illuminati |iˌloōməˈnätē|
plural noun
people claiming to possess special enlightenment or knowledge of something : some mysterious standard known only to the illuminati of the organization.
• ( Illuminati) a sect of 16th-century Spanish heretics who claimed special religious enlightenment.
• ( Illuminati) a Bavarian secret society founded in 1776, organized like the Freemasons.
DERIVATIVES
illuminism |iˈloōməˌnizəm| noun
illuminist |iˈloōmənist| noun
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: plural of Italian illuminato or Latin illuminatus ‘enlightened’ past participle of illuminare (see illuminate)

cannibal |ˈkanəbəl|
noun
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings : [as adj. ] cannibal tribes.
• an animal that feeds on flesh of its own species.
DERIVATIVES
cannibalism |-ˌlizəm| noun
cannibalistic |ˌkanəbəˈlistik| adjective
cannibalistically |ˌkanəbəˈlistik(ə)lē| adverb
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Spanish Canibales (plural), variant (recorded by Columbus) of Caribes, the name of a West Indian people reputed to eat humans (see Carib ).

If your stomach is strong, you can see extremely graphic images of human carcasses being prepared for cannibals at this website:  On the business of providing human flesh to wealthy Luciferians.

In political and sociological theory, an elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. In general, elite means the more capable group of the peoples. The selected part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

Identity and social structure

C. Wright Mills wrote in his 1957 book The Power Elite of the “elite” as: “those political, economic, and military circles, which as an intricate set of overlapping small but dominant groups share decisions having at least national consequences. Insofar as national events are decided, the power elite are those who decide them”. Mills states that the power elite members recognize other members’ mutual exalted position in society.

“As a rule, ‘[t]hey accept one another, understand one another, marry one another, tend to work and to think, if not together at least alike’.”

“It is a well-regulated existence where education plays a critical role. Youthful upper-class members attend prominent preparatory schools, which not only open doors to such elite universities as Harvard, Yale, and  Princeton but also to the universities’ highly exclusive clubs. These memberships in turn pave the way to the prominent social clubs located in all major cities and serving as sites for important business contacts”. The men who receive the education necessary for elitist privilege obtain the background and contacts that allow them to enter three branches of the power elite, which are:

• The Political Leadership: Mills contended that since the end of World War II corporate leaders had become more prominent in the political process, with a decline in central decision-making for professional politicians. The Military Circle: In Mill’s time a heightened concern about warfare existed, making top military leaders and such issues as defense funding and personnel recruitment very important. Most prominent corporate leaders and politicians were strong proponents of military spending.
• The Corporate Elite: According to Mills, in the 1950s when the military emphasis was pronounced, it was corporate leaders working with prominent military officers who dominated the development of policies. These two groups tended to be mutually supportive”.

According to Mills, the governing elite in the United States primarily draws its members from three areas:

• Political leaders, including the president, and a handful of key cabinet members and close advisers
• Major corporate owners and directors
• High-ranking military officers

These groups overlap, and elites tend to circulate from one sector to another, consolidating power in the process.

Unlike the ruling class, a social formation based on heritage and social ties, the power elite is characterized by the organizational structures through which its wealth is acquired. According to Mills, the power elite rose from “the managerial reorganization of the propertied classes into the more or less unified stratum of the corporate rich”. Domhoff further clarified the differences in the two terms: “The upper class as a whole does not do the ruling. Instead, class rule is manifested through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions…Leaders within the upper class join with high-level employees in the organizations they control to make up what will be called the power elite”.

The Marxist theoretician Nikolai Bukharin anticipated the power-elite theory in his 1929 work, Imperialism and World Economy: “present-day state power is nothing but an entrepreneurs’ company of tremendous power, headed even by the same persons that occupy the leading positions in the banking and syndicate offices”.

Who are the power elite?

The basis for power elite membership is institutional power, namely an influential position within a prominent private or public organization. One study of power elites in the United States under PresidentGeorge W. Bush identified 7,314 institutional positions of power encompassing 5,778 individuals. A later study of U.S. society found that the demographics of this elite group broke down as follows:

Age 

Corporate leaders are about 60 years old; heads of foundations, law, education, and civic organizations are around 62 years old; government employees are about 56 years old.

Gender 

Women are barely represented among corporate leadership in the institutional elite and women only contribute roughly 20% in the political realm. They do appear more among top positions when it comes to cultural affairs, education, and foundations.

Ethnicity 

White Anglo-Saxons dominate in the power elite, with Protestants representing about 80 percent of the top business leaders and about 73% of members of Congress.

Education 

Nearly all the leaders are college-educated with almost half having advanced degrees. About 54 percent of the big-business leaders and 42% of the government elite are graduates of just 12 prestigious universities with large endowments.

Social clubs 

Most holders of top position in the power elite possess exclusive membership in one or more social clubs. About a third belong to a small number of especially prestigious clubs in major cities like London,New York, Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C.

Impacts on economy

In the 1970s an organized set of policies promoted reduced taxes, especially for the wealthy, and a steady erosion of the welfare safety net. Starting with legislation in the 1980s, the wealthy banking community successfully lobbied for reduced regulation. The wide range of financial and social capital accessible to the power elite gives their members heavy influence in economic and political decision making, allowing them to move toward attaining desired outcomes. Sociologist Christopher Doob gives a hypothetical alternative stating that these elite individuals would consider themselves the overseers of the national economy, appreciating that it is not only a moral but a practical necessity to focus beyond their group interests. Doing so would hopefully alleviate various destructive conditions affecting large numbers of less affluent citizens.

Global politics and hegemony

Mills determined that there is an “inner core” of the power elite involving individuals that are able to move from one seat of institutional power to another. They therefore have a wide range of knowledge and interests in many influential organizations, and are, as Mills describes, “professional go-betweens of economic, political, and military affairs”. Relentless expansion of capitalism and the globalizing of economic and military power binds leaders of the power elite into complex relationships with nation statesthat generate global-scale class divisions. Sociologist Manuel Castells writes in The Rise of the Network Society that contemporary globalization does not mean that “everything in the global economy is global”. So, a global economy becomes characterized by fundamental social inequalities with respect to the “level of integration, competitive potential and share of the benefits from economic growth”. Castells cites a kind of “double movement” where on one hand, “valuable segments of territories and people” become “linked in the global networks of value making and wealth appropriation”, while, on the other, “everything and everyone” that is not valued by established networks gets “switched off…and ultimately discarded”.^[21] The wide-ranging effects of global capitalism ultimately affect everyone on the planet as economies around the world come to depend on the functioning of global financial markets, technologies, trade and labor.

Terminology

Since an elite is in traditional usage by definition a group, a single person cannot be an elite and a number of individuals cannot be elites. Individuals with power are however increasingly being referred to as “elites” in popular media and vernacular speech, a usage that is looked down upon by more academic English speakers.

See also

• Elitism
• Elite theory
• Conflict theories
• The powers that be (phrase)

 

psychopath |ˈsīkəˌpaθ|
noun
a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
DERIVATIVES
psychopathic |ˌsīkəˈpaθik| adjective
psychopathically |ˌsīkəˈpaθik(ə)lē| adverb

From Wikipedia:

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy /ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/) is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory.

Hervey M. Cleckley, an American psychiatrist, probably influenced the initial diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality reaction/disturbance in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), as did American psychologist George E. Partridge.[citation needed] The DSM and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) subsequently introduced the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder, stating that these have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy. Canadian psychologist Robert D. Hare later repopularised the construct of psychopathy in criminology with his Psychopathy Checklist.

Although no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled “psychopathy”, assessments of psychopathic characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations, and may have important consequences for individuals. The term is also used by the general public, in popular press, and in fictional portrayals.

Definition

Conceptions
Researchers have noted that there appear to be at least two different conceptions of psychopathy, each with differing policy implications. Jennifer L. Skeem et al. distinguished Cleckleyan psychopathy (named after Hervey Cleckley’s early conception of psychopathy, entailing bold, disinhibited behavior, low anxiety and “feckless disregard”) and criminal psychopathy (a “meaner, more aggressively disinhibited conception of psychopathy that explicitly entails persistent and sometimes serious criminal behavior,” typically operationalized with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist). Due to the profound implications that a label of “psychopath” can have—including in terms of decisions about punishment severity, treatment, etc.—efforts have been made to clarify the meaning of the term, e.g. by reconciling seemingly disparate conceptions such as those mentioned.

Triarchic model
The triarchic model, formulated by Christopher J. Patrick et al., suggests that different conceptions of psychopathy emphasize three observable characteristics to varying degrees. Analyses have been made with respect to the applicability of measurement tools such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL, PCL-R) and Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) to this model.

• Boldness. Low fear including stress-tolerance, toleration of unfamiliarity and danger, and high self-confidence and social assertiveness. The PCL-R measures this relatively poorly and mainly through Facet 1 of Factor 1. Similar to PPI Fearless dominance. May correspond to differences in the amygdala and other neurological systems associated with fear.
• Disinhibition. Poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight, lacking affect and urge control, demand for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints. Similar to PCL-R Factor 2 and PPI Impulsive antisociality. May correspond to impairments in frontal lobe systems that are involved in such control.
• Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments with others, disdain of close attachments, use of cruelty to gain empowerment, exploitative tendencies, defiance of authority, and destructive excitement seeking. The PCL-R in general is related to this but in particular some elements in Factor 1. Similar to PPI Coldheartedness but also includes elements of subscales in Impulsive antisociality. Meanness may possibly be caused by either high boldness or high disinhibition combined with an adverse environment. Thus, a child with high boldness may respond poorly to punishment but may respond better to rewards and secure attachments which may not be available under adverse conditions. A child with high disinhibition may have increased problems under adverse conditions with meanness developing in response.

Measurement
A crucial issue regarding the concept of psychopathy is whether it identifies a distinct condition that can be separated from other conditions and “normal” personality types, or whether it is simply a combination of scores on various dimensions of personality found throughout the population in varying combinations.

An early and influential analysis from Harris and colleagues indicated a discrete category may underlie PCL-R psychopathy, but this was only found for the behavioral Factor 2 items.[8] Marcus, John, and Edens more recently performed a series of statistical analyses on PPI scores and concluded psychopathy may best be conceptualized as having a “dimensional latent structure” like depression.

Marcus et al. repeated the study on a larger sample of prisoners, using the PCL-R and seeking to rule out other experimental or statistical issues that may have produced the previously different findings. They again found that the psychopathy measurements do not appear to be identifying a discrete type (a taxon). They suggest that while for legal or other practical purposes an arbitrary cut-off point on trait scores might be used, there is actually no clear scientific evidence for an objective point of difference by which to call some people “psychopaths;” in other words, a “psychopath” may be more accurately described as someone who is “relatively psychopathic.” The PCL-R was developed for research, not clinical forensic diagnosis, and even for research purposes to improve understanding of the underlying issues, it is necessary to examine dimensions of personality in general rather than only this constellation of traits.

Personality dimensions
Psychopathy represents different personality dimensions found throughout the general population to varying degrees. There are different views as to which dimensions are more central in regard to psychopathy.

Besides dimensions described elsewhere in this article, some studies have linked psychopathy to alternative dimensions, such as antagonism (high), conscientiousness (low) and anxiousness (low, or sometimes high). Psychopathy has also been linked to high psychoticism—a theorized dimension referring to tough, aggressive or hostile tendencies. Aspects of this that appear associated with psychopathy are lack of socialization and responsibility, impulsivity, sensation-seeking (in some cases), and aggression.

Otto Kernberg, from a particular psychoanalytic perspective, believed psychopathy should be considered as part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, that would range from narcissistic personality on the low end, malignant narcissism in the middle, and psychopathy at the high end. However, narcissism is generally seen as only one possible aspect of psychopathy as broadly defined.

Signs and symptoms
Offending
Criminality
In terms of simple correlations, the PCL-R manual states an average score of 22.1 has been found in North American prisoner samples, and that 20.5% scored 30 or higher. An analysis of prisoner samples from outside North America found a somewhat lower average value of 17.5. Studies have found that psychopathy scores correlated with repeated imprisonment, detention in higher security, disciplinary infractions, and substance misuse.

Psychopathy, as measured with the PCL-R in institutional settings, shows in meta-analyses small to moderate effect sizes with institutional misbehavior, postrelease crime, or postrelease violent crime with similar effects for the three outcomes. Individual studies give similar results for adult offenders, forensic psychiatric samples, community samples, and youth. The PCL-R is poorer at predicting sexual re-offending. However, this small to moderate effect appears to be due largely to the scale items that assess impulsive behaviors and past criminal history, which are well-established but very general risk factors. The aspects of core personality often held to be distinctively psychopathic, generally show little or no predictive link to crime by themselves. Thus Factor 1 of the PCL-R and Fearless dominance of the PPI-R have smaller or no relationship to crime, including violent crime. In contrast Factor 2 and Impulsive antisociality of the PPI-R are associated more strongly with criminality. Factor 2 has a relationship of similar strength to that of the PCL-R as a whole. The antisocial facet of the PCL-R is still predictive of future violence after controlling for past criminal behavior which, together with results regarding the PPI-R which by design does not include past criminal behavior, suggests that impulsive behaviors is an independent risk factor. The concept of psychopathy may perform poorly when attempted to be used as a general theory of crime.

Violence
Studies have suggested a strong correlation between psychopathy scores and violence, and the PCL-R emphasizes features that are somewhat predictive of violent behavior. Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that psychopathic behavior is consistent with traits common to some serial killers, including sensation seeking, a lack of remorse or guilt, impulsivity, the need for control, and predatory behavior. Researchers, however, have noted that psychopathy is dissociable from and not synonymous with violence.

It has been suggested that psychopaths tend to commit more “instrumental” violence than “reactive” violence. One conclusion in this regard was made by a 2002 study of homicide offenders, which reported that the homicides committed by psychopaths were almost always (93.3%) primarily instrumental, while about half (48.4%) of those committed by non-psychopaths were. However, contrary to the equating of this to mean “in cold blood”, more than a third of the homicides by psychopaths involved emotional reactivity as well. In addition, the non-psychopaths still accounted for most of the instrumental homicides, because most of these murderers were not psychopaths. In any case, FBI profilers indicate that serious victim injury is generally an emotional offense, and some research supports this, at least with regard to sexual offending. One study has found more serious offending by non-psychopaths on average than by psychopaths (e.g. more homicides versus more armed robbery and property offenses) and another that the Affective facet of the PCL-R predicted reduced offense seriousness.

Although psychopathy is associated with an increased risk of violence, it is difficult to know how to manage the risk. Some clinicians suggest that assessment of the construct of psychopathy does not necessarily add value to violence risk assessment. A large systematic review and meta-regression found that the PCL performed the poorest out of nine tools for predicting violence. In addition, studies conducted by the authors or translators of violence prediction measures, including the PCL, show on average more positive results than those conducted by more independent investigators.[26] There are several other risk assessment instruments which can predict further crime with an accuracy similar to the PCL-R and some of these are considerably easier, quicker, and less expensive to administrate. This may even be done automatically by a computer simply based on data such as age, gender, number of previous convictions, and age of first conviction. Some of these assessments may also identify treatment change and goals, identify quick changes that may help short-term management, identify more specific kinds of violence that may be at risk, and may have established specific probabilities of offending for specific scores. Nonetheless, the PCL-R may continue to be popular for risk assessment because of its pioneering role and the large amount of research done using it.

Sexual offending
See also: “Sexual psychopath” laws
A 2011 study of conditional releases for Canadian male federal offenders found that psychopathy was related to more violent and non-violent offences but not more sexual offences. For child molesters, psychopathy was associated with more offences. It is purported that high-psychopathy offenders (both sexual and non-sexual offenders) are about 2.5 times more likely to be granted conditional release compared to non-psychopathic offenders.

Some researchers have argued that psychopaths have a preference for violent sexual behavior. A study examining the relationship between psychopathy scores and types of aggression in a sample of sexual murderers, in which 84.2% of the sample had PCL-R scores above 20 and 47.4% above 30, found that 82.4% of those with scores above 30 had engaged in sadistic violence (defined as enjoyment indicated by self-report or evidence) compared to 52.6% of those with scores below 30, and total PCL-R and Factor 1 scores correlated significantly with sadistic violence.

In considering the issue of possible reunification of some sex offenders into homes with a non-offending parent and children, it has been advised that any sex offender with a significant criminal history should be assessed on the PCL-R, and if they score 18 or higher than they should be excluded from any consideration of being placed in a home with children under any circumstances. There is, however, increasing concern that PCL scores are too inconsistent between different examiners, including in its use to evaluate sex offenders.

Other offending
Researchers have discussed the possibility of psychopathy being associated with organised crime, economic crime and war crimes. Terrorists are sometimes called psychopaths, and comparisons may be drawn with traits such as antisocial violence, a selfish world view that precludes the welfare of others, a lack of remorse or guilt, and blame externalization. However, John Horgan, author of The Psychology of Terrorism, argues that such comparisons could also then be drawn more widely: for example, to soldiers in wars. It has also been noted that coordinated terrorist activity requires organization, loyalty and ideology, and that traits such as a self-centered disposition, unreliability, poor behavioral controls, and unusual behaviors may be disadvantages.

It has been speculated that some psychopaths may be socially successful, due to factors such as low disinhibition as defined in the triarchic model, in combination with other advantages such as a favorable upbringing and good intelligence. However, there is little research on this, in part because the PCL-R does not include positive adjustment characteristics, and most researchers have used the PCL-R on confirmed criminals. Some research using the PPI report that some interpersonal and affective traits associated with psychopathy, and boldness and/or meanness as defined in the triarchic model, can exist in non-criminals and correlate with stress immunity and stability.[1] Psychologists Fritzon and Board, in their study comparing the incidence of personality disorders in business executives against criminals detained in a mental hospital, found that the profiles of senior business managers contained some significant elements of personality disorders, particularly those referred to as the “emotional components” of psychopathy.

Childhood and adolescent precursors
The PCL:YV is an adaptation of the PCL-R for individuals aged 13–18 years. It is, like the PCL-R, done by a trained rater based on an interview and an examination of criminal and other records. The “Antisocial Process Screening Device” (APSD) is also an adaptation of the PCL-R. It can be administered by parents or teachers for 6–13 year olds or it can be self-administered by 13–18 years olds. High psychopathy scores for both juveniles, as measured with these instruments, and adults, as measured with the PCL-R and other measurement tools, have similar associations with other variables, including similar ability in predicting violence and criminality.

There are moderate to high correlations between psychopathy rankings from late childhood to early adolescence. The correlations are considerably lower from early- or mid-adolescence to adulthood. In one study most of the similarities were on the Impulsive- and Antisocial-Behavior scales. Of those adolescents who scored in the top 5% highest psychopathy scores at age 13, less than one third (29%) were classified as psychopathic at age 24. Some recent studies have also found poorer ability at predicting long-term, adult offending. In one study, predictive ability was found to be not better than unaided clinical judgment.

Juvenile psychopathy appears to be associated with more negative emotionality such as anger, hostility, anxiety, and depression.

Conduct disorder
Main article: Conduct disorder
Conduct disorder is diagnosed based on a prolonged pattern of antisocial behavior in childhood and/or adolescence, and may be seen as a precursor to ASPD. Some researchers have speculated that there are two subtypes of conduct disorder which mark dual developmental pathways to adult psychopathy.

The DSM allows differentiating between childhood onset before age 10 and adolescent onset at age 10 and later. Childhood onset is argued to be more due to a personality disorder caused by neurological deficits interacting with an adverse environment. For many, but not all, childhood onset is associated with what is in Terrie Moffitt’s developmental theory of crime referred to as “life-course- persistent” antisocial behavior as well as poorer health and economic status. Adolescent onset is argued to more typically be associated with short-term antisocial behavior.

It has been suggested that the combination of early-onset conduct disorder and ADHD may be associated with life-course-persistent antisocial behaviors as well as psychopathy. There is evidence that this combination is more aggressive and antisocial than those with conduct disorder alone. However, it is not a particularly distinct group since the vast majority of young children with conduct disorder also have ADHD. Some evidence indicates that this group have deficits in behavioral inhibition similar to adult psychopaths. They may not be more likely than those with conduct disorder alone to have the interpersonal/affective features and the deficits in emotional processing characteristic of adult psychopaths. Proponents of different types/dimensions of psychopathy have seen this type as possibly corresponding to adult secondary psychopathy and increased disinhibition in the triarchic model.

The DSM-5 includes a specifier for those with conduct disorder who also display a callous, unemotional interpersonal style across multiple settings and relationships. The specifier is based on research which suggests that those with conduct disorder who also meet criteria for the specifier tend to have a more severe form of the disorder as well as a different response to treatment. Proponents of different types/dimensions of psychopathy have seen this as possibly corresponding to adult primary psychopathy and increased boldness and/or meanness in the triarchic model.

Mental deficits
Learning impairment
Dysfunctions in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala regions of the brain are associated with specific learning impairments in psychopathy. Since the 1980s, scientists have linked traumatic brain injury, including damage to these regions, with violent and psychopathic behavior. Patients with damage in such areas resembled “psychopathic individuals” whose brains were incapable of acquiring social and moral knowledge; those who acquired damage as children may have trouble conceptualizing social or moral reasoning, while those with adult-acquired damage may be aware of proper social and moral conduct but be unable to behave appropriately. Dysfunctions in the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex may also impair stimulus-reinforced learning in psychopaths, whether punishment-based or reward-based. People scoring 25 or higher in the PCL-R, with an associated history of violent behavior, appear to have significantly reduced mean microstructural integrity in their uncinate fasciculus—white matter connecting the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. There is DT-MRI evidence of breakdowns in the white matter connections between these two important areas.

Studies also suggest inverse relationships between psychopathy and intelligence, including with regards to verbal IQ. Studies also indicate that different aspects of the definition of psychopathy (e.g. interpersonal, affective (emotion), behavioral and lifestyle components) can show different links to intelligence, and the result can also depend on the type of intelligence assessment (e.g. verbal, creative, practical, analytical). However, Hare and Neumann state that a large literature demonstrates at most only a weak association between psychopathy and IQ. They consider that the early pioneer Cleckley included good intelligence in his checklist due to selection bias (since many of his patients were “well educated and from middle-class or upper-class backgrounds”) and state that “there is no obvious theoretical reason why the disorder described by Cleckley or other clinicians should be related to intelligence; some psychopaths are bright, others less so.”

Emotion recognition and empathy
A large body of research suggests that psychopathy is associated with atypical responses to distress cues (e.g. facial and vocal expressions of fear and sadness), including decreased activation of the fusiform and extrastriate cortical regions, which may partly account for impaired recognition of and reduced autonomic responsiveness to expressions of fear, and impairments of empathy. Studies on children with psychopathic tendencies have also shown such associations. The underlying biological surfaces for processing expressions of happiness are functionally intact in psychopaths, although less responsive than those of controls. The neuroimaging literature is unclear as to whether deficits are specific to particular emotions such as fear. Some recent fMRI studies have reported that emotion perception deficits in psychopathy are pervasive across emotions (positives and negatives).

A study in which psychopathic criminals were brain-scanned while they watched videos of a person harming another individual found that the psychopaths’ empathic reaction initiated the same way it did for controls when they were instructed to empathize with the harmed individual, and that the area of the brain relating to pain was activated when the psychopaths were asked to imagine how the harmed individual felt. The research suggests how psychopaths could switch empathy on at will and would enable them to be both callous and charming. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that, unlike the combination of both reduced cognitive and affective empathy often seen in those with classic autism, psychopaths are associated with intact cognitive empathy, implying non-diminished awareness of another’s feelings when they hurt someone.

However, subsequent work conducted by Professor Jean Decety with large samples of incarcerated psychopaths challenge this view. In one study, psychopaths were scanned while viewing video clips depicting people being intentionally hurt. They were also tested on their responses to seeing short videos of facial expressions of pain. The participants in the high psychopathy group exhibited significantly less activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala and periaqueductal gray parts of the brain, but more activity in the striatum and the insula when compared to control participants.[62] In a second study, individuals with psychopathy exhibited a strong response in pain-affective brain regions when taking an imagine-self perspective, but failed to recruit the neural circuits that are were activated in controls during an imagine-other perspective, in particular the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala, which may contribute to their lack of empathic concern.

Moral judgment
Psychopaths have been considered notoriously amoral – an absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for moral beliefs. There are few firm data on patterns of moral judgment, however. Studies of developmental level (sophistication) of moral reasoning found all possible results – lower, higher or the same as non-psychopaths. Studies that compared judgments of personal moral transgressions versus judgments of breaking conventional rules or laws, found that psychopaths rated them as equally severe, whereas non-psychopaths rated the rule-breaking as less severe.

A study comparing judgments of whether personal or impersonal harm would be endorsed in order to achieve the rationally maximum (utilitarian) amount of welfare, found no significant differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. However, a further study using the same tests found that prisoners scoring high on the PCL were more likely to endorse impersonal harm or rule violations than non-psychopaths were. Psychopaths who scored low in anxiety were also more willing to endorse personal harm on average.

Assessing accidents, where one person harmed another unintentionally, psychopaths judged such actions to be more morally permissible. This result has been considered a reflection of psychopaths’ failure to appreciate the emotional aspect of the victim’s harmful experience.

Other characteristics
Cleckley’s clinical profile
In his book The Mask of Sanity, Hervey Cleckley described 16 (21 in the first edition) “common qualities” he thought were characteristic of the individuals he termed psychopaths.

Cleckley stated in the first edition of The Mask of Sanity (p. 257) that those he was calling psychopaths were “frankly and unquestionably psychotic”, but in later editions suggested that they are not psychotic according to prevailing definitions. He did not on the whole describe them as particularly hostile or aggressive, contrary to more sinister depictions that others later developed. In addition, he proposed the existence of a milder and extremely common form of the condition: “If we consider, in addition to these patients (nearly all of whom have records of the utmost folly and misery and idleness over many years and who have had to enter a psychiatric hospital), the vast number of similar people in every community who show the same behavior pattern in milder form but who are sufficiently protected and supported by relatives to remain at large, the prevalence of this disorder is seen to be appalling.”

Despite possible discrepancies, Cleckley’s work on psychopathy may have influenced the PCL-R and the initial diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality reaction/disturbance in the DSM and some researchers continue to consider Cleckley’s clinical profile to be a prominent model of psychopathy.

bully |ˈboŏlē|
noun ( pl. –lies)
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
verb ( –lies, –lied) [ trans. ]
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants : a local man was bullied into helping them.
ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: from French bouilli, literally ‘boiled.’

sadism |ˈsāˌdizəm|
noun
the tendency to derive pleasure, esp. sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.
• (in general use) deliberate cruelty.
DERIVATIVES
sadist noun
sadistic |səˈdistik| adjective
sadistically |səˈdistik(ə)lē| adverb
ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from French sadisme, from the name of the Marquis de Sade .

From Wikipedia:

Sadism is a behavioral disorder characterized by callous, vicious, manipulative, and degrading behavior expressed towards other people. To date, the exact cause of sadism is not known. However, many theories have been given to explain the possible reasons underlying the development of a sadistic personality in an individual.

Definition of sadism
Sadism involves gaining pleasure from seeing others undergo pain or discomfort. The opponent-process theory explains the way in which individuals not only display, but also take enjoyment in committing sadistic acts.[3][clarification needed] Individuals possessing sadistic personalities display recurrent cruel behavior and aggression.[4][5] Sadism can also include the use of emotional cruelty, purposefully manipulating others through the use of fear, and a preoccupation with violence.

While some sadistic individuals do gain pleasure in imposing pain and suffering upon others, sadism does not always involve the use of physical aggression or violence. More often, sadistic individuals express aggressive social behaviors and enjoy publicly humiliating others in order to achieve a sense of power over them.

The word sadism was created by Richard von Krafft-Ebing after Donatien Alphonse François de Sade a 19th-century French writer and philosopher. He is best known for his erotic works, which combined philosophical discourse with pornography, depicting sexual fantasies with an emphasis on violence, criminality and blasphemy against the Catholic Church. He was a proponent of extreme freedom, unrestrained by morality, religion or law.

Comorbidity with other personality disorders
Sadistic Personality Disorder is often found to occur in unison with other personality disorders. In fact, studies have found that sadistic personality disorder is the personality disorder with the highest level of comorbidity to other types of psychopathologic disorders. However, sadism has also been found in patients who do not display other forms of psychopathic disorders. One personality disorder that is often found to occur alongside sadistic personality disorder is conduct disorder, not an adult disorder but one of childhood and adolescence. In addition, anti-social and narcissistic personality disorders are sometimes found in individuals diagnosed with sadistic personality disorder.[citation needed] Other disorders that are also often found to exist with sadistic personality disorder include bipolar disorder, panic disorders, depression, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, self-defeating personality disorder and passive-aggressive behavior.[citation needed] Studies have found other types of illnesses, such as alcoholism, to have a high rate of comorbidity with sadistic personality disorder.
Because of its high level of comorbidity with other disorders, researchers have had some level of difficulty distinguishing sadistic personality disorder from other forms of personality disorder. While sadistic personality disorder itself is no longer included in the DSM, partially for this reason, other types of disorders involving sadism, such as sexual sadism, are still found in the DSM as paraphilias.

Familial patterns/childhood experiences and sadistic personality disorder
Most of these theories commonly point out the fact that sadism is mainly dependent on the upbringing of an individual. Although biological and environmental aspects are also known to contribute to the development of this behavioral disorder,[citation needed] less evidence is available about hereditary patterns or genetic causes.
Sadistic Personality Disorder is found more often in males than in females.[citation needed] In addition, studies have suggested that there are familial patterns in the presence of sadistic personality types. Specifically, people with Sadistic Personality Disorder often have relatives who have some type of psychopathology as well.[10][not in citation given]
Unfavorable experiences during childhood or in early stages of sexual development are believed[who?] to be one of the major contributing factors in the development of a sadistic personality in an individual. It has also been observed that sadism or a sadistic personality can also develop in an individual through conditioning. For instance, continual connection of a particular stimulus with sexual enjoyment or of happiness with the anguish of others can cause sadism or sadomasochism.

DSM-III-R Criteria for sadistic personality disorder
A) A pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:

1. Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him or her)
2. Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others
3. Has treated or disciplined someone under his or her control unusually harshly (e.g., a child, student, prisoner, or patient)
4. Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals)
5. Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal)
6. Gets other people to do what he or she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror)
7. Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has close relationship (e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions)
8. Is fascinated by violence, weapons, martial arts, injury, or torture

B) The behavior in A has not been directed toward only one person (e.g., spouse, one child) and has not been solely for the purpose of sexual arousal (as in sexual sadism).

Removal from the DSM
Numerous theorists and clinicians introduced Sadistic Personality Disorder to the DSM in 1987 and it was placed in the DSM-III-R as a way to facilitate further systematic clinical study and research. It was proposed to be included because of adults who possessed sadistic personality traits but were not being labeled, even though their victims were being labeled with a self-defeating personality disorder. There were many concerns regarding confusion about which diagnoses were approved for clinical practice and which were not. SPD was removed from the DSM-IV because there have been so few studies of it, since not many people have sought treatment.[citation needed] For the most part, SPD is found in certain groups of people like sexual offenders and serial killers, so it is not considered a helpful diagnosis.[citation needed] Theorists like Theodore Millon wanted to generate further study on SPD, and so proposed it to the DSM-IV Personality Disorder Work Group, who rejected it.[12] Since it was not included in the DSM-IV or DSM-5, it has been said that dimensional models of sadism might be more appropriate than SPD.
Sexual sadism disorder is considered a paraphilia and is listed as such in DSM-5. It is defined as “recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.”

Millon’s subtypes
Theodore Millon identified four subtypes of sadists. Any individual sadist may exhibit none, one, or more than one of the following:

Explosive sadist (borderline features)
This type of sadistic personality is known for being unpredictably violent because they are disappointed and/or frustrated with their lives. When they are feeling humiliated or hopeless, they lose control and seek revenge for the mistreatment and deprecation to which they feel subjected. These violent behaviors are revealed through tantrums, fearsome attacks on others, especially family members, and uncontrollable rage. Generally, explosive sadists will suddenly feel threatened in a certain situation and shock others with their abrupt changes. Explosive sadists do not “move about in a surly and truculent manner,” so it is impossible to know when or what will set them off. While the violence that is released is almost always directed at someone, it mainly serves as an emotional release and a way to get out all the feelings they are holding inside themselves. This subtype resembles intermittent explosive disorder.

Tyrannical sadist (negativistic features)
Tyrannical sadists are among the more frightening and cruel of the subtypes by appearing to relish menacing and brutalizing others; forcing their victims to cower and submit seems to provide them with a special sense of satisfaction.  This subtype of SPD somewhat resembles the explosive sadist but more methodically use violence to terrorize and intimidate rather than release their frustration.  Moreover, tyrannical sadists very carefully select their victims, ensuring that their choice will not resist, and they generally have low self-esteem and insecurities that they hide from others; by overwhelming others they can feel superior to them.

Enforcing sadist (compulsive features)
Enforcing sadists can be found among military sergeants, teachers, deans of universities, physicians, prison overseers, police officers or other authoritative functions because they are in a position where they feel they should be the ones controlling and punishing people who have broken rules, regulations, or laws. Though they believe themselves to act in the common interest, they have deeper motives: these sadists generally seek rule-breakers in their domain of authority–or in society in general–and exercise the most severe punishments. Enforcing sadists who are police or prison staff are rarely perceived to be unjust and therefore have great freedom to dominate, victimize, or destroy others at will. Their personalities cannot appropriately respond to the emotions that drive their sadistically vicious behaviors. As these sadists dominate and punish others, so increases satisfaction and power they feel, reinforcing their self-perception of righteousness and increasing their ego. This intoxication can unleash their behavior and blind them to reality, usually without attracting any negative attention because they act within their legal authority to exert power and normally behave in everyday situations.

Spineless sadist (avoidant features)
Spineless sadists are opposite the other three by being deeply insecure and acting like cowards. They anticipate real danger, projecting their hostile fantasies, and they strike first, hoping thereby to forestall their antagonist and ask questions later. While these sadists are fearful of many things, when they experience panic they will counteract their enemies by doing the things that they fear. Spineless sadists use aggressive hostility to send the message to others that they aren’t intimidated or fearful, thus allowing themselves to control their inner feelings and help display the opposite. Their behavior can be counterphobic, allowing them to master their fears, but serves to divert and impress others with a false sense of confidence and self-assurance. Spineless sadists also seek out scapegoats to gang up on, enabling themselves to assault what they want to deny in themselves.

Subclinical sadism in personality psychology
There is renewed interest in studying sadism as a non-disordered personality trait. Everyday sadism joins with subclinical psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism to form the so-called “Dark Tetrad” of personality.

See also

• Antisocial personality disorder
• Evil Genes
• Malignant narcissism
• Sadism and masochism
• Sadism and masochism as medical terms
• Self-defeating personality disorder (Masochistic personality disorder)
• Psychopathy
• Zoosadism

See references on web page.

depopulate |dēˈpäpyəˌlāt|
verb [ trans. ]
substantially reduce the population of (an area) : the disease could depopulate a city the size of New Haven.
DERIVATIVES
depopulation |-ˌpäpyəˈlā sh ən| noun
ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (in the sense [ravage, lay waste] ): from Latin depopulat- ‘ravaged,’ from the verb depopulari, from de- ‘completely’ + populari ‘lay waste’ (from populus ‘people’ ).

arrogant |ˈarəgənt|
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities : he’s arrogant and opinionated | a typically arrogant assumption.
DERIVATIVES
arrogance noun
arrogantly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : via Old French from Latin arrogant- ‘claiming for oneself,’ from the verb arrogare (see arrogate ).

arrogate |ˈarəˌgāt|
verb [ trans. ]
take or claim (something) for oneself without justification : they arrogate to themselves the ability to divine the nation’s true interests.
DERIVATIVES
arrogation |ˌarəˈgā sh ən| noun
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin arrogat- ‘claimed for oneself,’ from the verb arrogare, from ad- ‘to’ + rogare ‘ask.’

conspiracy theory
noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

How did the term “conspiracy theory” enter our world?

DeHaven-Smith (The Hidden Teachings of Jesus) offers an intriguing take on the origins and implications of conspiracy theories and the paranoid mindset itself in this accessible academic study. The author, a professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University, provocatively argues that conspiracy theories, far from being merely the stuff of outlier fantasy, have played a major role in the formation of U.S. history… DeHaven-Smith shows that it was in the aftermath of the killing that the phrase “conspiracy theory” entered American parlance, a phenomenon he chalks up to government efforts to discredit skeptics of the Warren Commission’s findings (which scheme he dubs “the Conspiracy-Theory Conspiracy”).

Read more at Nonfiction Book Review: Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith. Univ. of Texas, $20 (204p) ISBN 978-0-292-74379-3.

What is a “targeted individual”? Here’s a short story that might explain a little. It’s a little whimsical, but right on the mark if you are at the receiving end of such treatment. There are many patents for microwave and other weapons of harassment. They call them “non-lethal” weapons, but they can damage or destroy the person’s heart, immune system, eyesight, and so on. And over time, they inevitably destroy the quality of life, peace of mind, and affect the ability to work and have healthy, happy relationships.

Who assumes a right to mess with other people’s minds, and bodies? Isn’t that sleezy?

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.
Continue reading Targeted individual (TI) →