While the site this comment came from was primarily about the Kercher business, there were also some great general observations, including this one from a lady signing in as Mary:
I was unlucky enough to encounter a true psychopath many years ago – a colleague at work. The description in this article [on the site] is almost uncanny in its accurate description of that evil woman.
Every statement there was 100% true of her – including the shock that other people felt when her actions were [finally] revealed. She relied heavily on the fact that ordinary people simply could not believe that she could be so heartless, wicked and barefaced in the many lies she told.
She was extremely plausible and knew exactly how to identify and exploit the decent emotions of those around her. Money was the key motive, but she also loved to control, to deceive, to manipulate, to dominate….
This one managed to wriggle out of a jail sentence at least a couple of times and continued with her predations (which included using her position of trust to diddle dying cancer patients and their families out of life insurance money and other similarly charming exploits) but ended up with a ten year sentence.
In the courtroom she claimed, in heart rending tones, over and over again, that “she had tried and tried to get help – but no-one would help her………” The poor soul. How cruelly she was treated!
These are the ones who hoover up so many resources and cause boundless heartache along their path of destruction. The plausibility is everything.
I’ve known a few of these myself. One of them was adept at how to identify with the concerns and language of certain types of people and play up to them, to actually adopt the personae. He could be equally the hail-fellow-well-met to the rationalist guy and was the ladies’ man to the females. He never antagonized women or rationalists – that was counterproductive.
Few ever saw the sham.
Those who don’t operate this way can’t always conceptualize how carefully such a person interweaves the target’s own words with attributed words, strawmen, always for the benefit of third parties – the court of public opinion, knowing no one was really taking notice before and therefore can’t discern truth from strawmen now. In such a vacuum, they accept the reality which is presented, gratis, before them, instead of thinking it through. Why would they think it through and bother finding out?
The lengths I had to go now to even to explain how this was done involved ponderous prose, clumsily rendered. The narrativists, on the other hand, stick to slick, concise messages of seeming but actually little meaning. “Yes we can!” “A brighter future.”
Unless they wish to conceal a move, in which case they bury it in a 1000 word report.
It’s human nature. Every conman has done it that way. It’s using human foibles by, as Senator Jenner said in 1954:
… forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach …
No one halfway normal [everyone has foibles], in the normal daily run of life, can quite see how all-enveloping the ruse is and how much time and effort is devoted to the subterfuge but in the psycho’s eyes, the end result is worth any cost.
For you to wonder why is to ask the wrong question. We’re not talking rationality here. There’s nothing rational in this. When those psychos are the people behind govt, then that’s talking high stakes and it becomes far more understandable as to why they’ll spread the lie.
An example was the story posted at OoL and at my old site yesterday, courtesy Captain Ranty: