Clinton as Psychopath
Riggs
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>From-
>
>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>
>an answer to Edith Efron
>
>by C.J. Barr
Thanks, I was beginning to wonder where I was going to find my weekly
gibberish ration.
Riggs
<cay...@nyct.net>spewed:
><reposted in lieu of response to dopey comment>
>
>From-
>
>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>
>an answer to Edith Efron
>
>by C.J. Barr
>
<schnip>
A double dose of gibberish! And I think to myself, what a wonderful
world.
Martin McPhillips
From-
Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
an answer to Edith Efron
by C.J. Barr
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
<begin excerpt>
Efron Has It Backwards
Efron paints a moving portrait of a man in profound agony at his own
cognitive imperfections. A man in emotional pain because he cannot think. A
man driven by his fear of failure or of imperfection to spin forever just
short of completion. She has it exactly backwards! Clinton cannot think
precisely because he cannot feel, has virtually no emotional life at all.
Clinton is not burdened with a hyperactive, obsessive compulsive
"conscience," a paralyzing perfectionism. Clinton's conscience problem is
that he has absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Clinton is not an obsessing
neurotic but what I will call, borrowing the term from Manufacturing Social
Distress, by Robert Reiber of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, an
adaptive psychopath.
Disorders of the sort we are discussing can be defined either as a
constellation of social behaviors or as interrelated personality traits. The
latter, of course, are deduced clinically from observation of the former.
There is considerable overlap among behaviors, even those associated with
quite dissimilar disorders. Efron observed a subset of Clinton's conduct and
labeled it obsessive compulsive. The same behaviors, however, also correlate
to narcissistic personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder.
Both of these, quite closely related to each other, are entirely
inconsistent with obsessive compulsive disorder. The underlying personality
traits are quite different. And both of these alternatives more closely
match the entirety of Clinton's observed anti-social behavior.
Psychopathy is an older, more precise, name for "anti-social personality
disorder." In the 1920's, psychologists adopted "sociopath" to replace
"psychopath." More recently, the name "anti-social personality disorder"
replaced the replacement. This terminological evolution has coincided with,
as Robert Hare of the Hare Labs at UBC writes, a "dramatic shift away from
the use of clinical inferences [and towards] the behaviors that typify a
disorder...." The reason for this is that it is easier to describe
superficial behaviors than to deduce the underlying reasons why they occur.
But the unforeseen result has been a "construct drift" that sacrifices
clinical validity for mere descriptive reliability. The new classifications
depend "on a fixed set of behavioral indicators that simply [do] not provide
adequate coverage of the construct they were designed to measure."
I will use the older term, "psychopath", for two reasons. First, it is
defined, as Hare notes, by "affective and interpersonal traits such as
egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and
lack of empathy, guilt or remorse..." that describe a clinically distinct
syndrome rather than a mere constellation of behaviors. And second, because,
as Reiber says, "psychopath" expresses more of the "awe, horror, and
perplexity" that these people evoke. Because it better captures a
"phenomenon so spectacularly alien that it seems almost incredible that such
people can exist." As for narcissistic personality disorder: all psychopaths
(I suspect) are also narcissists, although not all narcissists are true
psychopaths.
Since psychopathy is one of the least understood of personality disorders,
let me outline the classic description of the true psychopath, drawing
heavily on Hervey Cleckley's ground breaking work, The Mask of Sanity.
"General poverty in major affective reactions."
The psychopath, Cleckley says, "always shows general poverty of affect.
Although it is true that he sometimes becomes excited and shouts as if in
rage or seems to exult in enthusiasm and again weeps in what appear to be
bitter tears or speaks eloquently and mournful words about his misfortunes
or his follies, the conviction dawns on those who observe him carefully that
here we deal with a readiness of expression rather than a strength of
feeling."
Cleckly describes the "emotional poverty, the complete lack of strong or
tragic feeling universally found in all the psychopaths personally
observed...." He comments that some ascribe to them "powerful instinctual
drives and passions...." He attributes this error to the fact that "weak and
even infantile drives displaying themselves theatrically in the absence of
ordinary inhibitions may impress the layman as mighty forces....."
"Specific loss of insight."
Cleckly asserts that the psychopath "lacks insight to a degree seldom, if
ever, found in any but the most seriously disturbed psychotic patients."
[I]n the sense of realistic evaluation, the psychopath lacks insight more
consistently than some schizophrenic patients. He has absolutely no capacity
to see himself as others see him.... [H]e has no ability to know how others
feel when they see him or to experience subjectively anything comparable
about the situation. All the values, all of the major affect concerning his
status, are unappreciated by him."
Cleckly expresses astonishment at this in view of the "psychopath's perfect
orientation, his ability and willingness to reason or go through the forms
of reasoning, and his perfect freedom from delusions or other signs of an
ordinary psychosis." Later he notes that "[s]uch a deficiency of insight is
harder to comprehend than the schizophrenic's deficiency, for it exists in
the full presence of what are often assumed to be the qualities by which
insight is gained. Yet the psychopath shows not only a deficiency but
apparently a total absence of self-appraisal as a real and moving
experience."
Instead of facing the facts that lead to insight, the psychopath "projects,
blaming his troubles on others with the flimsiest of pretext but with
elaborate and subtle rationalization." He may, from time to time,
"perfunctorily admit himself to blame for everything and analyze his case
from what seems to be almost a psychiatric viewpoint, but we can see that
his conclusions have little actual significance for him.... The patient
seems to have little or no ability to feel the significance of his
situation, to experience the real emotions of regret or shame or
determination to improve, or to realize that this is lacking. His clever
statements have been hardly more than verbal reflexes; even his facial
expressions are without the underlying content they imply."
"Unreliability"
Actually, an unreliable unreliability. "The psychopath's unreliability and
his disregard for obligations and for consequences are manifested in both
trivial and serious matters, are masked by demonstrations of conforming
behavior, and cannot be accounted for by ordinary motives or incentives.
Although it can be confidently be predicted that his failures and
disloyalties will continue, it is impossible to time them and to take
satisfactory precautions against their effect. Here, it might be said, is
not even a consistency in inconsistency but an inconsistency in
inconsistency."
"Untruthfulness and insincerity"
"The psychopath," says Cleckley, "shows a remarkable disregard for truth and
is to be trusted no more in his accounts of the past than in his promises
for the future or his statement of present intentions." He is "at ease" and
"unpretentious in making promises or denying culpability. His words in such
matters carry "special powers of conviction.... Candor and trustworthiness
seem implicit in him at such times. During the most solemn perjuries he has
no difficulty at all of looking anybody tranquilly in the eyes."
When detection of wrongdoing is at hand, a psychopath may "appear to be
facing the consequences with singular honesty, fortitude and manliness." But
this, too, is a facade. "It is indeed difficulty to express how thoroughly
straightforward some typical psychopaths can appear. They are disarming not
only to those unfamiliar with such patients but often to people who know
well from experience their convincing outer aspect of honesty."
Upon being discovered in "shameful and gross falsehoods, after repeatedly
violating his most earnest pledges, he finds it easy, when another occasion
arises, to speak of his word of honor, his honor as a gentleman, and he
shows surprise and vexation when commitments on such a basis do not
immediately settle the issue."
"Lack of remorse or shame"
A psychopath shows "almost no sense of shame. His career is full of
exploits, any one of which would wither even the more callous
representatives of the ordinary man. Yet he does not, despite his able
protestations, show the slightest evidence of major humiliation or regret."
However, the psychopath may, when cornered, seem to accept blame and express
profound regret. But "subsequent events indicate that it is empty of
sincerity -- a hollow and casual form...." His manner of delivering these
perfunctory expressions will reveal nothing of this hollowness but will be
"exceedingly deceptive and is very likely to promote confidence and deep
trust." Which will soon prove to have been misplaced.
"Superficial charm and good 'intelligence''
A typical psychopath makes a very good first impression. He is perceived as
bright, well adjusted and as manifesting "desirable and superior human
qualities [and a] robust mental health." Despite this, "the psychopath's
inner emotional deviations and deficiencies may be comparable with the inner
status of the masked schizophrenic." His surface charm coupled with his cold
remorselessness makes him a superb manipulator of the unwary.
"Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience"
On theoretical matters, the psychopath may show superb judgment. On very
complex ethical, moral or emotional issues he may also show excellent
reasoning ability -- as long as they are abstract and do not involve himself
as a participant. But about his own life, a psychopath demonstrates over and
over an inability to learn from experience or to be deterred by punishment.
"Pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love."
The egocentricity of the psychopath "is usually of a degree not seen in
ordinary people and often is little short of astonishing." However, a
skillful psychopath may learn to camouflage it to suit his schemes. It is a
"self-centeredness that is apparently unmodifiable and all but complete....
[I]t is an incapacity for object love and... this incapacity... appears to
be absolute."
A psychopath may be capable of "casual fondness, of likes and dislikes, and
of reactions that, one might say, cause others to matter to him." These are,
however, "always strictly limited in degree" and "durability." And "[w]hat
positive feelings appear during the psychopath's interpersonal relations
give a strong impression of being self-love." He has "absolute indifference
to the financial, social, emotional, physical, and other hardships which he
brings upon those for whom he professes love...."
"Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated"
"The psychopath's sex life," says Cleckley, "invariably shows
peculiarities." There is not a strong congruence with any specific sexual
deviancy, but deviance is not unusual and should not be surprising "in view
of the psychopath's notable tendencies to hit upon unsatisfactory conduct in
all fields and his apparent inability to take seriously what would to others
be repugnant and regrettable."
Also not surprisingly, "in view of their incapacity for object love, the
sexual aims of psychopaths do not seem to include any important personality
relations or other recognizable desire or ability to explore or possess or
significantly ravish the partner in a shared experience." They are generally
limited to "literal physical contact and relatively free of the enormous
emotional concomitants and the complex potentialities that make adult love
relations an experience so thrilling and indescribable."
Far from being super-sexed, "their amativeness is little more than a simple
itch and that even the itch is seldom, if ever, particularly intense."
As for the psychopathic male, "despite his usual ability to complete the
physical act successfully with a woman, [he] never seems to find anything
meaningful or personal in his relations or to enjoy significant pleasure
beyond the localized and temporary sensations."
Psychopaths of both genders have a record of sexual promiscuity, but this
"seems much more closely related to their almost total lack of self-imposed
restraint than to any particularly strong passions or drives. Psychopaths
sometimes seem by preference to seek sexual relations in sordid
surroundings" or with inappropriate people. They go out of their way to find
sexual entanglement that "mock ordinary human sensibility or what might be
called basic decency...."
The male psychopath, beneath "his outwardly gracious manner toward women and
his general suavity and social charm... nearly always shows an underlying
predilection for obscenity, an astonishingly ambivalent attitude in which
the amorous and excretory functions seem to be confused. He sometimes gives
the impression that an impulse to smear his partner symbolically, and even
wallow in sordidness himself, is more fundamental than a directly erotic
aim, itself hardly more to him than a sort of concomitant and slightly
glorified backscratching."
"Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior"
"He will commit theft, forgery, adultery, fraud, and other deeds for
astonishingly small stakes and under much greater risks of being discovered
than will the ordinary scoundrel. He will, in fact, commit such deeds in the
absence of any apparent goal at all."
"Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations"
A psychopath does not feel genuine gratitude for kindness or trust. Nor does
he conduct his life by any recognized code of reciprocity. But "we often
find him attentive in small courtesies and favors, often habitually generous
or quasi-generous when the cost is not decisive." Sometimes these acts are
self-serving in subtle ways, but not always. "Outward social graces come
easy to most psychopaths, and many continue, throughout careers disastrous
to themselves and for others, to conduct themselves in superficial
relations, in handling the trivia of existence, so as to gain admiration and
gratitude. In these surface aspects of functioning, the typical psychopath
(unlike the classic hypocrite) often seems to act with undesigning
spontaneity and to be prompted by motives of excellent quality though of
marvelously attenuated substance."
I referred to Clinton using Rieber's classification, "adaptive psychopath."
In part, an adaptive psychopath is merely a successful one, one who has
avoided jail or asylum. He is a psychopath more able to function in the real
world whether, as Rieber says, because of "superior endowment or because
their survival was facilitated by adopting an outwardly [normal] facade."
But Rieber -- who has written extensively about "Psychopathy in Everyday
Life" (in fact, this is the subtitle of his book, Manufacturing Social
Distress) -- means something a bit more subtle by "adaptive psychopath" and
presents psychopathy, itself, using a somewhat streamlined description.
While accepting the work of Cleckley and Hare -- both of whom have largely
studied psychopathy in therapeutic or penal settings -- Rieber writes that
in his view:
"the following four salient characteristics -- thrill seeking, pathological
glibness, antisocial pursuit of power, and absence of guilt -- distinguish
the true psychopath."
'Thrill-Seeking"
This is more than merely impulsive behavior. Often considerable planning is
involved, as well as the cooperation of accomplices. This behavior may be
due, in part, to a higher threshold of "perceptual stimulation" among
psychopaths, leading to thrill-seeking, drug use and violence (sexual or
otherwise).
Also psychopathic thrill-seeking is qualitatively different from normal
boredom defeating pursuits.
"Psychopathic thrill-seeking consists in breaking the rules, whatever they
might be, or even in surreptitiously making up new rules. At a poker table,
psychopaths do not want to win; they want to cheat and get away with it.
That is, they want to turn the game into a new game, where they make the
rules."
Adaptive psychopaths, he says:
"have taken this to a paradoxical extreme: They can go about their routine
duties precisely because they have turned them into a dangerous game of
charades, of passing for normal, while in their off-hours they live an
entirely different life."
Clinton manifests this in all aspects of his life; from his golf Mulligans
to his interpretation of the ten commandments. His entire adult life, lived
under the microscope of public scrutiny, has been one long game of charades.
Friends, even enemies, marvel at the paradox that such an ambitious man
would risk everything, repeatedly, to gratify his desires (which often
actually seem as fleeting and trivial as mere whims). Clinton's psychopathic
thrill-seeking is satisfied by precisely this inconsistency: by the
incompatibility between his public ambitions and that rapacious private
life.
"Pathological Glibness: The Manipulation of Meaning in the Communication of
Deceit"
All psychopaths, at every level of intelligence, are remarkably glib and
persuasive. Cleckley also talks about "semantic dementia," by which he means
that the psychopath is unmoved by the ordinary emotional demands of a
situation and act as if they do not exist. Rieber takes this further:
"[T]he same dissociation is also manifest in their speech; words have become
detached from meaning and serve instead as a means of placating a dangerous
foe or of fleecing an unwary victim. By the same token, they do not allow
themselves to be moved by words and concepts that their fellow citizens
value."
Hare has reported that the organization of the psychopath's brain seems to
differ from the "normal" brain in the way it deals with language as well as
emotion. It seems that language may be more diffusely and shallowly
processed by the psychopath. This corresponds to the psychopath's ability to
hold several, mutually contradictory concepts in his mind at once without
evident discord.
If there is one trait of Clinton's that stands out, even against the
backdrop of hairsplitting lawyers, politicians and consultants, it is his
use of language. His grand jury testimony is a case study in semantic
dementia and verbal dissociation. A careful look at moments such as the
lesson on the meaning of "is" reveals a tiny flash of triumph on Clinton's
face. He has cheated in plain sight and won. This analysis extends, also, to
public affairs. At its heart, triangulation is "semantic dementia" as a
political weapon.
"Antisocial Pursuit of Power"
Psychopaths are preoccupied with power relationships. Not only are they
interested
"in obtaining maximum power for themselves, but they seem hell-bent on using
power for destructive ends. Only in paranoid states and in the attitudes of
career criminals can a comparable fusion of antisocial trends with the power
drive be seen. It is as though, for psychopaths, power can be experienced
only in the context of victimization: if they are to be strong, someone else
must pay. There is no such thing, in the psychopathic universe, as the
merely weak; whoever is weak is also a sucker, that is, someone who demands
to be exploited."
This also typifies Clinton's approach to the use of power -- over women,
over opponents and even over allies. It is manifested in Clinton's
justification for exploiting his lawyer's gullibility in believing his own
client (Clinton, himself). It underlies his abusive relationship to women
(many of whom either came to him because of his power or who were unable to
resist or complain because of it). The psychopathic attitude towards power
also underlies Clinton's dealings with Congress -- both majority and
minority -- and his ongoing shell games with policy.
Psychopaths, it has been noted, tend to invade the space of others to
intimidate or dominate. Often this takes the form of a piercing, unwavering
gaze. Women sometimes interpret this as seduction, as Monica Lewinsky
reports about herself. Men also feel it, although in different ways. Bob
Woodward mentioned on Larry King recently that this is what he first noticed
about Clinton during a face to face meeting. Even a glass of diet Coke never
occluded that unblinking laserlike stare. (For a jarring parallel, watch the
opening scene of Kubrick's Clockwork Orange!)
"Absence of Guilt"
Psychopaths are not ignorant of law and its sanctions. They simply ignore
the former and seek to evade the latter. They are, therefore,
"skilled in evasion and rationalization. Some, gifted histrionically, can
even feign remorse. But they do not feel guilt.... [W]hen psychopaths are
caught they are in a profound sense uncomprehending."
If one thing marked Clinton's great apology tour, following discovery of the
soiled dress, it was total and absolute insincerity. (Where are the
religious counselors now that he has escaped removal?) If you read all the
statements of regret and the comments about mutual forgiveness, only one
conclusion is possible: Clinton is, on the one hand, presenting a facade of
guilty shame to evade repercussions while, simultaneously, taking pleasure
in manipulating the words so as to never say what his "sucker" audience
thinks he is saying.
The Mephisto Syndrome
The sum of these four parts is what Rieber refers to as the "Mephisto
Syndrome."
"[I]t is hard to resist the impression that the true psychopath is a
personification of the demonic.... They are not social, only superficially
gregarious; not considerate, just polite; not self-respecting, only vain;
not loyal, only servile and down deep they are really quite shallow....
Hence the observed homologies with the figures of the demonic: ...For the
psychopath, the demonic is a way of life....
"[S]ince like the devil psychopaths are inherently asocial, they are
difficult to comprehend within the confines of ordinary human morality.
[T]he true psychopath, like Lucifer, goes beyond the categories of evil and
sin; theologically, the true psychopath is incapable of forming any
relationship to God or to humans.... Not feeling remorse, psychopaths enter
the confessional, as they enter psychotherapy, only when it serves some
other purpose, typically that of evading punishment....
"[T]he power of the group is real; if properly organized the group can
accomplish things well beyond the power of any individual. The individuals,
for their part, participate in the exercise of group power through
identification....
"Psychopaths, by contrast, appear to situate themselves altogether
differently vis-a-vis the group. Rather than adopt a posture of
identification, they appear to... proceed on the delusionary belief that in
their own person they can emulate and create the degree of power that,
properly speaking, only the group has. More than a law unto themselves,
psychopaths act as if they were a whole nation unto themselves....
[reminding us of de Gaulle's famous saying that nations have no friends,
only interests.]
"Dissociation is a critical cognitive process in psychotherapy. It is
manifest in the pathological glibness, in the inability to feel guilt, in
the inability to profit from experience, and in the semantic dementia,
generally, of the psychopath.... [D]issociation refers to the tendency of
individuals to... dissociate... their 'real' selves from their 'public'
selves. Such people histrionically alter their public presentations to
create a succession of socially acceptable images or facades....
"With psychopaths, dissociation reaches to a deeper level; paradoxically it
is also more readily put to the service of the pathologically inflated ego.
Where the histrionic splits off the 'bad me' from the 'good me,' ...the
psychopath's internal split seems seems to take place at an even more basic
level, that of the 'me' and the 'not me....' [T]here is nothing that is 'not
me' for psychopaths. There is no limit to the grandiosity of their
fantasies, likewise there is no limit to what they might do....
"[The psychopath's] deeper dissociation is utterly uncontrolled, and this
makes it practically impossible for psychopaths to do anything else but con
at the level of social valuations.... [T]he same is true of the kind of
rationalizations and trumped-up emotions psychopaths rely on.... [T]here is
a level of conscious ego-involvement in these techniques, but it is a
pathologically inflated ego..., an ego that has lost the ability to produce
either genuine reasons or genuine feelings...."
The trait at the root of psychopathy is flattened affect. The profound
shallowness of the psychopath's emotional life is not only their trademark
behavioral trait -- though often masked by an outward glib charm -- it has
also been identified by brain scans. From this emotional deficit, all else
appears to follow. A vital emotional life seems to be essential to
conscience, judgment, the ability to learn from experience, insight and all
the other social and moral values lacking in the psychopath.
Not surprisingly, this issue of emotional deficit also underlies the
difference between my theory of Clinton and Efron's. Efron's diagnosis --
which requires deep emotional suffering and conscience paralyzed cognitive
skills -- is incompatible with the psychopathic traits manifested by
Clinton. Her's simply cannot explain the pathological lying, the evasions,
the exploitation of women and the like.
On the other hand, if my diagnosis is to succeed, it must explain how a
presumed emotional deficit is consistent with Clinton's "relentless huggy,
weepy emotionalism," his legendary screaming fits and purple rages and his
repetitious, self-pitying self-diagnosis.
The answer is obvious from the very description of the syndrome. Violent
emotional demonstrations by a psychopath are, as Cleckley said, always the
result of a lack of inhibition rather than any genuine strength of feeling.
When these outbursts are directed as rage against another, they can also be
explained by the psychopath's lack of empathy for that other person and
instinct to dominate him or her. Displays of rage -- like inappropriate eye
contact -- are typical of animal dominance behaviors. Moreover, psychopaths
are often motivated by a need for approval, which is one reason they so
carefully ape genuine emotional responses. An intelligent psychopath is not
oblivious to objective signs of his own failure; he is, however, more or
less oblivious to his own contributing faults. To recognize them would
require insight, which he does not possess. So a psychopath will often lash
out at others in violent rage, blaming them for the falling polls, failed
legislation, editorial criticism, etc. Paradoxically, the psychopath is also
capable of putting on an outward display of insight when it suits him. It is
a hollow, false insight. A psychopath can analyze his own conduct with great
psychological skill, but the words are, as Cleckley pointed out, as empty as
he is.
A young patient cited by Cleckley had a typical history of truancy and
delinquency. Finally, in desperation, his affluent family asked a friend to
intervene. The friend was an older man with considerable practical
experience helping troubled youths. He decided to take the boy on a long
automobile trip -- with the purpose of maintaining a relaxed atmosphere
while keeping his audience captive. The boy did most of the talking. He
analyzed his own shortcomings with, seemingly, great insight and honesty. He
volunteered that he needed to change and outlined steps that he might take
to do so. The older man was very impressed. When they arrived back at the
boy's home that evening, the man discharged his passenger at the curb and
drove off. The boy walked past the house, through the back yard and out the
back gate. He was next seen a week later, in police custody, having
committed a spate of forgeries and thefts.
The Psychopath
Efron's excellent and convincing portrayal of the Hollow Sun King, the first
Clinton paradox, is, in short, an almost perfect description of a
charismatic psychopath: a soulless "intraspecies predator" (to quote Hare's
"Without Conscience"). A robot without empathy, devoid of conscience or
remorse, living a mere shadow of an emotional life, but able to mimic the
outward manifestation of emotions on demand. Able, therefore, to manipulate
the unwary to a degree that defies imagination. Presenting a different facet
to each viewer. Objectively hollow, but, to the susceptible, very like a
"Sun King." A Sun King who deceives, exploits, betrays and rapes his
subjects.
<end excerpt>
This appeared in the Laissez Faire City Times (an internet publication)
on March 29, 1999. Just for the record, I first came to the conclusion that
Clinton was a psychopath four years earlier--McP
Riggs
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
><reposted in lieu of response to another dopey comment>
>
>From-
>
>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>
>an answer to Edith Efron
>
>by C.J. Barr
>
What are C.J. Barr's credentials?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>From-
>
>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>
>an answer to Edith Efron
>
>by C.J. Barr
>
>http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
>
><begin excerpt>
>
>Efron Has It Backwards
>
>Efron paints a moving portrait of a man in profound agony at his own
>cognitive imperfections. A man in emotional pain because he cannot think. A
>man driven by his fear of failure or of imperfection to spin forever just
>short of completion. She has it exactly backwards! Clinton cannot think
>precisely because he cannot feel, has virtually no emotional life at all.
>Clinton is not burdened with a hyperactive, obsessive compulsive
>"conscience," a paralyzing perfectionism. Clinton's conscience problem is
>that he has absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Clinton is not an obsessing
>neurotic but what I will call, borrowing the term from Manufacturing Social
>Distress, by Robert Reiber of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, an
>adaptive psychopath.
>
Only idiots babble psychobabble.
You're an idiot.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Wilson
In article <huNL4.14297$jZ3.1...@nuq-read.news.verio.net>, "Martin
McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
><reposted in lieu of response to dopey comment>
>
>From-
>
>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>
>an answer to Edith Efron
>
>by C.J. Barr
>
>http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
>
><begin excerpt>
>
>Efron Has It Backwards
>
>Efron paints a moving portrait of a man in profound agony at his own
>cognitive imperfections. A man in emotional pain because he cannot think. A
>man driven by his fear of failure or of imperfection to spin forever just
>short of completion. She has it exactly backwards! Clinton cannot think
>precisely because he cannot feel, has virtually no emotional life at all.
>Clinton is not burdened with a hyperactive, obsessive compulsive
>"conscience," a paralyzing perfectionism. Clinton's conscience problem is
>that he has absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Clinton is not an obsessing
>neurotic but what I will call, borrowing the term from Manufacturing Social
>Distress, by Robert Reiber of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, an
>adaptive psychopath.
>
Sharon C. Smith
Sharon
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:19 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
sal...@my-deja.com
There are a number of psychopaths and sociopaths involved around the
Clinton administration, but Clinton certainly isn't among them. Scaife
and Gingrich come to mind.
I think you'd have to be crazy to attempt to impeach a president for
getting a blowjob from an intern while you yourself were getting
blowjobs from an intern. The blowjobs themselves don't interest me
much.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Martin McPhillips
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:57:49 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
>><reposted in lieu of response to another dopey comment>
>>
>>From-
>>
>>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>>
>>an answer to Edith Efron
>>
>>by C.J. Barr
>
Other than that he's intelligent and can write I don't know.
But he uses the Cleckley and Hare and applies their work
precisely to Clinton.
You might want to go read the entire piece--
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
to Clin
Martin McPhillips
>What would one expect from a psychopath's dupes?
That they continue to believe no matter what. In *Without
Conscience* Robert Hare writes about the people of a
small town whose church fund or charitable fund is wiped out
by a psychopath, but when he's caught and brought back
and charged, his marks vouch for him. They never met
a nicer guy. So the experience of being a mark for a
psychopath is hard to shake off, even after he's clearly
pulled off the con.
Martin McPhillips
Martin McPhillips
Aaron Hirshberg
John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese, James
Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
You are not describing Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too senile to
exhibit any mental illness while in office.
Aaron Hirshberg
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ThomJeff
Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
> You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver North,
> John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese, James
> Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
And, more recent psycopaths: Newt Gingrich, William "Mr. Morality" Bennett, Dan
"Scumbag" Burton and Tom DeLay. The more serious psychopaths would be Larry
Klayman, Lucianne Goldberg, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Chris Ruddy and Robert Bork.
> You are not describing Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too senile to exhibit any
> mental illness while in office.
Either that, or he was the most serious psychopath of them all.
Thom
Aaron Hirshberg
Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
>You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver North,
>John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese, James
>Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
>
>exhibit any mental illness while in office.
Oops, I forgot Michael Deaver.
Martin McPhillips
<01d6be00...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>...
>
>Oops, I forgot Michael Deaver.
<Oops, reposted in lieu of response to yet one more dopey comment>
Riggs
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>Riggs wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:57:49 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
>><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>
>>><reposted in lieu of response to another dopey comment>
>>>
>>>From-
>>>
>>>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>>>
>>>an answer to Edith Efron
>>>
>>>by C.J. Barr
>>
>>What are C.J. Barr's credentials?
>
>
>Other than that he's intelligent and can write I don't know.
>
>But he uses the Cleckley and Hare and applies their work
>precisely to Clinton.
>
>You might want to go read the entire piece--
>
>http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
>
>to Clin
>
I see. In other words, he's just a shlub with a computer.
Martin McPhillips
Wilson
>Wilson wrote in message ...
>>What would one expect from a psychopath's dupes?
>
>That they continue to believe no matter what. In *Without
>Conscience* Robert Hare writes about the people of a
>small town whose church fund or charitable fund is wiped out
>by a psychopath, but when he's caught and brought back
>and charged, his marks vouch for him. They never met
>a nicer guy. So the experience of being a mark for a
>psychopath is hard to shake off, even after he's clearly
>pulled off the con.
>
How many times are hoaxes exposed and the dupes refuse to acknowledge
the facts?
UFO's, crop circles, sasquatch movies, abstract art creators and
spiritual mediums are exposed all the time, with little effect on
their believers.
What is even stranger, when those who originate a hoax decide later to
fess up, they are not believed.
It's a cult thing.
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Riggs <ri...@privacyx.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:41:07 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
><cay...@nyct.net>spewed:
>
>>
>>From-
>>
>>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>>
>>an answer to Edith Efron
>>
>>by C.J. Barr
>>
>
>A double dose of gibberish! And I think to myself, what a wonderful
>world.
Why is it "gibberish?" It is written in plain English, using only a
modicum of clinical terminology. "Gibberish" is babbling or incoherent
nonsense. The material in question discusses principles, considers
facts, shows how those facts match the principles, and gives examples
for instructive parallels.
Apparently, anything that conflicts with your world view is "gibberish."
A sign of a completely closed mind. You cannot understand the material
presented (which I doubt that you actually read) because you cannot, I
suppose, understand how anyone can see the world and interpret its daily
events in any other way than you do. It's not even worth expounding why
you believe what you do, or refuting the arguments of others; no, you
simply dismiss it is as "gibberish."
Is the following famous quote "gibberish?": "It's crackers to slip a
rozzer the dropsy in snide." Or is it simply a sentence containing
words you don't know?
Tell us why you think that Clinton is _not_ a psychopath, as described
by the article by Barr in reference to Cleckley's characterization of
psychopathic behavior. How is Cleckley wrong on his definition and
description, or why is Barr wrong in matching Clinton behavior to
Cleckley's diagnostic criteria?
Any high-school forensics competitor could tell you that if you simply
dismiss your opponent's arguments as "gibberish" (unless he really _is_
babbling and drooling), you _lose_ the debate, because you have done
nothing to refute his arguments.
BTW, the famous quote is in Cockney slang, and means, "It's crazy to
give a policeman a bribe in counterfeit money." Extra points to anyone
who can describe the source of the original in detail...
Wilson
>You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver North,
>John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese, James
>Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
>
>You are not describing Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too senile to
>exhibit any mental illness while in office.
>
Your true colors are showing again, Hirshberg.
Martin McPhillips
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:18:37 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
>>Riggs wrote in message ...
>>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:57:49 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
>>><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>From-
>>>>
>>>>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>>>>
>>>>an answer to Edith Efron
>>>>
>>>>by C.J. Barr
>>>
>>
>>
>>Other than that he's intelligent and can write I don't know.
>>
>>But he uses the Cleckley and Hare and applies their work
>>precisely to Clinton.
>>
>>You might want to go read the entire piece--
>>
>>http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
>>
>
No, *you* are what is called "just a shlub with a computer."
Whoever C.J. Barr is, he can write exceedingly well, and
has carefully applied the work of Cleckley and Hare to
Clinton. It must be very upsetting for you.
Aaron Hirshberg
What do you mean by "again"? My true colors show constantly. I
am an American who is equally sick and tired of conservative
hypocrisy and liberal self-righteousness. I am also opposed to
gun control and an admirer of Charlton Heston. I despise Ronald
Reagan and his crowd, not because they are conservatives, but
because they are hypocritical phonies who implemented regressive
taxation and defense-spending Keynesian economics during
Reagan's tenure. I despise George George Bush and his crowd
because he lied about his Iran-Contra involvement and his CIA
career in general, his grand-parents were Nazi sympathizers, and
he has aligned himself with the "captive nations" crowd, most of
whom are Nazi war criminals who escaped justice by claiming to
be "anti-Communists". I despise Bill Clinton because his
attempts at good leadership are thwarted by his personal foul-
ups, which usually involve the zipper on his pants.
Aaron Hirshberg
<monti...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>
>Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
>
>> You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver
North,
>> John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese,
James
>> Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
>
Morality" Bennett, Dan
>"Scumbag" Burton and Tom DeLay. The more serious psychopaths
would be Larry
>Klayman, Lucianne Goldberg, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Chris Ruddy
and Robert Bork.
I am sorry, but Robert Bork is not a psychopath. Just a right
wing intellectual.
I forgot to add Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt.
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Aaron Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <019601ee...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>, Aaron
>>You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver North,
>>John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese, James
>>Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
>>
>>exhibit any mental illness while in office.
>
With the possible exception of Oliver North, not a single one of these
men you name exhibited _any_ of the characteristics of psychopathy as
described in the article cited. Inappropriate sexual relationships,
persistent acts of dishonesty, disloyalty to friends and supporters,
desire for power over others--can you give examples of these behaviors
in the case of these men, as Barr did for Clinton?
As for Reagan being "senile," do you even know what the term means?
Reagan is now in that state of dementia, but I defy you to find one
single competent diagnostician who would characterize any of Reagan's
behavior "while in office" as evidence of senile dementia.
BTW, how come Jimmy Carter and Fritz Mondale couldn't beat a "senile"
Ronald Reagan? What does that say about the Democrats and the kind of
candidates they pick and the campaigns they run?
Psychopaths most of all have a desire to control others and have power
over them. Do you really think that George Bush would have run such a
lackadaisical campaign for re-election if he had had any kind of lust
for power? (Of course, there's some evidence that Bush's untreated
thyroid problem might have had something to do with his failure to
campaign effectively for re-election, but that would mean he was
_physically_ ill, and then you couldn't pick on him for being a supposed
"psychopath.")
You think it's "cute" to characterize being a Republican as a form of
mental illness, I suppose. How would you feel about my characterizing
being a Democrat as evidence of a deficient IQ? Using you as a clear
example?
Martin McPhillips
>In article <oFYL4.14420$jZ3.1...@nuq-read.news.verio.net>, "Martin
McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>Wilson wrote in message ...
>>
>>>What would one expect from a psychopath's dupes?
>>
>>That they continue to believe no matter what. In *Without
>>Conscience* Robert Hare writes about the people of a
>>small town whose church fund or charitable fund is wiped out
>>by a psychopath, but when he's caught and brought back
>>and charged, his marks vouch for him. They never met
>>a nicer guy. So the experience of being a mark for a
>>psychopath is hard to shake off, even after he's clearly
>>pulled off the con.
>
>How many times are hoaxes exposed and the dupes refuse to acknowledge
>the facts?
>
>UFO's, crop circles, sasquatch movies, abstract art creators and
>spiritual mediums are exposed all the time, with little effect on
>their believers.
>
>What is even stranger, when those who originate a hoax decide later to
>fess up, they are not believed.
>
>It's a cult thing.
It is indeed, but with the difference that it is taking place
in the political realm, and is a cult of personality.
I tried to illustrate this yesterday, with respect to the
constant blabber about the all-purpose demon "Scaife,"
who was being used by the Clinton cult in a way
remarkably similar to the way the all-purpose demon
Goldstein is used in Orwell's 1984. I borrowed this little
snippet from a paper on 1984 that I found on the Web
and substituted "Scaife" for "Goldstein", with a couple
of other substitutions--
"Winston thinks him to be a member of a secret society against The Party
called The [Right Wing], which is run by a man named [Scaife]. You first
hear about [Scaife] in a session called 'The Two Minutes Hate.' This is a
two minute period when all of the members of the Inner and Outer party sit
in front of a nearby Telescreen. They engage in hate toward anti-Party
people. They shout, and fling things at the screen. Then the screen turns
into a propaganda film and ends with patriotic slogans. It then returns to
the face of Big Brother [Bill]. At this point all of them rise and start
shouting 'B[ill]-B[ill]...B[ill]-B[ill]' until it is over."
Chris Buck
It's nice to see a voice of true reason here for a change.
Chris Buck
In article <063eb653...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>, Aaron Hirshberg
<ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <_9_L4.981$Jb6....@quark.idirect.com>,
> heeley...@idirect.com (Wilson) wrote:
> >In article <019601ee...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>, Aaron
> Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver
> North,
> >>John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese,
> James
> >>Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
> >>
> >>You are not describing Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too senile to
> >>exhibit any mental illness while in office.
> >>
> >>Aaron Hirshberg
> >
> >Your true colors are showing again, Hirshberg.
>
> What do you mean by "again"? My true colors show constantly. I
> am an American who is equally sick and tired of conservative
> hypocrisy and liberal self-righteousness. I am also opposed to
> gun control and an admirer of Charlton Heston. I despise Ronald
> Reagan and his crowd, not because they are conservatives, but
> because they are hypocritical phonies who implemented regressive
> taxation and defense-spending Keynesian economics during
> Reagan's tenure. I despise George George Bush and his crowd
> because he lied about his Iran-Contra involvement and his CIA
> career in general, his grand-parents were Nazi sympathizers, and
> he has aligned himself with the "captive nations" crowd, most of
> whom are Nazi war criminals who escaped justice by claiming to
> be "anti-Communists". I despise Bill Clinton because his
> attempts at good leadership are thwarted by his personal foul-
> ups, which usually involve the zipper on his pants.
>
> Aaron Hirshberg
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
The official yankee com'nist lib'rul conspiriter of the new millenium!
Free beer,No taxes, Long weekends-every weekend
Aaron Hirshberg
rf...@chele.cais.net (Dr. Roger M. Firestone) wrote:
>In article <01d6be00...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>,
>Aaron Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <019601ee...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>, Aaron
>>Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver
North,
>>>John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese,
James
>>>Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
>>>
>>>You are not describing Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too senile
to
>>>exhibit any mental illness while in office.
>>
>
>With the possible exception of Oliver North, not a single one
of these
>men you name exhibited _any_ of the characteristics of
psychopathy as
>described in the article cited. Inappropriate sexual
relationships,
>persistent acts of dishonesty, disloyalty to friends and
supporters,
>desire for power over others--can you give examples of these
behaviors
>in the case of these men, as Barr did for Clinton?
Weinberger, Baker, and Bush left North holding the bag on Iran-
Contra. Disloyalty to friends.
Poindexter, Second, Deaver, Donovan, Meese. Persistent acts of
dishonesty.
MacFarland. Persistent acts of dishonesty. And attempted
suicide when Iran-Contra wrongdoings were made public.
OK, Watt is off the hook.
As for inappropriate sexual relationships, JFK and Clinton have
to take a back seat to the Dulles brothers. Or sit next to them
in the front seat.
>
>As for Reagan being "senile," do you even know what the term
means?
>Reagan is now in that state of dementia, but I defy you to find
one
>single competent diagnostician who would characterize any of
Reagan's
>behavior "while in office" as evidence of senile dementia.
>
>BTW, how come Jimmy Carter and Fritz Mondale couldn't beat
a "senile"
>Ronald Reagan? What does that say about the Democrats and the
kind of
>candidates they pick and the campaigns they run?
Michael Deaver and his crowd at Deaver-Hannaford orchestrated
the 1980 election. They were the consummate spin doctors. And
Deaver later either confessed to or was convicted of influence
peddling.
>
>Psychopaths most of all have a desire to control others and
have power
>over them. Do you really think that George Bush would have run
such a
>lackadaisical campaign for re-election if he had had any kind
of lust
>for power? (Of course, there's some evidence that Bush's
untreated
>thyroid problem might have had something to do with his failure
to
Bush assumed that a 1992 campaign as superficial as his 1988
campaign was all that he needed. When you assume you make an
ASS out of U and ME.
>campaign effectively for re-election, but that would mean he was
>_physically_ ill, and then you couldn't pick on him for being a
supposed
>"psychopath.")
Bush lied about his CIA career and his Iran-Contra involvement.
>
>You think it's "cute" to characterize being a Republican as a
form of
>mental illness, I suppose. How would you feel about my
characterizing
>being a Democrat as evidence of a deficient IQ? Using you as a
clear
>example?
According to your conservative Bible _The_Bell_Curve_ (which I
think is a scientific fraud), IQ is primarily genetic and high
IQ implies genetic superiority. I am Jewish. Jews as a group
have higher IQs than the general population, and are therefore
genetically superior to "Firestones" and others who came over on
the Mayflower. According to your Bible.
Wilson
>Wilson wrote in message ...
>>In article <oFYL4.14420$jZ3.1...@nuq-read.news.verio.net>, "Martin
>McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>>Wilson wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>What would one expect from a psychopath's dupes?
>>>
>>>That they continue to believe no matter what. In *Without
>>>Conscience* Robert Hare writes about the people of a
>>>small town whose church fund or charitable fund is wiped out
>>>by a psychopath, but when he's caught and brought back
>>>and charged, his marks vouch for him. They never met
>>>a nicer guy. So the experience of being a mark for a
>>>psychopath is hard to shake off, even after he's clearly
>>>pulled off the con.
>>
>>How many times are hoaxes exposed and the dupes refuse to acknowledge
>>the facts?
>>
>>UFO's, crop circles, sasquatch movies, abstract art creators and
>>spiritual mediums are exposed all the time, with little effect on
>>their believers.
>>
>>What is even stranger, when those who originate a hoax decide later to
>>fess up, they are not believed.
>>
>>It's a cult thing.
>
>in the political realm, and is a cult of personality.
A classic case of cult personality.
My political views evolved a long way from the U.S. of A. That's why
the constant "Scaife", and "Limbaugh" thing, is curiously so much
closer to their hearts than mine. I am contantly being told by them
what Limbaugh says about this or that, when I don't really give a shit
about the guy.
But it seems, once having settled on a "devil", all political
opponents MUST worship same, or things don't fit their limited
worldview.
But of course, they are pathetically and tragically wrong.
The true Clinton is not a devil at all, merely a much flawed human
being, who got to be President.
No, the true Clinton devil is the one held up by his worshipers, the
One Who Can Do No Wrong. That's where I see the pathology.
>
>I tried to illustrate this yesterday, with respect to the
>constant blabber about the all-purpose demon "Scaife,"
>who was being used by the Clinton cult in a way
>remarkably similar to the way the all-purpose demon
>Goldstein is used in Orwell's 1984. I borrowed this little
>snippet from a paper on 1984 that I found on the Web
>and substituted "Scaife" for "Goldstein", with a couple
>of other substitutions--
>
>"Winston thinks him to be a member of a secret society against The Party
>called The [Right Wing], which is run by a man named [Scaife]. You first
>hear about [Scaife] in a session called 'The Two Minutes Hate.' This is a
>two minute period when all of the members of the Inner and Outer party sit
>in front of a nearby Telescreen. They engage in hate toward anti-Party
>people. They shout, and fling things at the screen. Then the screen turns
>into a propaganda film and ends with patriotic slogans. It then returns to
>the face of Big Brother [Bill]. At this point all of them rise and start
>shouting 'B[ill]-B[ill]...B[ill]-B[ill]' until it is over."
I never thought I'd ever see the day, when that type of thinking would
become a reality, without being enforced by a gun. Certainly not in
this country anyway.
Thomas Andrews
Wilson <heeley...@idirect.com> wrote:
>In article <m9%L4.14577$jZ3.1...@nuq-read.news.verio.net>, "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>Wilson wrote in message ...
>>>In article <oFYL4.14420$jZ3.1...@nuq-read.news.verio.net>, "Martin
>>McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>>>Wilson wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>What would one expect from a psychopath's dupes?
>>>>
>>>>That they continue to believe no matter what. In *Without
>>>>Conscience* Robert Hare writes about the people of a
>>>>small town whose church fund or charitable fund is wiped out
>>>>by a psychopath, but when he's caught and brought back
>>>>and charged, his marks vouch for him. They never met
>>>>a nicer guy. So the experience of being a mark for a
>>>>psychopath is hard to shake off, even after he's clearly
>>>>pulled off the con.
>>>
>>>How many times are hoaxes exposed and the dupes refuse to acknowledge
>>>the facts?
>>>
>>>UFO's, crop circles, sasquatch movies, abstract art creators and
>>>spiritual mediums are exposed all the time, with little effect on
>>>their believers.
>>>
>>>What is even stranger, when those who originate a hoax decide later to
>>>fess up, they are not believed.
>>>
>>>It's a cult thing.
>>
>>in the political realm, and is a cult of personality.
>
>A classic case of cult personality.
>
>
The only problem is that those close to Clinton have lots bad to
say about the man - in fact, most of the 'evidence' used in this
"psychopath" article is culled from friends. Hardly a personality
cult, I'd say.
This entire argument is a stretch - it's based on a psychological
technique that requires an interview with the subject, and was
specifically designed with criminals an inmates in mind. Sure, Clinton
lied casually and easily in a deposition. So did Bill Gates. Is
Bill Gates a "psychopath?" Sure, Clinton twists words better than
most, but so did Ronald Reagan. (One of the Hallmarks of a psychopath
is that they make sense when you listen to them, but when you read
what they said later, they don't make nearly as much sense. I recall
the time I heard Reagan defend the Iran/Contra debacle, and it made
sense until I re-read his comments the next day, and his arguments were
incoherent. Reagan was a psycho-path!)
I personally can't wait until Clinton is out of office - the only
thing I like about the man is how he makes right wingers stomp on
the ground and holler like ninnies as if he's the devil or something.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"You have no idea what a poor opinion I have of myself,
and how little I deserve it." - W.S.Gilbert
Wilson
Now your rollin, Hershy! That's my boy!
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Riggs <ri...@privacyx.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:18:37 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
>>Riggs wrote in message ...
>>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:57:49 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
>>><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>><reposted in lieu of response to another dopey comment>
>>>>
>>>>From-
>>>>
>>>>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
>>>>
>>>>an answer to Edith Efron
>>>>
>>>>by C.J. Barr
>>>
>>>What are C.J. Barr's credentials?
>>
>>
>>Other than that he's intelligent and can write I don't know.
>>
>>But he uses the Cleckley and Hare and applies their work
>>precisely to Clinton.
>>
>>You might want to go read the entire piece--
>>
>>http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
>>
>>
>
>
>I see. In other words, he's just a shlub with a computer.
A little effort produces the following URL:
http://www.lakesregion.net/whoami.html
Not exactly a "shlub"; he seems to know how to do research. What
credentials do you require for someone to be believable? I know, a
Democratic Party dues card...
Rob Robertson
<snip>
> I personally can't wait until Clinton is out of office - the only
> thing I like about the man is how he makes right wingers stomp on
> the ground and holler like ninnies as if he's the devil or something.
Oh, don't be ridiculous. Noone thinks that Bill Clinton is the devil.
He's obviously the anti-Christ, not the devil. Sheesh, what a L@@N!
_
RR
Faramir
"Sharon C. Smith" wrote:
> Thanks for the pathology. It explains everything.
No problem. Can I buy you a drink?
Faramir
Wilson wrote:
> The true Clinton is not a devil at all, merely a much flawed human
> being, who got to be President.
I think "much" flawed is a bit of an exaggeration, but I'll agree.
> No, the true Clinton devil is the one held up by his worshipers, the
> One Who Can Do No Wrong.
Who, pray tell, does this? Even his admirers admit that he makes mistakes. A lot of us just defend off the
wacko attacks by people who believe he is the One Who Can Do No Right.
> That's where I see the pathology.
We see the same pathology from different sides.
Interesting.
Wilson
>
>
>Wilson wrote:
>
>> The true Clinton is not a devil at all, merely a much flawed human
>> being, who got to be President.
>
>I think "much" flawed is a bit of an exaggeration, but I'll agree.
>
>> No, the true Clinton devil is the one held up by his worshipers, the
>> One Who Can Do No Wrong.
>
>Who, pray tell, does this? Even his admirers admit that he makes mistakes. A
> lot of us just defend off the
>wacko attacks by people who believe he is the One Who Can Do No Right.
Ah, but they will defend to the death, his version of events. Even
though he is proved to be a serial liar.
>
>> That's where I see the pathology.
>
>We see the same pathology from different sides.
>
>Interesting.
Glad to have you on record.
>
Riggs
Firestone) wrote:
Guess again, Kreskin. I find it rather amusing to be pigeonholed as a
Democrat because I show skepticism towards an internet psychologist
whose only credentials appear to be computer ownership, a B.A. in
political science, a thesaurus, and a homepage.
Wayne Mann
+
You want to buy a man a drink? Why?
\\/ayne //\ann
"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have
changed government policy *solely* because of a contribution."
-- President Clinton, March 10, 1997
eldorad...@my-deja.com
Riggs <ri...@privacyx.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:18:37 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
> <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
> >Riggs wrote in message ...
> >>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:57:49 -0400, "Martin McPhillips"
> >><cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>><reposted in lieu of response to another dopey comment>
> >>>
> >>>From-
> >>>
> >>>Toward a Unified Theory of William Jefferson Clinton
> >>>
> >>>an answer to Edith Efron
> >>>
> >>>by C.J. Barr
> >>
> >>What are C.J. Barr's credentials?
> >
> >
> >Other than that he's intelligent and can write I don't know.
Gawd. What greater confession of ignorance can any one fool make?
> >
> >But he uses the Cleckley and Hare and applies their work
> >precisely to Clinton.
> >
> >You might want to go read the entire piece--
> >
> >http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.13/unified_clinton.html
>
> I see. In other words, he's just a shlub with a computer.
Shhh! Don't say that. McPhillips might think you're talking about
him!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
eldorad...@my-deja.com
t...@callamerica.net wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32:09 -0400, Faramir
> <far...@nospam-middleearth.org> wrote:
> >
> >"Sharon C. Smith" wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the pathology. It explains everything.
> >
> >No problem. Can I buy you a drink?
>
> +
> You want to buy a man a drink? Why?
You'll have to excuse Wayne's confusion here. You see, he never left
his mother.
ThomJeff
Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
> In article <390064E8...@nospam.org>, ThomJeff
> <monti...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
> >
> >> You are describing James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Oliver
> North,
> >> John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Bud MacFarland, Ed Meese,
> James
> >> Watt, Ray Donovan, and George Bush.
> >
> >And, more recent psycopaths: Newt Gingrich, William "Mr.
> Morality" Bennett, Dan
> >"Scumbag" Burton and Tom DeLay. The more serious psychopaths
> would be Larry
> >Klayman, Lucianne Goldberg, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Chris Ruddy
> and Robert Bork.
>
> I am sorry, but Robert Bork is not a psychopath. Just a right
> wing intellectual.
Have you seen him LATELY? On his book tour for his tour de force novel
"Slouching Towards Gomorrah" he seemed dazed and at times incoherent. Maybe
"psychopath" is too strong a term. "Bitter old man" is probably more
appropriate.
Thom
Wilson
Here's YOUR boys in action:
>>>Gore, on how much he communicated by e-mail about fund raising
during the 1996 election cycle:
"Didn't."
Question: Just "didn't?"
Gore: "Well, first of all I don't know. But whatever is there will be
disclosed — fully and completely.
Q: But how much could people expect to be there? You're a pretty
Internet savvy guy who e-mails a lot?
Gore: "Not about this. This is — First of all, I just don't know. I
just don't know. They're reconstructing. They're reconstructing
this.<<<
Slick Willie on the subject of Web Hubbel's
"consulting contracts".
>>>"First of all, I didn't know about it. To the best of my
recollection I didn't know anything about his
having that job until I read about it in the press.
And I can't imagine who could have ever arranged to do something
improper like that and no one around here know about it. It was just
not--we did not know anything about it, and I can tell you
categorically that that did not happen.
I knew nothing about it, none of us did before it happened. And I
personally didn't know anything about it, 'til I read about it in the
press.<<<
ThomJeff
psychologist "C.J. Barr" in an internet publication. OK. Now what?
You, too, are a psychologist, and you also believe the President of the
United States is a psychopath. How would you treat him? Should he be put on
drug therapy, or is there any hope in talking him through a cure? Is he
dangerous? Is he liable to hurt anyone?
We find that this man who has been running our country (quite well IMHO)
for more than seven years through adversity and personal attacks suffers
from--
1. General poverty in major affective reactions.
2. Specific loss of insight
3. Unreliability
4. Untruthfulness and insincerity
5. Lack of remorse or shame
6. Superficial charm and good "intelligence" (I think the quotes keep this
from being an unintended compliment)
7. Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
8. Pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love
9. Sex life impersonal, trivial and poorl integrated
10. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
This is my favorite: "He will commit theft, forgery, adultery, fraud, and
other deeds for astonishingly small stakes and under much greater risks of
being discovered than will the ordinary scoundrel. He will, in fact, commit
such deeds in the absence of any apparent goal at all."
11. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
12. Thrill-seeking
13. Pathological glibness (is this guy a great conservative, or what?) The
Manipulation of Meaning in the Communication of Deceit
14. Antisocial pursuit of power
15. Absence of guilt
So what should we do? Electro-shock?
-------
Overall, the person that comes to mind as fitting the bill most would be J.
Edgar Hoover.
Just for fun, let's (superficially) try Reagan--
1. General poverty in major affective reactions.
Would this include the fact that some of his grown children barely saw him
and one posed for Playboy and was quite hostile towards him while he was
President?
2. Specific loss of insight
An example--
"During Reagan's presidency he systematically dismantled programs that
provided birth control services to the poor. This was true both in the US,
where he stopped Federal Programs, and internationally, when he stopped
funding all International Aid that supported family planning.
"Of all the things that Reagan did, this has hurt us all more than anything
else. People with money continued to have access to birth control but the
poor, could no longer control the size of their families. This causes not
only over population, it also causes crime. Unwanted children are far more
likely to be abused and grow up to be criminals. Also when families have to
struggle to survive they cannot afford to educate their children, they can
only produce even more poor people. Every time I see a picture of starving
children I think of Ronald Reagan. You should too!"
Or, how about appointing Watt as Interior Secretary, who believed that
there wasn't any need to protect our forests because the world was going to
end soon, anyway. That might be called a lack of "insight."
3. Unreliability
Some of Reagan's meetings with world leaders had to be rescheduled because
the White House astrologer said the time was not opportune. Or, how about
NOT retaliating against Russia for the civilian 747 they shot down, but
retaliating against Libya for the German disco bombing later found to be
perpetrated by the Iranians?
4. Untruthfulness and insincerity
"I did not trade weapons for hostages!" "We did not sell arms to Iran!"
5. Lack of remorse or shame
Believing that the laws he broke were improper laws DESERVING to be broken
may qualify here.
6. Superficial charm and good "intelligence" (I think the quotes keep this
from being an unintended compliment)
At least one of these two applies.
7. Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
One example--He called the Vietnam War a "noble cause."
8. Pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love
See number one.
9. Sex life impersonal, trivial and poorly integrated
Can't say, but he DID get Nancy pregnant before they were married.
10. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
Just appointing James Watt and Robert Bork should qualify here, but...
Reagan used to pull little slips of paper (sometimes newspaper or magazine,
sometimes just a note) from his pocket and use what was on them to
anecdotally make a point, (e.g. the "welfare queen" who bought booze with
her food stamps). He was caught on it several times, but continued the
practice.
11. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
This is classic Reagan. It is well-documented that he often didn't even
recognize cabinet members at cabinet meetings.
12. Thrill-seeking
Before his radio address--"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I
just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in
five minutes."
13. Pathological glibness: The Manipulation of Meaning in the Communication
of Deceit
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."--Reagan, 1981
"Underclass," an essentialist category, like underworld, became very
popular in the Reagan years. "Overclass" somehow never caught
on.--Alexander Cockburn, "Beat the Devil," July 24/31, 1989
14. Antisocial pursuit of power
>[From the text] "It is as though, for psychopaths,
>power can be experienced only in the context of victimization:
>if they are to be strong, someone else must pay."
This is a good example of Reagan's semi-fictional "welfare queens" or his
odd belief that America "punishes" success with progressive income taxes.
>There is no such thing, in the psychopathic universe,
>as the merely weak; whoever is weak is also a sucker,
>that is, someone who demands to be exploited."
If there is a better definition of the "moral" conservatives, I've not seen
it. Reagan spoon-fed the RR, without actually doing anything about it,
however. He did his best, however to continue the demonization of the poor,
while attacking unions (traditional middle-class bastions), and ignoring
(at best) racial and other equality issues.
15. Absence of guilt
See number 5. Or, after the killing of our 250 marines in Beirut, his
wag-the-dog invasion of tiny Grenada.
Thom
Faramir
Wayne Mann wrote:
> "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have
> changed government policy *solely* because of a contribution."
> -- President Clinton, March 10, 1997
He was obviously *daring* the press to try to find *any* policy decision
was based
*solely* (i.e. not for "legitimate" reasons) on contributions! There's
*nothing*
nefarious here!
Bwahahahaha!
Are you guys dumb or what? Or maybe you don't understand English!
Aaron Hirshberg
No. Allen Dulles would be a much better choice.
snip
>
>9. Sex life impersonal, trivial and poorly integrated
>
>Can't say, but he DID get Nancy pregnant before they were
married.
>
As for impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated sex lives, how
many mistresses did John Foster Dulles have? Read about the tip
of this iceberg in _The_Fifties_ by David Halberstam. And how
many times has Rush Limbaugh been divorced? And J. Edgar Hoover
.. aw, forget it.
Clinton and JFK are obviously being called to task for their
philandering for political reasons. John Foster Dulles was
never publicly criticized for his philandering when he was
Secretary of State, was he?
snip
Dr. Roger M. Firestone
Wilson <heeley...@idirect.com> wrote:
>In article <0d10c7ed...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>, Aaron
>Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
[macro-snip]
>>According to your conservative Bible _The_Bell_Curve_ (which I
>>think is a scientific fraud), IQ is primarily genetic and high
>>IQ implies genetic superiority. I am Jewish. Jews as a group
>>have higher IQs than the general population, and are therefore
>>genetically superior to "Firestones" and others who came over on
>>the Mayflower. According to your Bible.
>>
>>Aaron Hirshberg
>
>Now your rollin, Hershy! That's my boy!
You know what they say about "assume" making an ass out of u and me?
Well, guess what Mr. Hirshberg? You've managed to make quite an ass out
of yourself. Because my "Bible" is the Tanach. Did you think that
being Jewish means you _have_ to be a socialist? As the saying goes,
"them cotton-pickin' days is gone." Some of us Jews have been thinking
for ourselves for a long time now. Must've really grated on you when
the State of Israel had a Likud government for quite a few years, eh?
I'm sure there's a reason you think _The_Bell_Curve_ is a scientific
fraud. (BTW, I have never mentioned the book, to my recollection;
certainly not within the past year in this forum, anyway.) Tell us what
your scientific credentials are for saying so, beyond that you don't
like its conclusions. What experiments or studies have you done that
would disprove it (which doesn't make it a _fraud_, anyway)? To call it
a _fraud_ means that you have proof that it was intentionally
falsified. Do you have the evidence that the data on which the book was
based were improperly tampered with? Were there any statistical tests
whose results were reported inaccurately? Did you run goodness-of-fit
(chi-square) tests on the data and find the parameter suspiciously close
to zero? Perhaps the inferences are improper, given the data and the
analysis? Is your criticism based on _any_ of these things, which would
constitute true "scientific fraud?" Or, as I suggested, is the book's
conclusion simply something you disagree with, but that's not
sufficient, you have to libel the work by calling it fraudulent. In the
snipped portion of your original message, you libel a number of people
with very general assertions; you've had plenty of opportunity to back
up your claims of specific criminal acts, but you can't do it. Well,
I'm not impressed with your devotion to truth. In Jewish terms, you are
clearly in the grip of _y'tzer ha-rah_ (the will to do evil) and have
engaged repeatedly in _l'shon ha-rah_ (evil speech, slander, guile).
Still think I came over on the Mayflower?
(For those who don't know, not all Jewish names have familiar forms like
Hirshberg, or Goldberg, or Shapiro, or Schechter. Those are mostly
found among the Jews who came to this country in the early 20th century
from Russia and Poland. But there have been Jews in what came to be
America from the year 1654, and those Jews had names of either Sephardic
[Spanish/African] origin, like Mendoza or Cardozo or Lurie, while Jews
who came to America in the 19th century had mostly German names which
could just as well belong to good Catholics--like Steiner or Schoen...or
Firestone. Although the more famous Firestones--of rubber company
fortune, or equestrian performance, or winery fame--are Episcopalians.
Mr. Hirshberg is simply a narrow-minded, ill-informed person whose
shallow and erroneous prose deserves little credence.)
Aaron Hirshberg
I brough up the bell curve because you made some reference to my
intelligence.
_The_Bell_Curve_ is actually bad scholarship, not a fraud. Only
because I can't prove that the authors intentionally lied.
1. If IQ is so unique and special (I believe that it is) that a
special test was devised to measure it, why was IQ data that was
generated from non-IQ test results used to arrive at the
conclusions of _The_Bell_Curve_? I read about this on the
Internet, and someone I know who is an M.D. told me that they
read the same thing in one of their medical journals.
2. Why were members of the statistical sample given this test
in a language other than their native language? I read about
this on the Internet.
These are two examples of slipshod scholarship. If this type of
scientific rigor went into a book that debunked Supply Side
Economics, you conservatives would be howling that it was
a "fraud"!
snip
>Still think I came over on the Mayflower?
snip
All the other Firestone's that I ever heard of own companies
that don't hire Jews.
>Mr. Hirshberg is simply a narrow-minded, ill-informed person
whose
>shallow and erroneous prose deserves little credence.
Aaron Hirshberg
Kurt Lochner
>
> Thomas Andrews wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I personally can't wait until Clinton is out of office - the only
> > thing I like about the man is how he makes right wingers stomp on
> > the ground and holler like ninnies as if he's the devil or
> > something.
>
>Oh, don't be ridiculous. Noone thinks that Bill Clinton is the devil.
You do.. Had any anti-freeze this week?
>He's obviously the anti-Christ, not the devil. Sheesh, what/../
Hey Fraud, didja see this report?
Report Says Agents Didn't Fire at Waco
The Associated Press, April 22, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Waco-Field-Test.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Federal agents did not fire at Branch Davidians in
the 1993 siege that ended in a deadly blaze at the group's compound in
Waco, Texas, according to a preliminary report from last month's
simulation of the confrontation.
Vector Data Systems, the British firm that conducted the simulation,
provided the written report to U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr.
earlier this month.
The test was performed March 19 in Fort Hood, Texas.
Vector found that flashes produced by sunlight reflecting off debris
were considerably longer in duration than flashes produced by gunfire,
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today, citing informed sources.
That finding would support the government's claim that similar flashes
seen on a 1993 infrared tape were the result of sunlight reflecting
off debris from the crumbling complex, not gunfire.
Vector also reported that the infrared cameras in aircraft above the
Fort Hood simulation site picked up flashes from six of the nine
weapons tested. But wherever flashes were visible from weapons, the
shooters also were visible, the sources said. Flashes on the 1993 Waco
tape do not show shooters.
Vector followed up the preliminary report with an oral briefing for
Smith last Monday.
Mike Caddell, the lead counsel for the Branch Davidians, said Smith
has not yet relayed the conclusions of Vector's oral report.
Regardless of Vector's conclusions, Caddell plans to present his own
experts who will argue that the flashes on the 1993 tape are from
government guns. He acknowledges that his experts cannot show that any
particular Branch Davidian died from a government bullet.
Vector was hired to conduct the test by Special Counsel John Danforth
who, in September, was appointed by Reno to oversee an independent
investigation into the standoff and fire.
The appointment came amid criticism following revelations that the
FBI, contradicting a position it had taken for six years, used
potentially incendiary devices on the last day of the 51-day standoff
on April 19, 1993. David Koresh and about 80 followers died. Reno and
the FBI deny any wrongdoing.
-<30>-
I'm just wondering when your howling denials were to be expected...
-- --
"SiO2 is not an infrared optical material."
Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:29:18 -0400
-- --
rose...@idt.net
>Hey Fraud, didja see this report?
>
>Report Says Agents Didn't Fire at Waco
Wanna bet his next move is to claim the judge is
in on a............tada.............CONSPIRACY ! !
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> > Hey Fraud, didja see this report?
> >
> > Report Says Agents Didn't Fire at Waco
>
> Wanna bet his next move is to claim the judge is
> in on a............tada.............CONSPIRACY ! !
<chuckling> You've noticed a completelack of replies
to that so far.. Even Broward/Karen is writing in denial..
Actually, I expected no less from the 'doomers',
but they'll more likely just try and nibble away
at the edges from the safety of their 'conclusions'
and never directly admit to being wrong about this..
--That's the way I'm betting on it.. /&^)
Not For Smoking!
<ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
>You are not describing Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too senile to
>exhibit any mental illness while in office.
Good point. One must have a mind in order to have a sick mind.