PDA

View Full Version : Are many world leaders psychopaths? sf. war on terror



Kevin Bonham
17-09-2008, 09:54 PM
Actually I found that article (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=208189&postcount=93) vaguely interesting until it got too frothy for its own good with lame rubbish about psychopathy best left to silly goons like Matthew Sweeney.

Axiom
17-09-2008, 10:09 PM
Actually I found that article vaguely interesting until it got too frothy for its own good with lame rubbish about psychopathy best left to silly goons like Matthew Sweeney.
or those that understand that the most cunning and adept psychopaths have throughout history sought positions of greatest power so as to realise their psychopathic intentions.
Lest you believe such only ever reside in the lower,mid ,upper mid or lower high levels of the power heirarchy exclusively ?

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2008, 12:18 AM
or those that understand that the most cunning and adept psychopaths have throughout history sought positions of greatest power so as to realise their psychopathic intentions.

Oh, I'm sure quite a few have done so; politics is naturally an attractive profession for such types.

But to jump from that to the assumption that any politician who runs a particular line that a particular group doesn't agree with must be a psychopath is unscientific idiocy of the lamest degree, no matter how nasty or censorial the policy in question.

Axiom
18-09-2008, 12:27 AM
Oh, I'm sure quite a few have done so; politics is naturally an attractive profession for such types.

But to jump from that to the assumption that any politician who runs a particular line that a particular group doesn't agree with must be a psychopath is unscientific idiocy of the lamest degree, no matter how nasty or censorial the policy in question.
oh no , no psychopaths in the whitehouse , now move along , nothing to see here ! :doh: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2008, 12:48 AM
oh no , no psychopaths in the whitehouse , now move along , nothing to see here ! :doh: :wall:

Well, is there, or isn't there anything to see?

Can you point me to a scholarly analysis (preferably by a qualified psychiatrist) that demonstrates, on an itemised basis, that any US President has met sufficient diagnostic criteria for psychopathy? Are you even familiar with the diagnostic criteria, or is "psychopath" just an insult you like using to attempt to shock and awe?

(NB Half points only on offer for Nixon :D )

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2008, 09:32 AM
or those that understand that the most cunning and adept psychopaths have throughout history sought positions of greatest power so as to realise their psychopathic intentions.


They indeed sought positions of power. However, psychopaths are less likely to be able to grab and hold power. If you look through the history, most evil dictators were, in fact, quite rational, smart and very good in holding power. They were often portrayed as psychopaths, but it's usually a reaction of those who disliked them or, more often, envied them.

Axiom
19-09-2008, 02:33 AM
Twilight of the Psychopaths by Dr. Kevin Barrett
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/02/02073.html

Official Culture in America:
A Natural State of Psychopathy?
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm

Ray McGovern -Analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency:
"Rumsfeld,Cheney, Bush Snr ,Wolfewitz were known in the 70s as the Crazies in Republican circles"
and now the Crazies are in control !

"The Crazies" (from John Pilger's Breaking The Silence/Ray Mcgovern): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tSQ-HCENis


Anecdotal story of those that have been in the same room as Cheney , have said they can almost feel the "evil that radiates from him"
My intuition about him concurs.
See that vile creature joke in front of the CFR how he didn't mention his role as ex president of the CFR when running for state political office ?







"Nothing in politics ever happens by accident; if it happens, you can bet it was planned!" F.D.R

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2008, 12:25 AM
Once again, Axiom, it looks like none of your sources are qualified in psychiatry (Dr Barrett's PhD was in African literature and language.)

If you cannot find sources qualified in psychiatry to back you up, or at least analyses that refer in detail and in systematic fashion to the formal criteria for diagnosis of psychopathy, then I will have to assume your comments on psychopathy to be nothing but gibberish.

(The second link does refer to qualified sources but what it quotes from them can only be taken so far and certainly doesn't justify the incredible bulk of waffle surrounding it.)

Axiom
20-09-2008, 02:33 AM
Once again, Axiom, it looks like none of your sources are qualified in psychiatry (Dr Barrett's PhD was in African literature and language.)

If you cannot find sources qualified in psychiatry to back you up, or at least analyses that refer in detail and in systematic fashion to the formal criteria for diagnosis of psychopathy, then I will have to assume your comments on psychopathy to be nothing but gibberish.

(The second link does refer to qualified sources but what it quotes from them can only be taken so far and certainly doesn't justify the incredible bulk of waffle surrounding it.)
Once again , regrettably, KB gets lost in degrees and minutiae , missing the message.
If it helps , substitute "psychopath" for "arch criminal".

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2008, 01:52 PM
Once again , regrettably, KB gets lost in degrees and minutiae , missing the message.

Well, the message is supposedly about psychiatric disorder but it is clear that those imparting the message on your behalf are clueless about such disorders and just throwing their names about as empty insults, and that you are also clueless about them. So if I missed the message it was not worth catching.

I find this common bandying about of psychiatric disorders (whereby if you don't like someone you call them a psychopath, a narcissist, autistic, Aspergers etc) to be extremely poor form. Firstly it's exactly the sort of (genuine) labelling-to-discredit that you should be utterly opposed to if you had even a grain of consistency. Secondly it often obscures public understanding of the real nature of these disorders and can make them sound much worse than they really are, thus encouraging vilification of those who suffer from them.


If it helps , substitute "psychopath" for "arch criminal".

That is a totally different discussion - if you want to go down that road it is up to you to demonstrate what laws have been violated by (whoever you want to have a go at).

Axiom
20-09-2008, 03:13 PM
Well, the message is supposedly about psychiatric disorder but it is clear that those imparting the message on your behalf are clueless about such disorders and just throwing their names about as empty insults, and that you are also clueless about them. So if I missed the message it was not worth catching.

I find this common bandying about of psychiatric disorders (whereby if you don't like someone you call them a psychopath, a narcissist, autistic, Aspergers etc) to be extremely poor form. Firstly it's exactly the sort of (genuine) labelling-to-discredit that you should be utterly opposed to if you had even a grain of consistency. Secondly it often obscures public understanding of the real nature of these disorders and can make them sound much worse than they really are, thus encouraging vilification of those who suffer from them.



That is a totally different discussion - if you want to go down that road it is up to you to demonstrate what laws have been violated by (whoever you want to have a go at).
The message is clear , the "crazies" as Ray Mcgovern ,put it , have taken control of the reins of power in washington .
And they have presided over evil criminal acts ie. the fake war on terror , which is simply a cover to eviscerate the constition , decimating liberties.Mounting a war based on lies , in Iraq , murdering a million plus iraqis.Presided over the looting of america via corporate banking institutions.Presided over a criminally complicit corporate media , spinning their crimes to the programmed masses.
How much more criminality( or psychopathic behaviour) do you want ??
As Kucinich and others try to push for the impeachment of Bush for war crimes.
Kissinger wanted in some countries for war crimes.
A criminal cabal /cartel or "the crazies" are destroying america right in front of your eyes , but all you can do is put your energies into defending them every step of the way.

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2008, 04:49 PM
The message is clear , the "crazies" as Ray Mcgovern ,put it , have taken control of the reins of power in washington .

That message is rubbish until you prove they are "crazies".


And they have presided over evil criminal acts ie. the fake war on terror , which is simply a cover to eviscerate the constition , decimating liberties.Mounting a war based on lies , in Iraq , murdering a million plus iraqis.Presided over the looting of america via corporate banking institutions.Presided over a criminally complicit corporate media , spinning their crimes to the programmed masses.

Which laws do you believe they violated in this action? (I'm sure many actions in the war on terror have indeed been illegal but I doubt your ability to demonstrate which).


How much more criminality( or psychopathic behaviour) do you want ??

How about you decide which of these two you want to demonstrate and stick to it? They are very different concepts.


As Kucinich and others try to push for the impeachment of Bush for war crimes.
Kissinger wanted in some countries for war crimes.

The alleged war crimes Kissinger is wanted for (and very likely guilty of) predate the War on Terror.


A criminal cabal /cartel or "the crazies" are destroying america right in front of your eyes , but all you can do is put your energies into defending them every step of the way.

False. I am not defending these dingbats at all; I consider Dubya to be among the worst Presidents in US history. I am simply pointing out that despite the copious ammunition the goons leave lying around to attack them with, you can't get it right and still keep heading up dubious hack-psychiatric alleys.

Axiom
21-09-2008, 12:45 AM
That message is rubbish until you prove they are "crazies". "You shall recognise them by their fruits"
call them crazy,psychopathic,criminal, evil it doesn't matter , what matters is that they should hang by their chicken necks.





Which laws do you believe they violated in this action? (I'm sure many actions in the war on terror have indeed been illegal but I doubt your ability to demonstrate which).
murder,treason,theft,and deliberately lying to the american public.
Heads of corporate media should face trial for treason too.




How about you decide which of these two you want to demonstrate and stick to it? They are very different concepts.
they should hang as criminals whether psychopathic or not




The alleged war crimes Kissinger is wanted for (and very likely guilty of) predate the War on Terror. part of the same history of this criminal cabal.





False. I am not defending these dingbats at all; I consider Dubya to be among the worst Presidents in US history. I am simply pointing out that despite the copious ammunition the goons leave lying around to attack them with, you can't get it right and still keep heading up dubious hack-psychiatric alleys. forget that alleyway then and stick to the highway.
I just assert that such level of gross criminality must involve some form of psychopathic behaviour , that is my indulgence , if you , don't agree with that relatively trivial part of my position.

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2008, 01:02 AM
"You shall recognise them by their fruits"
call them crazy,psychopathic,criminal, evil it doesn't matter , what matters is that they should hang by their chicken necks.

It does matter a very great deal. If what they are is bad in a specific way (and there are specific ways in which it is) then call them bad for those reasons rather than using others you cannot substantiate.

Firstly if you call opponents something they are not then you are in that way as bad as them.

Secondly it backfires anyway, it gives them a chance (if they bother to give you the time of day) to make you look stupid.

Thirdly it diminishes public understanding of the real nature of mental conditions.

So if the goons are so bad (and there are ways in which they are) then stick to those facts and don't go off babbling in fields like psychiatry that you know less than nothing about.


murder,treason,theft,and deliberately lying to the american public.

Far as I know the latter is not a criminal offence anywhere (otherwise there'd hardly be a politician free). So concerning the first three, by the laws of which jurisdiction do you consider them guilty?


they should hang as criminals whether psychopathic or not

For what it's worth I object to your call for the death sentence, which is unnecessary, barbaric and irreversible if wrong. If you want to say they should rot in prison and the key should be thrown away then that's another matter entirely.


I just assert that such level of gross criminality must involve some form of psychopathic behaviour , that is my indulgence , if you , don't agree with that part of my position.

I don't necessarily agree with it and I would be certain it weakened your case if I thought that anyone was actually likely to be persuaded by you in the first place.

Axiom
21-09-2008, 01:35 AM
It does matter a very great deal. If what they are is bad in a specific way (and there are specific ways in which it is) then call them bad for those reasons rather than using others you cannot substantiate.i maintain that what they have done is so bad , that a level of psychopathy fits the picture.


Firstly if you call opponents something they are not then you are in that way as bad as them. they are so bad , it hardly matters


Secondly it backfires anyway, it gives them a chance (if they bother to give you the time of day) to make you look stupid. it gives them no chance to escape their culpability , such are the grave natures of their crimes


Thirdly it diminishes public understanding of the real nature of mental conditions. this is not about the nature of mental conditions, its about their level of criminality


So if the goons are so bad (and there are ways in which they are) then stick to those facts and don't go off babbling in fields like psychiatry that you know less than nothing about.
it is precisely because i have a significant knowledge in the field of psychology , that i make this call , based on their actions , and others accounts of their actions , refer to articles submitted above.



Far as I know the latter is not a criminal offence anywhere (otherwise there'd hardly be a politician free). So concerning the first three, by the laws of which jurisdiction do you consider them guilty?
murder, war crimes - international crimes tribunal
high treason- usa supreme court
theft- usa supreme court



For what it's worth I object to your call for the death sentence, which is unnecessary, barbaric and irreversible if wrong. If you want to say they should rot in prison and the key should be thrown away then that's another matter entirely.
high treason under U.S law calls for death penalty



I don't necessarily agree with it and I would be certain it weakened your case if I thought that anyone was actually likely to be persuaded by you in the first place. i have intimated on more than one occasion here , that i am not concerned if you accept the "psychopath" label or not , but to focus on the central issue of the criminality , which in my opinion includes a level of psychopathy , but that is my opinion , based on that which i referred to above.

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2008, 05:39 PM
i maintain that what they have done is so bad , that a level of psychopathy fits the picture.

But you can't prove it because you have no clue about anything to do about psychiatry. If you did you would realise that there are people out there who are not psychopaths who are much worse than the average psychopath.


they are so bad , it hardly matters

On the contrary. It is all the more reason not to give them ways to muddy the waters by pointing out your own poor form.


it gives them no chance to escape their culpability , such are the grave natures of their crimes

Actually whether or not you call them a psychopath has no bearing whatsoever on whether they escape culpability. Furthermore, if they are mentally ill then that may make them less culpable in some people's eyes.


this is not about the nature of mental conditions, its about their level of criminality

Then stop calling them "psycopaths" and just call them "criminals".


it is precisely because i have a significant knowledge in the field of psychology

I've never seen a public comment from you that suggested you had the slightest clue in the field nor that you held qualifications in it. Your "significant knowledge" seems to consist of having read overexcitable rants by crackpots who are unduly keen to throw the word "psychopath" about.


high treason under U.S law calls for death penalty

Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.


i have intimated on more than one occasion here , that i am not concerned if you accept the "psychopath" label or not , but to focus on the central issue of the criminality , which in my opinion includes a level of psychopathy , but that is my opinion , based on that which i referred to above.

Well let's see you focus on it then. If you have a serious focus on the criminality issue you will avoid this psychopathy rubbish that you seem to have very little clue about.

Axiom
21-09-2008, 06:17 PM
But you can't prove it because you have no clue about anything to do about psychiatry. This is your ignorance speaking.
You are looking for nothing less than a psychiatrist's report on Cheney !
The very characteristic of a psychopath is their ability to conceal their true intentions , and only the most adept rise to positions of great power , and with great power comes greater immunity from inspection. I base my opinion on the testimony of others like Ray Mcgovern and circumstantial evidence ie. their actions.


If you did you would realise that there are people out there who are not psychopaths who are much worse than the average psychopath.
like who ??
i think if you knew anything about criminal psychiatry you would know that the psychopath is top of the tree in terms of committing criminal acts.
And psychopaths in power obviously have the greatest means to carry out their intentions , like lying to go to war ,killing a million, profiting via haliburton, bailing out corporate buddies at the expense of their electorate tax payers , presiding over false flags , killing own citizens for "greater goals".
How much more psychopathic can you get ??
And don't give me the "incompetence" defence !



On the contrary. It is all the more reason not to give them ways to muddy the waters by pointing out your own poor form. you are the one muddying the waters by seeking to mitigate their grave ( psychopathic like) crimes at every turn.




Actually whether or not you call them a psychopath has no bearing whatsoever on whether they escape culpability. Furthermore, if they are mentally ill then that may make them less culpable in some people's eyes.psychopaths get no leniency in the face of the law , see what happened to the BTK Killer ,Ted Bundy, some nazis at nuremburg.
Although some are used and protected like idi amin , given free way out to saudi arabia.
Sociopaths and psychopaths make the perfect puppets , they lack empathy and feeling for their victims, the perfect conduits of evil agendas.




Then stop calling them "psychopaths" and just call them "criminals".
i call them criminals because that is obvious , i suspect highly, a psychopathic element , for reasons given above.



I've never seen a public comment from you that suggested you had the slightest clue in the field nor that you held qualifications in it. Your "significant knowledge" seems to consist of having read overexcitable rants by crackpots who are unduly keen to throw the word "psychopath" about. of course it would seem like that to you , because you have never given any indication that you accept that grand evil psychopathic conspiracies have ever occurred in the history of man , and that man is even capable of such great criminality at the highest levels of power.You dismiss ponerology. You cannot even accept that there was a usa plan to take down usa planes and blame it on the cubans ! ( operation northwoods) , IMO , you are approaching this topic from a most naive standpoint.




Doesn't mean you have to agree with it. i don't generally agree with capital punishment , but i make exceptions at such high crimes.




Well let's see you focus on it then. If you have a serious focus on the criminality issue you will avoid this psychopathy rubbish that you seem to have very little clue about. i have repeatedly stated here that the focus is criminality , a sub set of which is the psychopathic element which is at worst my indulgent opinion based on circumstantial evidence , of which i outlined above.

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2008, 09:08 PM
This is your ignorance speaking.

I doubt it greatly.


You are looking for nothing less than a psychiatrist's report on Cheney ! The very characteristic of a psychopath is their ability to conceal their true intentions , and only the most adept rise to positions of great power , and with great power comes greater immunity from inspection.

It is still possible for a qualified psychiatrist to present an assessment of whether someone's actions indicate a specific disorder.


I base my opinion on the testimony of others like Ray Mcgovern and circumstantial evidence ie. their actions.

Ray McGovern is not a psychiatrist and nor, apparently, are you.


like who ??

Well, we had one here, but you probably reckon he was framed.


i think if you knew anything about criminal psychiatry you would know that the psychopath is top of the tree in terms of committing criminal acts.

Where is your evidence for this claim from a qualified source?

I asked before if you could give any qualified assessments of US Presidents as psychopaths. You couldn't or at least didn't. What evidence can you provide concerning such assessments re other world leaders?

Also, this all rather fails to tally with "power corrupts" ... if what you're saying is that the powerful were mostly psychopaths to begin with.


And psychopaths in power obviously have the greatest means to carry out their intentions , like lying to go to war ,killing a million, profiting via haliburton, bailing out corporate buddies at the expense of their electorate tax payers , presiding over false flags , killing own citizens for "greater goals".
How much more psychopathic can you get ??

This provides no proof that any of them are "psychopaths". Here's a question for you: what are the defining characteristics of psychopaths?


you are the one muddying the waters by seeking to mitigate their grave ( psychopathic like) crimes at every turn.

This is just a lame over-aggressive comeback on your part. Clearly I am not seeking to mitigate anything, and if anything, I may be removing a possible mitigating factor.


psychopaths get no leniency in the face of the law

Be that as it may, some may think they should. Aren't they criminally insane, after all?


Sociopaths and psychopaths make the perfect puppets , they lack empathy and feeling for their victims, the perfect conduits of evil agendas.

Seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. Firstly you say that adept psychopaths "rise to positions of great power", then you say they are "perfect puppets". Doesn't tally really; a puppet lacks real power by definition.


of course it would seem like that to you , because you have never given any indication that you accept that grand evil psychopathic conspiracies have ever occurred in the history of man , and that man is even capable of such great criminality at the highest levels of power.

This is rubbish; the 20th century had some clear examples that great criminality can occur at high levels of power. However, concerning "grand evil psycopathic conspiracies" I'd like to see you try crawling before you try walking, so how about you demonstrate that specific world leaders have been professionally evaluated as psychopaths? (As I said before, half points for Nixon, and I'll add no points for the obvious two biggies!)


You dismiss ponerology.

Of course I do; it is a pseudoscience.


You cannot even accept that there was a usa plan to take down usa planes and blame it on the cubans ! ( operation northwoods) , IMO , you are approaching this topic from a most naive standpoint.

Actually in our previous discussions of Northwoods you were pulled up on the facts by Ian Murray. You had naively swallowed an over-sensationalised (or at least over-simplified view) of what happened and are still doing so. It was not an official "USA plan" but a proposed soldier-bureaucrat option that was never approved. There is no evidence real civilian casualties were intended.


i don't generally agree with capital punishment , but i make exceptions at such high crimes.

I don't.


i have repeatedly stated here that the focus is criminality , a sub set of which is the psychopathic element which is at worst my indulgent opinion based on circumstantial evidence , of which i outlined above.

Your indulgent uninformed opinion. You would be better off discarding this line of enquiry until you had more of a clue about psychiatry.

Axiom
21-09-2008, 09:38 PM
I doubt it greatly. Well you would , as a brainwashed centrist gatekeeper.

This is just a lame over-aggressive comeback on your part. Clearly I am not seeking to mitigate anything, and if anything, I may be removing a possible mitigating factor. and as such you fail miserably




Be that as it may, some may think they should. Aren't they criminally insane, after all? they are criminal , yes, but in the eyes of the law , as i have given evidence for , they are not insane to the degree by which they escape due punishment . Otherwise you would argue that ted bundy and the btk killer deserve leniancy !



Seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. Firstly you say that adept psychopaths "rise to positions of great power", then you say they are "perfect puppets". Doesn't tally really; a puppet lacks real power by definition.
exactly , they make great puppets of the psychopathic elite .



This is rubbish; the 20th century had some clear examples that great criminality can occur at high levels of power. However, concerning "grand evil psycopathic conspiracies" I'd like to see you try crawling before you try walking, so how about you demonstrate that specific world leaders have been professionally evaluated as psychopaths? (As I said before, half points for Nixon, and I'll add no points for the obvious two biggies!)idi amin, stalin, pol pot, hitler, blair.

but as i said earlier these positions of power do not lend themselves to such evaluation.


Of course I do; it is a pseudoscience. incorrect. psychopathy and sociopathy are well founded in the psychological sciences.




Actually in our previous discussions of Northwoods you were pulled up on the facts by Ian Murray. You had naively swallowed an over-sensationalised (or at least over-simplified view) of what happened and are still doing so. It was not an official "USA plan" but a proposed soldier-bureaucrat option that was never approved. There is no evidence real civilian casualties were intended.incorrect again, it was an official plan , as signed by the joints chief of staff.Only vetoed by JFK !




I don't. Why would a centrist status quo gatekeeper of the highest level of corruption?




Your indulgent uninformed opinion. You would be better off discarding this line of enquiry until you had more of a clue about psychiatry. unsubstantiated assertion

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2008, 10:22 PM
You still haven't answered my question Here's a question for you: what are the defining characteristics of psychopaths?

I suspect you haven't answered it because you don't actually know.


Well you would , as a brainwashed centrist gatekeeper.

Who do you think I am keeping what gate for, brainwashed conspiracist?


they are criminal , yes, but in the eyes of the law , as i have given evidence for , they are not insane to the degree by which they escape due punishment .

[..]

Otherwise you would argue that ted bundy and the btk killer deserve leniancy !

My views on leniency are irrelevant because I believe that psychopathic murderers should be locked away permanently for the safety of the community, whether they "deserve" punishment or not; after all, their rehabilitation prospects are very poor even if they don't. But you may find you are playing into the hands of those who think the mentally ill deserve sympathy whatever they may do.


exactly , they make great puppets of the psychopathic elite .

Psychopaths using other psychopaths as puppets? What about the puppets, do they use psychopaths as puppets too?


idi amin, stalin, pol pot, hitler, blair.

No points for Hitler or Stalin as previously alluded. Concerning the others, what's your evidence with specific reference to definitions of psychopathy? Sheesh, I've still left you with Idi Amin and Pol Pot, surely they're sitting ducks for you to provide adequate evidence of? :lol:


but as i said earlier these positions of power do not lend themselves to such evaluation.

That's just a copout to avoid debating the point - and you've again contradicted yourself by describing them as powerful when you actually believe (?) them to be puppets.


incorrect. psychopathy and sociopathy are well founded in the psychological sciences.

The concepts of psychopathy and sociopathy are well founded but ponerology's methods of using those concepts (basically, seeing how many mostly square pegs it can shove in the same round hole) are monodimensional unscientific junk.


incorrect again, it was an official plan , as signed by the joints chief of staff.Only vetoed by JFK !

We discussed this before. If it was vetoed by the President it was not a "USA plan" (and it was only one option anyway.)


Why would a centrist status quo gatekeeper of the highest level of corruption?

What "highest level of corruption"; your banning from the shoutbox for two weeks?


unsubstantiated assertion

Yeah, in response to a post where you made numerous unsubstantiated assertions. You're not going to get the whole Encyclopedia Brittanica regurgitated in response if you keep posting sloppy stuff, are you?

Axiom
21-09-2008, 10:54 PM
You still haven't answered my question Here's a question for you: what are the defining characteristics of psychopaths?

I suspect you haven't answered it because you don't actually know.
Do i have to do your homework for you ?
These persons, in general, display many of the following traits:

* Glibness/superficial charm
* Grandiose sense of self-worth
* Need for stimulation, with a proneness to boredom
* Pathological lying
* Conning and manipulating behaviors
* No sense of remorse or guilt
* A very shallow emotional affect - they display emotions they don't really feel
* A lack of empathy for others
* They are parasitic - they live off of others
* They are impulsive, and show poor control over their behaviors
* They tend to be promiscuous
* Their behavior problems start early in life
* They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic
* They are impulsive, and irresponsible
* They do not accept responsibility for their actions - another caused it
* Marital relationships are short, and many
* They display juvenile delinquency



Who do you think I am keeping what gate for, brainwashed conspiracist? you by your evidenced approach angle exhibited here , reflect a penchant for mitigating, defending the centrist status quo ie the very cover required for high level criminality and corruption to flourish. ie. you are unwittingly complicit.




My views on leniency are irrelevant because I believe that psychopathic murderers should be locked away permanently for the safety of the community, whether they "deserve" punishment or not; after all, their rehabilitation prospects are very poor even if they don't. But you may find you are playing into the hands of those who think the mentally ill deserve sympathy whatever they may do. where have i stated that the psychopath deserve sympathy ??
i make no apology for the ill informed's analysis.




Psychopaths using other psychopaths as puppets? What about the puppets, do they use psychopaths as puppets too? now , you're getting the idea , of the top down pyramidal structure allowing for such high criminality to flourish !




No points for Hitler or Stalin as previously alluded. Concerning the others, what's your evidence with specific reference to definitions of psychopathy? Sheesh, I've still left you with Idi Amin and Pol Pot, surely they're sitting ducks for you to provide adequate evidence of? :lol:

i think you seem to know already !
At least i should hope so !


That's just a copout to avoid debating the point - and you've again contradicted yourself by describing them as powerful when you actually believe (?) them to be puppets. puppets of the most powerful by definition have great power , that doesn't follow that they have themselves the greatest power , as conduits alone.




The concepts of psychopathy and sociopathy are well founded but ponerology's methods of using those concepts (basically, seeing how many mostly square pegs it can shove in the same round hole) are monodimensional unscientific junk.
and you know that from actually reading the treatise ?
all you ned to accept is that evil/psychopathy exists at the highest levels of power , even in this very day . Something which you seem loathe to accept.Hence the "unwitting gatekeeper" label !



We discussed this before. If it was vetoed by the President it was not a "USA plan" (and it was only one option anyway.) it was one of the planned options.




What "highest level of corruption"; your banning from the shoutbox for two weeks?
what ?
please stick to the subject matter , and stop your diverting gatekeeping tactics !



Yeah, in response to a post where you made numerous unsubstantiated assertions. You're not going to get the whole Encyclopedia Brittanica regurgitated in response if you keep posting sloppy stuff, are you?
more unsubstantiated sloppy stuffed assertions !

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2008, 11:55 PM
Do i have to do your homework for you ?

I've already done it. Whether you had any idea before now or just looked that up is another matter. But at least we are making progress here:


These persons, in general, display many of the following traits:

* Glibness/superficial charm
* Grandiose sense of self-worth
* Need for stimulation, with a proneness to boredom
* Pathological lying
* Conning and manipulating behaviors
* No sense of remorse or guilt
* A very shallow emotional affect - they display emotions they don't really feel
* A lack of empathy for others
* They are parasitic - they live off of others
* They are impulsive, and show poor control over their behaviors
* They tend to be promiscuous
* Their behavior problems start early in life
* They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic
* They are impulsive, and irresponsible
* They do not accept responsibility for their actions - another caused it
* Marital relationships are short, and many
* They display juvenile delinquency

Many of the following traits, indeed. 5/17 is not "many" and of those five you've probably misunderstood "parasitic" and wouldn't have the foggiest whether the leaders in question have remorse or empathy. Even if your 5/17 are right, what you've bolded wouldn't distinguish a psychopath from the proverbial used car salesman.

This is what Robert Hare, the clinician whose PCL-R scale the above is essentially a reordered rehash of, has to say about the use of such scales by armchair hacks like you:


The potential for harm is considerable if the PCL-R is used incorrectly, or if the user is not familiar with the clinical and empirical literature pertaining to psychopathy. Clinicians should

* Possess an advanced degree in the social, medical, or behavioral sciences, such as a Ph.D., D.Ed. or M.D.
* Be registered with the local state or provincial registration body that regulates the assessment and diagnosis of mental disorder (e.g., psychological or psychiatric association);
* Have experience with forensic populations (as demonstrated by registration as a diploma in forensic psychology or psychiatry, completion of a practicum or internship in a clinical-forensic setting,or at least two years of relevant work-related experience)
* Limit their use of the PCL-R to those populations in which it has been fully validated. The manual, published in 1991, stated that this meant only adult male forensic populations (e.g.,institutional or community correctional facilities, forensic psychiatric hospitals, and pre trial evaluation or detention facilities.) However, there now is enough empirical evidence to support its use with female and adolescent offenders, as well as with sex offenders.
* Insure that they have adequate training and experience in the use of the PCL-R. We further recommend that, wherever possible, the PCL-R scores of two independent raters should be averaged so as to increase the reliability of the assessment.

This is why I ask you if you can produce qualified evidence concerning psychiatry. Your own interpretations are worthless.


you by your evidenced approach angle exhibited here , reflect a penchant for mitigating, defending the centrist status quo ie the very cover required for high level criminality and corruption to flourish. ie. you are unwittingly complicit.

This is rubbish. We both agree that many of the things done by the Bush regime (for instance) are out of order on a massive scale. Our disagreements about the extent of that scale, the reasons for actions, and the extent of covert pulling of strings, are not relevant to that conclusion. You are the one giving them an out by suggesting they're all just sickos; I'm suggesting that they may not be, and they may be utterly responsible for their actions.


where have i stated that the psychopath deserve sympathy ??

I didn't say you did; I said your comments played into the hands of those who did.


now , you're getting the idea , of the top down pyramidal structure allowing for such high criminality to flourish !

So how far down do you think it goes? What %age of all people do you think are psychopaths?


i think you seem to know already !
At least i should hope so !

Whether I think they are psychopaths or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether you can prove your claim. (Actually while I think Amin and Pol Pot were nasty pieces of work, I can't say what in particular was psychiatrically wrong with them, though I'm very confident Amin at least was some kind of nutter.)


puppets of the most powerful by definition have great power

Not in my understanding of the elusive concept "power".


and you know that from actually reading the treatise ?

I read a large chunk from what you previously linked to.


all you ned to accept is that evil/psychopathy exists at the highest levels of power , even in this very day . Something which you seem loathe to accept.Hence the "unwitting gatekeeper" label !

Again missing the point. "Evil" is a very subjective term best left to the hopelessly religious, but concerning psychopathy, I expect there would be some psychopaths at high levels of power but I dispute strongly that most powerful people are psychopaths.


it was one of the planned options.

Given the number of such options, that's a contradiction in terms. It was simply one of a list of options that never got the green light, and that is all there is to it.


what ?
please stick to the subject matter , and stop your diverting gatekeeping tactics !

You're the one diverting by calling me a "gatekeeper" instead of just answering my points about psychopathy.


more unsubstantiated sloppy stuffed assertions !

I lost count of the number of them in your last post alone. (Don't bother trying to throw my own tactics back at me. Many context-allergic types have tried this on me, it never works.)

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2008, 12:01 AM
Further, on the issue of how many is "many", there are actually 20 items in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (some of your 17 appear as two, and "revocation of conditional release" was missing from your list). Each item scores 0,1 or 2 depending on how well it applies to the subject. For a diagnosis of psychopathy, a trained clinician needs to reach a score of 30.

Axiom
22-09-2008, 07:38 PM
I've already done it. Whether you had any idea before now or just looked that up is another matter. But at least we are making progress here:
You mean , you're making progress ! :lol:



Many of the following traits, indeed. 5/17 is not "many" and of those five you've probably misunderstood "parasitic" and wouldn't have the foggiest whether the leaders in question have remorse or empathy. Even if your 5/17 are right, what you've bolded wouldn't distinguish a psychopath from the proverbial used car salesman. so you know see how easy it was to reach my conclusions of a psychopthy element !
you really are making progress !


This is what Robert Hare, the clinician whose PCL-R scale the above is essentially a reordered rehash of, has to say about the use of such scales by armchair hacks like you: more unsubstantiated abuse... a sure sign your position is ripping at the seams.



The potential for harm is considerable if the PCL-R is used incorrectly, or if the user is not familiar with the clinical and empirical literature pertaining to psychopathy. Clinicians should

* Possess an advanced degree in the social, medical, or behavioral sciences, such as a Ph.D., D.Ed. or M.D.
* Be registered with the local state or provincial registration body that regulates the assessment and diagnosis of mental disorder (e.g., psychological or psychiatric association);
* Have experience with forensic populations (as demonstrated by registration as a diploma in forensic psychology or psychiatry, completion of a practicum or internship in a clinical-forensic setting,or at least two years of relevant work-related experience)
* Limit their use of the PCL-R to those populations in which it has been fully validated. The manual, published in 1991, stated that this meant only adult male forensic populations (e.g.,institutional or community correctional facilities, forensic psychiatric hospitals, and pre trial evaluation or detention facilities.) However, there now is enough empirical evidence to support its use with female and adolescent offenders, as well as with sex offenders.
* Insure that they have adequate training and experience in the use of the PCL-R. We further recommend that, wherever possible, the PCL-R scores of two independent raters should be averaged so as to increase the reliability of the assessment.

This is why I ask you if you can produce qualified evidence concerning psychiatry. Your own interpretations are worthless.
you mean like for your "nutter" idi amin ?? :lol:



This is rubbish. We both agree that many of the things done by the Bush regime (for instance) are out of order on a massive scale. Our disagreements about the extent of that scale, the reasons for actions, and the extent of covert pulling of strings, are not relevant to that conclusion. You are the one giving them an out by suggesting they're all just sickos; I'm suggesting that they may not be, and they may be utterly responsible for their actions. they are AND they incorporate a psychopathic element , almost a prerequisite for these actions.




I didn't say you did; I said your comments played into the hands of those who did.
your comments, by defending their high ,psychopathically evidenced crimes, play far more into their hands than mine could possibly do



So how far down do you think it goes? What %age of all people do you think are psychopaths? ~1%




Whether I think they are psychopaths or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether you can prove your claim. (Actually while I think Amin and Pol Pot were nasty pieces of work, I can't say what in particular was psychiatrically wrong with them, though I'm very confident Amin at least was some kind of nutter.) criminality on this scale , if doesn't involve psychopathy , i would like to hear your reasons for it ! :wall:




Not in my understanding of the elusive concept "power". not so elusive if you study real history , rather than be sidetracked by popular education,media and culture , all controlled by the banking elite.




I read a large chunk from what you previously linked to. if so , tell me what he concluded ?




Again missing the point. "Evil" is a very subjective term best left to the hopelessly religious, but concerning psychopathy, I expect there would be some psychopaths at high levels of power but I dispute strongly that most powerful people are psychopaths.

now you're seeing ghosts , who here said "most" ??


Given the number of such options, that's a contradiction in terms. It was simply one of a list of options that never got the green light, and that is all there is to it. blind denial in the face of facts.
IT WAS ONE OF THE PLANNED OPTIONS.




You're the one diverting by calling me a "gatekeeper" instead of just answering my points about psychopathy.

I've done BOTH.


I lost count of the number of them in your last post alone. (Don't bother trying to throw my own tactics back at me. Many context-allergic types have tried this on me, it never works.)
so does that mean when you use it , you are context allergic ? :lol:

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2008, 11:49 PM
You mean , you're making progress ! :lol:

What I meant is that we are moving towards discussing the same (useful) set of issues.


so you know see how easy it was to reach my conclusions of a psychopthy element !

No; indeed I've indicated why you should have reached them.


more unsubstantiated abuse... a sure sign your position is ripping at the seams.

Actually your inability to correctly apply the criteria substantiates and justifies the so-called "abuse" and showed that your position had ripped its own head off long before it was articulated.


you mean like for your "nutter" idi amin ?? :lol:

Well, since you appear to be certain he was a nutter, whereas I merely strongly suspect it, where's your proof?


they are AND they incorporate a psychopathic element , almost a prerequisite for these actions.

No evidence provided.


your comments, by defending their high ,psychopathically evidenced crimes, play far more into their hands than mine could possibly do

Groundless attack. If/when you get back from your ban, please quote comments of mine that argue that the behaviour of Bush et al is legitimate.


criminality on this scale , if doesn't involve psychopathy , i would like to hear your reasons for it ! :wall:

There are many reasons other than psychopathy why leaders may act in certain nasty ways. Sheer greed for wealth and power is an obvious one, delusion that they are doing the "right" thing is another, standing by their "mates" is a third. Politicians can also sometimes overreact to attacks by others. Even if a specific leader appears to be mentally ill and uncaring about the lives of others, you don't know enough to show they are a psychopath.


not so elusive if you study real history , rather than be sidetracked by popular education,media and culture , all controlled by the banking elite.

I'm betting you'd be just as clueless proving those points as your points about psychopaths, but if you want to take them up you can do so on your thread after your ban expires.


if so , tell me what he concluded ?

Primarily that psychopathy is the root of almost all human misery, crime and "evil". Incidentally he differed from your assessment of 1%; he said 6%.


now you're seeing ghosts , who here said "most" ??

The piece you quoted that led to this made clear its view that those in charge of the USA generally at present are "degraded, psychopathic political ‘leaders’". It did not say that it considered only a few of them psychopaths nor that it considered this condition endemic to the USA.


blind denial in the face of facts.
IT WAS ONE OF THE PLANNED OPTIONS.

There is clearly a semantic difference of opinion between us about what constitutes a "plan". To me, a list of options that says something translating as "we might do something like one of the following" is not a plan. It is simply a list of options.


I've done BOTH.

Not effectively as I show with my comment about the number of points needed to show someone is a psychopath, and Hare's warning that an unqualified person should not attempt diagnosis.


so does that mean when you use it , you are context allergic ? :lol:

No. I'm much better at only throwing a tactic back when it is effective to do so rather than making low-grade tryhard attempts stemming from a lack of discipline.

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2008, 05:33 PM
I note Axiom's curious display on this issue on the small island.

Ax has been flying the flag for the Holocaust downplayer (and arguably substantive denier) Fredrick Töben. I do not wish to engage here with (i) the question of whether Toben is right (though I believe that he is not) (ii) the question of whether Toben should be prosecuted (though I believe that he should not) (iii) the question of whether Toben deserves any sympathy for being prosecuted (though I believe that he does not). Be all that as it may what interests me is the following discussion re Toben:


The man is insane. He doesn't belong in gaol, only in a mental institution


You are a qualified psychiatrist are you ?


Brad does not need to be a practising psychiatrist in order to have an opinion.


true,
i am alluding to the dangerous cocktail of questioning history mixed with that of psychiatric evaluations

Either Axiom has realised the error of his ways following my criticism on this and other threads or else his comments are completely inconsistent. If the latter, then he is more than happy to throw in his lot with unqualified hacks who assert that psychopathy is a major driving force in modern politics and seek to revise official history on that basis. However when a Holocaust revisionist is accused of being a nutter Axiom challenges that.

Ax's attitude towards "the dangerous cocktail of questioning history mixed with thatsic of psychatric evaluations" seems therefore to be that revisionists are encouraged to call the establishment nutters but no-one is encouraged to call the revisionists nutters.

Desmond
03-11-2008, 09:14 AM
Why is it against the law to deny the holocaust?

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2008, 10:53 AM
Why is it against the law to deny the holocaust?
That's a good question. I like Jeff Jacoby's thoughts (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby030206.php3?printer_friendly):


So on a personal level, the prospect of David Irving spending his next three years in a prison cell is something over which I will lose no sleep. He is a repugnant, hate-filled liar, who even as a child (so his twin brother told the Telegraph, a British daily) was enamored of the Nazis and had a pronounced cruel streak.

But as a matter of law and public policy, Irving's sentence is deplorable. The opinions he expressed are vile, and his arguments about the Holocaust — perhaps the most comprehensively researched and documented crime in history — are ludicrous. But governments have no business criminalizing opinions and arguments, not even those that are vile or ludicrous. To be sure, freedom of speech is not absolute; laws against libel, death threats, and falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater are both reasonable and necessary. But free societies do not throw people in prison for giving offensive speeches or spouting historical lies.

Austria, the nation that produced Hitler and cheered the Anschluss, may well believe that its poisoned history requires a strong antidote. Punishing anyone who ''denies, grossly trivializes, approves, or seeks to justify" the Holocaust or other Nazi crimes may seem a small price to pay to keep would-be totalitarians and hatemongers at bay. But a government that can make the expression of Holocaust denial a crime today can make the expression of other offensive opinions a crime tomorrow.

Americans, for whom the First Amendment is a birthright, should understand this instinctively. ''If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought," wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1929. ''Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
It seems that Kevin's views above about Gerald Fredrick Töben are consistent with this.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 09:08 PM
It seems that Kevin's views above about Gerald Fredrick Töben are consistent with this.

Close to but not quite the same.

My reason for opposing the criminalisation of Holocaust denial is simply that there is no point in making martyrs out of people who express such invalid views, and to do so may give the false impression that there is actually some kind of real debate going on. Rather they should be freely ridiculed, shunned, avoided, referred to as crackpots and nutters and treated with contempt by those who disagree with them; all of that is justified and there is no need for any more.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 10:13 PM
Close to but not quite the same.

My reason for opposing the criminalisation of Holocaust denial is simply that there is no point in making martyrs out of people who express such invalid views, and to do so may give the false impression that there is actually some kind of real debate going on.
I agree with this as well. It is not mutually exclusive with the other reasons.


Rather they should be freely ridiculed, shunned, avoided, referred to as crackpots and nutters and treated with contempt by those who disagree with them; all of that is justified and there is no need for any more.
All true. Holocaust deniers tend to be rabid antisemites.

Adamski
12-11-2008, 01:06 PM
I agree with this as well. It is not mutually exclusive with the other reasons.


All true. Holocaust deniers tend to be rabid antisemites.Jono and KB have agreed on something outside chess and psephological matters! A first?

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 06:56 PM
Jono and KB have agreed on something outside chess and psephological matters! A first?

Naaah, it happens. Not sure what percentage of issues, probably something like 20 or so. :D

Miranda
12-11-2008, 07:36 PM
Naaah, it happens. Not sure what percentage of issues, probably something like 20 or so. :D

Kevin, you need to edit your post. You seem to have accidently put a '0' after the 2 ;)