Investigating each of these labels is definitely a basic of what we’re facing here, and I definitely invite you to do it thoroughly. There are different approaches to the subject, coming to slightly different definitions, defining slightly different lists of characteristics, and so on; the point is knowing and looking at all this from an unbiased and result−oriented point of view; after all, all measurement tools have plays and tolerances and require to be used wisely, which includes using them synergically. And then… by their fruits you will know them, isn’t it?

This said, my first remark is that each one of those labels draws our attention to a facet, so we’d better evaluate the usefulness of each one:
Psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity and moral imbecility highlight that an individual is not up to the minimum requirements for the survival of society – please note well: the survival of society, regardless of his or her own, insightful and forward−looking an observation.
Manie sans délire highlights a key observable – or rather hardly observable – facet: such individuals are almost always invisible, as very few of them show conspicuous or even visible signs of what they really are.
Guiltlessness highlights a key inner facet: they act as if they had no conscience at all, which means they are liable to do literally anything the conscience abhors – which in turn means that anyone who does have a conscience, and who is incapable of conceiving that someone else does not, is at risk of being stabbed in the back.
Psychopathy is actually too vague a term, meaning everything and nothing, to be of any use: the suffix “pathy” meaning “what” – a disorder, and the prefix “psycho” meaning “where” – in the psyche, the word in itself conveys no further information and thus is of no further help; moreover, it even worsens the scene due to the sabotage suffered by the word psyche, which was created to mean the soul – whatever non−material part of the human being, and then usurped to mean the brain – whatever material part of the human being, thus generating further malicious confusion.

Toxic personality, from the Greek “toxicon”, poison, is rather self−explanatory, while narcissist indicates that he or she considers others as inferiors and supposed to serve his or her worship of self, and manipulator highlights that he or she consequently does use others heartlessly, and so invites a study of how he or she acts, what he or she does, of the means used to achieve his or her purposes.
Conscienceless, remorseless and ruthless explicitly refer to the idea that the individual just lacks a specific component, described as the sense of good and evil stemming from the sense of connectedness to one another, a state where the only barren purpose left is using one’s fellows as mere pawns to dominate and destroy.
Sociopath highlights a condition, the state one is in, which is the potential determining the type of actions that can originate from, that can be expected, and who is to expect these is indicated by the prefix coupled with the suffix “pathy”: “socio”, meaning “society” – all of us.
Sociopath and Luciferian are purposely put near each other as I deem their juxtaposition inspirational: from the viewpoint of rivalry between materialism and metaphysics, it proves we’re all on the same boat when it comes to getting to the core – that type of individual – and hence that rivalry too is most likely to be instigated by him or her; from the viewpoint of the facets highlighted by each label, the multiple meaning of Luciferian continues to widen and deepen the profile. While the sociopath can be such due to either brain or spiritual missing or malfunctioning parts, the Luciferian was described by religion as aiming at either the possession of souls or the totalitarian rule of the superior over the lesser – a hell in both cases, the only difference being with the degraded consensus or the terrified hatred of the victims –, or the plain death for all the peoples, thus bringing in both cases the aims of that type of individual to an entirely different level regardless of whatever missing or malfunctioning parts.
Antisocial then begins the shift from the potential to the action, and highlights how that condition is the potential of an individual actively causing troubles to the society rather than just having difficulties with it passively, acting against one’s fellows rather than being subjected to them.

Suppressive finally completes that shift and highlights that whatever the motives, the point is that the individual is not just potentially but actively damaging his/her fellows: that individual is a fire that won’t extinguish spontaneously, as long as the environment is not fireproof and the firemen actively contain him or her – or, failing that, until the whole world will be but dead ashes.

I will use here the term suppressive since we’re here to get somewhere, but also because there is something specific and deeper in it on which the following is based; but it is nonetheless understood that with it I mean everything that all the terms above mean, plus everything else added here.

Whether its origin is material determinism or spiritual free will, whether that type of individual is the cause or the effect of it, for practical purposes intention is the ultimate cause anyway. This said, is that intention mere domination or utter extermination? That is the question.

So, just as the confusion between economics and finance, suppression requires a closer inspection, too. To suppress basically means to oppress, to crush, to make one smaller, weaker, more insecure, worse, you name it, and possibly to a point to reduce one to zero, to kill him/her. Or possibly even to below zero, to a helping hand in spreading and multiplying suppression.

There are many variations and degrees of suppression, but I think we can list three broad stages: 1) deceive, fraud and steal – sort of one−off, hit−and−run suppression; 2) degrade and enslave – continuous and overwhelming, damaging the integrity of the victim; 3) nullify and murder – the final one.

These are the goals of suppression, and there are as many ways to suppress as many good things ill−intentioned people can betray, infiltrate, pervert and twist into suppressive tools. Politics and religion, for instance, have been used to suppress during history. Now it’s the turn of Economics.

But the key point is the intention, not the means: when someone has the intention to harm, anything at hand is likely to be used as a weapon. “To the man who wants to use a hammer badly, a lot of things look like nails that need hammering.” – Mark Twain. Things do not just happen; things are caused. And the ultimate causative factor in society are individuals.

And another key point is sheer results: if the end result is suppression, well, call it suppression, regardless of what are the purported intentions of the individuals or how much they are aware of the actual consequences of their actions. Their intentions and awareness may be arguable, their consequences are not. As the awareness of acting suppressively is related to the awareness of reality, it may be uncertain on the part of the subject, but it can be quite certain on the part of his or her fellows. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts. Also because, to the degree one is a decent individual, one won’t need too much time to realize one’s tools are harming instead of being helpful; so if after a reasonable time span one does not stop a possible harmful outcome one way or another, this means that individual is mad enough to be dangerous whatever.

A case in point of sheer results regardless is what has been labelled merchant of chaos. A merchant of chaos is someone who profits or even lives out of you perceiving your environment, in full or in part, as dangerous, hostile, threatening, degraded, or in whatever kind of low condition.

The merchants of chaos either just exploit an environment that is actually dangerous, or they strive to make it appear to you seemingly more dangerous than it actually is, or they actively make the environment dangerous, or more dangerous than it was. It could be said that the whole trick of the merchants of chaos is making the environment appear to their target victims worse than it actually is, but that would be too restrictive and cause us to overlook those who just exploit what they find nice and ready, as well as those who work hard to make an enviroment actually worse. So it is quite safer to stretch the label to include all of these variants.

And all kinds of merchants of chaos anyhow deliberately aim at making you feel surrounded by a dangerous environment, in order to exploit your ensuing reactions, at your expense and to your detriment. A merchant of chaos may not be necessarily suppressive, but he or she is certainly unaware, unconcerned, incompetent or selfish enough to act so. Whatever the basic motives behind it, we’re in presence of a deliberate intention of exploiting others by specifically harming them for profit.

Just ponder over how many professions are on the verge of this, if not just plainly in it: politicians, media, life and psyche advisors from every view of the world and existence, the various forces wearing uniforms, any form of monopoly and oligopoly, big pharma, tobacco corporations and drug cartels are but the first and most conspicuous springing to mind; the exercise consists in figuring out how each candidate can and does leverage your weakness or legitimate aims in order to let you reach for their, or their accomplices, “services” or “favours”, the more so the more you are – or even just feel – unsafe, endangered, etc.

What lets you feel you need more politics and more politicians: peace, ease and serenity, or rather conflict, problems and anxiety? Politicians posture as knights rattling their sabers and gnashing their teeth at the dragons, which means that without the dragons they’re nothing, which in turn means dragons are likely to be made of paper−mâché and wires pulled by puppeteers, even though the fire they spit is authentic, witness our scorched backsides.
What lets you consume more media: sensational scary news or reassuring good news? One car accident or the millions of cars that happily reached their destinations in the meantime? A tree falling or a forest growing?
What lets you reach for solace to your problems in any given religion, philosophy or whatever ethics, more? The constructive uncomfortable notion that to master your fate you must actively cooperate with it to restore your responsibility, or the defeatist apathetic notion that your misfortunes are too big to overcome so all you’re left with is sympathy?

What lets you crave for a pill as the modern holy bread, the same uncomfortable notion above that you are someone and as such you are able to master your fate, or the notion that you are something, not someone, and there is something wrong about that something called you that something else can – hopefully – fix without your participation?
What lets you demand and hail uniforms that will “protect” you by shooting you, other than the notion of a carefully orchestrated dangerous environment?
What lets you pledge allegiance to any form of monopoly, be it spiritual, material or anything, other than an effective campaign to isolate you from anything else?
What lets you build up your want for drugs better than labelling as disorder what is not, never was, and never will be? Just recently we had a textbook case in point, with a new marketing campaign targeting personal hygiene and labelling it as an obsession. Who will seize the power to decree what is normal or abnormal if we don’t kick them out of their fake pulpits?

That tobacco and drug cartels grow in direct ratio to the degradation of individual spine and social fabric is so proven a fact that their penetration in society can be used as a direct indicator of its state.
Last, but far from the least, there is another indicator of the degree of personal and social degradation of the same species, which is somewhat less easily detected and recognised as such, which is therefore our main subject here: the degree of growth and social penetration of banksters (gangster−bankers, later on you will tell if I adopted this inspired neologism with good reason…), of their partners in crime and above all of their puppeteers.

The more fear, the more crave for protection. The more barbarian the people, the more they beg for rulers; the less self−control in people, the more pretext and room for merchants of chaos to exist, and to possibly claim more unaccountable and coercive “control”. Per se, control is neutral, if not positive: if you control your vocal cords, you will be understood. The merchants of chaos’ control is quite another thing: its aim is not your well−being and survival, but your exploitation, enslavement, degradation and suppression. It is therefore understandable how merchants of chaos contribute to give control an undeserved bad reputation, which makes us even more vulnerable to their assaults. The more successfully the problem is credulously bought as the solution, the steeper the deadly spiral of sales. The more sickness and addiction, the more drug sales and the more deification of the pill as the new holy bread.

What is madness? Anyone can give one’s own definition. As I will underline ahead, everything is basically agreement, so whatever else anyone may want to call madness, I think we can all agree to call madness the suppressive intention and/or results. There is a difference between a mere crook and a suppressive, and it is in their intentions towards others, and maybe in the cost they’re willing to pay to achieve them: A crook just wants to seize, and to hell with others; should the crook find out that his or her own survival is at stake due to his or her crimes, maybe he or she would slow down. A suppressive wants anyone else dead, and what’s more he or she’s willing to pay any cost for it, even his or her own demise; thus there is no limit nor restrain to the destruction produced, nor chance to self−restrain it. Sort of priority shift, from self−interest to death for all… I guess that if the first may qualify for being labelled madness, the second definitely does, isn’t it?

So when the actions of an individual can be consistently traced back to a basic intention to suppress and/or their consistent result is suppressive, we better call things with their name and pick that individual out as a suppressive or a sociopath: an individual socially ill.

Furthermore, there is a reason why I say "and/or", why I equate intention and effects, and it is that while on one hand a crime is a crime regardless of its being a collateral damage or the ultimate aim, on the other hand knowing and thus being able to tell the difference between a crook and a suppressive helps one and all to understand and thus predict what to expect, and why, more accurately.

In fact, it would be consequential here to ask: why? Why is one suppressive or acts suppressively? And this question would in turn raise another question: in general terms, where there is an intention, is there always a motive? And, in particular, is there a motive behind the intention to suppress? Such questions are strictly related to other basic questions regarding what a human being is and how does he or she operates – or is operated – and these are borderline matters allowing for as much arbitrary controversial opinions as objective incontrovertible facts are scarce. As we’re here to get somewhere, we’ll digress into this only as much as it’s of any practical use: to the degree a hypothesis provides a logic in observing and thus predicting.

Let’s then suppose individuals act logically, consequentially, not randomly. This means that given an effect, there is a cause, and there is a consistent link between them, instead of sheer randomness. Supposing there are reasons, only then it makes sense to wonder what these reasons are.

On this basis, the hypothesis here is that a suppressive does not see the same reality that we see, but lives instead in a quite altered one. And – alas very unfortunately – it is a reality where the suppressive is constantly under threat or attack: every second, everywhere, every other individual is an enemy, all−out after butchering the suppressive, no exceptions, ever. While we see a mild world where people is after making a living and getting along, the suppressive sees a hell where anyone is about to butcher him or her. Sure, it’s mad. Stark−raving mad. And false, quite off track. But we do know neither insanity nor falseness prevent from actually acting on those wrong premises.

If by any chance you think it is incredible, in the sense of not credible, well, not only reality doesn’t give a damn about being credible, not having to ask anyone’s permission, and not only the best way to hide something, particularly in plain sight, is making it appear incredible. In addition to that, what may appear not credible to some has been done. Actually accomplished. Reportedly, the “war booty” of Nazi psychology was thoughtfully transplanted and farmed home by the governments of the winning nations, and huge and diversified secret investments were made to the aim of controlling their own citizens; documentation exists within this field of investigation on how individuals have been artificially put in an hallucinated state where a friend were an enemy in a “kill or be killed” situation, and they acted in a murderous way accordingly, entirely contrary to who they were in a normal state. Since this is what has been artificially achieved by shady individuals with their apprentice sorcerer’s tools, you can easily estimate how likely it is that some individual may be “naturally” in such a state, only a more deep, hidden and articulated one.

It probably takes a bit of pondering to envision such a hell, and how would we feel and act were we in it. I suppose we would not only live in terror, but we would also do anything to conceal it: animals are said they can feel when one is scared, and it triggers them to attack. This said, deeming our survival on such a knife−edge, imagine how we would feel if anyone around us became more clever, able, strong: we would see that as our finishing blow. It’s worth repeating again that we would be seeing any other human being around us as an active enemy on the verge of butchering us; in fact it has been said that the suppressive sees others as a hostile generality, and this term is carefully chosen: the suppressive is in such a state of mind that not only all others are deemed hostile, but even the distinction between individual and individual becomes blurred and immaterial. It therefore becomes understandable why nobody can trust a suppressive: a suppressive trusts nobody at all in the first place.

And it becomes understandable as well why a suppressive is fixated on things like keeping others down, small, weak, dependent, ignorant, incapable of reaching, and under a useless, obsessive, absurd, spasmodic, ruthless – in other words, suppressive – control: every second, every one of them may attack him or her.

Whenever we’re so stupid to start digging our grave by taking suppressive advice as to how to conduct our lives and societies, we see the world drift towards 1984. We unwittingly find ourselves exiled from our humanity to homo homini lupus, where help is betrayal, our neighbour is an enemy, and communication lines are usurped by distraction, deceit and surveillance. We find ourselves stealthily educated into taking all that for granted as just the way it is. And this is not just the way it is; this is a fabrication.
And there is no limit to the amount of oppression and asphyxiation through pathological control that can pile up. So, well before we even realize it we find ourselves in a hell where rules are a boundless minefield instead of an essential shelter, where there are more bumph to fill than time to live, more fines than schools, more speed limits than roads, more checkpoints than lawns, more surveillance than anyone will ever exploit, more cages than freedoms, and more prison guards than inmates.
What kind of person, of point of view, of mental state can lead us there? This end result demonstrates conclusively the insanity of the suppressive, but alas time and again history proved this insanity does not prevent it from taking place, too.

And at the bottom of this hell understandable as well becomes what went maybe unnoticed in this quote in the opening overflight: “The social personality wants to survive and wants others to survive, whereas the antisocial personality really and covertly wants others to succumb.” Did you notice? Survival of self is not even an issue for the suppressive. To this paradoxical extent this condition can get: such is the terror that so absolute is the struggle to let anyone else succumb, that if this involves the suppressive him or herself to succumb, well be it.

And that’s where we get somewhere, in terms of practical predicting: never underestimate the destructive potential of a suppressive by thinking that he or she will be restrained by the threat of succumbing personally. Here’s where using the more wide, thorough and far−sighted definition may come to our rescue: Based on the concept of sociopathic, we would assume he or she would settle for abusing us and we would drop our guard accordingly. Based on the concept of suppressive, we assume he or she won’t settle for nothing else than reducing and keeping us to our lowest possible terms or, better still, and thus whenever possible, our outright extermination, so we know we can never afford to drop the guard.

What does “Economic Suppression” mean, then? The intention and/or the act of deceiving, defrauding, robbing, degrading, enslaving, nullifying, murdering and the alike by economic means. And it does not just mean merely infiltrating the endeavours of people to survive to the aim of exploiting them to one’s shady and supposed advantage. It does mean infiltrating the most fundamental endeavours of people to survive to the aim of perverting them so they produce for that people the contrary of survival. It’s an entirely different intention.

(By the way, now that we’ve dealt with both terms, “economic” and “suppression”, and noticed how economics is about survival and suppression is head on against it, we see how almost everything is economics, and therefore how virtually every suppression is economic suppression; hence, the title “Economic Suppression” turns out to be just a touch pleonastic. So, I confess I chose it in order to reach you as fast as impinging as a title and a cover can, and have to, so as to have a chance to get you in touch with all that starts here.)

Why calling things with their name? To prevent being deceived into excusing deliberate intention as “mistakes”, as “sorry, didn't know the gun was loaded,” instead of just saying “NO!” An example? High frequency trading. Stock exchange speculators have found out how to bleed you white of your last quids: in the same time a human needs to carry out a single transaction, computers carry out countless transactions; even though each one yields very small profit, there are so many of them that the sum of their profits becomes meaningful. But the point here is they're are automatic and fast. This means that you have boarded a crowd on the boat, and if one individual moves, all the crowd follows him so fast that the boat capsizes before you even notice the first one moved. So, if they even try to tell you they didn't mean it, that it was unintentional, that's immaterial; you may concede as arguable their awareness of the social effects of their speculations, and you may even concede as arguable their carelessness of such effects, but sheer results are what counts and are not subject to discussion. The law contemplates the crime, not its reason, right?

Just as the character has been generally recognised as a bit of a problem, so has been the fallout. After all, if the character is a problem, it is so due to the fallout. Since I move forward here to stating that the root cause of any condition that is low, worsening or refusing to improve, of any hardship, decline, failure, ruin throughout our whole history traces back to the suppressive, and since the “what” or, rather, “who”, entails the “how”, it appears simply consequential that that “how” has been investigated, too, as a subject in its own right, hence resulting in the isolation and labelling of some lists of common denominators, of some of the suppressive’s distinctive schemes of action.
As it has been observed that the suppressive achieves destruction by manipulating others undetected as such, such schemes of actions are referred to as manipulative tactics, and as diversionary tactics. Much highly informative literature is easily available on the subject, hence suffice here to rapidly mention a few terms, through which one can find such literature:

Gaslighting: destroying other’s trust in themselves, by destroying their sense of reality insisting on questioning their certainty of reality and on altered versions of reality.
Projection, blame game, playing the victim: red herring by “blameshifting game”, by dumping the responsibility for one’s negative traits and misdeeds on anyone or anything else; as the Poet said, “Deceit’s favourite role is playing the victim.” Furthermore, doing so in an abusive and cruel way to induce shame and subjugation in others as well.
Nonsensical conversations: countering disagreements and challenges with any kind of illogical conversation in order to distract, confuse, frustrate and blame.
Fickleness and unreliability: constantly changing suddenly from one thing to its opposite, and thus being unreliable, due to both own lack of stability and the deliberate purpose of destabilising others.
Baiting to play cat and mouse: using seemingly innocuous and rational comments as a bait to lure the victim into mindless arguments that degenerate until it becomes clear that their purpose is showcasing their cruelty and tearing down the victim; and keeping at hurting even once they know it, as when they already apologissed for that.
Generalisations: putting blanket labels on things to hide the nuances and dismiss the actual points and facts in them that do not add up.
Deliberate misrepresentation and “mind reading”: twisting or taking to the extremes the others’ legitimate differing views, particularly about themselves, possibly by claiming to know their minds, to pass them off as evidences of their irrationality in order to silence them and instill guilt in them.
Impossible standards: nitpicking, diminishing achieved results, dismissing actual evidence and services received and moving the goal posts eternally, in order to be dissatisfied and criticise destructively for ever.

Topic switcheroo, changing the subject to evade accountability or refutation of their views: rerouting any topic related to their misdeeds, accountability, status quo, or indefensible but indispensable views, to others that, no matter how out of context from the original discussion, under the pretext of appear just as valid involve others as the accused and them as the accusers.
Covert and overt threats and blackmail: seeing any failing to measure up to their excessive sense of entitlement, superiority and demands as a threat, meeting it in terms of ultimatum instead of harmonization, threatening others with retaliations if they do not comply as their common behaviour.
Name−calling and turning up the volume: verbally abusing, thus humiliating from the outside or hollowing out from the inside the others’ trust in themselves, qualitatively by insulting, quantitatively by raising the voice, as the easier way to fight the others’ expressions of existence and of an independent viewpoint, perceived as a threat of their exclusive entitlement to both.
Love−bombing and devaluation: first seducing the victim into their honey trap by excessive admiration and idealization, and then, just as fiercely, devaluing and vilifying exactly what they first admired and idealized, sometimes slandering the victim’s forerunners or those the narcissist perceives as rivals, and then slandering the victim in the aftermath.
Destructive conditioning: contaminating the good in people and their lives with something bad or painful, whether for instance by idealizing first and then putting down their qualities just as in love−bombing, or by sabotaging their aims or events, to condition them to stay away from that good and from any possible interference in devoting themselves to please them.
Smear campaigns and stalking: slandering others, if not even instigate them against each other, while abusing them, to provoke reactions they can use to play the victim and accuse them of their own misdeeds much like in projection, to control them by destroying their reputation and burning their bridges.

Preemptive defence: indulging in what is called in Latin “excusatio non petita”, unrequired justifications, and in unprompted claims of their virtues not required by the actual circumstances, perhaps while at the same time displaying a degree of empathy you instinctively feel a tad out of tune, to dupe others until the fabric begins to unravel at the edges, such as when dealing unobserved with common people or when shifting into phase two of love−bombing, and the underlying monster shines through. It is true that, when it comes to feel “instinctively”, we have the problem to tell whether what we feel is there in front of us or buried inside us, but this is probably a case in which we can trust our “instinct”. Especially since, after all, by their actions thou shall know them; not by their words.
Triangulation: using third parties for bank shots, possibly unexpected and without consent, such as manipulating them to support their abuses and blame the victim’s reactions, to flirt with them to undermine the victim’s certainty, to build up their influence on the victim, not to mention that both third parties and their support may just as well be, in full or in part, nonexistent.
Hoovering and testing the boundaries: first hoovering up with excessive fake mawkishness, and fake repentance when repeating the cycle, and then testing the boundaries and pushing the envelope of abusing their victims, in a cycle that gets worse each time it has a chance to repeat itself.
Aggressive jabs disguised as jokes: uttering appalling things passed off as “jokes” so as to hurt and get away with it, and remain “innocent” while accusing the victim of “lack of sense of humour”, even though smirks and gleams in their eyes betray their sadistic pleasure.
Condescending sarcasm and patronising tone: looking down on their victims, treating them like children and the like, particularly when they dare to express themselves, doing so consistently to the ultimate aim of forcing them into self−censorhip.

Shaming and throwing salt on wounds: voicing as a mantra that “you shoud be ashamed of yourself”, targeting with it anything in the victim that might overshadow their influence, that is both the positive qualities and attainments building up just pride and sense of self, and the wounds suffered, exacerbating them and insinuating the victim must have done something to deserve them.
Suffocating control and micromanagement, and emotional destabilisation: seeking and maintaining a centralising and capillary control over every facet of the victims’ life, including such critical issues as finances, relationships and emotions to begin with, to isolate them, erode their stability and build up their dependence on them, and then, in addition to thus keeping the victims under their thumb, subjecting them to permanent emotional roller−coaster by alternating angry conflicts and estrangements over ill−founded pretexts to reconciliation and re−idealisation as in love−bombing, once ther grip starts to loosen, as a strategy to further build up the victims’ dependence and subserviency by throwing their energies off−track in wondering where did they go wrong and in attempting in vain to fix it.
Conversation as Verbal Competition: conversation for them, any conversation, is never a cooperation and always a competition, never aimed at communicating constructively, but always at manipulating, confusing, controlling, destabilising, casting doubt, distorting reality, creating drama, deflecting accountability and, last but not least, winning it at all costs and by all means, from interrupting the other person and monopolising the conversation to making it crazy, dramatic, chaotic, exhausting and mind−spinning, to switching to the silent treatment.
Refusing critisism violently, and lacking introspection totally: they might undermine the indispensable perfect image of themselves they cling on.
Revealing their complete lack of empathy: they can give themselves away by lying and doing or endorsing without blinking an eye things so cruel, inhuman or premeditated another wouldn’t even think of without feeling the call of their conscience and humanity.

The study and isolation of the above schemes and tacticts are a much needed and commendable feat, but now let’s set them aside and let’s talk even more seriously. Because, even if these behaviours may stick out, on the other hand they may suggest the idea that having to do with such people – directly – is the exception. Not that having to do with them – directly or indirectly – is the RULE.

Every individual, every day, makes a number of decisions, even by not deciding, and carries out a number of actions, even by not acting. This amounts to a vast quantity of decisions and non−decisions, of actions and non−actions. How many of them are influenced, directly or indirectly, by such people, to what degree, how unwittingly on the part of others, and with what results, actually?

There’s more to it here than meets the eye: both in the sense that not all suppressives are that conspicuous and easy to detect, and that their fallout in turn is less conspicuous and much wider, deeper and socially, globally harmful that it may seem at first sight on the basis of the above. So once again is a matter of proceeding systematically as usual: isolating the common denominator and mapping its fallout in whole.