Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Female Sociopaths

News Books Toxic Managers Recommended Links Psychopaths in Movies Borderline Psychopath Films depicting female sociopath The Techniques of a Female Sociopaths
The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Divorcing Borderline Psychopath Negative Politeness Diplomatic Communication Groupthink Female bullies Narcissistic Managers Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks
Gaslighting Projection Office Stockholm Syndrome Learned helplessness Fake Sexual Harassment Claims The Fiefdom Syndrome Insubordination Threat Surviving a Bad Performance Review
The psychopath in the corner office Authoritarians Insubordination Threat Bully Managers The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Empty Suits (Aggressive Incompetent Managers) Rules of Verbal Self Defense against Corporate Psychopaths Socratic Questions
Dangerous Liaisons The Last Seduction Fatal Attraction The Devil Wears Prada Marriage and family conflicts Marital Infidelity Movies about marital infidelity Belief-coercion in high demand cults
Surviving a Bad Performance Review High Demand Cults Leaders Practices Conformism Corporate bullshit as a communication method Groupthink Aikido Humor Etc
"Her regular tantrums involve swearing, shouting, intimidation and threatens. She will wear people down until, for a quieter life, they agree with her. Interestingly, what she threatens to inflict on others is what she would find most damaging and hurtful to herself.

Equally interestingly, she feels criticism and humiliation intensely, even if none is intended or given, and she will fight ferociously to defend what she sees as an attack, whether or not there is one. Sometimes she will create a threat in her mind merely to defend and excuse what she knows to be her own dreadful behavior."


Introduction

Female sociopaths are a class of its own. They are much more manipulative than male psychopaths. We will distinguish the term "sociopath" and "psychopath" based on physical violence: psychopath is sociopath who routinely or even predominantly uses physical violence.  Often they are criminals. 

Female sociopaths rarely use physical violence and can much better mask their real intentions then make psychopaths. they are more patient (although the term patience and sociopath are mutually contradictive -- they are after instant gratification) and can hunt for a pray somewhat longer.  And probably are more dangerous when you have them close by.  As a rule female sociopaths are much more vicious and vendettful than man sociopaths.

Typically, they are somewhat sadistic, especially toward women  -- which means that they experience pleasure from suffering of their victims.  Like all sociopaths they are natural born, talented actors and have the astonishing ability to tell bare-faced lies and remain calm, utterly shameless if caught. This is the case with psychopaths in general, but with female sociopaths you really see the master class of this art. Ruthless and conniving. Can extort favors using fake pregnancies, injuries to themselves, threats to kill themselves, etc. They are really like  a person, who killed her/his parents, and then asks for lesser sentence because she is now an orphan.  While they are adept in masking their real mean and cruel personality some signs and discrepancies in their acting are often visible.  The problem is that due to their charm the victim typically fails to pay any attention to them. Here this page might, probably, help as, hopefully, it provides a framework and several checklists for analyzing such a person.  A lot of tragedies could be avoided if people who are facing something strange or inconsistent in behaviour simply take the time to ask, "What else could this mean?”  "Can it be explained as an attempt of manipulation,  or bold faced lie?"

Paradoxically, most of the victims of female sociopaths are woman. So a female sociopath in the role of the manager is more dangerous to female subordinates then to male subordinates. That can be quite indirect, but typically extremely vicious. Add to that compulsive desire of winning at all cost (they are about power; such a natural born power addicts) and see other people just of tools for achieving her goals. 

They roll over their victims like steamroller and feel nothing.  The last sentence is impossible to understand by just reading this page, You need to see couple of movies depicting such a character and first of all Dangerous Liaisons  In this film Glenn Close (she also presents similar, but more close to the borderline personality character in Fatal Attraction ) created an unforgettable character of a female sociopath (Marquise de Merteuil), while John Malkovich created even more impressive and pretty sinister and more convincing male sociopath character ( Vicomte de Valmont). The latter like often happens in real life is not devoid of some positive traits such as courage, ability act decisively and ability to forgive (in the final scene, when he is dying after being fatally wounded during a duel cleverly staged by Glenn Close character -- Marquise de Merteuil ).   Here you really see that a female psychopath approach to personal relations much like to a war of conquest.  It is all about domination and power.  There is no emotional attachment to anybody. Everybody is just a tool. We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else. And what female psychopath wants most is the power to define your reality. Often this is done via exploiting sexual attractiveness.  This is not clear from the first watching of the film, but if you watch it the second time from the specific angle of Marquise de Merteuil behaviour as a sociopath, you can probably learn a few things about this condition.  Similarly in Fatal Attraction you see how relentless they can stack the victim, using everything to keep the person on a short leash. Claims of being pregnant, cutting own wrists, you name it.  They have no boundaries and are ready to go to the bitter end to achieve their goal. Like Green Berets or Terminator.

They typically have high IQ which makes them even more dangerous if they are a member of your family or girlfriend. And they are really lethal weapon as managers. Demanding, ruthless, two-faced, manipulative, relentless and very methodical bullies. At the same time they are different from male sociopaths. Among female managers with sociopathic tendencies percent of micromanagers is considerably higher then among male managers with the same tendencies. And typically they are more sophisticated.  Even the murder cases involving female sociopaths are typically are more complex, more devious and less direct, for example the "black widow" marries a wealthy old man and puts poison in his drink. Money are often a strong motivating factor.

To detect a female sociopath for the outsider is a very challenging task as they are masters of mimicry -- natural born great artists.  They usually produce a very good, positive first impression. They excel in interviews. They do not allow themselves to show their anger for people on the same level, oe above them. Anger is reserved to subordinates and members of the immediate family. Despite inability to feels love, they can imitate it and they are often seductive. Love for them, like for an escort, it's not about reality, but about creating the illusion of reality. In a way, you view them as self-employed escorts with deferred payment. There are no telling signs that they deceive you, other then some minor inconsistencies in their life stories, a little bit free dealing with the facts, a little bit exaggerated emotions and attempts of love bombing. Like in everything, here the devil is details, but people in romantic mode and under influence of psychopathic charm are rarely able to see them, until too late. The same is actually true for upper management in the corporate environment: often they do not suspect whom they are dealing with... 

But for subordinates the situation is different, they are tools that do not deserve to be treated as human beings. Make no mistakes here.  You will immediately:

Their behaviour is somewhat close to so called Borderline Psychopath (which is diagnosed in three times as many females as males) and description of a borderline personality behavior (which is abundant on the Internet) can serve as a good proxy for what to expect from a female sociopath. Remember that such both psychopathy and borderline behaviors are never pure and can be demonstrated to a various degrees. There is no "black and white" distinction, no sociopath vs. normal person dichotomy. It's all shadows of grey. Here is one telling quote:

...Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD by many of those who treat the disorder as well as by the DSM-IV.  Borderlines are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, manipulative, and worse. It's like a feminine version of sociopaths, and nearly as dangerous.

Borderline personality disorder is diagnosed in three times as many females as males. Persons with BPD are described  as “difficult,”  “manipulative,” “demanding” and “attention seeking". People with BPD are seen as among the most challenging groups of patients, requiring a high degree of skill and training in the psychiatrists, therapists and nurses involved in their treatment. See Understanding Borderline Rage

An unusual degree of instability in mood and black-and-white thinking often manifests itself in idealization and devaluation episodes and chaotic and unstable interpersonal relationships, issues with self-image, identity, and behavior; as well as a disturbance in the individual's sense of self.  Diagnosed only in individuals over the age of 18; however, symptoms necessary to establish the disorder can also be found in adolescents.

Typical set of traits

Typical set of traits

Sets of traits are notoriously unreliable and somewhat unscientific approach but they can serve you well. In any case we do not have anything better.  Traits is probably the oldest way to explain differences in human behaviour. But it is important to understand that traits are not inert peace like mechanical parts, they are more like chemical substances, they interact/react  with each other and while each of them individually can be found in many "normal" people, certain in combinations they react with each other. for example what we mean by word "extrovert" and "introvert" are actually some constellations of trait. Similarly there is a constellation of traits that produce toxic personality, called sociopath., In this particular case a female sociopath. So a female sociopath in not a mechanical combination of certain traits but a "yet another type of personality", a  very toxic indeed.  And gender here is one of the traits that goes into this toxic combination. In no way they are "male sociopath with vagina". They are a different chemical substance. 

You can view traits as behavioral tendencies (Allport, 1966), more generalized and deeper connected with inner brain structures then habits. Some of then are acquired, but many originates from within, are innate to to speak.   Traits initiate and guide behaviour, but environment also play important role.  For example a teenager, accustomed for respect of his classmates find himself in a summer camp with older boys, who look down upon him. One day his new friends propose swiping a few candy bars from a corner store. When a gang ridicules him, the honesty (which is a social trait common for most cultures) is destroyed by stronger trait of desire for social status.

Combinations of traits that are typical for psychopathic personality is now well known and well researched. That does not mean that they are easy to detect. Quite opposite.  It is very difficult task and in most case the detection happens way too late. Still "knowledge is power" and there are a couple of  traits that should be highly alarming and that are somewhat visible even under the think smokescreen of deception. They should ring alert for any person who read this page (although most people reading this page probably got here somewhat late, but better late then never) are:

  1. Sociopathic charm. Dr. Stout believes it is a primary characteristic of woman sociopath. The intense charm of people who have no conscience, has been observed by researchers and commented on by countless victims. In corporate environment it is usually directed mostly up and represents typical "kiss up, kick down" pattern also found is male authoritarians According to the book "Snakes in Suits - When sociopaths Go To Work" by Dr. Robert Hare and Dr. Paul Babiak, one of the most effective skills sociopaths use to get the trust of people is their ability to charm them. Some low IQ sociopaths lay the charm on too thick, coming across as glib, superficial, and unconvincing. However, the truly talented ones have polished their ability to charm people into an art, priding themselves on their ability to present a fictional self to others that is convincing, taken at face value, and difficult to penetrate. One must always keep in mind that the charm, like manipulation in general, can be very subtle.

    The components of this "psychopathic charm" is difficult to define. But you can easily see it in movies that depict such individuals. Women who have a closely related set of traits, but without personal fearlessness, courage and ability to handle stress typical for sociopaths are grouped under  the label Histrionic personality disorder. The researchers of this disorder proposed a useful mnemonic that makes it easier remember the behavioral characteristics that are somewhat typical for sociopathic charm. Of couse this is simplification, but still is a useful simplification. This mnemonic phrase is "PRAISE ME":

     
  2. A fast life strategy which includes an accelerated mating strategy, reporting more sex partners, more favorable attitudes towards casual sex, lowered standards in their short-term mates, a tendency to steal or poach mates from others. They are willing to engage is risk-taking behaviors including unsafe sex and substance abuse, a tendency to prefer immediate rewards, limited self-control, and a pragmatic and game-playing love style.  The appears to be exploitative and highly opportunistic, in to life in general[, including mating and workplace behaviour.
     
  3. Compulsive, pathological lying. Difficult to spot if you feel sympathy or affection to the individual, but it always demonstrates itself  in some self-contradiction especially about the facts of personal history; invented past and/or excessive boasting about past successes. If you attentive this is trait that is one of the easiest to spot despite all the smoke screen that such person erect before you. In more rare cases they are pathological, compulsive liars and lie even when there is no obvious need to it... such a behaviour is somewhat "creating artificial reality". It represents itself as a  consistent trait rather than an episode, like for most "normal" people. 
     
  4. Manipulative, arrogant, callous  behaviour is a norm, but is typically well masked. Complete lack of remorse and empathy are also masked and are difficult to spot untill it is too late.  They are probably more manipulative and cunning then professional con artists.  Actually they are professional con artists. Their personality attributes typically include superficial charm, unreliability, untruthfulness, and insincerity. Pathological egocentricity, selfishness, and related to those traits rejection of authority and discipline. Along with deriving pleasure from criminal behavior, they “really like getting away with it”—that “the ones who have intelligence, they don’t want to get caught.” Several researchers have suggested that sadism, defined as the enjoyment of cruelty, is pretty common feature of such individuals..
  5. Unreliability, untruthfulness, and insincerity. Please understand that betrayal and backstabbing are natural, typical behaviors for them, and they resort to it in situation were normal person would never do such thing. For example petty stealing when having money to buy particular item. As they have complete lack of remorse and empathy they can do really bad things smiling... If you observe such episodes several times this is an important warning signal. As Ian Fleming said (via James Bond in Goldfinger) “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”  Kind of manipulation of reality that MSM are notorious for. To the pathological liar his own lies are reality, so he walks securely, is open and amiable inside this artificial reality of his life and past.  Extensive, very complicated fabrications may be evolved. They have no troubles to lie then they appeared in court, False accusations are to be expected...  Often the pathological liar lies not according to a plan, but spontaneously when the impulse seizes him/her.  Under oath such a person  can falsely accused other party of serious offences. For example, using drugs or a women can accuse her husband that he has sex with their underage daughter.
  6. Prone to fly into rages See Borderline Rage: unlike borderlines who often have difficulties controlling it, bouts of anger are consciously controlled and used as a very sharp weapon. Many of these women ‘appear’ normal in the public setting, but are verbally and emotionally abusive in the private setting.
  7. Inability to accept any responsibility for their actions. Typically they has little or no concern about the consequences of their actions. They are natural born risk takers, "life gamblers" if you wish. For them life is giant casino.
  8. "Courage under fire." In high tension situations, that happens when police is on the scene or during court proceeding, they typically maintain their cool,  behave rationally and are not prone to panic even in the face of dangerous to them revelations.

Please read Linda Taylor, welfare queen   and watch several films listed in Films depicting female sociopath. As for more specific nuances Sheppard and Cleary write:

Entrapment of the victim

Female sociopaths often use sex to entrap a victim in the relationship. They are natural predators that use sex as a weapon.  When meeting someone they immediately assess the victim. How likely are you to fall for the con? They ask probing questions to try to test the victim attitudes about casual sex and other interesting  for them topics. What is interesting is tht, they are typically more successful is luring high IQ male victims then low IQ male victims. See scene in the cafe in Fatal Attraction as an example of such behaviour.

 Often the entrapment of the victim goes in several, overlapping phases:

In the movie Solaris (1972) by Tarkovski based on  famous novel Solaris by Polish author Stanislaw Lem there is an interesting moment when a  created by the alien super brain (thinking ocean) "animated holographic image" of a dead person gets more and realistic details as more information is collected by super brain from the person who is interacting with the image. The same process takes place at this stage with a female sociopath: she creates an artificial personality that the victim wants to see adding details as she gets more information, using their amazing natural capabilities as first class actresses.  All this is done under smoke screen of psychopathic charm, which disarms the victim.   They may even claim that they fall in love with you at the first sight. High IQ female sociopaths usually avoid such a primitive lie, instead they are usually trying to imitate a genuine interest in you as a person and make themselves a perfect match for you interests in life. So if you are baseball fan, they will instantly became a baseball fan too and on the next meeting will tell you intriguing details about  Yogi Berra and will use in conversation some of his bon mots like "It's déjà vu all over again." .  And if another victim later loves classic music they will get themselves to speed in this area too and during the next meeting can talk about Beethoven with ease.  Everything they say is typically false, and is designed to entrap the victim. But it is very difficult to understand that the behaviour is based upon lies, while being on the other side of the "charm offence".

Female sociopath are masters of playing male vanity like gifted musician plays violin. They typically demonstrate (pretty convincingly) a huge (albeit fake) admiration of you as a person, as a specialist, as a manager.  That increases your self-worth and in grey, boring real world were there are very few people openly admire others, such attitude usually has immediate success. You are in a trap before you realize what is happening. Again, this works even better if the victim has high IQ as people with high IQ typically have doubts about their self worth, and as such are more vulnerable to flattery and excessive but subtle praise (aka love bombing). What greater flattery could there possibly be than having someone who believes you’re the most wonderful person they’ve ever known, someone who truly appreciates you and believes you are worthy of their time, attention, admiration, energy and love?

They are also perfect on invoking a pity, able to act like a  "drama queen" ( What is a Drama Queen) 

In literature, the character Scarlett O'Hara from Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind would be considered a drama queen by today's standards. This type of person is notoriously self-centered and self-absorbed, often viewing friends and relatives as lesser beings assigned to take care of her personal needs. Her worst enemy is solitude, so she tends to be very outgoing and sociable, although many of her friendships tend to remain at surface level. Others who have experienced the drama queen's sudden outbursts in the past may have a feeling of walking on egg shells around her, not wanting to be the person who delivers upsetting news or offends her in any way.

Fake stories about ill relatives, previous abuse, etc are just a natural ways to them to play the victim.

It goes without saying that it is very effective strategy of attacking most males. But if "strong encouragement" needs to used on the final stage (for example to get the victim in the bed)  it will be used just as ruthlessly as male seducers do.  Those girls can force the victim drink too much or even put something into the drink, watch a provocative movie and then rush a man into the bed and brutally mock the victim to overcome their doubts and to force the intercourse no less effectively then male seducers do the same for female victims. 

You will not be aware of the lies until much later. Like in war, there is a "fog of war"  during initial meetings when neither party  have adequate information about the whole situation  and has only some vague hypothesis about the personality (i.e., you are facing incomplete, dubious, and often completely erroneous information and high levels of fear, doubt, and excitement). Here keeping daily log might be of tremendous help as it might slightly help to see though the fog. Still the level of uncertainty is high, which complicate rational assessment of the situation so delays with the reaction and keep your cards close to your chest. This simple tactic might in many cases be not detrimental, but advantageous. Actually studying war tactics which were discussed for example in famous Clausewitz On War (available free from clausewitz.com) and The Art of War  might help. Among them (cited from Wikipedia):

Borderline rage as the most telling symptom

Sociopaths are notoriously difficult to spot because most of them are incredibly adept at hiding their true self and their motives. Since childhood the female sociopath may have developed complex and often subconscious methods to deceive her targets. On the surface she appears excessively friendly and charming. In fact, an early warning sign is that you start to suspect that she is too good to be true. She probably is. But there is another telling sign, which unfortunately is typically discovered when it is too late: a difference between her behavior in public and in private settings. Charming and attentive in public they are usually quite abusive, rude and vindictive in private.

The first and very unpleasant surprise that a man discovers after marrying a female sociopath is that while he though to marry a nice  kitty (especially when  somebody married a foreigner who is considerably younger and is very attractive, aka "mail bride"), but he actually married a tiger, who in home setting is ready to jump and eat him alive :-).   Uncontrollable anger attacks usually hit a poor guy like a typhoon.

Unfortunately  you rarely have a chance to discover the "dark side" of psychopathic personality before you became a subordinate or a marriage partner.  In reality they control their anger more than it has controls them. This is just a sharp weapon to get what they want.  Often anger rises to the level of throwing things or physical violence: they are really beating crap of their spouses. Yes weaker sex can be not so weak in anger.  Of course you can buy her a punch bag and the boxing gloves, to redirect her anger into less vulnerable target, but that rarely helps. They actually enjoy their reputation of being mean (but only in private). And they are not afraid of destroying relations.  This is somewhat correlate with being reckless.  Ambrose Bierce  quote “Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.” is not applicable. They have no regrets. Moreover they are ready to attack again the next day after the previous incident.

That makes bouts of Borderline Rage (which is also typical for Double High Authoritarians, but they are primarily males)  a very telling symptom that dramatically increases probability that you are dealing with a female sociopath. As now you probably get her real life story from third sources, cruelty to animals, siblings or other  weaker or dependent persons, especially such episodes in childhood, is another telling sign. As one reader commented "female sociopaths almost always fit the DSM IV diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder." So you can start with studying it, as this is one of well studied disorders and information about it is more readily available.  See Borderline Psychopath

One telling symptom of a female sociopath is bouts of Borderline Rage (which is also typical for Double High Authoritarians, but they are primarily males).  Cruelty to animals, siblings or other weaker or dependent persons, especially such episodes in childhood, is another telling sign...  Female sociopaths almost always fit the DSM IV diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, so you can start with studying it

Female sociopaths tend to be relentless, methodical bullies and micromanagers who can really tear the victim to shreds given enough time.  This true both in family life and in  the office environment. But bouts of anger are reserved only to people, who she already controls. For superiors they are all nice polite, clever, witty woman with considerable charm (and who often act as relentless and effective seducers.)

In office environments they are often more vindictive and much more cruel to subordinates, then male sociopaths. They really view all and especially female subordinates as disposable items.  The facts that they are devoid of feeling of compassion does not make they incapable to detect and exploit their victims weaknesses. Quite to the contrary. Sometimes I have an impression the psychopathy greatly increases such an ability, giving them almost surgical precision in attack on human weaknesses, sometimes dramatically so as in cases of seduction. 

The facts that they are devoid of feeling of compassion does not make they incapable to detect and exploit their victims weaknesses.  Sometimes I have an impression the psychopathy increases such an ability, sometimes dramatically so.

Negative politeness is an important defense tactic against those individuals.  Limiting contacts to bare minimum is very important, as it lessens the chances that you get into some kind of trap.  Avoiding intimacy with them is equally important. It is pretty difficult to withstand a female seducer is say in business trip in a hotel room.  They are more subtle that simply proposing their body. They are able to create condition in which you drink too much, or watch some arousing movie, etc that make simpler to achieve their goal.

Machiavellian manipulation, female sociopaths as naturally born power addicts

Simplifying Machiavellism is about getting/preserving power at any cost, as in "the end justifies the means". Such people play the society and individual with whom they are involved like a violin. The ability and willingness to employ savage methods for obtaining power is a distinct feature that distinguish sociopath from normal persons. They are all about power, naturally born power addicts. The casual way in which Machiavelli discusses the need to kill opponents was necessary to those who wished to be princes 500 years ago. Today, of course, "killing" is translated as rendering less powerful, or taking an opponent out of the game. But the key ideas stay the same and even now after 500 years the books gives a valuable insight in behaviour of all sociopaths. We can legitimately call female sociopath "Princesses of manipulation".  The book refines their strategy to two main points: 

  1. Get ahead of others to attain power by any means; and
  2. Maintain and expand one's power in the face of others who would usurp one or who wants to move yourself into competing  posiition.

This book is about ruthlessness and putting the attainment and preservation of power ahead of any other consideration. In this sense all sociopath, enad especially female sociopath are loyal followers of Machiavelli, even if they never heard about this book. They use the same set of power gaining  strategies exemplified in maxims such such as  "the end justifies the means," "it is better to be feared than loved," "if you fight the prince, kill the prince" to name a few.

It is essential reading to anyone who want to get into sociopathic mind. Human history deliver plenty of examples of ruthless self-interest (Machiavellianism) behind success in power situations.

The key of teaching of Machiavelli is the difference between Prince substance and Prince appearance:  

As we mentioned this is fully applicable to female sociopath  who are ruthless, hell-bent on personal power, amoral, intimidating, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest cheaters, mean-spirited, two-faced and more.

As for the character and behavior of the prince, Machiavelli  recommends the following :

Glenn Sacks in his  January 8th, 2008 post on this blog Venus: The Dark Side--Female Sociopaths created a very good summary of main points of the book by Venus: The Dark Side.

In this book the authors Roy Sheppard and Mary T Cleary call such person "a queen of manipulation ". Some points looks like overstatements and hard to believe, if you never dealt with such a personality. But I strongly doubt that this is possible to avoid dealing with female sociopath in modern life ;-). At the same time if you has had, they looks like dispassionate observations or even understatements. It is really difficult to believe the extent of dirty tricks and unsubstantiated rumors that female sociopath routinely uses against their victims. 

"The consequences of her behavior are always somebody else’s problem, not hers. She is never to blame for anything...Because she’s out to control, she manipulates and punishes at will. She is the witness, the judge, the lawyer, the jury, the executioner - but never the accused... She will break the rules without a second thought, if the end justifies the means."

... ... ...

Sadly, the female sociopath they describe sometimes sounds like the vindictive or alienating or abusive ex-wives readers write me about.

The key goal is enslavement of the victim as in high demand cults

Again in many ways sociopath in general and female sociopath in particular behave like cult leaders in high demand cults:

Cult leaders, however, practice forms of control, such as intimidation and humiliation, which demand submission. In Ghent’s view, masochistic submission is a perversion of surrender. Cult leaders often use the idea of surrender as "bait, and then switch" to a demand for submission. Nevertheless, in so doing, they may not actually be practicing mind control in any conscious way. They may simply be behaving in ways typical of pathological narcissists, people whose personalities are characterized by paranoia and megalomania—characteristics, by the way, that are readily attributable to one of the modern masters of thought reform techniques, the totalitarian dictator known as Chairman Mao. Totalitarian dictators study and invent thought reform techniques, but many cult leaders may simply be exhibiting characteristic behaviors of the pathological narcissist, with the attendant paranoia and mania typical of this personality disorder. Thought reform is the systematic application of techniques of domination, enslavement, and control, which can be quite similar to the naturally occurring behaviors of other abusers, like batterers, rapists, incest perpetrators, in all of whom can be seen the behaviors of pathological narcissism.

... ... ...

For the cult leader, his ability to induce total dependence in followers serves to sustain and enhance a desperately needed delusion of perfect, omnipotent control. With many cult leaders, (e.g., Shoko Asahara [Lifton, 1999]), the dissolution of their delusion of omnipotence exposes an underlying core of psychosis. Sustaining a delusion of omnipotence and perfection is, for the cult leader, a manic effort to ward off psychic fragmentation. Again it is useful to consider that this kind of pathological narcissism and defensive mania is often seen in persons whose childhood development was controlled by extremely dominating, often sadistic caregivers, or whose developmental years were characterized by traumatic experiences of intense humiliation. Cult leaders then create elaborate rationalizations for their abusive systems, while unconsciously patterning those systems from the templates of their own experiences of being abused.

... ... ...

Cult leaders succeed in dominating their followers because they have mastered the cruel art of exploiting universal human dependency and attachment needs in others. The lengthy period of dependency in human development, the power that parents have, as God-like figures, to literally give life and sustain the lives of their children, leaves each human being with the memory, however distant or unconscious, of total dependency. Cult leaders tap into and re-activate this piece of the human psyche. Followers are encouraged to become regressed and infantilized, to believe that their life depends on pleasing the cult leader. Cult leaders depend on their ability to attract people, often at critically vulnerable points in their lives, who are confused, hungry, dissatisfied, searching. With such people, cult leaders typically find numerous ways to undermine their followers’ independence and their capacity to think critically.

Like high demand cult leaders, female sociopath  enjoy manipulating and exploiting others. The power, dominance over the others is the goal, the  main purpose of their lives. They are addicted to power and in this sense behave like a typical narcoaddicts. So even in love relations they are not after love, not after sex, they are after power. Which makes them very similar (albeit more canning) then male seducers (who are typically malignant narcissists). While people typically view seduction narrowly as purely sexual in nature,  actually the concept is wider then that and widely used, for example, for recruiting members into high demand cults. Wikipedia gives the following definition:

Seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person, to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; to corrupt, to persuade or induce to engage in sexual behaviour. The word seduction stems from Latin and means literally "to lead astray". As a result, the term may have a positive or negative connotation. Famous seducers from history or legend include Lilith, Giacomo Casanova and the fictional character Don Juan. Seduction as a phenomenon is not the subject of scientific interest, although similar, more specific terms like short-term mating, casual sex or mating strategies are used in evolutionary psychology.[1] The Internet enabled the existence of a seduction community which is based on pseudoscientific discourse on seduction.

Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioral choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone — male or female — by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their "sexual emancipation"

It is prudent to view them as a female version of male seducers, so well depicted in literature.  The key strategies are all the same: creation of a something like a high demand cult consisting of just two members the victim (and in case of male seducer worshiping on altar of sex) and the cult leader. See High Demand Cults Leaders Practices

At some point y our perspective on life comes from the virtual cage you were held captive in.

A note on love bombing

Most people think that they can resists excessive flattery and love bombing. This is typically not true. And paradoxically high IQ individuals are more susceptible to this tactics. Enslavement of the victim starts with love bombing and isolation from previous contacts (LOVE BOMBING ):

Love bombing is an all-encompassing, exhaustive campaign of flattery that "bombs" the target with non-stop positive reinforcement. Typically, the love-bomber showers his or her mark with compliments, praise and appreciation, declarations of undying love early on, promises of a future together, frequent contact by calls, texts and emails, gift-giving, great sex, and a lot of time spent with each other. It's extreme and over-the-top. It can (and does) happen online as well, sometimes without ever having met in person.

Some experts believe that not all behavior in the beginning with a psychopathic or narcissistic personality type is grooming, although grooming (which is intentionally manipulative) will be part of it. According to Dr. Rhonda Freeman, clinical neuropsychologist, "the emotional high they demonstrate is quite likely genuine. Many are significantly stimulated and intrigued by their new partner. However, in addition to this ‘high’ there also tends to be manipulation... In his or her "game" the psychopathic or narcissistic individual has the advantage. There will be pain for the unsuspecting trusting target... This is the nature of these disorders. No one is bonded to, appreciated, or valued...

Freeman goes on to say, “Unlike the excitement they have for their new target, the grooming component of their relationships is intentional. It is tailored to set the victim up for future use.” She adds that “grooming is purposeful manipulation with an end goal of taking advantage of the target,” and that grooming “facilitates an impression that the psychopathic individual is safe, generous and trustworthy.” In other words, they are not really safe, generous or trustworthy, even though they may be genuinely interested in you. 

...What greater flattery could there possibly be than having someone who believes you’re the most wonderful person they’ve ever known, someone who truly appreciates you and believes you are worthy of their time, attention, admiration, energy and love? The victim is swept off their feet, oblivious to the truth. Love bombing reinforces powerful beliefs about ideal love; fosters trust, loyalty, relationship investment and a positive image of the abuser; creates deep bonding and emotional dependence; and sets the stage for disbelief of the manipulator’s misdeeds when they eventually and inevitably come. The love bomber presents him or herself as your ideal partner, one who is generous, loving, caring and empathetic, and who shares your interests, values, goals and dreams. It couldn’t be further from the truth. Finding out the truth, which happens eventually, is a shocking, heartbreaking experience. The betrayal is deep, and it is hard to overcome.

Sociopathic Charm

Dr. Stout believes that charm is a primary characteristic of woman sociopath. The intense charm of people who have no conscience, has been observed and commented on by countless victims, and by researchers who attempt to catalog the diagnostic signs of sociopath. In corporate environment it is usually directed mostly up and represents a variation of a typical "kiss up, kick down" pattern also found is male authoritarians.

The components of this "psychopathic charm" is difficult to define. But you can easily see it in movies that depict such individuals, for example The Last Seduction. Women who have a closely related set of traits, but without personal fearlessness, courage and ability to handle stress typical for sociopaths are grouped under  the label Histrionic personality disorder. The researchers of this disorder proposed a useful mnemonic that makes it somewhat easier remember the behavioral characteristics that are somewhat typical for sociopathic charm. This mnemonic phrase is "PRAISE ME":

Charming woman is always fascinating a man. You can think about it as a weaker, more subtle type of love bombing. The psychopath's charm is disarming person defenses. It is like a magic spell, one that’s hard to break.  One advantages that the female psychopath has is a razor sharp concentration of her prey. Trying to achieve her goals is the most important and unlike normal persons psychopathic woman is  not bothered by things like social anxiety, self-doubt and insecurity. While personality is liquid like in Terminator  II movies, her determination to get what she wants is steely. Courage and determination of female psychopath can be envied by Breen Berets. 

Female psychopath instinctively adapts her personality to what victim wants to see. Those natural born actresses are brilliantly playing their role in the play that is their life, so to speak.  This fascinating chameleonic process of adapting her personality to the circumstances on the fly (much like shape-changing liquid Terminator in Terminator II movie) goes semi-automatically on intuitive level. This way a female psychopath is able to present the fake personality --  to be what the victim wants to see and thus is able quickly create an emotional connection, or rather the illusion of connection  with the victim and gain the victim's trust.  This is a type of female seduction but in corporate environment it is often performed without obvious sexual overtones, typical for plain-vanilla "classic" seduction. Although,  if they feel your lust, sex will be offered too. They do not have any moral bounds for that activity. They are completely "sexually liberated" so to speak.  It is just another tool in their arsenal, like a nice dress or shoes.

Second, when  talking to victim, the psychopath is simultaneously creating already constructed in her head image of the person you want to see in her.  It's like a talented actor playing a complex role and creating and adapting this role of the fly.  Her response is highly tuned to the feedback she gets by  listening very closely to victim and them adapting her person and saying that the victim wants to hear.  This "adaptable, chameleonic personality" is the psychopath's main weapon in getting person trust. Simultaneously the work is done on discovering weak spots that can be used to manipulate the victim. She turns on the charm  like you turn light in the room -- completely deliverable. Under this fig leaf of charm is hiding her real (rude, callous, mean ) personality, a personality of a Terminator in the nice female body.  What is interesting that typically they complexly despise other females and treat them badly.  

Fake charm that I’m really describing here is a special case of pathological lying. Everything the psychopaths say of done to steer you in the direction of her goal. They are very goal oriented, even more so then male seducers, which also consider the victim as an object. A typical psychopathic trait.  Think about beaten theme of male seducers like Don Juan -- they tell the victim the truth  if and only if it will work to steer the woman to the bed. The same  level of razor sharp goal orientation is completely true for a female psychopath. Like in case of male seducers, female psychopath has a sophisticated often elaborate multistep plan. If for male seducer the goal is simple:  how to get particular woman into his bed, here your mileage may vary. And this plan is created instinctively, almost automatically in the psychopath's mind. In a way they behave as if they are at war, and at war all means are OK to archive victory. In case of female psychopath this ruthlessness in pursuing their goal is masked by the smoke screen of with feminine charm, nice female body, wit and humor, with imitation of weakness or weaker sex, often with some light doze of flirt. But  again, in reality they have steel nerves, and can strangulate, hit with heavy object or poison their victim if that helps -- real Terminators in feminine skin.  Just read a fascinating story about Linda Taylor

Like in case of gifted male seducers the female psychopath has some  “sixth sense”, an uncanny ability see areas where the victim is vulnerable, susceptible to advances, and the ability to anticipate what the victim  will respond to her, to know just the right words to say, to quickly learn your deepest desires so she can pretend to fulfill them, and to learn your deepest fears and insecurities so he can inflict the most damage. While the real focus is completely on getting self-gratification.

Typically female sociopath are very adept to use their intuitive perceptiveness, wit  and charm to gain approval and praise from upper managers. If they feel sympathy they seek intimate relationships with supervisors in order to  increase their status and power over subordinates.  And when the upper manager gives them praise or recognition, such a praise is often  based on charm and canning, and not on ability or usefulness to the organization.

They also have unique and sometime grotesque ability to appropriate achievement s of her subordinates and pretend that they are her own.  As corporate hierarchy works much like Indian casts with little communication between casts such behaviour, the behaviors of a fraud, is almost never detected by their upper managers.  Gender equality policies in modern corporations make their efforts even more effective as upper management is eager to eat fake phony achievement stories to achieve certain organizational goal like percentage of manages at certain level that are woman. such behaviors. Such set of organizational behaviors  in office slang is called "vagina carpet bombing".

Classic cycle of sociopathic  relations (idealize-seduce-devalue-discard)

The description of this cycle now is moved to a separate page Classic idealize-seduce-devalue-deiscard

Female sociopaths in literature and films

Attractive female sociopaths in literature are often called Femme fatale (Wikipedia).  See Films depicting female sociopaths. Some of those films can serve as a teaching guide that help to see under the mask they wear and more quickly detect the typical collection of traits which include:

You should specifically look at, attempts to manipulate you or others,  lying, violating boundaries to get information, impulsivity, lack of tolerance for frustration, inability to deter gratification, trigger-happy behaviour when a person tend to acts before she think and tendency to overreact (especially bouts of anger).  Constellation of those traits make them deviants: people who demonstrate voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational and moral norms and in doing so threaten the well being of other people or an organization or both. As many companies do not follow their own regulations (Enron is one notable example) and try to hide things that are morally wrong, female sociopaths who have no morals at all  have good prospects of career growth.

All together, this is generally not a good combination of characteristics for either female or a man to have, but in hands of a female they represent a very powerful weapon as the initial assumption is that they represent weaker sex. This is as far from the truth in case of female sociopaths as one can get.   They are really extremely tough, tougher then many males, ruthless, dangerous Terminators in an attractive female body.

They are really extremely tough, tougher then many males, ruthless, dangerous Terminators in an attractive female body.

Using gender as a bulletproof vest

They use their gender as a bulletproof vest and male-dominant atmosphere of many corporate departments (for example, IT departments) provide them an excellent opportunity to advance by exploiting the affirmative policies toward woman. 

They use their gender as a bulletproof vest and  male-dominant atmosphere of many corporate departments (for example IT departments) provide them an excellent opportunity to advance by exploiting the affirmative policies toward woman. 

In case promotion is denied for such a woman, or worse a female sociopath was demoted for some actual misdeeds//blunders, she can became a subtle foe,  especially in a culture that refuses to believe that women are capable of and in fact do commit nasty tricks against men.

Spreading dirty rumors is the specialty of female sociopath and those skills are usually polished since childhood to perfection.  They are accomplished students of lying, cheating, conniving and manipulation with malicious intent. Like all sociopaths they have an uncanny ability to find a character flaw that can to be exploited to their advantage, especially in higher ups to speed their  career advancement and/or to hide of misrepresent damaging blunders.

Using sex as a weapon

Sex is just a weapon for them and sexual relations with higher ups  are used as a cover and as a method of advancement. Sociopaths have lack of empathy and other cognitive deficits which prevent experiencing  "real" feelings. They are cold in a very deep sense of this word. So they need to "play love" which is in reality they are unable to experience. But "technically" they can be extremely seductive as they are masters of imitation, perfect actresses, who have intuitive understanding of their "craft". 

At the same time they consider "winning" a particular male just a business goal, much like acquiring a new car or getting an important customer for the company. A good depiction of such behaviour is provided in the film Dangerous Liaisons - Wikipedia  based on a French novel Les Liaisons dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

... the Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) plots revenge against her ex-lover, the Comte de Gercourt, who has ended their relationship. An amoral, sexually ravenous schemer, Merteuil amuses herself by manipulating men out of boredom, and her resentment of the subservient status of women in 16th-century French aristocratic society. To soothe her wounded pride and embarrass Gercourt, she seeks to arrange the seduction and disgrace of his young virgin fiancée, Cécile de Volanges (Uma Thurman), who has only recently been presented to society after spending her formative years in the shelter of a convent.

Merteuil calls on the rakish and similarly unprincipled Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) to do the deed, offering him her own sexual favors as the reward for a successful conquest. Valmont declines, as he has a seduction of his own in progress: Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), the virtuous wife of a member of Parliament. Merteuil is amused and incredulous at Valmont's hubris; how can he ever hope to bed a chaste, devoutly religious woman like Madame Tourvel? Never one to refuse a challenge, Valmont modifies the proposal: If he succeeds in sleeping with Tourvel, Merteuil must sleep with him as well. Merteuil accepts, on the condition that he furnish written proof of the liaison.

... ... ...

Variety considered it an "incisive study of sex as an arena for manipulative power games."... Roger Ebert thought the two lead roles were "played to perfection by Close and Malkovich... their arch dialogues together turn into exhausting conversational games, tennis matches of the soul."[11]

There is also "Americanized" adaptation of Les Liaisons dangereuses, the film Cruel Intentions (1999), directed by Roger Kumble and starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, Selma Blair and Reese Witherspoon relocates the story to modern-day New York and is set amongst upper-class high school teens. The film had two sequels in 2000 and 2004 starring Amy Adams and Kerr Smith.

Another useful film to watch is The Last Seduction

Victims of female sociopaths are typically women

More than half of the bullies reported to a new UK national helpline are women -- and most of the victims are other women.

We hear so much of women as victims and the disadvantages women encounter in employment, that it sometimes comes as a surprise to realize that women are equally as capable of bullying behavior as men.

Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more inclined towards empathy, and less towards seeking dominance. Women are often portrayed as caring more than men about personal experience and feelings.

It may be true that women are less inclined to indulge in vocalized rages - public swearing and shouting - and in physical violence, though I am sure that all of us could think of exceptions. Research indicates, however, that women are inclined towards

Such behavior is evidence of women's socialization: often we do not know how to elicit positive attention, or to assert ourselves so that our views and rights are recognized and respected. So we use inappropriate and ineffectual means to attract attention any way we can. We have been conditioned very early that girls do not shout and scream. No one is surprised, however, if girls go quiet or even sulk.

The problem, however, is that unless people communicate, they will not resolve their differences.

What comes as a shock to many people is just how personally and educationally damaging social and professional isolation and exclusion from networks can be.

More than half of the bullies reported to a new UK national helpline are women - and most of the victims are other women

This page might be a small step alerting to one unanticipated side effect of "gender equality" drive in large corporations, where essentially female managers have a quota to fill. When organizational psychologist Mary Sherry wrote in a national newspaper last month that female managers were far more likely to bully staff than male ones it triggered a large reader response -- almost all backing her view. (Girl power are women the worst bullies - 08-02-2005 by John Charlton )

One unanticipated side effect of "gender equality" drive in large corporations, where essentially female managers have a quota to fill is promotion of female sociopath into management positions

 

Generic methods of fighting sociopaths are applicable

While differences are substantial, most of the findings about behaviour of male psychopaths and methods of resisting them are applicable.

While female sociopath belong to generic category of sociopath the list of genetic traits is always a good starting point. It shows you from which direction they can attack you and how they prepare and (what is the most important) camouflate their attacks.  But details can be revealed only by extensive personal study, working with literature and keeping a diary (that letter is the most important; you should read your observations daily). Without hard work your understanding will necessary be superficial and you might be up for very unpleasant surprises. For staring point see

As bulling and over control in inherent in the female psychopath behavior it make sense to study two related types:

The reason might be that female sociopaths are only are superficially feminine. Under attractive packaging there is a steel core of Terminator in them.

Importance of physical exercise in fighting female psychopaths

Out brains are deeply connected to our bodies. One way to improve your mental stability and the capacities to endure stress is to use vigorous exercise regiment.  This is the point that implicitly was made by prominent neuroscientist Wendy Suzuki in her book Healthy Brain, Happy Life A Personal Program to Activate Your Brain and Do Everything Better. It looks like aerobic exercises are important for mental stability and the ability to cope with stress. Of cause, an important warning attributed to Talleyrand  "Not too much zeal" is applicable here too. Some additional ideas might be extracted from the following reviews:

"... “Exercise is responsible for the majority of the positive brain changes seen with environmental enrichment.”"

A neuroscientist transforms the way we think about our brain, our health, and our personal happiness in this clear, informative, and inspiring guide—a blend of personal memoir, science narrative, and immediately useful takeaways that bring the human brain into focus as never before, revealing the powerful connection between exercise, learning, memory, and cognitive abilities.

Nearing forty, Dr. Wendy Suzuki was at the pinnacle of her career. An award-winning university professor and world-renowned neuroscientist, she had tenure, her own successful research lab, prestigious awards, and international renown.

That’s when to celebrate her birthday, she booked an adventure trip that forced her to wake up to a startling reality: despite her professional success, she was overweight, lonely, and tired and knew that her life had to change. Wendy started simply—by going to an exercise class. Eventually, she noticed an improvement in her memory, her energy levels, and her ability to work quickly and move from task to task easily. Not only did Wendy begin to get fit, but she also became sharper, had more energy, and her memory improved. Being a neuroscientist, she wanted to know why.

What she learned transformed her body and her life. Now, it can transform yours.

Wendy discovered that there is a biological connection between exercise, mindfulness, and action. With exercise, your body feels more alive and your brain actually performs better. Yes—you can make yourself smarter. In this fascinating book, Suzuki makes neuroscience easy to understand, interweaving her personal story with groundbreaking research, and offering practical, short exercises—4 minute Brain Hacks—to engage your mind and improve your memory, your ability to learn new skills, and function more efficiently.

Taking us on an amazing journey inside the brain as never before, Suzuki helps us unlock the keys to neuroplasticity that can change our brains, or bodies, and, ultimately, our lives.

Bassocantor TOP 50 REVIEWER on May 19, 2015

We Have An Enormous Capacity To Change Into The Very Best Version Of Ourselves

HEALTHY BRAIN, HAPPY LIFE is a fun read, filled with all kinds of exciting ways to expand your brain power. My favorite parts of the book are these little sections that the author calls "Brain Hacks." These sections are lists of easy ways to really supercharge your brain and make use of the latent power in it.

Here's the theme in a nutshell: "One thing I know for sure is that brain plasticity endows us with an enormous capacity to change into the very best version of ourselves that we can be." Dr. Suzuki explains that she uses 20 years of research in neuroscience to apply these same principles to her own personal life. She admits that she "Went from living as a virtual lab rat --an overweight middle aged woman would had achieved many things in science, but who could not seem to figure out how to also be a healthy, happy woman..."

One of her main discoveries is the powerful mind-body link. The author emphasizes how powerful exercise is. "Exercise is responsible for the majority of the positive brain changes seen with environmental enrichment." And so, Dr. Suzuki invests much time talking about the power of the brain-body connection. Towards that end, she combines physical workouts as a way to energize your brain: "The body has a powerful influence on her brain functions and conversely but the brain has a powerful influence over how are bodies feel and work and heal." Exercise causes definite changes in your body--it boosts the level of three key chemicals that affect mood.

The key is to make your workouts intentional. Towards that end, the author suggests ways to do this--for example, proclaiming affirmations out loud. "Intentional exercise happens when you make exercise both aerobic and mental...You are fully engaged in the moment and trigger a heightened awareness of the brain body connection." In the Brain Hacks suction, the author lists different exercises that would best fit you.

Another great section is the section on creativity. You can actually improve your creative thinking; it is "a particular version of regular thinking they can be practiced and improved like any other cognitive skill." Once again, the author lists great suggestions in the Brain Hacks section on ways to jumpstart your creativity. The key point is to learn something new and "Try to use as many senses as you can." For example, one fun suggestion is to "Sit outside and blindfold yourself for 4 minutes. Then, listen to the world sounds in a new way."

All in all, HEALTHY BRAIN, HAPPY LIFE is a fun, inspiring read. The author is full of great, uplifting ideas. My favorite chapter is the one on creativity. The end of the book contains an extensive Reference section, in which the author documents the various points she makes.
Highly recommend!

Advance copy for impartial review

love2dazzle on June 10, 2015

Happy Life” by Wendy Suzuki is all about focusing on ...

“Healthy Brian, Happy Life” by Wendy Suzuki is all about focusing on expanding your brain power. Our bodies and mind have a very powerful link. Dr. Suzuki has invested her life to focusing on the brain. She goes on to state that “Exercise is responsible for the majority of the positive brain changes seen with environmental enrichment.” Dr. Suzuki is making the point that we need to exercise to work our brain to its fullest potential. She goes on to make the point that you want to make sure the exercise is intentional because that is what exercise you both mentally and aerobically.

The second best way to expand your brain is by creativity. The point of creativity is to learn new things that will improve your brain and your senses. One is able to find different ways to help build and exercise their brain. The author calls some of the tips she gives “Brain Hacks” so I thought this was a great learning tool.

I thought “Healthy Brain, Happy Life” was very insightful. I thought this book had a lot of good tips and was also able to explain the brain and how things worked really well. I did enjoy reading it and learning new things on how I am able to improve my brain function.

Bruny Hudsonon June 13, 2015

Interesting theory for improving one’s life

The book “Healthy Brain, Happy Life” by Wendy Suzuki is about a success story, about the author’s life. It’s entertaining and enriching but sometimes out of touch with reality. Considering that the author is a neuroscientist, her line of reasoning sounds dubious in parts of the book, especially her generalizing concepts of life. Just because an effort has worked for her, it does not mean it will work for someone else. Nevertheless, the book deserves a five-star rating because of the author’s pleasant writing style and the well-explained examples of research in neuroscience.

Transporter chair reviewer, on July 9, 2015

Mainly autobiographical

I saw her interviewed on CBS and found her a charming and energetic person. I am not sure what take always I have from the book, though it interested me since I am also an Asian American woman who is an over achiever, and many of her experiences resonated. I enjoyed the read. I am not sure what type of person I would recommend it to . I am also a doctor. It was fun to review some of the neurobiology and learn some new things.

Literature and films about borderlines as an additional resource

See

A lot of valuable material about female sociopath is provided in books, article, movies and pages related to Borderline Psychopaths. that includes such themes as Divorce which is never easy but with such individual is a minefield.


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 07, 2016] Puzzling People The Labyrinth of the Psychopath

Notable quotes:
"... this book is the first I have seen that really, truly provides answers and healing for victims. ..."
"... I believed I had brought this misfortune upon myself. What is worse, unless someone has been through what some of us have, they can't understand, and so one is left feeling adrift, lonely, confused and misunderstood. It is also very easy to turn to non-constructive ways to block, drown or diffuse the anguish one suffers after a relationship with a psychopath ends. ..."
"... I now understand what happened to me, and I now realize, through the power of the words and insights in Thomas Sheridan's book, that it was NOT my fault. I was targeted. I was intentionally used in the most despicable ways. And I am not alone. ..."
"... The term for these people who have no empathy, conscious and who prey on vulnerable, decent caring people is PSYCHOPATH. If any of you out there are having trouble recovering from such an ordeal you are not alone. ..."
"... I was a strong, intelligent and happy person until I was targeted by a female vampire..idealized, devalued and thrown in the garbage like a used napkin. It nearly brought me to suicide. But guess what....didnt happen...to bad for the psychopath...thats what they want ..."
"... I found them to be very useful despite the fact I had already encountered psychopathic people before, my first (to my knowledge) being in a relationship in 1997. When it collapsed, so did I. Why had someone been so cruel, dishonest and manipulative toward me? I didn't deserve to be treated this way. I then went on to learn a lot about psychopaths. ..."
"... There is a section on the psychopaths that are at the highest levels of government and corporations, and the methods they employ to keep people in their grip. ..."
"... In addition, he explains the psychopathic organizations. He discusses individuals in politics, in religious organizations and possibly the person sleeping right next to you. ..."
"... The title of the Introduction summarizes the way we cannot stop being used: Know thyself - Know thy predator. ..."
"... They were good books, but this was the first that acknowledged and accurately articulated the emotional devastation from the victim's point of view. ..."
"... It was the book that convinced me that my tormenter is a psychopath. It also helped me free myself from the shame and self-blame, the feeling that I was weak or stupid for getting drawn into the crazy-making web of a parasite. Also, I was accepting of the fact that I needed to go completely no contact. ..."
"... Finally, it put to rest any impulses I had to try to get even with or expose this person. I've realized that it's pointless and probably dangerous to do so. I know I've already been trashed to our mutual acquaintances. I can only hope the people who've seen through this monster won't believe what they've been told. But if they do, I suppose it's their loss. ..."
"... A Good Place to Start. If you have only just cottoned on to the existence of psychopaths and the trouble they bring into your life this book is a good place to start. If you've been the target of a psychopath it will help you understand why. It will also help you plan your escape, survival and recovery. If you want to learn more after reading this book look at books by Jon Ronson, Martha Stout and Robert D. Hare. ..."
Dec 07, 2016 | www.amazon.com
Catherine Lewis on June 14, 2011 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Finally - a book that truly helps victims of psychopaths

This is an amazing, life-changing book for anyone who has been a victim of a psychopath. I was in a relationship with a psychopath for over five years, and while I had read other books that were very helpful (including check lists that made my blood run cold) this book is the first I have seen that really, truly provides answers and healing for victims.

I had spent the last seven years feeling that I was only partly healed from my experience. I still felt a big part of myself was missing and I was deeply depressed. I had come to accept that I would never be the same - that I would always bear a large amount of damage to my psyche, my self esteem and my sense of who I was. I felt that a big part of me had been taken, but more importantly, I believed that I had ALLOWED it to happen, and that it was ALL MY FAULT.

I believed I had brought this misfortune upon myself. What is worse, unless someone has been through what some of us have, they can't understand, and so one is left feeling adrift, lonely, confused and misunderstood. It is also very easy to turn to non-constructive ways to block, drown or diffuse the anguish one suffers after a relationship with a psychopath ends. This book saved my life. I read it within about 3-4 short evenings, and it has completely changed the way I perceive what happened in a way that is highly empowering. I am re-claiming my fundamental spirit and joy.

I now understand what happened to me, and I now realize, through the power of the words and insights in Thomas Sheridan's book, that it was NOT my fault. I was targeted. I was intentionally used in the most despicable ways. And I am not alone. There is help, there is hope, and you can regain what you lost of yourself. They say there are no magic bullets for curing deep trauma, but I am here to tell you, this book is that magic bullet for survivors of psychopaths to not only recover, but emerge stronger, more whole and more joyful than ever before. Read it. Learn it. Get your life back.

9 Comments 70 people found this helpful.

tim on September 11, 2012
the very best work out there..author under attack from cult leader

Let me start out by saying that Thomas Sheridan's brilliant work about the world of psychopaths in both personal relationships and in society at large...is currently being subjected to a smear campaign by a disgruntled cult leader....hense as you can see after sometime in mid August there appears on Amazon numerous one star reviews denigrating his book. Prior to mid August you will see that the book is universally raved.

Enough of that. Let me tell you my opinion having had the mis fortune to be in a romantic relationship for six months with one of these soul rapers.

First off only people who had been involved with these entities will truly understand how helpful and extraordinary Seridens work is in helping them make sense of what happened to them. Personally, I spent the last six months studying narcissist personally disorder, borderlines etc...its all nonsense. The term for these people who have no empathy, conscious and who prey on vulnerable, decent caring people is PSYCHOPATH. If any of you out there are having trouble recovering from such an ordeal you are not alone.

I was a strong, intelligent and happy person until I was targeted by a female vampire..idealized, devalued and thrown in the garbage like a used napkin. It nearly brought me to suicide. But guess what....didnt happen...to bad for the psychopath...thats what they want. To murder you and get away with it.

Sheridans work is brilliant and I've read everything in the world that is out there. If you've been targeted by one of these creeps read Sheridan's books.. you'll feel 100% better and you will come to understand the dark , empty, lying subhuman demon that passed trough you life.

There's nowhere to go but UP from there and on to becoming the loving, caring beautiful and now knowledgeable empathetic human you are. Do not pass go. Get both books you won't regret it. Pay no attention to the negative reviews by the psychopaths online trying to smear his timely, brilliant and important work. 2 Comments

Lucas Biddle on March 25, 2011

Upon recently breaking up with what turned out to be a psychopath, I found the YouTube channel of Thomas Sheridan. There, he posts videos pertaining to the subject of psychopaths in our society.

I found them to be very useful despite the fact I had already encountered psychopathic people before, my first (to my knowledge) being in a relationship in 1997. When it collapsed, so did I. Why had someone been so cruel, dishonest and manipulative toward me? I didn't deserve to be treated this way. I then went on to learn a lot about psychopaths.

This is the third book I've read on the subject. It is written in a very easily understood language, rather than using too many clinical terms that are encountered in books written by authors who are admittedly in possession of a PhD. I don't believe the lack of a piece of paper makes Puzzling People any less valid. After all, anyone is capable of making a study of people and documenting their findings, and perhaps go on to publish those findings.

I finished the book off in two days. The various key traits of the psychopath are outlined. Often I would laugh upon reading some of the paragraphs. That's because they resonated so strongly with my own experiences. Admittedly I did not learn anything startlingly new from this book, since I have previous experience with psychopaths and have read other books, but this book is useful to read nonetheless. In fact it might be useful to remind oneself now and then of this unfortunate type of person. The psychopath is a shell that houses an entity unlike most of us. It has no conscience. It is devoid of the wide range of emotions the rest of us have. It can do what it wants to you and me and it can sleep at night. It is sub-human.

There is a section on the psychopaths that are at the highest levels of government and corporations, and the methods they employ to keep people in their grip.

The book concludes with ways to regain your life and energy after an encounter with a psychopath, and reminds us to close the door on them and never ever open it again.

The only complaint I have with the book (and you can call me pedantic if you like) is that it really ought to have been proof-read before publishing because it is, unfortunately, littered with typographical errors. At times I found that a little distracting. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's a good read on a subject more people really need to be aware of.

Steven Haackon December 8, 2015

Know thyself - Know thy predator

This book is a must read for every adult. Sheridan opens up the inner world of the psychopath. The psychopath has no conscience; they are experts at manipulation. They cannot be changed. In addition, he explains the psychopathic organizations. He discusses individuals in politics, in religious organizations and possibly the person sleeping right next to you.

The title of the Introduction summarizes the way we cannot stop being used: Know thyself - Know thy predator.

Michael Harrison October 18, 2015

Must read for anyone in the corporate world

Absolute required reading, to survive and thrive in our world...Sheridan will help you understand the world, and help you to understand how to relax,. and thrive.

Artist on March 10, 2014

Good and bad, but mostly good

This book is tremendously comforting for anyone who's emerged from a relationship with a psychopath. I've read Robert Hare's and George Simon's books on, respectively, sociopaths and manipulators. They were good books, but this was the first that acknowledged and accurately articulated the emotional devastation from the victim's point of view.

It was the book that convinced me that my tormenter is a psychopath. It also helped me free myself from the shame and self-blame, the feeling that I was weak or stupid for getting drawn into the crazy-making web of a parasite. Also, I was accepting of the fact that I needed to go completely no contact.

Finally, it put to rest any impulses I had to try to get even with or expose this person. I've realized that it's pointless and probably dangerous to do so. I know I've already been trashed to our mutual acquaintances. I can only hope the people who've seen through this monster won't believe what they've been told. But if they do, I suppose it's their loss.

The only problem I had with the book was that it went off the rails about three-quarters of the way through, turning into a screed against "institutional psychopaths" in popular culture, government, etc. I understand the author's passion, but his points could have been made more succinctly and with more restraint. As they stand now, it sounds like ranting.

William Heagueon January 31, 2014

A Good Place to Start. If you have only just cottoned on to the existence of psychopaths and the trouble they bring into your life this book is a good place to start. If you've been the target of a psychopath it will help you understand why. It will also help you plan your escape, survival and recovery. If you want to learn more after reading this book look at books by Jon Ronson, Martha Stout and Robert D. Hare.

Hoosier Hayseed January 21, 2014

Extremely helpful advice

Following an episode with a family member which absolutely left me dumbfounded that anybody could be so cold and indifferent to the needs of another human being - even a relative - I looked for any books I could find about psychotic behavior.
I found one, "The Sociopath Next Door," which was excellent, and then, later on, I began to see other books on the subject, and bought several of them.

But Thomas Sheridan's book has been, hands down, the best of the lot, and probably has satisfied my need to search for any more information on the subject.

He really covers all the bases about psychopaths, and explains many things - some of which I already knew, and others that I had surmised on my own, but there were many other things which were completely new to me, which I found invaluable to learn about.
His humanity, and his love for the other members of humanity simply shines through, and he makes a couple of very profound comments, which offer much encouragement for anybody who has ever been subjected to one of these freaks.

One is the observation that once you learn what a psychopath is all about, you are probably, from that moment, safeguarded from ever being fooled by one again, which is extremely comforting to know.

The other thing is his conviction that, as bad as they are, they are always doomed to failure, and that we will ultimately win, is very encouraging.

But one thing that still confounds me is just trying to understand exactly what they are. They appear for all the world to be human, and you may know for a fact that they came from human parents - maybe even your own family - but they act like aliens, or anything but someone of this world.

I had thought that the only answer was that they were simply evil, and that may be the ultimate verdict.

But if the problem is that their brain is actually defective - missing the genes that account for empathy and compassion - then it stands to reason that they simply are not "playing with a full deck," as it were, almost literally.

But whatever they are, they are a living nightmare for anybody to encounter, and even worse than that, if you happen to be so unfortunate as to find yourself married to one.

[Dec 07, 2016] Our Gaslight Economy

charleshughsmith.blogspot.com
Correspondent Jason H. alerted me to the work of author Thomas Sheridan ( Puzzling People: The Labyrinth of the Psychopath), who claims to have coined the term gaslighting.

As noted yesterday, gaslighting has often been used in the context of personal relationships to describe a manipulative person's attempts to undermine and control their romantic partner.

In a larger context, these manipulative techniques can also be applied to our perception of the entire economy:

  1. Questioning, belittling, discounting and undermining our experience of economic "animal spirits" and general conditions.
  2. Overwriting our memory of the economy of the past, again by undermining, questioning and belittling our memories.
  3. Discrediting and marginalizing our definitions of economic well-being, in favor of the manipulator's definition of our well-being.
  4. Using authority and "experts" to disqualify and discredit dissenting views.
  5. Denigrate and deny our lived experience of economic conditions by repeating the institutionalized authority-approved narrative of "what actually happened."
  6. Disorient, discredit and destroy dissent with a torrent of false statistics, false narratives, false accusations and false claims of our errors.

[Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

[Nov 08, 2016] What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

www.moonofalabama.org

mauisurfer | Nov 8, 2016 12:02:23 AM | 60

Michael Hudson says

> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is a class war and we're winning it.

> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.

> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.

[Nov 06, 2016] Incarceration in the United States

Nov 06, 2016 | en.wikipedia.org


According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population.[2] Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation or on parole.[2] In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population.[2]

[2] Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 (NCJ 248479). Published December 2014 by U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).


... and those who survive, survive in the belly of the beast.

[Nov 06, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporter Bashes Hillary Clinton from Her Own Stage 'Trapped in World of Elite,' 'Lost Grip of Average Person'

Notable quotes:
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
www.breitbart.com

Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.

Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was cheered.

He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."

The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.

"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point."

At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to escort him off the stage and out of the event.

[Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
www.nakedcapitalism.com

Fiver

Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

[Nov 03, 2016] If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

Notable quotes:
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:09:39 PM | 22

If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".

Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8

[Nov 02, 2016] Ex-Secret Service officer behind Clinton tell-all planning defamation suit

Notable quotes:
"... It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony." ..."
"... His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years." ..."
"... Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons. ..."
Oct 26, 2016 | nypost.com

A former Secret Service officer who published an explosive tell-all from his days guarding the Bill and Hillary Clinton White House is planning to file a defamation lawsuit against his detractors, The Post has learned.

A lawyer for Gary Byrne, whose book " Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate ," has sent notices to Media Matters for America and David Brock informing them that he intends to file suit.

"Officer Byrne will bring legal action against you, in your personal capacity, and against Media Matters," a lawyer for the former Secret Service officer wrote to Brock, a loyal Clinton ally and the founder of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters.

The letter requests Brock and Media Matters to "hold" all records and communications associated with their communications regarding Byrne - including "Any communication(s) between David Brock and The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton" regarding the former Secret Service officer, suggesting there might be collusion between the campaign and her defenders.

It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony."

Additionally, Byrne's attorney demanded a retraction for "the utterly false statement(s) that Officer Byrne was not in close proximity to President William Jefferson Clinton."

His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years."

Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons.

[Oct 30, 2016] Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family

Notable quotes:
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.

"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."

Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.

"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."

"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.

Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.

"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.

[Oct 29, 2016] Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get required permits for a rushed renovation of the house and grounds they recently bought next to their original Westchester home, it was reported Friday

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Something about Hillary and Bill management skiils...

Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm

Penny ante but completely typical:

Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get required permits for a rushed renovation of the house and grounds they recently bought next to their original Westchester home, it was reported Friday.

Records show that the Clintons' contractors filled in an in-ground pool, covering it with gravel, and extensively remodeled the interior of the property - all without applying for permits and paying the required fees to the town of New Castle.

Building Inspector William Maskiell inspected the Chappaqua property after getting the tip about the pool work and then discovered the other renovations that were underway.

Attached to the building inspector's letter was a document titled Clinton Violation Inspection Report in which Maskiell said the contractor told him the Clintons "were quite adamant about [the Thanksgiving deadline] and what had started as a paint job turned into this," meaning the major renovation.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/clintons-failed-to-get-permits-for-rushed-home-renovation/

When Hillary becomes "adamant," nobody dares to confront her, even if her demands are illegal.

Building permits are for little people. Hillary can grant herself a retroactive permit with an executive order.

Tom October 28, 2016 at 6:34 pm

Crazy - there are more problems than just the lack of building permits:

The Clintons also have outstanding zoning and Building Department problems at their residence next door at 15 Old House Lane,

They obtained variances in 2000 for a guard house on the property, for a higher fence and for "lot coverage," or the amount of space buildings take up on the property.

The variances must be renewed every five years - but the Clintons never showed up before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

"Consequently, they are null and void. They should have come back in 2005, 2010 and 2015. So the variances have expired and they have to start from scratch" and reapply, said the inspector.

The original home and a combination library and gym in an outbuilding still have outstanding building permit issues as well, including a sprinkler "sign off" by the town engineer and an electrical inspection in the library/gym

I'm not seeing much basic competency here in executing home ownership responsibilities. Next I'll hear Bill steals the neigbor's Sunday newspaper off their porch.

Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 7:26 pm

More likely he steals the neighbor's teenage daughter for a midnight ride.

[Oct 29, 2016] The Nuclear Option - Wikileaks Reveals Even Hillarys Own Staff Knows Truth Shes Psychotic

Notable quotes:
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.

Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people working the hardest to get her elected president.

I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs. Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."

Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.

Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did?

Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could before coming clean.

And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.

And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.

In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?"

Answer: Not likely.

Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.

That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time.

Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.

Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever you have to say to make the press go away.

"I am sorry you were confused."

"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt .

[Oct 28, 2016] Team Clinton Headspace Emails Published by WikiLeaks Are About Her Mood

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA. Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems....

She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal Prison.

RobL_v2 2 hours ago Her mood??

This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.

Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.

They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary was 'moody'.

The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!

Lion 3 WhiteSplainItToYou 42 minutes ago

Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA.

DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA. Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

Suelark DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ 42 minutes ago

Please repost this here and elsewhere. If true it would make sense of much of what has happened.

Regular Guy an hour ago
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true,"

They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying, "Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe Regular Guy 12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there is some reason to question the facts.

DeplorableCarlo an hour ago
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems in her head.

[Oct 24, 2016] Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business

nypost.com

Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See: "On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly 2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")

[Oct 23, 2016] Clintonism is wedge politics directed against any class or populist upheaval that might threaten neoliberalism

That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

An excellent article

It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]

There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.

http://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/

[Oct 15, 2016] Hillarys Public Vs. Private Positions - Deceit

Strausian neocon deception promoted by Hillary...
Oct 15, 2016 | www.ronpaulforums.com
In a recently-leaked speech from 2013, Hillary Clinton said that it is important to take both public and private positions on each issue. Is this the language of the typical politician, or something even more deceptive? How does that explain her positions on Syria and Saudi Arabia?

watch-v=-U9IrnpmeAA

[Oct 14, 2016] This Many Deaths Are Way More Than Happenstance

Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

DuneCreature Oct 14, 2016 9:15 AM

We could always have a few murders and suspecious deaths looked into again. .... A few to chose from:

- Kevin Ives and Don Henry , both 17, crushed by a train, August 23, 1987. Their deaths were ruled accidental, with the medical examiner saying they had fallen asleep on a railroad line after smoking marijuana, but a grand jury found they had been murdered before being placed on the tracks. They had allegedly stumbled on a plot to smuggle drugs and guns from an airport in Mena, Arkansas, that Bill Clinton was said to be involved in as state governor.

- Victor Raiser , 53, small plane crash, July 30, 1992. The second finance co-chair of Bill Clinton's presidential campaign was killed along with his son during a fishing vacation in Alaska. Campaign press secretary Dee Dee Myers called Raiser a major player in the organization.

- Paul Tully , 48, heart attack, September 25, 1992. A chain-smoking, heavy drinking political consultant who weighed more than 320lb. Tully died seven weeks before Clinton's first presidential election win. He had been political director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during Clinton's rise. Tully was on the left of the Democratic Party and usually worked for those who shared his views, however he agreed to work for Clinton because he thought he was the only Democrat who could beat President George Bush.

- Paula Gober , 36, single car accident, December 7, 1992. She was Clinton's interpreter for the deaf for several years and traveled with him while he was governor of Arkansas. Her vehicle overturned on a bend, throwing her 30 feet. There were no witnesses.

- Vince Foster , 48, suicide, July 20, 1993. A long-time friend of the Clintons in Arkansas, new president Bill Clinton appointed him Deputy White House Counsel. Foster soon realized he hated the job and fell into a deep depression. He was found shot to death in Fort Marcy Park in Washington.

- Stanley Heard , 47, small plane crash, September 3, 1993. An Arkansas chiropractor who, according to the book, A Profession of One's Own, treated the Clinton family, Heard was asked by Bill Clinton to represent the practice as plans for 'Hillarycare' were being finalized. His attorney Steve Dickson, was flying him home from a healthcare meeting in Washington, DC. On the way to the capital from his home in Kansas, Dickson's small plane developed problems so he landed in St Louis and rented another plane. That rented plane was the one that crashed in rural Virginia, killing both men.

- Jerry Parks , 47, shot to death, September 23, 1993. The head of security for Bill Clinton's headquarters in Arkansas was driving home in West Little Rock when two men pulled alongside his car and sprayed it with semi-automatic gunfire. As Parks's car stopped a man stepped out of the Chevy and shot him twice with a 9mm pistol and sped off. Despite several witnesses, no-one was ever arrested. The killing came two months after Parks had watched news of Foster's death and allegedly told his son Gary 'I'm a dead man'. His wife Lois remarried, and her second husband, Dr David Millstein was stabbed to death in 2006.

- Ed Willey , 60, suicide, November 29, 1993. Husband of Bill Clinton accuser Kathleen Willey, he was deeply in debt and shot himself to death on the day that his wife alleges she was groped by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

- Herschel Friday , 70, small plane crash, March 1, 1994. Friday was an Arkansas lawyer who Richard Nixon had once considered for the Supreme Court. Friday was known as a benefactor of Bill Clinton, serving on his campaign finance committee.

- Kathy Ferguson , 37, gun suicide, May 11, 1994. She was the ex-wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, who was named in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton. Ferguson left a note blaming problems with her fiancé, Bill Shelton. A month later Shelton, upset about the suicide verdict, killed himself.

- Ron Brown , 54, plane crash, April 3, 1996. Brown was chair of the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's rise to the presidential nomination and was rewarded with the cabinet position. He was under a corruption investigation when his plane slammed into a mountainside in Croatia. Doctors who examined his body found a circular wound on the top of his head which led to suspicions that he had died before the plane crashed, but that theory was later discounted. The crash was attributed to pilot error.

- Charles Meissner , 56, same plane crash as Brown. Meissner was assistant secretary for international trade and had been criticized for allegedly giving special security clearance to John Huang, who later pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges for violating campaign finance laws, in a case that enmeshed the Clinton administration.

- Barbara Wise , 48, natural causes, November 29, 1996. Wise, who worked alongside Brown, Meissner and Huang in the Commerce Department was found dead at her desk on the day after Thanksgiving 1996. Her death was originally classified as a homicide but police later said Wise, 48, who had a history of severe ill health, had died from natural causes. A local TV station initially quoted an unidentified police source as saying her body was partially nude and her office was locked, but those reports were later denied.

- Mary Mahoney , 25, armed robbery, July 7, 1997. Mahoney was a White House intern during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. A lesbian gay rights activist, she never found herself troubled by Clinton, but she did take to counseling those who did. She was shot dead during a robbery at a Washington Starbucks where she worked.

- Jim McDougal , 57, heart attack, March 8, 1998. McDougal and his wife Susan were involved in the Whitewater real estate scandal that rocked the Clinton administration. They and the Clintons had invested $203,000 to buy land in the Ozarks but the venture failed and McDougal was convicted of corruption for borrowing money from his Savings and Loan to cover the cost. He died in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas.

- John Ashe , 61, weightlifting accident, June 22, 2016. The Antiguan diplomat dropped a dumbbell on his neck and asphyxiated himself at his home in Dobbs Ferry, New York. He was due to stand trial for allegedly receiving $500,000 from billionaire real estate developer Ng Lap Seng who was involved in a scandal involving illegally funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's presidency.

- Seth Rich , 27, armed robbery, July 26, 2016. A rising star in the DNC, Rich was robbed at gunpoint after a night of drinking in Washington, DC. The robbers took nothing, leaving his watch and wallet after shooting him several times in the back. Rich had allegedly been involved in the leak of documents that brought down Hillary Clinton ally Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

- Mark Weiner , 62, leukemia, July 26, 2016. Despite his condition, Weiner, a prodigious Clinton fundraiser, was due to attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and was dressing on the day he was due to travel from his home in Rhode Island. But he suddenly felt ill and went to bed and never got up again.

- Victor Thorn , 54, suicide, August 1, 2016. Thorn shot himself in the head at the top of Nittany Mountain, Pennsylvania, on his birthday. He had written four books highly critical of the Clintons. He was also a Holocaust denier.

- Shawn Lucas , 38, unexplained, August 2, 2016. Just days before his death, Lucas, a process server had delivered papers to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington, DC, filming himself as he did so. He was found dead in his apartment in the city.

There are more but these are a good start.

Live Hard, This Many Deaths Are Way More Than Happenstance, Die Free

~ DC v2.0

rmopf2010 VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 9:45 AM Another one to be Clintonized

[Oct 13, 2016] Dangerous idiots: how the liberal media elite failed working-class Americans

See also Propaganda
This election is about the backlash against neoliberalism that became the dominant ideology of the ruling elite in the USA since 1980th. At this point blue color workers became sick of Demorats (aka Neoliberal Democrats) who are betraying them after each elections ("Change we can believe in" in worlds of the king of "bait and switch" Obama) and expecting still they will vote for Democratic as they have nowhere to go (Clinton strategy). They want to show middle finger to Clinton and other neoliberal criminals who deprived them of work, of dignity, of health (heroine epidemic is hitting the USA really hard). It's a class war all over again. Note how neoliberal media tried to misrepresent it accusing Trump supporters of racism, bigotry, and all other sins to mask anti-neoliberal backlash of the US population, and the revolutionary situation in the county, when the elite lost the control of the population. Which really somewhat reminds me the last days of the USSR when communist propaganda stopped working and people start seeing the "Politburo" as "naked king" -- a bunch of corrupt priests of obscure religion, who do not believe in the ideology they promote for "shmucks", only with their own and their families well-being. that their sons and daughters attend Western universities and their wives are shopping in Paris.
Notable quotes:
"... Last month, results of 87,000 interviews conducted by Gallup showed that those who liked Trump were under no more economic distress or immigration-related anxiety than those who opposed him. ..."
"... Earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed that Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of $72,000 – higher than that of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporters. ..."
"... These facts haven't stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class's giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue. ..."
"... stories about the Democratic lawmakers who in recent decades ended welfare as we knew it, hopped in the sack with Wall Street and forgot American labor in their global trade agreements. ..."
"... Countless images of working-class progressives, including women such as Betty, are thus rendered invisible by a ratings-fixated media that covers elections as horse races and seeks sensational b-roll. ..."
"... This media paradigm created the tale of a divided America – "red" v "blue"– in which the 42% of Kansans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are meaningless. ..."
"... In lieu of such coverage, media makers cast the white working class as a monolith and imply an old, treacherous story convenient to capitalism: that the poor are dangerous idiots. ..."
"... I'm hard-pressed to think of a worse slight than the media figures who have disregarded the embattled white working class for decades now beseeching the country to have sympathy for them. We don't need their analysis, and we sure don't need their tears. What we need is to have our stories told, preferably by someone who can walk into a factory without his own guilt fogging his glasses. ..."
"... Zaitchik wisely described those he met as a "blue-collar middle class"– mostly white people who have worked hard and lost a lot, whether in the market crash of 2008 or the manufacturing layoffs of recent decades. He found that their motivations overwhelmingly "started with economics and ended with economics". The anger he observed was "pointed up, not down" at those who forgot them when global trade deals were negotiated, not at minority groups. ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
"... It wasn't poor whites who criminalized blackness by way of marijuana laws and the "war on drugs". Nor was it poor whites who conjured the specter of the black "welfare queen". These points should not minimize the horrors of racism at the lowest economic rungs of society, but remind us that those horrors reside at the top in different forms and with more terrible power. ..."
"... The main reason that national media outlets have a blind spot in matters of class is the lack of socioeconomic diversity within their ranks. Few people born to deprivation end up working in newsrooms or publishing books. ..."
"... American [neoliberal] journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills. That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it. ..."
"... What a balanced, engaging and informative read! She just blew away my stereotype of Trump supporters and illuminated the conundrum of why/how Trump has indeed gotten this far in spite of all the foul language, insults, etc. while still maintaining an impressive base of supporters -- obviously not the "white trash" to whom his success has been conveniently attributed by elite thinkers. ..."
"... I love how Republican/neocons explain the economy for past 8 years: GWB's tenure had nothing to do with how bad the economy got (America during each Presidential administration exists in a vacuum, wholly separate from the preceding one); Obama gets no credit for any improvement (he's so weak and pathetic that anything good that happened was because of brave Republicans forcing legislation through over his hysterical objections); Obama is fully to blame for whatever slow and unevenly-felt recovery the economy has been making (he never passes any Republican-backed legislation that would make it all better and ninja-wizards it so the Republicans can't override him) ..."
"... I'm a little confused by the title of this article that is supposedly describing the liberal media elite and it's failings concerning the working-class. Two of the "liberal media elite" are conservative David Brooks and National Review's Kevin Williamson who are as far from liberal as you can get. ..."
"... This year, more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than for Donald Trump – a newsworthy point I never saw noted in national press, who perhaps couldn't fathom that "flyover country" might contain millions of Americans more progressive than their Clinton strongholds. ..."
"... The self-congratulatory [neo]liberal media has done such a terrible disservice to such a huge group of people by trivializing their concerns. It seems that anyone who disagrees with the media's perspective can glibly be insulted. What the media doesn't seem to get is that insulting people, after a while, only creates rage. ..."
"... The New Yorker's excellent economic writer James Surowiecki has an essay in this week's mag. noting that if Trump gets in and enacts his tax "plan" the richest Americans will receive a 10-11% tax cut and the rest of us get a walloping . 05%. He excoriated the notion that this makes him an "outsider," a claim many of us have been deriding from the onset. This suggests moneyed interests, which invariably are powerful interests, stand to gain a literal fortune if Trump wins, a sobering thought about who and what may truly be fueling his race. ..."
"... The US is different to Europe, even the UK, and the conflict between 'the land of the free', and everyone has an opportunity to make it big time, with the patent impact of raw capitalism on workers has been around since the eighteenth century. That it has got worse since Reagan and Thatcher opened up neo-liberal economics to full throttle is a catalyst for dissatisfaction, not the total cause. There already was an intolerance in the US in the same way as in the UK but the cycle of time has taken us from the inception of the welfare state to the stirrings of populism and the sort of nationalism that troubled the world in the '30s. ..."
"... One must also remember that the seeds were sown for Trump's brand of intolerance by the 'Tea Party' movement and Republican intransigence since 2008. ..."
"... One thing that is not considered is how it can impact on two party politics. There's plenty here who say there are only two choices - Clinton or Trump, and that any failure to vote for Clinton is de facto a vote for Trump. They never appear to consider the converse. There's only two choices, and that a vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same, therefore voting for anyone but Trump is a de facto vote for more of the same. ..."
"... Great piece, was the same with brexit. Are you racist or do you support remain? Having successfully framed the question as such it's not surprising that polls turned out to be wrong. This paper in particular became/fostered an outlet for hatred of those inferior to the left, so fair play for publishing this article. ..."
"... The problem is that the Liberal Elite media isn't liberal any more. The Guardian is in full support of big business and banks, and their unwavering support of any politician who wants to keep the status quo. ..."
"... It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny. ..."
"... They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict on the poor. It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get implemented.... It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits but it makes us look like we care." ..."
"... That problem is rooted in the notion that higher class means higher integrity. As journalist Lorraine Berry wrote last month, "The story remains that only the ignorant would be racist. Racism disappears with education we're told." As the first from my family to hold degrees, I assure you that none of us had to go to college to learn basic human decency. ..."
"... People support trump because they see through the BS and propaganda that the MSM have been serving up all these years, and they are tired of it. Nobody wants what the establishment is selling. That anyone supports Hillary is a testament to the power of propaganda. That half the population supports trump is proof that the propaganda is losing its effectiveness. ..."
"... It's said that towards the end of the Soviet empire, it was the same. ..."
"... From my own worm's eye perspective, I can see the comparisons with British society and the high handed attitudes of our own liberal-left social elites who bemoan the masses for voting for Brexit. The damned uneducated and unwashed masses eh, look at what they've done the poor fools! ..."
"... you no longer get to hide behind it because we are rejecting you and the Democratic Party as unreliable partners. ..."
"... Besides the polling, one only needs to look at the number of people attending Trump rallies versus Hillary Clintons'. Trump is filling arena with 10 to 20,000 seats with people still lined up outside trying to get in. Whereas Hillary is barely filling a high school gymnasium. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a toss for their suffering. ..."
"... Trump is a dispicable human being...but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need - whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change...but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"! ..."
"... American journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills. ..."
"... That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it. ..."
"... I see a kernel of truth. Many I know well who support Trump are middle class who are not racists, bigots, and do not fit the profile attached to Trump. They are religious, social and fiscal conservatives who are furious that they are unfairly labeled by the media. ..."
"... They are voting for him because he stuck a finger in the eye of the complacent Republican hierarchy who believe and practice "business as usual" while the middle class is stagnating in place. ..."
"... The Democrats attract the rich and elitist voters (and this includes the main stream media) on one hand and the poor and uneducated on the other hand. ..."
"... The middle class feels betrayed - and will sadly turn to ANYBODY who projects their anger and rage, even if that anybody is a charlatan and con artist. ..."
"... New York Times: Hillary is a congenital liar. Except that was 1996: "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar." ..."
"... Trump represents change, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Trump is the man with the bulldozer who'll knock everything down so perhaps something new can be rebuilt upon the ashes. America is unsalvageable at this point, so continuing on with a status quo president, represented perfectly by Hillary Clinton, is totally pointless. ..."
Oct 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

... Hard numbers complicate, if not roundly dismiss, the oft-regurgitated theory that income or education levels predict Trump support, or that working-class whites support him disproportionately. Last month, results of 87,000 interviews conducted by Gallup showed that those who liked Trump were under no more economic distress or immigration-related anxiety than those who opposed him.

According to the study, his supporters didn't have lower incomes or higher unemployment levels than other Americans. Income data misses a lot; those with healthy earnings might also have negative wealth or downward mobility. But respondents overall weren't clinging to jobs perceived to be endangered. "Surprisingly", a Gallup researcher wrote, "there appears to be no link whatsoever between exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign."

Earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed that Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of $72,000 – higher than that of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporters. Forty-four percent of them had college degrees, well above the national average of 33% among whites or 29% overall. In January, political scientist Matthew MacWilliams reported findings that a penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support.

These facts haven't stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class's giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue.

In seeking to explain Trump's appeal, proportionate media coverage would require more stories about the racism and misogyny among white Trump supporters in tony suburbs. Or, if we're examining economically driven bitterness among the working class, stories about the Democratic lawmakers who in recent decades ended welfare as we knew it, hopped in the sack with Wall Street and forgot American labor in their global trade agreements.

But, for national media outlets comprised largely of middle- and upper-class [neo]liberals, that would mean looking their own class in the face.

The faces journalists do train the cameras on – hateful ones screaming sexist vitriol next to Confederate flags – must receive coverage but do not speak for the communities I know well. That the media industry ignored my home for so long left a vacuum of understanding in which the first glimpse of an economically downtrodden white is presumed to represent the whole.

Part of the current glimpse is JD Vance, author of the bestselling new memoir Hillbilly Elegy . A successful attorney who had a precariously middle-class upbringing in an Ohio steel town, Vance wrote of the chaos that can haunt a family with generational memory of deep poverty. A conservative who says he won't vote for Trump, Vance speculates about why working-class whites will: cultural anxiety that arises when opioid overdose kills your friends and the political establishment has proven it will throw you under the bus. While his theories may hold up in some corners, in interviews coastal media members have repeatedly asked Vance to speak for the entire white working class.

... ... ...

One-dimensional stereotypes fester where journalism fails to tread. The last time I saw my native class receive substantial focus, before now, was over 20 years ago – not in the news but on the television show Roseanne , the fictional storylines of which remain more accurate than the musings of comfortable commentators in New York studios.

Countless images of working-class progressives, including women such as Betty, are thus rendered invisible by a ratings-fixated media that covers elections as horse races and seeks sensational b-roll.

This media paradigm created the tale of a divided America – "red" v "blue"– in which the 42% of Kansans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are meaningless.

This year, more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than for Donald Trump – a newsworthy point I never saw noted in national press, who perhaps couldn't fathom that "flyover country" might contain millions of Americans more progressive than their Clinton strongholds.

In lieu of such coverage, media makers cast the white working class as a monolith and imply an old, treacherous story convenient to capitalism: that the poor are dangerous idiots.

Poor whiteness and poor character

The two-fold myth about the white working class – that they are to blame for Trump's rise, and that those among them who support him for the worst reasons exemplify the rest – takes flight on the wings of moral superiority affluent Americans often pin upon themselves. I have never seen them flap so insistently as in today's election commentary, where notions of poor whiteness and poor character are routinely conflated.

In an election piece last March in the National Review, writer Kevin Williamson's assessment of poor white voters – among whom mortality rates have sharply risen in recent decades – expressed what many conservatives and liberals alike may well believe when he observed that communities ravaged by oxycodone use " deserve to die ".

"The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles," Williamson wrote. "Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin."

For confirmation that this point is lost on most reporters, not just conservative provocateurs, look no further than a recent Washington Post series that explored spiking death rates among rural white women by fixating on their smoking habits and graphically detailing the "haggard face" and embalming processes of their corpses . Imagine wealthy white woman examined thusly after their deaths. The outrage among family and friends with the education, time, and agency to write letters to the editor would have been deafening.

A sentiment that I care for even less than contempt or degradation is their tender cousin: pity. In a recent op-ed headlined Dignity and Sadness in the Working Class , David Brooks told of a laid-off Kentucky metal worker he met. On his last day, the man left to rows of cheering coworkers – a moment I read as triumphant, but that Brooks declared pitiable. How hard the man worked for so little, how great his skills and how dwindling their value, Brooks pointed out, for people he said radiate "the residual sadness of the lonely heart".

I'm hard-pressed to think of a worse slight than the media figures who have disregarded the embattled white working class for decades now beseeching the country to have sympathy for them. We don't need their analysis, and we sure don't need their tears. What we need is to have our stories told, preferably by someone who can walk into a factory without his own guilt fogging his glasses.

One such journalist, Alexander Zaitchik, spent several months on the road in six states getting to know white working-class people who do support Trump. His goal for the resulting new book, The Gilded Rage , was to convey the human complexity that daily news misses. Zaitchik wrote that his mission arose from frustration with "'hot takes' written by people living several time zones and income brackets away from their subjects".

Zaitchik wisely described those he met as a "blue-collar middle class"– mostly white people who have worked hard and lost a lot, whether in the market crash of 2008 or the manufacturing layoffs of recent decades. He found that their motivations overwhelmingly "started with economics and ended with economics". The anger he observed was "pointed up, not down" at those who forgot them when global trade deals were negotiated, not at minority groups.

Meanwhile, the racism and nationalism that surely exist among them also exist among Democrats and higher socioeconomic strata. A poll conducted last spring by Reuters found that a third of questioned Democrats supported a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. In another, by YouGov, 45% of polled Democrats reported holding an unfavorable view of Islam, with almost no fluctuation based on household income. Those who won't vote for Trump are not necessarily paragons of virtue, while the rest are easily scapegoated as the country's moral scourge.

When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." Clinton quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters. But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.

... ... ...

Many people recommended to me the bestselling new history book White Trash , for instance, without registering that its title is a slur that refers to me and the people I love as garbage. My happy relief that someone set out to tell this ignored thread of our shared past was squashed by my wincing every time I saw it on my shelf, so much so that I finally took the book jacket off. Incredibly, promotional copy for the book commits precisely the elitist shaming Isenberg is out to expose: "(the book) takes on our comforting myths about equality, uncovering the crucial legacy of the ever-present, always embarrassing – if occasionally entertaining –poor white trash."

The book itself is more sensitively wrought and imparts facts that one hopes would dismantle popular use of its titular term. But even Isenberg can't escape our classist frameworks.

When On the Media host Brooke Gladstone asked Isenberg, earlier this year, to address long-held perceptions of poor whites as bigots, the author described a conundrum: "They do subscribe to certain views that are undoubtedly racist, and you can't mask it and pretend that it's not there. It is very much a part of their thinking." Entertain a parallel broad statement about any other disenfranchised group, and you might begin to see how rudimentary class discussion is for this relatively young country that long believed itself to be free of castes. Isenberg has sniffed out the hypocrisy in play, though.

"The other problem is when people want to blame poor whites for being the only racist in the room," she told Gladstone. "… as if they're more racist than everyone else."

That problem is rooted in the notion that higher class means higher integrity. As journalist Lorraine Berry wrote last month, "The story remains that only the ignorant would be racist. Racism disappears with education we're told." As the first from my family to hold degrees, I assure you that none of us had to go to college to learn basic human decency.

Berry points out that Ivy-League-minted Republicans shepherded the rise of the alt-right. Indeed, it was not poor whites – not even white Republicans – who passed legislation bent on preserving segregation, or who watched the Confederate flag raised outside state capitols for decades to come.

It wasn't poor whites who criminalized blackness by way of marijuana laws and the "war on drugs". Nor was it poor whites who conjured the specter of the black "welfare queen". These points should not minimize the horrors of racism at the lowest economic rungs of society, but remind us that those horrors reside at the top in different forms and with more terrible power.

Among reporters and commentators this election cycle, then, a steady finger ought be pointed at whites with economic leverage: social conservatives who donate to Trump's campaign while being too civilized to attend a political rally and yell what they really believe.

Mainstream media is set to fail the ordinary American

Based on Trump's campaign rhetoric and available data, it appears that most of his voters this November will be people who are getting by well enough but who think of themselves as victims. One thing the media misses is that a great portion of the white working class would align with any sense before victimhood. Right now they are clocking in and out of work, sorting their grocery coupons, raising their children to respect others, and avoiding political news coverage.

... ... ...

Media fascination with the hateful white Trump voter fuels the theory, now in fashion, that bigotry is the only explanation for supporting him. Certainly, financial struggle does not predict a soft spot for Trump, as cash-strapped people of color – who face the threat of his racism and xenophobia, and who resoundingly reject him, by all available measures – can attest. However, one imagines that elite white liberals who maintain an air of ethical grandness this election season would have a harder time thinking globally about trade and immigration if it were their factory job that was lost and their community that was decimated.

Affluent analysts who oppose Trump, though, have a way of taking a systemic view when examining social woes but viewing their place on the political continuum as a triumph of individual character. Most of them presumably inherited their political bent, just like most of those in "red" America did. If you were handed liberalism, give yourself no pats on the back for your vote against Trump.

Spare, too, the condescending argument that disaffected Democrats who joined Republican ranks in recent decades are "voting against their own best interests," undemocratic in its implication that a large swath of America isn't mentally fit to cast a ballot.

Whoever remains on Trump's side as stories concerning his treatment of women, racism and other dangers continue to unfurl gets no pass from me for any reason. They are capable of voting, and they own their decisions. Let's be aware of our class biases, though, as we discern who "they" are.

Journalist? Then chances are you're not blue collar

A recent print-edition New York Times cutline described a Kentucky man:

"Mitch Hedges, who farms cattle and welds coal-mining equipment. He expects to lose his job in six months, but does not support Mr Trump, who he says is 'an idiot.'"

This made me cheer for the rare spotlight on a member of the white working class who doesn't support Trump. It also made me laugh – one can't "farm cattle". One farms crops, and one raises livestock. It's sometimes hard for a journalist who has done both to take the New York Times seriously.

The main reason that national media outlets have a blind spot in matters of class is the lack of socioeconomic diversity within their ranks. Few people born to deprivation end up working in newsrooms or publishing books. So few, in fact, that this former laborer has found cause to shift her entire writing career to talk specifically about class in a wealth-privileged industry, much as journalists of color find themselves talking about race in a whiteness-privileged one.

This isn't to say that one must reside among a given group or place to do it justice, of course, as good muckrakers and commentators have shown for the past century and beyond. See On the Media's fine new series on poverty, the second episode of which includes Gladstone's reflection that "the poor are no more monolithic than the rest of us."

I know journalists to be hard-working people who want to get the story right, and I'm resistant to rote condemnations of "the media". The classism of cable-news hosts merely reflects the classism of privileged America in general. It's everywhere, from tweets describing Trump voters as inbred hillbillies to a Democratic campaign platform that didn't bother with a specific anti-poverty platform until a month out from the general election.

The economic trench between reporter and reported on has never been more hazardous than at this moment of historic wealth disparity, though, when stories focus more often on the stock market than on people who own no stocks. American [neoliberal] journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills. That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it.

... ... ...

DonnaU, 8m ago

What a balanced, engaging and informative read! She just blew away my stereotype of Trump supporters and illuminated the conundrum of why/how Trump has indeed gotten this far in spite of all the foul language, insults, etc. while still maintaining an impressive base of supporters -- obviously not the "white trash" to whom his success has been conveniently attributed by elite thinkers. I am humbled. This writer deserves a Pulitzer!
alikatt , 14 Oct 2016 14:10)
What an amazing piece of journalism. It challenged most of my prejudices and presumptions not just about Trump voters, but also similar groups here in Australia.
Thanks for writing and to guardian for publishing it.
OblateSpheroid , 14 Oct 2016 14:00)
A few nights ago a neighbor described to me how Bill Clinton reaped the rewards of all the great stuff that Reagan and GHWB did.
He could not explain how, exactly, Bill Clinton reversed all the great stuff that Reagan and GHWB did, thereby explaining why our/the global economy contracted severely from start-->finish of the GWB administration, nor the great stuff that GWB did that allowed Obama to preside during a period of recovery.

I love how Republican/neocons explain the economy for past 8 years: GWB's tenure had nothing to do with how bad the economy got (America during each Presidential administration exists in a vacuum, wholly separate from the preceding one); Obama gets no credit for any improvement (he's so weak and pathetic that anything good that happened was because of brave Republicans forcing legislation through over his hysterical objections); Obama is fully to blame for whatever slow and unevenly-felt recovery the economy has been making (he never passes any Republican-backed legislation that would make it all better and ninja-wizards it so the Republicans can't override him)

KilgoreTrout2012 , 14 Oct 2016 12:34)
I'm a little confused by the title of this article that is supposedly describing the liberal media elite and it's failings concerning the working-class. Two of the "liberal media elite" are conservative David Brooks and National Review's Kevin Williamson who are as far from liberal as you can get.
Mkjaks , 14 Oct 2016 12:16)
This year, more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than for Donald Trump – a newsworthy point I never saw noted in national press, who perhaps couldn't fathom that "flyover country" might contain millions of Americans more progressive than their Clinton strongholds.

In lieu of such coverage, media makers cast the white working class as a monolith and imply an old, treacherous story convenient to capitalism: that the poor are dangerous idiots.

Thank you so much for this article. Really felt inspired to learn that more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump. The self-congratulatory [neo]liberal media has done such a terrible disservice to such a huge group of people by trivializing their concerns. It seems that anyone who disagrees with the media's perspective can glibly be insulted. What the media doesn't seem to get is that insulting people, after a while, only creates rage.

Roger Dafremen , 14 Oct 2016 11:26)
Smug elitists love to brag about their college educations and compare price tags. I much prefer the company of those educated by experience rather than institutions.

In my experience as a software engineer, I found the college educated to be entirely too sure of themselves for their ability level. They cost us more time, more frustration, had a greater chance of making the customer experience a negative one, etc. Experience was always the deciding factor and why, in at least two cases, our company chose non-degreed computer geeks over college graduates.

Again and again the ineptitude and ignorant selfishness of the privileged and acutely privileged burdens the working class. Especially in politics and business. We're doing everything anyway, no need for useless, stuck up freeloaders.

We should drop this cold potato and see what happens.

AhBrightWings , 14 Oct 2016 11:22)
The New Yorker's excellent economic writer James Surowiecki has an essay in this week's mag. noting that if Trump gets in and enacts his tax "plan" the richest Americans will receive a 10-11% tax cut and the rest of us get a walloping . 05%. He excoriated the notion that this makes him an "outsider," a claim many of us have been deriding from the onset. This suggests moneyed interests, which invariably are powerful interests, stand to gain a literal fortune if Trump wins, a sobering thought about who and what may truly be fueling his race.

The most valuable part of this Guardian essay is that it also dismantles the myth that Trump's followers are the poor and working class, though that message seems a bit lost here as it gets tangled up in the effort to blame a supposedly liberal press (some of the writers she quotes, who often aren't saying what she claims, aren't liberals).

zavaell , 14 Oct 2016 11:13)
"...political scientist Matthew MacWilliams reported findings that a penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support."

This is a good article with plenty from which to abstract many complex issues. I am a Brit (who wants to remain in the EU) but have had a six decade fascination with the US; even with some background from reading and visiting I think the author has to realize that my quote from her article is one that resonates outside the States.

The US is different to Europe, even the UK, and the conflict between 'the land of the free', and everyone has an opportunity to make it big time, with the patent impact of raw capitalism on workers has been around since the eighteenth century. That it has got worse since Reagan and Thatcher opened up neo-liberal economics to full throttle is a catalyst for dissatisfaction, not the total cause. There already was an intolerance in the US in the same way as in the UK but the cycle of time has taken us from the inception of the welfare state to the stirrings of populism and the sort of nationalism that troubled the world in the '30s.

One must also remember that the seeds were sown for Trump's brand of intolerance by the 'Tea Party' movement and Republican intransigence since 2008. You cannot ride the tiger.

DrMcNounVerber , 14 Oct 2016 11:09)
This is really rather good. Certainly far better then most of the regulars.

One thing that is not considered is how it can impact on two party politics. There's plenty here who say there are only two choices - Clinton or Trump, and that any failure to vote for Clinton is de facto a vote for Trump. They never appear to consider the converse. There's only two choices, and that a vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same, therefore voting for anyone but Trump is a de facto vote for more of the same.

To be clear I doubt I could a lower opinion of the effect Trump could have on the States, and I fully acknowledge the tendency to place entire sections of society in boxes (and sneer at them) in this article, but in a choice between government and opposition that's what you've got.

hum9ol , 14 Oct 2016 09:44)
Great piece, was the same with brexit. Are you racist or do you support remain? Having successfully framed the question as such it's not surprising that polls turned out to be wrong. This paper in particular became/fostered an outlet for hatred of those inferior to the left, so fair play for publishing this article.

People are more complex than clickbait.

Epivore hum9ol , 14 Oct 2016 10:54)
"was the same with Brexit'. No, it wasn't. And your accusation that the Guardian promoted hatred of your self-categorised Brexit-supporting white working class is utter nonsense. Go read the comments going back months before the referendum and all the hatred and bile is flowing from Brexit supporters who decamped from the Daily Mail and Sun to pour scorn on the 'latte-sipping metropolitan leftie SJW metrosexual elite' here. And when Leave won the referendum, the Brexiters were here again telling everyone else to shut up and accept it, accusing people who dissented of being traitors etc. Trying to paint them as victims is laughable when it was a Labour MP and campaigner for refugees rights who was assassinated in broad daylight by a racist who clearly felt empowered to act by the same racist, xenophobic propaganda you'd like to pretend never existed.

SirWillis , 14 Oct 2016 10:54)

The problem is that the Liberal Elite media isn't liberal any more. The Guardian is in full support of big business and banks, and their unwavering support of any politician who wants to keep the status quo. As soon as a candidate comes along that actually wants to take away the power large banks and businesses have over governments, they immediately attack them. Bernie sanders and Jeremy Corbyn being perfect examples.
sharpydufc , 14 Oct 2016 09:21)
Is the media in America liberal though? Bloomberg and Fox certainly are not.
UserFriendlyyy sharpydufc , 14 Oct 2016 09:46)
It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny.

They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict on the poor. It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get implemented.... It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits but it makes us look like we care."

UserFriendlyyy sharpydufc , 14 Oct 2016 09:49)
If you want to see the bias at play check out this: http://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/1/

alpykog , 14 Oct 2016 09:10)

Your hero Reagan killed off working class representation i.e. unions as Thatcher did in the UK. Then he enriched his friends. Geddit?
daffyddw , 14 Oct 2016 08:47)
Difficult and timely truth. Thanks for this article.

That problem is rooted in the notion that higher class means higher integrity. As journalist Lorraine Berry wrote last month, "The story remains that only the ignorant would be racist. Racism disappears with education we're told." As the first from my family to hold degrees, I assure you that none of us had to go to college to learn basic human decency.

So well and directly put and made me feel ashamed (the first of a generation of our family to go to gain degrees) of my own stupidity and detachment.
MrIncredlous , 14 Oct 2016 08:44)
People support trump because they see through the BS and propaganda that the MSM have been serving up all these years, and they are tired of it. Nobody wants what the establishment is selling. That anyone supports Hillary is a testament to the power of propaganda. That half the population supports trump is proof that the propaganda is losing its effectiveness.

It's said that towards the end of the Soviet empire, it was the same.

KikideMontparnasse , 14 Oct 2016 08:42)

Despite that most people watch news rather than read, they see very little or nothing. The reason is that the media has become the theatre for talking heads. We see the same pictures ad nauseum, the footage of few dangerous hours (let's say from Syria) edited to few seconds; too many Americans have absolutely no chance to see anything from the outside world and yet they feel competent to judge immigrant crisis, the Middle East, Europe (Paris under siege, no go zones...) just because some big mouth told them what to think. And Trump being of that world was ready, set to go.
We know that the media is the most powerful designer of public opinion, and they are shit (pardon my French).
ravioliollie KikideMontparnasse , 14 Oct 2016 10:14)
To find objective news and rational opinions go to your local library. Legitimate news is non existent on the t.v. Any legitimate reporter either writes a book or works for such pubs as The Atlantic, Harper's, New Yorker, and believe it or not Rolling Stone. There are countless other news sources that won't go near MSM and its slanted 30 seconds news AND consumption driven commercials.
JWBARR6119 , 14 Oct 2016 08:29)
Excellent article. No one likes to be told how it is and I'm surprised this article even got to be printed in the Guardian. From my own worm's eye perspective, I can see the comparisons with British society and the high handed attitudes of our own liberal-left social elites who bemoan the masses for voting for Brexit. The damned uneducated and unwashed masses eh, look at what they've done the poor fools!

fireangel , 14 Oct 2016 08:15)

This article is very good ,thanks.
The bit about Maher making a joke about "check your bread" after the seven died in the grain silo,
was very much to the point. And says a lot about Maher and his grinning smugness.
marxmarv HerLao , 14 Oct 2016 09:36)
Title suggests such a thing only if you are committed to the corporate party duopoly. There is a left, and you no longer get to hide behind it because we are rejecting you and the Democratic Party as unreliable partners.

Trump4Prez2016 HerLao , 14 Oct 2016 10:55)

Well don't be surprised and have a total nervous breakdown when Trump actually does win in a landslide. Here's the thing about polls. Polls are great at making people feel good when they reinforce something that a person believes in. However polls are too easily manipulated by the pollsters conducting them by varying the sample size or ending the poll when a predetermined prefered outcome is reached. Here's the thing though, I can tell you the last time I was ever called up on the telephone by a pollster-NEVER. Will go a step further and tell you that out of the couple hundred people I know located throughout the US no one has ever been called by a pollster. If in fact they were: A.) They did not know it was a pollster; B.) They did not answer the phone and C.) They did not know what the poll entailed

Besides the polling, one only needs to look at the number of people attending Trump rallies versus Hillary Clintons'. Trump is filling arena with 10 to 20,000 seats with people still lined up outside trying to get in. Whereas Hillary is barely filling a high school gymnasium.

Finally when you consider that all main stream media is protecting their darling Empress Hillary and only reporting positive spin pieces on her and broadcasting negative press for Trump, they, the MSM, is in the tank for Hillary. Shame on them for picking sides when they are supposed to be fair and objective. Also shame on them for thinking that people are either blind or too stupid to see thru this nonsense. Shame on you for buying into it hook, line and sinker. Please repeat after me: President Donald J Trump-45th President of the United States of America. One more thing, he will Make America Great Again.

boo321 , 14 Oct 2016 07:53)
Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a toss for their suffering.

Trump is a dispicable human being...but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need - whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change...but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"!

On a public vote basis, Bernie won hands down!

TomMcKinley , 14 Oct 2016 05:56)
What a great paragraph:

"The economic trench between reporter and reported on has never been more hazardous than at this moment of historic wealth disparity, though, when stories focus more often on the stock market than on people who own no stocks.

American journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills.

That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it."

Samuel Dauner , 14 Oct 2016 05:56)
Fantastic read. Even though I'm a world away, the sentiments resonate well over here in Australia. We too have our own issues with race and class, spurred on by the talking heads and op-ed columnists who are far too removed from the reality of working class whites. Especially from those of the left (which I am on the whole sympathetic, this media outlet is one of my faves). But there is quite honestly a stench of holier than thou, elitist and consistently derogatory smugness in some commentary that shames the blue collar, more often than not white, lower socioeconomic class with xenephobic, racist, misogynistic and downright cruel dispositions that are prevelant through all cross sections of society. To heap all of these nationalistic and ignorant views on the white working class is just as troublesome as the views that the media purports to be so dangerous. Trump and his sympathisers across the right wing politics of the are deeply disturbing and dangerous but to blame this phenomena all on one section of society is just as, if not worse.
Alg2013 , 14 Oct 2016 05:56)
I see a kernel of truth. Many I know well who support Trump are middle class who are not racists, bigots, and do not fit the profile attached to Trump. They are religious, social and fiscal conservatives who are furious that they are unfairly labeled by the media.
zeetubes Alg2013 , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)
I could (but probably won't) vote in the US elections. If I did, I would definitely vote for Trump. I would have voted for Bernie but that option was taken away from me. I just want to avoid at all costs allowing that war-mongering hag to become president.

tsforcertain OblateSpheroid , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)

They are voting for him because he stuck a finger in the eye of the complacent Republican hierarchy who believe and practice "business as usual" while the middle class is stagnating in place.

The Democrats attract the rich and elitist voters (and this includes the main stream media) on one hand and the poor and uneducated on the other hand. No one is representing the average working stiff who is struggling with a mortgage, car payments, rising insurance costs for his family while scrimping to save enough for the kids' college education.

The middle class feels betrayed - and will sadly turn to ANYBODY who projects their anger and rage, even if that anybody is a charlatan and con artist.

The John Boehners and Mitch McConnells of rarified, isolated Washington DC gifted this crisis of trust to the Republican Party, leaving us in the US having the election options of Mussolini or Lady Macbeth. Ugh.

zeetubes , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)

New York Times: Hillary is a congenital liar. Except that was 1996: "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar."

I somehow can't imagine the NYT printing anything like that now.

Shatford Shatford , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)

Many Trump supporters are mad at the government, at its institutions, and at the current state of America. It is nothing like the America of their parent's generation. Long dead is the American dream.

Trump represents change, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Trump is the man with the bulldozer who'll knock everything down so perhaps something new can be rebuilt upon the ashes. America is unsalvageable at this point, so continuing on with a status quo president, represented perfectly by Hillary Clinton, is totally pointless.

... ... ...

Make no mistake: it isn't.

[Oct 13, 2016] Anonymous - Hillary Clinton A Career Criminal

Oct 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

YouTube

Trench Coat 3 months ago HILLARY "There should be no individual too powerful to jail."

kevin b 1 day ago +Eric Shutter tell that to the investigation committee..the FBI and the congress investigation who all covered her with "gross misconduct" instead of guilty by hacked emails to known hacking and homeland security of confidential documents! another clinton victory by paying off or threatening these guys if she gets into office. what an ugly person she is..she does think the law is beneath her to follow...typical elitist narcissistic profile!
Hank Chinaski 1 day ago This psycho bitch will start WWIII... elect her at your own risk.
Tam 1 day ago 0:17 Travelgate 1:03 Vince Foster's Death 1:29 Hillary Care 2:56 Whitewater Investigation 4:44 Cattlegate 5:48 Filegate 6:22 The Clinton Legal defense fund 6:33 Chinagate 7:18 IRS Abuses 7:52 Pardongate 9:41 FALN Terrorists 10:58 New York Senate Campaign Finance 12:15 New York Senate performance 12:50 Senate Rules Violations 13:11 2008 Presidential Canidate 13:45 Madam Secretary 15:08 State Department Scandals and Cover-ups 15:59 Benghazi Terrorist Attack Cover-up 17:12 Clinton Secrets (FoI) 17:37 Clinton Foundation Conflicts of Interest 20:37 Various snippets
hellopuppy00 2 days ago The fact that so many corrupts scandals of one person can be listed for 25 minutes straight like this is bad enough. The horrific part is that American is about to make her President.
Eric Barth 1 day ago (edited) we have no control over who we get to choose and even then electoral votes control th powers above popular votes. Citizens do not matter in this regard whatsoever. This game is controlled from the top while feigning that it is controlled by the people. Raymond Cestaro 1 day ago and this video is just scratching the surface
Erkuht Ateue 5 months ago HOLY SHIT, How can american people be so fucking blind? This is outrageous! View all 55 replies Kevin S 3 days ago Two ways. 1. Dumbing Down of the population. 2. Entertainment. It is sickening!
Tom F 48 minutes ago Past Mobsters never come close to besting this bitch and her Billy.
Took the Red Pill 1 day ago Holy shit this is amazing. The work here is fantastic. FBI really outdid themselves here. Still gonna vote for Clinton, we cannot allow a man who likes Pussy into office. I'm with HER :D
jefftc14 4 months ago anyone else notice or remember how the Clinton's were heavily involved in massive amounts of cocaine smuggling into the U.S. and then hmm look at all their friends they bail out.. all cocaine kingpins..

[Oct 12, 2016] Compare Clinton accusing Trump with schene from Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: You see Nick … were both innocent.

Notable quotes:
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

The Trail

"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

Yikes:

"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

[Oct 12, 2016] The Case for a Two-Faced Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
"... Even the liberal Harvard Law School … ..."
Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The New Republic

"In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making.

Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

The Trail

"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

Yikes:

"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

allan October 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

"Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"

Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment on the bench,
and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an entire archive devoted to him.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat. I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I don't have a good counter argument.

That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things that Ajamu Baraka has said.

nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm

Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally responsible than Richard Nixon,

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.

nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?

After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these 4 judges is remotely like Scalia.

I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.

We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't have to worry about what a President might do.

I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.

I appreciate the feedback.

allan October 11, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent, along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one.
Even the liberal Harvard Law School …

marym October 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Tim Kaine would be in the Executive branch, not the Judiciary.

timbers October 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle for so LITTLE .

Just a suggestion.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm

I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican. Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

A good counter argument is this: Hillary is a Republican.

WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive account of the object.

This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the .1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!

And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!

No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!

"As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement, fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…

Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.

Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

The "gendered element" canard hyperlinks to a WaPo article containing this statement from one of the interviewees:

"Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts."

Meaning that even with a head start thanks to favorable bias, Hillary is still perceived as deceitful.

Heckuva job, Hillary.

Prufrock October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm

PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.

They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my time.

john k October 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

It was actually a great investment of your time.

Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Four legs good, two legs bad - photo of a fetching young centaur from Comic Con in NYC:

http://tinyurl.com/zyujq3q

Not to be confused with COMECON, the trade pact among the eastern bloc during Soviet days.

allan October 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

Nor to be confused with ECOMCON .

ambrit October 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle. As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.

[Oct 11, 2016] It is unclear when Hillary states her public or private position Shes very nuanced, you know.

Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Anne October 11, 2016 at 3:27 pm

I did not take that to mean she hated actual, everyday Americans – I took it that she hates that phrase.

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion. I think if she doesn't say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.

And no, I don't know why the phrase wasn't put into quotes, but I note that there aren't any quotes around the part that begins "she says I'm running for president because…" either. As I read the e-mail, it sure seems to me like it's about the phrase, not about people.

WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:40 pm

Well, is that her public or private position she's stating? She's very nuanced, you know.

pretzelattack October 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm

it's just, if she did mean that she hated "everyday americans", it would be plausible. it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[Oct 09, 2016] The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:41 am

(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy, this would be natural.

===============================================
Sorry, but as I have said before, I don't believe Clinton's speeches are important – they are just a McGuffin to deflect from the real travesty occurring in plain site – what Lloyd Blankfein tells Clinton at the gladhanding after the speech….
As someone once told me in Washington, nothing TRULY important is ever committed to paper.

none October 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

I posted this yesterday but reposting since it's brutal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrt9GkaQNQ

parody of Clinton ad… I won't post a spoiler.

Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 11:12 am

Wish they could've worked in a few seconds from this old chestnut, featuring 0bama saying the p-word:

http://tinyurl.com/gpljv92

[Oct 09, 2016] Hillary Camp Worked With Reporter On Anti-Sanders Story

Notable quotes:
"... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
"... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
Oct 09, 2016 | dailycaller.com
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.

In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.

Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics.

"We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.

[Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clintons pledges sound great. Until you remember whos president

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
"... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
"... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
"... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
"... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
"... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
"... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
"... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
"... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
"... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
"... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
"... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
"... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
"... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
"... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
Thomas Frank

The Guardian

The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies – and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?

Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now, when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.

"As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy has diluted her promise

…. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable". Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general – that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"

Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:

Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare, child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.

It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing: that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.

The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year "hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008 – followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.

dalepues , 2016-10-08 03:43:57
Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank.
ID8737013 , 2016-10-08 03:12:16
If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
marxmarv , 2016-10-08 01:14:18
[neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
bobkolker , 2016-10-08 00:16:15
Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
cilina2011 , 2016-10-07 22:16:45
I find Thomas Frank's piece very good.

Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast) a fairly high popularity score.

These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain.

The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change.

Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.

And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.

Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about. By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.

So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.

And Thomas Frank is right.

MattThePleb , 2016-10-07 22:05:27
nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!

I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,

they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,

they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification for every shitty thing done since,

G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,

Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency, put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,

they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'

now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her 'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,

Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,

Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings,

Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do,

Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not a neo-conservative,

Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....

and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?

much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:

expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3

accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear war is an even greater and more immediate threat,

pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,

the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great atm,

he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for decades and has done sod all about it,

and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...

if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual racism are those lesser evils,

LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly indifferent to skin colour or religion,

lvtaxman , 2016-10-07 22:01:35
Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off.

She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).

She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?

And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind.

MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees.

Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.

IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06
Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49
This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says?

This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct.

Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.

Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-07 20:02:39
What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.

The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.

As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.

marxmarv Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-08 01:26:45
Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize.

[Oct 09, 2016] Litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy

Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

Kathleen Lake 9m ago 1 2 Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of succession" was determined long before even one vote was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character to give us one more entry into you litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not vote you... ever. David Stalker 11m ago 0 1 Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and Hillary the secretary of state position along with the wealth they have generated how could they be none other than establishment for those not familiar with that phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions. And as such my view is she will get the job as President. eldudeabides 14m ago 1 2 In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in private, the opposite.

She is not to be believed on any issue.

she is the puppet of her neoliberalist masters. centerline 16m ago 1 2 The wikileaks release here
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
The Podesta Emails; Part One

....In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

sblejo 1h ago 3 4 How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest, power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics. Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin. Confucion 2h ago 3 4

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.

They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but yet they still US presidential candidates.

Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless. europeangrayling 2h ago 8 9 It does not matter, people who support Hillary they support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK, nothing wrong with it.

She has a 'private and public position', that's Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS and raising retirement age in a speech, called it 'sensible'.

Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya, supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the new paper back version.

Where now environmental Native American activists and regime critics are being killed by the new regime, and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador to Honduras said it was a coup.

I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and what these policies and politics do to regular people, I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that. !-- DogsLivesMatter europeangrayling 1h ago 0 1 This documentary is about Berta Caceres if you are interested:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2016/09/honduras-blood-water-160920064355648.html Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Chillskier 3h ago 4 5 Hillary Clinton on Assange "Can't we just drone this guy:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?ref_src=twsrc !-- dynamic22 3h ago 5 6 "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"

This is not going to go over well with what she has been campaigning recently. Trade is the one area Trump has the advantage currentl Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report dynamic22 dynamic22 3h ago 1 2 *currently, and this quote how it relates to "open borders" provides him a good pivot tp also attack her on immigration !-- dynamic22 3h ago 3 4 having "both a public and a private positions" is damaging to Clinton, as well as the "bucket of losers" comments. Some of her tepid support for the finance industry to regulate itself is also bad for her.

The comments on bonding with Putin over Tiger preservation are hilarious.

"Hillary Clinton Said One Time She Visited Putin And Bonded With Him Over Protecting The Habitat Of Tigers. "One time, I was visiting with him in his dacha outside of Moscow, and he was going on and on, you know, just listing all of the problems that he thinks are caused by the United States. And I said, 'Well, you know, Mr.'-at that time, he was still prime minister. I said, 'You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we actually have some things in common. We both want to protect wildlife, and I know how committed you are to protecting the tiger.' I mean, all of a sudden, he sat up straight and his eyes got big and he goes, 'You care about the tiger? I said, 'I care about the tiger, I care about the elephant, I care about the rhinoceros, I care about the whale. I mean, yeah, I think we have a duty. You know, it's an obligation that we as human beings have to protect God's creation.' He goes, 'Come with me.' So we go down the stairs, we go down this long hall, we go into this private inner sanctum. All of his, you know, very beefy security guys are there, they all jump up at attention, you know, they punch a code, he goes through a heavily-armed door. And then we're in an inner, inner sanctum with, you know, just this long, wooden table, and then further back, there's a desk and the biggest map of Russia I ever saw. And he starts talking to me about, you know, the habitat of the tigers and the habitat of the seals and the whales. And it was quite something." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]"

So much to go through already. !-- PottyPants 3h ago 7 8 Trump may be the scum of the earth, but he's not a career politician.

Ask any American on the street what the biggest problem with our government is and they'll tell you...

Big Business and the Career Politicians who serve it. Trump is not that. Which is why he was nominated, against all odds, by an increasingly disgruntled voter base.

Read your history books... look at the events leading up to Hitler coming to power... see the similarities with America.

The BLS reports a 5% unemployment rate... that's what all the govt. releases and media outlets use. But if we look at "U-6" unemployment, which counts those only employed part time and "marginally attached" (I.E. TEMPS) that number grows to 10%. Moreover the labor participation rate is at a 30 year low. 50% of American households receive some form of government aid... 43.5 million Americans receive Food Stamps, down from 46.5 because of a forced change in qualification due to that lovely 5% unemployment rate.

The government, and the big businesses that run it, are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and have you believe that things are just hunky dory... in truth we're doing pretty poorly. This "recovery" has been staged on the back of nine TRILLION dollars in TARP and QE, printed out of thin air and loaned at effectively 0%... and the Fed has as much as admitted they can't raise rates or the whole house of cards will come tumbling down yet again. !-- PerspectivesPlease 3h ago 8 9 An article published on TruePundit.com and tweeted by WikiLeaks claims that in 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached the idea of launching a drone strike to take out Julian Assange.

Clinton and the state department held numerous meetings to discuss what could be done about Assange and his site which had already exposed damning military secrets about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq before the promised document dump was to come. The department was under pressure from both the White House and foreign governments to silence Wikileaks.

Everyone in the room had laughed and became silent when they realized that Clinton was serious.

http://theantimedia.org/report-clinton-drone-strike-assange /
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange / !-- DeConstruct 3h ago 4 5

"I mean, in my campaign – I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for.

Yeah ! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Right.

[Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember her husband and the current president

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
geoff October 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

"Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember who's president" (Thomas Frank)

Yes, and I don't recall (hey, that's her line!) the exact phraseology, but something Mrs. Clinton said during the first debate reminded me strongly of Bill in '92. And we all know how that worked out.

No one believes the Dems' talking points any more because they have largely been unfulfilled during the last two Democratic presidencies.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 7, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The quality of Hillary's pledges depends on the teleprompter.

She merely reads from it.

[Oct 08, 2016] Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary to fluff your fragile feelings a bit.

Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply
Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 5:49 pm

Clinton agrees with you. She's tired of the bias also.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/784507647395495937

"But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes so very onerous and unnecessary."

Back aching scrubbing and knee straining cleaning to maintain a decent and safe environment is exhausting. Accumulating wealth and being criticized for accumulating it at the expense of others is equally exhausting. She is the personification of empathy.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm

Hmmm. … I thought this e-mail was a copy of the Wash Exam article, is it really leaks of portions of Clinton's speeches? It's text book Clinton. I couldn't find the WE article and now Buzzfeed writes it appears to be paid speeches.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/wikileaks-appears-to-release-hillary-clintons-paid-speech-tr?utm_term=.vjaomX3oG#.boZ2ZG520

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Buzzfeed has it. Now Intercept. Anyone else see it? OK, now CBS.

cnchal October 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

The more interesting part is this.

"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small – – MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune , is you go to Washington. . .

The sacrifices they make for us.

Reminds me of a saying in racing. How do you get a million bucks? Start with two.

OIFVet October 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm

The way I read Lord Blankfein is that in a way he was being condescending to the help madame secretary and her Bubba.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

What? Open borders with Europe? She can't mean Russia. To be clear, she's also declaring support for that greenest of projects, the Keystone pipeline in another speech.

OIFVet October 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary to fluff your fragile feelings a bit. Or you pay mr. president to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and stand guard between you and the peasants with the pitchforks.

[Oct 05, 2016] It reminds me of a string of wet sponges.

Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:39 am

Thanks just for this:
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always means that he or she is lying.

John Wright October 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

If only Clinton could be like Warren G. Harding.

At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like.

Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration.

The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.

I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.

His death was widely mourned in the USA.

As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.

If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)

Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.

Probably Harding wrote his own..

I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.

[Oct 04, 2016] One interpretation of Hillary actions in Libya and Syria is that she is stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Other is that she was caught up in the amoral bubble of neoliberal empire building that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment views more strongly then any personal psychopathy.

Notable quotes:
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
crookedtimber.org

bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm 332

Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

[Oct 02, 2016] Hillary had called for a physical barrier to keep out immigrants

Notable quotes:
"... Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border. ..."
"... trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there. ..."
"... Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc ..."
Oct 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Edna M. October 2, 2016 at 8:05 am

An important find from the Jimmy Dore show: Hillary had called for a physical barrier to keep out immigrants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCG566TFZI&index=8&list=LLZJl7owO_xSf0NPr6iXK_0w

Pavel October 2, 2016 at 9:10 am

Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border.

pretzelattack October 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there.

Jim Haygood October 2, 2016 at 10:07 am

Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc

[Sep 28, 2016] Goldwater wasn't a liar

Notable quotes:
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Alex morfesis September 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

The arizona republic has Never endorsed a democrat…$hillary is just a goldwater girl wearing democratic spanx(tm)….

Reply
Benedict@Large September 28, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Goldwater wasn't a liar.

Daryl September 28, 2016 at 4:09 pm

> "Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles"

I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak.

[Sep 26, 2016] Hillarys lies are always are well crafted, well designed, kind of lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation.

Notable quotes:
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

fresno dan September 25, 2016 at 7:33 am

"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."

First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent".

Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?

And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???

Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics, are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should operate???

Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.

http://theweek.com/articles/650080/brangelina-matters

People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….

RabidGandhi September 25, 2016 at 9:55 am

An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:

You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated by considerations of how things will look.

So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains.

Embrace the meta.

John Rose September 25, 2016 at 10:22 am

And another quote that ends the brangelina article .

There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class, and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.

But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram. It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.

The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.

johnnygl September 25, 2016 at 9:07 am

One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.

Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of clinton ads.

[Sep 22, 2016] 6 Signs Your Spouse Has Checked Out Of Your Marriage Huffington Post

Notable quotes:
"... Will you get dinner and pick up the kids? Could you call the plumber about the kitchen sink?" ..."
"... everything - ..."
"... "I'll be in bed in a little bit" ..."
"... Do you want to be more mindful about eating healthy foods that'll keep your mind and body at their best? Sign up for our newsletter and join our Eat Well, Feel Great challenge to learn how to fuel your body in the healthiest way possible. We'll deliver tips, challenges and advice to your inbox every day. ..."
Mar 14, 2016 | www.huffingtonpost.com

When your spouse isn't interested in doing the "work" of marriage, it's easy to feel powerless. But all isn't lost, said Jeannie Ingram, a couples therapist based in Nashville, Tennessee.

"The relationship doesn't have to end," she told HuffPost. "The truth is, all relationships need tuning up from time to time."

Below, Ingram and other experts share the most common signs a spouse has checked out of a marriage - and what you can do to take matters into your own hands.

1. They spend a lot of time around you but not with you.

It doesn't count as quality time if one of you is distracted by your smartphone or checking work emails, said Aaron Anderson, a marriage and family therapist based in Denver, Colorado.

"If you and your spouse spend a lot of time in the same room but they never do things with you, they've likely disengaged from the relationship," he told us. "Nobody wants to spend the two hours after work browsing social media."

Try planning new, exciting things to do together so hopefully "your partner will want to shut down the computer and turn off their phone to be with you," Anderson said.

2. They never include you in their weekend or after-work plans.

Spending time apart (pursing your hobbies or seeing friends) is essential in a healthy marriage. It keeps the mystery alive. But spend too much time apart and you're well on your way to living separate lives, said Becky Whetstone, a marriage and family therapist who works in Little Rock, Arkansas.

"If your S.O feels disillusioned with the marriage, they might cope by distracting themselves with things they enjoy that that don't involve you," she said.

To figure out why they're disengaging, broach the conversation in a calm manner, at a time that works for the two of you, Whetstone said.

"Therapists call this 'coming toward your partner,'" she said. "Watch the tone of your voice and your body language and find the right time - not in the middle of something hectic. Ask, 'Hey, what's up? I've noticed you pulling away lately.'"

Most importantly, don't lash out if their answer upsets you. "Make it safe for them to reply or they're not likely to open up again after that," Whetstone said.

3. They never ask, "How was your day?"

If your conversations are limited to household logistics (" Will you get dinner and pick up the kids? Could you call the plumber about the kitchen sink?" ) and your S.O. seems disinterested in how you're doing, your marriage may be in trouble, Anderson said.

"When someone checks out of a relationship, they stop caring about their partner as much," he said. "They don't ask you how work is going, how your family is doing or even if you got that promotion you wanted."

To show that your marriage is still very much a priority - and that you, at least, care about them - make it a point to vocalize that.

"Just because they've checked out doesn't mean you have to," Anderson said, "And after they see how much you care, they might just start caring more, too."

4. They aren't interested in sex.

The thrill is gone - and your S.O. seems entirely OK with that. Why might that be the case? Oftentimes, partners avoid physical intimacy after they've been hurt emotionally, said Ingram.

"In the beginning, couples in love are so intoxicated with each other that they share everything - they allow themselves to be fully vulnerable," said Ingram.

But that same vulnerability also opens you up to hurt from your partner.

"If you're emotionally hurt, intimacy doesn't feel safe - it's just too vulnerable," Ingram said. "Couples need to become conscious of this and be willing to talk about why they avoid closeness, perhaps in the office of a qualified marriage therapist."

5. They're hyper-critical of your friends and family.

Your partner may not be as forgiving of your parents as you are, but they shouldn't take the liberty to rag on them any chance they get, Whetstone said.

"It shows disinterest but it's also unacceptable behavior," she said. "Set a boundary and say something like, 'Please, why so much venom? It hurts me when you throw so much negativity on to me and my friends and family. What's going on? Obviously you're unhappy about something. Please, let's talk about it.'"

6. They go to bed at different times.

"I'll be in bed in a little bit" is not as innocent a phrase as you might think, Ingram said.

"Commonly, couples fall prey to what I call 'functional exits," she said. "These are behaviors that are part of everyday life, but serve the dual purpose of avoiding intimacy. For example, work, hobbies, or when you regularly say or hear, 'You go on to bed; I'll be along later.'"

The good news? Mismatched bedtimes and similar problems are easily fixed if you and your partner are willing to make the effort.

"Exits like these are not necessarily a sign the relationship needs to end, but rather, an indication that it's time for some work," she reassured.

Do you want to be more mindful about eating healthy foods that'll keep your mind and body at their best? Sign up for our newsletter and join our Eat Well, Feel Great challenge to learn how to fuel your body in the healthiest way possible. We'll deliver tips, challenges and advice to your inbox every day.

[Sep 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton views almost everytbody outside of the top one percent as Basket of deplorables

Notable quotes:
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
skeeter , September 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm

"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select her at the ballot – from her detractors.

Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.

We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these candidates represent.

JohnnyGL , September 13, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Check this out….NPR quotes CNBC to smear Trump's day-care tax deduction plan with the old, "how you gonna pay for that?" line.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493755181/trump-campaign-sketches-out-family-care-plans-questions-linger-over-funding

Interesting to see that this is Ivanka's pet issue. Maybe Trump really intends on pushing for this?

It's nice to be pandered to!

RabidGandhi , September 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm

Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________

Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue. First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates, they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).

Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags: HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).

Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.

HopeLB , September 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm

Love your analysis!

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 13, 2016 at 7:52 pm

True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention.

Anonymous , September 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm

> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million" [Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.

When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in, before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term "control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.

HopeLB , September 13, 2016 at 7:25 pm

I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for ironic flair.

Jake Mudrosti , September 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard to come by.

Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new order of the day. It becomes the style.

It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations rather than a cognitive theory.

If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term, I'd say that'd be the place to start.

Robert Hahl , September 13, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Thanks, I will look at Lifton.

Speaking of books that offer deep insights into human behavior without citing any evidence, I really loved Crowds and Power by Elias Canetti.

Kim Kaufman , September 13, 2016 at 3:24 pm

""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million" [Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."

See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!

Arizona Slim , September 13, 2016 at 6:44 pm

And if you say anything mean about Carrie, you are being sexist!

DWD , September 13, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free

Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.

The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the economy is the weakest.

If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton Liberals" everywhere (apparently)

Gareth , September 13, 2016 at 5:23 pm

Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

The socio-economic context they're talking about is whether they can afford the deserving poor and the opera.

Also, what Gareth says.

abynormal , September 13, 2016 at 3:43 pm

Kids just feel and act, unconditioned.

They are pure and genuine.
They are not cheaters.
Kids are our masters, we must learn from them.
We should be more like kids.

Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action.
http://www.lifehack.org/428542/these-kids-really-show-the-bright-side-human-nature

2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry… where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when we let them.

Janie , September 13, 2016 at 6:40 pm

Been thinking about you with tears in my eyes but unable to find the right words. You have more friends than you know.

Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 7:17 pm

Good on you, aby.

The universe reached out to you.

Romancing The Loan , September 13, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.). I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group – that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea) the same building as has listed " Metrocare Home Services "

The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.

I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about the deception involved.

Jess , September 13, 2016 at 4:15 pm

That's so sweet and beautiful. I can imagine the scene in my mind, as I'm sure many other readers can.

Mark John , September 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm

It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a "demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.

But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .

First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch) on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if Hillary is elected.

From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking, she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the 9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.

Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".

Roger Smith , September 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Absolutely incredible! Thanks for sharing!

Vatch , September 13, 2016 at 5:11 pm

In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure for the oligarchs!

nowhere , September 13, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Two doors down from the panic room (the private server being behind the other door, of course).

Tom , September 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm

And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement, where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.

grayslady , September 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky, 4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 8:26 pm

Red herring. "This facility is closed or merged with another facility. " (NYSDH)

Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.

McWatt , September 13, 2016 at 3:47 pm

Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's. They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .

Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one night's rampage.

Paid Minion , September 13, 2016 at 4:12 pm

I got that beat……..

Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.

Money stolen = About four bucks

Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.

Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1

But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only paying half my income in various taxes.

Robert Hahl , September 13, 2016 at 5:17 pm

You don't pay taxes, your employer does. If taxes dropped your income would adjust down by the same amount.

Sammy Maudlin , September 13, 2016 at 6:42 pm

That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.

Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 7:46 pm

Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.

Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.

Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost. I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.

Sammy Maudlin , September 13, 2016 at 8:03 pm

My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross wages asserted by Robert Hahl.

I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying said taxes.

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:40 pm

getting some of the broken windows policing types on NC?

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 9:16 pm

I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many of which are CHILDREN.)

My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days, owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.

Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.

Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.

Bubba_Gump , September 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm

Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.

cwaltz , September 14, 2016 at 12:21 am

They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs not covered by your local or state taxes.

Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would be a way better use of the monies we pay.

I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.

A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got some pretty questionable leadership.

inode_buddha , September 13, 2016 at 10:10 pm

I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum. What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.

cwaltz , September 14, 2016 at 12:40 am

All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience. After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for more than something ridiculous like $3000.

I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food stamps the following month.

It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.

Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when that crappy $3000 car breaks down.

It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.

Robert Hahl , September 14, 2016 at 1:45 am

Again, if all of your taxes were lowered, your employer would be able to pay you less, and that is what would happen.

Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 6:04 pm

My guess would be $$ for heroin.

Paid Minion , September 13, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Oxycodone, or something like that. The "Drug du Jour" according to my kids.

It's hard for us old folk to keep track of all of the different ways people are effing themselves up anymore.

An interesting study could be made on how many people have made themselves essentially unemployable due to drugs/alcohol/excessive marijuana usage.

Better yet, align that study with the people essentially unemployable due to giant, unsightly tattoos.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries – have them).

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Property is theft.

Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.

Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm

You must have a fairly high income if your tax rate cumulatively is 50%.

Is that you Phil Mickelson whining that you only get to keep a portion of your 61 million that you got paid to play golf?

Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine - late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.

Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.

Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.

Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(

I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes

- Rolling Stones, You Got Me Rocking

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:42 pm

I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes

hope you can believe in

steelhead23 , September 13, 2016 at 3:49 pm

"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari

I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we do better?

Yves Smith , September 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Kashkari is a diehard libertarian. And he's upfront about it if you read up on his failed bid to be CA governor.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.

Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way to presume that managers are there to be served.

John k , September 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress inflation.

Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have no value to the entity that creates them.

Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 6:09 pm

OTOH, here is Kocherlakota on Janet Yellen:

She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically low levels.

Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be falling further below its target for another three years.

But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that he is off the Fed.

allan , September 13, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Wake up and smell the methane impunity:

SoCal Gas to pay $4-million settlement over massive Porter Ranch gas leak
[LA Times]

Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last year.

The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according to the L.A. County district attorney's office.

The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.

Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility is sentenced on Nov. 29.

End of story. Literally.

This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of the most powerful green house gas.

nowhere , September 13, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Definitely makes a strong case for companies to continue to defer maintenance. Seems there is no downside.

Synoia , September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm

It is nothing compared with the GHGs exhaled by the US DOD.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Who gets the puny $4 million money?

The state government?

The people who are victims directly or (in greater S. Cal areas or even neighboring states) indirectly?

The animals and plants that suffered through the release of more green house gas?

I really hope it's not more money to the state so they can hire more traffic cops to get those who do not stop completely at stop signs.

craazyman , September 13, 2016 at 4:40 pm

another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is it the green thingies by the rocks?

I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking your ass if they can.

Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what. Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it. mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see, knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass. What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious to everybody

Chauncey Gardiner , September 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm

Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA, Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away our national sovereignty.

clarky90 , September 13, 2016 at 5:34 pm

A behind-the-scenes look at medical education

by Dr Jason Fung (one of my heroes!)

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/big-pharma-behind-scenes/

"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the 1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.

Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the bottom.

In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called 'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"

This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 8:25 pm

I'm pretty sure the fluid and rest that she was prescribed by the MD, but she chose to ignore ,wasn't brought to you by pharmaceutical America.

The pickle Hillary finds herself in is a pickle of her own making.

Anne , September 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm

It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated. Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.

Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules, for following the protocols.

And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.

I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.

What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took her every bit of 6 months to recover from.

I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again, she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing to learn.

And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she has, and that's what matters here.

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 9:24 pm

Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight down to ignoring good advice.

I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and

Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds herself in." Hillary owns that.

Roger Smith , September 13, 2016 at 9:33 pm

+++ great post

Bubba_Gump , September 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm

Agree.

John k , September 13, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Can anybody point me to links to critical reviews of the Clinton foundation?
Thanks

nycTerrierist , September 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Charles Ortel is a good source, lots of links here:

https://twitter.com/charlesortel

sd , September 14, 2016 at 1:37 am

Kristi Culpepper
https://medium.com/@munilass

Amy Sterling Casil
https://medium.com/@ASterling

PlutoniumKun , September 13, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Re: EurActive article on soils.

The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but it was eventually stymied by the UK, as George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main obstacles in this.

ekstase , September 13, 2016 at 8:00 pm

"As part of the lockout, LIU cut off professors' email accounts and health insurance,"

If, God forbid, someone gets very ill or worse, because they have had their health insurance cut off, will that be bad for p.r.?

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:13 pm

"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari

what a commedian

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"

and the air and water, better?

(not opposed to regulation)

petal , September 13, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed. On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.

NotTimothyGeithner , September 13, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Aren't you out by Keene? Southwest NH isn't exactly a Republican hotbed.

NotTimothyGeithner , September 13, 2016 at 10:26 pm

There were Democratic primaries today for various state offices, but the GOP had the Senate primary and statewide races.

[Sep 13, 2016] Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest

Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
Apr 23, 2016 | New York Times

AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.

But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."

Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."

... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996 dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."

... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest ...

... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated

Rima Regas

is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 23 hours ago

Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.

She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.

Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive trenches for decades. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ

You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 23 hours ago

Yes, Hillary is dishonest.

Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well.

She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie.

If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the way.

They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 22 hours ago

To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.

Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest. By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.

The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit. Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.

So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute money to candidates who don't not help their causes.

Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk.

All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.

Michael Ebner, Lake Forest, IL 7 hours ago

It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for the party's presidential nomination in 2016.

I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so again in November.

Do I have reservations? Surely.

But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as Republican nominees ....

Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats. Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?

Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang. I would have voted for him.

Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.

JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.

LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better choice than Senator Goldwater.

Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist. In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist. I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.

And so on and so forth.

Saints don't rise to the presidency.

David Underwood, is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights 18 hours ago

Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.

The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions, unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.

Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20 hours ago


I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:

-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible. I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012: the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S. not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server. Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.

I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence, but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November only because the alternatives are worse.

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago

It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman.


Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago

"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady, most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"

Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.

RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago

Winchestereast,

No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better judgment.


Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago

This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.

It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons just aren't trustworthy.

Link to above story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1


Scott Stafford, North America 7 hours ago

Ah. The Five Stages Of Every Clinton Scandal:

1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.

pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago

"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."

Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin" committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.

Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United? Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting money out of politics when the Republicans do.

So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.

Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.

Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago

Mark,

I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed. People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.

That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay. Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.

Money and greed are the root of all evil.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago

As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney) who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance" requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be in a position to provide such considerations.

And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the briber?

With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".

AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago

People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes.

Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters.

Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line.

Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago

Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton down the National throat.

What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown.


ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

If you are interested in a factually based article outlining the $21.6 million Hillary took in from special interests between 2013-2015, read the AP story. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/the-associated-press-firms-that-paid-for-...

Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago

Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated.

In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say, Janet Reno giving a speech.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing ever changes.

Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago

"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.

We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.

organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago

If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say were lies, they would get fired.

As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military - this will not serve the United States well.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago

It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives, that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.

Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston 15 hours ago

She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.

You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.

In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago

I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.

Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable, you could write in "none of the above"

But vote the rest of the ticket.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago

@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!

Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United.

Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence policy is bad.

amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago

So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary.

The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination.

Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours ago

Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.

Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.

Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago

``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well.''

Excuse me?

She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.

You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the Clintons.

Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago

She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's "secret plan."

Nixon wasn't the New Nixon, but she is.

[Sep 12, 2016] Serving the Clintonian Interest: The last thing we need is a Clinton in charge of foreign policy

This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections, but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
Nov 01, 2008 | www.slate.com

It was apt in a small way that the first endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See, for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate column "The Latest Kissinger Outrage.")

It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see the work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.

Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz, for another example.

Related was the result of a House select committee on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee issued a report in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations).

Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom, when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.

Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.

China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover. And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"! So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.

In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.

[Sep 10, 2016] Pathological Liar – Impulsive, Compulsive Lying, Self-Deception

Feb 05, 2016 | depressiond.com
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types, Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
  1. Pathological Liar – Definition

    Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person. Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating, self-trapping quality to it.

    Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences. Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and are likely to have damaging consequences.

    Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling, compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism. Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation are among many causes of pathological lying.

  2. Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying

    Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem. Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems in more mature ways (Selling 1942).

  3. Pathological Liar – Causes

    Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:

    • A dysfunctional family;
    • Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
    • Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation, learning disabilities etc.
    • Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping.
    • Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
    • Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline, Histrionic and more;
    • Substance abuse or substance abuse in family;
  4. Pathological Liar – Types
    • Daydreaming Pathological Liar – Pseudologia Fantastica

      Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that is something they wish they were or at least something better than they fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.

      About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction. For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia. Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production & lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they often fail to control verbal output.

    • Habitual Liar

      Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.

      Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are not limited to:

      • Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
      • Avoid confrontation or punishment
      • Cover up lack of knowledge
      • Cover up embarrassment
      • To entertain oneself or others
      • Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
      • Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
      • For no reason whatsoever

      Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent & obvious.

      Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child & further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment. Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.

    • Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying

      Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem, he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness, such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.

    • Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar

      Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit, therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.

  5. Signs of Lying

    Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.

    7 Signs of Lying

    • Disguised smiling
    • Lack of head movement
    • Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
    • Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
    • Reduced rate of speech
    • Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
    • Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the lie that is being told orally)

Reference: (Fiedler, Walka, Zuckerman, Driver, Ford)

Pathological lying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sep 10, 2016] Surviving the Storm - Divorcing a Narcissist

May 02, 2016 | dalkeithpress.com

Dalkeith Press

You may have thought that living with your troubled spouse was hard. But now that you've reached the point of divorce, you probably already know that this can be ever harder. Narcissistic behavior can be labeled as borderline, sociopathic, narcissistic, or just intolerable, but it all derives from one fundamental driving force: narcissists can't tolerate criticism, especially public criticism. And divorcing them is about them most direct and public criticism you can make. You'll know you're there when your soon-to-be ex spouse begins a campaign of destruction against you. And if you don't know how to resond and deal with it, it can take a terrible toll.

Surviving the Storm offers practical strategies that can help you reach a settlement with your soon-to-be ex, in spite of his or her seeming determination to scorch the earth. The key is understanding that narcissists fear, above all, critical judgment by others. Your decision to divorce sets these fears in motion. To counter them, you need to know how to split the battlefield, offering on the one hand a safe alternative in which you get what you need, and on the other a continuing stream of criticism, judgment, and shame heaped on your soon-to-be ex. In essence, you trade the safety of silence for the things you need in the settlement.

Surviving the Storm also offers practical boundaries on what you can and can't expect to do. It explains the impact of divorcing a narcissist on your children, and offers strategies and tactics to help achieve a custody arrangement that is best for your kids. It explains what parental alienation is and where to get more help with it. It offers some reflection on the moral issues we face in divorce, including the Catholic Church's surprising position holding that marriage to a narcissist is a moral impossibility. Finally, it offers a perspective on healing and the need for new experiences to move on.

Richard has been helping people deal with the trauma and pain of abusive relationships for nearly ten years. His other books are Tears and Healing , Meaning from Madness , In Love and Loving It - Or Not! , Tears and Healing Reflections , and the Way of Respect If you've read them, you know his style, and this book is also short and to the point, giving you the information and insight you need without wading through hundreds of pages you don't need.

[Sep 10, 2016] Are BPD Drama Queens Manipulative, Sadistic, and Worse

Notable quotes:
"... Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive," they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time for all of us. ..."
"... These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or psychopathic (conning) patterns. ..."
"... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without concern for victims." ..."
www.psychologytoday.com

Women, and men, with borderline personality disorder seem not to know how to stop arguing (link is external).

Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive," they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time for all of us.

... ... ...

There may well be some individuals with BPD who are genuinely manipulative or sadistic.

These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or psychopathic (conning) patterns.

In the Journal of Personality Disorders a 2006 an excellent article by Nancy Nyquist Potter, PhD entitled "What is Manipulative Behavior Anyway?" (link is external) looked to define the term manipulative.

In the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (cited in Bowers, 2002) ... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without concern for victims."

[Sep 10, 2016] Meet the Malignant Narcissist

Notable quotes:
"... A personality disorder characterized by grandiosity; an expectation that others will recognize one's superiority; a lack of empathy, lack of truthfulness, and the tendency to degrade others. ..."
"... Malignant narcissists not only see themselves as superior to others but believe in their superiority to the degree that they view others as relatively worthless, expendable, and justifiably exploitable. ..."
"... This type of narcissism is a defining characteristic of psychopathy/sociopathy and is rooted in an individual's deficient capacity for empathy. It's almost impossible for a person with such shallow feelings and such haughtiness to really care about others or to form a conscience with any of the qualities we typically associate with a humane attitude, which is why most researchers and thinkers on the topic of psychopathy think of psychopaths as individuals without a conscience altogether." ..."
Dec 09, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"A personality disorder characterized by grandiosity; an expectation that others will recognize one's superiority; a lack of empathy, lack of truthfulness, and the tendency to degrade others."

"Narcissism becomes particularly malignant (i.e. malevolent, dangerous, harmful, incurable) when it goes beyond mere vanity and excessive self-focus. Malignant narcissists not only see themselves as superior to others but believe in their superiority to the degree that they view others as relatively worthless, expendable, and justifiably exploitable.

This type of narcissism is a defining characteristic of psychopathy/sociopathy and is rooted in an individual's deficient capacity for empathy. It's almost impossible for a person with such shallow feelings and such haughtiness to really care about others or to form a conscience with any of the qualities we typically associate with a humane attitude, which is why most researchers and thinkers on the topic of psychopathy think of psychopaths as individuals without a conscience altogether."

"There is nothing about the man that is service-oriented. He's only serving himself."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/x54z2pRAvtg?rel=0"

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary clinton and huma abedin abuse secret service agents

Notable quotes:
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Jun 25, 2016 | breitbart.com

Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.

Kessler, the author of The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws."

The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold.

Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton and Abedin include:

In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008 Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for her people to be rude."

Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent. The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"

Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'" The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents, kind of like servants."

An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:

There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces, and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.

The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it."

Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand out of the way, don't be seen.'"

Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch, the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket case."

FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."

One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted, "How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy your suits? Penney's?"

Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit I owned."

[Sep 04, 2016] Under my definiton of sociopath , Hillary Clinton qualifies on just her laugh about death Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet

Notable quotes:
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

Zachary Smith / August 30, 2016 2:24 p.m.

As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?

"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one alone. Of course there are others….

*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***

I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release her meeting schedules until after the election?

Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.

[Sep 03, 2016] Hillary Clinton Incompetent, Or Criminal

The lost in mail laptop and disappear thumb drive with archived emails story is incredibly fishy. The whole story in incredible. Both Hillary and her close aides (especially Huma ) come out as completely incompetent idiots, who can't be trusted any sensitive information. This level of incompetence combined with recklessness is pretty typical for female sociopath
Notable quotes:
"... The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. ..."
"... The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read. ..."
"... The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. ..."
"... Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) ..."
"... The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both. ..."
"... Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired. ..."
"... Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes. ..."
"... The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server. ..."
"... Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well. ..."
The American Conservative

Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump this startling news about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal? Hard to believe it was a coincidence that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily Beast:

A laptop containing a copy, or "archive," of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server was apparently lost-in the postal mail-according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton's emails has been lost and is not in the FBI's possession.

The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. The FBI director has already said it's possible Clinton's email system could have been remotely accessed by foreign hackers.

The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed report about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email account. The report contained new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.

More:

The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read.

The FBI has found that Clinton's emails contained classified information, including information derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.

The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised by a Romanian hacker.

Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)

Read it all. The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information.

Clint says: September 3, 2016 at 12:00 pm
The Clintons have gotten away repeatedly by not playing by the rules that others must play by or get punished for breeching.

It's incrementally being exposed and Americans see that The Clintons act as if they're too big to jail.

Noah172 , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:08 pm
KevinS wrote:

It is like going through a red light because you weren't paying close enough attention as opposed to consciously choosing to run a red light

Lousy analogy. Running a red is a momentary lapse, not a years-long, well-thought-out conspiracy, with considerable effort given to covering tracks (BleachBit).

Sebastien Cole , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:09 pm
No one in the media wants to say it, but this report almost entirely exonerates Clinton. Yes, she's lawyerly and is inclined to walk too close to the line, but no – she didn't do anything immoral or unethical. If at some point it turns out that she's actually done something wrong then we revisit, but the obsession with this 'crimeless coverup' prevents us from stating the obvious – Clinton is a solid candidate for President, intelligent, diligent and serious enough to guide the nation through difficult times. Trump is uncontroversially not.

The moral equivalence games the media plays with the two candidates amounts to a cancer in our civic fiber that allows us not to put away our childish things.

mongoose , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm
…like choosing a hangover…rather than a heroin overdose
Buckeye reader , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:22 pm
You're insulting Nixon.

We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century. Voters are choosing a woman who put an insecure server containing national security communications in her basement, and sold our intention and opportunities to do good in the world to rich people for her own financial gain.
(I lean toward voting for Trump. My issue is the immense paperwork drag on health care delivery and the increase in cost caused by the "affordable" care act. I expect more of the same with Clinton. )

Abelard Lindsey , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm
Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both.
Michael Guarino, says: September 3, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired.

This sort of astonishing incompetence is exactly why I originally thought this was a big deal. The reason you don't want HRC running her own server is because she plainly doesn't know how to manage, or even hire for, all the inane details of information security.

Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes.

Will Harrington , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Jay, or, and hear me out, like the other Bill, there has to come a point in time where the shear amount of claims of criminal behavior has to be considered. The other Bill got away with rape for years, maybe its time to consider that this Bill and his wife lack credibility in the face of accusers that HRC has denigrated and called Bimbos.

Leftists make me sick in this. They will cry that we should always believe the victim unless one of their political leaders are accused. You want to take out a conservative? Give credible evidence that he is guilty of rape or sexual harassment. We quit voting for them. Your side, deny, deny, deny….and ultimately demand we move on, just like a previous poster's five stages of a Clinton scandal.

The only exception to this I can think of is Weiner, not because he did something that is horrible. No, you guys abandoned him because he was pathetic and embarrassing.

Michael Guarino, says: September 3, 2016 at 1:08 pm
This is the direct quote from the Daily Beast article:

After trying unsuccessfully to remotely transfer the emails to a Platte River server, Hanley shipped the laptop to the employee's home in February 2014. He then "migrated Clinton's emails" from the laptop to a Platte River server.

That task was hardly straightforward, however, and ended up exposing the email archive yet again, this time to another commercial email service.

The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server.

Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well.

It really makes the Nixon comparisons seem apt, except she has an out for her supporters in simply claiming that she is a bumbling idiot.

Andrew E. , says: September 3, 2016 at 1:23 pm
The good liberals here who are starting the writing on the wall with Crooked Hillary should begin considering the fact that Trump isn't that bad and is actually pretty good in many ways. Come on over, you will be welcomed warmly.

[Aug 30, 2016] So, Trumps crazy What about Hillary

Notable quotes:
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Aug 07, 2016 | www.wnd.com

Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so.

For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury," Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives."

In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."

These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary of state. An aide on her presidential campaign told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."

[Aug 26, 2016] Rep. Gowdy Hillary Clinton is a 'habitual, serial liar'

Fox News Video

- 2:08 - Republican lawmaker questions absence of emails sent by secretary of state on foundation

[Aug 14, 2016] The cry of management bullying reduces wholesale ownership to bad personal behaviour, something to be corrected by the schoolteacher or the next authority up.

Notable quotes:
"... As extracurricular lesson. ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com

clinical wasteman , August 13, 2016 at 11:31 am

BULLYING: (1.) Workplace. Cuts conflict over time and money down to schoolyard scale. If one schoolchild 'bullies' another the injury is real but the two are formal equals under the same coercive structure. Neither owns the other's means of survival.

Apply the metaphor to boss and worker, then, and the stakes of the conflict evaporate, or rather stay in the hands that always held them. The cry of 'management bullying' reduces wholesale ownership to bad personal behaviour, something to be corrected by the schoolteacher or the next authority up. A plea for Help that counts as the surrender (usually by proxy) of the managed.

(2.) As extracurricular lesson. Actual schoolyard violence is 'bullying' when the perpetrator fits the profile for Multi-Agency Intervention better than the target. In the opposite case, counsellors and Restorative Justice practitioners may declare the ordeal a lesson in Life Skills for the injured party. A salutary warning that s/he must either curb a too-sharp tongue or be unemployable as well as regularly beaten up in years to come.

From the many more than 25 "words and phrases" at: http://www.wealthofnegations.org/

[Aug 07, 2016] Is hillary a female phychopath

Notable quotes:
"... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?

Enter the Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails, infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability for her hijinks.

The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that they were 'personal'.

Cortes , August 5, 2016 at 11:41 pm

The following piece by Andrew Napolitano speculates on what might have triggered a disgruntled NSA person to leak materials:

http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/lessons-from-the-deep-state/

At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian alternative reality world they inhabit?

marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge, was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with.

Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.

[Aug 01, 2016] Bullying Definition

Notable quotes:
"... Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems. ..."
"... Kids who bully use their power-such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity-to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people. ..."
"... The set of behaviors definition given is not age dependent. The definition may have been provided to provide a basis for recognizing and determining a set of behaviors that may be defined as bullying, but says nothing about age levels. It's a description of a set of human behaviors being applied to a particular age group for the sake of defining a particular basis of illegal behavior. ..."
www.stopbullying.gov

Below is the definition of bullying from stopbullying.gov. (US Department of Health & Human Services)

Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.

In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:

Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.

Types of Bullying

There are three types of bullying:

Jack, August 1, 2016 11:23 am

Warren,
That is a nonsensical reply. The set of behaviors definition given is not age dependent. The definition may have been provided to provide a basis for recognizing and determining a set of behaviors that may be defined as bullying, but says nothing about age levels. It's a description of a set of human behaviors being applied to a particular age group for the sake of defining a particular basis of illegal behavior.

Ed, Maybe bullying should be described as a high priority issue in our schools, but assigning it to the number one spot may be a bit hyperbolic.

Edward Lambert, August 1, 2016 12:07 pm

Jack,
It is a very high priority. I went to a presentation by the local school superintendent. She said bullying was the #1 priority by law. She has to drop anything and everything that she is doing when a case of bullying presents itself by law. That is how serious the situation became.

[Jul 16, 2016] Female Sociopaths - different but just as dangerous!

www.decision-making-confidence.com
Particular Characteristics of Female Sociopaths Vs Males

Incidence

How many female sociopaths are there? Robert Hare believes that about 1% of the population fits the profile of psychopath, and male psychopaths are 7 times more common than female psychopaths.

But there are some things to keep in mind here. When most people think of 'sociopath' they typically think 'male' and 'serial killer'. They do not generally think of women psychopaths. This can lead to a situation where they are dealing with a psychopath in their life but do not realize who they are dealing with.

Add to this the fact that sociopaths have been called chameleons for their ability to blend into society and it adds to the difficulty in counting them.

Plus, whether you consider it sexist or not, the female aspect needs to be considered when talking about manipulation. Women have been known to 'bat their eyelids' and show their cleavage or 'show a bit of leg', for example, to good effect.

How female sociopaths show up in society

The most obvious group are the serial killers. And yes, there have been lots of female serial killers as well as males!

Unlike the males however, there is usually not a sexual element to their crimes. It's much more usual to be money or power related. And the female sociopaths typically know their victims; it's rare for them to kill strangers. An interesting group are the female sociopaths who become nurses or doctors. These cold-blooded killers hide themselves where nobody would suspect them, in a caring profession!

And then they set to work. For example, Beverley Allitt, a 23-year-old nurse in the UK killed 4 and attacked 9 other children within a couple of months before she was caught. A Texas nurse Genene Jones is believed to have killed between 11 and 46. It's of this group that people usually say "But they seemed like such nice people!"

Another subset are those who kill one or several husbands for the inheritance and life assurance.

Obvious Delinquents

Some female sociopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior as children and as adolescents. Lying, stealing, truancy, cruelty to animals and siblings, drug abuse, early sexual activity. Of course, there may be frequent run-ins with the law. Their parents are very often distraught because there is so little they can do. As adults, these female sociopaths may end up abusing alcohol and drugs and end up in and out of prison.

Some therapists believe that there is such a disregard for society among them that a sociopath that has not broken the law just hasn't been found out yet!

Cult leaders

Many of the women who lead destructive cults are sociopaths.

There seems to be two themes among female sociopaths that are not so prevalent in male led groups, one being the avoidance of sex and the other being food.

The women psychopaths may target women who want to get away from sex for whatever reason. Instead they offer female nurturing and support.

As well as offering meals when potential 'clients' have none, there are cults based on eating healthily or losing weight. This is typical of cults, they offer something people want but behind the outer facade is a second set of ideas or principles. People enter for one thing and end up having the leader control their lives.

Socialized sociopaths

These are the ones that are so difficult to count! Despite their sociopath symptoms, they manage to integrate themselves into society to varying degrees. Everything from solitary lives where they live on the money they make from crimes for which they are not caught, to getting married, settling down and having children.

It's interesting to read or listen to the stories of some of these female sociopaths. Typically, they realize as children that they are different in some way. They think differently and make different decisions. Then they begin to understand that they are not so 'affected' by emotions. It's seems that it's common for them to think that this is because they are smarter than those around them.

They begin from an early age to look for clues to recognize the emotions that others are actually having. They learn to mimic the emotions so as not to stand out, or to please others. They learn to create relationships that are beneficial for them.

Female sociopaths have all the symptoms of sociopaths. The lying, the parasitic lifestyle, the need for excitement and the desire to control. It's possible that there are many female sociopaths who live, for all intents and purposes, what looks like a normal life from the outside. They are content to just blend in and do what "normal" people do.

Others however, want more. More money, more power, more control, more excitement. And they get themselves into trouble because of the impulsivity or the failure to control their emotions, or the irresponsibility.

One of the ways this shows up is in problems in their marriage. In true sociopath style, they attract a man, create an intimate relationship, influence his decision making and get married. It's common for them to isolate the man from his friends and family to varying degrees. They can be very domineering and controlling, using sex as a means to manipulate. The man may suffer verbal abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and even physical abuse.

Had a bad experience?

Have you had a run-in with a sociopath? The more people know about these demons the better! Tell your story here

When there are children involved it gets infinitely more complicated. Especially in separations and divorces. The female sociopaths have no difficulty (remember no remorse, guilt or pity for anybody) in using the children as pawns or objects to try to continue to manipulate the man.

They will extract information from the children about the father to use against him, they will influence how and what the children think about the father, and they may prevent the father from having any contact with the children. The welfare of the children is not considered. What's important is that they continue to maintain control and power.

In family matters where the police or the courts involved, they have no difficulty in lying, inventing stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what they want. They can play the victim role very well, as most sociopaths do, and will use society's preferences towards women and mothers to their advantage.

Some female sociopaths simply go from one relationship to another. They use their sociopathic charm, good looks and female wiles to create a relationship, take what they want and then disappear, leaving a trail of brokenhearted and confused men behind them. Men who are somewhat poorer after the experience!

This piece was originally written about a male but I think it works equally well like this!

She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with this presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will wonder what you did wrong.

From an essay signed, "A psychopath in prison".

Testosterone

Apparently both male and female psychopaths have high levels of testosterone. It has been found that in normal populations, higher levels of testosterone are associated with higher sex drive, more sexual activity and more attractiveness to the opposite sex.

This will make female sociopaths more appealing to males. Add to this the lack of inhibition, and the grandiose sense of self and you have a lethal combination! Think femme fatale!

It may also explain the lack of desire to have children and the failure to look after them if they do. It's not uncommon for female sociopaths to leave young children unattended, for example, because they have other more important things to do.

How we perceive women

We normally think women are empathic and nurturing and don't expect to see cold-hearted, uncaring, callous behaviors in women.

We don't consider that they could be more devious, manipulative, destructive, vindictive and downright nasty than their male counterparts.

But just ask any man who has been a victim of female sociopaths...!

Learn what to do if you think you might be in a relationship with a sociopath and how to stop mind control...

[Jul 16, 2016] Confessions of a Sociopath A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight

Just a reminder: like in any fashionable themes that are authors who try to did gold out of it. This is one of the genre:. From comments: "As a training psychologist, I was very disappointed with this memoir. I'm very interested in sociopathy and from how this is written, it seems that Thomas is more likely to be a narcissist than a sociopath. I don't think this book is an accurate account of sociopathy and I'm questioning the formal diagnosis. Additionally, It seemed that Thomas kept repeating the same points over and over, which made it very difficult to read at times. It also was difficult due to my growing distaste for Thomas as an individual (mostly due to her conceitedness - another reason I believe she's a narcissist). However, I will give the book a few stars for being written well and keeping my attention enough to at least finish the book."
Notable quotes:
"... I think everyone learns to lie about his or her emotions to a certain extent; I just take it a step farther. People ask, "How are you?" and you respond, "fine," even though you had a fight with your spouse that morning, have a sick child, or any multitude of things that make it hard for you to feel fine about almost anything in your life. You could honestly answer the question, but you don't because overt displays of strong emotion in ordinary social interactions are not accepted. Most of the time I don't need to show any emotion at all, and I try to limit the times that I do by begging off attending funerals, weddings, etc. When I do show up to these functions, I try to mimic the other attendees. If I'm dealing with a person one-on-one, I just try to reflect their emotions; usually they're distracted enough by their own overflowing emotions not to notice my lack of them. ..."
"... The author goes into some detail in trying to distinguish psychopaths, sociopaths, and person with anti-social personality disorder; but for the majority of the world these distinctions are exercises in semantics only. ..."
"... I've dealt with sociopathic and psychopathic individuals, and they aren't these brilliant, charming, care free people that this book would like you to believe. I'm sorry, but she is not a sociopath. So she is full of herself and likes to toy with the lives of others, apparently she has never met a high school aged girl. If she had, she would see that she is stuck in her own adolescence. She truly wants to believe that she is a sociopath because then she is not like the majority of people. ..."
"... As she says, 1 in 25 people are statistically sociopaths. I'm guessing she hasn't even verified those statistics. What sample size is it derived from? Is the sample really indicative of the entire earth's population? ..."
"... I didn't learn anything from this book; it contains the usual suspects in terms of how she defines herself, the kinds of things she does, etc. This book was written for those who are not familiar with sociopathy, and since it's a pop psych deal all over social media, the author is capitalizing; there are statements in that book that seriously cast doubt on her claims, and others that pinpoint, so it seems to be she did a lot of research to write this, rather than glean her own experience. Considering her penchant to drone about her intelligence, her special abilities, and her success, sociopaths lie, manipulate, and cheat to the nth degree; this is what I'm getting from this; sociopaths are easily detectable, at least to me; I think my discernment skills are far superior to those of the author. One star for the subject, it is familial, and one star for the brazen ability to recognize she cannot fool all, but can fool many. ..."
"... The females are less inclined to criminal behavior and better able to pretend to empathy they don't possess, but they do not have the loyalty or empathy the rest of us have, which means they cannot learn from their behavior the way the rest of us can. ..."
"... I'm sorry to say, this book was a disappointment. It was a long, painful, boring read. First of all, Ms. Thomas isn't a very good writer. Full of run-on sentences and endless, dull descriptions of how great she thinks she is because she lacks empathy and a conscience (she seems to think of these as traits only weak or stupid people have, reminding me of Ayn Rand without an iota of the latter's intelligence), Thomas comes off more as an obnoxious, self-centered, common narcissist than a true sociopath. ..."
"... Thomas (who owns the website Sociopath World) is not a criminal. She may well be sociopathic in that she seems to take pleasure in cheating, manipulating, hurting, and discarding others, once gleefully watched a possum drown, and admits she enjoys ruining the reputations of people she has worked with. She clearly has no empathy and seems to have no emotions. ..."
"... M. E. Thomas is clearly a malignant narcissist, but by calling herself a "sociopath" you feel like you've been the victim of a bait-and-switch (which is in itself sociopathic, I suppose). ..."
"... The only reason I didn't feel completely ripped off was because the yard sale copy of this book set me back only $1; if I'd purchased it at full price, I'd be pretty annoyed right now. It was all I could do to even finish this book. It was that boring. Don't waste your time. If you want to read a good book about sociopathy, read Marsha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door instead. If you really need to read something that comes "out of the horse's mouth," you'd do better with Sam Vaknin ..."
"... I so wish i hadn't wasted my money on this book. The writing was weak and she often contradicts herself and i was utterly bored half way through. Her examples of her sociopathic behaviour aren't very radical - provoking her father to anger in teen years, taking a neighbors bike without permission and returning it (so naughty!), following a man who angered her with murderous intent for a block or so until she lost him. 300 pages of self-aggrandizing that comes across as juvenile and insecure. Perhaps she is malicious and conniving and maybe even a sociopath whatever that actually is (I am not a fan of the DSM), but ultimately its not that interesting, definitely not enlightening. ..."
www.amazon.com

Amazon.com Books

As M.E. Thomas says of her fellow sociopaths, "We are your neighbors, your coworkers, and quite possibly the people closest to you: lovers, family, friends. Our risk-seeking behavior and general fearlessness are thrilling, our glibness and charm alluring. Our often quick wit and outside-the-box thinking make us appear intelligent-even brilliant. We climb the corporate ladder faster than the rest, and appear to have limitless self-confidence. Who are we? We are highly successful, noncriminal sociopaths and we comprise 4 percent of the American population."

Confessions of a Sociopath -part confessional memoir, part primer for the curious-takes readers on a journey into the mind of a sociopath, revealing what makes them tick while debunking myths about sociopathy and offering a road map for dealing with the sociopaths in your life. M. E. Thomas draws from her own experiences as a diagnosed sociopath; her popular blog, Sociopathworld.com; and scientific literature to unveil for the very first time these men and women who are "hiding in plain sight."

Q&A with M. E. Thomas

Q. Were you always aware that you were different?

A. Yes, though when I was young, I thought maybe it was just because I was smarter than everyone else. I saw things that other children did not see, was aware of the adult world in a way that even my smart siblings were not-awkward interactions from the end of an affair, why my grandpa treated my dad differently from his other children (he was adopted), and so on. I knew other people did not see these things because I would reference them and get blank stares in return. I learned to keep things to myself, even to pretend I didn't see them. Those were probably some of my first attempts to wear a mask of normalcy.

Q. What are the common characteristics/behaviors shared by most sociopaths? Do they describe you, too?

A. Lack of remorse or concern for hurting or stealing; being deceitful, manipulative, impulsive, irritable, aggressive, and consistently irresponsible; failure to conform to social norms; and being unconcerned about people's safety, including their own. You need to have at least three of these to be a sociopath. I have them all, to varying degrees.

Q. You believe that sociopaths have a natural competitive advantage. Why?

A. Sociopaths have several skills that lend themselves to success in areas such as politics and business: charm, an ability to see and exploit weaknesses/flaws (which in politics is called "power-broking" and in business, "arbitrage"), confidence, unflagging optimism, an ability to think outside the box and come up with original ideas, and a lack of squeamishness about doing what it takes to get ahead.

Q. If you don't have a sense of morality, or feel the emotions that most people do, how are you able to operate in the world without being detected?

A. I think everyone learns to lie about his or her emotions to a certain extent; I just take it a step farther. People ask, "How are you?" and you respond, "fine," even though you had a fight with your spouse that morning, have a sick child, or any multitude of things that make it hard for you to feel fine about almost anything in your life. You could honestly answer the question, but you don't because overt displays of strong emotion in ordinary social interactions are not accepted. Most of the time I don't need to show any emotion at all, and I try to limit the times that I do by begging off attending funerals, weddings, etc. When I do show up to these functions, I try to mimic the other attendees. If I'm dealing with a person one-on-one, I just try to reflect their emotions; usually they're distracted enough by their own overflowing emotions not to notice my lack of them.

Q. Research shows that one in twenty-five people is a sociopath, yet most of us believe we've never met one. Are we just kidding ourselves? Are you able to spot them?

A. Statistically, everyone has met at least one sociopath; in fact, most people will have a close encounter with a sociopath at some point in their lives, either as a friend, family member, or lover. Sometimes I can tell who they are. I find that many successful sociopaths will leave deliberate clues as to what they are, the thought being that only other sociopaths would recognize them. I think sociopaths, like serial killers, often have a yearning to be acknowledged for who they are. They want people to admire their exploits, and that is hard to get when they are completely hidden, so they make small compromises.

By Sara on December 15, 2015 Format: Paperback

2.0 out of 5 stars Questioning the legitimacy of "sociopath" diagnosis

As a training psychologist, I was very disappointed with this memoir. I'm very interested in sociopathy and from how this is written, it seems that Thomas is more likely to be a narcissist than a sociopath. I don't think this book is an accurate account of sociopathy and I'm questioning the formal diagnosis. Additionally, It seemed that Thomas kept repeating the same points over and over, which made it very difficult to read at times. It also was difficult due to my growing distaste for Thomas as an individual (mostly due to her conceitedness - another reason I believe she's a narcissist). However, I will give the book a few stars for being written well and keeping my attention enough to at least finish the book.
3.0 out of 5 stars D_shrink VINE VOICE on March 31, 2013

Format: Hardcover Vine Customer Review of Free Product ( What's this? )

At least she is coming out to all but her family. This is written as a confessional/memoir of its author Monica E. Thomas,a pseudonym, necessitated by the subject matter and to protect her present socioeconomic life.

Having just read the reviews written before mine, it would seem I am the first to have actually read the entire book, well, at least, so far.

I would agree with the other reviewers that the book is technically well written, but does get long in the tooth by the half way mark, with many points being repeated several times which lengthened the book with no apparent advantage that I could ascertain; otherwise I would have given 4 stars.

I would agree that the author as self described is unlikeable, but whom I found very interesting simply because I am a retired psychologist and spent the last ten years working with female murderers. The author goes into some detail in trying to distinguish psychopaths, sociopaths, and person with anti-social personality disorder; but for the majority of the world these distinctions are exercises in semantics only.

To help clarify this point, as the author takes some time discussing her rational for the distinction. A psychiatrist, Hervey Clecky wrote the magnum opus on psychopathology in 1941 in a book called MASK OF SANITY; he might be better known to you for his book on multiple personality disorder which was turned into a movie in 1957 called THE THREE FACES OF EVE.

A Dr. Robert Hare building upon Clecky's work devised a 20 question scale to judge antisocial personality disorder. He only used convicts to base his results on, so it is not representative of the general population and certainly doesn't have the background of the MMPI. Hare felt that there were differences between people who committed violent and aggressive act and those who did not. He felt that the aggressive ones should be considered to have ASPD and the others would simply be called sociopaths. The term psychopaths had fallen out of favor.

However, much of the world still considered all three terms to be interchangeable, and if you look up psycho/sociopath in the APA Dictionary it will refer you to Antisocial Personality Disorder. The author particularly chose to make this distinction to differentiate her disorder from those with the more severe form. Basically the author feels that being diagnosed as a sociopath doesn't mean you are bad, but simply that you don't act in socially approved manner unless it benefits the actor.

At one point the author describes her entire dysfunctional family and wonders if she might have turned out differently if raised in a different environment. You know, the argument of nature versus nurture.

1.0 out of 5 stars By N@t@ni on September 12, 2013 Format: Hardcover
Yawn M. E. is a self serving, arrogant and shallow author... her memoir does not show any insights by carefully and thoughtfully analyzing one's life and behavior. Her memoir is simply a regurgitation of already published data, and boring stories to relate to such data and to rationalize poor behavior. She has to hit us over the head about how brilliant she is, and how successful she is, and how much better she is because she is a sociopath, when one wonders if she is just an arrogant and unlikable person. If she demonstrates a typical non-dangerous sociopath, we don't really need to read a book about it, we see it every day and just avoid such people. She talks about power struggles in the most inane and trite situations possible, reeking of low self esteem. She makes gross generalizations about "empaths", which are generally overstated and wrong. This memoir at best, reads like a narcissist's journal entry/book report and at worst, just a terribly boring book.
1.0 out of 5 stars By Dr. Charles Finley on September 26, 2013 Format: Hardcover
Pointless Endeavor I was going to give this book two stars simply because it was written better than some of the garbage available today such as 50 shades of anything, yet cannot because the content is monotonous trash. I would never recommend this book to anyone. It is certainly a work of fiction and the author is even more boring than she is self absorbed. The author doesn't display the true traits of a sociopath. She sounds more narcissistic than anything else. She contradicts herself numerous times throughout the book alluding to why she isn't really a sociopath. It's amusing that sociopaths and psychopaths are being glamorized these days as if they don't have a disorder and they are instead instilled with super human powers.

I've dealt with sociopathic and psychopathic individuals, and they aren't these brilliant, charming, care free people that this book would like you to believe. I'm sorry, but she is not a sociopath. So she is full of herself and likes to toy with the lives of others, apparently she has never met a high school aged girl. If she had, she would see that she is stuck in her own adolescence. She truly wants to believe that she is a sociopath because then she is not like the majority of people.

As she says, 1 in 25 people are statistically sociopaths. I'm guessing she hasn't even verified those statistics. What sample size is it derived from? Is the sample really indicative of the entire earth's population? I only ask these questions because I am sure that she hasn't despite her self-proclaimed brilliance. Getting fired from a law firm and teaching at a 4th tier law school doesn't make you a model of success. Even Dr. Phil could see through miss JRL's ploy for fame. Sorry M.E. Thomas but you aren't special, unique, or different than everyone else. We all have these same feelings. Your actions are driven by the very insecurities that you claim you don't have. Welcome to the real world.

1.0 out of 5 stars By BookReader on June 10, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition

I'm an empath and proud to be one!

I thought this book is interesting. I purchased it because recently I had a bad experience befriending someone who I believe is a sociopath. This friend eerily has every trait of one. I trusted this person. He was charming, witty and a sponge. He is a fifty year old man who hasn't worked since his early twenties. He lies a lot and quite a master at it. But I didn't realize this until later after I was allowing him to use my internet/ WiFi for free for well over a year. I found myself paying for his bills and feeding him and even giving him the use of my new car. This guy didn't have anything and had an excuse for everything. I began to open my eyes and see that his friendships were solely based on merits of what they offered him. They were merely vehicles to get what he needed. After he started making comments to me that when I die, he was going to grab up all my possessions before my daughter had chance, red flags started going off in my head. He claimed he was teasing, but a tease is the truth behind a smile. He liked talking a lot about my death and harped on my material things. He became possessive of my things as if it was his. He even tried to control my spending. I might add, we were never more than friends and we never shared the same dwelling. Finally after catching him in several lies, I dropped our friendship. That's when he underhandedly took my personal information and gave it out over social media to hurt my business.

His grandiose arrogance I think is his weakness, though, he doesn't see it that way. His arrogance blinded him into to believing that I couldn't connect the dots. That's when I started looking further into personality disorders. I honestly believe he is a sociopath.

All his friendships are superficial. He only becomes friends with those who can benefit his needs. He's a pathological liar. He will steal from you and take whatever he wants and is very aggressive and feels he is entitled. He is charming and smart and loves to brag about his intelligence. He snarls his nose at his friends, thinking he is far superior. Even though he doesn't have a job and is dependent of others' financial support. I sit in my house everyday feeling like a prisoner. He knows when I'm home and when I leave. He watches me like a hawk. He's a collector of information of his neighbors. He studies people and pits out his next victim.

This book helped me to understand the mind of the sociopath. However, I don't agree entirely with the writer's view on empaths. She boast that empaths bring havoc to the business world because they allow their emotions to get in the way of decision making.

First, I'd like to say that most sociopaths do not function well in this world. They are cunning, underachievers, narcissist, unable to hold down any kind of job, yet they have this since of value that their opinion and intelligence far exceeds anyone else even though they have never kept even the most mundane jobs for more than a few short mouths. Instead of focusing on a career, they use all their energy into manipulating their victims.

They can be violent but they are all a predator and can't be trusted. I believe a sociopath's spurious confidence blinds them, keeping them from seeing the true reality. The reality is that a person or empath, has great leader ability. They are able to understand the heart of this country and will take in consideration that their decision making is not based on selfish motivation but based on heart and endeavor to help others rise above the occasion. Empaths are the ones who make this country. And yes, I am an empath and I am proud to be one!

I gave the writer a three star. I feel that's a fair mark. It's sort of hard to reward someone who's character is questionable.

2.0 out of 5 stars By TK on April 23, 2016 Format: Paperback

Cookie cutter information

I didn't learn anything from this book; it contains the usual suspects in terms of how she defines herself, the kinds of things she does, etc. This book was written for those who are not familiar with sociopathy, and since it's a pop psych deal all over social media, the author is capitalizing; there are statements in that book that seriously cast doubt on her claims, and others that pinpoint, so it seems to be she did a lot of research to write this, rather than glean her own experience. Considering her penchant to drone about her intelligence, her special abilities, and her success, sociopaths lie, manipulate, and cheat to the nth degree; this is what I'm getting from this; sociopaths are easily detectable, at least to me; I think my discernment skills are far superior to those of the author. One star for the subject, it is familial, and one star for the brazen ability to recognize she cannot fool all, but can fool many.

4.0 out of 5 stars By M'ette on March 21, 2016 Format: Paperback

Narcissism is the most prominent indicator of a sociopath, especially at an older age!

A reviewer describes this person as a malignant narcissist which would be an apt description for a layperson to make, but having been married to a very intelligent sociopath for nearly ten years, and currently having one as a mother-in-law, I can claim that without doubt that the lack of conscious marks a sociopath as a sociopath.
The females are less inclined to criminal behavior and better able to pretend to empathy they don't possess, but they do not have the loyalty or empathy the rest of us have, which means they cannot learn from their behavior the way the rest of us can.

My mother-in-law knows something is missing but she doesn't know what that is, not having the education to tell her. She can pretend to be a kind old lady, but she very quickly loses patience with this effort and has alienated everyone who has has dealt with her for any length of time at all. She is, at heart, mean, nasty and cold. I do not think she has the capacity to be different or be kind.

She is nearly a century of age and cannot learn differently. People are agast to see her coming because they have never been around someone so narrowly selfish, self-serving and manipulative. They try to be kind and professional in dealing with her, and being a sociopath, she is unaware of genuine feelings, and believes they actually like her.

These people are out there, in droves, and dealing with one is like nothing else one would ever experience. When I saw this side of my ex-husband I was shocked to the core and felt like I'd been unknowingly married to an insect for years!

His mother was glad I divorced him, and while she loves him, has no illusions about what her son is. That takes courage and keen insight.

Lauren Bennett on February 20, 2016 Format: Paperback

A couple of weeks ago I went to a yard sale and a book caught my eye, because of its subject matter–a copy of M. E. Thomas' autobiography, Confessions of a Sociopath: a Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight.

Ever-fascinated with all things Cluster B, including first-person accounts by narcissists, psychopaths and other antisocial types, I got busy reading that same evening. It took me two weeks to finish the book, when normally I'd devour a book of this length and subject matter in just a few days.

I'm sorry to say, this book was a disappointment. It was a long, painful, boring read. First of all, Ms. Thomas isn't a very good writer. Full of run-on sentences and endless, dull descriptions of how great she thinks she is because she lacks empathy and a conscience (she seems to think of these as traits only weak or stupid people have, reminding me of Ayn Rand without an iota of the latter's intelligence), Thomas comes off more as an obnoxious, self-centered, common narcissist than a true sociopath.

Thomas (who owns the website Sociopath World) is not a criminal. She may well be sociopathic in that she seems to take pleasure in cheating, manipulating, hurting, and discarding others, once gleefully watched a possum drown, and admits she enjoys ruining the reputations of people she has worked with. She clearly has no empathy and seems to have no emotions.

She crows on endlessly about how her lack of a conscience or any empathy has freed her from having to worry about what others think and therefore indicates what she thinks of as her superior intellect. But like the narcissist she really is, she overvalues her achievements and intelligence. She works as an attorney but doesn't seem to be able to stay employed for long, and really doesn't have any other impressive achievements under her belt. Her "theories" about sociopathy are nothing more than rehashes of what other people have already described in psychology texts, and less readable than theirs. Overall, Thomas comes off as self-congratulating, obnoxious, unlikeable, and very shallow. She also comes off as rather dumb.

M. E. Thomas is clearly a malignant narcissist, but by calling herself a "sociopath" you feel like you've been the victim of a bait-and-switch (which is in itself sociopathic, I suppose). The cover of the book is a picture of a sinister female mask on a white background, and you open the book expecting something more than you actually get, at least some sort of depth or insight into her own behavior. But Thomas has no real insight and the book reads more like a resume of her fake "achievements" than a psychological memoir. She talks about her family, who she describes as neglectful, but she doesn't seem to think they were particularly abusive. She takes arrogant pride in her "sociopathy," repeating the word again and again throughout the text, as if to drive home the fact that she really is one, when it seems that she "protesteth too much" and underneath all that bluster, suspects she may not be one. That kind of insecurity over the possibility of not really being what one says they are is a lot more typical of NPD than psychopathy or sociopathy, who don't care what others think of them. Thomas also talks about wanting to have a family and her religion (Mormonism) a lot. Maybe her religion keeps her from acting out against others in more heinous ways and gives her a sort of "cold" conscience, but I sure hope God doesn't let her have children. She doesn't seem capable of maintaining a relationship, so that doesn't exactly work in her favor.

Although narcissists are thought of as having no emotions, it isn't really true that they don't, and there are narcissists and sociopaths who have been able to write about themselves in an emotionally engaging, albeit dark and depressing, way. There is rage and hurt seething behind the surface of their words. But Thomas writes in a cold, emotionless way, probably because she's such a bad writer. As a result, you feel about as excited reading her "memoir" as you'd feel reading the most boring high school textbook–and learn a whole lot less.

The only reason I didn't feel completely ripped off was because the yard sale copy of this book set me back only $1; if I'd purchased it at full price, I'd be pretty annoyed right now. It was all I could do to even finish this book. It was that boring. Don't waste your time. If you want to read a good book about sociopathy, read Marsha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door instead. If you really need to read something that comes "out of the horse's mouth," you'd do better with Sam Vaknin. [...]

0 out of 5 stars By H. Swanby on January 22, 2016 Format: Paperback

300 pages of dull narcissism

I so wish i hadn't wasted my money on this book. The writing was weak and she often contradicts herself and i was utterly bored half way through. Her examples of her sociopathic behaviour aren't very radical - provoking her father to anger in teen years, taking a neighbors bike without permission and returning it (so naughty!), following a man who angered her with murderous intent for a block or so until she lost him. 300 pages of self-aggrandizing that comes across as juvenile and insecure. Perhaps she is malicious and conniving and maybe even a sociopath whatever that actually is (I am not a fan of the DSM), but ultimately its not that interesting, definitely not enlightening.

4.0 out of 5 stars
By White Rabbit on January 8, 2016 Format: Paperback

Entertaining Self-Aggrandizement Thinly Veiled as Pseudo-Analysis

This was a super-fast, easy, entertaining read, but it reminded me of the glib answer to the interview question "what's your weakness?" : "I'm a perfectionist." The author is undoubtedly bright, although probably not nearly as "brilliant" as she avows on every page. By structuring her personal & professional life to avoid any long-term serious human interaction or competition, she intentionally insulates herself from any real challenges to her thinking or persona. For instance, by bragging that her starting salary as a new lawyer was 170k, she dates herself precisely to the "fattest" 7 years the legal profession has ever had. She did not land that job because she was so brilliant, but because law firms during that period were hiring any carbon-based life form. Also, her assessment that sociopaths are "too rational" (i.e., not guided by emotion or constrained by herd mentality/morality) gets it diametrically wrong. Those sociopaths who either turn criminal (& are found out) or carve out less "successful" lives actually suffer from too LITTLE rational thinking, analysis, and sober calculation, not too much. This is likely correlated to their own inflated ego/self-assessment (as this author exemplifies), or imperviousness/reduced sensitivity to pain/negative consequences, and it leads to failure to accurately assess/predict the negative consequences of their actions, from underestimating the likelihood of getting "caught" to not being able to sustain any romantic relationship longer than the author's case of 8 months. Thus I think it is not "too much logic" that is the root of the problem (but merely its outside manifestation), but bad math, which is rather ironic for someone who envisions/imagines herself to be a brilliant differential engine unhampered by bloody wet emotion. What perpetuates both the sociopathological & narcissistic self-perspective (which, incidentally, is far more common and far more adaptive than the author thinks) is the carefully constructed bubble of invincibility these people construct around themselves, often choosing to rise no higher than the pond in which they assure themselves they are the biggest or flashiest fish. It is easy to imagine yourself King of the Jungle when you surround yourself with declawed kittens. Nonetheless, interesting breezy read, although the book would have better without the utterly banal and transparently false hand-wringing/crocodile tears of the Epilogue.

[Jul 16, 2016] Are you a female sociopath - Telegraph By Helena Kealey

telegraph.co.uk

By Helena Kealey

5:24PM BST 06 Oct 2014

Comments Comment

Witness the rise of the female sociopath. Cruel, calculating and calm under pressure; these emotionally detached women are in our lives, on our television screens and with the release of Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl this weekend, making waves in our cinemas. Sociopaths can be charming, funny and even practised at appearing sympathetic. In fact, one per cent of all women are sociopaths. To put that in context, one to two per cent of the population has red hair. It's likely that you know one, and it's even possible that you are one. Take this test to find out if you are in the emotionally detached one per cent. To take the quiz on your phone: click here.

[Jul 16, 2016] Rethinking Female Sociopathy, Part One by Dr Tara J. Palmatier

Notable quotes:
"... Rethinking Female Sociopathy ..."
January 4, 2012 | shrink4men.com

Shrink4Men: Helping men break free from abusive relationships since 2009

... ... ...

What are the characteristics of a sociopath?

Psychologists Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare both developed sociopathy checklists. The following characteristics are culled from their work.

Sociopaths have Jekyll and Hyde personalities and can be superficially charming. Their outward appearance is often very conventional or they disguise themselves as helpless victims. Alternately, sociopaths may come across as grandiose and narcissistic. Sociopaths come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, ethnicities and walks of life.

Sociopaths seem to have contempt for their victim's feelings and believe their victims deserve to be hurt, taken advantage of and exploited. They have no empathy or very selective empathy (e.g., your wife shows empathy toward someone who hurts or bullies you). They lie, cheat, manipulate, and/or verbally and/or physically intimidate others to get their way or to "win." To a sociopath, the ends justify the means.

Sociopaths may refuse to recognize that others have rights and believe they're entitled to violate the rights of others. In fact, they often try to control and humiliate their victims. They see people as objects and value others based upon their utility and ease of exploitation rather than fellow human beings. People are either targets and opportunities for exploitation. They don't have friends, but rather victims and accomplices who later become victims.

Sociopaths often have a gross and exaggerated sense of entitlement. They seem incapable of true love relationships and often confuse love with ability to control and exploit someone. They are unable to form healthy attachments with others.

Sociopaths seem to be able to lie very easily. You can have a video or audio recording of them perpetrating a crime or some abusive act and they will still pee on your leg and tell you it's raining. They often believe their own lies and may even be able to pass a polygraph. They seem to lack the capacity for remorse or guilt. For example, many of my clients are more likely to squeeze blood from a stone than to receive a sincere apology from their wives, girlfriends or exes.

When sociopaths seem to be expressing positive feelings it is typically because they are mimicking others to appear socially and psychologically normal. For example, a man on the Shrink4Men forum found a note his wife wrote to herself reminding herself to act nice and to pretend to be interested in her husband's day in order to get something she wanted from him. Warm and loving behavior may be a manipulation in order to be better able to exploit their victims. For example, they pull you close to be able to get a better swing at you – emotionally or physically.

Sociopaths have a need for extreme stimulation in order to feel emotion and are prone to feeling chronically bored. Some may resort to physical violence, gambling, drugs and alcohol, and/or promiscuity; while others create unnecessary conflict and drama for stimulation.

Sociopaths blame others for their bad behaviors and do not take personal responsibility for their actions. At their core, they are filled with rage, which is often split off and projected onto their victims. Sociopaths have poor behavioral and emotional controls and can be impulsive. They often alternate rage and abuse with small expressions of love and approval to keep their victims under their control.

Sociopaths lack boundaries and do not care how their behavior affects others. They may become enraged and/or desperate when their victims try to enforce boundaries on their abusive behaviors. They have difficulty maintaining friendships, and, is it any wonder given how they treat others?

They typically end relationships and/or try destroying former friends who have seen behind their masks. Some may have long-term friendships, but they either seem to be long-distance or friendships with incredibly damaged individuals with low self-esteem who admire the sociopath, i.e., sycophants.

Some may have a history of childhood emotional and behavioral disturbances while others do not. Some sociopathic individuals come from otherwise healthy and loving families.

Sociopaths are often irresponsible and unreliable. They have a history of breaking promises yet become enraged and vengeful if they believe someone has broken a promise to them. They have unrealistic life plans and often live beyond their means. Many live what can be described as a parasitic life in that they get through life by exploiting others.

Sociopaths may have diffuse identities. Many dramatically change their appearance or outward persona in order to exploit new victims or to avoid punishment. For example, when many of my clients met their wives and girlfriends, they feigned similar interests, beliefs, etc., and pretended to be someone they weren't in order to secure the relationship.

Sociopaths are ungrateful and contemptuous of people who try to help and understand them. Oftentimes, they do not believe anything is wrong with them, which is why therapy rarely works. If they acknowledge a problem, they usually blame others for it. Or, if they are formally diagnosed with a mental illness or other personality disorder, they may use their diagnosis to absolve them of their abusive behaviors.

Sociopaths typically do not trust others. They can be authoritarian, paranoid and secretive. They seek relationships with others who will accept, tolerate, condone or admire their bad behavior. They like nothing better than to have a willing victim.

Sociopaths often try to control every aspect of their victims' lives. They can be pretty territorial about their victims, which their victims often confuse with love and jealousy. It's not about love. You're their half-dead mouse and they don't want any other predators messing with "their property." A good example of this is when a woman becomes unhinged when her ex begins dating or gets remarried - especially if she's already moved onto to another victim, er, I mean, relationship .

Lastly, and I think this characteristic will resonate with many of you, sociopaths have an emotional need to justify their crimes and demand that their victims show them gratitude, love and respect. In other words:

Sociopaths expect that their victims show gratitude for being victimized by them.

In a few days, I will post the second part of Rethinking Female Sociopathy , so please check back.

[Jul 16, 2016] Female sociopaths display all the symptoms of a sociopath: lying, a parasitic lifestyle, the need for control, and the craving for excitement.

Notable quotes:
"... "She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with her presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will wonder what you did wrong." ..."
"... Most of us think of women as sensitive and nurturing. We don't expect to see uncaring, cold-hearted, callous behaviors in women. It's hard to imagine them being more conniving, controlling, destructive, malicious and downright mean than the male sociopath. ..."
male%20sociopaths%20display%20all%20the%20symptoms%20of%20a%20sociopath:%20lying,%20a%20parasitic%20lifestyle,%20the%20need%20for%20control,%20and%20the%20craving%20for%20excitement.%20https:

Female sociopaths display all the symptoms of a sociopath: lying, a parasitic lifestyle, the need for control, and the craving for excitement. Many live what looks like a typical life from the outside, content with blending in and doing what "normal" people do.

Others need more... more money, more control, more power, more excitement. They often get into trouble as they become impulsive, unable to control their emotions and behaving irresponsibly.

These behaviors often bring problems witin their marriage. Showing true sociopath style, they entice a man, create an intimate relationship, manipulate his decisions, and get married. They may try to isolate the man from his family and friends. They become bossy and controlling and will use sex as a tool to manipulate. The man is often subjected to emotional, verbal, psychological, and physical abuse.

If there are children of the marriage, it becomes ever more difficult. If there is a separation or divorce, the sociopath will easily use the children as pawns or objects as a way to continue to control the man.

They will not hesitate to obtain information from the children to use against their father, will lie to brainwash them into thinking Daddy is "bad" and will keep the father from having contact with them. They do this to keep their power and control and the wellbeing of the children is never a concern.

Female sociopaths have no problem lying, making up stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what they want. This works well in family matters where police or courts are involved. They are very convincing when playing the victim, and use society's favoritism towards women and mothers to their full advantage.

Many female sociopaths go from one relationship to another. They use their sociopathic charm, good looks and female allures to build a relationship, take what they want, and disappear. Men are disposable! They leave behind a trail of broken hearts and baffled men, many who are poorer after the experience!

The writing below was cited from "Decision Making Confidence"

"She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with her presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will wonder what you did wrong."

Most of us think of women as sensitive and nurturing. We don't expect to see uncaring, cold-hearted, callous behaviors in women. It's hard to imagine them being more conniving, controlling, destructive, malicious and downright mean than the male sociopath.

However, just ask any man who has been a victim of a female sociopath...

If you're a man in an abusive relationship, it's important to know that you're not alone. It happens to men from all cultures and all walks of life. Figures suggest that as many as one in three victims of domestic violence are male. However, men are often reluctant to report abuse by women because they feel embarrassed, or they fear they won't be believed, or worse, that police will assume that since they're male they are the perpetrator of the violence and not the victim.

An abusive wife or partner may hit, kick, bite, punch, spit, throw things, or destroy your possessions. To make up for any difference in strength, she may attack you while you're asleep or otherwise catch you by surprise. She may also use a weapon, such as a gun or knife, or strike you with an object, abuse or threaten your children, or harm your pets. Of course, domestic abuse is not limited to violence.

Domestic violence and abuse can have a serious physical and psychological impact on both you and your children. The first step to stopping the abuse is to reach out. Talk to a friend, family member, or someone else you trust, or call a domestic violence helpline.

Admitting the problem and seeking help doesn't mean you have failed as a man or as a husband. You are not to blame, and you are not weak. As well as offering a sense of relief and providing some much needed support, sharing details of your abuse can also be the first step in building a case against your abuser and protecting your kids.

When dealing with your abusive partner:

  • Leave if possible. Be aware of any signs that may trigger a violent response from your spouse or partner and be ready to leave quickly. If you need to stay to protect your children, call the emergency services. The police have an obligation to protect you and your children, just as they do a female victim.
  • Never retaliate. An abusive woman or partner will often try to provoke you into retaliating or using force to escape the situation. If you do retaliate, you'll almost certainly be the one who is arrested and/or removed from your home.
  • Get evidence of the abuse. Report all incidents to the police and get a copy of each police report. Keep a journal of all abuse with a clear record of dates, times, and any witnesses. Include a photographic record of your injuries and make sure your doctor or hospital also documents your injuries. Remember, medical personnel are unlikely to ask if a man has been a victim of domestic violence, so it's up to you to ensure the cause of your injuries are documented.
  • Keep a mobile phone, evidence of the abuse, and other important documents close at hand. If you and your children have to leave instantly in order to escape the abuse, you'll need to take with you evidence of the abuse and important documents, such as passport and driver's license. It may be safer to keep these items outside of the home.
  • Obtain advice from a domestic violence program or legal aid resource about getting a restraining order or order of protection against your spouse and, if necessary, seeking temporary custody of your children.

Help for abused men: Moving on from an abusive relationship

Support from family and friends as well as counseling, therapy, and support groups for domestic abuse survivors can help you move on from an abusive relationship. You or your children may struggle with upsetting emotions or feel numb, disconnected, and unable to trust other people. After the trauma of an abusive relationship, it can take a while to get over the pain and bad memories but you can heal and move on.

Even if you're eager to jump into a new relationship and finally get the intimacy and support you've been missing, it's wise take things slowly. Make sure you're aware of any red flag behaviors in a potential new partner and what it takes to build healthy, new relationships.

In the U.S. and Canada: Call The National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-888-799-7233

[Jul 15, 2016] The female sociopath

Notable quotes:
"... Unlike these women, the functional sociopath isn't "dismissible" as a slave to her emotions. She is not outwardly violent. Patently remorseless, clear-eyed and calculating, she is chameleonic in the extreme, donning one feigned feeling after another (interest, concern, sympathy, simpering insecurity, confidence, arrogance, lust, even love) to get what she wants. ..."
"... "You might call it seduction," she suggests, but really "it's called arbitrage and it happens on Wall Street (and a lot of other places) every day." Whatever you choose to call it, its appeal is undeniable when linked to the professional and personal advancement of women. "In general, the women in my life seemed like they were never acting, always being acted upon," Thomas laments. ..."
"... With it, researchers over the last decade have estimated that sociopaths comprise three to four percent of the U.S. population, or roughly 10 million people who regularly demonstrate a lack of empathy, a conniving and ruthless attitude towards interpersonal relationships, and immunity to experiencing negative emotions. A mere 1.5 million of them are women. ..."
digg.com

...Gone Girl, one of the most popular and addictive novels of the past decade, as Amy Dunne - the beguiling and cerebral housewife who stages her own murder and frames her philandering husband. Amy's creator, the novelist Gillian Flynn, has proudly described her character as a "functioning sociopath," which she is quick to distinguish from "the iconic psycho bitch." The iconic psycho bitch, Flynn explains, is crazy because "her lady parts have gone crazy." Think of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, so consumed with desire for Michael Douglas that she boils his daughter's pet rabbit to death; think of Sharon Stone and Jennifer Jason Leigh (and Kathy Bates and Rebecca De Mornay) chasing men through dim rooms with sharp objects.

Unlike these women, the functional sociopath isn't "dismissible" as a slave to her emotions. She is not outwardly violent. Patently remorseless, clear-eyed and calculating, she is chameleonic in the extreme, donning one feigned feeling after another (interest, concern, sympathy, simpering insecurity, confidence, arrogance, lust, even love) to get what she wants.

And why should she feel bad about it?

For M.E. Thomas, author of Confessions of A Sociopath, such affective maneuvers are tantamount to "fulfilling an exchange." "You might call it seduction," she suggests, but really "it's called arbitrage and it happens on Wall Street (and a lot of other places) every day." Whatever you choose to call it, its appeal is undeniable when linked to the professional and personal advancement of women. "In general, the women in my life seemed like they were never acting, always being acted upon," Thomas laments.

Sociopathy's silver lining was that it gave her a way to combat that injustice, in the boardroom of the corporate law firm she worked for in Los Angeles, but also in the bedroom, where she marveled at how her emotional detachment let her commandeer her lovers' hearts and minds. Somewhere along the way, pathology became recoded as practice - a set of rules for how to manage the self and others.

She is the apotheosis of the cool girl power that go-getter "feminists" have peddled to frustrated women over the last half-decade.

No wonder the female sociopath cuts such an admirable figure. Intensely romantic, professionally desirable, she is the stuff of fiction, fantasy, and aspirational reading. And while actual female sociopaths like Thomas are rare, and sociopathy isn't even recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the female sociopath looms large in our cultural imagination. Amy Dunne may stand as the perfect example - a "Cool Girl" on the outside, ice cold within - but she is not alone. Of late, she has faced stiff competition from fictional females like Lisbeth Salander, the ferocious tech genius in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, or Laura, the shape-shifting alien who preys on unwitting men in Under the Skin. Network television has been even kinder to the female sociopath, placing her at the center of workplace dramas like Damages, Revenge, Bones, The Fall, Rizzoli and Isles, Person of Interest, Luther, and 24. Here, she has mesmerized audiences with how nimbly she scales the professional ladder, her competence and sex appeal whetted by her dark, aggressive, risk-taking behavior, and lack of empathy.

And so we lean in to the cultural logic of the female sociopath, for she is the apotheosis of the cool girl power that go-getter "feminists" have peddled to frustrated women over the last half-decade. The female sociopath doesn't want to upend systems of gender inequality, that vast and irreducible constellation of institutions and beliefs that lead successful women like Gillian Flynn to decree that certain women, who feel or behave in certain ways, are "dismissible." The female sociopath wants to dominate these systems from within, as the most streamlined product of a world in which well-intentioned people blithely invoke words like arbitrage, leverage, capital, and currency to appraise how successfully we inhabit our bodies, our selves. One could easily imagine the female sociopath devouring books with titles like Bo$$ Bitch, Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office, The Confidence Gap, and Play Like a Man, Win Like a Woman to hone her craft - to learn how to have it all. From atop the corporate ladder, she can applaud her liberation from the whole messy business of feeling as a step forward for women, when it's really a step back.

The result is a self-defeating spectacle of feminism that finds a kindred spirit in Rosamund Pike on the cover of W, erasing her own perfect face to reveal that what lies beneath might be nothing. Like Gone Girl's Amy Dunne, who confesses that she "has never really felt like a person, but a product" - plastic, fungible, ready to be consumed by anyone, at any time - the female sociopath is a product of a broken promise made to women, by women. She is a product poised to disappear into the immense darkness from which she came.

If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them

Female sociopaths are rare, making up only 15% of all those diagnosed.

Ask any psychiatrist, and he will tell you that the female sociopath is a rare, almost mythological, creature. Ask Dr. Robert Hare, perhaps the most prolific researcher in criminal psychology and creator of the Hare Psychopath Checklist (PCL-R), and he will place the ratio of male to female sociopaths at seven to one - practically unworthy of discussion, let alone veneration. The PCL-R, which Hare developed during his work with inmate populations in Canada, is widely considered the gold standard for identifying and discussing anti-social behavior - and by the same token, for identifying and discussing what constitutes "normal" social behavior. With it, researchers over the last decade have estimated that sociopaths comprise three to four percent of the U.S. population, or roughly 10 million people who regularly demonstrate a lack of empathy, a conniving and ruthless attitude towards interpersonal relationships, and immunity to experiencing negative emotions. A mere 1.5 million of them are women.

[Jul 15, 2016] Female Sociopaths - different but just as dangerous!

Notable quotes:
"... Some female sociopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior as children and as adolescents. Lying, stealing, truancy, cruelty to animals and siblings, drug abuse, early sexual activity. Of course, there may be frequent run-ins with the law. Their parents are very often distraught because there is so little they can do. As adults, these female sociopaths may end up abusing alcohol and drugs and end up in and out of prison. ..."
"... Female sociopaths have all the symptoms of sociopaths. The lying, the parasitic lifestyle, the need for excitement and the desire to control. It's possible that there are many female sociopaths who live, for all intents and purposes, what looks like a normal life from the outside. They are content to just blend in and do what "normal" people do. ..."
"... One of the ways this shows up is in problems in their marriage. In true sociopath style, they attract a man, create an intimate relationship , influence his decision making and get married. It's common for them to isolate the man from his friends and family to varying degrees. They can be very domineering and controlling, using sex as a means to manipulate. The man may suffer verbal abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and even physical abuse. ..."
"... When there are children involved it gets infinitely more complicated. Especially in separations and divorces. The female sociopaths have no difficulty (remember no remorse, guilt or pity for anybody) in using the children as pawns or objects to try to continue to manipulate the man. ..."
"... In family matters where the police or the courts involved, they have no difficulty in lying, inventing stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what they want. They can play the victim role very well, as most sociopaths do, and will use society's preferences towards women and mothers to their advantage. ..."
"... Apparently both male and female psychopaths have high levels of testosterone. It has been found that in normal populations, higher levels of testosterone are associated with higher sex drive, more sexual activity and more attractiveness to the opposite sex. This will make female sociopaths more appealing to males. Add to this the lack of inhibition, and the grandiose sense of self and you have a lethal combination! Think femme fatale! It may also explain the lack of desire to have children and the failure to look after them if they do. It's not uncommon for female sociopaths to leave young children unattended, for example, because they have other more important things to do. ..."
"... We normally think women are empathic and nurturing and don't expect to see cold-hearted, uncaring, callous behaviors in women. We don't consider that they could be more devious, manipulative, destructive, vindictive and downright nasty than their male counterparts. But just ask any man who has been a victim of female sociopaths...! ..."
www.decision-making-confidence.com
Incidence

How many female sociopaths are there? Robert Hare believes that about 1% of the population fits the profile of psychopath, and male psychopaths are 7 times more common than female psychopaths.

But there are some things to keep in mind here. When most people think of 'sociopath' they typically think 'male' and 'serial killer'. They do not generally think of women psychopaths. This can lead to a situation where they are dealing with a psychopath in their life but do not realize who they are dealing with.

Add to this the fact that sociopaths have been called chameleons for their ability to blend into society and it adds to the difficulty in counting them.

Plus, whether you consider it sexist or not, the female aspect needs to be considered when talking about manipulation. Women have been known to 'bat their eyelids' and show their cleavage or 'show a bit of leg', for example, to good effect.

How female sociopaths show up in society

The most obvious group are the serial killers. And yes, there have been lots of female serial killers as well as males!

Unlike the males however, there is usually not a sexual element to their crimes. It's much more usual to be money or power related. And the female sociopaths typically know their victims; it's rare for them to kill strangers. An interesting group are the female sociopaths who become nurses or doctors. These cold-blooded killers hide themselves where nobody would suspect them, in a caring profession!

And then they set to work. For example, Beverley Allitt, a 23-year-old nurse in the UK killed 4 and attacked 9 other children within a couple of months before she was caught. A Texas nurse Genene Jones is believed to have killed between 11 and 46. It's of this group that people usually say "But they seemed like such nice people!"

Another subset are those who kill one or several husbands for the inheritance and life assurance.

Obvious Delinquents

Some female sociopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior as children and as adolescents. Lying, stealing, truancy, cruelty to animals and siblings, drug abuse, early sexual activity. Of course, there may be frequent run-ins with the law. Their parents are very often distraught because there is so little they can do. As adults, these female sociopaths may end up abusing alcohol and drugs and end up in and out of prison.

Some therapists believe that there is such a disregard for society among them that a sociopath that has not broken the law just hasn't been found out yet!

Cult leaders

Many of the women who lead destructive cults are sociopaths.

There seems to be two themes among female sociopaths that are not so prevalent in male led groups, one being the avoidance of sex and the other being food.

The women psychopaths may target women who want to get away from sex for whatever reason. Instead they offer female nurturing and support.

As well as offering meals when potential 'clients' have none, there are cults based on eating healthily or losing weight. This is typical of cults, they offer something people want but behind the outer facade is a second set of ideas or principles. People enter for one thing and end up having the leader control their lives.

Socialized sociopaths

These are the ones that are so difficult to count! Despite their sociopath symptoms, they manage to integrate themselves into society to varying degrees. Everything from solitary lives where they live on the money they make from crimes for which they are not caught, to getting married, settling down and having children.

It's interesting to read or listen to the stories of some of these female sociopaths. Typically, they realize as children that they are different in some way. They think differently and make different decisions. Then they begin to understand that they are not so 'affected' by emotions. It's seems that it's common for them to think that this is because they are smarter than those around them.

They begin from an early age to look for clues to recognize the emotions that others are actually having. They learn to mimic the emotions so as not to stand out, or to please others. They learn to create relationships that are beneficial for them.

Female sociopaths have all the symptoms of sociopaths. The lying, the parasitic lifestyle, the need for excitement and the desire to control. It's possible that there are many female sociopaths who live, for all intents and purposes, what looks like a normal life from the outside. They are content to just blend in and do what "normal" people do.

Others however, want more. More money, more power, more control, more excitement. And they get themselves into trouble because of the impulsivity or the failure to control their emotions, or the irresponsibility.

One of the ways this shows up is in problems in their marriage. In true sociopath style, they attract a man, create an intimate relationship, influence his decision making and get married. It's common for them to isolate the man from his friends and family to varying degrees. They can be very domineering and controlling, using sex as a means to manipulate. The man may suffer verbal abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse and even physical abuse.

When there are children involved it gets infinitely more complicated. Especially in separations and divorces. The female sociopaths have no difficulty (remember no remorse, guilt or pity for anybody) in using the children as pawns or objects to try to continue to manipulate the man.

They will extract information from the children about the father to use against him, they will influence how and what the children think about the father, and they may prevent the father from having any contact with the children. The welfare of the children is not considered. What's important is that they continue to maintain control and power.

In family matters where the police or the courts involved, they have no difficulty in lying, inventing stories and doing whatever is necessary to get what they want. They can play the victim role very well, as most sociopaths do, and will use society's preferences towards women and mothers to their advantage.

Some female sociopaths simply go from one relationship to another. They use their sociopathic charm, good looks and female wiles to create a relationship, take what they want and then disappear, leaving a trail of brokenhearted and confused men behind them. Men who are somewhat poorer after the experience!

This piece was originally written about a male but I think it works equally well like this!

She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with this presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will wonder what you did wrong.

From an essay signed, "A psychopath in prison".

Testosterone

Apparently both male and female psychopaths have high levels of testosterone. It has been found that in normal populations, higher levels of testosterone are associated with higher sex drive, more sexual activity and more attractiveness to the opposite sex. This will make female sociopaths more appealing to males. Add to this the lack of inhibition, and the grandiose sense of self and you have a lethal combination! Think femme fatale! It may also explain the lack of desire to have children and the failure to look after them if they do. It's not uncommon for female sociopaths to leave young children unattended, for example, because they have other more important things to do.

How we perceive women

We normally think women are empathic and nurturing and don't expect to see cold-hearted, uncaring, callous behaviors in women. We don't consider that they could be more devious, manipulative, destructive, vindictive and downright nasty than their male counterparts. But just ask any man who has been a victim of female sociopaths...!

Learn what to do if you think you might be in a relationship with a sociopath and how to stop mind control...

[May 18, 2016] Less Than Artful Choices Narcissistic Personality Disorder According to Donald Trump

Notable quotes:
"... So, without further ado, Trump's quotable illustration of the hallmarks of NPD, defined according to DSM-IV as, "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy." The disorder is indicated by at least five of the following: ..."
Big Think

Donald Trump was born in 1946. 34 years later, in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the American Psychiatric Association's hefty volume of mental disorder classifications, the term "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" (NPD) first appeared as a diagnosable disease – Trump would doubtless say it was created in his honor (characteristic #1 of NPD: An exaggerated sense of self-importance). After all, the newly-minted personality disorder made its debut only nine years after he took the helm of his father's company… and renamed it from Elizabeth Trump & Son to The Trump Organization.

The most recent DSM, DSM-IV, is currently under extensive revision, with DSM-V scheduled for publication sometime in 2013, and both its listed diseases and their definitions are undergoing extensive scrutiny and contentious debate. On the chopping block are five of the ten or so so-called personality disorders, including NPD. Among the reasons for the cut are the frequent overlap between disorders, the general lack of stability of symptoms, and the range of those symptoms in reality, as compared to the either/or approach of the manual (either you have a disorder or you don't). So, before NPD becomes a thing of the past, at least in its current form, I thought we'd take a moment to reflect on some less than artful choices – or the things that make Trump look like he just stepped out of the fourth edition, symptom by symptom.

A caveat: I am obviously exaggerating, both Trump and narcissism. But debate on personality disorders, classifications, diagnoses, and treatments is well worthwhile, and a colorful spokesperson never hurts.

So, without further ado, Trump's quotable illustration of the hallmarks of NPD, defined according to DSM-IV as, "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy." The disorder is indicated by at least five of the following:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

A sense of one's own importance, a grandiose feeling that one is alone responsible for any achievement is a hallmark of the narcissist. Grandiosity is one of the central tenets of a narcissistic personality. Narcissists tend to take credit for everything, as if no one else contributed to the end product. Witness Trump's declaration that, "When people see the beautiful marble in Trump Tower, they usually have no idea what I went through personally to achieve the end result. No one cares about the blood, sweat, and tears that art or beauty require." What do you know: not only is Trump a developer and an artistic visionary, but he seems to be a stellar architect and construction worker as well.

And history will agree (naturally). "Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken," says Trump. Sadly, indeed.

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love How many presidential runs does it take for the process to be defined as a preoccupation rather than an occupation?

I'd leave it at that, except for the existence of this little gem: "My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." Not only all-powerful, but all-beautiful, too. The man has it all.

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) To narcissists, the "little people" or anyone beneath them (which is mostly everyone) don't matter. Trump's lambasting of Rosie O'Donnell is a good case in point: "Rosie O'Donnell called me a snake oil salesman. And, you know, coming from Rosie, that's pretty low because when you look at her and when you see the mind, the mind is weak. I don't see it. I don't get it. I never understood – how does she even get on television?"

Clearly, Rosie lacks the power to understand the dazzling intellect that is Donald Trump. Trump needs someone of equal status to appreciate his immensity. But it can't be Larry King, because as he told King, "Do you mind if I sit back a little? Because your breath is very bad. It really is. Has this been told to you before?"

4. Requires excessive admiration No matter the sincerity, as long as the praise comes frequently and at a high enough volume. Says Trump, "All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me – consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected." Clearly. Admired, wherever he may go, even when he's talking about himself in the third person, as in, "Love him or hate him, Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred. Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money."

As he puts it, "Nobody but a total masochist wants to be criticized."

5. Has a sense of entitlement The world owes the narcissist everything; he, in turn, owes it nothing. I think Trump's attitude can be summed up with this approach to marriage: "I wish I'd had a great marriage. See, my father was always very proud of me, but the one thing he got right was that he had a great marriage. He was married for 64 years. One of my ex-wives once said to me, 'You have to work at a marriage.' And I said, 'That's the most ridiculous thing.'"

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends I don't have a quote for this one, but perhaps we can talk to one of his ex-wives.

7. Lacks empathy Narcissists don't sympathize with the feelings of others. Who are these "others," anyway? No one matters except for me. I won't recreate the Rosie rampage in full, but sentiments like, "I'll sue her because it would be fun. I'd like to take some money out of her fat ass pockets," capture the spirit.

8. Is often envious of others or believes others to be envious of him Here, it seems like Trump is dominated by the second sentiment, the expectation that everyone is envious of his success. Everyone wants to be Trump. As he puts it, "The old rich may look down their noses at me, but I think they kiss my ass."

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes Again, other people don't matter. They can be treated like nothing, because who are we kidding – nothing is the closest description of what they are.

Clients don't matter. As Trump puts it, "When I build something for somebody, I always add $50 million or $60 million onto the price. My guys come in, they say it's going to cost $75 million. I say it's going to cost $125 million, and I build it for $100 million. Basically, I did a lousy job. But they think I did a great job." Take them for the suckers they are; that's the ticket.

The media doesn't matter. According to Trump, "You know, it really doesn't matter what (the media) write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." The piece of ass doesn't matter, either; any will do.

Other businesses don't matter. As Trump says, "If you want to buy something, it's obviously in your best interest to convince the seller that what he's got isn't worth very much."

But it's ok. Trump doesn't have to be nice. After all, it's not like he wants to run for office or anything: "I'm not running for office. I don't have to be politically correct. I don't have to be a nice person. Like I watch some of these weak-kneed politicians, it's disgusting. I don't have to be that way."

Too bad. We need a good candidate. Because according to Trump, "One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don't go into government."

[May 18, 2016] Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?

Notable quotes:
"... Narcissism is a defense mechanism whose role is to deflect hurt and trauma from the victim's "True Self" into a " False Self " which is omnipotent, invulnerable, and omniscient. This False Self is then used by the narcissist to garner narcissistic supply from his human environment. Narcissistic supply is any form of attention, both positive and negative and it is instrumental in the regulation of the narcissist's labile sense of self-worth. ..."
"... Many narcissists are over-achievers and ambitious. Some of them are even talented and skilled. But they are incapable of team work because they cannot tolerate setbacks. They are easily frustrated and demoralized and are unable to cope with disagreement and criticism. Though some narcissists have meteoric and inspiring careers, in the long-run, all of them find it difficult to maintain long-term professional achievements and the respect and appreciation of their peers. The narcissist's fantastic grandiosity, frequently coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically incommensurate with his or her real accomplishments (the "grandiosity gap"). ..."
"... An important distinction is between cerebral and somatic narcissists. The cerebrals derive their Narcissistic Supply from their intelligence or academic achievements and the somatics derive their Narcissistic Supply from their physique, exercise, physical or sexual prowess and romantic or physical "conquests". ..."
"... Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and "ideals" (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, reuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy. ..."
"... Narcissism is regarded by many scholars to be an adaptative strategy ("healthy narcissism"). ..."
"... Pathological narcissism is the art of deception. The narcissist projects a False Self and manages all his social interactions through this concocted fictional construct. ..."
"... When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having they failed to see through the narcissist earlier on. ..."
"... The narcissist instantly idealizes or devalues his interlocutor. This depends on how the narcissist appraises the potential his converser has as a Narcissistic Supply Source. The narcissist flatters, adores, admires and applauds the "target" in an embarrassingly exaggerated and profuse manner or sulks, abuses, and humiliates her. ..."
"... In general, the narcissist always prefers show-off to substance. One of the most effective methods of exposing a narcissist is by trying to delve deeper. The narcissist is shallow, a pond pretending to be an ocean. He likes to think of himself as a Renaissance man, a Jack of all trades. The narcissist never admits to ignorance in any field yet, typically, he is ignorant of them all. It is surprisingly easy to penetrate the gloss and the veneer of the narcissist's self-proclaimed omniscience. ..."
"... In general, the narcissist is very impatient, easily bored, with strong attention deficits unless and until he is the topic of discussion. One can publicly dissect all aspects of the intimate life of a narcissist without repercussions, providing the discourse is not "emotionally tinted". ..."
lettingfreedomring.com
Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist . Granted, only a qualified mental health diagnostician (which I am not) can determine whether someone suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and this, following lengthy tests and personal interviews. But, in the absence of access to Barack Obama, one has to rely on his overt performance and on testimonies by his closest, nearest and dearest.

Narcissistic leaders are nefarious and their effects pernicious. They are subtle, refined, socially-adept, manipulative, possessed of thespian skills, and convincing. Both types equally lack empathy and are ruthless and relentless or driven.

Perhaps it is time to require each candidate to high office in the USA to submit to a rigorous physical and mental checkup with the results made public.

I. Upbringing and Childhood

Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia : a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.

Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers.

II. Behavior Patterns

The narcissist:

Narcissism is a defense mechanism whose role is to deflect hurt and trauma from the victim's "True Self" into a " False Self " which is omnipotent, invulnerable, and omniscient. This False Self is then used by the narcissist to garner narcissistic supply from his human environment. Narcissistic supply is any form of attention, both positive and negative and it is instrumental in the regulation of the narcissist's labile sense of self-worth.

Perhaps the most immediately evident trait of patients with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is their vulnerability to criticism and disagreement. Subject to negative input, real or imagined, even to a mild rebuke, a constructive suggestion, or an offer to help, they feel injured, humiliated and empty and they react with disdain (devaluation), rage, and defiance.

From my book "Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited":

"To avoid such intolerable pain, some patients with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) socially withdraw and feign false modesty and humility to mask their underlying grandiosity . Dysthymic and depressive disorders are common reactions to isolation and feelings of shame and inadequacy."

Due to their lack of empathy, disregard for others, exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, and constant need for attention (narcissistic supply), narcissists are rarely able to maintain functional and healthy interpersonal relationships.

Many narcissists are over-achievers and ambitious. Some of them are even talented and skilled. But they are incapable of team work because they cannot tolerate setbacks. They are easily frustrated and demoralized and are unable to cope with disagreement and criticism. Though some narcissists have meteoric and inspiring careers, in the long-run, all of them find it difficult to maintain long-term professional achievements and the respect and appreciation of their peers. The narcissist's fantastic grandiosity, frequently coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically incommensurate with his or her real accomplishments (the "grandiosity gap").

An important distinction is between cerebral and somatic narcissists. The cerebrals derive their Narcissistic Supply from their intelligence or academic achievements and the somatics derive their Narcissistic Supply from their physique, exercise, physical or sexual prowess and romantic or physical "conquests".

Another crucial division within the ranks of patients with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is between the classic variety (those who meet five of the nine diagnostic criteria included in the DSM), and the compensatory kind (their narcissism compensates for deep-set feelings of inferiority and lack of self-worth).
Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:

  • Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and "ideals" (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, reuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.
  • Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he hasn't published a single scholarly paper or book).
  • Feels that he is above the law, incl. and especially his own laws.
  • Talks about himself in the 3rd person singluar or uses the regal "we" and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation
  • Have a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his "mission".
  • Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)
  • Displays false modesty and unctuous "folksiness" but unable to sustain these behaviors (the persona, or mask) for long. It slips and the true Obama is revealed: haughty, aloof, distant, and disdainful of simple folk and their lives.
  • Sublimates aggression and holds grudges.
  • Behaves as an eternal adolescent (e.g., his choice of language, youthful image he projects, demands indulgence and feels entitled to special treatment, even though his objective accomplishments do not justify it).

III. Body Language

Many complain of the incredible deceptive powers of the narcissist. They find themselves involved with narcissists (emotionally, in business, or otherwise) before they have a chance to discover their true character. Shocked by the later revelation, they mourn their inability to separate from the narcissist and their gullibility.

Narcissists are an elusive breed, hard to spot, harder to pinpoint, impossible to capture. Even an experienced mental health diagnostician with unmitigated access to the record and to the person examined would find it fiendishly difficult to determine with any degree of certainty whether someone suffers from a full fledged Narcissistic Personality Disorder or merely possesses narcissistic traits, a narcissistic style, a personality structure ("character"), or a narcissistic "overlay" superimposed on another mental health problem.

Moreover, it is important to distinguish between traits and behavior patterns that are independent of the patient's cultural-social context (i.e., which are inherent, or idiosyncratic) and reactive patterns, or conformity to cultural and social morals and norms. Reactions to severe life crises or circumstances are also often characterized by transient pathological narcissism, for instance (Ronningstam and Gunderson, 1996). But such reactions do not a narcissist make.

When a person belongs to a society or culture that has often been described as narcissistic by scholars (such as Theodore Millon) and social thinkers (e.g., Christopher Lasch) how much of his behavior can be attributed to his milieu and which of his traits are really his?

The Narcissistic Personality Disorder is rigorously defined in the DSM IV-TR with a set of strict criteria and differential diagnoses.

Narcissism is regarded by many scholars to be an adaptative strategy ("healthy narcissism"). It is considered pathological in the clinical sense only when it becomes a rigid personality structure replete with a series of primitive defence mechanisms (such as splitting, projection, projective identification, or intellectualization) and when it leads to dysfunctions in one or more areas of the patient's life.

Pathological narcissism is the art of deception. The narcissist projects a False Self and manages all his social interactions through this concocted fictional construct.

When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having they failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.

But the narcissist does emit subtle, almost subliminal, signals ("presenting symptoms") even in a first or casual encounter. Compare the following list to Barack Obama's body language during his public appearances.

These are:

IV. Narcissistic and psychopathic Leaders

The narcissistic or psychopathic leader is the culmination and reification of his period, culture, and civilization. He is likely to rise to prominence in narcissistic societies.

The malignant narcissist invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and this is further exacerbated by the trappings of power. The narcissist's grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience are supported by real life authority and the narcissist's predilection to surround himself with obsequious sycophants.

The narcissist's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".

The narcissistic leader fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.

The narcissistic leader is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people – or humanity at large – should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, the narcissistic leader became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman".

But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.

In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" – or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to as "nature" is not natural at all.

The narcissistic leader invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial – though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols – not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.

In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.

Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism – and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.

Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" – against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.

Minorities or "others" – often arbitrarily selected – constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent", they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin … They are different, they are narcissistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenceless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.

This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm – together with Stalin – as a malignant narcissist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.

The narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime – the narcissistic leader having died, been deposed, or voted out of office – it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely-held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. "Earth shattering" and "revolutionary" scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.

It is important to understand that the use of violence must be ego-syntonic. It must accord with the self-image of the narcissist. It must abet and sustain his grandiose fantasies and feed his sense of entitlement. It must conform with the narcissistic narrative.

Thus, a narcissist who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite – is highly unlikely to use violence at first.

The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.

When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

This primitive defense mechanism is called "splitting". To the narcissist, things and people are either entirely bad (evil) or entirely good. He projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. A narcissistic leader is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country, etc.

The "small people", the "rank and file", the "loyal soldiers" of the narcissist – his flock, his nation, his employees – they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated – is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.

DISCLAIMER

I am not a mental health professional. Still, I have dedicated the last 12 years to the study of personality disorders in general and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in particular. I have authored nine (9) books about these topics, one of which is a Barnes and Noble best-seller ("Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited"). My work is widely cited in scholarly tomes and publications and in the media. My books and the content of my Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (narcissists) and with thousands of their family members, friends, therapists, and colleagues.

[May 18, 2016] 10 Signs That Youre in a Relationship with a Narcissist

Notable quotes:
"... the narcissist is someone who has "buried his true self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory false self." ..."
"... In our highly individualistic and externally driven society, mild to severe forms of narcissism are not only pervasive but often encouraged. ..."
"... It is more accurate to characterize the pathological narcissist as someone who's in love with an idealized self-image , which they project in order to avoid feeling (and being seen as) the real, disenfranchised, wounded self. Deep down, most pathological narcissists feel like the "ugly duckling," even if they painfully don't want to admit it. ..."
"... Some narcissists have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, believing that others cannot live or survive without his or her magnificent contributions. ..."
"... "Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others" - Paramhansa Yogananda ..."
"... Making decisions for others to suit one's own needs. The narcissist may use his or her romantic partner, child, friend, or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized dreams , or cover up self-perceived inadequacies and flaws. ..."
www.psychologytoday.com

Be on the lookout for these, before you get manipulated.

"That's enough of me talking about myself; let's hear you talk about me"

― Anonymous

"It's not easy being superior to everyone I know."

― Anonymous

Psychologist Stephen Johnson writes that the narcissist is someone who has "buried his true self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory false self." This alternate persona to the real self often comes across as grandiose, "above others," self-absorbed, and highly conceited. In our highly individualistic and externally driven society, mild to severe forms of narcissism are not only pervasive but often encouraged.

Narcissism is often interpreted in popular culture as a person who's in love with him or herself. It is more accurate to characterize the pathological narcissist as someone who's in love with an idealized self-image , which they project in order to avoid feeling (and being seen as) the real, disenfranchised, wounded self. Deep down, most pathological narcissists feel like the "ugly duckling," even if they painfully don't want to admit it.

How do you know when you're dealing with a narcissist? The following are some telltale signs, excerpted from my book (click on title): " How to Successfully Handle Narcissists (link is external) ". While most of us are guilty of some of the following behaviors at one time or another, a pathological narcissist tends to dwell habitually in several of the following personas, while remaining largely unaware of (or unconcerned with) how his or her actions affect others.

1. Conversation Hoarder . The narcissist loves to talk about him or herself, and doesn't give you a chance to take part in a two-way conversation. You struggle to have your views and feelings heard. When you do get a word in, if it's not in agreement with the narcissist, your comments are likely to be corrected, dismissed, or ignored. As in: "My father's favorite responses to my views were: 'but…,' 'actually…,' and 'there's more to it than this…' He always has to feel like he knows better." ― Anonymous

2. Conversation Interrupter. While many people have the poor communication habit of interrupting others, the narcissist interrupts and quickly switches the focus back to herself. He shows little genuine interest in you.

3. Rule Breaker. The narcissist enjoys getting away with violating rules and social norms, such as cutting in line, chronic under-tipping, stealing office supplies, breaking multiple appointments, or disobeying traffic laws. As in: "I take pride in persuading people to give me exceptions to their rules" ― Anonymous

4. Boundary Violator. Shows wanton disregard for other people's thoughts, feelings, possessions, and physical space. Oversteps and uses others without consideration or sensitivity. Borrows items or money without returning. Breaks promises and obligations repeatedly. Shows little remorse and blames the victim for one's own lack of respect. As in: "It's your fault that I forgot because you didn't remind me"― Anonymous

5. False Image Projection. Many narcissists like to do things to impress others by making themselves look good externally. This "trophy" complex can exhibit itself physically, romantically, sexually, socially, religiously, financially, materially, professionally, academically, or culturally. In these situations, the narcissist uses people, objects, status, and/or accomplishments to represent the self, substituting for the perceived, inadequate "real" self. These grandstanding "merit badges" are often exaggerated. The underlying message of this type of display is: "I'm better than you!" or "Look at how special I am-I'm worthy of everyone's love, admiration, and acceptance!" as in: "I dyed my hair blond and enlarged my breasts to get men's attention-and to make other women jealous " - Anonymous. Or "My accomplishments are everything" ― Anonymous executive Or "I never want to be looked upon as poor. My fiancé and I each drive a Mercedes. The best man at our upcoming wedding also drives a Mercedes." ― Anonymous.

In a big way, these external symbols become pivotal parts of the narcissist's false identity, replacing the real and injured self.

6. Entitlement. Narcissists often expect preferential treatment from others. They expect others to cater (often instantly) to their needs, without being considerate in return. In their mindset, the world revolves around them.

7. Charmer. Narcissists can be very charismatic and persuasive. When they're interested in you (for their own gratification), they make you feel very special and wanted. However, once they lose interest in you (most likely after they've gotten what they want, or became bored), they may drop you without a second thought. A narcissist can be very engaging and sociable, as long as you're fulfilling what she desires, and giving her all of your attention.

8. Grandiose Personality. Thinking of oneself as a hero or heroine, a prince or princess, or one of a kind special person. Some narcissists have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, believing that others cannot live or survive without his or her magnificent contributions. As in: "I'm looking for a man who will treat my daughter and me like princesses" ― Anonymous singles ad. Or: "Once again I saved the day-without me, they're nothing" ― Anonymous

9. Negative Emotions. Many narcissists enjoy spreading and arousing negative emotions to gain attention, feel powerful, and keep you insecure and off-balance. They are easily upset at any real or perceived slights or inattentiveness. They may throw a tantrum if you disagree with their views, or fail to meet their expectations. They are extremely sensitive to criticism, and typically respond with heated argument (fight) or cold detachment (flight). On the other hand, narcissists are often quick to judge, criticize, ridicule, and blame you. Some narcissists are emotionally abusive. By making you feel inferior, they boost their fragile ego, and feel better about themselves. As in: "Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others" - Paramhansa Yogananda

10. Manipulation: Using Others as an Extension of Self. Making decisions for others to suit one's own needs. The narcissist may use his or her romantic partner, child, friend, or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized dreams , or cover up self-perceived inadequacies and flaws. As in: "If my son doesn't grow up to be a professional baseball player, I'll disown him" ― Anonymous father. Or: "Aren't you beautiful? Aren't you beautiful? You're going to be just as pretty as mommy" ― Anonymous mother

Another way narcissists manipulate is through guilt, such as proclaiming, "I've given you so much, and you're so ungrateful," or, "I'm a victim-you must help me or you're not a good person." They hijack your emotions, and beguile you to make unreasonable sacrifices.

If you find yourself in a relationship with a difficult narcissist, there are many strategies and skills you can utilize to help restore health , balance, and respect. In my book (click on title): " How to Successfully Handle Narcissists (link is external) ," you'll learn how to maintain composure, ways to be proactive instead of reactive, seven powerful strategies to handle narcissists, eight ways to say "no" diplomatically but firmly, keys to negotiate successfully with narcissists, and seven types of power you can utilize to compel cooperation .

For more on dealing with difficult people, see my publications (click on titles):

Follow me on Twitter (link is external) , Facebook (link is external) , and LinkedIn (link is external) !

Preston Ni, M.S.B.A. is available as a presenter, workshop facilitator, and private coach. For more information, write to commsuccess@nipreston.com (link sends e-mail) , or visit www.nipreston.com (link is external) .



Old News ;-)

4 Warning Signs You're Dating a Narcissist World of Psychology

That is what a relationship with a narcissist is like. In the beginning there's flash and excitement. Their presence is magnetic and he or she seems larger than life. They are intelligent, charming, and popular, and when they're the center of attention, some of the spotlight shines on you, too, leaving you glowing with pride, importance, and accomplishment. Yet after a while, you discover that under the surface the relationship is hollow. Soon, the excitement and status wear thin.

This is because a true narcissist lacks inner qualities necessary for a healthy bond: empathic perspective-taking, a moral conscience, stable confidence, and the ability to be intimate and genuine with another human being. Being in a relationship with a narcissist (especially if you don't realize they are one) can leave you feeling worthless, emotionally exhausted, and unfulfilled.

So how can you know if you are in this kind of "hollow chocolate bunny" relationship before it crashes and burns in heartache? Do you have to wait until your relationship sours to find out? Not necessarily. Spotting the signs early means being able to avoid getting entangled in a narcissist's web, and could spare you from doing the challenging, messy work of digging yourself out later.

Here's a few signs to look for in your partner, which may signal that the person you are dating has narcissistic tendencies, and the negative effects those behaviors can have on you:

1. He poses as "The Most Interesting Man in the World."

A narcissist may initially intrigue you with his or her apparent confidence, swagger, or audacity, regaling you with stories about accomplishments, rubbing elbows with influential people, or their innumerable talents and gifts. He or she may seem fun and magnetic, always the center of attention and the life of the party, but this may actually be a facade - a ploy to satisfy the narcissist's pathological need for praise and reassurance. You may come to find out that the stories are exaggerated (or altogether false), their confidence is artificial and fragile, and his or her need for attention may trump good judgment or others' needs.

2. You feel talked down to.

Because narcissists deeply lack self-esteem, almost everything else in their lives is orchestrated to hide their weaknesses and give them a temporary sense of power and success. This can take the form of subtle insults that cause you to question your worth, such as a dismissive sneer when you make an observation, a condescending "that's nice" when you share an accomplishment you're proud of, or demeaning comments about your behavior or appearance.

When you look to a partner who is a narcissist, it can feel like you're looking into a funhouse mirror and getting back a distorted view of yourself. Your flaws seem to be highlighted and your strengths diminished - a careful ruse constructed to ensure the narcissist holds themselves in a more flattering light.

3. She acts like the victim.

Narcissism also is characterized by extreme self-centeredness. Anything that is outside the narcissist's experience or that contradicts his or her beliefs is wrong, foolish, or crazy. For this reason, a conflict with a narcissist is almost certain to end with all the blame being directed to you. This, combined with the funhouse mirror effect, can make even minor arguments emotionally exhausting.

Nothing you say can convince the narcissist that you're not making intentional and irrational attacks against him or her. In the narcissist's eyes, you're somehow responsible for their sadness, anger, or even immoral behavior.

4. Your relationship feels one-sided and shallow.

When it's time to move from casual to committed, this is where the "hollow chocolate bunny" effect of narcissism really shows through. A relationship with a narcissist is unlikely ever to reach greater depths of sharing, emotion, and intimacy.

A narcissist is likely to spend time with you when it suits his or her emotional, physical, or sexual needs, and dismiss or ignore your needs, desires, and preferences. Your time together is likely to be marked by a lack of genuine interest in anything other than him- or herself. For example, you could get late-night calls when he or she is distraught, excited, or wants something but similar calls from you may not even be answered. Attempts to share your deeper thoughts, beliefs, or feelings may be given lip service, ignored, or dismissed.

If these seem to describe your current relationship, don't panic. In fact, seize the opportunity to reflect and evaluate your twosome. These red flags may help shed light on the dysfunction you're bearing and guide you away from further pain. If you want to make things work, there are ways to cope with dating or living with a narcissist, including developing conflict-resolution skills and bolstering your own confidence and self-esteem to shield you against narcissistic attacks.

Ultimately, knowledge is power. Being aware of signs of narcissism (and some of the problems that can arise from dating a narcissist) allows you to be prepared and to make informed decisions about the relationship.

8 Undeniable Signs You've Fallen For A Narcissist

The Huffington Post | Brittany Wong | Posted 01.14.2016 | Divorce

Read More: Narcissism, Narcissist, Dating a Narcissist, Relationship With a Narcissist, How to Spot a Narcissist, Relationship Problems, Toxic Personality, Toxic Relationships, Divorce News


It's easy to fall for a narcissist: they're charming, polished and quick to get in your good graces with compliments and constant attention. Once you ...

Read Whole Story

10 Signs You're In Love With A Narcopath

YourTango | Posted 12.03.2015 | Divorce

Read More: Narcissist, Sociopath, Narcopath, Yourtango, Signs He's a Narcissist, Signs You're a Narcissist, Narcissist Signs, Dating a Narcissist, Divorce News


What do you get when you cross a sociopath with a narcissist?

Read Whole Story

Are You Dating a Narcissist?

Lena Aburdene Derhally | Posted 07.07.2015 | Women

Read More: Narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Dating a Narcissist, Dating Advice, Relationship Advice, Women News


There are definitely fairy tale stories out there of two people falling madly in love with each other right at the get go and spending their lives happily ever after, but that is generally not the norm. Keep your guard up the more intensely the person is into you and the earlier on it occurs.

Read Whole Story

6 Warning Signs You're Dating a Narcissist

Divorced Moms | Posted 03.19.2015 | Divorce

Read More: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Divorce a Narcissist, Dating a Narcissist, Nancy Kay, Divorce News


Could you be dating a narcissist and not even know it?

Read Whole Story

Can A Narcissist Love Me?

Melissa Schenker | Posted 09.22.2014 | Women

Read More: Dating a Narcissist, Narcissism, Women, Relationships, Men Women Relationships, Love, Women News


A narcissist can seem to love you. A narcissist can make it look like love. A narcissist can say the words of love. A narcissist can think it's love. Unfortunately, when involved with a narcissist, you are enmeshed but not in love. You can be enmeshed and mistake that for love. But enmeshment and love are not the same thing.

Read Whole Story

Is There Something Wrong With Me if I've Been Involved with a Narcissist?

Melissa Schenker | Posted 08.13.2014 | Women

Read More: Women's Empowerment, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, Am I Dating a Narcissist, Is My Boyfriend a Narcissist, Dating a Narcissist, Signs of Narcissism, Relationship Advice, Women News


If you are still involved with a narcissist, you may not realize how completely your attention has been diverted from your self and your own life.

Read Whole Story

7 Strategies for Dealing With the Narcissist You Love

Dr. Craig Malkin | Posted 06.23.2014 | Healthy Living

Read More: Healthy Relationships, Attachment, Narcissist, Relationships, Dating a Narcissist, Narcissism, Unhealthy Relationships, Insecurity, Narcissists, Emotional Intelligence, Healthy Living News


If you've tried a more loving approach to sharing what hurts in your relationship, and the narcissist in your life still won't soften, you truly have done everything you can.

Read Whole Story

Can Narcissists Change?

Dr. Craig Malkin | Posted 11.10.2013 | Healthy Living

Read More: Narcissism, Healthy Relationships, Narcissists, Unhealthy Relationships, Attachment, Narcissist, Relationships, Dating a Narcissist, Emotional Intelligence, Insecurity, Healthy Living News


As a therapist, I've seen firsthand that changing relational patterns often transforms even the most inflexible "trait" into something softer, gentler -- not a fixed feature, but a protection that eventually yields to touch and intimacy in all the ways one would hope.

Read Whole Story

5 Early Warning Signs You're With A Narcissist

Dr. Craig Malkin | Posted 07.30.2013 | Women

Read More: Attachment, Narcissism, Insecurity, Relationships, Emotional Intelligence, Tina Swithin, Narcissist, Video, Healthy Relationships, Unhealthy Relationships, Dating a Narcissist, Narcissists, Women News


The most glaring problems are easy to spot -- but if you get too hung up on the obvious traits, you can easily miss the subtle (and often more common) features that allow a narcissist to sneak into your life and wreak havoc.

[May 18, 2016] Obamas Malignant Narcissism

www.americanthinker.com
Here's a partial checklist . You decide.

1. "Common to malignant narcissism is narcissistic rage . Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury (when the narcissist feels degraded by another person, typically in the form of criticism )."
2. "When the narcissist's grandiose sense of self-worth is perceived as being attacked by another person, the narcissist's natural reaction is to rage and pull down the self-worth of others (to make the narcissist feel superior to others). It is an attempt by the narcissist to soothe their internal pain and hostility, while at the same time rebuilding their self worth."
3. "Narcissistic rage also occurs when the narcissist perceives that he/she is being prevented from accomplishing their grandiose fantasies."
4. "Because the narcissist derives pleasure from the fulfillment of their grandiose dreams (akin to an addiction), anyone standing between the narcissist and their (wish) fulfillment ... may be subject to narcissistic rage. Narcissistic rage will frequently include yelling and berating of the person that has slighted the narcissist, but if strong enough could provoke more hostile feelings."
5. "Individuals with malignant narcissism will display a two faced personality. Creation of a 'false self' is linked to the narcissist's fear of being inadequate or inferior to others and this mask becomes ingrained into their personality so as to project a sense of superiority to others at all times."
6. "The narcissist gains a sense of esteem from the feedback of other people as it is common for the malignant narcissist to suffer from extremely low levels of self-esteem."
7. "The ... false self of the malignant narcissist is created because the real self doesn't meet his or her own expectations. Instead, the narcissist tends to mimic emotional displays of other people and creates a grandiose self to harbor their internalized fantasies of greatness."
8. "The [false self] is used by the narcissist to present to the outside world what appears to be a normal, functioning human being and to help maintain his or her own fantasies of an idealized self. The narcissist constantly builds upon this false self, creating a fictional character that is used to show off to the world and to help them feed off the emotions of other people."
There's ongoing debate about "malignant narcissism" as a diagnosis, and some people prefer to use the standard DSM-IV version . It doesn't make much difference in this case.

... ... ...

It's possible that Obama may be a "fanatic type" of narcissist. That could mean a world of trouble for the Democrats, for the nation, and given his position in the world, for other countries as well.
Here is Theodore Millon's definition of the fanatic type:
fanatic type - including paranoid features. A severely narcissistically wounded individual, usually with major paranoid tendencies who holds onto an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting the reality of their insignificance and lost value and are trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition of support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

[May 18, 2016] Can Narcissists Change

Notable quotes:
"... Trait labels like narcissist, or the admittedly less stigmatizing ones like extrovert and introvert, merely provide a shorthand description. They're a stand-in for "this person scored high on a trait measure of narcissism or extroversion or introversion." They can never hope to capture the whole person. ..."
"... For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click here . ..."
"... For more on emotional intelligence, click here . ..."
www.huffingtonpost.com

The author is a Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer Harvard Medical School

At the end of May 2013, I wrote an article titled "5 Early Warning Signs You're With a Narcissist." It sparked a number of rich conversations through comments, emails, Facebook and Twitter . Not surprisingly, the vast majority of reactions came from people who feared they were currently in a relationship with a narcissist. Nevertheless, some of them - often among the most heartfelt and desperate of messages - came from people who'd either been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), or felt convinced they met criteria for the diagnosis. From both sides, the same question surfaced again and again: Is there hope for those with NPD and the people who love them? Is there anything we can do if we see early warning signs or actual diagnostic criteria besides end the relationship? As simple as they might seem on the surface, questions like these resonate with some of the deepest concerns in psychology. Can we change our personalities? More to the point, can people who meet criteria for personality disorders open themselves up to new and better experiences in relationships and in the world? I'm going to go on record as saying, yes, I do believe it's possible for people to change, even if they've been diagnosed with something as deeply entrenched and formidable as a personality disorder.

Trait labels like narcissist, or the admittedly less stigmatizing ones like extrovert and introvert, merely provide a shorthand description. They're a stand-in for "this person scored high on a trait measure of narcissism or extroversion or introversion." They can never hope to capture the whole person. (Bear in mind that even Jung, who introduced the latter concepts, firmly believed we all possess both an introvert and an extrovert side , regardless of how much we tend to one side or the other.) Nevertheless, when they become diagnostic labels, like "narcissist" or "Narcissistic Personality Disorder," these stark descriptions imply something that goes far beyond a tendency or a style - they suggest permanence and a set of stable enduring features. I have more hope than this. I believe that rather than simply being "who we are," our personalities are also patterns of interaction. That is, personality, whether disordered or not , has as much to do with how (and with whom) we interact as it does with our genes and wired-in temperament.

So what pattern does the narcissist follow? Many have suggested that NPD emerges from an environment in which vulnerability comes to feel dangerous, representing, at worst, either a grave defect, or at best, a stubborn barrier to becoming a worthwhile human being - that's simplifying a great deal of research and theory, but it's a workable summary - hence the correlation between NPD and insecure attachment styles , in which fears of depending on anyone at all engender constant attempts to control the relationship or avoid intimacy altogether. If you devote yourself to directing interactions or holding people at arms length, it's a lot harder to become vulnerable (needless to say, the "safety" is largely an illusion). People with NPD have learned to ignore, suppress, deny, project and disavow their vulnerabilities (or at least try) in their attempts to shape and reshape "who they are" in their interactions. Change - allowing the vulnerability back in - means opening up to the very feelings they've learned to avoid at all costs. It's not that people with NPD can't change, it's that it often threatens their sense of personhood to try. And their failed relationships often confirm, in their minds, that narcissism is the safest way to live. Put another way, narcissists can't be narcissistic in a vacuum. They need the right audience in order to feel like a star, for example, so they often cultivate relationships with people who stick around for the show, instead of the person. Over time, as their perfect façade starts to slip, their constant fear that people will find them lacking becomes a horrifying reality. The very people who stuck around for the show lose interest when it ends - which merely convinces the narcissist they need to hide their flaws and put on a better show. Alternatively, even when they fall for someone who could be more than just an adoring fan - someone who offers the hope of a more authentic, enduring love - narcissists still live with the paralyzing fear they'll somehow be deemed unworthy. Their terror is frequently out of awareness, and nearly always managed with bravado and blame, but it's profound and palpable. Sadly, their anger at having their mistakes and missteps exposed ultimately alienates their loved ones, and the demise of yet another relationship prompts them to redouble their efforts to avoid vulnerability - in short, it pushes them towards more narcissism.

The sad irony of the narcissistic condition is that, in an effort to protect themselves, narcissists inevitably invite the very rejection and abandonment they fear in the first place. The key then, to interacting with someone you suspect is narcissistic, is to break the vicious circle - to gently thwart their frantic efforts to control, distance, defend or blame in the relationship by sending the message that you're more than willing to connect with them, but not on these terms - to invite them into a version of intimacy where they can be loved and admired, warts and all - if they only allow the experience to happen. As a therapist, I've seen firsthand that changing relational patterns often transforms even the most inflexible "trait" into something softer, gentler - not a fixed feature, but a protection that eventually yields to touch and intimacy in all the ways one would hope. Narcissism is a way of relating. Not everyone can shift into a more flexible form of intimacy, but some can, and in the next post, I plan to share steps you can take to help you decide whether or not the person you're with is capable of seeing themselves - and you - through a less-constricting lens than the narcissistic worldview. If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on facebook and twitter. I frequently respond to comments and questions there. And feel free to check out www.drcraigmalkin.com for more tips and advice, as well as information on my book in progress . For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click here . For more on emotional intelligence, click here .

[May 18, 2016] 5 Early Warning Signs Youre With a Narcissist

Notable quotes:
"... Feelings are a natural consequence of being human, and we tend to have lots of them in the course of normal interactions. But the very fact of having a feeling in the presence of another person suggests you can be touched emotionally by friends, family, partners, and even the occasional tragedy or failure. Narcissists abhor feeling influenced in any significant way. It challenges their sense of perfect autonomy; to admit to a feeling of any kind suggests they can be affected by someone or something outside of them. So they often change the subject when feelings come up, especially their own, and as quick as they might be to anger, it's often like pulling teeth to get them to admit that they've reached the boiling point - even when they're in the midst of the most terrifying tirade. ..."
"... If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on facebook and twitter. I frequently respond to comments and questions there. And feel free to check out www.drcraigmalkin.com for more tips and advice, as well as information on my book in progress . ..."
"... For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click here . ..."
www.huffingtonpost.com

Dr. Craig Malkin , Author, Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer Harvard Medical School

At the beginning of April this year, I was tapped by the Huffington Post Live team for a discussion on narcissism . I happily agreed to appear, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that narcissism happens to be one of my favorite subjects. Early in my training, I had the pleasure of working with one of the foremost authorities on narcissism in our field, and in part because of that experience, I went on to work with quite a few clients who'd been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder . That's where I learned that the formal diagnostic label hardly does justice to the richness and complexity of this condition. The most glaring problems are easy to spot - the apparent absence of even a shred of empathy, the grandiose plans and posturing, the rage at being called out on the slightest of imperfections or normal human missteps - but if you get too hung up on the obvious traits, you can easily miss the subtle (and often more common) features that allow a narcissist to sneak into your life and wreak havoc. Just ask Tina Swithin , who went on to write a book about surviving her experience with a man who clearly meets criteria for NPD (and very likely, a few other diagnoses). To her lovestruck eyes, her soon-to-be husband seemed more like a prince charming than the callous, deceitful spendthrift he later proved to be. Looking back, Tina explains, there were signs of trouble from the start, but they were far from obvious at the time. In real life, the most dangerous villains rarely advertise their malevolence. So what are we to do? How do we protect ourselves from narcissists if they're so adept at slipping into our lives unnoticed? I shared some of my answers to that question in our conversation, and I encourage you to watch it. But there were a few I didn't get to, and others I didn't have the chance to describe in depth, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to revisit the topic here. Tread carefully if you catch a glimpse of any of these subtler signs:

1) Projected Feelings of Insecurity: I don't mean that narcissists see insecurity everywhere. I'm talking about a different kind of projection altogether, akin to playing hot potato with a sense of smallness and deficiency. Narcissists say and do things, subtle or obvious, that make you feel less smart, less accomplished, less competent. It's as if they're saying, "I don't want to feel this insecure and small; here, you take the feelings." Picture the boss who questions your methods after their own decision derails an important project, the date who frequently claims not to understand what you've said, even when you've been perfectly clear, or the friend who always damns you with faint praise ("Pretty good job this time!"). Remember the saying: "Don't knock your neighbor's porch light out to make yours shine brighter." Well, the narcissist loves to knock out your lights to seem brighter by comparison.

2) Emotion-phobia: Feelings are a natural consequence of being human, and we tend to have lots of them in the course of normal interactions. But the very fact of having a feeling in the presence of another person suggests you can be touched emotionally by friends, family, partners, and even the occasional tragedy or failure. Narcissists abhor feeling influenced in any significant way. It challenges their sense of perfect autonomy; to admit to a feeling of any kind suggests they can be affected by someone or something outside of them. So they often change the subject when feelings come up, especially their own, and as quick as they might be to anger, it's often like pulling teeth to get them to admit that they've reached the boiling point - even when they're in the midst of the most terrifying tirade.

3) A Fragmented Family Story: Narcissism seems to be born of neglect and abuse, both of which are notorious for creating an insecure attachment style (for more on attachment, see here and here ). But the very fact that narcissists, for all their posturing, are deeply insecure, also gives us an easy way to spot them. Insecurely attached people can't talk coherently about their family and childhood; their early memories are confused, contradictory, and riddled with gaps. Narcissists often give themselves away precisely because their childhood story makes no sense, and the most common myth they carry around is the perfect family story. If your date sings their praises for their exalted family but the reasons for their panegyric seem vague or discursive, look out. The devil is in the details, as they say - and very likely, that's why you're not hearing them.

4) Idol Worship: Another common narcissistic tendency you might be less familiar with is the habit of putting people on pedestals. The logic goes a bit like this: "If I find someone perfect to be close to, maybe some of their perfection will rub off on me, and I'll become perfect by association." The fact that no one can be perfect is usually lost on the idol-worshipping narcissist - at least until they discover, as they inevitably do, that their idol has clay feet. And stand back once that happens. Few experiences can prepare you for the vitriol of a suddenly disappointed narcissist. Look out for any pressure to conform to an image of perfection, no matter how lovely or magical the compulsive flattery might feel.

5) A High Need for Control: For the same reason narcissists often loathe the subject of feelings, they can't stand to be at the mercy of other people's preferences; it reminds them that they aren't invulnerable or completely independent - that, in fact, they might have to ask for what they want - and even worse, people may not feel like meeting the request. Rather than express needs or preferences themselves, they often arrange events (and maneuver people) to orchestrate the outcomes they desire. In the extreme form, this can manifest as abusive, controlling behaviors. (Think of the man who berates his wife when dinner isn't ready as soon as he comes home. He lashes out precisely because at that very moment, he's forced to acknowledge that he depends on his wife, something he'd rather avoid.) But as with most of these red flags, the efforts at control are often far subtler than outright abuse. Be on the look out for anyone who leaves you feeling nervous about approaching certain topics or sharing your own preferences. Narcissists have a way of making choices feel off-limits without expressing any anger at all - a disapproving wince, a last-minute call to preempt the plans, chronic lateness whenever you're in charge of arranging a night together. It's more like a war of attrition on your will than an outright assault on your freedom. None of these signs, in isolation, proves that you're with a narcissist. But if you see a lot of them, it's best to sit up and take notice. They're all way of dodging vulnerability, and that's a narcissist's favorite tactic.

If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on facebook and twitter. I frequently respond to comments and questions there. And feel free to check out www.drcraigmalkin.com for more tips and advice, as well as information on my book in progress . For more by Dr. Craig Malkin, click here .

[May 18, 2016] Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist Therapists Weigh In!

Notable quotes:
"... As Dr. Robert Klitzman, a professor of psychiatry and the director of the master's of bioethics program at Columbia University, pointed out, the American Psychiatric Association declares it unethical for psychiatrists to comment on an individual's mental state without examining him personally and having the patient's consent to make such comments. ..."
"... To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it's antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That's what he's doing. ..."
"... Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth. The truth means the potential to feel ashamed. If all they have to show the world as a source of feeling acceptable is their success and performance, be it in business or sports or celebrity, then the risk of people seeing them fail or squander their success is so difficult to their self-esteem that they feel ashamed. We call it the narcissistic injury. They're uncomfortable with their own limitations. It's not that they're cut out to lie, it's just that they can't handle what's real ..."
"... Most narcissists don't seek treatment unless there's someone threatening to take something away from them. There'd have to be some kind of meaningful consequence for him to come in. ..."
"... They're aware; the problem is, they don't care. They know how you'd like them to act; the problem is, they've got a different set of rules. The kind of approach that can have some impact is confrontational. It confronts distorted thinking and behavior patterns in the here-and-now moment when the narcissists are doing their thing in the session. It's confronted on the spot; you invite them to do something different, then you reinforce them for doing so. ..."
www.vanityfair.com

Vanity Fair

As his presidential campaign trundles forward, millions of sane Americans are wondering: What exactly is wrong with this strange individual? Now, we have an answer.

For mental-health professionals, Donald Trump is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. "Remarkably narcissistic," said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Textbook narcissistic personality disorder," echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. "He's so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example of his characteristics," said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. "Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."

That mental-health professionals are even willing to talk about Trump in the first place may attest to their deep concern about a Trump presidency. As Dr. Robert Klitzman, a professor of psychiatry and the director of the master's of bioethics program at Columbia University, pointed out, the American Psychiatric Association declares it unethical for psychiatrists to comment on an individual's mental state without examining him personally and having the patient's consent to make such comments. This so-called Goldwater rule arose after the publication of a 1964 Fact magazine article in which psychiatrists were polled about Senator Barry Goldwater's fitness to be president. Senator Goldwater brought a $2 million suit against the magazine and its publisher; the Supreme Court awarded him $1 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages.

But you don't need to have met Donald Trump to feel like you know him; even the smallest exposure can make you feel like you've just crossed a large body of water in a small boat with him. Indeed, though narcissistic personality disorder was removed from the most recent issue of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, for somewhat arcane reasons, the traits that have defined the disorder in the past-grandiosity; an expectation that others will recognize one's superiority; a lack of empathy-are writ large in Mr. Trump's behavior.

"He's very easy to diagnose," said psychotherapist Charlotte Prozan. "In the first debate, he talked over people and was domineering. He'll do anything to demean others, like tell Carly Fiorina he doesn't like her looks. 'You're fired!' would certainly come under lack of empathy. And he wants to deport immigrants, but [two of] his wives have been immigrants." Michaelis took a slightly different twist on Trump's desire to deport immigrants: "This man is known for his golf courses, but, with due respect, who does he think works on these golf courses?"

Mr. Trump's bullying nature-taunting Senator John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, or saying Jeb Bush has "low energy"-is in keeping with the narcissistic profile. "In the field we use clusters of personality disorders," Michaelis said. "Narcissism is in cluster B, which means it has similarities with histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. There are similarities between them. Regardless of how you feel about John McCain, the man served-and suffered. Narcissism is an extreme defense against one's own feelings of worthlessness. To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it's antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That's what he's doing."

What of Trump's tendency to position himself as a possible savior to the economy despite the fact that four of his companies have declared bankruptcy? "It's mind-boggling to me that that's not the story," said Michaelis. "This man has been given more than anyone could ever hope for," he added, referring to the fact that Trump is not wholly self-made, "yet he's failed miserably time and time again." Licensed clinical social worker Wendy Terrie Behary, the author of Disarming the Narcissist: Surviving and Thriving with the Self-Absorbed, said,

"Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth. The truth means the potential to feel ashamed. If all they have to show the world as a source of feeling acceptable is their success and performance, be it in business or sports or celebrity, then the risk of people seeing them fail or squander their success is so difficult to their self-esteem that they feel ashamed. We call it the narcissistic injury. They're uncomfortable with their own limitations. It's not that they're cut out to lie, it's just that they can't handle what's real."

Indeed, the need to protect or exalt the self is at odds with the job requirements of a president. Michaelis said, "He's applying for the greatest job in the land, the greatest task of which is to serve, but there's nothing about the man that is service-oriented. He's only serving himself." As Prozan sees it, "He keeps saying he could negotiate with Putin because he's good at deals. But diplomacy involves a back and forth between equals." Dr. Klitzman added, "I have never met Donald Trump and so cannot comment on his psychological state. However, I think that, in general, many candidates who run for president are driven in large part by ego. I hope that does not preclude their motivation to govern with the best interests of the public as a whole in mind. Yet for some candidates, that may, alas, be a threat."

Asked what, if Mr. Trump were their patient, they would "work on" with him, several of the therapists laughed. "I'd be shocked if he walked in my door," said Behary. "Most narcissists don't seek treatment unless there's someone threatening to take something away from them. There'd have to be some kind of meaningful consequence for him to come in." Simon concurred but added, "There is help available, but it doesn't look like the help people are used to. It's not insight-oriented psychotherapy, because narcissists already have insight. They're aware; the problem is, they don't care. They know how you'd like them to act; the problem is, they've got a different set of rules. The kind of approach that can have some impact is confrontational. It confronts distorted thinking and behavior patterns in the here-and-now moment when the narcissists are doing their thing in the session. It's confronted on the spot; you invite them to do something different, then you reinforce them for doing so."

But for at least one mental-health professional, the Trump enigma, or should we say non-enigma, is larger than the bluster of the man whose own Web site calls him "the very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence"-to this mind-set, Trump may be a kind of bellwether. Mr. Gardner said, "For me, the compelling question is the psychological state of his supporters. They are unable or unwilling to make a connection between the challenges faced by any president and the knowledge and behavior of Donald Trump. In a democracy, that is disastrous."

[May 17, 2016] 6 Warning Signs Youre Dating a Narcissist

Notable quotes:
"... By Nancy Kay from DivorcedMoms.com ..."
Jan 17, 2015 | www.huffingtonpost.com

By Nancy Kay from DivorcedMoms.com Could you be dating a narcissist and not even know it? After starting to date again after divorce , I often found myself drawn toward highly successful professional men who are competitive in business and strongly determined to continue to build their own financial empire. Their determined, confident attitudes and visible business successes appealed to my strong desires for security and stability. A recent first date I went on was with this type of guy. My date with a dentist turned into a three-hour marathon of misery for me when he insisted that we sit in a back booth that he had reserved in advance with the hostess by visiting the restaurant the night before and then he told our server that he would leave an extra generous tip if she served our meals at a very leisurely pace. Right away he launched into a one-sided brag fest about how he got elected president of his college fraternity and why he easily scored highest in his graduating class on the dental board exam. He then dropped names of all the famous people he knows who live in our city and then went on to reveal the names of all the famous people his dad knows too. By the time the pasta finally arrived, I wanted to collapse into my plate from sheer boredom and exhaustion. After that mind-numbing experience, I ran to my car and swore off dating for several months. Unfortunately this was just one more very disillusioning date with a narcissistic man . I had already experienced many others. Several times I dated a man exclusively for three to six months, expecting things to become more serious over time, only to have them abruptly break things off with very little explanation or distance themselves with vague excuses about why they couldn't continue to spend time with me. After spending many frustrating weeks trying to figure out how to get each of these men I had dated exclusively to connect with me on an emotional level so that our relationship could continue to grow, I finally discovered that there was a big disconnect between the type of relationship I was expecting to unfold and what these narcissistic men were able to contribute in terms of intimacy, emotional connection and respectful two-way communications. I discovered that I was living on crumbs and pretending it was a whole nutritious meal. Are you dating a narcissist? Here are six warning signs: 1. He is pre-occupied with how things around him appear and how he is perceived by others. He aggressively pursues financial success and is not content with what he already has acquired or achieved. He has a strong craving for admiration, praise and his home, car, clothes and high status are a direct measurement of how successful he appears to others. 2. He exploits or takes advantage of others to get what he wants. Narcissists are highly skilled at using others' talents; taking advantage of their desire to avoid conflicts and their good natured helpfulness as a means to an end to achieve their own goals. 3. He does not appreciate or even see your unique abilities and natural gifts. Highly self-absorbed, narcissists are so driven by how they can use others to benefit themselves that your own individual strengths, abilities and achievements are often ignored or dismissed as inconsequential. 4. He resents authority and despises correction or being told what to do. He is reluctant to accept any blame or criticism and strongly prefers to be in control of things and those around him at all times. Having his faults pointed out to him or even having to admit that he made a mistake can set him off into a fit of rage. 5. Petty arguments often erupt into power struggles. The narcissistic man thrives on being right so disputes are rarely resolved. Mediation and counseling rarely helps to improve communications with a narcissist because this type of person sees themselves as under attack and can't stand for their actions to be subject to the opinions of others and held up to the light. 6. He disregards your healthy needs for attention and affection. Since narcissistic men often lack empathy and the self-examination necessary to create an intimate relationship, you'll often find yourself running on empty. Attempts to get more affection from him often leads to him creating a secret life to run to and evading your questions about what is really happening or not happening in your relationship. If you recognize these signs in a man that you are dating, it is helpful to remember that narcissists have very rigid expectations (especially for themselves) and so this type of man rarely changes his ways. Understanding or experiencing intimacy and love within the context of a balanced and healthy relationship is not on the agenda of a narcissist. Unfortunately, many times we keep trying to change a narcissistic man into who we'd like them to become or the reverse - trying to twist ourselves like pretzels into a perfect version of what he wants instead of cutting our losses. Recognizing the traits of a narcissistic man and realizing how deeply rooted they are is critical so that we can begin taking back control of our own life and start to move forward in a healthier direction.

[May 17, 2016] Are You Dating a Narcissist

www.huffingtonpost.com

< Have you ever had a situation that goes something like this?: You meet someone and it feels like the stars align. This person is so into you and lavishes you with attention, romance and gifts. The relationship moves very quickly and it feels like you have met "the one." Months down the road when things have settled in comfortably, things start to change. The person who used to adore and worship you now fluctuates between needing you desperately and devaluing you. Perhaps as time goes on, the person who you thought cared so much becomes more emotionally unavailable, distant and cruel. The "Jekyll" part of the personality starts to overtake the "Hyde." How did this person who used to be so wonderful and made such an effort to be with you all of the sudden turn out to be so opposite than what you thought? This can leave someone confused, hurt, angry and depressed. If this situation sounds similar to something you have experienced, you may be or may have dated someone with narcissistic tendencies. Here are some of the warning signs:

1. They are madly in love with you right off the bat and the relationship moves very quickly: People with narcissistic tendencies use fantasy like projections when picking a mate. Usually it takes a certain amount of time to fall in love with someone. Sure, you can feel chemistry and a connection with someone but to fall in love with who a person truly is (flaws and all) takes some time. A person with narcissistic tendencies loves the intense feelings and the attention. Sadly, their intense interest in you is more so about them and their needs than it is about you.

2. They fluctuate between adoring you and devaluing you: People with narcissistic tendencies are very hot and cold. They can be mean and critical one second and then sweet and loving the next. This becomes very confusing because you are still seeing glimpses of the wonderful person you first fell in love with but you are also getting to see another side that makes you feel bad about yourself.

3. They have little ability to empathize and everything is on their terms: Someone with narcissistic tendencies doesn't really see things from your world or from your point of view. Everything is about them and what they want. They ignore your needs in the relationship and only focus on getting what they want or what works best for them. They will always be their number one priority and everyone else will always come after that.

4. They cheat, lie or manipulate and don't feel remorse: Narcissists don't really empathize so when they do something to hurt you, they don't really feel remorseful. This can actually be the most hurtful part because it may make you feel like they never cared about you at all. Moving on can be very hard because a lot of people feel that they need closure or apologies that they will never get from narcissistic people.

5. When it's all over, it's like you never mattered: A classic case narcissist mostly uses people for their own gain and has very little emotional connection to those that are in their lives. Because of this, they discard people in their lives very easily. I recently watched an episode of the new HBO show Girls and in this particular episode, one of the characters who had broken up with her serious long-term boyfriend 2 weeks prior now finds he already has a new girlfriend. Shocked that he could move on so quickly from something so serious she exclaims. "you're a sociopath!!" and walks away. Even though she was the one who broke up with him, she is shocked that it feels like their relationship meant nothing to him at the end of the day and that she was easily replaceable. People recovering from narcissistic relationships are often in shock that someone who once claimed to love them so much has moved on so quickly and without any sense of remorse.

How to spot a narcissist:

I always tell my clients to take the time to really get to know the people they are dating before getting too emotionally invested or putting all their eggs in one basket. There are definitely fairy tale stories out there of two people falling madly in love with each other right at the get go and spending their lives happily ever after, but that is generally not the norm. Keep your guard up the more intensely the person is into you and the earlier on it occurs. Past relationship patterns are also very important to look at. As mentioned above, people who are narcissistic are intense very quickly and end up leaving a trail of shattered relationships and people who are left to pick up the pieces (and often need quite a bit of therapy after being in the destructive path of a narcissist). If you get an idea of the dating history of someone and it follows a certain pattern, pay attention to that. Yes, people can change, but past relationship patterns can raise a lot of red flags. The reason people have a hard time of extricating themselves from a narcissistic relationship is because it is hard to get past the fact that someone who used to be so wonderful and loving can turn so cold, hateful and lacking in remorse. These people hang on because of the glimpses they get of the good side and hold out the hope that if they were only "good enough" or "better", or unconditionally accepted and loved this person then they could get the nice and kind person back.

It turns into a vicious cycle and the more you get into a relationship, the harder it is to get out of. Being in a relationship with a narcissist will make you feel crazy and most narcissists actually don't actively leave relationships; they wait to be left first. It can be really hard to get out of a relationship like this and if you have never been in one, it's hard to know how. If someone makes you feel worthless or crazy and you know they are not treating you with respect, or empathizing with you, that might be hard to change. Learning to spot negative patterns early and having the strength to know what you deserve in a relationship is one of the best things to do if you find yourself involved with one of these people.

Recovery after a narcissistic relationship:

Recovery after a narcissistic relationship can be very difficult. Many people are driven to therapy because they have been left completely shattered and fragile after a relationship with a narcissist. The most important thing to remember is that it's not about YOU. This has everything to do with the flaws of the narcissist and their inability to make real, meaningful connections with others. What they have done to you is what they have done and will continue to do in all their relationships unless they recognize this within themselves and get help. The problem is, most narcissistic people never recognize that they need to change. Remember that you deserve a relationship that builds you up, that makes you feel safe, and that brings you happiness and warmth. A person who is narcissistic cannot give this to you, simply because they are not capable of it.

**This article originally appeared on Pamela's Punch

[May 17, 2016] 10 Signs Youre In Love With A Narcopath

Notable quotes:
"... "You're the prettiest. The sexiest. The skinniest. The best mom. The funniest." ..."
"... "You have such a sexy voice. Not too high, nor too low; it's just perfect. My friend Courtney's voice is super high-pitched and she has this weird way of talking through her teeth. Annoying." ..."
"... "You have a great body. I guess I'm used to having more to hug with my ex!" ..."
www.huffingtonpost.com
What do you get when you cross a sociopath with a narcissist? The least funny joke and the worst kind of hybrid: a narcissistic sociopath, narcopath for short. Both a narcissist and sociopath have an inflated sense of how important they are, as well as a constant need for praise and admiration. One commonality between the two is their ability to fool others in order to get what they want, without remorse. But what sets them apart is that a narcopath is unable to handle criticism or be viewed in a negative light, whereas a sociopath couldn't care less who thinks what or how they're perceived. When you hear the word narcopath you may picture a deranged, knife-wielding lunatic - at least that's what I pictured before I met my own. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. Narcopaths are boogie men in disguise and wolves in sheep's clothing. Their abuse is sometimes so subtle that you don't see it until the curtain closes and your world is torn apart. Still unsure if you're in a relationship with a narcopath? Here are ten telltale signs that you might be.

1. Things move from zero to one hundred in seconds.

From the beginning, nothing is normal with a narcopath. Things progress at warp speed, hop-scotching over the usual stages of a relationship. Instead of slowly getting to know one another, you go from the first date to planning your future together within weeks of meeting. And when your gut warns you things are moving too fast, you tell it to shut up because you've finally found your soulmate.

2. They're a broken record of compliments.

A narcopath will sweep you off your feet, place you on a pedestal, then worship you from down below. They'll tell you the things you've always wanted to hear, saying them over and over and over again. But listen closely and you'll notice there's not much variation in these love monologues, and their sweet-nothings sound more like a script than anything from the heart. "You're the prettiest. The sexiest. The skinniest. The best mom. The funniest." If everything feels staged and too good to be true, it probably is.

3. They flatter you with comparisons.

There's no period at the end of a compliment. Instead, a narcopath compliments you by comparing you to someone else in their life. In my case, he'd say things like, "You have such a sexy voice. Not too high, nor too low; it's just perfect. My friend Courtney's voice is super high-pitched and she has this weird way of talking through her teeth. Annoying." Or, "You have a great body. I guess I'm used to having more to hug with my ex!" Praising you by putting down others is a huge red flag, not to mention incredibly distasteful. And while it's no doubt flattering to hear these praises, keep in mind that one day they'll be offering them to someone else and using your name to fill the second blank.

4. Your chemistry between the sheets is off the charts.

You've never felt this much passion with anyone else. Pushing all the right buttons in just the right ways, it's like they're reading your mind and its desires. The reason sex is so mind-blowing, at least in the beginning, isn't because they know what to do with their hands; they know what to do with your mind . They'll make you feel like you're the only one who's ever existed to them. Yes, narcopaths are indeed that great - at acting, that is. By mirroring your every emotion they're able to make their own emotions seem genuine and fool you into thinking yours are real.

5. Their eyes are windows to nothingness.

My Narc-in-a-Box would stare at me with such intensity I'd become nervous, fidget, and quickly turn away. Speaking directly into my eyes with a deadpan and unwavering stare, I don't think he blinked once during our four months together. At times his gaze was so piercing that his pupils practically vanished. But sadly, behind all that intensity lied a vast amount of dark nothingness. I turned away from that stare because it made me feel uneasy in all the wrong ways.

6. They always lead the conversation back to themselves.

On the surface, a narcopath seems hyper-focused on you and genuinely interested in learning all there is to know. Yet the moment you begin divulging this information, they quickly interrupt with a story of their own. It's like a revolving door: They ask you a question to gain the opportunity to talk about themselves. They're quick to interject with their thoughts and opinions, and always have a similar experience to share with you. Experiences that, once dissected, are nothing more than sweetly camouflaged one-uppers and indirect ways to let you know that they know better.

7. They have a checkered relationship history.

I've never met anyone with such an odd and storied relationship history. He traveled to Texas after meeting a girl online, then met his ex-wife online, and later flew in another girl he met online (through a quiz website!) all the way from Europe, before finally meeting me online. Narcopaths often leave long trails of broken relationships behind them, but of course they were never the ones responsible for breaking them. And no matter how long ago it ended, they'll claim all their former flames still burn strongly for them from afar.

8. They use big words that have little substance.

Have you ever read something that initially seems incredibly deep and profound, until you reach the end and realize it's nothing but a nonsensical jumble of fancy words? A narcopath craves superiority and thrives on being smarter than everyone in the room. The only the problem is that often times they're not, forcing them to fake it and pray no one catches on. On the surface, a narcopath seems highly intelligent and cultured, but dig deeper and you'll discover it's nothing but fluff.

9. They give because it makes them look better.

Give and you shall receive. Or, in the narcopath's case, give and tell everyone within a thousand mile radius who you gave to and exactly how much. A narcopath doesn't give because it makes them feel good on the inside; rather, they give because it makes them look good from the outside. No kind deed goes unnoticed, because they'd never allow it. Whether it's helping an old lady cross the street, giving a homeless person a buck, or donating to their children's PTA, they'll make sure someone knows about their generosity.

10. They're no stranger to the silent treatment.

Narcopaths love to dish it out. You may see glimpses of this passive-aggressive form of punishment early on in the relationship, or it might come on suddenly out of left field. Either way, the silent treatment is without a doubt the most vile and abusive trait that narcopaths possess. Like a child, anytime they can't get their way or feel threatened, they stomp away with their arms crossed and punish you with a deafening silence. The harder you reach out, the more you cry, and the angrier you become, the better they feel. It's normal for your partner to get angry, sulk, or brood sometimes. What isn't normal is using silence as a weapon to punish and control you, then sitting back and gaining pleasure from your pain.

This article originally appeared on YourTango .

[May 17, 2016] 7 Strategies for Dealing With the Narcissist You Love

Notable quotes:
"... Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline . ..."
Jun 23, 2014 www.huffingtonpost.com

Late last year, I wrote a piece where I shared a perspective, based on growing research , that narcissism isn't simply a stubborn trait, but a style of coping. The seeds of that idea turned into a book , scheduled for release in spring next year. Since I promised a follow up, I'm taking a brief break from the larger project to deliver on my promise. Here's a glimpse at what's to come. If you think your partner's a narcissist , you might want to try these seven strategies. Check For Abuse : None of what I'm about to suggest is likely to help if the person you love is physically or emotionally abusive. Not all narcissists, even those diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) , resort to abuse. But some do - and if you're on the receiving end, your first step should be to explore what makes it hard for you to leave . If you're facing abuse, it doesn't matter whether it's driven by your partner's narcissism, chronic pain, or drug addiction - the problem is the abuse, plain and simple. And the abuser is 100 percent responsible for his or her choice. Until that changes, you probably won't feel safe enough - nor should you - to take the kinds of risks I'm recommending here. Check for Denial: Most people recognize denial when they see it. It's easily the most famous of all the defense mechanisms. The alcoholic who protests, "I just enjoy the taste of fine wine!"; the terminally ill patient who assures everyone, "It's just a cough"; and the narcissist who, despite having alienated all her friends and lost her job, proclaims, "I'm just fine" - all are exhibiting denial. The more denial a narcissist displays, the less hopeful you should feel about change. How bad is denial? In adolescents , it predicts some of the most ruthless, demanding forms of narcissism - adults who happily admit "I find it easy to manipulate people." Make sure your partner can admit something's wrong, even if it's as simple as saying, "my life isn't where I hoped it would be." Contrary to what you might think, some narcissists do seek therapy . Which kinds? The "vulnerable" ones, riddled with shame and fear; they freely admit they have problems instead of burying them beneath near-delusional denial. In fact, they're also more likely to stick with treatment once they start. Beware the Manipulator : Across studies , narcissists who score high on measures of entitlement and exploitation (or, EE, as researchers call it) have the highest levels of aggression, a strong impulse to cheat, and even, when angered, a penchant for stealing or sabotaging property at work. In fact, EE singlehandedly accounts for most of the worst behaviors a narcissist can display. Manipulative narcissists are also more likely to score higher on measures of Psychopathy and Machiavellianism. The former is a cold callous personality linked to criminal behaviors, while the latter, as you can guess from the name, describes a cutthroat, "do whatever it takes" personality. Along with narcissism, these two traits comprise personality's dark triad . Not all narcissists are cold and manipulative. But the ones who are pose the greatest threat because they're so practiced at play-acting and deceit you'll have a hard time separating fact from fiction. Check Their Willingness to Change: This one might seem obvious, but it's crucial enough that it bears mentioning. The easiest way to test a partner's capacity to change is to seek help from a couples therapist - or any therapist for that matter. Even people who aren't narcissists can be leery of therapy, so this one shouldn't be considered a litmus test. If your partner's willing to work with you, though, your odds at improving the relationship have probably jumped by an order of magnitude. Check Your Anger: "You've always been the paranoid, jealous type," sneers your partner after you openly wonder about the amount of time he's spending with his attractive coworker. Our natural tendency, when faced with such shocking indifference to our fear of losing love or needing more closeness and comfort, is to protect ourselves. For many people, this means donning battle armor and launching an attack. "You're the most selfish person I know! I don't know why I'm with you!" As understandable as the protective measures are, they cut us off from crucial information: Can our partners hear our sadness and fear and feel moved? If there's any way at all to reach through the detachment, it's by sharing our feelings at a more vulnerable level. Try this: "You mean so much to me; I hear you talking to her and I'm scared I'm not enough for you." Or, "Your opinion means the world to me; when I hear you talk to me that way I feel so small and worthless in your eyes." Most partners, if they can feel anything at all, will melt when they hear comments like this. They don't just convey your pain with greater clarity; they remind your partner why the behavior hurts - because it comes from the one person who matters most. How effective is this kind of communication? Across decades of studies, 90 percent of couples who learned to share the sadness and fear beneath the anger, healed their broken bond and enjoyed happy, closer relationships. Likewise, in multiple recent studies , narcissists who focused on caring and closeness ("communal behavior") actually scored lower over time on several measures of narcissism; those who saw their partners as communal (compared to those who didn't) even said they'd be less likely to cheat . Check Your Silence: Say you come home from a hard day at work, and your boyfriend, grumbling about the weekend plans being up in the air, starts lecturing you about how indecisive you are. "You sure take a long time to make decisions, don't you?" Condescending remarks like this don't always enrage us. When our self-esteem is already crumbling, they often shut us down completely; we crawl away, crestfallen, or slip into hours of silence. But we have to find a voice again if we want things to get better. Research suggests that silent withdrawal is just another way of coping with feeling sad or fearful about our connection with people we love; your best bet, as with anger, is to go beneath the impulse to shut down and share the upset. "I'm feeling so put down right now I'm afraid you've stopped caring about me altogether." Why is this so important? Though they appear to be universal ways of coping with fears about the people we love, anger and withdrawal also ramp up our partners' insecurities . The result? Our loved ones fall back on their usual way of protecting themselves - like criticism or indifference - instead of hearing our pain. If they're narcissists, that means they resort to their favorite MO - narcissism. Be Honest with Yourself: If you've tried a more loving approach to sharing what hurts in your relationship, and the narcissist in your life still won't soften, you truly have done everything you can. This might be the only hope for change. Those of you who wrote in to say you already tried this and it didn't work have made a valiant effort; you may have exhausted your supply of empathy from working so hard. If so, my heart goes out to you. But staying in an unhappy relationship comes at a steep price, including your self-esteem. Ask yourself, honestly - are you staying because your partner's doing his best to change - or because it feels too hard to leave? Even if the people we love want to change, none of us should be expected to endure the same hurts over and over. Narcissistic arrogance and hostility elicit our worst behaviors ; they get beneath our skin, working away like a thousand needles. The natural response is to pull away or lash back; but if you do your best to share the pain openly, letting your loved ones see your softer feelings, you're giving them their best - and only shot - at hearing you. If they can't understand your pain then, perhaps they never will. As sad and difficult as it feels, you might need to take care of yourself by leaving. Because regardless of which habit steals their attention away from genuine love and intimacy, if our loved ones can't risk change, their problems are here to stay. Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline . If you like my posts, let me know! Let's connect on facebook and twitter. And be sure to sign up for my newsletter, for more tips and advice, as well as information on my forthcoming book , about understanding and coping with narcissism in all its forms, in our friends, lovers, colleagues-and even ourselves. HARPERWAVE AND HARPER UK, SPRING 2015

Follow Dr. Craig Malkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrCraigMalkin

[May 16, 2016] Stockholm Syndrome The Psychological Mystery of Loving an Abuser, Page 1

Notable quotes:
"... In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. ..."
"... Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority. ..."
"... In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign. ..."
"... During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past - how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. ..."
"... Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!" ..."
"... Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!" ..."
"... In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on eggshells" - fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller. ..."
"... Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. ..."
"... The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant problems. ..."
"... The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful life due to nonstop harassment. ..."
counsellingresource.com
While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as "Stockholm Syndrome" due to the publicity, the emotional "bonding" with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:

In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing "Stockholm Syndrome" will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It's important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it's easier to understand why victims support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.

Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors, and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these features will be present:

Stockholm Syndrome doesn't occur in every hostage or abusive situation. In another bank robbery involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and physically held him up to the window for another shot. As you can see, the length of time one is exposed to abuse/control and other factors are certainly involved.

It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:

By considering each situation we can understand how Stockholm Syndrome develops in romantic relationships as well as criminal/hostage situations. Looking at each situation:

Perceived Threat to One's Physical/Psychological Survival

The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods. Criminal or antisocial partners can directly threaten your life or the life of friends and family. Their history of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps our loved ones safe.

Indirectly, the abuser/controller offers subtle threats that you will never leave them or have another partner, reminding you that people in the past have paid dearly for not following their wishes. Hints are often offered such as "I know people who can make others disappear". Indirect threats also come from the stories told by the abuser or controller - how they obtained revenge on those who have crossed them in the past. These stories of revenge are told to remind the victim that revenge is possible if they leave.

Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat. Witnessing a violent temper directed at a television set, others on the highway, or a third party clearly sends us the message that we could be the next target for violence. Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.

The "Small Kindness" Perception

In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope - a small sign that the situation may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to the abuser's benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors, such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm Syndrome in criminal hostage events.

In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign.

Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a "soft side". During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past - how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a "victim". Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!"

Losers and abusers may admit they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it's almost always after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating too much junk food - now known as the "Twinkie Defense". While it may be true that the abuser/controller had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While "sad stories" are always included in their apologies - after the abusive/controlling event - their behavior never changes! Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!"

Isolation from Perspectives Other than those of the Captor

In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on eggshells" - fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.

Taking the abuser's perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim actually develops anger toward those trying to help them. The abuser is already angry and resentful toward anyone who would provide the victim support, typically using multiple methods and manipulations to isolate the victim from others. Any contact the victim has with supportive people in the community is met with accusations, threats, and/or violent outbursts. Victims then turn on their family - fearing family contact will cause additional violence and abuse in the home. At this point, victims curse their parents and friends, tell them not to call and to stop interfering, and break off communication with others. Agreeing with the abuser/controller, supportive others are now viewed as "causing trouble" and must be avoided. Many victims threaten their family and friends with restraining orders if they continue to "interfere" or try to help the victim in their situation. On the surface it would appear that they have sided with the abuser/controller. In truth, they are trying to minimize contact with situations that might make them a target of additional verbal abuse or intimidation. If a casual phone call from Mom prompts a two-hour temper outburst with threats and accusations - the victim quickly realizes it's safer if Mom stops calling. If simply telling Mom to stop calling doesn't work, for his or her own safety the victim may accuse Mom of attempting to ruin the relationship and demand that she stop calling.

In severe cases of Stockholm Syndrome in relationships, the victim may have difficulty leaving the abuser and may actually feel the abusive situation is their fault. In law enforcement situations, the victim may actually feel the arrest of their partner for physical abuse or battering is their fault. Some women will allow their children to be removed by child protective agencies rather than give up the relationship with their abuser. As they take the perspective of the abuser, the children are at fault - they complained about the situation, they brought the attention of authorities to the home, and they put the adult relationship at risk. Sadly, the children have now become a danger to the victim's safety. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, allowing the children to be removed from the home decreases their victim stress while providing an emotionally and physically safer environment for the children.

Perceived Inability to Escape

As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it's easy to understand the perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can't escape is also very common. Many abusive/controlling relationships feel like till-death-do-us-part relationships - locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations. Here are some common situations:

In unhealthy relationships and definitely in Stockholm Syndrome there is a daily preoccupation with "trouble". Trouble is any individual, group, situation, comment, casual glance, or cold meal that may produce a temper tantrum or verbal abuse from the controller or abuser. To survive, "trouble" is to be avoided at all costs. The victim must control situations that produce trouble. That may include avoiding family, friends, co-workers, and anyone who may create "trouble" in the abusive relationship. The victim does not hate family and friends; they are only avoiding "trouble"! The victim also cleans the house, calms the children, scans the mail, avoids certain topics, and anticipates every issue of the controller or abuse in an effort to avoid "trouble". In this situation, children who are noisy become "trouble". Loved ones and friends are sources of "trouble" for the victim who is attempting to avoid verbal or physical aggression.

Stockholm Syndrome in relationships is not uncommon. Law enforcement professionals are painfully aware of the situation - making a domestic dispute one of the high-risk calls during work hours. Called by neighbors during a spousal abuse incident, the abuser is passive upon arrival of the police, only to find the abused spouse upset and threatening the officers if their abusive partner is arrested for domestic violence. In truth, the victim knows the abuser/controller will retaliate against him/her if 1) they encourage an arrest, 2) they offer statements about the abuse/fight that are deemed disloyal by the abuser, 3) they don't bail them out of jail as quickly as possible, and 4) they don't personally apologize for the situation - as though it was their fault.

Stockholm Syndrome produces an unhealthy bond with the controller and abuser. It is the reason many victims continue to support an abuser after the relationship is over. It's also the reason they continue to see "the good side" of an abusive individual and appear sympathetic to someone who has mentally and sometimes physically abused them.

Is There Something Else Involved?

In a short response - Yes! Throughout history, people have found themselves supporting and participating in life situations that range from abusive to bizarre. In talking to these active and willing participants in bad and bizarre situations, it is clear they have developed feelings and attitudes that support their participation. One way these feelings and thoughts are developed is known as "cognitive dissonance". As you can tell, psychologists have large words and phrases for just about everything.

"Cognitive Dissonance" explains how and why people change their ideas and opinions to support situations that do not appear to be healthy, positive, or normal. In the theory, an individual seeks to reduce information or opinions that make him or her uncomfortable. When we have two sets of cognitions (knowledge, opinion, feelings, input from others, etc.) that are the opposite, the situation becomes emotionally uncomfortable. Even though we might find ourselves in a foolish or difficult situation - few want to admit that fact. Instead, we attempt to reduce the dissonance - the fact that our cognitions don't match, agree, or make sense when combined. "Cognitive Dissonance" can be reduced by adding new cognitions - adding new thoughts and attitudes. Some examples:

Leon Festinger first coined the term "Cognitive Dissonance". He had observed a cult (1956) in which members gave up their homes, incomes, and jobs to work for the cult. This cult believed in messages from outer space that predicted the day the world would end by a flood. As cult members and firm believers, they believed they would be saved by flying saucers at the appointed time. As they gathered and waited to be taken by flying saucers at the specified time, the end-of-the-world came and went. No flood and no flying saucer! Rather than believing they were foolish after all that personal and emotional investment - they decided their beliefs had actually saved the world from the flood and they became firmer in their beliefs after the failure of the prophecy. The moral: the more you invest (income, job, home, time, effort, etc.) the stronger your need to justify your position. If we invest $5.00 in a raffle ticket, we justify losing with "I'll get them next time". If you invest everything you have, it requires an almost unreasoning belief and unusual attitude to support and justify that investment.

Studies tell us we are more loyal and committed to something that is difficult, uncomfortable, and even humiliating. The initiation rituals of college fraternities, Marine boot camp, and graduate school all produce loyal and committed individuals. Almost any ordeal creates a bonding experience. Every couple, no matter how mismatched, falls in love in the movies after going through a terrorist takeover, being stalked by a killer, being stranded on an island, or being involved in an alien abduction. Investment and an ordeal are ingredients for a strong bonding - even if the bonding is unhealthy. No one bonds or falls in love by being a member of the Automobile Club or a music CD club. Struggling to survive on a deserted island - you bet!

Abusive relationships produce a great amount on unhealthy investment in both parties. In many cases we tend to remain and support the abusive relationship due to our investment in the relationship. Try telling a new Marine that since he or she has survived boot camp, they should now enroll in the National Guard! Several types of investments keep us in the bad relationship:

Emotional Investment
We've invested so many emotions, cried so much, and worried so much that we feel we must see the relationship through to the finish.
Social Investment
We've got our pride! To avoid social embarrassment and uncomfortable social situations, we remain in the relationship.
Family Investments
If children are present in the relationship, decisions regarding the relationship are clouded by the status and needs of the children.
Financial Investment
In many cases, the controlling and abusive partner has created a complex financial situation. Many victims remain in a bad relationship, waiting for a better financial situation to develop that would make their departure and detachment easier.
Lifestyle Investment
Many controlling/abusive partners use money or a lifestyle as an investment. Victims in this situation may not want to lose their current lifestyle.
Intimacy Investment
We often invest emotional and sexual intimacy. Some victims have experienced a destruction of their emotional and/or sexual self-esteem in the unhealthy relationship. The abusing partner may threaten to spread rumors or tell intimate details or secre