Telperion:
I sense that you're having a real mental block about this, and I just want to take a stab at helping you "get" it. Please bear with me and read the following, because I really think it might give you a different perspective:
An analogy: A trained aviation expert has the technical knowledge that allows him to accurately identify a Boeing 747 plane, via objective observation of its appearance and characteristics. Because of his training and knowledge he is able to say: "It is a fact that the airplane I am looking at is a Boeing 747." Now, someone with less knowledge, say, your average airplane passenger, might say "I know for a fact that is a Boeing 777", and a New Guinea tribesman might swear up and down that what he is looking at is a giant bird. Now, you would not say that the identification of the plane "depends on your point of view", and label all three persons' statements about the plane as equally "factual", right?
In the same way, an expert on psychopaths and ponerology has the technical knowledge that allows him to accurately identify a psychopathic political leader, via objective observation of that leader's characteristics, his actions and behaviour. Because of his knowledge, he is able to say: "It is a fact that John Smith is a psychopath." Now, someone with less knowledge, say the citizen of a country run by a leader whose behaviour is much more outrageous than that of John Smith, might say, "I know for a fact that John Smith is not a psychopath, because he is not nearly as bad as our leader." A third person might say "I know for sure that he's a psychopath because I disagree with his political policies." In the same way you would not say that the identification of John Smith as a psychopath is soley dependent on your "point of view", and label all three persons' statements about Smith as being equally "factual".
What is the key element in both scenarios that allows for the accurate establishment of not just OPINION, or POINT OF VIEW, but FACT? It is KNOWLEDGE, it is TECHNICAL EXPERTISE. All of the countless articles and threads on SOTT and this forum about psychopaths and ponerology are based on work of experts who have extensively studied the subject; who, via their research, have been able to identify the defining characteristics and behaviour of psychopaths in all areas of life, including politics and government. Their conclusions do not represent OPINION, or idiosyncratic POINTS OF VIEW, they represent FACT.
I understand what you were trying to say in your comments about Putin. However, if you had wanted to make the case that Putin is in fact a psychopathic political leader, you should have concentrated on his ACTIONS and BEHAVIOUR and not simply the perspective of those who have experience of him, regardless of their knowledge, or lack of knowledge, about ponerology. In essence, your argument went as follows: "Well, to a lot of Americans he is not a psychopath because he is not as bad as Bush, but to the people in Chechnya, he is a psychopath -- it all depends on your point of view." However, instead, you should have concentrated on Putin's specific actions and behaviours in relation to Chechnya, then compared those actions and behaviours to what we know about psychopaths and ponerology. "Point of view" does not come into it, one can either identify him as a psychopath via objective observation of his actions and behaviour (i.e., does he exhibit the KNOWN characteristics of a psychopath, of a ponerized leader and political system?), or one cannot. That would be a true objective examination of the FACTS.
Do you begin to see?
You really don't get it, do you? The point - which has been reiterated to you again and again and again is that this forum is working toward an objective understanding of EVERYTHING. This means that all active members of this forum work very, very hard to post not only thoughtful content, but content that is as free of subjectivity, opinion and self-importance as they can manage, no matter where they are on the learning/awakening/discernment scale. Often, these forum members are just beginning and nothing about their post is lacking subjectivity other than their sincere desire to understand and to contribute - their sincere desire to approach this place with an empty cup and learn.
