What if the delusions of the dissidents are in fact real? What if their paranoid fantasies are not fantasies at all? In other words, what if it’s not the political dissidents who are crazy, but the politicians?
You’re about to learn about the dark history and the even more disturbing present of political psychopathy.
Prepare yourself for DISSENT INTO MADNESS.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
TRANSCRIPT
JAMES CORBETT: “Insane.”
“Deranged.”
“Crazy.”
In the hands of a tyrant, these aren’t mere words, not impartial descriptions of thought or behaviour. They’re weapons.
After all, there’s nothing more damning, more completely dehumanizing, than to call someone “crazy.”
LIZ WINSTEAD: The conspiracy theory thing . . . it . . . I’m just utterly shocked that they could try to make this . . . It’s, it’s . . . You know how people wear tinfoil hats? I think they’re wearing tinfoil condoms. I’m not sure, because they seem so crazy.
DAVID CHAVERN: There’s always been crazy conspiracy theories. I think we’ve all got uncles [who] over the Thanksgiving dinner [have] told us crazy stuff.
SOURCE: U.S. Senate 10242017 CSPAN October 25, 2017 12:02am-12:30am EDT
GLENN BECK: It started with the 9/11 “truthers”. Crazy. Then the “birthers.” Crazy.
SOURCE: Glenn Beck FOX News February 3, 2010 2:00am-3:00am EST
LAURA INGRAHAM: That the Bush administration could perhaps have had something to do with 9/11—facilitating 9/11, encouraging the actions that took place on 9/11—that is insane. That is literally insane.
SOURCE: The O Reilly Factor FOX News September 3, 2009 11:00pm-12:00am EDT
But sometimes “crazy” isn’t just a figure of speech. Sometimes it’s a diagnosis.
And as long as there have been those willing to diagnose others as “insane,” there have been those who have sought to use this as a label for their political enemies.
And why not? Once diagnosed as mentally unsound, political dissidents can be treated as we have always treated those we dismiss as “crazy.” They can be locked away, drugged, and subjected to all manner of torture in the name of “treatment.”
Now, the idea that would-be rulers would cynically use the “lunatic” cudgel against their political enemies is bad enough.
But what if the reality is the complete opposite of what is commonly understood?
What if the “delusions” of the dissidents are in fact real? What if their “paranoid fantasies” are not fantasies at all? What if their inability to fit in is not a sign that they are sick, but that the society they are protesting against is sick?
In other words, what if it’s not the political dissidents who are “crazy,” but the politicians?
You’re about to learn about the dark history and the even more disturbing present of political psychopathy.
Prepare yourself for DISSENT INTO MADNESS.
This is The Corbett Report.
1. The Bad Old Days
The history of psychology is, to a large extent, the history of cruel and unusual punishments meted out by rulers on political dissidents in the name of “curing the mentally disturbed.”
That psychology has always been a convenient tool for the ruling class to wield against dissenters may seem like a controversial observation at first glance. But, this is precisely what the most mainstream of establishment sources tell us . . . when they’re talking about the establishment’s enemies, that is.
ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Ever since czarist days Russian political dissenters have feared their political views could land them in the infamous Arctic labor camps. But what increasingly haunts the Soviet political dissident today is the threat of being declared insane and sent to a mental hospital. While the Soviet authorities strenuously deny it, the dissident movement continues to claim that thousands of people who disagree with Kremlin policy are confined to mental hospitals when their only disease is dissent.
To be sure, MacNeil and Lehrer and the other American critics of Soviet psychiatry—like Dr. Walter Reich, who wrote a 6,000-word expose on “The World of Soviet Psychiatry” for The New York Times in 1983—weren’t wrong. They just weren’t telling the whole truth.
The horrors of the Soviet psychiatric system—in which political dissidents were routinely diagnosed with “sluggish schizophrenia,” psychiatric hospitals were used as temporary prisons during periods of protest, and troublesome rebels were kept in medically induced comas or drug-induced catatonic states for extended periods of time—has been well-documented in numerous mainstream sources, both popular and academic. But these horrors were given their most poignant expression in the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
The incarceration of free-thinking healthy people in madhouses is spiritual murder, it is a variation of the gas chamber, even more cruel; the torture of the people being killed is more malicious and more prolonged. Like the gas chambers, these crimes will never be forgotten and those involved in them will be condemned for all time during their life and after their death.
As Reich correctly observes in his report, “[T]he experience of Soviet psychiatry had a lot to teach about the vulnerabilities of psychiatry to misuse wherever it is practiced.”
But, by a funny coincidence, these concerns only ever seem to come up when psychiatry is being “misused” in countries that are on the US State Department’s enemies list.
There are no shortage of sources that will tell you about:
- the abuses of Nazi psychiatrists, who sat on planning committees for the Aktion T4 euthanasia and sterilization program and who directed the Nazi regime’s horrific (and failed) attempt to eradicate schizophrenia by systematically killing off Germany’s schizophrenic population;
- the abuses that Japanese psychiatrists inflicted on their patients during and immediately after WWII, resulting in an abnormally large number of patient deaths;
- the Cuban revolutionary government’s use of psychotropic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy in order to obtain information from, punish, demoralize, coerce, subdue, terrorize, and cause psychological damage to those deemed a threat to state security;
. . . and any number of similar examples of psychiatric abuse by governments at war with or in the crosshairs of the US government.
Often excluded from this analysis, however, are the horrific abuses that psychiatrists in the West have inflicted on their patients in the name of state security.
While the history books will rightly condemn the horrors of the Nazi eugenic sterilization program, they seldom explore the roots of that program. As it turns out, those roots were in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. What’s more, Ernst Rüdin—the director of the also-Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and one of the key architects of Germany’s eugenics program—modeled the Nazi eugenics legislation on America’s own “Model Eugenical Sterilization Law.”
In fact, America’s first professor of psychology, James McKeen Cattell, helped bring the eugenics pseudoscience to the shores of America in the first place. Having befriended Francis Galton, the progenitor of eugenics, during a trip to England in 1887, Cattell returned to the US with an enthusiasm for the idea. He later wrote a letter to Galton bragging, “We are following in America your advice and example.”
Still further back in history, Benjamin Rush—one of the founding fathers of the United States and the man officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as the “father of American psychiatry”—made early contributions to the weaponization of psychiatry by inventing a number of mental disorders to pathologize dissent. The most notable of these made-up disorders was “anarchia,” a type of madness Rush defined as “an excess of the passion for liberty,” which “could not be removed by reason, nor restrained by government” and “threatened to render abortive the goodness of heaven to the United States.”
And what did this “father of American psychiatry” prescribe for those he deemed to be suffering from mental illness? Well, for starters, he “treated his patients with darkness, solitary confinement, and a special technique of forcing the patient to stand erect for two to three days at a time, poking them with sharp pointed nails to keep them from sleeping—a technique borrowed from a British procedure for taming horses.”
He also invented two mechanical devices for the treatment of the insane: a “tranquilizing chair,” in which the patient’s “body is immobilized by straps at the shoulders, arms, waist, and feet [and] a box-like apparatus is used to confine the head,” and a “gyrator,” “which was a horizontal board on which torpid patients were strapped and spun to stimulate blood circulation.”
Rush’s apprentice, physician and outspoken germ theory critic Samuel Cartwright, made his own contribution to the field by inventing a disorder he named “drapetomania, or the disease causing negroes [slaves] to run away“:
The cause in the most of cases, that induces the negro to run away from service, is as much a disease of the mind as any other species of mental alienation, and much more curable, as a general rule. With the advantages of proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many negroes have of running away, can be almost entirely prevented, although the slaves be located on the borders of a free state, within a stone’s throw of the abolitionists.
Yes, the history of psychiatry is replete with examples of political dissidents, unruly populations, or other “social undesirables” being labeled as insane and sent to the madhouse . . . or worse.
But that was then, many would be inclined to argue. This is now. Surely psychiatry isn’t used to suppress dissent anymore, is it? . . .
2. The Bad New Days
Yes, of course psychiatry is still used as a weapon to be wielded against political dissidents. And I’m not just talking about psychiatric repression in some backward, evil dictatorship like Russia. (Although, to be sure, there’s that, too.)
No, once again, it is the “liberal,” “enlightened,” “free and democratic” West that is leading the way in weaponizing psychiatry against the masses. And, incredibly, the wielders of this psychiatric weapon don’t try to hide the fact but have instead actively sought to codify it in their “bible.”
Since 1952, the American Psychiatric Association has published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM, as a guideline for the classification and diagnoses of mental health issues. Commonly referred to as the psychiatric diagnostic bible, the DSM, according to the APA itself, “is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States and contains a listing of diagnostic criteria for every psychiatric disorder recognized by the U.S. healthcare system.”
Critics have long questioned the influence that Big Pharma has had in pressuring the APA to diagnose more and more behaviour as “abnormal” in order to prescribe pharmaceutical interventions to a greater and greater percentage of the public.
Concerns over Big Pharma’s influence on the creation of the DSM are not trivial. In 2012, a study led by University of Massachusetts-Boston researcher Lisa Cosgrove noted that 69% of the DSM-5 task force members had ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including paid work as consultants and spokespersons for drug manufacturers. On certain panels, the conflict of interest was even more profound: 83% of the members of the panel working on mood disorders had pharmaceutical industry ties, and 100%—every single member—of the sleep disorder panel had “ties to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the medications used to treat these disorders or to companies that service the pharmaceutical industry.”
If the DSM task force members’ goal is to make sure that more and more pharmaceuticals are sold, then by every measure they’ve been remarkably successful. Recent surveys indicate one in six American adults report taking a psychiatric drug, such as an antidepressant or a sedative. Worryingly, the number of children being prescribed antipsychotic medications like Adderall and Ritalin has continued to increase decade after decade.
And, more worrying still is the way that this increase in antipsychotic prescriptions has been justified by the invention of new “mental disorders” like “Oppositional Defiance Disorder.”
Clinical psychologist Bruce Levine, who has spent decades ringing the alarm bell about the ways in which his profession is being used to repress legitimate political dissent, explains:
So, one of the things that happens in 1980 is you have the introduction of this new mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” (O.D.D.). Now, literally, this has nothing to do with juvenile delinquency—people need to know. So, these kids, specifically, are not doing anything illegal. That’s a whole other “mental illness” called conduct disorder. But oppositional defiant disorder, by definition, they are arguing with adults, they are often refusing to comply with adults. They’re doing the things that almost every of the 20 people I profile in resisting illegitimate authority—all these famous anti-authoritarian from George Carlin to Lenny Bruce to Ralph Nader to Thomas Bay—all these people are doing this kind of stuff. And so that’s what really concerned me at that time in the ’80s is, are you kidding, you are pathologizing rebellion.
Now, some of these kids, at the time, you know, if you talk about a nine-, ten-year-old, who’s just being oppositional, they’re not making judgments necessarily about who’s a legitimate authority and who’s an illegitimate authority. So, I wouldn’t call them genuine anti-authoritarians at eight or nine years old. But here’s the important thing: a lot of these oppositionally defined kids who are just being a handful and rebellious at the time, they are the kind of kids who at some point mature into genuine anti-authoritarians—unless you’re drugging the crap out of them! Which is what my profession then moved into: not just pathologizing them—giving a mental illness—but they are part of, if you take a look at the oppositional defiant disorder, that, along with conduct disorder, are what my profession calls the “disruptive disorders.” And there’s this huge increase in the early ’90s to the 2000s of the number of these kids with disruptive disorder who are being drugged on these antipsychotic drugs: Risperdal, Zyprexa, this kind of thing. Heavily tranquilizing drugs.
So, this was a huge concern for me. Not only for these poor kids, who are all of a sudden becoming pathological and drugged, but politically, this should concern everyone when you’ve got the next generation of potential anti-authoritarians being completely marginalized by this pathologizing and medicating.
SOURCE: Interview 1421 – Bruce Levine on Resisting Illegitimate Authority
As we shall see, the weaponization of psychology against those independent freethinkers who tend to question authority is not some vague, amorphous concern about a Big Pharma boondoggle that’s hurting people in the pocketbook. Rather, this weapon is now being used against critics of the biosecurity agenda and others who dare point out that the globalist, transhuman emperor is wearing no clothes.
But if it is true that the study of the mind has been weaponized and that that weapon is being deployed against conspiracy realists, the obvious question then becomes: who loaded the weapon?
3. Who Loaded the Weapon?
In October of 1945, George Brock Chisholm—the man who would go on to serve as the first Director-General of the World Health Organization and the man who helped spearhead the World Federation for Mental Health—delivered an incredibly candid lecture in which he laid out his plans for steering the profession of psychiatry in a bold new direction.
Published in 1946 as “The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society,” the lecture includes a proclamation that psychiatrists should take it upon themselves to rid the population of the concept of good and evil entirely: “If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility. This is a challenge which must be met.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Chisholm’s call to action was taken up by the British military. The “challenge” of “freeing the race” from the “crippling burden of good and evil” was taken up by British military psychiatrist Colonel John Rawlings Rees, the first president of Chisholm’s World Federation of Mental Health and chair of the infamous Tavistock Institute from 1933 to 1947.
In 1940, Rees gave an address to the annual meeting of the UK’s National Council for Mental Hygiene in which he laid out in predictably militaristic terms how this ambitious plan for reforming the public psyche was to be achieved. In “Strategic Planning for Mental Health,” Rees—after claiming that the psychiatrists of the council “can justifiably stress our particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be incomplete”—asserts that they must aim to make that point of view “permeate every educational activity in our national life.”
He then launches into a startling confession:
[W]e have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church; the two most difficult are law and medicine. [. . .] If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity!”
Then Rees brazenly proclaims that “Parliament, the Press and other publications are the most obvious ways by which our propaganda can be got across” before reminding his audience once again of the need for secrecy if this plan to influence the development of the public psyche is to succeed: “Many people don’t like to be ‘saved,’ ‘changed’ or made healthy,” he remarks.
So what were Rees and his fellow travelers really aiming at in their “fifth column” campaign to “attack” the professions and propagandize the public? His true intentions are revealed through his work for the British military—including his alleged drugging, poisoning and mesmerizing of Rudolf Hess, the Deputy Führer of the Nazi party, who was captured and held by the British for decades after making a still-unexplained solo flight to Scotland in 1941—and through his work at the Tavistock Institute, where he attempted to mould public opinion in the UK to his liking.
As The Campaigner magazine explained in a Tavistock exposé published in 1978: “The theme of all of Rees’s known work is the development of the uses of psychiatry as a weapon of the ruling class.” That work, the article elaborates, included advising Rees’ superiors how they “can succeed in structuring a stressed individual’s or group’s situation appropriately, the victim(s) can be induced to develop for himself a special sort of ‘reaction formation’ through which he ‘democratically’ arrives precisely at the attitudes and decisions which the dictators would wish to force upon him.”
In other words, Rees’ work centered on the Problem-Reaction-Solution method of mass social control that Corbett Reporteers will be very familiar with by now. It should be no surprise, then, to learn that Rees’ research heavily influenced the operations of a budding young intelligence service that was then forming in the United States: the Central Intelligence Agency.
Indeed, the CIA has always been interested in weaponizing psychiatry as a way of achieving success in their covert operations. In fact, the CIA even openly advertises job opportunities for psychiatrists to “help the CIA mission where it intersects with psychiatric and broader behavioral issues.”
But, when most people think of the CIA and weaponized psychiatry, they think of MKUltra and mind control.
As even the Wikipedia article on the subject admits, the CIA’s “Project MKUltra” was “an illegal human experimentation program designed and undertaken by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), intended to develop procedures and identify drugs that could be used in interrogations to weaken individuals and force confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture.”
There is much that the public still does not know about this project, its forerunner programs, Project Bluebird and Project ARTICHOKE, and the depths to which agents of the US government sank to discover ways of manipulating, melding, erasing or reprogramming individuals’ psyches. But what we do know about the program is chilling enough.
One series of experiments, presided over by Sidney Gottlieb, involved administering LSD to unwitting Americans, including mental patients, prisoners, drug addicts and prostitutes. This included “Operation Midnight Climax,” in which unsuspecting men were drugged and lured to CIA safe houses by prostitutes on the CIA payroll. Their sexual activity was monitored behind one-way mirrors and was used to study the effect of sexual blackmail and the use of mind-altering substances in field operations.
Another experiment, dubbed MKULTRA Subproject 68, was overseen by the esteemed psychiatrist Dr. Ewen Cameron. This subproject involved Dr. Cameron using LSD, paralytic drugs, electroshock therapy and drug-induced comas to attempt to wipe patients’ memories and reprogram their psyche. When brought to light, the program was identified as an attempt to refine methods of medical torture for the purpose of extracting information from unwilling sources and was condemned. Lawsuits regarding the blatantly illegal experimentation conducted by Cameron continue into the current era.
Although MKUltra officially “ended” after its exposure in the 1970s, the CIA has not stopped employing psychiatrists to find new and innovative ways to psychologically torment their opponents.
In May 2002, Martin Seligman, an influential American professor of psychology and a former president of the American Psychological Association, delivered a lecture at the San Diego Naval Base explaining how his research could help American personnel to—in his own words—”resist torture and evade successful interrogation by their captors.”
Among the hundred or so people in attendance at that lecture was one particularly enthused fan of Seligman’s work: Dr. Jim Mitchell, a military retiree and psychologist who had contracted to provide training services to the CIA. Although Seligman had no idea of it at the time, Mitchell was—as we now know—one of the key architects of the CIA’s illegal torture program.
Naturally, Mitchell’s interest in Seligman’s talk was not in how it could be applied to help American personnel overcome learned helplessness and resist torture but rather how it could be used to induce learned helplessness in a CIA target and enhance torture. As it turns out, Mitchell’s theory (that “producing learned helplessness in a Qaeda interrogation subject might ensure that he would comply with his captor’s demands”) was bogus. More experienced interrogators objected at the time, noting that torture would only induce a prisoner to say what his captor wants, not what he knows.
What those interrogators didn’t understand was that extracting false confessions from prisoners was actually the point of the CIA torture program. It was “confessions” extracted under torture, after all, that went on to form the backbone of the 9/11 Commission Report, with a full quarter of all of the report’s footnotes deriving from torture testimony.
Yes, from mind control experiments to torture programs to brainwashing and lobotomization, there can be no doubt that the governments, militaries, and intelligence agencies of every major nation have devoted considerable resources to the weaponization of psychiatry over the course of the past century.
But, as it turns out, one of the simplest and easiest techniques for controlling dissent is simply to pathologize it. As we are beginning to see, simply declaring resistance to the status quo to be a form of mental disorder can be an exceptionally powerful tool for silencing opposition.
4. Pathologizing Conspiracy
One of the most popular articles to be written in recent decades is titled “Why Do People Believe in Conspiracies?”
It starts by noting the worrying rise in the number of people who believe in wild, outlandish theories about how people in positions of power conspire to maintain their influence and expand their wealth.
The article’s author then cites a psychologist, who explains that well-meaning but emotionally unstable people typically latch on to these fantastical conspiracy theories because they help these poor, deluded souls make sense of the news and offer them a feeling of control over an uncontrollable world.
Next, the report offers advice to those who are seeking to disabuse anyone who has fallen for this conspiracy claptrap of their delusional notions. That advice, it turns out, is the same admonition given to someone coming upon a wild animal in the jungle: don’t confront the target directly or make them angry; speak to them in soothing tones and pretend to listen to what they’re saying; and disengage if it seems they’re preparing to attack.
But this article usually ends on a positive note: if this wild conspiracy theorist you’re talking to hasn’t completely lost touch with reality, then it may be possible to talk them down from the ledge. You can gently create some cognitive dissonance in their mind by pointing out that every conspiracy that has ever occurred in history has been exposed by whistleblowers and reported on by journalists, and therefore there is no such thing as a secret conspiracy. If they’re of sound mind, this will be enough. Your confused friend will see the light and learn to trust government and authority once again.
Do you want to read this article? Would you like a link? Well, I don’t have one link for you; I have dozens.
You see, the curious thing about this “Why Do People Believe in Conspiracies?” article is that it hasn’t been written just once or twice. It’s been written hundreds of times by hundreds of different journalists, and it’s been published by the BBC and FiveThirtyEight and Vox and the American Psychological Association and The New York Times and PsychCentral and Addiction Center and LSU and Technology Review and National Geographic and verywellmind and Business Insider and Psychology Today and Harvard and LiveScience and Scientific [sic] American and NBC News and The Conversation and Intelligencer and TIME and The Guardian and Popular Mechanics and even that most prestigious of journalistic institutions, goop. (Yes, goop!)
And it’s not only in written form. It’s also a video report that’s been filed by the CBC and Channel 4 and CNBC and Channel 4 (again) and DNews and StarTalk and 60 Minutes and TIME and DNews (again) and Big Think and Al Jazeera and the Weekly and Tech Insider and Inverse and Dr. Todd Grande and euronews and CBS News and The University of Chicago.
Oh, and did I mention it’s also a podcast? Well, it is, and it’s been produced by Ava Lassiter and NPR and Radio Times and NPR (again) and LSE and Bill Gates and NPR (again again) and The Anthill and Speaking of Psychology and NPR (again again again) and Big Brains and NPR (again again again again).
So, are you starting to formulate a hypothesis that there may be some grand scheme afoot here? Do you find yourself speculating that perhaps (just perhaps) there might be a coordinated effort to pathologize conspiracy theorists in order to justify locking them away in padded cells?
Do you find it interesting that the terms “conspiracy theory” and “mental disorder” were forever linked in the public imagination when Richard Hofstadter penned his infamous 1964 essay in Harper’s Magazine, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics“? Or that the best-remembered passage from that essay is the one in which he describes the “style of mind” behind the conspiracy-prone, populist political movements of his era as “the paranoid style” because “no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind”? Or that his caveats to that “diagnosis”—namely, that “I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes” and that “I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics”—are largely forgotten?
Then the dinosaur media pundits and their psychiatric “experts” have a message for you: “Shut Up, Conspiracy Theorist!, or we’re gonna put you in a straitjacket!”
Don’t believe me? Well . . .
5. First They Came for the Truthers . . .
The idea that those who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally unsound is, of course, not a new one.
Witness how the subject was treated on Barney Miller, a popular American television sitcom from the late 1970s that centered on the exploits of a cast of detectives in a New York City Police Department station house.
WILLIAM KLEIN (played by Jeffrey Tambor): I just wanted to meet them face to face. I wanted them to admit what they were doing.
CAPT. BARNEY MILLER (played by Hal Linden): Who is they?
DET. SGT. ARTHUR DIETRICH (played by Steve Landesberg): He was in the office at the Trilateral Commission.
MILLER: Trilateral Commission?
DIETRICH: Yeah, the Trilateral Commission.
MILLER: All right! What is the Trilateral Commission?
DIETRICH: It’s an organization founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller to bring together business and political leaders from the United States, Europe, Japan, so they could work together for, uh, better economic and political cooperation between their nations.
KLEIN: Tha-that’s what they’d like us to believe. But you see what they’re really up to is a scheme to plant their own loyal members in positions of power in this country to work to erase national boundaries—create an international community, and, in time, bring about a one world government with David Rockefeller calling the shots!
MILLER: I take it they’re pressing charges?
RED-HEADED OFFICER: Yeah, well, uh, he broke a globe and, uh, some UNICEF artwork.
KLEIN: Well, the-they’re in on it, too!
MILLER: Okay Mr. Klein . . .
KLEIN: But, I-I-I’m telling you, our whole way of life as we know it is in jeopardy!
MILLER: I appreciate that information.
KLEIN: But, I-I-I have the documented evidence. It’s all in there. Show him.
RED-HEADED OFFICER: Well, he’s got, um, got these magazines here.
MILLER: Conspiracy Review. Suppress Truth Roundup.
KLEIN: Their whole master plan is exposed!
MILLER: Yeah, well, um . . .
KLEIN: You’re still not convinced, huh?
[Capt. Miller laughs]
KLEIN: Would you, would you like to hear the names of just a few of the people who have been on the Trilateral Commission?
MILLER: Uh, not particularly, no.
KLEIN: James Earl Carter. Heard of him?
MILLER: Look, Mr. Klein . . .
KLEIN: Henry Kissinger. You heard of him? Walter Mondale!
DIETRICH: Who?
MILLER: Mr. Klein, this is . . .
KLEIN: John Anderson! George Bush. Now you remember, at the, at the convention everybody thought it was gonna be Ford for “Veep”. You know what happened? David Rockefeller just picked up a phone. Put in a call: Hey, Ronnie, forget Jerry, it’s George. Bye. So, no matter who won in November, they had their man in the White House!
MILLER: Are you through?
KLEIN: Yeah. Yeah, I guess so.
MILLER: Okay, just have a seat—
KLEIN: Listen, I-I-I’m sorry. I’m sorry for yelling. It’s just I get so agitated when I think about what they’re doing!
SOURCE: Trilateral Commission – (Clips) from Barney Miller – Se7 Ep8 (1981)
Or take the “tin foil hat” conceit. As the crack journalists over at Vice helpfully explain, the concept of wearing a tin foil hat to protect one’s brain from government mind control was introduced into popular culture via Julian Huxley’s 1927 story, “The Tissue-Culture King.” In Huxley’s tale, “caps of metal foil” are used to mitigate the effects of a mad scientist’s telepathic hypnosis experiment. Since then, the “tin foil hat-wearing madman” has gone on to become a ubiquitous pop culture trope, employed by lazy TV writers as an easy way to signal to the audience that someone is suffering from paranoid delusions about vast government conspiracies.
Or take President Lyndon Johnson’s advisor, John P. Roche, who wrote a letter to the Times Literary Supplement that was picked up and reported on by Time in January of 1968. In the letter, Roche dismisses conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination as the gospel of “a priesthood of marginal paranoids” and declares such theories “an assault on the sanity of American society, and I believe in its fundamental sanity.”
Or take the various examples of the pathologization of conspiracy theorizing pointed out by Lance deHaven-Smith in his modern-day classic, Conspiracy Theory in America:
Initially, conspiracy theories were not an object of ridicule and hostility. Today, however, the conspiracy-theory label is employed routinely to dismiss a wide range of antigovernment suspicions as symptoms of impaired thinking akin to superstition or mental illness. For example, in a massive book published in 2007 on the assassination of President Kennedy, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says people who doubt the Warren Commission report are “as kooky as a three dollar bill in their beliefs and paranoia.” Similarly, in his recently published book Among the Truthers (Harper’s, 2011), Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay refers to 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “political paranoiacs” who have “lost their grip on the real world.” Making a similar point, if more colorfully, in his popular book Wingnuts, journalist John Avlon refers to conspiracy believers as “moonbats,” “Hatriots,” “wingnuts,” and the “Fright Wing.”
Certainly, there is no shortage of commentators perpetuating the idea that conspiracy theorizing is a form of mental illness. But it wasn’t until the post-9/11 era of terrornoia panic accompanying the rise of the Homeland Security state that the trigger was pulled on the loaded gun that is the psychiatric weapon.
Of course, the post-9/11 decade was filled with academics, journalists, and talking heads of various stripes conflating conspiracy theorizing with mental illness, exactly as the pre-9/11 era had been. Heeding George W. Bush’s injunction to “never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th,” political commentators of all stripes began a campaign of vitriol directed against 9/11 truthers that began to ratchet the conspiracy/insanity rhetoric to new heights.
Bill Maher’s “joke” that truthers should “stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you” helped to fertilize the soil for the likes of Winnipeg Sun columnist Stephen Ripley, who then “diagnosed” 9/11 truthers as suffering from “paranoid delusions.” These pronouncements prepared the public for the fulminations of TV talking heads on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum that “necrotizing conspiracy theory radicalism” is a danger to society and that the crazy truthers perpetuating these delusions need to be treated as potential terrorists.
But the campaign to demonize 9/11 truthers as psychologically disturbed and potentially violent criminals who need to be taken off the streets hasn’t stopped at harsh words and strong rhetoric.
Many examples of conspiracy theorists in general and 9/11 truthers in particular being held for psychiatric evaluation against their will could be cited here, but one case from The Corbett Report archives will serve to make the point. It’s the case of Claire Swinney, a New Zealand journalist who in 2006 was—in her own words—”Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called ‘Delusional’ For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job.”
Swinney’s story—which she recounted in an interview on The Corbett Report in 2009—is remarkable for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is her harrowing account of how quickly a series of seemingly disconnected problems and concerns—a series of threats that she had received for her fearless reporting on Big Pharma and her 9/11 truth advocacy in the New Zealand press, a bout of insomnia, an off-hand comment that was misinterpreted as a suicidal statement—escalated into full-on forced detention in a psychiatric ward.
Secondly, there is her revelation that those who were supposed to be acting in her interest—a police officer, various social workers, the chief psychiatrist in the psychiatric ward—would not even listen to her when she tried to present evidence for her belief that 9/11 was an inside job.
But for those who believe in the legal safeguards that exist to prevent the abuse of the psychiatric weapon, the most concerning fact of all is that Swinney’s remarkable eleven-day ordeal in forcible psychiatric confinement—a confinement that included forced medication—was that it occurred in direct contravention of the New Zealand government’s own laws. In fact, not only does the country’s Mental Health Act clearly state that forcible psychiatric detention is not permitted if it is based solely on a person’s political beliefs, but, as Swinney notes, the medical personnel who authorized her confinement weren’t even familiar with this provision.
The compulsory psychiatric confinement of someone with no history of mental illness solely for expressing a belief in 9/11 truth is shocking enough. That this detention took place not in the United States and not in the immediate aftermath of the events, but in New Zealand some five years later, defies justification.
Sadly, this isn’t an isolated incident. As we enter the biosecurity era, authorities around the world are working to set the precedent that people who resist the medical authorities’ diktats can be diagnosed as mentally ill, stripped of their professional credentials and even arrested.
An example of this phenomenon that should be familiar to those in The Corbett Report audience is that of Dr. Meryl Nass. Dr. Nass is an internal medicine specialist with 42 years of medical experience who had her medical license suspended by the Board of Licensure in Medicine, Maine’s state medical regulator, for refusing to toe the government-approved line on COVID-19 treatments. Incredibly, in addition to suspending her medical license, state regulators also ordered her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for the thoughtcrime of disbelieving the government’s COVID narrative.
One of the most startling stories of psychiatric intimidation of a COVID skeptic, however, is that of Dr. Thomas Binder.
Dr. Binder is a cardiologist who has had a private medical practice in Switzerland for 24 years. As Taylor Hudak reported for The Last American Vagabond late last year, Dr. Binder’s life was turned upside down in 2020 when he found he could not sit idly by while the entire medical profession lost its collective mind.
TAYLOR HUDAK: A well-respected Swiss cardiologist brutally arrested in his practice the day before Easter Sunday 2020. And the reason? He told the truth. It is a story so extreme that one may believe it is just that, a story of fiction. But this was a reality for Dr. Thomas Binder. While finishing work at his office on Saturday, April 11, 2020, before a planned holiday vacation, Dr. Thomas Binder was aggressively confronted by a total of 60 armed police officers, including 20 officers with the anti-terrorism unit Argus.
SOURCE: Dr. Thomas Binder Interview – How Psychology Was Weaponized To Suppress Truth In The Age Of COVID
Dr. Binder’s alleged crime? A series of blog posts attempting to alert the public to the unscientific nature of the lockdowns, the masking and social distancing requirements, and other restrictions being imposed on the public in the name of the “pandemic.”
THOMAS BINDER: I felt it was my duty as a doctor to inform the populace about this medical condition. Of the whole society in a way that also lay people can understand and once informed can decide how to proceed.
HUDAK: Dr. Binder wrote blog posts to his website and posted to social media debunking unscientific claims like zero COVID, asymptomatic spread, the flawed PCR testing, lockdown policies and more. And on Thursday, April 9th, 2020, Dr. Binder posted a blog that went viral.
BINDER: And this blog was read about 20,000 times in a day. And then I thought, well, this information will spread exponentially and other fellow doctors will do the same. And in a week or so, this nonsense will have collapsed.
HUDAK: Unfortunately, two and a half years later, and we all know that’s not what happened. Instead, Dr. Binder’s viral blog post caught the attention of two colleagues, who together then called the chief of state police on Dr. Binder, claiming that he was a danger to himself and the government. This is what led to his brutal arrest two days later on April 11, 2020.
To those who remain ignorant of the history of psychiatry’s use as a weapon of political oppression, this is incomprehensible enough. But what happened next almost defies belief, even among those of us already in the know.
After studying Binder’s blog posts and emails, the police determined that there were no grounds for issuing an arrest warrant. Nonetheless, they did send Dr. Binder for a mental health evaluation. Incredibly, the doctor in charge of Binder’s psychiatric evaluation invented a diagnosis of “corona insanity”—which is not a recognized clinical condition—and ordered him to be placed in a psychiatric unit. After a period of evaluation, Binder was offered an ultimatum: remain in the psychiatric hospital for six weeks or return home on condition that he take a neuroleptic medication.
The incredible and flagrantly illegal actions taken in the forcible psychiatric detention of “conspiracy theorists” and political dissenters like Swinney and Binder serve more than one purpose. Beyond temporarily sidelining the person in question (both Swinney and Binder returned to their work critiquing government narratives after their release) and beyond throwing their public reputation into doubt by forever associating their names with a false psychiatric diagnosis, the wielders of the psychiatric weapon achieve something of even greater value when they engage in such tactics. That is, the stories of these psychiatric detentions serve as warnings to the general public: when you dissent on sensitive political issues, you risk being institutionalized for your beliefs.
Rationally speaking, it’s utterly implausible to lock everyone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory in a padded cell. Even establishment sources readily admit that 50% of the public believe in some conspiracy or other, including the 49% of New Yorkers who, in 2004, claimed that the US government “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,” and including the whopping 81% of Americans who declared in 2001 that they believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.
But, unfortunately for us, those who are brandishing this psychiatric weapon are not rational at all. In fact, as we shall see, those in political power who seek to diagnose their critics with mental illness are themselves suffering from one of the greatest psychopathologies of them all. . . .
6. Our (Mis-)Leaders Are Psychopaths
They are “remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation, and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends.”
They “ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets.”
They have “no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what [they] do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members.”
Am I talking about politicians? Technocrats? Billionaire “philanthrocapitalists”? Royalty? Captains of industry?
Of course I am. But I’m also talking about psychopaths.
We all know what a psychopath is, or at least we think we do. They’re chainsaw-wielding, crazed serial killers, like Leatherface from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Or they’re knife-wielding, crazed serial killers, like Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs. Or they’re acid-spraying, lapel-flower-wearing, crazed serial killers, like The Joker from Batman.
But if that is what we think of when we think of a psychopath, we find that once again we are the victims of Hollywood predictive programing, constructing our understanding of reality not from actual, lived experience but from fictional characters dreamt up by writers and projected on a screen.
In the real world, psychopaths are a subset of the population who lack a conscience. The full implications of this strange mental condition are not apparent to the vast majority of us who do possess a conscience and who assume that the inner life of most people is largely similar to our own.
In The Sociopath Next Door, Dr. Martha Stout, a clinical psychologist who has devoted much of her career to the subject, demonstrates what the absence of a conscience really means by inviting her readers to participate in this exercise:
Imagine—if you can—not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.
The possibilities for manipulation, deceit, violence and destruction that this condition presents should be obvious by this point. And indeed, as a number of books by psychologists and researchers studying psychopathy—from Howard Cleckley’s seminal 1941 work, The Mask of Sanity, to Robert Hare’s popular book, Without Conscience, to Andrew Lobaczewski’s rescued-from-the-dustbin-of-history-by-an-independent-publisher opus, Political Ponerology—have repeatedly tried to warn the public over the years, psychopaths do exist. They represent something like 4% of the population, and they are responsible for much of the havoc in our society.
So, how do we know who is a psychopath? That, as you might imagine, is a highly contested question. While various biomedical explanations for the condition have been proffered—dysfunction of the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, for example—and dozens of studies to determine the relationship between brain physiology and psychopathy have been conducted in the past half-century, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed by way of the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, known as the PCL-R.
Devised by Robert Hare—the most influential psychopathy researcher of the past half-century—the PCL-R involves, among other things, a semi-structured interview in which a subject is tested for 20 personality traits and recorded behaviours, from “egocentricity/grandiose sense of self-worth” to “pathological lying and deception” to “lack of remorse or guilt” to “early behaviour problems.”
Although none of these personality traits are indicative of psychopathy by themselves, the presence of a certain number of them (corresponding to a score of 30 or higher on the PCL-R test) is used to diagnose the condition.
So, how would your average politician score on this test? Let’s find out.
Egocentricity / grandiose sense of self-worth?
Pathological lying and deception?
Conning / lack of sincerity?
Lack of remorse or guilt?
Callous / lack of empathy?
Parasitic lifestyle?
Isn’t that the definition of a career politician?
Check.
Early behaviour problems?
Check. (Actually, this one is straight from Stout’s book . . . but her story of the young boy who uses his “Star-Spangled Banner” firecrackers in their skull-and-crossbones-emblazoned box to blow up frogs is just a “composite” case that isn’t meant to represent anyone in particular, of course.)
I could go on, but you get the idea.
To be fair, a cherry-picked list of isolated examples of politicians’ behaviour like this is not enough to diagnose anyone as a psychopath and, by itself, should not convince you of anything. Nor should you be convinced by the psychologists who have offered their professional opinion on politicians they have not themselves examined—like neuropsychologist Paul Broks, who, in 2003, speculated as to whether Tony Blair was “A Plausible Psychopath?,” or professor of psychology David T. Lykken, who, in the Handbook of Psychopathy, argues not just that Stalin and Hitler were high-functioning psychopaths but that Lyndon B. Johnson “exemplified this syndrome.”
So, is it fair to suspect that psychopaths are overrepresented in the political class? According to Martha Stout, it is:
Yes, politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this. [. . .] That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow—but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.
For whatever it’s worth, certain members of the UK government agree with Stout’s assessment. In 1982, one UK Home Office official suggested “recruiting psychopaths to help restore order in the event England is hit by a devastating nuclear attack.” And the reasoning behind this official’s surprising suggestion? The fact that psychopaths “have no feelings for others, nor moral code, and tend to be very intelligent and logical” means they would be “very good in crises.”
To be sure, the a priori case for the utility of psychopathic traits in political office is fairly obvious, but empirical data to back up this intuition is hard to come by. After all, politicians, corporate chieftains, royals, and bankers are not administered a PCL-R test before assuming their office or position.
Nonetheless, a number of researchers have offered some data that supports the political and corporate psychopathy thesis. They include:
- Clive Boddy, a professor at Anglia Ruskin University who argues that “[e]vidence for the existence of white-collar psychopaths comes from multiple studies which have found psychopathy among white collar populations”;
- Dr. Kevin Dutton, an Oxford University psychologist who used a standard psychometric tool—the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Revised)—to score a number of current and historical political personages, finding that Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz scored relatively high on the test (along with Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, and Saddam Hussein);
- Scott O. Lilienfeld, a professor of psychology at Emory University who led a study of the 43 US presidents up through George W. Bush, demonstrating that certain psychopathic personality traits directly correlate with political success; and
- Ryan Murphy, research associate professor at Southern Methodist University whose 2018 study concluded that Washington, D.C., had the highest prevalence of personality traits corresponding to psychopathy in the continental U.S. (and also found that the concentration of lawyers is correlated to the prevalence of psychopathy in a geographic area).
Even Robert Hare—who has coauthored one of the few empirical studies confirming a higher prevalence of psychopathic traits among corporate professionals in management training programs than in the general population—has said that he regrets spending most of his career studying psychopaths in prison rather than psychopaths in positions of political and economic power. When questioned about this regret, he noted that “serial killers ruin families” while “corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies.”
The fact that the key positions of political, financial, and corporate power in our society are dominated by psychopaths certainly helps to explain why our society is as profoundly sick as we non-psychopaths know it to be. For those who still believe that our sick society can be cured by recourse to the political process, this seems like the worst news imaginable.
. . . But actually it’s even worse than that. These political psychopaths don’t just ruin societies. They reshape society in their own image.
7. Projections of the Psychopaths
In psychology, “projection” refers to the act of displacing one’s own feelings onto another person. As Psychology Today explains:
The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.
This concept of projection equips us to better understand why political psychopaths pathologize conspiracy theorists and political dissenters: they are projecting their own mental disorders onto their ideological opponents.
But there is another sense in which psychopaths are “projecting” their pathology onto the world stage. You see, psychopaths don’t merely take advantage of their lack of conscience to obtain political or economic power. They use that power to shape the organization they’re leading into a projection of their own psychopathic tendencies.
ROBERT HARE: The psychopath’s relations with others are superficial. Surface. Very, very little depth. Mostly style over substance. And the idea is to impress other individuals to somehow put them in a position where you can manipulate them, and so forth.
And a corporation I imagine would be not unlike that in many respects. They would have public relations firms. They would be spending half their time and a lot of their budget on trying to present a particular image to other people. And this image is very superficial and you never really get to know the real corporation. You’re going to see what they want you to see.
In one memorable scene from the 2003 documentary, The Corporation, Robert Hare points out that a corporation under the management of a psychopath could itself be diagnosed as psychopathic. Thus, the egocentric and narcissistic tendencies of the psychopath boss are reflected in the development of the corporation’s public relations. The psychopath’s capacity for guilt-free deception and manipulation of others is reflected in the company’s advertising and marketing material. The psychopath’s willingness to commit crimes without shame in pursuit of his objectives finds its analogue in the corporation’s willingness to flagrantly break the law. And the psychopath’s utter lack of remorse for his crimes is mirrored by the corporation’s cynical calculation that fines and punishments for its illegal acts are merely the “cost of doing business.”
But the psychopath does not stop at turning an organization into a projection of his own perverted personality. Be it a business, a bank, or, in the case of a political psychopath, an entire nation, the organization under his control eventually starts to change the character and behaviour of the employees or citizens under its thumb.
The idea that psychopathic systems can make non-psychopaths act like psychopaths might, at first glance, go against our moral intuitions. Surely, we reason, people are either “good people” or “bad people.” They are either psychopathic or sane. They are either the type of person who commits a terrible crime or they aren’t.
As it turns out, however, our reasoning has been proven wrong by research into “secondary psychopathy.” This category of psychopathy, sometimes referred to as sociopathy, is meant to differentiate primary psychopaths—those born with a “lack of conscience” and its associated neurocognitive impairments discussed by Hare, Stout and others—from secondary psychopaths, who develop psychopathic traits as a result of the environment they are functioning in.
Many experiments have been conducted over the decades researching the phenomenon of secondary psychopathy and how “good people” can be placed in situations wherein they will do “bad things,” from the seemingly mundane Asch conformity experiment, which showed that people are often willing to state and even believe demonstrable lies in order to avoid breaking a group consensus, to the truly shocking Milgram experiment, which famously demonstrated that ordinary people could be induced to deliver what they believed to be potentially fatal shocks to strangers on the say-so of an authority figure.
But perhaps the most revealing experiment for the purposes of understanding secondary psychopathy is the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Led by Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, this 1971 experiment involved recruiting participants from the local community with an offer of $15 per day to participate in a “psychological study of prison life.” The recruits were then screened to eliminate anyone with psychological abnormalities, and the remaining candidates were randomly assigned as either guards or prisoners and told to prepare for two weeks of life in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building, which had been converted into a makeshift prison.
The results of that experiment are, by now, infamous.
Immersing the participants in the role play with realistic surprise “arrests” of the prisoners by real Palo Alto police officers, the exercise quickly descended into a study in cruelty. The prison “guards” quickly devised more and more sadistic ways to assert their authority over the “prisoners,” and two of the students had to be “released” from the prison in the first days of the ordeal due to the mental distress it had placed on them. The experiment was called off after just six days, with the researchers finding that both the prisoners and guards had exhibited “pathological reactions” to the mock prison situation.
How did this happen? How did otherwise average, healthy young men descend into such barbarity in less than one week?
In his book The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil, which documents that study as well as subsequent decades of research he did into the psychology of evil, Zimbardo reflects on how a system can reflect the pathologies of those who created it and how it can, in turn, influence individuals to commit evil acts: “unless we become sensitive to the real power of the System, which is invariably hidden behind a veil of secrecy, and fully understand its own set of rules and regulations, behavioral change will be transient and situational change illusory.”
The true import of this lesson was felt three decades later, when the US began its detention of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The physical, psychological, and sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was brought to the attention of the world in April 2004, when graphic images of the abuse were first published in American media.
Once again, the public began to question how the otherwise average young American men and women who had been assigned to the prison as military police guards could have committed such incredibly sadistic acts.
That question was answered in part by the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the Abu Ghraib abuses. The report details then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s approval of a request to use “aggressive interrogation techniques” on detainees, including stress positions, exploitation of detainee fears (such as fear of dogs), and waterboarding. It recounts how Rumsfeld added a handwritten note to the request’s recommendation to limit the use of stress positions on prisoners: “I stand for 8-to-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?” And it condemns Rumsfeld for creating the conditions by which his approval could be interpreted as a carte blanche to initiate torture of detainees: “Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the techniques without apparently providing any written guidance as to how they should be administered.”
It should come as no surprise, then, that, as even a cursory review of Donald Rumsfeld’s career will demonstrate, he exhibited several of the personality traits on the PCL-R checklist, including pathological lying and deception, callous behaviour, and failure to accept responsibility for his own actions.
DONALD RUMSFELD: It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.
RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspects sites were, and we were just—
McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were, “near Tikrit, near Baghdad and North, East, South and West of there.” Those are your words.
SOURCE: Ray McGovern Owns Donald Rumsfeld – Rummy denies his own words
RUMSFELD: We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn’t any debate about it.
SOURCE: The Unknown Known
The connection between the Stanford Prison Experiment and what happened at Abu Ghraib didn’t escape the attention of investigators. The so-called “Schlesinger Report” on detainee abuses included an entire appendix recounting the Stanford experiment and what it taught about how secondary psychopathy can be induced in those working in a system or institution.
Nor did the connection between Stanford and Abu Ghraib escape the attention of the public. After revelation of the Abu Ghraib abuses in 2004, the Stanford Prison Experiment website’s traffic exploded to 250,000 page views per day.
What most of the public do not know, however, is that the funding for the Stanford Prison Experiment came from the Office of Naval Research, which provided a grant “to study antisocial behaviour.” It seems that the military psychopaths certainly did learn the lessons of that experiment—and then promptly weaponized them.
Whatever the case, although nothing in any of these experiments or research exonerates any individual from the evil deeds that they have committed, these findings do shine a light on the problem of secondary psychopathy.
How much of the madness of our society is a projection of the psychopaths who are running it?
8. Pathocracy
Statist propaganda in the West tries to convince us that we live in a democracy, exemplifying Abraham Lincoln’s famous ideal of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
But this is gaslighting. In truth, we live in a pathocracy, which, borrowing from Lincoln, might be described as “government of the psychopaths, by the psychopaths, for the psychopaths.”
Although “pathocracy” is still a foreign concept to many, it is by now a well-established and thoroughly documented phenomenon. The term was coined by Andrew Lobaczewski—a Polish psychologist whose life’s work was shaped by his experience growing up first under the thumb of the brutal Nazi occupation and then under the equally brutal Soviet regime—in his book, Political Ponerology.
Lobaczewski defines pathocracy as a system of government “wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people.” Then, in a chapter of Political Ponerology devoted to the subject, he describes how pathocracies develop, how they consolidate power, and how they trick, cajole, intimidate, and otherwise induce non-psychopaths into participating in their madness.
How can soldiers’ natural aversion to pulling the trigger on complete strangers be overcome? How can doctors who have sworn an oath to do no harm participate in the scamdemic madness of recent years? How can regular, salt-of-the-earth, working-class policemen be induced to brutally beat peaceful protesters? These are the questions that keep both the pathocrats in power and those looking to escape the pathocracy up at night, albeit for very different reasons.
Thankfully, we do not need to ponder these questions in a vacuum. In fact, the conditions for creating an environment in which the average person can be induced to participate in evil acts has been studied, catalogued, and discussed by psychologists for the better part of a century. Unsurprisingly, though, this research, ostensibly intended to better understand how people can guard against such manipulation, has instead been weaponized by the pathocrats and used to fine-tune the creation of systems for generating more obedient order-followers. In fact, this was part of the point of the well-known but almost completely misunderstood Milgram experiments.
At this point in our exploration, we are finally beginning to grasp the full extent of the problem posed by psychopaths in positions of political, corporate, and financial power.
The problem isn’t just that psychology has been weaponized against those of us who would engage in political dissent.
And the problem isn’t simply that this system for suppressing and pathologizing dissent has been created by literal psychopaths and their sociopathic lackeys.
The problem is that the state itself is psychopathic and is actively warping the morals of otherwise mentally sound individuals, causing them to adopt psychopathic traits in return for material reward and positions of authority.
This is the problem of pathocracy.
Once we realize the gravity of this situation, the obvious question presents itself: how do we throw off the yoke of the political psychopaths and topple their pathocracy?
As usual, the quality of our answer to this question is directly dependent on the depth of our understanding of the underlying problem.
For example, we might be tempted to ask if we can find a way to eliminate psychopaths from all positions of power.
But this is a misunderstanding of the problem itself. If there are in fact many psychopaths who are all vying with each other for political control, then we have to understand that eliminating the current political psychopaths would merely open the door for others to step into those vacant positions. Worse, given the psychopathic nature of the power structure as it exists, the system itself actually ensures that psychopaths and sociopaths who, by definition, show no remorse or moral qualms about hurting others, will end up winning the vicious battle to fill the top spots in the political hierarchy.
Only when we step back and interrogate the political system as a whole can we appreciate that the very existence of those seats of power from which a handful of individuals can rule over the masses is itself a construct of the pathocracy. Unless and until those seats of power are eliminated altogether, we will never rid ourselves of the struggle for dominance that rewards the psychopaths with control over others.
The elimination of these seats of power, however, will not happen until we overturn the underlying assumption that centralization of power is necessary in the first place.
So, for those of us morally sound individuals currently living under the rule of the psychopaths, the question remains: what can we possibly do to overthrow the pathocracy?
As it turns out, the answer to that question may in fact be much simpler than we think.
9. Circuit Breaker
In the 1960s, psychologist Stanley Milgram set out to study the extent to which people’s blind obedience to perceived authority influences their behaviour. It was with this goal in mind that Milgram began his infamous study of obedience on August 7, 1961.
The results of those experiments, well-known to the public by now, ostensibly demonstrate that average, everyday people can be induced to deliver what they believe to be potentially lethal electric shocks to complete strangers based solely on the say-so of an authority figure. This finding is most commonly summarized with the factoid that a whopping 65% of participants in the original 40-person study were willing to deliver a 450-volt shock—what they were led to believe could be a potentially lethal shock—to an audibly distressed person based on nothing more than a prompt from a person in a lab coat wielding a clipboard.
As one of the most famous psychological studies of the 20th century, the Milgram experiments have generated no end of debate, controversy and scrutiny. The NPR-promoted critics of the experiments, who contend that most of the study’s participants knew that the entire situation was phoney and that they disobeyed even more often than was reported, are often pitted against the establishment psychologist defenders of the experiment, who correctly note that the experiments’ shocking (pun intended) conclusions have been independently reproduced time and time and time again in country after country around the world. (In one particularly twisted reproduction, the researchers even sought to ensure that no subject would suspect the experiment was fake by delivering real electric shocks to cute puppies.)
What almost everyone misses about the Milgram experiments, however, is that the study was not one experiment that was conducted on one set of 40 participants one time to yield one final result. In fact, Milgram conducted the experiment a total of 17 times with 17 separate cohorts of 40 to 60 test subjects, with each iteration of the study employing a number of experimental variations.
In one variation, he changed the site of the study from the Yale University campus to a rundown office building. In another variation, the test subjects were allowed to instruct an assistant to deliver the shocks instead of pressing the switch themselves. In still another variant, the lab coat-wearing actor playing the “experimenter” was called away on business and replaced by an ordinary man wearing a suit. And in yet another variation, the test subject was obliged to wait and watch another actors become the “teacher” and go through the experiment before assuming the role himself.
Each variation produced markedly different results. When the test subject could instruct someone else to deliver the shocks instead of doing it himself, for instance, the percentage of participants willing to deliver the maximum (supposedly potentially lethal) shock rose to an incredible 92.5%. When the experiment took place in an office building instead of on the Yale campus, the number willing to administer the maximum shock dropped to 48%. And when the test subject watched other people take the “teacher” role before them and observed them refusing to obey the experimenter’s command to deliver the shocks, that subject’s willingness to deliver the maximum shock plummeted to 10%.
Let me rephrase that for the hard of thinking. When the test subject saw someone disobey the experimenter, they themselves refused to proceed with the experiment 90% of the time.
This is the surprising conclusion that has been scrubbed from most accounts of the Milgram experiments: Disobedience, once modeled, becomes an option in the mind of the public.
This point is crucial to understand because, exactly as Étienne de La Boétie pointed out nearly 500 years ago, a small cadre of tyrants, no matter how psychopathically menacing, are incapable of administering a tyranny all by themselves. They require the active participation of a much larger number of obedient order-followers.
Indeed, it’s important to become conscious of the fact that none of the worst excesses of the pathocracy in recent times would have been possible without the active participation of vast swaths of the population. So-called vaccine “mandates” were not achieved by one psychopath in a position of political authority, or even by a gaggle of such pathocrats. They were enabled by the doctors who participated in the vaccination drives against their own experience, judgment, and training; the employers who imposed vaccine requirements on their employees; the business owners who implemented vaccine certificate checks on their premises; the police officers who threw the unvaccinated in quarantine facilities; the workers who kept those quarantine centers functioning; the judges and lawyers who rubber-stamped all these actions, etc.
The same goes for any number of pathocratic abuses that we’ve been subjected to in recent years. These programs can only be implemented when most of the people comply with their orders and thus fulfill their role in the operation.
Just as in the time of La Boétie, our enslavement to the pathocracy is, by and large, a voluntary servitude born of obedience.
Combining La Boétie’s insight with Milgram’s lesser-known experimental results, then, we find a template for toppling the pathocracy: highly visible acts of disobedience.
But is this true? Can a single act of disobedience really bring down a pathocracy?
Once again, we don’t have to speculate about this possibility in a vacuum. Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, we can actually watch a recording of such an event happening in real time.
On December 21, 1989, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu took to Palace Square to address the Romanian people. At first, it proceeded like any number of such speeches he had delivered over the years. He talked about the successes of Romania’s socialist revolution and sang the praises of the “multi-laterally developed Socialist society” that had arisen under his brutal reign.
But then, something extraordinary happened. Someone booed. The boo was taken up by others and became a jeer. Chants of “Timișoara!” rippled through the crowd, a reference to a massacre of political dissidents by Ceaușescu’s security forces that had taken place just days earlier.
The dictator, unused to any sign of dissent from the population over whom he had ruled so brutally for decades, called for order. His wife demanded the crowd’s silence, prompting Ceaușescu to tell her to shut up, and then he attempted to continue with his speech. But the jeers began again.
The footage of the incident, including Ceaușescu’s look of utter confusion as he realizes that the crowd has turned against him and that the threat of violence is not enough to subdue them, is priceless. There, captured on tape for posterity, is the moment when the realization dawns on the tyrant that the people have rejected his tyranny. The rest of the story—the riots and unrest, the attempted escape of Ceaușescu and his wife, their capture by military defectors and their execution on Christmas Day—all stems from that precise moment when one person in the crowd simply voiced what the rest of the crowd was feeling.
This is the circuit-breaker effect. By saying no to illegitimate authority, resisting bullies and tyrants, disobeying immoral orders, refusing to comply with unjust mandates and demands, we make it that much easier for those around us to stand up for what they, too, know to be right.
But wait, it gets even better . . .
First, the good news: pathocracies are inherently unstable and they are doomed at some point to topple under their own weight.
Next, the even better news: if it’s true that psychopaths can fashion a psychopathic society that twists people into sociopaths, then the opposite is true, too. Healthy, non-pathological humans with love, empathy, and compassion can fashion a society that brings out the better side of human nature.
This is the real goal of the erstwhile victims of the pathocrats. Not to eliminate the political psychopaths and assume their positions of power in the psychopathic political system that they created, or even to abolish that system altogether, but to envision a world in which compassion, cooperation, love and empathy are not just encouraged but actively rewarded. A world in which every person is allowed to become their best possible self.
It’s up to each one of us to model what we want to see in the world. Just like the brave dissenter who can break the circuit of tyranny by voicing opposition to the tyrant, we can also become the models of love, understanding and compassion that will motivate others to become the same.
The psychopaths have spent centuries weaponizing psychology to more effectively control us. But we can wield our understanding of human nature for something good. And isn’t that what healthy, non-psychopathic individuals forming a healthy, non-psychopathic society would spend their time and resources doing?
Good article.
THIS link to the thing in Hess has been taken down “for reasons”
“…..including his alleged drugging, poisoning and mesmerizing of Rudolf Hess, the Deputy Führer of the Nazi party, who was captured and held by the British for decades after making a still-unexplained solo flight to Scotland in 1941—and through his work at the Tavistock Institute, where he attempted to mould public opinion in the UK to his likin…..”
I heard Prof. Spence indicate that Crowley may have been the guy who did the Hess thing, and maybe other interrogations during ww2, he certainly was “midnight Climax” ing his dinner guests for years wiyh the “extra spicy” curry and keeping notes of the effects.
This is amazing, James. Thank you for this deep dive into the ‘use’ of psychology by the pathological. Having found my entire social sphere (extended family, academic workplace, closest neighbors) completely ‘duped’ or programmed by the pathocracy, I have found that revealing my ‘stance’ (as unvaccinated, for example) has turned many against me (“you’re an anti-vaxxer?”) or at the very least, they walk the other way when I step into the room. My new tact (w/an all women neighborhood bookclub group) recently was to encourage my ‘anti-Trump’ neighbors to shift their focus AWAY from the ‘us vs. them’ ideas that they cling to, suggesting actions we can take instead that are positive and life-enhancing within our own neighborhood (ie., growing our own food and coordinating who grows what so that we can share our harvest). I suggested tuning into CNN, like FOX, is the problem (of course, in my group Fox is the enemy, but in another group, it would be the opposite). I suggested every ounce of energy we give to the ‘enemy’ (projection) is energy we take away from building our own resilience as a neighborhood. I suggested we focus our energy on taking care of one another as it all falls down. It remains to be seen if they ‘kick’ me out of bookclub (!), but I suspect this approach will be more successful than telling them all what I know about the ‘vaccine’. I look forward to using this documentary, and your open source education resource on ‘psychology’, with the ones that are open and willing to learn.
I’m going to quote myself like the asshole I am:
“There are those who will question why before taking action, there are those who will question why after taking action, and there are those who will never question why. The first oft breeds prudence, the second oft breeds regret, and the third oft breeds destruction, sadness, and despair. After all, the first step toward fanaticism is taken when the last question is asked. Besides, what greater perfidy to autonomy exists other than believing without question?…”
Thank you James . Brilliant .Very informative and well put together.
Wow, fantastic amount of info. You been really busy. Will be back after I try and get through it all tomorrow.
Amazing stuff James. Hope many listen or read through it all. I spent my morning going over it and it all runs true to the historical knowledge I have built over my decades of life.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
…there might be a coordinated effort to pathologize conspiracy theorists in order to justify locking them away in padded cells?…
…The compulsory psychiatric confinement of someone with no history of mental illness solely for expressing a belief in 9/11 truth is shocking enough….
…Rationally speaking, it’s utterly implausible to lock everyone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory in a padded cell…
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Just search: ‘1800’s Mental Hospitals’ and get a glimpse of what happened in the reset of those times. Plenty of Mud Flood channels cover this phenomena of suddenly massive unknown numbers of “insane” people in the 19th century?? Many believe it was an incarceration of resistance foes to some behavior by the then government agendas.
And people, think about YOUR reaction to mentioning those investigating the actual physical evidence of a Mud Flood and Tartarian influence world wide. Palaces and cathedrals supposedly built by horse and buggy cultures without electricity or internal combustion engine vehicles in just one or two years!
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…
– Edward Bernays
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
A PSYCHIC EPIDEMIC (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/1hqeShieZ2jY/
Just went over 100,000 views of my music 🙂
Is that wood or copper, perhaps aluminum?
EJ’S BITCHUTE
https://old.bitchute.com/channel/PNBO8R18Mpgv/
Ironically a subject of mind control episode and not one word of support.
Doesn’t surprise me though…
A GYPSY OF THE SIXTIES (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/h7GYXoLyEAYb/
Bravo James,
Your video was concise and complete given this type of topic. My recent two week hospitalization at a Calgary Hospital has convinced me that I was mistreated by a power-crazed psychopathic doctor who intentionally tried to harm me when I refused his false diagnoses for three chronic physical conditions for which I have never needed meds. When he could not force these on me, he moved to enforce mental health diagnoses as paranoid and cognitive decline, implying that the meds were for my safety while they had serious adverse effects. He even tried to harm me by giving me blood thinners during a coincussion, resulting in a speech impediment. Being well-informed in order to advocate for ourselves is important as it is extremely difficult to win against medical establishments. Even regulatory-bodies can be captured as they treat our grievances as coaching moments while lawyers are wary of taking on large Health Service Organizations.
Take care.
Sorry you went through the hospital ordeal. If possible never go to the hospital without an advocate by your side. Family or friend who will support you and who knows what you know. It is just an imperative nowadays.
In the first half I hear you brilliantly make the case that from the start of psychiatry, diagnoses have consistently been used by politicians for accusing dissenters of being “mentally ill”. Thus these diagnoses have no validity.
In the second half you then rely on psychiatric diagnoses (“psychopathy”), treating them as valid. And you use them to accuse people whose actions you condemn of being “mentally ill”.
Seems to me like a major contradiction. Have you noticed?
I emailed you back in 2021 about this (Feb 15th and March 11th), but probably you get too many communications to be able to read all. So here is the core of what I’ve been trying to get you to examine:
Seeing other people as enemies, seems to be what the “elite psychopaths” do.
Do we want to do the same? Fall in the trap of violence, and let the hate flow through us?
Besides, if we see other people as “bad”, chances are that’s our unconscious view of ourself. And if so, it would serve us well to heal this emotional wound.
Here’s a short video presenting these ideas, I hope you’ll find it informative and useful:
https://odysee.com/@MarcMoïni:a/Worldviews:2
Thanks for your work in researching and spreading all the critically important information on the Corbett Report.
Mental illnesses do have validity though. There are people with real mental illness. Schizophrenia for example is a real disorder. There are other real disorders like psychopathy, etc. The point with this summary episode is the labeling political dissent as a mental illness and psychological manipulation by tyrants.
There is some validity to some of the disorders in the DSM. And believe it or not, sometimes psychiatric drugs can be helpful in some cases.
I’m interested in looking at the primary evidence you rely on, to say with such certainty that schizophrenia and psychopathy, etc., are “real disorders”.
Until then, these simply appear to me as the natural and likely reversible effects on anyone, of receiving too much mistreatment and hostility, and not enough kindness and care.
Marc
“…these simply appear to me as the natural and likely reversible effects on anyone, of receiving too much mistreatment and hostility, and not enough kindness and care…”
Psychopathy is due to a brain fault, basically they don’t get excited as easily as normal people. The signs are there in childhood, though iirc it’s not allowed to classify one as a psychopath before early adulthood. It is in no way caused by mistreatment in childhood, nor can it be reversed by therapy any more then epilepsy or Autism can. I recall reading that there was a program to retrain adult psychopaths, but it just made them better at masking.
Attachment disorder looks a lot LIKE psychopathy but IS caused by a bad childhood. The majority of psychopaths are just assholes, but not criminals. They probably have a use, since in cave man days if Ugg never got scared or felt bad about whacking people he was a useful chap to have around for some jobs.
If psychopaths were made by their environment then we would be able to produce them on demand and most people from “x” environment would have the disorder.
Schizophrenia is also a brain disorder, though it can probably be induced in some brains by stress or drug use (early use of weed appears to bring it out in some folks) and nicotine tends to reduce symptoms (all the schizophrenics I’ve known have smoked like chimneys)
The brain is an organ like any other organ, why wouldn’t it be prone to having sicknesses? Your IQ is about 50% genetic as are predispositions towards certain behaviors. Mental illness is quite real and only sometimes related to environment
Marc
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00406-025-02028-6
Here is a link to a study, on psychopathy , but honestly this has been known for decades so you can probably dig up brain scan comparisons and auch pretty easily if your interested
Thanks, I went and looked at it, just in case it was different from what I am used to. The main shortcoming I see in these studies, is that brain scans provide information about the present, that can give some clues but don’t explain how the structure and activity observed got the way they are now.
In other words, how can you tell if the brain structures you are observing have followed a growth pattern set before birth, that causes people to behave in ways that get labeled as “psychopathy”, or if these are people like everybody else, who developed in this way because it allowed them to survive very adverse childhood environments?
Also even if some people are indeed born with a sufficiently different brain, how do we tell them apart from people who had a horrible childhood that results in the same worldviews and behaviors, that gets labeled as “psychopathy”?
It makes much more sense to me, to not relegate these people to the discard stack, and instead do whatever I can to promote their return to healthy human interactions. While doing my best to protect myself and others near me, from any harm they might try to inflict on us.
Marc
“…who developed in this way because it allowed them to survive very adverse childhood environments?….”
The main counter point to that is that many psychopaths show no evidence of adverse childhoods, while most people who suffered adverse childhoods do NOT “become” psychopaths.
Thus no social environmental cause exists- it’s “possible” IMO that some chemical cause may exist but afaik no one has found it.
There IS a learned set of behaviors that are very LIKE psychopathy where people become emotionally distant and learn to shut down empathy- but such people do not have the same brain deficits and still FEEL these emotions- they just over ride them. The brain of auch a person experiences arousal (such as fear) in a normal way where as the psychopath does not.
“….I can to promote their return to healthy human interactions…”
You can not make a person with a brain anomaly not have that brain anomaly- probably not at all and certainly not by how you act towards them.
A person with no eyes is never going to see because of any kind of personal interaction.
Like wise while we “may” one day use drugs to activate the low arousal parts of a psychopaths brain we will never talk, therapize, or train a psychopath into having a normal brain structure.
“…..It makes much more sense to me, to not relegate these people to the discard stack….”
Psychopaths can (sometimes) function well in social settings- they just have a very low arousal brain meaning they don’t feel bad about doing bad things and get bored easily and are kinda dumb about doing dangerous stuff (since they are hard to scare)
most (“mask of sanity “ book) are just annoying scumbags but unless they have some other anomaly that makes them enjoy violence have no drive TOWARDS being serial killers or even criminals- they just fall more easily into those roles. The problem is that in the old days most psychopaths would be shunned for immoral “ low class “ behaviors (lack of self control) where as today too much empathy and low social morality and mobility means that they they can succeed and gain power…..our society has become a good place for them and thus they can do more harm then in the olde dayes.
You can not fix them, and thinking you can is probably a barrier to dealing with them the same way thinking all dogs can be trained to be safe is a cause of dog bites. Some dogs have hyper aggressive brains thru breeding.
The blank slate is one of the most harmful ideas ever to gain traction
You’re saying that because you see no evidence for these people having had adverse childhoods, this cannot explain their behavior, thus it has to be that they were born with a deficient brain that makes them lost cases. Correct?
Have you considered there could be gaps in your knowledge, and some childhood situations definitely can explain “mental disorders”?
If so, then the “hopelessly malformed brain” notion isn’t the only explanation at our disposal, and we don’t have to accept it (I see evidence to support this notion in only maybe 1 in a million people).
I’m disappointed with this discussion so far, because what I see is affirmations without supporting evidence (such as “Psychopaths have a very low arousal brain” and “You can not fix them” and cu.h.j’s entire reply).
Please tell me your reasons for thinking this or that affirmation is valid. And preferable not just links to studies, but the specific elements and logic you find convincing.
Marc
“….Have you considered there could be gaps in your knowledge, and some childhood situations definitely can explain “mental disorders”…..”
Indeed…. But since the vast majority of people with bad childhoods DO NOT become psychopaths it is a bit silly to imagine that psychopaths from seemingly good backgrounds all have some “secret” bad childhood that is worse then the massive and known abuse and deprivation other NON psycopaths have.
That appears logical to me- as to why I find studies that show a brain difference in psy vs non psy ? Well I find it logical because
A)They show physical differences in people who display psychopathy vs people who don’t
B) Most people who have adverse childhoods DONT develop that kind of brain- thus it’s either genetic or has some other NON SOCIAL cause.
You talk about writing people off as lost causes is very emotional, not logical. It reflects your desires but not the reality- plenty of people are born with low IQ or even full on retarded and no amount of social interaction will make their brains have normal IQ because it’s a function of the physical brain in reality.
Duck
“since the vast majority of people with bad childhoods DO NOT become psychopaths it is a bit silly to imagine that psychopaths from seemingly good backgrounds all have some “secret” bad childhood that is worse then the massive and known abuse and deprivation other NON psycopaths have.”
It seems to me that with this logic, we would conclude that people supporting slavery across centuries, must have been born with a different brain.
Versus the interpretation I think has more evidence behind it, that their worldview is a result of growing up in a milieu that makes slavery look sensible.
“A)They show physical differences in people who display psychopathy vs people who don’t”
Psychological differences are necessarily the result of physical differences in the brain, unless one believes in supernatural explanations for the mind. Or do you see other possibilities?
Marc
“…. Psychological differences are necessarily the result of physical differences in the brain, …”
YES , and brain structure is affected by damage and genetics as well as environment.
Thus a retard is a retard BECAUSE their brain is defective, not because (in most cases) they were TRAINED into having defective brains…..like wise a psychopath is born wiyh a defective arousal system in their brain.
“… It seems to me that with this logic, we would conclude that people supporting slavery across centuries, must have been born with a different brain.…”
That would make sense IF (and ok only if) people who supported slavery had brain brain differences from people who don’t.
Have you found this ti be the case?
Was every person who owned slaves or everyone living in a pro slavery society a psychopath??? Lololol
That’s like saying that living where you butcher your own meat changes your brain so that you loose the ability to empathize with animals- it’s not
“…..unless one believes in supernatural explanations for the mind. …”
Yes, I actually DO believe in supernatural explanations of the mind. However the mind/soul is a package with the body and the brain structure is a big part of how we behave…..there are plenty of people who have radical behavior changes via dementia or other brain damage and it’s foolish to imagine that all brains are born identical ti every other brain.
Again – the “blank slate” is BS, and worse it’s harmful BS when people assume everyone is born the same rather then a unique individual with their own pre sets ti use or over come.
Marc
“….Seeing other people as enemies, seems to be what the “elite psychopaths” do….”
True, but some people ARE you enemies- people who want you dead or enslaved or even worse off then you have to be are you enemies.
Teaching people you hate or dispise that the idea of having enemies is silly is kinda a good deal- it makes them easier to destroy.
And some people ARE bad….the only reason we’ve gotten so messed up as a society is because we have allowed bad people to carry on as if they were as good as normal people….there can be no real modus vivendi of people that think it’s ok to castrate kids and human beings in the same society
Natanyahu is a perfect example of someone who I think is among the most evil psychopaths on the planet. Somehow he gets on Corporate media world wide to declare how preposterous and crazy someone has to be to even think that Israel had anything to do with the Assassination of Charlie Kirk, while he has stated and is currently fighting 7 wars along with Assassinations in Iran and Qatar.
From my point of view Natanyahu and his very rich supporters are the most likely suspects, yet the media will hear nothing of it.
Great work as always, James.
Thank you James. Excellent as always. Have bought the downloadable psychology course, looking forward to it.
James, what you expose about psychiatry as a weapon now has a digital counterpart: AI as a weapon. This is not speculation — it is documented reality.
Militarization of AI: Grok as an Example
In July 2025, Elon Musk’s xAI secured a $200 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to integrate Grok into “agentic AI workflows” for national security. This reflects a broader push to embed advanced AI technologies into military and government operations (Reuters).
Grok is designed as a powerful language model, but it has previously produced violent and extremist outputs, raising serious questions about the safety and controllability of such systems (The Verge).
Lack of Control Mechanisms
Documentation shows that Grok has no kill switches, no human veto, and no auditable logs. Once integrated into government workflows, its outputs can be used in surveillance, deportation, or military pipelines without direct accountability (The Verge).
Palantir as a Precedent
Palantir has collaborated with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since 2011, developing software to track and deport immigrants. In 2025, Palantir received a $30 million contract to develop “ImmigrationOS,” a platform providing near real-time monitoring of individuals, prioritizing “visa overstays” (Wired).
This system uses biometric, geolocation, and other data to categorize individuals, raising concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and AI accuracy in critical life-impacting decisions (Migration Policy Institute).
Conclusion
Embedding AI into state power structures without adequate safeguards creates a system where dissent is no longer merely pathologized but operationalized. Where dissidents were once labeled with psychiatric diagnoses, they can now be profiled, scored, and neutralized by algorithms that are opaque, legally unaccountable, and integrated into surveillance and military pipelines.
The question is no longer whether AI “helps” or “harms,” but whether the systems deploying it allow for humanity, accountability, and oversight. If they do not, AI becomes the next technological layer extending the historical weaponization of dissent.
Thank you for the addendum. By referring to high-tech tyranny, you highlighted obviously relevant points.
Diverging to my musings…
They keep us hopping from one ‘crisis’ to the next, distracting us from focusing on the very deep continuous problems and threats.
I don’t know what to do. Other than repeatedly bring up unpopular, but well documented, subjects to friends and strangers alike. Dinosaur that I am, I do this in person, or through personal email. I reckon that I am officially crazy. But all here are probably officially crazy, too.
@Hanky
Csanyi and Kampis of Hungary talk about self organization of living systems as REPLICATION, occurring at all levels:Molecular, Biological, and Social.
Every system has its own way it forms and expands and holds its self together. With humans, a replication of IDEAS is essential, first in forming, then maintaining social systems.
The ancient male-dominator system burned, razed, and destroyed books, temples, holy sites, libraries, tribal ceremony and ritual for thousands of years in the name of “God” to purge all ideas, memories, and life understandings of the prior expressions from the collective mind of the people.
And sadly, for most “alternative” sites, any discussion of metaphysics, multi-dimensions, spirituality, inner powers, etc. is trivialized with cliche’s and anger absent the knowledge that some things are easy to make fun of but it doesn’t mean they aren’t important.
You may have seen this (“world’s first AI minister will eliminate corruption”):
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2znzgwj3xo
thanks man. all the stuff i try to explain to folks put together in a perfect package.
Excellent episode that summarizes in depth analyses of weaponized psychology used by psychopathic regimes and individual psychopaths.
The results of the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment are fascinating and explain so much as to how tyrants maintain control with psychology. Wanting to “fit in” and conform for social approval are strong motivators and perhaps an ingrained evolutionary survival strategy that is manipulated by “authority”.
I agree that the lesser known variation of the Milgram experiment that demonstrated people were more likely to disobey an immoral order when given an example is extremely important. Although it’s probably true that a majority of people will simply follow along to get along, the smaller number of independent thinkers providing good examples can make profound changes. In fact, I think it’s possible for people to learn how to think more independently even as adults.
It’s sometimes easy to cast judgment on the “normie” but some forms of psychological manipulation are extremely effective and can even affect the most astute and independently minded people. My point is that this episode is a good reminder that most people could be affected by psychological manipulation under the right circumstances and it’s good to be mindful of ones own psychological state.
A worthy topic, James. Great work!
Just echoing the end of the clip, we must not be ashamed, nor overly defensive, while PUBLICLY and frequently championing reason and evidence. Good luck yo us.
Tin foil condoms?
How could they possibly work?
As a conspiracy theorist,
I’m gonna have to let that pass…………
For now.
A perfectly fitted dark suit. Gray shirt, and large weave, purple tie………
Is that you in that outfit, James, or am I tripping?
There’s something about the introduction of this episode that is kinda trippy.
Brock? Are you there?………
Hey there! I can confirm that that is indeed the IRL James wearing a perfectly fitted dark suit, gray shirt and large weave purple tie.
I happened to be there in-person helping him film it. No editing trickery in that regard…but given the nature of the content contained within this episode my goal was also to sew a sense of trippyness, unease and slightly off-kilter visuals throughout.
I like to think I achieved that goal for the most part.
👍
Mission accomplished!
Hello Broc!
And, ah ha! So, I was on to something!
Mission accomplished, indeed, as Fawlty Towers said.
About that beautiful suit, I just thought of lyrics from Warren Zevon – “….I’d like to meet his tailor.” Ha ha. 🙂
Be good, Broc, and thanks for your reply!
But, also, I must add another intentionality to your credit: that the entire podcast was held within the confines of a “padded cell”, at a certain point, a certain feeling of claustrophobic edginess starting brewing, only for this visceral feeling to finally, and gratefully! dissipate upon its fade out at the end, allowing for a beautiful, outdoor scene to emerge…. Well done!
For the lyrics – Zevon’s “Werewolves Of London”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qae25976UgA
So, yeah, you did produce the unease you were looking for.
So stands the old adage – when you’re good, you’re good!
Krikey!! That was a damned good video, Broc. Your craft is really evolving. The black, shattering titles add the perfect touch. Good work, Might [sic].
Cleetus
No, I’m not trolling.
Just kidding.
I was thinking of doing a posthumous debate with Charlie. Charlie Curse, you know, the so-called Christian Nationalist activist that met a fateful end? Until someone told me about the assassination, I was like, Charlie who??
Anyway, I feel somewhat cheated that I never had an opportunity to debate. Even though I’m 50 years older that most of his opponents, knowing what I know now, it would have been fun.
Dissent into madness: brilliant title. Great thorough work. Cheers
Posthumous debate between Charlie Curse & candlelight:
candlelight:
Thank you Charlie for allowing to debate you. I was on line since 7 in the morning, so it’s great that I made it!
First question – do you profess to being a Christian?
Charlie:
Of course, what kind of question is that?
candlelight:
Well. for starters, I heard a clip of you saying something like you think the word “empathy” was made up, and not real. Or, something along those lines.
Could you elaborate? It seems bizarre for a Christian, of all persons, considering the enormity of empathy that was Jesus’ teaching, not to even believe in the concept?
It’s quite mind boggling, if you want to know the truth……….
to be continued….
Charlie:
I believe in the law, candlelight. If a person breaks the law, they must be punished! No ifs, ands or buts! I know what you’re going to say about folks who’ve entered the country illegally, candlelight. You’re going to say that if they have been hard working, honest, and for all intents and purposes, have been good citizens, you’re gonna say let them stay. Well, that’s not how it works. If they broke the law, they’re going to have to be punished and be held accountable. Imagine someone broke into your house, would you not want to have them arrested, and punished to the full extent of the law? I would! That’s my reality!
candlelight:
Well, that’s why I deeply question your brand of Christianity – ahem, if you want to call it that.
As a Christian – which you profess to be (I think) – you should be well versed in what are commonly known as Christ’s precepts, no? If you’re not familiar, they’re actually a guide for people to attain a higher degree of consciousness! This higher degree of consciousness can’t be attained by simply thinking about the precepts. That is, treating them as conceptualizations. That’s not enough to change anything in anyone’s life. A person can ponder Christ’s precepts for a thousand years, and nothing will come it, unless they actually incorporate it into their lives.
Some of these precepts I would imagine seem silly to you, don’t they Charlie? I’m sure you’ve heard, for instance, that if someone takes a shirt from someone, that person should, as a response to that thievery, give the perpetrator their coat, as well. If slapped on the cheek, one should turn as to be slapped on the other.
To you, Charlie, these precepts, probably sound insane to you. Especially so, since you express a world view of total and complete intolerance for anyone, regardless of their circumstances – whether they are, in actuality, good, decent human beings, or not – that they be subject, nonetheless, to the abject letter of the law, to be prosecuted to the full extent possible had any law been broken!
The bottom line, Charlie, the argument of my debate, in a quest to prove you wrong, is simply that what you have been professing around the country is not Christianity. I’m afraid what you’ve been spouting doesn’t even come close. Your mind set, as far as Christianity goes, is an abomination.
Charlie, if what I’ve had the opportunity to say today wins any debate, so be it. If not, so be it. You, I have no doubt, will remain the arbiter of your own mean and callous justice.
However, going forward from here, posthumously, Charlie, I wish you all the best. I really do.
Candlelight
It’s pretty easy to win a debate in your own mind…..solipsism is a wonderful drug we all love to indulge in from time to time.
On the other hand it’s pretty hard to actually get ti truth in one’s own psyche since reality exists outside us. The late Mr Kirk was hardly a great debater, because he was mainly arguing with people whi had never sharpened their own minds and were often pitiful in comparison with his moderately good rhetoric
For example
“Brands” of Christianity are a poor definition- for example if it’s not in the Bible then it’s hardly Christian since we have no other source for the teachings.
If people come up with a novel interpretation of thise scriptures meaning then they have a high bar ti get over to prove their correct. An example are the people who say the Bible is ok with sodomy – its text is clearly not and the text was interpreted by those closest to the time of writing as being not ok with sodomy.
The fact that this teaching is incompatible with modern thinking means that people must either reject modern thinking or Christian thinking.
The issue with modern thinking is that it’s taken us to the edge of extinction in a hundred years while Christian thinking built up a population surplus and civilization over a thousand years.
As to Christian nationalism dont (Christian’s after all have as much right to choose their laws as anyone else in a society of democratic governments?
Thus they have as much right as sodomites and weirdos do to adjust the laws to suit themselves- thise latter two groups already adjusted things so a readjustment is perfectly fine
“…. The bottom line, Charlie, the argument of my debate, in a quest to prove you wrong, is simply that what you have been professing around the country is not Christianit…..”
Are you the pope of Christianity? Do you have the right to define Christian thinking because you own the copyright?
“Are you the pope of Christianity? Do you have the right to define Christian thinking because you own the copyright?”
Wow, Matthew 7:6. Am I not right? Do you get my drift?
Tell me, what was it I said that so disturbed you that you had the need to snark out? If you don’t like my opinions, you don’t like my opinions. What can I say?
All I can ask of you is to keep it civil.
But, if you can’t, you can’t.
What can I do?
Candlelight
“…Tell me, what was it I said that so disturbed you that you had the need to snark out?…”
Disagreement is not snark- though debating a dead person is pretty snark worthy, TBH.
“…Wow, Matthew 7:6. Am I not right? Do you get my drift?…”
Sure, you have cherry picked a piece of scripture.
1cor 6 “…Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.…”
(It goes in to list people who will be judged harshly as not getting into Gods kingdom shortly after.
1 cor 5:9 “…I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;…”
So there is plenty of “judging” intended- though judging is mainly for believers inside the church….though there are plenty of admonitions to avoid bad non believers too.
The thing is we live in a “democratic “ system…. Christian’s have as much right to choose the law of the land as any one else does. If weirdos and sodomites are free to change the law to suit themselves Christians are equally free to do the same…..the idea that Christian’s should be passive and not act ti protect themselves or their own is both unbiblical (thats a long discussion) and also just a tool for people who want their prey to hold still while they hurt it.
“Christian Nationalism” is just citizens who are Christians pushing their own interests and desires just as any other citizen is free to do.
That idea is scary to a lot of people who have gained unwarranted leverage for their own interests these last hundred years, to the point that they feel the need to kill a milk toast classical liberal like Charlie Kirk for saying stuff that Bill Clinton would have said back in the day, lol.
While I am sad he is dead it is at least a wake up call to normal people that they are dealing with an enemy who have no interest in talking. That is a good wake up call considering how far things have gone.
Touché, Duck.
You’re right, I was being snarky with my one-sided debate – with a dead man, no less. And referring to him as Charlie Curse, too, was inappropriate.
I’m feeling bad about that, and I’m also feeling bad about the fact that he was assassinated. I had never even heard of him before someone told me he was killed in broad daylight, and on video.
My initial reaction after listening to clips of his debates and various talking points on his broadcast was quite negative. His unabashed shilling for the Zionist enterprise in Gaza was repulsive, as was his seemingly general denigration of Blacks. Though, I hadn’t realized at first that much of that denigration swirled around his campaign to end D.E.I.
Was he a racist, or simply prejudiced?
His now infamous comment about hypothetically seeing a Black pilot and wondering if the pilot’s qualified. “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.” is quite telling. After all, another person might see a Black pilot and think he must be very qualified, having had to overcome tremendous adversity!
Though I think Kirk was flawed in numerous respects, one thing I really do respect him for was the fact that he spoke what he believed; i.e., his recent, frank, discussion on Israel, Israeli policy, was truly startling. After describing his experience in Israel, his knowledge of how secure the border with Gaza was, and the timeline of the October 7th incursion, he asked, rather rhetorically, and succinctly – was there a stand down? Basically, he was asking did the Israelis stand down and let it happen?
That was quite bold.
For now, it remains a mystery to some, was that a question that may have gotten him killed.
Like a lamb to slaughter.
Or, was it simply Tyler Robinson and the trans thing?
Who knows?
Candlelight
I didn’t follow him much. He was basically a 1990s democrat in his outlook.
The terrifying thing is that media has sent people so crazy that they think that guy was “fascist” which automatically slots maybe half the country into being killable Nazis.
On the other hand we now have Trumps owners having an excuse to go full police state….
people really need to look at getting out of the places where it’s going to go crazy. 🙁
Thank you for all your hard work in putting this together James (and Broc).
As someone that the foot soldiers of the Prussian (Canadian) school system (and their friends in big pharma) attempted to target with their pathologizing of my dissenting ways, I deeply appreciate you exposing this reality.
I have told this story before on here, but I will again for anyone that can relate and for parents to know just what they may be up against with psychotic teachers coming for their kids behind closed doors.
There was this fascist lady teacher in my elementary school that was obsessed with army drill sergeant like obedience rituals, humiliating you in front of classmates and she liked to team up with “experts” to convince parents to drug their kids. She also liked to bribe the obedient submissive kids with treats and toys for behaving like subordinate automatons and when I called out her immorality and meanness, she tried to give me detentions at recess (I refused and walked out) she wanted me to grovel in front of the class and list off a bunch of nonsense about how I disobeyed (I refused). So she told my parents I had “ODD” and “ADD” and some other nonsense made up disorder, she suggested drugs that could “help me get better”. She almost convinced my mom it was a good idea.
If it was not for my dad rejecting and shutting down the conspiracy that this (Prussian statist indoctrination system) fascist teacher, a complicit school councilor (and the head shrinker they conferred with via the school board that most surely got payouts from big pharma reps for prescriptions) had cooked up to drug me into submission (as I refused to obey arbitrary and demeaning orders/punishments often and asked too many questions about text books) I would have been drugged with one of these big pharma submission inculcating concoctions for sure (many of my classmates were).
It is a dangerous time to be a naturally inquisitive, authority questioning and rebellious kid in the Prussian “education” (statist indoctrination) government obedience breeding camps called “public schools”.
Having this film and the linked literature on hand to educate well meaning (yet docile and “authority” trusting parents) may just save some people’s lives, great work.
I’m reading Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse : the history and future of societal collapse. He’s very good on the way small scale non-hierarchical groups deal with psychopaths and prevent them from becoming too powerful – by ridicule, exclusion and in extreme cases, death. Whereas in large scale hierarchical “Goliath” states the psychopaths are admired or feared, and rise to the top. There are very few examples in history of large scale societies which do not succumb to this process. And there are none of these that do not sooner or later collapse (on average within 200 years).
The Dynamic Duo strikes again. I hesitate using the word “amazing” since Jeff Berwick, one of its primary champions, has run it into the ground with his TZLA machine, so I looked up some synonyms: awe-inspiring, extraordinary, marvelous, superb, excellent. The entire presentation was truly outstanding. I could picture the entire Corbett community vaulting out of their chairs applauding wildly for a standing ovation. Very apropos as only yesterday I was indulging in a cerebral retroperspective, reflecting how free I was as a child growing up in 40s and 50s. It wasn’t until I left the country in the early 80s that I began realizing what had been done to me in the intervening half century of compulsory education and corporate media programming. Fortunately, in absentia for the debut of the Plandemic; however, surrounded by the Thai citizenry and assorted ex-pats masking up to deflect the invisible invaders, feeling very much like I was reliving the 21st century version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
Regarding your Malaysian experience, James, a different version began playing out a week ago. I order a shitload of stuff from lazada.com. I hesitated having my Visa card permanently on file but they left me no other choice. However, last week, a vendor I had used previously refused the Visa. I checked and it was still on file and a long way from expiring. But he would accept a COD order. Same thing happened a couple days ago, a different vendor but one I had used previously. I had ordered COD before on Lazada, but Visa is handy for big ticket items. I always pay cash when buying groceries locally. However since the Covid psyop about a third of the people buying groceries use the QR code on their phones (which takes forever). The remainder of us proffer cash. Monarch money still in vogue. However, there appears to be something shaking on the financial horizon.
A curious thing happened yesterday. I usually make my own coffee, however, yesteray evening, feeling a bit sluggish, still with work to do, I went downstairs for a latte take away. Expecting to pay the usual 65 baht, I handed her 70 baht expecting 5 baht change. She handed me back the 20 and gave me change for the 50. WTF! She then informed me they were running a special for a week. The price for the next 7 days, can you guess? 33 baht.
Berkwick calls this the “best apocolypse ever”. I like Jeff; in spite of his compulsive tendency toward hyperbole. Part of his charm. However, I agree with his encouragement to meditate and deepen one’s spiritual practice. The uber materialists will have their day. But like everything else, this will arise and pass away. Whatever comes, I think the best we can do is approach it with a clear mind and a certain amount of equanimity. For every problem there is a solution. And it may come from a place where most least expect.
Us.
> antipsychotic medications like Adderall …
huh?
I wouldn’t call Adderall, being pure speed (amphetamine, mixture of salts/enantiomers of; contraindication: psychosis; one side effect: psychosis) an antipsychotic
—
“If A New Comment Is Posted: {Don’t subscribe | All new comments | Replies to my comments}” — i find dufficult to parse
Exellent Post, James. Production value is top-notch [jealous tear], and I learned a lot. That’s so important.
I would just like to expand on the end when you talk about how we can resist these psychopathic systems. Of course health, self-development, compassion, etc. have a lot to do with it, but there is much more. Returning to Nature and growing your own food, becoming more self-sufficient, is a fantastic start. [give me an “Amen” Mr. Mounsey!]
But, I have found a common quality among the many people I know in the mind/body autonomy movement. They bravely accept the risks of living in Truth. For these Awakened few, it is impossible to go back and put on the Veil of Lies again – to be replugged into the Matrix. As a result they are grounded, confident, and altogether fearless.
Blessings, Dr. Noh
Excellent work, thank you James!
You may or may not be interested in what Candace Owens has to say (I can guess, but I’m throwing caution to the wind here), but she seems to be on a bit of a crusade in calling out the Stanford Prison Experiment itself as contrived propaganda, aimed at manipulating public perceptions of the nature of the human psyche. The implication being that any conclusions drawn from that study could be disregarded.
That’s not to say there’s no value in learning from its ‘conclusions’, but it’s a healthy grain of salt to add to the discourse in my opinion.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is being questioned by Candace (a victim of secondary Christian pathology?) but nontheless asking legitimately for proof.
The experiment’s data seems to be hidden.
Let’s have a conversation?
My critical observations begin with James’ appearance. I said to myself ” that’s the first time I ever saw James look so well appointed. He has a new wardrobe! Or possibly a new taylor. He looks sharp, a sharper image. Handsome even. A suit of armor, like…
Achilles’ Armor, crafted by Hephaestus; or Karna’s Kavacha from Indian mythology.
If you’re going to sling arrows and slay the evil in the world , you got to have armor.
I must admit, I hope it’s also fire proof.
Secondly, Marc Moini made an acute observation above. I had a similar reaction to James’ dancing around the fire of the first part, then using the same to support the second part. Marc said it much better than I, but it’s a valid point. Maybe it’s just Trinity’s influence on James’ style of teaching?
Last ? Hardly last because there is so much good stuff here . This is a work of art. No Potemkin town here, sans Marc’s point , this is solid enough to be educational.
However, last , cu.h.j, you got to get away from the Abby of Institutionalized Brainwashing White Coated Priests, for the good of your immortal soul. We know more about the cause of gravity, which is very little as we do about the process of thoughts and memories.
” Mental illnesses do have validity though. There are people with real mental illness. Schizophrenia for example is a real disorder. ” Break the delusional idea of validation by theoretical statistics , lies, damn lies and statistics. You must first present a ( normal specimen) for a base line . Impossible to do. IMHO. You do go on to saying “Buyer beware ” which is a step in the right direction, and you are aware of their Institutionalized “jeti mind tricks” 😷
I’d present James as a “normal” specimen for example or many of the people who post here would qualify as “normal” if for example we are comparing to a person who has a form of schizophrenia. And not all people with schizophrenia are the same ore have the same degree of impairment. Some are very brilliant in fact.
What makes it a disorder is episodic inability to discern shared reality, sometimes including laws like gravity. There also have been people with this disorder who find some anti-psychotic medicines helpful for them if they are unable to cope with the unique workings of their mind.
Having worked with a lot of people with mental health issues, I opine that there are legitimate mental disorders. Probably way less than what’s in the DSM. Having said that the field of psychiatry IMO is not a hard science and even softer than other branches of medicine because it deals with the mind. It’s more of an art and good psychiatrists are there to help patients get a better grasp of their own unique mind to be able to live in the world as is and contribute to it. Mental health diagnoses are very subjective and sometimes not set in stone, but can serve a role in identifying problems. A diagnosis though should not be a stigma or an identity as it often is.
Pathologizing political dissent is an abuse of medicine and has sullied the field of psychiatry but not only that but the expansion of the DSM to sell psychiatric drugs for made up disorders is another horrendous abuse. Just because everything James said about the use of psychiatry for evil does not mean there is some beneficial uses in some cases. In fact the psychiatrist he’s had on seems like a very well meaning and compassionate doctor that exemplifies what the field should be about.
To throw out the entire idea of normal and abnormal IMO is not only unhelpful but it is also untruthful. Indeed psychiatry needs to be overhauled and it has been used to torment people and harm them but it has also provided some benefit as well. Acknowledging the benefit is a more accurate representation of shared reality IMO.
correction, Just because what James says is true, that psychiatry has been used for evil purposes does not mean that it has not also been used for good purposes. I think there’s some nuance when we discuss psychiatry and western medicine in general. I’m sure I’m a bit biased because I work in the field but I’m also pretty open minded so I think my assessment is pretty accurate.
Cu.h.j
I studied psychology for a bit but the field attracts weidos and perverts as far as I can see. That it tends to WORK as a tool is also true.
The weird thing is when you look into the people who built it as a science they tended to be immoral and perverse people externalization their own soul sickness onto society….Freud is said (By EM Jones) to have copied some of his techniques from “Soulspionage” in illuminism. Dr Jones also talks about how therapy is a secular version of catholic confession, and I think it’s a good point. See #DegenerateModerns by EM Jones
Pete quinones did a couple of related podcasts about psychology as a weapon (odysee link)
Episode 1216: Freud, Sexual Abuse, and B’nai B’rith w/ Josh Neal
https://odysee.com/@Freemanbeyondthewall:d/1216:76
And
Episode 1192: Anti-Conspiracy Activist’s Self-Interested Motivations
https://odysee.com/@Freemanbeyondthewall:d/1192-1:8
Yeah, the field of psychology probably does attract a lot of weirdos and perverts. Probably because people are trying to figure themselves out perhaps? I studied a little bit of psychology in college but was never really compelled to study in depth. One area I do find fascinating and useful though is NLP and other types of linguistic psychology. I think “conspiracy realists” who seek to go out and try to change narratives could use some of these “dark art techniques” to put their own messages out.
I mean it’s sort of like being able to use firearms and other physical weapons. They are just tools and can be used for good purposes. I’d prefer to understand psychology and how to protect my mind against abuse and also how to use it to my advantage. I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying about it btw. Your observations about weirdo’s and perverts are accurate.
cu.h.j
Keep trying to unravel the Celtic Knot that medicine has become. I’m certain you represent the caring health care worker which is a comfort to the victims of the psycho pseudo mind scientists. When they are done with a victim / patient/experiment they arrive, dumped at the level of care of real empathy and comfort. Comfort from the Physician who practices with experimental zeal devoid of humanity . Statistically high. Humanity, empathy,comfort and care unknown to these pseudo practitioners. The hundreds to one ratio of people with genuine healing qualities support the ones causing the fraudulent system to maintain its status quo. They are in a minority.
As you can tell I’m set in my jaded view of the system, mostly through direct involvement. The 99 carry the one who lord over the real healers of humanities suffering.
Here’s another example of what they don’t know changing what they have applied to humanity in the past.
“We Were Wrong About Everything”: Scientists Map 650,000 Brain Neurons And Discover Decision Making Works Completely Differently https://share.google/L5efxUndmKhtZHsNC
I’m glad you are there to help the victims of a cult system. Rockefeller with Flexner’s help designed a pretty impregnable cult monopoly system. You got to be a little moved by a person who could diagnose an appendicitis, remove the offending flesh and guide the affected individual back to health. But there are thousands interfering in the process. The brain Doctor on the other hand is too subjective to be of any practical value. As Duck has suggested the brain Doctor is little more than a family Rabi with an 8 day knife ,more interested in his discomfort than that of the afflicted. Wish you the best.
The brain doctor can have some practical value though but ultimately it’s up to the patient to take the reins of their own mind. This is true in other branches of medicine too. Patient’s can’t be passive and must actively direct their own treatment if capable. I mean one’s health is priceless and yet people eat toxic foods, indulge in toxic vices, and abuse their bodies and minds constantly and then expect there to be an easy fix when their health fails. Many times the answer is to stop consuming toxic stuff and exercise and people won’t do it.
It’s true that we live in a toxic system of distraction and vice and active psychological abuse from the ruling class and it’s also true that the facts about how to maintain health while living in this world are also accessible Maybe these issues I see regularly working in healthcare are part of the “learned helplessness” playing out. Some of it is just laziness on the part of regular people who would rather escape with all the unhealthy distractions and ignore their own internal warning signs that something is amiss.
Kindness and compassion can only do so much though because the onus is on the individual to take command of their own health and their own destiny at the very least their own mind. Any medical modality, be it western medicine or Chinese traditional medicine or homeopathy, it is in the hand of the patient to make the change or implement the treatment or make the lifestyle change, whatever it may be.
I think emergency medicine, critical care and some other life saving treatments in western medicine are far superior to other modalities in specific circumstances and I’m glad I have access to it. Western medicine has amazing potential and I would hope that people would not avoid it all together if they actually need it.
Working with “mentally ill” patients is really tough and I certainly couldn’t do that all the time. One of my old colleagues was cornered by psychotic person in a patient room and had her head bashed. She had to be admitted to the hospital and was out on disability for a while. Working in the ER can be dangerous for staff too and some patients aren’t just passive victims.
My point is that I think some therapies in western medicine including psychiatry can have benefit, psychiatry having a lot less benefit than other branches of medicine. My other point is that I don’t see people as passive victims of circumstance unless they are physically confined. My last point is that I think it’s possible to benefit from western medicine by taking an active role in ones own state of health and what potential treatments exist for particular maladies one might have.
Cu.h.j
You said that very well. ” We live in a toxic system…” Recently a very brilliant practical engineer , Robert Murray Smith from England ,who I have followed for over 11 years on you- tube took his own life. His brother was compelled to make a you- tube explaining his brothers reasoning of such an act of ultimate finality. I know Mkey thought a lot of him and I having no way of contacting him wondered if he felt as I do , bewildered? Saddened by the loss? It got me to thinking of the older Doctors who were interested in the individuals outcome. Much healthier to value the empathy of the barber or bartender as that of the Doctor. None deserving a pedestal on which to rest their laurels . Suicide is the ultimate rebuttal to modern medicine. That , to me is a sad indictment.
Why is Brigitte Macron filling a form for the Stanford prison experiment at 1:02:41??
Thanks James ad Broc, great job!
I’m glad this documentary inspired some to tell personal anecdotes related to the issues raised, I find they have great value. As others here probably do, I have a good example of how the very concept of “conspiracy theory” has entered daily language when it becomes necessary to discredit someone who has unpleasant facts to reveal or annoying questions to ask. Regarding more ordinary matters than international social engineering plots, of course, yet still rather serious situations.
In the final mail I received from my ex-lawyer, after I insisted she give me a definite and unambiguous response as to what she had done against a false evidence the opposing party had presented at a trial (because so far she’d given me two conflicting answers), at loss for a decent argument, her reply simply was:
“I hereby deny all unfounded accusations and conspiracies you are accusing me of, or may accuse me of, as they are false and undermine my professional and personal dignity.”
There is, paradoxically, a characteristic of their pathology that is quite distasteful but can also sometimes be helpful: they think we’re dumb AF.
Great documentary, James!!
Yes, the big manipulation game is going full speed with lots of labelling, illusions and distractions in order to reach their end goal:
FULL CONTROL.
Creating fear with locking away people who stand up, making them an example…lawyers like Reiner Füllmich, Arno van Kessel and Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years in jail…6 members of AFD party (Germany) recently and suddenly died…the list can go on and on and on.
The big witch hunt.
I believe that’s the phase we’re in now.
In the Netherlands, they are preparing a law to implement EU guideline EU) 2024/1260:
The directive requires that, in certain cases, it be possible to confiscate property of criminal origin. This will also be possible if there is NO (!!) criminal conviction (non-conviction-based confiscation).
This is all going on in the shadows..
Authoritarian times indeed..
“Masters” of eristics…
Wicked…
So yes, dissent into madness indeed..
Their end goal is full control:
Shut your mouth or else.
Food crisis “because of the wars”.
Oh government, please help us!
Wouldn’t do any harm be to dive to hidden comments, only visible to members..
Alex Haslam and Steven Reicher have revisited the Milgram experiments and applied the concepts of social identity to arrive at different conclusions using the data from the experiments.
Their conclusion is that the reason the teacher is willing to go to such extremes is the teacher’s perception of being “virtuous” in support of a social identity, and the authority figure is someone they identify as being a leader of the group.
Among other evidence, they cite the four (IIRC) “prods” used in the experiment, where the final prod is something along the lines of “you must continue”, after which 0% of teachers continued. This is because the prod was not supportive of a group identity.
The best interview conducted of Haslam and Reicher on this topic was with Alison Morrow and can be found here:
https://odysee.com/@AlisonMorrow:6/harming-others-for-the-greater-good-the:e
Haslam and Reicher published a book in 2020 called Together Apart, where they use their methodology to explain how governments can better get their citizens to fall in line with the COVID narrative. The book is incredible and I consider to be something akin to the modern handbook on totalitarian rule and may explain why nations such as Australia and New Zealand were so much more effective at controlling the populations than the U.S.
Very well done production.
I like the 4 x 4 x 4 Rubik Cube idea. Indicating a very tough problem to solve, yet it gets solved as we go through theses 9 steps relative to recognizing psychopaths and what to do about them.
Indeed, having the balls to call them out and expose them for what they are goes a long way toward getting the backing from other good people that we need to remove these sycopaths from any position of power. Most of them that gain power are slippery, deceitful, back stabbing bastards that have left a trail of victims. These victims are often the most likely aids in bringing them down.
PS I think that it needs to be exposed that the Assassination of Charlie Kirk was a professional hit and that the evidence being contrived against this 22 year old is very much like framing Oswald in 1963. We can thank a lot of good investigators who would not let the JFK Assassination go unsolved for giving us the blue print that continues to be used by the CIA. Although Zionist, (best friend to Israel) and CIA Director of Counter Intelligence from 1954- 1974 is no longer around, the Zionists made sure they got someone to replace him who was just as pro Israel.
Add the “Kirk professional hit and cover-up” to the “Epstein did not kill himself” realization of the masses, (which is pitting Trump supporters against each other), and the system may fail to function.
Anyway, I think that it all starts by rewarding those that do good and not giving any aid to those that do bad.
The United States Government gives Billions to the number one Terrorist organization in the world, therefore anyone that gives money to the United States Government is adding and abetting Terrorism. It is long past time that Individuals take responsibility for what they are doing when they pay Federal Income Tax.
Great analysis of the effects, with no assessment of the underlying cause. Too much focus on “how people in positions of power conspire to maintain their influence and expand their wealth” but none on the reasons *why* they are doing it. It is not that conspiracies and power structures don’t exist, they absolutely do, but one has to be ideologically compelled to assume than some nefarious individuals scheming behind the scenes are the source of all world’s problems.
How do you expect people to be compassionate and caring in a profit-driven system, when neither compassion nor care for your fellow man are profitable? When selfishness, competition and power are the main drivers of human behavior, even if you eliminated all the current oligarchs and their secret plans and the strings they pull to manipulate the public, if you didn’t also replace the incentives with something radically different, you would end up with some new manipulators shortly.
Ilija
“…you didn’t also replace the incentives with something radically different, you would end up with some new manipulators shortly…”
That is a very true point.
We have been taught via the Hollywood world view that conspiracy is something special whereas it reality it’s the normal and default system of social organization. As Neema Parvini (‘the populist delusion’) writes every group from the nation to the local chess club is run by a small group of people imposing their vision on the mass.
“….How do you expect people to be compassionate and caring in a profit-driven system, when neither compassion nor care for your fellow man are profitable….”
I wouldn’t say “profit” is the issue- just about every interaction between people is driven by incentives if how it hurts or harms you. The Freakanomics books are actually pretty good at showing some of this, but IMO when society gets too big then the incentives get warped and you don’t get the negative feedback back right away.
A dirt farmer who ruins his soil will feel the pain right away, while a big agg company won’t because they can move on to virgin land and ruin that. If I abuse my animals then they can’t produce stuff I want to eat, a man who buys all his food can indulge in auch evil behavior.
A man or woman who acted immorally used to get ostracized and would often suffer economic hardship, where as today they can push off the consequences until it’s too late to serve as an example to others. Maybe the scummy politicians only exist because the people they rule over act badly,and venerate scummy behavior.
I think the problem we have today is that an alien ideology has warped incentives and hidden the consequences from people they propagandize to act in ways that hurt them. That’s a technology issue because mass media lets them hack peoples minds and set up society like a Jenga tower thats getting more and more unstable
James Corbett – That guy is a true writer. He really knows how to weave a story. It’s all about the story.
HISTORICAL RECORD – Corbett Report
For those who don’t know, Corbett has been occasionally recirculating older videos onto the YouTube platform.
Morning (USA) of Sunday September 14, 2025
Open Source Education – #SolutionsWatch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AI5ieXMKNg
The Shownotes link to
WELCOME TO OPEN SOURCE EDUCATION
https://opensourceeducation.online/
#solutionswatch
https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/solutionswatch
Your documentary is a masterful exploration of the unsettling realities we face today. It has equipped me with the clarity to understand the chaos without surprise. My partner, deeply embedded in U.S. politics and the belief in constitutional order, recently voiced a chilling concern: “It might be time to leave.” Having witnessed events like 9/11 firsthand, he’s no stranger to government control and propaganda. Personally, my knowledgebase is a compilation of your work. Your work has illuminated the path from awareness to action—now, the question remains: what comes next? How do we disobey?
P.S. the dreamy conclusion was a nice touch ♡
James this is an incredible documentary. I am a psychiatric RN highly educated in the psychology and biology of human behavior. I am one of the few practicing EFT Pro EFT masters. I work using these techniques to help those adversely imprinted by the actions of the psychopath sociopaths in our lives effectively. Your putting together this knowledge in such an understable form is brilliant. Thank you. I am looking forward to taking your course as well. Wishing you an abundant, happy, loving, and supportive day.
James, I have benefited from your content for many many years only now supporting you. I don’t know what I was thinking,🤷🏽♂️ the subject is so important and so deep but you have aggregated so much information on this one and put it in such a simple form with solutions as well. I hope and pray people see and benefit from this one if not, we’re all fucked. 😜🙏🏽❤️
Absolutely excellent.
Your wisdom energises me.
Plus I like what you did with the Rubik’s cube
Excellent presentation, James Corbett. About halfway through I was reminded of one of my favorite Mark Twain quotes from A Connecticut Yankee in King Aurthur’s Court:
“The painful thing observable about all this business was the alacrity with which these oppressed had turned their cruel hands against their own in the interest of the common oppressor … .”
Today, the “oppressed” Twain refers to in A Connecticut Yankee would include your average Joe Citizen as well as the mad scientists of the world (military and non), egotistical crazed doctors, drug-addled lunatic politicians, mainstream media whores, etc. … all doing the bidding of the ‘PTSB’.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And, for the first time, ever, I am impressed with so am borrowing /sharing the following analysis from AI (caps /brackets, mine):
“This quote from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court reflects Mark Twain’s sharp CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF OPPRESSION. The alacrity [enthusiasm, eagerness] with which the oppressed lower classes assist in their own subjugation—enforcing the will of the aristocracy and, oftentimes, church—strikes the protagonist, Hank Morgan, as both tragic and painful. He observes that THE VERY PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER FEUDAL TYRANNY ARE OFTEN THE ONES MOST ZEALOUS IN UPHOLDING ITS STRUCTURES, WHETHER THROUGH BLIND LOYALTY TO TRADITION, RELIGIOUS DOGMA, OR MISPLACED REVERENCE FOR NOBILITY.
Twain uses this insight to underscore one of the novel’s central themes: the power of institutionalized myth and superstition in maintaining social control. BY SHOWING HOW THE DOWNTRODDEN ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN PRESERVING THE SYSTEM THAT EXPLOITS THEM, TWAIN HIGHLIGHTS THE DIFFICULTY OF ENACTING REAL REFORM. IT’S NOT JUST THE RULERS WHO MUST BE CHALLENGED, BUT THE DEEPLY INGRAINED BELIEFS OF THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. This observation remains relevant as a commentary on how systems of power endure, even in the face of injustice.”
Wonderful, hopeful. Thank you.
BRAVO 👏
Wouldn’t it be an idea for you and Mattias Desmet (psychologist and author of the book “Mass Formation” – see link below) to hook up for a discussion on “Secondary Psychopathy” and how this phenomenon is possible together with solutions to short-circuit the very same?
Most kindly 🙏
https://words.mattiasdesmet.org/
http://mentally-project.eu/partners/team/matthias-desmet-
This is amazing, James. Thank you for this deep dive into the ‘use’ of psychology by the pathological. Given my entire social sphere (extended family, academic workplace, closest neighbors) is completely ‘duped’ or programmed by the pathocracy, I have found that revealing my ‘stance’ (as unvaccinated, for example) has turned many against me (“you’re an anti-vaxxer?”) or at the very least, they walk the other way when I step into the room. My new approach recently (w/an all women neighborhood bookclub group) was to encourage my ‘anti-Trump’ neighbors to shift their focus AWAY from the ‘us vs. them’ ideas that they cling to, suggesting actions we can take instead that are positive and life-enhancing within our own neighborhood (ie., growing our own food and coordinating who grows what so that we can share our harvest). I suggested that tuning into CNN, like FOX, is the problem (of course, in my group FOX is the enemy, but in another group, it would be the opposite). I suggested every ounce of energy we give to ‘hating the enemy’ (projection) is energy that takes away from building our own resilience as a neighborhood. I suggested we focus our energy on taking care of one another as it all falls down. It remains to be seen if they ‘kick’ me out of bookclub (!), but I suspect this approach will be more successful than telling them all what I know about the ‘vaccine’ or ‘9-11’. I look forward to sharing this documentary, and your open source education resource on ‘psychology’, with the ones who are open and willing to learn.
Amazing work as always, James.
I truly apreciate and respect you as you opened my eyes on different topics, consolidated the base for my critical thinking and provided countless threads to pull on.
That being said, I just want to mention that while the principle you highlighted is inspiring, the example of dissent given at the end isn’t the most eloquent one.
The Romanian “revolution” of ’89 was, in fact, more of a coup d’état. The events on the day you referenced were orchestrated by conspirators who inserted agent provocateurs into the crowd and these agents used firecrackers to create panic and escalate the situation.
This is not to say that regular people were not fed up with the Ceaușescu regime and that people did not participate voluntarily in what they perceived to be an actual revolution.
Anyway, the topic is very complex and can not be discussed here, I just wanted to make this clarification with regard to the start of the ‘89 “revolution”.
All the best James 🤗
Hi m, I’m interested in more information about who orchestrated that, if you want to say.
Hi Marc Moini 🙂
First of all, I want to make it clear that I don’t claim to hold all the answers about this very complex event that unfolded when I was just 4 years old. That said, I’ve always been curious to understand what really happened during those days, given the many conflicting opinions I’ve heard. Over the years, I studied historical records and had the unique chance to speak with people who were involved with the Ceausescu regime at different levels. Based on this, I’ve put together a summary of how I see things:
The Context
Ceausescu surrounded himself with very capable individuals and had an ambitious plan to turn Romania into a global power. To achieve this, the regime built one of the most formidable secret service apparatuses of its time: a core of roughly 25,000 highly trained agents who coordinated a vast network of up to 700,000 informants (collaborators and unofficial agents). This gave Romania one of the most powerful intelligence services in the world, involved in industrial espionage, international relations, and brutal repression domestically.
At the same time, the regime was busy shaping modern Romania. It built over 90% of today’s transport infrastructure, essentially all of the energy infrastructure, and more than 80% of the current housing stock. Of course, this required enormous capital, so Ceausescu borrowed heavily from the IMF. Romania’s foreign debt peaked at about $10 billion. That money went into creating a self-sustainable Romania that aimed to remain neutral while cultivating ties with both East and West.
To protect sovereignty, Ceausescu made the controversial decision to repay the debt in full. Starting in 1981, he imposed harsh austerity measures, rationalising food, electricity, and heating, to divert resources toward debt repayment. By March 1989, the debt had indeed been paid off. But those eight years left Romanians angry and exhausted, fuelling growing frustration with the regime.
The Turning Point
By the late 1980s, even the Securitate leadership was split. Some remained deeply loyal, while others were disillusioned, seeing how Ceausescu’s policy of isolating Romania from both the USSR and the West left the country vulnerable.
Foreign Secret Services Involved
When Gorbachev launched glasnost and perestroika, Ceausescu openly defied Moscow’s reforms. In response, the KGB launched “Operation Danube II” to destabilise the regime. Former Soviet bloc officers later stated that Moscow infiltrated agents and provocateurs into Romania in December ’89.
There is also evidence that the Hungarian intelligence provided logistical help and infiltrated operatives across the border in order to support the ethnic Hungarian protests in Timișoara that sparked the uprising in ’89.
Western services such as France’s DGSE and the CIA reportedly maintained channels with dissidents inside the Romanian Communist Party (notably around Ion Iliescu a KGB agent, who would soon become Romania’s new president.
And we also need to take into account the “Mysterious” Role of the Army and the Securitate
On December 22, 1989, the Romanian Army dramatically switched sides: soldiers refused to fire on demonstrators and instead joined them. The streets erupted with chants of “Armata e cu noi” (“The Army is with us”), a moment that seemed to seal the fate of Ceaușescu’s regime.
In theory, this should have meant victory for the revolution and the end of violence.
Paradoxically, however, most of the 1,100 victims of December ’89 were killed after Ceaușescu’s flight. The “terrorist” shootings that spread chaos in Bucharest and other cities were officially blamed on die-hard Securitate units. Yet, despite decades of investigations, no clear chain of command was ever established.
Some argue that this “phantom enemy” was invented to justify chaos and consolidate power for the new leadership that was highly contested in the street (Iliescu being one of the Ceausescu regime key leaders until he was demoted and pushed to the periphery in the 1971–1974 period after Ceausescu learned about his KGB agent status)
Researchers suspect that these post-22 December killings were part of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by military intelligence (DIA) together with infiltrated foreign operatives to create panic and legitimise Iliescu’s group as saviours.
Thank you m, I appreciate learning about the context of this event. I get the impression that in addition to what you shared about Ceaușescu’s policies and their impact on people’s lives and general outlook, there is likely more to uncover about the longer-term strategy of those directing the foreign intelligence agencies involved. Since there were other similar “revolutions” across europe. I’m going to look into what hpete wrote (https://corbettreport.com/dissent-into-madness-escaping-the-madhouse/#comment-149426). Thanks again!
M
I also think that there was a lot more to the Romanian Revolution.
Approximately Zero revolutions have happens spontaneously because “the people” decided- the best they can manage is a riot.
Regime change from at least the French Rev onwards (and before afaik) has been directed by small groups of people who direct the unaware masses where desired. With that said i think you should put the sources you’ve found up to make that fact clearer to folks who doubt you.
Duck, yes that’s what I’ve gathered as well. Would you please share some of what led you to this view ?
Posted this on the Conspiracy subreddit and only got a few upvotes.
Two other users posted it and got downvoted.
I do wonder where all the conspiracy/truth researchers went who used to populate that subreddit.
Spread thin I guess, like butter scraped over too much bread.
Fantastic production James and Broc. Really well put together and what an important topic – definitely also love the solutions part in the end!
Dissent requires courage, and I find courage to be in very short supply, I’m afraid. I would also observe that timing is a key element. The heckling of Ceaușescu came at the optimum time for maximum impact. Here in the US, you see plenty of “railing against the machine”, and it’s utterly ineffective, becoming background noise after a while.
You have made several good documentaries. I have not even seen them all. However, of all your documentaries and productions I have seen, this one stands out as a masterpiece to me. The level of professionalism in impressive. The editing, sound, visuals, acting, lighting, the script, you name it. All is all very well done. Also, the way the information is presented, and the amount of information that is presented, just works in this one. Even a simple prop like the Rubik’s (extended) Cube is quite brilliant.
I am amazed that a two-man crew can produce a video like this one. My wife was equally impressed when we watched this documentary last night.
Bravo!
Beautifully done James! This shows enough of the horror that people can see it is truly real, and the real ways that we can learn to stand up, and express ourselves with all the beautiful traits that we can truly muster when healthy, happy and free. I too loved the quiet presence of the rubik’s cube! Thank you for all you have done, and do, to offer deep, interesting, valuable and reliable info!
A masterpiece James – sent to friends that’s the good thing about being a member of Corbitt Report. The good news everyone is that we are not like them even though they want us to be – the best news is still to come!!