Disturbed character

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals with indifference to—and often at expense of—the rights and needs of others and cause all sorts of problems for others and society at large. Character-disordered personalities lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges. They have too little of a conscience or in extreme cases no conscience at all.[note 1] They typically resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt. Erroneous thinking patterns and attitudes underlie the dysfunctional behaviors they display. These problematic behavior patterns may be habitual and automatic, but they also are conscious and deliberate.

Those possessing these distorted characters resist changing their attitudes and core beliefs despite having plenty of insight and awareness. What they need and can benefit from are:

Cognitive-behavioral therapeutic approaches are the most appropriate in this regard.

When dealing with disturbed characters, it is, however, also important to craft win-win scenarios so that they do not feel like they have to lose.[2][3] According to Keith Ward, faith as the practical commitment to a relationship with God has the capacity to progressively transform human life, liberating it from hatred, greed and ignorance, and enabling it to become a more effective mediator of transcendent beauty, joy, compassion and benevolence.[4] Peter Beyerhaus maintains that distorted ways of perceiving, thinking and acting have to do with men living in a state of estrangement from God and as such might be the result of what Bible portrays as the state of demonic possession which characterizes the fallen man and his world. The role of the Christian missionary is then envisioned as the task of helping people to break out of antagonizing demonic bondage and restore their lives into God's possession.[5] The conversion, i.e. the change of heart and mind is in biblical terms called metanoia.

Brief summary of problematic patterns of thinking of disturbed characters[2]

  • Self-focused/self-centered thinking
  • Possessive thinking
  • Extreme "all-or-none" thinking
  • Egomaniacal thinking
  • Shameless thinking
  • Quick-and-easy thinking
  • Guiltless thinking
  • Selective Attention. Disturbed characters see what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear. Most of the time, it's not that they are struggling with attention deficiencies, but that they are very selective about where and how they will direct their focus.[6]

The aggressive personalities

Among the most character-disordered personalities are covert-aggressive personalities, the more extreme cases of which are:[2]

They use the tactics of manipulation in their overall modus operandi and seek to rise to the position of substantial power and influence. They gravitate toward and exploit the excellent opportunities to gain self-advancement and the wielding of considerable power under the guise of service available in such endeavors.[note 4]

Confronting erroneous thinking patterns

Individuals with aggressive personality traits are notoriously undisciplined and unscrupulous fighters who already from early in their development appear to have been overly ready to lash out while significantly lacking in so called "internal brakes." That's why their aggressive behavior usually needs to be confronted early on in their cycles of escalation, so that they have a fair chance at developing the mechanism of self-control they are so desperately in need of.[6]

Examples

Politics: Peace for our time vs. The first foretaste of a bitter cup

See Also: [note 5] and Gleichschaltung

The notorious example of complete failure of applying the proper confrontation and limits towards someone exhibiting the traits of disturbed character with regard to political extremism is the attitudes of so-called Western powers towards the gradually increasing aggressive demands of Adolf Hitler.[note 6] A few hours before the Führer’s ultimatum related to territorial claims in Sudetenland at the expense of Czecho-Slovakia would have expired, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, asked Mussolini to "save the peace" by intervening. In his reply, "Herr Hitler" agreed to postpone his mobilization for twenty-four hours and invited Chamberlain to meet in conference at Munich. After Chamberlain brought the news to House of Commons, the whole house burst into a roar of cheering. Men all round, except few remaining in their benches, were shouting: "Get up! Get up! Thank God for the Prime Minister!" One man who remained silent and seated—with his head sunk on his shoulders, his whole demeanor depicting something between anger and despair, was Winston Churchill.[11]

Hitler used a language of 'equal rights' arguing that rearmament was the best way to secure German defence based on the principle of basic equity and many, not just in Nazi ranks, considered his demand to be on par with the western powers in terms of military strength a compelling argument. Where Hitler pulled a masterstroke was in persuading them for years that he was striving for peace, not war.[12] Chamberlain believed Hitler when the latter vowed that restoring their beloved homeland to the mistreated Sudetendeutsche was his last territorial demand. The Prime Minister treated Czechoslovakia, a “faraway country,” only as the “Czech problem” on his desk and not as a land inhabited by real people. Churchill adopted a different attitude; he had studied Adolf Hitler’s career with intensity and was aware of the history of broken promises and “last territorial claims” including the Versailles Treaty, the Locarno Pact, the Rhineland claims, and the claims to Austria.

After the Four-Power Meeting began in Bavaria, the Focus group was supposed to meet and draft and sign a telegram to the British Prime Minister adjuring him to make no further concessions at the expense of Czechoslovakia and warning him that if he did so he would have to fight the House of Commons on his return. Regrettably, one by one, the group drifted away. Some who had said they would come had not and finally declined to permit the use of their names, while others made excuses of lacking the approval from their parties. They refused to put their names to their principles. Churchill commented: "What are they made of? The day is not far off when it won’t be signatures we’ll have to give but lives—the lives of millions. Can we survive? Do we deserve to when there is no courage anywhere?", and Nicolson wrote in his diary: they "sat there gloomily realizing that nothing could be done…. So far as one can see, Hitler gets everything he wants."[11]

Later on, after he signed, behind the back of Czecho-Slovakia, the Munich Agreement, ordering it to cede inter alia the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany, Chamberlain returned to Great Britain. While waving the paper of the "peace" agreement, the Prime Minister famously declared:

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."[13]

Prophecies which made Jeremiah appear an optimist

A few days later, during the British Parliamentary Debate on the Munich Agreement, Duff Cooper described Hitler in his address as a dictator that does not understand the language of sweet reasonableness and that discards the old diplomatic methods and introduces a new vocabulary into Europe. He criticized the approach in which “we were always told that on no account must we irritate Herr Hitler; it was particularly dangerous to irritate him before he made a public speech, because if he were so irritated he might say some terrible things from which afterwards there would be no retreat. It seems to me that Herr Hitler never makes a speech save under the influence of considerable irritation, and the addition of one more irritant would not, I should have thought, have made a great difference, whereas the communication of a solemn fact would have produced a sobering effect.”

He suggested that urging the mobilization of the Fleet and the mailed fist would be the kind of language which would be easier for Herr Hitler to understand than the guarded language of diplomacy or the conditional clauses of the Civil Service. While Chamberlain considered this to be the one thing that would have ruined the peace mission, Cooper argued it would have been the one thing leading it to success and was highly critical of Chamberlain that he still believed he could rely upon the good faith of Hitler. Finally Cooper concluded that if he were a party to persuading, or even to suggesting to, the Czechoslovak government that they should accept the ultimatum, he should never be able to hold up his head again: “I have ruined, perhaps, my political career. But that is a little matter; I have retained something which is to me of great value—I can still walk about the world with my head erect.”[14]

During Churchill's contribution to the debate, occasionally interrupted by screams "Rude! Rude!" and "nonsense," he maintained that the utmost Chamberlain had been able to gain for Czechoslovakia and in the matters which were in dispute was that the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, had been content to have them served to him course by course. Lord Maugham labeled Churchill an "agitator" who should be "shot or hanged." The Times reported that Churchill had "treated a crowded House to prophecies which made Jeremiah appear an optimist" and referred patronizingly to his "dismal sincerity."[15]

Less than a half-year later, Hitler broke his promises, took all of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland in September 1939, thus starting World War II in Europe.[16] According to Winston Churchill, who opposed the agreement and called it "a total and unmitigated defeat" and "a disaster of the first magnitude" right from the time when it was signed, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action."[17][note 7]

Today Czechs and Slovaks label the Munich Pact also as the Munich Dictate or the Munich Betrayal because the system of alliances in Central Europe guaranteed by France and Britain upon which Czechoslovakia had relied for her safety proved of no avail. A contemporaneous voice declared:

"The mass demonstration of brokenhearted people of Prague after the surrender of Munich showed that thousands still had the will to resist, but in vain. Leaderless and betrayed, they could not stand against the Munich powers.... The western democracies...sacrific[ing] their prestige...[was an] immediate consequence of yielding to Fascist threats of force and violence. The only hope to offer is that in other lands there may still be men who do not tremble when Adolf Hitler cracks the whip".

Western European democratic leaders did not manage to stand firm against the threats of Fascism, representatives of which consequently gained confidence in following their intentions openly described in the Mein Kampf as aiming at fascist mastery of Europe and eventual destruction of the world's democracies.[16][note 8] The Munich case has become a byword for a failed act of appeasement toward a ruthless despot and/or totalitarian ideology. "Peace and freedom and the right to live—" wrote the same contemporaneous source, "they can only be possible in lands where men are determined that totalitarian symbols such as the swastika shall not be raised in triumph and where the pages of totalitarian demagoguery such as the Mein Kampf can never become the supreme law."[16]

W. Churchill's reaction to the Munich Agreement on October 5, 1938 in the House of Commons[23]
‘We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat … you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. Many people, no doubt, honestly believe that they are only giving away the interests of Czechoslovakia, whereas I fear we shall find that we have deeply compromised, and perhaps fatally endangered, the safety and even the independence of Great Britain and France. … we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road … we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.’

Science vs. Evolutionism

Pasteur's method of dealing with hostile press
«Pasteur fought on all fronts. He kept an especially sharp eye on the ... axis, where the opposition was fiercest. He made sure that every last hostile article, whether in general press or in specialized journals, received his response.»
— Patrice Debré[24]

In his historical lecture at Sorbonne University in 1864, Louis Pasteur denounced the doctrine of spontaneous generation, supported by evolutionists of his day,[25][26] as error.[note 9] From that time on, Georges Clemenceau was among those who became Pasteur's fierce opponents, holding his scientific discoveries in disdain.[24] For twenty years Clemenceau, the future "Tiger",[27] waited for an opportunity to thwart Pasteur and his methods.[24] In 1886 Clemenceau joined the fiercest of Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred. They were ready to unleash hostile, passionate and skillful campaigns in a French press that was always looking for scandal and also in the scientific press, which had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century. What was at stake here was the very future of the vaccines. Their fallacious arguments were of two kinds:[24]

  • if the bitten patient who received the treatment did not develop rabies, the critics claimed that since the disease does not always become symptomatic, this was a spontaneous cure;
  • if patient died after vaccination, they attributed the death either to rabies, which thus had not been cured, or worse yet, to the inoculation itself.

The conclusion was always the same: Pasteur had not discovered anything, attributing the positive result to his method and harmful effect to external causes was not an option.[note 10] Pasteur however had no doubts about the effectiveness of his vaccines. He made sure that every last hostile article based on manipulative, aggressive and false accusations, whether in the general press[note 11] or in specialized journals, received a response either from him or his close associates such as Vulpian, in which they defended his findings and the conclusions he had drawn from them. In the face of these attacks he sometimes became tired, unwell and worn out by perpetual controversies and battles that he had to fight day after day, consuming his time that he could otherwise devote to scientific research. Instead of using the same underhand means he faced, Pasteur showed science in action and personified the march of progress. At the same time, Pasteur's aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with other archaic opponents of his method.[24]

Pasteur's declaration on the arguments of the partisans of spontaneous generation:
“One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in those who borrow its language.”[24]

Among other partisans of Evolutionism, antisocial tendencies were recognized, for example, with:

  • Auguste Comte who suffered from a personality disorder and often showed himself to be arrogant and domineering.[24]
  • Eugène Dubois who never gave up his dictatorial control over "his" fossils, withdrew them from public and did not allow others to scientifically examine them while at the same time he was becoming more and more paranoid.[29]
  • J. B. S. Haldane who was supremely self-confident, given to bullying both subordinates and superiors, and described by his biographer as exhibiting the traits of ham-handedness coupled with impatient temperament.[29]

Wikipedia

Although Wikipedia (WP) can be regarded as usable on very technical matters, on subjects with popular appeal it often requires a moderation by so-called ArbCom (Arbitration Committee) which is however usually, despite the claims on neutrality, very biased when trying to solve the disputes of editors. It has been claimed that there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via this ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators so that the members of the American Psychological Society (lately renamed to The Association for Psychological Science) should step in and have a rather unique function to mitigate this major defect of WP which is expected to "raise its head".[30] The editors and administrators who are supported by ArbCom often exhibit antisocial tendencies such as breaking the civility rules ("No one gives a shit about bible verses, Convervapedia is that way") when dealing with people who differ in opinions compared to their own.[31][note 12] For example, an editor was harassed and topic banned from editing on subjects that she cared about. She then left a message on her user page expressing great stress and stating that she was leaving WP and considering suicide. Concerned editors reported this to the Wikimedia Foundation and the responsible WMF Staff member responded, "Took a look at this. Sounds of a very low credibility." The editor's death was later reported.[32]

See also

Notes

  1. cf. One common illustration is a man who kills both his father and mother then demands sympathy because he is now an orphan. For an unbelievable audacity, lack of remorse, and arrogance for some bad behaviour, there is a derogatory Jewish term chutzpah (Yiddish).[1]
  2. cf. "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid." Proverbs 12:1, Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®
  3. cf.[8]
  4. cf. Example of Homo-fascism
  5. cf. "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace." Jeremiah 6:14 Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®
  6. cf. two references
    • “The absolute pacifist is a bad citizen; times come when force must be used to uphold right, justice, and ideals.” N.A. Whitehead, February 17, 1938, shortly after the Anschluss of Austria by Nazi Germany.[9]
    • First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Martin Niemöller[10]
  7. cf. "At the same time the illusion of Munich Pact was shattered. By spring everyone new there was going to be war. You could smell it, as you smell a fire long before you see it. Only the diplomats shut their eyes and dreamed wishful dreams – of a second or third Munich, or anything but war. Never have so many people believed in miracles as in our times, when there aren’t any" E.M. Remarque.[18]
  8. cf. "Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding."[19]
    • Hitler and other Nazi leaders repeatedly made clear their willingness to use force if necessary to achieve their purposes. They glorified war. Mein Kampf is replete with early evidence of such intentions, which subsequently were reaffirmed from time to time in the years preceding 1933
    • The Nazi leaders prior to 1933 had openly declared their intentions to subvert democratic processes as a means to achieve their purposes, and to this end to harass and embarrass democratic forces at every turn. Thus Hitler himself had declared that.
    • Frick, writing in the National Socialist Yearbook, declared:
    "Our participation in the parliament does not indicate a support, but rather an undermining of the parliamentarian system. It does not indicate that we renounce our anti-parliamentarian attitude, but that we are fighting the enemy with his own weapons and that we are fighting for our National Socialist goal from the parliamentary platform."[20]
    • At the time of signing the Munich agreement, it was inter alia already known that, for example, in 1934, Nazis performed the so called Night of the Long Knives purge, one of the very first victims of which was Erich Klausener, the leader of Catholic Action in Germany.[21] Historians compare the harsh criticism this murderous event received abroad with relative ignorance shown within German nation.[22]
  9. cf. Experimental science: Notable examples
  10. A similar approach known also as Damning the Alternatives is recorded in the Bible on different occasion: “18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”[28]
  11. For example, the famous satirical periodical La Lanterne published a carefully crafted savaging of Pasteur under the title "Rabies Attacks Medical Systems," and La Figaro a violent diatribe against Pasteur's followers.[24]
  12. See Also: "Wikipedia's Sue Gardner and her favored bullies couldn't figure out how to get a visual editor to work. But they did know how to drive off conservative users. Although I had eight years experience and 33,000 edits, I could still be dismissed with a "You're done here" and a form letter from Arbcom. ... A permanent ban is Wikipedia's most severe penalty. But it's not like I went on some exciting rule-breaking rampage. I was summarily banned for doing things I had been doing for years. I was never given second chance or even a warning."

References

  1. Russ Humphreys (November 30, 2014). Earth’s rapid magnetic field reversals: Why has one author retracted?. creation.com. Retrieved on November 30, 2014.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 George Simon (1996, 2010). "8 The Manipulative Child", In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and dealing with Manipulative People. Little Rock, USA: Parkurst Brothers, 34–35, 55, 66. ISBN 978-1-935166-30-6. 
  3. George K. Simon. Dealing with manipulative people: Disturbed character. Retrieved on December 8, 2013.
  4. Keith Ward (2008). Why There Almost Certainly Is a God. A Lion Book, 132. ISBN 978-0745953304. 
  5. Peter Beyerhaus (1975). "6:Possesio and Syncretism in Biblical Perspective", Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?. South Pasadena, California: William-Carey Library, 135. ISBN 0-87808-423-1. 
  6. 6.0 6.1 George K. Simon (2011). "Introduction", Character Disturbance: The Phenomenon of Our Age. Little Rock, USA: Parkhurst Brothers, 42, 191–2. ISBN 978-1-935166-33-7. “How we think in large measure determines how we will act.” 
  7. Ray Comfort (25 March 2014). Noah and The Last Days Movie (HD Official Full Version) 5min:08sec. Living Waters. Retrieved on 13 November 2015. “If you can just worship God through five dollars, or ten dollars, ... as God had prosper you, that's why I believe God prospers people. Satan gave me this message, ... I shouldn't say that.”
  8. 5 Ugly cases of Rainbow Rage. TFP Students in Action. “Have you ever seen pro-homosexdual advocates just lose it? They cry [e.g. "Honk for Satan"], stomp their feet, throw things, blast you with insults, [use foul languague], and then call you judgmental? ...”
  9. Lucien Price (2001). Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead. David R. Godine, 93. ISBN 9781567921298. 
  10. Martin Niemöller: "First They Came For The Socialists...". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved on March 8, 2014.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Guinness, Os (2007). in Virginia Mooney Withrow: When No One Sees: Character and Leadership in an Age of Image. McLean, Virginia: TheTrinityForum.org, 73–77. ISBN 1-57683-159-0. 
  12. Ian Kershaw (2015). "6.Danger Zone", To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914-1949. UK: Penguin, 251. ISBN 978-02411-87159. 
  13. Jonathan Sarfati (November 13, 2009 (last update)). Chamberlain and the Church. creation.com. Retrieved on January 1, 2014.
  14. Dwight E. Lee. The British Parliamentary Debate on the Munich Agreement. Munich: Blunder, Plot, or Tragic Necessity?. Retrieved on November 1, 2014.
  15. William Manchester, Paul Reid (2013). The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Defender of the Realm, 1940-1965. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 9780345548634. 
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 Rok 1938 - Mníchovská Zrada (The year of 1938 - Munich Betrayal) (English (Czech subtitles)). “The aim of this tremendous national effort was to preserve the freedom and democracy in Czechoslovakia, peace and order in Europe by standing firm against the threats of Fascism. On September the 23rd, there was hope that united democracies would save the peace and Czechoslovakia by forcing Hitler to abandon his invasion. Hitler summoned Chamberlain and Daladier to Munich on Thursday September the 29th. So long as the western democracies leaders had stood firm at many crisis, there was neither war nor surrender, but this time, they flew to obey. The Fascist powers did not win their battles by actual force, but by issuing the orders with confidence. ...president Beneš was forced to resign his office to make the way for a government that will take the orders from Berlin. The mass demonstration of brokenhearted people of Prague after the surrender of Munich showed that thousands still had the will to resist, but in vain. Leaderless and betrayed, they could not stand against the Munich powers. ... The western democracies have sacrificed their prestige, the human race itself is and humiliated by these events. ...These are the immediate consequences of yielding to Fascist threats of force and violence. The only hope to offer is that in the other lands there may still be men who do not tremble when Adolf Hitler cracks the whip. Peace and freedom and the right to live—they can only be possible in lands where men are determined that the swastika shall not be raised in triumph and where the pages of Mein Kampf can never become our supreme law.”
  17. Thomas Sowell (Jul 24, 2007). Morally Paralyzed. Townhall.com. Retrieved on January 1, 2014.
  18. Erich Maria Remarque (2014). The Night in Lisbon: A Novel. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0812-985597. 
  19. Denis Brian (1996). Einstein. A life.. J. Wiley, 233. ISBN 9780471114598. 
  20. Nuremberg Trial Defendants: Franz Von Papen. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on August 2, 2014.
  21. Remembering Dr. Erich Klausener, 1/25/1885 – 6/30/1934, German Catholic Action Leader Shot by Hitler’s Henchmen. Sanity and Social Justice .net (June 29, 2014). Retrieved on August 2, 2104.
  22. Peter Longerich (2014). Goebbels: A Biography. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 9780812996883. 
  23. W. Churchill. Speeches of Winston Churchill: The Munich Agreement. The Churchill Centre. Retrieved on January 1, 2014.
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 Patrice Debré (1998). Louis Pasteur. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 149, 365, 447–456. ISBN 978-0801-865299. “...two other witnesses, both hostile to Pasteur method. ...and a little doctor in a black frock coat by the name of Georges Clemenceau. The future Tiger was indeed a fierce opponent of Pasteur. ...” 
  25. Comte de Buffon. Retrieved on December 17, 2013. “The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist and one of the best-known scientists of the 18th century. He served as director of the Royal Zoological gardens in Paris for more than 50 years. To a large extent Darwin based his theory on the works of de Buffon. One can see most of the teachings that Darwin employed in de Buffon’s wide-ranging 44-volume study Histoire Naturelle. In his Histoire Naturelle, Buffon reveals himself as an exponent of the doctrine of the Great Chain of Being, with man being placed at the top of the Chain. ... Moreover, new creatures were constantly appearing at the bottom of the Chain, arising from inorganic matter through spontaneous generation...From that point of view, the concept we refer to as the theory of evolution was actually born with the ancient Greek myth of the Great Chain. There were many evolutionists before Darwin, and the most of their original ideas and so-called proofs were already to be found in the Great Chain of Being. With de Buffon and Lamarck the Great Chain of Being was presented to the scientific world in a new guise, whereupon it came to influence Darwin.”
  26. H.M. Hyndman. Clemenceau The Man And His Time. Retrieved on December 17, 2013. “Early Life: 1851. Liberty in every shape was, in fact, an essential part of this stalwart old Jacobin's political creed, while in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist long before that conception of the inevitable development of the universe became part of the common thought of the time. ...Clemenceau, entering upon his father's profession, with the benefit of the paternal knowledge and full of the inculcated readiness to probe all the facts of life to the bottom, took up his medical studies as a serious business, after having gone through the ordinary curriculum of a school at Nantes.”
  27. (1930) The Tiger: Georges Clemenceau, 1841-1929. Jonathan Cape. 
  28. Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). “New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® All rights reserved worldwide.”
  29. 29.0 29.1 Edward J.Larson (2004). Evolution -The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. USA: Random House Publishing Group, 368. ISBN 0812968492. 
  30. john brews (August 5, 2011). Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that Anybody Can Edit. But Have You?: Comments. The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society). Retrieved on 2012-20-28. “As a professor of electrical engineering who contributed a great deal to WP, I would like to suggest that the members of the APS have a rather unique function to play there. My experience with WP has been fine on very technical matters, but on subjects with popular appeal there are very active and peculiar Talk page discussions that in my case led to eventual expulsion from WP. My take is that there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators. I wonder if possibly APS members will be able to devise a useful method to deal with this major defect of WP, which I suspect indeed will raise its head.”
  31. Noformation (December 12, 2011 20:38 (UTC)). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Retrieved on December 22, 2013.
  32. Passing of editor Lucia Black. Retrieved on March 1, 2016.