You Are The Illuminati

[Dennis Leahy]

I somehow convinced myself that I knew the difference between "sociopath" and "psychopath", believing that a psychopath was a sociopath in action, not just in potential. I had a discussion with someone and used that differentiation, but decided to actually look up the definitions to make sure my understanding was correct. I was surprised that when I did look up the definitions, they were the same. I can't remember if I found a DSM IV classification online or not (if one of you has access to a DSM IV, please check), or if it was just Oxford, Webster dictionary definitions. Maybe it's just a notion that I picked up from the zeitgeist - no one was ever called a "psychopath" unless their actions against others were involved.

But, as several people have noted, getting too deep into semantics is not going to help with what I think is an excellent topic (or sub topics) from Mike's opening post: that it is quite obvious that average, normal, typical people can commit acts that fall under the umbrella of "evil", some of whom don't have to wrestle with empathy ("sociopaths"), and some who can be manipulated or frightened into committing these evil acts. I love Peterson's explanation of the sheathed sword rather than "meekness" being virtuous. I was surprised by Peterson's admission that (after 10 days of wrestling with the idea), he could see himself capable of a prolonged atrocity, beating someone over and over and over and over with a pipe - as opposed to admitting that he was capable of exploding into an act of violence (which I think we probably all are capable of.) Though he may believe that admitting this (especially to oneself) means that if he could then anyone else could too, is a logical fallacy. (Like almost all of you, I wasn't educated in "rhetoric"/debate using the Trivium, and though I recognize some logical fallacies, I always have to go look them up.) But what I see here is what is commonly referred to as "projecting." Conversely, I also only really have an example of one person, myself, that I know is not capable of prolonged atrocity (but capable of instantaneous violence, defensively.) So, I suppose that I am also projecting when I conclude that no, the average person is not capable of prolonged atrocity from their own volition.

Nearly 1000 US military bases, prisons, and torture centers globally are all fully staffed with people willing to be part of the US military machine that is the sword of the sociopathic (primarily corporate) "elite." Most are clerical, mechanics, supply handlers, etc. that are not actively bombing, drone missile attacking, napalming, dispersing biological weapons, etc. but even those who are filling the clearly offensive positions (I suspect) are not actual sociopaths but brainwashed (using fear psychology) into performing these actions. To me, that speaks more to the amazing success of nefarious elite - over decades, maybe even over centuries - to figure out the human mind and exploit it via brainwashing, to participate in the "elite" agenda.

The military - the enforcement department for the sociopathic elite - are of course not the only ones. There are many thousands of civilians working for nefarious corporations that couldn't even exist without environmental and human exploitation, and somehow these employees (and let's include stockholders) obviously have been frightened (at least financially) and brainwashed into acquiescing to evil. I have broken bread numerous times with some engineers that work at Lockheed, for example, that exhibit empathy (are not sociopaths) but either bought into the "bomb the democracy into those other guys" rah rah America rhetoric, or are now financially dependent on squelching their empathy and just doing their compartmentalized job to get the fat paycheck.

[RogeRio]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I somehow convinced myself that I knew the difference between "sociopath" and "psychopath", believing that a psychopath was a sociopath in action, not just in potential.

I'm not sure if its a great definition, but it help to think about:

psychopath feels neither fear nor remorse, and deny the obvious even facing facts.

sociopath feels fear and remorse, and don't deny the obvious when faced the facts.

when a sociopath change the socio-cultural environment, It can forget unethical behavior practiced in its place of origin not tolerated in the place of destination, So, don't deny the obvious. A psychopath always deny.

---

by perspective of interconsciential intrusion, a psychopath can be dominated by same individual influence, and a sociopath by different coletive influences.

both influenced (pycho & socio) need to evolve awareness by self-knowledge, because the lack of own awareness allow access of others smart hidden intruders, which some times can left "implants" on "target individuals".

---

I understand that there are many ways to describe the same kind of problem, mainly because it is a cognitive problem, difficult and complex to be observed.

[Innocent Warrior]

An excellent essay on the mechanics of the shadow and one’s dark side (12 min to read entire essay). It expands on what Mike wrote about in the OP and it includes how the mechanisms of the shadow can be exploited to achieve certain goals.

I think of mechanics as universal or cosmic law, laws that you don’t follow like rules because they can’t be broken anyway but can be applied in a myriad of ways for a wiser and more efficient way to traverse life (physical and spiritual).

The author is on the same path as myself, he calls it self-transcendence, for me thats a means to an end, the end being to apply the effect of that state to the human vehicle in a particular way, but I recognise in him the clarity achieved from shadow work when approached in this particular way. He lives it.

*****

Carl Jung and the Shadow – The Mechanics of Your Dark Side

Have you ever looked yourself in the mirror so deeply that the sheer notion of what you like to call self, dissipated in a vertigo of angst and abstraction?

It is a strange feeling.

A feeling a bit arcane but also kind of familiar.

Something that seems wrong but also right.

Something we are almost incapable of describing, but we also, somehow, understand.

Something that we feel it can alter the structure of our paradigm in a very fundamental way.

You know, lately, I realized that after years of immersing myself in the core tenets of self-development and after identifying that major philosophical and psychological concepts have become central to my being, I have been coming closer to my ultimate personal goal that is self-transcendence.

Self-transcendence can mean a lot of things to all of us, but for me, the term has crystallized after I became enamored with how the duality between intellect and intuition can be manifested.

In my regard, intellect and intuition are not just two disparate terms. They are interconnected and intertwined. The one completes the other to the extent that the one becomes the evolution of the other.

Let me explain.

You know, when it comes to personal development and evolution, the major trait that characterizes exceptional individuals has always been their capacity to make strenuous acts seem effortless.

And this is something that has puzzled me a lot. I understand that the combination of intelligence and practice can lead to remarkable results, but I have also the feeling that we rarely ponder the nature of the state that leads to such results.

For instance, when you see that you reach a level of competence in a field and whatever you do occurs almost intuitively, you don’t feel the need to overanalyze how you reached that level. You are there and you enjoy the feeling of being there. Your past and incompetent self seems so distant and so foreign that you have no intention of bringing him or her back to the picture.

However, you know that he or she is still there. Lurking in some dark corners of your paradigm, acting like an anchor to states that were an essential part of your evolution as a person.

This past self has many forms. He or she becomes a shapeshifter in your personal journey that allows you to explore different forms of consciousness.

He or she gets inspired by various archetypes that are embedded in the human psyche throughout our history as the homo sapiens species and chooses to resonate with the ones that he or she considers more pertinent to your current mode of being.

It is through this integration of archetypes that you feel the first instances of intuition in your life. And it is through these instances of intuition that you can start acting in a more intelligent way.

Eventually, you start to explore all the different nuances of reality through acts of intelligence and you manage, through constant experimentation, to allow yourself to act intuitively via the periodical assimilation of the nuances.

This is the magic of the relationship between intellect and intuition.

A magic that can only be manifested when the past, present and future self decide to unite, repudiate the idea of collision and embrace the idea of synergy.

It is a very arduous endeavor, but also one that is very rewarding since it seems to be the only sure way to self-transcendence.

There can be no self-transcendence without the unity of all manifestations of your self. For self-transcendence is predicated upon your capacity to overcome the limits of the individual self in spiritual contemplation and realization.

In every story, there is a hero and a villain.

In your story, you are both.

All the bright aspects and all the dark aspects of your persona orchestrate the melody of your song.

A song that you need to hear first, before anyone else.

But in order to hear it, you have to learn to listen.

To listen not only to what you want but also to what you are afraid of.

Your fears and your darkness aren’t detached from you. Do not eschew them.

Face them, analyze them, internalize them.

The shadow is always there and it will always be.

But the shadow can look big or it can look small, depending on the angle from which the light caresses you.

What is the size of your shadow?

CARL JUNG AND THE SHADOW

Carl Gustav Jung was one of the most important psychologists of the previous century. He is also one of my biggest influencers since he is one of the few that have attempted to bridge the notions of psychology and spirituality in an effort to discover ways to transcend the human condition.

Jung has traveled a lot to India and immersed himself in different spiritual practices. His work was constantly evolving and, for me, it was this evolution that produced comprehensive analyses on concepts like the ego, the shadow, the archetypes, and the anima and animus.

These terms constitute the main pillars of Jungian Psychology and I truly believe that one needs to at least familiarize him or herself with what Jung wanted to reveal through his research.

Although I can discuss Jung’s ideas ad infinitum, in this essay I want to pay homage to a concept I consider paramount to one’s personal development journey. This is the concept of the shadow.

With regards to the shadow, Carl Jung has stated:

“The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.” — Carl Jung, Aion (1951)

The use of the word shadow wasn’t chosen unintentionally. Jung was always good at portraying complex ideas in a digestible visual manner. He used mental imagery in order to create anchors with concepts already familiar to human cognition.

The shadow is dark and elusive. It is impossible to catch, its size can alter depending on your position in space and it is ubiquitous whenever light is present.

Ergo, one can form a somewhat basic understanding of the concept without the need to delve into arcane terms.

Another crucial thing to ponder is that the shadow itself, due to the darkness that it forms and due to the distance that it creates from the physical body of a person, becomes something not so many people are eager to connect with.

And this is one of the major ideas associated with the Jungian shadow. Although we usually see the shadow as an integral part of our existence, most of us are willfully blind to this existence.

Our dark side is concealed or camouflaged in a painful attempt to protect an image that fits the narrative we decide to espouse. Through social conditioning, we come to construct a façade that can keep the substrate of our constructed identity stable so that we can keep feeling safe.

Safety, however, is ill-defined in that space we inhabit. How can one feel safe when there is so much unknown territory out there that can at any given point in time convulse the foundations of our fragile constitution?

A person is as free as their mind allows and if the mind creates barriers between the reality of the person and the reality of the rest of the world, delusion and neurosis could take over.

For instance, when you see people operate in a state of enforced ignorance that attempts to preserve a certain status quo, then the shadow can only grow bigger. Enforced ignorance entitles the shadow to take over since the individual is incapable of controlling it because he or she is not even aware of its existence. We can’t control what we don’t understand.

The 20th century is full of examples where a conglomeration of strong individual shadows has influenced the collective unconscious. All the wars, regime changes and instabilities in the fabric of society are a result of different religions, dogmatisms, and ideologies attempting to impose their beliefs and desires upon the populace by taking advantage of the burgeoning shadow element.

We couldn’t really prepare ourselves for such a combustible chain of events. Our proclivity towards adaptability by an adoption of an experimentation-oriented philosophy can lead to unavoidable calamities that, somehow, orient us towards what is best for our nature.

Psychology was still in its infancy and the myriad of prejudices and biases we still encounter amongst our fellow humans were considered, more or less, a norm. Very few of us could explore the darkest aspects of our psyche in order to achieve inner balance and mental freedom.

Most were just trapped in an existential crisis where they would ignore everything outside the light of consciousness. According to Wikipedia:

“Carl Jung explains that the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to psychological projection, in which a perceived personal inferiority is recognized as a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections remain hidden, ‘The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power.’ These projections insulate and harm individuals by acting as a constantly thickening veil of illusion between the ego and the real world.”

Every aspect of your unconscious identity that cannot metamorphose into conscious judgment will perpetually impede your progress as an individual, for it is creating a fantastic world that cannot synchronize with the frequencies of the real world. In such a landscape, the real world, or at least whatever we can understand of it, becomes an egotistical battleground that leads to collision and madness.

Full essay HERE.

[TomKat]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Congenital psychopaths would, theoretically, not have a shadow. The shadow is built from the cognitive dissonance between primitive, selfish urges and culturally acceptable behaviour. It's about self-control, self-disownment, not just of one's own primitive urges but possibly urges psychically picked up from the lower astral. An Ayn Rand or a Hitler might consider a congenital psychopath to be the next evolution of humanity. Most people would consider them throwbacks.

Great thought, TomKat. Very important to differentiate. And yes, as highly intelligent as a psychopath can be, there is something missing there. But, the fearless or 'warrior gene' which can be so toxic and horrible may have some application somewhere. Those with absolutely no fear can be groundbreakers. The problem, I figure, is, absent a major legitimate war, or highly dangerous exploration adventure, their same single minded zeal to triumph, in spite of tremendous odds reworks itself during peace time into something very ugly interpersonally and commercially. Look at the banking industry. They become interspecies predators.

If a pure psychopath enlists in the military under a highly corrupt sociopathic regime, they can go berserko and kill and torture with a certain amount of impunity. Special operations, Navy Seals. That is what they would be attracted to. Not saying that all of those people fit the description but they would over represented and rise to the top, within those branches of the military.

I doubt you'll find any psychopaths in the Seals. I knew a guy who tried to make the Seals. He said you have to be a genius and a saint. Now, as to their commanders, that's a different story.

[TomKat]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I somehow convinced myself that I knew the difference between "sociopath" and "psychopath", believing that a psychopath was a sociopath in action, not just in potential. I had a discussion with someone and used that differentiation, but decided to actually look up the definitions to make sure my understanding was correct. I was surprised that when I did look up the definitions, they were the same. I can't remember if I found a DSM IV classification online or not (if one of you has access to a DSM IV, please check), or if it was just Oxford, Webster dictionary definitions. Maybe it's just a notion that I picked up from the zeitgeist - no one was ever called a "psychopath" unless their actions against others were involved.

I'm not sure where I got it, some psychologist on youtube, probably, but I like the definition where psychopath is physiological (innate) and sociopath is cultural (acquired).

[Mac]

Not to make light of the subject, or to make light of the subject can't figure out which. I sometimes try reduce stuff like this to the ridiculous. As stated above we're all capable of certain behaviours. I think we are all guilty of the following more so up the ladder than us. "Everyone's stupid but me" when it gets scary "Everyone's wrong/stupid but we" . I think the older you get you can spot this fairly easy and its danger. Pretty obvious something amiss with some of the boys club that govern us and some of the behaviours mentioned will be rife among them, birds of a feather.
Edit: proof is always in the pudding harsh reality of life. Just contemplate the practices and sickness that we know of,stuff that's by the by for them. Both UK and US and probably elsewhere. Something drastically wrong obviously.

[Mike]

Yo Rach, I think what you described earlier, about your psyche splitting in 2, is known as the "witness". That's my understanding of it anyway. It's where a part of your mind splits off and sort of objectively and calmly observes the other parts, and sees them for that they are. I'm no authority, not in the least, but that's what it sounds like to me. Regardless of what it's called, you know far more about it than me thru experience, so I defer to you.

That article was amazing! And so synchronistic I can hardly believe it. The integration of archetypes. That stood out to me. And how one finds oneself in the "zone" when doing that. I've been integrating the f#ck out of the archetypes lately LOL, and I really feel like I'm in that zone. And the funny thing is, it just...happened

"how can one feel safe when there is so much unknown territory out there that at any given point in time can convulse the foundation of our very constitution?

my god, i've been droning on about this forever LOL. I've started threads on victimhood, the shadow, over sensitivity, the danger of "safe spaces", the plague of postmodernism, and so on.

the first step is to accept that we're not safe and we never will be, right? it's a total delusion. and when that delusion is vanquished, life can truly begin in earnest. and it all begins, i think, with the integration of the shadow.

enforced ignorance. yep. kids are taught to be victims these days, and then their programming takes over and they enforce it on themselves. what they don't realize, is that their inner monster/shadow is getting bigger and bigger, and that by delaying their acknowledgement of the shadow, the confrontation will only be that much more traumatic when they eventually do it. a very simple and maybe crude metaphor is that it's like avoiding the dentist when you have an abscess. the infection spreads, and what might have been a simple tooth extraction becomes a full blown jaw surgery.

i just started a thread on the archetypal underworld..the place of chaos we travel to when our lives are in turmoil. the underworld is sort of a metaphor for the shadow. it is implacable and can't be negotiated with. we will all have to travel there from time to time, and to resist only makes it worse. however, the pain and suffering we endure makes us stronger, and enhances our personal power. this is how we evolve and grow.

all movements that attempt to exploit the inability to engage the shadow are sinister, like the article points out. war, religion at its worse, etc. all elaborate excuses to justify moral weakness, people swallow it all because it's so much easier than doing the shadow work. today, it's postmodernism that's exploiting the reluctance of people to engage the shadow. all the silly meta narratives it invents are intended as distractions. but all that does is make the shadow grow larger. notice how so called victim groups are being manufactured daily, the numbers keep growing and growing...it's because they're all trying to outrun the shadow. and while they all hide in their "safe spaces" the shadow becomes ever more challenging.

so much to unpack in this article. thanks so much for sharing it. great stuff

[Ernie Nemeth]

We are imitators. We emulate our betters. In this society we all aspire to be little land moguls, small-time bankers, pretend investors, accountants. We play at those professions that our superiors have invented and that we have no way of ever affecting change.

Could you put $1,000,000,000 in a personal bank account without pangs of guilt? No. Yet we all play their games at our puny level like we are on the same footing or even have the same motivations. We are not playing the same game at all - only mimicking what they do but at levels that have no impact.

And now you would reduce us to the same motivations as well, with the same penchant for evil as these 1%ers.

I can tell you I am not a loser nor am I capable of what these evil sick perverted a-holes do. I am a loser in their world by choice, and that's not the same at all. Their laws are designed with me in mind - I am the enemy and have always been - and I have been ensnared by their bylaws more than I care to reveal, totaling well over $20,000! and costing me 4 cars, my professional license, my credit, my ability to drive, and finally even my hope for a better future. I cannot recover even if I wanted to.

So excuse me if I take offense at being told I am just like my tormentors. I am not.

Maybe you are, I don't know, but I would never accuse you of such. Nor start a thread with a blanket statement condemning everyone.

But then again you like to offend and you like to make fun of others with less social standing.

[Mike]

Ernie, this thread is kinda closed for grievances. If you want to complain about me, please do it in my new annoying thread, the aptly titled "A Stroke Of Genius (God I'm Good!)" Thanks.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Then I kinda take back what I said. quid pro quo