Mindhacking Part 2: The Empty Mirror or Taking Yourself out of the Equation.


Psychopaths presuppose that you will stay in the relationship.  They try to manipulate your emotions while concealing their true intent, feelings, and thoughts.  Once I realize that I am dealing with a psychopath, someone who is communicating strategically, someone not predisposed to relationship who is trying to get something from me or to force me to participate with them in some way, I take myself out of the equation.  What does this mean?  I put them in relationship with themselves, or the consequences they are creating.  If someone is being passive aggressive or harassing I tell everyone at work and put them in relationship with their reputation.  If a customer is stealing and getting away with it and they have become arrogant about it I put them in relationship with the fact that everybody hates them by letting everybody know what they are doing.  So they can go around the store seeing the looks of contempt on everybody’s faces.

A rational person wants to express their frustration and anger to the irrational person, but the irrational person will just use every piece of information for their own benefit and against the person trying to have a relationship.  Which means that the sooner you leave the relationship with the psychopath, making yourself emotionally unavailable and letting everybody know what they are doing the better off you are.  Invite the scrutiny of the community on the individual before they piss you off and you retaliate or do something you regret.  People don’t know what is going on, don’t assume that they do, all they will see is your emotional explosion which might be warranted but the passive aggressive, emotionally hostile, closeted psychopath is trying to provoke you for this reason.  Smiling deviously to themselves as you try to relate to them as if they were an equal.

It requires a conscious switching from emotional reactions to analytical consciousness, and you have to become strategic.  The psychopath will try to coax you back and as soon as they succeed they will attack again.  Once a person has dealt with you in an underhanded sneaky way, do not give them the opportunity to do it again.  If you continue the relationship after person has become irrational you are participating with the frame that they are forcing, you are granting them equity as a rational person.  They want this.  That is why they are concealing their narrative.  Psychopaths are cowards, they never fight on a level playing field, they enter relationship expecting to get something from it and contribute nothing.  They have a closeted narrative,  they keep two sets of books, what they tell you they think and what they actually think, they never reveal their concealed and narcissistic narrative.  If a person never tells you anything that makes himself look bad, if he tries to appeal normal and good from the perspective of the general populace and doesn’t disagree with or contend with the normative bias ever, you are probably dealing with a psychopath or a moron.  The moron is easy to recognize but the psychopath is ambitious, driven.  They are going places, upward places, and they are getting there by pushing other people down.  Psychopaths are social climbers, over-coddled children that think they are better than everybody else so they try to get on top as quickly as possible.

You have to make your ego very small in order to put your emotions on the back burner.  You have to put your instincts aside, but rest assured, the psychopath has a plan to use all of your reactions against you and to make you look like an imbecile.  The sooner you realize that they are not rational the better for yourself.  Psychopaths consider themselves very clever because they have learned how to be unnatural.  When they realize they are beating up their own reflection they will stop attacking or attack in an even more closeted manner.  Psychopaths don’t reform, they just become more manipulative.




13 thoughts on “Mindhacking Part 2: The Empty Mirror or Taking Yourself out of the Equation.”

  1. So, if someone presupposes that you are in a relationship with them because they presuppose that you like them enough to be in a relationship with them to start with then that makes them a psychopath? Why did you bother engaging in a relationship you had no concern for to start with?

    I genuinely like your post but I find myself wondering about the selfish person that is unwilling to commit, the inadequate who is in fear of others’ confidence, the coward who stirs up the pack against the individual.

    That said, I have met people like you describe and they are actually exactly as you describe.

    1. Aequalitatus sub ratio, that is my philosophy, philosophy under reason. I write on proper relationship, the praxis of the rational. I study an old style of relationship, a philosophical relationship, a rational relationship, a philoish.

  2. So you are really just saying there that you obfuscate instead of saying that you are presenting a hypothesis?

    That makes you seem merely an intellectual elitist and thus the very psychopath that you describe, as you attempt to intellectually dominate people by expecting them to rise to your standards alone instead of sharing your intelligence with them on a level they can understand.

    There is no equality under the system if the system enforces unequal prerequisites, such as sufficiently advanced academic education as to be able to understand your abstractions .. when the ability to think on its own would suffice if you were not so scared that people might see through your academia to the underlying non-entity.

    1. I am beginning to think you are trolling me. You are making a series of undiscovered logical fallacies which I am aware of. blaming the rational person in a conflict with an irrational person. strategic behavior validates the use of strategic behavior. jus ad bellum, look it up.

    2. you are starting to bore and irritate me, assume when you talk to me that you might be wrong and I might have reasons for my techniques. I don’t do anything without a reason…

      1. Are you bored because you have a different point of view? Should I assume that I am wrong because you want to think you are correct? Do you fear being challenged? Am I a psychopath for not just agreeing with you? Are you the psychopath that you described?

        Do you really have any reason beyond personal self adulation?

        Can you reply with logic and without self-directed hostility?

      2. I am bored because you are not using socratic dialogue and you are not self falsifying. Assume that you are wrong and that I have a reason because that is how one SELF FALSIFIES, (IDIOT). if you are communicating in such a way as you can’t be falsified that is strategic communication and you are biased. Since I made the positive rational assertion the onus of responsibility is on YOU to determine if I am talking about something real or not. and what kind of fucking idiot would trust another person to tell them if they are a psychopath or not??? In point of fact I am a sociopath and if you were familiar with my technique and my philosophy that would be apparent to you by now by my communication style. Just as it is apparent to me that any moron can’t trust a person as an authority while they are douchefully trying to besmirch that authority. So stop asking me to characterize myself when that is your job. ask better questions and learn how to detect your own b.s.

      3. I see .. so .. you are on an ego trip!

        But .. fyi .. psychopathy being a mental ‘illness’ which almost certainly involves lack of insight on the part of the person suffering from it, ie that you would not be aware that you were in fact a psychopath, how would any non-psychopath expect any psychopath to self-diagnose?

        I have to say though that it is interesting to see a style of self expression that start with terms like Socratic dialogue and trails of into terms like douchefully.

        Was that rhetorical technique or was it genuine emotional response?

      4. In rhetoric, parrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking.[1] The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.

      5. this is what i think is so interesting about the intellectual faggotry of the western mind and its inability to detect its own presuppositions and horse shit. Highly educated idiots haven’t learned how to think so much as they have been indoctrinated into female communication rituals the the validity of feminine thought. Liberal, elitist, feminist. Have you actually read the trial of Socrates??? no I don’t think you have, because if you had you would realize how full of horse shit you are.

      6. I probably have asbergers syndrome, I know I evaluate myself correctly because I am most likely clinically depressed, and it is known in the realm of psychology that depressed people are the only people that evaluate themselves correctly. I find it fascinating when people can’t evaluate the content and they are so riveted on the style. When they reject the content because of the style, like petulant children that won’t eat anything healthy because it looks gross. You can see how the western mind has become so feminized it is learning how to think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s