Spamming my own threads with this very important information which, most likely, is true:
Remember this no-nonsense piece:
Twilight Of The Psychopaths
by Dr. Kevin Barrett
Spanish version
from TheCanadian Website
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.”
– John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman
When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.
Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.
Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.
The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:
1. Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers
2. Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits)
3. Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.
Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath.
Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.
Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.
In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species.
The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons:
“Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges”
(Grossman, p. 4).
Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing.
Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)
Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent.
The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behavior in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution.
Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.
How could that be?
In Political Ponerology, Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want.
In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies.
The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths
[...]
Continue here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...nerology08.htm
Well, guess what?
Now, it seems that "they" are hiring leaders of the US military on the basis of the very criteria described in the above paper:
From http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...r-not_01222013:
Shock Claim: “The New Litmus Test Of Leadership In The Military Is If They Will Fire On US Citizens Or Not”
Mac Slavo
January 22nd, 2013
SHTFplan.com
Comments (529)
Read by 30,126 people
Had the following comments been made on a fringe corner of the internet most would dismiss them as outright conjecture. However, what you are about to read comes from one of the world’s foremost philanthropists, Jim Garrow, who has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money to help over 35,000 Chinese baby girls from near certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy.
He was one of the 206 nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, which was ultimately awarded to President Barack Obama.
Garrow, who has friends in high places, including the U.S. military, made a startling claim on his Facebook page Sunday, which if true, should leave no doubt about why the Obama administration is moving full force to seize firearms from law abiding Americans and why the US government’s law enforcement and security assets have been making preparations for years in anticipation of social breakdown and widespread civil unrest.
According to Garrow, the Obama administration has been rapidly retiring or re-assigning US military leaders based on a new ‘litmus test’ of their loyalty:I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks.
“The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”.
Those who will not are being removed.
Dr. Jim Garrow – January 21, 2013
When pressed for the source of his information and asked why the senior military leader would not reveal his name, Garrow responded by saying, “I believe that the gentleman has done what he should and allowed all of us to sound the alarm.”
He revealed only that the man who shared this information, “is one of America’s foremost military heroes,” suggesting the source is a public figure.
Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars notes that this new ‘litmus test’ comes at a time when millions of Americans are already suspicious of the government’s motives behind a number of actions, including the most recent push to disarm the population:
Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.
It also follows
reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”
Would Jim Garrow put his reputation on the line by spreading a rumor or simply make this up to garner attention?
Or, is it possible that he does in fact have a high level military source who is privy to this information – someone who has himself been removed from his position because he didn’t pass the litmus test?
Should the Obama administration take Executive Actions against Americans in the event of a scenario where gun confiscation becomes reality or a
collapse of our economic system leads to a complete meltdown of law and order on the streets of America, the administration would likely deploy military assets under martial law to subdue any uprisings or riots.
The only way this could be done is if military leaders are willing to command their subordinates to deploy against the American people and fire on them if necessary.
If Garrow’s claims are true, one can only shudder at the thought of what the end-game may be.
Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 30,126 people
Date: January 22nd, 2013
Website: www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
Re: Chicago: Next Big False Flag?
Reply With Quote
.
Bookmarks