Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
There is a laundry list of people the Clinton's are alleged to have had bumped off in their rise to power.
So, seems to me that Trump is pretty much a narcissist and Killary is a psychopath.
If somebody kidnapped one of my family members to make me vote, I'd vote for Trump on this point alone.
Totally agree. Trump strikes me more as a "Stalin" (using Lobaczewski's description, just as a type). Clinton is the Goering or the Beria. Trump is egotistical, totally sure of himself even when he's wrong, automatically filters out any negative associations about himself, he's impulsive, convinced of his own superiority, etc.
I think that may be a reason why the neocons don't like Trump. Even though he's a raging narcissist, that might actually make things more difficult for the real psychopaths. He doesn't 'speak the same language'. I think he might actually think that if he becomes president, he'll be "the boss". And I don't get the impression that he's the type who knows how to 'take a hint'. If he doesn't like somebody, he thinks he can just 'fire' them. He's used to getting his way, and using every slimy trick in the book to do so.
But what happens when you put someone like that up against a system that expects him to just roll over and do what he's supposed to? That's not even to say that he'll be in the right, just that it's a set up for a clash of personalities that isn't the norm in the "deep state"-president relationship as it has existed for the past couple generations. OSIT!
Exactly. We know what would be coming with Killary... probably nuclear war with Russia, total destruction of the US in its own territory, suffering on a massive scale of war, famine and pestilence.
With Trump, it's a bit less certain, though undoubtedly extremely unpleasant. He's a "clown" like Hitler was and he inspires admiration and devotion from those individuals who have distorted or twisted psychological make up. The very fact that this discussion is taking the different twists and turns it does is pretty good evidence of some things Lobaczewski noted. For example, the ideology of the schizoid can be utilized by other types - spell binders - with the following results:
Who plays the first crucial role in this process of the origin of pathocracy, schizoids or characteropaths? It appears to be the former; therefore, let us delineate their role first.
During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit marked by injury to individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world-view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world-view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world-view. {Trump definitely follows "doctrinaire" ideas.}
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time. [...]
In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake. The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.
Societal interpretation of such activities is broken down into the main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict. The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. This already contains the component of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena.
We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological. People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world-view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.
Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means. [...]
In the ponerogenic process of the pathocratic phenomenon, characteropathic individuals adopt ideologies created by doctrinaire, often schizoidal people, recast them into an active propaganda form, and disseminate it with pathological egotism and paranoid intolerance for any philosophies which may differ from their own. They also inspire further transformation of this ideology into its pathological counterpart. Something which had a doctrinaire character and circulated in numerically limited groups is now activated at societal level, thanks to their spellbinding possibilities.
It also appears that this process tends to intensify with time; initial activities are undertaken by persons with milder characteropathic features, who are easily able to hide their aberrations from others. Paranoid individuals thereupon become principally active. Toward the end of the process, an individual with frontal characteropathy and the highest degree of pathological egotism can easily take over leadership.
As long as the characteropathic individuals play a dominant role within a social movement affected by the ponerogenic process, the ideology, whether doctrinaire from the outset or later vulgarized and further-more perverted by these latter people, continues to keep and maintain its content link with the prototype. The ideology continuously affects the movement’s activities and remains an essential justifying motivation for many. In this phase, such a union therefore does not move in the direction of mass scale crime. To a certain extent, one could justifiably define such a movement or union by the name derived from its original ideology.
In the meantime, however, the carriers of other (mainly hereditary) pathological factors become engaged in this already sick social movement. They accomplish the work of final transformation of the contents of such a union in such a way that it becomes a pathological caricature of its original contents and ideology. This is affected under the ever-growing influence of psychopathic personalities, thanks to the inspiration of essential psychopathy. Such leadership eventually engenders a wholesale showdown: the adherents of the original ideology are shunted aside or terminated. This group includes many characteropaths, especially of the lesser and paranoidal varieties. Ideological motivations and the double talk they create thereupon serve to hide the actual new contents of the phenomenon. From this time on, using the ideological denomination of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes.
I would say that Trump's acceptance of some of the schizoidal concepts that are being flung about nowadays - the "simple solutions to the world's problems" - are due to his own internal deviations, both genetic and social. He has certainly taken things a big step further and is "brutalizing" such ideas. He appears to accept "forceful methods and revolutionary means".
Question is: is that any worse than Killary and her gang of psychopaths? Killary and the gang seem to operate on the premise that suppressing and destroying opposition in advance is the best method. That's pretty much what we see in play at the present. Creating "terrorist attacks" so as to justify draconian measures, and also stimulating REAL resistance which just plays into their hands. So, it could be said that the Killary group is ALSO an example of the above, though in a more advanced state of development!!!
Trump, on the other hand, at the beginning of the process along another, though parallel line of force, thinks that "revolutionary measures" will do the trick. The main difference here seems to be that his rhetoric "inspires" revolutionary feelings in the masses who think that their support of him will get them what they want. That's pretty much how the masses felt about Hitler. He was the clown facing off against the Weimar republic fiasco. He was the people's hero, the beer-hall prophet of revolution against the status quo. And he had an easy target with Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and so forth. They were the scapegoats, the cause of all the troubles.
So, a lot of people followed Hitler, the people's messiah. That following, itself, is what infused Hitler with his ideas of world dominance, stealing other people's land and stuff. The same will probably act on Trump in a similar way. What he is now, is not necessarily what he will remain. And that is especially true when he has the first "briefing" with the CIA/NSA/other alphabet agencies who read him the riot act and tell him what he can and cannot do.
Hillary already knows the alphabet drill and she is doing everything to engage that power on her own behalf. She probably thinks that she, too, is going to get in power and put her own stamp on things. I've been watching her for many years now, and she is definitely a very angry woman for having been put in her place time and time again; humiliated by Bill, Monica, and more. Her drive for power has made her shove that stuff under the rug because she is anticipating "payback time".
But even that motivation can change. There's nothing like finding oneself in the seat of power for exposing what one truly is. Both Killary and Trump are really dark horses when it comes to the idea of either of them winning.
So, as has been said so often, the choice is between a rock and a hard place, or an irresistible force and an immovable object.
In the final analysis, as I said, I'd vote for Trump simply because he is still somewhat of an unknown. My speculations that he is a Hitler in the making are just that: speculations. But if he has anything human in him, it won't ever be allowed to manifest thanks to the control of the "secret gov" and he will be obliged to utilize his devoted followers in the service of that agenda. However, there could still be some interesting demonstrations of individuality there. One thing that could be the outcome would be a far more rapid decline and destruction of the US as a consequence of the extreme polarization that he would spearhead. In short, he might bring all the suffering to a sooner end! That may not be a bad thing.
Hillary, on the other hand, would probably continue the same agenda without any of the masses EVER acquiring hope, however misguided it is, as is evidenced by Trump's followers. It would amount to death by a thousand cuts; death, nevertheless, drawn out and horrific. And if she thinks she's gonna inflict it on everywhere else and the USA will be exempt, she's definitely got another think coming. The peoples of the rest of the world have pretty much had a bellyful of the USA, only the USA doesn't get that yet.
So, Trump might destroy the USA from within, while Hillary will destroy the USA by making it a target of the rest of the world. I think the Trump option is probably better (yeah, what can be "better" about that??!) because at least it will leave other areas of the planet alone.
Anyway, just my recent ponderings on the topic.
A bit.
