Sunday, December 30, 2007

Ufological Certainty...


Ufological Certainty
Review and Commentary 
regarding James Fox's
Film Documentary 
'UFOs--Out Of The Blue'

By Alfred Lehmberg
(FIRST PUBLISHED IN UFO MAGAZINE)



     James Fox provides abundantcitation for same: UFOs are not "real" so much as UFOs are an absolute certainty, eh?  Let that soak in.  

     Indeed, find they are a certaintyof a type that is sure and beyond all rational skepticism, surely!  They are a certainty, moreover, belying the ponderous arguments of your garden-variety klasskurtxian or faux-skeptic. Sciencesays so.  

     Consequently?  You're allowed to smooth your feathers down and pull worried furrows from your forehead. Verily, un-bunch your panties, pilgrim!  It's the future!

     See?  UFOs are a certainty measured in a number so close to the whole number "one," or one hundred percent, that the impossibly TINY remainder -- that mega-microscopic difference of undaunted doubt, my friend... just disappears!

     Yes, that doubt, good neighbor, is without a scintilla or a shred of any MEANING, the remotest SUBSTANCE, the most insignificant VALUE... or the smallest SIGNIFICANCE!  Such is the CERTAINTY that we are not alone in the universe!  If they can be there, they can be here.

     Whoa, huh?  Pardon all those caps, please... but certainty.
 
     Moreover, virtually all the major propeller noggins, bionic-brainiacs, high-domes, and eggheads think so, too!  Along with the august group aforementioned are a vast majority of educated persons who additionally believe humankind landed on the moon!  That's right!  Certainty!

     Major religious apologists think so. Respected groups of scientists, government executives, and professional people think so. This writer thinks so. It is more likely than not that the reader thinks so, too... Certainty!

     Tilt!
 
     So, how is it, then, that there is this disconnect between our beliefand behavior, our intent and actuality, or our informationand cognition? From what presupposed "where" comes this steadfast refusalto acknowledge this *certainty* regarding UFOs and then progressing accordingly?

     Indeed, what generatesthis inexplicable lack of interest in rejectingthe tedious ignorance endured, an ignorance that a -- special-interest-oriented -- corporate *leadership* stealthilyimposes upon us? Why do we continueto tolerate these duplicitous in mal-leadership, these biased and canted officials who facilitate the rank and file of us -- you and me reader --  to giggle up our sleeves in mocking denial... of this gargantuan CERTAINTY that is the UFO?
 
     A more rational, intelligent and far-looking approach, alternatively, is accepting this valid certainty regarding "new people" in previously "undiscovered countries"... "across the rivers of imagination" previously uncrossed. Admittedly, these are intellectual rivers we are tardy in learning how to cross! In other words, a new approach to UFOs acknowledges "new people" not of this Earth ... It cops to the Extraterrestrials... It admits to Aliens! ...And Aliens a little more advanced than we are, too, on more than a fewlevels.

     Lower levels are unlikely, eh?  ...We may be bumping up against the *problem* right there, but I digress.
 
    ...Aliens from matchless Space... in actuality! What a concept, eh?  Seriously, thrilling with regard to the good and the bad!  There's both!  There's always both.
 
     ...But a concept not substantially different from the people newly discovered in, say, a relatively justdiscovered North America by a barelyseaworthy Europe of the post renaissance!  Spain and Portugal were the aliens then...if you were an Indian... forgetting the aliens don't have to be like Spain and Portugal.  It remains, we're the Indians.
 
     Hopefully, it is a more fortuitous concept this time around because we have a little more knowledgeand a tad more experience with which to deal! Though, again, what keeps us from this birthright of discoverythat we are by no means alone in a universe infinitely grander, more wonderful and terrible than even the most intelligently artistic of us could have ever appreciated? A "reach" must exceed its "grasp", reader, or we're dull as Nancy Reagan's culottes in an age of wonder and an evolving ufological denouement!
 
     Still, what are the roots of this brand of intellectual cowardice to which I allude? What are the mechanisms of this cowardlycultural denial as regards the ufological?

     Outmoded"Tradition" and questionable"Ceremony," perhaps?  Conceivably, by those more comfortable maintainingthese aforementioned traditions and ceremonies... for reasons of their own, possibly? More on that later.
 
     James Fox considers these startling concepts, plus questions of farther potentiality... and more, reader... in his reworked film "UFOs -- Out of the Blue."  Handily, he provides the fence-sitting legitimate skeptic abundant reason to consider a side of cautious acceptance to startlingly obvious new ideas!  Perchance to  embracethe cutting edge idea that some, if not many,UFOs are intelligently controlled craft... if  craft not of Earthly manufacture... in authenticity, in actuality, in reality, and in fact?Get used to it.
 
     You will, reader, anyway!  I suspect it is destiny kissing fate!
 
     Fox provides ample demonstration that the truth is stranger than the fiction woven and embroidered so artfully, otherwise, by corporate entities at cross-purposes to the fellow human beings they shouldbe serving. Unsettling but true.

     Plus, he offers, believably and on balance, an ID for these back-stepping corporate entities! They are the same corporate entities, it turns out, as the ones Dwight Eisenhower warned us about so forcefully and convincingly, we're shown, at the close of Eisenhower's term in office when he left his presidency!  We know who they are, reader!

     Presently, we may endure a non-elected leadership, remember, and one without humane responsibility, accountability, or conscience to justify it. Truly, it is an irresponsible leadership who has so fundamentally ignored the elected leadership, such that it is, Fox points out, and largely because they manufacture the elected leadership from persons of their own choosing, this writer observes. Verily!
 
     Moving on, Fox's film is a stunning effort flawlessly executed by a rational team of truth seekers led by Fox, a sincere person with a serious message for the (uninformed) viewer that is SPOT-ON, in this writer's opinion!  

     See, Fox's production is -not- a film necessarily for the practiced student of ufology who has familiarized herself with the intricacies of the general lore -- a small minority. Fox's production is -not- a film, necessarily, for the professional researcher who has ferreted out that which -is- known about this subject (an even smaller minority) and who will, even justly, needlessly contest the validity of the production based on its few flaws.

     "Out of the Blue" is, flatly, -not- a film for the rigid and reactionary debunker, a suspicious and overpowering minority given inordinate credence and hijacked mainstream support, who will unfortunately make distracting (and unethical) use of the film's aforementioned few flaws to unjustly discredit the ENTIRE sterling effort!  A pox on those bastards!
 
     Let me re-cap this.  The STUDENT minority may be aware of all or most of the facts presented, and will ask what is new. The RESEARCHER minority will contest the validity of some of the principals used in interview and some of the ufological footage used as illustration. Too many will therefore fall into the hands (and purposes) of the conflicted DEBUNKER minority who can then crow too loudlyabout the testimony and involvement of controversial persons such as Doctor Greer, Colonel Corso, and Sergeant Clifford Stone.

     These "skepti-bunkies" [TM] will too loudly utilize the contested inclusion of these persons in a scurrilously busy attempt to, by extension, discredit the very credible testimony of persons like Professor Sturrock, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, Fyfe Symington, and Admiral Lord Hill Norton, exceptionallycredible persons heavily featured in Fox's film.

     These klasskurtxians [TM] alluded to have always used, scurrilously, the microscopic to invalidate the macroscopic!  As an analogy, democracy is being used by the aforementioned pelicanists [TM] to destroy that same democracy, so as to, perhaps, continue to hide the truth is plain sight.  Who knows but who would know?
 
     Who is the film for then?

     This film is for the person who would of needs scrape the scales from their abused and beclouded eyes. This film is forthe person who is CURIOUS about the larger reality we accelerate towards with ever more apparent, unsettling, and discomfiting speed.

     This film is for the person interested in a serious chronicle of events which might lead the open-minded individual to the rational conclusion proposed: that we arebeing visited by -- and are interacting withon some level -- off-Earth cultures!  Moreover, our *puppet* governments, motivated by their own non-elected elite for reasons of the criminally arbitrary convenience of same, have been LYING to the rank and file about it from the very beginning!  The verybeginning.
 
     ...And not for the benefit of that rank and file, either... consider.
 
     Case in point, the excessively rigid and cognitively impactedklasskurtxian will appropriate the very minimaluse of an ostensibly discredited Meier and contested Mexican footage, used sparingly in Fox's film for illustration, to disqualify other, much more convincing footages of UFOs!  That's lying by no other name.

     One specific footage was of a caliber to bring this jaded ufological writer right up out of his chair! This clip still dazzles after numerous reversals, slow motion frame to frame, and unending re-winds...

     End of part one!  See you next month!

PART II
 
     The ufological footage alluded to last issue opens up on a very slightly blurred and heat distorted daytime scene.  A glowing disk of indeterminate size is angling downwards in a gracefully arcing dive to the hot dry desert floor. Crash is imminent! Words on the screen say White Sands, New Mexico 1996, then fade.
 
     The size of the object becomes more apparent as it makes ferocious contact with the parched daytime soil, gouging up what looks to be car sized clots of assaulted earth and hardpan!  These boulders of exploding detritus take many seconds to fall to the ground indicating a scale of some magnitude!

     Indeed... the impact raises a huge cloud of dust that slides quickly out of frame as the camera follows the object! The unchanged and still glowingorb (!) inexplicably BOUNCES, though, like a skipping stone, and is then followed on its ricocheting trajectory back into the sky by the camera!  Hello! Folks?  I'm a retired military aviator.  Aircraft don't bounce!

     The size of the object is still hard to judge but the violence of the distant impact (far beyond massive high tension electrical towers) indicates a size at leastbigger and more massive than a light plane... perhaps even 747 sized! There is no hint of a tail or a fuselage or wings or a cockpit, where these things would have been, clearly, visible.
 
     Additionally, a tough military transport plane like a C-17 would have pan-caked at the rate of closure and approach angle with which this *orb-thing* struck the ground! I've seen films of B-52s auger in with a lesser closure rate and attack angle, and they smear like a monster bug on a big windshield! Aircraft, assuredly again, don't bounce!
 
     This thing bounced like a big smooth stone on a calm lake. It did not deform or change its appearance in any way. It did not begin to come apart or shed parts. It did not lose so much as a fraction of the strange integrity it possessed before the crash.  Indeed, it looked like it was just going to continue on its merry way completely unaffectedby its initial contact with the ground.  

     Only when the approach --after some seconds of continued flight-- steered it to a steeper approach angle did a terrible contact with the ground seem once again inevitable! There was no bounce this time! There was; however, a monstrous and very peculiar explosion!

     More earth was moved than on the first contact, and the saucer shaped orb exploded like a wineglass thrown at a brick patio, bursting into thousands of pieces of fractured light! It remains, reader, the most incredible purported UFO footage this writer has ever seen.
 
     The preceding is typical of Fox's treatment of the ufological, one discovers.  It is a treatment as low on expected "woo-woo" as it is high on quality footage and the testimony of credible witnesses.  These are witnesses heavily represented by multinational, educational, agency, or elected government officials (and highranking military).

     This is forgetting, with some difficulty, the scurrilously axe-grinding character assassinations of Ed Mitchell and Gordo Cooper by scrofulous skeptibunkies previous to the film's firstrelease (...smears completely and thoroughly discredited by Jerry Cohen at http://www.cohenufo.org/ I add, but I digress).
 
     See? The vast majority of the witnesses are solid, credible, and don't have the hidden agendas of their discouraging detractors to prosecute, so reflect a more likely truth! Fox more completely and effectively catalogues credible incidents in his film, finally. Moreover, he composes the instructive associations of the very valid points being made with UFO footage that is, at minimum reader, UFO footage purported to be genuine at one time, and so then merely demonstrative! This is footage, additionally, at a minimum of screen time in noway representative of the aggregate verity of this important film as a whole! It's protest is not required, forgetting I do so here. Let's move on.
 
     We are not alone! Does the reader understand that? So too, we are our own proof of same in a universe where what can happen, happens... and happening, promotes the accelerated ease of a subsequenthappening.  Reader?  We happened.  Others are obvious when we cannot presume upon an arrogance that we were first, eh?

     This is not a momentary distraction from more pressing realities, good reader, this is the reality! Fox makes that clear with a very critical, credible and convincing production. He provides convincing visuals bringing thisjaded ufological viewer, at any rate, to his astonished feet!  I don't apologize.

     Simply, Fox presents facts and testimonies of which the majority of viewing individuals are not aware but would find extremely interesting, I should think. Finally, he supplies proof that quality persons of world class authority find the subject of UFOs one whole lot less dismissible than the hijacked mainstream would have the individual believe, reader, and this by a long shot! See the film!
 
     In a sidebar, this writer reminds that there are no legitimate or informed researchers sharp-shooting Fox's production or complaining about the verity of individual testimonies... that could remotely damage the credibility of this film! The testimonies included are from individual persons who for right, wrong, or indifferent reasons are a cross section of all the people pointing forcefully in the SAME freaking direction, still!
 
     Yes... some small fraction of an otherwise auspicious whole are fake! So? SO!?!  

     How is that news? The fraudulent will not make the genuine any LESS genuine, despite the errant suggestions of the most vociferous debunker.  Some of everything is ALWAYS fake!
 
     But, reader. BUT!  Some of them, in TURN, are NOT, eh?  Some things are genuine!  Let that soak in a little, eh?

     Who says?  At least two US Presidents and one State Governor testifying to their own astonishing sightings plus a host of other lettered, accredited, or vetted persons!
 
     James Fox thinks that that the preceding should give one pause to reconsider. Much of it is not fake, good reader!

     Presidents have confirmed it. Science quantifies and qualifies it. Common sense, as it astonishingly turns out, DEMANDS it. All the photographic, historical and anecdotal evidence points to it, and the public can accept it, frankly, as plain as the nose on their flabbergasted faces.

     Fox is conclusive with no small alacrity.  It isthe future, and Fox suggests thinly, moreover, that we should begin living in it.  ...All this seems abundantly rational to me.
 
     Fox makes the preceding more than patently clear in "UFOs -- Out of the Blue", whatever the criticism of the ax-grinding critic -- well meaning or no! He does it in an intelligent manner belying the fantastic quality of the subject matter, and he even tells the viewer who is at the bottom of the general cover-up, even if the ID is not helpful.

     Who are they? "They" are the military/Industrial complex.
 
     Who?
 
     ... Not very helpful is it?  Like trying to hold *fog* responsible for its behavior ... that's the point of corporate design, actually -- the avoidance of personal liability... responsibility. But they are, actually, human beings not entirely unlike the reader, sir and madam!

     Be that as it may, Fox's fine film is an important and quality addition to the curious individual's essential library of visual and print materials regarding the *larger* reality to which I allude... a reality misleadingly rubbished in suspicious supermarket tabloids andmainstream rags, to paraphrase Admiral Lord Hill Norton from the film. Truly, the film is more than equal to the low price of its admission.
 
     Information in that regard can be found on the film's website at:
http://tinyurl.com/2v35ra, along with more details about the film, facts regarding prestigious awards that Fox's film has won, and pertinent links to the film's earnestly convincing narrator (and founding "Digger"!), Peter Coyote.

     I watched the film numerous times for this review and found it more compelling with each subsequent viewing.  It is eminently worthwhile even with its few very forgettable flaws only mentioned, at all, for a complete report!  It is concise and complete film, and it is very well executed. Finally, it portrays a certaintyactually there!
 
     Read on!
 
"I cleave the heavens and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scrofulous and specious scurrilous.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Conspiracy's Socipathy



What follows is a discussion of sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder) and the expressions of the psychopathic personal philosophy.  Additionally, its relationship to an increased potential for what is otherwise a dismissed, ridiculed, and maligned theory of general conspiracy is explored.
  
A brief so-called "history in relief" of sociopathy is provided, useful definitions are included, but the remainder of the paper will delineate characteristics and causes for sociopathy as it exists to provide a fertile bed for endemic conspiracies of all types and flavors — even cosmic ones some, very rationally, suspect (Dolan, 2000).
  
It is; this writer deduces moreover, that it is the sociopathy itself... that is the medium and the mechanism of a very real generalized conspiracy stealthily plaguing us today while a justified concern about it is, way too airily, dismissed as the ignored... "paranoid ravings of a lunatic fringe" (Klass, common knowledge).
  
To begin: there is no separate history, as such, of sociopathy because, this writer contends, history is itself, in many, many cases, the obvious chronicle of the sociopath. Moreover, learned writers make every indication that it is the sociopath who, by and large, writes the history regarded anyway (Parenti, 1999).  It may not be much of a stretch that this is a convenient and arbitrary history precluding much of the record of that which conflicts with the self-involved interests of those... who conveniently cobble the historically extant together to serve their absorbed self-interest.  Such has been so.

Indeed, Pro-social people (socio-philes) have lived side by side with the socio-path as long as one can look back into recorded and even unrecorded history. This is so even if that history ~is~ suspect because it is not generally written by the sociophile who didn't survive to write it. When a cohort of Winston Churchill's worried how history would view iffy events Churchill is reported to have said, "...don't worry! I'll write the history!"  The spoor of sociopathy remains plain perhaps because it is in relief.  Evil accuses first what it practices.

Sociopathy, for better or worse, fairly inundates history with its poster children — those infamous faces who pop into mind when one hears the word of their unsettling name.  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Speck, Gilmore, or Manson — these are the faces who materialize unasked as one hears the word sociopathbut these convenient caricatures and easy materializations are very misleading. See, the preceding suggests that the garden variety sociopath makes itself easily known. This is far from the truth.  
Be afraid.

That's right, Sociopathy wears a legion of *friendly* faces, actually. As one is exposed to the variously posited but ultimately united versions encompassed by the definitions of it one can easily stretch this hateful condition to include not only the popular, respected and otherwise revered person no one would suspect... but to each and every one of us.

Be very afraid.   

Consider: preachers don't tell on "preachers"; cops don't tell on "cops"; doctors don't tell on "doctors". Politico's don't tell on one another when there is a *greater* goal to be gained. The rest of us avert our eyes from the inconvenient and unsettling obvious.  We don't tell on our friends to some sliding scale extent...

This is the hot-house fecundity any conspiracy must busily thrive in! Moreover, consider the near infinite potential... we have a system of laws and codes only to protect individuals from an unrestricted sociopath!

What ~is~ a sociopath or psychopath? 

The sociopath may be defined as one who steals from, lies to, and cheats on those around him while being unaffected by conscience and unhampered by responsibility for his or her egregious acts (Morris, 1988).  He is someone we have reason to fear and dread because he can so often be found where he was least expected. Interestingly, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton could be handily painted as sociopathic personalities, by way of example.  

Like "The Simpson's" Montgomery Burns — a classic if caricaturized sociopath, consider that Bob Dole seems unaffected by all the terrific death and abject misery his support of big tobacco has caused throughout the years. Bill Clinton might be a sociopathic lothario who cheated on his wife for over a decade with no apparent remorse, or crisis of conscience. To some degree Ronald Reagan wouldn't begin to admit to the existence of AIDS as long as he thought it was a targeted disease that only affected gay persons. Consider the stockholders of the tainted blood banks of Reagan's time, men and women who kept on selling their AIDS contaminated blood products when they KNEW (on some level) they were infecting people with the killer virus. The radius of affected persons increases.  

Truly, conspiracy seems to have a plethora of persons available who can too readily embrace it — make busy use of its divergently profitable and autocratic criminal utility.   Sociopathy is everywhere, reader... perhaps, astonishingly, even in a mirror's reflection.

Another definition, for contrast, indicates that the sociopath, a sufferer of an "antisocial personality disorder," has no feelings for others, is selfish and aggressively compassionless — otherwise prone to irresponsible behavior and so is happily willing to exploit others for profit of all types (Wood, 1993).  Here lies the spark, tender, and motive for a pervasive conspiracy. 

In amplification of this assertion, it is pointed out in another study that the preceding definition included every predator businessman, golf course doctor, slick mouthed evangelist, Fat-cat politician, impostor, cold fish prostitute, and Furman-like police officer alive on this planet (Coleman 1976). The point is that, though truly caustic, the definitions that this writer discovered could be extended to MANY more people than is typically thought!

...Many more...  

If an illegal act can be committed for power, profit, or pleasure, there is an ABUNDANCE of people anxious to take crafty advantage of that act, reader. If conspiracy is possible, and it assuredly is, the preponderance of sociopathy makes it likely.  

In a quick sidebar, most people have the concepts of sociopath and conspiracy wrongly applied. Folks confusingly think "psychotic" psychopath. Or that the sociopath is a psychotic or *crazy*. There is no such animal. The sociopath, or psychopath (the terms are roughly equivalent), is by definition NOT psychotic ~ NOT crazy.  

Astonishingly, one has to be certifiably SANE to be a true psychopath (Coleman, 1976)! Additionally, as clarification, the first definition of conspiracy is ALWAYS clearly criminal. Four child pornographers agreeing to go downtown for burgers and cokes is not a conspiracy, their shared plan to disseminate their material — is (Princeton.edu, 2010).  

Moving on, there is a blending detected in the definitions of sociopathy to include (surprisingly) every person... (!) who for want of some absent capability... just can't cut it in our overly harsh global society (Coleman, 1976), and so cuts monstrous corners... with no personal guilt or regret with regard to those corners, or the persons innocently standing on them.  There are, as well, the sociopaths defined as "criminal", but still another definition (definitions and characteristics swim through the literature as near indistinguishable fishes, this writer concludes) presents itself, again, with an attendant component to describe the "attractive user type", the social predator (conman-woman) that we even make movies about and grant inappropriate allowances for (Coleman, 1976).  

Sweetly charming while cunningly, mindfully and artfully uncaring — these predators might relieve you of your money, your dignity, your life, or your individuality. 

Sometimes, the victim, astonishingly (inexplicably!) still loves the sociopath when that sociopath has relieved them of their money and their self-respect (Morris, 1988). One can see ready parallels in the leaderships of all major and minor institutions, agencies, and governments, forgetting the girl next door.  

Speculations on the potentials for insidiously convoluted conspiracy are generated in the minds of psychopaths and supported by the sociophiles who love them. This writer contends that we have conspiracy of all types, known and unknown, because there are so MANY of these unidentified sociopaths, on site, more than merely willing to take advantage of them.  

As mentioned earlier, the definitions swam confusingly with the characteristics. Again, this writer believes in the non-admitted ubiquitous-ness of the sociopath, and predicts his presence where one prays not to encounter him.  

For Example, Robert Tilton (an "Oral Roberts" type — cubed!), just another gold-digging televangelist, might be one of these types. Convicted of graft, he's too quickly back on the early morning southeastern television speaking in *gainful* tongues. 
Consider the Bush-pardoned banker types who fled the country with billions of dollars of our mother's and father's entrusted money unguarded in Reagan's frenzy of bank deregulation.  Into what predatory form has any "oil man" evolved?  

More characteristics of this stealthy and well camouflaged psychopath includes a "winning cheerfulness and grace with social skills" that compels people to ardent trust and doting consideration to facilitate them (Morris, 1988). Consider Michael Keaton in the film Pacific Heights. 

There are the ruthless Machiavellian types who rise to terrific power in business and the military (McConnell, 1980), and there are the women who coldly stand behind them. These become the fire brand political types like Huey Long, or they refine sociopathy politically offstage... like Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush, perhaps.  Like Dick and Lynne Cheney, perhaps. 

Many of them are smart as the clichéd whip and possess near genius or genius intelligences (McConnell, 1980). This compounds the problem with them, and adds a scary dimension because we don't have a clue how many there really are (or where they really are!) as they make lucrative use of this criminal intelligence!  Sociopaths can hide in plain sight!

How many are there? 

...So very few of them are getting in for professional help, it is estimated (Wood, 1993). Why would they? They're as happy as proverbial clams as they are, above the law.  
Indeed, the only possible idea of prevalence that we have at all comes from prison studies which, very conservatively, put the population at 3% of all men, and 1% ofall women (Morris, 1988). The reader is reminded that the vast majority of successful psychopaths are not caught. This writer suspects a lot more.   Note, also, the interesting 3 to 1 advantage enjoyed by men... and white men at that.  ...Damn few serial killers of color... and this writer suspects these suffer inordinate publicity.

Other characteristics include a complete and utterly unimaginable (for the majority) lack of guilt (Hallahan, 1994). This is the person who can perform the most bloodlessly god-awful and socially abusive criminal acts, and not only express guiltlessness, but ultimately blame the consequences of their act on the injured party!  "She was beggin' for it."

These people are easily frustrated and prone to impulsive thoughts that they act on, mindlessly uncaring of the consequences of their figurative — or literal — trigger pull (Coleman 1976). These are the people who can put up a good front as they shine the victim on with attractive lies, half truths, and sly manipulations for their benefit... completely uncaring about the personal cost to the target victim, inevitably incurred (Coleman 1976).  

Sociopaths share, generally, a complete lack of respect for any authority or mores save their own, and FOR that reason end up, over and over again, in trouble with the law (McConnell, 1980) — WHEN they're caught! A sociopath can be a child so viciously, hatefully, and destructively afflicting that she is completely isolated from family, peer, church and school groups (Hallahan, 1994). As all of this dissolution might occur, the sociopath will take no hand in the responsibility for any of it.  It's just not their fault, they corrosively and conveniently reason. They are only availing themselves of an opportunity that, "...anyone could (should) take,"  they reason in interview.
What causes this sociopathic loathing for ones fellows?

Some believe that while there is a genetic predisposition for a few, the majority had faulty models to imprint from — their family experiences were bad (McConnell, 1980). Others go on to say that there was some kind of emotional detachment early in life that caused the disconnection of the sociopathic individual from the society at large (Morris, 1988). The preceding concludes the view of social learning theorists.  

The COGNITIVE THEORISTS contend that "arrested development" is the culprit for the behavior (Morris, 1988). There is a school that believes the sociopath is a result of chemically out of whack neurotransmitters (Morris, 1988). This BIOPHYSICAL paradigm presupposes defective inhibitory mechanisms in the brain, or an inability, because of this lack of an inhibitory mechanism, to arouse the emotions of guilt and remorse in the subject (Coleman, 1976). Some psychologists believe that the sociopath is under-stimulated and performs these horrific, destructive, and socially corrosive acts in a frenetic search for any kind of feeling at all (Coleman, 1976). 

Conspiracy seems almost probable with regard to a person described as such.  

Family relationships may have more to add than was reflected in McConnell at the beginning of a previous paragraph. Coleman (1976) breaks faulty family relationships into three subgroups of (1) early parental loss and that emotional deprivation; (2) Parental rejections and inconsistencies; and, (3) faulty parental models with toxic family interactions.  

Then there are the supposed SOCIOCULTURAL factors. Easily, the living conditions of the inner city ghettos may be creating sociopaths out of whole cloth ( Coleman, 1976). Overpopulation may be a contributing factor as less and less respect needs to be paid to any one individual...

An aside. This writer, informed how intelligent he truly is, considers Charles Manson and wonders what he could have been... presuming his removal from the debilitating social experiences he'd reportedly had. A reflection: what strange and undiscovered conspiracies must exist in the fertile imaginations and implementations of this resultant and growing ARMY of psychopathic individuals?  And, more of them, still, every day as a normal function of our population increase. 

What IS a sociopath, where are they, and how can they be detected?

How CAN we know, when we can't even nail down prevalence effectively?

...And knowing that they are there with frequently easy regularity... ...provides greater potential for that, presently, too easily dismissed conspiracy we perceive in the shadows of our lives otherwise.  How can we know, reader, given that the radius of those included in a sphere of sociopathy may be much bigger than we imagine — the attendant conspiracies much grander than we thought?  

It may be that we, on at least a level, are all sociopathic. Consider that on any given day, thirty thousand children starve, finally — to death, after years of physical wasting disease and cognitive disintegration. We all know this —we see Archie Bunker's daughter on TV every day— another likely profit dodge?  Our news media knows, our government knows, you know, and I know... still they starve. Innocent children suffer unending torment in a tolerated squalor while we concern ourselves with the cut of a suit or a shade of a nail.  

Conspiracy is by definition a criminal act, corrosive to society at large. The world is filled with an outguessed amount of passionately engaged and creative criminals... sociopaths, consumed and concerned only with the continuance of their diverse personal agendas and advantaged lives!  

We do ourselves a disservice, it appears, to reflexively dismiss conspiracy (of any type or flavor to include the aforementioned cosmic) in the mistaken tradition that our society protects us from these legions of undiscovered and non-admitted monsters. They do not. Verily, too often they ARE the psychopaths!  

Every day exposes the ongoing sociopathic record of these vicious people, people capable of and perpetrating ANYTHING one can think of (and much more that one would not!) to secure advantage for themselves... or their class, the same thing. Such is the present fabric of our lives promising to get worse. 

We are not served by dismissing conspiracy, we ARE served by investigating it. Posner has not settled the issue regarding the assassination of JFK. Klass does not settle the issue regarding UFO's. The authoritarian admonitions of our institutional leadership do not convince us that they have our best interests at heart.  

Doctors want to soullessly market drugs and services, insurance companies want to treat their courtrooms like money-tree orchards, preachers want to prosecute their campaigns of intolerance and social hatred while they fill tax-free collection plates... we won't even mention the dirty politicians and the all-business captains of industry or their coteries of pandering lieutenants.  

The rest of us?  The rest of us are dashed, contused and senseless, on the slick rocky outcrops of ignorantly maintained, totally ignored, and readily dismissed conspiratorial shores.  All this while the well meaning and ill meaning alike airily dismiss those rocky outcroppings as unfounded,  unsubstantiated, and unproven. 
Conspiracy lives, folks, it's not in our mind. Conspiracy's real. Just look, and you find.  

References:  

Coleman, J. (1976). Abnormal psychology and modern life. Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Princeton.edu (2010) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conspiracy

Dolan, R. (2000).  An unclassified history: volume one 1941-1973. New York: Keyhole 

Hallahan, D. & Kauffman, J. (1994). Exceptional Children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

McConnell, J. (1980). Understanding human behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 

Morris, G. (1988). Psychology an introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.  

Parenti, M. (1999). History as mystery. San Francisco: City Lights Books   

Wood, E. & Wood, S. (1993). The world of psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

...On Dumbledore



Love. Our dearest tragedy. It is cherished or abused. One makes it; it is all we have! Love is hard to disabuse. See, after many billions of our years, it's life has sequenced out... at long, long last, we've come to find... the Love we care about.


See, it's carved in stone with bleeding knives; Love's dancing on the wind. Love makes a burden easier, or it adds to it, my friend. Though portrayed in tastes and flavors that may dance upon the tongue, Love fills a mouth with ashes if a heart is torn and flung.

Love gleams in different colors that we break up into grades. Love's crimson, white, or golden; Love endures, or dulls and fades.

They call the crimson "carnal." It's the marrow in your bones; if white, it's known as "philos" — it's a cleaner octane, Holmes; If golden, it's "agape" — the highest form of Love. It's selfless and it's perfect — and the rarest (push to shove).

It takes all three to make us whole — to make us more complete... ...but we would judge Love's value, and would qualify Love's reach! Oh, this is where we HUGELY err! We dictate and pronounce. We ridicule, demean, and shame. We disqualify — denounce!

We'd prohibit and we'd cancel, we would legislate our drives. We'd complicate the issue. We'd produce our sad despised!

We *append* to sex and preference "connotation" gone awry — and contrive a lesser value like we *knew* the reason why! Well, we don't know, though we'd presume the "wisdoms of convention," and cause a person torment based on cant or crass invention.

Now I don't write with scented inks. I'm just not wired that way. I'm making no apology, but showing distance, Dave! See, I have listed those I've met in decade's factor-five — perceive they're not the problem; they're a blessing — that's no jive.

They're not all gay — our movie stars, our poets and our clowns, our musicians and our artists, and our dancers of renown. They're not ALL gay — philanthropists, philosophers, or mimes — our nurses tending selflessly, some sports folk of our times. They're not all gay — our stylists who decorate the day, or work out all the detail in a layout they have made.

But where's the twin admission that would keep us most contented? That here they are the lion's share, and so OVER represented!

I think of all the people with an impact on my life, and find so many "gay blades" who have qualified my pride. These are teachers, artists, leaders, and some friends I, too late, made. They are pilots, soldiers, warriors — it's to them my pride is paid!

Near the end of my existence, when the dues are finally in, I owe a little gratitude — a little loyalty, my friend. I wished I'd spoke up sooner, so that you'd have had more VOICE. I regret that I belittled you when I thought you had some "choice."

If a few of these professionals are, in fact (heh!), proudly gay, then a better class of people swells the ranks of them, I'd say! It's there — seems more intelligence. It's there — seems greater style — seems more imagination, more artistry and smiles...

It's there, there seems more gracefulness, and (Yes!) that rarest kind of Love. It's there, there are more butterflies, more humming birds — more doves? It's THERE a valued world turns, the one that should be made... as hearts are opened up to find some bills remain unpaid!

If true, no condemnation — no indictment is returned. If true there is no reason to assign some blame or spurn. If true (?), yes, CELEBRATION there's your tendency to share! You have eclectic talents I appreciate, mon frère.

I see your contribution. I acknowledge right to *be*. I make no value judgment; I just want you free as me.


alienview@roadrunner.com
http://www.alienview.net/

My credulity still stunned, I've endured ominous silence.

Still, I'd rather embrace choice, tolerance (diversity as an intellectual force multiplier), and love, in all its shades and grades — forgetting for a moment that its PROHIBITION —biblical or otherwise— and foundationless persecution are so much specious nonsense. Gay mote, I don't just tolerate your existence, I celebrate it. Your contribution seems to far, far outweigh your "errant" so-called detriment, and has always done so. Sincerely, live, do, and be.

Bigotry, gladly, force-multiplies ignorance; ignorance fosters its own lack of consequence; a silence on same must provoke an irrelevance; consequently, I'm drawn to significant diffidence.

Get used to it.

Restore John Ford.