Psychopaths Have (Mis)Shaped History and Rule the World

When I wrote the blog post on Psychopaths, Corporations, and Government, and Rise of the IMPs, I had inferred that psychopaths rise to power in government in the same way they are attracted to the corporate structure as described in the book "Snakes in Suits". At the time I did not know that there was an entire book written about psychopaths in government.

Here is the book:

Political Ponerology

"Ponerology" is the study of evil, from the greek word for evil, Poneros. Evil can be studied outside of theology, in the same way ethics can. Author Michael Shermer discusses this in his book "The Science of Good and Evil". The basic premise is that the desire to help others is hard-wired into the species, in order to help preserve it. However, Shermer misses the fact that 0.8% of the population, the psychopaths, do not have this desire.

Political Ponerology studies how psychopaths take over political systems, which is then called a Pathocracy. (The term psychopath has a more specific meaning than sociopath, which is a more colloquial term.) The Polish author, Andrew Lobaczewski, was part of a group of psychologists in Poland who were secretly studying pathocracies while under Soviet rule. They were doing this research in fear of discovery and harsh punishment. Psychopaths don't like being studied and are afraid of being discovered. He escaped to the U.S.A. and showed a manuscript to an influential fellow Pole, who praised the work, but somehow got the book suppressed for many years. This Pole is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's Foreign Policy Secretary, whom I've written about before. He authored a book about the U.S. strategy for controlling the oil in Eurasia.

In the book "Without Remorse: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among us", psychologist Robert Hare explains that born psychopaths comprise about 0.8% of the population and are not "insane" - they understand what society considers "right" and "wrong", understand the consequences of their actions, but have no conscience, remorse, guilt, nor empathy. They are completely callous and self serving, but they have free will and make conscious choices.

They consider themselves superior to the rest of us, who are "weak" because we are subservient to our emotions, and thus "deserve" to be taken advantage of. They consider people around them as objects, including spouses and children, if they have them. At the same time they feel oppressed, because they desire some things which "normal" people find reprehensible and would punish them for. As an example, an Austrian man was arrested for imprisoning his daughter for over 20 years in the basement. In his mind, all he wanted was to keep his daughter in the basement, nothing wrong with that, but normal people came and took her away and jailed him. A psychopathic convict in jail for nearly killing someone in a bar fight, said, "It's not fair, he only spent 2 months in the hospital, while I'm in jail for 2 years!".

Many psychopaths become con artists, or go to jail, but many stay just below the radar, moving through society, taking advantage of everyone around them. Only about 1 in 25,000 become serial killers. Not all of them particularly enjoy killing people. Some of them become priests, lawyers, doctors, managers, or politicians. These are the "successful psychopaths". They become master manipulators, using their skill at feigning emotions. They are fascinated by psychology, which many study in order to improve their manipulation skills. Many prison psychiatrists have been fooled by their psychopathic subjects. They are glib and are expert, smooth liars. They are obsessed with manipulation and power over others. They move like predators among us.

At a young age, they realize they are very different, and practice making the proper emotional expressions in the mirror. They become actors on the stage of life. (They sometimes invoke the wrong, puzzlingly inappropriate emotional expression due to the lack of real emotions other than "proto emotions" such as rage and pleasure.) This is what psychologist Hervey Cleckley called "The Mask of Sanity", in his downloadable book of the same name. This Mask of Sanity can be turned into the Mask of Ideology - psychopathic politicians can say and do the "right" things in the public light to attract voters, things which they do not care about in the slightest. Think of the caricature "god-fearing" politician who in his private life, hires homosexual prostitutes, snorts cocaine, and accepts bribes. Think of the caricature "progressive" politician who preaches saving the environment and helping the poor, while jetting in a private plane and screwing people over by voting for the Mother of All Bailouts.

Communist and "cult of personality" totalitarian regimes, the Nazis, and historic baddies such as Pol Pot, Genghis Khan and Mao Tse Tung, are some very obvious psychopaths and pathocracies. However, remember that not all psychopaths would be as extreme as those, and there are probably many more "moderate" ones. Remember they are obsessed about power and manipulation, and not necessarily about killing (however they may find the death of one, or of thousands,"necessary" for their personal aims, and will have no qualms about it).

Here are a few things some politicians have done which suggest psychopathy

• Bush's wars of aggression, which have killed 10s or 100's of thousands.
• Clinton lying smoothly under oath (no I don't care that he got a blowjob from an intern), and his and Hillary's Whitewater scam
• Madeleine Albright saying that the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children was "worth it"
• Margaret Thatcher saying that her dream was to lead the nation into war and win (we are like pawns to psychopaths)

And then here are 2 articles about Obama's narcissism (many narcissists are psychopaths and other narcissists can be considered as mild psychopaths):

1. Is Obama a Narcissist? The article is written by Sam Vaknin, the world's only known "successful psychopath" who has come forward, and is the subject of the documentary I, Psychopath.
2. This one discusses his callous, inappropriate reaction to the Fort Hood Massacre.

In Political Ponerology, Lobaczewski describes the structure in a Pathocracy. It is like a pyramid, like most hierarchical stuctures. Psychopaths are capable of functioning in hierarchies as long as they think it lets them achieve their goals. At the top are the true psychopaths. Below them are the "new bourgeoisie" - those that benefit from the Pathocracy - many are probably the borderline psychopaths. Then below them are whom Lobaczewski calls the "Right wing Authoritarians" (an unfortunate choice of words). I prefer calling them the "Authoritarian Ideologues", because authoritarians can be either right wing or left wing (as per today's nomenclature). Ideologues are those who strongly believe in ideology, such as those Lenin referred to as "useful idiots", those that spread ideology to help you gain power.

Lobaczewski says that these "authoritarians" comprise 15% of the population, who have the personality type which have a need to follow and to exert authority. They are the types who believe very strongly in ideology, such as the caricature "liberals" and the caricature "conservatives", and want to tell everybody how to live their lives; they are the busybody judgmental types, the little-Nazi HOA types, and the TSA types - the bossy types who order you around and are obsequious in the face of authority above them.

The rest of the population, or about 80%, are along for the ride, living their lives, oblivious to the wholesale manipulation they are subject to.

I have seen discussions of Lobaczewski's book on "liberal" or "progressive" forums - they make the predictable mistake of calling Bush a psychopath then being blind to the psychopaths who spew "progressive" ideology. They do not understand the philosophy of the Fabian Socialists (who are members of the elite of society), who latched onto the idea of spreading Welfarism as a means of gaining more power, because the elite control government, Welfarism requires more government power, and "helping the less fortunate" tugs at your heartstrings and is thus difficult to argue against because the desire to help others is hardwired into the species. e.g. "You don't like welfare, you must be heartless!"

The Progressives do not realize that all Progressivism requires Authoritarianism and Centralization of Power, which attracts psychopaths. They do not realize that the Progressives of the 1930s were admirers of the National Socialist party of Germany (Nazi party) for their desire to shape society in the collectivist mold (but distanced themselves when the Nazis started killing Jews). They do not realize that Progressivism was fueled by PR campaigns of Big Business, in order to enable "regulation" which was actually Corporatism and Cartelization. (See page 82 of this PDF: The Case Against the FED) They do not see that while Bush is an obvious war-monger, the Democrats supported the war with votes and that Obama is the same, and is a Fabian Socialist. (This is not to say that the Neoconservatives don't promote Socialism - their voting supports it).

The "liberals" do not understand that the mass media controls the debates and feeds a false left-right paradigm which is meant to control thought and distract from the real issues of erosion of liberties. They do not understand that any attempt to shape society from the top-down is a form of Elitism and Utopianism. Those that believe in it do so because they feel superior and better than the rest (elitism), and that everyone else should be forced to act the same way (authoritarianism), in order to make society better by force (Utopianism), led by the most moral members of society. And there is the conundrum - the psychopaths will rise to power, not the virtuous. If two people run for the same office, and one is a good person and the other is evil and doesn't play by the rules, who would win? How can you expect that the ruling elite will be comprised of individuals that are more morally upright than the masses they rule?

Picture the bible-thumping "right wingers" who want government to force everyone to their way of thinking, and their nemesis, the "liberals" or "left wingers", who want government to force everyone to *their* way of thinking. They think their enemy is each other, but they are played against each other. (And most of the 80% along for the ride think the truth is between the two sides, not realizing that the answer is neither). The "wingers" are all from the 15% portion who are Authoritarians. They are an important tool for the psychopaths to exert their control over society.

The science of psychopathy as researched by Lobaczewski and Hare shows that positions of power attract the psychopaths, and thus any top-down method of shaping society, regardless of good intentions, by means of centralization and use of power, is doomed. The correct solution is self-rule and de-centralization or dismantling of power - and the only significant power is that which is backed by violence or threat of violence. Remember that in any government system, only government has the legal monopoly on violence. (e.g. you break its laws, and men with guns and badges arrest you.)

This pervasive thinking is the Myth of the Benevolent Dictator - the belief that "if only the right person gets into power, everything will be better". The "liberals" believe that "if only those true to the progressive ideology" get into power, everything will be better. Even if you could get a "good"person into office there wielding power righteously for a while, the next one will likely be a psychopath and will use that exact same power for evil.

This reviewer of Lobaczewski's book had this to say:

In this book I have learned that most, if not all of the governments of the world, have been taken over by a pathological infection from just a small group of psychopaths who understand the psychology of normal people to a very high degree and they have corrupted these governmental structures to the very core. These psychopaths have silently, but with mind boggling persistence and stealth moved in and taken over and hollowed out the very soul of humanity using lies and deception as their weapons of choice. These psychopaths, this inhuman race of pathological deviants, who do not have the capacity to feel conscience and feel the pain of another, now literally rule the world.

One psychopath can terrorize an entire town, even an entire city. The majority of normal people are now ruled by a minority of psychopaths and they have basically made our governments criminal networks. Criminal governments. Those working for these governments are now working for what basically is a criminal enterprise and they don't see it because they are in it and profit by it, yet it is these people who are determining our future and the future of our children.

Mankind is becoming a willing slave to the pathocratic structures created by the inhuman obsessive greed of this small percentage of humanity that cannot feel conscience. This book is a MUST READ. Only by knowing what we are dealing with can we do anything about it without going in circles. We are dealing with an intelligent predator that feeds on the soul of humanity. It seems to me that there are only a very few who are now speaking of psychopathy and (macrosocial) Evil in the way Lobaczewski speaks of it, since it has been suppressed for so long, but knowledge of the behavior of these deviants, these snakes in suits, is essential so we can recognize this "predator within our midst" and then do something about it with any real and lasting results

History has been disproportionately shaped by psychopaths - it makes sense that wars happen because of psychopaths. However, not only overt war-mongers had to have been psychopaths, but every stinking empire-hungry conqueror and power-hungry leader in history had to have been one - including the first caveman who convinced his fellow cavemen to take over the next cave by force. The sorry state of today's world with the seemingly intractable poverty and hunger despite our technological prowess is most easily explained by the fact that governments are pathocracies.

One may argue that psychopaths are produced by a recessive gene which the human species needs in order to progress, that the large-scale organization required by the rise of the early great civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Sumeria, and Egypt would not have happened without psychopaths. This may be so, but given today's technology and telecommunications, such large-scale organizations are possible without the power backed by violence that governments (and their psychopaths) have. Just look at Sony, Apple, or Toyota. They are large scale organizations capable of organizing tens or hundreds of thousands of people through mutually agreed voluntary contracts, in order to achieve a common goal - create products which customers voluntarily purchase. This, by the way, is the essence of the free market, which is based on freedom to trade and to enter into voluntary contracts. In the absence of violence or coercion, all agreements are reached voluntarily, through persuasion and reason.

Freedom and Free Markets produce the best possible outcomes for the majority. Freedom and Free Markets are not perfect and do not produce a Utopia - it is not about shaping society - and it cannot produce the ideal result for everyone at any given time. But given the science of psychopathy there is nothing better.

The Media's Memory Hole

In George Orwell's 1984, the Memory Hole was the tube into which workers placed documents to be sucked and destroyed. This way, if no documents of an event existed, the event never occurred.

The Corporate Media commit the lies of omission instead of the lies of commission. In a lie of omission, the liar withholds certain pieces of information in order to mislead the audience, instead of saying an outright lie (which is the lie of commission).

Some of the media's lies of omission are outright censorship.

Here are a few examples.

In the Boston Globe online, the original story about a man who was arrested for placing a sticker in an airplane lavatory that said "9/11 was an Inside Job - prisonplanet.com", included a mention of Alex Jones and his website, www.prisonplanet.com, and a link to it. A few days later, the prisonplanet.com phrase in the sticker's quote was removed, and the link and mention of Alex Jones were deleted.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3704

Recently Obama delivered a speech in Berlin, where he said that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be "as powerful, strong and well-funded as the military". (Taken alone and out of context, this line sounds decidedly like he was wanted a Gestapo - the meaning in the speech is a bit different, but still it is very strange to be using a line like this). In the online transcripts such as on the Wall Street Journal and the Denver post, the line is missing:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784
You can watch the speech here. The line was at the 16 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

Several months ago, in a presidential debate, Ron Paul was given a bullshit question meant to embarrass him. He answered it extremely well, and in the subsequent Fox replays of the debate, the question and his answer were edited out.

Very recently, the media has reported that Russia invaded Georgia without provocation. In reality, the Georgian president, emboldened by thinking he had NATO and U.S. support, had invaded South Ossetia and attacked Russian peacekeepers. Russia launched a massive counterattack. In declaring that it was all Russia's fault, the Mainstream Media dropped the Ossetians into the Memory Hole.

Here is a video of Fox News abruptly cutting off a 12 year old girl from California when she started thanking Russian troops for saving her. She was visiting relatives in Ossetia when the Georgian army attacked:
http://www.youtube.com/v/ySWm76IZ0No


One of the biggest events of the 20th century in the Memory Hole, was the attempted military coup against the civilian government of the USA, in the 1930's, when FDR was president. I'll bet most of you haven't heard of it. If such a military coup attempt happened, surely it would be big in the history books!

Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine Major General at the time. A group of people in government and big business plotted an overthrow of the civilian government. He was recruited to lead the military, chosen because of his popularity among his men. He played along until the last minute, then exposed the plot.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=883
What followed was a whitewash. The media ignored it, and the one person who could corroborate his story died mysteriously.

Smedley Butler was a true patriot. Today, few people have even heard of him. Why are he and the "Business Plot" not well known?

From Wikipedia:

These reasons were proposed to explain why the Business Plot did not become a cause célèbre:

The story embarrassed politically influential business people, who felt it best to deflect attention from themselves.

In 1934, newspapers were controlled by an élite — according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82 per cent of daily newspapers monopolized their communities; the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners.

Some of President Roosevelt's advisers were plotters, and downplayed the matter, avoiding exposure.

If in 1934, newspapers were controlled by the elite, what more today that they've had more time to consolidate their power? Today, 5 Corporations own the mass media.

There is one more reason I believe that Smedley Butler is ignored in mainstream history. It's because he wrote the book War is a Racket. In this book, he said that the U.S. Military is the attack dog of Wall St.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Today, the US Military is still the attack dog of Wall Street. In addition, funding the military with taxpayer money means immense profits for the military suppliers. Never-ending wars such as the Vietnam war, and the Iraq War, are not meant to be won, but to be waged...

On the subject of the Iraq War, when the WMD weren't found, the media had simply forgotten that that was the supposed reason for going into the war in the first place.

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were campaigning to be elected into Congress, they vowed to end the Iraq War. That was 2 years ago...


We must not allow the media make us forget just because they don't remind us.

The Free Market is like the Internet

The internet is a web that isn't controlled by a single person or a single group. If there is a defect, data gets routed around it.

If I were a baker and my flour supplier screws up, I can find another flour supplier.

The Free Market is self optimizing. If I had 2 flour suppliers I'd go with the one that offered the best combination of price, quality, and service. If the less favored supplier figured out a way to cut cost, he would become the favored supplier. Let's say he figured out that he could cut cost by switching his delivery vans to vegetable oil / diesel. The other guy would then have to figure out a way to cut his costs too.

The beauty of this is that everyone figures out a way to be most productive, because he gets rewarded. I don't need to tell the flour supplier that he should switch his delivery vans to diesel. No bureaucrat needs to decide who gets how many rolls of toilet paper that week.

The free market in a way is also like distributed processing. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry would get to decide how to best run their business. A million individual brains is better than one single bureaucrat.

The opposite of this is centralized economic planning a la the Soviet Union. Their shortages of basic necessities were legendary. In contrast, when were you ever worried that your favorite coffee shop would have no coffee one morning?

The idea of the free market as self-optimizing is espoused in the classic essay, "I, Pencil":
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html

The most curious thing of all though is, despite the fact that many people realize that central economic planning is ridiculous, they allow the very core of the economy, the monetary system, controlled by a central planner, the central bank, aka the Federal Reserve (in the United States).

How does the monetary system work? Here is a fantastic 45 minute cartoon video making it easy to understand:
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

The Gatekeepers

Most of the population fall for the Left vs. Right argument, believing that the Democrat vs. Republican debate is valid. They are simply playing out the role of Good Cop / Bad Cop.

If the left/right axis were simply socialism vs. capitalism, then I am a right winger. (Note that today we have CORPORATISM and NOT true capitalism).

However, many issues are mixed into the "left/right" axis, seemingly at random. The human tendency to identify with a group makes them want to identify with either the left or the right, at first due to their pet issue, and are brainwashed later into accepting all the other stands of that side on all the other issues.

• Who decided that the right would be pro gun rights?
• Who decided that the right would be "pro life"?
  
• Who decided that the left would be pro civil liberties?
• Who decided that the left would be anti war?
• Who decided that the left would be pro gay marriage?

(Missing from this is the most important issue, the fact that the monetary system is fundamentally flawed, and inherently corrupt. )

In reality ...

• The Democrats in Congress have voted overwhelmingly to support the Iraq war. (They aren't anti war)
• The Democrats have voted overwhelmingly to support the Patriot Act. (They aren't pro civil liberties)
• The Republicans have increased spending as much, if not more than, the Democrats. (They aren't pro small government)
• The Republicans (more accurately, the NeoConservatives) have continually increased government power (They aren't pro small government)
• The Republicans (the NeoConservatives), have been pushing for more war (How is that pro-life?)
• Republican Ronald Reagan bought into Keynesian Economics (tax less but spend more, which of course increases deficits, and benefits the bankers).

As you can see, the "Left" and the "Right" each have some valid points, but on the valid points, they say one thing and do another - such as the Democrats voting to support the war and the Republicans increasing government spending.

An example of how people are manipulated by the Left/Right illusion is that all the pro gun rights people, who have forgotten that the 2nd Amendment is there so that an armed populace is a deterrent and the last stand against a tyrannical government, did NOT make a stand against the Patriot Act, an act by a tyrannical government! All because they were led to believe that the Republicans were on "their side".

And of course when someone gets it right, like Ron Paul, the "Left" and the "Right" attack him by simply screaming about his points that don't agree with the Establishment Right/Left. e.g. the "Right" screamed he's antiwar and therefore doesn't care about "national security", and the "Left" screamed that he's anti-human because he's anti-welfare. And then on Abolishing the Federal Reserve, they'll both just call it "loony".

Part of this left/right issues hodgepodge is the belief that we are screwed today by corporations and their lobbyists (true), but that the solution is more government regulation (false) and more socialism (false), because corporate abuses are a result of capitalism (false).

One other issue of the "extreme left" is that the US Government is abusive overseas (true), but that it's simply a result of simple politics (false).

Which brings me to the GATEKEEPERS, who are a potent method of making people believe in the left vs. right hoax.

Noam Chomsky for example is a LEFT GATEKEEPER.

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=NoamAsset :

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame "America" and "corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.

Chomsky steadfastly denies the role of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission in the creation and management of the wars and poverty he claims to condemn. When speaking on such "conspiracies," he said the following:

"It's the same with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, all these other things the people are racing around searching for conspiracy theories about -- they're "nothing" organizations. Of course they're there, obviously rich people get together and talk to each other, and play golf with one another, and plan together-that's not a big surprise. But these conspiracy theories people are putting their energies into have virtually nothing to do with the way the institutions actually function." (Understanding Power, p. 348)

The CFR has been the dominant roundtable group pushing for a Panamerican Union by 2010 which would dissolve national borders and unite Mexico, Canada, and America under a single currency, with biometric ID cards and GPS-tracked vehicles on camera-strewn superhighways. How can Chomsky seriously claim the CFR is a "nothing organization" when their role in crafting policy is so clear? Whom is he trying to protect in denying the treasonous goals of the CFR?

Chomsky's stonewalling on the Bilderberg Group raises even more suspicions. Since 1954 the Bilderberg has served as the central brain of the New World Order, the major secret gathering for Globalist agents from across the globe. Bilderberg chairmen like Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller have pushed for total global government, eugenics population control, engineering wars, and controlling the worldwide economy. Top politicians from America and Europe also undergo a grooming process at the Bilderberg [meetings]. Bill Clinton went in 1991 as Rockefeller's personal guest, and Tony Blair attended in 1993 before becoming Prime Minister. John Kerry attended in 2000, and John Edwards did two weeks before becoming the VP nominee in 2004.

Gatekeepers have two functions:

1. Limit discussion so that fans think that's all there is to the issues
2. Make "extreme" bullshit statements so that the opposite side (the right in this example), will summarily dismiss his valid arguments, such as Chomsky's arguments against Corporatism, by way of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy, (which FSK groups under what he calls the "Strawman Fallacy")
   

Another example of a left gatekeeper is Lyndon Larouche.

Larouche has dug up and published obscure stuff like CIA involvement in the overthrow of certain foreign governments. With respect to (2) above, he says things like:

“The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications.”

And so by means of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy, the pro-right people will dismiss the notion that the CIA has overthrown legitimate foreign governments.

Larouche by the way endorses the "Alexander Hamilton" banking model -a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, which makes him a New World Order asset.

The Right Gatekeepers, most common of which are the obnoxious radio talk show hosts,
will say stupid things like "we need to invade Iraq", and then the pro-left will dismiss valid points like "we need to get rid of welfare".

Lou Dobbs is another kind of Gatekeeper. He rails against Corporatism and the North American Union, and claims that none of the presidential candidates ever talks about it, despite the fact that Ron Paul has talked against both many times! This is to prevent any real progress on these issues.

The way to identify gatekeepers is to see if they push any of the NWO (New World Order) agenda:

• central banking
• claim that the free market is the cause of recessions and/or poverty
  
• more government power or more centralization of power
• more government regulation
• more government spending
• more war / conflict
  
• less individual freedom
  

Or if they rail against some of the agenda but limiting discussion to prevent real progress (e.g. Lou Dobbs not talking about Ron Paul).

Rise of the IMPs

First I'd like to say that I've been in a sort of funk so I haven't been posting much recently. I don't know if I can go back to my former pace. Some bloggers say you should post several times per week, but my blogs take so long to research and write, and takes so much energy out of me, that that was never possible. Maybe if I made my blogs shorter, I can blog more often. That aside...

----------

If you have been reading my other posts, you know that I believe that there is a power elite in the world that operates hidden from the public eye, with selfish interests.

John Perkins calls it the Corporatocracy.
Carroll Quigley calls it an Anglophile elite.

Quigley was a well-respected Georgetown University historian and professor. He was an elitist who agreed with the elite's secretive agenda of oppression. Bill Clinton was his protege. Clinton is quoted as saying:

"I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley"

If one can easily believe that in a small town the sheriff, the mayor, and the judge are all corrupt and in cahoots, why would it be hard to believe the same to be true in the national level, namely the executive, judicial, and the legislative branches of government? And that people in power from different countries collude?

Government today resembles Fascism aka Corporatism:

• Government regulation favors big business over small
• Government regulation bails out businesses that are "too big to fail" despite risky business practices; and yet said businesses keep their earnings to themselves when times are good
• Government regulation in the form of the Federal Reserve (and all central banks around the world), confer a massive subsidy on the entire financial industry
• There's a revolving door between the highest positions of power in government and in the large corporations (e.g. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.)
  

The history of mankind has always been of hegemony. A group always rises to the top. This group always tends to step on others to get to, and to stay at, the top.

In the past this group tended to be royalty.

In about the 1700's the world saw the rise of liberal democracies, with the French Revolution and the American Revolution, and that was supposed to be the end of royalties. (The term here is loosely defined, as the USA is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy).

Great idea - that government officials are elected by the people, and that laws are written by their representatives. However, the democratic processes are simply being manipulated behind the scenes by a hidden power elite. The corporatocracy has replaced royalty.

This same corporatocracy controls the mass media, creating the illusion that people control their government and their destiny through the democratic process.

This same corporatocracy controls the economy via the money supply creation process. People never question the banking system. They just accept it like space and time and the weather. In reality it is a great scam known as the Compound Interest Paradox.

This same Corporatocracy controls the educational system. This is the reason the Compound Interest Paradox is never discussed in economics class or in college.

This same Corporatocracy exerts huge control on the direction of public and private money expenditure in scientific research. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations get to pick and choose what research projects get funded, just like they got to pick and choose which historians and professors got grants, in order that history books frunctions as propaganda.


I have posted that 1% of the population have varying degrees of psychopathy, and that the corporate structure attracts them, because ruthless behavior that non-psychopaths would have trouble doing, is rewarded. The corporatocracy, is basically comprised of the people who own and control the world's largest corporations, and the people in government are basically subservient to them, via the lobbyists. The lines between the highest echelons of the wealthiest corporations and government are blurred. Therefore, psychopaths run the government.


What if 1% of the 1% of the population that are psychopaths, are also very intelligent? What if 1% of those were also megalomanic? 1% of 1% of 1% equals 1 in a million. Of the 1 billion or so people on the planet who didn't grow up in poverty, there are 1,000 of them.

They are the Intelligent, Megalomanic Psychopaths.

IMPs.

They are our rulers.

Spitzer Schmitzer

The corporate media is all over NY Governor Eliot Spitzer. The thing that riles me the most over this whole thing is not that prostitution is illegal; it's the fact that he was caught because of "suspicious wire transfers":
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1

If one transfers $5,000 or more from his bank account more than once, the banks automatically forward the information to the FBI and the DEA. These laws that allow government to spy on its citizens' money transfers isn't really about drug laundering, it's about taxation. The IRS wants its pound of flesh, and taxes practically everything.

Ironically, Spitzer was the victim of the very police state tactics that he himself had used when he was Attorney General. His entrapment consisted of the wiretapping and recording of 6,000 private phone calls, and the interception of 5,000 emails:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007915.asp

Much as I dislike the WSJ, this article is worth quoting:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120536943121332151-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE1MzMxNjM5Wj.html

"Lavrenti Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin's KGB, once quipped to his boss, "show me the man and I will find the crime." The Soviet Union was notorious for having accordion-like criminal laws that could be adjusted to fit almost any dissident target. The U.S. is a far cry from the Soviet Union, but our laws are dangerously overbroad."

His prosecution looks like a vendetta.

It's very interesting that one of his last attempted victims with his police state tactics was Maurice "Hank" Greenberg:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson208.html

Greenberg is a director of the CFR and a member of the Trilateral Commission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg#Other_public_positions


Finally, regarding the illegality of prostitution...

I heard the argument that prostitution should stay illegal because of the "abuse" of women by their pimps. However, the reason that prostitutes can't go to the police when they get abused is precisely because prostitution is illegal! If it weren't illegal they could go to the police when they get abused.

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

This post has the same title as a book by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, who blew the whistle in the 80's on government activities withheld from the public:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/book.htm

This terrific book is available for downloading:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

The public school system is one of the most important ways that the people in power (via the government) have, in brainwashing the populace in preparation for the future. I have written about this before.

The Preface of Iserbyt's book alone, pages xiii to xx, talks about a lot of the things I have touched on in the past:

• children are not taught how to think
• that the educational system is designed to turn out good little workers
  
• turning the USA into a socialist/fascist nation subservient to the UN and not the Constitution
• children are brainwashed to reject individualism and embrace collectivism
• the principle of gradualism - slowly changing the "accepted" norms over time by the use of propaganda, like the frog slowly being boiled to death

The Foreword (page xi) talks about preparing the USA to join a One World Government.

Page 5 discusses that the Rockefellers and Morgans had a hand in the early days of public shooling.

Page 12 discusses Bernays, propaganda, and the real roots of "public opinion", and the CFR.

Before I end this post, I want to apply Kung Fu monkey's EEBC - "Extrapolated Everyday Bullshit Comparison" - turn bullshit words into what they really are. Manuel Lora blogged it:
Government this, government that:

"Public Schools" should be called "Government Schools".