Monstrous, evil, psychopathic — from Lovefraud: “Undercover British cops deceived women they spied on into relationships”, plus POST REDUX: Psychopathic policing — any end justifies any means

“Here’s a whole new twist on relationship fraud — police chiefs in the U.K. have admitted that undercover cops engaged in “abusive and manipulative” relationships with women involved in political organizations that they were assigned to spy on.”  http://www.lovefraud.com/2016/03/18/undercover-british-cops-deceived-women-they-spied-on-into-relationships/

POST REDUX:  Title:  psychopathic policing — any end justifies any means.  Subtitle: why do non-psychopaths officers obey psychopathic superiors?

“‘Undercover lays bare the deceit, betrayal and cold-blooded violation practised again and again by undercover police officers – troubling, timely and brilliantly executed.’ Henry Porter   . . .

The testimony of person after person who was taken in, deceived, gulled, who knew the officers for years – who thought of them as best friends, or lovers, or life partners, or the father of their children, who had no inkling that they were part of an elaborate state-sponsored spy-ring that intruded on the most intimate parts of their lives.'” (Carole Cadwalladr, Observer)

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780571302178&INTCMP=mic_3052&guni=Article:content-related%20Undercover%20book:microapp%20static:Undercover%20books%20component

“What set the SDS [Special Demonstration Squad] apart was their core tactic: living the life of a protester. SDS operatives gave up their warrant cards (their police identity), changed their names, grew their hair, changed their appearances and sought to establish personal relationships with their targets. While many of us might accept that some level of subterfuge is necessary where the policing of very serious criminal activity is concerned, there is little in the Guardian journalists’ account of their activities to strike readers as even close to acceptable.

The nature and consequences of the deceptions perpetrated are truly frightening. Indeed, theSDS’s informal motto –- “By Any Means Necessary” -– seems all too close to the truth. Staggeringly, it seems to have been tacitly understood that undercover officers (usually male) should target female protesters and form close personal relationships with them. These relationships were by no means casual, in many cases becoming sufficiently serious and long-standing for the officer effectively to become the partner of the person concerned. As such, these were no ordinary betrayals; they were, as one of the women pithily put it, “about a fictional character who was created by the state and funded by taxpayers’ money”. Worse still, and at their most extreme, these relationships led to children being born.

The officers not only deceived the women they formed relationships with, but also went as far as to father children that they knew they would have to abandon when, eventually, they were required to return to other duties. In many cases there were two sets of women (and their children) being deceived at the same time: the activist and the agent’s existing wife or partner. Can anyone in the police service seriously have thought this was justifiable?  . . .

The human cost, too, was enormous, primarily falling on the women and children who found themselves caught up in these deceptions. But many officers paid a significant price too. Quite a number appear to have experienced significant mental health problems as a result of attempting to live two separate, but very different lives over many years.”

http://nsnbc.me/2014/01/27/shocking-immoral-behaviour-british-secret-police/

Where were the civilian authorities?  Where were the politician bosses?  This is rape but beyond rape, mind rape but beyond mind rape, it’s rape of a life.  The women thought they had found partners, husbands, love families — they thought they had found a life.  This kind of betrayal, deceit is acceptable in a democracy, in a country of laws?  Acceptable by normal, decent people?  Obviously not.

Of course, the non-psychopathic officers destroyed themselves psychologically.  There is no way they could handle that kind of guilt.  But why did they obey?

When it is said that full expression psychopaths are conscienceless and guiltless it isn’t hyperbole.  It is absolute – other humans are less than ants to them.  The  psychopathic commanders and officers described above should not be considered human and should be warehoused in mental hospitals for the remainder of their lives.

https://pathwhisperer.info/2014/01/30/title-psychopathic-policing-any-end-justifies-any-means-subtitle-why-do-non-psychopaths-obey-psychopathic-superiorsorders/

“Ahmed Chalabi dies — the con man who helped push the U.S. into Iraq”

From Lovefraud (http://www.lovefraud.com/2015/11/06/ahmed-chalabi-dies-the-con-man-who-helped-push-the-u-s-into-iraq/):

“I [LF’s Donna Anderson] remember thinking back in 2004, as I was learning about psychopaths, that an Iraqi politician named Ahmed Chalabi fit the profile.

Chalabi was charming, smart and persuasive. He was connected to top officials in the administration of President George W. Bush. Chalabi provided the “intelligence” that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, which was the public justification for the United States invasion of Iraq.

Well, he lied. No WMDs were found.

By 2004, it became apparent that Chalabi had manipulated America get what he wanted — the war. But Chalabi did not apologize. He said that the ends — removing Saddam Hussein from power — justified the means.

My psychopathic ex-husband used to say that: “The ends justifies the means.”

Ahmed Chalabi died of a heart attack last week.

In the meantime, 4,493 Americans were killed in Iraq, and thousands more wounded. Estimates of civilian war deaths generally range between 100,000 and 200,000.

Maybe, if government officials knew how to recognize a psychopath, none of this would have happened.”  http://www.lovefraud.com/2015/11/06/ahmed-chalabi-dies-the-con-man-who-helped-push-the-u-s-into-iraq/

I agree on Chalabi.  Absolutely, no doubt at all.  ‘The ends justify the means’ — mantra of the psychopathic, mantra of the psychopath wannabes, mantra of the evil.

“Oh there were definitely signs, and the problem was I didn’t know what they meant” — Marriage Fraud: How One Woman Discovered Her Husband Was A Conman

Below is the comment I posted at Donna Anderson’s above titled Huffingtonpost article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/marriage-fraud_n_3991732.html):

Everyone should know about the possibility of sociopathic romantic partners from age 15 on. The failure of “experts” to warn of this possibility is outrageous. She said she saw the signs but didn’t know what they meant. Nobody had ever taught her. Similarly every reader of this has known sociopaths (how many groups of twenty have you known?) and has even noticed the signs (conning ability, complete lack of morals, pity plays, arrogance, sometimes oddities, etc.) but didn’t know their meaning. Concerning some of the criticisms below, I’m sure that she knows full well that sociopathy is not a charge of convenience for an unhappy relationship and that she would agree that there is “no one easier to deceive, than one who wants to believe.” The latter is the coin of the realm for sociopaths. She and Lovefraud are trying to teach others to take care of themselves. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/pathwhisperer/marriage-fraud_n_3991732_288452584.html

“The psychopathic personality and human evolution” and why can’t women recognize psychopaths

“Dr. Robert Hare, who did seminal work in identifying psychopaths, refers to them as intraspecies predators.” This prompted questions from a Lovefraud reader who asked,

  • If psychopaths are indeed natural predators (by implication, their design is part of nature’s plan to maintain some balance) then would we ever be able to weed them out of society?
  • Do they have a purpose in the natural order of things?

In this article, I’m going to address the second question. Then, next week, I’ll suggest an answer to the first question.

I don’t know about a purpose, but there are researchers who believe psychopaths are around us today because they survived the natural selection process of human evolution.

These researchers call psychopathy “a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy.” This theory is outlined in Coercive and Precocious Sexuality as a Fundamental Aspect of Psychopathy, a paper published in 2007 by Grant T. Harris, PhD; Marnie E. Rice, PhD; N. Zoe Hilton, PhD; Martin L. Lalumiere, PhD; and Vernon L. Quinsey, PhD.”

http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2010/01/18/the-psychopathic-personality-and-human-evolution/

This article was written by Donna Anderson at  Lovefraud Blog.  The comment I posted is below.

I think it’s worth looking at other species. Another phrase with the same meaning as ‘intraspecies predator’ is biological ‘cheater strategist’.

Some spadefoot toad tadpoles become cannibals while the rest eat the normal algae (http://www.centre.edu/web/news…..storz.html). If there is enough food and the water doesn’t dry up (which is the norm) the normals keep their numbers up and things are more or less in balance. If the ponds dry too quickly then the faster growing cannibals are much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. If the proportion tips in favor of the cannibals they eventually have to turn on themselves and the population crashes. In the rebuild, the normals again come to the fore. Rinse. Repeat.

Spadefoot normal and cannibal tadpoles

Imo, the achilles tendon of psychopaths is parenting. Being in a state of arrested development themselves and pathologically ego-driven, they are incapable of nurturing healthy children.

On a side note, there is also a question of the evolutionary relationship between normals and psychopaths. Specifically there seems to be a biological prohibition that keeps normal human females from recognizing psychopaths. It’s a defect that might as well be invisible to them (in the majority, imo). Why would this be?

I used to think that psychopaths simply had the “evolutionary jump” on normal women, in the same way that introduced predators have on island animals that have never experienced predation. Forgive this example, but the most well known instance of this is probably the flightless pigeon, the dodo, that sailors could just walk over to and hit on the head. In this scenario human females would simply not have evolved a response quickly enough.

However what does evolution “want?” Evolution simply passes on genetic traits that produce greater number of offspring that survive to maturity and reproduce themselves. So evolution “wouldn’t care” (“want” and “wouldn’t care” are simply shorthand ways of speaking) if the father was a normal or a psychopath. If a psychopathic child grew up and murdered their mother, if it was past the mother’s childbearing years, then this would be of “no concern” to evolution. In evolutionary terms, the passing on of one’s genes, that mother would still be an evolutionary “winner.”

In otherwords I’m now inclined to believe that normal women have an evolved blindness to male psychopathy. When I first read Cleckley’s Mask of Sanity I found it very hard to believe the stories of normal female/psychopathic male interactions. However the sheer number wore me down and then I started seeing examples in real life (actually I had often seen real examples but now I could recognize them for what they were).

So where does this leave us? I dunno . . . .

I’m bringing in the two comments below to expand the main idea:

durr

A leeetle angry at the ladies, eh?

pathwhisperer

That’s not the way I look at it. Have you ever read “Mask of Sanity” or witnessed/experienced a female devotee’s devotion to a male psychopath? “Devotee” is a description I proudly claim originator of, in this context. (Obviously there are male devotees also, but I believe they’re relatively rarer and qualitatively different.) There comes a point where there is nothing a female devotee can’t explain away, nothing about the beloved psychopath that the devotee can’t translate into acceptableness. Challenger: “You don’t know his last name.” “You don’t know his first name.” “You don’t know where he lives.” “You don’t have his phone number.” “Did you know he spent time in prison and/or a mental hospital?” “He derides you in public, saying he’s only playing you.” Devotee: “Oh yes, he explained that all to me. And the last, why that’s just locker-room tough talk.” Challenger: “OK, maybe I was wrong, please share and enlighten me.” Devotee: “Oh no, he requested my confidentiality.” Challenger: “Ahhhhhhh! . . . But, . . he throws passes at all of your friends!” Devotee: “That mad impetuous boy, he doesn’t know what he wants. I’m the one he needs, the only one who understands him!” Challenger (the long defeated challenger): “He has no more feelings for you than an alien reptilian shapeshifter illusionist!” Devotee: “Oh pshaw, you don’t think a mother knows her little defiant two year old!!!” Not those words exactly of course, but the impluse, the intensity, the root cause is identical. The “hook” of the male sociopath is triggering aspects of the mothering instinct.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine