Thursday, 11 March 2010

Guest post by Hangemall.

This is a guest post by Hangemall. Too long for the comment box so I said I'd put it up here.

Unedited, naturally.


This was originally going to be a reply to one of Leg-Iron's commenters on his post "Smoky drinky, non-anecdotal for the CAMRA linker." 8 March 2010 00:23.

The original was too large for the reply system and Leg-Iron said I could submit it to him and he would put it up as a post. I am giving him permission to cut/edit/ignore it as he wishes. But you won't notice if he ignores it. Here goes............

@anon 19:58

"....Think about it – when was the last time you last struck up, and got involved in, a world-righting conversation with someone you hadn’t arrived with, in a restaurant or in Starbucks? Exactly....."

....but be careful whom you talk to in these restaurants etc. Especially strangers. I will tell you a little story.

About five years ago I began to search the internet for something other than porn and other "obvious" stuff. I wanted to know what was going on around the world. I wasn't particularly particularly politically "savvy" until about that time.

Of course, there are plenty of obvious sites/blogs in the USA and I read a few of these and discarded most of those as uninteresting/illiterate/mad etc, as one does.

One of the few that caught my eye was one that was dealing with 9/11 at that time, by a chap called winterpatriot. I liked his style of writing and thought that he might get in touch with another US blog I was following at the time.

Later, WP wanted to start a campaign involving leaflets in supermarkets/shops etc. for people to pick up and read (still concerning 9/11 as I remember.) I emailed him several times advising him on such things as how a file would print out/look if you simply click "print page" in Internet Explorer and such things.

So far, so naive.

It was probably just after this that I was propping up the bar in my local one night when some red-haired bloke , lets call him Mr Jinks, a stranger to me, started talking to me. He was dressed in an olive/green military style jacket. He also looked/acted pissed.

Now, I'm not the most loquatious of people but he still kept talking to me, much against my natural inclination, and the topic turned to politics. At the time, I had not felt so zonked on a couple of pints in my life, or at least not since my earliest boozing days. The conversation ended with me telling me about my anger that our troops abroad had been robbed of the vote at the recent election. He clapped his hand on my shoulder in a friendly/comradely fashion and went to the chippie across the road. A few minutes later he returned and picked up his mobile and newspaper and left again. I had been glancing at them and at the bloke behind the bar ("another" ex soldier, who seemed highly amused) wondering if he knew who they belonged to.

Fast forward to the summer-ish of 2008. I was in the beer garden of another local pub with a friend who had been in various (musical) bands in the 60's. He had asked me to get all the info I could, via the internet, on three cities in Germany he had played in while on tour. (This Googling and Google-Earthing for him had been going on for a while.) I also had a German girl friend of 20-odd years at the time and I used to enjoy looking up the places we used to visit, especially her family.

Anyway, we were nattering away and this bloke, let's call him Mr Jinks2, turns up, asking for a light, or if we could spare a fag, or something, sitting himself down at our bench "pissed" "again" and dressed in similar fashion to Mr Jinks1. He said he was from the same area of town as Mr Jinks1 had told me. J2 also managed to get the topic of conversation around to politics, but after J1 I had become a little more circumspect and had made bloody sure I told him that my friend had asked me to get these Google Earth pics etc. I had to leave early-ish for another place but J2 made some remark about some conspiracy theory type thing (I forget what) and I remarked "or the banks." He gave me a funny look as I left. I was right, though, wasn't I? The financial crisis happened a couple of weeks afterwards. I wonder if he moved his portfolio into seashells and coloured beads on my prophecy. Bless you my son.


Call me paranoid if you like, but I think it's long odds against these two being coincidences, although possible. I'm still keeping my mind open, though.

If it's not coincidence, my emails and surfing must have been monitored. They probably know what sort of porn I like. I hope they enjoy it too. (Stuff with sex under water is quite good. At least some of the participants look as though they are having fun, unlike the bored-looking "Oh yeah, oh year" -ers you get in other types.)

If it's not coincidence, where did these two men come from? Why were they "pissed?" Did they pretend to be pissed to encourage me to talk to them? Did they actually get pissed because they couldn't fake it but could still retain a necessary amount of faculties? Were they permanent pissheads because they were once in the armed forces and and were now mental wrecks because because of what they had seen or done? Were they pissed because they were still in the armed forces or other "service" and because of what they might do if I gave the wrong answers?

Morale is the will to keep doing what you believe to be right under difficult circumstances. I you have to get drunk before you can bring yourself to do something, then you shouldn't be doing it. You really will end up as a mental wreck if you continue. Whether you have to get drunk or otherwise zonked or not you will either haunted by remorse or will justify to yourself what you are doing and force yourself, against those little feelings in the back of your mind, to continue. Of course, these feelings never go away and you have to force yourself even harder to continue and your behaviour will become more extreme.

(I am excluding outright psychopaths who have no feelings towards others. I am thinking here of Amos Gunsberg and his article on humanoids, which I have mentioned in comments on other blogs. If you google "gunsberg humanoids" (without the quotes) you will find a couple of hundred hits. here's one picked in a random-ish fashion.)

Extreme behaviour in the sense mentioned in two paragraphs above is a sign of a lack of morale. You can see it in the behaviour of troughing politicians and also bankers giving themselves huge bonuses for being utterly useless. They are de-morale-ised. They are ignoring those little feelings. Of course, some of these politicians, bankers, etc are humanoids in Gunsbergs sense and have no feelings to others at all.

I don't doubt that higher proportions of humanoids exists the higher in a hierarchy one goes, since they will have fewer scruples about getting there than a human being does. The demoralised forget their scruples and do what their masters tell them to do. The whole country is becoming de-morale-ised / de-moral-ised. I'm also guilty in some senses, but these days I try not to tell others how to live their lives, so long as what they do dosn't affect me. I try to improve myself a bit here, a bit there.

Gunsberg hopes for a scanner that will detect the humanoids but if one ever could be designed it would never see the light of day under any government elected by the present system. Nor would the inventor after he'd anounced the discovery. Or even before, if he left his notes lying around on his hard drive, or on the net or other obvios "physical" places. I've said enough, or too much.

I'm going to grab a bite to eat then see if my local is bulging at the seams with non-smokers.


banned said...

Interesting but there must be an awful lot of CIA/FBI/NORAD/MI5-6/FEMA/NSA Mr Jinks's out there to be following up all internet conspiracy theorists.

Anonymous said...

I read an article along these lines (the Humanoid bit) a while back – by someone else, not Gunsberg, but making very similar points. In it the writer claimed that something like 25% of the human population each year are born without one important gene in their make-up, which is the gene that gives the rest of us our conscience and compassion and kindness – i.e. as psychopaths. This isn’t to say that 25% of the current population are axe-wielding mass murderers, but it is to say that 25% of the current population could, without so much as a second thought, become axe-wielding mass murders if it happened to suit their purposes. The reason why most of them currently aren’t axe-wielding mass murderers is simply that at the moment that course of action doesn’t suit their present purposes and because they know - but only in a matter-of-fact sort of way - that it would most likely be counter-productive in the long run because they’d eventually get caught and slung in jail. So they don’t bother with it.

Apart from the genetic bit, which Gunsberg doesn’t mention (perhaps he doesn’t support that theory) the rest of it was almost identical in the sense of explaining how these people conceal their inner inhumanity and fight, back-stab and smear their way to top positions in society where they can control the rest of us, whom they regard as inferior plebs. Much easier, and safer, than becoming an axe-wielding mass murderer! So maybe there is a “scanning system” out there – genetic testing. Which might go a long way towards explaining why they are so keen to get us all on the DNA database, but throw up their hands in horror when there’s any suggestion that their own DNA should be included.

Personally, I’d need a bit more verification from someone who knows a darned sight more about genetics than I do to be certain of this theory. Got any expertise in this area, Leg-Iron?? But certainly the article’s description of the way these people act made a whole lot of sense in a world in which sense is usually sadly lacking.

Incidentally, in my Big Book of Words about abnormal psychology, there is in fact no actual definition of a “Psychopath,” but there is a definition – not as yet officially accepted by the mental health authorities – of a “Psychopathic Personality Disorder” which pretty much describes the characteristics of all the major world leaders (and their cohorts) to a tee.


Anonymous said...

Technology is our enemy as well as our friend. And the internet is the Establishment's best fried at the moment.

Mass confusion is one part of the plan. Make the masses fight amongst themselves regarding UFOs, 9/11 and pixies in the garden, all the while, the Powers that Be work away at the grander plan.

Oh well, humanity is just too smart for its own good.

RantinRab said...

Talking of psychos, I was the only one at work to get the 'correct' answer to this...

make of that what you will...

Leg-iron said...

banned - it wouldn't need many, or indeed any of the actual staff of those organisations. There are plenty of wannabe Stasi around these days.

Anon - it's a common mindset but I don't know how the genetics works. It's a spectrum too, some are extreme, some hardly noticeable without serious psychological testing and most somewhere in between

Most people are, deep down, capable of killing. If they weren't we'd never have wars.

Leg-iron said...

humanity is just too smart for its own good

Unfortunately the smart ones aren't in charge.

Leg-iron said...

Rab - someone tried that on me in a pub once. I did get the correct answer but worked out what it meant, so told them I had no idea.

Make of that what you will.

Anonymous said...

So true.

Although I confess to a failure to understand this:

I don't doubt that higher proportions of humanoids exists the higher in a hierarchy one goes, since they will have fewer scruples about getting there than a human being does

hangemall said...

banned, my thinking is similar to L-I's on this.

anon 23:57, my recollection of the figure of psychopaths in the population is four percent, which one in 25. This "feels" like a more reasonable proportion.

Fausty, I'll try to put it a different way. Say your name is Saint Tone of Mammon and you are a young politician-the-make, and you have zero conscience. You want to make it to the top. You would have no qualms about smearing, spinning against, and generally back-stabbing those who stand in your way. Other factors being equal, those "candidates" for the jobs you want, and who would never use underhand tactics, would be at a severe disadvantage.

"Honest" politicians would get filtered out earlier on in the race to the top, unless they had some outstanding "other" talent.

Or should that be some outstanding other "talent."

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 23:57

Very interesting post.

But you lost me when you said "explaining how these people"

I assume that you exclude yourself, and I ask why?

What is your agenda?

I worry about your motives in posting, as I'm sure many will.

Explain, please?

hangemall said...

I've done a bit more digging into my "records" and memory and have come up with the following.

A book by Andrew M. Lobczewski called political ponerology deals with this (pychopathic politicians) as its subject. A longish review of it can be found here (

There is also a 2.5 minute video on Youtube which acts as a sort of intro to the book here if the link works, otherwise.

This might be what anon 23:57 is thinking of.

Further thought (just going through the possibilities you understand,) brings to mind the possibility that all the talk about DNA and other testing might be looking towards the following.

That any naughty rulers might not only be looking for elements in society that are undesirable (to them) but could also be looking for potential recruits. How about that, then?

I believe that the potential for harm is much greater than than any potential benefits. Think of a society where selected "breeding", or "potential for introductions," accelerates the growth of humanoids/psychopaths at the top (and their willing helpers.)

How many generations would it take before "a significant proportion" (I've no idea what it might be) of the population are involved in so much factional infighting/backstabbing or even (civil) war that country/world would be a scene of utter chaos.

With sane heads being squeezed out of the higher poitions and being lower in proportion than they are today in the general population, would there be anyone who could stop the chaos? Strong dictators do not live forever.

Anyway, this is just a scenario. Let us be tolerant and allow others their minor faults. (Still looking back to "Smoky drinky, non-anecdotal for the CAMRA linker." which started all this.)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the refinement, hangemall - although it's clear that you message is encrypted!

hangemall said...


Anonymous said...


I was going to explain my reasoning for “the explaining why ….” bit, but I see that Hangemall has done it already, better than I could. So thank you, Hangemall.

Re your second point, yes, I guess I was excluding myself because I don’t think I’m a psychopath (as described in the article I read) with no conscience – guilt pangs me when I think I might have hurt someone’s feelings, there are certain things which I wouldn’t do or haven’t done to achieve something which might be personally beneficial to me because I think it would involve a “wrong” towards others, and I get genuinely angry and upset at unfair situations which affect other people but have absolutely no effect on me whatsoever – and from that I’m assuming that I do have a conscience and thus can’t be a psychopath. But, and as Leg-Iron points out above, there may well be degrees of psychopathology to a greater or lesser extent in many, if not all, people, so I take your point. As I said, I’m not an absolute convert to this “theory.” So who knows? Maybe there’s a bit of the lurking psycho in me, too. Oh dear! That’s rather a scary thought, actually!

And my agenda/motives for posting? Crumbs! I didn’t really think I had a particular motive, other than that I thought it might be interesting for people who’d been interested in Hangemall’s original post, because it was so similar but with a slightly different slant. And I guess, because it’s been a theory which has intrigued me for a while I thought that perhaps Hangmall, or Leg-Iron, or anyone else reading the post who might have considerably greater knowledge of these things than me, might be able to confirm or deny it. I’m really sorry if it worried you (or indeed anyone else), because it certainly wasn’t meant to. In fact, there was so little of a “hidden agenda” in posting it that even now I’m thinking about it I can’t imagine what one might be! I’m sure plenty of people do post on places like this with hidden agendas, but I guess I’m too much of a “bull in a china shop” merchant (too much so, sometimes!) to be very good at the “hidden” and subtle stuff.

And yes, Hangemall, 1 in 25 does feel like a much more accurate figure than 25%, now you come to mention it.

Cynarae said...

L-I Read anything writen by Philip Zimbardo? His The Lucifer Effect on the Stanford prison study is quite interesting reading.

opinions powered by