Living with a psychopath

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
AP
Bush Says Surveillance Legal and Necessary
AP - 7 minutes ago
MANHATTAN, Kansas - President Bush pushed back Monday at critics of his once-secret domestic spying effort, saying it should be termed a "terrorist surveillance program" and contending it has the backing of legal experts, key lawmakers and the Supreme Court. Several members of Congress from both parties have questioned whether the warrantless snooping is legal. That is because it bypasses a special federal court that, by law, must authorize eavesdropping on Americans and because the president provided limited notification to only a few lawmakers.



I just read this and was instantly brought back a few years to when I lived with a psychopath - it is exactly the same technique and, if I allow myself to think about it, it produces exactly the same frustration. Whenever I actually called my partner the psychopath on her unacceptable behavior, she simply stated that her behavior is completely acceptable and if I didn't understand that, it was my problem. Since I always assumed that her behavior was motivated by the same things my behavior was motivated, I always ended up in a circle of frustration. It was completely beyond me that a person would consistently lie and twist the reality of any situation to suit her own purposes. I truly did not understand how an apparent human being could work so completely differently than I work - that words to her were meaningless and that words describing her feelings were simply codes that emotionally manipulated me. Nothing she ever said to me, whether 'good' or 'bad' was valid one second after she said it - everything changed by the minute according to her shifting desires. Were it not for the information I found on the Cass site about psychopaths, I'm certain that I would still be trying to figure out what I had done wrong all those years. All psychopaths are just so consistently the same - they display the same techniques, thought processes and results as if they are literally controlled by one mind. You cannot argue with them or influence their behavior because they literally have no idea what you mean by words like honesty, integrity, respect, and responsibility - although they will swear to god that those words represent everything they are and have ever been. It is so apparent and so damaging to a mind not armed with the knowledge of how they work. Anyway, I just thought I'd point that out since it hit so close to home.
 
The psychophage's ability to confuse is based, I think, on something similar to what happens to a mouse when it senses a cat nearby. Millions of years of evolution have built a defense mechanism into the mouse that makes it stay as far away from cats and other predators as possible. But as I noted in another post, which I think I will include in this forum because it SO applies, it may be that something can shift that defense mechanism and maybe even turn it off.

In any event, what is observed is that if a mouse does not manage to stay clear of the cat, it freezes which may be an evolutionary survival strategy: play dead and the cat will go away since cat's like to play with their food before eating it.

Well, what if there is a REAL inbuilt evolutionary survival thing in human beings similar to that in animals that - under proper conditions - would really work, but for various reasons having to do with social and religious programming, does not? We are so completely programmed to believe that anybody that looks like a human being IS a fully functional human being with a full complement of all the attributes of same, including conscience. But what if there is some part of us that still operates on the evolutionary survival instincts which we manage to suppress most of the time, but now and again is triggered by certain behaviors of psychopaths?

For example, Signs published the following

What is really mind-blowing is that the Bush Gang have the nerve to [demand internet search engine records] immediately after Bush announced that he has been spying on Americans illegally for quite some time. Even more astonishing than the gall of these criminals is the fact that Bush was not immediately arrested for Treason against the American people! But then, that is the special talent of the psychopath:

In spite of their deficiencies as regards normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and then have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural worldview.

They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them.

They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, take a paraspecific variety.

Natural human reactions - which often fail to elicit interest because they are considered self-evident - strike psychopaths as strange and therefore interesting, even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts.

They become experts in our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments upon us. … Neither a normal person nor our natural worldview can perceive or properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts. ...

Our first contact [with the psychopath] is characterized by a talkative stream which flows with ease and avoids truly important matters with equal ease if they are uncomfortable for the talker. His train of thought also avoids those matters of human feelings and values whose representation is absent in the psychopathic world view. […] From the logical point of view, the flow of thought is ostensibly correct…

The world of normal people whom they hurt is incomprehensible and hostile to them. […] [Life to the psychopath] is the pursuit of its immediate attractions, pleasure and power. They meet with failure along this road, along with force and condemnation from the society of those other incomprehensible people....

In any society in this world, psychopathic individuals and some of the other deviants create a ponerogenically active network of common collusions, partially estranged from the community of normal people. Some inspirational role of the essential psychopathy in this network also appears to be a common phenomenon.

They are aware of being different as they obtain their life experience and become familiar with different ways of fighting for their goals. Their world is forever divided into “us and them” - their world with its own laws and customs and that other foreign world full of presumptuous ideas and customs in light of which they are condemned morally.

Their “sense of honor” bids them cheat and revile that other human world and its values. In contradiction to the customs of normal people, they feel non-fulfillment of their promises or obligations is customary behavior.

They also learn how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of those normal people, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of reaching their goals....

Essential psychopathy has exceptionally intense effects in this manner. Something mysterious gnaws into the personality of an individual at the mercy of the psychopath, and it is fought like a demon. His emotions become chilled, his sense of psychological reality is stifled. This leads to decriterialization of thought and a feeling of helplessness culminating in depressive reactions which can be so severe that psychiatrists sometimes misdiagnose them as a manic-depressive psychosis. Lobaczewski
Now notice particularly this:

They also learn how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of those normal people, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of reaching their goals....
In another place in his book, Lobaczewski talks about the effect of the psychopath on normal human beings in terms of what actually transpires in the brain.

When the human mind comes into contact with this new reality so different from any experiences encountered by a person raised in a society dominated by normal people, it releases psychophysiological shock symptoms in the human brain with a higher tonus of cortex inhibition and a stifling of feelings, which then sometimes gush forth uncontrollably.

Human minds work more slowly and less keenly because the associative mechanisms have become inefficient.

Especially when a person has direct contact with [a psychopath], who use their specific experience so as to traumatize the minds of the “others” with their own personalities, his mind succumbs to a state of short-term catatonia.

The [psychopath's] humiliating and arrogant techniques, brutal paramoralizations, and so forth deaden his thought processes and his self-defense capabilities, and their divergent experiential method anchors in his mind. ...

Only once these unbelievably unpleasant psychological states have passed, thanks to rest in benevolent company, is it possible to reflect, always a difficult and painful process, or to become aware that one’s mind and common sense have been fooled by something which cannot fit into the normal human imagination.
Notice that the psychopath is able to use his "special knowledge" to "deaden the thought processes self-defense capabilities" of the normal person.

Well, what if this is not entirely psychological? What if certain behaviors trigger the evolutionary survival mechanism that is part of the older structures of the brain? What if this paralysis, this catatonia is similar to the "freezing" of the mouse when it encounters the cat?

The other thing of note is where Lobaczewski says that, while the person is "frozen" and effectively helpless, the "divergent experiential method anchors in the mind" of the normal person. For a long time I have noticed this phenomenon which I always described as "putting psychic hooks" into a person. This is actually a terrible thing because it is similar to the cat reaching out with a paw and holding the mouse down to begin toying with it prior to eating.

And that is whay I have used the term "psychophage," which is a much better word for what we call a "psychopath" because it means, literally, "Soul Eater."
 
Here is the post I wrote in "Ultra-terrestrials" which, I think, is very useful in terms of Ponerology as well.

I found a strange article today that is going up on the Signs page which is so odd (IMO) that I thought I would share it here first:

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/20 … asters.php

by Carl Zimmer

Are brain parasites altering the personalities of three billion people? The question emerged a few years ago, and it shows no signs of going away.

I first encountered this idea while working on my book Parasite Rex. I was investigating the remarkable ability parasites have to manipulate the behavior of their hosts. The lancet fluke Dicrocoelium dendriticum, for example, forces its ant host to clamp itself to the tip of grass blades, where a grazing mammal might eat it. It's in the fluke's interest to get eaten, because only by getting into the gut of a sheep or some other grazer can it complete its life cycle. Another fluke, Euhaplorchis californiensis, causes infected fish to shimmy and jump, greatly increasing the chance that wading birds will grab them.

Those parasites were weird enough, but then I got to know Toxoplasma gondii. This single-celled parasite lives in the guts of cats, sheddding eggs that can be picked up by rats and other animals that can just so happen be eaten by cats. Toxoplasma forms cysts throughout its intermediate host's body, including the brain. And yet a Toxoplasma-ridden rat is perfectly healthy. That makes good sense for the parasite, since a cat would not be particularly interested in eating a dead rat. But scientists at Oxford discovered that the parasite changes the rats in one subtle but vital way.

The scientists studied the rats in a six-foot by six-foot outdoor enclosure. They used bricks to turn it into a maze of paths and cells. In each corner of the enclosure they put a nest box along with a bowl of food and water. On each the nests they added a few drops of a particular odor. On one they added the scent of fresh straw bedding, on another the bedding from a rat's nests, on another the scent of rabbit urine, on another, the urine of a cat. When they set healthy rats loose in the enclosure, the animals rooted around curiously and investigated the nests. But when they came across the cat odor, they shied away and never returned to that corner. This was no surprise: the odor of a cat triggers a sudden shift in the chemistry of rat brains that brings on intense anxiety. (When researchers test anti-anxiety drugs on rats, they use a whiff of cat urine to make them panic.) The anxiety attack made the healthy rats shy away from the odor and in general makes them leery of investigating new things. Better to lie low and stay alive.

Then the researchers put Toxoplasma-carrying rats in the enclosure. Rats carrying the parasite are for the most part indistinguishable from healthy ones. They can compete for mates just as well and have no trouble feeding themselves. The only difference, the researchers found, is that they are more likely to get themselves killed. The scent of a cat in the enclosure didn't make them anxious, and they went about their business as if nothing was bothering them. They would explore around the odor at least as often as they did anywhere else in the enclosure. In some cases, they even took a special interest in the spot and came back to it over and over again.


The scientists speculated that Toxoplasma was secreted some substance that was altering the patterns of brain activity in the rats. This manipulation likely evolved through natural selection, since parasites that were more likely to end up in cats would leave more offpsring.

The Oxford scientists knew that humans can be hosts to Toxoplasma, too. People can become infected by its eggs by handling soil or kitty litter. For most people, the infection causes no harm. Only if a person's immune system is weak does Toxoplasma grow uncontrollably. That's why pregnant women are advised not to handle kitty litter, and why toxoplasmosis is a serious risk for people with AIDS. Otherwise, the parasite lives quietly in people's bodies (and brains). It's estimated that about half of all people on Earth are infected with Toxoplasma.

Given that human and rat brains have a lot of similarities (they share the same basic anatomy and use the same neurotransmitters), a question naturally arose: if Toxoplasma can alter the behavior of a rat, could it alter a human? Obviously, this manipulation would not do the parasite any good as an adaptation, since it's pretty rare for a human to be devoured by a cat. But it could still have an effect.

Some scientists believe that Toxoplasma changes the personality of its human hosts, bringing different shifts to men and women. Parasitologist Jaroslav Flegr of Charles University in Prague administered psychological questionnaires to people infected with Toxoplasma and controls. Those infected, he found, show a small, but statistically significant, tendency to be more self-reproaching and insecure. Paradoxically, infected women, on average, tend to be more outgoing and warmhearted than controls, while infected men tend to be more jealous and suspicious.

It's controversial work, disputed by many. But it attracted the attention of E. Fuller Torrey of the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. Torrey and his colleagues had noticed some intriguing links between Toxoplasma and schizophrenia. Infection with the parasite has been associated with damage to a certain class of neurons (astrocytes). So has schizophrenia. Pregnant women with high levels of Toxoplasma antibodies in their blood were more likely to give birth to children who would later develop schizophrenia. Torrey lays out more links in this 2003 paper. While none is a smoking gun, they are certainly food for thought. It's conceivable that exposure to Toxoplasma causes subtle changes in most people's personality, but in a small minority, it has more devastating effects.

A year later, Torrey and his colleagues discovered one more fascinating link. They raised human cells in Petri dishes and infected them with Toxoplasma. Then they dosed the cells with a variety of drugs used to treat schizophrenia. Several of the drugs--most notably haloperidol--blocked the growth of the parasite.

So Fuller and the Oxford scientists joined forces to find an answer to the next logical question: can drugs used to treat schizophrenia help a parasite-crazed rat? They now report their results in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (press release). They ran the original tests on 49 more rats. Once again, parasitized rats lost their healthy fear of cats. Then the researchers treated the rats with haloperidol and several other anti-psychotic drugs. They found that the drugs made the rats more scared. They also found that the antipsychotics were as effective as pyrimethamine, a drug that is specifically used to eliminate Toxoplasma.

There's plenty left to do to turn these results into a full-blown explanation of parasites and personalities. For example, what is Toxoplasma releasing into brains to manipulate its hosts? And how does that substance give rise to schizophrenia in some humans? And even if the hypothesis does hold up, it would only account for some cases of schizophrenia, while the cause of others would remain undiscovered. But still...the idea that parasites are tinkering with humanity's personality--perhaps even giving rise to cultural diversity--is taking over my head like a bad case of Toxoplasma.
With the article, I have included a snippet of C's transcripts but here, I am going to include more of that particular session than I put on the news page:

9 August 1997
Q: Next question: is there any relationship between the fact that Roger de Mortimer, the carrier of the last of the line of the Welsh kings, was the lover of Isabella of France, who was the daugther of Philip the Fair, the destroyer of the Templars, and the murder of Edward II, the first of the English Prince of Wales?

A: Templars are a setup, insofar as persecution is concerned. Remember your "historical records" can be distorted, in order to throw off future inquiries, such as your own.

Q: I know that. I have already figured that one out! But, it seems that no one else has made this connection. I mean, the bloodlines that converge in the Percys and the Mortimers are incredible!

A: You should know that these bloodlines become parasitically infected, harrassed and tinkered with whenever a quantum leap of awareness is imminent.

Q: Whenever a quantum leap...

A: Such as "now."
Now this last item above is the part that struck me. I had never figured that remark out at all in the 9 years since it was made and then, today, there is this strange article where I noticed (with a chill down my spine, I should add)

Given that human and rat brains have a lot of similarities (they share the same basic anatomy and use the same neurotransmitters), a question naturally arose: if Toxoplasma can alter the behavior of a rat, could it alter a human? Obviously, this manipulation would not do the parasite any good as an adaptation, since it's pretty rare for a human to be devoured by a cat. But it could still have an effect.

But, if the C's are correct, it may not be rare for humans to be eaten by "something" else. Which reminds me of a more recent item from the C's. The context was that we were discussing an individual who announced that she was dropping out of QFG because she had become "infected" psychically, you might say:

6 August 2005

Q: (L) What's the deal with this K***** in the group?

A: Some people are born to serve, others are born to be served...
Thing is, if this article is correct, there may not be a lot of difference between being "infected" physically AND psychically!

But, I digress. In the first excerpt above, where the C's just casually dropped that comment about people being parasitically infected at times of potential quantum jumps in awareness, they then immediately introduced what was obviously a direct follow up. Now, notice, the C's don't very often voluteer stuff so when they do, I really pay attention. So here is the rest of that transcript:

C's: Here is something for you to digest: Why is it that your scientists have overlooked the obvious when they insist that alien beings cannot travel to earth from a distant system???

Q: And what is this obvious thing?

A: Even if speed of light travel, or "faster," were not possible, and it is, of course, there is no reason why an alien race could not construct a space "ark," living for many generations on it. They could travel great distances through time and space, looking for a suitable world for conquest. Upon finding such, they could then install this ark in a distant orbit, build bases upon various solid planes in that solar system, and proceed to patiently manipulate the chosen civilizations to develop a suitable technological infrastructure. And then, after the instituting of a long, slow, and grand mind programming project, simply step in and take it over once the situation was suitable.

Q: Is this, in fact, what has happened, or is happening?

A: It could well be, and maybe now it is the time for you to learn about the details.

Q: Well, would such a race be 3rd or 4th density in orientation?

A: Why not elements of both?

Q: What is the most likely place that such a race would have originated from?

A: Oh, maybe Orion, for example?

Q: Okay. If such a race did, in fact, travel to this location in space/time, how many generations have come and gone on their space ark during this period of travel, assuming, of course, that such a thing has happened?

A: Maybe 12.

Q: Okay, that implies that they have rather extended life spans...

A: Yes...

Q: Assuming this to be the case, what are their lifespans?

A: 2,000 of your years. ... When in space, that is...

Q: And what is the span when on terra firma?

A: 800 years.

Q: Well, has it not occurred to them that staying in space might not be better?

A: No. Planets are much more "comfortable."

Q: Okay... imagining that such a group has traveled here...

A: We told you of upcoming conflicts... Maybe we meant the same as your Bible, and other references. Speak of... The "final" battle between "good and evil..." Sounds a bit cosmic, when you think of it, does it not?

Q: Does this mean that there is more than one group that has traveled here in their space arks?

A: Could well be another approaching, as well as "reinforcements" for either/or, as well as non-involved, but interested observers of various types who appreciate history from the sidelines.

Q: Well, SWELL! There goes my peaceful life!

A: You never had one!

Q: Well, I was planning on one! ...Any other comment?

A: You chose to be incarnated now, with some foreknowledge of what was to come. Reference your dreams of space attack.

Q: Okay, what racial types are we talking about relating to these hypothetical aliens?

A: Three basic constructs. Nordic, Reptilian, and Greys. Many variations of type 3, and 3 variations of type 1 and 2.

Q: Well, what racial types are the 'good guys?'

A: Nordics, in affiliation with 6th density "guides."

Q: And that's the only good guys?

A: That's all you need.

Q: Wonderful! So, if it is a Grey or Lizzie, you know they aren't the nice guys. But, if it is tall and blond, you need to ask questions!

A: All is subjective when it comes to nice and not nice. Some on 2nd density would think of you as "not nice," to say the least!!!

Q: That's for sure! Especially the roaches! Maybe we ought to get in touch with some of these good guys...
A: When the "time" is right.

Q: Speaking of time - any further comments?

A: Just pay attention to the signs, please! It is not helpful to place yourself in a vacuum of awareness.

Q: I don't think I am in a vacuum of awareness. Now, this Jason Dunlap is printing a lot of stuff that reminds me of the Hale Bopp incident. There is a lot being said about the sightings out in the SouthWest area. They are saying that this is the 'new' imminent invasion or mass landing. Can you comment on this activity?

A: Prelude to the biggest "flap" ever.

Q: And where will this flap be located?

A: Earth.

Q: When is it going to begin?

A: Starting already.

Q: Is this biggest flap going to be just a flap, or is it going to be an invasion?

A: Not yet.

Q: Not an invasion?

A: Yes.

Q: So, it will just be inciting people to frenzies of speculation...

A: Invasion happens when programming is complete...

Q: What programming?

A: See Bible, "Lucid" book, Matrix Material, "Bringers of the Dawn," and many other sources, then cross reference...

Q: Well, if something is fairly imminent, we are not gonna hae time to do all the things you have suggested that we do!

A: Yes you will, most likely.

Q: Well, we are supposed to build a pool, a maze, a psychomantium, to build a database, get a Nobel Prize... a LOT of things in the works here.... This just sort of takes the heart right out of me!

A: Not so!
[Note: our idea of WHY one would want a Nobel Prize has nothing to do with money, though we could sure use it, but rather with the fact that it helps one to advance their ideas with less resistance. Of course, we were thinking this back in 1997. We later became aware of what happened to Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson. He was accused of losing his mind or having a nervous breakdown when he wanted to address these topics seriously. So, since that event, we no longer think that getting a Nobel would make a hill of beans difference other than helping us pay for a few other researchers to collaborate and really make some progress!]


Q: Well, are we going to have time to do all these things?

A: All these things were suggested for this reason, among others.

Q: So, all the things you have suggested are to get us ready for this event?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, we better get moving! We don't have time to mess around!

A: You will proceed as needed, you cannot force these events or alter the Grand Destiny.

Q: I do NOT like the sound of that! I want to go home!

A: The alternative is less appetising.

Q: Sure! I don't want to be lunch!

A: Reincarnation on a 3rd density earth as a "cave person" amidst rubble and a glowing red sky, as the perpetual cold wind whistles...

Q: Why is the sky glowing red?

A: Contemplate.

Q: Of course! Comet dust! Sure, everybody knows THAT! Wonderful!!! Anything further?

A: Stay tuned for all pertinent information.
I had to smile when re-reading this because of the reference to "being lunch." It really makes sense now...

Well, we don't know if any of this is true. As I've said many times, I've never seen what I would call an Ultraterrestrial except in a state that I wouldn't trust 100%. But the C's do have a really good record and we are daily witnessing the reality they predicted back in the early and mid 90s, right on up to the later 90s. I would also like to point out that Zimmer says:

The question emerged a few years ago, and it shows no signs of going away.
That means that it is entirely possible that the C's were talking about such a possibility before it was ever looked at seriously by science.

But that doesn't mean that it is quite that simple as people being just physical food. It is also possible that such a parasitic infection could make a person just psychically susceptible to manipulation and control. Also notice the possible connection to shizophrenia. If this guy is right, half the population of this plane is infected. Those aren't very good odds. It will obviously take a lot of effort to overcome such a "frequency fence." Which brings me to another recent bit of transcript. Once again, we were discussing a particular individual and situation that was somewhat perilous.

23 October 2004

Q: (H) When you referred to the manipulations with S****, what kind of manipulations were you referring to: internal or external?

A: Both but mostly external as in not directly perceivable in the environment.

Q: (L) Does that mean that if someone believes an illusion, that it leaves a hole in their defences?

A: More or less.

Q: (H) What is the major problem facing the group at the moment?

A: Stalling frequency waves.

Q: What can we do to help?

A: Requires will and knowledge. You share, they find will if it is there to find.

Q: (A) What kind of knowledge do we need to share?

A: That their lack of ability to see and do is due to deliberate stalling.

Q: (H) Can you elaborate?

A: They are in a frequency fence being stored for later food.

Q: (A) Are we also in a fence? Or is there a difference?

A: Quite.

Q: We are quite different?

A: Yes.

Q: What makes us different?

A: Seeing and doing.

Q: (L) Well, if we have a network, different people are doing different things. They are at different levels. Shouldn't we consider it in this light?

A: You were in as bad condition before leaving the USA, remember?

Q: (H) Can they overcome the stalling?

A: If they wish.
In short, it's not going to be easy. We see that from the fact that the people of the world are sleepwalking to disaster. But it CAN be done.
As to HOW overcoming the stalling frequency can be done, and that includes the paralysis and "anchoring" of psychophagic concepts in the mind of the normal person, Lobaczewski offers some helpful information:

If a person with a normal instinctive substratum and basic intelligence has already heard and read about such a system of ruthless autocratic rule “based on a fanatical ideology”, he feels he has already formed an opinion on the subject. However, direct confrontation with the phenomenon causes him to feel intellectually helpless. All his prior imaginings prove to be virtually useless; they explain next to nothing. This provokes a nagging sensation that he and the society in which he was educated were quite naive.

Anyone capable of accepting this bitter void with an awareness of his own nescience, which would do a philosopher proud, can also find an orientation path within this deviant world. However, egotistically protecting his world-view habits from disintegrative disillusionment and attempting to combine them with observations from this new divergent reality only reaps mental chaos. The latter has produced unnecessary conflicts and disillusionment with the new rulership in some people; others have subordinated themselves to the pathological reality. One of the differences observed between a normally resistant person and somebody who has undergone a transpersonification is that the former is better able to survive this disintegrating cognitive void, whereas the latter fills the void with the pathologic propaganda material, and without sufficient controls. ....
Notice here that Lobaczewski mentions that there are people who attempt to combine their observations of psychopathy with their own world view, such as attempting to impose their "everyone has a soul and we just have to figure out what is wrong with these people and save them" shtick, only end up being in chaos. It could be said that the same chaotic state is common to those people who have been in a state of internal conflict and discomfort when dealing with psychophages and keep trying to blame themselves or try to "fix" things.

What is important is that those who have this problem of internal confusion and chaos are those who probably have the WILL to resist and that is what the confusion and chaos is about: the instinctive substratum is screaming: "PREDATOR" and the conscious mind's programming is saying "It's not a predator, it is a human being and I just need to figure out how to fix him/her." This conflict is what produces the "extremely unpleasant psychological states" that Lobaczewski has described: the freezing, the loss of ability to think, the mental catatonia, followed by the "anchoring" of psychopathic material.

Notice also that he mentions those that undergo what he calls "transpersonification." These are the people in whom the psychopathic material "anchors" and because they have never been able to fully accept the reality of what we can plainly call "evil personified," because they can't let go of the idea that "all are one" and "we only need love" or "let's just all get along and play nice" or "I can fix it" or they have some emotional investment in preserving the status quo, then that void is not filled with the TRUTH of the situation based on FACTS. And so, with a void inside, they are subject to having that void filled with pathologic material. They have no controls.

But, getting back to the people who do have a big conflict and who are capable of the will to resist being "assimilated, (probably because they have the WILL in there in the first place), even if they are weary and scarred from battle, there is much hope because by dealing with the phenomenon directly, they seem to be "inoculated." As Lobaczewski describes it:

Only once these unbelievably unpleasant psychological states have passed, thanks to rest in benevolent company, is it possible to reflect, always a difficult and painful process, or to become aware that one’s mind and common sense have been fooled by something which cannot fit into the normal human imagination.
He also taoks a bit about the value of individuals who have been "inoculated" by first hand experience:

The specific role of certain individuals during such times is worth pointing out; they participated in the discovery of the nature of this new reality and helped others find the right path.

They had a normal nature but an unfortunate childhood, being subjected very early to the domination of individuals with various psychological deviations, including pathological egotism and methods of terrorizing others.

The new rulership system struck such people as a large-scale societal multiplication of what they knew from individual experience. From the very outset, they therefore saw this reality much more prosaically, immediately treating the ideology in accordance with the paralogistic stories well known to them, whose purpose was to cloak bitter reality of their youth experiences. They soon reached the truth, since the genesis and nature of evil are analogous irrespective of the social scale in which it appears.

Such people are rarely understood in happy societies, but there they became useful; their explanations and advice proved accurate and were transmitted to others joining the network of this apperceptive heritage. However, their own suffering was doubled, since this was too much of a similar kind of abuse for one life to handle. ...

Finally, society sees the appearance of individuals who have collected exceptional intuitive perception and practical knowledge in the area of how pathocrats think and such a system of rule operates.
That is what we hope to do here. It seems to me that this is the most important thing to do at this time. As Lobaczewski writes:

Man and society stands at the beginning of a long road of unknown experiences which, after much trial and error, finally leads to a certain hermetic knowledge of what the qualities of the phenomenon are and how best to build up psychological resistance thereto. ....

We shall thereupon observe psychological phenomena, knowledge, immunization, and adaptation such as could not have been predicted before and which cannot be understood in the world remaining under the rule of normal man’s systems.

A normal person, however, can never completely adapt to a pathological system; it is easy to be pessimistic about the final results of this.

Such experiences are exchanged during evening discussions among a circle of friends, thereby creating within people’s minds a kind of cognitive conglomeration which is initially incoherent and contains factual deficiencies. ...

Moral and religious values, as well as a nation’s centuries-old cultural heritage, furnish most societies with support for the long road of both individual and collective searching through the jungle of strange phenomena. However, this apperceptive capacity possessed by people within the framework of the natural world-view contains a deficiency which hides the nucleus of the phenomenon for many years. Under such conditions, both instinct and feelings, and the resulting basic intelligence, play instrumental roles, stimulating man to make selections which are to a great extent subconscious.

Under the conditions created by imposed pathocratic rule in particular, where the just described psychological deficiencies are decisive in joining the activities of such a system, our natural human instinctive substratum is an instrumental factor in joining the opposition. Similarly, the environmental, economic, and ideological motivations which influenced the formation of an individual personality, including those political attitudes which were assumed earlier, play the role of modifying factors which are not as enduring in time. The activity of these latter factors, albeit relatively clear with relation to individuals, disappear within the statistical approach and diminish through the years of pathocratic rule.

The decisions and the way selections made for the side of the society of normal people are once again finally decided by factors usually inherited by biological means, and thus not the product of the person’s option, and predominantly in subconscious processes.

Man’s general intelligence, especially its intellectual level, play a relatively limited role in this process of selecting a path of action, as expressed by statistically significant but low correlation (-0.16). The higher a person’s general level of talent, the harder it usually is for him to reconcile himself with this different reality and to find a modus vivendi within it.

At the same time, gifted and talented people join the pathocracy, and harsh words of contempt for the system can be heard on the part of simple, uneducated people.

Only those people with the highest degree of intelligence, which, as mentioned, does not accompany psychopathies, are unable to find the meaning of life within such a system. They are sometimes able to take advantage of their superior mentality in order to find exceptional ways in which to be useful to others. Wasting the best talents spells eventual catastrophe for any social system.

Since those factors subject to the laws of genetics have proven decisive, society becomes divided by means of criteria not known before into the adherents of the new rule, the new middle class mentioned twice above, and the majority opposition. Since the properties which cause this new division appear in more or less equal proportions within any old social group or level, this new division cuts right through these traditional layers of society. If we treat the former stratification, whose formation was decisively influenced by the talent factor, as horizontal, the new one should be referred to as vertical. The most instrumental factor in the latter is good basic intelligence which, as we already know, is widely distributed throughout all social groups.

Even those people who were the object of social injustice in the former system and then bestowed with another system, which allegedly protected them, slowly start criticizing the latter. Even though they were forced to join the pathocratic party, most of the former prewar Communists in the author’s homeland later gradually became critical, using the most emphatic of language. They were first to deny that the ruling system was Communist in nature, persuasively pointing out the actual differences between ideology and reality. They tried to inform their comrades in still independent countries of this by letters. Worried about this “treason”, these comrades transmitted such letters to their local party, from where these were returned to the security police of the country of origin. The authors of the letters paid with their lives or with years of prison; no other social group was finally subjected to such stringent police surveillance as were they.
So the task before us is clear. It isn't easy, but it is possible.
 
Well I can attest to experiencing similar feelings when talking to certain individuals. Somehow communicating online is much easier for me, like in a forum such as this, because I usually have relatively good mental clarity and am able to express myself and think critically (at least as much as I ever could), and remember details and make all sorts of mental connections to explain what I am trying to say and why I'm saying it and why it makes sense. But when speaking to someone face to face, I sometimes feel an inexplicable sense of confusion and mental "denseness", where I can't even back up my own points in any coherent way, and the other's person plausible statements, no matter how unlikely, always seem to sound more "sane" and things I say somehow sound insane, even to myself.

For example, I may say that US/Israeli governments are most likely responsible for 911, and can even back this statement up, except on occasion with certain people I feel so intimidated (without them actually doing anything visibly intimidating), for no apparent reason, and when they tell me that I'm wrong and then tell me why, I am mentally helpless to argue, and so they always end up sounding much more reasonable and valid, and I end up frustrated and confused as I try to figure out why is it that what I'm saying is not making sense to me, and what they are saying is so much more "logical" at that moment. I can feel that there is something terribly wrong, because I knew that what I was saying was perfectly logical and reasonable and backed up by facts, but somehow all this logic/reason/evidence evaded me, like it was never really there in the first place.

And Laura, you wrote an excellent article in your blog regarding plausible lies, and from my experience, some people have this magical ability to artificially "fudge" probabilities. What I mean is, they take what is highly improbable when you look at all the evidence and use common sense, and then they use some sort of reasoning/logic that ends up making me literally think that what they are saying is actually reasonable and very probable, and I end up being dumbfounded and confused as to why I ever had a different opinion! It is only upon reflection, when I'm by myself again, when I can SEE that what they were saying was based on merely plausible scenarios that were highly unlikely based on the available evidence, and simply common sense. But somehow common sense and that evidence evaded my mind while I was with the person, and THEIR "common sense" became my common sense for the moment.

I could never really explain this phenomenon, and this is a very major reason why I generally don't talk about this stuff anymore in real life, but only online. I've never had this dumbfounding/confusion/loss of clarity effect online, and when someone made unreasonable arguments in a forum or a chatroom, I usually saw them and was able to point them out and understand why they are "unreasonable" and what evidence suggests this etc. Even if I couldn't, I still retained my common sense and did not experience this confusion/befuddlement and intimidation, I simply did not have enough evidence to suggest one way or another.

And this experience makes me sympathize greatly with the average person who hears Bush talk about the evil and great terrorist threat on TV. It is so plausible and sounding, it sounds so logical, that it's simply hard for an uncritical mind to see what's wrong with these statements! And more than that, stuff like the spying on Americans also tends to get a reasonable explanation, a believable and plausible explanation that COULD be true. And somehow, just because there is some chance that it MAY be true, our minds end up artificially "fudging" this probability and making it more probable than it really is. So as long as something is within the realm of probability and plausibility, the actual amount of probability and plausibility can easily be distorted by those who know how. It's not so easy to make people believe the obviously implausible (unless the knowledge of what makes it implausible is kept from them that is), which is what is so frustrating about these lies - they are all perfectly plausible and take some serious critical thinking and lots of digging to see that they are actually not as probable as they at first seemed - but that lack of absolute certainty way way or another seems to be a serious problem for most people. We're so used to wishful thinking and working in absolutes (good vs evil, right vs wrong, true vs false) that we tend to believe the most improbable things as long as they are still plausible, as long as there is no absolute proof to refute them. Many people LOVE to just say "Oh yeah? Well PROVE IT!" and then they expect some irrefutable proof to be dropped on their lap, which simply does not exist, nor will it ever! And because there IS no absolute proof (and many people don't realise this), our own ignorance of that makes us assign the status of "truth" to what is only a plausible possibility, no matter how truly improbable it may be, or so it seems to me anyway. Isnt' that why religion is still so popular - I mean no one has been able to PROVE that it is wrong or right, and I bet no one will ever be able to because there is no "proof", there is only evidence, logic, and probability based on both. Those who gave it critical thought and looked at all the available evidence on many levels, tend to come to the conclusion that religion is a control mechanism, based on lies and contradictions. But they cannot prove it to anyone, each person must arrive at this conclusion in the same manner, through LOTS of personal effort, research, and lots of thinking. And yet everyone just wants some scientist to miraculously "discover" some absolute proof one way or another and the issue will be settled once and for all. Well they'll have to wait forever for that to happen, osit.

If, as according to the government, we're all supposed to be so afraid of the danger of terrorism, wouldn't it make just as much sense to be even MORE afraid of hurricanes, of house or forest fires, of floods and mudslides and earthquakes, of potential armed robberies, of being raped, of the mafia, etc? I mean, if you take all these things, have they not killed FAR more people than terrorists ever have? And don't they pose a lot more potential danger than terrorism and continue to kill people on a constant basis? Why then does the idea of a bunch of "pissed off muslims bent on hate" terrify the average person so much (regardless of whether it is real or not)? And why don't all those other much more serious and real dangers terrify that person nearly to the same degree!? The government has much more reasonable excuses to spy on us than terrorism, things that have existed for a LONG time and pose a REAL danger to every person in the world that could be potentially prevented by some serious "spying" if they wanted to! So against all logic, they use such a relatively insignificant and such a brand-new global "terrorist threat" to decide to officially and publically spy on us only now!?

That sounds exactly like a phobia - an entirely unreasonable and exaggerated fear of something. And what separates a phobia from a "normal" fear, is that it is fudging the probability - it takes something that is a very minor threat (if at all), and artificially makes it seem like a huge and terrifying immediate danger. It seems that this is EXACTLY what the pathocracy is trying to induce in the nation - a terror-phobia. Because if you have an unreasonable fear, you start acting in unreasonable and extreme ways to try to prevent whatever you're so afraid of from ever happening.

Here is something that Laura mentioned in "the Wave" that I think applies exactly to the threat of terrorism as it did to religion. The same logic that avangelists use to convince you that their religion is true, the government uses to convince us that terrorism is real. And I think it is centered around the "what if it's true" possibility, which is then "fudged" to the point of absurdity to create a "phobia" or a "paranoia", using emotions and circular logic that eventually makes a a susceptible and uncritical mind become dumbfounded, and often submit to the lie.

Recently a parody of door-to-door evangelizing was sent around the internet. It was so exceedingly irreverent that it probably was too shocking for many people to understand how truly enlightening it was. For those who may not have seen it, I am going to include it here because it makes very important points that need to be emphasized.

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His as?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the sh*t out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the sh*t out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the sh*t of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the desk of Karl


1) Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2) Use alcohol in moderation.
3) Kick the sh*t out of people who aren't like you.
4) Eat right.
5) Hank dictated this list Himself.
6) The moon is made of green cheese.
7) Everything Hank says is right.
8) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9) Don't use alcohol.
10) Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11) Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the sh*t out of you.


Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the sh*t out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John:( He's shouting.) "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." (Mary faints.)
John: (He catches Mary.) "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the sh*t out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Laura then comments:

Did you get it? Did you REALLY get it? And did you see how accurately it portrays the whole religious mindset? Most important, did you notice how "good rules" can be posited for the express purpose of establishing Faith in rules that are not only lies, but are actually detrimental to growth and development? And did you notice how cleverly this little skit actually captured the dynamic of the "true believer?"

More than that, the totally illogical and nonsensical dynamic of "believe this" or you will be damned, punished or otherwise "left out" of some exclusive club is the essence of STS stalking wherein confusion and cross-purpose prevents a clear perception on the part of the Stalkees.

What is the designed objective of this STALKING? It is two-fold. First, the effect of Stalking is sort of like stampeding a herd of cattle so that they run into a dead end canyon or corral and have no way out. Bit by bit, they are consolidated into an "us against them mode." Even though, on the surface, it may seem that this "mode" is positive or STO, (i.e. save the world because it is "wrong" or flawed, or blighted with original sin or whatever) the very fact that it is formed in the "dominator" mode of perceiving salvation "outside," or from some "other" source no matter how it is presented, means that it can more easily be "taken over" body, mind and soul at a level that is "unseen and unseeable."
Taken from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13a.htm

P.S. - forgot to mention the most "dangerous" people in the world, the governments. Historically the rulers/governments of groups of humans have been responsible for the most atrocities and the most terrible lies and wars. So really, it is against ALL common sense to just assume that they'll always tell the truth. They are the people with the most ability to hurt everyone else, they are in control of everything, including the most powerful weapons in the world, and the most shadowy intelligence networks. So if ever they wanted to, they could wreak a LOT more havoc than terrorists from a cave ever could. So it actually makes sense to constantly spy on THEM and monitor their every move instead of them spying on US - it is them that present a potential threat to us, not vice versa.
 
Laura,
Yep, those references are exactly spot on - it's truly the most bizaar and unpleasant experience I have ever been through.

"Well, what if this is not entirely psychological? What if certain behaviors trigger the evolutionary survival mechanism that is part of the older structures of the brain? What if this paralysis, this catatonia is similar to the "freezing" of the mouse when it encounters the cat?"

It certainly would make sense. What would be the evolutionary benefit of this mental 'freezing'? I suppose that if the evolutionary reaction weren't so dulled by our abnormal living situation, with the programming, ect., that we would recognize the reaction as one signalling extreme personal danger - so to not become too engaged with the psychophage, we mentally freeze - perhaps to stop the energy flow that feeds the psychophage? Hmmmm.
I love the term psychophage - it is precisely what they are.

"The other thing of note is where Lobaczewski says that, while the person is "frozen" and effectively helpless, the "divergent experiential method anchors in the mind" of the normal person. For a long time I have noticed this phenomenon which I always described as "putting psychic hooks" into a person. This is actually a terrible thing because it is similar to the cat reaching out with a paw and holding the mouse down to begin toying with it prior to eating."
 
"What is important is that those who have this problem of internal confusion and chaos are those who probably have the WILL to resist and that is what the confusion and chaos is about: the instinctive substratum is screaming: "PREDATOR" and the conscious mind's programming is saying, 'It's not a predator, it is a human being and I just need to figure out how to fix him/her.'"

Okay, Laura, you could at least warn me if you're going to go into my mind and take quotes directly from my past like this. This is EXACTLY how I spent decades of my life - I often was not interested in someone unless they had something I thought I could 'fix' or 'help with' - now I know why - and never again will I go down that path -sheesh, what a nightmare. I've actually turned into a bit of a hermit after all of this 'life experience' stuff - which is probably not the best approach, but I'd rather be on my own and work with the difficulties that presents than risk becoming food again. Although I've learned so much, I still cannot tell you with full confidence that i would not be taken in again - I don't think that I would, but I really don't know - so rather than risk it, I move very slowly when it comes to making new contacts and such. So it goes - and the largest understatement I have read on your thousands of pages is, "knowledge protects, ignorance endangers" - it should be tattooed on my forehead.
 
anart said:
The devil in the details is that I may carry this hook with me for the rest of my days, leaving me always a bit more vulnerable; perhaps leaving a permanent chink in what armor I may have?
For what its worth, it seems like it's a mechanical chink - an automatic reaction, perhaps as Laura said may be based on some survival mechanism of our brains that reacts to a "predator". And maybe as you become more conscious and less mechanical, such chinks might start to "go away" together with the rest of your mechanical mind, including the predator mind etc. I don't know if that means that you have to somehow "deal" with the root cause of each chink individually, or if some chinks will simply disappear as a side effect of doing the Work. Perhaps a combination of both, I'm not sure at the moment. Just some thoughts to consider :)
 
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/20 … asters.php

by Carl Zimmer

Are brain parasites altering the personalities of three billion people? The question emerged a few years ago, and it shows no signs of going away.
so my question is this: given that it is supiciously similar to the C's "50%" OP's, where exactly did Carl Zimmer get his seemingly random figure of "3 billion people" from?

edit: I went onto the original article page on 'the loom', and posed the question "why 3 billion? why not everyone?". we shall see :)
 
anart said:
Okay, Laura, you could at least warn me if you're going to go into my mind and take quotes directly from my past like this. This is EXACTLY how I spent decades of my life - I often was not interested in someone unless they had something I thought I could 'fix' or 'help with' - now I know why - and never again will I go down that path -sheesh, what a nightmare.
Well, it's not really mind reading since so many other people have been through the exact same thing. Heck, I spent most of my life and 20 years in a marriage doing that. Actually, if you think about it, believing that you can "fix" someone is pretty egotistical though we often don't notice that aspect of it because we are really just trying to "be good" and "help others."

And that's not to say that people can't help each other! They most certainly can and should - but only when asked! And that asking has to be of a special nature; many people "ask" who are not asking, and many others don't ask on the outside, but are crying for help on the inside. Learning how to tell which is which and who is who is something that we all need to focus on. If we learn it, it can keep us out of misery and also keep us from violating the free will and life plan of others.

But then, of course, psychophages are a special case. What they are really "asking" for is to eat us up psychically and we have to decline or there will be no one left to support the "free will party."

Vinny: yeah, we wondered about that 3 billion thing ourselves! But then, maybe it is the folks with potential higher centers that are susceptible or who get "exposed," and not the OP types!

I tell ya, we're in a heck of a situation and it is going to take all our thinking power networked together along with all the mutual support we can give each other to figure our way out of this mess.
 
"I tell ya, we're in a heck of a situation and it is going to take all our thinking power networked together along with all the mutual support we can give each other to figure our way out of this mess."

Ain't it the truth - there have been days of late where I felt that these internet pages were the only islands of sanity left around me. I must admit that the prospect of the internet being shut down or limited frightens me. Often I can find my way back to me using the little beacons that all of you lay down with truth, on those days when it all seems to be too much to look at anymore. We shall see what happens, but I do think that working together we will find a way out - one way or another.
 
I thought I should also add a few things.

First, notice what Lobaczewski says: "The [psychopath's] humiliating and arrogant techniques, brutal paramoralizations, and so forth deaden his thought processes and his self-defense capabilities, and their divergent experiential method anchors in his mind."

This is how the hook is set. The "divergent experiential method anchors..." That means that something about psychopathy itself makes a sort of "nest" inside. The ideas that the psychopath wants a person to think and believe are "assimilated" in some way. In short, if you don't, to some extent, believe what they are telling you, then there is nothing in you that "frequency matches," and there is no way the hook can remain.

What does Lobaczewski propose as the cure?? "Only once these unbelievably unpleasant psychological states have passed, thanks to rest in benevolent company, is it possible to reflect, always a difficult and painful process, or to become aware that one’s mind and common sense have been fooled by something which cannot fit into the normal human imagination."

Notice that the state can only pass after a period of time in the company of sane and benevolent (or at least truly benevolent) individuals, does one get to the point where they have the strength to reflect, and to become aware of what has really happened. He points out that this is a difficult and painful process. The end result of which is that the individual becomes, finally , aware that their own mind and common sense have been fooled by "something which cannot fit into human imagination."

Now, just think about that a minute. Those words are written in such a calm and clinical way, but they convey a true horror. For a kind and giving person, one who has grown up on the idea that all human beings have equal value, that everyone is worth saving or fixing and that the only thing needed in life is to remember the rules we learned in kindergarten about how to play together, to have to face the fact that there are beings that look human, act human, wear a perfect mask, but are yet so alien as to almost be another species, is enough to drive one mad!

Now, imagine a further horror: that such a person has had children together with such a being. Those children have about a 50/50 chance of being "of the other race." And what if one of those children turns out to be "one?"

Well, certainly, anyone in such a position would have a very powerful reason to NOT believe in the idea that psychophages are a "different race."

Just some things to think about.

Getting back to the issue of the difficult and painful process of becoming aware. If you consider how the programming began, with social and familial and cultural beliefs, slowly but surely creating a "world view" for years and years, then you realize that this isn't going to be something you can do over the weekend or by "rebirthing" or meditation, or any quick fix. It is a slow, laborious process full of pain and suffering. I think Gurdjieff would call it conscious suffering.

The main thing that has to be done is learn ALL the details from as many sources as possible. Some of them you will know are blowing smoke because they haven't really experienced the real thing and it shows from their writing. The book "Bad Boys, Bad Men" is a case in point. Totally useless book for anyone except those who have anti-social relatives in prison for violent crimes.

Another completely useless book is "Emotional Vampires" by Albert Bernstein. Actually, I think it is more of a handbook for psychopaths to further demoralize normal humans.

But then, there is Cleckley and there is Stout.

Guggenbuhl-Craig cops out with the "shadow self" theory, proposing that we are all capable of being psychopaths. There are others, of course.

But, more than even reading the tomes of the experts, you have to read the real life stories of the victims. You have to know that you are not alone, and that others have faced this horror also.

It is very useful to read "The Unicorn's Secret" by Steven Levy, the story of Ira Einhorn. Would you like to read the emails of a REAL psychophage? Here is one written to me after I posted comments to Jack Sarfatti's email list where Ira, then still living in France, was a member. He was battling extradition. I actually didn't know who he was or what he was alleged to have done. After a couple other members of the list went after him - referring to someone named "Holly" - in somewhat mysterious terms, I did some research and did not respond to Ira. But it is useful to see how charming he was:

From: User886114@aol.com
Date sent: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:56:45 EDT
Subject: Re: For laura
To: lark2@ozline.net

Hi Laura,

I would to be happy to dialogue with you, after going through your
comments more carefully, as I think we are essentially in agreement. I lived
through years of the most fantastic phenomena without ever buying the
mythology attached to them. The phenomena were very real and of almost daily
occurrence; the myth attched to them was pure projection, BUT the unknown
frightens people and living in vanilla reality forces people to project, so
when the para-normal becomes the daily reality the desire to have an
explanation grows exponentially.

It began almost 30 years ago in a very different social climate, and the
intell. groups were initially freaked. If that different context is not
understood, the rest becomes very confusing.

Dick F tends to use a persona in mass lists that paints with a very broad brush.
He is not so denying of the phenomenon in one
on one interaction, but your observation is essentially correct, as he was
burnt bad, or thinks he was politically by what some people wanted to do with
channeling which is certainly a valid form of knowledge when used correctly.
There is so much noise about that the signal tends to get lost which is
unfortunate for those who establish real connections with sources: a
by-product of our particular moment in time, alas.
More when I have some time.
ira
After a few months of research, I asked Ark to collect all of Ira's posts to Sarfatti's list so I could read and see if I could detect anything. By this time, I certainly knew who and what Ira was... It was very instructive, to say the least.

So, that is good therapy. Read about them, study them, talk to others about them, write about them. It's all good therapy. Of course, the only others you will be able to talk to about it are other victims... Of course, there are a lot of people who are victims who don't yet know they are victims... and some who may never know. If you haven't read Martha Stout's book "The Sociopath Next Door," do so. And then start reading true crime, read crime casebooks by psychologists. Read Agatha Christie novels... just anything and everything that might add a bit of insight.
 
"It is a slow, laborious process full of pain and suffering. I think Gurdjieff would call it conscious suffering.

The main thing that has to be done is learn ALL the details from as many sources as possible."

This is so important to understand. Early on, when I had become familiar with the psychopath material presented on the Cass site, I was still not willing to let go of the rosy possibility that my psychophage did really love me and wasn't really that bad - Laura herself can attest to this because I asked her via email several questions relating to 'how do you really know', 'couldn't they change through therapy', ect. The links and resources from those pages also backed me up when my resolve to see the truth would sputter. I am still reading from different sources, including those mentioned, and I often re-read things to make sure that I got it all - so my point is that it is an incredibly long process that really does require conscious suffering. Recently, Lobaczewski's Ponerology has helped as well - the weight that lifts off of my shoulders when I realize that it was never my fault and that nothing I could have done would have changed things - and, most of all, that I am so lucky to have lived through it and to be free of it - is almost indescribable. Lobaczewski's writing that 'the simple knowledge that one has been exposed to a psychopathic system often puts the client on the path to recovery' is a timeless truth.
 
Anart said:
Recently, Lobaczewski's Ponerology has helped as well - the weight that lifts off of my shoulders when I realize that it was never my fault and that nothing I could have done would have changed things - and, most of all, that I am so lucky to have lived through it and to be free of it - is almost indescribable. Lobaczewski's writing that 'the simple knowledge that one has been exposed to a psychopathic system often puts the client on the path to recovery' is a timeless truth.
I agree. Lobaczewski has been a lifesaver. Yes, there is Cleckley, Hare, Stout and others, but none of them put the pieces together to explain how our whole darn world has been corrupted by this pathological material. To know that there are psychopaths out there doing their dirty work does NOT help us to understand how they can be in charge. Because you would think that they would all work against each other because of their essential nature. But, when you understand that they are a different species, that they recognize each other, and in a strange way can - up to a point - cooperate, then it begins to make sense.

And yes, it lifts a huge weight. For those of us who spend years doing more and more, and even when we give up just to save our sanity, continue to wonder if we could have done more, knowing from the hard-won experience and research of others that there never was anything we could do, that it was all a game being played by a predator, is a huge relief.

Is that an excuse, a cop-out?

I don't think so. As my grandmother always said: a smart man learns from his mistakes, a genius learns from the mistakes of others. That's what makes us different from animals AND from psychopaths: we learn from our experiences. They can't and don't.
 
Laura said:
For those of us who spend years doing more and more, and even when we give up just to save our sanity, continue to wonder if we could have done more, knowing from the hard-won experience and research of others that there never was anything we could do, that it was all a game being played by a predator, is a huge relief.

Is that an excuse, a cop-out?

I don't think so.
It's great to recognize a positive gain at this basic level. It seems to me that making this differentiation between me and the world helps me to inspect my conditioning that much more, and to focus on what I really can do in the world, taking into account the full reality of systemic predation for what it is.
 
Here's a thought, regarding Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields:

If there are biologically supportive morphic fields, and these reinforce learned behaviors of individuals through the whole species, who's to say there are not psychophagic ones that thrive like cancers upon said species?
 
Back
Top Bottom