What happens if psychopaths take over the world?

The Corinthian · 24-09-2015 07:12AM

euser1984 wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with many of your points because I don't have the energy to do so and I do not mean that in any bad way at all.

Perhaps, but ultimately it means that you're just avoiding any kind of engagement when your ideas are questioned. In essence you want us to discuss your ideas, as long as we accept them, and if not you'll avoid any challenges and instead question those questioning you as a counteroffensive - obvious really.

If that is your position, you're welcome to it, but don't expect the rest of us to play your game or treat your ideas with any respect.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Am I the only person who hates the trite "define morally right or wrong". It's a sidetrack. There's a generally accepted morality in the modern world. It may not be universal. It may be flawed. But it doesn't have to be explained in detail every time damned time.

There isn't a generally accepted morality in the modern world - where did you get that daft idea? There might be a broad one in the West, but that's not the World.

As to my 'sidetrack', it wasn't. If someone in a position of power, such as a CEO, makes redundant 30% of their workforce, devastating the community they live in - as was the example that was given at the beginning of this thread - is that morally wrong? And if that CEO did not do so and as a result a few months later the entire company went bust, resulting in 100% of the workforce losing their jobs, is that not also morally wrong?

Morality is not black and white, no matter what mummy and daddy might have told us as children, so questioning it is pretty fundamental to the discussion.

As for @theCorinthian saying that it's not correct to see psychopaths as fundamentally different that's exactly what O'Hare says we can do.

I didn't say that.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 07:46AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but ultimately it means that you're just avoiding any kind of engagement when your ideas are questioned. In essence you want us to discuss your ideas, as long as we accept them, and if not you'll avoid any challenges and instead question those questioning you as a counteroffensive - obvious really.

If that is your position, you're welcome to it, but don't expect the rest of us to play your game or treat your ideas with any respect.

There isn't a generally accepted morality in the modern world - where did you get that daft idea? There might be a broad one in the West, but that's not the World.

As to my 'sidetrack', it wasn't. If someone in a position of power, such as a CEO, makes redundant 30% of their workforce, devastating the community they live in - as was the example that was given at the beginning of this thread - is that morally wrong? And if that CEO did not do so and as a result a few months later the entire company went bust, resulting in 100% of the workforce losing thei6r jobs, is that not also morally wrong?

Morality is not black and white, no matter what mummy and daddy might have told us as children, so questioning it is pretty fundamental to the discussion.

I didn't say that.

When you asked euser to "define morality" though, you were asking based on him saying that he started the thread in mind with morally wrong choices made in ones favour for the benefit of self which are choices that a person with aspd will often make based in their traits and the charachteristics of the disorder.

Above the example of a ceo has nothing to do with psychopaths. A psychopath could do that as a ceo, yes, but so could anyone else. That is a "greater good" choice. "I will sacrifice 3 to save 7".

euser1984 · 24-09-2015 08:13AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but ultimately it means that you're just avoiding any kind of engagement when your ideas are questioned. In essence you want us to discuss your ideas, as long as we accept them, and if not you'll avoid any challenges and instead question those questioning you as a counteroffensive - obvious really.

If that is your position, you're welcome to it, but don't expect the rest of us to play your game or treat your ideas with any respect.

There isn't a generally accepted morality in the modern world - where did you get that daft idea? There might be a broad one in the West, but that's not the World.

As to my 'sidetrack', it wasn't. If someone in a position of power, such as a CEO, makes redundant 30% of their workforce, devastating the community they live in - as was the example that was given at the beginning of this thread - is that morally wrong? And if that CEO did not do so and as a result a few months later the entire company went bust, resulting in 100% of the workforce losing their jobs, is that not also morally wrong?

Morality is not black and white, no matter what mummy and daddy might have told us as children, so questioning it is pretty fundamental to the discussion.

I didn't say that.

I'll reply to this in a while but you have just quoted me out of context which was unfair.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 08:23AM

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

Psychopathy like other disorders has a spectrum.

The inherint contradiction in this label however is it is from a discipline that is masquerading as a science; psychiatry.

Science is supposed to be amoral, or morality neutral, so how can it discern a label that is amoral without taking a moral perspective itself on human nature?

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 08:26AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe EH and I can see your reasoning and it's sound at first glance, but it might also be considered that the reason such individuals exist and indeed as you point out can be found to have a disproportionate amount of influence suggests we need them in some way as a species? Or at least the non "I'm gonna wear your skin as a blanket while I feast on your eyeballs" type.

That would be my take on it anyway. Loads of empathy while it may be healthy for the individual, may not be great when considering wider societal questions. The feels can sometimes get in the way and may actually cause more suffering in a wider context. Consider the current EU crisis, the love topic that dare not speak its name in AH. The empathic response would be to open up the EU and help, the non empathic response would be to look at other examples like Australia and how closing borders actually saved thousands of lives.

Full disclosure here EH, I would and have tested positive* for some psychopathic traits. My psychopathy more operates at a distance though and doesn't involve human organs in the oul fridge. Beyond me and mine my level of care drops right off an emotional precipice. The irony is I can appear more empathic than the average. I appear to "get people" more easily(which can itself be a box tick for a psychopath). It's because it's more a learned and detached thing, rather than an emotional connection thing. I have always enjoyed trying to pull meaning from fluid patterns in reality and people rock very fluid and shifting patterns all the time, so it was more an area of study than a natural thing, if you know what I mean?

Where I go off the psychopathy piste and back to "normal" is I do feel remorse for wrongdoing, I have a real hard on for societal fairness, I do form emotional attachments(though at a lesser rate than most) and generally speaking I'm not that much of a fcukwit. I did say generally speaking… Stop sniggering at the back, otherwise you'll be putting the lotion on your skin. If all that was missing I'd likely have ended up in the Daily Mail as a "Beast!". :pac:

To give an example, the recent photo of the dead child on the beach. I felt nada TBH. For me it was a bit of a media distraction, a collection of pixels that didn't resonate at all beyond the intellectual(Hmm OK so… what's the story, the background, how will this affect opinion, etc). And no this isn't desensitisation courtesy of the interwebs. I was always like this. A little cold, detached. "Psychopathic" as it were. However if it had been a friends child. Huge difference. Though to be perfectly honest I suspect I'd feel it a little less than normal folks even then, or I could compartmentalise it more easily.

I do think it's a sliding scale and as a "pathology" it like others can be advantageous. Autistic spectrum another example. IT is full of such people. Some of the largest clusters of autism are kicking off in "silicon valley" where these folks are marrying and having kids and concentrating the tendency. Your autistic spectrum people are almost like the psychopaths without social skills. A lot less potentially dangerous though, at least on a one to one personal level. Running huge multinationals with bazillions behind them… Hmmm maybe more of a concern.

*a couple of mates and rellies are in the psychology/psychiatry field. Indeed in the latter discipline one of them himself has tested positive in a similar way, but he reckons his detachment makes him better at helping people.

Empathy is certainly exploited to garner ethically questionable actions, we can see his in community hysteria.

The difference in "thoery of mind" is that psychopaths/sociopaths can exploit another's point of view to his or her advantage and that is something ASD can only dream of doing unless they take an effort to learn cognitive empathy.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 08:27AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect information or unforeseen consequences.

You need bad guys to catch the other bad guys.

No doubt nature has these abberations for a reason.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 08:35AM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Alas, no, it isn't. It's selfish, sh*tty behaviour but not necessarily psychopathic.

The problem here is psychopathic is just being used as a substitute term for undesirable behaviour. Someone commits murder; psychopath. Someone cheats on their partner; psychopath. Someone shuts down a factory; psychopath. Someone leaves out the milk; psychopath.

To reiterate what's already been said on thread. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by non psychopaths. Only one in ten CEOs of major firms are psychopaths. And you can be pretty sure the number is similar in other seats of power such as government. By no stretch does a 10% stake represent a majority.

What's far more frightening to think is that all that terrible behaviour is actually being perpetrated by people with no behavioural disorder. I suspect people don't want to face up to that which is why they hide behind the term so often.

Well every culture needs a scapegoat......

Thank you DSM. Now no one has to consider the culture might be sick....nope...it's the deviants.

The Corinthian · 24-09-2015 08:40AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

When you asked euser to "define morality" though, you were asking based on him saying that he started the thread in mind with morally wrong choices made in ones favour for the benefit of self which are choices that a person with aspd will often make based in their traits and the charachteristics of the disorder.

Above the example of a ceo has nothing to do with psychopaths. A psychopath could do that as a ceo, yes, but so could anyone else. That is a "greater good" choice. "I will sacrifice 3 to save 7".

Actually that is untrue. Emphatic people find it more difficult to make such utilitarian decisions, to the point that many cannot "sacrifice 3 to save 7". No shortage of data on this out there:

http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11904/jdm11904.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033264/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060418

So the CEO example is valid, I'm afraid; it's why certain traits shared by psychopaths are actually advantageous for leaders.

And ultimately this is why the question of what is moral is important. Some simplistic, absolute , black and white, this is good and this is evil, approach cannot be applied in such situations.

euser1984 wrote: »

I'll reply to this in a while but you have just quoted me out of context which was unfair.

Well if I have please point out where.

Eugene Norman · 24-09-2015 09:17AM

@corinthian asking a question like "what is morality anyway" is trite because it's unanswerable without a derailment discussing just that.

You since moved onto an example. A CEO who needs to fire 30% to save 70%. You don't need to be a psychopath to do that, it's normal moral calculus. Of course the over emphatic may baulk but most CEO's are not the most feeling though 90% are not psychopaths. Therefore dividing the world into those capable of utilitarian judgements free of bias (the psychopaths) and the rest is mistaken.

The psychopath would close down the factory to make himself richer and not worry a jot about the results. The world is divided into predator and prey, and the psychopath isn't prey.

The Corinthian · 24-09-2015 09:50AM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

@corinthian asking a question like "what is morality anyway" is trite because it's unanswerable without a derailment discussing just that.

I disagree. It puts into question whether morality can seriously be considered, not only because of it's affect on decision making, but also because there is no such thing as a standard morality.

You since moved onto an example. A CEO who needs to fire 30% to save 70%. You don't need to be a psychopath to do that, it's normal moral calculus. Of course the over emphatic may baulk but most CEO's are not the most feeling though 90% are not psychopaths. Therefore dividing the world into those capable of utilitarian judgements free of bias (the psychopaths) and the rest is mistaken.

Yet the over emphatic may at the very least hesitate at making the utilitarian decision, which by definition means they are less efficient leaders - especially where such a hesitation can mean life or death in a time sensitive situation (e.g. triage). In many other cases their empathy will sway them to make poor decisions.

The psychopath would close down the factory to make himself richer and not worry a jot about the results. The world is divided into predator and prey, and the psychopath isn't prey.

True, but this returns us to the original point I made which is everyone is presuming that these people in position of power are all psychopaths, when all they have is one similar trait to them.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 09:52AM

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/20/the-baby-in-the-well

Good article arguing against empathy.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 09:57AM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

@corinthian asking a question like "what is morality anyway" is trite because it's unanswerable without a derailment discussing just that.

You since moved onto an example. A CEO who needs to fire 30% to save 70%. You don't need to be a psychopath to do that, it's normal moral calculus. Of course the over emphatic may baulk but most CEO's are not the most feeling though 90% are not psychopaths. Therefore dividing the world into those capable of utilitarian judgements free of bias (the psychopaths) and the rest is mistaken.

The psychopath would close down the factory to make himself richer and not worry a jot about the results. The world is divided into predator and prey, and the psychopath isn't prey.

An empathic ceo might fire all the women, and childless men, having more empathy for the providers.

Empathy is not always leading to fairness as it ignores facts figures justice and is captivated by the perceived victim.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 10:09AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually that is untrue. Emphatic people find it more difficult to make such utilitarian decisions, to the point that many cannot "sacrifice 3 to save 7". No shortage of data on this out there:

http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11904/jdm11904.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033264/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060418

So the CEO example is valid, I'm afraid; it's why certain traits shared by psychopaths are actually advantageous for leaders.

And ultimately this is why the question of what is moral is important. Some simplistic, absolute , black and white, this is good and this is evil, approach cannot be applied in such situations.

Well if I have please point out where.

I havent read those journals. I might give them a read another day.

I suppose your comparing a person very high on the spectrum of empathy to a person lower on the spectrum of less empathy but even then it doesnt have to be a psychopath. There are alot of people in between and usually these people make the most balanced choices and the best leaders. Sometimes even these people make selfish choices but they are more likely to make better ones for the overall picture. If you are saying a psychopath is better at making finacial decisions based on money alone then that sometimes can be possible but it doesnt mean it was the right decision. Like i said before a more balanced person will be more likely to consider all factors and outcomes and make a more reasonable decision for the benefit of the company and the staff.

A psychopath leader is also going to be less concerned with things like working conditions and morale because he/she cant empathise with the staff which has an effect on productivity etc.

So im not sure its about being a good leader as such when you look at the bigger picture.

I was watching a doc about scientology and it said that L. Ron. Hubbard set out to "make a religion" with the intent of making money. It was his aim not to pay tax. So he wanted to con people to get rich and he knew it. He made good decisions to make money but overall he has exploited a lot of people and what other possible trickle down effects that might have on society from families being separated to people working for peanuts for the good of the church.

The Corinthian · 24-09-2015 10:24AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

I suppose your comparing a person very high on the spectrum of empathy to a person lower on the spectrum of less empathy but even then it doesnt have to be a psychopath.

If people had read my first post on this, this admission may not have been necessary.

There are alot of people in between and usually these people make the most balanced choices and the best leaders.

If you say so. It would help if you had something to back up some of your claims though, at this stage.

Sometimes even these people make selfish choices but they are more likely to make better ones for the overall picture.

No. Don't confuse selfish with utilitarian.

If you are saying a psychopath is better at making finacial decisions based on money alone then that sometimes can be possible but it doesnt mean it was the right decision.

No. I said those with lack of empathy have an advantage when making such decisions, but ultimately it comes down to their aim or motivation - a psychopath is more likely going to have their own interests as a higher priority to the greater good.

Like i said before a more balanced person will be more likely to consider all factors and outcomes and make a more reasonable decision for the benefit of the company and the staff.

And I explained why this is not the case. If you'd like to rebut what I responded, I'm all ears. Actually, read the article that zeffabelli posted; according to it empathy can be a good motivator but it does not engender balanced decisions.

A psychopath leader is also going to be less concerned with things like working conditions and morale because he/she cant empathise with the staff which has an effect on productivity etc.

A stupid psychopath maybe. But an intelligent one will be aware that things like morale are tied to his or her self preservation - Machiavelli goes into this at length (Il Principe, Ch. 19), for example.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 10:36AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. I said those with lack of empathy have an advantage when making such decisions, but ultimately it comes down to their aim or motivation - a psychopath is more likely going to have their own interests as a higher priority to the greater good.
e.

And you dont agree that the greater good is the best decision?

Surely the greater good means the best possible outcome right? And you say that the greater good is not a priority for the psychopath yet the psychopath is a good leader.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 10:36AM

There is no point making comparisons without including cognitive ability such as IQ. THe stupid psychopaths and the stupid empaths are in prison.

Plus, neurotypicals on their high horse, some of the least understanding people out there.

The Corinthian · 24-09-2015 10:41AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

And you dont agree that the greater good is the best decision?

Surely the greater good means the best possible outcome right? And you say that the greater good is not a priority for the psychopath yet the psychopath is a good leader.

Who said the psychopath is a good leader? Would you read what is written please.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 10:42AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

There is no point making comparisons without including cognitive ability such as IQ. THe stupid psychopaths and the stupid empaths are in prison.

Plus, neurotypicals on their high horse, some of the least understanding people out there.

But doesnt your comment about stupid psychopaths and stupid empaths all being in prison sound like what someone on a neurotypical highhorse would say?

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 10:47AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

But doesnt your comment about stupid psychopaths and stupid empaths all being in prison sound like what someone on a neurotypical highhorse would say?

No what I am saying is that these comparisons are also related to IQ.....a stupid psychopath is not going to be a good leader or a good dominator or a good criminal. Leader and dominator are not the same, a leader brings out the best in others.

A smart psychopath will know that it is in his self interest if the company has good moral because it will boost productivity and then he will make more money from that. If you enter HIS or HER meaning system then people might get somewhere, but no one, not even psychotherapists are eager to sympathise with the devil.

A stupid empath could just as easily end up in prison because their empathy led them to a crime.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 10:48AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who said the psychopath is a good leader? Would you read what is written please.

Ok we can change the wording from good leader to good decision making if you want and ill still say the same thing.

You said that there are cases where they are capaple of making better decisions.

You also said the greater good is not their priority.

Do you agree that the best decision will be made with the greater good, the greatest overall possible outcome, as a priority?

The Corinthian · 24-09-2015 10:56AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Ok we can change the wording from good leader to good decision making if you want and ill still say the same thing.

You said that there are cases where they are capaple of making better decisions.

You also said the greater good is not their priority.

Do you agree that the best decision will be made with the greater good, the greatest overall possible outcome, as a priority?

What on Earth are you on about?

I have consistently said:

It is a presumption to suggest that psychopaths all become leaders or leaders are largely psychopaths.
Lack of empathy, a trait shared by psychopaths and others is an advantage in decision making for leaders.
Lack of empathy does not make one a psychopath.
Psychopaths will prioritize self interest, which is not necessarily a good motivator in making leadership decisions.
Good decisions in this discussions are broadly defined as for the 'greater good', or utilitarian.

So why are you still harking on about psychopaths being leaders?

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 11:02AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about?

I have consistently said:
It is a presumption to suggest that psychopaths all become leaders or leaders are largely psychopaths.

Lack of empathy, a trait shared by psychopaths and others is an advantage in decision making for leaders.

Lack of empathy does not make one a psychopath.

Psychopaths will prioritize self interest, which is not necessarily a good motivator in making leadership decisions.

Good decisions in this discussions are broadly defined as for the 'greater good', or utilitarian.

So why are you still harking on about psychopaths being leaders?

I dont think lack of empathy is an advantage at all...its as much as an advantage as being dominated and being led/overwhelmed by empathy.

The best of this, I think is empathy that is moderated and regulated by reason combined with an awareness of how compassion works and how it is applied, an awareness of its complexity, and how easy it can be to victimise another party or other parties, while either empathising with a victim or feeling like a victim oneself and how a lack of empathy can produce the same result as too much of it.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 11:04AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

No what I am saying is that these comparisons are also related to IQ.....a stupid psychopath is not going to be a good leader or a good dominator or a good criminal. Leader and dominator are not the same, a leader brings out the best in others.

A smart psychopath will know that it is in his self interest if the company has good moral because it will boost productivity and then he will make more money from that. If you enter HIS or HER meaning system then people might get somewhere, but no one, not even psychotherapists are eager to sympathise with the devil.

A stupid empath could just as easily end up in prison because their empathy led them to a crime.

So you compare a psychopath to a dominator? What do we need dominators for though? They suppress.

Its been argued here that we need psychopaths. Its not about not giving sympathy zeffebelli or seeing them as evil but theres no point in going in the opposite and portraying them as tough businessmen capable of making great decisions that mere mortals cant make or zombie fighting heros keeping up the existence of mankind.

Im sure there is no perfect person that lies equally on all the spectrums of all disorders but the fact is that psychopaths have a disorded way of thinking which is very often damaging for themself and the people around them.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 11:08AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

So you compare a psychopath to a dominator? What do we need dominators for though? They suppress.

Its been argued here that we need psychopaths. Its not about not giving sympathy zeffebelli or seeing them as evil but theres no point in going in the opposite and portraying them as tough businessmen capable of making great decisions that mere mortals cant make or zombie fighting heros keeping up the existence of mankind.

Im sure there is no perfect person that lies equally on all the spectrums of all disorders but the fact is that psychopaths have a disorded way of thinking which is very often damaging for themself and the people around them.

Well if I had a German tank blasting through my wall...I sure would be happy if I happen to have a bunch of psychopaths around me...that's exactly who you want...

Just like when you are in danger, a paranoic is exactly who you want.

When my house is a mess an OCD is exactly who I want...

When we need another way of looking at things Aspergers is exactly what I need....

THere's a place for everyone at the table.:pac:

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 11:21AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about?

I have consistently said:
It is a presumption to suggest that psychopaths all become leaders or leaders are largely psychopaths.

Lack of empathy, a trait shared by psychopaths and others is an advantage in decision making for leaders.

Lack of empathy does not make one a psychopath.

Psychopaths will prioritize self interest, which is not necessarily a good motivator in making leadership decisions.

Good decisions in this discussions are broadly defined as for the 'greater good', or utilitarian.

So why are you still harking on about psychopaths being leaders?

Corinthian,

you said that you agreed that we need psychopaths, you gave me an example of of a zombie survival which i gave back two instances in survival where this would not be the case.

So tell me why do we need them?

And i am not "harking on" . I am trying to have a conversation with you but it is difficult as you nit pick at terms leaving your statements ambigious such as "decision makers" and "leaders" which basically mean the same thing in context.

Whitewinged · 24-09-2015 11:25AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well if I had a German tank blasting through my wall...I sure would be happy if I happen to have a bunch of psychopaths around me...that's exactly who you want...

:pac:

Yea but its probably some psychopath that sent the german tank to your door in the first place.

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 11:28AM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Yea but its probably some psychopath that sent the german tank to your door in the first place.

Exactly. So what you need is fight fire with fire....

How is an empath going to have the stomach to knife them all?

Take something simpler, like surgery.....can you cut someone open? I can barely watch reality plastic surgery documentaries without recoiling....

Yet we need people who can cut other people open and keep the steady hand...

diomed · 24-09-2015 11:32AM

Thermopool wrote: »

So it seems that some people have a very negative perception of psychopaths, as has been pointed out already, society needs psychopaths to function properly.

No, it does not need them.

euser1984 · 24-09-2015 11:42AM

Why do you keep talking about psychopaths, leadership etc. etc. I thought this had already been addressed.

Why not talk about how the bloody banking system is set up instead for example? That is more on point.....as I said already, the word psychopath has completely detracted from the point of this thread.

Here is a quote from Lincoln:

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
-Abraham Lincoln

zeffabelli · 24-09-2015 11:43AM

euser1984 wrote: »

Why do you keep talking about psychopaths, leadership etc. etc. I thought this had already been addressed.

Why not talk about how the bloody banking system is set up instead for example? That is more on point.....as I said already, the word psychopath has completely detracted from the point of this thread.

Here is a quote from Lincoln:

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
-Abraham Lincoln

Well then you need to take it up with the Germans.... oh does culture matter?

What happens if psychopaths take over the world?

Comments