy 5
times, cheating many people out of money; settled fraud lawsuits; lied about charity
donations; your party nominated an actual PEDOPHILE (Moore) for Senate and now wants to
appoint an angry drunk to be SCJ!
Science: You folks are literally disputing the conclusions of the vast, vast majority of
scientists (97% by my last count) when it comes to global warming.
Democracy: this is a Democratic Republic...if it was a Democracy Trump wouldn't be
President.
The rest of the nonsense you wrote was just filler...obviously.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Still better than the rapist and intern cigarer
and Benghazi killer clintons😂😂😂
why do retarded libturds not see that!!
alfbell , 11 hours ago
You are clueless. Have all of your priorities and importances upside down. Have zero
critical thinking.
Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an
end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists. Look at the big picture AHBL. C'mon you can
do it.
RighteousRampage , 15 hours ago
"Wave goodbye to science"
Um, I believe you have your parties confused.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
ISIS killee obama turned the democrats into te
aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
NeigeAmericain , 13 hours ago
Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely
or would they ? 🤔
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten. Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
RighteousRampage , 15 hours ago
I heard she was chapter head of the local Elk's lodge as well.
GotAFriendInBen , 16 hours ago
Bye bye lying Brett
New reports question Kavanaugh's credibility on past drinking behavior, when he knew about
allegations
Texts suggest Supreme Court nominee knew of Ramirez accusations months before when he
testified he had heard them
Gold Banit , 16 hours ago
Trump is brilliant and very smart!
Trump destroyed 17 high profile and very rich Republicans in the primaries.
Trump destroyed high profile and very rich Hillary Clinton and became the President of the
USA.
Trump will now destroy the Democratic Party CNN and the main stream media.
Trump is not only brilliant and very smart he is a genius..
The DemoRats are in panic mode and are scared to death cause they are starting to realize
that this could be the end of the Democratic Party.
RighteousRampage , 15 hours ago
"Trump is brilliant and very smart!"
Easy there, you're gonna hurt yourself.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Best president in hi
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
He is brilliant
he knew this pick would get beat so he picked Kavanaugh
it was brilliant because even Bush was forced to fight for
kacenau😂😂😂
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
He will be confirmed this week
no problem
just outing the democrats that will be targeted in nov
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
I'll believe a woman after she's happily, on her own, made me breakfast 5 years or
more....like mine does 8 years later.
ParaZite , 16 hours ago
Democrats have shown that they are anything but reasonable.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
Racheal Doleazle...Blase'- Ford....We should believe these women! - Why?l
ParaZite , 16 hours ago
Because they have a vagina and can cry when their go fund me page hits 500K.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Cause a fat turd senator from Hawaii ordered us too😂😂😂
after that bitch tried to get the democrat rapist clinton back in my White House???
she hates Brett???
dekocrats are riding a fastvttrain to hell
aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago
Funny how Democraps are getting their panties in a wad over BK drinking beer in college,
yet were okay with Slappy Sotoro snorting cocaine in college....go figure...
Dormouse , 14 hours ago
They're terrified of what happens once he's confirmed.
10/10/18 Checkmate
Extinction
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
The million babies a year quit being executed
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Where WAS the media when ISIS killer obama put those two fat no resume turds on the
court???
GotAFriendInBen , 16 hours ago
Be wary of anyone this lunatic wants to plant for a lifetime position
Trump Says He 'Fell In Love' With Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un
If you believe this to be in error, please confirm below that you are not a robot by
clicking "I'm not a robot" below.
Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not
blocking them from loading. For more information you can review the Terms of Service and
Cookie Policy.
Block reference ID: f9d6i listen to the ****-11e8-8d59-**** you
aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago
Lol... what, seeing UB40?
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Ouch
might be right on that😂😂😂
Mareka , 16 hours ago
I suspect this is as much about discouraging others from stepping forward as it is about
destroying Kavenaugh.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
I suspect this is about Communists trying to take over our government.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Amen
this is warning the good guys
Debt Slave , 16 hours ago
She is a cross eyed boobis and we have to believe her because she says Kavanaugh, a white
hetero catholic man without any decent upbringing or engrained scruples raped her like a
monkey savage out of the jungle. Oh sorry, TRIED to rape her. As a teenager. Tried to raped a
pathetic, stupid cross eyed retarded moron that has since been successfully lobotomized at a
'modern' American university.
When is the last time you saw a 'mentally challenged' person being abused? Oh yes I
remember now, it was Chicongo, January 2017. Four negroes shoved a retarded white man's head
in a toilet and demanded he swear that he loved Niggers.
Never heard what happened to the savage fuckers, eh? Not surprised.
i know who and what I am voting for white man, do you?
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
This is all over BRUTAL KISS
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
Whaaa waa waa waa. Whahhh wa waaaaa. It's good to be retarded! Then you don't even have to
try and understand the stupid **** we are FED today!
ThePhantom , 17 hours ago
bitch didn't clean her glasses.... mother ******
rkb100100 , 17 hours ago
I hear Anita Hill is worth a lot of money. I wonder what kind of pay-off this slime ball
will end up with.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
Pubic hair is worth a lot! It's got electrolytes!
Empire's Frontiers , 17 hours ago
You know, we ain't heard much about Russia for a few days.
Mouldy , 16 hours ago
Yeah ZH... **** this Kavanaugh ****, can we get back to the regularly
scheduled doom **** please.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
Quitchabitchen.
benb , 16 hours ago
Time for the un-redacted FISA docs and the text messages. That should send Schumer and the
gang into a tailspin.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
....disqus spinning thing
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
God bless brilliant trump
holding those real crimes over democrats
cant wait until he drops the bombs
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
benb , 16 hours ago
Yes a Hoax! But how many out there believe this crap? I'd like to see an accurate poll if
that's possible.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
I believe it all! Both sides are right!
Debt Slave , 16 hours ago
That's why we call them 'Bolsheviks'. That's what they are.
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
They killed millions! ...and are poised to try and do it again.
BankSurfyMan , 18 hours ago
Fordy had sexual encounters, she drinks beer and flies all over the globe... One day she
had a beer and cannot remember getting home on time to watch, MOAR DOOM NEWS! Fucktard Fordy!
Doom 2019! Next!
inosent , 18 hours ago
Well, at least Rachel doesn't come off as one of those psycho SJW bitches
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
I am a black woman that identifies as a pre-pubescent Taiwanese man.
SocratesSolutions , 18 hours ago
Hmm. I think here, now which is it really? Does Ford make a better looking man, or does
Kavanaugh make a better looking woman?
Giant Meteor , 17 hours ago
I dunno. But so far no one has been able to answer this question. Why, in the picture
above, does Ford look like she swalowed a hula hoop ?
Oldguy05 , 16 hours ago
Because.
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
Just had lunch with a democrat. He's generally tolerable, so his level of anger at
Kavanaugh and his acceptance of "anything goes" to derail Kavanaugh was surprising to me.
Democrats believe that Roe V Wade is instantly overturned if Kavanaugh gets in. They also
think that if Roe V Wade is overturned, no woman will ever be able to abort another baby in
the US.
I explained to him that destruction of Roe V Wade will only make it a state issue, so
girls in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc will be able to kill as many babies as
they want to. It will only be girls in Wyoming or Utah or some other very red state that
might have to schlep their *** to another state to kill their kid.
Democrats see this as a battle for abortion, and if Kav gets confirmed, abortion is
completely gone in the USA. That's why you have these women freaking out. They think the
stakes are much higher than they actually are. Almost all of the women that are so worried
about this live in states where it won't have any effect on them at all.
I am Groot , 18 hours ago
I hope you took a bath and a flea dip after lunch.
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
I think I kind of calmed him down. We need to let them know that their world doesn't end
if Roe V Wade is overturned. I am also not at all sure it would be overturned, even with Kav
on the court, but they insist it will be, so not worth arguing. Reminding them that it
doesn't effect them, if they live in a blue state should calm their fears a little.
The right to abort is their 2nd amendment, God help us. If you explain to them they are
not really in danger, it may calm them down. They'll still make noise about those poor girls
who can't get an abortion after school and still make it home for dinner, and instead, have
to take a bus to another state to kill their kid, but they won't be as personally threatened
and lashing out as they mistakenly are now.
when the saxon began , 17 hours ago
And therein lies the fatal flaw of an elected representative government. The votes of the
ignorant and stupid are counted the same as yours or mine. And there are far more of
them.
VisionQuest , 18 hours ago
Democrats stand for atheism, abortion & sodomy. Ask yourself this question: Who stands
with Democrats? If your answer is "I do." then you'd best rethink your precious notions of
morality, truth, common decency, common sense and justice.
It is undoubtedly true that, in our entirely imperfect world, the American Way of life is
also far from perfect. But it is also true that, compared to every other system of government
on the planet, there is no comparison with the level of achievement accomplished by the
American Way of life.
Democrats hate and will destroy the American Way of life. Have you been a Democrat? Walk
away.
Automatic Choke , 19 hours ago
EXCUSE ME, Y'ALL.....
but where the hell are the texts, FISA memo, & other docs?
look, another ******* squirrel !!!!!
J Jason Djfmam , 19 hours ago
They should also recommend an investigation of the woman with two front holes...errr front
doors.
snatchpounder , 18 hours ago
Yes Flake should be investigated I concur.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
Zing!
freedommusic , 19 hours ago
At this point the FBI should recommend a criminal investigation to the DOJ for treasonous
actors who are subverting the constitutional process of SC nomination. The crimes of perjury,
sedition, and treason, need to be clearly articulated to the public and vigorous prosecution
ensue.
We are STILL a Constitutional Republic - RIGHT?
Giant Meteor , 18 hours ago
Well, I am betting 27 trillion dollars that the answer to your question is a resounding ,
no ...
didthatreallyhappen , 19 hours ago
there is not "case"
ZeroPorridge , 19 hours ago
STOP SHOWING THIS LAME ****, TYLER! I HAD ENOUGH OF THIS WAFFLECRAP!!
DingleBarryObummer , 19 hours ago
It's the nothing burger flavor of the week. Tylers gotta put bread on the table u know. Be
grateful for the good stuff they host, ZH is still the best news site on the internet. And
don't worry, this nothing burger will get stale and we will have a new one in a week or 2,
and everyone can get hysterical from that and forget about this one.
dchang0 , 19 hours ago
A body language analysis video on BitChute goes through the Ford testimony and points out
all the markers for lying and rehearsed lines:
I saw a video on youtube where a man threw chicken bones and saw Kavanaugh is guilty. I
mean, what other proof does one need.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
Red herrIng much?
Anunnaki , 14 hours ago
Excellent. Thanks
loved the part on pretty pose. Her helium voice was an act
Shillinlikeavillan , 19 hours ago
This **** won't mean anything to the leftards, they will pretend that this report never
happened and will carry on acting like a bunch of dumbasses...
Meanwhile, there was indeed a party with ford in it that night...
... and its hard to stop a train...
RighteousRampage , 19 hours ago
...of old angry entitled white men from gang banging our constitutional rights.
Mr. Universe , 19 hours ago
How come all of a sudden 8 year old accounts whom I've never seen before start trolling?
At least 4 so far I've seen, strange co inky dink ehh?
RighteousRampage , 16 hours ago
I gave up posting here years ago when the site went from sharp-eyed financial analysis to
Russia-humping conspiro-nazism. That said, this Kavanaughty thing is just too much of a
meatball to pass up.
Now, respect your elders, and go back to playing in your sandbox, little boy.
Sinophile , 19 hours ago
If the bitch 'struggled academically in college' then how the hell did she get awarded a
freaking P(ost)H(ole)D(igger)?
snatchpounder , 18 hours ago
She probably blew the right man or men.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
That's why GRE and other standardized tests should be prioritized. Thinking on one's feet
is a good thing!
eitheror , 19 hours ago
Thank you Rachel Mitchell for having the courage to tell the truth about the testimony of
Ms. Blasey Ford, P.h.D.
Ford is not a medical Doctor but is a P.h.D.
The Democrats seem to have abandoned Ms. Ford like a bad haircut, instead focusing on
other smoke and mirrors.
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
RighteousRampage , 19 hours ago
i guess Kavanuaghty wasn't worried about soiling the family name all those times he
stumbled home slurring his words and yelling at random passersby.
onewayticket2 , 18 hours ago
He is not the first college student to get drunk.
Equating getting drunk to charges in every newspaper and TV news station for weeks stating
he is a gang rapist ring leader etc is laughably idiotic. Nice job. Thx for the laugh.
HowdyDoody , 19 hours ago
Reports that Chinese naval vessel has chased a US vessel USS Decatur out of disputed
waters. The Chinese vessel came within ~40 meters of the USS vessel (which is pretty darn
close).
French president Macron, visiting the West Indows was interviewed about the confrontation.
He responded, saying "don't bug me, bro. I got important things on my mind".
About 35 years ago, at a party in San Francisco where everyone was very drunk, now Senator
Feinstein sexually molested me. Don't remember the date or location or anything else, but it
happened, I swear! Naturally, want to remain anonymous to protect my integrity, but it did
happen! She shoved me down onto my knees and ground her crotch in my face. It was terrible, I
can still recall the horrible smell to this day! The stench was a combination of rotting
flesh and urine. Makes me nauseous just thinking of that sexual assault. INVESTIGATE this
serial molester!
nope-1004 , 20 hours ago
Anyone see what that fat, big mouthed, undisciplined pig Rosie O'Donnell tweeted today? I
didn't. But I'm sure that fat piggy just had to weigh-in (no pun intended) on how she's been
crossed by this.
Any other lefties lurking here who have kids that can't stand you / your insane views, and
have disowned you like Rosie's did?
lol
I am Groot , 19 hours ago
Piggy ? More like a rabid albino silverback beating her hairy chest.
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Mr. Universe , 19 hours ago
Would you expect less from the company?
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
Can't remember when it happened, how she got there, who was there, how she got home
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
quasi_verbatim , 20 hours ago
What a load of 'Murican crap.
Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago
Squawkkkkkk, it's what we do !
American Dissident , 20 hours ago
McConnell on the Senate Floor 50 minutes ago: "The time for endless delay and obstruction
has come to a close.... Mr. President, we'll be voting this week."
xear , 21 hours ago
Brett is obviously innocent. Groping her, holding her down, grinding into her... it's not
like it was rape. And as far as covering her mouth so she couldn't scream... after a heavy
night of drinking who wants to hear screaming? Almost anyone would do the same.
I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 20 hours ago
it's always interesting to see where and why people claim to know things about which they
have literally no 'knowledge.'
Also interesting to see how the same people who would protest assuming the guilt of an
alleged Muslim terrorist or Black liquor store robber now argue it is 'whiteness' and
'patriarchy' to not assume the guilt of a white male regarding decades old uncorroborated
charges... which 4 named witnesses deny having knowledge of, by a woman who lied about a fear
of flying to try to delay the process.
We can all be hypocrites.
But watching the Left embrace hypocrisy as social justice has been, in the pure sense of
the word, awesome to behold.
RighteousRampage , 20 hours ago
Almost, but not quite, as awesome to behold as the right's embrace of complete immorality
by the supposed party of faith and religion.
ZD1 , 20 hours ago
The demonic Democrat socialist party are all about immorality.
The real neo-Marxist fascists on the Supreme Court are:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Marxist *** from ACLU)
Elena Kagan (Marxist ***)
Sonia Sotomayer (Marxist brown supremacist from La Raza/MEHcA)
Stephen Breyer (Marxist ***)
They are no different than the left-wing billionaire neo-Marxist fascists that own and
control the demonic Democrat socialist party.
RighteousRampage , 20 hours ago
Showing your Nazi stripes again?
The religious right will never again be able to claim any moral high-ground, never. Not
after Trump and this Kavanaugh fiasco.
ZD1 , 20 hours ago
The immoral lying neo-Marxist fascists in the demonic Democrat socialist party never had
any high ground, EVER!
Now run along Antifa fascist.
RighteousRampage , 20 hours ago
Whatever you say, Boris.
Dancing Disraeli , 20 hours ago
Boris is a Russian name. If you wanted to run the Nazi narrative, you should've called him
Fritz.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
I love the new ignore feature on the Hedge. Buh bye Snowflake
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
FBaggins , 21 hours ago
To fix things if after all of this crap from the feminazis and Kavenaugh simply withdraws
his name, Trump should put forward Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next candidate. It would
really ensure support for Trump candidates in the midterms from women in general and from
social-conservative family-values people in the US and it would perhaps teach the feminazis a
lesson at the same time.
istt , 20 hours ago
No, Kavanaugh deserves better. He has earned his place on the USSC.
Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago
My prediction was, and still is Kavanaugh goes forward. Even the revered CNN is starting
to walk the drinking issue back.
By the way , the Trump presser today was a ******* hoot!
cheech_wizard , 20 hours ago
Aren't they all...
Standard Disclaimer: Keep calm and MAGA on!
ToddTheBabyWhale , 21 hours ago
Nine page memo, Tyler. Your starting to write like a pro journalist now.
jomama , 21 hours ago
Checked in for a minute to have a peek at countless fat, white, middle aged, anonymous
assholes spewing hatred and misogyny.
Wasn't disappointed. Keeping it classy, ZH.
I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 21 hours ago
that's big talk coming from a pedophile.
prove you aren't, dickhead.
Lore , 21 hours ago
That isn't helpful. The reason why jomama's post is wrong is because it's merely spewing
vitriol, when the priority should be to dis-indoctrinate and self-educate.
American Dissident , 20 hours ago
Reading this made is like seeing a fire truck on fireeeeeee
tmosley , 20 hours ago
I started blocking low effort trolls after one warning.
Slowly cleaning the place up.
Jein , 20 hours ago
Tmosley: "it hurts my feelings to read things I dont like and I need a safe space to cry
in"
Mr. Universe , 19 hours ago
Another 9 year member troll I've never seen before. Do you think the mockingbirds want to
disrupt any discourse and devolve it into "them vs. us"? You bet they do. Buzz off, jomama
back to whatever basement they dug you up out of. Tell Georgie that we will resist this
treachery with our last breaths.
Lore , 21 hours ago
You misunderstand, because your perspective is handicapped by progressivist
indoctrination. A conscientious ZHer will read a note like that and dismiss it as
intellectual laziness: mindless regurgitation of programming.
Strive to deprogram, and you'll quickly develop better perspective about the distinction
between political correctness and pursuit of truth. God knows there is name-calling on both
sides, but I think it's safe to say that the biggest concern on sites like ZH is the way
mainstream American discourse has been hijacked by amoral pathocracy. What matters is not
doing The Right Thing: what matters is ******* over the other guy to get Your Way. That is
the evil that is on the verge of destroying this nation.
cheech_wizard , 20 hours ago
It's either that, or drugs.
robertocarlos , 21 hours ago
I'm not that fat.
Harvey_Manfrengensen , 21 hours ago
I am at 16% bodyfat. Nor am I white. Try again.
istt , 21 hours ago
Jomama raped me when I was in the 6th grade. Just came out after a therapy session. Can
anyone corroborate my story, you ask? No, but I am 100% sure he is the guy. You are a guy,
right? Now if we can just expose who he is I will press charges and have him put away for a
very long time, ruin his family and his career.
rwmomad , 20 hours ago
He pulled my pants down in first grade on the play ground and touched my pee pee. I am
seeking counsel.
Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago
How's that going?
IridiumRebel , 20 hours ago
Still can't refute anything so ad hominem attacks....got it.
Stay generalized!
let freedom ring , 21 hours ago
Trump has given up on K. The calculus is that it will be bad for the democrats if he
doesn't make it on the court. Don't expect Trumps help from here on in. K was a flawed
candidate from the start and Trump knew it, and is playing his base like a violin.
istt , 20 hours ago
Total BS. You've lost your senses. People are expendable but not that much. Trump has to
be thought of as a guy who backs his appointees, that he will go to the wall for them.
sunkeye , 21 hours ago
T/y Prosecutor Mitchell for conducting yourself w/ professionalism, decency, & honor -
personal traits none of the Democratic senators seem to possess, or would even recognize if
shown to them directly as you did. Again. t/y & bravo.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She allowed Ford to refuse to speak the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. Chris
Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who was Ford's one-time boyfriend. Some speculate that he was the
unnamed final boy at the party and that he may have assaulted Ford and/or dumped her after
she refused to go to the next level with him. Hence the trauma.
Jein , 21 hours ago
All this vitriol breaks my heart. Why can't we all just love eachother? I heard human
centipeding is a great way to team build. Who's in?
chrbur , 21 hours ago
Jein...because first we must remove evil....
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
right, and by labeling the opposing side, "evil" that pretty much means anything goes.
first step is to dehumanize, then all possibilities are on the table, amirite?
istt , 20 hours ago
Yeah, that's following the Alinsky playbook. Something you have been spewing all over
these threads. Guilty until proven innocent. No, better, yet, guilty because he was
accused.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a
socialist."
RighteousRampage , 20 hours ago
Funny how all of the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crowd here was so
quick to send Hillary to the gulag, or believe in that Obama was a Muslim, or that a pizza
parlor was ground-zero for a child trafficking ring, or....
let freedom ring , 21 hours ago
I like it. lets sew a string of Trumptards together *** to mouth, south park style.
Jein , 21 hours ago
Love it. I'm willing to make the sacrifice be the head.
Negative_Prime , 20 hours ago
Why? You're so good at being the rear.
Don't deny your nature.
tmosley , 20 hours ago
I told you to stop that ****.
You are now on ignore. Suggest everyone do the same. This guy never said anything
interesting.
Paracelsus , 21 hours ago
I am having trouble keeping these personalities separate as I want to give everyone the
benefit of the
doubt. When I see Justice Kavanaugh, I think of the confirmation hearing as a political
attack on the
Trump administration . Also as an attempt to score points, or make the other side
screw up, before the
upcoming elections.When I see Dr. Ford, I see Hillary Clinton and all the bitterness
from a failed
politician.
The funny thing is I thought all the Trump "fake news" statements were a load of crap.
Turns out he hit the
mark quite often. The lefties are so damn mad because Trump is succeeding and they haven't
been able to
score points against him. So they feel that it is justified to use other
methods,regardless of the fallout.
There is a whiff of panic and desperation present.
I have stated this before, as have others: The loss of the White House by the Democrats
provided a
unique opportunity to clean out the deadwood. This may have seemed cruel and heartless
but the
Obama era is over and the Dem's urgently need to return to their roots before it is too
late. Did they
use this moment of change or did they revert to business as usual? To ask the question
is to
answer it.... This is commonly described as bureaucratic inertia. The Dem's only needed
to get the
ball rolling and they would be moving towards the objective of regaining power. New,
younger
and more diplomatic and law abiding types need to be encouraged to apply. Put out the
help wanted
sign. Do what Donald does,"You're fired!".
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
Well, if others have stated it before, it MUST be true. Republiconarists and Demcraps are
playing the same stupid games. Dems got punked w Garland, and now Reps are getting their
comeuppance w Kavanaugh (who really made it worse for himself by holding up such an obviously
false pious portrait of himself).
American Dissident , 22 hours ago
I believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I believe Rachel Mitchell, Esq. I believe Leland Keyser.
I believe Mark Judge. I believe P.J. Smyth.
I believe the evidence. That's why I don't believe Ms. Christine Blasey Ford.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
But she only had one beer!
Torgo , 11 hours ago
What do you think of the Chris Garrett hypothesis?
VWAndy , 22 hours ago
Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They
have gotten away with it before.
Drop-Hammer , 22 hours ago
IOW, she is a lying leftist loon and fraud. I am only surprised that she is not a
treacherous jewess.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
The bitch was a fraud and anybody with a working brain understands that. Of course that
exempts the democrat voting base.
The two ugly women senators from Maine and Alaska just might sink Kav. Lord knows they
want to so bad.
arby63 , 22 hours ago
And you are about duplicitous as one paid troll could be. Go punch yourself and apologize
to those that actually have a job.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
G F Y sport
arby63 , 22 hours ago
Don't you wish. Bitch.
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
Zerohedge is basically Breitbart now, with even more doomporn and more Putin puffery.
cheech_wizard , 20 hours ago
******* yourself might be the only sex you're getting... Just saying...
RighteousRampage , 20 hours ago
Maybe he's a proud beer drinking virgin, just like your man Kavanaugh.
STONEHILLADY , 22 hours ago
also for someone going up before Congress for any reason, this Ford girl had NOT one
family member or husband by her side....that is a real telling sign.
Also check out the secret courts going on in E. Warren's state Mass. same kind of Justice,
guilty to prove innocent, they have adopted the court system of the Inquisition, get ready
folks if the Dems. take back the Congress. these type of courts coming to blue state near
you.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
If your father was CIA would you want him there? Of course she is a carpet eater so two
lesbians is enough.
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
I guess then, by your logic, the Clinton's should be considered innocent?
Anunnaki , 14 hours ago
She kept looking at her prepared statement like a security blanket under cross
examination
Torgo , 11 hours ago
It was an attempt to make her look alone and vulnerable. Along with the girly voice and
the glasses to make her eyes look huge and neotenous.
YourAverageJoe , 22 hours ago
Writing the memo was easy for her. She could have cut and pasted large parts of Comey's
July 2016 exoneration of Hillary speech.
aloha_snakbar , 22 hours ago
Ms Ford, the newly minted millionaire, is probably lying poolside in Mexico, indulging in
her favorite psychotropics and getting pounded by the local brown talent. Wow...having a
vagina is like having a meat 3D printer that spews out money...
cheech_wizard , 20 hours ago
That so reminds me of this line in "He Never Died"...
I, uh, don't have money, so...
Then how did you end up inebriated?
Vaginas are like coupon books for alcohol.
Aubiekong , 23 hours ago
Never was about justice, this is simply a liberal/globalist plan to stop Trump.
peippe , 22 hours ago
why can't they lay back & take the pounding?
might even start to enjoy it. MAGA!
Trump Train will place at least one more justice on the bench beyond Brettster. : )
I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 21 hours ago
Trump is surrounded by Jews.. Zionists and bankers.
We are watching the Ultra-Zionist Jews in a power struggle with the Globalist Jews.
And 100 years ago Churchill notes the same - Jews divided between destroying nations
(Bolsheviks) and building their own to rule the world and possess its wealth (Zionism).
Bad cop, bad cop.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Well stated. Churchill famously and openly wrote about this in the early 1920s.
arby63 , 23 hours ago
If you haven't punched a Democrat today, try harder.
Jein , 22 hours ago
Cuck alert
arby63 , 22 hours ago
Let us all know when you're ready to jump.
LadyAtZero , 22 hours ago
Prosecutor Rachel did a great job and given that Christine's testimony was under oath,
Christine is set up to be held to what she said.
Friends, Christine is C_A and so is her dad. These C_A facts are all over the
internet.
Christine during her testimony had a fake "little girl, looking over her glasses, am I not
cute?" demeanor.
She is a psych. PhD for heavens sake -- she is 52 years old. No need to act like a hurt
little girl, unless one is facing the big white male meanies who dare to question her and she
can emit "I'm a victim" all day long.
Go Kavanaugh!
(and I don't care if Brett Kavanaugh likes to drink beer and I don't care that he drank in
college and got rip-roaring drunk. Most of us did... as we all know).
........sigh.....
Prince Eugene of Savoy , 20 hours ago
Squeaky Ford only testified to what she had written down. She never used the part of the
brain dealing with actual memory. https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI
Torgo , 11 hours ago
And she outright refused to speak the name of the boy that had introduced her to BK. It
was wildly evasive and inappropriate and is a huge red flag for this case. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi". Her one-time boyfriend and I am convinced that he both drove her to and
away from the party. After she refused his effort to take their relationship to the next
level.
I am Groot , 18 hours ago
There are no more "Democrats" or "liberals". There are only Marxists and communists.
Stop breathing. We will all be better off. Even you.
headless blogger , 22 hours ago
We don't need a cultist that talks at the camera with only his head showing (weird) to
tell us what to believe.
We can figure it out without that phony racist cultist's lecture.
VWAndy , 22 hours ago
Attack the message not the messenger. Every discerning person here is hip to that
trick.
headless blogger , 19 hours ago
We don't need cultists speaking out in our name. It only discredits the truth movement.
The Messenger DOES matter.
Golden Phoenix , 23 hours ago
Ever notice #MeToo
reads 'Pound Me Too!'
American Dissident , 23 hours ago
should be #boxwineresistance
Grandad Grumps , 23 hours ago
Sp, Rachel is "deep state"?
ToSoft4Truth , 23 hours ago
Parrty on, Garth.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
Was there in 1965, and I can recall what my classmates wore, who could dance, who kissed
great, who had the best music, who got laid and how often...and it was NOT the head of the
football or basketball team.
Her memory is selectively scripted, and I am 20 years older and my memory is just
fine.
charlewar , 23 hours ago
In other words, Ford is a liar
JohnG , 23 hours ago
She's a goddamned sociopathic lying bitch.
arby63 , 23 hours ago
A highly paid one. Gofundme alone is over $900,000.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
Her two *** lawyers doing well for their time and attention. McCabe's lawyer comes to the
rescue for Ford.
My German Sheppard's nose is smaller than hers. Holy schnozes Batman ! That's Toucan Sam
in glasses.
LA_Goldbug , 22 hours ago
Amazing. Now I see what a wonderful mechanism they created with this. Payoff camouflage
!!!
Moving and Grooving , 21 hours ago
Gofundme is a dead man walking. It cannot be allowed to expedite money laundering on the
donor side, and anonymous donations to the receiver in these ridiculous amounts on the other.
If this isn't already illegal, I'll be shocked.
.
PantherCityPooPoo , 21 hours ago
Dead how? We already know that these corporation are die hard neo-liberal but name me 2
republicans or ANY federal entity that would EVER go after a corporation like that.
You are not aware of the score if you think anything will be done to them.
HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago
My hippocampus is turgid and throbbing after seeing Chris Ford in those Adrian (Talia
Shire) spectacles.
blind_understanding , 23 hours ago
I had to look it up ..
TURGID - from Latin turgidus , from turgēre to be swollen
peippe , 22 hours ago
nothing better than a confused lady who forgets stuff...........
I'm all over that if she was thirty-six years younger. oops.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus
skewing the results.
Jein , 23 hours ago
Brett's tears were real
RighteousRampage , 23 hours ago
But my calendars!!! I graduated Yale!!!! My mommy was a judge!!! SCOTUS is my
destineeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, it's mine all mine!!!!!
arby63 , 23 hours ago
Kavanaugh would/could literally beat the **** out of you. I believe that 1000000000%.
RighteousRampage , 23 hours ago
C'mon, his performance was disgraceful for a wannabe SCOTUS judge. He whinges like a
little a girl who had her lolly stolen.
Can you imagine Gorsuch or Scalia behaving that way?
arby63 , 22 hours ago
Disgraceful? Seriously? Because he spoke like a MAN and wasn't willing to "take it" from
the ****** fascists? **** you.
Jein , 22 hours ago
Arby (you're probably a fat **** right?), he spoke like a whiny cuck bitch. Just like you
do. That ain't being a man. Try sucking a my **** for a taste of masculinity.
NEOCON1 , 23 hours ago
Still jerking off to photoshopped nudes of Hillary Clinton?
Jein , 22 hours ago
Nah chelsea. She has nice nips
peippe , 22 hours ago
they were beer tears.
it's said he cries Bud Light.
He's awesome.
Being Free , 23 hours ago
Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy
foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...
I was the victim of an abuse event when I was 4. I'm 47 now. I know exactly where the
house is, we were in the backyard and I can tell anyone what happened and who was there. It
happened a few days back to back maybe three days, it was during the winter in the
midafternoon. I guess my hippocampus is in better shape than hers.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
When I brought this up wth Liberal friends at coffee this AM, they said it was so
traumatic that forgetting details was her coping mechanism
Iberal pretzel logic
Jein , 1 day ago
I would let trump **** my girl. How bout yall?
Giant Meteor , 23 hours ago
Is that code? The nickname you gave your penis? Girl? God damn you are a sick ****. Look
the gay thread is down the hall, second door on the left, therapy third door on the right
..
Good luck ...
Jein , 23 hours ago
Yeah I would top for trump. Normally love getting my ******* pounded though. U verse
bro?
Goldennutz , 23 hours ago
We all be gettin' our asses pounded for years by our goobermint!
HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago
Everyone else is having your girl, so why not?
sgt_doom , 1 day ago
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was poised, articulate, clear and convincing. More than
that, she radiated self-assured power ."
----- So says Robert Reich
Saaaaay, Bobby, have you ever met Wesley Allen Dodd or Ted Bundy? I once came into contact
with Dodd, the epitome of calm, cool and collected --- and he was later executed for
torturing to death small children!
A (female) law professor from Seattle University said:
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (why do they keep referring to a professor of
psychology as doctor --- s_d) was credible and believable. " (Evidently, we don't need
no stinking proof or evidence where a law professor is concerned!?)
Sgt_Doom says: Prof. Christine Blasey Ford sounded credible, believable and completely
unsubstantiated.
Credible Allegations
Over this past weekend I learned three startling facts:
(1) All American women have been raped;
(2) All American males are rapists and liars; and,
(3) "Credible allegations" are accusations not requiring any shred of evidence.
Fake news facts , that is . . . . .
All this was conveyed by high-middle class (or higher) females who worship globalization
and American exceptionalism --- from the same news conduits who once reported on
weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and other similar mythologies!
Not a single so-called reporter --- not a single self-described journalist in American ---
thought to ask that most obvious of obvious questions:
Where in bloody perdition is Christine Blasey Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks?
After all, they introduced Kavanaugh's yearbook, so why not Christine Blasey's
yearbook?
Second most obvious question:
When one searches online for Holton Arms yearbooks, the searcher can find the yearbooks
for the years preceding Ford's last several years at Holton Arms, and the years following ---
why have the last several years when Christine Blasey attended missing? Why have they been
removed --- even cached versions --- from the Web?
Takes some serious tech resources to accomplish this in such a short period of time?!
How very odd . . . .
I do not want Kavanaugh, nor anyone like him, on the Supreme Court bench, but that does
not mean I automatically believe any and all unsubstantiated accusations and am sane enough
to comprehend that credible allegations require proof --- also referred to as
evidence.
It is not enough to state that this person drinks and is therefore guilty or that person
is a male and is therefore guilty.
I fully support an expanded investigation into both Kavanaugh AND Christine Blasey Ford,
including Ms. Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks and any and all police blotter activity/records
for her ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16.
And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . .
. and finally start doing their jobs!
Sidebar : Sen. Chris Coons claimed that Prof. Ford was courageous to have come forward as
she had nothing to gain , yet within several days after her testimony, Christine
Blasey Ford is almost one-half million dollars wealthier --- nothing to gain?
Hardly . . . .
[Next rant: MY elevator encounter with a 14-year-old psychotic blonde student, and her
buddy, many years ago in Bethesda, Md.]
Giant Meteor , 23 hours ago
Radiated self assured power? Are you shitting me?
rwmomad , 23 hours ago
The courageous woman with nothing to gain is well on the way to a mil in go fund me
contributions. Plus there will be a book and movie deal.
DjangoCat , 23 hours ago
"And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . .
. and finally start doing their jobs!.."
Those useless reporters would be fired if they did. The problem is much further up the
line than the reporter on the beat.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
Yep, BCC was VERY loose...So was Northwestern in G.Town and Holton-Arms High. They were way ahead in drugs, booze and
Freon baloons too. Heck at Blair, we thought drugs were like aspirin and stuff. Now if
Ms.Ford had gone to Blair, I might believe
her....helm lines above the knee was a no no.
Jein , 1 day ago
Is lindsey Graham a closet homosexual?
robertocarlos , 1 day ago
There are men who are not gay but have never been with a woman.
Dancing Disraeli , 23 hours ago
It's a bot.
Giant Meteor , 23 hours ago
Possibly but this site is not your own personal dating service.
Jein , 23 hours ago
GM let me get them digits homie. Haven't seen u on grindr lately
Giant Meteor , 23 hours ago
Look if we are going to converse you're going to have to speak in English or some other
language I might understand, what is this verse and grindrr you speak of "bro?'
Jein , 23 hours ago
Hablas espanol? Quiero tu tongueo en my cacahole
Giant Meteor , 23 hours ago
Now that was just ******* funny as all hell. You are improving....
rwmomad , 23 hours ago
He might be, but that is his business. The left, which is supposedly supporters of gay
rights,throw that out the window if you are on the other team.
Jein , 23 hours ago
I just dont like trannys
Anunnaki , 23 hours ago
I love The Hedge's new block feature. Buh bye, Hillary
Giant Meteor , 23 hours ago
I'm going to let this one go awhile . A fascinating case study.
Jein , 23 hours ago
<3
Jein , 23 hours ago
Snowflake
tmosley , 20 hours ago
You just don't have anything to say that is intersting.
Just bile.
Goodbye forever.
robertocarlos , 1 day ago
So Mitchell faked her love for Ford. You sure can't trust women.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
She (Mitchell) was there to handle her like the delicate flower. To the pubes defense,
someone was smart enough to realize that a bunch of GOP white guys questioning her was not
going to play well. Enter the female prosecutor and her report.
On the other hand the dem guys and dolls could not genuflect enough , so their questioning
was fine. I mean they had her painted as the courageous hero of the modern era. So brave, so
noble , so, so, utterly awesome!
Puke ....
scraping_by , 23 hours ago
She had an emotional meltdown for a big finish. Note who gave her the run-in for it. (Not
Mitchell).
nicholforest , 1 day ago
Seems pretty obvious that Mitchell could not see a case for prosecution - what we heard
was mostly 'He said ... She said". So an unsurprising conclusion.
And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the
Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their
houses.
But what struck me was the behavior and style of Kavanaugh. He came across as belligerent,
petty, evasive, aggressive and impulsive. Those are not the characteristics that we want in a
candidate for the Supreme Court.
Little Lindsey G would say that Kavanaugh has a right to be angry, which may be so - but
the way that such anger is manifested is critical. In the military we look for leaders to be
cool under fire. The same should be true for a judge in the highest court in the land.
Instead he came across like a fearful, reactive, spiteful, spoilt frat boy. That will not
do.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
Ah, the double bind. Either he's robotic and reciting a script, or he's wild and howling
brat. Nice how that works.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nicholforest - And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the
process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A
curse on both their houses.
Please enlighten us on specifically which Dem. SC nomination the Republicans did a full on
character assassination .... were waiting!
It is mindless comments and a lack of rigorous thinking and moral equivocation like yours
that has led the country into the abyss of nonsense and division.
Mineshaft Gap , 23 hours ago
We're all left to imagine the calm, lucid, rational yet caring manner in which you would
have defended yourself against a pack of vultures and their vague career-ending
accusations.
I'm picturing a cross between Cicero, Chris Cuomo and Caitlin Jenner.
Dancing Disraeli , 23 hours ago
Counting on that spiteful aspect to offset his RINO squish proclivities.
rwmomad , 23 hours ago
Why has their never been a sex scandal on a dem appointment, but their always is now on a
repub appointment? Just a coinky dinky or a part of their playbook?
Bastiat , 1 day ago
I like that last pic of Mitchel: defines "looking askance."
I Write Code , 1 day ago
"Weaknesses", forsooth.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
Look at the time line provided and then tell me the Democrats aren't a pack of lying
weasles. The truth means absolutely NOTHING to them. Their agenda (to **** over Trump in any
way possible) is all that matters. Could anyone imagine what would have happened if the
Republicans would have pulled just 1/10th of that kind of ******** with the Homo *****??
There would have been continuous MSM inspired riots in the streets.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
They play by Alinsky Rules
rksplash , 1 day ago
I guess the only way this nonsense is going to go away is if the GOP start using the same
tactics. Hire some wannabe spin doctors to go through some old high school yearbooks in a
church basement somewhere in Alabama. An old black and white of some poor pimple faced
senator grabbing his crotch at the prom in 72.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
Well, the Arkansas Project was political and partisan. Indeed, the right-wing world were
praising Mellon for using money effectively. And it wasn't until Flint evened the score that
decorum was restored.
truthalwayswinsout , 1 day ago
How dare another women even think of questioning a rape and assault allegation and demand
facts, and consistent detailed explanations that do not change.
Zus , 1 day ago
She's obviously an "old white guy" in disguise.
Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago
If this woman can try and attempt to destroy a man's life then the least she should be
made to do is a take a lie detector test. You can't prosecute anyone on hear say.
nicholforest , 1 day ago
She did take a polygraph - and passed.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
That's the story. Little or no evidence of what that story means.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
She did take a polygraph - and passed.
Yeah that's what the lying sacks of **** say, but of course there's absolutely no proof it
happened. She passed? O.k., let's assume they are at least not lying about that . . . what
questions were asked?
Bastiat , 1 day ago
A polygraph with 2 questions apparently. In other words a complete joke. A real poly has
scores if not hundreds of questions.
robertocarlos , 23 hours ago
Two questions were asked. "Are you a woman"? and "Are you a liar"?
Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago
It's amazing what a false memory can do.
Is there a verbatim transcript of the questions asked?
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Mitchell said it was irresponsible to give a polygraph to someone grieving the loss of a
loved one. Grandmother in this case.
peippe , 22 hours ago
rumor has it the exam included two questions.
Two Questions.
you decide what that means.
nsurf9 , 1 day ago
Not one shred of corroboration evidence of Ford's testimony, not even from her friend, who
flatly denied she ever went to such party, NONE, NADA, UNBELIEVABLE!
Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons'
bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with democrat financed malicious intent to defame?
And further, Montgomery County Police has formally stated that, as a misdemeanor, the
statute of limitations ran out on this allegedly crime - 35 frigging years ago.
And lastly, with regard to drinking in college, not one democrat mentions he finished top
of his Yale undergrad class and top of his Yale Law School class.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nsurf9 - Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy
loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with malicious intent to defame?
Please tell me how you or I could possible "safeguard" ourselves from "crazy loon" and
"bald-face lies" ....?
That is why we're supposed to be a nation of laws and innocent until proven guilty.
It is one thing to disagree over a person political position and or ideas but that is not
what is happening here. The Dems are in full assault mode to destroy BK and his family as a
warning to any future Conservative judge who may dare accepts a nomination to the SC.
What the Dems are doing will lead to some type of civil war if they do not stop this. It
will not be pretty if that happens.
nsurf9 , 23 hours ago
Requiring even a modicum of corroborated facts or evidence, outside of mere "words," would
be a good start!
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Yeah what an incredible story. She was at a party with some drunken creepy guys and got
sexually assaulted. Everyone knows that never happens!
Nunny , 1 day ago
^Tool
austinmilbarge , 23 hours ago
All she has to to is prove it.
samolly , 1 day ago
None of this matters. What matters is that the democrats think Kavanaugh will overturn Roe
v. Wade so they will be against him regardless of any outcome in this matter.
It's all and only about abortion.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The current sleaze isn't overturning the legal right to abortion, it's making it
impossible to get one. It's a legal right that a woman has to sit through lectures, travel to
specific places, make certain declarations, and get a physician who's usually under attack at
the state level. It's not illegal, it's impossible.
It's not about restricting women, it's about making life harder for middle and lower class
people. Women of the Senator's economic class have always had and always will have access to
safe abortions. It's wage earners who have to depend on local providers.
Whether Catholic K will go along with the sabotage of a privacy right isn't clear. But
he's probably going to be sympathetic to making those working class wenches show some
responsibility.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
To quote famed feminist and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, women can always "Keep
their pants zipped". But then Granholm only extended her authoritarian control freakery to
the male half of the human race when she said that a few years ago. If women lose some
"reproductive rights" then some of them might start to have some empathy for men and our lack
of rights. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to empathize with us.
Bastiat , 1 day ago
. . . but according to Dr. Fair, white men are murderous.
Barney08 , 1 day ago
Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated
ditz.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Right Barney, not an undereducated and-proud-of-it slob like you.
MrAToZ , 1 day ago
You Dims are so willing to just swallow the hook. You idiots have been trained to react,
leave common sense at the door, slap on the vagina hats and start marching in circles.
What a cluster f*ck. Evidently there are suckers born every minute.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
I Write Code , 1 day ago
Wasn't there an old SNL skit about the "amygdala"?
YouTube doesn't seem to have an index on the term, LOL.
seryanhoj , 1 day ago
One more example of US governance and party politics on its way down the tubes. There is
no topic, no forum nowhere where the truth is even something to be considered. Media, law
makers, everyone looks at a story and says " Let's make this work for our agenda even if we
have to reinvent it from scratch". Then it is more than easy to find people to testify any
which way you want. Vomits copiously.
mabuhay1 , 1 day ago
The standard for females should be "They are lying if their lips are moving." Any claims
of sexual abuse should require proof, and witnesses that can back up said claims. Many
studies have found that years before the MeToo# lies began, about 60% of all claimed rapes
were false. Now, with the "Must believe all women" and the "MeToo#" scam, I would suspect the
rate of false claims to be very close to 100%
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The standard for any criminal investigation is ABC. Assume nothing, Believe no one, and
Check everything. The current feminist howl is sweep that aside and obey a women when she
points at a man.
Jack McGriff , 1 day ago
And yet every single MSM outlet is claiming she is credible! WTF!!!
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
Collectivism Killz , 1 day ago
Brett's real blight is that he barely dignifies the fourth amendment, which has arguably
been the most compromised as of late. Funny how the dims never bring this up. His record and
statements are RVW are centrist, so what makes the dims scared? Maybe Q is on to something
with the whole military tribunals.
GoingBig , 1 day ago
If he just said that he drank too much in college and that was that I would be okay with
him. But he made himself out to be a freak up there saying all this conspiracy crap about the
Clintons. What kind of SCOTUS Justice is this guy? I say no!
Ron_Mexico , 1 day ago
you fight fire with fire
rockstone , 1 day ago
Well if the question even makes sense to you then you're too ******* stupid to have an
opinion that anyone should take seriously. In other words, what you think doesn't count.
kbohip , 1 day ago
I think you got confused today honey. This is not the Salon comments section.
seryanhoj , 1 day ago
That age group drink and grope every chance they get. Its what we all did given the
chance. No one made fuss because up till now no one was told to get upset about it or try to
get political leverage out of it.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
The only way to fight back against passive aggressions is with full on aggression. It
shocked the Dems b/c they thought they could just dole out a bunch of virtue signalling
holier than thou testimony and Kavanaugh would have to sit and eat ****
Mineshaft Gap , 23 hours ago
+1
"It shocked the Dems"
Spot on. They had their safe space taken away from them and called out for what it was --
an auto-da-fe.
Heather Mac Donald made the astute point that this is hideous campus culture emerging into
the mainstream.
Anunnaki , 23 hours ago
Do you watch Game of Thrones? Remember the season when Cersei was being attacked by the
religious nuts.
The woman kept asking her "Do you confess?" under torture
Same here. Kavanaugh was asked to bend the knee and beg forgiveness for his "crime".
He said **** YOU
dogmete , 1 day ago
Goingbig, don't try to talk sense to knuckle draggers. They huddle together or die.
RighteousRampage , 23 hours ago
One has to think that half of them are on working overtime at the troll farm trying to
stir up partisan hatred. Hard to believe real people could be this obtuse.
Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago
Major Hegelian dialectic **** going on with the Ford/Kav reality show.
Women everywhere side with Ford because she's a women, claims she was abused, and "has to
be believed", in order to settle some personal score that they all claim empathy for, even
though she has given every tell in the book that she is lying.
Men everywhere empathize with a man being falsely accused, regardless of his politics and
judicial history, even though he made his bones in the Bush administration, and can probably
be relied on to further the authoritarian state via the Supreme court. Guilty of this myself,
because it could be anyone of us next.
Pick a side, doesn't matter, because we've already lost.
Bastiat , 1 day ago
I "Believe the Women" -- the 3 women Ford named as witnesses who denied it ever happened,
the 65 women who signed the letter in support of Ford, and all the women who have worked with
him and had no issues. I don't believe this one, though.
Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago
I'm with you 200%
phillyla , 1 day ago
I am a woman, a wife and the mother of an adult male and I don't believe this mewling quim
for one second and I haven't met one woman who believes her.
Most of the women of my acquaintance know that anyone with a repressed memory is a loon
looking for attention.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
A lot of women have seen their sons and brothers falsely accused. Ford was completely
unconvincing in her "I don't remember the details of a traumatic "sexual assault"
Whoa Dammit , 1 day ago
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party
This does not sound like something a PHD would write. I would hope that someone who is
well educated would know that the proper English is "four others and I." It makes one wonder
if Dr. Ford wrote the letter, or if was written by a Feinstein aide.
I didn't bother to continue to listen to her exegesis when she stated that the main
problem of a narcissist is low self-esteem. This is not true. The fundamental element of all
forms of narcissism is the over-arching need to divert all social attention to their own
agendum.
Very clear explanation of the differences and well spoken by Dr. Ramani. However, the
knowledge explained in this interview was already defined in the DSM-1 from 1952 and is
nothing new. Hell, even Freud was trying to figure out narcisists more than a hundred years
ago.. The danger of explaining these types of personality disorders this popular way, i.e.
the behavior of the so called psychopath from the interviewer's story, is that people
popularize these labels and tend to use them whenever they see fit, like for instance 'This
guy hurt my feelings, he is a total psycho'. Please remember that a person's personality is a
spectrum. They're not to be labeled by one disorder. Dr. Ramani's mistake in this interview
is to put a label on this psycho-boyfriend-from-college-person, based on a story, transfered
from like 4 people or more, so it might be full of bias. Of course there must be something
really wrong with the guy for acting that way he did if this is actually a true story.
However, this is not a remotely valid diagnosis of the actual person because, from the
information I got from this interview both of them have never even seen this guy. These kind
'ghetto-diagnoses' have a tendency to become gossip or even slander, like 'We, the people
have labeled you a total psychopath because your behaviour fits Dr. Ramani's description of a
psychopath in a certain way, move to the Antarctic' (not talking from personal experience
here haha) ;-) My point is: In actual science, measuring is knowing. Jumping to a conclusion
like that: Not very professional in my humble opinion. Tends to pseudo science if you ask me.
But I guess the good doctor knows this, being a professor..
I was in a 17 year relationship, 15 yr marriage with a sociopathic man. He was successful,
he could read people like a book and played games with ppl to get his way. {He was the exact
opposite of an e Empath. Reading people's visual cues is not the same as being attuned to
what others around you are feeling.}
He would come home and brag about his manipulations. He knew just how to make anyone love
him including doctors for whatever meds he wanted, or psychologists to check a box.
His mother always told me, "that man is not the same person I raised." He had absolutely
no guilt or regret, but he had a strong black and white clarity of right and wrong.
It's a learned morality without intuition. He knew what he was-- he told me his father and
uncle were sociopaths and he knew he was missing something inside. We got together in high
school, so I didn't see it until years after we were married, and he was in his early
20's...he morfed into a different person. I knew I could not have children with him.
He was charming but it was a facade. His anger, control, power issues were under the
surface of it all. I loved him deeply and believed he loved me deeply as well. (You will
never feel a stronger connection to someone with narcissistic tendencies-they can make the
earth stand still for you. They will also shatter your world in an instant if you're no
longer useful to them.) {**Sociopaths do in fact care... They become incredibly ANGRY &
FRUSTRATED when they're found out, when someone gets in their way, or when their
power/control is threatened. If you're the target of their anger, WATCH OUT!!! }
In the final year, he was living a double life, engaged to another woman, and continued
normal every day life with me. When I went to see my mother before her surgery, he moved his
girlfriend into my house, and served me divorce pprs. (It was no big deal to him. I was
merely an inconvenience.)
I never saw him again, never got most of my things back, and my service dog became another
game for him to hurt me with. She died of a stroke just after. I never saw her again either.
This was the worst... He spent 25k of our savings in one month taking her to our favorite
places.
You kiss your husband goodbye one day, and the next day, your entire world falls apart. He
played victim on social media, in court and with our friends, with a smear campaign and cyber
stalking me.
It was absolutely brutal to watch, but I said nothing (until court). Truth comes out
eventually--and it did. I had a great lawyer. It was very clear my ex hadn't thought through
the most basic consequences of a divorce much less his actions. Typical narcissistic behavior
is doing what you want, when you want, not thinking through the potential outcomes (hurting
ppl, jail, losing a job, causing illness, etc.)
Part of the manipulation is to play the part of victim in any circumstance things don't go
their way. They'll play the hero every other time- mind you it is all an act. I'm disabled
and chronically ill, and he used the most fragile moments of my illness to publicly shame me
as someone "pathetic" that "no one would want to be married to".
It was not a bad marriage at all, it was like a mother-child relationship, which can make
it confusing for ppl when they turn into these spiteful monsters out of nowhere. It took
years for the shock to wear off, for the feelings of love and protection to melt away and for
me to see what family and friends had already known. I refuse to see myself as a victim.
I'm not angry, bc this is meant to be part of my story--certainly not the end, as I'm
starting over at 35, lol.
This is the short version of my story, and if you suspect you are in a relationship with a
sociopathic person, please get out. "You can't fix people, you can only love them..."
And you will be the one who needs fixing when they are through with you. Give them to God,
pray for them, but get away from them fast as you can before they make you into another
thing they own . xo
Most leaders in history also display characteristics of psychopathy, not just Trump. The
fact is that any normal functioning person would be completely overwhelmed with the
responsibilities that come with running a country, including decisions that involve moral
obligations and an emotional aspect way beyond the normal every day decisions that the
average person has to make. It takes a narcissistic person to have that much confidence in
themselves to believe they can run an entire country successfully - and to want that much
power in the first place.
I just dated a psychopath for 3 yrs on and off,hes in jail now but he has broken my house
car windows beat me up because ive asked him to leave my house threatened me of were to leave
him, I seen in hos eyes his motives were evil, totally different person around other people
and very charming when my female friends were around, always came off like he had sexual
desire for them by the way hed make eye contact,Id catch him doing certain actions then tell
me I didnt see what I know I seen. He made me miserable and scared constantly,then when
accused he'd go in a rage until I admitted I was wrong and apologized. He'd leave for a wk.
Come back and accuse me constantly for cheating sometimes to the point of violence having no
remorse for the pain he had caused I wouldn't dare question where he had been. Out of 3 yrs I
dont believe hes ever answered any of my questions he'd always turned the tables and
questions were being asked out of my guilt so to speak was a roller coaster ride.
In the Story the man told of this Girl he knew and the Guy she dated... The Dr. got it
right that this Guy is a Psychopath, but she is not seeing the whole picture, or doesn't
realize one of the most important traits of a Psychopath... That is, that in ANY situation
the psychopath will not allow someone else to "Best" them. After being dumped by this Girl,
he became her "perfect boyfriend" and she took him back for another year. That entire year
was a Deception Game for the psychopath, and after the year, probably on the exact date, he
announced to the Girl, that he had "Played Her" for that entire year, just to "break her
heart." This example will give one an idea of the dedication as well as the level of deceit
this guy was willing to go through, just to Prove that He will not be "Bested"... by her or
anyone else. This Girl is really lucky that this psychopath chose that route... as usually
the psychopath would just Kill the Girl, in some meticulously planned out fashion, where not
only does he get away with it, but he plants evidence on whoever the Girl is now dating, and
takes care of Two Birds with one stone. Psychopath comes out on top. Psychopaths consider
themselves Superior Beings... and something as simple as beating them in a game of Golf could
end up costing you your life. Especially if there were others their who cheered on the
winner, or made fun of the loser. He wouldn't just kill the guy right there in front of
everyone like a schizophrenic person might. Instead he will take his time, plan his Revenge,
and the right time and place to exact his revenge. It could be 15 years down the road, but
the psychopath never let go of it, and he kills the guy... Probably either on the Golf
Course, or in the Club Locker Room or in the showers, as he wants the victim to know why he
is being killed, and that he can't "Best" the psychopath. Women get killed by their
ex-husbands and ex-Boyfriends all the time, and the Cops always look at the New Husband or
Boyfriend... They might interview the old Husband or Boyfriend, but find it hard to believe
that someone would kill their ex-Wife or GF 12 years later. When they have had seemingly no
contact for all that time. With a psychopath the length of time does not matter... what
matters is that he got the "Best" of the situation.
Damn! Listening to Dr. Ramani describing psychopaths and sociopaths was kind of chilling
to be honest. Mostly because it made me start thinking about everyone I've ever met in my
life and trying to figure out whether or not I know someone like this.
What would be the diagnosis for a person with most sociopathic traits, except two things:
they do think ahead, a lot, and do very heavy planning and considering potential
consequences, and how to avoid the undesirable ones. And they feel fear. They do not take the
risks where they dont stand a good chance of achieving their goals. Everything else is there,
the lack of empathy, not feeling guilty or bad after hurting someone, superficial charm,
lying, manipulating etc etc.
The other thing this Dr. failed to mention, is that Psychopaths are so adept in the
Disguise they have cultivated over their lifetime, that it is Very Common for a psychopath to
fool even a trained psychologist or Dr.of psychiatry into believing they are the far less
dangerous Sociopath. Quite often the Psychopath has a Higher IQ than the Doctor who is
treating them, and they find it easy to fool and manipulate these people. There is a video
here, made by a male Teen, that has just been diagnosed as a "Sociopath", but you can hear
out of his own mouth that it is easy to see that he was mis-diagnosed. He tells everyone he
was just diagnosed, and then goes on to describe how he has always known he was a
"Sociopath"... and that "all of us know, and learn how to hide in plain sight." I hope his
Doctor sees this video, and the re-diagnoses this kid, as just that statement alone gives
himself away as a far more dangerous Psychopath. Most "Sociopaths" do not know they are
sociopaths, and think they are just like everyone else. They mostly refuse to believe they
are "different"... because they hang out with a bunch of other Sociopaths, all who think they
are "normal"... They do not Cultivate a "Disguise", as they see no need, they are just like
everyone else around them. The Sociopath is Made by his social background and the people he
associates with. On the other hand, a Psychopath is Born... and realizes he is a psychopath,
and starts cultivating his or her Disguise around age 5... By the time they are out of High
School they have has a dozen or so years to perfect that disguise, and they are very good at
"hiding in plain sight. Watch this video of this kid, and maybe you will see that he has been
mis-diagnosed as is so often the case. Also... Just look at this kid, ad tell me he does not
look like a psychopath. No Kidding, many psychopaths do have that "psychopath look"... just
like it is so easy to spot someone with "Downs Syndrome". I almost wish it were possible to
have the word "Psychopath" branded into his forehead, as a warning to other to Stay Far Away.
Check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUuCMybwEuc
Missed the boat on polygraphs. Psychopaths can't routinely pass polygraphs. They don't
have empathy but they do usually care about getting caught. Murder may not make them feel
sorrow or guilt but they will often don't want to get caught. Also, the domestic abuse is not
usually done by sociopaths or psychopaths. You need to work with law enforcement and talk to
senior detectives who have dealt with these people. You said that you have done research but
haven't dealt with many because they don't come in for therapy.
Hey guys this is very wrong. I dont know where she learned this but its actually the other
way around. Psychopaths are the ones who end up in a looney bin. They are the ones who kill
people because "a voice of god told them to do it", they are usually very disorganized when
it comes to their crimes. Imagine a schizophrenic. And infact some psycopaths may feel guilt
after they commit a crime as they do not know how to properly express their emotion. And
sociopaths are actually very social creatures. The reason why it is very hard to catch these
guys is because they never leave clues, they are organizied and incredibly intelligent.
Sociopaths feel absolutely zero guilt or remorse, and they tend not have no emotional
(romantic) attachments but do connect easily with others due to their high confidence and
ego. And yes they are the ones who can lie on a test, the can compose themselves very well
even in a stressful situation. I just did some digging and it seems many actual psychologists
have it the other way around which is shocking to me. Psycopaths don't always know that what
they doing are wrong and do it anyways (some think they are doing good i.e. cleansing streets
of "sinful hookers"), meanwhile sociopaths know exactly what they are doing and that it is
wrong but do it anyways.
I was a psychotherapist for 20 yrs and i found numerous mistakes with this woman. First,
psychopaths are NOT always born that way. Other things can make them that way such as serious
abuse in childhood or illness that leave lesions on the brain. Weve known this since at least
WW2. Stalin had lesions on the brain, that's what made him a psychopath, before that he was
normal. This is a HUGE error, anyone educated in psychopathic disorder would know this. Also,
stealing, skipping school could point to other problems that are not being a psychopath but
setting fires as a child is a definite sign that needs to be addresssed asap. This woman is
ignorant of these conditions in many ways nor does she explain in depth. The genetic factor
seems to be a very low factor as it is inherited by about only 1% or less of psychopaths. I
can think of far better psychologists to interview - also in her credentials, she is a
professor but doesn't say where??? No one does that.
She forgot to include that sociopaths can mimic emotions highly and even switch on terms
of emotions because they are good learning and manipulating victims. On other hand
psychopaths are incapable of such emotional intelligence. They are able to trick your mind,
be charming but they cannot mimic or display empathy because they don't see the emotional
need to it in the society. That's what makes catching a psychopath easier than a sociopath.
The sociopaths are the ones abuse bully and torture then kill their wives. The ones who keep
their victims and develop Stockholm syndrome with them. Psychopaths develop fear based
connection and no human emotion-based interactions. The example given by the interviewer is
sociopathic. This lady has to make it clear and she failed. That's why people are
confused.
I was in a relationship with a Narcissistic Sociopath for 5 and a half years and it was
terrible. It took me a long time to realize what was happening because he would be so
fantastic for months at a time- he literally presented himself as my soul mate and it felt
like we has everything in common: he was so charming and flattering and would shower me with
gifts. Then he would suddenly just beak off ALL communication with me for anywhere from 3
days to 6 weeks and I would not have any idea why. He loved it when I would beg him to tell
me what he was angry about, what I had done, how I could fix it. I would end up apologizing
for everything but not actually know what I supposedly did. When when he was done "punishing
me" (his own term) he would pretend to forgive me for whatever indiscretion he was supposedly
punishing me for. I never knew what I had done, he would just say "you should know". I
started keeping a detailed journal to try to figure out what was happening- I recorded
details of every date, what the mood was, what we said and did, how he was acting... I never
could find a trigger for the events but it helped a lot when I approached a psychologist to
try to help me figure out what was happening and how to navigate the relationship. I began to
be afraid to talk when we were together because I was afraid I would do something to anger
him. As he only liked to talk about superficial things, this was good for him. I stayed so
long because when times were good they were extremely good, way better than any prior
relationships. He seemed to have an uncanny sense of knowing when to play his mind games, he
knew just when to start and stop. I loved him and came to realize something was wrong, but I
initially thought he was Bipolar. I wanted to help him and believed that he was suffering
during the times he went Silent. I thought I would be able to help him and didn't want to
abandon him. I was mistaken- it was just part of his game. He was very controlling. I
developed what is called a trauma bond which is very hard to break. Even he knew something
was wrong and also thought he may be Bipolar. He admitted to me that he never felt fear or
stress, love or empathy. He did feel rage and he was extremely jealous, insanely so. Even
though he was in his early 40's, he was extremely emotionally immature. He often accused me
of ridiculous affairs (with a drummer from the band "Trooper", my 72 year old yoga
instructor... etc...). After 3 years of pretty much living together I found out he was
married and has a son (he told me he was divorced and had no children). I found a picture his
wife had posted on Google one day when I searched his name. He was estranged from his wife
and had no feelings at all for his son who he never visited and to this day has no contact
with despite living just 10 minutes away. His son still does not even know where he lives or
that he is in the same neighbourhood. I highly suspect he was cheating on me during some of
the longer Silent periods. This may have even been a reason he imposed them. He absolutely
did not love me- he actually told me this many times and said that he hated the word "Love".
Even though he didn't love me, I was his possession and he did not want anyone else playing
with his toys. When times were good (and they were good long enough to make me forget the
terrible times) it SEEMED like he loved me. I always believed he would change. In the end it
was not even me who ended the relationship, even though two psychologists told me very
adamantly that I needed to get out of the relationship because I was in great danger. He got
bored and dumped me, and to this day I still look back at the "good times" and miss those
parts very much. However, when I am feeling low I reread my journals and reality hits me
because I have to recall the really, really awful parts. I am grateful I am alone. Looking
back, even his gifts were non-personal: lots of electronics that I didn't want. Sometimes he
would give me food items, but never anything intimate or personal like jewelry or clothing.
His home had no personal effects- here was not one item that gave any idea what he liked to
do or what his hobbies were. When we had sex there was zero intimacy. He would touch me but I
was not allowed to touch him- he said it was pointless because he didn't feel anything when I
tried. I often felt like I was just filling a physical need for him (and that is very likely
what I did and why he stayed in the relationship). I discovered that he watched a LOT of porn
and I suspect he got his education that way, because he treated me a lot like the women get
treated in those videos: like an object to be used. No touching, no kissing, no tenderness.
He liked to bite me and he knew I hated it but did it anyways. It was so twisted and
convoluted I lost myself and at one point, during a very lengthy Silent period, came very
close to ending my life. If I had, he would have not cared (or been flattered but not cared).
He really, really enjoyed playing mind games with me, and would constantly build me up then
tear me down. When he was being cruel, his eyes were completely dead. It was creepy, like
looking into the eyes of a snake. I've heard other people who have dated sociopaths and
psychopaths also describe this and I know exactly what they mean. Dr. Ramani said that
psychopaths and sociopaths have trouble keeping jobs- this was not true with my partner. He
was extremely intelligent and Title-oriented: he was and still is in a very high position of
power. I often wonder what the people working below him think of him... but can't ask because
in 5 1/2 years I never met a single co-worker, friend or family member. I seemed to be his
only friend. He works in public office and is slated for another very large promotion that
will give him even more power and control. He thinks he is smarter than everyone, including
the current Director who he is slated to replace. I fear for anyone who crosses him. Now that
I am free I have been trying to get my belongings back from his home, but of course he has to
use it as another way of keeping control. He makes a date then cancels at the last minute. It
never ends.
I was in a long term relationship who was clinically diagnosed as a Sociopath w
Narcissistic tendencies. as he explains about the guy getting even, they want revenge &
never forget when they feel people do them wrong. Great actors. In the beginning, they figure
out what the woman thinks is the perfect man, rushes to commitment & marriage, then the
REAL them comes out.
They don't care if you catch them lying, cheating or whatever. break up with one? Will
NEVER leave you b alone. U better ha v s bigger threat than a restraining order.
Also, they need power -- the money that comes w the fancy title is a bi-product. They
crave power. Very dangerous!
If u date a guy & within 2 weeks he is your soul mate & wants to marry- run. He
will do whatever it takes to get you back (actin, crying, flowers, big diamond ring- RUN.
Familiar with all three, due to my professional. Yes a person is in trouble if involved
with either one of these persons. I dated one narcissi-psyschopath combined. For an 18
months. Totally train wreck , disgusting , no respect for others. Just ...... Till this day
he tries to be a part of my life! Sad,Sad........only to take advantage of me again
!!!!
You guys are incorrect about psychopathy. Actually to not follow immoral man made precepts
doesn't make you a psychopath. Nobody should experience fear because they make a mistake ie
running a red light. There are a lot of statutes and codes put into effect that are BS. The
average man or woman breaks 6 statutory law today. Should we be walking around in fear.
Should we be afraid of the officers who allegedly protect and serve. Should we follow false
doctrine. If there is no victim there is no crime. Actually, a lot of People spend time in
prison and have never harmed anyone. I'll give an example. We have the right to travel in a
car without license and registration . The Supreme Court of US had said so, driving is a
commercial activity. It is the act of for profit business on the road. We could get a
certificate to prove competency, but they want the people to be licensed because it's a
contract that cedes jurisdicton to the state and it's agencies. New Hampshire wrote up bill
NH HB1778 to point out how the corporate state has engaged in silent deception and inducement
by fraud. That people are exempt from licensing and registration. Also court cases are
Thompson v Smith 154, SE 579 and Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22. And those cases
are shepardized. If anything these cops arresting People for victimless crimes and attorneys
and judges ruining families and putting people in prison for 15 years and more for putting a
chemical in their body. (Prosecuting attorneys win 98% of the time and and that's with the
defendant having an attorney.) shouldn't it be obvious that we have something going on that
is unequitable and adverse to justice in the "Court System". If you can't chose what to put
in your body then your nothing but a slave. And you can't say that people that put certain
substances in their body will cause crime because it's untrue, and even if it was true, we
can't put people in jail because they may cause a crime. In other words, One should be able
to eat a food or use a chemical, just because some one else may not act honorably with such
things doesn't take away my right to consume them. if they were to do the same. BTW US has
largest prison pop. Higher than China even though they have a bigger population. 85% of the
prisoners in the system have never harmed anyone. I also have some good stats on how poor the
cops are doing from protecting against actual male in se (crimes with a victim). You are 15
times more likely to be murdered by Law Enforcement then the general population. And cops are
no more likely to be harmed in their jobs then the average worker. They are a little less
likely to get killer on the job then men and a little more likely them women. And by the way,
they are literal creating bonds of these prisoners and in the court cases then what they are
doing is putting the defendants into default for not settling the bonds. They are drafting
these people for performance because they use the statutes as an evidence of a debt and then
bond the cases with SF 24, 25, and 25a,then federally with the Miller act bonds GSA 274, 275,
276. What they do is pool these bonds like the reits and remics in real estate, and sell them
as investment securities on the market. So these bonds make about 10k a month, meanwhile the
prisons spend about $2.50 a day for necessities. This is slavery in a new form. The peculiar
institution of slavery was never abolished, just the term. Read the 14th ammendmebt. A
federal citizen is a subject, granted privileges by the state. And the 13th amendment says
you can be a slave if your convicted of a crime. Well if you believe in the statutory laws,
which really only apply to legal Fictions, then the average American commits 6 statutory
violations a day. you are saying that you, and all other men are nothing but slaves because
if one wants to, they could find a statute for you to break Without you knowing what you did
much less harming anyone or their Property. And by the way, anybody can learn to be a good
salesmen and how to read People. VThat's ridiculous to say that selling is psycothapy. I
agree that some People have been induced into a form of secondary psychothopy, which is
basically outwardly psychopathic, but it's actually learned behavior. We're talk to collect
as many federal reserve notes as possible even if we may hurt others. We're taught that it's
ok to murder many people in war if it's in the name of Democracy (Democracy is a false
doctrine and de facto law. The founding fathers disliked it because the majority could steal
from the minority. It's mob rule. In a republic which is the only guaranteed corn of law in
the usA Your rights are protected regardless of a majority vote. The only way you can give up
a natural right is through contract. And the corporate state has been getting the People to
do that under on way adhesion contracts since 1933 and even a little before. To a minor
degree it started in 1871. I just think your definition of psychopath is scary because you
base the definition on assumptions that may or may not be true. The prison population is
higher in US than any other county so I think you should take a look at what's going on and
not make assumptions. This country is no longer free, but I guess if we keep telling
ourselves that it is it must be true. And I guess if our "therapist" tell us we're psycopaths
just because we're not going to let a fear based system bully us, and we are willing to go to
jail to stand up for what's right, and stand up to these officers who are clue less about the
actual law. Not statutes and codes which are government and corporate policies. I can site 3
people who either spent a good amount of time in jail or killed for what's doing what's
right. Martin Luther King. Muhatma Ghandi, and Jesus Christ. All the police ads is modern day
Roman centurions. And if you don't believe Christ existed, the allegory is good enough. This
People honor the Law with there lips, but there heart is far from it, in vain they honor the
Law, holding the doctrines of the Commandments of men. I digress There's nothing new under
the sun Those who have eyes will see; those who have ears will hear
I'm sorry but this is just too much. She makes it seem like there is a lot of sociopaths
out there and as we can hear they become that after they are hanging out with wrong
kids...what??? I would think that her PhD would make her double think after saying something
like that. People become sociopaths after they'we been abused so hard and for so long that
their consciousness can't take it any longer and their body's reaction is to stop feeling
anything... I just feel angry because she makes it look like everyone who was hanging out
with "wrong people " can be a sociopath...so far away from the truth...
One serious note: Dr. Martha Stout said in her book "The Sociopath Next Door" that
sociopaths are often made through abuse trauma. These are people who put their sensibilities
into 'hibernation' due to the pain they felt. The bad behavior afterward is a result of a
learned protection mechanism where they have no feelings. They put their entire psyche into a
box of "win and lose" scenarios where they 'have to' overcome everyone else or they will be
hurt again. NOTE also IN REFERENCE TO THE PART OF THE VIDEO WHERE SHE SAYS THESE PEOPLE DO
NOT SEEK THERAPY - There is a recent phenomenon of these personalities getting into therapy
to "improve their game." This is how they learn to fake normal reactions to sew a seed of
doubt about their behaviors - "Maybe he is just hurting inside, let's give him one more
chance." I was told this was a major theme in "The Sopranos" series.
Actually very few psychopaths are killers. Many many are successful CEO's - they have no
blood lust, and know how to play by the rules. There might be a psychopath bank manager
living next door to you. He isn't going to kill you, but if you get inot a bad situation and
need help - he just wont care.
Licensed doctor... Still believes in lie detectors. I've lied on those things multiple
times and I feel bad for all the people who get convicted by them
I dated this girl for three years. She truely acted like she loved me and was very sweet
to me when we were together. I was on a few medications that she liked to take. I remember
when I quit taking medication, she left me right away without saying a word, and moved to a
town an hour away to be with some guy. I later found out she was cheating all the time from
her friends. I even found out she was dating a guy and just left him without a word and
blocked his number when she got with me. I was stupid for being with her. She liked to steal
from people all the time, it was embarrassing when I'd find out I took her to a friends house
and they tell me things are missing. She even got caught red handed at my friends house by
his girlfriend and locked herself in the bathroom. All she did was give it back and say lets
go, she didn't care what they thought. Not sure what her diagnosis would be but she
definitely had some issues!
Kavanauch confirmation brought a very interesting set of female charaters (as his accusers). One of them is Julie Swetnick.
In her resume out of 12 former employers that are listed there are only few places where whe worked for more then a year.
Julie Swetnick_IDC.docx - Google Drive
. Despite more then two decades in Web business she does not list any scripting skills in her resume but lists "server tuning, hardening,"
which are impossible with shell scripting knowledge.
Notable quotes:
"... After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint. ..."
Swetnick's alleged conduct took place in June 2000, just three weeks after she started working at WebTrends, the complaint shows.
WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in "unwelcome sexual
innuendo and inappropriate conduct" toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint said.
Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, "in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate
behavior [made] false and retaliatory allegations" of sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.
"Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating
evidence existed to support Swetnick's allegations against her coworkers," the complaint said.
After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment
allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint.
In July, one month after the alleged incident, Swetnick took a leave of absence from the company for sinus issues, according to
the complaint. WebTrends said it made short-term disability payments to her until mid-August that year. One week after the payments
stopped, WebTrends received a note from Swetnick's doctor claiming she needed a leave of absence for a "nervous breakdown."
The company said it continued to provide health insurance coverage for Swetnick, despite her refusal provide any additional information
about her alleged medical condition.
In November, the company's human resources director received a notice from the Washington, D.C. Department of Unemployment that
Swetnick had applied for unemployment benefits after claiming she left WebTrends voluntarily in late September.
"In short, Swetnick continued to claim the benefits of a full-time employee of WebTrends, sought disability payments from WebTrends'
insurance carrier and falsely claimed unemployment insurance payments from the District of Columbia," the complaint states.
Swetnick allegedly hung up the phone on WebTrends managers calling to discuss why she applied for unemployment benefits, according
to the complaint. She then sent letters to WebTrends' upper management, detailing new allegations that two male co-workers sexually
harassed her and said that the company's human resources director had "illegally tired [sic] for months to get privileged medical
information" from her, her doctor and her insurance company.
WebTrends also alleged that Swetnick began her fraud against the company before she was hired by stating on her job application
that she graduated from John Hopkins University. But according to the complaint, the school had no record of her attendance.
An online resume posted by Swetnick
makes no reference to John Hopkins University. It does show that she worked for WebTrends from December 1999 to August 2000.
It's unclear what transpired after the complaint was filed against Swetnick. One month after WebTrends filed the action, the company
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.
Always remember the equally lurid "recovered memories" of UFO abduction survivors. It's the
same mush pulled out and reinjected into the hippocampus only in a form that is even harder to
swallow.
One would think Psychologist Ford, who apparently needs one herself (a shrink, that is)
would have some self-awareness about. Apparently not.
Unless it's really all about renting out her bedroom illegally.
"... Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" exemplifies very well how the hysteria of girls can be so dangerous that innocent men can be made to suffer terrible if not fatal consequences. ..."
"... In fact, the only allegation we hear is of "witch" "he sexually abused me". ..."
Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" exemplifies very well how the hysteria of girls can be so
dangerous that innocent men can be made to suffer terrible if not fatal consequences.
Three hundred years later, the modern version of Abigail Williams, Christine Ford, with no
facts, no evidence, no corroborative support other than other hysterical girls, with one finger
pointing to John Proctor's modern portrayal played by a hapless Brett Kavanaugh, is found at
the whim of a delusional embittered girl.
Like Abigail Williams, Christine Ford, with self loathing and hatred for any man, has found
cold support from self-serving political leaders whom have nothing other than their own
personal grandiose agendas for public glorification and self apotheosis. Like Reverend Samuel
Paris, the wicked Feinstein and hypocritical sycophants like Booker, with their sanctimonious
disregard for the rule of law and procedure of fact finding and procedural evidence, just as
during Salem's hysteria cast supreme judgement on hollow words of a clearly embittered,
delusional rantings of a wobabies (i.e. woman babies) whom can't even remember where, when, and
what actually was done to them and to herself, Christine Ford. But like Abigail Williams, she
is sure it was John Proctor, excuse me I mean Brett Kavanaugh.
In fact, the only allegation we hear is of "witch" "he sexually abused
me". Ah if Abigail was so fortunate, as no doubt Abigail would find Ford to have been,
maybe there would have been no Salem Witch Trials, and John Proctor would have lived. Like
wise, maybe the truth here is that Ford whom admits to not being raped, is really embittered
just for that!
But how can we know? Especially when, after 35 or more years of Ford's meteoritic incapacity
to remember even where the house this occurred in, when this "sexual thing" happened. Abigail
Williams would have done so much better today!
It has been over three hundred years since those unfaithful days of Salem, and here we find
ourselves again, having to face the same vacuous allegations of embittered girls whom don't
remember anything but that evil that was done by John Proctor and Brett Kavanaugh.
I think it is time for a new and updated version of The Crucible. With Christine Ford now
playing Abigail Williams, and a devastated Kavanaugh the new Proctor. As for Reverend Paris,
Senator Feinstein will do that role with great aplomb.
Three hundred years, and the United States of America is once again en-ravaged by the
rantings of embittered girls that have been unable to grow up and deal with their own emotional
short-comings. No wonder Ford is a psychologist, she's certifiably nuts!
"... On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price for this bitter learning experience ..."
"... What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational, educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse – most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers, or others. ..."
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the
most important practical consequence of this shameful exercise in character assassination is
as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was
waged were definitively clarified in the course of this shameful and hugely destructive
effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in pursuit of
narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones
who had to pay the price for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the
long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden issues being brought to
light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues
are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a
phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely invalidated more than thirty years ago, which
never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the
1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently mentally off-balance, women (and a few men)
came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse – most
often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually
fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers, or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression
very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely
convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in the 1990s with two
American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been
forced into sexual intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe
such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did believe this at that time, and many
– perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these
testimonials to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been
definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the
steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of
its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian
therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian
"therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these
women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within the ranks
of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's
teachings, lay at the core of the whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American
ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious
possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as
subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become
orthodoxy among his followers by the mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known,
possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course. Beginning with a
conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving
psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of
that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing
certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking
Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic
Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the
good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for
the rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been
particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their
invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the
high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves
subtly, and probably without the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own
understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly propounded by the
analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being
first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or,
more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In
the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed
Freudian doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and
this important reconsideration of the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major,
likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of the Recovered Memory
Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly
its key – component the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as
expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and the corresponding Electra
Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses
derived from the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat
from the same-sex parent, because of the younger individual's sexual longing for the
opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures,
that children, even infants, were the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had
been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities, and had been
met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then
stood, was subject to a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical
researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining a collection of Freud's personal
writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the
Master had originally held, but which he had subsequently abandoned because of the
controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This was the
belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't
their imaginations which lay behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually
been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their fathers. This was the secret
horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by
Prof. Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical
fraternity/sorority and shortly melded with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist
extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions women in America
were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be
oppressed. The problem was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an
incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't find a much better
justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not
only a menace, they are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them
entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical Feminists advocated. Many
psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical
validation to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women
patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the
savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless
mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of
his several historical phases of interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to
something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be the case. The same
critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's
"Talking Cure" analytical method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father
Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated to the patient by the
analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions
of European and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered
no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I think it's the consensus of most competent
contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it betray,
I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view
offers an ever tempting platform to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human
race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to
promptly percolate down to the comprehension of common humanity on the street, and within the
consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity to
manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often
highly destructive schemes. Such, I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The
average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with the history, character, or
ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that
the phenomenon has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and
her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has
unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has
made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area where she was born as possible
within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus of her professional
research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to
overcome mental and emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own
disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent some sort of
psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not
emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of
antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge
Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the
Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from
there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it
was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly she has been influenced in her denunciations against
him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological injury, whatever
may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of
psychological theory, however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that
unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been exploited mercilessly by the
scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their
own cynical advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she
has almost certainly been transformed by both the scientifically unproven doctrines and the
conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim into
an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her
own tragic situation and aggressively projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge
Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the
ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be
corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these
charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and
this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be
exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and
prove she is a liar. We also have the infamous letter where we are repeately reminded she
mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that
since nonody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to puch up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her –
again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony
gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female
interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the
older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfreind and
possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't
replusive physically and he was a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be
interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first base at the party. From
her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that
you rape someone without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is
ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and
satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those were all driven by crazy or politically motivated
women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside
door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an
illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the
complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors.
(lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo
Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
@Wally She reminded me of Samantha Power, the one suffering for us on TV as she uses her
Responsibility To Protect subscription to lay waste on whatever is currently the Death Star.
Looks like she has mental issues. also some of her behaviour falls in female sociopath
category, although it is difficult to tell without knowing a person.
Fake allegation of sexual harassment are favorite weapon of female sociopath. They also are
poweful revenge weapon of some rejected woman.
The woman who charges she was gang-raped at a party where Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh was present, Julie Swetnick, had a lawsuit filed against her by a former employer
that alleged she engaged in "unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" towards two male
co-workers, according to court documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
WebTrends, a web analytics company headquartered in Portland, filed the defamation and fraud
lawsuit
against Swetnick in Oregon in November 2000 and also alleged that she lied about graduating
from Johns Hopkins University.
Swetnick alleged Wednesday that she was gang
raped at a party where Kavanaugh was present in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh has vehemently
denied the allegation.
Swetnick is represented by Michael Avenatti , the lawyer
for porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with President Donald Trump.
WebTrends voluntarily dismissed its suit after one month. Avenatti told The Daily Caller
News Foundation that the case was ended because it was "completely bogus."
Swetnick's alleged conduct took place in June 2000, just three weeks after she started
working at WebTrends, the complaint shows. WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both
male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in "unwelcome sexual innuendo and
inappropriate conduct" toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint
said.
Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, "in a transparent effort to divert
attention from her own inappropriate behavior [made] false and retaliatory allegations" of
sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.
"Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in
inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick's
allegations against her coworkers," the complaint said.
After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to
corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the
allegations, according to the complaint.
In July, one month after the alleged incident, Swetnick took a leave of absence from the
company for sinus issues, according to the complaint. WebTrends said it made short-term
disability payments to her until mid-August that year. One week after the payments stopped,
WebTrends received a note from Swetnick's doctor claiming she needed a leave of absence for a
"nervous breakdown."
The company said it continued to provide health insurance coverage for Swetnick, despite her
refusal provide any additional information about her alleged medical condition.
In November, the company's human resources director received a notice from the Washington,
D.C. Department of Unemployment that Swetnick had applied for unemployment benefits after
claiming she left WebTrends voluntarily in late September.
"In short, Swetnick continued to claim the benefits of a full-time employee of WebTrends,
sought disability payments from WebTrends' insurance carrier and falsely claimed unemployment
insurance payments from the District of Columbia," the complaint states.
Swetnick allegedly hung up the phone on WebTrends managers calling to discuss why she
applied for unemployment benefits, according to the complaint. She then sent letters to
WebTrends' upper management, detailing new allegations that two male co-workers sexually
harassed her and said that the company's human resources director had "illegally tired [sic]
for months to get privileged medical information" from her, her doctor and her insurance
company.
WebTrends also alleged that Swetnick began her fraud against the company before she was
hired by stating on her job application that she graduated from John Hopkins University. But
according to the complaint, the school had no record of her attendance.
An online resume posted by
Swetnick makes no reference to John Hopkins University. It does show that she worked for
WebTrends from December 1999 to August 2000.
It's unclear what transpired after the complaint was filed against Swetnick. One month after
WebTrends filed the action, the company voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.
The complaint against his client was "[c]ompletely bogus which is why it was dismissed
almost immediately," Avenatti told
TheDCNF in an email. "The lawsuit was filed in retaliation against my client after she pursued
claims against the company."
WebTrends did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
In March 2001, three months after WebTrends dismissed its action, Swetnick's ex-boyfriend,
Richard Vinneccy, filed a restraining order against Swetnick, claiming that she threatened him
after he ended their four-year relationship.
vulcanraven , 1 hour ago
Looks like Avenatti has his work cut out for him, he sure knows how to pick the winners.
By the way, this is not the first time we have seen a woman claim "sexual harassment" after
being turned down.
maxblockm , 25 minutes ago
Potiphar's wife.
Now Joseph was well-built and handsome, 7 and after a while his master's wife
took notice of Joseph and said, "Come to bed with me!"
8 But he refused. "With me in charge," he told her, "my master does not concern
himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care.
9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from
me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin
against God?" 10 And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to
bed with her or even be with her.
11 One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the
household servants was inside. 12 She caught him by his cloak and said, "Come to
bed with me!" But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.
13 When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the
house, 14 she called her household servants."Look," she said to them, "this Hebrew
has been brought to us to make sport of us!He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed.
15 When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of
the house."
16 She kept his cloak beside her until his master came home. 17 Then
she told him this story: "That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me.
18 But as soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of
the house."
19 When his master heard the story his wife told him, saying, "This is how your
slave treated me," he burned with anger. 20 Joseph's master took him and put him
in prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined.
But while Joseph was there in the prison, 21 the Lord was with him
Buck Shot , 1 hour ago
I think all three of the accusers are lying psychopaths. I get tired of all this pining
for women. Plenty of women have done a lot of horrible things including these three liars.
There are millions of lying skeezers out there, especially in the USA.
Seal Team 6 , 1 hour ago
Yeah...whatever. No one is talking about Swatnick including the Dems. While Ford is just
unbelievable, Zwetnik's story requires major hits of psychedelics that haven't been invented
yet.
TeraByte , 1 hour ago
"A courageous survivor", yet an untrustworthy lunatic.
Dickweed Wang , 2 hours ago
Text book Fatal Attraction bitch.
Piss her off enough and she'll sneak in at night and cut off your ****. Then she'll file
attempted rape charges against you, claiming the **** chopping was in self defense. And
she'll get away with it because, well . . . she's a woman.
HowardBeale , 1 hour ago
"Fatal attraction..."
That's my hypothesis on this clearly mentally unstable "Professor" Ford: She is exacting
revenge because she was enamored over Kavanaugh in high school; she attended several parties
where he was present; and she was so insignificant in his mind -- being hideous to look at
and listen to -- that he never even saw her...
Dickweed Wang , 1 hour ago
Pretty good hypothesis. It's hard not to think that looking at her, either back then or
now.
eurotrash96 , 1 hour ago
Please! Most women are not like her. Most women, the muted female majority, are perfectly
aware that men are men and we love it! Please do not think the majority of women are like
those who currently prevail in MSM.
legalize , 2 hours ago
This woman has a 14-page resume with her contact information blasted across the top of
every page. In every hiring situation I've been in, such a resume would be a red flag in and
of itself.
LoveTruth , 2 hours ago
She definitely needs to either be fined for defamation, or be put in jail even if it is
for a month or two.
RiotActing , 2 hours ago
She sounds completely credible.... whats the problem?
HowardBeale , 1 hour ago
I am surprised that nobody has picked up on/mentioned in the media the issues with her
memory or inability to understand common English words; for example, her memory of "the
event" changed live before our eyes, as at one point in the questioning she said "someone
pushed me from behind into a bedroom...," and a short time later she said "Kavanaugh pushed
me into a bedroom."
Watch her testimony and see for yourself.
aloha_snakbar , 2 hours ago
She should write resumes for a living...LOL..."Drupal / Wordpress Architect"....if you can
use a word processor, you can be an 'architect' on either one of those platforms...
Mzhen , 2 hours ago
This is the guy hired in D.C. to represent Deborah Ramirez -- William Pittard. They are
out to force Kavanaugh to withdraw over perjury in testimony, since he said he had never
harassed anyone past the age of 18. The civil attorney in Boulder will be trying to cash in
from another angle.
Prior to joining KaiserDillon, Bill served in the Office of General Counsel of the U.S.
House of Representatives for more than five years, including most recently as the Acting
General Counsel. In that role, he acted as legal counsel to Members, committees, officers,
and employees of the House on matters related to their official duties. He also represented
the House itself in litigation and other matters in which it had an institutional interest.
The Congressional Record summarizes, in part: "Mr. Pittard provided frequent and invaluable
legal advice and representation to Members of the House . . . , the officers of the House,
the committees of the House, and the leadership of the House -- most often in connection with
their interactions with the other branches of the Federal Government. He did so
professionally and without regard to partisan identity and, as a result, we came to rely on
his expertise and guidance."
MauiJeff , 2 hours ago
These women live in a world were sexual harassment is ubiquitous. They see sexual
harassment everywhere because sexual harassment is anything they think it is, it is purely
based on their perception. If you subtract a conscience and personal integrity from your
psyche you can interpret anything as sexual harassment you get a post Frankfurt School of
psychology masterpiece like Swetnick. She can only destroy and cannot create.
SDShack , 3 hours ago
"Unwelcome sexual conduct", and later "a nervous breakdown". LOL! Yesterday I said on
another thread that I bet she was a hedonist.
TBT or not TBT , 3 hours ago
Swetnick says she went to a dozen high school parties, as an adult, where gang rapes were
organized by high school boys, including one time on her.
Banana Republican , 3 hours ago
I wonder why she stopped going?
divingengineer , 2 hours ago
she sounds like a sport
MoreFreedom , 2 hours ago
I'll bet she didn't even bother to think that people might wonder:
Why was a college girl going to high school parties?
Why would a women who witnessed a gang rape not call the police?
Why would a women who witnessed multiple gang rapes not call the police?
Why would a women who witnessed gang rapes at these parties, continue going to more of
them?
Does she have the names of any of the attendees or victims at these parties, and if not
why not?
When and where were these parties?
Instead, she seems to think people would just believe her lies. Truth is a wonderful
thing. and the actions of people say a lot about them. Her actions show she doesn't care
about real victims of sexual abuse, she's willing to lie for her benefit, and she has no
problem bearing false witness against others.
It's so easy to make up false plausible accusations. Ford is obviously a more intelligent
liar.
"... In several of these cases the perpetrators actually received direct orders from the woman. Something must be done. Do it. In some cases the pressure lasted for months. ..."
"... Recently I was reminded of something I read in 'The Devil's Dictionary' (by Ambrose Bierce). I just found it: ..."
"... A beautiful and attractive young woman, in wickedness a league beyond the devil. ..."
"... But as to Ambrose Bierce's second definition, yes, to me the wickedness was astounding in one case. It is an accurate definition. But there was a BPD in the case also-- a Borderline Personality Disorder. In my view, psychopathy overrides everything--I mean by that, everything moral, ethical, lawful, decent, even common sense, even the most basic prudence about deadly dangerous things. ..."
"... Recently I looked back into M. Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie'. There are some good lines in it. "Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs." ..."
Of eight murder cases in Virginia in the eighties and nineties that I know something about, seven were capital murder. The men
involved--they were all men, the actual perpetrators.
These were: Clagett, Elliott, Thomas, Lester, Tate, Soering, Shambaugh (and Hyman uncharged.) Hulbert was first degree, life
without parole. The cases all had something in common.
The crimes happened because of a man's obsessive love or empathy for a girl or a woman. Hulbert told me that himself. "I am
an empath." It has been adjudicated that Clagett, Thomas, Hulbert, Tate and Soering committed the murders after having been asked
and agreeing, or after having been pressured into it. ("If at first you don't succeed, cry, cry again.")
In several of these cases the perpetrators actually received direct orders from the woman. Something must be done. Do it.
In some cases the pressure lasted for months.
In Lester's case his accomplice stood trial but was acquitted of the most serious charges. She is free and has gone on to better
things. In two of these cases, Elliott's and Hyman/Shambaugh's, the women for whom it was done would never have wanted it to happen.
There were children involved and it is fair to say they have paid a price. The men were military types in the Shambaugh case,
and Hyman seems to have gone ballistic at the challenge from a son-in-law. So it was not exactly about empathy. It was also Jew
versus Pole.
He hired Shambaugh to do a contract killing for $20,000. When he saw he had made some fatal mistakes, and was going to be charged,
he committed suicide, killing his wife moments before he turned the shotgun on himself. Shambaugh was convicted as an accessory
and could very well have been paroled last year. Hulbert, Lester, Tate, and Soering are serving very long prison terms. Perhaps
some of them will never get out of prison alive. Clagett, Elliott, Thomas were executed. Clagett had terrible remorse. I knew
him fairly well.
Recently I was reminded of something I read in 'The Devil's Dictionary' (by Ambrose Bierce). I just found it:
"Witch, n. (1) Any ugly and repulsive old woman, in a wicked league with the devil.
(2) A beautiful and attractive young woman, in wickedness a league beyond the devil."
There is always the question in these cases, of course, of psychopathy. It runs all through the eight cases. And I , for one,
do not forget that it has been speculated that the selective murder of independent women who wanted to live alone outside the
mainstream of life in Medieval Germany with their gardens, herbals, birds and cats somehow weakened the character of the population,
clamping on a kind of leaden conformism.
Johannes Kepler's mother was accused of witchcraft in Freiburg, and for six years this brilliant astronomer was obsessed with
keeping his mother from being burned alive. Finally, they worked out a deal, because it was becoming an embarrassment to the authorities.
Kepler's mother was told that she was free to go and that the charges were being dropped. But she must go into exile, away from
Freiburg. She flatly refused to leave her home. I forget how it ended.
But as to Ambrose Bierce's second definition, yes, to me the wickedness was astounding in one case. It is an accurate definition.
But there was a BPD in the case also-- a Borderline Personality Disorder. In my view, psychopathy overrides everything--I mean
by that, everything moral, ethical, lawful, decent, even common sense, even the most basic prudence about deadly dangerous things.
So there were ways that I understood one of these women, one who accepted me as a visitor. Needless to say, a number of them
are in the DOC. But that's not quite what I am talking about.
Recently I looked back into M. Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie'. There are some good lines in it. "Mental health is an
ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs."
He considers the possibility of making evil a subcategory or special variant of the DSM manual!
Just one little thing. In one case I felt something spooky --just as they tell you in the story books. Where? Well, say in
Henry James, for example, as in 'The Turn of the Screw'. What I mean is: I felt real evil. I had a couple of long conversations.
Very attractive. Whatever it was, I just dropped the whole thing.
This looks like a modern reincarnation of inquisition.
Notable quotes:
"... this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009. ..."
"... the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction ..."
"... [Some] Women if you reject, or even if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary. ..."
"... A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing. ..."
"... I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen. ..."
"... Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and didn't report it. This is mass hysteria. ..."
"... When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually a lot of pleasure to be around. ..."
"... I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off. ..."
"... Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts. ..."
"Besides filing
a federal civil lawsuit against police officers, prosecutors and other witnesses in his case, Filler
filed a complaint about former prosecutor Mary Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which resulted in Kellett
becoming the first prosecutor in recent memory to be publicly sanctioned by the state over prosecutorial misconduct. Kellett, who
now works as a defense attorney,
prosecuted Filler at his first trial in 2009.
Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, was contacted via email but declined to say how much money he is getting in the settlement.
"I am grateful to all my attorneys but most of all I am grateful for my strong family and my two amazing children who I
have been blessed to see grow up," Filler wrote in a statement Monday night." Bangor Daily News
------------
Ok folks, this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine
for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009.
The review process decided that his wife lied about him to gain revenge in a custody case over their two children and that
the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction
. A friend of the wife, a female RN, coached the wife to cry in court so as to make "it seem more real." The RN has been sued by
the now vindicated ex-husband. I hope she loses every cent she might ever have.
Several here on SST have maintained that women seldom falsely accuse men. What a joke!
"... the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male." Kipling
Every guy worth his salt knows this to be true. Even most women know this to be true. There was a reason for the line "hell hath
no fury like a woman scorned."
Most not ALL women are extremely emotional and not rational. The average IQ is 100. So 50% of the women are below that but
I am supposed to believe that any accusation is 100% to be believed.
It's such a joke as to bring contempt upon the part of society who is pushing this. [Some] Women if you reject, or even
if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary.
Men murder women at an obscene rate and it is probably hardwired into them for protection. That part I can understand and emphasis
with strongly.
However, these stories such as this poor guy endured are nauseating. A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps
for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing.
I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women
are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for
the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen.
How about the UVA rape case rolled out by the Rolling Stones? Just another delusional female that the press demanded we believe.
How about the Duke Lacrosse team? Another false accusation pushed by the female dominated press who dominate their SJW warrior
co-workers and secretly have contempt for them being so feminine. Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport
and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and
didn't report it. This is mass hysteria.
The number I am sure is in the millions now so there are millions of women in America mostly who have been raped and not reported
it. I call bullshit.
Why do women hate other women? Why can't we discuss the truth anymore?
When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually
a lot of pleasure to be around. I should have never left regardless how bad the air was.
Years ago I attended Medical School and 50% of the students were female. And normal, fun, and I miss them. Maybe it is intelligence
and not the gender. They were certainly as smart or smarter in many cases than us guys. Top 2 students were female. So I am not
an ogre. But stories like this piss me off.
Not surprised. I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score
points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off.
Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts.
As commented elsewhere, all her screeching about double standards for women are utter BS. She
broke the rules while playing against another woman and not a man. The men's tennis league is
utterly irrelevant since she may as well have compared her league to men's football. She
failed by the standards of her league and not those of another. It was clear that she was
breaking the rules of her league and she was the one that escalated the conflict. It has
nothing to do with women's rights.
The PC drones are rather mentally deficient. They respond to trigger phrases and not to
concepts or principles.
Australian cartoonist Mark Knight is in trouble with J K Rowling and other self-styled
guardians of who may portray Serena Williams in meltdown and who may not. The offending
drawing below:
I agree with Martina Navratilova on Serena Williams conduct
" Navratilova went so far as to write an editorial for the New York Times in which she
claimed that, in complaining post-match that Ramos would not have reacted the same way to an
argumentative male player, Williams was "missing the point" and would have been better served
conducting herself with "respect for the sport we love so dearly."
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' " Navratilova said of Williams in her editorial. "Rather, I
think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor
our sport and to respect our opponents?"
Serena Williams behaviour ruined the experience of victory for Naomi Osaka, if you get a
chance to see film of the whole debacle with the booing crowd! She looked like the most
miserable winner in ever.
Another issue is that Williams deliberately puts on a tantrum and then claims the tantrum is
normal emotional behaviour. On top of that, she tries to pass off this spoilt-brat outburst
as characteristic of how strong, feminist women behave. All done as much to deny Osaka the
joy of winning her first major championship as to attack the umpire.
And people who should know better swallow Williams' idiocy hook, line and sinker.
Narcissists built a wall between himself and truth and decency. One way to understand them is
to look at mafia bosses
Notable quotes:
"... While the common wisdom dictates that the sociopath/sociopath type predator goes after only those who are of little or no worth, the stupid, the uneducated and perhaps the hopelessly poor/ignorant the reality is oftentimes the polar opposite. The average in-home/family man/family woman sociopath predator goes after someone who is not a predator while that someone does have a lot to offer the sociopath/sociopath type. ..."
"... The predator wants a partner or spouse that offers a great deal of value to strip-mine away ..."
"Pretty is as pretty does, and while it's true that money makes the world go round, nice is
what makes it habitable." The Victim's Guide to Surviving the Narcissist/Sociopath is a quick
guide book describing what a typical narcissist/sociopath is and what his/her typical victim
is.
While the common wisdom dictates that the sociopath/sociopath type predator goes after
only those who are of little or no worth, the stupid, the uneducated and perhaps the hopelessly
poor/ignorant the reality is oftentimes the polar opposite. The average in-home/family
man/family woman sociopath predator goes after someone who is not a predator while that someone
does have a lot to offer the sociopath/sociopath type.
The predator wants a partner or spouse that offers a great deal of value to strip-mine
away . An uneducated moron frequently does not appeal to a sociopath predator that is
looking at more than an extremely short-term quick gain.
This book provides readers with a fast get-down-to-it look at what a narcissist/sociopath
is, what one of these predators does and it gives readers some basic nutshell advice that is
surprisingly hard to come by. A must read for victims and prospective victims alike whether not
yet captured by a narcissist/sociopath or already captured and beginning to figure out,
perhaps, that as a victim or prospective victim you may be in trouble.
This book tells all, for its brevity, starting with the warning signs to the final war plan
with all most of the ugly details included. Photos herein are taken from more than one city
location.
"... What an absolute bully. She consistently belittles and threatens the umpires, purposefully exasperates her opponents, shows no respect for the sporting venue/court or the equipment, hypes up the crowd to boost her self-image and personal views (fully aware that she is a crowd "favorite"), and has not an ounce of humility on the court or when being interviewed. I honestly believe she only put her arm around Ms. Osaka during the award ceremony so that she would appear more caring. There was nothing genuine about it. ..."
"... The Fact Serena Williams Didn't shake the umpires hand ..."
"... I love how she claims sexism, but she attacks him the entire time. Calling him a liar and saying he attacked her, using her power against him. ..."
What an absolute bully. She consistently belittles and threatens the umpires, purposefully
exasperates her opponents, shows no respect for the sporting venue/court or the equipment,
hypes up the crowd to boost her self-image and personal views (fully aware that she is a
crowd "favorite"), and has not an ounce of humility on the court or when being interviewed. I
honestly believe she only put her arm around Ms. Osaka during the award ceremony so that she
would appear more caring. There was nothing genuine about it.
It's funny to see how she says she was not receiving coaching and demanding an apology
here... and then 10 mins later her coach accepted he was coaching her. Naomi was just better in EVERY way during this
match... This was so classless from SW
I love how she claims sexism, but she attacks him the entire time. Calling him a liar and
saying he attacked her, using her power against him.
She did get coaching, because the coach
admitted to it. And she clearly broke her racket. What a poor display. I'm more distraught
that she claimed sexism in a female game? Plus this ump has docked Nadal for the same thing?
I'd get her out of tennis, what a drama queen. She makes tennis look bad
Most disgusting display of unsportsmanlike conduct I've ever seen in any sport.
Despicable. Hopefully this is the highlight this embarrassment of a role model will be
remembered for for the rest of her life. Thank God Osaka won
Serena tried everything in the 'poor me' book. She was being outplayed, plain and simple!
Other players do this sort of crap to unsettle their opponent. It is just a shame she ruined
the match for Osaka who was extremely professional throughout. Well done to her on her first
major win. I don't have anything good to say about the crowd either....the booing was
pathetic.
Narcissism, destroys the ability of a person to form healthy, long term relationship. While
initially seen as chanrming, narsissists can't stop from using person to his/her advantage and
hurt the relationship, often destroying it in a long run.
Notable quotes:
"... Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ..."
"... Another dimension of narcissism -- the desire for attention -- was not as strongly linked with leadership roles in the groups. ..."
Narcissists like to be in charge, so it stands to reason that a new study shows individuals
who are overconfident about their abilities are most likely to step in as leaders, be they
politicians or power brokers. However, their initiative doesn't mean they are the best leaders. The study also found
narcissists don't outperform others in leadership roles.
Narcissists tend to be egotistical types who exaggerate their
talents and abilities, and lack empathy for others. The researchers stress that narcissism
is not the same as high self-esteem.
"A person with high self-esteem is confident and charming, but they also have a caring
component and they want to develop intimacy with others," said lead researcher Amy Brunell, a
psychologist at Ohio State University at Newark. "Narcissists have an inflated view of their
talents and abilities and are all about themselves. They don't care as much about others."
She added, "It's not surprising that narcissists become leaders . They like
power, they are egotistical, and they are usually charming and extraverted. But the problem is,
they don't necessarily make better leaders."
Born leaders?
The results, which will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin , come from three studies, two with students and the other with
business managers.
In one study, 432 undergraduate students completed surveys that measured various personality
traits, including aspects of narcissism. Then, the students were put in groups of four and told
to assume they were a committee of senior officers of the student union. Their task was to
elect next year's director.
Results showed that students who scored higher on one dimension of narcissism -- the
desire for
power -- were more likely to say they wanted to lead the group. The narcissists were also
more likely to say they did lead the group discussion and more likely to be viewed as leaders
by the other group members.
Another dimension of narcissism -- the desire for attention -- was not as strongly
linked with leadership roles in the groups.
... ... ...
"Many people have observed that it takes a narcissistic person to run for president of the
United States," Brunell said. "I would be surprised if any of the candidates who have run
weren't higher than average in narcissism."
Wall Street traders could also have a high dose of narcissism, she suggested. "There have
been a lot of studies that have found narcissistic leaders tend to have volatile and risky
decision-making performance and can be ineffective and potentially destructive leaders."
Brunell does hedge though, saying that not all troubles in Washington and Wall Street can be
blamed on narcissists, and of course, you can't boil everything down to personalities.
"... The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement ..."
"... Journal of Personality ..."
"... Everything Has Two Handles: The Stoic's Guide to the Art of Living ..."
"... Ronald Pies MD is Professor of Psychiatry and Lecturer on Bioethics and Humanities at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse NY; Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; and Editor-in-Chief, Psychiatric Times. He is the author of Everything Has Two Handles: The Stoic's Guide to the Art of Living . This article was provided by PsychCentral.com . ..."
What do
rapper Kanye West, tennis star Serena Williams, and Congressman Joe Wilson have in common,
besides lots of publicity over their recent public outbursts?
It doesn't take a psychiatrist to conclude that all three individuals placed their momentary
emotional needs over the feelings and wishes of others -- and that they failed to play by the
proverbial rules of the game. Though their intrusive behavior may be rationalized as "off the
cuff" or "from the heart," the fact remains that each of these individuals performed a
calculation over a period of seconds, minutes, or perhaps hours: they calculated that their
anger or resentment was more important than the decorum others expected of them.
Sure, we all "lose it" from time to time, and impolite outbursts have probably been with us
since our Neanderthal forebears first learned to growl. Furthermore, the impression that
manners have gotten worse and worse over the years may not be supported by historical data.
John F. Kasson, in his book, Rudeness and Civility , points out that people in
medieval times behaved far more boorishly than our modern-day, "It's all about me!" crowd.
Citing the work of sociologist Norbert Elias, Kasson writes that, compared to more recent
times, " people in the late Middle Ages expressed their emotions -- joy, rage, piety, fear,
even the pleasure of torturing and killing enemies -- with astonishing directness and
intensity."
Maybe so -- but the recent tripleheader of West, Williams and Wilson made many of us wonder
if we are turning into a nation of self-absorbed boors. (A Boston Globe editorial on
9/15/09 proclaimed, "Shouting is the New Opining.") This thesis is hardly new. Thirty years
ago, Christopher Lasch put forward essentially the same argument, in his book The Culture
of Narcissism
. But Lasch's claims were mainly impressionistic. Now, however, a number of researchers and
mental health professionals point to studies showing that, indeed, excessive self-absorption is
on the increase.
For example, in their book, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of
Entitlement , Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D and W. Keith Campbell, Ph.D. provide ample evidence for
what they term "the relentless rise of narcissism in our culture." Twenge and Campbell identify
several social trends that have contributed to this problem, including what they term "the
movement toward self-esteem " that began
in the late 1960s; and the movement away from "community-oriented thinking" that began in the
1970s. But the root causes go far deeper. For example, in a chapter entitled "Raising Royalty,"
Twenge and Campbell point to " the new parenting culture that has fueled the narcissism
epidemic." In effect, the authors argue, there has been a shift away from limit-setting toward
letting the child get whatever he or she wants.
Twenge and her colleagues have empirical data to back up their claims. For example, in a
paper published in the August 2008 Journal of Personality , the authors report on 85
samples of American college students, studied between 1979 and 2006. The subjects were
evaluated using an instrument called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI). Compared with their peers in the 1979-85 period, college students in 2006 showed a 30
percent increase in their NPI score. That's "the bad news.". If there is some good news, it
might be this: Twenge and her colleagues Sara Konrath, Joshua D. Foster, W. Keith Campbell, and
Brad J. Bushman point to a rise in several "positive traits" correlated with narcissism, such
as self-esteem, extraversion, and assertiveness. Of course, a cynic might reply that these
traits are "positive" only up to a point: When someone's idea of "assertiveness" involves
jumping up on stage and grabbing the microphone from an award-winning singer, assertiveness has
arguably crossed the line into loutishness.
Twenge and Campbell take pains to knock down the myth that all narcissists are basically
insecure folks with very low self-esteem. Their research suggests otherwise -- most narcissists
seem to have a heaping helping of self-esteem! But Twenge and Campbell focus mainly on
individuals they call the "socially savvy narcissists who have the most influence on the
culture." These high-fliers may be the sort one of my colleagues had in mind when he defined a
narcissist as
"somebody who, at the moment of peak sexual bliss, cries out his own name!"
These celebrity narcissists are not, for the most part, the kind of individuals I have
treated in my own psychiatric practice. My patients tended to fall into the group Twenge and
Campbell call "vulnerable narcissists." These unfortunate souls seem to cloak themselves in a
mantle of gold, while feeling that, on the inside, they are nothing but rags. They suffer, to
be sure -- but they also induce suffering in others, by acting out their
insecurities in a thousand provocative ways. And, like some of their celebrity
counterparts, these vulnerable narcissists are prone to outbursts of anger, verbal abuse, or
just plain rudeness -- usually when they feel rejected, thwarted, or frustrated. They remind
one of philosopher Eric Hoffer's observation that "rudeness is the weak man's imitation of
strength."
If we are indeed producing increasingly self-obsessed individuals in our society, what can
we do about it? There is clearly no simple prescription for what are evidently deep-seated
cultural and familial ills. There is almost certainly no "Prozac for Narcissists" anywhere on
the pharmacy shelves. As Twenge and Campbell argue, there is much in the way that we raise our
children that may need to change. In my view, it is not simply a matter of refusing to spoil or
over-indulge our children. Rather, we must also instill positive values that will help
inoculate our children against narcissism.
In my book, Everything Has Two Handles: The Stoic's Guide to the Art of Living , I
argue that the values of the ancient Stoics can help us achieve personal happiness. I believe
that these same values can help our children grow into strong, responsible, and resilient
citizens. And what are Stoic values? It's not just a matter of keeping a stiff upper lip, nor
does Stoicism hold that you should tamp down all your feelings. Rather, Stoics believed that
the good life is one characterized by virtuous beliefs and actions -- in brief, a life based on
duty, discipline, and moderation. The Stoics also believed in the importance of taking life on
its own terms–what they would have described as "living in harmony with nature."
Stoics did not whine when they were passed over for an award, nor did they throw a hissy fit
when they didn't get their way. As the Stoic philosopher, Seneca (106-43 BCE) put it, "All
ferocity is born of weakness." Perhaps most important, Stoics understood the tremendous value
of gratitude -- not only for the gifts we have received, but also for the grief we have been
spared. Maybe if more children were inculcated with these teachings, we would find our
celebrities showing more gratitude and less "attitude."
Ronald Pies MD is Professor of Psychiatry and Lecturer on Bioethics and Humanities at
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse NY; Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts
University School of Medicine, Boston; and Editor-in-Chief, Psychiatric Times. He is the author
of
Everything Has Two Handles: The Stoic's Guide to the Art of Living . This article was
provided by PsychCentral.com .
It's not easy to call out a complete narcissist. They're highly manipulative in turning
the tables and making themselves the victim leaving the righteous accuser or critic holding
the bag. It takes skill and gravitas not to fall into their trap but they should especially
not be allowed to slither behind legitimate causes to excuse their nasty behaviour and then
be glorified as a brave champion of the oppressed. Mostly it's how they twist the truth and
get away with it that's scary. They'll inflate the minutest legitimacy to make their accuser
appear like the ogre and so emerge vindicated by society. Imo that's a form of bullying.
Again, it takes skill to expose them.
Times have changed not just in tennis. Increasingly devious bad behavior is excused and I
would even say even glorified in sports and everywhere else. Look how long it took for
Americans to admit Armstrong, cancer survivor cycling hero, was cheating. There too the
ego-worship and American public's denial of the truth was nauseating. What about the American
student who probably got away with murder in Italy and was so portrayed as the victim of
European justice? Even when kissing her boyfriend while the coroner took the real victim out
in a body bag they were making excuses with her psychological state. Awh,poor thing...it
was her way of cleansing/releasing the stress of the whole tragedy! There's also the
basketball players who got away with a spree of theft and vandalism in Asia and hardly
suffered any accountability.
Devious bad behavior is tolerated everywhere now and narcissism viewed as strength when
it's only making society more and more ignorant, insensitive and intolerable. Humility and
honor have become weaknesses and the truth a necessary casualty.
I would say Americans are the worst offenders, but the trend they're setting is becoming
rampant and it's degrading society everywhere. Kids are emulating it. That's why it needs to
be called out for what it really is, depraved; wherever, whenever, so it doesn't become the
acceptable normal and the excusable new hip normal for kids.
Now we have a video tutorial how a narcissist behave when he/she is losing, a lesson how to identify a narcissistic bully.
Anyone who has not experienced first hand the wrath of a narcissistic bully should watch this as a training session. Such a
behaviour is triggered when he/she cannot manipulate people like they think they should be able to. The scenario is simple: if
somebody disagrees with them, or worse yet, attempts to call the out for a wrongdoing, they will immediately ratchet things up by:
insisting that the other person is wrong and try to influence their decision making in their favour (admin that you are
wrong~); (2) becoming outraged that the person dares to accuse them of the wrongdoing; (3) instantly "turn the tables": portray
yourself as the victim; (4) use "crocodile tears" to garner sympathy; (5) demand an apology (king of gaslighting, inducing feeling
of a guild without any reason); (6) try to intimidate and threaten the person into giving in
The truth can hurt. The truth can set you free. But you can't hide from THE SAAD TRUTH. Why
are men the majority of Ferrari owners? Why do women prefer tall men? What is evolutionary
psychology? How does one apply biology in understanding consumer behaviour? What is the current
state of intellectual diversity on university campuses? Are all religions equally
violent/peaceful? What is at the root of political correctness and the thought police? These
issues and countless others are addressed in my YouTube channel. My goal is to engage folks in
a fun and informative manner. Please subscribe and spread the word. Cheers. Rating is available
when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again
later.
I found out from the Twitter mob that it is forbidden to criticize Ms. Williams because bruh
"sexism and racism."
_________________________________
"Narcissistic Petulance" and "Self-Entitled" is such a perfect way of describing Princess
Serena.
Molly Whipple
Does anyone else see the sort of behavior that Serena exhibited in this instance as a very public example of the same sort
of ingrained entitled narcissism that seems to be part and parcel of the psychology of the SJW mindset?
H.J. Indy Nuding
The generation now coming out of Western schools is unable to distinguish good from bad. Even those words are
unacceptable. This results in impaired thinking ability. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Gérard Mentor
Justin Hénin is a close cousin of mine, you wouldn't believe the stories I heard a bout the Williams sisters...these two
are absolute scumbags who'll do anything to win.
Bode Etemadi
Agree with you 100%. This was not sexism nor racism. It was a matter of conduct and violation of rules. Serena acted
poorly and stole the moment from Osaka. Shame on those who are celebrating her for her actions yesterday and shame on those
who claim victimhood on her behalf. Lastly shame on Serena
Bronwyn Doyle
In her uncontrolled temper she broke her racket in three places, in the game and screamed herself into a state of
hysterics. However, another athlete, Jose Bautista hit the ball out of the park and while running to first base he executed
the Famous Bat Flip and he was criticized for over a year for that-he was in good spirits and it was a harmless bat flip but
received no end of criticism. Williams should have been escorted from the court and penalized for her disgraceful behaviour
and using the game for her Soapbox. She ruined the game for her opponent as well. Selfish, conceited woman.
I'm not sure why my latest SAAD TRUTH clip is solely audio. I taped it via my camera as an
audiovisual video. In any case, I won't upload it again, as the message is perhaps better
retained if you are not distracted by my outlandish good looks.
Thank goodness Serena's opponent & tennis referee weren't "white", otherwise all hell
would've broken loose! She played the woman card but couldn't really let loose with the poor
oppressed black card.
The whole ordeal was so sad for Osaka. As a child, Serena was one of her idols and she had
always looked forward to playing against her. Today was the day that dream finally came true*
after years of hard work and her (now former?) idol turned it into a total nightmare.
Williams even refused to shake her hand after the match! She disrespected the umpire. She
disrespected the audience. She disrespected the ideals of sportsmanship and above all, she
greatly disrespected Osaka. *edit: Apparently this was the second game between the two,
thanks Zeeker for pointing that out.
I'm just happy she didn't lose to Maria Sharapova or some other lighter skinned tennis
player. The MSM would be salivating at the mouth screaming,' WHITE PATRIARCHY!!!' And cue the
new NIKE ads.
"... Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language. ..."
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
It is not "misunderstood"–it is a complete caricature which now blows into the faces
of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some exceptions
merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in
our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention
that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres,
such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian
language.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money.
Very true but they are multidimensional and only some of them are not crazy, Ralph Peters,
Max Boot or many other rabid Russophobes are genuinely mad. Enough to take a look at their
reactions and behavior, I omit here a complete military-political delirium they propagate,
which in itself a fruit of a sick imagination.
So it is both for very many of them. After the death of Richard Pipes I received
communications from person who studied under him, this person has Ph.D in history, he
describes him going completely mad, from going hi pitch in his voice, almost screaming, to
sweating profusely, once the word Russia and Russians were uttered.
The hatred of Russia was palpable. Guess what, Pipes was hailed as America's greatest
"Russia scholar". It is never one thing. Moreover, pathological lust for political power
which afflicted so many is in itself a good indication of a borderline disorder.
If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying
to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash we
are repeatedly getting.
If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying
to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash
we are repeatedly getting.
Combined West and its "electoral" and educational institutions completely stopped
production of real statesmen already in 1970s. We saw last pool of real statesmen depart the
scene with Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Current Western so called "elites" do not even
qualify for the term mediocrity. Many of then are simply degenerate such as European Greens
or American, so called, Left, albeit the nominal Right also doesn't shine with any traces of
intellect.
OK, book report time. I have just finished reading Bad Blood , by John Carreyrou of the Wall Street
Journal. Good read, fascinating story. It is the saga of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of
Theranos, the miraculous blood-testing company of Silicon Valley. Holmes, formerly said to be
worth $4.5 billion, ended up under criminal indictment for fraud as of 2015. I suppose many
have heard vaguely of Theranos, as I had, but the actual story is astonishing.
Holmes, 19, drops out of Stanford to start a medical-instrumentation company. She is very
smart, very driven, very self-confident, very glib, very cold-blooded, very manipulative, very
willing to take risks, very pretty, and very ruthless. Everything about her is very. If the
foregoing resembles the clinical description of a psychopath, there is a reason.
She also knows almost nothing of the sciences, and nothing at all of electronic or
mechanical engineering, or of medical instrumentation. That is, she has no qualifications in
the field. She is just very–that word again–smart and pretty and talks a swell
show. And yet ye gods and little catfishes, what she managed to do.
Her goal was to invent a medical blood-analyzer that could do a large number of tests on a
single drop of blood from a pricked finger. It was a bright idea. If it had worked, it would
have been a (very) big deal. This of course is also true of anti-gravity space shps and
perpetual motion machines. Making it work required nothing beyond difficult mechanical
engineering, electronic engineering, programming, microfluidics, and a few things that were
impossible. She knew none of these fields.
But holy smack-and-kerpow, Batman, could she talk. Soon she had investment money pouring in.
On her board she got–yes–Henry everlovin' Kissinger and James Mattis (uh-huh, that
one,) and former Secretaries of State and Defense and just about every heavy hitter except Pope
Francis. More money rained down. I mean with people like that vouching for her, Hank the Kiss
and Mad Dog Mattis, it had to be legit–right? She even managed to cozy up to the Clintons
and Obama.
Meanwhile the wretched blood gizmo wouldn't, didn't, and couldn't as it turned out, work. It
was a metal box with inside it a glue-gun robot arm out of Jersey–I am not inventing
this–that made grinding noises and could do only a few tests with wildly unreliable
results. You might think of it as Uncle Clunk. Just the thing you want your life to depend on.
And lives do depend on good lab results.("OK, lady, Uncle Clunk says you got brain cancer. We
have to remove your brain.") Heh. Oops.
So Holmes, who could talk the bark off a tree, faked it. To be fair, she probably thought it
would work or hoped it might and turned to chicanery only when it didn't. Anyway, many of her
deceptions were clearly fraudulent–well, clearly if you knew about them. For example,
most of her results were obtained using commercial analyzers from outfits like Siemens instead
of Uncle Clunk. Financial projections were wildly dishonest. Many employees quit over ethhical
concerns–but they were bound by sharp-fanged nondisclosure agreements they had to sign to
be hired. It was nonsense. Nothing worked. But nobody knew.
Thing was, across America there was a terrific will to believe. Her story was just too good
to pass up. People wanted a female Steve Jobs, a girl to join the boys in a startup world of
wunderkind guys like Gates and Jobs and Wozniak and Zuckerberg and all. There just weren't any
girls. Sure, a few, sort of, a little bit, like Marissa Mayer at Google, but Page and Bryn were
the real starters-up. Holmes was beautiful, smart, so very appealing and just a dynamite
entrepreneur. She had this astonishingly successful company.
Which didn't have a product.
Note that most of the dazzling university dropouts who became billionaires are in software,
not biological sciences. The few in hardware brilliantly put together readily comprehended
pieces, like CPUs and memory chips. There is a reason for this. Programming takes a lot of
brains and little knowledge. Medicine takes reasonable intelligence and lots of knowledge.
Molecular biology takes a lot of brains and a lot of knowledge. A (very) bright kid can learn
Python or C-plus-plus in a couple of months in mommy's basement and actually be a programmer.
It doesn't work with complicated multidisciplinary computerized micro-fluidized gadgets
involving robotic glue-arms. At least, it didn't work.
I wonder why nobody thought of this. When asked for evidence, she ducked, dodged, lied, said
the check was in the mail, and any day now.
The non-disclosure agreements saved her, for a while. All employees had to sign them. Her
lawyer, who was also on her board, was the scary super lawyer David Boies. If you were a
midlevel lab worker, and knew that reagents were out of date, that bad results were being
hidden, that Uncle Clunk didn't work–and said so, a savage law firm with unlimited funds
and, as events proved, not a lot of ethics, would litigate you into sleeping in alleys.
Consequently much was known, but little was said.
Meanwhile–this is crazier than Aunt Sadie, that we kept in the attic–she got
freaking Safeway and Walgreens to bite on putting Theranos booths in their stores so customers
could get quick finger-prick analyses for very little money. Both companies bought into this,
and actually built the booths at considerable expense, without insisting on seeing proof of her
claims. I wonder what she was thinking. The scam obviously was going to collapse at some point.
And did.
A better question might be what her board members and the chain-store executives were
thinking. They were bosses of huge corporations and presumably astute. How did she get away
with it? I will guess. Most of those gulled were old men, or nearly so. Note that old men,
powerful men, rich men, and famous men, are nevertheless men. Holmes was a honey, slender, very
pretty, well-groomed, appealing, smart, and maybe the daughter or girlfriend or mistress that
her prey would have liked.
Andrea Dworkin. Finally, a cure for self-abuse. Would the old guys on Elizabeth's board have
been as smitten by Andrea?
As the Wall Street Journal closed in, and Theranos got wind of it, things became
ethically interesting. Holmes of course knew that Theranos was endangering lives, and had
already established a lack of morality. Some of the board came to suspect and quietly bailed.
The employees were intimidated, though several talked to the Journal anonymously.
But superlawyer David Boies and his associate Heather King among others at the firm knew.
They tried every legal means, or maybe I mean lawyerly means, to block publication of the
story. When federal regulatory agencies issued a long, detailed investigative report making it
absolutely clear that Theranos did not even come close to legality, and was therefore
endangering lives–Boies and King tried to suppress that too. Their success was not great
as the Journal put the whole gorgeous taco online, but they tried. It is a curious fact,
but a fact, that lawyers are often accessories to crime.
It is all about Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Once you become familiar with the disorder
and all of its behavioral implications all the questions are answered.
Foremost for the NPD afflicted is the need to try to satisfy the never satisfied ego.
Every action and behavior first must address the needy ego and only after taking that into
consideration can any of the rest of the motives be evaluated...
Although there isn't one "right" way to handle CFHs, there are some ways that are likely to
make the situation worse rather than better. Here are a few tips to avoid escalation:
Avoid "you" statements ("You're not making any sense." "You are the one with the
problem." "You need to suck it up and stop complaining about everything."). Instead, use "I"
or "we" statements ("I don't understand what you're trying to say." "It seems like we have a
problem." "How can we work this out?").
Avoid emotion. Keep your voice soft and your tone even. It's hard to maintain a high
level of emotion when the person you're interacting with consistently maintains a calm,
unemotional tone (although some of the best can do it - see discussion on page 2 about UCFHs).
Avoid sarcasm.
Avoid defensiveness.
Avoid engagement. If the anger, drama, or whatever craziness is going on doesn't subside,
politely disengage. It's hard enough going against your instinct to not defend yourself when
the attack first starts. The longer the attack lasts (especially when you're trying your best
to diffuse it), the harder it will be to stay calm and unemotional. So if your best efforts
don't diffuse the situation, say something like, "I'm having a hard time listening to [or
understanding ]
what you're saying when you're [yelling, sobbing, glaring, etc.]. Maybe we can try to resolve
this later when the emotions aren't so high." Then, walk away.
The high maintenance man or woman is the layman's term for someone with a Cluster B
(antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, or borderline) personality disorder or a subclinical
version with those traits.
Manipulation (which is implied in the term "high maintenance" ) comes in many forms: There
are whiners, bullies, the borderliners, and our main object of interest -- the sociopaths. Korin
Miller gives s ome potentially useful advice of dealing with high maintenance drama queens at
work... T hrowing a fit should get her nowhere .
You need also to understand the strengths and weaknesses or your own behavior (and analyze it
via diary) so that you can adapt your communication style when necessary. Anticipate and be
prepared. That greatly helps not to react too emotionally. Don't take anything personally.
Consider such behaviour as a you view a bad weather. Drama queen behavior is pretty stereotypical
and can be studied via sample of Netflix movies. Practice your responses.
Such people are not always low performers. More often they are high performers at the
workplace.
Much depends of the "social order," that is, to what extent the society order social
relations to a benefit narrow interests of the elite and how individuals are socialized into the
ongoing social structure. Neoliberalism with its "greed is good" mantra is unhealthy society.
That's for sure. It actually discourages bonds to society which prevent anti-social or openly
delinquent behavior in humans. George Vincent, writing in the first volume of the American
Journal of Sociology, defined social control as ". . . the art of combining social
forces so as to give society at least a trend toward an ideal" (1896:490). if the ideal is "homo
homily lupus est" like it is under neoliberalism the society, or organization/firm gradually
self-destruct.
There is a strong correlation between dysfunctional social institutions, decreased
relationships to society and the level of delinquency, especially adolescent delinquency. If
adolescence is viewed as part of a maturation process with the end goal being the integration of
the youth into adult social roles, then in a dysfunctional society likelihood that a youth will
become involved with the criminal justice system dramatically increase.
She always asks you to grab her coffee (and doesn't pay you back), and loves to
monopolize your time.
How to Deal: Next time she asks you to get something for her (coffee, lunch, whatever), just
"forget" to do it or tell her you unfortunately don't have the time. If she keeps swinging by
your desk for hour-long "chats," start telling her you really have to get back to an assignment
and add, "if we could finish this later, that would be great." Eventually, she'll get the
point.
She's obsessed with being the center of attentionand freaks when she isn't.
How to Deal: Sure, it's annoying especially when she can't even deal when your guy's parents
ask you about how work is going but it's in your best interests to be nice to her. So throw her
a bone. The easiest way: Like her attention-seeking Facebook posts. That way, you can roll your
eyes while you do it, and she'll never know.
She's demanding of your time and has a meltdown if you can't accommodate her.
How to Deal: Sit down with her and tell her that, while you love her, you can't be available
to her 24/7, 365. Ask your mom how often she thinks is reasonable for you two to hang out or
catch up, and then work with that. Maybe all she wants is a regular "date" with you. Once you
decide on something, make her stick to it. So, if she starts harassing you about not being able
to hang out on a Monday, tell her you're busy, but you'll see her at your regular Thursday
night dinner.
She texts and calls you like crazy, and says you're a bad friend if you don't drop
everything when she needs you (which is pretty much every day).
How to Deal: It's time to slowly get rid of her which, we know can be tricky when she's in
your circle of friends. Whatever you do, don't respond when she gets crazy over text. If she
calls you a bad friend, tell her that her behavior is pushing you away or just ignore her
altogether. You don't need someone like that in your life.
She needs constant hand-holding (especially after work hours) and can't cope when she
doesn't get it.
How to Deal: Our advice: Start looking for a new job. She won't change the way she treats
you, and unfortunately, she's calling the shots right now. In the meantime, tell her you don't
get work email on your phone. She'll have to think twice about actually calling you at 10 p.m.
vs. firing off a demanding email.
The high maintenance man or woman is the layman's term for someone with a Cluster B
(antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, or borderline) personality disorder or a subclinical
version with those traits.
Notable quotes:
"... The 5 second solution: "How do you intend to solve that problem?" Teach your employees to come to you with ideas and solutions for your feedback, but that your door and inbox are not open for dropping their challenges into your lap. ..."
"... The 5 second solution: React to the bigger issue at hand, to avoid being pulled into the daily tug and pull of keeping an oversized ego at bay. David Williams outlines four steps for taming an ego here . ..."
"... The 5 second solution: Teach your team to avoid "upward delegation" – that their responsibility is to handle their job, not to hand pieces of it back to the boss, or heaven forbid, to the client. ..."
"... The 5 second solution: As a leader, you do individuals locked into the "blame game" a favor by not playing into the negativity dialogue. "I'm sorry that happened. But you're here now – we appreciate and respect you – and we have work to do." ..."
"... The 5 second solution: Don't provide one. Listen freely to collaboration and ideas -- but avoid feeding someone's need to "make the rounds" at the office to mire in the anguishing complaints about their challenging tasks and accounts. ..."
"... The 5 Second solution: let the drama begin and end in HR. In the agency world, one individual became so adept at working the system, even a day off required a phone appointment with HR to "hash out a few issues." It was a wake up call for us all – for a chronically high maintenance person, even their days away from the office can produce a negative energy drain. Let HR handle the situation–but when someone becomes a near full time issue, it's a sure sign their high maintenance is an issue the company will need to address. ..."
"... The 5 Second solution: Discipline yourself to be a company that covers its own expenses, and spend only what the business can afford to pay for in cash. The environment of discipline as opposed to the perpetual anxiety for "more" can carry over to help employees learn to manage their personal expenses better as well. In any case, work to prevent employees from making the office a perpetual sounding board for their personal "woes." ..."
"... The 5 Second solution: To keep these behaviors from derailing their company culture, the best example must come from the top. A leader who avoids flaunting material status and is willing to do for the company what is expected of others does a great deal to enhance the working culture for all. ..."
"... The 5 second solution: Learn to set and maintain appropriate boundaries with these personality types. As a reminder to all in a company, great people talk about ideas -- but small people focus their talk on other people or "things". Change the subject as many times as needed until the idea of a higher level of thinking and acting can thrive. ..."
"... The 5 Second solution: Generally, in a case like this, there is direct intervention required. Remind the individual that if they can't respect the boss and someone must leave generally, it won't be the boss. Find a constructive way to address what ails you–change the trend for the better–get along–or consider a move or a change for the long term. But in the world of business, undermining the boss will hurt the perpetrator far more than the target, even if the resentment is justified. ..."
David Williams'
Confessions of a High Maintenance CEO is making me laugh (somewhat in humor, but also in
guilt.) Most CEOs are high maintenance. However, most every business has been riddled at one
time or another with the issues of chronically (and negatively) high maintenance people at
work.
These situations are not the ebb and flow of creative energy, but the result of unhealthy
people producing a toxic energy drain. High maintenance people can also be overwhelming as
friends. Ironically, their tendency to lose friends contributes even further to their
inclination to latch onto "people targets" at work.
Courtesy of columnist Ayanna
Guyhto , here are the 13 unlucky signs of negative high maintenance followed by a few of
the methods you can use to reduce the drain of "people debt" on your company's energy level and
bottom line:
1 -They have urgent "needs." To a high maintenance personality, everything is urgent. Every
piece of email needs to be copied to someone in authority and every action needs to be passed
by the boss before they proceed.
The 5 second solution: "How do you intend to solve that problem?" Teach your employees
to come to you with ideas and solutions for your feedback, but that your door and inbox are
not open for dropping their challenges into your lap.
2 – They have a sense of entitlement. Everyone deserves to be treated with equal
respect. The high maintenance individual will expect more. When this happens, there's generally
an unhealthy level of ego at play.
The 5 second solution: React to the bigger issue at hand, to avoid being pulled into
the daily tug and pull of keeping an oversized ego at bay. David Williams outlines four steps for taming an
ego
here .
3 – They could be self-sufficient. But they're not. The task could be as simple as
looking up an email address, retrieving a file, or looking up a bit of needed information over
the web. But this person feels more engaged and important by making continual requests for
service from others, including the boss.
The 5 second solution: Teach your team to avoid "upward delegation" – that their
responsibility is to handle their job, not to hand pieces of it back to the boss, or heaven
forbid, to the client.
4 – They cling to stories of personal wrongs from the past. The high maintenance
individual has a difficult time moving past real or imagined wrongs of the past. The faults of
others become a script that plays over and over as justification for extra support, lower work
expectations, or greater entitlements now.
The 5 second solution: As a leader, you do individuals locked into the "blame game" a
favor by not playing into the negativity dialogue. "I'm sorry that happened. But you're here
now – we appreciate and respect you – and we have work to do."
5 – They talk. A lot. The high maintenance person thrives on attention. They have a
continual need for others to serve as their sounding boards. While discussion and brainstorming
is necessary and healthy, high maintenance people feel the need to use their co-workers as ad
hoc life advisors and coaches; however they have little desire or motivation to actually hear
and take the advice they receive. Mostly, they crave a listening ear.
The 5 second solution: Don't provide one. Listen freely to collaboration and ideas --
but avoid feeding someone's need to "make the rounds" at the office to mire in the anguishing
complaints about their challenging tasks and accounts.
6 – They are seldom satisfied. High maintenance people will see the flaws in every
situation. Even when they've been given extra care and attention, they will invariably find
something wrong with the solution or service they've received, or will feel the need to ask for
an additional "adjustment" in order to gratify their need to feel validated and served.
7 – They are high-strung. Not all high-strung people are high maintenance. But the
person with excessive needs will be persistently vocal and anxious about the things they
require. Again – it's a dependency you shouldn't encourage or feed.
8 – They live in a state of perpetual drama. If you are around a high maintenance
person for an extended period of time, you will observe frequent periods of meltdown during the
course of the day. Every small inconvenience or mistake becomes a crisis. They will learn to
work the internal HR system heavily at every turn.
The 5 Second solution: let the drama begin and end in HR. In the agency world, one
individual became so adept at working the system, even a day off required a phone appointment
with HR to "hash out a few issues." It was a wake up call for us all – for a
chronically high maintenance person, even their days away from the office can produce a
negative energy drain. Let HR handle the situation–but when someone becomes a near full
time issue, it's a sure sign their high maintenance is an issue the company will need to
address.
9 – They handle money poorly. Regardless of the economy or circumstance, high
maintenance people are perpetually in debt. No matter their income, their living expenditures
and needs are invariably more. They expend an exceptional amount of stress and energy dealing
with past due accounts and the perpetual juggling act to use this month's income to cover last
month's bills.
The 5 Second solution: Discipline yourself to be a company that covers its own
expenses, and spend only what the business can afford to pay for in cash. The environment of
discipline as opposed to the perpetual anxiety for "more" can carry over to help employees
learn to manage their personal expenses better as well. In any case, work to prevent
employees from making the office a perpetual sounding board for their personal
"woes."
10 – They place a high importance on material status. The entitlement aspect of high
maintenance people leads them to be keenly focused on the belongings or the status of others as
well. This trait can infect the highest people in the organization, such as the CEO who demands
that every company event include the provision of free upgrades and presidential suites at no
additional cost. Ironically, the focus on material possessions and status is actually the sign
of insecurity and of a low self-esteem.
The 5 Second solution: To keep these behaviors from derailing their company culture,
the best example must come from the top. A leader who avoids flaunting material status and is
willing to do for the company what is expected of others does a great deal to enhance the
working culture for all.
11 – They are obsessed with details–theirs and yours. They are highly focused on
the too-much-information and none-of-your-business particulars of your life and also of
theirs.
The 5 second solution: Learn to set and maintain appropriate boundaries with these
personality types. As a reminder to all in a company, great people talk about ideas -- but
small people focus their talk on other people or "things". Change the subject as many times
as needed until the idea of a higher level of thinking and acting can thrive.
12 – They seem "unsettled." The high maintenance person is constantly ill at ease,
buying, altering or discarding possessions and complaining about their work or living
conditions. The details that are non-issues to others are insurmountable hurdles to them.
Happiness perpetually evades them.
13 – They resent authority are often critical of others. It is extremely difficult for
these individuals to respect authority or to see the bigger picture. Instead, they hold fast to
their opinions of the support they need and the credit they should receive in order to fulfill
their assignments. Passive aggressive behavior is paramount (undermining the boss by spreading
unrest or ill will – often veiling the bad behavior in an aura of superiority or
nobility).
The 5 Second solution: Generally, in a case like this, there is direct intervention
required. Remind the individual that if they can't respect the boss and someone must leave
generally, it won't be the boss. Find a constructive way to address what ails
you–change the trend for the better–get along–or consider a move or a
change for the long term. But in the world of business, undermining the boss will hurt the
perpetrator far more than the target, even if the resentment is justified.
By now you should be detecting a pattern of traits so apparent they are even humorous.
As an employer, however, I'm not laughing -- I'm recognizing that much of the impetus lies
with the boss or employer to vet prospective employees for emotional maturity (what author Dan
Goleman refers to as "Emotional IQ") in making great hires. Alan Hall gives great advice on hiring as well, in his
Forbes article and eBook the
7 C's: How to Find and Hire Great Employees .
Responsibility lies with the company to create and reinforce a positive culture. Do you have
a working environment that allows bad behaviors to take hold and fester? Do you actively feed
and reward the positive behaviors? Do you set a good example yourself?
If your company is already infected, you should deal with the situation directly. In some
cases, you may succeed in helping these individuals to find their better nature and make a
positive change. Nothing is more rewarding than turning a negative pattern around. However, in
some cases the toxicity may be so deeply embedded that the only way to deal effectively is to
simply refuse to engage. You will need to be firm. You may even need to part ways.
Have you had this experience? I imagine the answer is "yes." I look forward to hearing your
stories and hearing about your success.
Jobs is another significant stress on modern marriage...
Notable quotes:
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 297 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser, what we've accomplished in the last year and our current goal, more meetups and travel . ..."
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... The "young woman with crusty old rich guy" is so common it's a cliché. ..."
"... The tactic is only going to sway a portion of the cultural warriors, because a lot of them are arguing in bad faith. ..."
Yves here. Bill Black's article is well timed as well as important. Tonight, the Wall Street
Journal was flogging "Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage," adapted from a new book, which
argues that young men aren't getting married because it's so easy for them to get laid. Black
takes on this effort to try to present good old fashioned moralism as the remedy for deeper
economic problems in his next column in this series, so let me have a mini-go at its first.
It does not appear to occur to author Mark Regnerus that young women might be the ones who
aren't so keen to get married, due among other things to the widely reported immaturity of
young men. Moreover, there are now more women than men graduating from college and law schools
than men. Women are acculturated to marrying up or at worst sideways, income-wise. Might
another problem be a shortage of sufficiently-desirable partners?
The book's findings are also at odds with trends that have been widely reported: more young
people, particularly young men, being less keen about having casual sex; the number of sex
partners among young people falling and the age when young people on average start having sex
rising. Admittedly, some of this change has been attributed to smart phones degrading social
skills to the point that it apparently makes young people less adept at flirting and
seduction.
To give an idea of the caliber of this alleged research, this was the only argument
presented to counter the notion that young people aren't getting married because many aren't
making enough to set up households:
A May 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, focusing on regions
enriched by the fracking boom, found that increased wages in those places did nothing to
boost marriage rates.
Help me. What do you think mining boom towns are like? Answer: they bring in a lot of men,
from engineers (yes, petroleum engineers skew male) and oil industry workers like derrickhands.
They do risky physical work and are paid well. But most of the men are transients, and aren't
looking to stay and marry local women. Moreover, the influx of men skews the gender ratio,
putting the men who are interested in getting married at a disadvantage from a dating
perspective (if you think men who want to get laid can't fake romantic interest, I have a
bridge I'd like to sell you).
Even though the book claims to be based on exhaustive work, all you need to do is have a
gander through the underlying study to see it screams bias. As we've regularly reminded
readers, survey instruments are very sensitive to the order and phrasing of questions.
The first section is about religion. Not exactly subtle about what the researchers think
matters. And while generalizing from one's social circle falls into the "data is not the plural
of anecdote" fallacy, I consider my peer group to be stodgy, yet this study say the number of
sex partners I know many of my friends (male and female) have had puts them at the far end of
the spectrum of this study.
Put it another way: in the 1950s, before birth control, Kinsey found that the average man
reported having had six sex partners and the average woman, three. This would seem to be
impossible unless you have gay men having sex way way out of proportion to the general
population (which as far as I can tell, they do, but even so, not enough to fully account for
this difference), and/or men overstating and women understating their histories, and/or men and
women having different ideas of what constitutes having had sex with someone else.
So what has this study found about our modern era where people are supposedly having way too
much casual sex? On p. 23:
The median heterosexual man or woman (age 18 to 60) reports somewhere between four and six
opposite sex partners in their lifetime.
This is in line with what Kinsey found in the stone ages before The Pill. So exactly where
is all this casual sex that is leading to the handwringing? Either it's not happening despite
birth control (doubtful) or the sample for this study, despite its size, is crap.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of
Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New
Economic Perspectives
The University of Missouri – Kansas City recently hosted the first conference on
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and a closely associated idea, a federally-backed job guarantee
for everyone willing and able to work. On September 25, 2017, the New York Times
published an article exemplifying one of the applications of the job guarantee that would
provide a win-win that should unite anyone interested in strengthening the family. The
title is "How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?" Claire Cain Miller authored the
column, and her key takeaway are in these two passages.
Fewer Americans are marrying over all, and whether they do so is more tied to
socioeconomic status than ever before. In recent years, marriage has sharply declined among
people without college degrees, while staying steady among college graduates with higher
incomes.
Americans across the income spectrum still highly value marriage, sociologists have found.
But while it used to be a marker of adulthood, now it is something more wait to do until the
other pieces of adulthood are in place -- especially
financial stability . For people with less education and lower earnings, that might never
happen.
These facts establish an obvious policy that could unite the public. The combination of MMT
full employment policies and the job guarantee is the best way to strengthen family financial
stability. The United States, which has a sovereign currency, can do that. The European Union
nations that lack a sovereign currency will frequently be unable to do so. Jobs, not simply
income, are essential to many humans' happiness and sense of self-worth. Unemployed American
men, for example, do less housework than do employed American men. Businesses are deeply
reluctant to hire the unemployed, particularly if they have been unemployed for any significant
time. The cliché of males responding to unemployment through depression has considerable
truth.
Miller's article notes that there is an unproductive split between conservatives and
progressives about how to strengthen families. Conservatives tend to claim that the problem is
cultural. Progressives generally agree that culture is important but note that the surest and
quickest way to make productive changes in culture is frequently economic. Progressives oppose
conservatives' punitive and authoritarian policies that purport to change culture and note that
they have failed. Miller correctly notes that the economics and culture are closely
interrelated.
Conservatives deeply resent safety net programs in which the recipients are able to work but
decline to do so. The complementary steps to run a consistent full-employment program are to
follow MMT principles with an employer-of-last-resort job guarantee program. The job guarantee
does not merely guarantee that anyone willing and able to work in the government or non-profit
sectors can do so; it finesses the disinclination of private sector employers to hire the
unemployed. We can provide a full employment economy with rates of inflation so low that even
(very conservative) central bankers consider desirable , not simply acceptable.
The job guarantee program would also allow us to close one the great perception gulfs
between progressives and Trump's supporters. Trumps supporters believe that disfavored
minorities prefer not to work and live on the dole. Progressives believe the opposite. The jobs
guarantee would provide the definitive test that could end any debate and replace perceptions
with an easily observable reality. The job guarantee test has the potential to do what female
employment in World War II did – destroy prejudiced myths that 'everyone' knew were true.
It turned out that women could do a massive array of jobs and that they were interested in
doing so.
The Themes of this Series of Columns
This column is the first of three related columns on the general topic of the conservatives'
culture wars in which the family is ground zero. I develop several themes. First, that their
culture war is rests on false premises. There are win-wins available, particularly through the
job guarantee and MMT that allow great progress in strengthening the family. Progressives would
be delighted to work with conservatives to implement these winning strategies.
Second, the policies that the conservative culture warriors are pushing rest on bogus
claims. They also fail.
Third, the policies that the conservative culture warriors are pushing are nasty. They
represent authoritarian, dogmatic, and bigoted pathologies that have long disgraced
America.
Fourth, the conservative culture warriors do not address most of the critical problems
Americans and others face. They religiously ignore the cultural/ethical problems of
conservative elites and the Republican Party and the harm that these cultural/ethical problems
inflict on Americans and the peoples and creatures of the world. The culture warriors
overwhelmingly support and assist Republicans implementing pathological policies arising from
these cultural/ethical problems. Those pathological policies channel the most disgraceful
American traditions.
Fifth, the conservative culture warriors religiously refuse to join progressives and others
in embracing cultural values the conservatives purport to treasure even though there is an
obvious potential for broad consensus on a broad range of cultural and ethical views and
policies that represent the very best of American traditions. The conservative culture warriors
are hypocrites who want a culture war that energizes the worst elements of their base even
though they know that the result will be to degrade American values and practices and cause
immense harm to the "other."
Other Win-Wins We Can Implement to Strengthen Families
We could build on these win-wins by getting rid of federal subsidies to places that are not
real colleges – the scores of fraudulent for-profit schools. Fraudulent for-profit
schools do not provide the benefits to employment and marriage that real public and non-profit
community colleges, colleges, and universities provide. This reform would also greatly reduce
eventual losses due to student loan defaults.
Conservative culture warriors that run the Education Department are racing to prevent
sanctions against these fraudulent schools. Other conservative culture warriors applaud this
obscenity.
We could create another win-win by providing real sex education (rather than the sham of
"just say no") and provide ready access to contraceptives including the morning after pill to
poorer women. All of these reforms reduce considerably births outside of wedlock. Conservative
culture warriors in the Trump administration are trying to eliminate these successful programs
– and the conservative culture warriors outside the administration are cheerleaders for
the travesty.
A win-win policy that has been shown to be exceptionally effective is the provision for home
visits by specially trained nurses to new moms who are most at risk of being overwhelmed. The
nurses explain and demonstrate, for example, the importance of moms talking pervasively to
their infants. The Trump administration's culture warriors targeted the program for elimination
because it is successful. Conservative culture warriors know the program works, but refuse to
oppose their fellow warriors.
Even When the Culture Warriors Talk Economics They Get it Wrong
"Financial stability" is the key concept, one that "pro-marriage" cultural warriors and weak
economists have repeatedly failed to comprehend. Their typical "analysis" goes like this
– if poor women would only marry their boyfriends, they would have materially larger
income and only modestly larger living household expenses. (Their analysis almost invariably
purports to describe the marriage decisions of poorer, heterosexual women, so I address that
context.) The simplistic idea is that adding the male's income to that of the poor woman means
that she and her children must be better off. The only slightly less simplistic version of this
claim is that married couples tend to have stronger economic results than do the unmarried.
Both arguments ignore the most important and fundamental applicable principle of finance
– risk. Fortunately, poor women apply a more sophisticated analysis to the question of
marriage than do these economists.
Risk, as most poor women understand, is the key. It is not sufficient that the male, on the
average day, would be a source of financial strength, particularly if the mother has children.
If the male does not have stable income, creates a material risk of increased expenses, or both
he is a threat to financial stability that can put the mom and her child at grave risk. One car
accident while impaired or even tripping on the stairs while impaired and breaking a leg can
put the household in a financial crisis. The typical working class household has under $400 in
savings. Even if they have auto and medical insurance, the deductible plus the loss of work due
to the injury or wrecking the auto can instantly hurl the household's financial stability into
a desperate crisis. If the male's job is unstable with material periods of unemployment or
underemployment the household is made more unstable. If the male becomes depressed when these
episodes occur the financial and family instability increase greatly.
If the male has expensive tastes for non-essential goods or if he has a substance abuse
problem, he makes the household more unstable financially and in terms of safety for mom and
her kids. If the male is violent or hostile towards mom or her kids, or indifferent or
unreliable in providing childcare he makes the household more dangerous and unstable.
It is impossible to "hold constant" for these factors in an empirical test. Heterosexual
moms are in the best position to judge the strengths and frailties of potential male mates. If
the man is interested in marrying her, and seems to the primitive economist to add to the
household's total wealth, and she does not want to marry him the logical inference is that she
has a reason for her unwillingness. The types of risks I have explained are realistic examples
of those reasons. In statistical jargon, they represent "unobserved differences" –
unobserved by the researcher who cannot "hold constant" for them, but observed by the
heterosexual women making the decisions whether to marry a particular man.
The job guarantee does not eliminate many of the risks I have described. It would improve
job and income stability, particularly for working class males. That would be unambiguously
good for men, women, the economy, and our culture. The ability to run a real world test that
demonstrated that disfavored minorities do want to work could reduce bigotry and our cultural
and political divisions.
In my second column in this series, I criticize Mark Regnerus' false assertion that working
class male employment stability is unrelated to women's decisions whether to marry. Miller's
column provides a useful corrective.
In a working paper
published in July, three economists studied how the decline in manufacturing jobs from 1990
to 2014, across industries and regions, "contributed to the rapid, simultaneous decline of
traditional household structures."
Labor market changes made men less marriageable, they concluded. There were fewer
available men, because unemployment was associated with a rise in incarceration or mortality
from drugs and alcohol. The men who were left were less desirable, because they lacked income
and were more likely to drink to excess or use drugs.
Researchers found a corresponding increase in births to unmarried mothers. The decline in
marriage was not offset by more couples living together.
***
Never-married adults cite financial instability as a major reason for being single,
especially those who are low-income or under 30, according to a new
Pew Research Center survey . Most men feel it's important for a husband to be a financial
provider, especially men without college degrees, according to another new
Pne ew survey .
Women, meanwhile, have learned from watching a generation of divorce that they need to be
able to support themselves. And many working-class women aren't interested in taking
responsibility for a man without a job.
"They say, 'If he's not offering money or assets, why make it legal?' " said June Carbone,
a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the author with Naomi Cahn of "Marriage
Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family."
(June Carbone is the inaugural holder of the Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology at
the University of Minnesota's Law School. She is also my spouse.)
PS
Carbone notes that marriages in which both couples have at least college degrees have vastly
lower divorce rates. If you are in college and contemplating marriage after graduation do not
assume that you are doomed to a high risk of divorce.
What Yves states in the foreword and Black states in the article is so obvious as to be
head slapping as to why other "experts" don't see it. How can an economist or scholar argue
that marriage would always be a virtue and not take into account decisions at the
relationship level that Black nicely outlines here? Are these not the same so called
"experts" touting a philosophy of markets being rational because of a series of individual
choices within them? Obviously the decision to forgo marriage is a rational one.
Perhaps I'm the one who is too naive and "experts" must double down on blaming the victim
of policy so that they can continue dumping on victims with increasingly bad policy.
Ideologues always reach the same conclusion. You can have them make an argument, show them
that the facts they had were wrong and showed the opposite, and their response is to
reformulate the argument to reach the original conclusion.
Another related issue is that a lot of these men have atrociously bad credit. I know at
least one person who hasn't married her baby-daddy because his credit is off-the-wall bad (he
mostly uses prepaid debit cards to avoid taxes and back child support).
And there is the second reason not to marry him.. avoiding child support is not exactly a
good sign of reliability. I know a few anecdotes that work for cash because of such
situations.
The child support system is a strong disinsentive against men to even have relatonsips.
There are cases where men have been ordered to pay child support, even if its not their
child, or having as much as 90% of their wages garnished. I know a man where his two boys
have moved out of their mom's and are now living on their own. One even being in he US Marine
core – and he STILL has to pay child support.
The current system is to easy to abuse. Incresng risk for men. There only real option
these days is to no longer play the game.
This is exactly the point I am making below. The article and comment by Yves is written as
if there is risk on only ONE side that needs to be "managed" when there is actually risk on
both.
If it is "ok" now to think of these matters in purely economic terms, why should men
accept any risk either? Instead of "hiring" what amounts to a full time "sex/support"
employee, why not simply contract for the services you need on an a la carte basis?
Need someone to pretend to care about your problems? Go talk to a therapist at
$100/hr.
Krugman had a nice turn of phrase a while back, something like, why do conservatives not
consider that social breakdown isn't causing unemployment, but that unemployment is causing
social breakdown?
I think we should consider the case for moving from a full employment economy with a
welfare state to "free markets" would lead to greater "responsibility" to be falsified. Ppl
can't take up responsibilities without an income.
"Women are acculturated to marrying up or at worst sideways, income-wise. Might another
problem be a shortage of sufficiently-desirable partners?"
"They say, 'If he's not offering money or assets, why make it legal?' "
So this is ok? Women are acculturated to be gold diggers and that's that? Doesn't this
flirt with blaming the victim? Might this also not be a problem the in same way men are
acculturated to prefer young, bone thin models?
Perhaps there are a number of men who have seen this dynamic at work and are choosing to
stay single since the only factor that seems to actually matter is our income level.
Put another way, why would I want to marry someone who is most likely going to leave for
greener pastures the moment my career takes a turn for the worse?
Although actual gold-diggers are rare, I think there's a cultural lag on the part of many
women. They want to make their own money, as they should, but still want a man to make
more.
Rare? C'mon rojo. The "young woman with crusty old rich guy" is so common it's a
cliché. See one Hefner, Hugh. You really think if he had been a local schoolteacher
that those women would agree to put up with his nonsense?
I would consider Playmates to be pretty rare. Most women I know do have more of an "income
line" than most of my guy pals. But the straight-up rich-guy anglers are the minority.
The "young woman with crusty old rich guy" is so common it's a
cliché.
Lessee, other cliches -- 'woman driver' oh, that one doesn't work anymore. Maybe 'ditzy
girl'. No, not that one. How about 'dumb blonde'? OK, not that either. I forget, what were
you trying to prove by citing 'cliche'? And I'm still keeping this family-bloggable.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! If offspring are contemplated (by either party), then it is usual for
the female to spend at least some time with the new little creature, and it may be medically
necessary -- childbirth is still not a piece of cake. As well, the current thought is that
parent-child bonding or whatever socializes the little critters so they don't become
psychopaths -- seems like a good idea to me.
Now, in my country, Canada, we are guaranteed 17 weeks of maternal leave, plus 17 weeks of
parental leave (both parents can take it) and adoptions are included (slightly less time,
IIRC), so around 35+17 = 52 weeks off to care for your child. That's not all paid, very
little is, but you get your old job back, guaranteed. However, you're still gonna need bucks,
so it's nice if there is one income coming in while the other parent, um, parents.
US-ians, benighted country that you live in, do not have any such thing and any woman
contemplating having children would be a poor mother indeed to not provide for her child This
is not gold-digging, it's just rational acting.
In my family, my mother's college-educated farmer father, had a mantra regarding women and
professions. He said, every woman should have a profession so she'll never have to marry to
live. His daughters went to college to become teachers. His granddaughters went to college,
his granddaughters, great grands, 2Gs on track.
Any woman with children knows she may become the primary or sole breadwinner in her
household. Unless she is a complete fool or exceedingly wealthy.
Tribes affiliated with conservative religious practice should require their church to
provide support for abandoned or abuse wives & children in their Churches. Let Graham,
Osteen, et al pony up Support money, health insurance, etc for female adherents in poverty
owing to following their advice regarding birth control & selection criteria for
spouses.
The tactic is only going to sway a portion of the cultural warriors, because a lot of them
are arguing in bad faith. Ignoring even the ethno-nationalist cultural warriors who aren't
interested in traditional religious values, many of the traditional values CW's, especially
those in positions of power, are just using that argument as apologetics for the economic
failings of the system. Blame loose morals, homosexuality, and lack of religiousity for
stagnant wages, opioid abuse, un- and under-employment, as to create a cover for the free
market, shareholder value, wealth hoarding, etc. So it's not enough to just make appeals to
the true believers, but enlighten them to the fact that many of their so-called peers are
wolves in sheeps' clothing.
The University of Missouri – Kansas City recently hosted the first conference on
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and a closely associated idea, a federally-backed job
guarantee for everyone willing and able to work.
I'm going to flog this point one more time. It is a logical fallacy and, more to the
point, a potential distraction to link MMT and progressive issues.
Aside from the purely academic discussion, we most often see MMT raised to answer
questions such as:
How can we fund job guarantees, universal health care, better public education, etc.?
Let me point out that MMT can also answer the question:
How can we fund greater military adventurism, a more effective and intrusive surveillance
state, pork projects and tax cuts for the politically favored?
Progressive policy issues will not be advanced by a change in the accounting rules.
Progressive policy issues will ultimately only be advanced by promoting and electing people
who support progressive policy issues.
MMT is both a fiscal model and a budgeting/planning tool. Like any tool, it can be used
for good or for ill depending on who wields it
Steve Randy Waldman had this article from a few years ago on this subject: "Marriage
promotion is a destructive cargo cult". Title maybe a bit OTT but IMHO definitely worth a
read even if he goes the UBI route rather than the JG one.
Maybe policy ought to consider universal healthcare at an affordable rate to the economy
(ie less than 12% of GDP). Extending universal education to 16 years seems reasonable, too.
BTW everyone ought to have basic training in real home economics and health even within a
college prep program. Plumbing, electrical, construction, gardening, child rearing, cooking,
etc. are real skills that contribute to health and well being.
Andy S.
The UMKC scholars who have advocated the dissemination of information about the Chartalist
aspects of the dollar system since the abandonment of Bretton Woods have done so from a
position of principled progressivisim, they advocate the work they have done for progressive
reasons.
I agree entirely on the moral neutrality of tools, what can be used for good can be used
for bad. The essential issue at play here is the Chartailist reality now described by these
scholars to define the policy space available for progressive causes has been well understood
by the MIC and FIRE sectors of the economy since 1971. They have profited grotesquely while
pauperizing the nation under a deliberately propagandized attack on "government debt" for any
purpose other than their own enrichment.
Progressives won't have material successes until progressive efforts are funded. The
recognition that the US Govt can purchase whatever is for sale within the dollar denominated
world system at no cost to itself simply by paying for it must be applied again to public
goods rather than war mongering and financial speculation. This won't happen until people
understand what money is to a sovereign issuer.
Yes, also any bastard who takes hold of the system, like our last half dozen presidents,
can use it for Forever War and to guarantee rentier income. But the policy space for
progressivism must be staked out according to the terms of the actual, existing, function
monetary system through which policy will be deployed and through which, once understood, the
incredible waste of the last 4 decades can be exposed.
"Put it another way: in the 1950s, before birth control, Kinsey found that the average man
reported having had six sex partners and the average woman, three. This would seem to be
impossible unless you have gay men having sex way way out of proportion to the general
population (which as far as I can tell, they do, but even so, not enough to fully account for
this difference), and/or men overstating and women understating their histories, and/or men
and women having different ideas of what constitutes having had sex with someone else."
Could this also be due to prostitution? I mean if more than a few of the men have one or
two pro's in the their totals, but you don't include prostitutes in your sampling (and how
many of them are going to answer a survey), they you'd get a skew.
In these modern times where one or both members of a couple may have experienced one or
more divorce among their parents marriage may not be seen in quite as rosy a light as it once
was. Most people are aware that "happily ever after" is not a sure thing so why be in a rush
to enter the matrimonial state?
As an anecdatum I'll offer that my wife and I (both of us with divorced parents,
university grads, career Federal civil service, no children nor desire for them) have been
together just under 40 years but only married for the last 10. We were fine with our
unmarried status, what prompted the change was when we started doing planning for our modest
estate. The attorney we were seeing pointed out that the process would be greatly simplified
if we just got married, and since we had no significant objections either way we did
that.
There was no big change in our lives other than having another anniversary to celebrate,
mainly just some legal/financial benefits.
So while there may be some correlation that can be drawn between marital status and
economic status, I'm not sure how much causality can be established.
yalensis says:
July 17, 2017 at 3:29 pm Mark: Blame me, I was the one who urged everybody to
engage and fight against Matt.
Against those who said, "Ach Gewahlte, just ignore this noodge "
People can disagree with my reasoning, but I figured if somebody shows up
spoling for a fight, then they should get what they ask for.
It's like, if you were in a space station, and an energetic monster suddenly
starts zipping around acting hostile, then you should take note and not ignore
it.
Which is
another plug for one of my blogposts, a movie review.
Sorry, I coundn't resist!
As Blanche Dubois used to say: "Attention must be paid."
The best book for any person who wants to understand how ... , February 29, 2016
The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win (Paperback)
The best book for any person who wants to understand how American Courts work! At times we all
ask questions like "How can this criminal get off on technicalities if it is obvious that he/she
committed crime?", or "How can this be fair?" or "How can a lawyer defend this "bad guy/girl"?
This is totally wrong! He/she is a criminal!" The author explains the difference between law and
common sense, law and ethics, understanding of crime in legal terms and in laymen words.The book
closely examines the logical reasoning of the law professionals , demonstrating the "tricks" used
in court rooms. Fascinating reading!!!
WARNING: the book will not prepare you to go to court and
defend your case! This is not a "how-to" manual for folks who are planning to go to court. Hire
a lawyer if need be.
However, if you want to learn how to present and defend your point (any point, not just legal
issues) as an intelligent and convincing person, this book is for you! Chances are, by the time
you are done with debating your next case, your opponents will at least respect your opinion (or
hate your guts, which still might give you some satisfaction).
This book is for anyone who wants to boost up their skills in logical persuasion, finding loopholes
in opponent's logical reasoning.
Lots of interesting and valuable information for a pretty small price! It is written in a short
and clear format: each chapter discusses specific idea, giving examples from court cases and average
daily life (parent-child, husband-wife, employee-supervisor), concluding with a practical application
summary argument vs. counterargument.
So, no reason to read the entire book from beginning to end. One can just pick any chapter
and read about how this or that legal (logical) rule can be applied in daily life.
The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight. Gaslighting
describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme anxiety
and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic, reason
and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies in the
US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture or interrogation.
Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual
information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate.
This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing
them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their
abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.
Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim.
It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious
over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be
overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.
" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete
control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~
Alex Myles
Three Stages of Gaslighting
Stage One: The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions
of the abuser, a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion
and ingratiating propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine
it, creating situations and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement.
Eventually the victim will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to
restore their sense of reality which is in fact that of the abuser.
Stage Two: The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the
victim, not only from their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They
are made to feel that their opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political
circles they would be labelled a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence,
the victim will withdraw from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement
or punishment.
This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by
psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds
the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via
regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue
the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms
to gain and maintain control.
Stage Three: The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist
drives the victim into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance.
They, ultimately exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser
deems suitable or relevant. This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence.
The process is complete and the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers
creation of a very distorted reality.
Exceptionalism or Narcissism?
We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .
Listed below is the Hare
Psychopathy
Checklist
-Revised, a diagnostic tool used to identify
psychopathic traits.
It was compiled by Dr. Robert Hare, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the
University of British Columbia, where he has taught and conducted research for
more than four decades, devoting most of his academic career to the study of
psychopathy
.
Dr. Hare created the
psychopathy checklist
as a tool to
determine the length of stay for criminals in prison. It's obvious that the
degree of
psychopathic traits
present in criminals would play a
deciding factor on the length of stay. Dr. Hare ranks each trait on a scale of
0-3. For example, if a prisoner ranks 1 on all 20 traits, then he or she would
rank 20. Someone who ranks a 3 on all 20 traits would receive a score of 60 and
would probably receive a longer length of stay in prison.
Dr. Hare spends much time with each prisoner and consequently, scores them to
his best abilities. But even to Dr. Hare's own chagrin, he has been duped by many
psychopaths. With that in mind, please do not read through the traits and
instantly analyze everyone in your life. This information is meant to give you an
overview and it's something you can use as a tool to assess yourself and to use
wisely when assessing others.
The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised
GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM
- The tendency to be smooth,
engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in
the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never
gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about
taking turns in talking, for example.
GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH
- A grossly inflated view of one's
abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM
- An
excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances
and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have low self-discipline in
carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail
to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks
that they consider dull or routine.
PATHOLOGICAL LYING
- Can be moderate or high; in moderate
form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form,
they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and
dishonest.
CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS
- The use of deceit and
deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished
from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is
present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of
one's victims.
LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT
- A lack of feelings or concern
for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned,
dispassionate, cold-hearted, and non-empathic. This item is usually
demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
SHALLOW AFFECT
- Emotional poverty or a limited range or
depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open
gregariousness.
CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY
- A lack of feelings
toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
PARASITIC LIFESTYLE
- An intentional, manipulative,
selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack
of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete
responsibilities.
POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS
- Expressions of irritability,
annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate
control of anger and temper; acting hastily.
PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
- A variety of brief,
superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of
sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a
history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking
great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.
EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS
- A variety of behaviors prior to
age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity,
fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.
LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS
- An inability or
persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic
existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
IMPULSIVITY
- The occurrence of behaviors that are
unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation,
frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the
consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
IRRESPONSIBILITY
- Repeated failure to fulfill or honor
obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans,
performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor
contractual agreements.
FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS
- A
failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low
conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial
of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS
- A lack of
commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable,
and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
- Behavior problems between the ages
of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of
antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless
tough-mindedness.
REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE
- A revocation of
probation or other conditional releases due to technical violations, such as
carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.
CRIMINAL VERSATILITY
- A diversity of types of criminal
offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them;
taking great pride at getting away with crimes.The word psychopath can be
replaced with the word sociopath throughout this page. The meaning is very
similar, if not the same.
(I first posted this in 2014. It is
worthy of another posting.)
Back when I was a boy, I watched
entirely too much television. Of course,
who could blame me? Tempted by a luxuriant
three, count them, three channels, albeit
one of them fuzzy in bad weather, to choose
from! However, I do not regret watching
the
Early Show
on Channel 3. Back
in those bygone days, many stations would
run old movies from the thirties, forties
and fifties, between 3:00 PM-5:00 PM. Thus
I first experienced some of the classics of
cinema, and one of my favorites was
Double Indemnity
, 1944, the first of
the film noire genre. Adultery and murder
were perhaps too mature topics for me in my
initial pre-teen viewings, but I was
fascinated by it because it seemed to be a
playing out on screen of what I was
learning at the time from
The Baltimore
Catechism
: that sin will lead
inevitably to destruction unless contrition
and amendment are made. The film was
fortunate to have at its center three
masters of the craft of acting.
Fred MacMurray, born in Kankakee,
Illinois, 37 miles from my abode, in 1907,
was a good guy in real life and usually in
reel life. A firm Catholic and staunch
Republican, he tried to join the military
after Pearl Harbor but a punctured ear drum
kept him out of service. He adopted a
total of four kids with his two wives: his
first wife dying from cancer in 1953, and
his second wife remaining his wife until
his death. (Such fidelity was as rare in
Hollywood then as it is now.) On screen
MacMurray played to type and was almost
always a good guy, but not always, and it
is ironic that the two best performances
of his career came when he played bad
guys: weak, lustful and doomed Walter Neff
in
Double Indemnity
and the
scheming, cowardly Lieutenant Thomas
Keefer in
The Caine Mutiny
.
Barbara Stanwyck had a Dickensian
childhood from which she was lucky to
emerge alive, her mother dying of a
miscarriage and her father going off to
work on the Panama Canal and never being
heard from again. A series of foster homes
followed, which Ruby Catherine Stevens, as
Stanwyck was then named, constantly ran
away from. Dropping out of school at 14 to
begin working, she never looked back.
Breaking into show business by becoming a
dancer in the Ziegfield Follies at age 16,
she was a star on broadway in the play
Burlesque
before she turned 20.
Changing her name to Barbara Stanwyck, she
broke into films immediately thereafter,
displaying a flair for both drama and
comedy, specializing in strong independent
women. Her personal, as opposed to her
professional, life was a mess. Married in
1928 to her Burlesque co-star Frank Fay,
they adopted a son, Stanwyck having been
rendered sterile by an abortion at 15. The
marriage ended in divorce in 1935, Fay
during the marriage often slapping Stanwyck
around when he was drunk. Stanwyck got
custody of their son. Stanwyck was a
hovering and authoritarian mother, leading
to a life long alienation from her son
after he became an adult. Stanwyck married
actor Robert Taylor in 1939, and, after
numerous acts of infidelity on both sides,
divorced in 1950. Ironically Stanwyck and
Taylor did stay friends after their
divorce, Stanwyck, who never remarried,
referring to him as the true love of her
life. In her politics Stanwyck was a
staunch conservative Republican who
supported the investigations of Congress
into Communist infiltration into
Hollywood. Remaining in demand as an
actress almost until her death in 1990, she
filled her last years with charitable
work. Stanwyck was well equipped by her
own tumultuous life to give depth to her
portrayal of the murderous, scheming
Phyllis Dietrichson in
Double Indemnity
.
Although remembered today chiefly for
his gangster roles and his portrayal of the
rat-like Dathan in
The Ten
Commandments,
Edward G. Robinson was
actually an actor with a very broad range
of work: comedies, dramas, historical
epics, you name it. By 1944 he was age 51
and realized that his days as a leading man
were coming to a close. His half
comedic role as the insurance claims
adjuster Barton Keyes in
Double
Indemnity
he viewed as a step in his
transition to being a character actor.
Always a liberal, Robinson was blacklisted
in Hollywood due to his affiliation with
Communist front groups. Robinson admitted
as much by an article he wrote for the
American Legion Magazine
entitled "How
the Reds Made a Sucker Out of Me". His
comeback came when anti-Communist director
Cecil B. DeMille, who thought that Robinson
had been treated unfairly, cast him in the
scene-stealing role of Dathan in
The
Ten Commandments
.
"... After reading Zari's book just once, i gradually felt that much needed shift - the chapter 'Tactics Of Emotional Warfare' details a list of characteristics of the Narcissistic personality ..."
This book is a desperately needed wake up call to NS men needing fluorescent illumination
in the middle of "gaslight" and other
" I really identified with the "role reversal" and truth that there are men that suffer under
a female N's tactics. The severity and persistence of the female N is exposed brilliantly in this
book.
Having Zari identify the male as a victim of the narcissist is crucial to helping men break
free of the craziness, while also helping men identify why they feel so stuck loving the woman
they have committed their souls to.
Also crucial, is the chapter that breaks out the difficulty
of "no contact" when children are involved. While many N relationships share much in common, the
male NS suffers under societies prescribed male strengths, and serves to undermine the ability
of men to overcome being trapped.
Society typically has the female's back, especially narcissistic
women, as they are often the victims of stereotypical males (in real life and fictional portrayals).
Kudos to the Author for helping unlock the chains of this forbidden subject. There are, not undeservedly,
many explicatives used in this book. I believe the strong words are appropo representations of
the years of suffering and pain inflicted by the narcissist on their supply.
The author's insights
will likely help release many NS men from their prison within.
Jack
on December 11, 2015 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Need to get off the crazy train? This is your first stop!
" Guys, if your life is one gigantic roller coaster ride of being seduced, destroyed emotionally,
and then kicked to the curb when you say anything, then this is the place to start. If you're
looking at this review, then you know something in your relationship is slowly poisoning you to
death. It is NOT you! Wanna know why? Get the book!!!
Neal
on December 2, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Worth The Read
" If you have any questions about the patterns in your relationship this will help. More research
on narcissism and manipulation will be needed, but it offers some good advice about seeing more
clearly the issues that might lie hidden in the shade.
Men under pain by narc women deserved to get a book like this.
" I was married to a narc women for several years, and we share a daughter. I thank Zari Ballard
for this excellent account of how narc females move around in society, mostly unknown to other
people, friends and relatives who judge them just as "weird" or "arrogant".
In my case, I felt
like a man who was for years playing on a stage and with a choreography designed by my ex wife.
Now, thanks to books like this one, I can stand aside and *understand* what went on, and what
is currently going on. As a victim, narcissism makes you crazy, the more you delve into it to
understand it, the more you get tangled in the lies, distorted views of reality, crazy nonsense
"dialogues", etc.
I spent years married with a woman with whom I had no real dialogue, without
noticing it.
If you are a man in distress, and you feel some woman makes you feel miserable, please
read this book to go deep into the causes of your pain. Thanks Zari for your book, thanks from
the many men that suffer the pain inflicted by narcissistic women.
PF
on December 5, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
One of the best reads on Female Narcs out there
" This was an amazing read and helped me far more than even therapy. Zari has helped males
understand the Female Narc better than any of the myriad of books I have read on the subject.
Maxie
on May 17, 2015 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
This is a must read if you've been on "Mr Toad's Wild Ride" with one of these psychopaths at
the helm!
" After being systematically brainwashed then discarded, I educated myself by reading everything
I could get my hands on regarding Narcissism and Narcissist abuse, specifically male victims of
these pathological parasites.
I found the content of this book very insightful, helpful, and matter-of-fact.
Zari does not claim to be a doctor, teacher, or therapist. However, she provides a great insight
for surviving this painful ordeal with proven methods of healing from a former victim's prospective.
" An extraordinary, concise, at times darkly humorous and sobering road map to help you on
your way out of the long dark tunnel designed by the female Narcissist. I had suffered for over
a year in this kind of 'relationship', and after the discard was left tortured by self doubt,
depression, and confusion.
After reading Zari's book just once, i gradually felt that much needed
shift - the chapter 'Tactics Of Emotional Warfare' details a list of characteristics of the Narcissistic
personality, which left me feeling as though i had been exorcised by a friendly priest, leaving
me without a shadow of doubt that this was not something i had imagined, nor could have done anything
about.
By the second reading, (the very next day) that brick wall of denial slowly began to crumble,
allowing the undeniable facts to speak for themselves, and sink in. It's easy to feel alone in
times like these, perhaps your friends or family may not completely understand your pain, but Zari does - and I believe this book is the only friend you will need to guide you on your way
back to sanity.
JMT
on March 3, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Wow!!
" Amazing read. I've lived with a female narc for years and reading this made me fees as if
the writer was right there with me for MY story!
It's amazing how traumatic these people are.
Well written. I also really enjoyed another similar book "Surviving Sara" by Brian Morgan. Very
similar story and I can't help but few the pain these men went through.
"... this book is the first I have seen that really, truly provides answers and healing for victims. ..."
"... I believed I had brought this misfortune upon myself. What is worse, unless someone has been through what some of us have, they can't understand, and so one is left feeling adrift, lonely, confused and misunderstood. It is also very easy to turn to non-constructive ways to block, drown or diffuse the anguish one suffers after a relationship with a psychopath ends. ..."
"... I now understand what happened to me, and I now realize, through the power of the words and insights in Thomas Sheridan's book, that it was NOT my fault. I was targeted. I was intentionally used in the most despicable ways. And I am not alone. ..."
"... The term for these people who have no empathy, conscious and who prey on vulnerable, decent caring people is PSYCHOPATH. If any of you out there are having trouble recovering from such an ordeal you are not alone. ..."
"... I was a strong, intelligent and happy person until I was targeted by a female vampire..idealized, devalued and thrown in the garbage like a used napkin. It nearly brought me to suicide. But guess what....didnt happen...to bad for the psychopath...thats what they want ..."
"... I found them to be very useful despite the fact I had already encountered psychopathic people before, my first (to my knowledge) being in a relationship in 1997. When it collapsed, so did I. Why had someone been so cruel, dishonest and manipulative toward me? I didn't deserve to be treated this way. I then went on to learn a lot about psychopaths. ..."
"... There is a section on the psychopaths that are at the highest levels of government and corporations, and the methods they employ to keep people in their grip. ..."
"... In addition, he explains the psychopathic organizations. He discusses individuals in politics, in religious organizations and possibly the person sleeping right next to you. ..."
"... The title of the Introduction summarizes the way we cannot stop being used: Know thyself - Know thy predator. ..."
"... They were good books, but this was the first that acknowledged and accurately articulated the emotional devastation from the victim's point of view. ..."
"... It was the book that convinced me that my tormenter is a psychopath. It also helped me free myself from the shame and self-blame, the feeling that I was weak or stupid for getting drawn into the crazy-making web of a parasite. Also, I was accepting of the fact that I needed to go completely no contact. ..."
"... Finally, it put to rest any impulses I had to try to get even with or expose this person. I've realized that it's pointless and probably dangerous to do so. I know I've already been trashed to our mutual acquaintances. I can only hope the people who've seen through this monster won't believe what they've been told. But if they do, I suppose it's their loss. ..."
"... A Good Place to Start. If you have only just cottoned on to the existence of psychopaths and the trouble they bring into your life this book is a good place to start. If you've been the target of a psychopath it will help you understand why. It will also help you plan your escape, survival and recovery. If you want to learn more after reading this book look at books by Jon Ronson, Martha Stout and Robert D. Hare. ..."
Catherine Lewis
on June 14, 2011
Format: Paperback
Verified Purchase
Finally - a book
that truly helps victims of psychopaths
This is an amazing, life-changing book for anyone who has
been a victim of a psychopath. I was in a relationship
with a psychopath for over five years, and while I had
read other books that were very helpful (including check
lists that made my blood run cold) this book is the first
I have seen that really, truly provides answers and
healing for victims.
I had spent the last seven years
feeling that I was only partly healed from my experience.
I still felt a big part of myself was missing and I was
deeply depressed. I had come to accept that I would never
be the same - that I would always bear a large amount of
damage to my psyche, my self esteem and my sense of who I
was. I felt that a big part of me had been taken, but more
importantly, I believed that I had ALLOWED it to happen,
and that it was ALL MY FAULT.
I believed I had brought
this misfortune upon myself. What is worse, unless someone
has been through what some of us have, they can't
understand, and so one is left feeling adrift, lonely,
confused and misunderstood. It is also very easy to turn
to non-constructive ways to block, drown or diffuse the
anguish one suffers after a relationship with a psychopath
ends. This book saved my life. I read it within about 3-4
short evenings, and it has completely changed the way I
perceive what happened in a way that is highly empowering.
I am re-claiming my fundamental spirit and joy.
I now
understand what happened to me, and I now realize, through
the power of the words and insights in Thomas Sheridan's
book, that it was NOT my fault. I was targeted. I was
intentionally used in the most despicable ways. And I am
not alone. There is help, there is hope, and you can
regain what you lost of yourself. They say there are no
magic bullets for curing deep trauma, but I am here to
tell you, this book is that magic bullet for survivors of
psychopaths to not only recover, but emerge stronger, more
whole and more joyful than ever before. Read it. Learn it.
Get your life back.
the
very best work out there..author under attack from cult
leader
Let me start out by saying that Thomas Sheridan's
brilliant work about the world of psychopaths in both
personal relationships and in society at large...is
currently being subjected to a smear campaign by a
disgruntled cult leader....hense as you can see after
sometime in mid August there appears on Amazon numerous
one star reviews denigrating his book. Prior to mid August
you will see that the book is universally raved.
Enough of that. Let me tell you my opinion having had the
mis fortune to be in a romantic relationship for six
months with one of these soul rapers.
First off only people who had been involved with these
entities will truly understand how helpful and
extraordinary Seridens work is in helping them make sense
of what happened to them. Personally, I spent the last six
months studying narcissist personally disorder,
borderlines etc...its all nonsense. The term for these
people who have no empathy, conscious and who prey on
vulnerable, decent caring people is PSYCHOPATH. If any of
you out there are having trouble recovering from such an
ordeal you are not alone.
I was a strong, intelligent and
happy person until I was targeted by a female vampire..idealized, devalued and thrown in the garbage
like a used napkin. It nearly brought me to suicide. But
guess what....didnt happen...to bad for the psychopath...thats
what they want. To murder you and get away with it.
Sheridans work is brilliant and I've read everything in
the world that is out there. If you've been targeted by
one of these creeps read Sheridan's books.. you'll feel
100% better and you will come to understand the dark ,
empty, lying subhuman demon that passed trough you life.
There's nowhere to go but UP from there and on to becoming
the loving, caring beautiful and now knowledgeable
empathetic human you are. Do not pass go. Get both books
you won't regret it. Pay no attention to the negative
reviews by the psychopaths online trying to smear his
timely, brilliant and important work.
2 Comments
Upon recently breaking up with what turned out to be a
psychopath, I found the YouTube channel of Thomas
Sheridan. There, he posts videos pertaining to the subject
of psychopaths in our society.
I found them to be very
useful despite the fact I had already encountered
psychopathic people before, my first (to my knowledge)
being in a relationship in 1997. When it collapsed, so did
I. Why had someone been so cruel, dishonest and
manipulative toward me? I didn't deserve to be treated
this way. I then went on to learn a lot about psychopaths.
This is the third book I've read on the subject. It is
written in a very easily understood language, rather than
using too many clinical terms that are encountered in
books written by authors who are admittedly in possession
of a PhD. I don't believe the lack of a piece of paper
makes Puzzling People any less valid. After all, anyone is
capable of making a study of people and documenting their
findings, and perhaps go on to publish those findings.
I finished the book off in two days. The various key
traits of the psychopath are outlined. Often I would laugh
upon reading some of the paragraphs. That's because they
resonated so strongly with my own experiences. Admittedly
I did not learn anything startlingly new from this book,
since I have previous experience with psychopaths and have
read other books, but this book is useful to read
nonetheless. In fact it might be useful to remind oneself
now and then of this unfortunate type of person. The
psychopath is a shell that houses an entity unlike most of
us. It has no conscience. It is devoid of the wide range
of emotions the rest of us have. It can do what it wants
to you and me and it can sleep at night. It is sub-human.
There is a section on the psychopaths that are at the
highest levels of government and corporations, and the
methods they employ to keep people in their grip.
The book concludes with ways to regain your life and
energy after an encounter with a psychopath, and reminds
us to close the door on them and never ever open it again.
The only complaint I have with the book (and you can call
me pedantic if you like) is that it really ought to have
been proof-read before publishing because it is,
unfortunately, littered with typographical errors. At
times I found that a little distracting. However, it
doesn't take away from the fact that it's a good read on a
subject more people really need to be aware of.
Steven Haackon December 8, 2015
Know thyself - Know thy predator
This book is a must read for every adult. Sheridan opens up the inner world of the psychopath.
The psychopath has no conscience; they are experts at manipulation. They cannot be changed.
In addition, he explains the psychopathic organizations. He discusses individuals in politics, in
religious organizations and possibly the person sleeping right next to you.
The title of the Introduction summarizes the way we cannot stop being used: Know thyself -
Know thy predator.
Michael Harrison October 18, 2015
Must read for anyone in the corporate world
Absolute required reading, to survive and thrive in our world...Sheridan will help you
understand the world, and help you to understand how to relax,. and thrive.
Artist on March 10, 2014
Good and bad, but mostly good
This book is tremendously comforting for anyone who's emerged from a relationship with a
psychopath. I've read Robert Hare's and George Simon's books on, respectively, sociopaths and
manipulators. They were good books, but this was the first that acknowledged and accurately
articulated the emotional devastation from the victim's point of view.
It was the book that convinced me that my tormenter is a psychopath. It also helped me
free myself from the shame and self-blame, the feeling that I was weak or stupid for getting
drawn into the crazy-making web of a parasite. Also, I was accepting of the fact that I needed to
go completely no contact.
Finally, it put to rest any impulses I had to try to get even with or expose this person.
I've realized that it's pointless and probably dangerous to do so. I know I've already been
trashed to our mutual acquaintances. I can only hope the people who've seen through this monster
won't believe what they've been told. But if they do, I suppose it's their loss.
The only problem I had with the book was that it went off the rails about three-quarters
of the way through, turning into a screed against "institutional psychopaths" in popular culture,
government, etc. I understand the author's passion, but his points could have been made more
succinctly and with more restraint. As they stand now, it sounds like ranting.
William Heagueon January 31, 2014
A Good Place to Start. If you have only just cottoned on to the existence of psychopaths
and the trouble they bring into your life this book is a good place to start. If you've been the
target of a psychopath it will help you understand why. It will also help you plan your escape,
survival and recovery. If you want to learn more after reading this book look at books by Jon
Ronson, Martha Stout and Robert D. Hare.
Hoosier Hayseed January 21, 2014
Extremely helpful advice
Following an episode with a family member which absolutely left me dumbfounded that anybody
could be so cold and indifferent to the needs of another human being - even a relative - I looked
for any books I could find about psychotic behavior.
I found one, "The Sociopath Next Door," which was excellent, and then, later on, I began to see
other books on the subject, and bought several of them.
But Thomas Sheridan's book has been, hands down, the best of the lot, and probably has
satisfied my need to search for any more information on the subject.
He really covers all the bases about psychopaths, and explains many things - some of which I
already knew, and others that I had surmised on my own, but there were many other things which
were completely new to me, which I found invaluable to learn about.
His humanity, and his love for the other members of humanity simply shines through, and he makes
a couple of very profound comments, which offer much encouragement for anybody who has ever been
subjected to one of these freaks.
One is the observation that once you learn what a psychopath is all about, you are probably,
from that moment, safeguarded from ever being fooled by one again, which is extremely comforting
to know.
The other thing is his conviction that, as bad as they are, they are always doomed to failure,
and that we will ultimately win, is very encouraging.
But one thing that still confounds me is just trying to understand exactly what they are. They
appear for all the world to be human, and you may know for a fact that they came from human
parents - maybe even your own family - but they act like aliens, or anything but someone of this
world.
I had thought that the only answer was that they were simply evil, and that may be the
ultimate verdict.
But if the problem is that their brain is actually defective - missing the genes that account
for empathy and compassion - then it stands to reason that they simply are not "playing with a
full deck," as it were, almost literally.
But whatever they are, they are a living nightmare for anybody to encounter, and even worse
than that, if you happen to be so unfortunate as to find yourself married to one.
> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?
> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary
of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve,
and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is
a class war and we're winning it.
> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.
> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing
to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's
been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of
the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency
in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy
the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the
market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in
US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the
U.S. resident population.[2] Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation
or on parole.[2] In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole,
jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population.[2]
[2] Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 (NCJ 248479). Published December 2014
by U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
... and those who survive, survive in the belly of the beast.
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.
In
an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under
fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show
Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and
then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is
the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard
wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing
this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".
Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like
a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for
really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family"
and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was
secretary of state.
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down
of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis,
The Hill reported.
"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime.
I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."
Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800
in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch
for botching the Clinton email server investigation.
"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the
problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled,
I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."
"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.
Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation
was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.
"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head
is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.
Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people
working the hardest to get her elected president.
I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs.
Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."
Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.
Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern
in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek
did?
Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the
poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could
before coming clean.
And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.
And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.
In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC
Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of
questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband
and his allies?"
Answer: Not likely.
Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.
That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all
the time.
Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when.
Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.
Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever
you have to say to make the press go away.
"I am sorry you were confused."
"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.
In a recently-leaked speech from 2013, Hillary Clinton said that it is important to take both public
and private positions on each issue. Is this the language of the typical politician, or something
even more deceptive? How does that explain her positions on Syria and Saudi Arabia?
kevin b
1
day ago
+Eric Shutter tell that to the
investigation committee..the FBI and the
congress investigation who all covered her
with "gross misconduct" instead of guilty
by hacked emails to known hacking and
homeland security of confidential
documents! another clinton victory by
paying off or threatening these guys if she
gets into office. what an ugly person she
is..she does think the law is beneath her
to follow...typical elitist narcissistic
profile!
Hank Chinaski
1
day ago
This psycho bitch will start WWIII... elect her at
your own risk.
Tam
1
day ago
0:17
Travelgate
1:03
Vince
Foster's
Death
1:29
Hillary
Care
2:56
Whitewater
Investigation
4:44
Cattlegate
5:48
Filegate
6:22
The
Clinton
Legal
defense
fund
6:33
Chinagate
7:18
IRS
Abuses
7:52
Pardongate
9:41
FALN
Terrorists
10:58
New
York
Senate
Campaign
Finance
12:15
New
York
Senate
performance
12:50
Senate
Rules
Violations
13:11
2008
Presidential
Canidate
13:45
Madam
Secretary
15:08
State
Department
Scandals
and
Cover-ups
15:59
Benghazi
Terrorist
Attack
Cover-up
17:12
Clinton
Secrets
(FoI)
17:37
Clinton
Foundation
Conflicts
of
Interest
20:37
Various
snippets
hellopuppy00
2
days ago
The fact that so many corrupts scandals of one
person can be listed for 25 minutes straight like
this is bad enough. The horrific part is that
American is about to make her President.
Eric Barth
1
day ago (edited)
we have no control over who we get to
choose and even then electoral votes
control th powers above popular votes.
Citizens do not matter in this regard
whatsoever. This game is controlled from
the top while feigning that it is
controlled by the people.
Raymond Cestaro
1
day ago
and this video is just scratching the
surface
Erkuht Ateue
5
months ago
HOLY SHIT, How can american people be so fucking
blind? This is outrageous!
View all 55 replies
Kevin S
3
days ago
Two ways. 1. Dumbing Down of the
population. 2. Entertainment. It is
sickening!
Tom F
48
minutes ago
Past Mobsters never come close to besting this bitch
and her Billy.
Took the Red Pill
1
day ago
Holy shit this is amazing. The work here is
fantastic. FBI really outdid themselves here. Still
gonna vote for Clinton, we cannot allow a man who
likes Pussy into office. I'm with HER :D
jefftc14
4
months ago
anyone else notice or remember how the Clinton's
were heavily involved in massive amounts of cocaine
smuggling into the U.S. and then hmm look at all
their friends they bail out.. all cocaine kingpins..
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which
one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under
the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something
bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe
it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."
I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie
detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick
… we're both innocent."
Yikes:
"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said
the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."
Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any
case brought regarding NSA spyiny?
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
"In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll
deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically
possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political
deal-making.
Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being
honest."
"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one
of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun,
without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold,
even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not
a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."
I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie
detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick
… we're both innocent."
Yikes:
"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said
the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."
Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any
case brought regarding NSA spyiny?
"Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any
case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"
Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment
on the bench,
and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an
entire archive devoted
to him.
This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans
appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint
bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat.
I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I
don't have a good counter argument.
That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential
part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things
that Ajamu Baraka has said.
Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he
is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect
to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate
for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally
responsible than Richard Nixon,
I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are
as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.
As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican
nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.
Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed
the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste
in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?
After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.
Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem
to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these
4 judges is remotely like Scalia.
I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.
We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't
have to worry about what a President might do.
I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.
Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent,
along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against
a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one. Even the liberal Harvard Law School …
Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde
Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.
Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why
should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a
REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle
for so LITTLE .
I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican.
Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican
Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.
The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive
account of the object.
This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the
.1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!
And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses
to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this
UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction
between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM
THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED
BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!
No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering
ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!
"As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the
risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in
core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not
be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement,
fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…
Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as
well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.
PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within
the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed
by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that
I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.
They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had
to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my
time.
Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle.
As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.
Kathleen Lake
9m ago
1
2
Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned
out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that
almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than
she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case
it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of
succession" was determined long before even one vote
was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character
to give us one more entry into you litany of lies,
corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not
vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not
vote you... ever.
David Stalker
11m ago
0
1
Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and
Hillary the secretary of state position along with the
wealth they have generated how could they be none other
than establishment for those not familiar with that
phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment
generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds
power or authority in a nation or organization. The
Establishment may be a closed social group which
selects its own members or specific entrenched elite
structures, either in government or in specific
institutions. And as such my view is she will get the
job as President.
eldudeabides
14m ago
1
2
In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in
private, the opposite.
....In April 2015 the New York Times published a
story about a company called "Uranium One" which was
sold to Russian government-controlled interests,
giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all
uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with
implications for the production of nuclear weapons,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed
of representatives from a number of US government
agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed
off the deal was the State Department, then headed
by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises,
among others, the secretaries of the Treasury,
Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of
Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the
Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from
individuals directly connected to the deal including
the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although
Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White
House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton
Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of
Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the
Clintons.
sblejo
1h ago
3
4
How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they
undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because
he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest,
power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her
and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing
the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the
truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit
the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics.
Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin.
Confucion
2h ago
3
4
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue
and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Trump said at a campaign rally here.
No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are
pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.
They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but
yet they still US presidential candidates.
Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and
abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer
because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless.
europeangrayling
2h ago
8
9
It does not matter, people who support Hillary they
support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't
believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK,
nothing wrong with it.
She has a 'private and public position', that's
Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for
TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her
private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we
can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says
over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so
that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS
and raising retirement age in a speech, called it
'sensible'.
Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya,
supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in
Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government
helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and
advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the
new paper back version.
Where now environmental Native American activists
and regime critics are being killed by the new regime,
and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new
regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and
Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there
was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador
to Honduras said it was a coup.
I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit
me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is
ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and
what these policies and politics do to regular people,
I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that
Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the
Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges."
Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It
drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh.
It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary
Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always
means that he or she is lying.
At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with
my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're
the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from
prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did
not like.
Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the
financial corruption of his administration.
The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified. I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the
corruption of people in his administration was well-documented. His death was widely mourned in the USA.
As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.
If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who
now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement,
perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sociopathic friends to give her good advice,
and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)
Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory. Probably Harding
wrote his own. I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is
that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely
says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much
about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."
First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate
policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused
phrase – "transparent".
Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations
on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the
benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?
And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements
at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly
uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started
birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008
campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using
dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???
Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics,
are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful
lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories
have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they
spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should
operate???
Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are
so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business
runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.
People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that
too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….
An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted
for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:
You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked
self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live
up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on
any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin
called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else
would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated
by considerations of how things will look.
So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is…
a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called
him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding
into our brains.
And another quote that ends the brangelina article
.
There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They
seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable
mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class,
and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and
income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.
But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget
just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and
watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram.
It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup
inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.
The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their
union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning
scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen
shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no
doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina
just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.
One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit'
is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't
drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she
can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political
class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.
Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of
clinton ads.
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors
in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton
gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination
to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select
her at the ballot – from her detractors.
Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn
to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.
We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating
the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity
politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks
of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be
the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these
candidates represent.
Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________
Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue.
First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level
with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate
in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates,
they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in
flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because
you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).
Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags:
HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but
was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no
boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement
has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).
Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the
poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.
> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.
When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in,
before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting
control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term
"control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.
I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God
disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting
Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for
ironic flair.
The only positive thing to happen during this election season is
the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully
exposed, there is no coming back.
I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be
noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed
to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something
that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed
with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he
needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends
and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard
to come by.
Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture
shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new
order of the day. It becomes the style.
It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's
books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault
them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were
offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations
rather than a cognitive theory.
If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term,
I'd say that'd be the place to start.
""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."
See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white
men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join
that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!
Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic
context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free
Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.
The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide
us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the
economy is the weakest.
If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest
with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin,
Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain
traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken
the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton
Liberals" everywhere (apparently)
Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine
liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to
demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.
2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry…
where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring
me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed
but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled
and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope
yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when
we let them.
Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president
yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy
theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.).
I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group –
that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at
The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea)
the same building as has listed "
Metrocare Home Services "
The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in
the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.
I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny
if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about
the deception involved.
It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not
trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to
go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a
"demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's
head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.
But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord
knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective
I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .
First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on
at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges
against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch)
on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists
run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if
Hillary is elected.
From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary
is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking,
she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's
use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the
9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's
door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.
Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust
as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back
Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".
In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas
has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure
for the oligarchs!
And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement,
where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly
privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.
The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an
outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky,
4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.
Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed
sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants
of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly
useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They
tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.
Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's.
They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to
replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .
Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one
night's rampage.
Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.
Money stolen = About four bucks
Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window
seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.
Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1
But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my
s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only
paying half my income in various taxes.
That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that
while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose
of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until
a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on
the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages
of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately
the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.
Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property
taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.
Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.
Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when
there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to
pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.
Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one
up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've
made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are
located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost.
I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.
My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the
responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross
wages asserted by Robert Hahl.
I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor
the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying
said taxes.
I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in
taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many
of which are CHILDREN.)
My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to
tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so
they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not
pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days,
owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with
it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.
Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage
in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a
house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I
pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.
Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.
Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My
state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause
they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.
They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that
make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't
eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with
e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs
not covered by your local or state taxes.
Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in
absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so
much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government
could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would
be a way better use of the monies we pay.
I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where
we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will
be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend
to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have
vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that
negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.
A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got
some pretty questionable leadership.
I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having
spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum.
What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go
on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.
All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience.
After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor
children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for
more than something ridiculous like $3000.
I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours
she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food
stamps the following month.
It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages
reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net
of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.
Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for
the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency
account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class
who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools
for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long
term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something
they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when
that crappy $3000 car breaks down.
It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.
I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're
old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of
time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries
– have them).
Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.
Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal
experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).
Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine
- late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed
transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.
Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.
Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with
two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.
Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(
I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will
lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine
private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari
I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit
is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies
future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary
theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of
income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce
inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the
lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need
to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer
of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we
do better?
Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher
taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.
Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those
higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said
deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way
to presume that managers are there to be served.
Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress
inflation.
Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing
to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay
tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have
no value to the entity that creates them.
She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance
and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next
recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically
low levels.
…
Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing
to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would
be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be
falling further below its target for another three years.
But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that
he is off the Fed.
Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday
to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over
the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last
year.
The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing
to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and
Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around
Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility
will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according
to the L.A. County district attorney's office.
The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that
fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.
Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility
is sentenced on Nov. 29.
End of story. Literally.
This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of
the most powerful green house gas.
another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is
it the green thingies by the rocks?
I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of
work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that
there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you
can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing
at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking
your ass if they can.
Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what.
Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it.
mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see,
knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming
them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass.
What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious
to everybody
Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks
and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA,
Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court
press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is
being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the
lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away
our national sovereignty.
"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like
lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise
for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot
rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the
1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every
year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated
to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little
secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving
them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.
Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the
bottom.
In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called
'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly
at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching
each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't
prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend
an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big
Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring
in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"
This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in
It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent
decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced
to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours
later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed
with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated.
Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance
on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.
Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're
seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem
to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules,
for following the protocols.
And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to
get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.
I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus
was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible
for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything
she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.
What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia
diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing
some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and
Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took
her every bit of 6 months to recover from.
I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but
what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as
a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again,
she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years
of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people
in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows
better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing
to learn.
And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able
to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she
has, and that's what matters here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight
down to ignoring good advice.
I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems
to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and
Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision
not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of
them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds
herself in." Hillary owns that.
The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but
it was eventually stymied by the UK, as
George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit
is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more
environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main
obstacles in this.
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead
to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector
confidence" Neel Kashkari
"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would
all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil
is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"
Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed.
On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had
been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.
Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that
does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't
trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton
about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump
a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.
But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who
have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to
56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit
more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."
Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to
mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed
up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category
is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."
... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996
dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."
... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands
of dollars from
speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to
run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest
...
... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national
security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated
Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets
to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held
opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that
go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking
money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining
that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never
been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way
or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.
She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents'
positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with
it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary
Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined
center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning
up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone
you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.
Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title
is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison,
and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive
trenches for decades.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ
You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to
play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
23 hours ago
Yes, Hillary is dishonest.
Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental
to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread
judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such
groups judge well.
She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at
in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied
by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered
and prepared lie.
If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will
be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the
way.
They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
22 hours ago
To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions
from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not
make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money
given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the
chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.
Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have
personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest.
By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.
The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about
how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated
in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit.
Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.
So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence
her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they
have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute
money to candidates who don't not help their causes.
Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted
for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it.
As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist
haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli
hawk.
All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.
It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for
the party's presidential nomination in 2016.
I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so
again in November.
Do I have reservations? Surely.
But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as
Republican nominees ....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League
of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats.
Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?
Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang.
I would have voted for him.
Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while
campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call
out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.
JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue
because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted
in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.
LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better
choice than Senator Goldwater.
Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because
of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist.
In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist.
I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.
And so on and so forth.
Saints don't rise to the presidency.
David Underwood,is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights
18 hours ago
Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot
of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot
at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing
his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us
have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.
The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps
them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting
up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions,
unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.
Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20
hours ago
I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply
untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:
-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to
trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible.
I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on
national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's
behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of
the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National
Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in
Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012:
the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S.
not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server.
Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its
face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer
health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion
of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.
I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence,
but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November
only because the alternatives are worse.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because
she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals
and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens
to be a woman.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady,
most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"
Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody
vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested
in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
Winchestereast,
No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches
to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do
so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to
announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional
Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better
judgment.
Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago
This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the
most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons
took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They
eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things
they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to
have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things
donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.
It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons
just aren't trustworthy.
1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.
pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago
"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."
Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin"
committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly
traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the
truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.
Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money
is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats
advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United?
Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting
money out of politics when the Republicans do.
So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special
interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment.
Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.
Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting
Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.
Rima Regas,is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours
ago
Mark,
I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics
that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed.
People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money
over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up
to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on
Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the
Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.
That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and
over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled
and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal
punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is
my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay.
Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.
Money and greed are the root of all evil.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return
for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney)
who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both
actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance"
requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be
interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be
in a position to provide such considerations.
And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she
says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest
as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the
briber?
With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices,
someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably
during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage),
it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".
AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago
People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't
take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal
through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever
position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling
changes.
Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking
money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything
from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets
to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about
the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence
of American voters.
Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical
thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness.
Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically
or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's
observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from
colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions
of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and
people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning
off that spigot down the line.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton
is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy
record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his
antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because
he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton
down the National throat.
What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire
is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the
lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons
and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore
de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton
must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who
have or may yet deny her the crown.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public
official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite
numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded
with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would
sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join
a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract
from the firm they formerly regulated.
In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily.
She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she
was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say,
Janet Reno giving a speech.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who
did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did
not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced
by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters
suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing
ever changes.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the
party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for
HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the
brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence
and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have
suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United
there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.
We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling
money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other
politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.
organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago
If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be
still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my
family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say
were lies, they would get fired.
As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November
if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly
I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her
intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her
integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately
need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a
divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military
- this will not serve the United States well.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago
It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon
the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives,
that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.
Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from
Boston 15 hours ago
She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.
You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill
and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt
over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But
she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and
now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.
In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how
she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her
and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that
is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is
a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary
is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe
not. But unlikeable for sure.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago
I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision
to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would
be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.
Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable,
you could write in "none of the above"
But vote the rest of the ticket.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago
@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave
Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the
special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored
by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!
Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts
politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds
of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to
take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof
of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the
right wing majority in Citizens United.
Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts
politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence
policy is bad.
amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago
So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins.
Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written,
means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet
she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their
investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits
with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning
the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he
deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became
a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive
to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word.
Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro
quid. Ditto for Hillary.
The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide
and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise
not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent
crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper
over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much
the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives
stand for boggles the imagination.
Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours
ago
Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that
you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He
got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle
class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should
all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.
Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.
Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago
``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person
tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton
does well.''
Excuse me?
She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.
You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the
Clintons.
Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago
She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming
under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up
in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's
"secret plan."
This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections,
but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
It was apt in a small way that the first
endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been
Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the
chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about
the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear
that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See,
for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate
column "The
Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished
fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult
to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives
are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines.
And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations
came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk
that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently
and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see
the
work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends
and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but
the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in
office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were
wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals
of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published
a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled
or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or
invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members
of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised
the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President
Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found
it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you
recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others,
you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance
to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National
Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of
this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the
White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable
Roger Tamraz, for another example.
Related was the result of a House select
committee
on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China
of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee
issued a
report
in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton
administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax
(as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with
Chinese military-industrial associations).
Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations
(still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent
pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar
bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise
Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill
Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud,
hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they
got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary
Clinton's other brother,
Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation
and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned
as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom,
when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was
more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary
of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has
two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.
Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications,
too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another
scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of
Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something
simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership
with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably
have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to
look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.
China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our
defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are
important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover.
And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at
the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal
with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"!
So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't
want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing
that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the
Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely
has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other
agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this
is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty
is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is
ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either
of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently
was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of
her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him
for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What
may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness
and masochism to me.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and
the author, most recently, of
Arguably, a collection of essays.
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types,
Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
Pathological Liar – Definition
Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive
or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying
despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure
of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating
quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person.
Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs
on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating,
self-trapping quality to it.
Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In
many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being
lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in
a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences.
Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and
are likely to have damaging consequences.
Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia
fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component
with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling,
compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying
is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic
components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type
of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely
to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism.
Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation
are among many causes of pathological lying.
Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying
Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The
lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short
period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or
deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or
success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating
an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem.
Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which
is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems
in more mature ways (Selling 1942).
Pathological Liar – Causes
Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited
to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:
A dysfunctional family;
Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation,
learning disabilities etc.
Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling,
compulsive shopping.
Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline,
Histrionic and more;
Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia
Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a
way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The
pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible
on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues
have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story
if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of
being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something
that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that
is something they wish they were or at least something better than they
fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven
by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating
a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she
is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start
believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past
incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.
About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction.
For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia.
Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production
& lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they
often fail to control verbal output.
Habitual Liar
Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual
liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she
puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is
going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie
or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary
or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about
it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.
Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are
not limited to:
Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
Avoid confrontation or punishment
Cover up lack of knowledge
Cover up embarrassment
To entertain oneself or others
Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
For no reason whatsoever
Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of
lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she
gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent
& obvious.
Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child
& further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the
child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment.
Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling
the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves
less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.
Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying
Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem,
he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without
thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the
lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control
disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping
etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from
past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely
to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse
problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase
in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness,
such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been
clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.
Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar
Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People
abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to
avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting
off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit,
therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.
Signs of Lying
Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.
7 Signs of Lying
Disguised smiling
Lack of head movement
Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with
an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
Reduced rate of speech
Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication
methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the
lie that is being told orally)
You may have thought that living with your troubled spouse was hard. But now that you've reached
the point of divorce, you probably already know that this can be ever harder. Narcissistic behavior
can be labeled as borderline, sociopathic, narcissistic, or just intolerable, but it all derives
from one fundamental driving force: narcissists can't tolerate criticism, especially public criticism.
And divorcing them is about them most direct and public criticism you can make. You'll know you're
there when your soon-to-be ex spouse begins a campaign of destruction against you. And if you don't
know how to resond and deal with it, it can take a terrible toll.
Surviving the Storm offers practical strategies that can help you reach a settlement with
your soon-to-be ex, in spite of his or her seeming determination to scorch the earth. The key is
understanding that narcissists fear, above all, critical judgment by others. Your decision to divorce
sets these fears in motion. To counter them, you need to know how to split the battlefield, offering
on the one hand a safe alternative in which you get what you need, and on the other a continuing
stream of criticism, judgment, and shame heaped on your soon-to-be ex. In essence, you trade the
safety of silence for the things you need in the settlement.
Surviving the Storm also offers practical boundaries on what you can and can't expect to
do. It explains the impact of divorcing a narcissist on your children, and offers strategies and
tactics to help achieve a custody arrangement that is best for your kids. It explains what parental
alienation is and where to get more help with it. It offers some reflection on the moral issues we
face in divorce, including the Catholic Church's surprising position holding that marriage to a narcissist
is a moral impossibility. Finally, it offers a perspective on healing and the need for new experiences
to move on.
"... Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive," they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time for all of us. ..."
"... These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or psychopathic (conning) patterns. ..."
"... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without concern for victims." ..."
Women, and men, with borderline personality disorder seem not to know how
to stop arguing (link is external).
Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive,"
they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal
with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time
for all of us.
... ... ...
There may well be some individuals with BPD who are genuinely manipulative
or sadistic.
These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination
of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or
psychopathic (conning) patterns.
In the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (cited in Bowers,
2002) ... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without
concern for victims."
"... A personality disorder characterized by grandiosity; an expectation that others will recognize one's superiority; a lack of empathy, lack of truthfulness, and the tendency to degrade others. ..."
"... Malignant narcissists not only see themselves as superior to others but believe in their superiority to the degree that they view others as relatively worthless, expendable, and justifiably exploitable. ..."
"... This type of narcissism is a defining characteristic of psychopathy/sociopathy and is rooted in an individual's deficient capacity for empathy. It's almost impossible for a person with such shallow feelings and such haughtiness to really care about others or to form a conscience with any of the qualities we typically associate with a humane attitude, which is why most researchers and thinkers on the topic of psychopathy think of psychopaths as individuals without a conscience altogether." ..."
"A personality disorder characterized by grandiosity; an expectation that others
will recognize one's superiority; a lack of empathy, lack of truthfulness, and
the tendency to degrade others."
"Narcissism becomes particularly malignant
(i.e. malevolent, dangerous, harmful, incurable) when it goes beyond mere vanity
and excessive self-focus. Malignant narcissists not only see themselves as superior
to others but believe in their superiority to the degree that they view others
as relatively worthless, expendable, and justifiably exploitable.
This type of narcissism is a defining characteristic of psychopathy/sociopathy
and is rooted in an individual's deficient capacity for empathy. It's almost
impossible for a person with such shallow feelings and such haughtiness to really
care about others or to form a conscience with any of the qualities we typically
associate with a humane attitude, which is why most researchers and thinkers
on the topic of psychopathy think of psychopaths as individuals without a conscience
altogether."
"There is nothing about the man that is service-oriented. He's only serving
himself."
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her
long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because
the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.
Kessler, the author of
The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal
the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members
of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to
a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means
that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation
unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations
that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial,
writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material
that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly,
that is a violation of criminal laws."
The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations
involving emails sent by
Abedin and Clinton aide
Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices
belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been
liquidated or sold.
Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton
and Abedin include:
In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008
Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin
recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no
appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for
her people to be rude."
Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a
pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent.
The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification
to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried
to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said
belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"
Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage
for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected
that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be
like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you
can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and
we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'"
The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service
for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents,
kind of like servants."
An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:
There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's
detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form
of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known
to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces,
and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents
don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect
her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect
for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.
The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one
particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related,
"The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to
her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe
I heard it."
Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former
agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they
don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall,
you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would
tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand
out of the way, don't be seen.'"
Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming
that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch,
the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket
case."
FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that
no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."
One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of
the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted,
"How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy
your suits? Penney's?"
Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit
I owned."
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a
bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to
spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?
"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.
Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one
alone. Of course there are others….
*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***
I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this
claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in
my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why
did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the
Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release
her meeting schedules until after the election?
Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale.
This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan
of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria.
And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off
Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.
The lost in mail laptop and disappear thumb drive with archived emails story is incredibly fishy.
The whole story in incredible. Both Hillary and her close aides (especially Huma ) come out as completely
incompetent idiots, who can't be trusted any sensitive information. This level of incompetence combined
with recklessness is pretty typical for female sociopath
Notable quotes:
"... The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. ..."
"... The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read. ..."
"... The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. ..."
"... Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) ..."
"... The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both. ..."
"... Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired. ..."
"... Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes. ..."
"... The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server. ..."
"... Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well. ..."
Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump
this startling news about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal? Hard to believe it was a coincidence
that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily
Beast:
A laptop containing a copy, or "archive," of the emails on Hillary Clinton's
private server was apparently lost-in the postal mail-according to an FBI report released
Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton's emails has been
lost and is not in the FBI's possession.
The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness
handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that
Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. The FBI
director has already said it's possible Clinton's email system could have been
remotely accessed by foreign hackers.
The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed
report about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email account. The report contained
new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted
emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.
More:
The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using
a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later
scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from
public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of
those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents
read.
The FBI has found that Clinton's emails contained classified information, including information
derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.
The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries
of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that
pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive
on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book,"
according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after
the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised
by a Romanian hacker.
Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices,
one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to
people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign
didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)
Read it all. The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either
Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national
security information.
It is like going through a red light because you weren't paying close enough attention as
opposed to consciously choosing to run a red light
Lousy analogy. Running a red is a momentary lapse, not a years-long, well-thought-out conspiracy,
with considerable effort given to covering tracks (BleachBit).
No one in the media wants to say it, but this report almost entirely exonerates Clinton. Yes,
she's lawyerly and is inclined to walk too close to the line, but no – she didn't do anything
immoral or unethical. If at some point it turns out that she's actually done something wrong then
we revisit, but the obsession with this 'crimeless coverup' prevents us from stating the obvious
– Clinton is a solid candidate for President, intelligent, diligent and serious enough to guide
the nation through difficult times. Trump is uncontroversially not.
The moral equivalence games the media plays with the two candidates amounts to a cancer in
our civic fiber that allows us not to put away our childish things.
We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century.
Voters are choosing a woman who put an insecure server containing national security communications
in her basement, and sold our intention and opportunities to do good in the world to rich people
for her own financial gain.
(I lean toward voting for Trump. My issue is the immense paperwork drag on health care delivery
and the increase in cost caused by the "affordable" care act. I expect more of the same with Clinton.
)
Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a
way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they
effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering
it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information
going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only
presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here
is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail
account would risk being fired.
This sort of astonishing incompetence is exactly why I originally thought this was a big deal.
The reason you don't want HRC running her own server is because she plainly doesn't know how to
manage, or even hire for, all the inane details of information security.
Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't
use that software to delete emails about yoga classes.
Jay, or, and hear me out, like the other Bill, there has to come a point in time where the shear
amount of claims of criminal behavior has to be considered. The other Bill got away with rape
for years, maybe its time to consider that this Bill and his wife lack credibility in the face
of accusers that HRC has denigrated and called Bimbos.
Leftists make me sick in this. They will cry that we should always believe the victim unless
one of their political leaders are accused. You want to take out a conservative? Give credible
evidence that he is guilty of rape or sexual harassment. We quit voting for them. Your side, deny,
deny, deny….and ultimately demand we move on, just like a previous poster's five stages of a Clinton
scandal.
The only exception to this I can think of is Weiner, not because he did something that is horrible.
No, you guys abandoned him because he was pathetic and embarrassing.
This is the direct quote from the Daily Beast article:
After trying unsuccessfully to remotely transfer the emails to a Platte River server, Hanley
shipped the laptop to the employee's home in February 2014. He then "migrated Clinton's emails"
from the laptop to a Platte River server.
That task was hardly straightforward, however, and ended up exposing the email archive yet
again, this time to another commercial email service.
The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail
(Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails
into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server.
Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly
reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to
find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr).
I assume the same is true of the government as well.
It really makes the Nixon comparisons seem apt, except she has an out for her supporters in
simply claiming that she is a bumbling idiot.
The good liberals here who are starting the writing on the wall with Crooked Hillary should begin
considering the fact that Trump isn't that bad and is actually pretty good in many ways. Come
on over, you will be welcomed warmly.
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds
of Americans,
68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy.
Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi
and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit
to doing so.
For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary
for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six
years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper
fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the
opposite.
"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology,
says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury,"
Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise,
compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial,
borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.
"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with
her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing
out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar,
and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing
American lives."
In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been
a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary
of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling
"get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail
for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton
left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained
to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."
These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary
of state. An aide on her presidential campaign
told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like
tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought
the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been
getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."
BULLYING: (1.) Workplace. Cuts conflict over time and money down to
schoolyard scale. If one schoolchild 'bullies' another the injury is real but the two are formal
equals under the same coercive structure. Neither owns the other's means of survival.
Apply the metaphor to boss and worker, then, and the stakes of the conflict evaporate, or rather
stay in the hands that always held them. The cry of 'management bullying' reduces wholesale ownership
to bad personal behaviour, something to be corrected by the schoolteacher or the next authority up.
A plea for Help that counts as the surrender (usually by proxy) of the managed.
(2.) As extracurricular lesson. Actual schoolyard violence is 'bullying' when the perpetrator
fits the profile for Multi-Agency Intervention better than the target. In the opposite case, counsellors
and Restorative Justice practitioners may declare the ordeal a lesson in Life Skills for the injured
party. A salutary warning that s/he must either curb a too-sharp tongue or be unemployable as well
as regularly beaten up in years to come.
"... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that
the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people
would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the
actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?
Enter the
Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower
William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails,
infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability
for her hijinks.
The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he
is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably
has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that
they were 'personal'.
At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going
to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore
ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will
TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian
alternative reality world they inhabit?
What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I
cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more
pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence
personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge,
was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence
agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its
operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton
in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump
for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his
character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding,
and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes
or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot
get away with.
Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.
"... Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems. ..."
"... Kids who bully use their power-such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity-to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people. ..."
"... The set of behaviors definition given is not age dependent. The definition may have been provided to provide a basis for recognizing and determining a set of behaviors that may be defined as bullying, but says nothing about age levels. It's a description of a set of human behaviors being applied to a particular age group for the sake of defining a particular basis of illegal behavior. ..."
Below is the definition of bullying from
stopbullying.gov. (US Department of Health & Human Services)
Bullying
is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power
imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who
are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.
In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:
An Imbalance of Power:Kids who bully use their power-such as physical strength, access to
embarrassing information, or popularity-to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change
over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more
than once.
Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone
physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.
Types of Bullying
There are three types of bullying:
Verbal bullying is saying or writing mean things. Verbal bullying includes:
Teasing
Name-calling
Inappropriate sexual comments
Taunting
Threatening to cause harm
Social bullying, sometimes referred to as relational bullying, involves hurting someone's
reputation or relationships. Social bullying includes:
Leaving someone out on purpose
Telling other children not to be friends with someone
Spreading rumors about someone
Embarrassing someone in public
Physical bullying involves hurting a person's body or possessions. Physical bullying includes:
Hitting/kicking/pinching
Spitting
Tripping/pushing
Taking or breaking someone's things
Making mean or rude hand gestures
Jack, August 1, 2016 11:23 am
Warren,
That is a nonsensical reply. The set of behaviors definition given is not age dependent.
The definition may have been provided to provide a basis for recognizing and determining a set
of behaviors that may be defined as bullying, but says nothing about age levels. It's a
description of a set of human behaviors being applied to a particular age group for the sake
of defining a particular basis of illegal behavior.
Ed, Maybe bullying should be described as a high priority issue in our schools, but assigning
it to the number one spot may be a bit hyperbolic.
Edward Lambert, August 1, 2016 12:07 pm
Jack,
It is a very high priority. I went to a presentation by the local school superintendent. She
said bullying was the #1 priority by law. She has to drop anything and everything that she is
doing when a case of bullying presents itself by law. That is how serious the situation
became.
Particular Characteristics of Female Sociopaths Vs Males
Incidence
How many female sociopaths are there? Robert Hare believes that about 1%
of the population fits the profile of psychopath, and male psychopaths are 7
times more common than female psychopaths.
But there are some things to keep in mind here. When most people think of
'sociopath' they typically think 'male' and 'serial killer'. They do not generally
think of women psychopaths. This can lead to a situation where they are dealing
with a psychopath in their life but do not realize who they are dealing with.
Add to this the fact that sociopaths have been called chameleons for their
ability to blend into society and it adds to the difficulty in counting them.
Plus, whether you consider it sexist or not, the female aspect needs to be
considered when talking about manipulation. Women have been known to 'bat their
eyelids' and show their cleavage or 'show a bit of leg', for example, to good
effect.
How female sociopaths show up in society
The most obvious group are the serial killers. And yes, there have been lots
of female serial killers as well as males!
Unlike the males however, there is usually not a sexual element to their
crimes. It's much more usual to be money or power related. And the female sociopaths
typically know their victims; it's rare for them to kill strangers. An interesting
group are the female sociopaths who become nurses or doctors. These cold-blooded
killers hide themselves where nobody would suspect them, in a caring profession!
And then they set to work. For example, Beverley Allitt, a 23-year-old nurse
in the UK killed 4 and attacked 9 other children within a couple of months before
she was caught. A Texas nurse Genene Jones is believed to have killed between
11 and 46. It's of this group that people usually say "But they seemed like
such nice people!"
Another subset are those who kill one or several husbands for the inheritance
and life assurance.
Obvious Delinquents
Some female sociopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior as children and as
adolescents. Lying, stealing, truancy, cruelty to animals and siblings, drug
abuse, early sexual activity. Of course, there may be frequent run-ins with
the law. Their parents are very often distraught because there is so little
they can do. As adults, these female sociopaths may end up abusing alcohol and
drugs and end up in and out of prison.
Some therapists believe that there is such a disregard for society among
them that a sociopath that has not broken the law just hasn't been found out
yet!
There seems to be two themes among female sociopaths that are not so prevalent
in male led groups, one being the avoidance of sex and the other being food.
The women psychopaths may target women who want to get away from sex for
whatever reason. Instead they offer female nurturing and support.
As well as offering meals when potential 'clients' have none, there are cults
based on eating healthily or losing weight. This is typical of cults, they offer
something people want but behind the outer facade is a second set of ideas or
principles. People enter for one thing and end up having the leader control
their lives.
Socialized sociopaths
These are the ones that are so difficult to count! Despite their
sociopath symptoms, they manage to integrate themselves into society to
varying degrees. Everything from solitary lives where they live on the money
they make from crimes for which they are not caught, to getting married, settling
down and having children.
It's interesting to read or listen to the stories of some of these female
sociopaths. Typically, they realize as children that they are different in some
way. They think differently and make different decisions. Then they begin to
understand that they are not so 'affected' by emotions. It's seems that it's
common for them to think that this is because they are smarter than those around
them.
They begin from an early age to look for clues to recognize the emotions
that others are actually having. They learn to mimic the emotions so as not
to stand out, or to please others. They learn to create relationships that are
beneficial for them.
Female sociopaths have all the symptoms of sociopaths. The lying, the parasitic
lifestyle, the need for excitement and the desire to control. It's possible
that there are many female sociopaths who live, for all intents and purposes,
what looks like a normal life from the outside. They are content to just blend
in and do what "normal" people do.
Others however, want more. More money, more power, more control, more excitement.
And they get themselves into trouble because of the impulsivity or the failure
to control their emotions, or the
irresponsibility.
One of the ways this shows up is in problems in their marriage. In true sociopath
style, they attract a man,
create an intimate relationship, influence his decision making and get married.
It's common for them to isolate the man from his friends and family to varying
degrees. They can be very domineering and controlling, using sex as a means
to manipulate. The man may suffer verbal abuse, psychological abuse, emotional
abuse and even physical abuse.
Had a bad experience?
Have you had a run-in with a sociopath? The more people know about these
demons the better!
Tell your story here
When there are children involved it gets infinitely more complicated. Especially
in separations and divorces. The female sociopaths have no difficulty (remember
no remorse, guilt or pity for anybody) in using the children as pawns or objects
to try to continue to manipulate the man.
They will extract information from the children about the father to use against
him, they will influence how and what the children think about the father, and
they may prevent the father from having any contact with the children. The welfare
of the children is not considered. What's important is that they continue to
maintain control and power.
In family matters where the police or the courts involved, they have no difficulty
in lying, inventing stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what they
want. They can play the victim role very well, as most sociopaths do, and will
use society's preferences towards women and mothers to their advantage.
Some female sociopaths simply go from one relationship to another. They use
their sociopathic charm, good looks and female wiles to create a relationship,
take what they want and then disappear, leaving a trail of brokenhearted and
confused men behind them. Men who are somewhat poorer after the experience!
This piece was originally written about a male but I think it works equally
well like this!
She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with this presence.
She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good time,
but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she will
scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be through
with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your pride.
You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will
wonder what you did wrong.
From an essay signed, "A psychopath in prison".
Testosterone
Apparently both male and female psychopaths have high levels of testosterone.
It has been found that in normal populations, higher levels of testosterone
are associated with higher sex drive, more sexual activity and more attractiveness
to the opposite sex.
This will make female sociopaths more appealing to males. Add to this the
lack of inhibition, and the grandiose sense of self and you have a lethal combination!
Think femme fatale!
It may also explain the lack of desire to have children and the failure to
look after them if they do. It's not uncommon for female sociopaths to leave
young children unattended, for example, because they have other more important
things to do.
How we perceive women
We normally think women are empathic and nurturing and don't expect to see
cold-hearted, uncaring, callous behaviors in women.
We don't consider that they could be more devious, manipulative, destructive,
vindictive and downright nasty than their male counterparts.
But just ask any man who has been a victim of female sociopaths...!
Just a reminder: like in any fashionable themes that are authors who try to
did gold out of it. This is one of the genre:. From comments: "As a training psychologist,
I was very disappointed with this memoir. I'm very interested in sociopathy and
from how this is written, it seems that Thomas is more likely to be a narcissist
than a sociopath. I don't think this book is an accurate account of sociopathy and
I'm questioning the formal diagnosis. Additionally, It seemed that Thomas kept repeating
the same points over and over, which made it very difficult to read at times. It
also was difficult due to my growing distaste for Thomas as an individual (mostly
due to her conceitedness - another reason I believe she's a narcissist). However,
I will give the book a few stars for being written well and keeping my attention
enough to at least finish the book."
Notable quotes:
"... I think everyone learns to lie about his or her emotions to a certain extent;
I just take it a step farther. People ask, "How are you?" and you respond, "fine,"
even though you had a fight with your spouse that morning, have a sick child, or
any multitude of things that make it hard for you to feel fine about almost anything
in your life. You could honestly answer the question, but you don't because overt
displays of strong emotion in ordinary social interactions are not accepted. Most
of the time I don't need to show any emotion at all, and I try to limit the times
that I do by begging off attending funerals, weddings, etc. When I do show up to
these functions, I try to mimic the other attendees. If I'm dealing with a person
one-on-one, I just try to reflect their emotions; usually they're distracted enough
by their own overflowing emotions not to notice my lack of them. ..."
"... The author goes into some detail in trying to distinguish psychopaths,
sociopaths, and person with anti-social personality disorder; but for the majority
of the world these distinctions are exercises in semantics only. ..."
"... I've dealt with sociopathic and psychopathic individuals, and they aren't
these brilliant, charming, care free people that this book would like you to believe.
I'm sorry, but she is not a sociopath. So she is full of herself and likes to toy
with the lives of others, apparently she has never met a high school aged girl.
If she had, she would see that she is stuck in her own adolescence. She truly wants
to believe that she is a sociopath because then she is not like the majority of
people. ..."
"... As she says, 1 in 25 people are statistically sociopaths. I'm guessing
she hasn't even verified those statistics. What sample size is it derived from?
Is the sample really indicative of the entire earth's population? ..."
"... I didn't learn anything from this book; it contains the usual suspects
in terms of how she defines herself, the kinds of things she does, etc. This book
was written for those who are not familiar with sociopathy, and since it's a pop
psych deal all over social media, the author is capitalizing; there are statements
in that book that seriously cast doubt on her claims, and others that pinpoint,
so it seems to be she did a lot of research to write this, rather than glean her
own experience. Considering her penchant to drone about her intelligence, her special
abilities, and her success, sociopaths lie, manipulate, and cheat to the nth degree;
this is what I'm getting from this; sociopaths are easily detectable, at least to
me; I think my discernment skills are far superior to those of the author. One star
for the subject, it is familial, and one star for the brazen ability to recognize
she cannot fool all, but can fool many. ..."
"... The females are less inclined to criminal behavior and better able to pretend
to empathy they don't possess, but they do not have the loyalty or empathy the rest
of us have, which means they cannot learn from their behavior the way the rest of
us can. ..."
"... I'm sorry to say, this book was a disappointment. It was a long, painful,
boring read. First of all, Ms. Thomas isn't a very good writer. Full of run-on sentences
and endless, dull descriptions of how great she thinks she is because she lacks
empathy and a conscience (she seems to think of these as traits only weak or stupid
people have, reminding me of Ayn Rand without an iota of the latter's intelligence),
Thomas comes off more as an obnoxious, self-centered, common narcissist than a true
sociopath. ..."
"... Thomas (who owns the website Sociopath World) is not a criminal. She may
well be sociopathic in that she seems to take pleasure in cheating, manipulating,
hurting, and discarding others, once gleefully watched a possum drown, and admits
she enjoys ruining the reputations of people she has worked with. She clearly has
no empathy and seems to have no emotions. ..."
"... M. E. Thomas is clearly a malignant narcissist, but by calling herself
a "sociopath" you feel like you've been the victim of a bait-and-switch (which is
in itself sociopathic, I suppose). ..."
"... The only reason I didn't feel completely ripped off was because the yard
sale copy of this book set me back only $1; if I'd purchased it at full price, I'd
be pretty annoyed right now. It was all I could do to even finish this book. It
was that boring. Don't waste your time. If you want to read a good book about sociopathy,
read Marsha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door instead. If you really need to read
something that comes "out of the horse's mouth," you'd do better with Sam Vaknin
..."
"... I so wish i hadn't wasted my money on this book. The writing was weak and
she often contradicts herself and i was utterly bored half way through. Her examples
of her sociopathic behaviour aren't very radical - provoking her father to anger
in teen years, taking a neighbors bike without permission and returning it (so naughty!),
following a man who angered her with murderous intent for a block or so until she
lost him. 300 pages of self-aggrandizing that comes across as juvenile and insecure.
Perhaps she is malicious and conniving and maybe even a sociopath whatever that
actually is (I am not a fan of the DSM), but ultimately its not that interesting,
definitely not enlightening. ..."
As M.E. Thomas says of her fellow sociopaths, "We are your neighbors, your
coworkers, and quite possibly the people closest to you: lovers, family, friends.
Our risk-seeking behavior and general fearlessness are thrilling, our glibness
and charm alluring. Our often quick wit and outside-the-box thinking make us
appear intelligent-even brilliant. We climb the corporate ladder faster than
the rest, and appear to have limitless self-confidence. Who are we? We are highly
successful, noncriminal sociopaths and we comprise 4 percent of the American
population."
Confessions of a Sociopath -part confessional memoir, part primer
for the curious-takes readers on a journey into the mind of a sociopath, revealing
what makes them tick while debunking myths about sociopathy and offering a road
map for dealing with the sociopaths in your life. M. E. Thomas draws from her
own experiences as a diagnosed sociopath; her popular blog, Sociopathworld.com;
and scientific literature to unveil for the very first time these men and women
who are "hiding in plain sight."
Q&A with M. E. Thomas
Q. Were you always aware that you were different?
A. Yes, though when I was young, I thought maybe it was just because I was
smarter than everyone else. I saw things that other children did not see, was
aware of the adult world in a way that even my smart siblings were not-awkward
interactions from the end of an affair, why my grandpa treated my dad differently
from his other children (he was adopted), and so on. I knew other people did
not see these things because I would reference them and get blank stares in
return. I learned to keep things to myself, even to pretend I didn't see them.
Those were probably some of my first attempts to wear a mask of normalcy.
Q. What are the common characteristics/behaviors shared by most sociopaths?
Do they describe you, too?
A. Lack of remorse or concern for hurting or stealing; being deceitful, manipulative,
impulsive, irritable, aggressive, and consistently irresponsible; failure to
conform to social norms; and being unconcerned about people's safety, including
their own. You need to have at least three of these to be a sociopath. I have
them all, to varying degrees.
Q. You believe that sociopaths have a natural competitive advantage.
Why?
A. Sociopaths have several skills that lend themselves to success in areas
such as politics and business: charm, an ability to see and exploit weaknesses/flaws
(which in politics is called "power-broking" and in business, "arbitrage"),
confidence, unflagging optimism, an ability to think outside the box and come
up with original ideas, and a lack of squeamishness about doing what it takes
to get ahead.
Q. If you don't have a sense of morality, or feel the emotions that
most people do, how are you able to operate in the world without being detected?
A. I think everyone learns to lie about his or her emotions to a certain
extent; I just take it a step farther. People ask, "How are you?" and you respond,
"fine," even though you had a fight with your spouse that morning, have a sick
child, or any multitude of things that make it hard for you to feel fine about
almost anything in your life. You could honestly answer the question, but you
don't because overt displays of strong emotion in ordinary social interactions
are not accepted. Most of the time I don't need to show any emotion at all,
and I try to limit the times that I do by begging off attending funerals, weddings,
etc. When I do show up to these functions, I try to mimic the other attendees.
If I'm dealing with a person one-on-one, I just try to reflect their emotions;
usually they're distracted enough by their own overflowing emotions not to notice
my lack of them.
Q. Research shows that one in twenty-five people is a sociopath,
yet most of us believe we've never met one. Are we just kidding ourselves? Are
you able to spot them?
A. Statistically, everyone has met at least one sociopath; in fact, most
people will have a close encounter with a sociopath at some point in their lives,
either as a friend, family member, or lover. Sometimes I can tell who they are.
I find that many successful sociopaths will leave deliberate clues as to what
they are, the thought being that only other sociopaths would recognize them.
I think sociopaths, like serial killers, often have a yearning to be acknowledged
for who they are. They want people to admire their exploits, and that is hard
to get when they are completely hidden, so they make small compromises.
As a training psychologist, I was very disappointed with this memoir. I'm
very interested in sociopathy and from how this is written, it seems that
Thomas is more likely to be a narcissist than a sociopath. I don't think
this book is an accurate account of sociopathy and I'm questioning the formal
diagnosis. Additionally, It seemed that Thomas kept repeating the same points
over and over, which made it very difficult to read at times. It also was
difficult due to my growing distaste for Thomas as an individual (mostly
due to her conceitedness - another reason I believe she's a narcissist).
However, I will give the book a few stars for being written well and keeping
my attention enough to at least finish the book.
At least she is coming out to all but her family. This is written as
a confessional/memoir of its author Monica E. Thomas,a pseudonym, necessitated
by the subject matter and to protect her present socioeconomic life.
Having just read the reviews written before mine, it would seem I am
the first to have actually read the entire book, well, at least, so far.
I would agree with the other reviewers that the book is technically well
written, but does get long in the tooth by the half way mark, with many
points being repeated several times which lengthened the book with no apparent
advantage that I could ascertain; otherwise I would have given 4 stars.
I would agree that the author as self described is unlikeable, but whom
I found very interesting simply because I am a retired psychologist and
spent the last ten years working with female murderers. The author goes
into some detail in trying to distinguish psychopaths, sociopaths, and person
with anti-social personality disorder; but for the majority of the world
these distinctions are exercises in semantics only.
To help clarify this point, as the author takes some time discussing
her rational for the distinction. A psychiatrist, Hervey Clecky wrote the
magnum opus on psychopathology in 1941 in a book called MASK OF SANITY;
he might be better known to you for his book on multiple personality disorder
which was turned into a movie in 1957 called THE THREE FACES OF EVE.
A Dr. Robert Hare building upon Clecky's work devised a 20 question scale
to judge antisocial personality disorder. He only used convicts to base
his results on, so it is not representative of the general population and
certainly doesn't have the background of the MMPI. Hare felt that there
were differences between people who committed violent and aggressive act
and those who did not. He felt that the aggressive ones should be considered
to have ASPD and the others would simply be called sociopaths. The term
psychopaths had fallen out of favor.
However, much of the world still considered all three terms to be interchangeable,
and if you look up psycho/sociopath in the APA Dictionary it will refer
you to Antisocial Personality Disorder. The author particularly chose to
make this distinction to differentiate her disorder from those with the
more severe form. Basically the author feels that being diagnosed as a sociopath
doesn't mean you are bad, but simply that you don't act in socially approved
manner unless it benefits the actor.
At one point the author describes her entire dysfunctional family and
wonders if she might have turned out differently if raised in a different
environment. You know, the argument of nature versus nurture.
1.0 out of 5 stars By
N@t@ni on September 12, 2013 Format: Hardcover
Yawn M. E. is a self serving, arrogant and shallow author... her
memoir does not show any insights by carefully and thoughtfully analyzing
one's life and behavior. Her memoir is simply a regurgitation of already
published data, and boring stories to relate to such data and to rationalize
poor behavior. She has to hit us over the head about how brilliant she is,
and how successful she is, and how much better she is because she is a sociopath,
when one wonders if she is just an arrogant and unlikable person. If she
demonstrates a typical non-dangerous sociopath, we don't really need to
read a book about it, we see it every day and just avoid such people. She
talks about power struggles in the most inane and trite situations possible,
reeking of low self esteem. She makes gross generalizations about "empaths",
which are generally overstated and wrong. This memoir at best, reads like
a narcissist's journal entry/book report and at worst, just a terribly boring
book.
1.0 out of 5 stars
By
Dr. Charles Finley on September 26, 2013 Format: Hardcover
Pointless Endeavor I was going to give this book two stars simply
because it was written better than some of the garbage available today such
as 50 shades of anything, yet cannot because the content is monotonous trash.
I would never recommend this book to anyone. It is certainly a work of fiction
and the author is even more boring than she is self absorbed. The author
doesn't display the true traits of a sociopath. She sounds more narcissistic
than anything else. She contradicts herself numerous times throughout the
book alluding to why she isn't really a sociopath. It's amusing that sociopaths
and psychopaths are being glamorized these days as if they don't have a
disorder and they are instead instilled with super human powers.
I've dealt with sociopathic and psychopathic individuals, and they
aren't these brilliant, charming, care free people that this book would
like you to believe. I'm sorry, but she is not a sociopath. So she is full
of herself and likes to toy with the lives of others, apparently she has
never met a high school aged girl. If she had, she would see that she is
stuck in her own adolescence. She truly wants to believe that she is a sociopath
because then she is not like the majority of people.
As she says, 1 in 25 people are statistically sociopaths. I'm guessing
she hasn't even verified those statistics. What sample size is it derived
from? Is the sample really indicative of the entire earth's population?
I only ask these questions because I am sure that she hasn't despite her
self-proclaimed brilliance. Getting fired from a law firm and teaching at
a 4th tier law school doesn't make you a model of success. Even Dr. Phil
could see through miss JRL's ploy for fame. Sorry M.E. Thomas but you aren't
special, unique, or different than everyone else. We all have these same
feelings. Your actions are driven by the very insecurities that you claim
you don't have. Welcome to the real world.
I thought this book is interesting. I purchased it because recently I
had a bad experience befriending someone who I believe is a sociopath. This
friend eerily has every trait of one. I trusted this person. He was charming,
witty and a sponge. He is a fifty year old man who hasn't worked since his
early twenties. He lies a lot and quite a master at it. But I didn't realize
this until later after I was allowing him to use my internet/ WiFi for free
for well over a year. I found myself paying for his bills and feeding him
and even giving him the use of my new car. This guy didn't have anything
and had an excuse for everything. I began to open my eyes and see that his
friendships were solely based on merits of what they offered him. They were
merely vehicles to get what he needed. After he started making comments
to me that when I die, he was going to grab up all my possessions before
my daughter had chance, red flags started going off in my head. He claimed
he was teasing, but a tease is the truth behind a smile. He liked talking
a lot about my death and harped on my material things. He became possessive
of my things as if it was his. He even tried to control my spending. I might
add, we were never more than friends and we never shared the same dwelling.
Finally after catching him in several lies, I dropped our friendship. That's
when he underhandedly took my personal information and gave it out over
social media to hurt my business.
His grandiose arrogance I think is his weakness, though, he doesn't see
it that way. His arrogance blinded him into to believing that I couldn't
connect the dots. That's when I started looking further into personality
disorders. I honestly believe he is a sociopath.
All his friendships are superficial. He only becomes friends with those
who can benefit his needs. He's a pathological liar. He will steal from
you and take whatever he wants and is very aggressive and feels he is entitled.
He is charming and smart and loves to brag about his intelligence. He snarls
his nose at his friends, thinking he is far superior. Even though he doesn't
have a job and is dependent of others' financial support. I sit in my house
everyday feeling like a prisoner. He knows when I'm home and when I leave.
He watches me like a hawk. He's a collector of information of his neighbors.
He studies people and pits out his next victim.
This book helped me to understand the mind of the sociopath. However,
I don't agree entirely with the writer's view on empaths. She boast that
empaths bring havoc to the business world because they allow their emotions
to get in the way of decision making.
First, I'd like to say that most sociopaths do not function well in this
world. They are cunning, underachievers, narcissist, unable to hold down
any kind of job, yet they have this since of value that their opinion and
intelligence far exceeds anyone else even though they have never kept even
the most mundane jobs for more than a few short mouths. Instead of focusing
on a career, they use all their energy into manipulating their victims.
They can be violent but they are all a predator and can't be trusted.
I believe a sociopath's spurious confidence blinds them, keeping them from
seeing the true reality. The reality is that a person or empath, has great
leader ability. They are able to understand the heart of this country and
will take in consideration that their decision making is not based on selfish
motivation but based on heart and endeavor to help others rise above the
occasion. Empaths are the ones who make this country. And yes, I am an empath
and I am proud to be one!
I gave the writer a three star. I feel that's a fair mark. It's sort
of hard to reward someone who's character is questionable.
I didn't learn anything from this book; it contains the usual suspects
in terms of how she defines herself, the kinds of things she does, etc.
This book was written for those who are not familiar with sociopathy, and
since it's a pop psych deal all over social media, the author is capitalizing;
there are statements in that book that seriously cast doubt on her claims,
and others that pinpoint, so it seems to be she did a lot of research to
write this, rather than glean her own experience. Considering her penchant
to drone about her intelligence, her special abilities, and her success,
sociopaths lie, manipulate, and cheat to the nth degree; this is what I'm
getting from this; sociopaths are easily detectable, at least to me; I think
my discernment skills are far superior to those of the author. One star
for the subject, it is familial, and one star for the brazen ability to
recognize she cannot fool all, but can fool many.
A reviewer describes this person as a malignant narcissist which would
be an apt description for a layperson to make, but having been married to
a very intelligent sociopath for nearly ten years, and currently having
one as a mother-in-law, I can claim that without doubt that the lack of
conscious marks a sociopath as a sociopath. The females are less inclined to criminal behavior and better able to
pretend to empathy they don't possess, but they do not have the loyalty
or empathy the rest of us have, which means they cannot learn from their
behavior the way the rest of us can.
My mother-in-law knows something is missing but she doesn't know what
that is, not having the education to tell her. She can pretend to be a kind
old lady, but she very quickly loses patience with this effort and has alienated
everyone who has has dealt with her for any length of time at all. She is,
at heart, mean, nasty and cold. I do not think she has the capacity to be
different or be kind.
She is nearly a century of age and cannot learn differently. People are
agast to see her coming because they have never been around someone so narrowly
selfish, self-serving and manipulative. They try to be kind and professional
in dealing with her, and being a sociopath, she is unaware of genuine feelings,
and believes they actually like her.
These people are out there, in droves, and dealing with one is like nothing
else one would ever experience. When I saw this side of my ex-husband I
was shocked to the core and felt like I'd been unknowingly married to an
insect for years!
His mother was glad I divorced him, and while she loves him, has no illusions
about what her son is. That takes courage and keen insight.
A couple of weeks ago I went to a yard sale and a book caught my eye,
because of its subject matter–a copy of M. E. Thomas' autobiography, Confessions
of a Sociopath: a Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight.
Ever-fascinated with all things Cluster B, including first-person accounts
by narcissists, psychopaths and other antisocial types, I got busy reading
that same evening. It took me two weeks to finish the book, when normally
I'd devour a book of this length and subject matter in just a few days.
I'm sorry to say, this book was a disappointment. It was a long,
painful, boring read. First of all, Ms. Thomas isn't a very good writer.
Full of run-on sentences and endless, dull descriptions of how great she
thinks she is because she lacks empathy and a conscience (she seems to think
of these as traits only weak or stupid people have, reminding me of Ayn
Rand without an iota of the latter's intelligence), Thomas comes off more
as an obnoxious, self-centered, common narcissist than a true sociopath.
Thomas (who owns the website Sociopath World) is not a criminal.
She may well be sociopathic in that she seems to take pleasure in cheating,
manipulating, hurting, and discarding others, once gleefully watched a possum
drown, and admits she enjoys ruining the reputations of people she has worked
with. She clearly has no empathy and seems to have no emotions.
She crows on endlessly about how her lack of a conscience or any empathy
has freed her from having to worry about what others think and therefore
indicates what she thinks of as her superior intellect. But like the narcissist
she really is, she overvalues her achievements and intelligence. She works
as an attorney but doesn't seem to be able to stay employed for long, and
really doesn't have any other impressive achievements under her belt. Her
"theories" about sociopathy are nothing more than rehashes of what other
people have already described in psychology texts, and less readable than
theirs. Overall, Thomas comes off as self-congratulating, obnoxious, unlikeable,
and very shallow. She also comes off as rather dumb.
M. E. Thomas is clearly a malignant narcissist, but by calling herself
a "sociopath" you feel like you've been the victim of a bait-and-switch
(which is in itself sociopathic, I suppose). The cover of the book
is a picture of a sinister female mask on a white background, and you open
the book expecting something more than you actually get, at least some sort
of depth or insight into her own behavior. But Thomas has no real insight
and the book reads more like a resume of her fake "achievements" than a
psychological memoir. She talks about her family, who she describes as neglectful,
but she doesn't seem to think they were particularly abusive. She takes
arrogant pride in her "sociopathy," repeating the word again and again throughout
the text, as if to drive home the fact that she really is one, when it seems
that she "protesteth too much" and underneath all that bluster, suspects
she may not be one. That kind of insecurity over the possibility of not
really being what one says they are is a lot more typical of NPD than psychopathy
or sociopathy, who don't care what others think of them. Thomas also talks
about wanting to have a family and her religion (Mormonism) a lot. Maybe
her religion keeps her from acting out against others in more heinous ways
and gives her a sort of "cold" conscience, but I sure hope God doesn't let
her have children. She doesn't seem capable of maintaining a relationship,
so that doesn't exactly work in her favor.
Although narcissists are thought of as having no emotions, it isn't really
true that they don't, and there are narcissists and sociopaths who have
been able to write about themselves in an emotionally engaging, albeit dark
and depressing, way. There is rage and hurt seething behind the surface
of their words. But Thomas writes in a cold, emotionless way, probably because
she's such a bad writer. As a result, you feel about as excited reading
her "memoir" as you'd feel reading the most boring high school textbook–and
learn a whole lot less.
The only reason I didn't feel completely ripped off was because the
yard sale copy of this book set me back only $1; if I'd purchased it at
full price, I'd be pretty annoyed right now. It was all I could do to even
finish this book. It was that boring. Don't waste your time. If you want
to read a good book about sociopathy, read Marsha Stout's The Sociopath
Next Door instead. If you really need to read something that comes "out
of the horse's mouth," you'd do better with Sam Vaknin. [...]
I so wish i hadn't wasted my money on this book. The writing was
weak and she often contradicts herself and i was utterly bored half way
through. Her examples of her sociopathic behaviour aren't very radical -
provoking her father to anger in teen years, taking a neighbors bike without
permission and returning it (so naughty!), following a man who angered her
with murderous intent for a block or so until she lost him. 300 pages of
self-aggrandizing that comes across as juvenile and insecure. Perhaps she
is malicious and conniving and maybe even a sociopath whatever that actually
is (I am not a fan of the DSM), but ultimately its not that interesting,
definitely not enlightening.
This was a super-fast, easy, entertaining read, but it reminded me of
the glib answer to the interview question "what's your weakness?" : "I'm
a perfectionist." The author is undoubtedly bright, although probably not
nearly as "brilliant" as she avows on every page. By structuring her personal
& professional life to avoid any long-term serious human interaction or
competition, she intentionally insulates herself from any real challenges
to her thinking or persona. For instance, by bragging that her starting
salary as a new lawyer was 170k, she dates herself precisely to the "fattest"
7 years the legal profession has ever had. She did not land that job because
she was so brilliant, but because law firms during that period were hiring
any carbon-based life form. Also, her assessment that sociopaths are "too
rational" (i.e., not guided by emotion or constrained by herd mentality/morality)
gets it diametrically wrong. Those sociopaths who either turn criminal (&
are found out) or carve out less "successful" lives actually suffer from
too LITTLE rational thinking, analysis, and sober calculation, not too much.
This is likely correlated to their own inflated ego/self-assessment (as
this author exemplifies), or imperviousness/reduced sensitivity to pain/negative
consequences, and it leads to failure to accurately assess/predict the negative
consequences of their actions, from underestimating the likelihood of getting
"caught" to not being able to sustain any romantic relationship longer than
the author's case of 8 months. Thus I think it is not "too much logic" that
is the root of the problem (but merely its outside manifestation), but bad
math, which is rather ironic for someone who envisions/imagines herself
to be a brilliant differential engine unhampered by bloody wet emotion.
What perpetuates both the sociopathological & narcissistic self-perspective
(which, incidentally, is far more common and far more adaptive than the
author thinks) is the carefully constructed bubble of invincibility these
people construct around themselves, often choosing to rise no higher than
the pond in which they assure themselves they are the biggest or flashiest
fish. It is easy to imagine yourself King of the Jungle when you surround
yourself with declawed kittens. Nonetheless, interesting breezy read, although
the book would have better without the utterly banal and transparently false
hand-wringing/crocodile tears of the Epilogue.
Witness the rise of the female sociopath. Cruel, calculating and calm under
pressure; these emotionally detached women are in our lives, on our television
screens and with the release of Gillian Flynn's
Gone Girl this weekend, making waves in our
cinemas. Sociopaths can be charming, funny and even practised at appearing
sympathetic. In fact, one per cent of all women are sociopaths. To put that
in context, one to two per cent of the population has red hair. It's likely
that you know one, and it's even possible that you are one. Take this test
to find out if you are in the emotionally detached one per cent. To take
the quiz on your phone:
click here.
Shrink4Men: Helping men break free from abusive relationships since
2009
... ... ...
What are the characteristics of a sociopath?
Psychologists
Hervey Cleckley and Robert
Hare both developed sociopathy checklists. The following characteristics
are culled from their work.
Sociopaths have Jekyll and Hyde personalities and can be superficially charming.
Their outward appearance is often very conventional or they disguise themselves
as helpless victims. Alternately, sociopaths may come across as grandiose and
narcissistic. Sociopaths come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, ethnicities and walks
of life.
Sociopaths seem to have contempt for their victim's feelings and believe
their victims deserve to be hurt, taken advantage of and exploited. They have
no empathy or very selective empathy (e.g., your wife shows empathy toward someone
who hurts or bullies you). They lie, cheat, manipulate, and/or verbally and/or
physically intimidate others to get their way or to "win." To a sociopath, the
ends justify the means.
Sociopaths may refuse to recognize that others have rights and believe they're
entitled to violate the rights of others. In fact, they often try to control
and humiliate their victims. They see people as objects and value others based
upon their utility and ease of exploitation rather than fellow human beings.
People are either targets and opportunities for exploitation. They don't have
friends, but rather victims and accomplices who later become victims.
Sociopaths often have a gross and exaggerated sense of entitlement. They
seem incapable of true love relationships and often confuse love with ability
to control and exploit someone. They are unable to form healthy attachments
with others.
Sociopaths seem to be able to lie very easily. You can have a video or audio
recording of them perpetrating a crime or some abusive act and they will still
pee on your leg and tell you it's raining. They often believe their own lies
and may even be able to pass a polygraph. They seem to lack the capacity for
remorse or guilt. For example, many of my clients are more likely to squeeze
blood from a stone than to receive a sincere apology from their wives, girlfriends
or exes.
When sociopaths seem to be expressing positive feelings it is typically because
they are mimicking others to appear socially and psychologically normal. For
example, a man on the Shrink4Men forum found a note his wife wrote to herself
reminding herself to act nice and to pretend to be interested in her husband's
day in order to get something she wanted from him. Warm and loving behavior
may be a manipulation in order to be better able to exploit their victims. For
example, they pull you close to be able to get a better swing at you – emotionally
or physically.
Sociopaths have a need for extreme stimulation in order to feel emotion and
are prone to feeling chronically bored. Some may resort to physical violence,
gambling, drugs and alcohol, and/or promiscuity; while others create unnecessary
conflict and drama for stimulation.
Sociopaths blame others for their bad behaviors and do not take personal
responsibility for their actions. At their core, they are filled with rage,
which is often split off and projected onto their victims. Sociopaths have poor
behavioral and emotional controls and can be impulsive. They often alternate
rage and abuse with small expressions of love and approval to keep their victims
under their control.
Sociopaths lack boundaries and do not care how their behavior affects others.
They may become enraged and/or desperate when their victims try to enforce boundaries
on their abusive behaviors. They have difficulty maintaining friendships, and,
is it any wonder given how they treat others?
They typically end relationships and/or try destroying former friends who
have seen behind their masks. Some may have long-term friendships, but they
either seem to be long-distance or friendships with incredibly damaged individuals
with low self-esteem who admire the sociopath, i.e., sycophants.
Some may have a history of childhood emotional and behavioral disturbances
while others do not. Some sociopathic individuals come from otherwise healthy
and loving families.
Sociopaths are often irresponsible and unreliable. They have a history of
breaking promises yet become enraged and vengeful if they believe someone has
broken a promise to them. They have unrealistic life plans and often live beyond
their means. Many live what can be described as a parasitic life in that they
get through life by exploiting others.
Sociopaths may have diffuse identities. Many dramatically change their appearance
or outward persona in order to exploit new victims or to avoid punishment. For
example, when many of my clients met their wives and girlfriends, they feigned
similar interests, beliefs, etc., and pretended to be someone they weren't in
order to secure the relationship.
Sociopaths are ungrateful and contemptuous of people who try to help and
understand them. Oftentimes, they do not believe anything is wrong with them,
which is why therapy rarely works. If they acknowledge a problem, they usually
blame others for it. Or, if they are formally diagnosed with a mental illness
or other personality disorder, they may use their diagnosis to absolve them
of their abusive behaviors.
Sociopaths typically do not trust others. They can be authoritarian, paranoid
and secretive. They seek relationships with others who will accept, tolerate,
condone or admire their bad behavior. They like nothing better than to have
a willing victim.
Sociopaths often try to control every aspect of their victims' lives. They
can be pretty territorial about their victims, which their victims often confuse
with love and jealousy. It's not about love. You're their half-dead mouse and
they don't want any other predators messing with "their property." A good example
of this is when a woman becomes unhinged when her ex begins dating or gets remarried
- especially if she's already moved onto to another victim, er, I mean,
relationship .
Lastly, and I think this characteristic will resonate with many of you, sociopaths
have an emotional need to justify their crimes and demand that their victims
show them gratitude, love and respect. In other words:
Sociopaths expect that their victims show gratitude for being victimized
by them.
In a few days, I will post the second part of Rethinking Female Sociopathy
, so please check back.
"... "She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with her
presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good
time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she
will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be
through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your
pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you
will wonder what you did wrong." ..."
"... Most of us think of women as sensitive and nurturing. We don't expect to
see uncaring, cold-hearted, callous behaviors in women. It's hard to imagine them
being more conniving, controlling, destructive, malicious and downright mean than
the male sociopath. ..."
Female sociopaths display all the symptoms of a sociopath: lying, a parasitic
lifestyle, the need for control, and the craving for excitement. Many live
what looks like a typical life from the outside, content with blending in
and doing what "normal" people do.
Others need more... more money, more control, more power, more excitement.
They often get into trouble as they become impulsive, unable to control
their emotions and behaving irresponsibly.
These behaviors often bring problems witin their marriage. Showing true
sociopath style, they entice a man, create an intimate relationship, manipulate
his decisions, and get married. They may try to isolate the man from his
family and friends. They become bossy and controlling and will use sex as
a tool to manipulate. The man is often subjected to emotional, verbal, psychological,
and physical abuse.
If there are children of the marriage, it becomes ever more difficult.
If there is a separation or divorce, the sociopath will easily use the children
as pawns or objects as a way to continue to control the man.
They will not hesitate to obtain information from the children to use
against their father, will lie to brainwash them into thinking Daddy is
"bad" and will keep the father from having contact with them. They do this
to keep their power and control and the wellbeing of the children is never
a concern.
Female sociopaths have no problem lying, making up stories and doing
whatever is necessary to get what they want. This works well in family matters
where police or courts are involved. They are very convincing when playing
the victim, and use society's favoritism towards women and mothers to their
full advantage.
Many female sociopaths go from one relationship to another. They use
their sociopathic charm, good looks and female allures to build a relationship,
take what they want, and disappear. Men are disposable! They leave behind
a trail of broken hearts and baffled men, many who are poorer after the
experience!
The writing below was cited from "Decision Making Confidence"
"She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with
her presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will
show you a good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and
deceive you, and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through
with you, and she will be through with you, she will desert
you and take with her your innocence and your pride. You will be left much
sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will wonder what you
did wrong."
Most of us think of women as sensitive and nurturing. We don't expect
to see uncaring, cold-hearted, callous behaviors in women. It's hard to
imagine them being more conniving, controlling, destructive, malicious and
downright mean than the male sociopath.
However, just ask any man who has been a victim of a female sociopath...
If you're a man in an abusive relationship, it's important to know that
you're not alone. It happens to men from all cultures and all walks of life.
Figures suggest that as many as one in three victims of domestic violence
are male. However, men are often reluctant to report abuse by women because
they feel embarrassed, or they fear they won't be believed, or worse, that
police will assume that since they're male they are the perpetrator of the
violence and not the victim.
An abusive wife or partner may hit, kick, bite, punch, spit, throw things,
or destroy your possessions. To make up for any difference in strength,
she may attack you while you're asleep or otherwise catch you by surprise.
She may also use a weapon, such as a gun or knife, or strike you with an
object, abuse or threaten your children, or harm your pets. Of course, domestic
abuse is not limited to violence.
Domestic violence and abuse can have a serious physical and psychological
impact on both you and your children. The first step to stopping the abuse
is to reach out. Talk to a friend, family member, or someone else you trust,
or call a domestic violence helpline.
Admitting the problem and seeking help doesn't mean you have failed as
a man or as a husband. You are not to blame, and you are not weak. As well
as offering a sense of relief and providing some much needed support, sharing
details of your abuse can also be the first step in building a case against
your abuser and protecting your kids.
When dealing with your abusive partner:
Leave if possible. Be aware of any signs that may
trigger a violent response from your spouse or partner and be ready
to leave quickly. If you need to stay to protect your children, call
the emergency services. The police have an obligation to protect you
and your children, just as they do a female victim.
Never retaliate. An abusive woman or partner will
often try to provoke you into retaliating or using force to escape the
situation. If you do retaliate, you'll almost certainly be the one who
is arrested and/or removed from your home.
Get evidence of the abuse. Report all incidents
to the police and get a copy of each police report. Keep a journal of
all abuse with a clear record of dates, times, and any witnesses. Include
a photographic record of your injuries and make sure your doctor or
hospital also documents your injuries. Remember, medical personnel are
unlikely to ask if a man has been a victim of domestic violence, so
it's up to you to ensure the cause of your injuries are documented.
Keep a mobile phone, evidence of the abuse, and other important
documents close at hand. If you and your children have to leave
instantly in order to escape the abuse, you'll need to take with you
evidence of the abuse and important documents, such as passport and
driver's license. It may be safer to keep these items outside of the
home.
Obtain advice from a domestic violence program
or legal aid resource about getting a restraining order or order of
protection against your spouse and, if necessary, seeking temporary
custody of your children.
Help for abused men: Moving on from an abusive relationship
Support from family and friends as well as counseling, therapy, and support
groups for domestic abuse survivors can help you move on from an abusive
relationship. You or your children may struggle with upsetting emotions
or feel numb, disconnected, and unable to trust other people. After the
trauma of an abusive relationship, it can take a while to get over the pain
and bad memories but you can heal and move on.
Even if you're eager to jump into a new relationship and finally get
the intimacy and support you've been missing, it's wise take things slowly.
Make sure you're aware of any red flag behaviors in a potential new partner
and what it takes to build healthy, new relationships.
In the U.S. and Canada: Call The National Domestic Violence Hotline at
1-888-799-7233
"... Unlike these women, the functional sociopath isn't "dismissible" as a slave to her emotions. She is not outwardly violent. Patently remorseless, clear-eyed and calculating, she is chameleonic in the extreme, donning one feigned feeling after another (interest, concern, sympathy, simpering insecurity, confidence, arrogance, lust, even love) to get what she wants. ..."
"... "You might call it seduction," she suggests, but really "it's called arbitrage and it happens on Wall Street (and a lot of other places) every day." Whatever you choose to call it, its appeal is undeniable when linked to the professional and personal advancement of women. "In general, the women in my life seemed like they were never acting, always being acted upon," Thomas laments. ..."
"... With it, researchers over the last decade have estimated that sociopaths comprise three to four percent of the U.S. population, or roughly 10 million people who regularly demonstrate a lack of empathy, a conniving and ruthless attitude towards interpersonal relationships, and immunity to experiencing negative emotions. A mere 1.5 million of them are women. ..."
...Gone Girl, one of the most popular and addictive novels of the past decade, as Amy Dunne
- the beguiling and cerebral housewife who stages her own murder and frames her philandering husband.
Amy's creator, the novelist Gillian Flynn, has
proudly described her character as a "functioning sociopath," which she is quick to distinguish
from "the iconic psycho bitch." The iconic psycho bitch, Flynn explains, is crazy because "her lady
parts have gone crazy." Think of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, so consumed with desire
for Michael Douglas that she boils his daughter's pet rabbit to death; think of Sharon Stone and
Jennifer Jason Leigh (and Kathy Bates and Rebecca De Mornay) chasing men through dim rooms with sharp
objects.
Unlike these women, the functional sociopath isn't "dismissible" as a slave to her emotions. She
is not outwardly violent. Patently remorseless, clear-eyed and calculating, she is chameleonic in
the extreme, donning one feigned feeling after another (interest, concern, sympathy, simpering insecurity,
confidence, arrogance, lust, even love) to get what she wants.
And why should she feel bad about it?
For M.E. Thomas, author of Confessions of A Sociopath, such affective maneuvers are tantamount
to "fulfilling an exchange." "You might call it seduction," she suggests, but really "it's called
arbitrage and it happens on Wall Street (and a lot of other places) every day." Whatever you choose
to call it, its appeal is undeniable when linked to the professional and personal advancement of
women. "In general, the women in my life seemed like they were never acting, always being acted upon,"
Thomas laments.
Sociopathy's silver lining was that it gave her a way to combat that injustice, in
the boardroom of the corporate law firm she worked for in Los Angeles, but also in the bedroom, where
she marveled at how her emotional detachment let her commandeer her lovers' hearts and minds. Somewhere
along the way, pathology became recoded as practice - a set of rules for how to manage the self and
others.
She is the apotheosis of the cool girl power that go-getter "feminists" have peddled to frustrated
women over the last half-decade.
No wonder the female sociopath cuts such an admirable figure. Intensely romantic, professionally
desirable, she is the stuff of fiction, fantasy, and aspirational reading. And while actual female
sociopaths like Thomas are rare, and sociopathy isn't even recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the female sociopath looms large in our cultural imagination. Amy
Dunne may stand as the perfect example - a "Cool Girl" on the outside, ice cold within - but she
is not alone. Of late, she has faced stiff competition from fictional females like Lisbeth Salander,
the ferocious tech genius in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, or Laura, the shape-shifting
alien who preys on unwitting men in Under the Skin. Network television has been even kinder
to the female sociopath, placing her at the center of workplace dramas like Damages, Revenge,
Bones, The Fall, Rizzoli and Isles, Person of Interest, Luther,
and 24. Here, she has mesmerized audiences with how nimbly she scales the professional ladder,
her competence and sex appeal whetted by her dark, aggressive, risk-taking behavior, and lack of
empathy.
And so we lean in to the cultural logic of the female sociopath, for she is the apotheosis of
the cool girl power that go-getter "feminists" have peddled to frustrated women over the last half-decade.
The female sociopath doesn't want to upend systems of gender inequality, that vast and irreducible
constellation of institutions and beliefs that lead successful women like Gillian Flynn to decree
that certain women, who feel or behave in certain ways, are "dismissible." The female sociopath wants
to dominate these systems from within, as the most streamlined product of a world in which well-intentioned
people blithely invoke words like arbitrage, leverage, capital, and currency to appraise how successfully
we inhabit our bodies, our selves. One could easily imagine the female sociopath devouring books
with titles like Bo$$ Bitch, Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office, The Confidence
Gap, and Play Like a Man, Win Like a Woman to hone her craft - to learn how to
have it all. From atop the corporate ladder, she can applaud her liberation from the whole messy
business of feeling as a step forward for women, when it's really a step back.
The result is a self-defeating spectacle of feminism that finds a kindred spirit in Rosamund Pike
on the cover of W, erasing her own perfect face to reveal that what lies beneath might be nothing.
Like Gone Girl's Amy Dunne, who confesses that she "has never really felt like a person, but
a product" - plastic, fungible, ready to be consumed by anyone, at any time - the female sociopath
is a product of a broken promise made to women, by women. She is a product poised to disappear into
the immense darkness from which she came.
If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them
Female sociopaths are rare, making up only 15% of all those diagnosed.
Ask any psychiatrist, and he will tell you that the female sociopath is a rare, almost mythological,
creature. Ask Dr. Robert Hare, perhaps the most prolific researcher in criminal psychology and creator
of the Hare Psychopath Checklist (PCL-R), and he will place the ratio of male to female sociopaths
at seven to one - practically unworthy of discussion, let alone veneration. The PCL-R, which Hare
developed during his work with inmate populations in Canada, is widely considered the gold standard
for identifying and discussing anti-social behavior - and by the same token, for identifying and
discussing what constitutes "normal" social behavior. With it, researchers over the last decade
have estimated that sociopaths comprise three to four percent of the U.S. population, or roughly
10 million people who regularly demonstrate a lack of empathy, a conniving and ruthless attitude
towards interpersonal relationships, and immunity to experiencing negative emotions. A mere 1.5 million
of them are women.
"... Some female sociopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior as children and as adolescents. Lying, stealing, truancy, cruelty to animals and siblings, drug abuse, early sexual activity. Of course, there may be frequent run-ins with the law. Their parents are very often distraught because there is so little they can do. As adults, these female sociopaths may end up abusing alcohol and drugs and end up in and out of prison. ..."
"... Female sociopaths have all the symptoms of sociopaths. The lying, the parasitic lifestyle, the need for excitement and the desire to control. It's possible that there are many female sociopaths who live, for all intents and purposes, what looks like a normal life from the outside. They are content to just blend in and do what "normal" people do. ..."
"... One of the ways this shows up is in problems in their marriage. In true sociopath style, they attract a man, create an intimate relationship , influence his decision making and get married. It's common for them to isolate the man from his friends and family to varying degrees. They can be very domineering and controlling, using sex as a means to manipulate. The man may suffer verbal abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and even physical abuse. ..."
"... When there are children involved it gets infinitely more complicated. Especially in separations and divorces. The female sociopaths have no difficulty (remember no remorse, guilt or pity for anybody) in using the children as pawns or objects to try to continue to manipulate the man. ..."
"... In family matters where the police or the courts involved, they have no difficulty in lying, inventing stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what they want. They can play the victim role very well, as most sociopaths do, and will use society's preferences towards women and mothers to their advantage. ..."
"... Apparently both male and female psychopaths have high levels of testosterone. It has been found that in normal populations, higher levels of testosterone are associated with higher sex drive, more sexual activity and more attractiveness to the opposite sex. This will make female sociopaths more appealing to males. Add to this the lack of inhibition, and the grandiose sense of self and you have a lethal combination! Think femme fatale! It may also explain the lack of desire to have children and the failure to look after them if they do. It's not uncommon for female sociopaths to leave young children unattended, for example, because they have other more important things to do. ..."
"... We normally think women are empathic and nurturing and don't expect to see cold-hearted, uncaring, callous behaviors in women. We don't consider that they could be more devious, manipulative, destructive, vindictive and downright nasty than their male counterparts. But just ask any man who has been a victim of female sociopaths...! ..."
How many female sociopaths are there? Robert Hare believes that about 1% of the
population fits the profile of psychopath, and male psychopaths are 7 times more
common than female psychopaths.
But there are some things to keep in mind here. When most people think of
'sociopath' they typically think 'male' and 'serial killer'. They do not generally
think of women psychopaths. This can lead to a situation where they are dealing with
a psychopath in their life but do not realize who they are dealing with.
Add to this the fact that sociopaths have been called chameleons for their ability
to blend into society and it adds to the difficulty in counting them.
Plus, whether you consider it sexist or not, the female aspect needs to be
considered when talking about manipulation. Women have been known to 'bat their
eyelids' and show their cleavage or 'show a bit of leg', for example, to good effect.
How female sociopaths show up in society
The most obvious group are the serial killers. And yes, there have been lots of
female serial killers as well as males!
Unlike the males however, there is usually not a sexual element to their crimes.
It's much more usual to be money or power related. And the female sociopaths
typically know their victims; it's rare for them to kill strangers. An interesting
group are the female sociopaths who become nurses or doctors. These cold-blooded
killers hide themselves where nobody would suspect them, in a caring profession!
And then they set to work. For example, Beverley Allitt, a 23-year-old nurse in
the UK killed 4 and attacked 9 other children within a couple of months before she
was caught. A Texas nurse Genene Jones is believed to have killed between 11 and 46.
It's of this group that people usually say "But they seemed like such nice people!"
Another subset are those who kill one or several husbands for the inheritance and
life assurance.
Obvious Delinquents
Some female sociopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior as children and as
adolescents. Lying, stealing, truancy, cruelty to animals and siblings, drug abuse,
early sexual activity. Of course, there may be frequent run-ins with the law. Their
parents are very often distraught because there is so little they can do. As adults,
these female sociopaths may end up abusing alcohol and drugs and end up in and out of
prison.
Some therapists believe that there is such a disregard for society among them that
a sociopath that has not broken the law just hasn't been found out yet!
There seems to be two themes among female sociopaths that are not so prevalent in
male led groups, one being the avoidance of sex and the other being food.
The women psychopaths may target women who want to get away from sex for whatever
reason. Instead they offer female nurturing and support.
As well as offering meals when potential 'clients' have none, there are cults
based on eating healthily or losing weight. This is typical of cults, they offer
something people want but behind the outer facade is a second set of ideas or
principles. People enter for one thing and end up having the leader control their
lives.
Socialized sociopaths
These are the ones that are so difficult to count! Despite their
sociopath symptoms, they manage to integrate themselves into society to varying
degrees. Everything from solitary lives where they live on the money they make from
crimes for which they are not caught, to getting married, settling down and having
children.
It's interesting to read or listen to the stories of some of these female
sociopaths. Typically, they realize as children that they are different in some way.
They think differently and make different decisions. Then they begin to understand
that they are not so 'affected' by emotions. It's seems that it's common for them to
think that this is because they are smarter than those around them.
They begin from an early age to look for clues to recognize the emotions that
others are actually having. They learn to mimic the emotions so as not to stand out,
or to please others. They learn to create relationships that are beneficial for them.
Female sociopaths have all the symptoms of sociopaths. The lying, the
parasitic lifestyle, the need for excitement and the desire to control. It's possible
that there are many female sociopaths who live, for all intents and purposes, what
looks like a normal life from the outside. They are content to just blend in and do
what "normal" people do.
Others however, want more. More money, more power, more control, more excitement.
And they get themselves into trouble because of the impulsivity or the failure to
control their emotions, or the
irresponsibility.
One of the ways this shows up is in problems in their marriage. In true
sociopath style, they attract a man,
create an intimate relationship, influence his decision making and get married.
It's common for them to isolate the man from his friends and family to varying
degrees. They can be very domineering and controlling, using sex as a means to
manipulate. The man may suffer verbal abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and
even physical abuse.
When there are children involved it gets infinitely more complicated.
Especially in separations and divorces. The female sociopaths have no difficulty
(remember no remorse, guilt or pity for anybody) in using the children as pawns or
objects to try to continue to manipulate the man.
They will extract information from the children about the father to use against
him, they will influence how and what the children think about the father, and they
may prevent the father from having any contact with the children. The welfare of the
children is not considered. What's important is that they continue to maintain
control and power.
In family matters where the police or the courts involved, they have no
difficulty in lying, inventing stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what
they want. They can play the victim role very well, as most sociopaths do, and will
use society's preferences towards women and mothers to their advantage.
Some female sociopaths simply go from one relationship to another. They use their
sociopathic charm, good looks and female wiles to create a relationship, take what
they want and then disappear, leaving a trail of brokenhearted and confused men
behind them. Men who are somewhat poorer after the experience!
This piece was originally written about a male but I think it works equally well
like this!
She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with this
presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a
good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you,
and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she
will be through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence
and your pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a
long time you will wonder what you did wrong.
From an essay signed, "A psychopath in prison".
Testosterone
Apparently both male and female psychopaths have high levels of testosterone.
It has been found that in normal populations, higher levels of testosterone are
associated with higher sex drive, more sexual activity and more attractiveness to the
opposite sex. This will make female sociopaths more appealing to males. Add to this
the lack of inhibition, and the grandiose sense of self and you have a lethal
combination! Think femme fatale! It may also explain the lack of desire to have
children and the failure to look after them if they do. It's not uncommon for female
sociopaths to leave young children unattended, for example, because they have other
more important things to do.
How we perceive women
We normally think women are empathic and nurturing and don't expect to see
cold-hearted, uncaring, callous behaviors in women. We don't consider that they could
be more devious, manipulative, destructive, vindictive and downright nasty than their
male counterparts. But just ask any man who has been a victim of female
sociopaths...!
"... So, without further ado, Trump's quotable illustration of the hallmarks of NPD, defined according to DSM-IV as, "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy." The disorder is indicated by at least five of the following: ..."
Donald Trump was born in 1946. 34 years later, in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the American Psychiatric Association's hefty volume of mental disorder
classifications, the term "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" (NPD) first appeared as a diagnosable
disease – Trump would doubtless say it was created in his honor (characteristic #1 of NPD: An exaggerated
sense of self-importance). After all, the newly-minted personality disorder made its debut only nine
years after he took the helm of his father's company… and renamed it from Elizabeth Trump & Son to
The Trump Organization.
The most recent DSM, DSM-IV, is currently under extensive revision, with DSM-V scheduled for publication
sometime in 2013, and both its listed diseases and their definitions are undergoing extensive scrutiny
and contentious debate. On the chopping block are five of the ten or so so-called personality disorders,
including NPD. Among the reasons for the cut are the frequent overlap between disorders, the general
lack of stability of symptoms, and the range of those symptoms in reality, as compared to the either/or
approach of the manual (either you have a disorder or you don't). So, before NPD becomes a thing
of the past, at least in its current form, I thought we'd take a moment to reflect on some less than
artful choices – or the things that make Trump look like he just stepped out of the fourth edition,
symptom by symptom.
A caveat: I am obviously exaggerating, both Trump and narcissism. But debate on personality disorders,
classifications, diagnoses, and treatments is well worthwhile, and a colorful spokesperson never
hurts.
So, without further ado, Trump's quotable illustration of the hallmarks of NPD, defined according
to DSM-IV as, "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration,
and lack of empathy." The disorder is indicated by at least five of the following:
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects
to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
A sense of one's own importance, a grandiose feeling that one is alone responsible for any achievement
is a hallmark of the narcissist. Grandiosity is one of the central tenets of a narcissistic personality.
Narcissists tend to take credit for everything, as if no one else contributed to the end product.
Witness Trump's declaration that, "When people see the beautiful marble in Trump Tower, they usually
have no idea what I went through personally to achieve the end result. No one cares about the blood,
sweat, and tears that art or beauty require." What do you know: not only is Trump a developer and
an artistic visionary, but he seems to be a stellar architect and construction worker as well.
And history will agree (naturally). "Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly
mistaken," says Trump. Sadly, indeed.
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love
How many presidential runs does it take for the process to be defined as a preoccupation rather
than an occupation?
I'd leave it at that, except for the existence of this little gem: "My fingers are long and beautiful,
as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." Not only all-powerful, but
all-beautiful, too. The man has it all.
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other
special or high-status people (or institutions) To narcissists, the "little people" or anyone
beneath them (which is mostly everyone) don't matter. Trump's lambasting of Rosie O'Donnell is a
good case in point: "Rosie O'Donnell called me a snake oil salesman. And, you know, coming from Rosie,
that's pretty low because when you look at her and when you see the mind, the mind is weak. I don't
see it. I don't get it. I never understood – how does she even get on television?"
Clearly, Rosie lacks the power to understand the dazzling intellect that is Donald Trump. Trump
needs someone of equal status to appreciate his immensity. But it can't be Larry King, because as
he told King, "Do you mind if I sit back a little? Because your breath is very bad. It really is.
Has this been told to you before?"
4. Requires excessive admiration No matter the sincerity, as long as the praise comes frequently
and at a high enough volume. Says Trump, "All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me – consciously
or unconsciously. That's to be expected." Clearly. Admired, wherever he may go, even when he's talking
about himself in the third person, as in, "Love him or hate him, Trump is a man who is certain about
what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred. Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on
as his money."
As he puts it, "Nobody but a total masochist wants to be criticized."
5. Has a sense of entitlement The world owes the narcissist everything; he, in turn, owes
it nothing. I think Trump's attitude can be summed up with this approach to marriage: "I wish I'd
had a great marriage. See, my father was always very proud of me, but the one thing he got right
was that he had a great marriage. He was married for 64 years. One of my ex-wives once said to me,
'You have to work at a marriage.' And I said, 'That's the most ridiculous thing.'"
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends I don't have a quote for
this one, but perhaps we can talk to one of his ex-wives.
7. Lacks empathy Narcissists don't sympathize with the feelings of others. Who are these
"others," anyway? No one matters except for me. I won't recreate the Rosie rampage in full, but sentiments
like, "I'll sue her because it would be fun. I'd like to take some money out of her fat ass pockets,"
capture the spirit.
8. Is often envious of others or believes others to be envious of him Here, it seems like
Trump is dominated by the second sentiment, the expectation that everyone is envious of his success.
Everyone wants to be Trump. As he puts it, "The old rich may look down their noses at me, but I think
they kiss my ass."
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes Again,
other people don't matter. They can be treated like nothing, because who are we kidding – nothing
is the closest description of what they are.
Clients don't matter. As Trump puts it, "When I build something for somebody, I always add $50
million or $60 million onto the price. My guys come in, they say it's going to cost $75 million.
I say it's going to cost $125 million, and I build it for $100 million. Basically, I did a lousy
job. But they think I did a great job." Take them for the suckers they are; that's the ticket.
The media doesn't matter. According to Trump, "You know, it really doesn't matter what (the media)
write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." The piece of ass doesn't matter,
either; any will do.
Other businesses don't matter. As Trump says, "If you want to buy something, it's obviously in
your best interest to convince the seller that what he's got isn't worth very much."
But it's ok. Trump doesn't have to be nice. After all, it's not like he wants to run for office
or anything: "I'm not running for office. I don't have to be politically correct. I don't have to
be a nice person. Like I watch some of these weak-kneed politicians, it's disgusting. I don't have
to be that way."
Too bad. We need a good candidate. Because according to Trump, "One of the key problems today
is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don't go into government."
"... the narcissist is someone who has "buried his true self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory false self." ..."
"... In our highly individualistic and externally driven society, mild to severe forms of narcissism are not only pervasive but often encouraged. ..."
"... It is more accurate to characterize the pathological narcissist as someone who's in love with an idealized self-image , which they project in order to avoid feeling (and being seen as) the real, disenfranchised, wounded self. Deep down, most pathological narcissists feel like the "ugly duckling," even if they painfully don't want to admit it. ..."
"... Some narcissists have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, believing that others cannot live or survive without his or her magnificent contributions. ..."
"... "Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others" - Paramhansa Yogananda ..."
"... Making decisions for others to suit one's own needs. The narcissist may use his or her romantic partner, child, friend, or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized dreams , or cover up self-perceived inadequacies and flaws. ..."
Be on the lookout for these, before you get manipulated.
"That's enough of me talking about myself; let's hear you talk about me"
― Anonymous
"It's not easy being superior to everyone I know."
― Anonymous
Psychologist Stephen Johnson writes that the narcissist is someone who has "buried his true
self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory
false self." This alternate persona to the real self often comes across as grandiose, "above
others," self-absorbed, and highly conceited. In our highly individualistic and externally driven
society, mild to severe forms of narcissism are not only pervasive but often encouraged.
Narcissism is often interpreted in popular culture as a person who's in
love with him
or herself. It is more accurate to characterize the pathological narcissist as someone who's
in love with an idealized
self-image , which
they project in order to avoid feeling (and being seen as) the real, disenfranchised, wounded self.
Deep down, most pathological narcissists feel like the "ugly duckling," even if they painfully don't
want to admit it.
How do you know when you're dealing with a narcissist? The following are some telltale signs,
excerpted from my book (click on title): "
How to Successfully Handle Narcissists
(link is external) ". While most of us are
guilty of some of the
following behaviors at one time or another, a pathological narcissist tends to dwell habitually in
several of the following personas, while remaining largely unaware of (or unconcerned with) how his
or her actions affect others.
1. Conversation Hoarder . The narcissist loves to talk about him or herself,
and doesn't give you a chance to take part in a two-way conversation. You struggle to have your views
and feelings heard. When you do get a word in, if it's not in agreement with the narcissist, your
comments are likely to be corrected, dismissed, or ignored. As in: "My father's favorite responses
to my views were: 'but…,' 'actually…,' and 'there's more to it than this…' He always has to feel
like he knows better." ― Anonymous
2. Conversation Interrupter. While many people have the poor communication habit
of interrupting others, the narcissist interrupts and quickly switches the focus back to herself.
He shows little genuine interest in you.
3. Rule Breaker. The narcissist enjoys getting away with violating rules and
social norms, such as cutting in line, chronic under-tipping, stealing office supplies, breaking
multiple appointments, or disobeying traffic laws. As in: "I take pride in persuading people to give
me exceptions to their rules" ― Anonymous
4. Boundary Violator. Shows wanton disregard for other people's thoughts, feelings,
possessions, and physical space. Oversteps and uses others without consideration or sensitivity.
Borrows items or money without returning. Breaks promises and obligations repeatedly. Shows little
remorse and blames the victim for one's own lack of respect. As in: "It's your fault that I forgot
because you didn't remind me"― Anonymous
5. False Image Projection. Many narcissists like to do things to impress others
by making themselves look good externally. This "trophy" complex can exhibit itself physically, romantically,
sexually, socially, religiously, financially, materially, professionally, academically, or culturally.
In these situations, the narcissist uses people, objects, status, and/or accomplishments to represent
the self, substituting for the perceived, inadequate "real" self. These grandstanding "merit badges"
are often exaggerated. The underlying message of this type of display is: "I'm better than you!"
or "Look at how special I am-I'm worthy of everyone's love, admiration, and acceptance!" as in: "I
dyed my hair blond and enlarged my breasts to get men's attention-and to make other women
jealous " - Anonymous.
Or "My accomplishments are everything" ― Anonymous executive Or "I never want to be looked upon as
poor. My fiancé and I each drive a Mercedes. The best man at our upcoming wedding also drives a Mercedes."
― Anonymous.
In a big way, these external symbols become pivotal parts of the narcissist's false identity,
replacing the real and injured self.
6. Entitlement. Narcissists often expect preferential treatment from others.
They expect others to cater (often instantly) to their needs, without being considerate in return.
In their mindset, the world revolves around them.
7. Charmer. Narcissists can be very
charismatic and persuasive.
When they're interested in you (for their own gratification), they make you feel very special and
wanted. However, once they lose interest in you (most likely after they've gotten what they want,
or became bored), they may drop you without a second thought. A narcissist can be very engaging and
sociable, as long as you're fulfilling what she desires, and giving her all of your attention.
8. Grandiose Personality. Thinking of oneself as a hero or heroine, a prince
or princess, or one of a kind special person. Some narcissists have an exaggerated sense of self-importance,
believing that others cannot live or survive without his or her magnificent contributions. As
in: "I'm looking for a man who will treat my daughter and me like princesses" ― Anonymous
singles ad. Or: "Once again I saved the day-without me, they're nothing" ― Anonymous
9. Negative Emotions. Many narcissists enjoy spreading and arousing negative
emotions to gain attention, feel powerful, and keep you insecure and off-balance. They are easily
upset at any real or perceived slights or inattentiveness. They may throw a tantrum if you disagree
with their views, or fail to meet their expectations. They are extremely sensitive to criticism,
and typically respond with heated argument (fight) or cold detachment (flight). On the other hand,
narcissists are often quick to judge, criticize, ridicule, and blame you. Some narcissists are emotionally
abusive. By making you feel inferior, they boost their fragile ego, and feel better about themselves.
As in: "Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others" - Paramhansa Yogananda
10. Manipulation: Using Others as an Extension of Self. Making decisions
for others to suit one's own needs. The narcissist may use his or her romantic partner, child, friend,
or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized
dreams , or cover up
self-perceived inadequacies and flaws. As in: "If my son doesn't grow up to be a professional
baseball player, I'll disown him" ― Anonymous father. Or: "Aren't you beautiful? Aren't you beautiful?
You're going to be just as pretty as mommy" ― Anonymous mother
Another way narcissists manipulate is through guilt, such as proclaiming, "I've given you so much,
and you're so ungrateful," or, "I'm a victim-you must help me or you're not a good person." They
hijack your emotions, and beguile you to make unreasonable sacrifices.
If you find yourself in a relationship with a difficult narcissist, there are many strategies
and skills you can utilize to help restore
health , balance, and
respect. In my book (click on title): "
How to Successfully Handle Narcissists
(link is external) ," you'll learn how to maintain composure, ways to be proactive instead of
reactive, seven powerful strategies to handle narcissists, eight ways to say "no" diplomatically
but firmly, keys to negotiate successfully with narcissists, and seven types of power you can utilize
to compel cooperation
.
For more on dealing with difficult people, see my publications (click on titles):
That is what a relationship with a narcissist is like. In the beginning there's flash and excitement.
Their presence is magnetic and he or she seems larger than life. They are intelligent, charming,
and popular, and when they're the center of attention, some of the spotlight shines on you, too,
leaving you glowing with pride, importance, and accomplishment. Yet after a while, you discover
that under the surface the relationship is hollow. Soon, the excitement and status wear thin.
This is because a true narcissist lacks inner qualities necessary for a healthy bond: empathic
perspective-taking, a moral conscience, stable confidence, and the ability to be intimate and
genuine with another human being. Being in a relationship with a narcissist (especially if you
don't realize they are one) can leave you feeling worthless, emotionally exhausted, and unfulfilled.
So how can you know if you are in this kind of "hollow chocolate bunny" relationship before
it crashes and burns in heartache? Do you have to wait until your relationship sours to find out?
Not necessarily. Spotting the signs early means being able to avoid getting entangled in a narcissist's
web, and could spare you from doing the challenging, messy work of digging yourself out later.
Here's a few signs to look for in your partner, which may signal that the person you are dating
has narcissistic tendencies, and the negative effects those behaviors can have on you:
1. He poses as "The Most Interesting Man in the World."
A narcissist may initially intrigue you with his or her apparent confidence, swagger, or audacity,
regaling you with stories about accomplishments, rubbing elbows with influential people, or their
innumerable talents and gifts. He or she may seem fun and magnetic, always the center of attention
and the life of the party, but this may actually be a facade - a ploy to satisfy the narcissist's
pathological need for praise and reassurance. You may come to find out that the stories are exaggerated
(or altogether false), their confidence is artificial and fragile, and his or her need for attention
may trump good judgment or others' needs.
2. You feel talked down to.
Because narcissists deeply lack self-esteem, almost everything else in their lives is orchestrated
to hide their weaknesses and give them a temporary sense of power and success. This can take the
form of subtle insults that cause you to question your worth, such as a dismissive sneer when
you make an observation, a condescending "that's nice" when you share an accomplishment you're
proud of, or demeaning comments about your behavior or appearance.
When you look to a partner who is a narcissist, it can feel like you're looking into a funhouse
mirror and getting back a distorted view of yourself. Your flaws seem to be highlighted and your
strengths diminished - a careful ruse constructed to ensure the narcissist holds themselves in
a more flattering light.
3. She acts like the victim.
Narcissism also is characterized by extreme self-centeredness. Anything that is outside the
narcissist's experience or that contradicts his or her beliefs is wrong, foolish, or crazy. For
this reason, a conflict with a narcissist is almost certain to end with all the blame being directed
to you. This, combined with the funhouse mirror effect, can make even minor arguments emotionally
exhausting.
Nothing you say can convince the narcissist that you're not making intentional and irrational
attacks against him or her. In the narcissist's eyes, you're somehow responsible for their sadness,
anger, or even immoral behavior.
4. Your relationship feels one-sided and shallow.
When it's time to move from casual to committed, this is where the "hollow chocolate bunny"
effect of narcissism really shows through. A relationship with a narcissist is unlikely ever to
reach greater depths of sharing, emotion, and intimacy.
A narcissist is likely to spend time with you when it suits his or her emotional, physical,
or sexual needs, and dismiss or ignore your needs, desires, and preferences. Your time together
is likely to be marked by a lack of genuine interest in anything other than him- or herself. For
example, you could get late-night calls when he or she is distraught, excited, or wants something
but similar calls from you may not even be answered. Attempts to share your deeper thoughts, beliefs,
or feelings may be given lip service, ignored, or dismissed.
If these seem to describe your current relationship, don't panic. In fact, seize the opportunity
to reflect and evaluate your twosome. These red flags may help shed light on the dysfunction you're
bearing and guide you away from further pain. If you want to make things work, there are ways
to cope with dating or living with a narcissist, including developing conflict-resolution skills
and bolstering your own confidence and self-esteem to shield you against narcissistic attacks.
Ultimately, knowledge is power. Being aware of signs of narcissism (and some of the problems
that can arise from dating a narcissist) allows you to be prepared and to make informed decisions
about the relationship.
It's easy to fall for a narcissist: they're charming, polished and quick to get in your good graces
with compliments and constant attention. Once you ...
There are definitely fairy tale stories out there of two people falling madly in love with each
other right at the get go and spending their lives happily ever after, but that is generally not
the norm. Keep your guard up the more intensely the person is into you and the earlier on it occurs.
A narcissist can seem to love you. A narcissist can make it look like love. A narcissist can say
the words of love. A narcissist can think it's love. Unfortunately, when involved with a narcissist,
you are enmeshed but not in love. You can be enmeshed and mistake that for love. But enmeshment and
love are not the same thing.
If you've tried a more loving approach to sharing what hurts in your relationship, and the narcissist
in your life still won't soften, you truly have done everything you can.
As a therapist, I've seen firsthand that changing relational patterns often transforms even the
most inflexible "trait" into something softer, gentler -- not a fixed feature, but a protection that
eventually yields to touch and intimacy in all the ways one would hope.
The most glaring problems are easy to spot -- but if you get too hung up on the obvious traits,
you can easily miss the subtle (and often more common) features that allow a narcissist to sneak
into your life and wreak havoc.
"... Trait labels like narcissist, or the admittedly less stigmatizing ones like extrovert and introvert, merely provide a shorthand description. They're a stand-in for "this person scored high on a trait measure of narcissism or extroversion or introversion." They can never hope to capture the whole person. ..."
"... For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click here . ..."
"... For more on emotional intelligence, click here . ..."
The author is a Clinical Psychologist,
Lecturer Harvard Medical School
At the end of May 2013, I wrote
an article titled "5 Early Warning Signs You're With a Narcissist." It sparked a number of rich
conversations through comments, emails,
Facebook and
Twitter . Not surprisingly, the vast
majority of reactions came from people who feared they were currently in a relationship with a narcissist.
Nevertheless, some of them - often among the most heartfelt and desperate of messages - came from
people who'd either been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), or felt convinced
they met criteria for the diagnosis. From both sides, the same question surfaced again and again:
Is there hope for those with NPD and the people who love them? Is there anything we can do if we
see early warning signs or actual diagnostic criteria besides end the relationship? As simple as
they might seem on the surface, questions like these resonate with some of the deepest concerns in
psychology. Can we change our personalities? More to the point, can people who meet criteria for
personality disorders open themselves up to new and better experiences in relationships and in the
world? I'm going to go on record as saying, yes, I do believe it's possible for people to change,
even if they've been diagnosed with something as deeply entrenched and formidable as a personality
disorder.
Trait labels like narcissist, or the admittedly less stigmatizing ones like extrovert and
introvert, merely provide a shorthand description. They're a stand-in for "this person scored high
on a trait measure of narcissism or extroversion or introversion." They can never hope to capture
the whole person. (Bear in mind that even Jung, who introduced the latter concepts,
firmly believed we all possess both an introvert and an extrovert side , regardless of
how much we tend to one side or the other.) Nevertheless, when they become diagnostic labels, like
"narcissist" or "Narcissistic Personality Disorder," these stark descriptions imply something that
goes far beyond a tendency or a style - they suggest permanence and a set of stable enduring features.
I have more hope than this. I believe that rather than simply being "who we are," our personalities
are also patterns of interaction. That is, personality, whether disordered or not , has as
much to do with how (and with whom) we interact as it does with our genes and wired-in temperament.
So what pattern does the narcissist follow?
Many have suggested that NPD emerges from an environment in which vulnerability comes to feel
dangerous, representing, at worst, either a grave defect, or at best, a stubborn barrier to becoming
a worthwhile human being - that's simplifying a great deal of research and theory, but it's a workable
summary - hence the correlation between NPD and
insecure attachment styles , in which fears of depending on anyone at all engender constant attempts
to control the relationship or avoid intimacy altogether. If you devote yourself to directing interactions
or holding people at arms length, it's a lot harder to become vulnerable (needless to say, the "safety"
is largely an illusion). People with NPD have learned to ignore, suppress, deny, project and disavow
their vulnerabilities (or at least try) in their attempts to shape and reshape "who they are" in
their interactions. Change - allowing the vulnerability back in - means opening up to the very feelings
they've learned to avoid at all costs. It's not that people with NPD can't change, it's that it often
threatens their sense of personhood to try. And their failed relationships often confirm, in their
minds, that narcissism is the safest way to live. Put another way, narcissists can't be narcissistic
in a vacuum. They need the right audience in order to feel like a star, for example, so they often
cultivate relationships with people who stick around for the show, instead of the person. Over time,
as their perfect façade starts to slip, their constant fear that people will find them lacking becomes
a horrifying reality. The very people who stuck around for the show lose interest when it ends -
which merely convinces the narcissist they need to hide their flaws and put on a better show. Alternatively,
even when they fall for someone who could be more than just an adoring fan - someone who offers the
hope of a more authentic, enduring love - narcissists still live with the paralyzing fear they'll
somehow be deemed unworthy. Their terror is frequently out of awareness, and nearly always managed
with bravado and blame, but it's profound and palpable. Sadly, their anger at having their mistakes
and missteps exposed ultimately alienates their loved ones, and the demise of yet another relationship
prompts them to redouble their efforts to avoid vulnerability - in short, it pushes them towards
more narcissism.
The sad irony of the narcissistic condition is that, in an effort to protect themselves,
narcissists inevitably invite the very rejection and abandonment they fear in the first place. The
key then, to interacting with someone you suspect is narcissistic, is to break the vicious circle
- to gently thwart their frantic efforts to control, distance, defend or blame in the relationship
by sending the message that you're more than willing to connect with them, but not on these terms
- to invite them into a version of intimacy where they can be loved and admired, warts and all -
if they only allow the experience to happen. As a therapist, I've seen firsthand that changing relational
patterns often transforms even the most inflexible "trait" into something softer, gentler - not a
fixed feature, but a protection that eventually yields to touch and intimacy in all the ways one
would hope. Narcissism is a way of relating. Not everyone can shift into a more flexible form of
intimacy, but some can, and in the next post, I plan to share steps you can take to help you decide
whether or not the person you're with is capable of seeing themselves - and you - through a less-constricting
lens than the narcissistic worldview. If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on facebook and twitter. I frequently respond
to comments and questions there. And feel free to check out www.drcraigmalkin.com for more
tips and advice, as well as information on my book in progress .
For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click
here . For
more on emotional intelligence,
click here
.
"... Feelings are a natural consequence of being human, and we tend to have lots of them in the course of normal interactions. But the very fact of having a feeling in the presence of another person suggests you can be touched emotionally by friends, family, partners, and even the occasional tragedy or failure. Narcissists abhor feeling influenced in any significant way. It challenges their sense of perfect autonomy; to admit to a feeling of any kind suggests they can be affected by someone or something outside of them. So they often change the subject when feelings come up, especially their own, and as quick as they might be to anger, it's often like pulling teeth to get them to admit that they've reached the boiling point - even when they're in the midst of the most terrifying tirade. ..."
"... If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on facebook and twitter. I frequently respond to comments and questions there. And feel free to check out www.drcraigmalkin.com for more tips and advice, as well as information on my book in progress . ..."
"... For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click here . ..."
Dr. Craig Malkin , Author, Clinical
Psychologist, Lecturer Harvard Medical School
At the beginning of April this year, I was tapped by the Huffington Post Live team for a
discussion on narcissism . I happily agreed to appear, for a number of reasons, not the least
of which is that narcissism happens to be one of my favorite subjects. Early in my training, I had
the pleasure of working with one of the foremost authorities on narcissism in our field, and in part
because of that experience, I went on to work with quite a few clients who'd been diagnosed with
narcissistic personality disorder . That's where I learned that the formal diagnostic label hardly
does justice to the richness and complexity of this condition. The most glaring problems are easy
to spot - the apparent absence of even a shred of empathy, the grandiose plans and posturing, the
rage at being called out on the slightest of imperfections or normal human missteps - but if you
get too hung up on the obvious traits, you can easily miss the subtle (and often more common) features
that allow a narcissist to sneak into your life and wreak havoc. Just ask
Tina Swithin , who went
on to write a book
about surviving her experience with a man who clearly meets criteria for NPD (and very likely,
a few other diagnoses). To her lovestruck eyes, her soon-to-be husband seemed more like a prince
charming than the callous, deceitful spendthrift he later proved to be. Looking back, Tina explains,
there were signs of trouble from the start, but they were far from obvious at the time. In real life,
the most dangerous villains rarely advertise their malevolence. So what are we to do? How do we protect
ourselves from narcissists if they're so adept at slipping into our lives unnoticed? I shared some
of my answers to that question in our conversation, and I encourage you to watch it. But there were
a few I didn't get to, and others I didn't have the chance to describe in depth, so I thought I'd
take the opportunity to revisit the topic here. Tread carefully if you catch a glimpse of any of
these subtler signs:
1) Projected Feelings of Insecurity: I don't mean that narcissists
see insecurity everywhere. I'm talking about a different kind of projection altogether, akin
to playing hot potato with a sense of smallness and deficiency. Narcissists say and do things, subtle
or obvious, that make you feel less smart, less accomplished, less competent. It's as if they're
saying, "I don't want to feel this insecure and small; here, you take the feelings." Picture the
boss who questions your methods after their own decision derails an important project, the date who
frequently claims not to understand what you've said, even when you've been perfectly clear, or the
friend who always damns you with faint praise ("Pretty good job this time!"). Remember the saying:
"Don't knock your neighbor's porch light out to make yours shine brighter." Well, the narcissist
loves to knock out your lights to seem brighter by comparison.
2) Emotion-phobia: Feelings
are a natural consequence of being human, and we tend to have lots of them in the course of normal
interactions. But the very fact of having a feeling in the presence of another person suggests you
can be touched emotionally by friends, family, partners, and even the occasional tragedy or failure.
Narcissists abhor feeling influenced in any significant way. It challenges their sense of perfect
autonomy; to admit to a feeling of any kind suggests they can be affected by someone or something
outside of them. So they often change the subject when feelings come up, especially their own, and
as quick as they might be to anger, it's often like pulling teeth to get them to admit that they've
reached the boiling point - even when they're in the midst of the most terrifying tirade.
3) A
Fragmented Family Story: Narcissism seems to be born of neglect and abuse, both of which are
notorious for creating an insecure attachment style (for more on attachment, see
here and
here ). But the very fact that narcissists, for all their posturing, are deeply insecure, also
gives us an easy way to spot them. Insecurely attached people can't talk coherently about their family
and childhood; their early memories are confused, contradictory, and riddled with gaps. Narcissists
often give themselves away precisely because their childhood story makes no sense, and the most common
myth they carry around is the perfect family story. If your date sings their praises for their exalted
family but the reasons for their panegyric seem vague or discursive, look out. The devil is in the
details, as they say - and very likely, that's why you're not hearing them.
4) Idol Worship:
Another common narcissistic tendency you might be less familiar with is the habit of putting
people on pedestals. The logic goes a bit like this: "If I find someone perfect to be close to, maybe
some of their perfection will rub off on me, and I'll become perfect by association." The fact that
no one can be perfect is usually lost on the idol-worshipping narcissist - at least until they discover,
as they inevitably do, that their idol has clay feet. And stand back once that happens. Few experiences
can prepare you for the vitriol of a suddenly disappointed narcissist. Look out for any pressure
to conform to an image of perfection, no matter how lovely or magical the compulsive flattery might
feel.
5) A High Need for Control: For the same reason narcissists often loathe the subject
of feelings, they can't stand to be at the mercy of other people's preferences; it reminds them that
they aren't invulnerable or completely independent - that, in fact, they might have to ask
for what they want - and even worse, people may not feel like meeting the request. Rather than express
needs or preferences themselves, they often arrange events (and maneuver people) to orchestrate the
outcomes they desire. In the extreme form, this can manifest as abusive, controlling behaviors. (Think
of the man who berates his wife when dinner isn't ready as soon as he comes home. He lashes out precisely
because at that very moment, he's forced to acknowledge that he depends on his wife, something
he'd rather avoid.) But as with most of these red flags, the efforts at control are often far subtler
than outright abuse. Be on the look out for anyone who leaves you feeling nervous about approaching
certain topics or sharing your own preferences. Narcissists have a way of making choices feel off-limits
without expressing any anger at all - a disapproving wince, a last-minute call to preempt the plans,
chronic lateness whenever you're in charge of arranging a night together. It's more like a war of
attrition on your will than an outright assault on your freedom. None of these signs, in isolation,
proves that you're with a narcissist. But if you see a lot of them, it's best to sit up and take
notice. They're all way of dodging vulnerability, and that's a narcissist's favorite tactic.
If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on
facebook and
twitter. I frequently respond to
comments and questions there. And feel free to check out
www.drcraigmalkin.com for more tips and
advice, as well as information on my
book in progress .
For more by Dr. Craig Malkin,
click here .
By Nancy
Kay from DivorcedMoms.com
Could you be
dating a narcissist and not even know it? After starting to
date again after divorce , I often found myself drawn toward highly successful
professional men who are competitive in business and strongly determined to
continue to build their own financial empire. Their determined, confident attitudes
and visible business successes appealed to my strong desires for security and
stability. A recent first date I went on was with this type of guy. My date
with a dentist turned into a three-hour marathon of misery for me when he insisted
that we sit in a back booth that he had reserved in advance with the hostess
by visiting the restaurant the night before and then he told our server that
he would leave an extra generous tip if she served our meals at a very leisurely
pace. Right away he launched into a one-sided brag fest about how he got elected
president of his college fraternity and why he easily scored highest in his
graduating class on the dental board exam. He then dropped names of all the
famous people he knows who live in our city and then went on to reveal the names
of all the famous people his dad knows too. By the time the pasta finally arrived,
I wanted to collapse into my plate from sheer boredom and exhaustion. After
that mind-numbing experience, I ran to my car and swore off dating for several
months. Unfortunately this was just one more very disillusioning
date with a narcissistic man . I had already experienced many others. Several
times I dated a man exclusively for three to six months, expecting things to
become more serious over time, only to have them abruptly break things off with
very little explanation or distance themselves with vague excuses about why
they couldn't continue to spend time with me. After spending many frustrating
weeks trying to figure out how to get each of these men I had dated exclusively
to connect with me on an emotional level so that our relationship could continue
to grow, I finally discovered that there was a big disconnect between the type
of relationship I was expecting to unfold and what these narcissistic men were
able to contribute in terms of intimacy, emotional connection and respectful
two-way communications. I discovered that I was living on crumbs and pretending
it was a whole nutritious meal. Are you dating a narcissist? Here
are six warning signs: 1. He is pre-occupied with how
things around him appear and how he is perceived by others. He aggressively
pursues financial success and is not content with what he already has acquired
or achieved. He has a strong craving for admiration, praise and his home, car,
clothes and high status are a direct measurement of how successful he appears
to others. 2. He exploits or takes advantage of others to get what he
wants. Narcissists are highly skilled at using others' talents; taking
advantage of their desire to avoid conflicts and their good natured helpfulness
as a means to an end to achieve their own goals. 3. He does not appreciate
or even see your unique abilities and natural gifts. Highly self-absorbed,
narcissists are so driven by how they can use others to benefit themselves that
your own individual strengths, abilities and achievements are often ignored
or dismissed as inconsequential. 4. He resents authority and despises
correction or being told what to do. He is reluctant to accept any
blame or criticism and strongly prefers to be in control of things and those
around him at all times. Having his faults pointed out to him or even having
to admit that he made a mistake can set him off into a fit of rage.
5. Petty arguments often erupt into power struggles. The narcissistic
man thrives on being right so disputes are rarely resolved. Mediation and counseling
rarely helps to improve communications with a narcissist because this type of
person sees themselves as under attack and can't stand for their actions to
be subject to the opinions of others and held up to the light. 6. He
disregards your healthy needs for attention and affection. Since narcissistic
men often lack empathy and the self-examination necessary to create an intimate
relationship, you'll often find yourself running on empty. Attempts to get more
affection from him often leads to him creating a secret life to run to and evading
your questions about what is really happening or not happening in your relationship.
If you recognize these signs in a man that you are dating, it is helpful to
remember that narcissists have very rigid expectations (especially for themselves)
and so this type of man rarely changes his ways. Understanding or experiencing
intimacy and love within the context of a balanced and healthy relationship
is not on the agenda of a narcissist. Unfortunately, many times we keep trying
to change a narcissistic man into who we'd like them to become or the reverse
- trying to twist ourselves like pretzels into a perfect version of what he
wants instead of cutting our losses. Recognizing the traits of a narcissistic
man and realizing how deeply rooted they are is critical so that we can begin
taking back control of our own life and start to move forward in a healthier
direction.
< Have you ever had a situation that goes something like this?: You meet
someone and it feels like the stars align. This person is so into you and
lavishes you with attention, romance and gifts. The relationship moves very
quickly and it feels like you have met "the one." Months down the road when
things have settled in comfortably, things start to change. The person who
used to adore and worship you now fluctuates between needing you desperately
and devaluing you. Perhaps as time goes on, the person who you thought cared
so much becomes more emotionally unavailable, distant and cruel. The "Jekyll"
part of the personality starts to overtake the "Hyde." How did this person
who used to be so wonderful and made such an effort to be with you all of
the sudden turn out to be so opposite than what you thought? This can leave
someone confused, hurt, angry and depressed. If this situation sounds similar
to something you have experienced, you may be or may have dated someone
with narcissistic tendencies. Here are some of the warning signs:
1. They are madly in love with you right off the bat and the
relationship moves very quickly: People with narcissistic tendencies
use fantasy like projections when picking a mate. Usually it takes a certain
amount of time to fall in love with someone. Sure, you can feel chemistry
and a connection with someone but to fall in love with who a person truly
is (flaws and all) takes some time. A person with narcissistic tendencies
loves the intense feelings and the attention. Sadly, their intense interest
in you is more so about them and their needs than it is about you.
2. They fluctuate between adoring you and devaluing you:
People with narcissistic tendencies are very hot and cold. They
can be mean and critical one second and then sweet and loving the next.
This becomes very confusing because you are still seeing glimpses of the
wonderful person you first fell in love with but you are also getting to
see another side that makes you feel bad about yourself.
3. They
have little ability to empathize and everything is on their terms:
Someone with narcissistic tendencies doesn't really see things
from your world or from your point of view. Everything is about them and
what they want. They ignore your needs in the relationship and only focus
on getting what they want or what works best for them. They will always
be their number one priority and everyone else will always come after that.
4. They cheat, lie or manipulate and don't feel remorse:
Narcissists don't really empathize so when they do something to
hurt you, they don't really feel remorseful. This can actually be the most
hurtful part because it may make you feel like they never cared about you
at all. Moving on can be very hard because a lot of people feel that they
need closure or apologies that they will never get from narcissistic people.
5. When it's all over, it's like you never mattered: A
classic case narcissist mostly uses people for their own gain and has very
little emotional connection to those that are in their lives. Because of
this, they discard people in their lives very easily. I recently watched
an episode of the new HBO show Girls and in this particular episode, one
of the characters who had broken up with her serious long-term boyfriend
2 weeks prior now finds he already has a new girlfriend. Shocked that he
could move on so quickly from something so serious she exclaims. "you're
a sociopath!!" and walks away. Even though she was the one who broke up
with him, she is shocked that it feels like their relationship meant nothing
to him at the end of the day and that she was easily replaceable. People
recovering from narcissistic relationships are often in shock that someone
who once claimed to love them so much has moved on so quickly and without
any sense of remorse.
How to spot a narcissist:
I always tell my clients to take the time to really get to know the people
they are dating before getting too emotionally invested or putting all their
eggs in one basket. There are definitely fairy tale stories out there of
two people falling madly in love with each other right at the get go and
spending their lives happily ever after, but that is generally not the norm.
Keep your guard up the more intensely the person is into you and the earlier
on it occurs. Past relationship patterns are also very important to look
at. As mentioned above, people who are narcissistic are intense very quickly
and end up leaving a trail of shattered relationships and people who are
left to pick up the pieces (and often need quite a bit of therapy after
being in the destructive path of a narcissist). If you get an idea of the
dating history of someone and it follows a certain pattern, pay attention
to that. Yes, people can change, but past relationship patterns can raise
a lot of red flags. The reason people have a hard time of extricating themselves
from a narcissistic relationship is because it is hard to get past the fact
that someone who used to be so wonderful and loving can turn so cold, hateful
and lacking in remorse. These people hang on because of the glimpses they
get of the good side and hold out the hope that if they were only "good
enough" or "better", or unconditionally accepted and loved this person then
they could get the nice and kind person back.
It turns into a vicious cycle
and the more you get into a relationship, the harder it is to get out of.
Being in a relationship with a narcissist will make you feel crazy and most
narcissists actually don't actively leave relationships; they wait to be
left first. It can be really hard to get out of a relationship like this
and if you have never been in one, it's hard to know how. If someone makes
you feel worthless or crazy and you know they are not treating you with
respect, or empathizing with you, that might be hard to change. Learning
to spot negative patterns early and having the strength to know what you
deserve in a relationship is one of the best things to do if you find yourself
involved with one of these people.
Recovery after a narcissistic
relationship:
Recovery after a narcissistic relationship can be very difficult. Many
people are driven to therapy because they have been left completely shattered
and fragile after a relationship with a narcissist. The most important thing
to remember is that it's not about YOU. This has everything to do with the
flaws of the narcissist and their inability to make real, meaningful connections
with others. What they have done to you is what they have done and will
continue to do in all their relationships unless they recognize this within
themselves and get help. The problem is, most narcissistic people never
recognize that they need to change. Remember that you deserve a relationship
that builds you up, that makes you feel safe, and that brings you happiness
and warmth. A person who is narcissistic cannot give this to you, simply
because they are not capable of it.
"... "You're the prettiest. The sexiest. The skinniest. The best mom. The funniest." ..."
"... "You have such a sexy voice. Not too high, nor too low; it's just perfect. My friend Courtney's voice is super high-pitched and she has this weird way of talking through her teeth. Annoying." ..."
"... "You have a great body. I guess I'm used to having more to hug with my ex!" ..."
What do you get when you cross a sociopath with a narcissist? The least funny
joke and the worst kind of hybrid: a narcissistic sociopath, narcopath for short.
Both a narcissist and sociopath have an inflated sense of how important they
are, as well as a constant need for praise and admiration. One commonality between
the two is their ability to fool others in order to get what they want, without
remorse. But what sets them apart is that a narcopath is unable to handle criticism
or be viewed in a negative light, whereas a sociopath couldn't care less who
thinks what or how they're perceived. When you hear the word narcopath you may
picture a deranged, knife-wielding lunatic - at least that's what I pictured
before I met my own. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth.
Narcopaths are boogie men in disguise and wolves in sheep's clothing. Their
abuse is sometimes so subtle that you don't see it until the curtain closes
and your world is torn apart. Still unsure if you're in a relationship with
a narcopath? Here are ten telltale signs that you might be.
1.
Things move from zero to one hundred in seconds.
From the beginning, nothing is normal with a narcopath. Things progress at
warp speed, hop-scotching over the usual stages of a relationship. Instead of
slowly getting to know one another, you go from the first date to planning your
future together within weeks of meeting. And when your gut warns you things
are moving too fast, you tell it to shut up because you've finally found your
soulmate.
2. They're a broken record of compliments.
A narcopath will sweep you off your feet, place you on a pedestal, then worship
you from down below. They'll tell you the things you've always wanted to hear,
saying them over and over and over again. But listen closely and you'll notice
there's not much variation in these love monologues, and their sweet-nothings
sound more like a script than anything from the heart. "You're the prettiest.
The sexiest. The skinniest. The best mom. The funniest." If everything
feels staged and too good to be true, it probably is.
3. They flatter you with comparisons.
There's no period at the end of a compliment. Instead, a narcopath compliments
you by comparing you to someone else in their life. In my case, he'd say things
like, "You have such a sexy voice. Not too high, nor too low; it's just
perfect. My friend Courtney's voice is super high-pitched and she has this weird
way of talking through her teeth. Annoying." Or, "You have a great
body. I guess I'm used to having more to hug with my ex!" Praising you
by putting down others is a huge red flag, not to mention incredibly distasteful.
And while it's no doubt flattering to hear these praises, keep in mind that
one day they'll be offering them to someone else and using your name to fill
the second blank.
4. Your chemistry between the sheets is off the charts.
You've never felt this much passion with anyone else. Pushing all the right
buttons in just the right ways, it's like they're reading your mind and its
desires. The reason sex is so mind-blowing, at least in the beginning, isn't
because they know what to do with their hands; they know what to do with your
mind . They'll make you feel like you're the only one who's ever existed
to them. Yes, narcopaths are indeed that great - at acting, that is. By mirroring
your every emotion they're able to make their own emotions seem genuine and
fool you into thinking yours are real.
5. Their eyes are windows to nothingness.
My Narc-in-a-Box would stare at me with such intensity I'd become nervous,
fidget, and quickly turn away. Speaking directly into my eyes with a deadpan
and unwavering stare, I don't think he blinked once during our four months together.
At times his gaze was so piercing that his pupils practically vanished. But
sadly, behind all that intensity lied a vast amount of dark nothingness. I turned
away from that stare because it made me feel uneasy in all the wrong ways.
6. They always lead the conversation back to themselves.
On the surface, a narcopath seems hyper-focused on you and genuinely interested
in learning all there is to know. Yet the moment you begin divulging this information,
they quickly interrupt with a story of their own. It's like a revolving door:
They ask you a question to gain the opportunity to talk about themselves. They're
quick to interject with their thoughts and opinions, and always have a similar
experience to share with you. Experiences that, once dissected, are nothing
more than sweetly camouflaged one-uppers and indirect ways to let you know that
they know better.
7. They have a checkered relationship history.
I've never met anyone with such an odd and storied relationship history.
He traveled to Texas after meeting a girl online, then met his ex-wife online,
and later flew in another girl he met online (through a quiz website!) all the
way from Europe, before finally meeting me online. Narcopaths often leave long
trails of broken relationships behind them, but of course they were never the
ones responsible for breaking them. And no matter how long ago it ended, they'll
claim all their former flames still burn strongly for them from afar.
8. They use big words that have little substance.
Have you ever read something that initially seems incredibly deep and profound,
until you reach the end and realize it's nothing but a nonsensical jumble of
fancy words? A narcopath craves superiority and thrives on being smarter than
everyone in the room. The only the problem is that often times they're not,
forcing them to fake it and pray no one catches on. On the surface, a narcopath
seems highly intelligent and cultured, but dig deeper and you'll discover it's
nothing but fluff.
9. They give because it makes them look better.
Give and you shall receive. Or, in the narcopath's case, give and tell everyone
within a thousand mile radius who you gave to and exactly how much. A narcopath
doesn't give because it makes them feel good on the inside; rather, they give
because it makes them look good from the outside. No kind deed goes unnoticed,
because they'd never allow it. Whether it's helping an old lady cross the street,
giving a homeless person a buck, or donating to their children's PTA, they'll
make sure someone knows about their generosity.
10. They're no stranger to the silent treatment.
Narcopaths love to dish it out. You may see glimpses of this passive-aggressive
form of punishment early on in the relationship, or it might come on suddenly
out of left field. Either way, the silent treatment is without a doubt the most
vile and abusive trait that narcopaths possess. Like a child, anytime they can't
get their way or feel threatened, they stomp away with their arms crossed and
punish you with a deafening silence. The harder you reach out, the more you
cry, and the angrier you become, the better they feel. It's normal for your
partner to get angry, sulk, or brood sometimes. What isn't normal is using silence
as a weapon to punish and control you, then sitting back and gaining pleasure
from your pain.
Late last year, I wrote a
piece where I shared a perspective, based on
growing research , that
narcissism isn't simply a stubborn trait, but a style of coping. The seeds
of that idea turned into a
book ,
scheduled for release in spring next year. Since I promised a follow up, I'm
taking a brief break from the larger project to deliver on my promise. Here's
a glimpse at what's to come. If you think your partner's a
narcissist , you might want to try these seven strategies. Check For
Abuse : None of what I'm about to suggest is likely to help if the person
you love is physically or emotionally abusive. Not all narcissists, even those
diagnosed with
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) , resort to abuse. But some do -
and if you're on the receiving end, your first step should be to explore
what makes it hard for you to leave . If you're facing abuse, it doesn't
matter whether it's driven by your partner's narcissism, chronic pain, or drug
addiction - the problem is the abuse, plain and simple. And the abuser is 100
percent responsible for his or her choice. Until that changes, you probably
won't feel safe enough - nor should you - to take the kinds of risks I'm recommending
here. Check for Denial: Most people recognize denial when they see it.
It's easily the most famous of all the defense mechanisms. The alcoholic who
protests, "I just enjoy the taste of fine wine!"; the terminally ill patient
who assures everyone, "It's just a cough"; and the narcissist who, despite having
alienated all her friends and lost her job, proclaims, "I'm just fine" - all
are exhibiting denial. The more denial a narcissist displays, the less hopeful
you should feel about change. How bad is denial? In
adolescents , it
predicts some of the most ruthless, demanding forms of narcissism - adults
who happily admit "I find it easy to manipulate people." Make sure your partner
can admit something's wrong, even if it's as simple as saying, "my life isn't
where I hoped it would be." Contrary to what you might think,
some narcissists do seek therapy . Which kinds? The "vulnerable" ones, riddled
with shame and fear; they freely admit they have problems instead of
burying them beneath near-delusional denial. In fact, they're also
more likely to stick with treatment once they start. Beware the Manipulator
:
Across studies , narcissists who score high on measures of entitlement and
exploitation (or, EE, as researchers call it) have the highest levels of aggression,
a strong impulse to cheat, and even, when angered, a penchant for stealing or
sabotaging property at work. In fact, EE
singlehandedly
accounts for most of the worst behaviors a narcissist can display. Manipulative
narcissists are also
more likely to score higher on measures of Psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
The former is a cold callous personality linked to criminal behaviors, while
the latter, as you can guess from the name, describes a cutthroat, "do whatever
it takes" personality. Along with narcissism, these two traits comprise personality's
dark triad . Not all narcissists are cold and manipulative. But the ones
who are pose the greatest threat because they're so practiced at play-acting
and deceit you'll have a hard time separating fact from fiction. Check Their
Willingness to Change: This one might seem obvious, but it's crucial enough
that it bears mentioning. The easiest way to test a partner's capacity to change
is to seek help from a couples therapist - or any therapist for that matter.
Even people who aren't narcissists can be leery of therapy, so this one shouldn't
be considered a litmus test. If your partner's willing to work with you, though,
your odds at improving the relationship have probably jumped by an order of
magnitude. Check Your Anger: "You've always been the paranoid, jealous
type," sneers your partner after you openly wonder about the amount of time
he's spending with his attractive coworker. Our natural tendency, when faced
with such shocking indifference to our fear of losing love or needing more closeness
and comfort, is to protect ourselves. For many people, this means donning battle
armor and launching an attack. "You're the most selfish person I know! I don't
know why I'm with you!" As understandable as the protective measures are, they
cut us off from crucial information: Can our partners hear our sadness and fear
and feel moved? If there's any way at all to reach through the detachment, it's
by sharing our feelings at a more vulnerable level. Try this: "You mean so much
to me; I hear you talking to her and I'm scared I'm not enough for you." Or,
"Your opinion means the world to me; when I hear you talk to me that way I feel
so small and worthless in your eyes." Most partners, if they can feel anything
at all, will melt when they hear comments like this. They don't just convey
your pain with greater clarity; they remind your partner why the behavior
hurts - because it comes from the one person who matters most. How effective
is this kind of communication? Across decades of studies,
90 percent
of couples who learned to share the sadness and fear beneath the anger,
healed their broken bond and enjoyed happy, closer relationships. Likewise,
in multiple
recent studies , narcissists who focused on caring and closeness ("communal
behavior") actually scored lower over time on several measures of narcissism;
those who saw their partners as communal (compared to those who didn't)
even
said they'd be less likely to cheat . Check Your Silence: Say you
come home from a hard day at work, and your boyfriend, grumbling about the weekend
plans being up in the air, starts lecturing you about how indecisive you are.
"You sure take a long time to make decisions, don't you?" Condescending remarks
like this don't always enrage us. When our self-esteem is already crumbling,
they often shut us down completely; we crawl away, crestfallen, or slip into
hours of silence. But we have to find a voice again if we want things to get
better. Research suggests
that silent withdrawal is just another way of coping with feeling sad or
fearful about our connection with people we love; your best bet, as with anger,
is to go beneath the impulse to shut down and share the upset. "I'm feeling
so put down right now I'm afraid you've stopped caring about me altogether."
Why is this so important? Though they appear to be universal ways of coping
with fears about the people we love, anger and withdrawal also
ramp
up our partners' insecurities . The result? Our loved ones fall back on
their usual way of protecting themselves - like criticism or indifference -
instead of hearing our pain. If they're narcissists, that means they resort
to their favorite MO - narcissism. Be Honest with Yourself: If you've
tried a more loving approach to sharing what hurts in your relationship, and
the narcissist in your life still won't soften, you truly have done everything
you can. This might be the only hope for change. Those of you who wrote
in to say you already tried this and it didn't work have made a valiant effort;
you may have exhausted your supply of empathy from working so hard. If so, my
heart goes out to you. But staying in an unhappy relationship comes at a steep
price,
including your self-esteem. Ask yourself, honestly - are you staying because
your partner's doing his best to change - or because it feels too hard to leave?
Even if the people we love want to change, none of us should be expected
to endure the same hurts over and over. Narcissistic arrogance and hostility
elicit our worst behaviors ; they get beneath our skin, working away like
a thousand needles. The natural response is to pull away or lash back; but if
you do your best to share the pain openly, letting your loved ones see your
softer feelings, you're giving them their best - and only shot - at hearing
you. If they can't understand your pain then, perhaps they never will. As sad
and difficult as it feels, you might need to take care of yourself by leaving.
Because regardless of which habit steals their attention away from genuine love
and intimacy, if our loved ones can't risk change, their problems are here to
stay. Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the
National Domestic Violence
Hotline . If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on
facebook
and twitter. And be sure to
sign up for my newsletter, for more tips and advice, as well as information
on my forthcoming
book , about understanding and coping with narcissism in all its forms,
in our friends, lovers, colleagues-and even ourselves. HARPERWAVE AND HARPER
UK, SPRING 2015
"... In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. ..."
"... Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority. ..."
"... In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign. ..."
"... During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past - how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. ..."
"... Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!" ..."
"... Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!" ..."
"... In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on eggshells" - fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller. ..."
"... Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. ..."
"... The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant problems. ..."
"... The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful life due to nonstop harassment. ..."
While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as "Stockholm Syndrome" due
to the publicity, the emotional "bonding" with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had
been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive
situations such as:
Abused Children
Battered/Abused Women
Prisoners of War
Cult Members
Incest Victims
Criminal Hostage Situations
Concentration Camp Prisoners
Controlling/Intimidating Relationships
In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival
for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse
situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as
unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for
survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing "Stockholm
Syndrome" will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement
personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail
their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they
arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.
Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships.
The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role
in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.
It's important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and
controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it's easier to understand why victims
support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.
Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors, and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut
list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these
features will be present:
Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support
them or win their release
Support of the abuser's reasons and behaviors
Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment
Stockholm Syndrome doesn't occur in every hostage or abusive situation. In another bank robbery
involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter
shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and
physically held him up to the window for another shot. As you can see, the length of time one is
exposed to abuse/control and other factors are certainly involved.
It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for
the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse,
and abusive relationships:
The presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief
that the abuser would carry out the threat.
The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
The perceived inability to escape the situation
By considering each situation we can understand how Stockholm Syndrome develops in romantic relationships
as well as criminal/hostage situations. Looking at each situation:
Perceived Threat to One's Physical/Psychological Survival
The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods. Criminal or
antisocial partners can directly threaten your life or the life of friends and family. Their history
of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct
manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps
our loved ones safe.
Indirectly, the abuser/controller offers subtle threats that you will never leave them or have
another partner, reminding you that people in the past have paid dearly for not following their wishes.
Hints are often offered such as "I know people who can make others disappear". Indirect threats also
come from the stories told by the abuser or controller - how they obtained revenge on those who have
crossed them in the past. These stories of revenge are told to remind the victim that revenge is
possible if they leave.
Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat. Witnessing a violent temper directed
at a television set, others on the highway, or a third party clearly sends us the message that we
could be the next target for violence. Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller
is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.
The "Small Kindness" Perception
In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope - a small sign that the situation
may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to
the abuser's benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the
captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors,
such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm
Syndrome in criminal hostage events.
In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse),
or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all
bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive
credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal
or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating
or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After
seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small
kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign.
Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a "soft side". During the relationship,
the abuser/controller may share information about their past - how they were mistreated, abused,
neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their
behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a "victim". Sympathy may develop toward the
abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he
fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!"
Losers and abusers may admit
they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it's almost always
after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility
for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal
responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their
bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating
too much junk food - now known as the "Twinkie Defense". While it may be true that the abuser/controller
had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior
and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While "sad stories" are always included
in their apologies - after the abusive/controlling event - their behavior never changes! Keep in
mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know
of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.)
you because my Mom hated me!"
Isolation from Perspectives Other than those of the Captor
In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on
eggshells" - fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst.
For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix
things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects
of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of
our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority
of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied
with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.
Taking the abuser's perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim
actually develops anger toward those trying to help them. The abuser is already angry and resentful
toward anyone who would provide the victim support, typically using multiple methods and manipulations
to isolate the victim from others. Any contact the victim has with supportive people in the community
is met with accusations, threats, and/or violent outbursts. Victims then turn on their family - fearing
family contact will cause additional violence and abuse in the home. At this point, victims curse
their parents and friends, tell them not to call and to stop interfering, and break off communication
with others. Agreeing with the abuser/controller, supportive others are now viewed as "causing trouble"
and must be avoided. Many victims threaten their family and friends with restraining orders if they
continue to "interfere" or try to help the victim in their situation. On the surface it would appear
that they have sided with the abuser/controller. In truth, they are trying to minimize contact with
situations that might make them a target of additional verbal abuse or intimidation. If a casual
phone call from Mom prompts a two-hour temper outburst with threats and accusations - the victim
quickly realizes it's safer if Mom stops calling. If simply telling Mom to stop calling doesn't work,
for his or her own safety the victim may accuse Mom of attempting to ruin the relationship and demand
that she stop calling.
In severe cases of Stockholm Syndrome in relationships, the victim may have difficulty leaving
the abuser and may actually feel the abusive situation is their fault. In law enforcement situations,
the victim may actually feel the arrest of their partner for physical abuse or battering is their
fault. Some women will allow their children to be removed by child protective agencies rather than
give up the relationship with their abuser. As they take the perspective of the abuser, the children
are at fault - they complained about the situation, they brought the attention of authorities to
the home, and they put the adult relationship at risk. Sadly, the children have now become a danger
to the victim's safety. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, allowing the children to be removed from
the home decreases their victim stress while providing an emotionally and physically safer environment
for the children.
Perceived Inability to Escape
As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it's easy to understand the
perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can't escape is also
very common. Many abusive/controlling relationships feel like till-death-do-us-part relationships
- locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations.
Here are some common situations:
Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to
the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. Controllers who sense their
partner may be leaving will often purchase a new automobile, later claiming they can't pay alimony
or child support due to their large car payments.
The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant
problems. A Controller who has an income that is "under the table" or maintained through legally
questionable situations runs the risk of those sources of income being investigated or made public
by the divorce/separation. The Controller then becomes more agitated about the possible public
exposure of their business arrangements than the loss of the relationship.
The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of
state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public
exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful
life due to nonstop harassment. In severe cases, the Controller may threaten an action that will
undercut the victim's support such as "I'll see that you lose your job" or "I'll have your automobile
burned".
Controllers often keep the victim locked into the relationship with severe guilt - threatening
suicide if the victim leaves. The victim hears "I'll kill myself in front of the children", "I'll
set myself on fire in the front yard", or "Our children won't have a father/mother if you leave
me!"
In relationships with an abuser or controller, the victim has also experienced a loss of self-esteem,
self-confidence, and psychological energy. The victim may feel "burned out" and too depressed
to leave. Additionally, abusers and controllers often create a type of dependency by controlling
the finances, placing automobiles/homes in their name, and eliminating any assets or resources
the victim may use to leave. In clinical practice I've heard "I'd leave but I can't even get money
out of the savings account! I don't know the PIN number."
In teens and young adults, victims may be attracted to a controlling individual when they
feel inexperienced, insecure, and overwhelmed by a change in their life situation. When parents
are going through a divorce, a teen may attach to a controlling individual, feeling the controller
may stabilize their life. Freshmen in college may be attracted to controlling individuals who
promise to help them survive living away from home on a college campus.
In unhealthy relationships and definitely in Stockholm Syndrome there is a daily preoccupation
with "trouble". Trouble is any individual, group, situation, comment, casual glance, or cold meal
that may produce a temper tantrum or verbal abuse from the controller or abuser. To survive, "trouble"
is to be avoided at all costs. The victim must control situations that produce trouble. That may
include avoiding family, friends, co-workers, and anyone who may create "trouble" in the abusive
relationship. The victim does not hate family and friends; they are only avoiding "trouble"! The
victim also cleans the house, calms the children, scans the mail, avoids certain topics, and anticipates
every issue of the controller or abuse in an effort to avoid "trouble". In this situation, children
who are noisy become "trouble". Loved ones and friends are sources of "trouble" for the victim who
is attempting to avoid verbal or physical aggression.
Stockholm Syndrome in relationships is not uncommon. Law enforcement professionals are painfully
aware of the situation - making a domestic dispute one of the high-risk calls during work hours.
Called by neighbors during a spousal abuse incident, the abuser is passive upon arrival of the police,
only to find the abused spouse upset and threatening the officers if their abusive partner is arrested
for domestic violence. In truth, the victim knows the abuser/controller will retaliate against him/her
if 1) they encourage an arrest, 2) they offer statements about the abuse/fight that are deemed disloyal
by the abuser, 3) they don't bail them out of jail as quickly as possible, and 4) they don't personally
apologize for the situation - as though it was their fault.
Stockholm Syndrome produces an unhealthy bond with the controller and abuser. It is the reason
many victims continue to support an abuser after the relationship is over. It's also the reason they
continue to see "the good side" of an abusive individual and appear sympathetic to someone who has
mentally and sometimes physically abused them.
Is There Something Else Involved?
In a short response - Yes! Throughout history, people have found themselves supporting and participating
in life situations that range from abusive to bizarre. In talking to these active and willing participants
in bad and bizarre situations, it is clear they have developed feelings and attitudes that support
their participation. One way these feelings and thoughts are developed is known as "cognitive dissonance".
As you can tell, psychologists have large words and phrases for just about everything.
"Cognitive Dissonance" explains how and why people change their ideas and opinions to support
situations that do not appear to be healthy, positive, or normal. In the theory, an individual seeks
to reduce information or opinions that make him or her uncomfortable. When we have two sets of cognitions
(knowledge, opinion, feelings, input from others, etc.) that are the opposite, the situation becomes
emotionally uncomfortable. Even though we might find ourselves in a foolish or difficult situation
- few want to admit that fact. Instead, we attempt to reduce the dissonance - the fact that our cognitions
don't match, agree, or make sense when combined. "Cognitive Dissonance" can be reduced by adding
new cognitions - adding new thoughts and attitudes. Some examples:
Heavy smokers know smoking causes lung cancer and multiple health risks. To continue smoking,
the smoker changes his cognitions (thoughts/feelings) such as 1) "I'm smoking less than ten years
ago", 2) "I'm smoking low-tar cigarettes", 3) "Those statistics are made up by the cancer industry
conspiracy", or 4) "Something's got to get you anyway!" These new cognitions/attitudes allow them
to keep smoking and actually begin blaming restaurants for being unfair.
You purchase a $40,000.00 Sport Utility Vehicle that gets 8 miles a gallon. You justify the
expense and related issues with 1) "It's great on trips" (you take one trip per year), 2) "I can
use it to haul stuff" (one coffee table in 12 months), and 3) "You can carry a lot of people in
it" (95% of your trips are driver-only).
Your husband/boyfriend becomes abusive and assaultive. You can't leave due to the finances,
children, or other factors. Through cognitive dissonance, you begin telling yourself "He only
hits me open-handed" and "He's had a lot of stress at work."
Leon Festinger first coined the term "Cognitive Dissonance". He had observed a cult (1956) in
which members gave up their homes, incomes, and jobs to work for the cult. This cult believed in
messages from outer space that predicted the day the world would end by a flood. As cult members
and firm believers, they believed they would be saved by flying saucers at the appointed time. As
they gathered and waited to be taken by flying saucers at the specified time, the end-of-the-world
came and went. No flood and no flying saucer! Rather than believing they were foolish after all that
personal and emotional investment - they decided their beliefs had actually saved the world from
the flood and they became firmer in their beliefs after the failure of the prophecy. The moral: the
more you invest (income, job, home, time, effort, etc.) the stronger your need to justify your position.
If we invest $5.00 in a raffle ticket, we justify losing with "I'll get them next time". If you invest
everything you have, it requires an almost unreasoning belief and unusual attitude to support and
justify that investment.
Studies tell us we are more loyal and committed to something that is difficult, uncomfortable,
and even humiliating. The initiation rituals of college fraternities, Marine boot camp, and graduate
school all produce loyal and committed individuals. Almost any ordeal creates a bonding experience.
Every couple, no matter how mismatched, falls in love in the movies after going through a terrorist
takeover, being stalked by a killer, being stranded on an island, or being involved in an alien abduction.
Investment and an ordeal are ingredients for a strong bonding - even if the bonding is unhealthy.
No one bonds or falls in love by being a member of the Automobile Club or a music CD club. Struggling
to survive on a deserted island - you bet!
Abusive relationships produce a great amount on unhealthy investment in both parties. In many
cases we tend to remain and support the abusive relationship due to our investment in the relationship.
Try telling a new Marine that since he or she has survived boot camp, they should now enroll in the
National Guard! Several types of investments keep us in the bad relationship:
Emotional Investment
We've invested so many emotions, cried so much, and worried so much that we feel we must see
the relationship through to the finish.
Social Investment
We've got our pride! To avoid social embarrassment and uncomfortable social situations, we
remain in the relationship.
Family Investments
If children are present in the relationship, decisions regarding the relationship are clouded
by the status and needs of the children.
Financial Investment
In many cases, the controlling and abusive partner has created a complex financial situation.
Many victims remain in a bad relationship, waiting for a better financial situation to develop
that would make their departure and detachment easier.
Lifestyle Investment
Many controlling/abusive partners use money or a lifestyle as an investment. Victims in this
situation may not want to lose their current lifestyle.
Intimacy Investment
We often invest emotional and sexual intimacy. Some victims have experienced a destruction
of their emotional and/or sexual self-esteem in the unhealthy relationship. The abusing partner
may threaten to spread rumors or tell intimate details or secrets. A type of blackmail using intimacy
is often found in these situations.
In many cases, it's not simply our feelings for an individual that keep us in an unhealthy relationship
- it's often the amount of investment. Relationships are complex and we often only see the tip of
the iceberg in public. For this reason, the most common phrase offered by the victim in defense of
their unhealthy relationship is "You just don't understand!"
Combining Two Unhealthy Conditions
The combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive dissonance" produces a victim who firmly
believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.
The victim feels they would mentally collapse if the relationship ended. In long-term relationships,
the victims have invested everything and placed "all their eggs in one basket". The relationship
now decides their level of self-esteem, self-worth, and emotional health.
For reasons described above, the victim feels family and friends are a threat to the relationship
and eventually to their personal health and existence. The more family/friends protest the controlling
and abusive nature of the relationship, the more the victim develops cognitive dissonance and becomes
defensive. At this point, family and friends become victims of the abusive and controlling individual.
Importantly, both Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance develop on an involuntary basis.
The victim does not purposely invent this attitude. Both develop as an attempt to exist and survive
in a threatening and controlling environment and relationship. Despite what we might think, our loved
one is not in the unhealthy relationship to irritate us, embarrass us, or drive us to drink. What
might have begun as a normal relationship has turned into a controlling and abusive situation. They
are trying to survive. Their personality is developing the feelings and thoughts needed to survive
the situation and lower their emotional and physical risks. All of us have developed attitudes and
feelings that help us accept and survive situations. We have these attitudes/feelings about our jobs,
our community, and other aspects of our life. As we have found throughout history, the more dysfunctional
the situation, the more dysfunctional our adaptation and thoughts to survive. The victim is engaged
in an attempt to survive and make a relationship work. Once they decide it doesn't work and can't
be fixed, they will need our support as we patiently await their decision to return to a healthy
and positive lifestyle.
Family and Friends of the Victim
When a family is confronted with a loved one involved with a 'Loser' or controlling/abusive individual,
the situation becomes emotionally painful and socially difficult for the family. (See "
Are You Dating
a Loser? Identifying Losers, Controllers and Abusers ".) While each situation is different, some
general guidelines to consider are:
Your loved one, the "victim" of the Loser/Abuser, has probably been given a choice - the relationship
or the family. This choice is made more difficult by the control and intimidation often present
in abusive/controlling relationships. Knowing that choosing the family will result in severe personal
and social consequences, the family always comes in second. Keep in mind that the victim knows
in their heart the family will always love them and accept their return - whenever the return
happens.
Remember, the more you pressure the "victim" of the Loser/Abuser, the more you prove their
point. Your loved one is being told the family is trying to ruin their wonderful relationship.
Pressure in the form of contacts, comments, and communications will be used as evidence against
you. An invitation to a Tupperware party is met with "You see! They just want to get you by yourself
so they can tell you bad things about me!" Increasing your contacts is viewed as "putting pressure"
on their relationship - not being lovingly concerned.
Your contacts with your loved one, no matter how routine and loving, may be met with anger
and resentment. This is because each contact may prompt the Loser/Abuser to attack them verbally
or emotionally. Imagine getting a four-hour lecture every time your Aunt Gladys calls. In a short
time, you become angry each time she calls, knowing what the contact will produce in your home.
The longer Aunt Gladys talks - the longer your lecture becomes! Thus, when Aunt Gladys calls,
you want to get her off the phone as quickly as possible.
The 1980's song, "Hold on Loosely", may be the key to a good family and friend approach. Holding
on too tightly produces more pressure. When the victim is out of the home, it's often best to
establish predictable, scheduled contacts. Calling every Wednesday evening, just for a status
report or to go over current events, is less threatening than random calls during the week. Random
calls are always viewed as "checking up on us" calls. While you may encounter an answering machine,
leave a polite and loving message. Importantly, don't discuss the relationship (the controller
may be listening!) unless the victim brings it up. The goal of these scheduled calls is to maintain
contact, remind your loved one that you are always there to help, and to quietly remind the controller
that family and loved ones are nearby and haven't disappeared.
Try to maintain traditional and special contacts with your loved one - holidays, special occasions,
etc. Keep your contacts short and brief, with no comments that can be used as evidence. Contacts
made at "traditional" times - holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, etc. - are not as threatening
to a controller/abuser. Contacts that provide information, but not questions, are also not as
threatening. An example might be a simple card reading "Just a note to let you know that your
brother landed a new job this week. You might see him on a Wal-Mart commercial any day now. Love,
Mom and Dad". This approach allows the victim to recognize that the family is there - waiting
in the wings if needed. It also lessens the lectures/tantrums provided by the Loser as the contacts
are on a traditional and expected basis. It's also hard to be angry about brother's new job without
looking ridiculous. Also, don't invent holidays or send a reminder that it's Sigmund Freud's birthday.
That's suspicious…even in my family.
Remember that there are many channels of communication. It's important that we keep a channel
open if at all possible. Communication channels might include phone calls, letters, cards, and
e-mail. Scheduled monthly shopping trips or outings are helpful if possible. The goal is to maintain
contact while your loved one is involved in the controlling/abusive relationship. Remember, the
goal is contact, not pressure.
Don't feel the victim's behavior is against the family or friends. It may be a form of survival
or a way of lowering stress. Victims may be very resistive, angry, and even hostile due to the
complexity of their relationship with the controller/abuser. They may even curse, threaten, and
accuse loved ones and friends. This hostile defensiveness is actually self-protection in the relationship
- an attempt to avoid "trouble".
The victim needs to know and feel they are not rejected because of their behavior. Keep in
mind, they are painfully aware of their situation. They know they are being treated badly and/or
controlled by their partner. Frequent reminders of this will only make them want less contact.
We naturally avoid people who remind us of things or situations that are emotionally painful.
Victims may slightly open the door and provide information about their relationship or hint
they may be considering leaving. When the door opens, don't jump through with the Marines behind
you! Listen and simply offer support such as "You know your family is behind any decision you
need to make and at any time you make it." They may be exploring what support is available but
may not be ready to call in the troops just yet. Many victims use an "exit plan" that may take
months or even years to complete. They may be gathering information at this point, not yet ready
for an exit.
We can get messages to people in two ways - the pipeline and the grapevine. The pipeline is
face-to-face, telling the person directly. This seldom happens in Loser situations as controllers
and abusers monitor and control contacts with others. However, the grapevine is still open. When
we use the grapevine, we send a message to our loved one through another person. Victims of controlling
and abusive individuals are often allowed to maintain a relationship with a few people, perhaps
a sibling or best friend. We can send our loved one a message through that contact person, a message
that voices our understanding and support. We don't send insults ("Bill is such a jerk!) or put-downs
("If he doesn't get out of this relationship he'll end up crazy!) - we send messages of love and
support. We send "I hope she/he (victim) knows the family is concerned and that we love and support
them." Comments sent on the grapevine are phrased with the understanding that our loved one will
hear them in that manner. Don't talk with a grapevine contact to express anger and threaten to
hire a hit man, and then try to send a message of loving support. Be careful what and how the
message is provided. The grapevine contact can often get messages to the victim when we can't.
It's another way of letting them know we're supporting them, just waiting to help if and when
needed.
Each situation is different. The family may need to seek counseling support in the community.
A family consultation with a mental health professional or attorney may be helpful if the situation
becomes legally complex or there is a significant danger of harm.
As relatives or friends of a victim involved with a controller or abuser, our normal reaction
is to consider dramatic action. We become angry, resentful, and aggressive at times. Our mind
fills with a variety of plans that often range from rescue and kidnapping to ambushing the controller/abuser
with a ball bat. A rule of thumb is that any aggression toward the controller/abuser will result
in additional difficulties for your loved one. Try to remain calm and await an opportunity to
show your love and support when your loved one needs it.
In some cases, as in teenagers and young adults, the family may still provide some financial,
insurance, or other support. When we receive angry responses to our phone calls, our anger and
resentment tells us to cut off their support. I've heard "If she's going to date that jerk, it's
not going to be in a car I'm paying for!" and "If he's choosing that woman over his family, he
can drop out of college and flip hamburgers!" Withdrawing financial support only makes your loved
one more dependent upon the controller/abuser. Remember, if we're aggressive by threatening, withdrawing
support, or pressuring - we become the threatening force, not the controller/abuser. It actually
moves the victim into the support of the controller. Sadly, the more of an "ordeal" they experience,
the more bonding takes place, as noted with both Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance.
As you might imagine, the combination of Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance may also
be active when our loved one is involved in cults, unusual religions, and other groups. In some
situations, the abuser and controller is actually a group or organization. Victims are punished
if they are viewed as disloyal to the group. While this article deals with individual relationships,
the family guidelines may also be helpful in controlling-group situations.
Final Thoughts
You may be the victim of a controlling and abusive partner, seeking an understanding of your feelings
and attitudes. You may have a son, daughter, or friend currently involved with a controlling and
abusive partner, looking for ways to understand and help.
If a loved one is involved with a Loser, a controlling and abusing partner, the long-term outcome
is difficult to determine due to the many factors involved. If their relationship is in the "dating"
phase, they may end the relationship on their own. If the relationship has continued for over a year,
they may require support and an exit plan before ending the relationship. Marriage and children further
complicate their ability to leave the situation. When the victim decides to end the unhappy relationship,
it's important that they view loved ones as supportive, loving, and understanding - not as a source
of pressure, guilt, or aggression.
This article is an attempt to understand the complex feelings and attitudes that are as puzzling
to the victim as they are to family and friends. Separately, I've outlined recommendations for detaching
from a Loser or controlling/abusive individual, but clearly, there are more victims in this situation.
(See " Are You
Dating a Loser? Identifying Losers, Controllers and Abusers ".) It is hoped this article is helpful
to family and friends who worry, cry, and have difficulty understanding the situation of their loved
one. It has been said that knowledge is power. Hopefully this knowledge will prove helpful and powerful
to victims and their loved ones.
Please consider this article as a general guideline. Some recommendations may be appropriate and
helpful while some may not apply to a specific situation. In many cases, we may need additional professional
help of a mental health or legal nature.
There's more than a few examples of the archetype doing the rounds at the moment, from the three
lovably awful kids in Amazon's brilliant "Transparent" to the title character of Alex Ross Perry's
brilliant "Listen Up Philip," which opened in limited release last Friday and will continue to expand
in the coming weeks. Said archetype is of course often complex, and "asshole" frequently doesn't
cover it. These characters often are masking deep pain, insecurity, self-doubt and or misplaced arrogance.
But we know these types and while often not likable, they're real and often quite hilariously awful.
So, to mark the release of "Listen Up Philip," which features a deliciously prickly Jason Schwartzman
in the lead as a egocentric young writer who damages all his relationships, romantic or otherwise,
we thought we'd pick out ten of our favorite self-absorbed, unpleasant and yet curiously watchable
characters to go alongside his great turn in the aforementioned film. It should be noted that most
of our examples come from the last decade or two, but that's not entirely surprising, given that
we're arguably living in the most self-obsessed, insular age in human history (this is of course
the era of the selfie). Take a look at our picks below, and let us know your favorites in the comments
section.
Sweet and Lowdown
Sean Penn as Emmett Ray in "Sweet & Lowdown" (2000)
Woody Allen is an obvious touchstone for "Listen Up Philip" ("Husbands And Wives" is named specifically
by Ross Perry, and Sydney Pollack's character in that arguably qualifies for this list too), and
Allen's certainly representative of self-absorption. But none of his creations have been more self-absorbed,
or more asshole-y, than Sean Penn's central figure in "Sweet & Lowdown." The role of Emmet Ray, a
reasonably well-known, heavy-drinking, scumbag of a jazz guitarist whose life is continually overshadowed
by that of his idol Django Reinhardt, was originally penned by Allen (under the original title of
"The Jazz Baby," back in the early 1970s) to be played by the writer/director, but after nearly thirty
years in a drawer, went to Penn (though Johnny Depp was also reportedly considered). And it's hard
to imagine anyone doing a better job. Penn brings a mix of swagger and deeply insecure neuroticism
that makes him very much a creation of Allen, but one that doesn't simply echo the filmmaker in the
manner of so many of his leading-men surrogates. As with the lead of another later film about a guitarist,
the Coens' "Inside Llewyn Davis," Ray is talented, but enough of a fuck-up (drunken, a sometime pimp,
kind of a coward, tight with money, and with a self-inflated view of his own "genius") that he'll
never make the kind of impact that he'd like to. And when potential redemption comes along in the
shape of Samantha Morton's sweet, mute Hattie, he throws it away in order to marry socialite Uma
Thurman. And when he's dumped by her, he's stunned when Hattie's moved on. He's almost irredeemably
awful, and yet Penn's performance, one of his very best, manages to find pathos, as well as a pleasing
level of comedy, in the character, the kind of thing the actor doesn't get to do enough.
The Life Aquatic
Bill Murray as Steve Zissou in "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou" (2004)
Wes Anderson characters can generally be grouped under the banner of "self-regarding" to one degree
or another, from Max in "Rushmore" to even the animated Mr. Fox. But his prize asshole might just
be Steve Zissou, in Anderson's fourth film. An oceanographer and documentary maker modelled loosely
after Jacques Cousteau, Zissou is a man whose limited fame and prestige has gone very much to his
head, who drags his inexplicably loyal crew on an Ahab-ish revenge trip against the shark that ate
his long-time partner (Seymour Cassel). He has a certain affection for the people he travels with
(he does at least launch a rescue mission when even hated insurance company employee Bud Cort is
captured by pirates), but is resolutely unlovable otherwise, particularly in his relations with basically
everyone, from consistently hitting on pregnant reporter Jane (Cate Blanchett), treating Klaus (Willem
Dafoe) like a bullied lapdog, or feuding childishly with his maybe-son Ned (Owen Wilson), who's eventually
killed in a helicopter crash on the hunt for the shark. Anderson's characters, even cantankerous
assholes like Royal Tenenbaum, usually find some form of redemption, but there's surprisingly little
for Zissou: Ned, who turns out not to be his son anyway, dies, and Zissou is once again acclaimed
at a film festival for his finished picture. It's a decidedly sour note, and perhaps one of the reasons
that the lavish, lovingly made 'Aquatic' is possibly Anderson's least-loved picture.
The Social Network
Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg in "The Social Network" (2010)
"You're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like because you're a nerd," says Rooney
Mara's Erica to Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) at the beginning of David Fincher's Aaron Sorkin
penned "The Social Network." "And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't
be true. It'll be because you're an asshole." And it's perfect introduction to the condescending,
snobbish, ambitious, narcisisstic founder of Facebook, the website that will eventually make him
a billionaire.
And as the film goes on, Zuckerberg never exactly improves: he creates an insulting
blog about Erica, hacks into Harvard's network to steal photos of women to let people rate their
attractiveness, possibly steals the idea for his site from a trio of other students, freezes out
best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), and ends up rich but estranged, endlessly refreshing
his friend request to Erica. He's selfish, self-regarding, prickly and defensive, but in the hands
of Eisenberg's meticulous, brilliant performance, you can also see why.
He embodies the true revenge
of the nerds, a twisted and bitter one, but he's only that way because that's what he thinks he has
to be. As his attorney, Marylin (Rashida Jones) tells him at the film's conclusion, "you're not an
asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be."
A Fish Called Wanda
Kevin Kline as Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda" (1988)
Self-absorption is often something that seems to come with intellect, as demonstrated by the characters
on this list. Many of these figures genuinely are the smartest person in the room and treat anyone
they deem not to be on their level with according levels of contempt. Otto, in "A Fish Called Wanda,"
is something slightly different, and all the funnier for it: he's a moron who only thinks he's the
smartest person in the room. The result, unusually for a broad comedy like Charles Crichton's 1988
hit (penned by co-star John Cleese), won Kevin Kline a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. The character
is the film's secret weapon, a borderline psychotic, Limey-hating dimwit with a severe inferiority
complex, which manifests in his continual threats to those around not to call him stupid. But as
his lover Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) tells him, "I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn
dresses with higher IQs." Otto is a man who thinks "the Gettysburg Address was where Lincoln lived,"
that the central message of Buddhism is "every man for himself," and that the London Underground
is a political movement. He's the ultimate Ugly American abroad ("you are the vulgarian, you fuck,"
he tells Cleese's Archie when he calls him on his swearing), a terrible driver with the most hilarious
off-putting cum face in cinematic history, and a total tour de force from Kline that still remains
the actor's finest hour. He's the truly hateable kind of asshole in the best possible way. It says
it all that, after somehow surviving being run over by a steamroller, he becomes Minister of Justice
in apartheid-era South Africa…
Young Adult
Charlize Theron as Mavis Gary in "Young Adult" (2011)
Arguably Jason Reitman's best film to date, a brilliant gender-swapped inversion of the arrested-development
theme that's dominated the comedy movie in the last decade or so, "Young Adult" revolves around a
titanic performance from Charlize Theron, playing one of the most unrepentantly unlikable, unchangeable
characters in recent cinema. Theron, arguably in a career-best turn, plays Mavis, a divorced writer
of the teen-aimed books whose series has just been cancelled. On a whim, she returns to her small
Minnesota hometown in an attempt to win back her high-school sweetheart (Patrick Wilson), who's just
a had baby with his wife (Elizabeth Reaser). Mavis is clearly having some kind of deluded break with
reality, but part of the brilliance of Theron's performance is how unquestioning she is of herself:
a Mean Girl grown up, chasing simpler times when she ruled the world, and prepared to do just about
anything to get there. Theron never courts your sympathy, but there's still a deep sadness in Mavis'
absolute lack of self-reflection, not least when she's comes close to a breakthrough, only to be
talked out of it by one of her few remaining admirers (a brilliant Colette Wolfe). People talked
about her bravery in changing her appearance for her Oscar-winning turn in "Monster," but there's
just as little vanity in her performance here, and the film simply wouldn't work without her.
Baumbach Squid
The Assorted Jerks Of Noah Baumbach
Another obvious touchstone for "Listen Up Philip," Noah Baumbach is arguably, and we mean this in
the nicest way possible, the king of the self-absorbed asshole. In fact, we decided to amalgamate
his collected jerks into one selection, because otherwise it could have taken up half of the entire
list. The filmmaker's been interested in the archetype ever since his debut "Kicking And Screaming,"
about chronically procrastinating recent college grads, but (after co-writing the script for two
of Wes Anderson's most self-absorbed characters with "The Life Aquatic" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox")
reached something of a zenith with what we like to call 'The Asshole Trilogy' : "The Squid & The
Whale," "Margot At The Wedding" and "Greenberg." 'Squid' is the best, as we gradually see the effects
of self-absorbed, generally toxic novelist Bernard (Jeff Daniels) on his son (Jesse Eisenberg) during
the parents' bitter divorce, ending movingly with Walt rejecting the Way Of The Jerk. 2007's 'Margot'
was disliked by many at the time, but has only grown in stature, with Nicole Kidman's brittle, sharp
turn proving to be a perfect fit for the filmmakers' world-view, appalling (but still human) as she
takes her frustrations in life out on her son. 2010's "Greenberg" is the least of the three, despite
a raw and uncompromising performance by Ben Stiller in the title role, a thwarted man-child who can't
see much beyond his own needs and worldview. The three films aren't the easiest watch (no wonder
that Baumbach's next film, the delightful "Frances Ha," felt like such a breath of fresh air), but
together do a pretty great job at encapsulating the era of mammoth selfishness.
Roger Dodger
Campbell Scott as Roger Swanson in "Roger Dodger" (2002)
Jesse Eisenberg makes another appearance on this list (his more malevolent side in the recent "The
Double" could also have qualified), but for once, he's not the asshole. That would be Campbell Scott,
who is remarkably brilliant in Dylan Kidd's minor classic "Roger Dodger." Scott plays the titular
Roger Swanson, a New York ad-man who's asked by his 16-year-old nephew to help him learn how to seduce
women so he can lose his virginity. Roger's a self-described player and essentially a misogynist,
and attempts to induct his young relative in what he describes as essentially a war of the sexes.
A smarmy early '00s precursor to today's pick-up artist scumbags, Roger doesn't have the charm that
he thinks he does, particularly given that he's in an unacknowledged meltdown after being dumped
by lover/boss Isabella Rosselini. Like many such people, he hates almost everyone around him, but
no one brings out quite so much bile in him as himself, and it's this brilliant duality that makes
the performance one of Scott's best. Kidd's film is a woozy, witty examination of sex and masculinity,
and though it missteps a little towards the end in offering something of a redemption for the character,
it still gave us one of the more iconic cinematic douchebags of the last couple of decades.
Rachel Getting Married
Anne Hathaway as Kym in "Rachel Getting Married" (2008)
We think of being an asshole as a specifically male trait, but we've already seen with "Young Adult"
and "Margot At The Wedding" that there's no gender divide. "Rachel Getting Married" is another great
example, one that's arguably sadder and psychologically richer than either. Jonathan Demme's film
stars a revelatory Anne Hathaway as Kym, who returns home from drug rehab to attend the wedding of
her sister (Rosemarie DeWitt), only for the family's long-brushed-over painful past to emerge, as
it tends to do in movies like this one. Kym initially seems like a comically awful person, a selfish,
up-staging drug addict who hijacks the rehearsal dinner to make twelve-step apologies, and who seems
to delight in deliberately upsetting almost anyone in her family and not accepting any blame for
her actions. But over time, Kym richens, as we learn that she killed her younger brother in a car
accident when she was high, and while that itself is clearly a terrible and selfish action, it's
only continued to haunt her, and Hathaway is superb in painting a picture of a woman who longs to
be forgiven by people who would like to, but might just find it impossible. Demme and the movie never
let her off the hook, but that whatever small progress she might make happens at all feels all the
more moving for being so hard-won.
As Good As It Gets
Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets" (1997)
Ol' Jack plays cantankerous assholes the way Tom Hanks plays nice guys or Tom Cruise plays people
who jumps off tall buildings: brilliantly, vigorously and frequently. In James L. Brooks' award-winning
rom-com, Nicholson builds on earlier performances like "Five Easy Pieces" "Carnal Knowledge" and
"Heartburn" to create something like a crown prince of unlikable fellas, OCD-suffering, racist, homophobic,
misogynist misanthrope novelist Melvin Udall, whose carefully controlled life is upended by the intervention
of gay neighbor Simon (Greg Kinnear), and single-mother waitress Carol (Helen Hunt). Nicholson might
be playing a slightly sitcom-ish, Archie Bunker-ish character, but the mix of his typical devilish
charm, smartly and sparingly used, and a detailed psychological realism that makes Melvin into more
than just an archetype, elevated the performance to Oscar-winning effect. Though of course it helps
that Nicholson is clearly relishing the lovingly and intricately-written speeches that he gets to
deploy ("never, never interrupt me, okay?," he tells Simon. "Not if there's a fire, not even if you
hear the sound of a thud from my home and one week later there's a smell coming from there that can
only be a decaying human body and you have to hold a hanky to your face because the stench is so
thick that you think you're going to faint"). There's a certain degree of cheesiness to the way that
Melvin softens up thanks to the love of a good woman, but Jack never makes you doubt it for a minute.
Last Days of Disco
The Many Assholes Of Whit Stillman
Like Baumbach, Whit Stillman is a director who's made a career with characters who can't quite see
past their own bubble of existence (and, usually, privilege), up to and including his current Amazon
pilot "The Cosmopolitans." The pattern began with his debut "Metropolitan," in which Stillman favorite
Chris Eigeman plays arguably the platonic ideal of the director's favorite archetype, a big-mouthed
upper-class cynic who one can imagine going into Wall Street and essentially becoming Patrick Bateman
in years to come ('"the surrealists were just bunch of social climbers," he condescendingly says
at one point). Follow-up "Barcelona" sees Eigeman in a similarly smug role, the ugly American abroad,
while "The Last Days Of Disco" sees Kate Beckinsale (who's fantastic here) as a particularly callow
example of the type ("remember the Woodstock generation of the 1960s that were so full of themselves
and conceited? None of them could dance," she tells someone at one point with the naivety of youth).
If one was ungenerous, one could argue that the narrow worldview of his films makes Stillman and
his archaic language rather self-absorbed himself, but that's a misreading: Stillman is ultimately
a social satirist, a sort of cinematic heir to Jane Austen (whose influence is felt in his most recent
picture, "Damsels In Distress," more than ever), savagely poking at the ridiculous attitudes and
views of his characters without ever quite judging them.
Honorable Mentions: There were various other possibilities that we dismissed as not quite being
quite the right brand of asshole for this specific theme: think of Kirk Douglas in "Ace In The Hole,"
Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster in "Sweet Smell Of Success" (too toxic), even William Atherton in
"Die Hard" and "Ghostbusters" (which veers closer to a simple villain). Among the ones who came closest
to qualifying were Ed Norton and Micheal Keaton in "Birdman" (we wrote about their self-absorbed
asshole-ish tendencies here), Rachel McAdams in "Mean Girls," Matt Damon in "The Departed," Paul
Reiser in "Aliens," Aaron Eckhart in "In The Company Of Men," and Tom Hulce in "Amadeus," along with
both Jason Schwartzman's villain, and arguably Michael Cera's hero, in "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World."
Any others? Let us know below
If you want observe people with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or strong narcissistic
traits, look no further than your TV set. There are many memorable movie characters who display the
basic characteristics of narcissism: the grandiose and overinflated sense of self, lack of empathy,
exploitation of others with no remorse, and excessive self-focus. Listed below are some of the more
well-known narcissists portrayed in the movies:
Movie: The Devil Wears Prada
Played By: Meryl Streep
About: Now this is an NPD character that sticks with you.
Movie: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Played By: Kenneth Branagh
About: This is the definition of narcissism. Lockhart is hilarious. One of the comical moments from
the series is when Lockhart is talking to Harry during his detention and says "Fame is a fickle friend,
Harry. Celebrity is as celebrity does. Remember that." *turn and smile* He goes to such lengths as
to fake his fame and risk the deaths of many students just to keep his ego fed.
Movie: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Played By: Sam Rockwell
About: Zaphod (and Sam Rockwell) is great and Rockwell plays him well- he's fun for the role he has.
Movie: American Psycho
Played By: Christian Bale
About: Bale plays the role with what appears to be ease. He's a completely memorable character with
some very iconic scenes.
Movie: Dinner for Schmucks
Played By: Jemaine Clements
About: Whether or not you liked the movie, most have agreed that Jamaine Clements was the best part.
Movie: The American Pie Trilogy
Played By: Seann William Scott
About: Stifler thinks he's hot stuff, almost obnoxiously so. But he's not without his insecurities
underneath it all. He's probably not a true narcissist as the rest on this list–it's much more of
a front, at least partially. But there's no doubting he thinks highly of himself, and he's funny
while he thinks so.
Movie: Zoolander
Played By: Ben Stiller
About: "I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking.
And I plan on finding out what that is."
Movie: Forgetting Sarah Marshall/Get Him to the Greek
Played by: Russell Brand
About: Russell Brand was hilarious in them–clearly the best part of the movies.
Movie: The Princess Bride
Played By: Wallace Shawn
About: Vizzini: "I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains." Westley:
"You're that smart?" Vizzini: "Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?"
Westley: "Yes." Vizzini: "Morons."
Movie: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Played By: Will Ferrell
About: The narcissism is right there in the title of the film! He's a fun character, wrapped up in
his own little world.
MOVIE: Gaslight
Played by: Charles Boyer
ABOUT: This classic movie is where the term gaslighting comes from, to indicate how an N (or other
abuser) lies to you to make you doubt your experience of reality. Although the film is a bit dated
now (it was made in the 1940s) it is still extremely gripping and terrifying. The narcissist in this
film, Gregory Anton, is trying to deliberately send his new wife insane in order to inherit from
her. An absolute must-watch for anybody interest in learning more about malignant NPD.
MOVIE: Mommie Dearest
Played By: Faye Dunaway
ABOUT: A classic film. It's the real-life story of total narcissist Joan Crawford and her daughter
Christina. This is a chillingly accurate portrayal of the hell of being raised by a narcissist.
MOVIE: White Oleander
Played by: Michelle Pfeiffer
ABOUT: Michelle Pfeiffer plays the narcissistic mother in this amazing film, and by all accounts
does a terrific job.
MOVIE: Gone With the Wind
Played by: Vivien Leigh
ABOUT: Scarlett O'Hara is a total narcissist in this classic tale.
Other Movies Portraying Narcissistic Characters
• American Beauty (narcissistic mother)
• East of Eden (narcissistic father)
• Ordinary People (narcissistic mother)
• Mermaids (Cher as Mrs. Flax)
• Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (narcissistic sister)
• Sybil (narcissistic mother)
• The Little Foxes (narcissistic mother)
• Flowers in the Attic (narcissistic mother)
• Matilda (both parents are narcissists)
• Coraline (both "other" parents are narcissists)
• Precious (narcissistic mother)
• Girl Interrupted (Angelina Jolie)
• Life or Something Like It (Angelina Jolie)
Gone Girl is best watched for two of its two and a half hours.
Notable quotes:
"... The dialogue is snappy and razor-sharp. The acting is awesome, from the main characters all the way down to minor roles. ..."
"... A movie about passion, lies, obsession, the death of love, and living with sociopaths, this is a remarkable movie. It also reinforces my belief that I never ever want to get married ..."
"... Ben Affleck, a capable actor and a fine director, knows what is to be caught in the media's unforgiving line of fire and has earned poor reviews in the past for exuding a certain bordering-on-self-parody, macho-man overconfidence and self-satisfaction, so he is an ideal choice to play the husband, an individual who is either a decent man in over his head or a chiseled sociopath who can barely hide his smile in front of the cameras. ..."
"... My favorite films of his are still Zodiac and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but this plants its flag close to the top. ..."
"... Tyler Perry plays a jovial, smirky Johnny Cochran-type lawyer, who makes huge amounts of money defending men accused of killing their wives ..."
"... The Gone Girl screenplay had plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. In fairness, it was well acted and it started off well enough, shining a light on the deterioration of a marriage, how the media picks and chooses its heroes and villains for ratings, and just how easy it is to manipulate a public that thinks appearing on The Bachelor will lead to true romance. The send up of Nancy Grace and her ilk alone is worth sitting through. ..."
"... More than that, I perceive it as a condemnation of marriage, romantic relationships, and the (alleged) fakery of them. ..."
"... It is also a blatant commentary on sensational media and public hysteria/groupthink (I.e., "sheeple" and witch hunts). There is also a strange comment on parenting, if you compare nick's mother to his father and Amy's parents. ..."
"... There's another part of the movie, much smaller than what was advertised, which was why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. The role the media plays in these kind of situations. I was led to believe that it was an examination of the subject. It's not. ..."
"... Ben Affleck does a fantastic job playing Nick Dunne, a somewhat employed writer married to the no-so-right-in-the-head Amy (Rosalund Pike). The one thing Amy can do well is mess with your life. She messes with Nick's to the point the world believes Nick has killed her and he has to hire high profile attorney Tanner Bolt, played extremely well by Tyler Perry. ..."
"... Gone Girl is best watched for two of its two and a half hours. ..."
"... Great for 1.5 hours and the rest was trash. ..."
"... Gone Girl is brilliant, for 3/4 of the movie. The rest, of the story falls off the tracks and then struggles to reach the end...struggles, because it pushes the boundaries of weakness of Nick(Affleck). ..."
"... It sparks questions in you as you watch, as to just how well do you know your spouse? How well do they know you? ..."
"... It's a cast of talent with Ben Affleck Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie Coone, Rosamun Pike, Tyler Perry and others that highlights every angle of this demented story. ..."
"... There were parts that dragged on somewhat. The movie has a longer running time than most. ..."
"... Gone Girl is directed by the same man who brought you Fight Club, Social Network (the Facebook movie), and Se7en. ..."
"... In many instances, the film was making a statement (an unbiased one at that) on everything wrong with modern-day media, law enforcement, marriages, and the image of gender roles in society. Tough stuff! The only complaint I can make about the film is how it is not really all that cinematic and the film's uncertain ending. But then again, the ending can be seen both ways either as a metaphor about reality's way of saying no one is either good or bad or an attack on the senses with a strange turnaround for a particular character. ..."
A twisty and twisted new classic Nine Things About the Movie "Gone
Girl" (USA, 2014)
1. One of the best movies of 2014, this multi-layered, wickedly brilliant
film is a great adaptation of the 2012 novel.
2. It was directed by David Fincher. He collaborated with Trent Reznor
and Atticus Ross again for the smoothly foreboding soundtrack. Fincher has
developed a unique cinematic style, and this movie is a showcase of it.
3. The heart of the movie is a mystery - a wife disappears from her home
on the morning of her anniversary. But not only do we not know who did it,
we don't even really know what happened.
4. The movie flips back and forth between the husband's perspective and
the wife's, slowly unfolding its secrets like a black, poisonous flower.
5. Besides the core mystery, the movie is also a commentary on media
hype, along with trial by popularity. Nancy Grace probably wishes she could
sue somebody for this movie.
6. Perhaps more chilling than the mystery is the depiction of what has
to be the most dysfunctional marriage in cinematic history.
7. The movie is almost 3 hours long, but it doesn't feel like it. The
plot is tight - no scene is wasted. The dialogue is snappy and razor-sharp.
The acting is awesome, from the main characters all the way down to minor
roles.
8. Part of the reason the movie works so well is that the author of the
book, Gillian Flynn, also wrote the screenplay. It's set in Missouri and
feels pretty authentic, probably because the author is from Kansas City.
9. A movie about passion, lies, obsession, the death of love, and
living with sociopaths, this is a remarkable movie. It also reinforces my
belief that I never ever want to get married.
23 Comments
Gone Girl is the Complete Package. Gone Girl took the world by storm.
And I'm not just talking about the film. The book (I highly recommend this
read) by Gillian Flynn quickly became one of the bestselling novels of 2012.
Through word of mouth, people left and right were finding out about this
tale of a dark and twisted marriage. It was seen almost everywhere, so I
was no surprise that the rights would be snatched up (by Reese Witherspoon,
nonetheless). And the stage was quickly set for David Fincher to work his
dark directing magic.
The story tells of a married couple, Nick and Amy Dunne, on their fifth
wedding anniversary. That morning, Amy mysteriously vanishes, leaving behind
a rather suspicious trail of evidence.The authorities and the media quickly
swoop down on Nick, who seems nice enough, but is oddly evasive and may
not be telling the whole truth. As events unfold, you will be left wondering
how well you truly know the person you love.
With jaw-dropping performances from Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Tyler
Perry, Carrie Coon, Neil Patrick Harris, and Patrick Fugit, you will be
in for a treat. These actors portray their respective roles with such power
and perfection, and I was pleasantly surprised. I think you will be as well.
I expect to see award nominations for these players within the coming weeks.
If not, I will riot.
Not only is the acting fantastic, but the score paints a beautiful picture
as well. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who scored Fincher's last two films--The
Social Network and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) have returned to deliver
an astounding and haunting score that perfectly suits the story. Equally
peaceful and disturbing, it mirrors the characters' behaviours as their
secrets are unveiled.
Gone Girl is the complete package. Creepy, witty, breathtaking, you will
finish this movie with your jaw open. I guarantee it. Truly beautiful, Fincher
has outdone himself. I recommend purchasing this at your earliest opportunity.
I have not read the Gillian Flynn novel Gone Girl. Not out of any particular
aversion. I just never found my way around to it. So I entered this film
adaptation by premiere stylist and suspense conjurer David Fincher quote-unquote
blind beyond a general knowledge of the story involving a suburban Missouri
man who becomes a suspect in his wife's mysterious vanishing. And beat by
beat, scene by scene, twist by twist, the film blew me away. It is an airtight
and atmospheric blend of the hilarious, the macabre, and the romantic. It
satisfies first as a crime mystery. With a perverse, yet playful hand, it
transforms the essential and inevitable questions of the genre (who is who?
who is where? who has done what? who is alive? who is dead?) into delightful
webs of opaque morality and disturbing brutality. There are other concerns
and components, too, and this joins such films as Sweet Smell of Success
and To Die For among the best indictments of media sensationalism and the
way it can bastardize humanity. It achieves this via acidic and vivid (and
therefore highly enjoyable) illustration of its points rather than didactic
condemnation.
The film is buoyed by spot-on casting decisions. In a strange way which
pays enormous dividends, many of the stars seem to be chosen based on their
undesirable traits. Ben Affleck, a capable actor and a fine director,
knows what is to be caught in the media's unforgiving line of fire and has
earned poor reviews in the past for exuding a certain bordering-on-self-parody,
macho-man overconfidence and self-satisfaction, so he is an ideal choice
to play the husband, an individual who is either a decent man in over his
head or a chiseled sociopath who can barely hide his smile in front of the
cameras.
And the beautiful Rosamund Pike can seem distant on screen, a type of
icy English rose to be admired and never touched, and she is therefore ideal
as a so-picture-perfect-as-to-be-unknowable wife pushed to unusual and dangerous
places. Hers is a particularly alarming and inspired turn (the actress'
best since the undervalued Barney's Version), and it would be a shame if
she were not recognized by the Academy with her first nomination early next
year.
This line of casting thought extends to other plays in the substantial
ensemble. Why not, for example, hire Tyler Perry, who has turned himself
in a household name with outsize charisma and a self-forged aura of spiritual
authority, to play a showboating A-list lawyer? Throughout Gone Girl, the
roles fit so very snugly.
And behind the camera, Fincher is in as fine a form as ever. My favorite
films of his are still Zodiac and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but this
plants its flag close to the top. His antiseptic, meticulous, and perfectionist
shot compositions turn the banal suburban environments into under-lit and
malevolence-infused spaces, and every scene (whether overtly suspenseful
and violent or of a quieter domestic variety) has an incisive and taut quality.
This is a long film at 148 minutes, but never an overweight or ponderous
one. It holds viewers' heads and hearts with vice-grip intensity from frame
one onward and leaves us (or me, at least) at once amused, energized, and
despairing.
The plot of David Fincher's film GONE GIRL (2014) is one more variation
of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's old Sherlock Holmes story "The Problem of Thor
Bridge." One among many ... and perhaps the nastiest.
As all the blurbs reveal, Ben Affleck plays a husband named Nick Dunne,
who is suspected of killing his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike, when
she mysteriously disappears under highly suspicious circumstances.
Although the cast is uniformly talented, nearly all of the characters
are unlikeable ... and several of them are downright repulsive. Tyler
Perry plays a jovial, smirky Johnny Cochran-type lawyer, who makes huge
amounts of money defending men accused of killing their wives
... the shark-like, frenzied TV scandal-mongers are totally disgusting
... and the couple who are the parents of Amy (the missing wife) are blood-sucking
horrors who have used their daughter for their own financial benefit for
years.
Only two of the main characters are "normal" and basically "neutral"
in their presentation: Margo Dunne, the sister of Ben Affleck's character,
played by Carrie Coon, and Rhonda Boney (!?), the female detective who is
in charge of the investigation, played by Kim Dickens. The only wholly likeable
character is the little orange cat of Nick and Amy, which only has about
5 minutes of on-screen time.
The solution to Amy Dunne's disappearance gradually comes to light over
the next TWO AND A HALF HOURS, and without giving any spoilers here, I will
assert that it is a repulsive conclusion to the film.
I viewed the film with a small group of adults (approximately 55 people),
and especially during the final 45 minutes some parts of the film caused
nearly the whole audience to laugh at the preposterous events and new revelations.
The scenes with Neil Patrick Harris seemed to get the highest number of
unintended laughs.
In my judgment, this film is quite smarmy and a huge waste of one's time.
Not even the sweetness of the little orange cat can compensate for the general
nastiness of the characters and their actions.
The Gone Girl screenplay had plot holes big enough to drive a truck
through. In fairness, it was well acted and it started off well enough,
shining a light on the deterioration of a marriage, how the media picks
and chooses its heroes and villains for ratings, and just how easy it is
to manipulate a public that thinks appearing on The Bachelor will lead to
true romance. The send up of Nancy Grace and her ilk alone is worth sitting
through.
But then it all falls apart. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet
seen it, but the complete unraveling of film after the "twist" actually
became laughable with such huge gaps in common sense, implausible occurrences,
security camera footage that not a single cop decided to look at, and just
plain linear storytelling of getting from A to B that it's actually boggling.
It wasn't the twist itself, that was actually pretty clever, it was all
the lapses that came after.
Even in a work of fiction there logic rules that need to be followed,
and therein lies my issue with Gone Girl. It's difficult to elaborate on
everything that's wrong with the last third without revealing what happens
after the so-called big twist. (Just google Gone Girl plot holes and you'll
find plenty of examples). But the film ends with an eye roll instead of
a bang. There's suspending disbelief, which I'm happy to do if there is
other convincing evidence, and then there's beating disbelief to death with
a tire iron--which is what Gone Girl gives you in the end.
I understand that Gillian Flynn translated her book to screen and reworked
the whole last third, which is exactly where it all falls apart. Perhaps
being a staff writer at Entertainment Weekly for 20 years -- where the emphasis
is clearly on get it out fast rather than get it out right -- dulled her
logic and skills! Either way, while some Oscar snubs are occasionally puzzling,
I'm not in the least surprised that there were none for this screenplay.
At the end of this movie, I found myself very confused. Not about the
mystery but whether I liked the movie. It wasn't because the characters
were so complex or multi-layered that they pushed my perceptions of "good"
and "evil." In fact, I found Amy and Nick strangely two-dimensional.
I was so mystified by my mystification that I did a first: I read a bunch
of professional reviews to see if that would help me put my finger on it.
I was further surprised to see a common theme among them: is this movie
misogynist, misandrist, or misanthropic? If it is any of these, I think
it is the latter.
More than that, I perceive it as a condemnation of marriage, romantic
relationships, and the (alleged) fakery of them. In that vein, I found
it spiteful rather than satiric. It is also a blatant commentary on
sensational media and public hysteria/groupthink (I.e., "sheeple" and witch
hunts). There is also a strange comment on parenting, if you compare nick's
mother to his father and Amy's parents. That one was a bit lost on
me, and perphaps it is clearer in the book where there is more detail on
that (note: I haven't read the book).
At this point, I'm still baffled by my reaction to this movie, and the
best way I can rationalize it is that I think this is a solid suspense/murder
mystery but I didn't buy the "psychological" part of this psychological
thriller.
That part seemed forced to the point that it detracted from the good
things. I admit that I liked Basic Instinct more (maybe I'm just getting
old and need to rewatch that one).
Some positives: I thought the casting was superb and the directing was
also very strong. I thought the actress who played the twin sister was particularly
good. On a final note, I found the end rather abrupt. Don't know if this
will help people who haven't watched it yet, but maybe this will help validate
other viewers who wish they could have "cracked open" their own skulls at
the end of this movie.
This movie isn't anything you'd expect. I think that's why my review
is mixed. I liked that it was not what you expected, I guess. I think I
was irritated at the female character. All of them really, but the wife
really annoyed me. It was kind of sick and really twisted. I kept saying
to myself, "okay well lets appreciate it for what it is and keep an open
mind." That was really difficult. This isn't an easy movie for me to pin
down for you. Especially because I don't want to give anything away and
to really give you a mental picture, I almost have to give stuff away. I'm
going to try to stretch my creative muscle here, though, and give you some
kind of perspective.
One half of the picture is the hero and he screws up bad, but the punishment
is horrific compared to the crime. I'm not crazy about those type of movies.
The kind of movie where the hero just keeps getting hit with new bad stuff.
Too much like my life, I guess.
The other half of the movie is a revenge thriller. You want to get behind
it, because you kind of think, "well, they deserve it.' But it's not that
cut and dry. You want to get behind it but it's hard because the way the
revenge is executed is so sick and twisted and over-the-top. It comes so
close to the edge of being completely unbelievable and so sick that the
sympathy you once held is lost completely. But a part of you still wants
the revenge taker to succeed and wants to be on their side, moreover, there
are a lot of folks out there that didn't lose their sympathy at all, which
says a lot about society in general and ones friends in particular.
There's another part of the movie, much smaller than what was advertised,
which was why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. The role the
media plays in these kind of situations. I was led to believe that it was
an examination of the subject. It's not.
So look, I don't know that I would recommend renting it 100%. I am very
much on the fence about this movie. I'm sorry. I would suggest watching
it with a bunch of your friends. It's one of those movies that you go to
with those friends who like to talk about movies. You'll have so much to
talk about so you don't want to see it all alone.
Wanna watch a great movie? Quit this one 2/3rds of the way through. Wanna
watch something turn from very good to stupid? Watch this all the way.
Ben Affleck does a fantastic job playing Nick Dunne, a somewhat employed
writer married to the no-so-right-in-the-head Amy (Rosalund Pike). The one
thing Amy can do well is mess with your life. She messes with Nick's to
the point the world believes Nick has killed her and he has to hire high
profile attorney Tanner Bolt, played extremely well by Tyler Perry.
The acting is quite good, with the exception of Neil Patrick Harris,
who just seemed miscast as Amy's high school friend Desi Collins to whom
she turns for "help". Here's the part where everything turns weird. Shortly
after her time with Desi is the best time to stop the movie and enjoy what
had been made. Any further, and I'm not spoiling anything here, the movie
hits a wall.
Gone Girl is best watched for two of its two and a half hours.
I really like David Fincher movies. They always have a lot of action,
a little suspense, and a sense of humor. And this one is no different. I
was confused by some parts of the movie, and displease with other parts,
mainly the ending. It was a book before it was a movie, so that's no ones
fault who were involved in the production of the movie. But I can see how
in a novel the ending would've been handled in a better way. In a novel
there's more character development, so you get to see the motivation behind
each decision that a character makes. Any movie you only really see what
the director wants you to see, and what the actors are capable of portraying.
Ben Affleck was out of his league with that powerhouse of a actress Rosamund
Pike. If she doesn't get at least a nomination, the whole system is flawed.
Had the movie been handled with a bit more care, it probably would have
been one of the greatest movies I've ever seen... that's saying a lot because
I really don't like Ben Affleck and he's on screen 80% of the movie. He
does add a snarky lightness that's needed in such a heavy movie. It's a
solid 3.5 stars. Definitely must see for originality.
Ok you want an honest review. Here goes. Well acted, excellent plot...up
to a point, then it falls apart. The twists no longer are logical, they
are just dark and twisted, taking you on a journey that has lost its way,
but determined to land you at the end, an end already prepared. So it gets
there, but by the time you get there, you wonder, what happened? That's
because you are waiting for it to take a right, on to the road of plausibility.
Gone Girl is brilliant, for 3/4 of the movie. The rest, of the story
falls off the tracks and then struggles to reach the end...struggles, because
it pushes the boundaries of weakness of Nick(Affleck).
So my rating is 3 stars. I walk away feeling like I wasted the last 45
mins on junk. Prior to that, it was fascinating. The high rating is what's
wrong with people today...everyone runs in packs and no one, no one dares
to be honest, less they are an outcast. Go see it for yourself and then
dare to put an honest review here.
As someone who has read the book prior to seeing this film, I may have
a slightly different take on the movie then others. I found it difficult
to decide how many stars it deserved. The first act and most of the second
act are well edited from the book. The changes that are made make sense
in order to condense a complicated story into a film. But somewhere in 2nd
and totally the 3rd act the motivations for the characters gets muddled.
The book spends a lot of time letting you read what Nick and Amy are thinking.
The movie. though it tries at first, seems to give up on that element. But
it is a crucial element in understanding the ending at the very least. Nick
is self-centered and deeply flawed in the book. Amy is, a sociopath. The
depth of her manipulation, cruelty and insane notion of punishment and justice
is not explored near enough in the film. Her crazy and expert manipulation
is intense in the book. Nick never really worries what happened to her when
she vanishes and hates her. I wish the movie was able to flesh out more
of these massive personality flaws. Without this the movie in the end falls
flat. However, I don't have a good idea as to how the movie might have done
this given the time restrictions.
My husband and I heard so much about this movie. I am very fond of true
crime and we both like drama movies. We gave it a go.
It is dark. It is twisted.
A marriage of hope, happiness and on the fifth wedding anniversary it
all vanishes. Hope, sorrow, and mystery. Amy Dunne is missing the trail
of evidence leads to suspicions of her husband Nick Dunne.
It sparks questions in you as you watch, as to just how well do you
know your spouse? How well do they know you?
It's a cast of talent with Ben Affleck Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie
Coone, Rosamun Pike, Tyler Perry and others that highlights every angle
of this demented story.
There were parts that dragged on somewhat. The movie has a longer
running time than most. My husband wasn't impressed--until the ending.
I was sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time saying, "you've got
to be kidding!"....it was intense. it was well executed. It was dark. It
was great!
"Did he or not kill his wife? Is this all a set-up? More questions can
be unraveled in one of the most surprisingly complex yet straightforward
mystery-thrillers of the year. Bear in mind, I was never anticipating to
see this film just by chance after some friends brought me.
Gone Girl is directed by the same man who brought you Fight Club,
Social Network (the Facebook movie), and Se7en. A purveyor for dark,
brooding films, Gone Girl is no stranger to this with a knack for complexity
and disturbing emotions channeling through the central performances by Ben
Affleck (whose career escalated to much more respectable degrees after State
of Play and Argo) and Rosamund Pike (an up-and-coming British actress) playing
two conflicted souls frustrated over their relationship only to then, days
on end, leave a field of investigation and suspicion into the lives of Affleck's
character whether he or not had any part into the disappearance of his wife?
While the premise sounds absurdly ordinary and entirely like something
from Lifetime but unlike some of Lifetime's corny products, this film feels
more uncertain and depressing in tone and is more graphic in content. However,
any comparisons to Lifetime can be set aside with the film's surprisingly
self-aware nature and persistent dark humour, which albeit odd for a film
of this calibre, works in some ways to break the tension and melodrama.
Using Neil Patrick Harris from "How I Met Your Mother", the model from
the Robin Thicke "Blurred Lines" music video, and Tyler Perry from the "Madea"
films maybe the most bizarre choices for a high-stakes drama but it works
in a surreal way.
In many instances, the film was making a statement (an unbiased one
at that) on everything wrong with modern-day media, law enforcement, marriages,
and the image of gender roles in society. Tough stuff! The only complaint
I can make about the film is how it is not really all that cinematic and
the film's uncertain ending. But then again, the ending can be seen both
ways either as a metaphor about reality's way of saying no one is either
good or bad or an attack on the senses with a strange turnaround for a particular
character.
Without giving much away, Gone Girl is aimed at the more ambitious viewer
and for anyone who likes their Lifetime or Investigation Discovery TV shows
with a bit more class, acting skill, and raw spirit. It sure knows how to
be pessimistic and insightful without remorse. And the message is relevant
and important too with a nice look into how marriage and relationships just
aren't a realistic goal in today's society which I wholeheartedly promote."
"... They view relationships as power struggles and always want to be on the winning side of it. They have impaired consciences and don't mind fighting dirty. They can lie with a straight face and have a professional-level poker face. ..."
To an abuser, emotional manipulation serves one goal and
one goal only. It's the determination to win and possess the
most power in a relationship. They believe that when they have
such power, they will be happy... and it's all at your expense.
It's an amazingly unhealthy approach to a relationship, and
anything for that matter. If you approach something solely to
win, that means you put winning as a higher priority than
someone's feelings and ultimately wellbeing.
If you approach an argument solely to win, then you ignore
the underlying issues and are not resolution-focused. And if you
approach a relationship solely to win, then you are spitting on
the underlying concept of a relationship.
You are mistaking it for a battle of vulnerability and control,
while relationships should be the polar opposite. Relationships
are a give-and-take and require compromise. Relationships are
not a zero-sum game, and they do not function like a dom-sub
relationship from the BDSM world. Abusers forget this, or
worse... they realize it and know exactly what they are doing
when they manipulate you.
Abusers embody a frightening combination of traits that
make them dangerous.
They are focused and intentional about what they want from
you. They have a penchant for deception and backhanded
tactics of questionable morality. They view relationships as
power struggles and always want to be on the winning side of it.
They have impaired consciences and don't mind fighting dirty.
They can lie with a straight face and have a professional-level
poker face.
They live in a zone of danger where they are smart enough to
be able to fool you yet dumb enough to not see the damage they
are doing.
But let's get one thing straight.
Your abuser wants power over you, and this means one
simple truth. They don't love you. They just don't, or else
they would treat you better and respect you. They may think
they love you, but that's a testament to their skewed
understanding of love and how relationships work. At best, the}
believe they know what's best for you and seek to control every
aspect of your life.
If they don't love you, what do they love? What motivates
them?
They love controlling someone. That's what gives them
pleasure, and they will go to any lengths to maintain that
pleasure. That's why they make you feel downtrodden on a
daily basis and constantly tell you that you aren't good enough
or smart enough. You hear it so much, you begin believing it
instead of trusting yourself and your self-esteem... and that's
exactly where your abuser wants you. It makes them feel better
about themselves and happy to be adored.
.... ... ...
Emotional manipulation is rarely as direct and obvious as
you might think. Perhaps it might be obvious to the casual
bystander, but when you're emotionally invested, everything
simply appears incredibly complex and layered.
"... Some of the chapters were next to impossible to write because of the nature
of the situations I found myself in, and how personal the memories were, and I hesitated
including them in this book, however I felt it was needed to show the lengths Sara
would go to to manipulate, degrade and brainwash me, ultimately leading to the destruction
of our marriage. It took me a very long time to recognize and admit I was a victim
of abuse, especially from a woman. ..."
"... Being a man's man, that wasn't easy. After my admission, I had to take
a look back at the big picture and realize my intentions were always good, but I
was just manipulated, brainwashed and beaten down to the point of alienating virtually
everyone away from me. ..."
"... This was the life I lived for 12 years.... ..."
"... As time went on, and we spent virtually every waking moment together, I
began to feel the suffocation of a poisonous relationship creeping in, but by the
time I realized this, I was too deep into it and didn't know what to do; the brainwashing
had begun. ..."
"... Admittedly, there was a fairly significant amount of fear I developed towards
Sara. Along the way, I had friends I turned to here and there, but eventually, telling
people some of the things that were going on was far too embarrassing to share.
..."
Author's Note The events that happened throughout this book are all true,
recalled from the best of my memory and/or old journals I had kept. Those who
read it, may not like everything they read, but unfortunately sometimes the
truth is the hardest thing to hear. All of the dialogue has been reconstructed
from memory; it may not be word for word, but the nature of what was said is
accurate. It was suggested by some of my closest friends and family that I take
my unbelievable story and life lessons learned with Sara and not only write
them down, but publish a book for others to read and try to grasp the hell I
lived. I know I'm not alone in what I had gone through and there are other people
out there who are living a similar life that I lived. I thought that if I wrote
this book, sharing the struggles I faced being married to someone who was mentally,
emotionally and sometimes physically abusive (not to mention controlling, completely
unpredictable and manipulative), there may be some small chance that one of
these people living in a similar hell may read it and find that there is a way
out. There is hope for a better life.
I will say, wiiting these memories, (or in most cases nightmares) down was
very therapeutic but not often easy. I do not regret anything I wrote in this
book. I wanted everything to be honest, factual, uncensored and descriptive,
and I believe in order to do it right, it couldn't have been done any other
way. Some of the chapters were next to impossible to write because of the
nature of the situations I found myself in, and how personal the memories were,
and I hesitated including them in this book, however I felt it was needed to
show the lengths Sara would go to to manipulate, degrade and brainwash me, ultimately
leading to the destruction of our marriage. It took me a very long time to recognize
and admit I was a victim of abuse, especially from a woman.
Being a man's man, that wasn't easy. After my admission, I had to take
a look back at the big picture and realize my intentions were always good, but
I was just manipulated, brainwashed and beaten down to the point of alienating
virtually everyone away from me. I was lost and spiraling quickly down
a very dark, destructive path. I am still working on standing tall and holding
my head up after many years of abuse. I am not ashamed of myself any longer,
and have become comfortable speaking out on this subject. I am a much different
man today than I was back then. This is my story. This was the life I lived
for 12 years....
... ... ...
My point? We were like any other teenage romance. It was not uncommon for
us to do sweet gestures for each other like writing little notes in our lockers
at school to each other, or meeting each other for lunch. I'm sure we made some
people sick. Then things began to slowly change. As time went on, and we
spent virtually every waking moment together, I began to feel the suffocation
of a poisonous relationship creeping in, but by the time I realized this, I
was too deep into it and didn't know what to do; the brainwashing had begun.
Admittedly, there was a fairly significant amount of fear I developed
towards Sara. Along the way, I had friends I turned to here and there, but eventually,
telling people some of the things that were going on was far too embarrassing
to share. I kept things to myself and tried to work through them alone,
or just simply ignore them...
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and
relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the
extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of
social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in
cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or
friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern.
Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a "cult scale" or a definitive checklist to
determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an
analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and
(whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as
law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation
sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about
the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel
(for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry-or leaders prescribe what
types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline
children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and
members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar-or the
group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider
society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military
commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems
necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have
considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or
friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control
members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and
radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related
activities.
Members are encouraged
or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members
(the "true believers") feel there can be no life outside the context of
the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals
to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
This checklist will be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships
by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006).
It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone.
"... I went back and saw ways I got conned in matters of the heart while dating; in buying things;
in following certain leaders in church. ..."
"... As a former prosecutor of elder abuse crimes (both physical and financial), I have a lot of
experience with people who "fall for it." But that certainly doesn't mean everyone does. Nor does it
mean that the ones who don't "fall for it" are more cynical, less humane, less open to true friendship,
etc. In fact, Konnikova's description of victims of con artists as being more open and in touch with
their humanity sounds like the manipulation of a con artist. ..."
"... As a scientist, used to sorting through ambiguous evidence and well-meaning but underdetermined
interpretations, I find this book excellent. The author no doubt has to cast speculations of her own,
and overplay some connections and implications, but the connections between gullibility, optimism, cults,
and scams strike me as well articulated. ..."
"... But you are not at all privileged to launch unsolicited attacks on the personal attributes
of the author. (Your line "until she matures as a thinker and researcher....." was completely uncalled-for,
and hints more at your feelings of insecurity and inadequacy than anything else.) ..."
"... Three-card monte gets some attention - but that's not that interesting to me...I know why they
succeed, because people want to see if THEY can beat the game - it's not a con as much as a battle of
wits, which the rube always loses (I was cheated on a rigged carny game years ago - they suck you in
with a few easy wins, then it gets progressively harder to win the stuffed animal). ..."
"... as long as there's an advantage to fooling somebody, people will try to fool other people.
..."
"... A confidence game starts with basic human psychology. The con identifies what the victim wants
and how to play on that desire to achieve what the con-artist wants. Size someone up well, and you can
sell them anything; it helps to have someone in the throes of some sort of life turmoil - the conman
preys on what people wish were true, reaffirming their views of themselves and giving their lives meaning.
Doing so requires the creation of empathy and rapport - laying an emotional foundation before any scheme
is proposed. ..."
"... The con is an exercise in soft skills - trust, sympathy, persuasion. He doesn't steal - we
give. We believe because we want to, and we offer whatever they want - money, reputation, trust, fame,
support, and don't realize what is happening until it is too late. No one is immune to the art of the
con - it is not who you are, but where you happen to be at the moment in your life (eg. undergoing misfortune).
..."
"... The con is the oldest game there is, and it's likely to be entering a new age - thanks to new
opportunities brought by increasing technology that make it far easier to establish convincing false
identities (eg. LinkedIn), as well as identify those who might be more likely conned (dating sites that
identify widows and divorcees). ..."
"... Con artists aren't just master manipulators - they are expert storytellers (eg. 'I'm supporting
my mother, who now has AIDS,' 'I had PTSD from Iraq,' etc. Once we've accepted a story as true we will
probably unconsciously bend any contradictory information to conform to the conclusion we've already
drawn - it's known as 'confirmation bias.' Ultimately, what a confidence artist sells is hope. Many
cases go unreported - most cases, by some estimates. AARP found that only 37% of victims over 55 will
admit to having fallen for a con, and just over half those under 55 do so. Most con artists don't ever
come to trial because they aren't brought to the authorities to begin with. ..."
"... The first commandment of the con man - 'Be a patient listener.' (Victor Lustig, con artist)
Emotion is the primary hook used, much more powerful than logic. Cons tend to thrive in the wake of
economic or natural disaster illness, personal travail. Sadness makes us more prone to risk taking and
impulsivity - perfect for certain types of cons. Con artists love funerals and obituaries, divorces,
layoffs, and general loneliness. He does everything in his power to bring our self-perceived better-than-averageness
perceptions to the fore - eg. 'How intelligent you are, Professor Frampton.' And we believe it, because
we want it to be. ..."
"... They recognize common traits, like our tendency to see others as similar to ourselves, our
illusion of control, and our unwillingness to think badly about ourselves. These traits aren't weaknesses;
without them, we'd be functionally paralyzed. Effective swindlers work by turning our best characteristics
and human capabilities against us. ..."
"... Fraudsters prey on traits that open us to community, family, and fiscal reward. As Konnikova
writes: "The same thing that can underlie success can also make you all the more vulnerable to the grifter's
wares. We are predisposed to trust." With swindles, as with propaganda, those who think themselves most
immune are, actually, most vulnerable. ..."
"... "It's not that the confidence artist is inherently psychopathic, caring nothing about the fates
of others. It's that, to him, we aren't worthy of consideration as human beings; we are targets, not
unique people." ..."
"... Konnikova suggests it's difficult to prevent con-games without isolating ourselves and descending
into cynicism. In the later chapters, though, she reverses the trend, showing how skilled, self-aware
people can resist flim-flam artists' techniques. Not hypothetically, either: she shows how real people,
cult busters and cultural anthropologists and police, have maintained their sanity when confronted by
seemingly insurmountable double-dealing. Resistance is possible. ..."
"... Even if we never vote for crooks, invest with Bernie Madoff, or buy salvation sellers' wares,
the potential for confidence games still surrounds us. Konnikova provides needed tools for self-awareness,
clear boundaries, and bold self-defense. Swindles are inevitable; victimhood isn't. ..."
I'm reading and
loving this book. I'll expand my review when I'm completely done in a couple days but just have
to say: get it. Read it. Learn about yourself; if you dare. (I gave it four stars rather than
five to protect myself!)
I was shocked how well she documents that it is we the conned that want the con to be real.
The Grifter doesn't even have to always be that skilled. I went back and saw ways I got conned
in matters of the heart while dating; in buying things; in following certain leaders in church.
Stunned to learned that 1% of the population is psychopathological in the way their brains
are wired, some folks just can't feel or give meaning to your pain or the pain of others. And
some are not even bad people. She says it's when folks who lack this "proper" wiring aim to use
it for financial gain or to win and break hearts? Awful.
I fell in love with a Man Eater once. Looking back I see how it was my fault in setting up
my own fall. I want things to look like they would work. The bad rests on me now. She's still
a Man Eater. But the wounds I earned with my stupidity. I went on to find success with love but
I've some scars for sure due to female cons running scams unwittingly online with dating sights.
She shows we can be wise without being cynical. I like that.
Disappointing but with some qualities, November 28, 2015
Konnikova promises a lot in the titles to her books. I read Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock
Holmes and was disappointed. I did not learn to think like Sherlock Holmes; not by a long shot.
In this book, Konnikova has come closer to delivering the "Why We Fall for It . . . Every Time"
but I disagree with her observations and conclusions.
As a former prosecutor of elder abuse crimes (both physical and financial), I have a lot
of experience with people who "fall for it." But that certainly doesn't mean everyone does. Nor
does it mean that the ones who don't "fall for it" are more cynical, less humane, less open to
true friendship, etc. In fact, Konnikova's description of victims of con artists as being more
open and in touch with their humanity sounds like the manipulation of a con artist.
Not that I think Konnikova is a con artist. She is just a very ambitious young woman and a
self-promoter. I have read a lot of her magazine articles and have enjoyed many of them. Unfortunately,
her organizational and analytical skills as a writer do not make her a good writer of books. Viewed
as a series of magazine articles with the inevitable repetitions this book holds up fairly well.
But as a book, it lacks a great deal. It certainly deserves 3 stars, but its failure to respond
to bigger questions with bigger answers makes it fall short. For me, it was an uneven, often repetitious,
fairly shallow approach to a fascinating subject. Until she matures as a thinker and researcher,
Konnikova does better when she sticks to the magazine articles that she handles so well.
SundayAtDusk says:
"In fact, Konnikova's description of victims of con artists as being more open and in
touch with their humanity sounds like the manipulation of a con artist."
Excellent observation and excellent review.
JohnVidale says:
As a scientist, used to sorting through ambiguous evidence and well-meaning but underdetermined
interpretations, I find this book excellent. The author no doubt has to cast speculations
of her own, and overplay some connections and implications, but the connections between
gullibility, optimism, cults, and scams strike me as well articulated. The field of
psychology is messy, but this book was very interesting and enlightening, clear as is possible
(aside from chapters organized like magazine articles), and the connection between empathetic
people and people who get scammed seems completely reasonable, albeit with a less than perfect
correlation.
Joe Madison says:
I have the same question as Ellis Reppo: If this book is only average, can you recommend
a good one? I have not read The Confidence Game, but I have a psych degree and a longstanding
interest in persuasion. I often find popular psych books to be like you describe The Confidence
Game (repetitive, without great breadth of understanding), and so your own book recommendations
would be of real value. Thanks!
pat black says:
There's one called Eyeing the Flash: The Making of a Carnival Con Artist. A case study,
if you will, of a 17-year-old middle class math whiz who became a midway con man in 1960s
midwest
JLMK
I'd stick to making an unbiased appraisal of the merits of the book if I were you, and
cut out the ad hominem nonsense. As a reviewer you are privileged to make an opinion on
the book's attributes, how it answers the questions raised by the author, etc.
But you are not at all privileged to launch unsolicited attacks on the personal attributes
of the author. (Your line "until she matures as a thinker and researcher....." was completely
uncalled-for, and hints more at your feelings of insecurity and inadequacy than anything
else.)
Kirk McElhearn says:
Read David Maurer's The Big Con. It explains how the cons work, rather than focusing
on lots of psychological studies that Konnikova looks at, trying to suss out why we respond
the way we do.
Nathan Webster TOP 1000 REVIEWER VINE VOICE on November 27, 2015
Entertaining and interesting look at conmen and the rubes who buy what they sell
This is a fun book that covers a lot of ground about 'cons,' from the personalities of those
who can commit them, to the marks and rubes who get taken advantage of.
You would think in our informed culture, we couldn't be fooled, but we know that's not the
case. Author Maria Konnikova does a good job presenting all sides of these stories and it's often
entertaining reading about the pure brazeness of it all. I had not heard of many of the conmen
(and women) that she describes and I always like reading new stories.
I do wish there had been more recent accounts - there are so many cheaters like Lance Armstrong
that aren't exactly doing it for profit, and more attention to them would have been interesting.
Three-card monte gets some attention - but that's not that interesting to me...I know why
they succeed, because people want to see if THEY can beat the game - it's not a con as much as
a battle of wits, which the rube always loses (I was cheated on a rigged carny game years ago
- they suck you in with a few easy wins, then it gets progressively harder to win the stuffed
animal).
I think the book is not disorganized, but it does cover a lot of ground, and the different
names and situations can be difficult to follow at times. Interesting and entertaining, yes, but
just be ready to pay attention.
Ultimately, it's an interesting sociological study - as long as there's an advantage to
fooling somebody, people will try to fool other people. I would not use this book as the
primary source - I think a reader should have interest in this specific topic first, and not use
this book to try to get interested. It's a little too specific to get a reader invested who comes
to the topic totally new.
Author Maria Konnikova has a Ph.D. in Psychology
from Columbia, along with considerable experience researching topics in and writing about psychology.
This, her second book, is about conmen - elegant, outsized personalities, artists of persuasion
and exploiters of trust, not just your dime a dozen cheats and swindlers. Their 'bible' is Dale
Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
A confidence game starts with basic human psychology. The con identifies what the victim
wants and how to play on that desire to achieve what the con-artist wants. Size someone up well,
and you can sell them anything; it helps to have someone in the throes of some sort of life turmoil
- the conman preys on what people wish were true, reaffirming their views of themselves and giving
their lives meaning. Doing so requires the creation of empathy and rapport - laying an emotional
foundation before any scheme is proposed.
The con is an exercise in soft skills - trust, sympathy, persuasion. He doesn't steal -
we give. We believe because we want to, and we offer whatever they want - money, reputation, trust,
fame, support, and don't realize what is happening until it is too late. No one is immune to the
art of the con - it is not who you are, but where you happen to be at the moment in your life
(eg. undergoing misfortune).
By the time things begin to look dicey, the victims tend to be so invested, emotionally and
often physically, that they do most of the persuasion themselves. The con-artist may not even
need to convince his victims to stay quite - they usually are more likely than not to do so themselves.
When we hear others talking about their unbelievable deal or good fortune, we realize at once
they've been taken for a sucker, but when it happens to us, it's simply because "I'm lucky and
deserving of a good turn."
The best of cons are never discovered - we simply write our loss off as a matter of bad luck.
Psychopaths make up an estimated 1% of male population; among women, they are almost nonexistent.
Grifters also are highly likely to be narcissist and Machiavellian. Narcissism entails a sense
of grandiosity, entitlement, an overly inflated sense of worth, and manipulativeness. Machiavellian
has come to mean a specific set of traits that allows one to manipulate others - employs aggressive,
manipulative, exploiting, and devious moves. They are also more likely to attempt to bluff, cheat,
bargain, and ingratiate themselves with others, and more successful at doing so.
Leadership and high-profile roles, salesmen/marketers, and the legal profession are all more
likely to be populated by confidence men.
Researcher James Fallon believes that certain critical periods in childhood can nudge one more
or less towards full-blown psychopathy - luck out, you become a high-functioning psychopath, get
the bad draw and you become a violent psychopath. Fallon believes the first three years of life
are crucial in determining one's psychopathic future.
The con is the oldest game there is, and it's likely to be entering a new age - thanks
to new opportunities brought by increasing technology that make it far easier to establish convincing
false identities (eg. LinkedIn), as well as identify those who might be more likely conned (dating
sites that identify widows and divorcees). Since 2008, consumer fraud in the U.S. has risen
more than 60%, with online scams more than doubling. In 2012 alone, the Internet Crime Complaint
Center reported almost 300,000 complaints of online fraud, with over $500 million lost. Between
2011 and 2012, the Federal Trade Commission found that a little over 10% of American adults (25.6
million) had fallen victim to fraud. The majority of the cases involved fake weight-loss products,
second place went to false prize promotions, and in third place was buyers' clubs in which what
seemed like a free deal actually involves membership charges you didn't even know you'd signed
up for. Fourth was unauthorized Internet billing, and finally work-at-home programs.
Con artists aren't just master manipulators - they are expert storytellers (eg. 'I'm supporting
my mother, who now has AIDS,' 'I had PTSD from Iraq,' etc. Once we've accepted a story as true
we will probably unconsciously bend any contradictory information to conform to the conclusion
we've already drawn - it's known as 'confirmation bias.' Ultimately, what a confidence artist
sells is hope. Many cases go unreported - most cases, by some estimates. AARP found that only
37% of victims over 55 will admit to having fallen for a con, and just over half those under 55
do so. Most con artists don't ever come to trial because they aren't brought to the authorities
to begin with.
Most people require three things to align before going from legitimacy to con-artistry - motivation
(underlying predisposition created by psychopathy), narcissism, and Machiavellianism - along with
opportunity and a plausible rationale. In corporate fraud, for example, few choose to con in a
vacuum - they also perceive an aggressive sales environment (opportunity) and a feeling they must
do something to stand out. For a significant percentage of the conning population, surroundings
matter. About half those who commit fraud cite intolerable competitive conditions as justification.
They can rationalize away just about any behavior as necessary.
In one study of 15,000, only 50 could consistently detect liars - they relied on detecting
incredibly fast facial movements as their clues. One of those 50 is now employed in law enforcement,
and she told the author that smart psychopaths are super liars and have no conscience, and are
very hard for her to identify.
The first commandment of the con man - 'Be a patient listener.' (Victor Lustig, con artist)
Emotion is the primary hook used, much more powerful than logic. Cons tend to thrive in the wake
of economic or natural disaster illness, personal travail. Sadness makes us more prone to risk
taking and impulsivity - perfect for certain types of cons. Con artists love funerals and obituaries,
divorces, layoffs, and general loneliness. He does everything in his power to bring our self-perceived
better-than-averageness perceptions to the fore - eg. 'How intelligent you are, Professor Frampton.'
And we believe it, because we want it to be.
Consistency plays a crucial role in our ongoing evaluations of a person we're helping - 'If
I've helped you before, you must be worth it.'
Overall - some good points about con-men - but far too reliant on anecdotes.
Our world positively teems with swindlers, ripoff artists, and con-men. From ordinary curbside
Three-Card Monte to charming, narcissistic domestic abusers, to Ponzi schemers and Wall Street
market riggers, the confidence game exudes from society's very pores. Psychologist turned journalist
Maria Konnikova wants to unpack what makes us susceptible to con artists, a journey that leads
through all human psychology, sometimes vulnerable to diversions and cow paths.
Konnikova's first book,
Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes, dealt with how crime fighters organize thoughts,
observe reality, and undermine criminal mentality. This book essentially addresses the same issues
from the opposite angle: how criminals create situations that need busting. Konnikova's conclusions
may seem surprising, until we consider them further. Vulnerability to confidence artists and other
professional chiselers actually means our psyches are healthy.
Confidence artists work with an encyclopedic understanding of human psychology with which research
scientists are only now catching up. They recognize common traits, like our tendency to see
others as similar to ourselves, our illusion of control, and our unwillingness to think badly
about ourselves. These traits aren't weaknesses; without them, we'd be functionally paralyzed.
Effective swindlers work by turning our best characteristics and human capabilities against us.
We must recognize, therefore, that making ourselves insusceptible to cons isn't actually desirable.
Fraudsters prey on traits that open us to community, family, and fiscal reward. As Konnikova writes:
"The same thing that can underlie success can also make you all the more vulnerable to the grifter's
wares. We are predisposed to trust." With swindles, as with propaganda, those who think themselves
most immune are, actually, most vulnerable.
The answer lies in understanding ourselves and the swindlers better. They don't see us like
we see ourselves. They don't want to. We must cultivate complex understanding of different human
thought patterns, and a stronger sense of ourselves. Konnikova again: "It's not that the confidence
artist is inherently psychopathic, caring nothing about the fates of others. It's that, to him,
we aren't worthy of consideration as human beings; we are targets, not unique people."
All isn't bleak. Throughout most of this book, Konnikova suggests it's difficult to prevent
con-games without isolating ourselves and descending into cynicism. In the later chapters, though,
she reverses the trend, showing how skilled, self-aware people can resist flim-flam artists' techniques.
Not hypothetically, either: she shows how real people, cult busters and cultural anthropologists
and police, have maintained their sanity when confronted by seemingly insurmountable double-dealing.
Resistance is possible.
As Konnikova explains confidence artists' psychological techniques, her focus expands to include
much about recent discoveries in psychology and behavioral economics. She wants readers to emerge
with as thorough an understanding of human minds as the fraud merchants enjoy. This sometimes
makes her technique sprawling (this book runs over 300 pages plus back matter, unusually long
for its genre.)
Reading Konnikova sometimes requires especial concentration and focus.
She richly rewards those who stick with her narrative, though. I've recently seen one friend
lose rafts to shady investments and two others get burned by charming, narcissistic romantic partners.
Even if we never vote for crooks, invest with Bernie Madoff, or buy salvation sellers' wares,
the potential for confidence games still surrounds us. Konnikova provides needed tools for self-awareness,
clear boundaries, and bold self-defense. Swindles are inevitable; victimhood isn't.
Many people now agree that cults frequently psychologically manipulate their membership to ensure
conformity and control. Steve Hassan's excellent book "Combating Cult Mind-Control" is a great starting
point. The following points come from numerous sources. Not all of these are found in every cult
but enough of them are found in most cults to make them very frightening places that inflict deep
psychological damage on their membership.
1. Submission to Leadership - Leaders tend to be absolute, prophets of God, God Himself, specially
anointed apostle, or just a strong, controlling, manipulative person who demands submission even
if changes or conflicts occur in ideology or behavior.
2. Polarized World View - The group is all that is good; everything outside is bad.
3. Feeling Over Thought - Emotions, intuitions, mystical insights are promoted as more important
than rational conclusions.
4. Manipulation of Feelings - Techniques designed to stimulate emotions, usually employing group
dynamics to influence responses.
5. Denigration of Critical Thinking - Can go so far as to characterize any independent thought
as selfish, and rational use of intellect as evil.
6. Salvation or Fulfillment can only be realized in the group.
7. End Justifies the Means - Any action or behavior is justifiable as long as it furthers the
group's goals. The group (leader) becomes absolute truth and is above all man-made laws.
8. Group Over Individual - The group's concerns supersede an individual's goals, needs, aspirations,
and concerns. Conformity is the key.
9. Warnings of severe or supernatural sanctions for defection or even criticism of the cult -
This can go so far as to apply to negative or critical thought about the group or its leaders.
10. Severing of Ties with Past, Family, Friends, Goals, and Interests - Especially if they are
negative towards or impede the goals of the group.
11. Barratrous Abuse - Some cults use "cult lawyers' to sue ex-cult members and critics often
using fabricated evidence and causing financial stress by repeated trivial law suits. The cult's
aim is not so much to win the lawsuit (though they often do) as to harass and intimidate their critics
into silence.
Cult Conversion Techniques
Conversion into a cult is usually the result of two interacting dynamics. The first is the personal
vulnerability of the potential recruit. This vulnerability may be enhanced by, but not limited to,
transitional situations such as divorce, abuse, job or career change, moving away from home or leaving
college, an illness, or death of a loved one.
The second dynamic are the tactics used to convert, indoctrinate (brainwash) and hold the members.
Some groups attempt a radical and rapid conversion over an intensive week-end or week, such as The
Forum or Scientology. Others have a more subtle approach which may take weeks or months, such as
the Jehovah's Witnesses. The following are techniques of unethical thought reform and mind control:
The importance of cognitive dissonance
Any person will act so as to reduce conflict between their thoughts, their emotions and their
behavior. When these things are at odds with each other a person experiences 'dissonance" (the opposite
of harmony). Cognitive dissonance is when what a person knows is right is at odds with either what
they feel is right or what they are doing. Cults quickly move to control four key areas of a person's
life during the conversion process -
Behavior - by intense involvement in activity and isolation from others. Behavior is closely prescribed
and carefully supervised.
Emotions - a new recruit is often "love bombed" and greeted enthusiastically and told they are
very special. They are made to feel that everyone in the cult loves them and that "nothing could
be wrong with such a loving group of people". However this does not last. Emotions are sent on a
roller coaster and the only hope of emotional stability is total conformity and pleasing the cult
leadership.
Thought - indoctrination, extended "teaching sessions", memorization of cult dogma, "auditing
sessions" where inner secrets are revealed and thought processes exposed - all are a part of attempts
at thought control so that the thought life of the convert is taken up entirely with the group.
Information - isolation from peers, TV, radio, newspapers, (often labeled as "Satanic") and careful
control of associations ensures that little or no material critical of the cult reaches the new recruit
during the conversion process.
The combination of all these factors make it very likely that if the new recruit stays in the
cult for any length of time they will come to believe in it utterly. We are not as objective as we
like to think and when all these powerful forces combine then very intelligent people will be "converted"
but not by God.
A Quick List of Nasty Practices
1. A Focus on felt needs, defects, with exaggerated promises of fulfillment.
2. Rigid Control of Time and Activities - Often physically and emotionally draining activities
leaving little time for reflection, questioning and privacy.
3. Information Control - Cutting off or denigrating outside sources of information especially
if it is critical of the group. This can also include misrepresentation and information overload.
4. Language Manipulation - Ascribing new "inside" meanings in ordinary words or the use of an
exclusive vocabulary subtly moving a person to want to become an insider.
5. Discouraging Critical, Rational Thought and Questions - For instance, comments like, "Satan
is the cause of all doubt; he wants to keep you from the Truth", or, "one must move beyond the cognitive
left-brain and get in touch with one's higher self, his right-brain, intuitive self for true knowledge".
6. Instruction and Repetition in Trance Induction Techniques - These include progressive relaxation,
chanting, hypnosis, meditation, trance states, guided imagery or visualization, deep breathing exercises,
all of which make a person highly suggestible, often unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality,
and can cause psychopathology such as relaxation induced anxiety.
7. Confession Sessions - Promoting full disclosure of all secret sins, thoughts, temptations which
can become a powerful tool to manipulate, blackmail, and emotionally bond people to the leader or
group. It is actually a depersonalization or stripping of the inner self , a forced submission to
the group.
8. Guilt, Fear - Weapons used to maintain group loyalty, suppress questions and defections.
9. Control of Sexuality and Intimacy within the Cult - This may extend to marriage decisions (Moonies),
sexual relations, promiscuity (Children of God), group sex (New Age Therapy groups), child sex, adultery,
and polygamy (Branch-Davidians).
10. Excessive Financial Obligations - More and more money is needed to attain higher degrees of
spirituality (Scientology), or complete submission to God requires one to give up everything to the
group or leader (pp. 26-29).
The more points of ideology and conversion methodology that are in place, and the degree of intensity
of their application is proportionate to the effect and damage of mind control.
These factors tend to make normal evangelism, or even dialogue, much more difficult. Therefore,
some people have looked to deprogrammers or exit-counselors to help break the mental head-locks of
their loved ones in an attempt to rescue them from the cult.
Can an Orthodox Christian Group Get Like This ?
Yes they can!!! Just because the theology is straight down the line does not mean the behavior
will be. I was in a mission society that in a particular place under the influence of a leader with
a great deal of charisma and authority became "cultic" for a year or so. That has been corrected
but much damage was done.
Some Christian groups start off great -like the "children of God' and end up utterly wrong and
evil. The church needs strong leaders, but they must always be accountable to Scripture and to other
wise Christians.
We must allow people to be critical, to think for themselves and to understand scripture freely
apart from the dictates of any leader. we must allow a great deal of emotional and intellectual freedom
and renounce our desires to control others if we are to have healthy churches where people rejoice
in the Truth.
This article may be freely reproduced for non-profit ministry purposes but may not be sold in
any way. For permission to use articles in your ministry, e-mail the editor, John Edmiston at[email protected].
"... The 43-year-old actress said she wanted other sufferers to know that help was available, and claimed that being diagnosed with bipolar disorder had made her appreciate life all the more. ..."
"... "The smartest thing I did was to stop going online," ..."
"... "I'm the sort of person who will just look for the negative. Michael really can't understand it, but that's the way I am. And, with my bipolar thing, that's poison. ..."
Welsh actress Catherine Zeta-Jones has spoken out about her battle
with manic depression after being admitted to a US rehabilitation clinic last
year, in an effort to lift the "stigma" of mental illness.
Catherine Zeta-Jones has spoken about her battle with manic depression in
an effort to lift the "stigma" of mental illness.
The 43-year-old actress said she wanted other sufferers to know that
help was available, and claimed that being diagnosed with bipolar disorder had
made her appreciate life all the more.
In April last year, Zeta-Jones was admitted to a US rehabilitation clinic
where doctors concluded she was suffering from bipolar II disorder, a form of
manic depression.
Her husband, fellow actor Michael Douglas, was recovering from treatment
for throat cancer at the time.
"I'm not the kind of person who likes to shout out my personal issues from
the rooftops but, with my bipolar becoming public, I hope fellow sufferers will
know it is completely controllable," Zeta-Jones told US InStyle magazine.
"I hope I can help remove any stigma attached to it, and that those who don't
have it under control will seek help with all that is available to treat it."
Describing the past 18 months as "an intense time in good ways and bad",
the Welsh actress said: "You find out who you really are and who are you are
married to. You find things inside yourself you never imagined were there.
"I've gained an appreciation for little things, like tea outside on a terrace."
Zeta-Jones admitted that, at the height of her illness, she Googled her name
to find negative comments about herself.
"The smartest thing I did was to stop going online," she said.
"I'm the sort of person who will just look for the negative. Michael
really can't understand it, but that's the way I am. And, with my bipolar thing,
that's poison.
"So I just stopped. Cold turkey. And it's so liberating."
The couple have two children, Dylan and Carys, and Zeta-Jones claimed they
have a down-to-earth lifestyle. "We're country people, really, I garden and
knit. I golf. We ride horses," she said.
"I love clothes and, yes, we go out, but it's not like I'm walking around
all day in a negligee with fluffy mules."
No Issues With The Killer Title, But..., March 19, 2010
By
DL Minor This review is from: The Devil Wears Prada (Widescreen Edition)
(DVD) Well, I'm all over the map about this movie, I really am, finding
something to agree with in almost every review here, including the least positive.
The positives are these: I adore the look and pace of the film, the to-die-for
clothes of course, and the performances (first and foremost) of the great Meryl
Streep as the towering, terrifying Miranda, the winning Anne Hathaway as the
perpetually harassed Andrea, the dependable Stanley Tucci as Miranda's long-suffering,
witty-wise second-in-command Nigel, and the wonderful Emily Blunt as the bitchy,
put-upon first assistant...uh, Emily. All of them--especially Streep, Tucci
and Blunt--bring both bite and (mostly hidden) heart to what could have been
a collective phone-in of annoying caricatures. And though we really only get
glimpses of him here and there, I also enjoyed Rich Sommers's endearing turn
as Doug, the sweetest of Andy's circle.
I am seriously ambivalent however, about what the message of this movie is
supposed to be, especially to women, and the alarm bells really go off when--SPOILER
ALERT--Andy reconciles with her boyfriend, Nate, telling him he was "right about
everything."
What? What exactly was he so "right" about??
I don't know about you, but I found Nate, the boyfriend character, absolutely
insufferable through almost the whole of the movie. I'm pretty sure he was supposed
to be the voice of reason that tries hard to keep Andy grounded and remind her
what's truly important. Instead he came off as a sulky brat who could not accept
his girlfriend's growing pains as she struggled to cope with an impossibly demanding,
first ever grown-up job that nothing in her easy-going schoolgirl existence
had prepared her for. Were there no demands being placed on Nate in HIS choice
of career? Was his job supposed to be the more important one?
Ditto Andy's best friend, Lily, who seemed to me increasingly more jealous
of Andy rather than supportive of her. Lily too was pursuing Bright Lights-Big
City dreams that demanded a lot from a young newcomer, after all, so how is
it that she had such a hard time with Andrea's chaotic ups and downs? Where
did Lily get off being so judgmental and disapproving? This is friendship? I
watch these performances and can't decide whether actors Adrian Grenier and
Tracie Thoms made poor choices in their playing of difficult characters or if
the characters as written were simply impossible to like. Either way, both were
a whiny pain in the rear, especially Nate, and Andy's mea culpas to him near
the film's conclusion were tough to take.
No one disputes that Miranda Priestley was a Boss From Hell who routinely
wiped her feet on her young assistants, particularly Andrea. But we also see
that ultimately Miranda was as human as anyone else; a glamorous workhorse whose
alley-fighter smarts hid real pain. And it should be said that Andy--who was
in the beginning quite smug in her disdain of all the fashionista "shallowness"
that surrounded her--had a knocking down or two coming. (I loved the way Nigel
simultaneously comforted Andy and took her to task after an especially bad morning.)
If Miranda put Andy through the wringer--and she did--well, she also taught
her some important things (sometimes unwittingly) about hard work, hanging tough,
and the choices we make in life to get to where we want to go or need to stay.
Andy could have quit at the end of her first week (I think I would have) but
no matter how bad or insanely silly things got, she didn't, at least not immediately.
On some level she became aware that she was getting an education she wouldn't
get anywhere else from anyone else, and there was value in that. I think she
knew that; I hope she knew that. I hope the audience does, too.>
This movie came in 2009 and was definitely heavily influenced it the first part
by 2006 ground breaking (for female sociopaths) movie
The Devil Wears Prada .
Notable quotes:
"... The setup of the first 25 minutes clearly apes the set-up of David Frankel's The Devil Wears Prada but has some notable scenes (firing episode; bulling her assistant to marry her) that has some educational value. ..."
"... The scene when she blackmails Andrew into pretending that he's her fiancé is probably the best in the movie. One of the few that deserve watching it several times. ..."
Sandra Bullock definitely knows her audience. The type of character she plays
here - an abusive female bully hiding a very vulnerable, lonely interior - is
played to perfection. This is the type of character she is known-for: her "brand."
Only first 25 minutes of the film make sense. After the the plot disintegrates
in third rate melodrama.
The setup of the first 25 minutes clearly apes the set-up of David Frankel's
The Devil Wears Prada but has some notable scenes (firing episode; bulling
her assistant to marry her) that has some educational value.
Sandra Bullock project the character of a cold and often cruel personality
of a female bully pretty well. She's also mean-spirited, pointing out personal
faults that she generally has no business to reveal.
But she is less stereotypical boss from Hell, then the main character of
The Devil Wears Prada or Office space. But may be beacuse for those monents
we saw her there was no downsizing efforts of the floor ;-)
Bullock is playing female bully who is book editor (Margaret Tate), a workaholic
careerist who instills fear into her entire office. Her bullied assistant Andrew
Paxton, Reynolds caters to her every whim in the hopes that she eventually will
help boost his publishing career. The scene when she blackmails Andrew into
pretending that he's her fiancé is probably the best in the movie. One of the
few that deserve watching it several times.
"... N would [even] lie when the truth would save his neck ..."
"... "I lie. Compulsively and needlessly. All the time. About everything. And I often contradict myself. Why do I need to do this? To make myself interesting or attractive. In other words, to secure narcissistic supply (attention, admiration, adulation, gossip )." ..."
"... Because they're not genuinely interested in others, they're poor listeners ..."
"... They can be extremely mean-spirited (as in taking an almost perverse delight in raining on another's parade). ..."
"... They're untrustworthy: As one discussant bluntly puts it: "Don't tell them anything you aren't prepared to get shoved up your butt later ..."
"... Despite their self- confident , better-than-thou exterior, they often betray feelings of weakness, insecurity, inferiority, jealousy , and cowardice. One commenter even sums them up as "emotional cripples." ..."
"... What I, and others on this board, have learned from dealing with N bullies in our personal lives applies to terrorists. There can be no appeasement, no attempting to reason with them, no attempt to "fix" them, to unseat their deep-seated hatred, shame and envy. Sounds terribly harsh to the uninitiated, but not recognizing that can only lead to our own destruction. ..."
"... Looking back on ALL the Ns I've ever known and merged with, I see there WERE signs within minutes of meeting the N that they were grossly selfish, immoral, sex -addicted or [that] something was definitely 'off' [about them]. I didn't honour my intuition, gut feelings and instinct. The truth is that I had almost no experience setting healthy boundaries. ..."
Of all the oppressive, crazy-making features of the narcissist, the one perhaps most frequently cited
is their exasperating dishonesty. And such untruthfulness has at times led their no-longer-so-gullible
victims to describe them as con artists. Here's a highly selective sampling of such complaints:
"The lies, the
flirting, the lies,
the comparing, the lies, the ambivalence, the lies, the belittling, the lies, the teasing, the
lies, the built up promises, the lies, the setting up for disappointment. Did I mention the lies?"
[!]
"I had never known a real con man in my life. I thought only the stupid or elderly got
suckered."
"They memorize
body language
and can spot a person who might feel a little vulnerable a mile away."
"My ex-husband used to tell HUGE lies about me. Lies that always made ME look bad and HIM
look like a martyr (when the opposite was true). I didn't realize this until AFTER we separated
and, Boy, was it devastating! I thought that I knew ALL the horrors, to find out there were even
more. . . . I didn't think I could take the pain!"
[And, particularly, note this striking observation on the narcissist's incorrigible habit
of prevarication-which is in line with the substantial literature linking the so-called "pathological
liar" with the narcissist]: "N would [even] lie when the truth would save his
neck."
The controversial Dr. Sam Vaknin, creator of this forum on narcissism and himself a self-confessed
NPD, has written profusely-at times, brilliantly-on the subject. In his article "Pseudologica Fantastica,"
he freely admits:
"I lie. Compulsively and needlessly. All the time. About everything. And I often
contradict myself. Why do I need to do this? To make myself interesting or attractive. In other
words, to secure narcissistic supply (attention, admiration, adulation,
gossip)."
... ... ...
Below, I'll summarize some other distressing characteristics of the narcissist regularly alluded
to by their victims:
Because they're not genuinely interested in others, they're poor listeners. Though
it can seem that they're listening attentively, they're unable to accurately repeat back
what was said to them.
Calculating how every situation might benefit (or disadvantage) them, there's almost always
an ulterior motive behind what they say or do.
They can be extremely mean-spirited (as in taking an almost perverse delight in raining
on another's parade).
They're untrustworthy: As one discussant bluntly puts it: "Don't tell them anything
you aren't prepared to get shoved up your butt later . . . or down your throat, or in your
heart in the form of a dagger. And of course there are those things you tell them that you have
to be prepared to have TWISTED into things they can shove…".
Despite their self-confident,
better-than-thou exterior, they often betray feelings of weakness, insecurity, inferiority,
jealousy, and cowardice.
One commenter even sums them up as "emotional cripples."
If they're far out on the narcissistic continuum, they can't be changed-and certainly not
by their partners. Here's the most pointed (and painful) description of the futility of even
trying to alter their behavior: "What I, and others on this board, have learned from
dealing with N bullies in our personal lives applies to terrorists. There can be no appeasement,
no attempting to reason with them, no attempt to "fix" them, to unseat their deep-seated hatred,
shame and envy.
Sounds terribly harsh to the uninitiated, but not recognizing that can only lead to our own destruction."
The one consolation for victims of the narcissist's "dagger" (or "vampirish teeth") is the hard-won
insights they eventually gain, which makes it possible for at least some of them to repudiate a relationship
that's been so toxic to them. Again, in their own (sadder-but-wiser) words:
"Looking back on ALL the Ns I've ever known and merged with, I see there WERE signs within
minutes of meeting the N that they were grossly selfish, immoral,
sex-addicted or [that]
something was definitely 'off' [about them]. I didn't honour my intuition,
gut feelings and
instinct. The truth is that I had almost no experience setting healthy boundaries."
"Staying with an N, or making contact with an ex-N, is like putting your hands directly on
a hot stovetop to warm them. It will "work" for five seconds before it scalds you."
"... The entitlement surge of subtle narcissism is a bit like the normally happy drunk suddenly becoming surly and going on a bender, cleaning out the liquor cabinets and storming off to buy more booze. ..."
"... Your partner begins complaining about the messy house after your pregnancy, feeling he works hard enough that he deserves to come home to a clean house.... ..."
...narcissism is marked by an entitlement surge-those moments when a normally understanding
friend or partner or coworker angrily behaves as if the world owes them. It's usually triggered
by a sudden fear that their special status has been threatened in some way. Until this point,
their need for the world to revolve around them is mostly under wraps, because it hasn't been
called into question. Kevin didn't ask for Sherry's support or even try to understand how hard
her year after her mother's death had been. In his mind, he deserved her full understanding
because he felt so close to his dream of a becoming a law partner.
The entitlement surge of subtle narcissism is a bit like the normally happy drunk suddenly
becoming surly and going on a bender, cleaning out the liquor cabinets and storming off to buy
more booze. Your usually affable boss suddenly tears into you, worried that the latest
project (his idea) is failing. Unbeknownst to you, he's secretly had plans to become the CEO ever
since he arrived. Your partner begins complaining about the messy house after your pregnancy,
feeling he works hard enough that he deserves to come home to a clean house....
... ... ...
To read more about subtle (and dangerous) narcissism, including specific, research-backed
strategies to protect yourself from it, order Rethinking
Narcissism (link is
external) today.
"... The other narcissist is my mother. For years I lived in terror of her rages, and how the family pretty much revolves around her. I didn't understand how a parent could be so cruel, and assume everyone else was a bad person. ..."
"... As far as healthy narcissism goes, it's something I'm working on. My mother has stripped all of our self-esteem, as she relishes putting loved one's fault under the microscope as often and loudly as possible. I grew up with massive amounts of fear and anxiety assuming everyone was very concerned about every minor mistake I made. I wish I had worked on this earlier. Mom taught me how to make a mountain out of a tiny molehill. ..."
"... It's true, many children who've lived with extremely narcissistic parents--and I count myself among them--grow up to struggle with a more generous self-image. ..."
Narcissism has never been an official mental health disorder. Narcissist isn't a recognized
diagnostic descriptor either; it's shorthand for someone who scores higher than the average on
narcissism measures and may or may not be disordered
...It's a mistake to talk about "symptoms of narcissism." What people usually mean is symptoms
of pathological narcissism or NPD.
Anonymous on February 17, 2016 - 9:04am
I have two narcissists in my family. One borders on sociopathy so I avoid her, she scares
me. The other narcissist is my mother. For years I lived in terror of her rages, and how
the family pretty much revolves around her. I didn't understand how a parent could be so
cruel, and assume everyone else was a bad person.
But now that can attach a label to the problem and get a better understanding of what is
happening and why, I can create much better boundaries and sit back and watch the crazy
unfold. My mother is pretty frustrated that her usual tricks aren't having the impact on me
that they once did.
As far as healthy narcissism goes, it's something I'm working on. My mother has stripped
all of our self-esteem, as she relishes putting loved one's fault under the microscope as
often and loudly as possible. I grew up with massive amounts of fear and anxiety assuming
everyone was very concerned about every minor mistake I made. I wish I had worked on this
earlier. Mom taught me how to make a mountain out of a tiny molehill.
Craig Malkin PhD on February 19, 2016
It sounds like you've been through hell
And come back. It's true, many children who've lived with extremely narcissistic
parents--and I count myself among them--grow up to struggle with a more generous self-image.
It's like we swallow that parent whole, their voice plaguing us at every turn. It's hard work
silencing that inner critic. But that's the task -- well worth undertaking-- of overcoming
echoism and finding our voices. I wish you well in continuing to find yours.
"... In fact, one of their central defenses (or stratagems) is to endlessly project onto others the very flaws (and fears!) they're unable, or unwilling, to allow into awareness. ..."
"... "Narcissists are great con-artists. After all, they succeed in deluding themselves! As a result, very few professionals see through them." ~ ..."
"... most therapists learn quickly enough the signs and signals that give away a narcissistic patient (e.g., regularly blaming others for their problems, taking very little responsibility for why their lives aren't working, telling them how to do therapy , ..."
Curiously, deep, deep down-and undoubtedly unconscious to them-they know they're not really what
they project. In fact, one of their central defenses (or stratagems) is to endlessly project
onto others the very flaws (and fears!) they're unable, or unwilling, to allow into awareness.
As critical as they are about others' shortcomings, they're amazingly blind to their own. (And in
this respect, the reader might take a look at my earlier piece, "The
Narcissist's Dilemma: They Can Dish It Out, But . . . ").
... ... ...
"To love oneself is the beginning of a life-long romance." ~ Oscar Wilde
Although as stated, this quote is undoubtedly ambiguous, the term "romance" leads me to believe
that Wilde's notion of self-love leans toward the pathological-and maybe the auto-erotic as well.
But healthy self-love really has very little to do with the romantic: it's grounded in positive self-regard
and an acceptance of one's flaws and frailties. On the contrary, being "in love with" oneself (as
implied by Wilde's quote) suggests a self-absorption that can only be detrimental to narcissists
in their relationships with others. In fact, one of the most common descriptions of unhealthy narcissism
emphasizes their inability to care about other people-apart, that is, from how these others might
satisfy the demands of their (insatiable) egos.
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They
don't mean to do harm, but the harm [that they cause] does not interest them. Or they do not see
it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
~ T. S. Eliot
This quote makes a vital distinction between narcissists' being malevolent (cf. the sociopath)
and their simply lacking concern about how their behaviors might adversely affect others. It's yet
another way of drawing attention to their supreme self-absorption, which makes it impossible for
them to empathically identify with another's feelings, Most of the time they don't consciously intend
to take advantage of others. Such exploitation is merely a side effect of their overriding need to
feel more important and better than others-and so feel "good enough." Nonetheless, their insensitivity
to the wants and needs of those around them can at times be nothing less than astonishing.
... ... ...
"Narcissists are great con-artists. After all, they succeed in deluding themselves! As a
result, very few professionals see through them." ~ anonymous.
This statement seems somewhat exaggerated to me. For most therapists learn quickly enough the
signs and signals that give away a narcissistic patient (e.g., regularly blaming others for their
problems, taking very little responsibility for why their lives aren't working, telling them
how to do therapy,
etc.).
Still, the quote is instructive in pointing out not only the enormous self-deception in the way
narcissists see themselves, but also their singular expertise in deceiving others. Speaking with
bogus authority, they typically have an excellent track record in getting others to see things as
they do, even though the result to those so taken in can be disastrous (e.g., being persuaded to
make a truly ill-considered investment).
All of which is to say that-on many different levels-getting involved with a narcissist can be
as dangerous as a snake bite. And the unexpected sting of it all can, alas, last a good deal longer.
Note 1: In examining literally hundreds of quotes for this post, I came across
many that centered not anywhere so much on the narcissist as on their hapless victims. Consequently,
my next post will explore the damage that narcissists-especially those far out on the narcissistic
continuum -do to those who unwittingly put their trust in them. It's called
"The Vampire's Bite: Victims of Narcissists Speak Out."
Note 2: If you'd like to explore other posts I've written on narcissism, here
are the links:
Trevor (Jon Briddell) takes the love torn Harrison
(Jonathan Bennett) under his wing and teaches him about
women. Harrison in return recruits more students as
Trevor has created a cult where he teaches men how to
control beautiful women by basically being an a-hole.
Much of this low budget film is guys talking about what
women want, lumping them all together as if they are
the same and can all be treated the same. There are
some flashbacks.
I found the discussions boring. Women might like
watching this, thinking it is akin to a Cosmo article
on what men are like, but I found it insulting as it
too lumps men all together as simply animals that want
to completely control women and use them as sex
objects. BTW that naked girl on the cover is not in the
film.
The battle of the sexes has quite probably been around
as long as – well – as long as we've had sexes. I've
heard it said that the male mind will never effectively
grasp what goes on inside the female of the species,
and no doubt it's been challenged vice versa. Rather
than seeking to understand it, what happens when we
just want to make the best use of what's in there
instead? That's part and parcel of what's lurking near
the core of MISOGYNIST, a film that may challenge some
viewers to sit until the finish … and if they do they
just might be rewarded with something to talk about
afterwards along with some pretty spiffy independent
performances.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers
necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or
characters. If you're the type of reader who prefers a
review entirely spoiler-free, then I'd encourage you to
skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final
assessment. If, however, you're accepting of a few
modest hints at 'things to come,' then read on …)
From the product packaging: "Trevor is an extreme
misogynist who campaigns underground seminars, teaching
his ideology of women. Only through referrals and word
of mouth, he provides bizarre, offensive, and
outlandish strategies to young men, with the promise
that they can control any woma. His best student is
Harrison, a young man Trevor took under his wing when
he was most vulnerable. Viewing Trevor as a father
figure, Harrison will do what Trevor instructs him to
do. Soon Harrison starts to realize that he is just a
pawn in Trevor's plot …"
I'm stopping there because methinks the last bit on the
box spoils too much of the finish, though I've no doubt
others may see this conclusion coming, especially if
they're watching closely. I did, but I have to say that
that didn't happen by enjoyment of MISOGYNIST, a
slightly uneven film that vacillates between an
effective performance piece for gifted actors (all
around) and perhaps the sickest revenge flick one might
stumble upon.
At the center of the conversation that dominates the
first half of the picture are Trevor (Jon Briddell) and
Harrison (Jonathan Bennett), two men who upon first
meeting would appear to be polar opposites. But when
the real action of the film begins (three years later),
we find out that they've become curious soulmates – two
peas in the same pod – and they're destined to make
Trevor's philosophy for mastering the attentions of any
women into a successful underground business. (How do
they make money on this is never clear, but it
ultimately isn't all that important to the story being
told.)
And just to clarify for those still reading: there is
at least one woman around throughout the lion's share
of philosophizing (Cheryl, played by the comely Alia
Raelynn). As a character, the dynamic is such that
she's meant to reinforce Trevor's world view, and she
does this in both the more public and private moments
of this story.
Now, all that said, I can certainly understand how some
might object to the subject matter explored in a film
titled MISOGYNIST. Let's agree that this isn't the kind
of feature that's going to be for everyone; Trevor's
particular take is rude, offensive, and decidedly
misogynistic (hence the effective name) … but there's
more to the story here than just offending others. And
– for the record – yes, we've all known men who've been
able to treat one woman after another the way he does
while receivable favorable results. Such is the battle
of the sexes I cited at the opening: it's a
never-ending battle, and no doubt it'll continue to
defy understanding until our sun grows cold.
However, in MISOGYNIST's second half, the story takes a
turn, chancing a somewhat predictable reveal that tries
to modestly redefine who Trevor is and why he behaves
the way he does. As much as I appreciated the twist,
it's also easily to dismiss it as the film's most
cinematic conceit – the kind of thing that always
happens in movies.
Still, kudos to writer/director Michael Matteo Rossi
for making what could go down as the worst date movie
ever but doing so in a way that makes it worth talking
about. That's no easy feat.
MISOGYNIST (2013) is produced by Four Legged Pictures,
Italian Cowboy Productions, and Ryan Ricketts
Productions. DVD distribution is being handled by the
reliable Midnight Releasing. As for the technical
specifications, this is one smartly shot indie feature,
so audiences can expect some high quality sights and
sounds to accompany it. Lastly, if you're looking for
special features, then you do have some short
behind-the-scenes bits along with an audio commentary
to look forward to.
RECOMMENDED. At times, MISOGYNIST felt more than a bit
incomplete to me: what started out as a pretty dynamic
performance piece morphed into a macabre revenge flick
in the latter half, and I'm not entirely sure both
halves gelled the way they should've. Still, when it
worked it worked, and the film boasted smart scenes,
interesting dynamics, and a kind of water cooler appeal
rarely seen in most indie fare these days. Well worth
the 76 minutes, my friends, though not without some
discomfort, I'm sure.
In the interests of fairness, I'm pleased to disclose
that the fine folks at Midnight Releasing provided me
with a complimentary DVD copy of MISOGYNIST by request
for the expressed purposes of completing this review;
and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form
influenced my opinion of it.
"... Unfortunately, as far as a psychopath is concerned I am far better off seeing them as an alien life form who does not possess the same emotions that puts the word human in term human being. ..."
A look at recent research into the brains and behavior of psychopaths and the prospects for treatment
or containment of this antisocial group. Psychopaths who have been convicted of appalling crimes
explain with disturbing clarity what motivated them. 48 minutes.
Nonfiction Only, January 13, 2016
Interesting and informative, however...
The danger of this film is that people watching who have not studied psychopathology will look
at the descriptive words drifting across the screen and remember that glibness, manipulative,
remorseless, conning, lying, and charismatic are traits of a psychopath and may look at loved
ones, friends, coworkers and others in a different, and perhaps wrong, light. Hare's psychopathology
scale is the industry standard but it consists of 40 items that must be a cohesive group of traits
within an individual. Not all 40 of the marker traits were shown. The other danger is that many
of the traits shown and discussed, such as an abnormal amygdala, flat affect, lack of emotion,
and disconnected are also traits of those with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Complex Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, and other disorders.I gave it a 4 star rating because it was informative regarding
research and the results of experimental treatments.
Victoria J. Dennison, January 11, 2016
This is a very good documentary which attempts to explore the mindset of a psychopath. I was
surprised at the amount of psychopath's in the U.S. and England. I didn't think the dysfunction
of Psychopathy affected so much of the population. I too believe a person can be born as a psychopath
and that it is basically a wiring problem with the brain. Bio-psychology with an emphasis on Neuro-Science
does hold the key to remedy many brain dysfunctions such as alcoholism and other mental health
issues including psychopathy.
As a person who has a lot of empathy, I can understand the therapists dilemma in trying to work
with psychopaths within the prison system and the inevitable failure of behavioral modification.
I always view another person as having the same feelings and needs as I do.
Unfortunately, as far as a psychopath is concerned I am far better off seeing them as an
alien life form who does not possess the same emotions that puts the word human in term human
being.
It was interesting that one psychopath who was being interviewed (in prison) mentions that
a person learns from birth and develops a conscience. At which point he mentions "a baby learns
not to touch a stove when it is hot". In my opinion touching a hot stove and learning not to burn
yourself does not involve the conscience at all. Could it be since he never experienced the pangs
of "conscience" and that basically; he doesn't know what it is?
Caton March 15, 2016
Insightful, educational and scary...
The statistics noted in this documentary, if accurate, are really frightening. Apparently,
unlike zombies, psychopaths are quite common and do walk among us. The information is put forth
in an entertaining yet sober fashion, with interviews with actual psychopaths and numerous members
of the forensic psychological expert community. I wish it was a lengthier documentary or had additional
parts to it because it was so interesting that I wanted to learn more about the topic.
George Edmondson, March 3, 2016
Interesting study of this disease.
Interesting study of this disease. It also sheds a bright light on why politics are (as opposed
to appear to be) crazy.
Karen Roberton November 19, 2015
PSYCHOPATHS RUN THE WORLD.
Great film, when we discover the precise way to identify and diagnose true psychopaths,...society
will be stunned to know just how many police, politicians, inter-governmental parasites, and assorted
corporate CEO scum that there are sabotaging societies in every country; but whom will have the
courage and fortitude to identify and eject these maladjusted maggots to the heavily fortified
mental institutions where they belong.
Are you high maintenance? Some people seem to always be on the edge of becoming upset. They require
a lot of attention, approval, and maybe reassurance. Often such individuals take offense easily at
being overlooked or somehow not recognized. These individuals enjoy being in control of a relationship.
They can be easily overwhelmed with stress and responsibility and often feel as though they are the
most put upon in a relationship. They may see themselves the victim of their mate's insensitivity
and distraction.
Maybe you are married to someone who is high maintenance. You constantly find yourself the object
of criticism and it seems as though you can never do anything to the other's satisfaction. Spouses
of high maintenance individuals often find themselves in no-win dilemmas. No matter what they do
they will incur the disapproval, if not wrath, of their spouse. The high maintenance spouse often
claims their expectations are normal and any reasonable caring loving spouse should anticipate what
to them are the most basic of considerations. Spouses of high maintenance partners can feel as though
they are walking on egg shells waiting for the next failure to occur and they once again are the
source of hurt, injury and pain to their spouse.
Sound familiar at all? Many relationships can be described as one member being more "high maintenance"
than the other. In some relationships this is a long standing pattern and contributes to erosion
of affection and commitment over time. In other relationships the "high maintenance" tag gets shared
depending on changing circumstances and felt needs. One week it is the wife who is high maintenance,
the next week it is the husband. It is conceivable that a relationship might occur in which both
spouses are high maintenance and the relationship dynamics revolve around competition over whose
'felt need' is greatest at any given time.
If you honestly recognize you can be "high maintenance" take heart, be encouraged there is good
news. One, the simple fact you recognize you can be demanding and easily offended puts you in a position
to change. Many high maintenance individuals are oblivious to the pain and suffering they inflict
upon those around them. Self-objectivity, the ability to look at oneself honestly and objectively
is a characteristic of maturity and essential to personal change. If you are unsure about whether
you can be high maintenance, your spouse and loved ones can probably tell you. But, don't ask until
you are really ready to hear their input. A part of being high maintenance is being defensive when
others are critical. If you ask for this feedback, challenge yourself to hear the person out without
rebuttal. Maybe take notes and set them aside for a few days, then go back and review the notes before
responding to the feedback.
Secondly, be encouraged because your sensitivity which leads you to be high maintenance is also
a gift. High maintenance persons are often capable of deep emotional connection and appreciation.
What may be judged as high maintenance may actually be an undeveloped sense of emotional sensitivity
that can be harnessed and directed for deep emotional connection with others. High maintenance individuals
are often capable of deep empathy and compassion. Their sensitivity affords them the recognition
of how circumstances, events, and behavior can impact people emotionally. This is valuable insight
and can be cultivated for great connection and support with others.
The problem with being high maintenance lies with the expectations which we can attach to our
felt wants and desires in relationship. If you are high maintenance, learning how to recognize how
expectations develop in you and how to hold your wants and desires more lightly may help soften the
disappointment when a spouse does not recognize how important something is to you. Most importantly,
beware of looking to a spouse for the significance and security you should be finding in your relationship
with God. High maintenance conflict may be due to demanding some attention, approval, and affirmation
from a spouse which first should be found in our relationship with God and ourselves. If we are secure
in how God sees us, how He loves and cares for us, then the care, attention and affirmation of a
spouse is a gift. We may be disappointed if our spouse neglects us in some way but this is way less
distressing than if we tell ourselves we must have our spouse notice and provide our need.
Feeling entitled to something from our spouse is a sure sign we are becoming "high maintenance."
Being open about desires and wants can go a long way toward helping our spouse understand what
impacts us and contributes to our feeling loved and supported. Recognizing and being grateful when
a spouse is attentive and affirming is especially rewarding and encourages a spouse to be attentive
and affirming in the future. Spouses may not understand the power of reassurance, attention, and
support. Often times they are making efforts to be accommodating but do not recognize the effort
is not in a manner desired or hoped for. Communication about feelings, hopes, and wants beforehand
can go a long way to avoiding conflict when you're prone to be "high maintenance."
If you are married to a high maintenance person you too can be encouraged as well. The cycle of
disappointment and conflict can be sometimes diminished through some basic relationship skills. Giving
your spouse a full hearing when they are distressed will often go a long way to dissipating the emotional
intensity they may be feeling. Remember, listening and validating their feelings do not require anything
to be fixed or changed. It's just an opportunity to offer understanding and care in the way of attention
and presence. The high maintenance spouse can often use judgmental and accusatory language. If one
can listen past the personal criticism to the hurt, disappointment, anxiety and/or fear behind the
attack it may be possible to have compassion for their emotional distress. This is challenging, but
spouses who learn not to take personally the distress in their mate even when it is delivered as
a personal attack learn how to diffuse a great deal of conflict.
Letting the high maintenance spouse know when the attack is crossing over to becoming abusive
and exiting a conversation will also be helpful. A person may lose awareness in the midst of their
negative emotional spin and a caring, calm confrontation and firm "time out" temporary withdrawal
will sometimes help that person become more aware of how their words and tone are not helpful. Above
all, avoid responding in kind to a high maintenance person who is discharging their disappointment
and hurt with a lot of intensity. By remaining calm and not escalating with the other person, a spouse
can often ride out the initial emotional venting, to arrive at a place where genuine emotional connection
can occur.
The emotional distress surrounding disappointment and unmet expectations can be at the center
of so much conflict in relationship. Sorting out one's own emotional expectations and how they are
operating in a moment is key to managing the pull toward becoming "high maintenance." Being able
to absorb some emotional intensity and remain patient and loving with a spouse who is distressed
is a valuable discipline to working through disappointment in relationship. Hopefully these comments
and observations will give you and your spouse some food for thought and maybe some occasion for
conversation. Be careful not to judge each other too harshly about being "high maintenance." Remember,
there is an upside to most personal qualities that initially may seem problematic or annoying, "high
maintenance" is no exception.
Please post a comment to enter a conversation about this column. I so much enjoy the responses
folks are sending to this column. I will contribute to the conversation as well. Let me know if you
have a concern or question which could be addressed in a future column. You can also email
concerns and questions to me at [email protected].
God Bless You, and know we at National Institute of Marriage are praying for you.
Dr. Robert K. Burbee
Licensed Psychologist, Intensive Therapist
National Institute of Marriage
"Bridget is a woman with a warm exterior that has ice water running through her veins, who believes
in manipulating others into doing her dirty work for her." See also
The Last Seduction
When you think of film noir, you think of the wonderful dark movies made in the 1940's with
thugs, and "dames", and vamps. I don't think there has ever been a better vamp than Linda Fiorentino
in this movie. Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice and Kathleen Turner in
Body Heat might come close, but first prize belongs to Linda for her performance as Bridget
Gregory in The Last Seduction.
Bridget is a woman with a warm exterior that has ice water running through her veins, who
believes in manipulating others into doing her dirty work for her. Great supporting performances
by Peter Berg and Bill Paxton, but the movie belongs to Linda Fiorentino. You'll love to hate
her in this dark erotic thriller that will take your breath away.
When a man has been a victim of a Female Sociopath, usually one of the above labels is given,
{crazy ex-girlfriend, vindictive ex-wife, etc} instead of a Sociopath and/or Narcissistic Sociopath.
Female Sociopaths are mentally and emotionally destructive liar's, cheaters & deceivers, etc.
They are extremely self-centered, and she is always right! Some female sociopaths may be unable to
care for their children, providing the unconditional love and nurturing. Her children are just another
'object' to be used against the father.
The children are often used as a supply source for her. Or in some cases divorced sociopath women
with children will use them to gain sympathy from a new partner. These children can grow up feeling
like an inconvenience to their mother's, as they are also emotionally and mentally manipulated. They
are also, in some cases made to feel inadequate, and never living up to their mother's standards.
Some female sociopaths are emotionally disconnected from their children, causing the 'whiplash' scenario,
leaving the children with a deep craving for admiration. Could this be the beginning of some Narcissist?
Many of these women 'appear' normal in the public setting, but are verbally and emotionally
abusive in the private setting. The Female Sociopath needs to be dominate, and she does this
by being verbally intimidating and emotionally manipulative. She will systematically attack your
personality, your objections, your displays of emotion, and your questions. She does this to obtain
her supply source, {boost to her ego/dominating factor} Theywant do this
with little or no regards to your needs and wants. To a Female Sociopath the end justify's
the mean's.
Female Sociopath have a high sex drive, and in case studies, sex is not just good, it is over-the-top
good. They are also very sexually promiscuous. As with this sex drive, they use this as one of the
many manipulation tools to attract her next victim, she will use sex to her advantage, unbeknownst
to the male. She will appear sympathetic, caring, concerned and display all the empathy/sympahty
emotions, when in all reality she is pulling you in closer to keep the control for personal gain.
This could be for material possessions, financial reasons, or reassurance that she is 'the one' (when
she in fact may have several 'one's on the side). If a Female Sociopath feels she is being exposed,
she may turn up the passion, and give you the false sense of security that you have nothing to fear.
Or you will begin to see the Narcissistic Rage(s) if you haven't already. She may be setting you
up to leave, so she will keep you emotionally and physically close. Female Sociopaths can show
fake their emotions if they are caught, and blame perhaps a one incident
{yet you know the incidents are repeated behaviour}, on someone or something else, never taking accountability.
Some men are so drawn to the physical aspect with a female Sociopath that when they catch their partner,
girlfriend/wife cheating and lying, they tend to believe the lies more easily because the female
Sociopath can turn on the sex factor, play the 'pity card', or cry rivers of tears while expressing
how "sorry" she is etc. Therefore this puts the man back into the spin cycle of crazy and
the false sense of security.
shane – March 5, 2016
This was spot on and informative! I met a girl on a dating site! She made me feel as if
I was the greatest person in the world at first! Then she started telling me about her past and
gaining more of my sympathy! I ended up leaving my job because she needed somebody to help
her! I ran into some money! She also had money at the time! She would never let me know anything
about the finances, she also would verbally downgrade my family via voicemail or Facebook!
She had me believing my family or friends didn't care for me!
My drinking elevated cause I felt alone, and cause I would get off work she would be drunk!
One night we got into an argument, she was beating me, I finally grabbed her by her shoulders
and wrestled her down! She hurt her shoulder, went to the cops! I ended up going to jail!
She came back around and convinced me it was a mistake and we could get thru it! So as I had obtained
a lawyer to fight the domestic, my lawyer told me to fight it, but once again she got me to just
accept the charge!
I became so dependent for acceptance from her that it ruined my life! I was even accused of
a false rape, which all she got was 4 days in jail! Know I'm jobless and on probation, owe fines
and my family hates me! Beware!
Kay – February 18, 2016
articles taking about the sexual abuse and manipulation of male sociopaths, call them cheaters,
etc and assume everyone understand the meaning without saying much more..
I've been reading articles about narcissism for a couple years now and the term "promiscuous"
is only ever applied to females.. articles talking about the female sexuality (Jessica Rabbit)
go on and on about the seduction,, but rarely does it go past anymore definition than; "cheater"
for the males..
There's a cultural investment in this description, it subtly shames female sexuality while
stacking the truth, that women can also be sexual predators..
In otherwords, the definition of the female gold-digger or fem-fetal hasn't changed in over
100 years, and the male narc is still being let off the hook in our descriptions of them and I'm
just thinking out loud..
Ian James Littlejohn – January 22, 2016
Santaland – No offence taken. "Extrapolating" the kids from Socio / Psychopathic rage is what
my life is now all about. They are young. At this stage in their lives most of my effort is directed
towards 'protection' – but I also have to nurture them and give them the insight and the tools
to deal with it later. This is what I'm seeking advice on.
In my circumstance I may be arrogant and foolish to be comfortable with who I am but I will
not allow her dominion over the latter stages of my life and destroy that feeling.
On the stats, the research says that it's about 1% who are clinically, certifiably psychopathic,
i.e. they've crossed the line. But the truth is that it's a spectrum – not 'black and white' and
not all who have crossed the line would score 100% in each of the behavioral tests. Some are worse
or better in some aspects. The point is though that if the "about" 1% is accurate there must
be millions of them out there and even more millions of victims. WE only hear about a few. What
are the others doing? After doing the math I just can't believe that the these vast numbers of
dysfunctional people who are getting away with causing the damage they clearly do – and nobody
notices. Therefore there must be millions people out there who are coping with it. Not all, many
must be suffering in silence, but surely some have learned how to live with it. How?
When I was in my teens, being Gay was not only socially unacceptable but also illegal in the
UK. Gays were persecuted, isolated and jailed. I don't know the stats on Gay people but how have
attitudes changed? Now we have Gay-Pride processions. My God, can you imagine a Psycho-pride march.
That would be an event to watch. My point is that they are still people – despite some the assertions
that they are inhuman / zombies / wild animals / etc. I'm not into extermination or even isolation
for that matter. Where do you stop?
As I've said, I'm new to this conversation, but one of the learnings I've gained in the brief
time I've been here is that Socio / Psychopaths will NOT change. They are what they are. To be
honest, that was a bit of a 'downer' at first. I guess I was looking for a technique or strategy
that would initiate a change in her behaviour. Realising that that 'aint going to happen' destroys
hope; – the hope that she would have some kind of revelation or catharsis and we could return
to 'normal' married life and all would be well in the future. WRONG!
It's always difficult to recognise that you've been wrong. However, It doesn't mean that I
have to give up MY hopes and dreams. I just have to adjust MY plans on how to achieve them – up,
down or sidieways. I don't know yet. But that's OK – it's a pain in the neck to do at my age,
but I can do that.
Santaland – January 23, 2016
Ian you know best what works for you and how to slalom through this jungle of crap. Hope in
my case was futile, at least with the personality traits my ex had/has. Throughout Tela's site
there are countless victims who hurt from the experience or are still hurting.
They do not change, it is a script and that script is the same over and over again, no
matter what cultural background. The more attractive they are the more they bounce around…it is
the lies, blame and shame that tore me apart, besides the physical attacks, threats and broken
items. IF my ex ever apologized, well I learned that in a matter of days it will be the same abuse
and lies, but I hoped that perhaps this time….but nope it just continued to the end. Walking through
a mine field every day…except they are smart, they move the mines so just when you think you have
figured the lay of the land, boom it explodes.
The end came when I was finally fed up, when I realized it was a hopeless cause, a waste of
time and that was it. Plus my son was exposed to her childish behavior, and this made me reflect
on myself…what kind of father would expose his son to a person like this…mea culpa. For this I
am ashamed, and will have to live with that. My son is 15 years old but he met her when he was
12 and 13….and she certainly was not a good 'mentor' or roll model.
Once I was alone I was always thinking…what if she was right, what if I could have done things
differently, why does she have a history of this behavior, is it lack of love and unconditional
support, what if…..in my case there is no what if…they move on when they have secured a new source,
yet keep you (not you you) on a shelf just in case.
In the aftermath, she has attempted to engage in conversation but I ignore, have her totally
blocked and if I see her I walk right by, stone cold. They thrive on drama and twist the truth,
the facts and the realities. Then they use their flying monkeys to do their intelligence gathering
or sending a message.
rob – January 24, 2016
Ian,
Having been educated for quite some time some time now about these "its", having experienced
the diabolical creativity of one of these "things" first hand over a period of years, and sensing
from others on this site a most sincere and profound desire to help victims in their struggles
with these anomalies………..
In my honest opinion,
There is only one way a normal person can develop a "survival strategy" for dealing with
them and that is by cutting them out of your life. If there are other ways of dealing with them
– other than becoming a codependent slave to their every need or adjusting YOUR personality to
win "battles" with them, I would honestly love to be enlightened.
From your notes you have obvious concerns about direction as you are seeking "a quest for a
survival strategy". I think what most people are trying to say is that when it comes to dealing
with a true sociopath there are no good "survival strategies" which include staying with them
in any capacity.
I think this is primarily stated because the true nature of these people is as unpredictable
as the most violent typhoon or hurricane. Their capricious and erratic behavior, which you have
experienced and read about, is because they lack a conscience which means they are truly cable
of doing anything they please without regard to your concern or anyone else for that matter.
I know that you mentioned you considered some of your previous decisions as "foolish" and you
have no interest in rehashing those mistakes and I personally find that commendable. I too try
and live my life that way as there is nothing I can do today to change my own foolish decisions
of the past.
HOWEVER :),
There is much we CAN do today to change our future. UNDERESTIMATING them and their ability
to wreak havoc on ones emotional and physical well being is perhaps the most "foolish" thing one
can do. Especially when one has gained knowledge and been given credible (if not difficult to
follow) direction and information on dealing with such.
For example….
If someone whom had driven down a road ahead of you approached you (prior to you going down
that road) and told you, "hey bro, you might want to turn around and find another direction. The
bridge up ahead is no longer there"
Then lets add to this that one had also read about such and was knowledgeable about the fact
that the bridge was no longer there.
In other words, not only did he "get it" as you like to say that the bridge was out and he
had witnessed a man rehashing the fact that the bridge was out……yet he still wanted to know if
he could go down that road…..and then worse…..in light of all he knew………..he decided to go ahead
anyway
Hopefully you can understand the analogy here.
I hardly think most of the people whom have been down that road and found that the bridge is
out prefer to spend their entire day guarding the road bitching and moaning about the bridge being
out or their experiences related to such.
I think it is just they have been down the road and know the bridge is out and are trying to
help others not be "foolish" by attempting to drive down a road that is missing a bridge (over
some very troubled waters i might add).
In other words, due to their personal experience and knowledge and given the fact that they
do have a conscience, they just feel as though it is their responsibility to warn others that
there is no bridge ahead.
You mention in your notes that you "get it" and you have read on every site the same basic
things. in other words, you would easily agree there are many people whom have been down this
road and are all basically telling you the same thing. It is not as though you have large group
telling you that "the bridge is in good shape" or "no worry you can still make it"
Hmmmm…..
Its truly not about being an optimist, pragmatist, idealist, skeptic, or a even a realist for
that matter. Nor is it about being a victim, crying about being a victim being in a battle or
signing a peace treaty – its about coming to terms with what she is CAPABLE of doing to you that
you MUST "get".
You see, her reality involves a game, if you will, which quite candidly you, me or any
other Tom, Dick, Harry or Jill are now and forever more will be ill prepared to play.
Granted, there does not exist a single person capable of predicting your future. However, if
she is in fact a Sociopath……and you decide for "better or worse" to stay in a relationship with
such a person and go down that road with the bridge out……
I would be willing to place a hefty wager on being able to predict as you say a "scary" future…..and
i might add to that…….. "a f&^%$# nightmare" of a "scary" future.
I wish you the best.
Rob
Don – January 25, 2016
Ian,
I am here on this site for support. When i feel weak i come here and read. I have read your postings
and all the comments. They are very helpful to me in my recovery. I see some of myself in you.
Heck, I married this woman twice knowing full well she was crazy as a bedbug, totally unpredictable,
her selfish action were nothing short of abusive. What I suffer from is codependency.
I suspect upon self examination you may find you suffer from some of those tendencies too.
A classic for me is to justify her actions "because". I let her off the hook "because". The "because"
thing relieves her of personal responsibility for her actions.
The reality is that a loving and caring normal person could never act the way these people
act. AND normal people don't let others act in such an abusive way to them. After years of dealing
with them it effects us too. I suggest you get some information about codependency and trauma
bonding. Rather than the focus being on her do a honest self examination on yourself. Easier said
than done.
Last night during the second football game I started getting "love bombed". There was five
of us watching the game. Once the bombs started to drop one of my friends said to the group "
that's his ex texting, it sucks the life out of him". Recovery is one day at a time.
Best of Luck,
Don
Ian James Littlejohn – January 28, 2016
Don,
Thanks! You're a star! I believe that you may have hit the nail on the head in putting
me onto 'co-dependency'. I'd never heard the term before or realised it's implications. I
spent the rest of my afternoon and evening reading about it. The behavioural manifestations may
be similar to a psychopath's but the root causes are not – and the behaviours of co-dependants
can be modified, – and I include mine in this. Whatever the 'rights and wrongs' of my analysis,
– and I'm clearly no expert at this stuff, – this FEELS more like her/us and the situation we're
in.
By all accounts, her, and her siblings' childhood was not easy. Perhaps not too difficult to
appreciate given that she was brought up in a small town in the immediate post "Cultural Revolutionary"
China and is the daughter of two "Red Guards". 'Punishment' was the norm. "Each grain of rice
represents the tear of a peasant and must not be wasted' – she's actually said that to me. For
her, failure to comply resulted in punishment – usually violent verbal abuse and/or beatings.
I've had these stories confirmed by her younger sisters. This is clearly the 'role model' she
has carried forward – both as a mother and as a wife. Also, Chinese Daoist / Confucian tradition
does not view the marriage relationship in the same way as western, Christian traditions. Chinese
attitudes are or were, much more heavily directed towards 'family' expectations – as opposed to
personal desires.
Even today, although she calls me 'Daddy" partly in deference to my status as the father of
her children but also I suspect that perhaps there are deeper reasons, EVERY major decision is
referred to and discussed at length with her father. However in China's rush towards materialism,
attitudes have changed. In some part I believe as a consequence of the 'one-child' policy. Nowadays
there are many – 15% some say – more men than women, and women are MUCH – and some would say unrealistically
– more demanding about what they want in a husband in terms of fulfilling their life-style expectations.
"To be rich is glorious" as Deng Xiao Ping said – and they ALL want to be rich. I only have
anecdotal evidence but many if not most of the relationships between the Chinese women and the
Western men I know have broken down – primarily because the women thought they'd married onto
a 'gravy train' and couldn't handle the reality of true life. In our case she did land on the
'gravy train' but that was more good luck than good judgement. I could probably 'bang-on' for
hours with a sociological analysis of our 'problems' – and I haven't even started to discuss MY
issues – but that's not the point.
The point is to improve things. Before we can progress, there has to be a MUTUAL acknowledgement
that something needs fixed. The 'trick' is going to be in how to even open up the discussion.
I've looked at some of the self-help and other sites, albeit briefly, and whilst I understand
the approach, similar to AA, and acknowledge the success they've had, for the moment I can't get
past the Christian God thing on all the advice / 12 steps/ etc. If anything, she's Confucian /
Buddhist and I'm a 'dyed-in-the -wool' Atheist / Humanist, so I doubt that reference to "God"
is going to make much headway. More research – and a bit of creativity – required, I guess.
Anyway, thanks again. You've been a great help.
Regards
Ian
rob – January 19, 2016
Your search for the answer to what it was you were dealing with sounds so similar to mine.
I knew one of two things (a) I was going nuts or (b) I was dealing with something beyond my comprehension.
I found out by googling "liar", "sexually promiscuous" and "irresponsible" that I was not going
"nuts" and that I was most certainly married to a person without conscience.
It did, as you say "provide some solace". It also enabled me to realize that what I was dealing
with was not human……at least as most people would define human.
By understanding that what I was dealing with was incapable of changing or ever developing
a conscience and then realizing that their behavior was 100 percent predictable, I was able to
develop an exit strategy from the relationship. I got out pretty much unscathed (did lose approximately
$20,000 as a result of having to pay off part of her debt to the IRS and my brain was F%&^$* up
like no other for the better part of a year) and I am very grateful as it could have been so much
worse as she had bigger plans for my demise (found this out later)
On the subject of survival strategies, I can only say that for me it was "no contact".
Once she was out of my life completely and in every shape and form my life improved dramatically.
I do understand that you guys have kids together and this is not entirely possible. However,
I do know from personal experience that these people will stop at nothing to push you to the brink
of madness. In other words, if you give in an inch they will take a mile and they have no qualms
whatsoever of running over you and and spitting on your kindness as though you were a tick on
a lost dog.
If you let her run and ruin your life – trust me she will and then she will discard you like
she would a piece of toilet paper she had wiped her @$$ with …..and you will feel even worse.
You can not win by playing the game her way. Knowing what you are dealing with is critical and
allows you some major advantages. Use these advantages wisely and don't make the mistake I made
of letting her know that you know what she is.
how do you best use these advantages?
DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT :)
I wish you the best !
Rob
Liz – January 20, 2016
Ian you're right, there's no peace with the psychopath when employing methods to manage her.
A safer method may be to break away mentally first, then emotionally, after which the physical
act naturally happens at the right time.
Also, because psychopaths need a human host to carry their evil burdens, while exploiting
us financially, sexually, and in other ways – one helpful bit of advice that requires no physical
action is to: Calmly and gently (and non-verbally) return her burdens to her. One way is to mentally
see yourself taking off a mantle of her burdens from your shoulders and gently placing it back
on hers with the words: "I return this to you. It is not my responsibility and I don't want it
for me or our children. It is for you to deal with it."
This visualization is especially helpful before sleep because the body naturally reaches optimum
relaxation and lets go of the earthly world and its troubles. During the day this visualization
is good at any time especially while in the shower or soaking in the tub, which also relaxes the
body so that it is easier to let go.
Ian I hope you keep dialoging on this site – your methods of dealing with your situation are
deeply healing. Surely a breakthrough will come for all as a result.
Ian James Littlejohn – January 22, 2016
PS
I went out and bought one of those wee counter thingies that they use to count people on
planes. I keep it in my pocket and give it one click for every "Whoosh" I hear. If I react – no
"Whoosh!" and no click – i.e. she scored a hit. We'll see how it works.
Rgds
Ian
Ian James Littlejohn – January 20, 2016
Liz, Rob,
My heartfelt thanks to you both for your responses and insightful and sage advice.
Liz, I agree that one can't 'co-exist' with a psychopath ' from the perspective that co-existence
means sharing the joys and sorrows of a normal family life. They just don't get it and never will.
I also agree that 'they can only be managed from within the relationship'. 'Management' is what
this is all about now. Your advice to basically – 'go along to get along' is wise and probably
the right thing to do. When I've tried it, it works in terms that the overall emotional temperature
in the house improves for a while. But, man, it's hard to maintain!
Also without some measure of challenge or push-back the demands only get more and more bizarre.
I'm only human and there are limits to my tolerance.
You are spot on about staying calm is absolutely essential. Not only calm in the face of
their / her aggression but finding an inner calm that helps one to keep going.
I'm actually pretty good at keeping calm in the midst of a crisis. As an oil-field Ops Manager
I've faced blow-outs, fires, explosions, etc. , and had to organize the response and deal with
the trauma they cause. I found that my brain tended to get pretty 'frosty' in these situations.
It had to be in order to cope. I've always tried token my work and my home life separate and I
guess I'm having just a wee bit trouble transferring that approach to my home life. I'll work
on it.
Rob, I'll look up some of the books you suggest on Amazon. They deliver to China. Thanks for
the guidance.
Finding the inner peace is a bit more of a challenge as I'm somewhat isolated here in China.
Maybe I'll get into Yoga or Buddhist meditation. But I think your advice to allow her demands
and shenanigans to roll over me and then just get on with the things I want to do is very sound.
My life comes first. She has her little ploys to make sure that her life is always 'front and
centre' of the family life but I can probably find ways to deal with that.
When I talk with my mates in the pub I often reflect on my day / my life as looking after 4
kids, my 9 year old daughter, my 2 year old twin sons and my 3 year old wife. That's what it feels
like. Perhaps I should change that to 3 kids and a dog because, Liz, you're right that they /she
is like a wild animal. I guess as the relationship has deteriorated I've been guilty (if that's
the right word) of withdrawing any positive emotional feedback on her life. I'll never LOVE
her again as a woman / human being , there's been too much water under the bridge for that but
as you say even psycho/sociopaths need to be petted now and again. I've occaissionally tried to
'make-up' and be Mr Nice Guy again – but she seemed to take it as positive feedback on EVERYTHING
she does and her behaviour got worse. I'll need to think carefully about the what, when and
how to do this.
I hate the negativity that inevitably permeates these conversations so on a more positive note,
life is not ALL bad. The kids help me immensely. Whose heart isn't lifted by the laughter and
sheer joy of life in a 2 year old or the burgeoning curiosity of a 9 year old. There are days
when we at least maintain the appearance of a normal family – even if the tension in my shoulders
never really relaxes. When she's out of the house and I've got the kids to myself – it's great.
Occasionally I meet up with my mates in the pub and have real, adult conversations about life,
politics, sports, the weather, etc., and there are still things that happen, things I see and
hear, beautiful sunsets & fresh mornings – that make me glad to be alive.
Paul, Rob's right. Being caught in a psychopathic $%^ storm is absolutely horrible but
by recognising your ex for what she is – you've already "won". You have to trust that life
will get better – and, believe me, it will. Hang on to the relationship with your daughter. She'll
do more to help you than any web-site or self-help book. I've made – and lost – a lot of money
in my life but it doesn't matter. Money is only the means to an end.
As I've told my wife, she's already wealthy and even if she was the richest person in China
but no matter what, HER soul will ALWAYS be mired in poverty – mine / ours won't. To me- that's
a win.
In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan villainized a Chicago woman for bilking the government. Her other
sins-including possible kidnappings and murders-were far worse.
Jack Sherwin knew he'd seen her before. It was Aug. 8, 1974, and the Chicago burglary detective was
working a case on the city's South Side. Though her name and face didn't look familiar, Sherwin recognized
the victim's manner, and her story. She'd been robbed, Linda Taylor explained, and she was sorry
to report that the burglar had good taste: $14,000 in furs, jewelry, and cash were missing from her
apartment. Thank heavens, most of it was insured.
After listening to her tale of woe, Sherwin asked
Taylor if she'd mind getting him some water. When she returned, the detective kept the glass as evidence.
The fingerprints collected from Taylor's kitchen helped jog Sherwin's memory. Two years earlier,
the same woman had been charged with making a bogus robbery claim-that time, the thieves had supposedly
made off with $10,000 worth of valuables. Sherwin knew Linda Taylor because, out of pure happenstance,
he'd been called on to investigate both of these alleged burglaries. She was living in a different
part of town, using a different name, and sporting a different head of hair. But this was the same
woman, pulling the same stunt.
Sherwin cited Taylor, again, for making a false report. But the 35-year-old police officer, a
former Marine and a 12-year veteran of the force, didn't stop there. "The more I dug into it, the
more I found that just wasn't right," he remembers. First, he learned that she was getting welfare
checks under multiple names. Then he discovered Taylor's husbands-"Oh, I guess maybe seven men that
I knew of," Sherwin says. The detective and his partner, Jerry Kush, got to work tracking down this
parade of grooms, and they found a few who were willing to talk. Sherwin's hunch had been right:
This woman was up to no good.
In late September 1974, seven weeks after Sherwin met Taylor for the second time, the detective's
findings made the Chicago Tribune. "Linda Taylor received Illinois welfare checks and food
stamps, even tho[ugh] she was driving three 1974 autos-a Cadillac, a Lincoln, and a Chevrolet station
wagon-claimed to own four South Side buildings, and was about to leave for a vacation in Hawaii,"
wrote Pulitzer
Prize winner George Bliss. The story detailed a 14-page report that Sherwin had put together
illuminating "a lifestyle of false identities that seemed calculated to confuse our computerized,
credit-oriented society." There was evidence that the 47-year-old Taylor had used three Social Security
cards, 27 names, 31 addresses, and 25 phone numbers to fuel her mischief, not to mention 30 different
wigs.
As the Tribune and other outlets stayed on the story, those figures continued to rise.
Reporters noted that Linda Taylor had used as many as 80 names, and that she'd received at least
$150,000-in illicit welfare cash, the numbers that Ronald Reagan would cite on the campaign trail
in 1976. (Though she used dozens of different identities, I've chosen to call her Linda Taylor in
this story, as it's how the public came to know her at the height of her infamy.) Taylor also gained
a reputation as a master of disguise. "She is black, but is able to pass herself off as Spanish,
Filipino, white, and black," the executive director of Illinois' Legislative Advisory Committee on
Public Aid told the Associated Press in November 1974. "And it appears she can be any age she wishes,
from the early 20s to the early 50s."
For Bliss and the Tribune, the scandal wasn't just that Taylor had her hand in the till
and had the seeming ability to shape-shift. The newspaper also directed its ire at the sclerotic
bureaucracy that allowed her schemes to flourish. Bliss had been reporting on waste, fraud, and mismanagement
in the Illinois Department of Public Aid for a long time prior to Taylor's emergence. His stories-on
doctors who billed Medicaid for fictitious procedures and overworked caseworkers who failed to purge
ineligible recipients from the welfare rolls-showed an agency in disarray. That disarray didn't make
for an engaging read, though: "State orders probe of Medicaid" is not a headline that provokes shock
and anger. Then the welfare queen came along and dressed the scandal up in a fur coat. This was a
crime that people could comprehend, and Linda Taylor was the perfectly unsympathetic figure for outraged
citizens to point a finger at.
... ... ...
The 21-year-old sailor was working in the dental clinic at Chicago's Great Lakes Naval Training
Center when a beautiful woman walked in to get her teeth cleaned. Something about her was totally
fascinating, Jones remembers. "I met her because she was pretty and I was shooting game to her,"
he says. "I guess her game must've been stronger than mine, because I met her that Monday and [got]
married that Saturday."
Jones thought he was lucky to get hitched to the 35-year-old Linda Sholvia. She was beautiful,
with the smoothest skin he'd ever seen. She also gave him $1,000 as a wedding present, and he had
his pick of fancy new cars. But Lamar and Linda's marriage lasted only a little longer than their
five-day courtship. A few weeks after they exchanged vows, Linda was arrested. When Jones paid her
bond, his new wife fled the state. To make things worse, she stole his color TV.
The young Navy man realized that something was amiss with his new bride even before the television
went missing. When she showed him a degree from a university in Haiti, he noticed that it said Linda
Taylor, not Linda Sholvia. Jones says Linda had five mailboxes at her residence at 8221 S. Clyde
Ave., and she'd get letters in all five, addressed to different names. He got a bit uneasy when Linda
told him, after they were married, that he was her eighth husband. She also had a "sister" named
Constance who seemed more like her adult daughter.
... ... ...
A month after his wife was brought back from Arizona, Lamar Jones testified against her in front
of a Cook County grand jury. Jones says that around the time of that proceeding, he was shuffled
into a car with another witness and told they had something in common: They were both married to
Linda (or maybe it was Connie) at the same time. That was a surprise to Jones. His wife had told
him that husband No. 7 was dead.
... ... ...
Isaiah Gant, who has been an attorney for nearly four decades, says his onetime client "was a
scam artist like I have never run across since." Gant, now an assistant federal public defender in
Nashville, Tenn., says Taylor could change personalities in an instant. "If she wanted to be a ho,
she could be a ho. If she wanted to be a princess, she could be a princess," he says. "The woman
was smooth."
... ... ...
It got stranger from there. Constance told the Defender that Rose Kennedy, Lawrence Wakefield's
purported common-law wife, was no such thing. She also accused Kennedy of trying to poison her, saying,
"The doctors said I had swallowed enough strychnine to kill a dozen people." And in just the last
few weeks, she reported, police had captured two white men trying to break into her house; a "swarthy
Italian" had threatened to kill her; and her bodyguard had narrowly thwarted an attempt to blow up
her 1964 Cadillac. A few days after that, the Associated Negro Press wrote that Constance Wakefield
Steinberg-she was a "light-skinned Negro woman with a 'Jewish' surname"-"reported to police that
her 11-year-old son, John, had been kidnapped and that she had received a number of threatening calls."
Whether she was going by Constance Wakefield, Linda Taylor, or any other name, the future welfare
queen never went for subtlety. She was a woman of great ambition, and she conjured a universe in
which the forces arrayed against her were equally extraordinary. Someone was always trying to kill
her, or steal from her, or kidnap her, or take her children. These stories rarely checked out. Her
son John, the Chicago Sun-Times would report, hadn't been kidnapped. He was found by FBI agents wandering
near his house, and explained that he'd run away after a fight with his sister. Census records and
Lawrence Wakefield's own death certificate reveal that Edith Jarvis was not Wakefield's wife, as
Taylor had asserted-she was his mother. When Taylor went to probate court to press her claim to the
Wakefield fortune, even more of her story fell apart.
Constance Wakefield was many people, but she probably wasn't Constance Wakefield.
In this and many of her other battles, Linda Taylor's weapons were documents, paperwork of uncertain
provenance that buttressed her version of events. Though her birth to Lawrence and Edith did not
appear in contemporaneous records, she procured a delayed birth certificate from the doctor who she
claimed had delivered her. She also furnished a pair of Lawrence Wakefield's heretofore-undiscovered
wills. The first, which dated to 1943, included a description of Wakefield's daughter that matched
her own, "specifically describing a scar and a mole and their location on her body," the Tribune
reported. The second will, from 1962, indicated that Wakefield had $2 million, that the vast majority
of that lucre should go to his daughter, and that Rose Kennedy-who Taylor maintained was Lawrence
Wakefield's housekeeper, not his common-law wife-was entitled to precisely $1. "She is no good and
will try to take everything from my baby," the will read, according to the Tribune. "She has stoled
enough from me since the death of my Edith."
None of this evidence-the delayed birth certificate, the will that conveniently trashed her primary
rival-convinced Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Gerald Mannix that he was dealing with Lawrence
Wakefield's real daughter. A long way from Chicago, he found someone who could help him prove it.
"A surprise witness testified in Probate court yesterday that Miss Constance Wakefield, who claims
to be the illegitimate daughter of the late Lawrence Wakefield, policy king, and thus heir to his
fortune, actually is Martha Louise White," the Tribune reported on Nov. 10, 1964. Hubert Mooney,
who claimed to be Martha's uncle, explained that his niece was born in Summit, Ala., around 1926,
making her about 38 years old-nine years older than she'd claimed to be in the guise of Constance
Wakefield. Martha, Mooney said, was the daughter of his sister Lydie and a man named Marvin White.
The court didn't have to take his word for it. Hubert's 84-year-old mother came from Tennessee to
testify that she'd assisted in her granddaughter Martha's birth.
Mooney said he'd seen his niece most recently in Arkansas-the state where "Constance Wakefield"
had grown up, according to her interview with The Chicago Defender. He'd also run into her in Oakland,
Calif. On that occasion, she'd asked her uncle to bail her out of jail. According to the Chicago
Sun-Times, the assistant state's attorney produced fingerprints and "police records from Oakland,
which he said were those of Miss Wakefield, listing arrests for prostitution, contributing to the
delinquency of a minor, and assault." A police expert testified that those fingerprints matched those
of Beverly Singleton, a woman who'd been arrested the year prior for assaulting a 12-year-old girl.
Constance Wakefield, it seemed, was many people, but she probably wasn't Constance Wakefield.
This dramatic testimony didn't clear everything up. For her part, "Constance Wakefield" said she
knew Hubert Mooney but that she was not Martha Louise White. She also denied that she was the woman
identified in all those criminal records, though she did confess that she'd been charged with assault
in Oakland.
Weighing all the evidence, Judge Anthony Kogut cited Taylor for contempt of court and sentenced
her to six months in jail. She wouldn't get any of Lawrence Wakefield's money, the balance of which
would go to Rose Kennedy, the policy king's common-law wife.
... ... ...
There's almost no chance that Sandra was really kidnapped. Two years prior, Taylor had falsely reported
that Johnnie had been abducted. He says now that his mother likely just wanted the cops to do the
hard work of tracking him down after he'd left home of his own volition.
In 1967, she'd try the same line again, telling Chicago police that another of her children had been
taken. When the cops investigated, they found that the child wasn't missing. They also discovered
that the kid didn't belong to her.
... ... ...
In another Tribune story, Bliss and Griffin noted that Linda Taylor had been arrested twice in
the 1960s for absconding with children, though she wasn't convicted in either case because the little
ones were returned. The reporters also laid out a possible motive. "Chicago's welfare queen," they
wrote, "has been linked by Chicago police to a scheme to defraud the public aid department during
the mid-1960s by buying newborn infants to substantiate welfare claims."
... ... ...
This theory is a little hard to believe. Given Taylor's ability to fabricate paperwork, acquiring
flesh-and-blood children seems like an unnecessary risk if all you're looking to do is pad a welfare
application. Her son Johnnie believes his mother saw children as commodities, something to be
acquired and sold. He remembers a little black girl-he doesn't know her name-who stayed with
them for a few months in the early 1960s, "and then she just disappeared one day." Shortly before
Lawrence Wakefield died, Johnnie says, a white baby named Tiger showed up out of nowhere, and then
left the household just as mysteriously. I ask him if he knew where these kids came from or who they
belonged to. "You knew they wasn't hers," he says.
... ... ...
Nine days later, a newborn child was kidnapped by a woman dressed in a white nurse's uniform. Dora
Fronczak told police that the mystery woman whisked away her son Paul Joseph, telling the new mother
that her baby boy needed to be examined by a doctor. Witnesses said the ersatz nurse carried the
infant through a rear exit and disappeared.
The Fronczak case transfixed Chicago and the nation. The Tribune, the Sun-Times, and the national
wire services printed eyewitness accounts, sketches of the suspect, diagrams of the kidnapper's probable
path, and the family's pleas for their child's safe return. Within a day, 500 policemen were working
the case, including 50 FBI agents. They were looking for a woman between her mid-30s and mid-40s,
around 5-foot-4 and 140 pounds, with close-set brown eyes. Nine months after the kidnapping, the
Tribune reported that a staggering 38,000 people had been interviewed in connection with the case,
and that 7,500 women had been eliminated as suspects. Still, the baby-snatching nurse remained at
large.
Did Linda Taylor pull off one of the most notorious kidnappings of the 1960s? In early 1975, law
enforcement officials got a tip from one of Taylor's ex-husbands that she "appeared one day in the
mid-1960s with a newborn baby, altho[ugh] she had not been pregnant." Her explanation, the Tribune
said, was that "she hadn't realized she was pregnant until she gave birth that morning."
... ... ...
In 1977, a man named Samuel Harper told police prior to Taylor's sentencing for welfare fraud
that he believed she had kidnapped Paul Joseph Fronczak. He explained that he was living with her
at the time, that several other white infants were in her home, and that she left the house in a
white uniform on the day of the kidnapping. Johnnie Harbaugh confirms that Harper, who was 69 years
old in 1977 and likely died many years ago, lived with his mother for a period in the 1960s. If anyone
was in a position to know what Linda was up to, Johnnie believes, it was Sam Harper.
... ... ...
Jack Sherwin, who retired from the Chicago Police Department in the mid-1990s, says he saw a composite
drawing of the Fronczak kidnapper in an FBI office. "I looked at it for a second and knew it was
her," he says. In police reports from the 1970s, Taylor is listed at 5-foot-1 and 140 pounds with
brown eyes-not that far off from the suspect's description. Sherwin says she also had a station wagon
at that time that matched the description of the potential getaway car. He believes she was "guilty
as hell."
And yet, Linda Taylor was never charged in the kidnapping of Paul Joseph Fronczak. Ron Cooper, a
retired FBI agent who worked on the Fronczak case in the 1970s, says that they "had no cooperation
from people around her." Everyone who talked "would tell you a story and it would just sort of be
a flim-flam thing, and it wouldn't make any sense." If she had taken Paul Joseph in 1964, he was
long gone.
... ... ....
Jack Sherwin, the fight to take down Linda Taylor was a multifront war. Some battles were contested
face to face. "At one point the arrestee Linda Taylor stated that no matter how much money it took
she was going to get my badge and me," the detective wrote in one police report. "She then blurted
out that she had a bullet for me. [There] were other things said such as she would tell my wife about
all the 'Black Ass' I had." Taylor also waged a disinformation campaign, calling Sherwin's superiors
to complain that the detective had it in for her. She even took the fight to the astral plane, jabbing
sharp pins into a voodoo doll, one she told Sherwin that she'd made especially for him.
Sherwin did the digging that led to Taylor's arrest for welfare fraud, and his testimony helped send
her to prison. But four decades after he first met Linda Taylor, the 74-year-old retired detective
can't help but feel that she beat him. She was his prize catch, but Sherwin ended up getting snared
in her net.
... ... ...
For the Chicago burglary detective, Linda Taylor was never really the welfare queen. He believed
she was a kidnapper and a baby seller. Maybe something worse.
... ... ...
Mrs. Parks, who was also named Patricia, earned her living as a schoolteacher. Her daughter describes
her as polished, a woman with a master's degree who hung out with college-educated types. Parks-Lee
says that Linda Taylor, by contrast, looked weathered, like she'd done a lot of hard living. "She
didn't associate with people like that," says Parks-Lee, who's now 48. She believes her mother must
have hired Taylor to keep house and watch the kids, nothing more. She says that Linda Taylor was
the worst nanny they ever had.
Taylor took up residence with the Parks family in 1974. At that point, Patricia Parks was a healthy
woman with three young children. Less than a year later, she was dead. At the time, Taylor was out
on bail, awaiting her welfare fraud trial. The Tribune explained that she was now under investigation
yet again after authorities "learned that Mrs. Parks reportedly had willed her home to Miss Taylor
and had made her the beneficiary of 'several' insurance policies and the guardian of her three children."
... ... ...
Taylor told the funeral director that Patricia Parks had cervical cancer. When her blood was drawn
at the funeral home, however, the sample contained a high level of barbiturates. On Parks' death
certificate, the coroner indicated that she had died of "combined phenobarbital, methapyrilene, and
salicylate intoxication." There is no indication that she had cancer.
"She killed my mother," Parks-Lee says. She's so sure about what Linda Taylor did that she says
it three more times: "She killed my mother. She killed my mother. I just, I mean-she killed my mother."
... ... ...
As in the Fronczak kidnapping, Taylor was never charged with killing Patricia Parks. James Piper,
the prosecutor in the welfare fraud case, also looked into the alleged Parks homicide. He tells me
that he "was satisfied personally that there had been chicanery." But Piper says that he wasn't able
to acquire blood samples from the hospital where Parks had been pronounced dead. He believed that
without the samples there was no "connector"-nothing to convince a jury that Taylor had administered
a lethal drug cocktail to Parks. Piper says that his decision wouldn't have prevented the Chicago
police from continuing their investigation. He believed, though, that indicting Taylor for murder
would have created the perception that he was looking for more publicity for the welfare fraud case-a
case with clearer evidence, and one that he didn't want to jeopardize.
... ... ...
Other than Sherwin, nobody seemed all that motivated to learn the full extent of Linda Taylor's
crimes. Though the Tribune wrote about Taylor's purported connections to the Fronczak kidnapping
and the Parks homicide, the paper treated her kid-snatching and voodoo spells as colorful details-odd
facts to embellish the shocking welfare queen story. In 1975, the Tribune reported the allegation
that Linda Taylor was "buying newborn infants to substantiate welfare claims." Somehow, though, the
welfare claims remained the bigger story, not the allegations of black-market baby trafficking.
... ... ...
In the aftermath of Ray's death, the National Home Life Insurance Company requested a complete coroner's
report from Illinois' Kankakee County. Byron Keith Lassiter, who looked into the case on behalf of
the insurance firm, says such a contestable death claim investigation would have been routine. With
no charges filed against Loyd, the money from Sherman Ray's life insurance policy would be paid out
to his wife, Linda.
A month after Sherman Ray's death, Taylor bought a parcel of land in Holmes County, Fla. Her name
is listed on the deed as "Rev. Linda Ray." In the Sunshine State, public records reveal, she'd use
at least six names and six different Social Security numbers. She wasn't there alone. Her companion
was her husband's killer, Willtrue Loyd.
This is Linda Taylor's life in microcosm: a series of tangled connections, a death that serves
as a potential windfall, a quick move, and a new start in a faraway place. Sherman Ray, the former
Marine with emotional problems, was a man in uniform-a classic Taylor mark. Paul Stull Harbaugh,
the man listed as her son Paul's father on the child's birth certificate, was in the Navy. So was
another supposed husband, Paul Steinberg-the Tribune alleged that in the 1960s she was "obtaining
federal support" as the widow of both Harbaugh and Steinberg.
... ... ...
In 1978, one of her lawyers wrote that Linda Taylor was likely psychotic, that she "was incapable
of knowing whether or not she was telling the truth." Johnnie Harbaugh is certain that's not the
case. "She was cold," he says. "She knew what was right and wrong, but she was choosing wrong."
or Linda Taylor, people were consumable goods, objects to cultivate, manipulate, and discard. Once
she'd extracted something of value-an identity, a check, a life insurance claim-she'd move on to
someone else. No matter her circumstances, and no matter her surroundings, there was always a new
target.
What kind of person behaves this way? In the 1970s, psychologist Robert Hare developed a checklist
to assess a given subject's personality. The symptoms on Hare's list read like a catalog of Linda
Taylor's known behaviors and personal characteristics: glib and superficial charm, pathological lying,
manipulativeness, lack of empathy, parasitic lifestyle, frequent short-term relationships, and criminal
versatility.
Of the 20 items on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, nearly every one describes the welfare
queen to some degree. Dr. Steve Band, a behavioral science consultant and an expert on criminal behavior,
says "people with that personality know right from wrong." Dr. James Fallon, a professor of psychiatry
and human behavior at the University of California at Irvine and the author of The Psychopath Inside,
says that Taylor "screams psychopathy." Along with deriving pleasure from criminal behavior, he says,
psychopaths "really like getting away with it"-that "the ones who have intelligence, they don't want
to get caught."
Despite the striking synchronicity between this checklist and Taylor's behavior, diagnosing someone
as a psychopath isn't as easy as ticking a set of boxes. As Dave Cullen wrote for Slate in 2004,
it took an elite group of mental health experts to establish Columbine shooter Eric Harris' psychopathic
"pattern of grandiosity, glibness, contempt, lack of empathy, and superiority."
If a similar team of psychologists scrutinized the welfare queen, Hare's checklist would be a logical
place to start. For her part, Taylor's daughter-in-law Carol Harbaugh has a simpler list, one with
just three points: "She was brutal. She was mean. She was terrible."
... ... ...
Some of Taylor's victims were spared her worst behavior-they just learned an expensive lesson
and got on with their lives. Kenneth Lynch, who's now in his early 80s, bought a property with Taylor
in Holmes County, Fla. Lynch remembers her saying that her husband had been killed by mobsters in
Chicago. He also says that Taylor never came up with her share of the money, though she did pilfer
Lynch's last name. Reta Hunter, who lives in Live Oak, Fla., says "Linda Lynch" led her to stop trusting
people. Taylor told Hunter she was a psychic who'd descended from Caribbean royalty, and that she
could help remedy her relationship with her daughter. "The last time I seen her it cost me $80 for
about 20 minutes," Hunter says. "She could take you, honey. She was a slick talker."
Not all of Linda Taylor's relationships ended so harmlessly. Sherman Ray took a shotgun blast to
the chest. Patricia Parks' life ended in her daughter's bedroom with her body pumped full of phenobarbital.
And an elderly African-American woman named Mildred Markham died in Graceville, Fla., far away from
her home and loved ones.
Taylor and Markham met in Chicago in the early 1980s. Markham's husband James, a retired Pullman
porter, earned a good salary in his day. Soon after he passed away, Taylor convinced the railroad
man's widow that she was her long-lost daughter. "All [Mildred] used to do was talk about this Linda,"
recalls Markham's granddaughter, Theresa Davis, who is 75 and still lives in Chicago.
By the time she fell under the sway of her new "daughter," Mildred Markham was well into her 70s.
Davis and her mother tried to convince Markham that Taylor was a con artist, but she wouldn't listen.
Markham went with Taylor to Momence, Ill. From there, they moved to Florida. All the while, according
to Davis, "my grandfather's money was going out the bank." She says that as much as $50,000 went
missing, along with Markham's furniture, sewing machine, jewelry, and mink coats. And in 1985, Mildred
deeded away 185 acres of Markham family land in Mississippi. The grantees were Linda Lynch and her
son Clifford. For his part, Clifford says he had no idea that his name was on the deed, and that
he played no part in this land deal.
... ... ...
Once, when the Harbaughs were in Florida for a visit, Markham begged them to take her back to Chicago.
Carol says Taylor was verbally abusive, and that she watched her lock Markham in a room. Markham
also told them that she wasn't being fed. "She was forced to be there against her will," Carol says.
They did not rescue Mildred Markham. Johnnie says that he was determined to take her but that she
changed her mind at the last minute and decided to stay. In Carol's recollection, Taylor told Johnnie,
"You even think about it, and I'll blow your head off." She says her husband took the threat seriously,
and he decided not to get involved.
Mildred Markham died on Oct. 5, 1986. Her death certificate says she passed away of "presumed natural
causes," and that she had previously suffered a stroke. The Graceville police department reported
that her husband, Willtrue Loyd, found her body in bed.
Carol Harbaugh says she thought Loyd and Markham had gotten married. Florida records suggest that
was probably the case. In March 1986, Loyd married a woman named "Constance Rayner" in Marianna,
Fla. The marriage application says Constance's home state is Louisiana; Theresa Davis says that's
where her grandmother, Mildred Markham, was born. The bride signed her supposed maiden name, Constance
Wakefield, in a looping script. It's a shaky signature, one that doesn't much resemble Linda Taylor's
tidy penmanship.
Taylor always took something from her prey. But this marriage record, with the telltale Wakefield
surname, shows that even as she sucked this older woman dry, Taylor was grafting parts of herself
onto Mildred Markham.
... ... ...
As in the cases of Patricia Parks and Sherman Ray, Taylor stood to gain financially from Mildred
Markham's death. Mildred's medical examiner's file includes letters from Union Fidelity Life Insurance
and Gulf Life Insurance, both of which were looking to verify the claims of one "Linda Lynch," the
decedent's daughter. The file also contains a note in which someone, presumably the medical examiner's
assistant, writes that Markham's daughter "took out insurance policies at varied times using different
names (marriages)." The daughter needed a letter to clear up this misunderstanding, and the medical
examiner complied. "To the best of my knowledge Mildred Constance Raner Loyd, Constance Loyd, and
Mildred Rayner are one in the same person," he wrote.
A letter from Dr. D. Bruce Woodham in the medical examiner’s file for Mildred Markham (aka
Constance Mildred Rayner Loyd).
A letter from Dr. D. Bruce Woodham in the medical examiner's file for Mildred Markham (aka Constance
Mildred Rayner Loyd).
Florida Medical Examiner, District 14. Graphic by Slate.
That wasn't the only confusion about Mildred Markham's death. On May 15, 1987, Dr. D. Bruce Woodham
sent a letter to the medical examiner's office saying that his patient did not die of natural causes.
Woodham, a neurological surgeon, wrote that Markham hadn't suffered a stroke. Rather, she'd fallen
and hit her head. "I believe that Ms. Loyd's death was the result of an injury, she fell, she sustained
a subdural hematoma, and she herniated from this, and that caused her demise," the doctor explained.
On account of Dr. Woodham's letter, Markham's death was reclassified as an accident. Regardless,
Taylor probably collected on those life insurance policies-so long as there were no accusations of
foul play, the companies more than likely paid up.
Dr. Woodham, who is still practicing, says that although he wrote that Mildred Markham fell and
hit her head, there's no way he can know with certainty. He's not a forensic pathologist, and he
doesn't have the expertise to distinguish between injuries that are consistent with a fall or ones
that might come from a car accident or a blunt instrument. Dr. Woodham says he doesn't remember the
particulars of this case, but in general he goes by what he's told-information provided by a paramedic,
or possibly a family member.
Theresa Davis does not believe her grandmother fell and hit her head. She is convinced that Mildred
Markham was murdered, and that Linda Taylor is somehow responsible.
Six years after Mildred Markham's death, her widower Willtrue Loyd died in Florida at age 72.
The medical examiner's report says he succumbed naturally, to heart disease. Loyd's next of kin is
listed as Linda Lynch, his granddaughter. Taylor was only about seven years younger than her "grandfather."
Nevertheless, as Loyd's supposed heir, she presumably stood to receive the World War II veteran's
benefits. Another death, another check.
... ... ...
For Linda Taylor, documents were never simple accountings of the truth. Pieces of paper always
told a story-about her identity, her husbands, her children, her parentage, what was owed to her,
and who owed it-and that story was usually self-serving, contradictory, and false. That didn't change
just because she was dead.
Her death certificate, compiled from information provided by her daughter Sandra Smith, is a blend
of truth, lies, and conjecture. The welfare queen's name is rendered as Constance Loyd, which it
wasn't. Her date of birth is listed as Dec. 25, 1934. It wasn't. She's described as a homemaker,
which she wasn't. Her father and mother are given as Lawrence Wakefield and Edith Elizabeth Jarvis.
They weren't. Her race is white-the same as in the 1930 and 1940 census. Among her itemized medical
conditions is bipolar disorder. That may be true, or it may be a fabrication.
Reproduced in full. Website is down as domain name expired.
Emily Thorne of Revenge "behaves like a sociopath,"
according
to the actress who plays her, because she is "a vulnerable, hurt, angry young girl who ultimately
wants to rid herself of those feelings." Playing master manipulator Patty Hewes on Damages
"toughened" Glenn Close, leading her to
proclaim
that the show and the women it depicted "were not for sissies." Even Quinn Perkins of Scandal
has, over the past season, managed to
cultivate a "high-functioning sociopathy" that has transformed her from former CIA agent Huck's
damsel in distress to his adversary - a preternaturally gifted hacker who manages to make the art
of torture sexy.
... ... ...
in the southern United States, Thomas describes herself as a high-functioning, pro-social sociopath
- an apostle for the belief that under the right circumstances, sociopaths can prove beneficial to
society as ingenuous thinkers and ambitious leaders. If this doesn't put her fellow sociopaths at
ease, there's also the fact that, when I spoke to her over the phone in March, she seemed unfathomably
nice, her voice shot with just the right amount of charm.
Confessions narrates Thomas's upbringing as a budding sociopath in a devout Mormon household,
and her dawning recognition that "the label of girl was too limiting to contain my own grandiose
conception of myself." Sociopathy became a way for her to score small victories over the men who
tried to limit her agency in a variety of domestic and professional contexts: her emotionally overbearing
father; the lascivious principal of her high school; the partners at a prestigious Los Angeles law
firm, where she billed long hours while luring her hapless supervisors into thrilling and untenable
sexual liaisons.
"I couldn't stand that such unfit people could have authority over me," she complains. "And that
was the double injustice of being a young sociopath and girl, too." But the upside seemed clear.
Female sociopaths, Thomas
writes
on her blog, could afford to be "less influenced by some of the defeating (and self-defeating) lessons
that young girls are taught about a woman's place in the world," making them "very successful in
their careers." More than anything else, her statement recalled Sheryl Sandberg's proclamation to
women in her introduction to Lean In that we are "hindered by barriers that exist within ourselves.
We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small."
Despite its uncanny resemblance to a book like Lean In, which was released two months before,
Confessions of A Sociopath debuted to mixed reviews, many of which fixated on Thomas's gender.
Writing in The Boston Globe, Julia M. Klein
noted the fact that "the author is female somehow makes Confessions of A Sociopath even more
chilling. It is hard to shake the sense that the book is the work of a male, so cool is the narrative
voice. One might argue that sociopathy […] is maleness taken to a dysfunctional extreme." Jon Ronson
pointed out in The New York Times that we have "only her word that Thomas is the woman she says
she is," and, by extension, only her word that she is a woman at all.
Perhaps in response to these suspicions, Thomas
appeared on the Dr. Phil
show, handsomely made up and wearing a long, off-centered blonde wig. As she answered Dr. Phil's
blustering questions with poise and self-possession, the camera cut to audience members - all of
them women - who wore not looks of horror, but of appreciation, even of admiration. Unlike the book's
reviewers, Dr. Phil's strategy for disarming his guest was not to undermine her status as a woman,
but her credibility as a sociopath. Throughout the interview, he frequently interrupts Thomas to
drawl in disbelief, "That's not a trait of sociopathy," to which she genially replies, "Have you
known many sociopaths?" (His answer: "Yes. Oh, yes.")
The two lines of attack converge at a perverse and illuminating angle, revealing the reluctance
of scientists, psychiatrists, critics, and the public more generally to grant this identity to a
woman. Thomas recalls that when she came out on Sociopath World as female, she received messages
of fierce irritation from readers who followed her blog, many of whom insisted that she was a borderline
case masquerading as an archetype. The situation she found herself in was a peculiar one; being a
sociopath was one of the only means of asserting her strength as a woman, but everyone seemed determined
to deny her that kind of power.
There's something oddly touching about Thomas's fight to be recognized as a sociopath; a fight
that, for her, is as much about equal opportunity for women as it is about personal legitimization.
Among Thomas's skeptics is Dr. James Fallon, neuroscientist, author, and bonafide psychopath.
A big, bearish man with a dizzying breadth of scientific knowledge, Fallon is something of a legend
in the psychiatric community for inadvertently diagnosing himself, the result of an experimental
comedy of errors that he details in The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey
Into the Dark Side of the Brain.
While studying the brain structures of violent criminal offenders in his lab at the University
of California-Irvine, Fallon made the mistake of comparing PET scans (positron emission tomography)
of his subjects' brains with a scan of his own - the "normal" brain of a family man, respected professor,
and law-abiding citizen. Except that it wasn't. Fallon's PET scan revealed the same structural anomalies
of the psychopaths whose brains he had pored over, but unlike the psychopaths he studied, Fallon
was not, and never had been, a violent criminal. In distancing himself from his subjects, Fallon
jokes that his behavior conforms to what he describes as the socially useful and "female" art of
manipulation - bartering compliments for loyalty, ingratiating his way into the lives of influential
colleagues, posing as a sympathetic listener so that people will divulge their best gossip.
... ... ...
Fallon, on the other hand, seems to be doing just fine. In April, he attended the Tribeca Film
Festival to speak on a panel called "Psychos We Love." To his right sat Bryan Cranston of Breaking
Bad fame, and to his left, Terence Winter, the show runner for Boardwalk Empire and screenwriter
of The Wolf of Wall Street. The moderator was Juju Chang, a television journalist who recently
won an Emmy for covering gender inequality in the sciences. After the panel batted around some questions
about the male psychos we love - Tony Soprano, Walter White, Jordan Belfort, Nucky Thompson - I raised
my hand and asked if we, as consumers of culture, had a different affective relationship to female
sociopaths and their ambitions to success. Winter looked confused and mumbled something about evil
stepmothers. Fallon reached for science, explaining that one of the primary genes that encodes anti-social
behavior is transmitted on the mother's side. "You know when criminals tell their psychologists or
a jury, 'My mother made me do it?'" he asked jovially. "Well, there's some truth to that." Chang
rolled her eyes at the audience, and then, perhaps remembering her duties as a moderator, sarcastically
chimed, "Y-e-e-a-h-h, why don't we have more female psychos?" and called for the next question.
An interesting example is the defense of Hillary Clinton of 41 years old rapist who raped 12 years
girl. Note that Hillary Clinton is lying that she was appointed by the judge. She did it as a favor
to the prosecutor. I do not know where Hillary is actual female sociopath or not, but here you see one
typical nuance: people are just objects to them and she demonstrates this behavior by having no compassion
for the little girl that was raped. Laughing about the case ON THE RADIO afterward says so much about
her character. She was laughing because she thought it showed how clever she was.
Hillary
Clinton has responded for the first time to
recent criticism of her successful 1975 legal defense of an accused rapist,
telling a British website
that she was "appointed" to the case against her will and that ultimately she was just doing her
"professional duty" as an attorney to defend him.
Last month, the conservative news site the Washington
Free Beacon released
audio uncovered from the Clinton archives at the University of Arkansas in which Hillary Clinton
discusses how as a young lawyer she represented a 41-year-old accused rapist. In the recordings,
from more than 30 years ago, Clinton is heard laughing as she describes how she was able to find
a loophole in the system to discredit the evidence against her client, despite suggesting she knew
he was guilty.
Last month, the conservative news site the Washington Free Beacon
released audio uncovered
from the Clinton archives at the University of Arkansas in which Hillary Clinton discusses how as
a young lawyer she represented a 41-year-old accused rapist. In the recordings, from more than 30
years ago, Clinton is heard laughing as she describes how she was able to find a loophole in the
system to discredit the evidence against her client, despite suggesting she knew he was guilty.
During a video interview
over the weekend with Mumsnet, an online network for mothers in the UK, the former secretary of state
spoke about the case for the first time since the story resurfaced.
"When I was a 27-year-old attorney doing legal-aid work at the law school where I taught in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape. I
asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not, and I had a professional duty to represent
my client to the best of my ability, which I did," Clinton said.
Clinton continued to explain that as an attorney she had an "obligation" to provide him with a
fair legal defense.
... ... ...
free_2_choose > Ibcingu
But she WASN'T a criminal defense attorney. She took the job after being asked to take the
case as "a favor" (her words) to the prosecuting attorney. The real issue is her lying in saying
she was appointed against her will.
Kaspian > Beawild
She took the job as a favor. Here's what she said on the tapes.
"Hillary: "a prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who was accused of rape…
and the guy wanted a women lawyer..
Roy Reed: Mmh..Why?
Hillary: Would I do it as a favor to him…"
Philip Marlowe > Don Semora
*****She did like any lawyer would do. ******
Baloney. If she knew her client was guilty (which she did) and she then advised the court in
a pleading that the victim was mentally unstable (which she wasn't) and that she chased after
older men (which she didn't) just to subvert justice and get her client off the hook, then she
crossed a line that would get her disbarred. No HONEST lawyer would stoop that low. You are hired
to give a client the best defense, but you are still held to an ethical obligation not to subvert
justice or suborn perjury. In this case Hillary manufactured evidence that she knew would cast
the victim in a false light. That is not what "any lawyer" would do. That is what shyster lawyers
and unethical lawyers do.
Richard Kroll > Don Semora
She did have a choice to be ethical, but didn't take it.
Code of the West > catmom
Everyone, including conservatives, understands that defending the accused is what she was required
to do. No issues with that at all. What IS the issue here is her laughing about it on a radio
talk show afterward. Laughing about gaming the system, laughing and winking about her client's
guilt. This isn't a "scandal" but it sure says a lot about her character.
free_2_choose
From the previous ABC story referenced in this article-----"UPDATED: An earlier version of
this story described Clinton as Taylor's court-appointed attorney. The story has been changed
to reflect the difference between what Clinton wrote in her memoir, "Living History," and what
she is heard saying on the newly-released audio records. A discussion of this difference has been
added above."-----In other words she is lying.
Sourcecode-v11
This is BS because I know for a fact Killary took this case completely WILLINGLY. Another Hillary
lie. When does this trash bag stop spewing her garbage?
JailBanksters
Yikes, this is one of those moments when Hilly's Psychopathic nature just doesn't know when
to shut up. One Psychopath per White House is enough don't you think.
g10011
1. the dude raped a 12 year girl and she laughed about him beating a polygraph test.
2. she didn't have to take the case at all
3. to quote Walter Sobchak, "he's a sex offender. With a record," and she got him off on a technically
after she berated the little girl on the stand. that is war on women. I am sure thinks it was
ok because she was just a trailer girl anyway but it is disgusting.
Gorn376
Hillary Clinton Says She Had 'Obligation' to Defend Accused Rapist
___________________________________
did she have the 'obligation' to say that the 12-year old girl desperately wanted to have sex
with older men or laugh and joke about the case on tape?
Normally I would say it's typical of a scum bag defense attorney who makes millions defending
obviously guilty people but Hillary is trying to pass herself off as a spokesperson for all "women".
Hillary broke the oath she took to join the Arizona bar in more than one way.
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Arizona;
I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding that shall appear to me to be without merit
or to be unjust
------------- Hillary acknowledged on the tapes that the man was guilty of rapng the 12 year
old, yet she twisted the facts surrounding the case to get him off the hook.
I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any misstatement or false statement of
fact or law
---------------- Hillary misled he court on the evidence, by suggesting that there was none.
I will abstain from all offensive conduct; I will not advance any fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness
----------------- Hillary spread lies about the character of the 12 year old child by suggesting
that she was into older men. Hideous.
Guest
I think it shows Hillary Clinton's brash character of relishing any of her achievements no
matter how vile they may appear to be. This wasn't about the defendant, the girl, the 'system',
or the results. It was about HER!
She's as exciting as hell. The role is a treacherous one and the critics all praised her
in spades. I saw the HD presentation at the theaters and found her to be riveting. Her singing
has a searing intensity that makes one recall Maria Callas. I also heard the opening night
broadcast and loved how she blew away the audience with her Sleepwalking Scene. This less than
2 minute segment shows nothing of the total effect she made in this role.
Many haters simply do not understand "how THEY THINK Lady Macbeth should be sung" is never
"how Lady Macbeth should be sung". Anya is the rare kind of imaginative artist who has always
given a sight out of the box. Narrow minded people, sorry, you just don't deserve to have her.
Leopold Leopold 1 year ago
+Detectivefiction The wrong sex. "Un-sex me here" is sex as in gender, not having sex. Lady
Macbeth thinks she needs a killer's instincts to succeed. Macduff thinks a woman is so delicate
that he's afraid of telling her about Duncan's death, believing it would make her fall dead
from shock. Lady Macbeth has contempt not for women, but for these qualities (of vulnerability)
associated with women, no matter who they appear in, and likewise tells her husband only when
when he was ready to perform a murder was he a man. The full context is "Un-sex me here and
fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty." That being said, the costuming
is the least of this productions problems.
CarlaMusic 1 year ago
She's like the modern day Callas. To some she maybe singing the wrong rep, but she act her
ass off and look good doing it. Time will tell if her career is cut in half by it.
TOTIC 1 year ago
I saw her at the Met tonight and she brought the house down. Amazing performance.
Lawrence Wraith 1 year ago
it's true she brought the house down on September 27...but some thing else happens
it was
during her final scene that the audience wouldn't stop clapping and applauding and she just
stood there on those damn high chairs like a statue in a trance for 40 seconds.. ....the audience
becoming more and more excited....they would not let Lady Macbeth die...it was beautiful...
Out brains are deeply connected to our bodies. One way to improve your mental stability and the
capacities to endure stress is to use vigorous exercise regiment. This is the point that implicitly
was made by prominent neuroscientist Wendy Suzuki in her book
Healthy Brain, Happy Life A Personal Program to Activate Your Brain and Do Everything Better. It
looks like aerobic exercises are important for mental stability and the ability to cope with stress.
Of cause, an important warning attributed to
Talleyrand "Not too much zeal" is applicable here too. Some additional ideas might be extracted
from the following reviews:
"... "Exercise is responsible for the majority of the positive brain changes seen with environmental
enrichment.""
A neuroscientist transforms the way we think about our brain, our health, and our personal
happiness in this clear, informative, and inspiring guide-a blend of personal memoir, science narrative,
and immediately useful takeaways that bring the human brain into focus as never before, revealing
the powerful connection between exercise, learning, memory, and cognitive abilities.
Nearing forty, Dr. Wendy Suzuki was at the pinnacle of her career. An award-winning university
professor and world-renowned neuroscientist, she had tenure, her own successful research lab, prestigious
awards, and international renown.
That's when to celebrate her birthday, she booked an adventure trip that forced her to wake up
to a startling reality: despite her professional success, she was overweight, lonely, and tired and
knew that her life had to change. Wendy started simply-by going to an exercise class. Eventually,
she noticed an improvement in her memory, her energy levels, and her ability to work quickly and
move from task to task easily. Not only did Wendy begin to get fit, but she also became sharper,
had more energy, and her memory improved. Being a neuroscientist, she wanted to know why.
What she learned transformed her body and her life. Now, it can transform yours.
Wendy discovered that there is a biological connection between exercise, mindfulness, and action.
With exercise, your body feels more alive and your brain actually performs better. Yes-you can make
yourself smarter. In this fascinating book, Suzuki makes neuroscience easy to understand, interweaving
her personal story with groundbreaking research, and offering practical, short exercises-4 minute
Brain Hacks-to engage your mind and improve your memory, your ability to learn new skills, and function
more efficiently.
Taking us on an amazing journey inside the brain as never before, Suzuki helps us unlock the keys
to neuroplasticity that can change our brains, or bodies, and, ultimately, our lives.
HEALTHY BRAIN, HAPPY LIFE is a fun read, filled with all kinds of exciting ways to expand your
brain power. My favorite parts of the book are these little sections that the author calls "Brain
Hacks." These sections are lists of easy ways to really supercharge your brain and make use of
the latent power in it.
Here's the theme in a nutshell: "One thing I know for sure is that brain plasticity endows
us with an enormous capacity to change into the very best version of ourselves that we can be."
Dr. Suzuki explains that she uses 20 years of research in neuroscience to apply these same principles
to her own personal life. She admits that she "Went from living as a virtual lab rat --an overweight
middle aged woman would had achieved many things in science, but who could not seem to figure
out how to also be a healthy, happy woman..."
One of her main discoveries is the powerful mind-body link. The author emphasizes how powerful
exercise is. "Exercise is responsible for the majority of the positive brain changes seen with
environmental enrichment." And so, Dr. Suzuki invests much time talking about the power of the
brain-body connection. Towards that end, she combines physical workouts as a way to energize your
brain: "The body has a powerful influence on her brain functions and conversely but the brain
has a powerful influence over how are bodies feel and work and heal." Exercise causes definite
changes in your body--it boosts the level of three key chemicals that affect mood.
The key is to make your workouts intentional. Towards that end, the author suggests ways to
do this--for example, proclaiming affirmations out loud. "Intentional exercise happens when you
make exercise both aerobic and mental...You are fully engaged in the moment and trigger a heightened
awareness of the brain body connection." In the Brain Hacks suction, the author lists different
exercises that would best fit you.
Another great section is the section on creativity. You can actually improve your creative
thinking; it is "a particular version of regular thinking they can be practiced and improved like
any other cognitive skill." Once again, the author lists great suggestions in the Brain Hacks
section on ways to jumpstart your creativity. The key point is to learn something new and "Try
to use as many senses as you can." For example, one fun suggestion is to "Sit outside and blindfold
yourself for 4 minutes. Then, listen to the world sounds in a new way."
All in all, HEALTHY BRAIN, HAPPY LIFE is a fun, inspiring read. The author is full of great,
uplifting ideas. My favorite chapter is the one on creativity. The end of the book contains an
extensive Reference section, in which the author documents the various points she makes.
Highly recommend!
"Healthy Brian, Happy Life" by Wendy Suzuki is all about focusing on expanding your brain power.
Our bodies and mind have a very powerful link. Dr. Suzuki has invested her life to focusing on
the brain. She goes on to state that "Exercise is responsible for the majority of the positive
brain changes seen with environmental enrichment." Dr. Suzuki is making the point that we
need to exercise to work our brain to its fullest potential. She goes on to make the point that
you want to make sure the exercise is intentional because that is what exercise you both mentally
and aerobically.
The second best way to expand your brain is by creativity. The point of creativity
is to learn new things that will improve your brain and your senses. One is able to find different
ways to help build and exercise their brain. The author calls some of the tips she gives "Brain
Hacks" so I thought this was a great learning tool.
I thought "Healthy Brain, Happy Life" was very insightful. I thought this book had a lot of
good tips and was also able to explain the brain and how things worked really well. I did enjoy
reading it and learning new things on how I am able to improve my brain function.
Bruny Hudsonon June 13, 2015
Interesting theory for improving one's life
The book "Healthy Brain, Happy Life" by Wendy Suzuki is about a success story, about the author's
life. It's entertaining and enriching but sometimes out of touch with reality. Considering that
the author is a neuroscientist, her line of reasoning sounds dubious in parts of the book, especially
her generalizing concepts of life. Just because an effort has worked for her, it does not mean
it will work for someone else. Nevertheless, the book deserves a five-star rating because of the
author's pleasant writing style and the well-explained examples of research in neuroscience.
Transporter chair reviewer, on July 9, 2015
Mainly autobiographical
I saw her interviewed on CBS and found her a charming and energetic person. I am not sure what
take aways I have from the book, though it interested me since I am also an Asian American woman
who is an over achiever, and many of her experiences resonated. I enjoyed the read. I am not sure
what type of person I would recommend it to . I am also a doctor. It was fun to review some of
the neurobiology and learn some new things.
"...the everyday sadists were more than happy to take the trouble. "There wasn't just willingness
to do it but a motivation to enjoy, to put in some extra effort to have the opportunity to hurt other
individuals." Importantly, there was no provocation or personal gain to be had from their cruelty
– the people were doing it for pure pleasure."
Why are some people extraordinarily selfish, manipulative, and unkind? David Robson asks
the scientist delving into the darkest sides of the human mind.
If you had the opportunity to feed harmless bugs into a coffee grinder, would you enjoy the experience?
Even if the bugs had names, and you could hear their shells painfully crunching? And would you take
a perverse pleasure from blasting an innocent bystander with an excruciating noise?
These are just some of the tests that Delroy Paulhus uses to understand the "dark personalities"
around us. Essentially, he wants to answer a question we all may have asked: why do some people take
pleasure in cruelty? Not just psychopaths and murderers – but school bullies, internet trolls and
even apparently upstanding members of society such as politicians and policemen.
It is easy, he says, to make quick and simplistic assumptions about these people.
"We have a tendency to use the halo or devil framing of individuals we meet – we want to
simplify our world into good or bad people,"
says Paulhus, who is based at the University of British Columbia in Canada. But while Paulhus
doesn't excuse cruelty, his approach has been more detached, like a zoologist studying poisonous
insects – allowing him to build a "taxonomy", as he calls it, of the different flavours of everyday
evil.
Self-regard
Paulhus's interest began with narcissists – the incredibly selfish and vain, who may lash out
to protect their own sense of self-worth. Then, a little more than a decade ago, his grad student
Kevin Williams suggested that they explore whether these self-absorbed tendencies are linked to two
other unpleasant characteristics – Machiavellianism (the cold, manipulative) and psychopathy (callous
insensitivity and immunity to the feelings of others). Together, they found that the three traits
were largely independent, though they sometimes coincide, forming a "Dark Triad" – a triple whammy
of nastiness.
It is surprising how candid his participants can often be. His questionnaires typically ask the
subjects to agree with statements such as "I like picking on weaker people" or "It's wise not to
tell me your secrets". You would imagine those traits would be too shameful to admit – but, at least
in the laboratory, people open up, and their answers do seem to correlate with real-life bullying,
both in adolescence and
adulthood.
They are also more likely to
be unfaithful
to their spouses (particularly those with Machiavellian and psychopathic tendencies) and
to cheat on tests.
Even so, since Paulhus tends to focus on everyday evil rather than criminal or psychiatric cases,
the traits are by no means apparent on the first meeting.
"They are managing in everyday society, so they have enough control not to get themselves
into trouble. But it catches your attention here or there."
People who score particularly high on narcissism, for instance, quickly display their tendency
to "over-claim"
– one of the strategies that helps them boost their own egos. In some experiments, Paulhus presented
them with a made up subject and they quickly confabulated to try to appear like they knew it all
– only to get angry when he challenged them about it. "It strikes you that yes, this fits into a
package that allows them to live with a distorted positive view of themselves."
Born nasty
Once Paulhus had begun to open a window on these dark minds, others soon wanted to delve in to
answer some basic questions about the human condition. Are people born nasty, for instance? Studies
comparing identical and non-identical twins suggest a relatively
large
genetic component for both narcissism and psychopathy, though Machiavellianism seems to be more
due to the environment – you may learn to manipulate from others. Whatever we've inherited cannot
take away our personal responsibility, though. "I don't think anyone is born with psychopathy genes
and then nothing can be done about it," says Minna Lyons at the University of Liverpool.
You only need to look at the anti-heroes of popular culture – James Bond, Don Draper or Jordan
Belfort in the Wolf of Wall Street – to realise that dark personalities have sex appeal, a finding
supported by more scientific studies. Further clues to the benefits might come from another basic
human characteristic – whether you are a morning or evening person. Lyons and her student, Amy Jones
found that "night owls" – people who stay up late but can't get up in the morning – tend to score
higher on a range of dark triad traits. They are often risk-takers – one of the characteristics
of psychopathy; they are more manipulative – a Machiavellian trait – and as narcissists, they
tend to be exploitative of other people. That might make sense if you consider our evolution: perhaps
dark personalities have more chance to steal, manipulate, and have illicit sexual liaisons late while
everyone else is sleeping, so they evolved to be creatures of the night.
Whatever the truth of that theory, Paulhus agrees there will always be niches for these people
to exploit. "Human society is so complex that there are different ways of enhancing your reproductive
success – some involve being nice and some being nasty," he says.
Dark corners
Recently, he has started probing even further into the darkest shadows of the psyche. "We were
pushing the envelope, asking more extreme questions," he says – when he found that some people will
also readily admit to inflicting pain on others for no other reason than their own pleasure. Crucially,
these tendencies are not simply a reflection of the narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism,
but seem to form their own sub-type – "everyday sadism". For this reason, Paulhus now calls it a
"dark tetrad".
The "bug crushing machine"
offered the perfect way for Paulhus and colleagues to test whether that reflected real life behaviour.
Unknown to the participants, the coffee grinder had been adapted to give insects an escape route
– but the machine still produced a devastating crushing sound to mimic their shells hitting the cogs.
Some were so squeamish they refused to take part, while others took active enjoyment in the task.
"They would be willing not just to do something nasty to bugs but to ask for more," he says, "while
others thought it was so gross they didn't even want to be in the same room." Crucially, those individuals
also scored very highly on his test for everyday sadism.
Arguably, a rational human being shouldn't care too much about bugs' feelings. But the team then
set up a computer game that would allow the participants to "punish" a competitor with a loud noise
through their headphones. This wasn't compulsory; in fact, the volunteers had to perform a tedious
verbal task to earn the right to punish their competitor – but, to Paulhus's surprise, the everyday
sadists were more than happy to take the trouble. "There wasn't just willingness to do it but a motivation
to enjoy, to put in some extra effort to have the opportunity to hurt other individuals." Importantly,
there was no provocation or personal gain to be had from their cruelty – the people were doing it
for pure pleasure.
Troll tracking
He thinks this is directly relevant to internet trolls. "They appear to be the internet version
of everyday sadists because they spend time searching for people to hurt." Sure enough, an anonymous
survey of
trollish
commentators found that they scored highly on dark tetrad traits, but particularly the everyday
sadism component – and enjoyment was their prime motivation. Indeed, the bug-crushing experiment
suggested that everyday sadists may have more muted emotional responses to all kinds of pleasurable
activities – so perhaps their random acts of cruelty are attempts to break through the emotional
numbness.
More immediately, his discoveries have attracted the attention of police and military agencies,
who want to collaborate with Paulhus to see if his insights might explain why some people abuse their
positions. "The concern is that these people might deliberately select jobs where you are given the
mandate to hurt individuals," he says. If so, further work might suggest ways to screen out the dark
personalities at recruitment.
He's also excited about new work on "moral Machiavellianism" and "communal narcissists" – people
who perhaps have dark traits but use them for good (as they see it). In some situations, ruthlessness
may be necessary. "To be prime minister, you can't be namby pamby – you need to cut corners and hurt
people, and even be nasty to achieve your moral causes," he says. After all, the dark personalities
often have the impulse and the confidence to get things done –even
Mother Theresa apparently had a steely side, he says. "You're not going to help society by sitting
at home being nice."
All of which underlines the false dichotomy of good and evil that Paulhus has been keen to probe.
In a sense, that is a personal as much as a professional question. He admits to seeing a dark streak
in his own behaviour: for example, he enjoys watching violent, painful sports like Mixed Martial
Arts. "It didn't take long to see I would stand above average on these dark traits," he says. "But
given my abiding curiosity as a scientist and my enjoyment of investigating such things – I thought
that perhaps I was in a good position to take a closer look at the dark side."
Why do so many decent people, when asked to pretend they're CEOs, become tyrants from central
casting? Part of the answer is: capitalism subjects us to economic rationality. It forces us to see
ourselves as cashflow generators, profit centres or interest-bearing assets. But that idea is always
in conflict with something else: the non-economic priorities of human beings, and the need to sustain
the environment. Though World Factory, as a play, is designed to show us the parallels between 19th-century
Manchester and 21st-century China, it subtly illustrates what has changed.
... ... ...
A real Chinese sweatshop owner is playing a losing game against something much more sophisticated
than the computer at the Young Vic: an intelligent machine made up of the smartphones of millions
of migrant workers on their lunchbreak, plugging digitally into their village networks to find out
wages and conditions elsewhere. That sweatshop owner is also playing against clients with an army
of compliance officers, themselves routinely harassed by NGOs with secret cameras.
The whole purpose of this system of regulation – from above and below – is to prevent individual
capitalists making short-term decisions that destroy the human and natural resources it needs to
function. Capitalism is not just the selfish decisions of millions of people. It is those decisions
sifted first through the all-important filter of regulation. It is, as late 20th-century social
theorists understood, a mode of regulation, not just of production.
Yet it plays on us a cruel ideological trick. It looks like a spontaneous organism, to which government
and regulation (and the desire of Chinese migrants to visit their families once a year) are mere
irritants. In reality it needs the state to create and re-create it every day.
Banks create money because the state awards them the right to. Why does the state ram-raid the
homes of small-time drug dealers, yet call in the CEOs of the banks whose employees commit multimillion-pound
frauds for a stern ticking off over a tray of Waitrose sandwiches? Answer: because a company has
limited liability status, created by parliament in 1855 after a political struggle.
Our fascination with market forces blinds us to the fact that capitalism – as a state of being
– is a set of conditions created and maintained by states. Today it is beset by strategic problems:
debt- ridden, with sub-par growth and low productivity, it cannot unleash the true potential of the
info-tech revolution because it cannot imagine what to do with the millions who would lose their
jobs.
The computer that runs the data system in Svendsen's play could easily run a robotic clothes factory.
That's the paradox. But to make a third industrial revolution happen needs something no individual
factory boss can execute: the re-regulation of capitalism into something better. Maybe the next theatre
game about work and exploitation should model the decisions of governments, lobbyists and judges,
not the hapless managers.
Earl Shelton -> phil100a 27 May 2015 14:14
Avoid arguing with Libertarians -- unless you have lots of patience. Their philosophy boils
down to: Greed is good; government is bad.
And they will stick to those dubious premises -- despite the tons of contrary facts, evidence
(and stories of human suffering those ideas cause) that you might present -- from Jesus Christ
to John Maynard Keynes....
NomChompsky -> imipak 27 May 2015 12:04
You spilled some pseudo-intellectual gibberish on your post. You also ignored that the number
of computers isn't a constant, in particular, and that zero-sum economic theories are, by nature,
incredibly fucking stupid in general. You also seem to think that the Pareto principle is
some sort of a law instead of a rule of thumb that has numerous exceptions.
Just, eww.
asquaretail 27 May 2015 09:25
We won't discuss whether or not a UK resident can be a "Hipster." Sounds like cultural theft
to me.. What I really want to point out is something more basic. Banks are not empowered by government,
at least not initially. Initially, they were restricted by government which then reduced the restrictions
to allow banks to function. This has profound analytic consequences for those brave and courageous
enough to pursue the chain of thought.
toffee1 27 May 2015 08:12
This validates that Marx's was right. A capitalist (or a manager in a capitalist firm), acts
as a capital personified. His/her soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life
impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus-value, to make its constant factor, the means
of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour. So, the problem is the system.
The liberal view is wrong. What needs to be changed is the system.
Thomas G. Wilson 26 May 2015 23:15
So, the choice is sack one third of the workers or spread the pain by cutting the worker's
pay by a third? The unstated third choice is do nothing and go bankrupt.
"Decent liberal hipsters" don't usually confront these problems-they only complain about those
who do. "Ruthless capitalists seated at the boardroom table" are just liberal hipsters that had
to grow up.
Hiring people and giving raises is fun and heartwarming-firing people and denying raised when
finances are tough -- not so much. I've done both.
Michael Pettengill 26 May 2015 20:36
Employers in this "factory world" do not need to find or create consumers, so the employers
are free to destroy consumers to save themselves from bankruptcy. But when the retailers who pay
the employers cut the size of their orders, the employers have no choice but to fire workers and
destroy consumers.
That this is what is going on is hidden by the long chain the money flows through. The workers
are paid by employers paid by retailers who sell to workers paid by other employers who sell to
retailers who sell to workers which eventually needs to be the original group of workers in that
original factory. Cutting their wages will cut their buying which will ripple back to reduced
sales by the retailer paying the factory paying their wages by buying goods.
Adam Smith argued this value chain would work without fail to employ all workers in producing
just barely what the workers desired, but not more and just enough less to motivate workers to
produce more to be paid more.
Keynes argued, after it was conventional wisdom, that unemployment would cut demand causing
more unemployment, so government needs to force spending to cause workers to be hired and paid.
Keynes did not argue for paying people not to work. FDR in 1935 laid out the case for the moral
imperative to pay people to work for the good of the nation.
In any case, the wealth of nations depends on the collective action of all the people of the
nation, and Keynes argued and FDR demonstrates that collective action through people acting through
government works.
The play merely teaches that you are a cog in a machine that is beyond your control.
DoRonDoRonRon 26 May 2015 19:26
"Our fascination with market forces blinds us to the fact that capitalism – as a state of being
– is a set of conditions created and maintained by states. ... But to make a third industrial
revolution happen needs something no individual factory boss can execute: the re-regulation of
capitalism into something better."
The author sees capitalism as flawed because it is "set of conditions created and maintained
by states." But how is the "re-regulation" he thinks will make it better be carried out? It would,
of course, be carried out by states.
WALTHAM, MA-Frustrated with a growing list of unacceptable workplace indignities, fed-up Catamount
Systems employee Marc Holden is just about 14 years away from walking out the front door of his office
and never returning, sources confirmed Thursday. "I swear to God, if things don't improve around
here real fast, I am out of here in 14 years or so-I am not bluffing," Holden said, noting that if
he has to endure just a decade and a half more of company-wide incompetence and pointless micromanagement,
he is gone for good. "Seriously, I don't think I can take any more than 3,000 more days of this before
I snap.
Mark my words, if 2029 rolls around and it's still the same old shit around here, I'm cleaning
out my desk, getting on that elevator, and never coming back." Holden added that if his boss belittled
him in front of the entire staff just 200 more times, he would storm right into his office and tell
him exactly where he can stick it.
This guy got his rocks off by pitting his underlings against each other: Turning friends into
enemies, etc. He did this through a combination of (temporary) favoritism, using office spies,
power plays, and also employing an "office wife" to spread gossip about people behind their back.
It was very effective: in the end, nobody trusted everybody, the whole team became completely
dysfunctional because people would rather root for others' failures than try to achieve something
themselves; hence, nothing ever got done, and some very talented brains were completed wasted
with this intrigue and B.S.
Toxic managers are a fact of life. Some managers are toxic most of the time; most managers
are toxic some of the time. Knowing how to deal with people who are rigid, aggressive, self-centered
or exhibit other types of dysfunctional behaviour can improve your own health and that of others
in the workplace. This author describes the mechanisms for coping.
Toxic managers dot the landscape in most organizations, making them seem, at times, like war zones.
These managers can complicate your work, drain your energy, compromise your sanity, derail your projects
and destroy your career. Your ability to deal with these corporate land mines will have a significant
impact on your career. Those who are able to recognize toxic managers quickly and understand what
makes them tick will be in the best position to protect themselves. Difficult managers are a fact
of life and how they affect your life depends upon the skills you develop to deal with them.
The issue is not simply a matter of individual survival. Toxic managers divert people's energy
from the real work of the organization, destroy morale, impair retention, and interfere with cooperation
and information sharing. Their behaviour, like a rock thrown into a pond, can cause ripples distorting
the organization's culture and affecting people far beyond the point of impact.
Senior management and HR can significantly improve an organization's culture and functioning by
taking steps to find and contain those who are most destructive. Leadership can spare an organization
serious damage by learning how to recognize problematic personality traits quickly, placing difficult
managers in positions in which their behaviour will do the least harm, arranging for coaching for
those who are able to grow, and knowing which managers are time bombs that need to be let go.
This article will help you learn how to avoid becoming a scapegoat, to survive aggressive managers'
assaults, and to give narcissistic and rigid managers the things they need to be satisfied with you.
It will also help senior management and HR to recognize toxic managers before they do serious damage.
The basic theme of the article is that to deal effectively with toxic behavior you need to understand
what lies underneath it, design an intervention to target those underlying factors, and have sufficient
control of your own feelings and behaviour so that you can do what is most effective, rather than
let your own anger or anxiety get the best of you. In other words, you need to develop your emotional
intelligence.
We think of psychopaths as killers, alien, outside society. But, says the scientist who has
spent his life studying them, you could have one for a colleague, a friend – or a spouse
There are a few things we take for granted in social interactions with people. We presume that
we see the world in roughly the same way, that we all know certain basic facts, that words mean the
same things to you as they do to me. And we assume that we have pretty similar ideas of right and
wrong.
But for a small – but not that small – subset of the population, things are very different.
These people lack remorse and empathy and feel emotion only shallowly. In extreme cases, they
might not care whether you live or die. These people are called psychopaths. Some of them are violent
criminals, murderers. But by no means all.
Professor Robert Hare is a criminal psychologist, and the creator of the PCL-R, a psychological
assessment used to determine whether someone is a psychopath. For decades, he has studied people
with psychopathy, and worked with them, in prisons and elsewhere. "It stuns me, as much as it did
when I started 40 years ago, that it is possible to have people who are so emotionally disconnected
that they can function as if other people are objects to be manipulated and destroyed without any
concern," he says.
Our understanding of the brain is still in its infancy, and it's not so many decades since psychological
disorders were seen as character failings. Slowly we are learning to think of mental illnesses as
illnesses, like kidney disease or liver failure, and personality disorders, such as autism, in a
similar way. Psychopathy challenges this view. "A high-scoring psychopath views the world in a very
different way," says Hare. "It's like colour-blind people trying to understand the colour red, but
in this case 'red' is other people's emotions."
At heart, Hare's test is simple: a list of 20 criteria, each given a score of 0 (if it doesn't
apply to the person), 1 (if it partially applies) or 2 (if it fully applies). The list includes:
glibness and superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, cunning/manipulative, pathological
lying, emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy, a tendency to boredom, impulsivity,
criminal versatility, behavioural problems in early life, juvenile delinquency, and promiscuous sexual
behaviour. A pure, prototypical psychopath would score 40. A score of 30 or more qualifies for a
diagnosis of psychopathy. Hare says: "A friend of mine, a psychiatrist, once said: 'Bob, when I meet
someone who scores 35 or 36, I know these people really are different.' The ones we consider to be
alien are the ones at the upper end."
But is psychopathy a disorder – or a different way of being? Anyone reading the list above will
spot a few criteria familiar from people they know. On average, someone with no criminal convictions
scores 5. "It's dimensional," says Hare. "There are people who are part-way up the scale, high enough
to warrant an assessment for psychopathy, but not high enough up to cause problems. Often they're
our friends, they're fun to be around. They might take advantage of us now and then, but usually
it's subtle and they're able to talk their way around it." Like autism, a condition which we think
of as a spectrum, "psychopathy", the diagnosis, bleeds into normalcy.
We think of psychopaths as killers, criminals, outside society. People such as Joanna Dennehy,
a 31-year-old British woman who killed three men in 2013 and who the year before had been diagnosed
with a psychopathic personality disorder, or Ted Bundy, the American serial killer who is believed
to have murdered at least 30 people and who said of himself: "I'm the most cold-blooded son of a
bitch you'll ever meet. I just liked to kill." But many psychopathic traits aren't necessarily disadvantages
– and might, in certain circumstances, be an advantage.
For their co-authored book, "Snakes in suits: When Psychopaths go to work", Hare and another
researcher, Paul Babiak, looked at 203 corporate professionals and found about four per cent scored
sufficiently highly on the PCL-R to be evaluated for psychopathy. Hare says that this wasn't a proper
random sample (claims that "10 per cent of financial executives" are psychopaths are certainly false)
but it's easy to see how a lack of moral scruples and indifference to other people's suffering could
be beneficial if you want to get ahead in business.
"There are two kinds of empathy," says James Fallon, a neuroscientist at the University of California
and author of The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the
Brain. "Cognitive empathy is the ability to know what other people are feeling, and emotional empathy
is the kind where you feel what they're feeling." Autistic people can be very empathetic – they feel
other people's pain – but are less able to recognise the cues we read easily, the smiles and frowns
that tell us what someone is thinking. Psychopaths are often the opposite: they know what you're
feeling, but don't feel it themselves. "This all gives certain psychopaths a great advantage,
because they can understand what you're thinking, it's just that they don't care, so they can use
you against yourself." (Chillingly, psychopaths are particularly adept at detecting vulnerability.
A 2008 study that asked participants to remember virtual characters found that those who scored highly
for psychopathy had a near perfect recognition for sad, unsuccessful females, but impaired memory
for other characters.)
...And in his youth, "if I was confronted by authority – if I stole a car, made pipe bombs, started
fires – when we got caught by the police I showed no emotion, no anxiety". Yet he is highly successful,
driven to win. He tells me things most people would be uncomfortable saying: that his wife says she's
married to a "fun-loving, happy-go-lucky nice guy" on the one hand, and a "very dark character who
she does not like" on the other. He's pleasant, and funny, if self-absorbed, but I can't help but
think about the criteria in Hare's PCL-R: superficial charm, lack of emotional depth, grandiose
sense of self-worth. "I look like hell now, Tom," he says – he's 66 – "but growing up I was
good-looking, six foot, 180lb, athletic, smart, funny, popular." (Hare warns against non-professionals
trying to diagnose people using his test, by the way.)
"Psychopaths do think they're more rational than other people, that this isn't a deficit," says
Hare. "I met one offender who was certainly a psychopath who said 'My problem is that according to
psychiatrists I think more with my head than my heart. What am I supposed to do about that? Am I
supposed to get all teary-eyed?' " Another, asked if he had any regrets about stabbing a robbery
victim, replied: "Get real! He spends a few months in hospital and I rot here. If I wanted to kill
him I would have slit his throat. That's the kind of guy I am; I gave him a break."
And yet, as Hare points out, when you're talking about people who aren't criminals, who might
be successful in life, it's difficult to categorise it as a disorder. "It'd be pretty hard for me
to go into high-level political or economic or academic context and pick out all the most successful
people and say, 'Look, I think you've got some brain deficit.' One of my inmates said that his problem
was that he's a cat in a world of mice. If you compare the brainwave activity of a cat and a mouse,
you'd find they were quite different."
It would, says Hare, probably have been an evolutionarily successful strategy for many of our
ancestors, and can be successful today; adept at manipulating people, a psychopath can enter a community,
"like a church or a cultural organisation, saying, 'I believe the same things you do', but of course
what we have is really a cat pretending to be a mouse, and suddenly all the money's gone". At this
point he floats the name Bernie Madoff.
"Narcissism falls along the axis of what psychologists call personality disorders, one
of a group that includes antisocial, dependent, histrionic, avoidant and borderline personalities.
But by most measures, narcissism is one of the worst, if only because the narcissists
themselves are so clueless."
-- Jeffrey Kluger
"Hate is the complement of fear and narcissists like being feared. It imbues them with
an intoxicating sensation of omnipotence...
The sadistic narcissist perceives himself as godlike, ruthless and devoid of scruples,
capricious and unfathomable, emotion-less and non-sexual, omniscient, omnipotent and omni-present,
a plague, a devastation, an inescapable verdict."
-- Sam Vaknin
If you wish to see the narcissist in their natural habitat, the chat boards and comment sections
of some blogs are where the marginally successful dwell, often dominating the conversation with their
self-obsessed arrogance. Sometimes in periods of unusual circumstances they can even rise to positions
of power. They are attracted to corporate structures, and financial and political positions.
They have no humility, no doubts, and no empathy. Whatever life or luck or others may have helped
them to achieve, they feel that they deserve it all, and more. They have worked for everything they
have, whereas others who have suffered setbacks and misfortune simply have made bad choices or been
lazy. And if others have been cheated and abused, then they deserve it for being stupid.
They are often judgmental and racist, and brimming over with hateful scorn for others, unless
they can be co-opted into their sphere of influence and behave according to the narcissist's world
and rules.
As Thomas Aquinas said, 'well-ordered self-love is right and natural.' It is when this natural
behaviour becomes excessive and twisted that it becomes a pathology, a disorder of the personality.
Often narcissists have exaggerated ideas about their own talents and worth and work. Sometimes
they are compensating for the neglect and disregard, or even abuse, of one or both parents who failed
to see and appreciate how special they are. At other times they are the product of an environment
in which they have been raised to believe that they are special, and deserve special treatment
and consideration. Since obviously not all children of privilege or abuse become narcissists, it
might have its genesis in an untreated form of depression or genetic predisposition.
"The classic narcissist is overly self-confident and sees themselves as superior than other people.
Think of a child who has always been told by mom and dad that they would be great, and then that
child takes and internally distorts that message into superiority.
The compensatory narcissist
covers up with their grandiose behavior, a deep-seated deficit in self-esteem. Think of a child
who felt devalued but instead of giving up on life, resorts to fantasies of grandeur and greatness.
This person will either live in that fantasy world or decide to create that fantasy world in real
life."
If this affliction is accompanied by other problems such as sadism or malignant mania, they may become
a destructive element for all who encounter them. Their illness affects others more than themselves,
so they may often not seek treatment, and excuse the damage they inflict with the 'weakness' of others.
They seek to fill the great empty holes of self-loathing with the lives and possessions of others,
all the while proudly wreathing their actions with self serving rationalization.
They are more to be pitied than scorned, as they are living in a small part the hell which they
are making for themselves. But we must guard ourselves against their powerful certainty in an age
of uncertainty. Their certainty is a madness which serves none but itself.
"Narcissism is a psychological condition defined as an obsession with the self. While not all
forms of self-love or self-interest are destructive, extreme cases can be very damaging and may
be diagnosed as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
In these instances, the disorder is characterized by a lack of empathy for others, sadistic
or destructive tendencies, and a compulsion to satisfy personal needs above all other goals.
People suffering from NPD tend to have difficulty establishing or maintaining friendships,
close family relationships, and even careers. About 1% of people have this condition, and up to
3/4 of those diagnosed with it are men.
The signs of narcissism often revolve around a person's perception of himself in comparison
to other people.
Those with severe cases often believe they are naturally superior to others or that they possess
extraordinary capabilities. They may have extreme difficulty acknowledging personal weaknesses,
yet also have fragile self-esteem.
Narcissistic people also frequently believe that they are not truly appreciated, and can be
prone to outbursts of anger, jealousy, and self-loathing when they do not get what they feel they
deserve."
Hallmarks of Narcissism
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack
of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by
five (or more) of the following:
•Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
•Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects
to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
•Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment
or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
•Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own
ends
•Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
•Requires excessive admiration
•Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
•Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate
with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
•Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
They are out there. I manage a small team in the public service. A female corporate psychopath
was seconded into my workgroup for a period of nine months. She heaped praise on me, offered me
gifts (I rejected), and spoke of previous excellent work achievements. My subordinates lapped
up the praise, accepted the gifts and listened to every word.
I uncovered a minor fraud, when I challenged her all hell broke loose. There was much cunning,
bizarre behavior was directed to me, she made sure there were no witnesses. Incidents included
sloshing a bucket of vomit at me, death threats, suicide threats, and totally alienating me to
the group I managed.
I was stunned when she denied these actions. A harassment claim was lodged against me painting
her as the victim. Outright lies, twisted truths, union involvement. My HR and leadership team
went missing. She spread rumors I threatened to kill her via email. I was investigated, but I
also finally had proof (no death threat).
I demanded action should be taken, nothing was. I then threatened to quit, still no action.
She has since been granted compo on stress leave (which is why I don't think work perused her).
As it turns out, this is a pattern of behavior.
I will resign within the next few weeks on principle, I am absolutely disgusted with my department
(11 years of service). She had my team in her clutches, they did not have the courage to stand
up and say this behavior is wrong - cowards. She backstabbed these people and I stood up for them.
Despite this being extremely unpleasant, I come out much the wiser. They don't play by the
same rules. For all those dealing with this, my advice is put yourself
first. This may mean quitting.
Mia - 09 Jul 2011 10:47:25am
I think the nice part is to keep you thinking she is still not a threat. I worked with someone
like this too. Maybe she feels guilty so she acts nice. I had one change her shirt in front of
me once...when we were alone and talk about how she had a stain on it and that was the reason
why. She still talked about work as she fixed her shirt and stuff. I laughed because a minute
before she was acting all power trippy and then acted like a human being who has problems too.
I learned not to trust them anyways. Keep your distance and never talk about your troubles or
whatever. It will be used against you, unlike what she does with you. The difference is that you
do not use it against her but you could,
jmac - 14 Oct 2011 6:18:40pm
my boss had lied again and again to discredit me with her boss....they appear to have a symbiotic
relationship. As a new mature aged graduate the treatment I have been dealt has been disgusting.
If it wasn't for the good supportive relationships I have made in the workplace, and support of
wonderful friends I think I would have had a breakdown. I identified early that these people are
lacking empathy. As a social worker I feel empathy is inherent in my make-up so to be controlled
and manipulated has been a shock and very distressing. Their subversive techniques are soul destroying.
Kate - 03 Jul 2010 2:49:17pm
I have just returned from the first session with the psychologist and discovered it was not
me as incompetent, and the rest. I work for a CP and am now on one hand feeling a bit better knowing
it is not me but horrified that there is almost no hope for me to stay in the job I love. I am
having a week off work to overcome the breakdown but cannot see what I will do next. My Doctor
says to fight will just kill me an further cement her position. Devastated .
Craig Barry - 20 Jul 2010 1:07:39am
I Take it that CP is for child protection? I have worked for the last 24yrs in many positions
working with young people, I tell you now, "get out" don't let them burn you out at such a young
age!!! The Department will destroy you!!!
Mia - 09 Jul 2011 10:54:18am
I don't know if you should quit. Sometimes there are situations that you cannot leave or quit.
Try the military for one.;). We get so used to Psychopaths in positions of authority that we are
practically immune to yelling, humiliation, and being called incompetent or slow or whatever.
We deal with jobs that no one explains how to do and all sorts of micromanagements and finally
we learn to use our heads, filter out the stupidity and meanness and say "what are the results
of this being done" That is all we want at the end of the day. Results.
marc - 26 Jun 2010 2:19:56pm
a few P's joining the conversation here no surprise-important info for them on how to do it
better! Being the daughter of one and sadly not realizing until too late the mother of a few I
have an inkling that I may have a co dependence issue. Hospitalization alerted me to the prevalence
of the cost to society of those victims who avoid ending their lives-not many! Also interesting
was the prevalence of certain professions being over represented on the wards suffering from'Burnout'a
euphemism for consequences of a P. the prevalence of Asperger's Syndrome(on the Autistic Spectrum)in
my family makes me wonder about the same disconnect to emotions that the P has. Another prog.ABC
aired recently "I Psychopath" was absolutely brilliant more exposure is required
Jen - 23 Jun 2010 7:49:23pm
Definitely exclude - there is no positive outcome from employing staff at any level with these
characteristics - in fact the opposite is sure to be the result - gradual destruction of individuals
and any possibility of team work. The planned, cold and calculated
destruction of individuals is the purpose of these people.
Jazz - 15 Mar 2012 4:46:23pm
No, their purpose is survival and personal gain.
This means that unlike people with ordinary social/ emotional responses they will trample people
without conscience to attain their goals. And if you're standing in the way of their objectives,
they will set out to destroy you.
The question is however is cp a fundamental part of leadership or would companies that recognize
this personality type and seek to exlude it foster a healthier more productive culture of engagement?
Jen - 24 Jun 2010 8:38:02pm
Definitely exclude as they can only add individual and team misery, whilst going undetected
for some years. The worst are the professionally trained in some way, such as psychologists, who
can use thier profession to enhance their skill at destruction and to hide that from detection.
C - 16 Jun 2010 9:42:15am
Dear Dr John, I have been struggling now for 2 yrs with the workplace psychopath. I work in
a clinic for youth and adolescents with mental health issues. I thought only caring and concerned
people wanted to work for young people!!!!!! My mistake. My concern is for family and patients...
but now has moved on to me!!! I am so drained by this experience. The only sustaining factor are
the few staff who are aware of this person. Some management are also aware but it is hard to get
hard data on them. They are very good at covering their tracks- but the poor kids and their families
get their heads done in quite frequently. I am also due for a big payrise. It seems pretty empty
though and comes at a big cost of surviving this psychopath. I feel myself losing any empathy
I had and am now thoroughly suspicious, paranoid, and unfeeling. I feel like I have developed
a 'lizard brain' as soldiers term it and I am turning into the bitter, narcissistic, manipulative
creep I despise!!!!! Help!
Mia - 09 Jul 2011 11:34:56am
Here is what I would do. Stay there and get the big pay raise. Then as you establish yourself
in the new position I would look for another job to match the NEW PAY level. New skills acquired
make for a better resume and if your skills are in demand then you will find a great job with
the new salary and since you worked at this job you need to become more "desensitized" anyway
to the patients and families around you. Alot of these adolescents will drain you and then later
not be so messed up...but you will still carry their troubles with you not even knowing that ALL
TEENS are usually troubled with mental health issues. Later it somehow gets better but you only
see their present states and not their futures.
Whistling Woman - 11 Jun 2010 12:50:54pm
I am a veteran, having worked for three women in the past twenty years or so. All had personality
problems of some kind. The first had what I now think was narcissistic personality disorder; the
second became disturbed and abusive in the final year before she left very suddenly; the third
and most recent is retiring TODAY! She has been lazy, self-serving, self-absorbed, gutless, and
undermining. She has launched an investigation into my "misconduct", leaving it up in the air,
because she knew she was retiring (but has not even had the courtesy to tell me or the other managers
who report to her!). It is probable that she has been driven to this by her own (male) manager,
and is either too gutless or uncaring or unprofessional or all three, to refuse to participate
in it. I am past caring. It seems they are everywhere - and it's power that enables their true
colours to come out. One thing I disagree with Dr Clarke's diagnosis of CP's is the charm - none
of them was/is particularly charming, or even interesting as people (which makes it all the more
annoying that one has to spend so much time obsessing about them). I think the best thing is just
to carry a mental impermeable membrane around oneself, and just write them off one's mental horizon
- act as if they are NOT THERE, or when communicating with them is unavoidable, maintain an aura
of freezing politeness.
Mia - 09 Jul 2011 11:50:44am
I worked with one too and I was in the military myself. I noticed
that she pointedly did things to exclude me. Like first it started with meetings...saying
"this is not concerning your work so you don't have to stop working" but I would overhear her
and sometimes she mentioned me like.."what is she working on today?" which made me feel paranoid.
Then it went to social exclusion like " we are having a ceremony for blah blah but you need to
watch this office while we go". I suspected that she blamed me for mistakes and it went on like
this. One day I was driving in my car and suddenly I thought of her and said to myself..."no don't
pay her no mind" and wondered "does she think of me?" And thats when
I realized not to let her "rent head space". Later I read that they often think about their subjects
and I thought no to feeding into her weird head gaming ways.
movingon - 08 Jun 2010 9:31:31pm
I have worked for a female boss for over 2 years and have been subject to micromanagement,
subtle and untraceable bullying for the entire time. Her method of insidious grinding victimisation
has reduced my confidence and at times my ability. further advancement in the institution is impossible
as she has friends and networks with stealth.
I am constantly told of her supportive relationship with her boss which leaves me isolated
and unable to go to work without feel sick. Is this a P? Either way I want to move on and have
applied for several senior admin positions. Is it a war zone in every workplace?
Chris F - 21 Aug 2010 8:14:32pm
Yes, she is a P. Only after getting terminated from my previous job of nine years in May 2010
(now collecting unemployment), did I labeled the problem. It was systemic and so subtle that I
didn't even realize that they were trying to abuse me until after I was fired. You described the
exact same situation I was once in. The corporation has developed a psychopathic environment overall.
Most of my coworkers feel micromanaged, a severe lack of respect from management, cannot talk
to anyone in management about how they feel, they dread taking any time off for being sick as
psychopathic bosses feel no empathy for the sick or weak, they absolutely dread waking up and
going to work and often feel like not going in. Every mistake they make is treated as the same
whether it's big or small.
After reading about psychopaths in the workplace, I've come to the conclusion that we have
at least 4 psychopaths in the office, two of which are female. It's not a war zone in every workplace,
but now that you are aware of psychopaths in the workplace, just being able to identify them will
allow you not suffer future abuse.
Onthe egde - 28 Apr 2010 5:27:35pm
Amazing stuff... explains a lot really. I thought these people were borderline personality
disorder types but there was too many of them I thought, surely. Yes, CP seems the logical answer
now I have watched the episode and read some of the posts. Try working in a uniformed service
with these people. It is an absolute nightmare. They herd and gather like shopping trolleys and
are just about as unmanageable always power broking and putting some skew on everything. They
delight in destabilising the senior officers group and the organisation being dysfunctional because
of it. What do you suppose the collective noun for a group of CP's would be? A 'Toxic' of CP's.
ghostwriter - 03 Apr 2010 2:57:20am
Seenit.. the moral of the story is if they r a true psychopath they will NOT LEARN because
they DON'T CARE.... they aren't happy with themselves for the actions they commit they do it for
the reaction to test peoples limits. human nature facinates them as they are not capable of feeling
empathy or sympathy & many other "natural" emotions so they feed on u to get a reaction in order
to witness these feelings even though the connection to the feelings themselves does not exist..
by giving them a reaction u r playing right into their hands.. they will WEED themselves out in
time if u give them NO REACTION... they will get bored with u & move on to other people or places...
but if u give them what they want BE PREPARED to be in it for the long hall...my experience is
great in this matter.. FYI if not sure your dealing with a TRUE PSYCO ASK THEM... in my experience
they will tell u point blank just to issue & study your reaction..most are VERY PROUD of what
they are.. who knows u might even get a 1st real answer.
Survivor - 09 Feb 2010 12:35:54am
I survived an experience that had all the trademarks of the C.P.
I'm happy to say I managed to get through without being personally defeated. Would I like to
go through it again? No, once is enough - I have my scars but I've proven to myself my character
was stronger and I see no further learning from going through it again. It was a first for me.
I was generally trusting of people in the workplace, but I guess now I’m a tad more careful
from coming out the other end of the C.P. experience.
What I find interesting about the C.P. phenomenon are the quantity of weak minded individuals
that often assist the C.P. in their endeavours, conquests and laugh at their sick and sad jokes.
All in the hope to be permitted entry into the C.P.'s inner circle.
This is why I said it was a test of character. I felt the whole experience put my character
to the test and I survived. Unfortunately, a number of people of whom I knew from previous workplaces
flaked under the pressure and assisted the C.P. Some might say they were just trying to survive
as best they could. Maybe, but I couldn't live with myself to do it - just not how I was raised.
In fact I feel those people are the saddest casualties, not those who are the completely broken
by the C.P. or who end up leaving.
I'm thinking of getting some t-shirts printed up with the slogan: "I survived a C.P."
Otherwise what else could be done? A website to name and shame - effectively a black list?
Unfortunately no, as it would probably constitute libel. N.B. "Probably" because if it can be
proven true I suspect it isn’t libellous.
Good luck people and remember to hold your own moral strength of character to help survive
the ordeal.
AV - 07 Feb 2010 2:59:53pm
My female boss is a psychopath and hormonally unstable which is always even more of a treat
2 weeks of the month. I had been at the company for 10 years in a regional branch and was transferred
to Head Office of which she was the new manager of a new department. The first DAY i could feel
my confidence coming undone. Nothing I did was right. At first I took everything on board, working
long hours but she kept changing the goal posts ensuring that people could hear her disapproval
of my work.
She would put a big display of tearing up work that I had spent hours on saying words like,
'huge disappointment' and my favourite 'some pple do not deserve a job'. By the 4th day I was
spending my lunch breaks wiping tears in the toilets. It was like being constantly slapped in
the face. I was shocked! - words, cruel, behind doors locked and humiliation in front of my co-workers.
It was more distressing then giving birth!
I found her to be unnaturally aggressive and overly charming at the same time with a blank
coldness, completely unmoved. She'd humiliate me and then ask if I'd like some lunch and to come
outside for a break where she would talk about her family and laugh and joke with other people
in the building. I was like .. what the?? Skitzo much??
Luckily she had not factored in my personal relationships at Head Office with HER superiors.
(10 years of fun Christmas Parties and Corporate Box shenanigans share a bonding of its own) These
things I used to my advantage. I had a not so secret meeting with her manager of whom she'd shared
an adjoining window. He had heard the things being said behind closed doors and had not said anything
because he wanted to see how she would play out (being an unknown factor). He apologised that
he had not intervened earlier but he thought I was handling her well. Well, after a few minutes
of explosive expletives I warned him to put a stop to her behaviour or I would go higher. He spoke
to her. Monday morning she was nice as pie but I KNEW i was in for a fight. Whenever her insidious
attempts at work and character assassination wore me down Id make a point of sitting in her managers
office sharing chocolate and laughing and smiling at her through the adjoining window. I have
become very good at detailed file notes of conversations and phone calls always cc-ing correspondance
and emails openly providing evidence to the team and sometimes BCC'ing contacts in Head Office
of my work leaving minimal room for error and if so, showing the criticisms to be hardly worthy
of attention. It was exhausting but exhilarating at the same time. I wasnt going to let her beat
me and I still havent. She backed off about 6 months later because she was exposed but I have
continued to detail my work. She also realised early on she needed my support in getting the department
off the ground due to my inside knowledge of the industry, our clients and my professio
Dr John B Conlon - 04 Mar 2010 5:03:47am
No, as far as I know (ok so I'm only a retired Anaesthetist). Insight is either extremely rare
or unknown in Psychopaths. Funnily enough I had a Psychopath to interview in my Psychiatry finals
in 1973 - got the diagnosis right too. Examiners v. impressed. I digress. It was called "Bullying"
at work and my eldest sister had a terrible few years before she retired. When the bullies are
confronted they deny everything and feel they have been doing their best for the organisation,
leaving a trail of destruction. In My Opinion: think Margaret Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch, Kerry
Packer.
HappyNow - 02 Feb 2010 3:23:00am
I want to thank the ABC for re-running this show tonight and wished I had seen it back in 2005
when I was victimised.
I didn't understand the extent of my male 'friend's' perverseness to cruelty until it was too
late when I suffered post traumatic stress, depression, anxiety and ruined mutual friendships/
reputation. He also left a trail of financial destruction for others who have engaged in business
with him. The scary thing is that although he has recently declared bankruptcy, he is back in
Corporate Finance soliciting for investors and an MD of his own company.
If you have to endure a psychopath - remember two words: wasted energy. It's not worth the
pyhrric victory - because they are not capable of remorse.
In hindsight and from my lessons learned - to counteract any attacks, build a good sense of
self worth, maintain your integrity and never give in to self doubt. Try not to beat yourself
up after they've pummeled your self esteem. It would also be good to have an outlet where you
can speak out in safety and who does not know the P.
I could ramble on but I think it's been said by everyone else. The only question I have is
- do we know of any psychopaths who have successfully reformed and regained a fully functioning
conscience?
Kev - 19 Dec 2009 7:59:51pm
Hello fellow victims. Bernie (not my real name) - 24 Feb 2009 You make some excellent points.
I would also add get a small tape recorder and a microphone - there are 'spy' shops online that
sell these marvels. Transcribe the conversations and keep the recordings organized for the day
that you need to play them. There are ones that will record up to 8 hours or more at a time so
you needn't fuss with turning it on and off.
If you must stay in your job - start preparing now for your wrongful
dismissal suit. And start saving for a lawyer. If you can get a background check
done on them and their resume. P's lie. They lie a lot and they lie badly.
Mine had 2 degrees on his resume (turns out he had none) and he didn't
even leave a gap large enough to have earned the degrees! That is a firing offense.
If HR has had complaints or questions about the P before that may be just what they're looking
for - proof. Hire a private investigator to do reference checks on past jobs of his, in addition
to criminal and credit checks. If you can show that the company clearly had a monster in their
midst they'll want to hush you up. Always be anonymous - never point a gun at your head by letting
the P know you're after him. Never assume HR won't rat on you to him. A P will butter up HR and
get them on their side' they know the value of a befuddled HR dept.
Ex-wives and girlfriends are outstanding sources of info. You're not the first person they've
screwed over. Credit checks are usually very revealing as well.
They will stop at NOTHING to destroy you if they suspect you don't buy their act. Be very careful.
Do not think for a second if you let them know subtly that you're onto them that they will back
down. Quite the opposite will occur. Same thing if you're passive. Bernies ideas were very good.
Try to never be alone with one. Avoid looking them in the eye; you'll think better and hear
better if you don't - if you know a true P you'll understand what I mean.
jennifer - 30 Sep 2009 9:25:14pm
Is there any chance of Aunty getting John Clarke to expand on the processes used by organisational
psychopaths. Most people are blinded by the superficial charm and don't see the victimisation
occurring. Clearly this is the psychopaths game and adds to their feelings of superiority. The
actual damaging process is much more insidious than the usually portrayed yelling bosses, and
can come from any level of staff. From experience the most devastating part is that others believe
the lies and manipulative behaviour and the victim is generally in a no win situation.
Sick of Psychopaths - 10 Aug 2009 3:37:17pm
After first watching this story some months ago I have been on a long learning journey . It
still hasn't stopped me from being a victim but it has helped me realise that i'm not the one
who is mad . What I have learnt is that to stand a chance with a psychopath you must record your
conversations with them . It is the only way any one will believe you . There are plenty of discreet
& preferably voice activated (so you don't have to fiddle with it ) recording devices out there
. Even if you are not sure of the legalities do it any way as it can be presented anonymously
. It is the only way to expose these people for the evil bastards they really are .
Judy,Canada - 15 Jul 2009 7:11:06pm
I have one other interesting comment to share. I was never bullied in school or throughout
my twenties and thirties. It started once I was successful in my business, compounded with lots
of attention and high priced cars. Girls in our schools are ganging up in groups of 4 or 5 and
the victims are afraid to report it.
I have preached about this example lately as I feel its the root cause of the hardened women
I have been exposed to as a business owner. I feel the problem is in the adult women (something
is lost in the mothering bond). I personally enjoyed being a manager throughout my career with
a long track record of mentoring many into success, however I do not feel women are ready to rule
quite yet until they keep their emotions in check. They truly play an ugly game when they go into
high gear. W5 had an excellent show on a successful firm that was destroyed by a new female manger
who utilized the divide and conquer principle and broke up a strong team as she ruined a once
thriving firm. Once it is underway why is it so hard to bring back?
It would be wonderful to educate employers and government specialists on the "divide and conquer"
principle which basically is how the process works at destruction. There are many wonderful women
however the increase in jealous, brutal women who thrive off of breaking another woman amazes
me compounded with all the guilt that has been put on men, I personally do not feel many of these
women are ready for their new found power. Is it the left overs of going too far with human rights
in Canada?
O C - 17 May 2010 6:18:16pm
I think female bullies are on the rise. I was brutalied by a female director. I had been a
founing member of a sucessful theatre company for 8 years, with terrific reviews and was well
liked by almost all directors I worked with. Then I met M...... who was very charming at first.
She was very complimentary of my work for 3.5 weeks and then suddenly she snapped. She would isolate
me from the rest of the cast and ridicule me. Hwe comments were such a far cry from the compliments
she had paid me for the majority of the rehearsal period. With a week to go until opening I thought
I would keep it to my self for the sake of the show. My partner and friends knew I was having
a hard time though as I would come home and break down. Then she did the unspeakable-she fired
me with only a week to go until opening! The worst part was that she turned the entire company
against me. When I sought support there was none to be found. She was this "brilliant and charming
director who knew best" and I was the incompetant actor who had to be replaced. It was crazy I
had been there for 8 years and in 4 weeks she had charmed the company into taking her side. I
sought union and legal advice and there was little i could do in the end. I left a company which
I had built from scratch and I was completely abandoned by my fellow actors. Looking back the
signs were there.
She had to always be the centre of attention, was constantly talking up her accomplishments
(in reality they were few) and was canoodling up to a young actor. Psychologists suggested she
was a psychopath, as the younger, more attractive and talented star I stood in her way of being
queen bee. I will report bullying much sooner next time. She got away with it but in time kharma
will get her, perhaps the scathing review of her direction of that production was that very kharma!!
Foot soldier - 22 May 2009 1:22:46am
Well done Aunty. Typical of your informative/educative and socially responsible programing.
Agree with Dave (31st December), a follow-up is needed with more detailed facts about these
psychopathic people and information about what is being done to 'deal' with these people and support
good employees of these typically large corporate organisations. Interesting to note that most
of the perpetrators mentioned below in other comments are female! Interesting given academic studies
show that 0.5 of corporate psychopaths are female and 2% are men. The other interesting theme
noted from the comments is most people who wrote comments experienced the corporate psychopath
in an office environment. I am a nurse, and experienced the corporate psychopath both within health
and in the university environment. I survived the battle to fight the war. I lost at first, but
eventually won the bigger fight. The perpetrator was the same person in both cases. That person
was eventually 'outed', and followed a gruelling process for that person who lost much credibility,
income and employment position.
Psychologically I was a wreck, and after 4 years, I am making MY WAY as a contract nurse, ensuring
I do not belong to any one organisation or work for any one employer. Its an isolating experience
but safer this way! I am regaining my confidence slowly and beginning to once again believe in
myself - I have to for my children's sake. I look forward to the day when I can trust again, and
move to work with others in a permanent position for an organisation.
To those seeking help while currently going through it - YOU are the most important person
here. YOUR sanity is at stake and subsequently your income, etc. I
urge you, move on before you are so badly damaged you are paralysed. There is life
outside your current employment, and many lovely people. There is another way. You have skills,
knowledge and experience - think laterally - use them in other ways - and move on. You have the
strength.
Jane - 16 Apr 2009 1:10:57pm
This is an excellent discussion. Twice in my career, I've worked with bosses who are psychopaths.
The first time, I reported the abusive behavior to HR and, while that
eventually led to the boss's leaving months later, he retaliated in the short term and made me
so miserable that I left. Never again would I report someone. I'd just get out
fast. The second time, I and several others were targeted and laid off as part of a restructuring.
That's OK with me; I'm out of there. I loved the job and the colleagues but not the new boss,
who's trying to make herself look good. I have since heard from other colleagues who are really
suffering as they're now targets of this individual. It's sad.
victim - 03 Apr 2009 11:15:19am
Being a victim of abuse by my team laeder and now manager for ten years I thought I was alone.
I went to her boss and then to HR to find that she had already waeved her web. As a result no
job opportunies came my way and even when I applied I was 'unsuccessful'. Bad reviews, being told
that I was disliked by all of my peers and fellow employees I did not crack.
Instead one day she slipped and someone saw her, I was saved mentally just knowing that someone
knew it was true.
Another victim - 17 Mar 2009 1:13:53pm
An ex-colleague of mine forwarded the link of this article to me - this person knew the hell
I had gone through under my "Corporate Psychopath" and after reading this article, it is such
a relief that my suspicious now have a foundation!
It's not me or the 4 other people before who left this role. It's the fact that there is a
corporate murderer at the top killing off her staff members...emotionally and mentally. It is
just sad that a number of high performing organisations seem to thrive with such "leaders" and
the attitude is, if you can't take it, then leave it. Perhaps it's time to shake it up a little
more and find a nice little island to ship these psychos off to!
After all, we are not fans of letting repeat offenders off likely in this country, perhaps
we can apply the same rules here.
And for those who have come out of this awful experience alive, I take my hat off to you.
standyrgrd - 13 Oct 2011 9:17:12am
They will never be shipped off because organisations love CP as they rule by fear and will
do anything to get the job done. I have been working with a CP for 3 years now and reported her
for slapping another staff member at work on two different occassions. The response i go from
HR is that the slap may have been done jokingly and if so there will be no formal investigation.
It's been one month now since i reported this physical abuse and the CP is still in the corporation,
in the same job! She shows no remorse because when i report some of her bullying to her superiors
she just ups the anti.
Emancipated - 03 Dec 2010 11:10:57pm
Wow-reading your comments makes me feel like fighting harder than ever!These bullies need to
be made accountable for their atrocious actions. I've been working in my current environment for
three years, and the psychopath that I have had to deal with has become more devious and manipulative
as the years have progressed. With a 60% turnover in staff, one would think that that would be
enough to trigger ‘alarm bells' about our manager and manage the behaviour of the one common
denominator-the bully. Unfortunately, many qualified and valuable staff members have walked away
from their jobs. They later described themselves to me as feeling “useless and incompetentâ€.
My ‘Team Leader' has based her career on the the work of others, and she ensures that staff
members maintain a sense of gratitude towards her-even though the work is not her own. I decided
that I had mentally had enough of the stress involved in working with her, and I took the BIG
STEP in submitting a formal grievance. I needed to get to a point within myself that I could handle
the fall out associated with this step. I knew that other people had taken her on in the past,
and that they had eventually lost their case. They walked away down trodden and shaken by the
experience of working with her. HOWEVER, thankfully as a result of their complaints, their voices
now count as I have placed a formal grievance against her. Most staff members only stayed for
a short period of time within their roles, and therefore had little time to collate concrete evidence
to support their complaints. I am a compliant, hard worker and I take pride in my work. I tried
for a long time to keep my head down and stay ‘out of her radar' but eventually you do become
a target. My best advice to you all would be to do what I did a year ago-STOP answering your phone
at work/mobile when he/she calls, and AVOID all informal one-on-one meetings.Instead, build evidence
with emails and create a solid case.Always have a representative with you when you have to meet
with him/her, and when you place your grievance, make sure that you have organised a go-tween
email receiver/sender, so that when the bullying behaviour is turned up, then you have another
‘listening ear'. The last most important thing that you should do is JOIN YOUR UNION.
Also remember, that these bullies only make up a small proportion within a workplace: WE MAKE
UP THE MAJORITY so let's stand up to psychopaths and GET RID OF THEM!!!! After I had placed my
grievance with HR I was told that I was the first one to make an official complaint' against my
boss. I was shocked when I heard this as she has been arguing with everyone' for years. Another
staff member mustered up the confidence to place a second grievance against my boss after me.
So the whole process has been going on for months, but it has been the best therapy that I could
have ever received, and I feel a great sense of relief. I don't know if I have a job
Moderator: Please keep posts to a reasonable length - under 200 words.
scared - 16 May 2011 4:29:15am
Can't believe I'm on this page finding so many people in the same situation as myself. Something
needs to be done. I feel like I'm going crazy. Been on my job for 9 years the last 2 have been
a living hell working with a psychopathic co-worker and a passive aggressive supervisor. I have
a plan with legal help hopefully it will work. I'm using my sick time and hopefully can get my
unemployment.
Andrew - 23 Jan 2009 7:26:00pm
I have a workplace psychopath at the engineering company where i work.
She decided that i would be her victim on day one and constantly harasses me. She also makes
complaints against me to the boss. The key problem is that he takes her word as gospel.
She tried to get me sacked after 3 months, however i survived after proving myself. This has
only intensified her determination. She made a complaint against me again today. we had an argument
and after she won it, she then decided to get revenge on me (who takes revenge for winning an
argument???) by complaining about me on an unrelated matter.
Luckily my immediate supervisor, as well as the other job team leaders in the business back
me and share my concern about this individual.
But i don't know how long i can stand up to this bullying.
Lisa - 14 Mar 2009 5:15:03pm
I am working with one currently. She is constantly harases me and others. She is lying all
the time. She is inconpetent with her work but she always tells her superiors that her mistakes
made by me. I have worked so hard because she always gives me incorrect information or wrong information
which has increaed my work load. Although someone can back me up as they have experienced same
thing as I have been constantly experienced on a daily basis, I don't know how long it can last.
Dude - 09 Jan 2009 10:57:17pm
I had never experienced a "workplace psychopath" until 3 years ago. After researching the internet
to obtain some understanding of these people I became amazed that so many of these low life mongrels
exist. I am a long serving Police Officer who works in a small "specialist" area.
Our OIC fits all the criteria of an "attention seeking" workplace psychopath. The working environment
is absolute hell to say the least. This person exhibits swinging moods,
bizarre behaviour, extreme self pity, manipulation and deceit. This persons constant
whining is immense and very difficult to take everyday.
I have experienced difficulty sleeping at night over a long period of time because of the behaviour.
When this person goes on holidays the workplace becomes relaxed and everyone is so happy. Everyone
in our office "suffered in silence" for a very long period of time until we all started realising
that we all felt the same.
Thankfully higher management have now become aware of the behaviour of this person, however
I have now leart that it's not an easy issue to deal with. This person is shameless and is fighting
"tooth and nail" to keep their position and is stooping to very extreme manipulation and deceit
in doing so. I just hope this person moves soon.
Alicia - 14 Nov 2008 12:58:27pm
I am currently studying personality in psychology and am about to do a research proposal on
workplace psychopaths. I am motivated to do this personally as I have been the victim of workplace
psychopaths not once but twice, and have seen many others suffer the same fate as me long after
I have left an organisation.
This is a real problem, one that is an 'underbelly' of the workplace. Education campaigns or
wider community knowledge about this fact of the workplace really needs to be addressed. As too
many people that I have spoken to that are going through or have gone through it, feel that the
problem is with themselves. It wrecks self esteem and impacts greatly on the quality of life,
something really needs to be done about this problem.
Emancipated - 03 Dec 2010 11:32:34pm
HR exists to protect the interests of the corporation - this involves smoothing problems over
as economically possible. It takes an enormous amount of courage to stand up to a psychopath,
and it needs to be done in a carefully crafted and timely manner. Gather your evidence, join your
union, and then strike when you are informed and equipped! Patience
first...then fight when the the time is right.
krentz - 12 Nov 2008 8:50:15am
When you consider that these people literally don't care at the end of the day, consider their
psychopathy as a distinct advantage over the general population, whom they view as either moronic,
stupid, or wrong, and are incapable of empathising with others, at the end of the day there is
nothing to sympathise with.
These people are not having a hard time, they just leave us with all their crap. They are not
"cruel" or "nasty", as these are emotive words, and they do not feel (much) emotion. They just
do whatever they can to get whatever they want, and damn the rest. As luck would have it, emotions
are easy to manipulate, and so that's what happens most of the time.
Luckily I'm very aware of the nature of psychopathy and quite perceptive regarding people so
I am unlikely to fall into the same trap many others have done. Unfortunately, this will seem
like a declaration of war to most psychopaths, and they love challenge and competition. Protect
your own best interests - that's the best advice I can give you. Remember that healing takes time
and there is always light at the end of the tunnel, you might just have to travel a long time
to find it.
Kathy - 13 Dec 2008 7:27:18pm
Unless you are a psychopath you cannot compete with them - you will be the one that ends up
emotionally destroyed. Also you are lowering yourself to their standard. The only thing to do
is avoid them as much as possible. It is better to find a better place to work. Walk away with
your sanity, don't waste your precious time and energy playing their stupid mind games.
Corporate Psychopaths - 08 Nov 2008 12:11:55am
Once I realised my boss was a corporate psychopath, it was almost a relief and everything began
to make sense. Unfortunately it was too late for me and many colleagues in terms of the mental
abuse she caused.
She appeared so charming to others, yet I can only describe her as being a truly wicked person.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. I took her to court. I agree that they cannot be changed.
they are fundamentally nasty people. The only solution is recognise the traits early and leave
the company quick.
almost victim - 16 Apr 2009 12:01:43pm
My psychopath boss is new to the boss game and was easily spotted as she chose to target everyone
subordinate at once. Unfortunately, her bosses love her (more psychopaths?) so she is not going
anywhere anytime soon.
We are protected by our union so she can't just fire anyone, either. Unions were formed for
a reason, afterall. We are mostly women and we confide in each other. Thwarting her is a group
effort and supporting each other makes the constant harassment more tolerable. We consulted higher
ups in the union, from outside our organization, and we were advised to "keep the devil we know"
as getting rid of her would be next to impossible and her replacement might be even smarter and
nastier. My advice is talk, talk, talk to each and support each other and under no circustances
let the psycopath get you alone! Find a buddy to go into the office with you as a witness. You
have that right. And DON'T let them see you sweat...stay calm and be prepared.
... from cattiness to going all out to destroy someone's career
April 11, 2009
When I first started out in my career, there were very few female managers and I used to think
it would be nice if there were more women in management because women tend to be more understanding
towards sensitive issues. I think I may have been wrong.
I have now had the opportunity to work with managers of both genders and while the men have been
good to work with, I wish I could say the same for the female managers. Two female managers have
been excellent (as in firm, but fair), but many of the others have been the opposite. I have had
witnessed many displays of inappropriate behavior from some female managers,
from cattiness to going all out to destroy someone's career. Being a woman, I find
this very disturbing. I don't fancy having my career destroyed by a woman just because she has the
power to do so.
[Sep 18, 2012] Venus: The Dark Side on Female Sociopaths by
Glenn Sacks |
Jan 15, 2008
"So obsessed with what she wants, she will ignore or neglect her children
while claiming the opposite. She plays the martyr and expects constant attention. Her demanding behavior
almost guarantees it.
"If she is
divorced, she may have grown to hate
her ex-husband more than she loves her children. She abuses the children by depriving them of access
to their father, because she's punishing him for not delivering what she wanted in a husband. She
refuses to consider that she played any role in the marriage break-up."
There are male sociopaths and there are female sociopaths,
but female sociopaths are rarely discussed.In
Venus: The Dark
Side, authors Roy Sheppard and Mary T Cleary discuss this important subject in depth. Sheppard
and Cleary write:
"She believes she is entitled to everything she desires. With an overdeveloped
sense of self, working for what she wants is an inconvenience. Hard work is for everybody else. She
wants the fast buck and the short-cut to success. Becoming a social
parasite
is quicker than toiling for anything. And when she pulls it off, she can then congratulate herself
on cheating, conning or defrauding others who may be more intelligent or successful than she is.
"Her every whim must be accommodated. Humility is alien to her.
She is self-centered, opinionated and over-confident, and expects to
be pampered and treated as superior.
"She has possibly dabbled at shoplifting to feed her sense of entitlement
for whatever she wants and for the 'buzz'. So obsessed with what she wants, she will ignore or neglect
her children while claiming the opposite. She plays the martyr and expects constant attention. Her
demanding behavior almost guarantees it.
(more...)
Restraining orders and supervised visitation orders are often issued after relying solely on statements
made by the accuser and the accused. Borders, McLaughlin & Associates are former police detectives
who employ a new and different approach to such cases. Their Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Risk
Assessments are designed to prove or disprove abuse allegations, and to answer the questions judges
face. Contact them at (888) 621-1900 or go to
www.bmaa.com
How many of you has seen the movie "The Last Seduction"? Bridget Gregory/Wendy Kroy, who
is played by Linda Fiorenting has got to be the the top of the list of unremorseful females. I have
watched this movie a few times, though the plot seams abit nonrealistic, her character is so using.
Another movie that comes to mind is "Body Heat".
=== Quote:
Originally Posted by agent_007
How many of you has seen the movie "The Last Seduction"? Bridget Gregory/Wendy Kroy,
who is played by Linda Fiorenting has got to be the the top of the list of unremorseful females.
I have watched this movie a few times, though the plot seams a bit nonrealistic, her character
is so using. Another movie that comes to mind is "Body Heat".
Natalie Portman as the 12-year-old would-be killer in The Professional.
The Brewster sisters...Abby and Martha Brewster from Arsenic and Old Lace are
my favorites. I don't think they're as psycho as their nephew Johnathan, but I think gleefully
helping lonely old men to their grave might be considered unremorseful...and a wee bit off kilter.
Also...Audrey Tautou as Angélique in He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not.
I never would have thought such a sweet face could be so evil.
==
This category is commonly known as femme fatale.
Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity (The Last Seduction is based on this film)
Ann Savage in Detour
Ava Gardner in The Killers
Jane Greer in Out of the Past
Rita Hayworth in The Lady from Shanghai
Gaby Rodgers in Kiss Me Deadly
Susan Hayward in I Want to Live!
Simone Simon in Cat People
Jennifer Tilly in Bound
Anjelica Huston and Annette Bening in The Grifters
Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex
Janie Marèse in La Chienne
Louise Brooks in Pandora's Box
Mieko Harada in Ran
Isuzu Yamada in Throne of Blood
Jane Greer as Kathy Moffat - Out of the Past
This chick is deadly, and then some. She brings down just about everyone she comes in contact
with in this film, playing the victim almost the entire time. At one point, she poses as another
character in the film (appropriately named Meta), whom we never see again afterward. It's as if
Moffat actually absorbs her.
One of my favorite films of all time.
==
Charlize Theron in Monster. She totally embodied the essence of Beetlejuice/serial killer.
Rebecca De Mornay was better than The Hand that rocks the Cradle.
I'll second Linda Fiorentino's femme fatale in The Last Seduction. She's such an epic
bitch.
Okay for those people who know a bit about personality disorders, imagine this and tell me what you
think...
18 year old sister has Sociopathy (Antisocial) with Borderline traits...
She has not left the house for 3 weeks...just brooding...staying on her computer all day...hardly
talking to anyone at all and if so just picks fights and is biitchy...
Also I was in her room a few times while she was in the bathroom and noticed her laptop was up
and it seems that she is obsessed with one guy and made a fake facebook alias and got him to add
her and now she just lurks on his page all the time.
So any ideas whats up...? She stopped going to her therapist, she thinks its bs cause half the
time she thinks she is normal anyways. She was also being kind of inappropriate with him. I don't
know if I should call him or not...I'm not sure if her behavior is threatening or unusual enough...
She isn't acting her "normal" self...
she's being extremely apathetic and zombie like.
We hear so much of women as victims and the disadvantages women encounter in employment, that
it sometimes comes as a surprise to realize that women are equally as capable of bullying behavior
as men.
Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more inclined towards empathy,
and less towards seeking dominance. Women are often portrayed as caring more than men about personal
experience and feelings.
It may be true that women are less inclined to indulge in vocalized rages - public swearing and
shouting - and in physical violence, though I am sure that all of us could think of exceptions. Research
indicates, however, that women are inclined towards
The cold shoulder
Refusing to communicate with the perceived offender
Sulking
Passive aggressive behavior - which respects neither the perpetrator nor the recipient.
Such behavior is evidence of women's socialization: often we do not know how to elicit positive
attention, or to assert ourselves so that our views and rights are recognized and respected. So we
use inappropriate and ineffectual means to attract attention any way we can. We have been conditioned
very early that girls do not shout and scream. No one is surprised, however, if girls go quiet or
even sulk.
The problem, however, is that unless people communicate, they will not resolve their differences.
What comes as a shock to many people is just how personally and educationally damaging social
and professional isolation and exclusion from networks can be.
I searched the scientific literature for the best description of a female sociopath. None rivaled
this one that is more than 4,000 years old:
For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil,
but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol;
she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it.
And now, O sons, listen to me,
and do not depart from the words of my mouth.
Keep your way far from her,
and do not go near the door of her house,
lest you give your honor to others
and your years to the merciless,
lest strangers take their fill of your strength,
and your labors go to the house of a foreigner (Proverbs 5:4-10)
Notice that the writer identifies the slick speech of a sociopath as well as the results of being
fooled by her. He also identifies the profound lack of insight found in this disorder. Sociopathic
women 4,000 years ago were also apparently using their sex appeal to con men out of money and possessions.
This is indeed nothing new!
There is something inherently more repulsive and unbelievable about a female sociopath. Women
by nature are preprogrammed to learn empathy and care-taking, the antithesis of sociopathic behavior.
Indeed, one of the best indicators of sociopathy in a women is seen when the woman fails to care
for her own child. It would seem then, that we would all be revolted by a female sociopath, so why
do men become victims?
My own theory, which has been corroborated by many men who have written to Lovefraud, is that
men accidentally fall victim to sociopathic women when they have sex with them. You see, normal men
experience bonding just like normal women-especially when the sex is good. The sex with a female
sociopath (I'm told) isn't just good, it's better than most mortal men have ever hoped for. Once
hooked on the female sociopath, men become victims just as much as the women who become hooked on
the male sociopath. Many male victims feel ashamed and emasculated. But, take heart guys, she actually
preyed on the more masculine side of your nature, your enjoyment of sex!
Why are successful female sociopaths so sexual and so sexually appealing? Science does have some
answers for us here. Testosterone which is elevated in many male sociopaths is also elevated in female
sociopaths. Studies of non-disordered women indicate that higher testosterone levels are associated
with increased sex drive, increased sexual activity and YES sexual attractiveness to men! High testosterone
makes both male and female sociopaths sexually appealing. Testosterone may also be related to the
lack of parenting behavior seen in sociopathic women. Women with higher testosterone have been found
to be less interested in motherhood.
Men who have married and fathered children with sociopathic women face special challenges. They
deserve all our love and support. The courts often do not recognize that a sociopathic woman is incapable
of functioning as a mother. Fathers are left to helplessly watch as precious children suffer at the
hands of their mother.
The courts would be wise to get smart and take heed because studies of adopted children reveal
a terrible truth about female sociopaths. Female sociopaths carry stronger genes for the disorder
than do males. A mother is more likely to pass this trait to children she has never met than is a
father.
Even with a biologic mother who is a sociopath, children can do well if they receive exceptionally
good parenting. If you are a man facing this situation, I invite you to visit
Tips for Single Fathers,
and to write Lovefraud with your story. We hope to one day be in the position to lobby for the rights
of children of both male and female sociopaths.
sistersister says:
I'm going to read these long posts about the workings of S/Ps at lunch. Thanks for posting!
Initial thoughts, which I feel I must dump.
If S/Ps can't even feel these emotions very deeply, then it seems to me that holding them responsible
for what they do is a hopeless cause.
NOT that I'm saying they shouldn't be held responsible in a judicial sense. Stolen goods must
be returned, criminals must go to jail, psychopath spouses must be divorced.
I'm saying that, beyond that, there's no hope for holding them responsibly emotionally.
So there I was, sitting in a bar in my hometown next to my childhood "best friend," Susan.
We're sitting there, and she is being extremely nice, bubbly, fun, and looking far better than
I had imagined these past 25 years. Happy, finally in the career she was always meant for - believe
it or not, farming. There's something there, a person who is finding her bliss, even defying her
family in some ways, being "authentic" on some level. I knew her at 10, and even then she was
off-the-charts smart, charming . . . and controlling.
She said she'd never married - true - but that the last one she "lived with" for 10 years.
No, not lived with. They were engaged until he found out she was carrying on multiple affairs
with all the previous schmucks she'd dated. And more lies, stories. It just went on and on.
Just oblivious. Oblivious to the fact that where we left it, back then, was not a good place.
Blind to the reality that she really did owe me an apology. As far as she was concerned, nothing
happened.
Nothing?
Getting thrown out of the college dorm room at 18 after she set up a complete world of false
rumors about me to friends there and back home in the small town was . . . nothing? Persisting
in certain lies about me, to my face, 10 years later? (She doesn't dare do that now.)
She just doesn't get it, I told myself. Not worth causing a scene, or expressing any feelings
at all. She wouldn't even hear them.
As I have said before, these people can't actually feel the emotions, so they do a monkey-see,
monkey-do and can be very convincing.
In Susan's case, she studied romance novels.
Sometimes, we used to read a few pages together. She could read at a furious pace, and was
often impatient at my slowness. Piles of these things. Must have been every "Harlequin" romance
ever written. All the same: They meet at sunset, he looks into her eyes, grabs her vigorously
yet tenderly, she feels this, he says that, he cops a feel of her breasts, the junior-high-school
reader wets her pants. It was as if she was learning emotions through these things. (Not sex,
though; she took it way further than copping a feel and was the best sex teacher in the 9th grade.)
I used to mortify her by reading these things aloud at the high school lunch table. To me,
it was just interesting, funny writing. To her, it was embarrassing. Like, "her" feelings and
lusts, out there on display. I honestly don't think she detached, as in, "It's only a movie."
She was there, inside those stories - but off-the-charts smart, no romance-novel airhead.
Mr. Green said I am pleased to finally meet a female "sociopath". Your breed is very rare.
I am the adult daughter of a diagnosed female "sociopath". I was shocked and unfamilar with the
term's real meaning when I was told the diagnosis. That was 5 years ago and I first learned to have
boundries with her.
I am now aware that I was in denial until that time. The reason that I am here is to share some of
the things I have learned and experienced having been partially raised by a sociopath.
I was lucky to have lived with her parents most of my childhood but she did have an influence
on my life and it has clearly been her goal to degrade me with every word out of her mouth. This
is used to make the child feel that they must listen to the parent because thier self esteem is so
low. They are taught that they cannot trust themselves.
We did a few psychiatric session's together before the Doc. realized that she had arranged the
appointments to have an audiance to degrade me in front of and that her intent was to manipulate
his view of me while elevating herself. He was shocked and appalled. I was offered a separate Doctor
free and I took the opportunity. They saw me weekly for a year before I was given a clean bill of
health.
It took a lot of cooperation and patience for the doctors to go back and forth between the two
of us in order to find the truth.
They told me that she had done many things to me that I don't even remember, there are many that
I do remember however and they are mostly altering reality to never allow me to live in the present,
using scare tatics to get her own way, things like trying to kill herself at the birth of both of
my children, going out together socially and dressed causal and then have her excuse herself from
the group only to return having totally changed into formal *****tail attaire with her hair and makeup
perfect.
She used my stepfather as the heavy when in many ways he was also being used by her. I am now
64 and she is 84. In the past ten years she managed to have my house taken from me, almost took one
of my daughters, telling me that she would leave one for me. She has no remorse and after admitting
the awfull things she does she denies them completely.
She buys the same color and make of car I buy, she tells my father, daughters, friends, boss and
co-workers lies and looks for every opportunity to find a new way to hurt me. She is fair and hates
her looks, I am dark haired and olive skin, she resents my looks and coloring.
She has no idea what love is and when I try to explain she is blank or echo's my words. She blantly
tells people what ever she wants them to think even when they know it is a lie. She goes after anyone
who is placed in a position of authority in her life.
This is enough but I wanted to make the point that as a child I didn't know that her her words
were lies and meant to hurt me, I believed that my parent had my best interest at heart.
===
Hi to all,
I just posted a new topic last night (Help - is this a nightmare or my imagination) to try and
understand what I am dealing with and I noticed your several comments that female sociopaths are
very rare.
In my partners case all the symptoms are there, adopted, beatings, mother suicide, early teens
rape with child and unsettled partner history up to me.
In reading up on the whole subject in the last few days it seems that female cases are less than
1% of the population and the majority are primary sociopaths in that they rarely come into contact
with the law. The second category, which I think best fits my partner is neurotic sociopathic i.e.
much more noticeable emotional problems and who has a much greater anti social problem and is much
more likely to have repeated contact with the law - in my case 4 charges of fraud plus over one hundred
traffic infringements about two year ago, which I have since found out that I am in effect paying
off thru theft of money from my company.
Please note that I am not in any way a trained psychologist just a devastated victim but I thought
that the rarity of female sociopaths was interesting,
Help - My female partner just got 7 months in jail for corporate fraud which she committed while
we were together and without my knowledge and was locked up two weeks ago. Since then I have confirmed
that she has stolen large amounts of money from my company since October 2005 up to when she was
jailed. I thought she was depressed but a therapist is suggesting sociopathy is the problem.
I have spent the last two days reading up and its too close not to be true. I visited her in jail
today for 2 hours and asked many questions re her action which she admitted but still didnt even
say sorry or offer an explanation apart from saying she needed the money to support her daughter,
pay a large accumulation of traffic infringements and now legal fees. She has pretty well cleaned
out all the cash and left mountains of bills.
I cant believe if this is a nightmare or just my imagination. Can anybody help
This is offtopic as this page is about office psychopath but it reminds you that if such people
have a family, the number of sufferers from female sociopaths is not limited to those who contact them
in office...
patricia
I have a mother who is manipulative and malevalent. She, however, presents as a perfect angel.
She is able to convince others to remove love and support from me.
She once said, "They know I am a saint now. You, they think, are a crazy vicious bitch." "It
is much better for you to look crazy than for me to look like a bad mother."
She went so far as to return to my father's death bed after a 26 year seperation and look like
she was caring for him. She told me that "other things" happened when no one was there. I can
only imagine.
Enough for me. No more contact!
It takes so long to beleive some one you love would hurt you like that.
Hold your truth and love yourself. Mothers like this exist and harm us to the core.
I am a good mother with successful children despite my "fairy princess mother". I send you caring
mother energy that she did not.
Love
Patricia
18 August 2008
Mitch
Hey to everyone whose experienced this with their mother. I'm in the same situation with mine.
My advice is to stay strong inside and take everything said with
a pinch of salt. Just keep reminding yourself, her actions are a reflection on
her and not you.
I've given up on the arguments and instead I just hold my position. I know what she is and
nothing she can say 'nice' or 'evil' can make any difference to what I know to be the truth. Once
you accept this the rest is a little easier to deal with.
If she is a sociopath, she can't see reason in emotion and contacting
her is buying into her game because that's all it will be to her. Good luck and
hugs to you :)
Steven
Thanks for taking the time to post everyone. Respect. You've all helped to make a difference
in my life.
In return i'd like to share this little weapon i'm finding rather useful in my quest for emotional
and mental balance (being the son of two APD's I'm well versed in the spider web of tendencies
and patterns intertwining beneath this rotten illness).
Specifically, 'my weapon' is helping me with setting, resetting and maintaining healthy relationship
boundaries.
Let me first clarify that i've no contact with either parents but unfortunatley have, along
the way, surrounded myself with clowns that (up until now) like to take advantage of my disease
to please etc and provide nothing worthy in return for my friendship and love.
I stumbled onto a great tool for me for 'cleaning house' and it seems to make these 'clowns'
go away, instead of me avoiding phone calls etc I answer calls emails whatever but my secret weapon:
AKA negative politeness, helps them get the 'off you
go' vibe from me.
Clearly this has its application but man it's the business for cleaning house without any awkwardness
down the track. True. They really do avoid me now. How good's this.
If cleaning house is something you need then Google it and check it out. If it helps someone
else like it's helping me then brilliant.
I've printed loads of little examples to reference when needed.
A personal favourite is:
'you must forgive me but... (make this part about yourself not them they dead set hate it LOL)
Here is the link to the first site i found it on. Have fun with it and all the best.
...As much as 4-6% of the population are truly sociopath/psychopaths.
Identifying the women is far more difficult for sure.
But it is getting easier as books such as Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door have created
awareness that there is even such a thing as a female sociopath.
If you look at most of the sites dealing with sociopaths they go on as if only a man can be a
sociopath. This is what has allowed the Fem-Socs DSEs to hunt freely on humans.
...According to the book "The Maladapted Mind," sociopaths are believed to make up 3 to 4 percent
of the male population and less than 1 percent of the female population.
...They are incredibly skilled at 'compromising people', and this happens in the blink of an eye.
I know one who had lawyers (who should have known so much better) act illegally exposing themselves
to untold problems - all on account of this manipulative individual. Same with accountants - it doesn't
matter who the person is - within moments they are tricked into acting against their own professional/personal
interests. It is totally bizarre.
Re: Female Sociopath Traits - Guys Save Yourselves from Hell's
Whores
Quote
Hi OP, I also know a good deal about this stuff and indeed it's a
touchy subject that not many people are willing to discuss.
A good percentage of the human population lack the spark of consciousness that some humans have.
Hence these "shells" are actually housing other types of entities. T
===
Excellent thread, and some excellent points!
Female sociopaths almost always fit the DSM IV diagnosis of Borderline
Personality Disorder.
I was just almost fooled by one. Wow, and I am a retired Psychologist.
This one had a history of a mentally ill father, a mother who was terrified of the father (the
father was quite charismatic). The father wouldn't let the daughter get undressed in her bedroom
or bathroom without keeping the door unlocked (covert incest). The mother could never protect the
daughter.
An aunt is said to be a "high" spiritual soul, higher than Christ or Buddha", just waiting to
save the world I guess.
The 35 year old woman is a chameleon, looking for men in their 50's to save her (and provide adequate
financial and material support). She is always blaming others for what she denies in herself. She
is a perpetual liar. She sucks anyone's energy, all to admonish (eventually), save (eventually),
or to share her history of woes to soften them up for the fatal blow. She believes that she is on
earth, sent with a purpose to save others (A delusion).
Then there is the sexual addiction and sexual identity ambiguity.
Vampires come from the sociopathic/borderline genre.
60 % of all psychiatric recidivism are from borderline personalities (predominately a female diagnosis).
Watch the DVD "What About Bob" if you want an up close, but not too personal, adventure with a
Borderline Personality. They are like Black Holes.
Mental Health Practitioners do everything they can to get them passed off to someone else.
There is no medication or cure for them. And by the way, they will devour you, and destroy their
children if you have a family with one.
Sam Samaro, a partner at the Hackensack, NJ, law firm Pashman Stein who specializes in employment
law, says, "Bullying that isn't caused by the victim's membership in
some protected class is not illegal." In other words, if the bully attacks men and
women; Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists; blacks, whites and Asians; disabled and non-disabled
people equally, he says, "It's hard to make a legal case."
Rather, he says, when a target asks for his help, he takes a crisis-counseling approach. He first
tries to determine whether the issue is persistent bullying or just situational, and what triggers
it. "We all have the capacity to be a bully in the right or wrong
circumstances. Is this just a performance issue?" he asks. Unfortunately, he adds,
"There's no general protection from unpleasant people."
More than half of the bullies reported to a new national helpline
are women - and most of the victims are other women.
In the first half of this year, nearly 700 complaints were made about women managers, according
to a report from the National Workplace Bullying Advice Line.
The data from the line also reveal that white-collar bullying among
professional and office workers is far more common than among shopfloor workers.
Nine out of 10 calls involved office-based workers. The public sector accounts for more than half
the calls, with one in five complainants working in the caring agencies, the NHS or social services.
"Workplace bullying among women is increasing, partly because they are occupying more senior positions,"
said Tim Field, an Oxford counsellor who runs anti-bullying workshops. "Women when they are bullies tend to be more manipulative and divisive, whereas
men in the same situation are more overtly hostile. Women also tend to
leave less evidence about their bullying activities. "In around 10 per cent of the
cases dealt with by the advice line, suicide had been contemplated. Eight cases involved actual suicide."
The woman at my last job, who was the reason I left, was the worst one of the lot. She was a classic
workplace bully. She would whisper to your colleagues in front of you, causing you to wonder what
they could possibly be talking about that couldn't be said out loud (or in a quiet conference room
somewhere). She would set impossible tasks and give you very little direction and no time to do it
in, then question your commitment to your job in front of the
Manager. Her power-move was the one where,
if you finally got up the nerve to tell her that she was asking too much of you, was to BURST INTO
TEARS in front of the Manager, making him
believe that you had said something unkind to her, and thus causing him to ask you to leave one week
into your four weeks' notice.
That woman still works there, the people above her still think she's great, her clients think
she's terrific, but there are now twelve former employees of that company who have left on account
of her behaviour.
She gave the illusion of being a nice person, but scratch the very thin surface and you see that
it's just that - an illusion. A dozen people, men and women, can't be wrong. But I'd be willing to
bet her friends all think she's wonderful.
the worst manager I had was a self-obsessed childless bitch. I really hope she never procreates.
The MD at the time, though, thought that her bullying and rudeness demonstrated toughness and has
promoted her endlessly. She is incredibly paranoid and everynow and then lets her guard down and
confesses she is a 'fraud' and that her whole bravado is an act. Beneath her she only promoted people
who behaved in the same depraved manner..and having a child would have been seen as some kind of
weakness.
Anyway, having a child for me has made me a much more relaxed person as you just don't have time
to worry about stupid little things! I find that people in the workforce with children have a much
better and balanced perspective on life and don't go to bed grinding their teeth endlessly (like
aforementioned psycho bitch).
People who claim they're being bullied are just trying to hide the fact they're not very good
at their job, aren't they?
In at least 95% of the cases of bullying reported to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line,
the person has been picked on because they are good at their job and popular with people. Bullies
are driven by jealousy (of relationships) and envy (of abilities). The target just happened to be
in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If you have an employee who is genuinely underperforming, then:
a) there will be substantive and quantifiable evidence that they are underperforming
b) there is already a problem with that person's manager for i) causing and allowing that situation
to develop, ii) not taking positive action before,
c) bullying will always make a problem worse so any manager who thinks that bullying improves
performance is revealing their inadequacy as a manager
How do I tell the difference between someone who is really being bullied and someone who's
claiming bullying to hide their poor performance?
The person who is being bullied will have, or quickly be able to construct, a fat folder of evidence,
often covering several months, maybe years. They will report a stream of bullying behaviours, especially
nit-picking, fault-finding and constant criticism and allegations, all of which lack substantive
and quantifiable evidence, for they are just the bully's opinion.
It's the patterns, the regularity and the number of incidents which reveal
bullying.
The person who is making a spurious claim might produce half a dozen sheets of paper, if that.
But you've got to bully people to get the job done, haven't you?
Bullies are weak, inadequate people who lack people skills, lack empathy, lack interpersonal skills,
lack leadership skills, lack motivational skills, lack judgement, lack foresight and hindsight, lack
forward thinking skills, etc. Bullies bully to hide the fact they lack these skills. Serial bullies
are compulsive liars with a Jekyll and Hyde nature who use charm and mimicry to deceive peers and
superiors. Bullying results in demotivation, demoralisation, disenchantment, disaffection, disloyalty,
ill-health, high sickness absence, high staff turnover, an us-and-them culture, low productivity,
frequent mistakes, low morale, non-existent team spirit, poor customer service, no continuity of
customer care, etc. And that's just for starters.
Isn't there a fine line between admonishing people who are not performing and using strong
management to get the job done?
a) Bullying is a cause of underperformance, not the solution
b) There are recognised ways of dealing with underperformance; bullying is not one of them
c) Bullying makes underperformance worse, not better
d) Bullying prevents employees from fulfilling their duties
e) "Underperforming" employees seem to follow the bully wherever s/he goes
f) It is always the bully who is weak, inadequate, and underperforming
g) Bullies are weak managers; bullying is designed to hide that weakness by giving the appearance
of strength whilst diverting attention away from the bully
Surely a manager has a right to deal with the underperformance of a subordinate?
False allegations of underperformance are designed to divert attention away from the bully's own
inadequacy and to create conflict between those who might share incriminating information about him/her.
Isn't it always just a case of the employee and employer fighting each other?
Almost always the employee and employer end up in an adversarial contest in which both are losers
regardless of the outcome. However, the employee and employer should be on the same side fighting
the bully. Bullies are adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise pool incriminating
information about them. Bullies also gain gratification (a perverse indulgence in that nice warm
feeling we call satisfaction) from encouraging and then watching others engage in destructive conflict.
Bullies are also adept at manipulation (especially of people's emotions), deception, and evasion
of accountability.
My Human Resources department refuse to take me seriously. Instead, they are
doing everything they can to support the bully whilst getting rid of me. Why is this?
From dealing with thousands of cases in which this happens - albeit a self-selecting audience which
may not scale up nationally - I've identified the following reasons:
1) Human Resources (HR) people are not trained in dealing with bullying - it's not in their textbooks,
not in their training, and their professional body in the UK (CIPD) has not given the issue the attention
it needs.
2) The HR profession seems to attract a number of people who are not people-focused and thus not
good at dealing with people problems.
3) HR is not there for employees. The role of HR is to keep the employer out of
court.
4) The majority of HR people are female, and females seem particularly susceptible to charm, which
is one of the bully's main weapons of deception.
5) By the time HR get to hear of the bullying they are faced with an articulate, plausible, convincing,
charming "bully" and a gibbering wreck of a "target" who is traumatised and thus unconvincing, inarticulate,
incoherent, obsessed, apparently paranoid, tearful, distressed and highly emotional. By this time
the bully has already convinced HR that the target has a "mental health problem", is a liability
to the organisation, and needs to be got rid of.
6) When it's one word against another with no witnesses, HR take the word of the senior employee
(almost always the bully).
7) There's no law against bullying so there's no case to answer.
8) The employer doesn't have an anti-bullying policy so it's not a disciplinary issue.
9) The employer does have an anti-bullying policy but it's just words on paper
10) The bully is a tough dynamic manager who gets the job done and the high turnover of staff
in the bully's department is because they're all wimps who can't meet the demanding standards of
performance demanded by this exemplary manager. Yawn.
11) If HR recognise they have a bully, they're not going to admit it because to do so is tantamount
to admitting liability for this - and previous - cases.
12) HR are not going to admit that they've made a mistake recruiting an incompetent individual
who bullies to hide his or her inadequacies.
13) When push comes to shove, HR do what they are told to do by management, regardless of the
rights and wrongs.
14) HR are sometimes an outsourced and contracterised profession with little influence.
15) The constant change, reorganisation, restructuring, downsizing, outsourcing, contracterisation
etc mean that there is no continuity in treatment of staff and thus the bully is able to hide the
fact that he or she has a history of conflict with employees.
16) Over the last few years employers have been burdened with numerous legislative changes (working
time, data privacy, parental leave, etc) and have no desire, resources, time or energy to deal with
issues for which there is no legal requirement.
17) Bullying cases are so long and complex (a situation the bully fosters) that most HR (and most
people) don't have the time, energy or resources to unpick the case.
18) There are only a handful of people who are capable of providing HR with the
training and insight
to undertake a successful investigation.
19) Where HR want to investigate they are sometimes overruled.
20) HR (and management) are frightened of the serial bully too - and sometimes more frightened
than the employees.
When organisational psychologist Mary Sherry wrote in a national newspaper last month that
female managers were far more likely to bully staff than male ones
it triggered a large reader response - almost all backing her view.
Why are some women much worse bullies than their male counterparts?
One female respondent to Shelly's article said: "Women bosses are worse bullies than men.
I also agree with Sherry that usually they employ more insidious tactics
such as isolating people and nit-picking in order to undermine the other person's confidence."
Another wrote: "Your article has provoked me to put down on record that the unhappiest years of
my life were caused by female bosses. I was treated so badly that I lived in a state of fear for
the last few years of my employment."
And a third said: "I work for a government department and have been off work since late October
due to stress and anxiety exacerbated by a two-year campaign by my female line manager. Women bosses
are certainly worse than men at bullying."
... ... ...
Their approach is a lot more subtle and psychological. They nitpick and undermine through
constant criticism which leads to those on the receiving end losing their self-confidence and becoming
risk and responsibilthese bully-girl bosses?
In Sherry's view they tend to be middle managers who are managing
beyond their level of competence.
"For example when they are asked to perform at a certain level and don't have the managerial competence
to get the best out of people they may bully. I don't think people actually decide to become bullies.
It is because they don't have the competence to fulfil their management role."
And who, typically, are their victims?
According to Sherry the victim is rarely a new starter.
They tend to have been employed for 18 months to 15 years. "A new female manager is brought in and
undermines the person concerned by nit-picking and disempowering them."
She said that although it sounds like she is banging her own drum she does not think internal
HR departments are best at dealing with serious bullying cases, especially if they involve senior
staff.
"It is very difficult for internal investigators to look into bullying cases," Shelly said. "HR
departments often don't have the level of delicate questioning techniques."
Stream: Girl power: are women the worst bullies?
This is an excellent article. Despite my not wanting to believe that
women are the worst bullies, too much experience has taught me otherwise. Your article
confirms what I have seen for the past 20 years.
Lisa Oakmonst
21 Feb 2005
Female bullies
I totally agree with this article. As an HR manager for a charity, we have just dismissed a female
manager for bullying.
The investigation into her behaviour completely backs up the evidence that
she was working beyond her competence, which she hid very well until
the investigation took place.
Anonymous
11 Feb 2005
Bullying - women are the worst
I can agree completely with Sherry's view of a female bully.
I was bullied in my previous workplace. The person who bullied me was my equal and was then made
my line manager. I was subjected to constant criticism and nitpicking
-- it was mental torture. I called upon our Manager for help and was fobbed off.
I finally decided after losing all of my self confidence and being signed off sick with stress
on anti-depressants that enough was enough.
Luckily I have a very supportive family who contacted our solicitor. I resigned and have claimed
constructive dismissal. My case goes to tribunal in August 2005. I will have been left for two years
eight months but the company in question have adjourned the case three times. Is this another game
they are playing?
We hear so much of women as victims and the disadvantages women encounter in employment, that
it sometimes comes as a surprise to realize that women are equally as capable of bullying behavior
as men.
Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more inclined towards empathy,
and less towards seeking dominance. Women are often portrayed as caring more than men about personal
experience and feelings.
It may be true that women are less inclined to indulge in vocalized rages - public swearing and
shouting - and in physical violence, though I am sure that all of us could think of exceptions. Research
indicates, however, that women are inclined towards
The cold shoulder
Refusing to communicate with the perceived offender
Sulking
Passive aggressive behavior - which respects neither the perpetrator
nor the recipient.
Such behavior is evidence of women's socialization: often we do not know how to elicit positive
attention, or to assert ourselves so that our views and rights are recognized and respected. So we
use inappropriate and ineffectual means to attract attention any way we can. We have been conditioned
very early that girls do not shout and scream. No one is surprised, however, if girls go quiet or
even sulk.
The problem, however, is that unless people communicate, they will not resolve their differences.
What comes as a shock to many people is just how personally and educationally damaging social
and professional isolation and exclusion from networks can be.
Whilst the focus of Bully OnLine is bullying
in the workplace, the serial
bully at work is a serial bully at home and in the community. All serial bullies have been through
school and all have families and neighbours. An increasing number of enquiries come from people dealing
with family bullying.
The violence committed by a serial bully is almost entirely psychological, for psychological violence
leaves no scars and no physical evidence. Most commonly the violence takes the form of verbal abuse
and emotional abuse including trivial nit-picking criticism, constant fault-finding combined with
a simultaneous refusal to recognise, value, acknowledge and praise. Manipulation,
isolation and exclusion are other favourite tactics, as is feigning victimhood or persecution, especially
when held accountable.
The objectives of serial bullies are Power, Control, Domination and Subjugation. These are achieved
by a number of means including disempowerment, the stimulation of excessive levels of fear, shame,
embarrassment and guilt, manipulation (especially of emotions and perceptions), ritual humiliation
and constant denial. When you live with someone who is constantly denying
what they said or did a day ago, or an hour ago, or even a minute ago, it drives you crazy.
When the symptoms of injury to health start to become apparent, the bully will tell others you have
a "mental health problem". You may be mad, but this is not mad insane, this is mad angry.
Control is a common indicator of the serial bully at home - control of finances, control of movements,
control over choice of friends, control of the right to work, control over what to think, and so
on. All are designed to disempower.
A favourite tactic of the bully in the family is to set people against each other. The benefits
to the bully are that:
a) the bully gains a great deal of gratification (a perverse form of satisfaction) from encouraging
and provoking argument, quarrelling and hostility, and then from watching others engage in adversarial
interaction and destructive conflict, and
b) the ensuing conflict ensures that people's attention is distracted and diverted away from
the cause of the conflict
Bullies within the family, especially female bullies, are masters
(mistresses?) of manipulation and are fond of manipulating people through their emotions (eg guilt)
and through their beliefs, attitudes and perceptions. Bullies see any form of vulnerability
as an opportunity for manipulation, and are especially prone to exploiting those who are most emotionally
needy. Elderly relatives, those with infirmity, illness, those with the greatest vulnerability, or
those who are emotionally needy or behaviorally immature family members are likely to be favorite
targets for exploitation.
The family bully encourages and manipulates family members etc to lie,
act dishonorably and dishonestly, withhold information, spread misinformation, and to punish
the target for alleged infractions, i.e. the family members become the bully's unwitting
(and sometimes witting) instruments of harassment.
Don't overreact. As much as we want to protect our kids, remember that it is not your fight.
Outward intervention in many cases may make a bad bully situation worse.
Many well-meaning adults intefere in their offspring's issues. In most all cases, a grown-up should
remain neutral, listen, and offer some non-emotional responses about bullies and any bully threats.
One traditional view portrays the femme fatale as a sexual
vampire; her charms leech the
virility and independence of lovers, leaving them shells of themselves.
Rudyard Kipling
took inspiration from a vampire painted by
Philip Burne-Jones,
an image typical of the era[citation
needed] in 1897, to write his poem "The Vampire". The poem inspired the 1913
eponymous film by
Robert Vignola, sometimes cited as the first "vamp" movie.[9]
Like much of Kipling's verse it became very popular, and its refrain: "A fool there was...", describing
a seduced man, became the title of the popular 1915 film
A Fool There Was that made
Theda Bara a star. The
poem was used in the publicity for the film. On this account, in the
Americanslang of the era the femme fatale
was called a vamp, short for vampire.[10]
Passive-aggressive behaviour refers to passive, sometimes
obstructionist resistance
to authoritative instructions in
interpersonal or occupational
situations. It can manifest itself as
resentment,
stubbornness,
procrastination,
sullenness, or intentional
failure at doing requested tasks. For example, people who are passive-aggressive might take so
long to get ready for a party they do not wish to attend that the party is nearly over by the
time they arrive.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development
of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Softpanorama
