START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
Night of the Living Dead September 06, 2008 11:55 AM

Note: I have had momentary misgivings about posting this writing, and as you read it you will see why.  But the truth about the basis of suffering in the world has to be told.

Night of the living dead (Pt 1)

As this group transforms from a socio- and psychological study and support group to a political action group**, I think it would be helpful to end the study-era with a post-mortum of sorts.

(**embracing and extending both the successes of Care2 groups, such as the Katrina support group now called Katrina Rembered, and Action Research)

What is so odd about this group about empathy is that it has attracted so many people who are empathically challenged, who actually suffer from disorders that prevent them from feeling the effects they have on others.  What is even odder is that they all tried to control the group pushing adgendas that could not possibly have been empathy related: they have none!

The very first two co-hosts I had for this group suffered from such disorders.  One declared to me that he was an asperger sufferer and also detailed for me a relationship he had where he admittedly dominated and hurt the woman who loved him.  As I started to identify the antithesis of emapthy, what I call anti-empathy, and its relation to aspergers, he openly accused me of bias, something which confused me at the time, but confuses me no longer.

The other early member who established herself as a counselor for the group saying that she had accredited psychological licensure,  actually created a relationship with me online, and then over the phone, but over the phone she showed symptoms of what I know for certain is bi-polar disorder, which I consider to be a part-time anti-empathy, and perhaps a part-time aspergers disorder.

Both these hosts left the group when their problems became public, and I believe that one, the first mentioned, sent me threatening emails.  There were many others who tried to establish themselves in the group who likewise were empathically challenged; one advertised himself as an "empath," or a pyshic.

While I was attempting to initiate the transformation of the group, I was put under intense pressure as the mod and founder of the group by several people who adamantly defied the thesis of the group, which based on the research linking emapthy to empathic neurons.  I felt these people where simply sabotaging my efforts to evolve the group, but what they did for me was help me solidify my ideas, and also to show how anti-empathy embeds itself into empathic culture.  Ultimately every single one of them accused of some kind of cruelty, and proceeded to act on that insult in the only way they could, by layering insult on insult.  I carefully checked each of their home pages, and all claimed to be the kindest and most tolerent of people.  Their insults got so bad that ultimately they had to be banned from the group, so their claims of pure kindness on their home pages are highly doubtful.

What I learned were details that extended my original ideas, in particular that anti-empathy attacks empathy; that the anti-empathic being emotionally communicationally, or empathically, disabled are forced to obtain resources any way they can, usually through attack.  Their inability to communicate emtionally in the normal two-way basis prevents their abilities for collaboration and hence their ability to create resources in the normal way.  What they have to do is steal, and to steal they have to lie, attack, and threaten.  The most clever, or intelligent, of the anti-empathic, the savants, of course rely on lying, and lying is what makes the world function as disfunctionally as it does.  I am not taking about little white lies, or lies told to predatory enforcers to prevent self-incrimination; I am talking about fundamental lies that are distributed through out the world through top-down didactic framing, the lies that keep the wealthy wealthy with what is called weathy-welfare, and keep humanity, and it's only world, in the verge of self-destruction.

So in a sense, the anti-empathic have no choice in the matter, they have to remain on the attack to survive, and to thrive they have to dominate and control.  The empathic likewise have no choice except to lay low, occaisionally retaliate (as I am doing here now), and bid their time until what time anti-empathy, as a gentic disorder, and be stopped in the womb, and we can all live in a naturally native and tribal, peace.

What happened is that this group, because of its name, attracted many who are emphatically disabled -- one might think that they joined the group for sympathy to help with their disorder, but they came here to lead the group.  They wanted to control a group dedicated to empathy even though they lacked empathy themselves.  This behavioral phenomena parallels an idea I was developing in my mind, that the anti-empathic attack the empathy in normal people; they see niceness and they try to capitalized on it.

Towards the end a member published a long article here that told of abuse against his family by the child protection services of the City of New York.  He framed his writing to fit into the discussion of the group, but he raised doubt in my mind when he told of his son as being a "savant."  A savant is a highly intelligent aspergers sufferer.  Further research into his posts all across Care2 revealed that his whole family has been "abused" by child protection services agencies.  Occasional abuse is possible, even probable, but widespread attention from a child protection agency points to cruelty -- the cruelty of neglect of children, an unforgivable crime.  Sheldon showed a viral nature of anti-empathy as he adapted his text to the conversation in the group.

This post was m  [ send green star]
Night of the Living Dead (Pt 2) September 06, 2008 11:56 AM

Finally very recently a woman shows up saying that her husband has aspergers and that she is a counselor for the families of autistic children.  She openly calls me a very dangerous person for promoting the abuse of those with autism, and sends me personal emails telling me that she has show her support group this website, and that they had "crying sessions" because of my bias and cruelty.  I cannot know if this woman is actually a licensed counselor, or even who she is.  Her only friend on Care2 is a woman who I had to ban from the group for continued insults against another member, me, which are violations of the terms of service of the group.  She herself was on her way to being banned for the same reason, violation of Care2's terms of service, but opted not to "participate" in the group discussion.  This was a  moot move on her part of course because I the removal of the obviously openly anti-emathic has become routine.

What this alleged couselor did that was different was attempt to "frame" me in a way that I could potentially be prosecuted on anti-bias laws; it has recently become federal law that bias against the genetically defective is illegal, and the anti-empathy is increaslingly being understood to be a genetic disorder.  She was attempting, in effect, say that I am promoting anti-empathy against the anti-empathic by my saying that anti-empathy is a disorder that causes cruelty; that I am "behind" attacks against aspergers sufferers by my saying that anti-emapthy is clinically called aspergers.

What I have learned about aspergers sufferers is that the organize for self-protection, which in a sense challenges the concept that people with asperges cannot colloborate.  Organization by the anti-empathic should not be surprising however; this what violent gangs do by nature, but this organization is the most simplistic; it is not based on collaboration but cooperation, and they seek to make you cooperate, by "protecting" you from themselves; hence the term gang "protection."

Using this "counselor's" statements as an example (I will not pubish them here but elsewhere to avoid my own being accused of violation of the terms of service), she attempts to show that there is an anti-aspergers conspiracy to hurt asperger's sufferers.  The image created, and endlessly repeated, is of gangs of bullies attacking the retarded; think of the scene from Edward Scissorhands.  Obviously this happens all the time, but it is not the misguieded empathic attacking those with aspergers, it is the anti-empathic attacking whatever they can, because it is their survival strategy.  To paraphrase Abraham Maslow, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  The anti-empathic can only see the world in their own terms: lack of mutual concern that leads to bias and ultiamtely cruelty.

Key to anti-empathy are rules; the anti-empathic, lacking empathy cannot not naturally figure out what they do that hurts others, as the lack empathy -- they have to be told: rules.  Rules are also a key part of obsessive compulsive disorder, where that particular kind of sufferer works by rules and applies these rules to others.  The thesis of this group is that these disorders are not that far apart, and that the key mental disorder is an inability to feel the effects that you have on others.  Narcisism neatly fits the model as well; Sadam Hussien was diagnosed as having malignant narcissism, and that diagnosis can easily be applied to other extremely evil humans.  Hussien's problem was that his anti-empathy was coupled to opportunity in the violent chaos that is called the world of Islam.

So this "counselor" attempted to bring in the law, admitted to having birthed an aspergers sufferer, and says she has married an asperger's sufferer.  In my mind she has admitted circumstancially to being anti-empathic herself, as she has married one, and that works clearly with in the law.  This to me creates another circumstancial connection: aspergers and the law.  The thesis of this group actually came to me in my sleep; I woke up one morning nearly two years ago with the words "aspergers empire" on my lips.  My subconcious was connecting the world of the Roman Empire and its mechanical cruelty, to the machine of the today's world through Lewis Mumford's writing.

As I begin to transform the group to an action group, I will be documenting these experiences withe the anti-empathic in this group, because it is important.

This group is pioneering in these ideas, yet at times I feel as if the effort is being lost because the "other team," those who deny a natural explanation for empathy, are so far ahead of the game -- they seem to know precisely what to say for every argument.  It is as if they organized into a group or culture that has been waiting for these neural discoveries to attempt to debunk them.  Or perhaps they have been successfully debunking the obvious for so long, that natural empathy as it descends from ancient species through evolution is the basis of our morality.  Aristotle said this, and Darwin proved it.  This organization is simultaneously religious, as in the anti-evolutionists, and atheistic, as in the famous atheist Dawkin's description of success in life coming from actual anti-empathic behavior by the DNA in the genes themselves.

We have met these people in this group, and we will no doubt meet them again as are so incredibly attracted to the word emapthy -- but the debate is over, empathy is in the neurons, and hence in the genes.  Evolution tends towards love, and those who are empathically disabled are thrown back in the evolutionary cycle, some it seems to the levels of insects and reptiles.  Sad but true.

This post was modified from its  [ send green star]
Night of the Living Dead (Pt 3) September 06, 2008 12:02 PM

While thinking of all the feelings good people have, I could not help but wonder about all the super-natural things that appear in stories and oral traditions such as ghosts.  Ghosts to me are usually the memories of people we have loved that live longer than their natural lives in our memories.  In our grief of loss, which can be traumatic, we may actually start to see them alive, and they may actually physically experience them.  Ghosts can also be another empathic construct, extending this one with reasons of excessive guilt, say perhaps for murder.  A murder who happens to be normally empathic will suffer such grief as to become traumatized, and trauma we know can cause feelings of guilt, as in "survivor's guilt."

A more modern concept that we see in the movies is the ghoul that attacks in mass.  Clearly these are not beings that we loved and have brought back, and not perhaps our consciousnesses or memories attacking us for commuting the ultimate crime of murder, but some representation in our lives of something that is clearly out to get us.  Our society is ruled by anti-empathy, and the anti-empathic through armies control all the documentation and images of our society and prevent us from knowing what is exactly hurting us so badly all the time.  Hollywood gives a name for the anti-empathic: the living dead.  This is our worst nightmare, a long night that may never end, and may possibly destroy existence as we know it.  Word is that the cold war with it's nuclear threat may be back, along with the certainly of the destruction environment.

Word has to get through to the world that these monsters are really in a tiny minority, and that they can be defeated simply by being ignored, by waking up from the nightmare.  During the recent arguments in the group only a very tiny number left the group, less than one percent implying that the anti-empathic in our on-line society is just one percent.

Even more encouraging is the fact that the anti-empathic monsters are empathically disabled; they cannot perceive your thoughts through normal emotional communication -- they can easily be lied to.  But do so with care (!!) they are incredibly malevolent, and can lie like nobody's business.

For a full text of this writing -> Click

 [ send green star]
anonymous You know something September 07, 2008 8:34 PM

"Word has to get through to the world that these monsters are really in a tiny minority, and that they can be defeated simply by being ignored, by waking up from the nightmare.  During the recent arguments in the group only a very tiny number left the group, less than one percent implying that the anti-empathic in our on-line society is just one percent.

Even more encouraging is the fact that the anti-empathic monsters are empathically disabled; they cannot perceive your thoughts through normal emotional communication -- they can easily be lied to.  But do so with care (!!) they are incredibly malevolent, and can lie like nobody's business."

Youre right about this, they are lacking in empathy and depend on others be as bad as them or enough to be of use.

A conscious aware and empathic people can function without major dispute. But that is not the people of now and the people of now are indeed lacking in empathy, lacking in what is truly important.

Not all out there are bad people and some others out there also know about these certain people who run the system or the way of human life. These non empaths carefully got control over humanity way back then and carefully they did it too. Now noone knows their true nature to nature itself. Noone knows how to survive without the system.   

Now you get a race or races of humans that have many views towards each other, many opinions, many arguments, and of course major disputes that result in wars or any other form of tragedy.

The system is vast but the system is flawed and they can be beaten. They can be ignored, and all can do this by focusing on the positive, to show empathy towards others and ignore only the bad that is thrown at you.

Its much harder to do for those who do not understand they are too wound up in it all, they feel lost and sad by things that others have done to them. 

The monsters or what I call scum pass their negative thoughts into actions they they perform such as the way they manipulate other people in their positions, they treat them bad and so they treat others the same and it gets passed on. But if you can block it, stop it from passing through yourself, then its easier for others to cope and then do the same.

Good and bad, positive and negative, empathic and non empathic.

 [report anonymous abuse]
 September 13, 2008 3:13 PM

Any society built upon division of people by greed will by it's very nature promote the success of it's most sociopathic individuals.  This then is in part a consequence of economics, and why I happen to think of it and see it as a political matter, which reflects I suppose what John says of transforming this group from a socio- and psychological study and support group to a political action group.

It is also very clear to me that this way of thinking, of organizing production, of economics, is neither inevitable nor sustainable.  There are also plenty of healthy human societies that give clear guidance on how we could live and work together, harmoniously, as human beings, as part of a living world, rather than at each other's expense as the current dominant economic model requires.   We could also think of what happens after the collapse, or we could choose to try and take actions to help our fellow beings out of their darkness before the full fall.

 [ send green star]
By definition a government has no conscience (Camus) September 13, 2008 5:22 PM

Thank You.

This thread has been an interesting read. I too have met
some of these 'mean ones' people at C2; 'meetings' that were quite educational.

Being empathic  to me has been to have the blessing and the curse of seeing 'into' other people. To know how they think and work, to feel their hurt and pain, their  ambitions, their honesty and their 'unbalancies'. Personally I can however not see the darkness in people. Is naivité (being naivé also a quality of the empathic?

I do have a question; what is the meaning of building a political group built on empathic qualities? As for me, my empatic 'treat' make me want to farther myself as far away from all politicians and politics as is only possible. Politics to an ever increasing extent seem to be a fair for the lying and the vane? But then again, has it ever been any different?

The society we are living in, is dying. It is also entirely sociopathic and fostering sociopathic tendencies. But then again, travestating Camus; societies are by definition without conscience. And how could one expect any abstract construct, regardless if we talk 'society', 'church', 'corporation' or other menthal 'tower of Babel'; how could one ever expect such a construct to have emotional value, feelings or conscience?

A society is by definition also not empathic.

 [ send green star]
anonymous Society September 13, 2008 10:45 PM

A society is based on its people, the people follow a way, a system. They trust in the system because it is the system that they only know of.

People are born in their surroundings, what they are born into affects them, what they are taught, teached and learn moulds their upbringing. What the politicians say, what they encourage affects the people who believe in them. All organisations in a society are part of the crafting of the human mind, their way of thinking. The organisations and industries are there to keep the human population drawn in and keep them from knowing how to live a truly independant live. The people know only how to live in a governed world where politics are known but the agenda is not.

People know only a life with the use of money, without it they cannot make a living, they think they cannot live without it. People worser off with money issues or say they get into debt or loze their jobs start to worry, they panic because they know money is the only thing they know of to have a life. They cannot live a self sufficient life if the only life they knew, the life they grew up in is that of a governed way of life.

The even more desperate of people resort to any means nessesary to survive, the thought of kindness or to be pleasant is replaced by desperation, the ability to be good is replaced by the ability to be bad.

There are many people out there and all have their troubles and all follow the system of money, it is their way of life to earn it to survive.

They say that money corrupts because it makes people greedy. It does because those that do have enough money know they dont have to earn a living, they forget what it is like to struggle or to even know what the less fortunate feel like to survive on very little.

Polititions manipulate people through what they say or state, they give hope or promises to the people who listen to them. But it is all for nothing, the people are following a system that they are brought up into. They dont understand it yet they think they do. They seem to lack the ability to just stop for a second and look at the whole system itself to realize that theyve been lied to.

Thats how I personally feel, I know I was raised in this system of money, politics and ruling. I also know it is not our way of life, it is not natural and is indeed artificial. When one does look at the whole picture it really does hit you deep down inside, its like you feel you are stuck in a prison I guess is the word to call it.

I also know that religion is one of the systems ways or was the early model used or created to pull and push the people together those that followed the new way were accepted while the others decided against the new way were exiled. Ive not done much on religion as of yet but from what I have read up on shows the old peoples way that beared no harshness to one another and indeed showed respect for themselves as well as all life.

But somewhere along the line of time before recorded time came a conflict, and that conflict ended up creating what we now know as today. The people of now do not know how to respect one another, the ability to respect any non human is gone in the major part of society. Empathy, to show compassion to one another is a harder ting to understand. The system has caused this, the system of politics, money and power has nearly cut off our ability to empathize with one another and all life. We are consumed by the habits we were born into. We have lost a big part of our humanity. We all have to reaquire that, it is part of us and without it we will perish.

 [report anonymous abuse]
 September 14, 2008 6:53 AM

Hear, hear...isn't that what they say
in old England, 'Schroedingers cat'???

Blessed be/LaL

 [ send green star]
Re: [Radical Empathy] Night of the Living Dead September 14, 2008 9:33 AM

You guys are like a wound waiting to be infected; the "movement" is just as infected as the system because the problem is a neural genetic defect.

 [ send green star]
anonymous  September 15, 2008 1:39 AM

"You guys are like a wound waiting to be infected; the "movement" is just as infected as the system because the problem is a neural genetic defect."

What movement are you refering to?

As far as I know we have all got to remember to be empathic to one another, to deny those that choose not to be good to one another. The nonempaths need others to do their bidding so they need those that can block their empathy. I also know if we all continue to be run in any way the ones at the top will always control the lower people.

 [report anonymous abuse]
Blessed are the hearts that can bend... (Camus) September 17, 2008 5:36 PM

Mankind - oneness built on complementary systems in cooperation serving
one another; a multitude of the same essence...

I don't really know what to say...

The current dominant model of how to organize society is going away. The 'competition based model' defining our current version of society being replaced by cooperation. 'Fighting' and 'winning' are human 'qualities' that are transforming, change into 'non-fighting' and 'cooperation'. The sociologist Paul Ray saw the onset of these changes already in the 1970's, and aptly dubbed this new sociological model of man a 'cultural creative' (as compared to the traditionalist and the modernist).

Interestingly, this emerging 'friendly', 'developed', 'civilized' model of man, the cultural creative, went from constituting around one percent of the US society in the 1970's, and grew to more than 20 percent in around 25 years. This 'new' human 'model' was emerging with no support what so ever from society. No schools, no political parties, no nothing was put into the 'system' to 'teach or 'learn' humans how to change into becoming 'cultural creatives'.

And so one may ask; why then did they emerge? Who or what induced this spontaneous change? My guess is that the description of 'cultural creatives' fit around 1/3 of all humans in our world of today. Emerging from nothing, in only a few decades...

How and why?
Back to the concepts of 'competition' and 'winning'...Does not 'winning' always imply 'losing'? Are You interested in seeing people 'losing'? I am not. If someone has to 'lose', then let that one be me, because...

Losing is allowing someone else to win.

And that is something!

Competition means looking at society as a pyramid. There are leaders and there are those that are being led. The 'glue' keeping the pyramid together to such extent being rewards and fear based tactics?

"Who has (ever) seen a hierarchic pyramid based on Love?" asks Camus; well, a society with its fundamental value being 'Love' is on the way though I am not convinced it will be in the form of a pyramid. 'Servant leadership' (pls google); how about that?


Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend. (Camus again).

This post was modified from its original form on 17 Sep, 17:37  [ send green star]
 September 23, 2008 2:58 PM

Hi La and welcome to the group.

I very much like your writing and where you are at, but I think you are way optimistic when you say:

"The current dominant model of how to organize society is going away. The 'competition based model' defining our current version of society being replaced by cooperation."

It would be great if that was the case, and I am saddened that it is not.  We in the US are about to elect a president dedicated to war, as in the cases of both candidates, and surprisingly in Obama, possibly a candidate committed to the Roman-created capital system.  The Roman system was purely created based on competiton and violence, and what they, as with the present capital system, sought was cooperation.

There is a huge difference between cooperation and collaboration.  Cooperation can be had with force, where emotional communication does not exist; collaboration requires emotional communication, and is hence empathic.

I wrote a long letter to the professor/mentor for whom I did my undergrad writing that was the starting point of this group.  I am about to post that, and I am also very interested in getting the group to move along to it's next (and planned) phase: action research as we did during the Katrina disaster,  but now all across the board.

 [ send green star]
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct


This group:
Empathy Action
270 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences