Show #48: Surviving the Psy-pocalypse - Interview with Stefan Verstappen
- Thread starter Niall
- Start date
SeekinTruth said:
Yes, it is! Very interesting research...
Edit:
Here it is on youtube:
Fester
Jedi
Listened to this show last night. Great show, shared it several places. Interestingly, I listened to it straight after listening to the Dmitri Orlov- Lessons on Collapse show. This was important.
What struck me the most was that both Stefan and Laura have run into and are having difficulty with the same problem- being able to quickly identify a potential predator, before it becomes entrenched enough that expelling it must necessarily be a battle. If you cannot avoid it completely and escape confrontation, you want to be able to quickly and decisively neutralise the threat.
It seems to me that the precise problem here is not one of defense- anyone can be taught to defend themselves. The first problem seems to be one of recognising an attack for what it is, as you won't defend yourself until an attack is perceived as such.
The next part of the problem is knowing not to respond to the attack, so as to not lose the advantage of covert recognition. You don't want the predator to know you've seen it.
The problem increases over the time it takes to gather the required information- to a non-warrior the stress of not confronting a known enemy can be unbearable.
A warrior can and will wait for the right moment using an appropriate strategy.
A more common way to say this is to "Give them enough rope to hang themselves with", and once they've tied the noose and put it on, you just... pull the lever.
Now to use an analogy, if non-warriors are "sheep" and psychopaths are "wolves", then your warrior-type is the guard dog. A dog is very similar to a wolf in nearly all aspects except behaviour- a dog is a "tame wolf". A dog's very usefulness comes from his similarities to a wolf.
Relating this back to a person, there are likewise few differences between a warrior and a psychopath. A warrior is a kind of "tame psychopath". Connecting this with Dmitri Orlov's tales of the russian gangs, and the following discussion leading to the point that these gangs were providing the services of a government, i.e., specialising in violence and force. When it's a gang, it's extortion, when it's a government it's taxes. So what's the difference? How do you know who to trust?
I think, at this point, of the samurai. Pretty much the greatest dishonour for samurai was to become ronin- masterless. A warrior with no master has only himself to fight for, and so becomes an evil thing (because he is now using his mastery of violence for self-serving ends). His only recourse then is to end his own life before he becomes a horror to all good men.
A warrior fights for something greater than himself- or he should not fight at all. I also agree completely with Stefan's point that a warrior should also be a healer of some description.
My point is that I think it takes a warrior, being someone proficient and familiar with violence and application of force in many various forms, to be able to "sniff out" a psychopath. It is their proficiency and familiarity with violence and force that makes them very sensitive to it. What to many is an innocuous comment is a red flag to him, and the observation begins. A very good warrior will be able to recognise them in the same manner they recognise each other- by instinct. By sight, by smell, by taste, by feeling. This is not infallible, by any means. Every warrior has a weakness.
I think also that this is an important point, that we get ahead of the psychos on this one. They're already glamourising them, as you know. I believe they are already heading in this direction (i.e., the surgeon that must make cool calm life-or-death decisions is used as an example of a "useful psychopath") and this could be a great danger to those of us who are "lovers of violence", whom the real psychos could very easily use to project their own love of destruction upon, and turn good people against them. The danger is that many of these "white knights" (to borrow Stefan's phrase) just appear to many people to be "thugs" or "gangsters".... "Mafia".
In poor light, for example, it can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a dog and a wolf. Given that the dogs amongst us are our best vanguard against infiltration by wolves-in-sheep's-clothing, I think it is only a matter of time before the wolves start pointing at the dogs while screaming "Wolf! Wolf!" hysterically. I think we need to know who the dogs are, or who might be, so we don't inadvertently ostracise or destroy those who would be our watchdogs.
What struck me the most was that both Stefan and Laura have run into and are having difficulty with the same problem- being able to quickly identify a potential predator, before it becomes entrenched enough that expelling it must necessarily be a battle. If you cannot avoid it completely and escape confrontation, you want to be able to quickly and decisively neutralise the threat.
It seems to me that the precise problem here is not one of defense- anyone can be taught to defend themselves. The first problem seems to be one of recognising an attack for what it is, as you won't defend yourself until an attack is perceived as such.
The next part of the problem is knowing not to respond to the attack, so as to not lose the advantage of covert recognition. You don't want the predator to know you've seen it.
The problem increases over the time it takes to gather the required information- to a non-warrior the stress of not confronting a known enemy can be unbearable.
A warrior can and will wait for the right moment using an appropriate strategy.
For a psychopath, this is preferably a coup-de-grace, giving it no opportunity to attempt any tricks. Thor versus Loki, if you will.
A more common way to say this is to "Give them enough rope to hang themselves with", and once they've tied the noose and put it on, you just... pull the lever.
Now to use an analogy, if non-warriors are "sheep" and psychopaths are "wolves", then your warrior-type is the guard dog. A dog is very similar to a wolf in nearly all aspects except behaviour- a dog is a "tame wolf". A dog's very usefulness comes from his similarities to a wolf.
Relating this back to a person, there are likewise few differences between a warrior and a psychopath. A warrior is a kind of "tame psychopath". Connecting this with Dmitri Orlov's tales of the russian gangs, and the following discussion leading to the point that these gangs were providing the services of a government, i.e., specialising in violence and force. When it's a gang, it's extortion, when it's a government it's taxes. So what's the difference? How do you know who to trust?
I think, at this point, of the samurai. Pretty much the greatest dishonour for samurai was to become ronin- masterless. A warrior with no master has only himself to fight for, and so becomes an evil thing (because he is now using his mastery of violence for self-serving ends). His only recourse then is to end his own life before he becomes a horror to all good men.
A warrior fights for something greater than himself- or he should not fight at all. I also agree completely with Stefan's point that a warrior should also be a healer of some description.
My point is that I think it takes a warrior, being someone proficient and familiar with violence and application of force in many various forms, to be able to "sniff out" a psychopath. It is their proficiency and familiarity with violence and force that makes them very sensitive to it. What to many is an innocuous comment is a red flag to him, and the observation begins. A very good warrior will be able to recognise them in the same manner they recognise each other- by instinct. By sight, by smell, by taste, by feeling. This is not infallible, by any means. Every warrior has a weakness.
I think also that this is an important point, that we get ahead of the psychos on this one. They're already glamourising them, as you know. I believe they are already heading in this direction (i.e., the surgeon that must make cool calm life-or-death decisions is used as an example of a "useful psychopath") and this could be a great danger to those of us who are "lovers of violence", whom the real psychos could very easily use to project their own love of destruction upon, and turn good people against them. The danger is that many of these "white knights" (to borrow Stefan's phrase) just appear to many people to be "thugs" or "gangsters".... "Mafia".
In poor light, for example, it can be quite difficult to tell the difference between a dog and a wolf. Given that the dogs amongst us are our best vanguard against infiltration by wolves-in-sheep's-clothing, I think it is only a matter of time before the wolves start pointing at the dogs while screaming "Wolf! Wolf!" hysterically. I think we need to know who the dogs are, or who might be, so we don't inadvertently ostracise or destroy those who would be our watchdogs.
Fester
Jedi
I forgot to add, regarding the difficulty in teaching this "warrior instinct" to another- it can actually be done. Unfortunately, the method is cruel. Unavoidably so, it seems. A good example of this kind of training is what V does to Evie in the movie "V for Vendetta". She calls him a psychopath for it and his only defense against that charge is that she asked and then refused to back down.
So it seems to really train a warrior properly, you need a psychopath- or someone who is prepared to play the role of one to the utmost. Not an easy task for a person with conscience.
I guess this backs up Casteneda's idea of the petty tyrant being absolutely necessary for a warrior's development. Not only for testing himself against, but for the purpose of filling the role of a psychopathic "teacher".
So it seems to really train a warrior properly, you need a psychopath- or someone who is prepared to play the role of one to the utmost. Not an easy task for a person with conscience.
I guess this backs up Casteneda's idea of the petty tyrant being absolutely necessary for a warrior's development. Not only for testing himself against, but for the purpose of filling the role of a psychopathic "teacher".
