oh, I like that and with permission. will spread it.

I think the point of "not ascribing to malice" is that it is much better for one's own mental health, and thus leading to a more positive state of mind w.r.t. adressing a problem.

If one ascribes something to malice then one is creating an additional problem to deal with. Namely, one has the tendency to take things personally when one perceives them to be the consequence of bad intent. One then has additional personal issues to deal with, rather than deal with the actual problem at hand in a detached, objective and constructive way.

The statement to me, therefore, is about how we personally *chose* to perceive/interpret a situation.

So your corrololary essentially turns the statement upside down.

Let me put it this way. The following two statement seem logical equivalent:

• "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
• "Malice is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced stupidity"

However, there is a world of difference in the direction of the implied choice of one subjective point of view over another.

Clarke

Although this isn't the best place to discuss things like the Illuminati, Freemasonry, conspiracies, or similar things... there is a lot of evidence proving the existence of these things.

No less than David Rockefeller blatantly admits that his goal in life is to promote a one world government. I'm not saying that a one world government is a bad thing in and of itself. Instead the evidence is that the people promoting these agendas at a high level have malicious intentions and will push forward their ideas at nearly any cost to the general public (aka "cattle").

When you look at the various secret societies and think tank organizations (CFR, Bilderberg, PNAC, etc.), there is a great deal of reliable information about their membership and agendas. It's rather eerie to find out the big names in business, government, and media who are part of these organizations. However, TOD tends to be more scientifically oriented and from what I've seen there are only a small percentage of members who have taken the time to delve deeply into these subjects. Perhaps people are afraid of being labeled kooks.

I agree fully with your observation. I think the "enemy within" angle is one that is frequently forgotten in discussions on how messed up our societies have become. Myself, I was quite naïve about this until I had a stint in the corporate environment (the natural habitat of the sociopath).

One suggestion to the Oil Drum editors: try to get a psychologist to write a guest article on sociopaths. Hopefully it will be an eye-opener for many people.