Thursday, June 23, 2011

On Psychopaths: A letter from an insider

Andrew D Atkin


I have been given permission to post this very interesting letter. It was recently sent to me by a man who obviously knows far more about the serious criminal world than myself. It is a response to my previous post, Should we be screening for Psychopathy?


As requested it is anonymous.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The major part of your argument may be realistic although you don’t seem to realize the true nature of psychopaths and those that label a person a psychopath. I have studied psychopaths for several years, approximately 40 years. I have more personal experience with psychopaths then most people ever have or ever will have.


The first thing you have to consider is education. Did you attend a university? Did you ever encounter a professor with whom you had some grievance such as grades or what he/she was teaching? The vast majority of psychiatry is taught by universities, I would suggest the vast majority of professors teaching these classes are themselves psychopaths, if not, at least sociopaths. Therefore, how can you expect such a professor to teach realistic courses in the soft sciences or even in the neurology departments that experiment on brains with the use of (on the most part MRIs?)


As I said I have a lot of personal experience with psychopaths. I believe my story is different from most that you might hear. I will tell you my story only for the sake of showing that those that label people psychopaths cannot be trusted.


I was a child in a family of twelve children, my father a WW2 veteran. He did try hard to be a good parent but was unable to, I believe, for one reason because he was suffering himself from the effects of his painful experience in the war. Another reason was my mother who was obviously mentally ill, I did not know it at the time, but when she went missing for several weeks or months and we all thought she was hiding out in bed, she was actually in a mental hospital.


My mother has always said I was a rotten bastard from the day I was conceived and she does so still today some sixty years later. My mother, as did my father picked their favorite children and the rest of us suffered under extremely abusive conditions. Mind you I still believe my father tried, he was just unable to control his anger or his favoritism for the few of the twelve. Of course, my mother also had her favorites, I was not one of either.


I suppose you already have figured out that I was not a wonderful loving child. I got into all kinds of trouble, mostly because I could not understand why United States citizens that invaded our village every summer had so much more than us. We had no heat or running water, while the cottages owned by US citizens were heated all winter, had water, even working telephones, although empty from September to June of every year, except for food, cigarettes, and alcohol they left behind in hopes that we that broke in would be happy to get that and not destroy their cottages. On the most part, the children like me were happy to take up part time residence in their cottages during winter, enjoying the food, warmth, showers, etc. I was about eight years old when I got into this scenario.


Since there were only a couple hundred year round residences that serviced the vacation industry during the summer I became well known as one that took advantage of the cottages. Our family was poor, more so than most since there were so many kids. I got beaten at least weekly by the other kids in town mostly because I was the one less cared for at home, seldom had reasonable clothes, and never any candy or such to share as the rest of my siblings did, at least the siblings close to my age. I often came home bloody and wore those bloodied clothes back to school the next day. My father in attempting to control me beat me often until I was about twelve when I just started laughing at him and he ran out of energy before he could make me stop laughing. My mother on the other hand never laid a hand on me, as she said, “I was not worth punishing.”


At fourteen I was taken to a local mental hospital (a wing of a general hospital.) I did not like being confined so I acted out and was sent to a provincial hospital. Again, uncontrollable I was sent to a Maximum Security hospital for the Criminally Insane. At fourteen I was labeled a psychopath. I have to add that even the psychiatric community did not accept that a boy of fourteen could be a psychopath. Although I had never committed a violent act, never charged or convicted of any such act I was housed with approximately forty psychopaths. Rapists, child molesters, murderers, mass murderers and even a couple businessmen. I spent a long time learning what they were about and who they were. I walked, talked, and interacted with them during the day; luckily we all had separate cells during the night. I learned very quickly that I had to show no fear of them or anything else, also that they should fear me. As it turned out I got along well with most of them and I had only a few problems while there.

I was finally released when I hit a fellow that had kicked me; I was put in the bullpen. The fellow in the bullpen next to me talked to me a lot, but every time someone opened his cell door he punched them in the face. He had been transferred there from a penitentiary where he was doing twelve years for murder. I told him if he kept acting like that he would never get out, he explained that he would be out and back in the pen within a week, or so, he was better off doing his twelve years in the pen then being in this place for as long as they wished to keep him. Further, he told me that by following their rules, getting along well, accepting all the torture, capsule treatments, LSD treatments, Scopolamine, speed, electric shock etc. I was the one that would be there forever. He was released back to Kingston penitentiary a couple days later, and I took his advice. I told them to F-O every time they wanted me to take another drug treatment or start some new advanced therapy method, I began telling the doctors they were the psychopaths not me and I went from the bullpen to the front door, and never returned.

After leaving although I had only about a grade six education at twenty one years old I went to college for about six month and then to university. I might add that during my time at university, during a seminar with approximately 20 so called educated people, except my vote, they voted unanimously that anyone that has a diagnosis as a psychopath should be hung immediately; this was in a philosophy class in which we were discussing the pros and cons of capital punishment.


Several years later I have never had a run in with the law, never charged or convicted of any crime, not even a parking violation. I raised two children on my own because my wife left when my son was born and she was unable to accept that my son had CP and would be confined to a wheelchair for life. He lived with me until he was 21, and in his second year of college. He did finish his four year course in teaching the disable to live independently and he now works for Independent Living for the last several years. He is married, owns his own home, and is doing quite well. My daughter did have some difficulties as a teen but now has four children, she is married to a hard working fellow, and they are doing just fine. I am sure this is absolute certain proof that I am a psychopath and should have been put to death upon diagnosis.


I should also add that many of the people from that psychiatric facility attempted a class action law suit against the province and the hospital for crimes against humanity along with several other crimes. Obviously, since the courts are paid by the Province they would not hear the case. I have attached a copy of that class action law suit just so you can see this is not a joke or a made up story.

My point in all of this is, who do you expect to decide who is and who is not a psychopath. Doctors and therapists are often wrong. Further, since I have MS, I know that MRIs are not always right or conclusive. MS is multiple scaring of the brain and/or spine. If an MRI shows multiple scares on the brain and/or spine but cannot say the person has MS, how could you possibly expect them to be sure that some difference in the brain can conclusively prove the person is a psychopath.


The only way justice can be served is to make lawmakers, businessmen, banksters, and the rest follow the law as any other citizen has to. Not as in the recent case of the New York governor who signed into law that all men caught paying prostitutes must go to jail, and when he got caught paying in the range of 13 thousand for a prostitute he stepped down and was given his own television show. Add to that G.W. Bush and Clinton, both presidents of the United States of America, Clinton claimed he could do anything he wanted as he was the President. G.W. Bush said he could torture, tap telephone calls, anything he pleased because he was the President. When G.W. Bush first became president a woman accused him of raping her, she was immediately put in a mental hospital and as far as I know, no one has ever heard from her, or anything about her since. Again, I say, all that needs to be done is to hold every person accountable for their actions, if they commit a crime, they should be charged, and if convicted, punished as would anyone else. The most resent, Obama, has lied, cheated, took the US to war without congressional approval, this is illegal but he claims it is not because he is the president. In this case some other political liar is pretending to take him to court over not consulting congress on the war, this is just a game, in any other case the president would not be sued and going to court he would be impeached; again because he is president he gets away with doing as he pleases.


Further, you mention that after a person takes these psychological tests, and I suppose MRIs, the information should be posted on the internet. What if the information is wrong? The majority of people in the US believe second election which put G.W. Bush in as the president for a second term was rigged, there were congressional hearing on the ways in which the computer systems could be compromised, and still nothing was done. So some poor guy gets bad results from his testing and it is listed on the internet, he is scared for life, most likely he would have a very hard time getting a job, if he could at all. On the other hand some companies might like this type of so called psychopath, so he gets hired on. How many customers or people he ran into would trust him, how many would want anything to do with him.


I can give a life example of this as well. During my stay in the hospital for the criminally insane they had a television station come in and do a documentary on the place and people there. The documentary started with something like, this place houses rapists, murders, mass murderers, etc. there was no mention of a few that had really done anything particularly wrong; they were just unmanageable as kids.

I was in that documentary. As I said previously, I tried my best to make sure everyone there was afraid of me instead of thinking I was afraid of them so I acted like a real tough kid, as nasty as a bear with a toothache. That person was shown in the documentary, when I got out some people still remembered that documentary and knew me, particularly those from my home town. I was likely one of the most feared people in town. I still was just about ten years ago when I moved out of that town. It has been a lot of years now so I am sure no one would recognize me where I now live. In fact the real reason I was put in the hospital in the first place was because the authorities did not believe my family was capable of looking after me, and believed it was for my best interest.


That is the kind of problem you would create with posting some doctor’s or therapist’s views on the internet, no doctor or therapist is correct 100% of the time.


You present a good argument, unfortunately you assume that these tests would always be correct when in fact in the soft sciences they seldom are, and in the case of using MRIs, as I said MS is a perfect example of how bad they can be.


You really should look up Multiple Scleroses (MS,) it seems pretty simple, multiple meaning 2 or more, scleroses meaning scares. Any MRI can see scaring on the brain or spine, so if there are more than two it should be a simple matter, yet it is one of the most difficult diseases to diagnosis because MRIs are not perfect and they most certainly would not be in seeing certain regions of the brain different colors, scared, larger, smaller, whatever. It is just not that simple.


LETTER ENDS:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The point made that we have to be careful with diagnosis is absolutely valid. We must be extremely careful to test the tests - especially in such a sensitive territory as this. In the scenario that someone receives a psychopathy diagnosis, and maybe the diagnosis is made public, then it should be linked with an open statement informing of the insecurities in the testing methods (be what they may).


However, for politicians (and other) that can send thousands of people away to be killed in wars etc, I still believe we need to conduct the most comprehensive analysis possible, for the sake of profiling. I feel it's a price that the most powerful people in our society should have to pay for the sake of maximising our security against [latent] tyrants. But also, of course, there should always be the option that a powerful person step down from their position if they wish to not have their profiles made public.


The other point that was made relates to what makes a psychopath - or maybe different types of psychopaths? This is not entirely clear, at least not to me. I think the essence of a psychopath is just raw inhumanity: This means a dead-cold indifference to the well-being of others. Not so much blood-lust or acted-out rage or anything like that, but a shoulder shrug at the thought of someone else being devastated as a result of your dishonest or immoral actions.


I gather it's easy to confuse 'psychopathy' with what's termed 'antisocial personality disorder'; the latter of which is generally the product of a particularly nasty childhood. Psychopathy seems to be an even deeper problem still: going right back to [probably toxic] events within the womb leading to deep imprints and epigenetic distortions, and maybe there are base-genetics factors as well. But as to the genesis of psychopathy, I'm really not too sure - is anyone?


Finally I would like to say that this letter that was sent to me was much appreciated.


Andrew Atkin


Monday, June 6, 2011

Trade economy Versus domestic economy

Andrew D Atkin

I get a bit worn out with the media and government constantly promoting the idea that we need to export more to have a higher living standard. But why?

A good life means: Good houses, good food and good health. The other stuff is not fundamental. If your economy can provide for the fundamentals cheaply, and well, then it's hard to lose.

Obviously the trade economy is essential because there's too much that a country like New Zealand cannot make on its own, like laptops and cars etc. But the idea that the trade economy should define our base living standard is a bit ridiculous, I believe.

In a country like New Zealand the tools are at hand for everyone to own an affordable home, and have easy access to excellent food, because all these things are (or can be) provided for only too easily within the domestic economy. Yet, we have all these people struggling to make ends meet, even with the basics. So what's really going on?

The biggest evil is our under-supply in houses. If you don't get on top of that then a poverty class is guaranteed, because buyers have no choice but to bargain with whatever monies they have to not be the guy who misses out, or be forced into over-crowded conditions. This is the sort of thing that creates poverty - not a lack of exports, as such.

This obsession with the trade economy looks to me like an obsession with an economy of the type that allows rich people to go on exotic holidays every year and import massive SUV's. That is, the stuff that doesn't really matter, or matter as much.

New Zealand, just 50 years ago, had no difficulty housing and feeding itself with just one family member earning a 40-hour wage. For all our so-called economic growth we can't even dream of doing this today. So please, media and government, spare us this crap on "rising living standards". We're operating a rich man's economy, and that's an economy structured to make luxuries cheaper and the fundamentals more expensive.

If we reduced our international purchasing power, then that would mean less frequent computer upgrades, slightly less exotic clothes, and maybe cars that don't accelerate so explosively at the traffic lights. Who cares!!

We need to focus first on the domestic economy, and before anything that means getting rid of under-supplies on the fundamentals. Once housing and food is cheap, everything else becomes much easier. And I haven't spoken about education because research shows that money, after a minimal point, only wrecks it.

But why has our economy been engineered this way? Best guess: Population control. When the basics are cheap you can have as many kids as you want. Personally I believe in population control, but not like this. You should introduce direct caps via reproduction licences.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Agenda 22: A personal wish-list for human/social evolution

Andrew D Atkin:






















Well, as the idea goes, the UN rules the world and they have an agenda. Behind the agenda, of course, is a vision. A vision of where they want "spaceship earth" to go. And a visionary agenda is, as it must be, about controlled evolution.

So this is what the conspiracy theorists (and other) will tell you. I do not believe it is far fetched. I have seen too much. I doubt that this world of ours is being left to self-evolve, or at least there are strong interests doing their best to make sure that it doesn't.

Appreciating this, there must in turn be an agenda backed by a master vision, like I previously suggested. And also behind the vision must be a functional religion - meaning, the vision must be the current answer to the power class's ultimate value system.

Must we have a vision? Well I don't know. But, for better or worse, I will give you my own utopian vision for where humanity should (or at least could) go. I will be thinking from 200-years projections so get ready for a geeky focus. Here goes!

World government and a scientific dictatorship:

Sorry but it's going to happen because we have to have it.

Take the scenario of having a world made up of say 50 separate states, where each state has a 10% chance of devastating the global environment sometime over the next 100 years. This not-too-unrealistic scenario is the reason why humanity has become so dangerous. (I speak about this here). There is probably over a 90% chance that we will ruin ourselves soon if we carry on as individual states, free to do whatever any given psychopathic dictator may wish. The Gulf oil spill and Fukushima meltdowns being only the beginning of what can happen.

A world government could neutralise the profound threat of rouge states. Even if a world government had a 10% chance of destroying everything in itself, it still leaves us with a much better chance for our long-term survival than the status quo.

The world government needs to be scientific in its operation, in that mathematical truths must come before democratic wishful thinking. Ignorance cannot be left to rule in such a volatile world. Freedom is a virtue always to be respected, and facilitated to the highest degree possible, but it must be and will be put on a leash when and as required.

Population control and eugenics:

We have the tools at hand for effortless prosperity for the entire world over, if only we direct our resources properly and stop wasting time with stupid systems that don't need to exist. Problem is, we would probably be left with a population explosion if we did this.

The result being, we will be left with the need to directly (and aggressively) control population so as to stop humanity from becoming a plague. But, as soon as you actively control population you then become a eugenicist by default, because you in turn control who does and does not breed.

Well, it has to be done and will be done, because we have and will have resource limits at any given time. And we will not be breeding people who are violent and stupid unless maybe we want to breed a servant class i.e. breeding people for specific useful purposes, like we breed dogs.

Servant breed: If we are to breed humans for specific roles, then we can know that with modern robotics brawn is outdated. You would want totally non-rebellious "people" that are very good at technician work, and very good at remote-controlling robotic machinery. Breeding them to be small and furry makes them low maintenance. Why would you want them big?

Now is this idea sick and immoral? I'm not too sure. If you're using genetic engineering then you're playing God and that's a bit creepy to me at least, but if it's just selective breeding then maybe it's ok? Furry little creatures can still live happy and rich lives, I'm sure. And if you're taking good care of their needs, and they're happy to remain in the psychological state of a child (so they don't get their "own ideas" and become difficult), then they should be perfectly happy with their position of servitude - just like a well cared for pet.

I know this looks a bit ridiculous, but something tells me it's going to happen anyway - in time. Why wouldn't it? It's more than possible, and if we're going the way of eugenics then shouldn't we be breeding for what is practical?

Physical human expansion:

Nuclear energy, or free energy systems, will allow humanity (and life in general) to migrate underground. Underground human life can be exceptionally efficient and provide for the sustainable expansion of our species into the 100 billions or even trillions over the very long term. Once you can tunnel and provide artificial light for cheap, via free energy, you can expand underground almost indefinitely. I feel confident that free-energy systems are real and are being suppressed by vested interests today.

But when should humanity move underground? It could do so after it has specified how much it wants to "intrude" on the natural (surface) world. Maybe 50% of the Earths forests should be left alone?

As humans develop their ability to live underground, in artificial eco-systems, they can and then will eventually migrate to other planets when required, boring into them and settling there like termites. Once you've got the essential minerals and a sustainable energy source, the universe really can be your oyster, so to speak. Leaving the earth is not hard once you replace the first two stages of rocket propulsion with electromagnetic rail-guns and ram-jets, and robotics allows for the easy mining of any other planet. And has the U.S military already got anti-gravity?

Conclusion:

Yes - very geeky. But quite realistic still, and if you're trying to think 200+ year time-lines then this is how you must think. And indeed, everything I have suggested, as a long term plan, we know we can already achieve given the current technology base.

If we are to be driven by some incredible long-term agenda, as my reasoning suggests we might be, then one thing we must absolutely insist on is the steadfast respect for life, especially human life. As soon as you develop an agenda that compromises the value of human life you create the foundation for the sickest of people to gain power and domination. Standards must be maintained, and it is indeed totally unnecessary to compromise the well-being of human life; other than, at worst, forced sterilisations.

My "vision" is based on my own "religion" which is the value of life, as life being the ultimate value in itself. Life, as a body, should be allowed to expand, and that should be our goal - indefinite expansion.

--------------------------------------------------

Addition 8-6-11:

A thought:

When thinking about creating my hypothetical servant people, I basically put myself in the position of a sociopathic control freak. It's interesting, because from here I thought that if you were to have a breed of humans who are specifically designed for servitude, then you wouldn't want them getting rooted into natural families. As you might intuitively guess, this would probably lead to a kind of resistance to management. You can imagine them digging their heels in to changes that they might experience as disruptive, to their families, of which they would defend before anything. So how do get around this?

According to Alan Watt, the global Elite have for many years been attacking the family unit. They have apparently done so by: providing welfare systems that remove dependency on the father, including the wider family structure, while at the same time aggressively promoting promiscuity through the media, and also promoting the so-called woman's liberation movement so to ensure the state gets the kids in pre-school for a time, because Mum has to go out to work. The result being: fragmented families from poor or no pair-bonding, solo mothering, state financial dependency and the state part-taking over childrearing at ever earlier ages. Watt claims that this was all carefully planned and totally deliberate for the sake of taking down the traditional family unit, and for the goal for extreme centralisation.

Watt's assertion is interesting (and the effect is certainly real), but I don't think you have to fragment the family to achieve the centralisation goal. I think it could be more effective to create a culture where the state simply teaches young people how to bring up their children. The effect? If successful, parents will come to see themselves (and effectively be) agents of the state in childrearing. They can be conditioned to see the state as the higher authority - the father above the father. Likewise, if you can imprint this relationship (which is what all that education would really be about*), you could then easily manage the families as the state operationally becomes the family head. Hence, people and their families can be easily managed. It would just be a matter of 'updating' their education.

Aldous Huxley said he could see a Brave New World scenario developing (which is what I am basically talking about here) simply because it's such an efficient form of slavery. He is right. If people come to love their servitude by loving the state, and seeing the state as the inherently superior authority, then they will indeed be wilful slaves to it. And there's no more efficient may to maintain a slave-relationship than to have them actually want to be one!

*Interestingly, John Taylor Gatto claimed that the real purpose of forced government schooling is to teach people their place i.e. You are the child, the State (or "great society") is the father. [My words] Children don't rebel - or never seriously. They just have hissy fits at the most. Maybe the Elite are already ahead of me?

--------------------------------------------------

Addition 17-6-11:

How far has the American military gone?

We know that the American military has done horror story experiments on its own soldiers, so as to test new forms of weaponry. We also know that millions of people have been killed by the military for reasons that have nothing to do with defence or humanitarian idealism.

My point? The military, at its higher levels at least, is driven by a psychology that is different to what we recognise as normal. It is psychopathically pragmatic. It considers its soldiers (and probably other personnel) to be mere biological sub-components of its war machine, and as dispensable as any other.

Now, if this is the case, as it seems to be, then we can ask ourselves: "How far has the US military gone with respect to breeding human soldiers for desired characteristics?" It's a good question because it's hard to believe they would have any qualms about breeding humans. Their deeds have already shown us that much.

I for one would not be surprised if the US military had developed underground bases (probably massive) to support and advance 100% secret breeding programmes for soldiers and other types of useful humans. Again, why wouldn't they? They spend fortunes developing machines, so why not their personnel too? Curious thought!

--------------------------------------------------

Addition 26-6-11:

Dangerous knowledge?

We know that the military uses advanced psychological profiling for the purpose of positioning their own staff, and we know that they would have in turn been studying (and will continue to study) the human animal exhaustively. The latter is obviously required for ever more accurate profiling for the purpose of making people ever more predictable. Like I expressed earlier, it comes back to that institutionalised relationship to military personnel as just biological sub-components of the war machine, so reason tells us that we must have been studied to the maximum because it only makes sense to do so.

So, how far has the military's knowledge of humans advanced, and who has access to this knowledge and how is it being used? More curious thoughts, because if your war machine comes to know and understand people down to extraordinary detail (and it probably does/has) then that is incredibly dangerous power - if put in the wrong hands.

Alan Watt claims that human nature (and the nature of human 'types') has indeed been studied for eons, and as I have expressed in earlier posts his assertion makes good sense to me. You will probably find the most fascinating studies on homo-sapiens within the U.S military today, especially considering the kind of analysis that can be achieved with modern tools such as EEG and MRI machines, etc. Hmmm...Time to get creeped out by the fact that the military gives Hollywood little backhands to tweak their movies? And also remember that the military was the inventor of kill-everything-that-moves video games. Oh - and the inventor of what we call schooling (that's going right back to Prussian times).

President Eisenhower stated in a major speech that American's should be absolutely wary of what their military industrial complex was (or could) turn into. The more I reflect on it the more his warnings sound like very, very good advice. It's hard to see how anything could stop the military-industrial complex's expansion and eventual domination, if that were to be its agenda. If you can predict all cause-to-effects, because you know humans so well, then if there is a way to achieve total domination then you will almost certainly find it - and securely so.