Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Hillary Being Trained To Mimic Humanoids

She is progressing rapidly learning how to use her face appropriately when outdoors.



Russell (106) said...

Your campaign is a failure when you need to convince your base that you are human.

styrac1 said...

(not the Onion)

Sam said...

I've noticed that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary have the same open your eyes wide expression. Like surprise. They use this expression when they are showing Joy??? Example: They come onto a stag or arrive at a press conference.

Here's a picture of Pelosi.

A couple of Hillary

I can't guarantee it but I've come to believe that this is something psychopaths do. Exaggerated facial expressions. They don't have the emotions so they fake it. I think smiling is difficult for them. Something about being empathetic changes the way smiles operate on the facial structure and since (Psychopath/Sociopath=Spath)Spaths don't have it, it's difficult for them.

I believe an empathetic person uses their whole face to smile. The Spaths have to fake this with raised eyebrows because it's difficult to control all the facial muscles at once there's so many of them. I think it's even more difficult for Female Spaths than for Male Spaths as the Males are not culturally expected to show as much emotion and I believe that most Women show more emotion in their faces.

Bill is definitely a Spath. It would make sense that Hillary was too. This would account for her intense training regime to "appear" human. Cause she's not. I don't consider psychopaths human. They're like really smart lizards.

I have an idea of why Empires fall. Over time a lot of people move to the Empire crowding out all the people who made it's success possible. The worst of these,the psychopaths, eventually work their way to the top. They do so because they are so ruthless and focused that it's difficult to stop them. After they take control they promote people incompetent so they will look good and so that there will be no challenges to their rule. There's a few well known examples of this, Tiberius, Caligula and Alcibiades.

Alcibiades was the key to the fall of Athens. He's the one that talked them into taking Syracuse. A disaster. Look what Plutarch said about him,

"...He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby assuming more violent changes than the chameleon. That animal, however, as it is said, is utterly unable to assume one colour, namely, white; but Alcibiades could associate with good and bad alike, and found naught that he could not imitate and practice. 5 In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for p65 luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. It was not that he could so easily pass entirely from one manner of man to another, nor that he actually underwent in every case a change in his real character; but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them..."

Ave said...

Extremely interesting insight Sam. Your post triggered many ideas in my mind.

I would like to elaborate on this, but I'm still not over thinking about it.

I think the extra layer of management (« complexity ») that is added on an empire is where the problem lies. That layer of management requires elaborate minds that are seldom found in the population, even when factoring in the extensive education system that these societies can afford for their elites.

It is quite possible that a nucleus of three-four exceptionnal people were the real reason why that particular layer of management came into existence. It is often the case with companies (Apple, Apple II era for example)

Once these people leave, their replacement is not up tp task. Perhaps not by far, but given the size of the structure, errors multiply with exponential consequences.

These « chamelon » people would not have been tolerated by the founding nucleus, and we know this because their structure suceeded to exist (many projects are thwarted because of these toxic people, like the « Jeune Ecole » thoughts of military strategy was thwarted by a liberal journalist who infiltrated it at the top)

The inheriors of the system are not its creators. Often, the creators themselves know to make a system but not how to perpetuate its existence. Also, and very importantly, they are somewhat ingonrant of human nature, due to their protected upbrining, whereas the founders had more « interesting » formative years, and thus a deeper human experience (and also spiritual, but it is another debate).

Thus, the position at the top is not understood as « system maintenance » but at the lower-level equivalent, of 'king of the hill'. Empires are being run like kingdoms, of even like fiefdoms, with their petty courts and teenage drama. Steve Balmer is an example of why senior executives cannot run systems that require vision.

If the original design integrated resilience and fall-back positions, the empire might last for a very long time, allowing a class of degenerate inbreds to profit from it. Until one of the compoenents breaks down, or is eating by the termits in its structure (bloated bureaucracy etc.), and then nobody is even remotely able to know how to fix it.

This is the moment where the chameleon has to find another forest.

Fubar said...

The crazy, wild eyed, wide open mouth toothy "smile". It has always creeped me out, and is obviously fake, yet people gravitate to these goblin faced psychos.

Edward said...

Well that's the problem all over, which Plato etc already worked out. The only person qualified to fill the system maintenance role is the person least likely to want to climb their way to the top of the competitive ant hill.
But that's why you are supposed to have universities that teach philosophy, not as a way of getting into politics, but as a way of getting people to understand the full dynamics of the system they intend to manage. I've read a lot of that UnqalifiedReservations stuff and am starting to agree that hereditary 'rule' by the wise is the best solution. Not in an exploitative sense, but in the sense of knowing how to tweak things here and there to keep everything nicely in balance.

Edward said...

It's also worth looking at this Do No Harm - on Problem Solving and Design.
I happen to think Simon Funk is pretty awesome.