Executive Summary

Thank you for considering Chronograph Talent Consulting for your talent acquisition needs. We select the best talent from all previous periods of human history and make them available to clients looking for the absolute finest talent that money and time can provide. Our talent portfolio is mainly drawn from past eras as it easy to show how effective the talent was in their own times. Our clients demand the effectiveness of the Julius Caesars, Frederick the Greats and Genghis Khans of the past.

To be considered, a prospective contractor must be mentioned in a history book that a Masters student in History might read. Exceptions are made on a case by case basis. Individual referrals by past contractors may also be considered. Talent is gathered from all continents and cultures. CTC maintains an extensive historical research arm to locate potential candidates.

Thus far CTC has specialized in bringing forward exceptional scientific minds to work on research projects. Oppenheimer and Einstein have been especially useful. Our customers have seen our success with science and have been asking for contractors able to work in politics. A little preliminary research shows that almost all political and military masterminds have varying degrees of sociopathy. We agree with the DSM that those with sociopathy or Antisocial Personality Disorder are mentally ill but they're mentally ill in a way that's very valuable to us and our clients.

What skills will these contractors bring that will transcend their native cultures and will be immediately/quickly useful to my clients? Each contractor will have distinct skills and abilities unique to them, so CTC is not worried about the individual variations just yet.

Onboarding Process

All of the contractors we bring forward receives an implant that handles language translation (the language barrier is just too high without it.) Candidates are also given an intensive six month to one-year cultural adjustment program to acclimatize them to the time and place they'll be working. Disease transferal isn't a problem either; it's managed by a highly skilled medical staff (we went forward in time to get them and the medical supplies).

The effects of taking a person out of their native time stream then putting them back has been solved in a satisfactory way. CTC employs very smart people to handle that problem. Other than the language translation module, no control devices or kill switches are implanted. However, there is a hard time-limit on the contract where once the contract time expires or the contract is otherwise breached, the contractor in question is removed from the area of operations to be returned to their own time or our facility (at our discretion).

Terms of employment are offered at the time the contractor is brought forward in time. If they do not accept the assignment or terms, they are immediately sent back to their own time. Contractors out on contract are granted the same rights that a citizen of that country or locality would be granted. Payment is sent back with them on completion of their assignment. Contractors are not permitted to stay in our time indefinitely (ie, no permanent resident cards to live in the 22nd century). They have to go back.

Past Success Stories

A client required a leader for their military conquest of a competing corporation. They chose Genghis Khan for his excellent planning and logistics skill. Genghis was brought forward to the present day, offered a contract that he accepted and went to work. After utterly destroying the opposing corporation, he was sent back to his time with more gold and silk than a thousand horses could carry.

Another client needed a foreign ambassador seduced. Cleopatra was selected as the prime candidate and she accepted the contract. The ambassador was seduced and the required intelligence gathered. Cleopatra went back much wealthier than when she arrived.

To those who want to know why we would bring such people forward? Profit. We can get 50x the rate for political contractors that we can get for science contractors (mainly because the political contractors know to negotiate instead of just taking what we offer them.)

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ah yeah, the CTC. I can remember my great grandfather talking about them and their deeds in his letters.. $\endgroup$
    – dot_Sp0T
    Dec 14, 2017 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps it's just me, but I don't understand the question... $\endgroup$
    – AngelPray
    Dec 14, 2017 at 23:15
  • $\begingroup$ @AngelPray what puzzles you? $\endgroup$
    – Green
    Dec 14, 2017 at 23:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ So... are these people famous and successful because they’re the best, or are they the best because they’re famous and successful and keep being dragged out of time to practice? $\endgroup$
    – Dubukay
    Dec 15, 2017 at 0:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Minor quibble: Genghis Khan was not a great logistician. His armies required transport, storage, and distribution of neither fuel, food, ammunition nor repair parts. The services (camp followers) looked after themselves. He was, however, quite good at politics. $\endgroup$
    – user535733
    Dec 15, 2017 at 3:20

3 Answers 3


SO much to say on this topic, but I'm going to try to keep it as concise as possible because if we go into the economic, philosophical, political, psychological, etc. aspects in detail, I'll blow the size of the answer field. But here goes...

Fundamentally, there's a reason most of the famous politicians and generals of the past have sociopathic tendencies; it's the only way to get things done on a large scale without being crippled by the weight of choice. This is still the case today. Whether we like to admit it or not, moving a country of any significant size forward means making choices that ultimately leave some of its citizens worse off. It has to. The question becomes, can you live with that?

Sociopaths can.

Other well-meaning leaders can too, but they'll pay an emotional toll which makes them less inclined to act. On balance, sociopaths are statistically more likely to be remembered for change that has impacted a great many people.

Let's start by looking at conventional contemporary politics; it's often said that the conservative side of politics cares about the economy because they want to increase opportunism. The argument is that if an opportunity exists in the economy, lower regulations, lower wages etc. increase the ability of entrepreneurs to exploit that opportunity, which generates jobs and adds to the economy in a useful way.

What is often less understood is that liberals care about the economy just as much, but do so from the perspective of increasing consumerism? That argument is that if employees are paid well, they will spend more and demand services that (in some cases) don't even exist yet, increasing opportunities for new services to be created and add to the economy in a useful way.

The truth is that you need BOTH ideas to exist in balance in order to drive a strong economy. Both sides of politics know that; their difference of opinion is in where the line should be drawn.

Either way though, you're going to make some people worse off. Workers under a conservative government are going to find it harder to make ends meet. Under a liberal government, business owners are going to retain a smaller percentage of their business profits.

If you look at modern political leaders, there's no question that they understand this model; but, they make their case for change based on the fact that it's 'acceptable losses'. These are losses that are effectively unavoidable because, in any change in a society of sufficient size and complexity, it's going to harm someone. The trick is to keep harm at a minimum while maximizing benefits to others.

Unless of course, you're a sociopath.

In that case, the only goal is the prosperity of the state, which in turn reflects your own prosperity or reputation.

Let's look at the most obvious example of this.

You're about to enter WWII. You have a pick of 3 leaders;

A) A failed naval tactician responsible for arguably the biggest military disaster of the 20th century. Lost more elections than he's won, suffers from chronic depression and drinks more than half a bottle of gin each night.

B) A failed business manager (been bankrupted more than once), who is also a womanizer and a paraplegic.

C) a Tee-totaller vegetarian decorated war hero with an economics degree.

A is Winston Churchill. B is Franklin D Roosevelt. C is Adolph Hitler.

Regardless of your emotional take on Hitler, there is one thing he did in the 30s that cannot be questioned; he turned Germany's economy around. In the space of a decade, it went from one of the poorest economies in Europe into one of the strongest. This is not a history debate and I'm not going to go into the details of the Treaty of Versailles and its impact on this economy in the first place as it's out of scope. The point is that he was doing good for the community at the time.

Thing is, that he was leaving one group of his constituency out of the prosperity and deliberately disenfranchising them is a matter of historical record. And, ultimately, because of that and his military overreach, his country was worse off in the end.

Obviously what you want from him (should you bring him forward) would be his economic understanding, not his military experience or his leadership qualities.

That said; it's understanding that we already have in today's world. In other words, there's nothing that a famous sociopath can give us that we don't already have in terms of intellectual capability. What he had that we lack is singular will to do what he believed needed to be done regardless of the human cost.

This is the one unique skill that he can bring back. It's also the one skill that would be counter-productive.

So; my opinion is that you're better off leaving them consigned to the pages of history. Let them have that because most of the people who would actually want him to be brought forward in time would want him here to stand trial for his crimes against humanity.

Sorry to say this, but completely amoral people are dangerous, and scare the daylights out of me. On top of that, we have more than enough of them among us today. No need to bring more of them into our present in my humble view.

  • $\begingroup$ This is a fundamentally flawed answer. No, you DON'T need to be a sociopath, in order to deal with a tough situation. Do you think all soldiers are sociopaths, since they deal with choices of life and death all the time? No... about 2% of soldiers are sociopath or psychopathic, it was found in studies, so this is nothing but hyperbole. A large number of corporate executives, hollywood directors, and politicians are sociopaths, because those people tend to crave power and work hard towards it--using weasel methods to undercut their competition. That's why crazy amounts are spent on PR. $\endgroup$
    – Johnny
    Dec 15, 2017 at 2:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Johnny; I think you've misunderstood my answer. I'm not suggesting what you think I am at all. Soldiers are actually LESS likely to be sociopaths because they live in a disciplined environment and their life and death decisions are based on a set of rules to which they are committed. A sociopath wouldn't see the value in a chain of command per se, or in the difference between killing a combatant and the human shield they're using. Soldiers do. Undercutting people either interpersonally or as a cultural segment is EXACTLY what I'm describing above. $\endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    Dec 15, 2017 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ That sounds to be another line of hyperbole to support the first. Sociopaths love rules... they love working in, around, and against them. Soldiers are human, they do have thoughts and ideas outside of this "discipline" you describe. Many openly question their right to kill the enemy, even if it's within the rules, and many will proudly do so for the sake of protecting the men at their side. They generally don't give a damn for the rules, and see them as an obstacle to winning, surviving, and protecting their brothers. What you're describing is how the military would LIKE their soldiers to be. $\endgroup$
    – Johnny
    Dec 15, 2017 at 2:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah. I see the problem. I'm not actually saying that leadership turns men into sociopaths; what I'm saying is that sociopaths are attracted to leadership. Good men who believe they're doing the right thing can still be leaders, but they'll find the decisions that hurt others much harder to make than a sociopath would. That means (on balance) that the leaders who we remember for massive change in the past are more likely to have been sociopaths, because they're more likely to act on such a decision. How many famous firefighters do you know? How many Roman Emperors? $\endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    Dec 15, 2017 at 2:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Point taken; I've added some clarity around those points. $\endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    Dec 15, 2017 at 3:14

Two factors

The ability to make a decision and deal with the consequences

This is the real big one. It's the one that says, if I do this then hundreds, maybe thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people are going to die. And not just to be able to make that decision once, but make it over and over again. Could you leave a trail of corpses in your wake to achieve your aims? Caesar can.

The belief that they are the person who should be in charge and should be making that decision

Your sociopath isn't going to suffer from imposter syndrome. They can happily truly believe they're the best person for the job without worrying that perhaps they're under qualified or out of their depth. Who should be emperor of the western world? Napoleon of course, who else?


' the contractor in question is removed from the area of operations'

Ah, therein is the rub.

Will they have access to a good lawyer?

Methinks that the same qualities a client would want in a contractor are exactly the same qualities that would motivate the contractor to become their own operator. That is, they would soon become independent of CTC and branch out on their own, unrestrained opportunists that they would be.

No one wants followers from the past, they want leaders. And leaders want to lead, not follow. I am sore afraid that there would be some significant hesitation in such a person to voluntarily give up what they could have in modern society for whatever they would be returning to, no matter how rich.

After all, they would have ample access to history books, and they would know how things turned out for them.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .