The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler

[loreta]

Yes, they know, the big bosses know, for sure. But for example the young girl that was working at the biological store... was unable to make the connection between not selling plastic bags because "it is important to save the planet!" and all what she is selling that is in plastic containers, even the candies! So their brain are not making connections and it it very sad to see this future generation being so manipulated.

Well when I was young surely I was not making myself connections, and me too I was being manipulated full time. I started to connect the dots the first time while reading an article "Connecting the dots" at Sott.net. It was amazing!

We can take this with a grain of salt, not all young are manipulated. But the horizon is not very nice, as Laura says.

 

[nature]

Here is a quote from Order Out of Chaos -- Sott.net
What happened in Germany last century, happens today in western countries. Most people are blind and in wishfull thinking
It's better to read the entire article.

There was no single moment in time when the German people - as a whole - suddenly "became evil." The Germans - the people susceptible to Adolf Hitler - were a people desperate for identity and economic prosperity. Germany was a country torn apart by overwhelming economic, political and social blows: World War I, the treaty of Versailles, hyperinflation and the Great Depression, were all blows that ruined or diminished the admirable qualities of Germany as a whole. These disasters left the way open for a truly horrifying ideology.

Hitler tapped into this desperation, whipping the people of Germany into a religious, messianic fervor. Little by little, they were induced to close off their consciences as the price that had to be paid for their dreams; they were induced by clever fear tactics and propaganda to incrementally realign their collective morality so that, in the end, the Face of Evil was the face of every supporter of Hitler.

The story of the rise of Adolf Hitler is the single most important story of the 20th century. With this event, in less than a single lifetime, one of the most civilized countries in Europe was reduced to moral, physical, and cultural ruin. The rest of the world was nearly gobbled into this black hole of evil. This should give everyone something to think about - and think about it long and hard.

Complicity does not mean that you have to actively support evil, it simply means that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

At present, the model of what transpired in Germany can quite easily be seen by many people as unfolding in the United States today. There were other ways that the history of Germany could have unfolded in that time. There are other ways the history of the United States can unfold.

And about importance of Truth:

Could it ever be an evolutionarily stable strategy for people to be innately unselfish?

On the whole, a capacity to cheat, to compete and to lie has proven to be a stupendously successful adaptation. Thus the idea that selection pressure could ever cause saintliness to spread in a society looks implausible in practice. It doesn't seem feasible to out-compete genes which promote competitiveness. "Nice guys" get eaten or out-bred. Happy people who are unaware get eaten or out-bred. Happiness and niceness today is vanishingly rare, and the misery and suffering of those who are able to truly feel, who are empathic toward other human beings, who have a conscience, is all too common.

Nevertheless, a predisposition to, conscience, ethics, can prevail if and when it is also able to implement the deepest level of altruism: making the object of its empathy the higher ideal of enhancing free will in the abstract sense, for the sake of others, including our descendants.

In short, our "self-interest" ought to be vested in collectively ensuring that all others are happy and well-disposed too; and in ensuring that children we bring into the world have the option of being constitutionally happy and benevolent toward one another.

In short, if psychopathy threatens the well-being of the group future, then it can be only be dealt with by refusing to allow the self to be dominated by it on an individual, personal basis.

Preserving free will for the self in the practical sense, ultimately preserves free will for others.

Protection of our own rights AS the rights of others, underwrites the free will position and potential for happiness of all.

If mutant psychopaths pose a potential danger then true empathy, true ethics, true conscience, dictates using prophylactic therapy against psychopaths.

It seems certain from the evidence that a positive transformation of human nature isn't going to come about through a great spiritual awakening, socio-economic reforms, or a spontaneous desire among the peoples of the world to be nice to each other. But it's quite possible that, in the long run, the psychopathic program of suffering will lose out because misery is not a stable strategy.

In a state of increasing misery, victims will seek to escape it; and this seeking will ultimately lead them to inquire into the true state of their misery, and that may lead to a society of intelligent people who will have the collective capacity to do so.

And so it is that identifying the psychopath, ceasing our interaction with them, cutting them off from our society, making ourselves unavailable to them as "food" or objects to be conned and used, is the single most effective strategy that we can play. [...]

To allow oneself to be conned, or used by a psychopath is to effectively become part of his "hierarchy" of feeding. To believe the lies of the psychopath is to submit to his "bidding" (he bids you to believe a lie, and you acquiesce), and thus, to relinquish your free will.

In strictly material terms, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue, right? After all, somebody lies to us and who really cares? Is it going to hurt us to just let them lie? Is it going to hurt us to just go along with them for the sake of peace, even if we know or suspect they are lying? After all, checking the facts and facing the psychopath with truth, and telling them "no" is generally very unpleasant. Remember, the game is set up so that we pay a lot for being ethical in dealing with the psychopath. In material terms, it really doesn't seem to be worth it because we suffer all kinds of attack - verbal, psychological, and even physical abuse - so it's just easier to let sleeping dogs lie, right? [...]

At best, we can only really penetrate to the level of the psychological reality, observed behavior that is discordant, or self-destructive. And we are thoroughly programmed to help by giving until it hurts, or trying to fix, or to make nice. All of these things, all of these accommodations of psychopathy, on just a practical level, can be seen to "select for psychopathy" in terms of the gene pool.

But on another level, considering the great amount of evidence we have that there is something very mysterious going on that has to do with "controlling the minds of humanity," and covering up something that may affect every single human being on this planet, we find that the issue is crucial. Refusing to accommodate the manipulations and maneuvers of the psychopath may, indeed, be critical to the positive transformation of our planet. [...]

And we see that the ultimate aim of the psychopath, as living representatives of the Universal forces of Entropy, of Non-Being, is to MASTER creative energy. To assimilate it to the self, to deprive others of it by inducing them to believe lies.

Because, when you believe the lie of the psychopath, you have given him control of your Free Will - the essence of Creativity. [...]​

As I quoted above: Thus, the first Divine Command is BE! And that includes Being and Non-being instantaneously. Therefore, the second law is "follow Being or Non-being according to your choice and your inherent nature."

All creation is a result of the engendering command. So, in this respect, there is no Evil. But the second, prescriptive law determines to which "Face of God" one will return: Life or Death. Do you observe the world based on truth, objectivity, as the Universe views itself? That brings life. Or, do you view the word based on lies, subjectivity, and do you seek to shut-out, control, or force the world to bend to your will? If so, you have chosen Death.

It is only Truth and actions based on Truth that will restore Life and order to our world.

 

[Corvus]

Now, maybe we are seeing how 4D STS works it's 'magic' within the human psyche. Also, I can't help but think about the C's remark about coming to understand the futility of 3rd density. No ideology is ideal.

It is not so much of it no being ideal, but more it not being ideal for everyone.

It's kind of funny how all these early radicals (think Calvinists and Dissenter Puritians) were all about building the New Jerusalem on earth, and how that grew into all the enlightenment era thinkers like Locke and Rousseau who had dreams of basically writing a constitution describing how everyone was going to behave. It seems like the Enlightenment era people missed the chief component in that the New Kingdom could only be created in people's hearts, not coerced from without by a constitutional document that magically ironed out all the flaws in human nature. Can we blame materialism?

Maybe it has more to do with belief of all being created equal in the eyes of God, just their eyes being long way from Gods.

And then there is Calvin, who belonged to the “second wave” of reformation in the early 16th century. The book by Stefan Zweig Castello gegen Calvin describes the resistance by Castello (a catholic monk) against the scheming Calvin, who at that time was one of the most influential and powerful figures in Europe. Calvin was most likely a fullblown psychopath.

The book is available in English here. It’s called The Right to Heresy: Castello against Calvin. Interesting read.

The thing with a reformist is that they were even more materialist then Catholic priests with their emphasize on work and personal gain thus greediness without compassion, one more curve in Christianity that gave fertile ground to materialism and today s western capitalism.

 

[whitecoast]

Maybe it has more to do with belief of all being created equal in the eyes of God, just their eyes being long way from Gods.

I have trouble seeing how that could be the case, given the notion of equality of all before God is as old as Christianity.

 

[Hi_Henry]

But for example the young girl that was working at the biological store... was unable to make the connection between not selling plastic bags because "it is important to save the planet!" and all what she is selling that is in plastic containers, even the candies! So their brain are not making connections and it it very sad to see this future generation being so manipulated.

As I think back on my Life I see better today what I lacked when I was young. That something was "life experience". The knowledge gained from confronting what I was told/taught with what I then later observed. That is something that can not be put in a book and through it learned. This sort of knowledge is only crystallized in our own minds based on our life experiences.

I bet with more and more confrontations with people like you this girls will have her Eureka Moment, "This is all nonsense."

 

[Anthony]

Now, maybe we are seeing how 4D STS works it's 'magic' within the human psyche. Also, I can't help but think about the C's remark about coming to understand the futility of 3rd density. No ideology is ideal.

The way I see it, ideologies are all-encompassing (totalitarian) theories that are aimed at bring about some sort of a change in reality, which the idealogues see as lacking and in need of restructuring in order to bring about a better future. The though never seems to occur to them that it's not really the reality that's the problem, but their state of knowledge and being, that they could be completely off the mark, unaware and completely missing what the issue is, let alone the solution. The problem is, as Jordan Peterson never tires of saying is that you can never build a walled garden that completely wards off chaos, it's a pipe dream, since reality isn't structured like that. There's both yin and yang, order and chaos. There will always be a snake in the garden, it's unavoidable, so there will always be suffering in the world since chaos causes us to constantly adapt, learn, grow; all of which is painful to an extent, but also ultimately rewarding. Any attempt at abolishing this duality, instead of working with it, is bound to fail. Sure, people can play at attempting to replace "God", but we know how that works out in the end.

 

[hesperides]

Talking about plastic revolution taking hold on account of our restless consumerism between others, I´m ironically reminded of Plastic Ono Band, under which the first songs of Paul Mc Cartney with her wife, Ono, was recorded right before public awareness had started growing around the issue raised be the evergrowing use of plastic in every household. Interestingly Plastic Ono Band was also known as Plastic Ono Elephant"s Memory Band, Plastic U.F. Ono Band, Plastic Ono Nuclear Band, Elastic OZ Ono Band, which couldn´t describe any better the plastic/nuclear/plastic elephant memory ethics our world is now suffering from.

Aside remembering I found that one to be a silly name, now, almost 50 years later, I get kind of a synchronic image when focusing on both, the huge impacting anticonformism role The Beatles have transmitted along two generations through their much appealing slogan "make love, not war", now reloaded as postmodernism, and the plastic genocide.

Now yes, I can´t deny I still was/am one fan of that song called "Love" Mc Cartney and Ono launched for the first time under their conceptual vehicle, Plastic Ono Band, my hormones couldn´t resist it!

 

[msante]

Now, maybe we are seeing how 4D STS works it's 'magic' within the human psyche. Also, I can't help but think about the C's remark about coming to understand the futility of 3rd density. No ideology is ideal.

It is not so much of it no being ideal, but more it not being ideal for everyone.

I was digressing a little in my thoughts and it occurred to me that a fundamental distinction should be made in order not to fall into an existential void. "Ideology" is not the same as "Ideals". I am not sure that this is a formal definition, but I tend to see "ideals" as something that develops inside each individual, a certain attunement that each individual makes with universal ideas/values. In this sense, "ideals" are something intrinsic to each individual, and although there may be individuals who share their "ideals", I think that it is not a collective phenomenon.

On the other hand, "ideology" is a structure external to the individual that uses the identification of the individual with certain ideals as an anchor point (maybe this task start in 4D?). In this sense, "ideology" aims (among others) to turn ideals of a universal character into instruments that are used to achieve the particular and concrete objectives (generally with a political agenda) of a subject or a relatively small group. In this way "ideology" takes control of the thinkings and feelings of both, individuals and big groups of people, in order to focus power on a single group of people and thus (according to them) be able to look after the interests of all.

People who are enslaved by an "ideology" are then easily influenced and manipulated, which means that in the long run they end up being subject to alien thoughts and approaches that may end up being totally incoherent.

The "ideals", on the other hand, are instruments that, when not easily contaminated, inspire and enable individuals to progress and become better people.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Since I can not modify my previous post I will add this note to what Loreta touched on.

When I was working on my degree in the 1980's I was lucky enough to take a course which dealt with the various environmental cycles. All these cycles are like gears in a super complicated watch. The major ones being the Carbon cycle, Nitrogen cycle, Phosphorus cycle and the Water cycle.

When people lived in tribal groups they could effect these cycles only in a very localized area. Mayas come to my mind as an example of this. Their practice of slashing the jungle for growth of crops and decorating their temples significantly contributed to their demise.

As compared to the Mayas, modern man has had a huge effect on the environment. This was know way way back but will not be acknowledged as $$$ are in the balance.

Thanks to a post here I found out how early this was know to some, ZeroHedge. A poster on this link directed me to the book "The Waste Makers" . This book was written in 1960 by Vance Packard !!!!! Check it out.

 

[Corvus]

I have trouble seeing how that could be the case, given the notion of equality of all before God is as old as Christianity.

The point being that they saw all humans as same based on religious belief and because of that thought the same law could be applied to everyone, but the point being they/we being far away from that level of God/equality and they talking about something they can not even begin to grasp, and they and all others with such intentions trying to impose something that is not natural and meant to be on this level at that/this time.

I was digressing a little in my thoughts and it occurred to me that a fundamental distinction should be made in order not to fall into an existential void. "Ideology" is not the same as "Ideals". I am not sure that this is a formal definition, but I tend to see "ideals" as something that develops inside each individual, a certain attunement that each individual makes with universal ideas/values. In this sense, "ideals" are something intrinsic to each individual, and although there may be individuals who share their "ideals", I think that it is not a collective phenomenon.

On the other hand, "ideology" is a structure external to the individual that uses the identification of the individual with certain ideals as an anchor point (maybe this task start in 4D?). In this sense, "ideology" aims (among others) to turn ideals of a universal character into instruments that are used to achieve the particular and concrete objectives (generally with a political agenda) of a subject or a relatively small group. In this way "ideology" takes control of the thinkings and feelings of both, individuals and big groups of people, in order to focus power on a single group of people and thus (according to them) be able to look after the interests of all.

People who are enslaved by an "ideology" are then easily influenced and manipulated, which means that in the long run they end up being subject to alien thoughts and approaches that may end up being totally incoherent.

The "ideals", on the other hand, are instruments that, when not easily contaminated, inspire and enable individuals to progress and become better people.

Just a couple of thoughts.

If ideology is based on something internal what you call ideals how can it be external and how come then ideology has such a fertile ground if it is not collective, and is it really internal if it is based as you say on some universal values, or is it both. Why do you think people need to be manipulated to take on ideology and not accepting it as it is without any manipulation. If there is a high level of pathology present then it is not any more a manipulation but a free will and coherency, and you had to be very blind to not see it or sense it as it is. Maybe some have ideals that inspire and enable people to become worse people even if they do not see it like that.

 

[msante]

If ideology is based on something internal what you call ideals how can it be external and how come then ideology has such a fertile ground if it is not collective, and is it really internal if it is based as you say on some universal values, or is it both.

I may not have made myself clear, but I never said that ideology is based on "something internal". On the contrary, what I suggested is that ideology is an external structure that takes advantage of ideals (ideals that I believe are internal in nature) to confuse and seduce. I do not believe that my "definitions" definitively solve the "great mystery", nor do I believe that it is such a simple subject to sketch in 10 lines. IMO to be a fertile soil (as you call it) is a condition consequence of a mixture of personal experiences, cultural environment, and also why not, the degree of progress of the soul in question. Depending on these factors (and surely others) people are more or less vulnerable to being manipulated.

Why do you think people need to be manipulated to take on ideology and not accepting it as it is without any manipulation. If there is a high level of pathology present then it is not any more a manipulation but a free will and you had to be very blind to not see it or sense it as it is. Maybe some have ideals that inspire and enable people to become worse people even if they do not see it like that.

If I understand you well, you think that people accept ideologies by understanding them perfectly as they are and that they do so by exercising their free will and choosing them conscientiously.

I don't think this is the case, in general, I would dare to say that people would not embrace these ideologies if they really saw how stupid, incoherent, and self-destructive they are. IMO manipulation is used precisely to hide this, to make "digestible" the "indigestible".

Personally (and I may be wrong here), I have a feeling that you have an assessment of this subject a bit in black and white terms. What you say (or at least what I understand) sounds to me like: "EVERYONE who chooses an ideology and its pathological content does so because it is what he really wants, and freely chooses to walk the path of that ideology in full awareness of how harmful it is to the human race". I believe that in the middle of "not embracing any ideology" and "radically embracing one", there is a whole range of greys that must be considered, and even I guess that in the radical extremes several factors should be taken into account.

 

[Laura]

As noted, Lobaczewski has a great discussion of ideologies.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Here is a fragment from the book "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard. A pdf of the book is on the Net.

WHAT WILL THE WORLD OF TOMORROW BE LIKE? IN THE COURSE of this book we shall examine a number of probabilities based on projections of current trends. Spokesmen for industry like to speculate about tomorrow even more than the rest of us. They invite us to peer out onto the horizon and see the wondrous products their marketing experts are conceiving for us. We are encouraged to share their dreams and to tingle at the possibility of using voice writers, wall-sized television screens, and motorcars that glide along highways under remote control. Most of these marketing experts, despite their air of chronic excited optimism, are grappling with a problem that would frighten the wits out of less resolute people. That problem is the specter of glut for the products they are already endeavoring to sell.

If we could probe the real dreams of these marketing people as they slumber restlessly at night, we would find-when a merely of more bewitching products to sell to us. More likely, they are dreaming that they are in their private world of the future, where selling has again become easy because the haunting problem of saturation has been vanquished. This utopia might be called Cornucopia City, and its setting is out on the
misty horizon of time.

In Cornucopia City, as I understand it, all the buildings will be made of a special papier-mache. These houses can be torn down and rebuilt every spring and fall at housecleaning time. The motorcars of Cornucopia will be made of a lightweight plastic that develops fatigue and begins to melt if driven more than four thousand miles. Owners who turn in their old motorcars at the regular turn-in dates-New Year's, Easter, Independence Day, and Labor Day-will be rewarded with a one hundred-dollar United States Prosperity·Through-Growth Bond for each motorcar turned in. And a special additional bond will be awarded to those families able to turn in four or more motorcars at each disposal date.

One fourth of the factories of Cornucopia City will be located on the edge of a cliff, and the ends of their assembly lines can be swung to the front or rear doors depending upon the public demand for the product being produced. When demand is slack, the end of the assembly line will be swung to the rear door and the output of refrigerators or other products will drop out of sight and go directly to their graveyard without first
overwhelming the consumer market.

Every Monday, the people of Cornucopia City will stage a gala launching of a rocket into outer space at the local Air Force base. This is another of their contributions to national prosperity. Components for the rockets will have been made by eighteen subcontractors and prime contractors in the area. One officially stated objective of the space probing will be to report to the earth people what the back side of Neptune's moon
looks like.

Wednesday will be Navy Day. The Navy will send a surplus warship to the city dock. It will be filled with surplus play-suits, cake mix, vacuum cleaners, and trampolines that have been stockpiled at the local United States Department of Commerce complex of warehouses for surplus products. The ship will go thirty miles out to sea, where the crew will sink it from a safe distance.

As we peek in on this Cornucopia City of the future, we learn that the big, heartening news of the week is that the Guild of Appliance Repair Artists has passed a resolution declaring it unpatriotic for any member even to look inside an ailing appliance that is more than two years old. The heart of Cornucopia City will be occupied by a titanic push-button super mart built to simulate a fairyland. This is where all the people spend many happy hours a week strolling and buying to their heart's content. In this paradise of high velocity selling, there are no jangling cash registers to disrupt the holiday mood. Instead, the shopping couples-with their five children trailing behind, each pushing his own shopping cart-gaily wave their lifetime electronic credit cards in front of a recording eye. Each child has his own card, which was issued to him at birth.

Conveniently located throughout the mart are receptacles where the people can dispose of the old-fashioned products they bought on a previous shopping trip. In the jewelry section, for example, a playfully designed sign by a receptacle reads: "Throw your old watches hereI" Cornucopia City's marvelous
mart is open around the clock, Sundays included. For the Sunday shoppers who had developed a church going habit in earlier years, there is a little chapel available for meditation in one of the side alcoves.

Is Cornucopia City to become not a feverish dream, but, instead, an extreme prototype for the City of Tomorrow?

Certainly in the next twenty years the broad outlines of Cornucopia City will come to seem less and less fanciful, if current trends continue. Already a chapel has been built in a shopping center outside Miami. Already the General Dynamics Corporation has under development a lifetime electronic credit card.
Already watches are being sold as fashion accessory items. Already paper houses are being marketed. Already the life expectancy of motorcars has been showing a notable drop. Already supermarkets are staying open around the clock in many areas, with push-button markets under development. Already the stockpiling and disposing of subsidized but unwanted agricultural products have become a world-wide scandal. Already some home furnishings are being built to break down within a few years, and product makers have been showing a disconcerting fascination with the idea of setting "death dates" for products.

And, finally, already the pressures to expand production and consumption have forced Americans to create a hyperthyroid economy that can be sustained only by constant stimulation of the people and their leaders to be more prodigal with the nation's resources.

This presents us with another specter, one so disconcerting that Americans have thus far chosen to suppress awareness of it. That is the dangerous decline in the United States of its supply of essential resources. Once fabulously rich in these, the United States is now a have-not nation and is becoming more so every month. United States industrial firms are grinding up more than half of the natural resources processed each
year on this planet for the benefit of 6 per cent of the planet's people. In the lifetime of many, if not most, of us, Americans will be trying to "mine" old forgotten garbage dumps for their rusted tin cans

This was printed in 1960 !!!!!

 

[Corvus]

If I understand you well, you think that people accept ideologies by understanding them perfectly as they are and that they do so by exercising their free will and choosing them conscientiously.

I don't think this is the case, in general, I would dare to say that people would not embrace these ideologies if they really saw how stupid, incoherent, and self-destructive they are. IMO manipulation is used precisely to hide this, to make "digestible" the "indigestible".

If you look around you, or see for example that radical left in the west that still clings to it beliefs despite all the contradictions how would you call that, and still generally when masks are falling and things being shown their true face more then ever. And people are not stupid, incoherent and self-destructive?

Personally (and I may be wrong here), I have a feeling that you have an assessment of this subject a bit in black and white terms. What you say (or at least what I understand) sounds to me like: "EVERYONE who chooses an ideology and its pathological content does so because it is what he really wants, and freely chooses to walk the path of that ideology in full awareness of how harmful it is to the human race". I believe that in the middle of "not embracing any ideology" and "radically embracing one", there is a whole range of greys that must be considered, and even I guess that in the radical extremes several factors should be taken into account.

If you entertained the thought of being wrong you would not write it which means you do not think you could be wrong, or maybe you have telepathic abilities.

I may not have made myself clear, but I never said that ideology is based on "something internal". On the contrary, what I suggested is that ideology is an external structure that takes advantage of ideals (ideals that I believe are internal in nature) to confuse and seduce. I do not believe that my "definitions" definitively solve the "great mystery", nor do I believe that it is such a simple subject to sketch in 10 lines. IMO to be a fertile soil (as you call it) is a condition consequence of a mixture of personal experiences, cultural environment, and also why not, the degree of progress of the soul in question. Depending on these factors (and surely others) people are more or less vulnerable to being manipulated.

Maybe if you would be aware what you wrote you would see you said it implicitly, but still not every ideology is "bad" like not every ideal is "good".

 

[msante]

Personally (and I may be wrong here), I have a feeling that you have an assessment of this subject a bit in black and white terms. What you say (or at least what I understand) sounds to me like: "EVERYONE who chooses an ideology and its pathological content does so because it is what he really wants, and freely chooses to walk the path of that ideology in full awareness of how harmful it is to the human race". I believe that in the middle of "not embracing any ideology" and "radically embracing one", there is a whole range of greys that must be considered, and even I guess that in the radical extremes several factors should be taken into account.

If you entertained the thought of being wrong you would not write it which means you do not think you could be wrong, or maybe you have telepathic abilities.

I wrote clearly that I have "a feeling", and as I am not sure that I am interpreting your sayings correctly I made it clear that I may be wrong. Still, what I wrote is my impression, although with your last answer I tend to think that maybe I'm not wrong. I would like to add that I also have the feeling that you react in a very defensive/aggressive way, and you seem to be too sure that you are right. Ultimately my initial comment was only a reflexion, not a verdict. Instead, considering your comments, it seems that you have it all already figured out in your mind.