This came up in a post I can’t find again. Is evil real or just us, condemning something we don’t like? That was David Hume’s view – evil has no objective existence. Hume was a materialist & empiricist, so anti-religious.

Hume’s verdict was consistent with later Darwinian thinking. Ie., if evil tendencies really existed, they would not be conducive to individual or social welfare, survival etc., so would be weeded out by the process of natural selection. Was Hume right? Hmmmmm; not so sure, even tho it sounds good. What got me going on this topic was reading about psychopaths (‘paths’ hereafter); very disturbing. Briefly, it has been estimated that 5% of us are ‘paths’. Paths are evil, no question about that, & they are dangerous.

Definition of a path: they are often very, very smart – keep that in mind. They cannot be treated clinically, becos this is a genetic, not a psychological issue. Worse! They can only rarely be identified by psychologists, becos they are masters at hiding their condition. From earliest years, they do not feel as others, but they learn how to mimic normal human feelings, as a survival tactic. They run rings round highly-trained prison psychologists. They mostly get detected if they fall foul of the law, or if they have a personal/social encounter with someone of psychology training.

Paths lack common humanity. Metaphorically, they have the cold, calculating hearts of reptiles. They see nothing wrong with crime, exploiting others ruthlessly, or even murdering. When caught, they feel outraged & persecuted – not a shred of real remorse. They commonly see themselves as a superior, god-like race apart. They tell lies, fantasize, & believe their own lies absolutely. They are incredibly clever at manipulating ordinary people. Their powers in this area are almost supernatural, or maybe mesmeric. They feel fully justified – normal people are inferior beings – moral feelings are completely absent.

Is this sounding a little creepy? Good, because it is. It seems paths are invisible, yet have invaded the bodies of our societies like cancer cells. They are real, & they are evil. They are commonly con-men. They pitilessly abuse women. They typically have multiple partners. They dump women & children w/out a backward glance. Even knowing their appaling record, some women under their spell still express love & devotion. Sounds a little like black magic, but if you think of Charles Manson, you have a good example. So, they are BREEDING FAST, much faster than we normals.

The main motivation of paths seems to be to get power over others. Not for cruelty; they don’t recognize what that is. With marked superior intellects & skills of manipulation, they tend to rise fast & high in politics & business. These ‘sports’ or freaks are born ‘spooks’. The find a nutural home in the ‘security services’. Agent 007 James Bond is a glamorized path. He works in secrecy, employs deceit, murders, uses & discards women, all w/out a flicker of emotion. Why do people admire this crippled creature? Aha! Becos 007 has humor, which real paths do not.

In high positions, paths are able to corrupt those under them. At worst, they can turn whole societies into machines for inflicting evil & suffering – ‘pathocracies’ as defined by Andrew Lobaczewski. Think Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler. Or think of the office bully, the manager who makes life misery for those in his grip; or even the village bitch/witch – those strange women who terrorize victims with gossip & malicious phone-call campaigns - all for no apparent reason. Can they really be gripped by ‘evil’? No, then give me a better one.

Imagine that the 9/11 atrocity was inflicted on 3,000 innocent victims by a powerful cabal within the US government, as a power-ploy. Most ordinary people would find this impossible to believe: too fantastic! Yet not beyond the diseased intentions of pathocrats – to turn US democracy into a pathocracy. Tragically, precisely because this level of evil is beyond a normal grasp, the paths get away with it, time & again. They are rarely caught & arraigned.

Antony Sutton was a formidable researcher, a historian. In one work, he piled up solid evidence - it indicated that World War Two was planned as an investment project by a senior group of Wall Street financiers. Again, apparently unbelievable, altho the evidence has not been refuted as far as I know – just studiously ignored by the academics who must work for pathocracy.

IF pathocrats are real, evil is real. Yet how can such monsters appear, or evolve? The answer seems to be that our human cultures have themselves evolved. Now we no longer adapt to environments, we have constructed our own – our mass societies. In these new environments, the pathocrat has also multiplied as a kind of new predator, almost w/out any higher predator. He or she would not survive long in a primitive society, the kinds of small, close societies that believed in evil & witchcraft. But in our new cultural environments of anonymous masses, paths flourish, because we have not yet developed protective counter-measures. Be aware & afraid. Evil exists, IMHO. Bamberpanda

James Bond, one hell of a God and country patriot or a demon zealot. it's perspective and moral prerogative.


Shoebadu, Guru Shoebadu

Guru Shoebadu, you wrote -

Quote:

James Bond, one hell of a God and country patriot or a demon zealot. it's perspective and moral prerogative.

Possibly yes; well, what is it from your perspective? See below.

The Paineful Truth, you wrote -

Quote:

"Neither. It is immoral behavior and it is real, but only justified by the minds of those who hold their vanity/ego to be beyond question. It is the double standard."

Well, let's give an eg. A path smooth-talks your sister, takes all her money & house, then disappears in her car, with her credit cards. He leaves her with huge debts, two small kids, & homeless.

You meet up with him, & he shows not the slightest guilt. He piles the blame on your sister, arrogantly portraying himself as Mr Good Guy, driven to desperation by your evil sister. Do you get physical, or do you say, "Ah, the guy was just doing what he thought best for himself". Or, decide it was just a confusion over double standards? This eg., is based on real path behavior.

Another eg. Instead of paths, imagine your country was being taken over by aliens who only looked human. Would you fight them with everything you had, or would you try to convert them to our human standards. I.e., you think they are not really evil, just need converting to better ideas.

If evil is not 'real' but just a passing mindstate, it is presumably possible to come to terms with it - like schizophrenia. If it is a growing, dangerous, objective force, you/we presumably are commited to eradicating it.

IMHO the reality of evil is not fixed, but it can be a real, objective force. It rises as a reality in direct proportion to the dangers its promoters pose to humanity. Eg., Adolf Hitler & Joe Stalin were not truly evil until they got into power & could start to wreak havoc. Then they deserved all humanity's efforts to exterminate them. Humanity is slow, but it does finally recognize evil when it perceives it. Bamberpanda

"Well, let's give an eg. A path smooth-talks your sister, takes all her money & house, then disappears in her car, with her credit cards. He leaves her with huge debts, two small kids, & homeless. "

"Another eg. Instead of paths, imagine your country was being taken over by aliens who only looked human. Would you fight them with everything you had, or would you try to convert them to our human standards. I.e., you think they are not really evil, just need converting to better ideas."


"IMHO the reality of evil is not fixed, but it can be a real, objective force. It rises as a reality in direct proportion to the dangers its promoters pose to humanity. Eg., Adolf Hitler & Joe Stalin were not truly evil until they got into power & could start to wreak havoc. Then they deserved all humanity's efforts to exterminate them. Humanity is slow, but it does finally recognize evil when it perceives it."

this does not make the man "evil" it makes him an asshole. as to the alien scenario perchance their alien Jesus told them they are the "righteous chosen". Hitler and his cronies failed in their plan to alter the world should they have succeeded they would have been heros of a brave new world instead of defeated devils. ego perspective and moral prerogative.

The Paineful Truth wrote -

Quote:

No, thoughts of themselves are not evil. We all experience evil thoughts passing through our minds. But if my neighbor calls me and says he's bringing over his shotgun and is going to kill me, steal my silver and rape my wife, I have to react to that as a credible threat. Same with Hitler who posed his treats in Mein Kampf, and then acquired the power and military to accomplish them.

This actually supports the point that evil is not an absolute, it is a matter of degree of danger to us, & the same with thoughts. They can materialize as concrete evil. Hitler is a good example. Few even of his closest comrades believed he would actually begin a mass extermination campaign. Until the huge election funds began to flow into his National Socialist Party from big business, he was a danger to nobody – just another street-corner ranter. His thoughts went into Mein Kampf. His thoughts were energized by political power (as you say), then further by his pathological drive, into concrete evil. Evil became a reality by stages. Note the path’s hallmark cunning - Hitler left no signed orders for mass exermination.

If your exampled neighbor were truly a path & evil, he would not warn you. He would use his very great intelligence to plot your destruction very cunningly indeed, & he would very likely get away with it. Yes, & he might even do it just as an exercise of his superior, divine skills. Paths are dangerously evil becos they are not like the ‘normally’ malicious & insane, not like compulsive serial killers. Their evil is precisely in their inexplicable, a-human, mailgnant drives. That is their great potential danger to the rest of us - evil.


Guru Shoebadu wrote -

Quote:

this does not make the man "evil" it makes him an asshole. as to the alien scenario perchance their alien Jesus told them they are the "righteous chosen". Hitler and his cronies failed in their plan to alter the world should they have succeeded they would have been heros of a brave new world instead of defeated devils. ego perspective and moral prerogative.

An asshole steals your wheels & tires. Almost anyone may steal, but usually for reasons of normal human weakness. But the path who destroys people & lives, as self-proof of his power over others – that’s evil, a matter of a far greater degree of danger to us, the rest. Too-large ego is a fault of many, but a very human fault, so everyone can detect & defend. The paths know that. They often rise in politics & business with smiling self-deprecation, charm & charisma. If you dig into the past of Slick Willy & Ma Clinton, you will come across corpses & drug trafficking. There was also an alleged assassination attempt on a Rockefeller. Of course, no proof, but then it wouldn’t even stick to Teflon Bill. Do you remember his utter sincerity when he denied the Lewinsky accusations? They get away with it.

And false that winners become good guys by ‘virtue’ of winning. The Mongols won a huge empire, but even today people shudder at what they did. Don’t confuse fear & respect, like Godfather Corleone, or I comma-roun your house, an’ beat you widda beeg, wet cod-feesh. Bamberpanda

Mongols are heroes, depends on how you look at them... Its easy [they are heroic enough to make movies after! Money is heroism!]

The Valkyrier [Tom Cruise] attempts to kill Hilter in the name of 'Germany' - His motives are clear, yet, it is the destruction of a man that he sets as his goal and he is fine with this. It is for the 'greater good'.

After he has killed Hitler, he and his 'conspirators' are to give up, to accept defeat in the face of the Allies anyway.

Now, a country that was ruined by a war, and is motivated into producing an army capable of extended warfare within 30 years... does this say something about the management of this country?

To me, it is obvious - National Socialism works, it works very well... Hitler worked, he worked very well...

For a man to sacrifice another man, he has to believe in his work.
Hitler did this, Valkyrier did this, Ghengis Khan did this!

Now, perhaps there is justification for naming Hitler evil [scientific discovery would have it that Hitler's Thrid Reich moved us into these post-modern times, thanks to the victims who allowed us to gain so much knowledge that couldn't have been discovered without their beautilful sacrifice.

Anyway...

the bloke who ruined your sister's life: He did the best thing she could have had done to her.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

Mongols are heroes, depends on how you look at them... Its easy [they are heroic enough to make movies after! Money is heroism!]

And grit is sugar, from a twisted enough viewpoint. That’s how sugar ends up, eh? You must look at the evidence, study & judge. The Mongols contributed zilch to humanity. They set back Eastern Europe & Central Asia several hundred years. They stank. They were ugly, hairy & incredibly ignorant. They didn’t know what peasants & farming were for. If you find that admirable, what statement are you making about yourself? So Hollywood makes movies & modern liberals speak ill of no culture (it’s all relative). Since I hold both in contempt, I piss on them.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

Now, a country that was ruined by a war, and is motivated into producing an army capable of extended warfare within 30 years... does this say something about the management of this country?

It says of 1920s – 1930s Germany that there was a massive infusion of capital from Wall Street & the City of London banks, beginning in the 1920s.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

To me, it is obvious - National Socialism works, it works very well... Hitler worked, he worked very well...

Hitler was a hysterical cockroach of no significance. He never ‘worked’. In WWI, he was an HQ runner, a paper-pusher. He didn’t fight. Too idle to write, Hess turned Hitler’s Darwinian mouth-grit into a book at Landsburg jail. He was ignorant of economics, & too bone-idle to learn. The ‘economic miracle’ was wrought by the preceding sound policies of the Social Democrats, then continued by Schacht in harness with Wall Street. So Adolf was able to put half the unemployed in the army, the other half to making armaments. It’s the incredibly transformative power of capital. That’s why Marx called his work ‘Kapital’.

If you truly believe it’s all a matter of point of view, would you be willing to re-live the life of a victim of nazism? We’ll put you in a wired enclosure. You will get a crust of dry bread every day. You put it in a metal bowl with water to make it eatable. The same bowl is your toilet, so keep it clean, or a passing guard will whip the flesh off your back for a laugh. If after 6 weeks or so you still sing the praises of nazism, I’ll credit you with true objectivity. But I cannot gurantee any release date, nor medical care. That would spoil the authenticity, wouldn’t it?

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

the bloke who ruined your sister's life: He did the best thing she could have had done to her.

I don’t have a sister. That was a hypothetical eg. We can’t give you a sex change & run that experiment to see if it would make a better ‘man’ of you, so I merely suggest you are spouting ignorant nonsense. I’ll not impute evil to you, only charge ignorance & folly. If all you intend to do is put on tight Bavarian leather shorts & nazi headgear for an occasional night at the Braunhaus Kellar und Disko. I might even join you for a stein of Fuertstrangler’s Old Peculiar. Unlike nazis, I’m broadminded, especially if you’re paying. Bamberpanda

The Paineful Truth wrote –

Quote:

Unchecked power, whether invested in a one man as government, or any other form of government, will inevitably, and usually quickly, corrupt that government thereby unleashing that corruption on the people. The business of any socialist government is the concentration of power.

You seem to be quoting the pol, William Pitt the Elder. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it". Lord Acton paraphrased it much later as “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. These guys were Brit conservatives, right-wingers, or Republicans as they have it in the USA. As such, they were the polar enemies of Tom Paine – a revolutionary who wrote the ‘Rights of Man’ & helped inspire the American Revolution. If your nom de plume, Paineful Truth, has this link, whose side are you on? Make your mind up. You can’t drag up as a revolutionary, then quote conservative ideologues, not w/out sounding silly.

The Paineful Truth wrote –

Quote:

Btw, all dictatorships are fascist-socialist governments. Cuba is held up as a communist government, but Castro is in control, not communes, so communism is merely the shell of an image he projects--and many people lap up.

Like most Americans, you anthematize ‘socialism’ w/out knowing what it means. That’s the result of all the long years of Establishment brainwashing you have been subjected to since senator McCarthy’s olden, golden days. The definition of socialism is, “The ownership & control of the means of production”. Note, ‘control’. If the people control, it is not a dictatorship. If any regime is otherwise, it is not socialist. That’s what the word means. I’m not selling socialism, just heroically battling the tides of ignorance & darkness.

I’m rather tired of reading idiot redneck conspiracy theories involving Karl Marx, Charlie Rothschild, the Pope, & Adolf Hitler. Not only did some of the elements involved have vastly different aims & agendas, they hated one-anothers’ guts devoutely. Philosophically speaking, the less an ignoramus knows of A, B, & C, the more alike they will seem to him. Ergo, if Fidel Castro is a dictator, he is not a socialist. And stop blowing Yankee-Doodle wind FFS; Castro only looks good in comparison to all the satrap dictatorships Uncle Sam runs in South America. They have been bolstered with nazi policies & ex-nazis alike, ex-Fort Benning.

Paineful Truth wrote -

Quote:

It's characteristic of the pathological megalomaniac. They need the validation that they are calling the shots. Of course that doesn't mean other types won't come at you without warning.

A path may have megalomania, but a megalomaniac is not a path. Otherwise, how relevant to this discussion? I’m not advising on crime prevention.

Paineful Truth wrote - (re ‘An asshole steals your wheels & tires.’) –

Quote:

But evil nonetheless as I pointed out above.

A wheeler-stealer may have no other way to earn a buck, so not evil. He may steal to support a family, so not evil. What he steals does not inflict irremedial damage on you, so not evil. Since he is potentially redeemable, can change for better, he is not evil. The path is different; why he is especially dangerous, so evil.

Paineful Truth wrote (re lying Bill Clinton) -

Quote:

He got away with it because the electorate ignored the issues of character and integrity in favor of likability.

You’re saying what I’m saying! Paths can get away with anything. They can twist us round their finger, even thru a TV screen. Clinton never merely defeated all who crossed him, he destroyed them. King George Bush II was not an enemy, but a bro. Obama is a blacked-up Bush. Bamberpanda

funny yet scary as well, i had meant to type "ergo" but wrote "ego". Bamberpanda your comment was well written and serves you well in our debate. but i can not help put feel my point has been made by a earnest mistyped "r". Evil is a concept subject to interpenetration.

"And false that winners become good guys by ‘virtue’ of winning. The Mongols won a huge empire, but even today people shudder at what they did. Don’t confuse fear & respect"


i would also not confuse the barbarism of a age with evil either. Fear and respect that is all to easy.

respect- qualities that you admire and need in your friends.

fear- qualities that you admire and don't need in your enemies.

Guru Shoebadu,

thanks. You put up a good defence. I must watch out for the one I didn't see coming.

Quote:

"my point has been made by a earnest mistyped "r". "

Sorry, can't see/understand that last letter. Explain please?

Quote:

"Evil is a concept subject to interpenetration."

What concept isn't (tautology)? Thing is, which interpretation is most correct?

Quote:

"i would also not confuse the barbarism of a age with evil either."

Evil & barbarity are not time-dependent. We do not grow better thru history, as Stalin & Hitler showed, as the techno-slaughter inflicted on Iraq shows. Bamberpanda

Exactly, the mongols are evil to the same extent that modern day man is evil - There is no progression.
You may have spent time researchig history, but you are letting your desire for change blind you to certain things. [I think at least, with no disrespect intended]

I may be wrong, but I sense that you got hostile in the last reply...
[I knew that germany was supported by America, I know you know that too!]


THe fact that mongols 'set' europe 'back' is based on projections. It serves not reality - They did not 'set' europe 'back' except against some 'alternative history' you have made up in your head!

Therefore, they cannot be considered evil for anything to do with progression.

I understand the OP, I just think you use bad examples....

THe girl who is robbed of her life - she is now totally free and she is fearfulbecause of this freedom - She was used to dependency upon a system [as we all are] and it was taken from her, and so instead of seeing her new freedom as that, she sees it as an absence of support.
She sees theabsence as a presence of opression upon her.

So, the path was not evil - He has no concept of evil, the path was a liberator!

Anyway...

Ignoring my playful banter [not all that above is playful banter!]

I agree that western democratic [read: capitalist] government behaves psychopathically, because it must do!
All institutions do not care for anything other than their own survival. They cannot! It is not possible!

An institution about saving whales must first save itself!

Sadly, this priority gets confused for the sole purpose [path-like?] and all else is sidetracked.
Therefore, the controlling mechanism seeks to sustain itself, and in that course, sets to exploit, manipulate and coerce any and every person, object, thing etc that gets in the way [or it becomes aware of]

Maybe there is a small swimming pool at my friend's building complex. There was a deck-chair sitting on the diving board, and he asked to the people, "Is the deck-chair going for a dive?" The people told him that the diving board was broken. But he had heard that sort of talk before, so he started asking a few questions. The people believed that the diving board was cracked.

Maybe my friend went and had a close look at the diving board. But he couldn't see any crack. He told the people. The people said it was broken, and that the crack must be on the bottom. Then maybe my friend got down on the ground and inspected the bottom of the diving board. But he couldn't find any crack on the bottom. He told the people. But they believed the diving board was cracked. Then the people said the crack was under the fulcrum (they did not actually know that word, but it was their meaning). Maybe my friend set the deck-chair so he could lift the diving board and examine the board where the fulcrum obscured plain view. He couldn't see any crack. He told the people that there was no crack to be seen anywhere on the diving board, nor was the underside cracked, and neither was there a crack under the fulcrum. But the people did not believe even when they were shown before their very eyes that there was no crack.

Maybe the people were now getting angry and saying things like "Can't you just leave it?" Maybe my friend then got really bold: he climbed onto the diving board and began to bounce on it. He told me afterwards that he was actually a little nervous doing this because everyone said and believed that the diving board was broken and dangerous to use. But the diving board did not break and it bounced just as anyone would expect. Now the people were in an uproar! "Get off the diving board!" They ran to telephone the authorities. The people were afraid and shouting, "The diving board is cracked and broken, it's dangerous!" Then maybe my friend bounced the board a bit longer, big and high bounces, and then stepped down.

Maybe by this time several of the building complex authorities had shown up; maybe the people were pointing at my friend and saying bad things about him. No one would believe that the diving board was not broken. It had been demonstrated to the people before their eyes that the diving board was not cracked whatever, not even the bottom, or under the fulcrum; and that it bounced and could be used normally like any working diving board.

Maybe then my friend scoffed at the authorities and went on his way. No sooner did my friend leave the pool area than the authorities and the people hurried to put the deck-chair back onto the diving board. No one uses the diving board to this day, and the people all believe it is broken and dangerous.

My friend said he thinks that maybe a long time ago a grumpy old man or a life-guard or something had seen some kids having fun, so they made up a story about a crack in the diving board to scare them and to keep them from having fun.

Fascism in Everyday Life

Hi robbers, nice writting.

But I disagree with the moral of the story.
I think I can interprete the story differently:

I think your friend had a teenager's rebel-syndrome. It is the common things that occur during teenagerhood- rebellious and confused, (I know it because I WAS a teenager too!). In this case your friend wanted to use the diving board, but was discouraged by; threat of broken diving board, ...but he refuse to comply. He refuse to comply because he has teenager's spirit in him, which is to rebel. So, in an act of rebellion, he jumped on the board anyway. But his action was further discouraged by fear of authority. As the authority approach, he would quicky douse the rebellion and get off the diving board. -end of story-
_

FYI, I can emphatize with your friends problem. The problem is with the pain. It is painfull to hear from somebody (which you didn't respect) that you CANNOT do your own stuff, just because they said so.

You said it yourself:

robbers wrote:

Maybe the people were now getting angry and saying things like "Can't you just leave it?" Maybe my friend then got really bold: he climbed onto the diving board and began to bounce on it.

This is just like peer-pressure.
_

So, it is not about "not able to resist the government" or "gullible enough for not being dissident", but it is about teenager's rebellious nature . And sometimes teenager do stupid things.

sincerely,
xponen.

Xponen - I dont think the rebellion is simply a 'teenage' phenomenon. I think it is intrinsic to all thought - as I am attempting to correlate all forms of negation [including rebellion] to brain activity.
That is - negation occurs as a natural process when an organism is capable of retaining memory.
I have a long way to go.

the tendency to rebel is most observable in teenagers, but this is not the only time it is there.

Indeed, life is a resistance [rebellion?] against entropy.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“Exactly, the mongols are evil to the same extent that modern day man is evil - There is no progression. You may have spent time researchig history, but you are letting your desire for change blind you to certain things. [I think at least, with no disrespect intended]”

The study of history, correctly done, avoids subjective factors distorting the results. Not 100% possible, granted, but by jingo I try. I have no desire for ‘change’ except that necessarily entailed for macro human survival.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“I may be wrong, but I sense that you got hostile in the last reply... [I knew that germany was supported by America, I know you know that too!]”

Yes, I tend to get hostile to any positive words for Hitler’s Schweinerei. Quite separate from his crimes against humanity is his destruction of the old Germany (art, music, literature, philosophy, science, social services, etc.). The present nation is but a grey ghost that arose from the rubble. That was a tragedy for the whole world. The real Germany was not ‘replaced’. It was murdered, an evil thing.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“THe fact that mongols 'set' europe 'back' is based on projections. It serves not reality - They did not 'set' europe 'back' except against some 'alternative history' you have made up in your head!”

I take into account the disappearance of once thriving cultures over vast areas of central Asia – proven by archaeology; the irreparable destruction inflicted on the golden Arab medieval world; the fact that huge areas of Russia were not ploughed again until the 1960s – all recorded facts. The Mongols were an evil. If a historian sets forth fully value-free historiography, he is validly open to accusations of collusion in the crimes of the past.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“Therefore, they cannot be considered evil for anything to do with progression.”

The less refined your palate, the more you can confuse grit with sugar.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“THe girl who is robbed of her life - she is now totally free and she is fearfulbecause of this freedom - She was used to dependency upon a system [as we all are] and it was taken from her, and so instead of seeing her new freedom as that, she sees it as an absence of support. She sees theabsence as a presence of opression upon her. So, the path was not evil - He has no concept of evil, the path was a liberator!”

Grit & sugar again; the less your capacity to understand & empathize with the misfortunes of others, the freer you are to dismiss, or even laugh at, them. A very path tendency, except paths don’t laugh much -unless portrayed in the movies. “Mr Bond, you really thought you could outwit Dr Chou En-Ginsberg! Ahahahaha”, etc.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“I agree that western democratic [read: capitalist] government behaves psychopathically, because it must do! All institutions do not care for anything other than their own survival. They cannot! It is not possible! An institution about saving whales must first save itself!”

I detect that the crap thinking of Darwinism has beguiled you! What is, is not necessarily justified by reference to some speculated “ceaseless struggle for survival”. That thinking is increasingly the bad smell of the corpse of dead 19c materialism. Science (except Dawkinsian biology) knows this. But it is bound to the corpse for ideological & political reasons (see the PHILOSOPHY – UTILITARIANISM blogette).

You also make the common as muck (!) error of confusing what is necessary, with what is necessary & sufficient. Existence is of course necessary for any functioning institution, but not enuf. It must also serve its intended purpose, at least to a minimal degree. The degree to which a bureaucracy diverts energy to its own survival & growth, to the gradual detriment of its inended external social purpose, is a measure of its degeneration. Or perhaps that shows the decay of the state, of which it is an organ, as I think.

Do not make the error you accuse me of. Naughty to hack historical facts around to fit your ideological proclivities. We try to explain the processes of history (I hope). But even indisputable facts are not necessary in virtue of existence alone. It happened, therefore there was no other possible outcome, is a glaringly false argument. I’m so shocked, I must beer up & lie on in bamboo grove. Maybe dab a little eau de cologne on my throbbing temples, & my rockin’ tabernacles. Bamberpanda

Bamberpanda, the link below may only seem unrelated to the psychopaths you mention.
the point i am making is that the internet provides possibilities to make a disorder to seem the cure to itself by foisting it on others ... as fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truddi_Chase

tired of the antics.

Hello Bamberpanda,

What if Hitler didn't develop his Mein Kampf ideology?
What if Hitler adopt a more liberal ideology?
_

I think we can't just blame psychopath alone (for the evil of the world), we should also blame the culture that teach them to be evil. For example; somewhere in India, people are 'disgusted' of women, women was considered 3rd class. Women who had daughter were severely beaten and threaten to be strangled to death, not by government, but by their husband and mother. Isn't that evil? you think only psychopath are evil? what about extremist? they killed for honor.. all those soldier and reporter get throat sliced infront of camera for the world to see, just because of their beliefs.

IMHO Psychopath is just a normal human-being without emotion. Their lacking (of emotion) destroyed their ability to function as a proper human-beings. But I think they CAN learn moral value. You just need to teach them like you teach a cat; you just gave them reward/punishment for good/bad behaviour during their childhood.
_

Actually I don't understand psychopath. How do they think really? is anyone here psychopath? (I want to ask several question, such as: what do they think of homeless people).

I just want to look at psychopath (in video or something), and immediately understand how they think.
- their style of thinking without emotion or empathy is nonesense! How to replicate that?

Maybe there ought to be an experiment: a normal person was hypnotize to feel emotionless! (so that he thinks like psychopath) or... what if; a psychopath is hypnotize to think lying is bad! (so that he has moral value like normal people)

WHy can't I find such information in the internet?
_

Having no empathy? hmmm...If I HATE homeless, then I won't feel sympathy at all for them. Is this lack of sympathy count as psychopathic? how much do we need to HATE people to mimic psychopathic thinking?

Here's my question: How do we empathize with psychopath?

*I'm serious.

i think our ability to describe stems from distorted perceptions of what is.
unless we permit ourselves the vast awareness of synchronicity and our "quality all-inclusive" participation in the present, actual moment, any attempts at
"sharing" will only add to the rampant social inequality we experience already.

you think, funny remarks are all as long as you feel like an insider in a certain habit/thought pattern, for you 24/7, for someone in another environment just disconcerting.

lavender orchid,
thanks; re the vid on Multi Personality Disorder(MPD); interesting. I’m familiar with this case. Philosophers have written about MPD – often the problem of identity (self & others). Relevant only as you suggest – the way we try to blame our life screw-ups on some external factor – blame poverty, bad parents, prejudice, etc. True enuf, but problem is, self-excuses are intermixed with real, true causes.

If you are born black, you come into the world staggering under a heavy load of disadvantage. If into a poor environment, ditto. Those who say we are nevertheless quite free to make sugar from grit, these people are taking a philosophical standpoint, which is unsupported by majority evidence. But I can see enuf small truth in it to understand why people miss the greater lie.

Relevant to psychopathy tho: paths have a highly-developed nose for weaknesses in us. These they play on, to twist & manipulate us. People read about the victims & say, “Holy cow! How could this guy have been so goddam stupid? Weak! Pathetic! Gullible!” Ah, unless you know about paths, you’ll never have a clue.

Hitler had this skill. He would move around a hall before making a speech. He would ‘sense’ people’s fears & concerns, then he would play on these underlying weaknesses. That’s why the international bankers funded him – a very useful stooge. Bamberpanda

Xponen,
thanks, you wrote -

Quote:

“What if Hitler didn't develop his Mein Kampf ideology? What if Hitler adopt a more liberal ideology?”

Adolf didn’t invent his theory. Most of it was pretty mainstream, respectable, European social-darwinism. An earlier pioneer was a guy called Gustav (?) Le Bon, who used such ideas to justify European colonial expansion.

Xponen wrote -

Quote:

“I think we can't just blame psychopath alone (for the evil of the world), we should also blame the culture that teach them to be evil.”

I try to explain that psychopaths are just one of a spectrum of symptoms of a fatal disease afflicting our Western culture. Environmental decay, economic collapse, mindless wars & conflicts, etc., are other symptoms. I try to connect the dots to identify the root problem.

Xponen wrote -

Quote:

“IMHO Psychopath is just a normal human-being without emotion. Their lacking (of emotion) destroyed their ability to function as a proper human-beings. But I think they CAN learn moral value. You just need to teach them like you teach a cat; you just gave them reward/punishment for good/bad behaviour during their childhood.”

Self-contradiction! W/out emotion, we are not human. The experts disagree with you. Paths cannot be cured or ‘mentally reprogrammed’ – quite different from other mental disorders. What paths often do is fool psychiatrists that they are cured. Prison psis have been utterly demoralized to realize that their humble-seeming patient was far, far smarter than they were.

Xponen wrote -

Quote:

“Actually I don't understand psychopath. How do they think really?”

Join the ‘normals’ club! Nobody really understands paths. One reason, they have only been identified in recent years – psis were puzzled about this small minority of their prison patients who showed all the dazzling signs of having been fully cured of their criminal habits, then came back for doing the exact same as before.

Xponen wrote -

Quote:

“is anyone here psychopath?

Yes, I am. Well, hope I’m not. But as Lavender Orchid suggests, be careful. At least one suggested path (Mike Vreeland) is a computer whizz. With a laptop in his prison cell he was able to cyber-attack. Lord knows what others are up to ‘out there’.

If you want a fictional/philosophical outline of the size of this problem, read ROBINSON, Frank M (SCORTIA, Frank M) The Power: A Novel of Menace Lippincott 1956. It’s a sci-fi/mystery classic, a tour de force, a cult of the 50s – 60s & a mediocre movie. Yes, this is FICTION. But often fiction is the only place you can find certain ideas aired. Bamberpanda

lavender orchid,
thanks, you’ve got it.

Quote:

“playing up to any person on the one-up trip for whatever reason (e.g. being isolated immediately) does make you a victim already. so, is anyone here .... polite manners dictate one does not openly suspect anyone. survival instincts intact, one may be forewarned, for sure.”

We normals assume everyone else follows normative human ethical rules, broadly. Paths are more like sharks who smell blood miles away, or wolves who attack the weakest & slowest in the herd. But they are far more intelligent.

Yes, you got it. If a path wants to attack, what better way to hide than as a ‘path hunter’? Like me?! Be on guard, is all I can advise. Bamberpanda

Xponen wrote -

Quote:

“I just want to look at psychopath (in video or something), and immediately understand how they think. - their style of thinking without emotion or empathy is nonesense! How to replicate that?”

See above for movie that gives a rough idea. Loads of stuff on Signs of the Times (SOTT) site. The SOTT owners are flaky round the edges, IMHO, but transmit other good stuff.

Xponen wrote -

Quote:

“Maybe there ought to be an experiment: a normal person was hypnotize to feel emotionless! (so that he thinks like psychopath) or... what if; a psychopath is hypnotize to think lying is bad! (so that he has moral value like normal people)”

With the present state of knowledge, no-one knows/agrees even on how to identify paths, or even if screening for them is ethical. Bamberpanda

lavender orchid wrote -

Quote:

“How do we empathize with psychopath? *I'm serious.”

Via caution & distance; you can empathize with tigers, but if you get too close - - -

The Paineful Truth wrote –

Quote:

“Fascism and the National German Socialist Workers Party are socialist. Socialism is big centralized government. From there the corruption of centralized power takes the whole works downhill. Just look at socialism in the US from FDR on.”

Most Americans, & beyond, have been brainwashed into ignorance of this sort. Socialism prescribes for the people the ownership & control of the means of production. If the people don’t control, it aint socialism. That’s what the word means. The opponents of this democratic ideal (even if unrealizable or false) are the political right, whose ideologues ceaselessly label anything that threatens big business as ‘socialism’.

The nazi party was not socialist, despite whatever label the product carried. This is proved by Hitler’s extermination of Ernst Roehm & his SA – too socialistic for Adolf & his big business funders. The first people rounded up & put in nazi concentration camps were social-democrats, socialists & communists (the political left).

Fascism is the full merger of big business & government The first victim is democracy. Roosevelt indeed tried fascistic measures with his NRA, but that was becos he himself was a Wall Street Aristocratic Mafioso (Wall Street paid for his election campaign). Wall Streeters drew up the plans for the fascist takeover of America. They weren’t interested in ‘socialism’, just in improving profit margins & destroying those pesky powers of democracy in the Constitution - that stood in their way. Luckily, democracy was strong enuf to screw their plans. But big business is still at it.

When the Wall Street banks began to collapse, Obama stepped in with billions of taxpayer dollars. Even as the Republicans screamed ‘evil socialism’, the Wall Street bankers smiled & took the money. Rednecks cursed socialism, or Jews, or green lizard aliens. Ignorance is another name for impotence.

The purpose of the Patriot Act was to give gov the legal means to annul democracy – to arrest & detain anyone at will; in other words, to TAKE AWAY every shred of control ordinary people have over their lives – anti-socialism. Bush called the Constition ‘just a piece of paper’. But he got away with it. Obama is George Bush blacked up. We really should all be concerned about this. If democracy goes in America, IMHO, it will fall everywhere. Bamberpanda

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

(re Bamberpanda, “I have no desire for ‘change’ except that necessarily entailed for macro human survival.”) ‘So you do desire change. No shame! The fallacy of eternal life is something worthy of being called fallacy!’

Change is the iron rule of the universe. But free will allows us to choose the which & how of change, somewhat. You yourself embrace a fallacy. Eg., by analogy, since death is inevitable, the pursuit of good health is futile. I think you are a ‘conservative’. A conservative instinctively opposes changes, except those driven by the forces of the past (see above remarks to ‘paineful truth’). Overall, the conservative believes, “What is, is right”.

So, the conservative will argue against health provisions for the poor, since it flies in the face of the natural order of things (variously explained). But, if profits for drug & med. insurance companies rise, even as general health levels decline, the conservative smugly assumes this is unfortunate, but inevitable. See what I’m getting at? Good show!

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“I understand your argument, but I see there are two distinctions necessary: 1. That mongols commited acts of 'evil': they destroyed farmland etc 2. That the mongols happened - that is, destroyed farmland and culture etc - and so, reality must be evil too. For if in reality, the mongols were evil and yet expanded their influence across a vast area, and even destroyed cultures, then that suggests that the enviroment and global 'pressures' [dynamics] allowed for their expansion and destruction of other cultures. There is no 'fluffy' version. We accept the mongols were evil against an absolute scale of 'good vs. evil'; and we must also then accept, that whatever 'driving' force propels mankind's actions, must have some evil in it too. I think you attempt to assign benevolence to a reality that has none.”

Our value judgement are also inherent in the universe. You are mistaken in believing there is some removed, Olympian viewpoint by which to evaluate human history with lofty objectivity. You are misled. That viewpoint is also the slave’s, ‘peekin’ from de woodpile’. Evil & good derive their objectivity from us humans cognitin’ away in the universe (idealism). The difficulty is understanding the mechanics of it. Eg., the Mongols thrived in ‘Russia’ by tribute blackmail. Why elsewhere did they practice mindless destruction of peasant farmers who might have provided them a life of ease & plenty? We might equate evil with ignorance, but that’s just one explanation.

MonoExplosion wrote (re “The less refined your palate, the more you can confuse grit with sugar”) -

Quote:

“Only one who knows when the grit is covered in sugar can ever tell the difference.”

Yes: quite consistent with my view. But mine is based on logic, not psychologics.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“Empathy is the act of extending self upon another's position to gain some understanding. It cannot be anything more than a selfish act, as one cannot, literally cannot understand another. One can make approximations, and calculations based on self-awareness - accurate ones, but they can never be more than self-extension when it comes to empathy.”

Again, the conservative outlook – the isolate ‘selfish individual’; one cannot explain or understand human beings except as social creatures. And again, (again) explaining the mechanics of the existence of human individuality is the problem philosophy & science struggle with. Understanding others sprang from communications. It helped us build our first human groupings. What power it had! We became a formidable beast, many-armed, many-legged. We had small teeth, but sharp knives & long spears. Attack one, & 12 others appeared. The group evolved into the mighty city, & empire. All thanks to comms, the wonder ingredient.
MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“And you do not account to science the capacity for knowledge for your own reasons? What could 'science know'? and how could 'science' know it?”

Broadly, science is aware of the flaws of fundamental Darwinism. Dawkins with his Neo-darwinism attempts to lock back into those fundamentals. Other disciplines keep schtum, becos there is a whole clanking load of ideology still attached to the Darwinian horse & cart. Eg., if Darwinism is sent to the knacker’s yard, a lot of course materials in political science, sociology & history will need re-drafting. Most academics are time-serving bureaucrats. They resist such irksome changes.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“You have not showed my error.”

I thought I was clear. No? Well, from the ‘existence’ of things like bureaucracies, you argue the necessity that such bodies (primarily or mostly) become exclusively concerned with their own survival. You seem to depend on Darwinian ideas – that existence implies a struggle/drive for survival. If not, where is your explanation of your necessity? An institution must have energy/money to exist. That is merely a condition of existence. You assume, do not explain, the drive towards self-preservation.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“If you know this, then why do you pretend to give a shit?”

Because you don’t know (IMHO). Becos we (semi) humans are inveterate communicators, becos we are social creatures.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“Process - Not Progress! does this show how you may misunderstand things?”

Absolutely unthinkable: er, wait a bit, no, I mean - - - - thinkable only as an unlikely possibility. ‘Progress’ as in change by time, not the Whig view.

MonoExplosion wrote -

Quote:

“And please, show me how those other possible outcomes effect reality once they are forgotten and non-consequential to the subsequent causal effects that occur... I would love to see the glaring falsity in declaring that what happened happened because it must have had to happen [else it would not have happened!]”

Logical causality is immaculate becos it never gets its hands dirtied by material causality. It exists in an atemporal realm (like mathematics). We use logic as a transcendental tool to interpret rude realities. It cannot explain itself – that’s its use-limit (Carnap torpedoing Russell). You can’t use a hammer to make hammers. Why Russell never solved his antinomian - one side of an imagined paper read, “What is written on the other side of this paper is false”. Turning it over, Russell read the same message. So if one of these messages were true, what falsity was referred to? Both messages were the same. Don’t go mad thinking about this one. It just marks a use-limit of logic.

Just note that the Mongols were an evil event. What were the causes of the Mongol invasions? That’s actually OT, an examination of the mechanics of cause. Just like, if Nature/God is good, why is there evil – another topic entirely. Bamberpanda

I knew our conversation would resolve out nicely, thanks.

And yes, I understand logical limitations too, thank you for showing me what you meant though.
And I understand that what I think happened and what actually happened are two seperate things - I merely mean to say that objective 'past events' [things we agree actually happened] did actually happen [not things we are 'told' happened by psychopaths, lol]

Perhaps I should clear up:

I understand that objective values outside of human cognition simply do not exist.
Evil is a gradient scale [between evil and good] and we create these absolute dichotomies in order to make sense of things.

I shall respond more on empathy later...

lavender orchid,
thanks, I’m not sure I can fully engage with what you wrote -

Quote:

“i think our ability to describe stems from distorted perceptions of what is.”

Yes, but, this 4-dimension space-time is what we share. Some may have easy access to other dimensions, but I don’t.

lavender orchid wrote -

Quote:

“unless we permit ourselves the vast awareness of synchronicity and our "quality all-inclusive" participation in the present, actual moment, any attempts at "sharing" will only add to the rampant social inequality we experience already.”

Again, yes, but; I’ve had some strange experiences of synchronicity. Thing is, I can’t understand what they mean. If I can’t understand them, how to speak to others about them, except to say, “That was weird”? I can only take them seriously as subjective, personal experience. I store them away as my personal knowledge, history. What else can one do? Maybe if I were a guru/mystic/visionary, I could share with others, but I aint.

But I agree to this: these strange experiences do tell me that there is far more to out universe than our ordinary, daily perceptions tell us. And yes, IMHO those who learn to live fully in the moment know everything. ‘Now’ is the razor’s edge b/ween past & present. I often imagine that if you can stand there (mentally), you will understand both, & see time as a fraudulent illusion.

lavender orchid wrote -

Quote:

“you think, funny remarks are all as long as you feel like an insider in a certain habit/thought pattern, for you 24/7, for someone in another environment just disconcerting.”

Point taken; I have lived in foreign cultures. It is very disconcerting to tell a very funny joke, then everyone just stares at you, blank faces. Humor is very culture-dependent, except clowning. Clowns are international, becos they are physical. Even tho the USA & UK share a common language, they have different cultures. Many US comics do well in the UK, yet few UK comics succeed in the USA. An exception was Benny Hill, becos he was a clown, not a comedian. He acted the humor. Another UK clown who succeeded internationally was Norman Wisdom. He’s dead. Sadly, his movies are mostly crap, but live or on TV when he was young, he was brilliant. Bamberpanda

The Paineful Truth,
Thanks, you make valuable points, like -

Quote:

“So since, as with every attempt that I know of, socialism is "unrealizable" and inevitably leads to a corrupt elite class, what do we do? They use the rhetoric, dogmas, tactics and demagoguery of socialists, it just doesn't work. What do we call it? If the people don't own the means of production, but control it, either directly or through their government, what do we call it? Fascist socialism.”

I agree with your preamble; in fact I could add other reasons why socialism wouldn’t work for long, but a bit OT, & I don’t want to upset my lefty friends, who are more idealistsic on the whole than the opposition.

Let’s get to basics. Back in the 19c, the Frenchman Proudhon (anarchist) claimed that ownership was a legal abstraction. Karl Marx weighed into the attack - ownership of the means of production was the key means by which a minority cruelly exploited a minority. We have the experience of the Russian tragedy behind us. With that, I think Proudhon was right. Control is the key issue. Unless the people (the majority) have control, ownership is meaningless – why I keep crapping on about democracy

The Paineful Truth

Quote:

“Big Business prejudice. Not that business can't be corrupt as well, it certainly has. But government has the law and the guns on their side, and if government officials accept graft and bribes, who is to blame--the government and the governed if the corruption isn't removed immediately.”

In the UK, the bankers took control of government in the first quarter of the 19c. In the USA, that happened in 1913, with the institution of the Federal Reserve. The banking tail wags the nation-dog. Big business is the banks, with different hats for different board meetings. But capitalism does not have full control, becos democracy is still a strong force, thank god. That’s why big business struggles for complete control of the mass media.

The Paineful Truth wrote -

Quote:

“Actually Bush stepped in first, Obama just piled on. Both are fascists, bailing out the banks merely exacerbates the problem, propping up bankrupt business instead of letting them go bankrupt, which is the only real fix.”

No president can impose fascism as long as democracy is a living force in the land. But Wall Street pulls their chains, & govs do what the bankers tell them. The Obama administration is a row of Wall Street parasites. Same in UK.

The Paineful Truth wrote -

Quote:

“And the banking crisis was brought on by Democrats with their policy, going back to the Carter administration, of providing "affordable housing" to those who couldn't afford to pay for it. Yes, many banks were complicit, but more were pressured by government officials into making such loans. History will show that Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Obama's man in Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, were at the forefront of the cause of the collapse.”

The chiefs always blame the Indians, notice! Ah, it was those silly-billy poor people who caused all the trouble, borrowing what they couldn’t pay back. No! The capitalist set-up is a giant ratchet. It inexorably winds in money as interest or profit, until there is not enuf money in circulation to service oustanding loans (try the Ravi Batra website for details). These collapses come with regularity in capitalism.

Batra proves that ‘irresponsible’ bank lending always comes when there is too much money piled up as bank capital. Then there are not enuf sound investment outlets to go round. So the money goes into bubble schemes. The capitalist system is highly productive & fecund, why we need to keep it. But uncontrolled, it is like a cancer. Capitalism needs democracy, & vice-versa.

Everyone at the top knows this. Joe & Jane Citizen are kept in the dark, or they would not allow it to go on. They would demand that the US government print & control money, as prescribed in the Constitution. Wall Street would then borrow from the gov at interest, not the other way round as at present. The ‘Fed’ is actually an ILLEGAL RACKET. Lordie! Wouldn’t those fat, parasitic bastards in Wall Street & the City of London howl & scream! Bamberpanda