Narcissistic Narrative.


They say that psychopathology can be summed up as aggressive narcissism.  If you are familiar with my theories you know that I consider psychopaths to be over-coddled children and their is a strong co-morbidity with the female mind.  One of the things that I found interesting in the L case study was how she would correct my narrative automatically without even thinking about it and replace the stuff she didn’t like with stuff that was more pleasant.  She would discount my perspective and my testimony.  But she consistently chose to replace it with childish narrative, one time she even started singing to me a nursery rhyme.  I was like:


What is so amazing to me is that people will disagree with me about my theories on psychology and my philosophy and then turn around and prove me exactly correct.  See, I am a rational philosopher, I am not trying to prove myself right, I am trying to prove myself wrong.  I want to be wrong.  I don’t want to be right.  Because if I am right I can’t have the kind of relationship I want.  Because nobody is capable of having that kind of relationship with me and that is the only relationship in which I can be happy.  It is the only relationship in which I can succeed and change my position in life based on merit and not based on manipulation.  Only rational relationships are relationships.  

Crib talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crib talk or crib speech is pre-sleep monologue made by young children while in bed. This starts somewhere around one-and-a-half years and usually ends by about two-and-a-half years of age, though children can continue longer.[1][2] It consists of conversational discourse with turn-taking often containing semantically and syntactically coherent question-answer sequences. It may contain word play and bits of song and nursery rhyme.

Crib talk has been found in deaf children in their early sign language.[3] It also occurs in autistic children.[4]

She wasn’t talking to me, we have strict rules about what she can say to me and how she can say it, it is based on rational communication and my theories that if you don’t speak correctly you don’t think correctly and you don’t act correctly.  The Holy Trinity of my theories.  Psychopaths have to do things psychopathicly.  They are incapable of doing things rationally because they have to attract attention to their egos.  I use a kind of speech therapy with my students, forcing them to communicate correctly and then forcing them to do what they said and bringing up any disparity between what they say and what they do.  They have to explain the disparity and they aren’t allowed to bullshit.  They don’t get to rationalize because even their explanation is going to be tested and scrutinized, and it better be predictive and ameliorative. 

So if she wasn’t talking to me, who was she talking to?  Herself.  She was rebuilding her little bubble world around herself.  She isn’t so much in the world as she is in her world.  This is the problem, it is not possible to have a relationship with a delusional person.  Imagine trying to write something on Teflon paper, nothing sticks.  That isn’t relationship.  Her mind is so full of her narrative and only her narrative that I have no influence on her.  She doesn’t listen to me, she doesn’t act on what we agree upon, she doesn’t remember what I tell her.  How is that relationship, other than being in physical proximity to each other?  I don’t and can’t influence her behavior, and she can’t control herself, and yet I am supposed to be responsible for her and rational towards her while she gets to be batshit insane, and only concerned for herself?  


I am sure that some of you are perplexed by some of my online behavior.  You have to understand that I am strategic towards the world and authentic in relationship.  Not only am I not of this world, I am against the world.  My relationship with the world is not my relationship with you, and you can’t conflate the two.  It is a logical fallacy that I discovered which I call “the general, the specific, and the personal”.  People change the way they are in relationship strategically because of how a person is in relationship with someone else or something else, and it is an invalid process, a psychopathic process.  It is a form of theft, a form of social climbing.  It robs the world of value and it fails at relationship.  The way you change the patterns in the world for the better is by being rational in the one to one relationships.  It is those patterns that create the emergent properties and patterns that inform the general rule.  You aren’t going to change the world for the better by failing at relationship.  

I am not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I am a sheep in wolf’s clothing.  I am trying to get you to wake the fuck up.  I want you to know what is about to happen to you and why.  I want you to see for yourself who the enemy is.  Obvious threats are known knowns, I am an obvious threat because I am dangerous, and smart, and what I say is scary and intimidating.  But as I say when I am doing comedy, “It’s not the asshole in front of you that you have to worry about, it’s the dick behind you.”  -Adam Wolfe (a damn wolf)



About the photo at the top of the article, I didn’t Photoshop it, I did a word search for a term I use in this article and it was the first image to pop up.  Weird…

Hidden subjects in sexual attraction


In an attempt to show you how my theories work and how my brain works I am going to use them to describe behaviors and thoughts and attractions that people have in order to show you that they are understandable and predictable in spite of the emotionality of the intense attraction.  We are indeed organic computers whose actions and thoughts and even feelings are dictated by our programming. 

Women are sexually attracted to the men that they are attracted to because of a desire to reproduce what that man possesses on the earth.  That presupposes that a woman is honestly aroused by the man.  Unfortunately, women are great at being strategic and manipulative.  They can fake attraction to a man because they are actually interested in something else that they can get through him. Money, power, fame, etc.  Because women have historically been weaker than men they had to develop strategies that accentuated their strengths in order for them to socially climb and to succeed and do their will. 

Men that are attracted to large breasts (even fake ones) are more childish than other men and are more submissive to the woman in the relationship.  Women that try to attract men with large boobs are looking for a man to be in relationship with that is childish and submissive and will take a back seat in the relationship.  Erectile cavities exist in two places in the human body the penis and the nipple.  The breast has the same positive charge as the penis.  It is a symbol of maternal authority.  Women that feel they are winning by having larger breasts are in relationship with their authority and dominance over men and the man that is attracted and aroused by large breasts participates with this premise.  

The ass man is interested in the business part of the female.  He is not interested in a woman unless she puts out, unless she is honestly aroused by him on a cellular level.  But women can still fake arousal in order to manipulate.  Women have a natural aptitude for being fake and insincere.  Women have developed the ability to both love and hate men simultaneously, because men create more surplus than women when survival is hard often times her survival depends not only on the surplus he creates and his ability to protect her but also her ability to mislead and manipulate in order to get more of what she wants.  So women have a natural ability to sincerely love and hate the same man at the same time.  This is something most men don’t understand.  At least in America, where you are not allowed to scrutinize, criticize, or think negatively about women, because they are sacred cows. 

When a woman is honestly sexually aroused by you she takes responsibility for the fact that SHE wants to have sex with you.  She doesn’t try to frame it as though you are sexually pursuing her.  In a lot of ways it is humiliating to a woman’s ego to admit that the man is the object of desire.  


Jewish Mother deconstructed.


In Gestalt therapy verbatim Fritz Perls talks about how he has an issue with Jewish mother.  He tries to demonstrate his psychological technique on stage with a Jewish mother.  She is so strategic, and manipulative and inauthentic that he literally stands up and walks off the stage. I am going to use my theories on organic computers and neural myelination to explain the psychology of the Jewish mother.  

In the old testament there is a commandment that you can’t just divorce your wife when she is no longer capable of bearing children.  At one point in history the Jewish religion was much more akin to Islam than Israel.  Women were breeding stock and men had multiple wives.  Once they got beyond the point of being able to conceive they were kicked to the curb and the streets were filling up with these homeless old women.  So, the mind being averse and overreacting against what it doesn’t like developed a strategy which still exists to this day.  The Jewish mother knows that her being provided for in her old age depends on her ability to gain a psychological hold on her children.  She uses different strategies depending on whether the child is male or female.  If the child is male she uses guilt and shame complaining about the discomfort of his conception and the damage he did to her body, (communicating that her body lost monetary and attractive value which he should compensate for because he owes her).  Because he will never stop owing her he must always be concernful of her and call her on a regular basis and make sure she is happy.  

If the child is a girl, she must become very talented, very sexy, even humorous, (no other culture has more women in stand up comedy).  The reason for this is to attract as much attention as possible, to marry the richest man she can find.  And then, through her ability to control men she will have a surplus to provide for her mother.  Think of Salome and her mother and John the Baptist.  


Jon Stewart recently pointed out that President Obama made an emotional appeal to the authority of the mother in order to position himself strategically and ally himself with every bodies mothers.  (

Many Jewish men have suppressed feelings of hostility towards their mothers. 

john 2

1And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Pretty strong words.  J-bone was pointing out that while she created his body she was not the creator of his soul and his gifts from his heavenly father were not hers to command.  In Vienna and northern Europe prior to the rise of Hitler many people of mixed Jewish descent also felt a hostility towards their heritage and many of them were anti-jewish.  They felt to controlled and separated by their Jewish identity, and they blamed the Jewish culture.  As things started to escalate many of them reversed positions on the subject because things were getting out of hand.  Anton Szander Levay even commented that the Holocaust was created by Meishling Jews and it has been suggested that Hitler himself might have been half Jewish.  This is a link from a Jewish site on the subject (  and this was for the most part guilty knowledge on the part of Levay being that he himself had Jewish connections.  (

I myself suspect that I got some Meishling Jew from my grandfather on my mother’s side of the family because of the facility with which I gravitate towards kabbalah, and my natural adeptness at higher philosophy.  Almost everybody in the Vienna Circle to the man was a mixed race jew, and they basically created the modern philosophy of science.  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the esoteric circle, see Vienna Circle (esoteric).

The Vienna Circle (in Germander Wiener Kreis) was an association of philosophers gathered around the University of Vienna in 1922, chaired by Moritz Schlick, also known as the Ernst Mach Society (Verein Ernst Mach) in honour of Ernst Mach. Among its members were Gustav BergmannRudolf CarnapPhilipp FrankHans HahnTscha HungVictor KraftKarl MengerRichard von MisesMarcel NatkinOtto NeurathOlga Hahn-NeurathTheodor RadakovicRose Rand and Friedrich Waismann.

Herbert Feigl and Kurt Gödel were two eminent students at the University of Vienna at this time. They were allowed to participate in the meetings, but were not members of the Vienna Circle. Members of the Vienna Circle had a common attitude towards philosophy, consisting of an applied logical positivism drawn from Ludwig Wittgenstein, whoseTractatus Logico-Philosophicus formed the basis for the group’s philosophy[1] (although Wittgenstein himself insisted that logical positivism was a gross misreading of his thinking, and took to reading poetry during meetings of the Vienna Circle[citation needed]). The Vienna Circle’s influence on 20th century philosophy was immense, and much later work, such as that of Willard Van Orman Quine, was in response to the Circle’s thought.

It is interesting to note that while Wittgenstein is not considered a member of the Vienna Circle their work was based on studying his writings and they were, in a way, students of his.