[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')are once illustrated this for Nicole Kidman, who had invited him to Hollywood to help her prepare for a role as a psychopath in Malice. How, she wondered, could she show the audience there was something fundamentally wrong with her character?

"I said, 'Here's a scene that you can use,' " Hare says. " 'You're walking down a street and there's an accident. A car has hit a child in the crosswalk. A crowd of people gather round. You walk up, the child's lying on the ground and there's blood running all over the place. You get a little blood on your shoes and you look down and say, "Oh shit." You look over at the child, kind of interested, but you're not repelled or horrified. You're just interested. Then you look at the mother, and you're really fascinated by the mother, who's emoting, crying out, doing all these different things. After a few minutes you turn away and go back to your house. You go into the bathroom and practice mimicking the facial expressions of the mother.' " He then pauses and says, "That's the psychopath: somebody who doesn't understand what's going on emotionally, but understands that something important has happened."

Hare's research upset a lot of people. Until the psychopath came into focus, it was possible to believe that bad people were just good people with bad parents or childhood trauma and that, with care, you could talk them back into being good. Hare's research suggested that some people behaved badly even when there had been no early trauma. Moreover, since psychopaths' brains were in fundamental ways different from ours, talking them into being like us might not be easy. Indeed, to this day, no one has found a way to do so.

"Some of the things he was saying about these individuals, it was unheard of," says Dr. Steven Stein, a psychologist and ceo of Multi-Health Systems in Toronto, the publisher of the Psychopathy Checklist. "Nobody believed him thirty years ago, but Bob hasn't wavered, and now everyone's where he is. Everyone's come full circle, except a small group who believe it's bad upbringing, family poverty, those kinds of factors, even though scientific evidence has shown that's not the case. There are wealthy psychopaths who've done horrendous things, and they were brought up in wonderful families."

"There's still a lot of opposition -- some criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists don't like psychopathy at all," Hare says. "I can spend the entire day going through the literature -- it's overwhelming, and unless you're semi-brain-dead you're stunned by it -- but a lot of people come out of there and say, 'So what? Psychopathy is a mythological construct.' They have political and social agendas: 'People are inherently good,' they say. 'Just give them a hug, a puppy dog, and a musical instrument and they're all going to be okay.' "


http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

[Chaparral]

I've begun studying this topic as well. I've run across several people that fit this "sociopath" description over the course of my lifetime. I started to get the intuitive feeling that such people weren't always in jail or asylums but rather, a good many were in the corridors of power and had been so throughout the span of human history.

What got me lightly interested was a little piece of game theory and evolutionary psychology applied to the topic. What got me to the library was the fact that I am now looking at intentional communities. How does one create community in such a way as to exclude these predators? In difficult times, how many ways can such people sink a struggling lifeboat?

What people don't understand is that many of these folks can fit in perfectly and emote quite well. They might be impossible to detect.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

I think one of the biggest problems is that the DSM VI exploded with diagnoses, there used to only be about 600 definitive diagnoses and now there are something like over 3000+.

While I tend to associate a sociopath as a minor psychopath the lines blurr an awful lot. In interacting with both kinds there are a lot of commmon traits. Sociopaths quite frequently head multinational corporations, many did really well during the greedy 80's with the whole barracuda coporate mentality. They may not understand emotions or (a major criteria to diagnose sociopathic behavior) they don't have consciences, but they can still function fairly well.

Where as psychopaths can't function well enough in society to hold down a steady job, or have a decent circle of steady law-abiding friends. There needs to be a dictinction I think between those that are made sociopathic by their environment (not being taught empathy as children) and those that just are -pathic.

Whereas a sociopath doesn't care how or if his/her actions impact others, psychopaths will go out of their way to hurt others (like serial killers who seek victims with similar traits).

but where do we draw the line? If we know a person is broken and can't be fixed then what? If we know they can't function and never will does that give us licence to lock them up and throw away the key? If we can reasonably forsee that they will eventually keep killing or hurting others for absolutely no reason, are we then justified in locking them away, exileing, or killing them?

[TorrKing]

From what I have heard there are a few warning signs:
- The person massages your ego by outrageous flattery.
- Insensitivity. Attitude: Feelings are for wuzzes.
- Cruelty to animals and humans during childhood.
- He plays people. Some people start loving him while others can't stand him.
- Short relationships (sexual and otherwise).
- Utterly fearless.
- Very charming and glib.
- The list goes on, but you get the idea.

Psycopathy is not something you either possess or you don't, but more like a scale. Some people are closer to the definition than others.

I know of a few what I believe are true psycopaths. And I cannot think of anything but death that suits them. After all, they don't give a damn if someone else dies. They will not get close to my post-PO community.

[FoxV]

One of the big problems about people with these psychological disorders (and anti-social personality disorders) is that they often have learned some very good tricks to hide their true nature.

Often they will appear very charming and charismatic. Its all an act to get you to trust them quickly and keep you from realizing the fact that they're the world's biggest SOB. Often times they will even tell you they're a nut case, but in such a way that you don't realize it ("You think I'm nice now, but wait till you see me off my meds. Hahahaha").

The true key to rooting them out is time. They can't hold up the act forever, and eventualy their true colors will come out. After two weeks my brother got engaged to just such a person. After living with her for 3 months he had to call her family to come and remove her from his house. My brother works as a parole officer and is trained for these sort of people, but she was still able to fool him (for a little while).

Make sure you have long probation periods before accepting someone into your PO community

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Fox: I love that song. "...so sad that it should come to this, we tried to warn you all but oh dear..."

A lot of socio/psycopaths are also really smart. They've had a whole life fooling those around them, to adapt and perfect their facades. Like in the article where the person goes home and practises emotional faces in the mirror, I shouldn't wonder that hollywood is filled with these types too. that would expain sme of the tabloid headlines you see at the checkout.

So the question then becomes... Since psychiatry has never been able to predict with certainty whether an abnormal behaviour is going to progress beyond into psycho/sociopathic behaviour, but we know that these broken people will adversely effect society in general, at what point would it be acceptable to eliminate the threat?

[JustinFrankl]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sociopathic or psychopathic behavior is nature plus nurture. The absence of what the researchers call "trauma" or even going so far as to say that these people had "wonderful" childhoods belies their ignorance.

The idea being pushed here is that some people are intrinsically bad. The behavior-set of the typical sociopath or psychopath could be well-adapted to various endeavors -- indeed it seems that the sociopath is currently well-suited to corporatism. Psychopaths can have places in the military.

The problem arises when you think everyone should be alike. We aren't, never will be. For some, there will always be conflicts and irreconcilable differences.

[NEOPO]

I watched Capote a few weeks back.
Last night I listened to an interview with Tool.
Maynard touched on some of this as it is believed alot of his songs reflect his own childhood trauma.

He was abused physically and I believe that physical abuse does not occur without effecting people mentally as well thus mental abuse is a given.
His outlet is music.
We all need an outlet.
We all have thoughts and impulses yet we keep them in check usually....

Here is a link to a song that reflects some of his inner struggle:
tool video link

The repeating message is "do unto others what has been done to you".
We refuse to repeat what has happened to us.
We refuse to be brutal and uncaring.
But why?

As it was put forth in the movie Capote "we were in the same house but you chose the back door and I chose the front door".

There are many outlets although some only see rape, murder and their own subsequent destruction as the only outlet.
They only perceive the back door.

The real studies should be in the area of what keeps people sane instead of what causes them to become insane.
What prompts some people to choose the front door....is the question we should be asking.

Until then expect more unexplained tragedy.

Until then expect random slayings to be seen as tragedy and the war in iraq which has killed 100,000+ as a neccesity.
We will see the attempted preservation of our unsustainble lifestyles as normal and anyone who does not want that way of life as not normal, insane or even the enemy.

There seems to be no stopping the modern witch hunt.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

As I often say... it is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. But here I am talking about obviously deffective people.

At some point with criminals (the really bad ones) something happens. The first time I looked into a young inmates eyes and realized he'd died inside was trippy. (mostly because I was probably looking at him with the same eyes).

When are we going to reject peoples agendas both social and political and realize some people can't be fixed. I remember one inmate who was let loose (after a dangerous offender hearing), he'd molested 38 boys and girls and the judge said "he does not present a continued risk because he does not have a history".

ARe we as a modern society afraid to draw the line in the sand? or is there yet another agenda?

[WildRose]

I'm thinking that in a self-sustaining, cooperative community, such as those that are coming together now and would be more common post peak or post collapse, the question of what to do with truly dangerous people is an important one. The first step, though, would be identifying a person as psychopathic - who in the community would be qualified to do so, or whose judgement could be relied upon to make that call. I understand that some people can't be rehabilitated, but I've also witnessed a situation where a group of people almost destroyed a coworker because they (wrongly) believed all kinds of things about her. But...

If there was no doubt that a person was psychopathic and dangerous to a peaceful community with no police or court system, etc., then how to deal with this decisively becomes more important. We're accustomed to having others make these decisions - kids being passed on from one foster home to another, then to group homes, detention centers and penitentiaries. So, in a community that exists without police or government, there would be a greater need for a firm plan.

[Cloud9]

If after peak oil we go back to the frontier, then frontier justice will be rediscovered. A sturdy tree and a strong rope is rough justice, but it worked fairly well for nearly two hundred years.

[TorrKing]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'I')f after peak oil we go back to the frontier, then frontier justice will be rediscovered. A sturdy tree and a strong rope is rough justice, but it worked fairly well for nearly two hundred years.

[drew]

Morally, I agree with your solution more, Torjus.

This eviction though will recreate part of the middle ages.

It won't be safe to travel outside your community because of the crazy/bad people who live in the forest/desert/industrial areas.

I knew some psychopaths growing up.

I too think such individuals are beyond redemption.

Drew

[gg3]

I know quite a bit about this topic, having studied it academically and observed a few cases at (too) close (for comfort) range.

The disorders

The distinction between sociopath and psychopath:

The sociopath does not care if his behavior causes harm to others; the psychopath deliberately seeks to cause harm to others. The sociopath enjoys power and ego gratification and various forms of sensory gratification such as sex and the adrenaline rush, and doesn't care how he gets them or who gets hurt or how badly they get hurt along the way. The psychopath specifically enjoys causing pain to others, enjoys watching others suffer, the suffering and pain are the gratifications themselves. To the sociopath, other people are a means to the end of his own gratification. To the psychopath, other people's pain and suffering are inherently gratifying.

By analogy think of a robber who kills in cold blood to get a few dollars from a victim, vs. someone who enjoys watching the victims plead for their lives, enjoys watching the blood and convulsions of the victims as they die, and does not bother to rob them after killing them. The former "has no feelings," the latter "enjoys it."

Both are potentially equally dangerous in all senses of the word, i.e. up to and including becoming serial violent criminals.

In both there is an element of chronic boredom, boredom that is not just boring but actively painful, unendurable, torturous to the individual in a manner similar to chronic relentless physical pain. This may turn out to be a key to a potential treatment, about which more below.

Psychologists, military...

The reason that psychologists & psychiatrists don't like to deal with these cases is that they are regarded as untreatable. This has nothing to do with money: you could, after all, be paid forever by the state or private insurance to provide treatment to an individual who is incurable. The issue is "failure," in much the same sense as the medical profession does not like dealing with terminal illness: doctors do not like to "admit" that they have "failed" in their efforts to heal; it's depressing, it makes them feel worthless, so they avoid it. (How many of us, in whatever profession, like to perform tasks that we know from the outset are hopeless?)

The military has clever mechanisms for weeding out both types, because they make bad soldiers. Sociopaths and psychopaths tend to be impulsive and disregard authority. They are loose cannons who cannot be counted on to only act within the limits of their orders. All of the military jobs that involve the use of lethal force depend on individual self-discipline.

For example a sharpshooter must wait patiently in his hiding place (e.g. at the outskirts of an enemy camp) until his designated target (e.g. a commander of enemy forces) is visible and there is a clear shot. In artillery and aerial bombardment and similar cases, you have to account for ordnance that was used carrying out an order or a mission, so there is no room for "recreational shooting." Even in combat infantry, whose battles look chaotic and disordered to the civilian eye, there are procedures and limits and rules of engagement, all of which are so much boring bullshit to the person who gets their jollies by causing pain and death to others.

If you want to experiment with this first-hand, try this: notice how you feel when jaywalking across the middle of a street. Try limiting yourself to only crossing streets at the crosswalk when the Walk light is on. Observe how you feel about that: for most people it will be frustrating, you'll want to cross where and when it's convenient. Now imagine that there is an animal urge as powerful as feeding or sex, that is driving you to cross the street where and when you damn well please.

Now instead of an urge to cross the street, realize that these people have urges to harm others, urges that are powerful, relentless, and difficult to control. Now put that person in a uniform with powerful weaponry at their fingertips. Now what you have is in fact a threat to the orderly conduct of warfare, and a hazard to everyone in his unit, and the military does not want those people in its midst.

Normal people, exposed to the relentless stress of combat, can develop emotional numbness that is similar to sociopathy. However, once rotated to the rear or given leave, and after they retiire from the service, they usually bounce back to normal, plus or minus varying degrees of PTSD.

A potential treatment...?

Recall my point about chronic, painful, relentless boredom. This may be "a key to a cure."

Psychopharmacologist Alexandar Shulgin is well known for his research on entactogens: compounds that induce a state of empathy, many of which are valuable in research & clinical practice, some of which have become famous as street drugs. Shulgin accidentally discovered a compound that produces the relentless state of painful boredom, the emotional flat-line state. I spoke with him at length about this and its implications (I'm not going to reveal the name of the compound here, for now I'll refer to it as ABI, for Acute Boredom Inducer).

In pharmacology generally, it's understood that if you can produce a model for the disease mechanism, you can then produce models for potential pathways for treatment.

The outcome of the discussion is that Shulgin has in mind a research protocol that could determine the areas of the brain and the specific receptor sites that are targeted by ABI. Having done this, we would understand the mechanism, the pathways, that are involved in the painful boredom state. This in turn would lead to a neurophysiological model of that state. And that in turn would lead to insights for drug development: compounds that could undo the chronic boredom, unlock the emotional flat-line, and thereby give the patient some degree of access to a normal range of emotion. And while this may not give people a fully healthy emotional spectrum, it would be successful if it at least prevented them becoming hazards to others.

Thus far noone is funding Shulgin for this study, and it would be rather expensive. Someone needs to do it. What Shulgin really needs are a couple of grantwriters working for him full time! If anyone here is experienced at writing medical grants, contact me via private message. (BTW, I do not stand to benefit in any way from this project if it gets underway.)

If this works, the results would be of enormous value. For one thing, crimes at every level of society, from street-level violence and murder, to major frauds against investors, would be markedly reduced. Everyone has an interest in this outcome.

Next: what to do about sociopaths in the post-collapse world?

[NEOPO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'g')g3 - they usually bounce back to normal, plus or minus varying degrees of PTSD.

[gg3]

Sociopaths, psychopaths, and post-collapse society.

Here's a useful reminder: Charm is spelled c-harm, as in "see-harm." When you feel you're being "charmed," "see (the potential for) harm" and look out for a possible sociopath or psychopath.

At present, these individuals end up on one of two tracks. One leads to long prison sentences. The other leads to the kinds of wealth and power that Western societies identify with success. The successful ones have a stake in obscuring the nature of their condition, and thereby have a stake in preventing society from becoming more proactive at diagnosis and treatment of these conditions generally.

Most of these cases have traits that can be seen long before they reach adult life where they can cause much trouble for others. Often they will be your childhood bullies, or chronic liars, manipulative charmers, or repeatedly cruel to animals notably others' pets. In a better world, where among other things, Shulgin's research would have led to a medication to treat these conditions, children who display the relevant signs would be referred for diagnosis and treatment. They would also be told, "if you stop taking your medicine, and you commit a criminal act, your diagnosis will not afford you a defense: you will still go to prison for a long time."

The best we can hope for at present is to strengthen the laws where and as needed, to enable imprisoning these people for life (or until there's a medical cure). That goes for the "white collar" criminal types as well as the street-level thugs: after all, corporate fraud destroys lives, as per Enron, Worldcom, etc.

In a post-collapse society, these individuals may try to get themselves into leadership positions: posing as brave, tough, or simply charming their way to the top of local hierarchies. Even non-hierarchical systems such as consensus decision making are no protection, as sociopaths are experts in manipulating the informal social structures outside of formal decision making, to get whatever it is they want.

Prevention is the best cure. And, in the coming crises, as well as in the present conditions, the best prevention is education.

Consider drunk driving. At one time it was more or less ignored, and offenders faced relatively mild penalties. In the past decade or two, publicity about drunk driving accident deaths, and related issues, have raised public awareness. Today, "designated driver" and "take the keys" are commonplace and common sense.

More recently, campaigns to alert people to online child predators, have become prominent and started to show results. The resignation of a Congressman for online sexual misconduct with a teenager who had been a "page" in his office, is the most obvious recent example.

Thus, a major public education campaign could help alert people to the signs of these disorders. This would improve the potential for treating cases where treatment is possible (for example, at an early age?), and the potential for excluding people who are untreatable.

Another step a community can take, is to keep potential members in a probationary status for a year, before they can vote or otherwise participate in the decision making structure. The vast majority of sociopaths and psychopaths are sufficiently impulsive and undisciplined that they will not be able to last the entire year without being found out.

Yet another step is to have strong principles and rules, including obedience to the rule of law. To prevent "mob justice," try to replicate the conventional American system of justice, or other civilized systems of justice, as far as possible: trial by impartial judge and jury of peers, the right to remain silent, to cross-examine witnesses, to have counsel for defense, strong standards of evidence, and strong standards for guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I am ambivalent about the death penalty. Sentencing an innocent person to death is the gravest miscarriage of justice, and as DNA evidence testing has shown, is in fact common. The purpose of a criminal penalty must be a) to afford the offender the opportunity for rehabilitation, b) to protect society from the offender, and c) to deter others from committing crimes.

Revenge is a barbaric atavism that has no place among civilized or cultured people, including so-called primitives in tribal cultures that are non-technological. Excessive penalties are little better than revenge. And yet there are cases where individuals continue to commit violent acts or direct the activities of violent organized criminals from behind bars: clearly prison has not made society safe from them, so the only way to protect others is either to keep these people locked up in solitary confinement, or to execute them.

Under post-collapse conditions, resource crises and chaotic social conditions may make it necessary to expand the death penalty to cover cases where rehabilitation is impossible or where the offender constitutes a grave threat to others.

Thus at minimum, children should be taught that a) if they manipulate others they will become formally ostracized and limited to social roles that place them under strict supervision and deprive them of power, and b) if they harm others, the law will deal with them strictly and harshly. This lesson should be repeated in the context of civic eduation in every grade, in a manner that is age-appropriate, along with other lessons about law, order, individual rights, and individual responsibilities.

A path to prevention: something that may work.

James Prescott's paper Bodily Pleasure and the Origins of Violence can easily be found on line. Originally written under a Nixon-era National Institutes of Health grant, it was also published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Prescott found that, almost without exception, a) cultures in which there were relatively high levels of non-sexual physical affection in early childhood and early adulthood, had relatively low levels of violence, and b) cultures in which there were relatively low (or nonexistent) levels of nonsexual physical affection in early childhood and early adulthood, had relatively high levels of violence. The original report showed a correlation of 0.98, which is practically at a level that can be considered proof of causality. Subsequent findings about the cultures that didn't fit the pattern showed that in fact they did fit the pattern: thus, the correlation is 1.0, a perfect correlation, and proof of a cause-and-effect relationship.

Subsequent research has documented the specific changes in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology that occur in mammals raised in high-affection vs. low-affection conditions: these findings support Prescott 100%.

How this can be applied:

Consider the typical kinds of nonsexual physical affection that occur in early childhood and early adulthood. Parents play with their babies, hug them and kiss them, toss them playfully in the air and catch them, swing them around, play games on the floor together, and so on.

There are three critical components of this early childhood affection: one is healthy physical contact, one is positive emotional feedback (facial expressions, words, tone of voice), and one is "vestibular stimulation," i.e. the sensation of one's body moving through 3-dimensional space.

As well, there need to be consistent activities as the children grow up. For example, hugs are still hugs, but playing with a toddler on the floor turns into playing sports with your kids on any available playing field (in the absence of private household lawns, it may still be a very good idea to have a communal lawn set aside for sports and activities!).

All of this is no more or less than normal healthy parenting. Thus it can and should be encouraged, and parents must be provided enough free time every day to have these kinds of interactions with their babies and children.

In the early adult years, i.e. starting in the teenage years, the same types of affectionate contact apply, though differently: healthy physical contact, positive emotional feedback, and vestibular stimulation (body moving through space).

The obvious place where all of these are found is in team sports. The bear hug and pat on the back among team-mates, the cheers and compliments for good performance or a good try, the physical movement on the playing field, and even the mutual consolation for a game lost, are all good examples. Physical games such as Capture the Flag are good for the same reasons. Dance, gymnastics, playing music in a band, are also good for the same reasons.

These things can also provide a basis for the romantic involvement of early loves and dating, with appropriate guidance to delay actual sex until a healthy relationship exists in adulthood.

Once again, all of this is nothing more or less than the best of traditional parenting and upbringing of kids, with a few adjustments to accommodate kids who are not interested in competitive sports or have other individual needs that differ from the majority.

And the bottom line is, these kinds of affection and activities will prevent kids growing up with the kind of damaged neurological development that leads to violent behavior. In other words, prevention of sociopathy and psychopathy, and reduction of the numbers of such cases to the irreducible minimum that can be dealth with medically or via the justice system if they commit offenses.

Even in a post-collapse world, there is no good reason why societies, localities, communities, and individual families cannot raise their kids with the kind of affection and activity that we know will reduce these risks and produce healthy adults. Regardless of what your local school district does or does not do about athletics, dance, music, and so on, you should do it yourself if needed.

And in case anyone's wondering, raising kids with affection and physical activity does not compromise their ability to be ferocious warriors when the need arises. The same healthy upbringing that breeds empathy for others, also breeds the sense of protectiveness to defend others from aggression. The children of 20th century democracies, raised in environments where their parents had all the time to do it right, and where their schools provided all the relevant activities, did after all go on to defeat fascism and other evils of their times.

We owe the future nothing less.

[gg3]

NeoPO:

PTSD is never "nonchalant," but I refuse to buy into the idea that those cases are permanent damage: it puts the victims into a role of permanent victimhood rather than looking toward overcoming their traumas. Thus I am always going to refer to PTSD and suchlike in such a way that affirms the potential for healing.

Jaywalking and urges to maim & kill: Yes, precisely. The way you and I respond to having to walk to the end of the block and wait for the Walk light, when traffic is light, is a good model for the way the sociopath feels about having to treat others with respect and integrity rather than just manipulating them for his own gain or pleasure.

And I might add, the way a healthy person feels about their favorite hobbies, is a good model for the way the psychopath feels about his own favorite hobby, which is making people suffer.

Understanding these models and analogies is a good basis for understanding what goes on in the minds of evil people. And I do use the word "evil" deliberately. The difference between good and evil often comes down to a a few extra dendritic connections and a few micrograms of neuropeptides and hormones. A very fine line indeed, but one that is of critical importance.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he purpose of a criminal penalty must be a) to afford the offender the opportunity for rehabilitation, b) to protect society from the offender, and c) to deter others from committing crimes.

Excessive penalties are little better than revenge. And yet there are cases where individuals continue to commit violent acts or direct the activities of violent organized criminals from behind bars: clearly prison has not made society safe from them, so the only way to protect others is either to keep these people locked up in solitary confinement, or to execute them.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

The main problem I see happening is that its easier to be on guard or even go against (kill?) a recognizable enemy (black and white thinking makes that easy). But its harder to do that to someone from "within".

How do you or would you see a punishment carried out against your wife, husband, or lover? When do the normal "rules" of your society get suspended? who would declare a state of war against a neighbouring community? would it be done by committee?

How would you carry out a death sentence on someone you'd played with as a child, worked with and schooled with day after day? cause that is what we are talking about here. Yes, you know he's different, and even if he killed someone you kinda knew, could you carry out a death sentence on someone? How would you know definitively that they were a psycho/sociopath, that he couldn't and wouldn't fit in. And once having killed and liked it that he'd do it again? would it then be a mercy killing (mercy to those who would suffer from his contiunued existance?)

[rwwff]

All sounds very similar to the ancient human custom of going on witch hunts. Round up a few people you don't like, claim they have done or will do some hideous evil, based on testimony of an appointed "expert", then hang them, torture (ABI) them, etc.

Kegger later that evening for all involved in promoting the festivities.

Funny where defeat takes the hippies.