"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 (
[email protected] 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 h
Softpanorama
