The Gaza Ghetto
January 12, 2009 
11 Comments
Only five congressmen voted their displeasure with Israel’s brutal attack on the Gaza Ghetto. How can you maintain the illusion that you live in a free country when your representatives have been bought by AIPAC? To put it in context, the carnage is equivalent to over one million casualties if it had happened here. “The percentage of Palestinian victims of Zionist terrorism over the past two weeks is proportionately one thousand times greater than the loss that Americans suffered in the 9-11 attacks!” Our congressmen, who would never, ever allow the creation of a Christian state or a White state, endorsed three times in their resolution the survival of Israel as a “Jewish state.”
Now a senior Vatican cardinal has called Gaza a “concentration camp.” Truth has always been the best way to anger a Jew.
Over at Doug Wilson’s Fun House of Smoke and Mirrors, the two lone voices of reason, Chris Witmer and Dave Hodges, are posting some very interesting facts. One can only wonder what was so bad about the Nazis when the former Sephardic chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu, says there is “absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings.” But remember, when Jews are victims, it is as though their persecutors have murdered the Messiah, because in reality they worship themselves. (“No one judges Israel!”exclaimed terrorist Shimon Peres when war crimes investigations were demanded after the Jenin massacre.)
The aforementioned rabbi of the Synagogue of Satan uses the slaughter of Shechem in Genesis 34 as justification for Palestinian genocide. I don’t see any better proof for why alliances with Jews are deadly. How much clearer could the double standard be? They call themselves White and pretend to uphold Western “values,” but they murder Palestinians, many of whom are Christians, like so many animals. Those of us who have actually read the Talmud are not surprised.
According to Jewish war ethics, wrote Eliyahu, an entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets.
This was precisely Hitler’s justification for expelling all Jews from his territory, just as almost every other nation in Christendom had done. And there is absolutely no debate that a great many Jews in the Weimar Republic, especially in Berlin, were engaged in dreadfully immoral and anti-social behavior, almost like what you see in Los Angeles today.
Eliyahu advocates “carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life.” And here is that ten-lives-for-the-price-of-one doctrine that we mentioned earlier; they are quite open about it. “If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand. And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.” Obviously, the reason we are not allowed to apply this Satanic doctrine of war against our enemies is because, as Christians, we must uphold the Just War doctrine. If we did not then we would exterminate the Jews for having murdered Jesus Christ, using the very same rationale that the anti-Christs apply to the Palestinians. As our people have left their Christian roots and treated anti-Christs as their equals, they have increasingly adopted Jewish ethics, such as pre-emptive war.
The “rockets” from Gaza have killed 12 Jews in the last eight or nine years. As Mike Tuggle asks, since far more than a dozen Americans have been killed by Mexican border-crossers in that time, would it be just to invade Mexico?
“Caterpillar Tractor makes a special bulldozer for Israel that is designed to knock down Palestinian homes and to uproot their orchards. In 2003 an American protester, Rachel Corrie, stood in front of one of these Caterpillars and was run over and crushed. Nothing happened. The Israelis can kill whomever they want whenever they want. They have been doing so for 60 years, and they show no sign of stopping.”
Ron Paul explains that Hamas was created by Israel to counteract Arafat. Now, having been elected democratically, the Jews and their American proxies are trying to destroy them. But whenever someone awakens from the Jew stupor and asks why we are propping up Israel, the reason given is always that Israel is a lone democracy in a sea of dictatorships – as though we worship the god Demos and seek to do his bidding wherever he may be found. Even when there aren’t free elections, Uncle Hymie has to stick his hook-nose where it doesn’t belong. The CIA funded Saddam Hussein to counteract Iran, but then Hussein had to take the fall for bin Laden. He went from shill to Hitler 2.0 in no time. Americans like these deadly war games because they’re kind of like football games. And if there is one thing that every team needs, it’s a mascot.
The American Empire has 20% of world GDP (on the way down) but 43% of world miltary spending. And Americans, living in one of the most geographically protected places on earth, see nothing wrong with this. They’ll have to learn the hard way.
“Last week, markets pegged the probability of a U.S. default at 6 percent over the next 10 years, compared with just 1 percent a year ago.”
I watched the last Meet the Press and heard all about how we need $2 trillion that we don’t have to spend our way out of peril. It was actually said that capitalism has met with certain failures, “and that’s why we have government,” to save capitalism through socialism (although the s-word was not actually uttered). Then—I kid you not—a panel of Blacks (including Bill Cosby and a weird-looking high yeller who is the mayor of D.C.) came on to say that what is being spent to educate Black kids in socialist schools (called public schools) is not nearly enough, and if we want to prevent them from being criminals and spending four times as much to incarcerate them, we need to squeeze hard and cough. Then Maxine Waters said it all comes down to parenting, and so the socialist schools need to hire social workers who can go to homes in the afternoons and find out how the kids are spending their time. I would love to know how we are going to pay for these new “educational” programs, seeing as how the first half of the show was all about how we don’t have any money. No one really wants to ask those questions right now – least of all the host, David Gregory – because Blacks are riding a wave of euphoria to the inauguration. Starry-eyed White liberals are dreaming of a new FDR and new public works programs.
The crazy things that Blacks believe. Proof has never been very important to those with low IQ and high superstition.
The props of White Supremacism:
[T]he fact that we all live in a global civilization constructed over the last half millennium by, overwhelmingly, the breakthroughs of white men is so massively obvious that it’s considered very bad taste to point it out. For his encyclopedic Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century, Peter Watson interviewed 150 scholars from around the world. Watson recounted that “all of them—there were no exceptions—said the same thing. In the 20th century, in the modern world, there were no non-western ideas of note.” As we all know, the reason we have Black History Month is precisely because every year is more or less White History Year. Similarly, we have Women’s Studies departments in universities because all the other departments are, in effect, Men’s Studies… This predominance of white innovations is so overwhelming that it explains what Stuff White People Like is actually about: white v. white status striving. One-half of the white population is constantly developing new fads (Sea salt! Adults playing kickball! Barack Obama!) to distinguish itself from the more traditional half of the white population. To the SWPL set, minorities are merely props to use in demonstrating their superiority over non-SWPL whites (who might actually be closer to blacks on an individual basis due to emotional bonding on football teams or in the military).”
, Peter Watson interviewed 150 scholars from around the world. Watson recounted that “all of them—there were no exceptions—said the same thing. In the 20th century, in the modern world, there were no non-western ideas of note.” As we all know, the reason we have Black History Month is precisely because every year is more or less White History Year. Similarly, we have Women’s Studies departments in universities because all the other departments are, in effect, Men’s Studies… This predominance of white innovations is so overwhelming that it explains what Stuff White People Like is actually about: white v. white status striving. One-half of the white population is constantly developing new fads (Sea salt! Adults playing kickball! Barack Obama!) to distinguish itself from the more traditional half of the white population. To the SWPL set, minorities are merely props to use in demonstrating their superiority over non-SWPL whites (who might actually be closer to blacks on an individual basis due to emotional bonding on football teams or in the military).”Affirmative Action is a perfect example of this supremacist proppery, writes Sailer.
The racial order of the 40 years of the affirmative action era has been based on the quantitative assumption that government providing special privileges to minorities will not prove too onerous on the majority because, after all, they’re just minorities, so the total impact on the average member of the majority is small. Under this affirmative action system, minorities are encouraged to band together to agitate for more privileges, while the majority is discouraged from coming together to resist.
This is quite profound, and it has everything to do with why Whites who encourage assimilation of minorities can never imagine themselves as doing the assimilating. It is easy for these White liberals to live with double standards and reverse discrimination like Affirmative Action because they know that Whites are supreme. As Sailer says, they know very well, and would probably admit candidly, that Blacks and Mestizos could never support a White underclass, if the roles were reversed.
How to destroy your people in ten easy steps.
The great William Jennings Bryan, whom legions of Christians have revered for winning the Scopes Monkey Trial, was… oh, I hate to break it to the Babelists… a Kinist.
I was born a member of the greatest of all the races – the Caucasian Race, and had mingled in my veins the blood of English, Irish, and Scotch. One has only to consider the limitations upon one’s opportunities imposed by race to understand the incalculable benefit of having the way opened between the child and the stars.
I was born a citizen of the greatest of all lands. So far as my power to prevent was concerned, I might have been born in the darkest of the continents and among the most backward of earth’s peoples. It was a gift of priceless value to see the light in beloved America, and to live under the greatest of the republics of history.
And I was equally fortunate, I shall show, in my family environment. [My ancestors] were honest, industrious, Christian, moral, religious people – not a black sheep in the flock… The environment in which my youth was spent was as ideal as any that I know.
Auster writes: “Back then, whites—including the most prominent and respected men of America—spoke naturally and without embarrassment of their identification with and pride in the white race.” That was before they were trained to hate themselves and murder their own children in the crib. (Yes, that is exactly what Babelist Christians have done.)
In the very same year these words were written (1925), President Calvin Coolidge said this in his inaugural address:
It would be well if we could replace much that is only a false and ignorant prejudice with a true and enlightened pride of race.
And I like what Auster says about this: “While we may differ on where we draw the line, he who denies that there is a line is not a civilized man but a barbarian.” Like the babbling idiot standing in the pulpit of your church.
C.S. Lewis was another “racist.” In The Horse and His Boy (which may never be made into a movie now that people finally realize that the Witch and Caspian movies are crap), the two who haggle over Shasta affirm that “Natural affection is stronger than soup and offspring more precious than carbuncles.” The lie that Arshish has natural affections for his “son” is obvious to the nobleman who rescues Shasta from slavery, and all because of race. “This boy is manifestly no son of yours, for your cheek is as dark as mine but the boy is fair and white like the accursed but beautiful barbarians who inhabit the remote North.” There’s that inescapable White standard of beauty again. The word “accursed” is removed from Lewis’s text in Brian Sibley’s dramatization of the story, to keep from offending Muslims, and nothing is said about “father” and “son” being of different skin color. Perhaps the Commission on Racial Equality should rewrite all the old books, as Orwell expected they would. Or as Bradbury expected, they could simply burn them. That would help us all to forget about race, kin, family, parents, and children, and live as equals.
The Western was one of the last gasps of old American art. Its decline “coincided with the rise in self-consciousness of the descendents of Ellis Island immigrants. By 1970, the grandchildren of Ellis Island wished to assert a new vision. America, their movies implied, was built not by pioneers, but by Catholic and Jewish immigrants, especially the gangsters and policemen of the big cities. Thus, Martin Scorsese spent over 30 years and more than $100 million to film the 1928 book Gangs of New York to push his mobocentric theory of American history back into the mid-19th century. The tagline for his movie was ‘America Was Born in the Streets.’”
You probably thought, like most people of the last century, that Superman came from an advanced race, meaning all-White. Au contraire! “A lack of ethnicity was an error of omission, and I’m not sure given the time that it’s fair to call that ‘racist,’” says one of the writers.
“If this were a free country, Chuck E. Cheese restaurants would be free to admit who they wanted, and ban who they didn’t want, for whatever reasons.”
There is a very important racial lesson to be learned in this video of buffaloes and lions:
Dairy produces five times as many calories per acre as beef. The White man’s lactose tolerance surely has much to do with his prosperity.
Killing the livelihood of stay-at-home mothers, small businesses, and small farms.
Oh, I see:
http://jezekiah.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/president-of-israel-to-palestinian-children-eat-sht-and-die/
You have to admit that Ann Coulter is slightly awesome:
http://defamer.com/5129900/ann-coulter-botches-view-audition
Yes, Bryan was a good kinist Christian. There was another Christian activist whom I think could be called “kinist”, and whose impact and legacy was even greater than that of Bryan:
Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788),
Preacher of Christ in the Wilderness of the Enlightenment
” He anticipated the work of such modern “pre-suppositionalists” as Cornelius Van Til and Rousas John Rushdoony and, yes, the creationist movement since the 1960′s. ”
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v07n3p19.htm
Hamann was largely responsible for the original launching of that first great anti-modernist, counter-revolutionary phenomenon in the Western world, the “Romantic movement”.
Völkisch romantic racialism was thus an indirect product of the initiative of this anti-Enlightenment Christian polemicist. A famous Jewish historian of ideas, Sir Isaiah Berlin, wrote a whole book about him:
” Sir Isaiah Berlin here explores the world and the ideas of a man he calls the Enlightenment’s “most passionate, consistent, extreme, and implacable enemy”, a philosopher whom he considers perhaps the only “wholly original critic of modern times”. J.G. Hamann was an eccentric Prussian thinker of the eighteenth century whose peculiar and difficult work was cherished by Kant, Goethe, and other luminaries, yet to the twentieth century this self-styled Magus of the North is all but unknown. ”
http://www.ecampus.com/bk_detail.asp?isbn=0374196575
This is very interesting, Petr. I had no idea about Hamann, but he certainly does seem to have been a major influence on Van Til and Rushdoony. In fact, many of the ideas that I thought originated with Van Til, at least in the sense of how he articulated them, apparently did not.
His student, Johann Gottfried von Herder, is also worth studying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder
I’m fascinated by the similarities between these Volkish men (German to the marrow) and Kinism in our own time. Truly, all that we hold dear in life was given to us by “racists” in ages long forgotten.
“Herder’s focus upon language and cultural traditions as the ties that create a ‘nation’ extended to include folklore, dance, music and art, and inspired Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their collection of German folk tales…
Herder attached exceptional importance to the concept of nationality and of patriotism – ‘he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself’, whilst teaching that ‘in a certain sense every human perfection is national’. Herder carried folk theory to an extreme by maintaining that ‘there is only one class in the state, the Volk, (not the rabble), and the king belongs to this class as well as the peasant’. Explanation that the Volk was not the rabble was a novel conception in this era, and with Herder can be seen the emergence of ‘the people’ as the basis for the emergence of a classless but hierarchical national body.
The nation, however was individual and separate, distinguished, to Herder, by climate, education, foreign intercourse, tradition and heredity. Providence he praised for having ‘wonderfully separated nationalities not only by woods and mountains, seas and deserts, rivers and climates, but more particularly by languages, inclinations and characters’. Herder praised the tribal outlook writing that ‘the savage who loves himself, his wife and child with quiet joy and glows with limited activity of his tribe as for his own life is in my opinion a more real being than that cultivated shadow who is enraptured with the shadow of the whole species‘, isolated since ‘each nationality contains its centre of happiness within itself, as a bullet the centre of gravity‘. With no need for comparison since ‘every nation bears in itself the standard of its perfection, totally independent of all comparison with that of others’ for ‘do not nationalities differ in everything, in poetry, in appearance, in tastes, in usages, customs and languages? Must not religion which partakes of these also differ among the nationalities?’…
While regarding the Jews as aliens in Europe, he refused to adhere to a rigid racial theory, writing that ‘notwithstanding the varieties of the human form, there is but one and the same species of man throughout the whole earth’…
‘It is the apparent plan of nature that as one human being, so also one generation, and also one nationality learn, learn incessantly, from and with the others, until all have comprehended the difficult lesson: No nationality has been solely designated by God as the chosen people of the earth; above all we must seek the truth and cultivate the garden of the common good. Hence no nationality of Europe may separate itself sharply, and foolishly say, With us alone, with us dwells all wisdom.”
This is outstanding! While I would quibble with his definition of species, not to mention his support for the French Revolution, and the idea that romanticism is an adequate response to modernism, I see an unbroken chain of thought from before his time to ours, rooted in Christ and Folk, that has helped a remnant to stay alive in the wilderness, so to speak. There is no way to absorb such brilliance without a love for Christ and a consequent desire to obey His command to care for our own. Since so many Christians in our day have gnosticized their faith, I fear that they will read these quotes and be as perplexed as were the Pharisees after hearing parables. But I hope not.
I love Hamann’s prediction that a separation of church and state will only result in lawlessness, and autonomy apart from God inevitably leads to nihilism. It’s also amazing that Hamann, through Herder, was instrumental in returning Goethe to the faith. And Hamann recognized the great value of Hume’s critique of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, which brings to mind Dabney’s similar praise of Hume for devastating the “social contract” theory so beloved of Yankees, and Locke before them. And why wouldn’t these great Kinsmen (Kinists) take the lead in guarding us from such vile and destructive errors? It could have been done by no others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgJnghVJ-DA&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/inbox/readmessage.php?t=1005824401030
Besides that one volume specifically dedicated to Hamann (“Magus of the North”), Berlin also wrote another book that dealt with Herder together with Hamann, and also with another important proto-Romantic thinker, Giambattista Vico:
“In Hamann’s railings and the more considered writings of Vico and Herder, Berlin finds critics of the Enlightenment worthy of our careful attention. But he identifies much that is misguided in their rejection of universal values, rationalism, and science. With his customary emphasis on the frightening power of ideas, Berlin traces much of the next centuries’ irrationalism and suffering to the historicism and particularism they advocated. What Berlin has to say about these long-dead thinkers–in appreciation and dissent–is remarkably timely in a day when Enlightenment beliefs are being challenged not just by academics but by politicians and by powerful nationalist and fundamentalist movements.”
http://www.amazon.ca/Three-Critics-Enlightenment-Hamann-Herder/dp/0691057265
These both books should be quite easy to find from academic libraries.
A review of Berlin’s Hamann book (in full only for subscribers):
“The most passionate, consistent, extreme and implacable enemy of the Enlightenment and, in particular, of all forms of rationalism of his time (he lived and died in the eighteenth century) was Johann Georg Hamann, who came to be known as the Magus of the North. His influence, direct and indirect, upon the Romantic revolt against universalism and scientific method in any guise was considerable and perhaps crucial.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=2421
…followed by some scholarly exchange:
“To call Hamann an anti-rationalist is to say that he attacked the methods by which the great rationalists of the seventeenth century, and their descendants and critics in the French Enlightenment (and after them such rational thinkers as Bentham, Mill, William James, Moore, Russell, and the great majority of English-speaking philosophers of our time), stated, analyzed, and sought to justify their views, and by which they criticized those of their opponents. It is this that makes the fact that Hamann is the first and most vehement opponent of the French Enlightenment and its descendants a phenomenon of historical importance.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2403
Needless to say, Hamann as seen by Berlin is still being described by a “hostile witness”, (although Berlin has a professionally respectful attitude towards him nonetheless).
So to allow him to speak with his own voice, here’s an online net-book that contains excerpts from some of Hamann’s writings:
http://www.archive.org/details/jghamann17301788013654mbp
Re: the 12 Jews allegedly killed by rockets from Gaza over the span of eight or nine years — according to Israeli novelist A.B. Yehoshua, “Saddam Hussein’s 40 Scuds in the Gulf War and all the Kassem rockets that have been fired at Israel since the withdrawal from Gaza haven’t killed a single Israeli civilian.”
http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-fakes-rocket-fire-fatalities-in.html
In other words, Yehoshua is saying that even the small number of Israeli deaths attributed to ALL the above-mentioned rockets — thousands of them — are either outright concoctions or were actually caused by Israeli friendly fire, etc. Of course, we have no way of being certain about that, although one thing seems sure because Olmert’s own spokesman, Mark Regev, admitted as much on camera — Hamas did not fire a single rocket at Israel during the entire period of last year’s ceasefire. No doubt those things have the potential to be lethal, but I suspect that any Israeli deaths from those rockets may have resulted from disturbance of their sleep at night.
And now there are more reports of Israelis using DIME (dense inert metal explosive) weapons in Gaza. These produce virtually no shrapnel beyond a radius of four meters and thus are “safer” for use in densely populated civilian centers like Gaza — except for the fact that the powdered tungsten used in these explosives is EXTREMELY carcinogenic. So Palestinians exposed to these weapons can expect to develop deadly cancers over the next few months or years . . .
Just a few hours after Petr told us about Hamann and Herder, Majority Rights posted this 2003 article:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/johann_gottfried_herder_revisited/
It is said that Herder deserves even more credit than Edmund Burke for the conservative war against Enlightenment liberalism.
Quotes of interest:
Herder, as nearly all anti-Enlightenment thinkers, rejected the intellectually vapid notion of a “social contract.” If such contracting individuals were to exist to enter into some contractual obligations, then the contract would have already been settled. In other words, the civilizational apparatus that would allow a scholar to even conceive of a “contract” is already in existence as the contracting parties are coming together. “Social contract” theory is an intellectually dishonest slight of hand: its primary purpose is to reject all aspects of history, civilization and nationhood in order to rebuild the society on the demands of the contracting parties. These, as always, mean the wealthy and powerful who demand the institutionalization of their own interests and call them “universal human rights.”
Communities derive primarily from the fact that men are born radically helpless and dependent, not free and equal. Only the existence of the community ensures that human beings exist at all. Therefore, all arts and sciences derive from this natural, communal union, and exist as a product of the communal mind, rather than specifically the minds of great men. In other words, that the man of genius, undoubtedly a reality in human history, should be demystified in that his genius has been nurtured by the community around him. The books he has read, lectures attended, apprenticeships, language, education, in short, everything necessary to develop the talents of genius are communally created, not individually created. Therefore, the proper study of human society is not the “great man” but rather the community, the nation, the ethnos. This is the proper unit of history, and it is it that works through the great men, economic institutions, armies and books that a historian might study. Genius exists, as do classes or great ideas, but they do not come into existence in isolation.
…Epistemology is intensely social, and to divorce it from social life and the development of national consciousness (and therefore language) is to divorce knowledge from reality.
…For the Enlightenment, the notion of “progress” has been an allegedly continuous move from “myth” to “fact”… For Herder, this is a regress… The older idea of myth was not falsehood in any sense, but is a key to the heart and mind of a specific people and civilization. To aestheticize nature is to imprint the “general will” upon it, to provide it with cultural reality by integrating it into the vortex of the nation. The nation, then, seeks to unify all things to itself: nature, technics and economics. These are provided with the imprint of the historical memory of a people.
[There follows some unappetizing talk of anarchy. No man has ever lived without a "state," in the sense of law and authority, and this is the whole basis of rejecting the social contract theory. And then...]
…The most natural state is one naturally with one national character. This it retains for ages and this is most naturally formed when it is the object of its native genius for a nationality is as much a plant with nature as a family, only with more branches. Nothing appears so indirectly opposite to the end of government as the unnatural enlargement of states, the wild mixing of all kinds of people and nationalities under one scepter… Glued together indeed they may be into a fragile machine, termed a machine of state, but it will be destitute of inner life and mutual sympathy of the parts.
…The self is not sui generis—to put this more simply—but rather the product of the cultural milieu in which it was created: the language, customs, hopes, memories and fears which nurture the self from infancy into adulthood. Only when the culture breaks down through alien peoples and ideas (including the state) does this connection become severed, and the most horrid of situations, alienation, becomes a social reality, leading to social pathology and ultimately, social death.
Man is shaped by his association with others. This association is governed, indeed made possible at all, though similarity—language, concepts, morality and historical experience. When this memory become clouded—as in the present day—though outside intervention of self-interested self-deception then the basic nature of the association is destroyed. The abstractions of liberalism or neo-conservatism cannot rescue it, but are the very products of this decay.
…His battle was primarily against the notion of cosmopolitanism, or the idea that man’s faculties are sui generis, and therefore owing no loyalty to any specific community. Such a person is barely human, living accordingly only to his desires and impulses: he is inherently sociopathic. The proof of Herder’s ideas here is evident in the present day. Herder writes, mocking the pretensions of the modern cosmopolitan spirit:
‘All national characters, thank God, have become extinct; we all love one another, or, rather no one feels the need of loving anyone else. We all associate with one another, all are completely equal—cultured, polite, very happy; we have, it is true no fatherland, no one for whom we live; but we are philanthropists and citizens of the world. Most of the rulers already speak French, and soon we all shall do so. And then—bliss! The golden era is dawning again when all the world has one tongue and one language; there shall be one flock and one shepherd!’
[I've also heard Sam Dickson say that the individualist who praises cosmopolitanism is a sociopath. This is the exact word he has used.]