Concealed Narrative and Psychopathology part 2.


The experience of invidia, as Robert A. Kaster notes,[9] is invariably an unpleasant one, whether feeling invidia or finding oneself its object. Invidia at the thought of another’s good may be merely begrudging, Kaster observes, or begrudging and covetous at the same time: “I can feel dolor [“pain, sorrow, heartache”] at seeing your good, just because it is your good, period, or I can feel that way because the good is yours and not mine.”[10] Such invidia is morally indefensible: compare theAesop fableThe Dog in the Manger“. But by far the most common usage in Latin of invidia occurs in contexts where the sense of justice has been offended, and pain is experienced at the sight of undeserved wealth, prestige or authority, exercised without shame (pudor); this is the close parallel with Greek nemesis(νέμεσις)[11]

Photo of Jayne Mansfield & Sophia Loren

The psychopath prides themselves on whatever they think makes them special.  They have a conceit that they are the best at something, they are the sexiest, they are the smartest, they are the fastest, the strongest, whatever it is they think makes them special and unique and dominant.


This is usually not stated overtly, it is concealed and it is tied to the form of their conquest.

“When a person wants to win the copy whatever behavior they believe is dominant.”  Fritz Perls,               paraphrased and probably butchered. . . 

When and event, action, or statement occurs that falsifies the conceit/closeted narrative of the psychopath it stimulates their need recognition to attack or retaliate.  It is as though they have been attacked by the existence of the other person.  Who attacked them by being who and what they are.  The concealed narrative now declares war on the offending party, this is also not stated overtly.  The psychopath must appear to be reasonable, if they said what they thought overtly then people would know they are unstable, and insane, this would marginalize their reputation and authority and psychopaths are social climbers.  They are in relationship with their authority and they are intent on increasing and expanding their authority.

Theodore Gericault-938432The psychopath opportunistically lies in wait for an opportunity when they can’t lose and the other person can’t win.  In their mind, they are repairing the damage for the perceived slight.  You don’t really know a person until you know who they are when they are at war.  And when you see a person fight, and you know what they fight for you might realize that you don’t want to know that person, that friendship was never an option.

“If relationship is an approaching, then how you approach relationship is how you approach approaching.” 

Shivastus Solomonicus

It has always been a mystery to me that people think they know people when they have first meet them.  You don’t know somebody when you first meet them, you get to know them over the course of the relationship.  My ex-gf used to use this tactic on me.  She would say, “Where is the sweet man that I first met.”  The hidden subject is she was in relationship with the past.  I wasn’t allowed to be myself or express myself in the relationship.  She wanted a superficial relationship that benefited her and didn’t benefit me, not a profound relationship in which we intimately understood one another and each other’s needs, desires and aspirations.  She felt attacked by the person I was and that gave her the right to attack and punish and change me to suit her desires.  Women often accuse men of being egotistical because men don’t cater to every whim of women.  But who is more egotistical?  The person who feels they are the judge of the state of the relationship, who feels they have the right to punish the other person for not being what they want them to be or the person expected to stay in an emotionally abusive relationship and not allowed to be happy, live their dream, do their will, or be themselves?


The Concealed Narrative and Psychopathology

Something I wanted to point out about the difference between a Psychopath and a Sociopath, the psychopath has a concealed narrative, which is to say they have compartmentalized a portion of their identity, and you don’t know how much of their personality is concealed.  They are also closetedly narcissistic about this concealed part of their personality.  Psychopaths don’t advertise that they are psychopaths, they assume the mantle of mental health and even authority.  They think that you can’t tell what they are really doing because they were over coddled as children, their toxic mother figures protecting their issues and delusions as well as their health, and creating an environment for the Psychopath to manipulate their toxic mother figures (enablers) whether they were male or female.

Psychopaths have a guilty knowledge of their inability to compete, which is why they use the strategy of concealment, and opportunism.  They have to strike first without warning. Revealing their true self only at the last moment and only when necessary.  You might never have a clue that a person is a psychopath until they demonstrate themselves to be a psychopath.

Psychopaths are in relationship with their issues, closetedly morbid, covertly hostile, passive aggressive.

Sociopaths, are, often times in relationship with reality, overtly morbid, hostile, aggressive.

One is authentic in relationship and lets you know who they are from the beginning, not attempting to persuade you or to lie to you, or to make themselves appear as better than they are.  That is the Sociopath.  Many people are intimidated by the sociopath.  I personally believe that philosopers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, and Jesus, and the Founding Fathers, were all Enlightened Sociopaths.  People would be intimidated by their intellects.  This is the fear of being found wrong and exposed, this is being in relationship with your reputation and you authority, neither of which does one really deserve and the psychopath knows this, that is why Psychopaths and Sociopaths are natural enemies.

If you observe how Charles Manson switches easily between an angelic cherubic expression to an angry demonic expression, this is how he manipulates the female brain of others, which operates on “superficial aesthetic snap decisions” (

I spent years trying to figure out how people relate to me and in doing so I had to create my own psychological models.  People kept changing the way they were in relationship with me and the relationship without communicating that something had changed.  This was a huge source of frustration for me.  I couldn’t rely on anybody to be predictable.  As soon as I thought they had my back they would pull the rug out from under me or stab me in the back or try to social climb on me, or try to get me to lie for them when they had screwed up.

The way I solved this problem is I began to treat their narrative and their behavior slash results as rhetorical tautologies of one another.  Because the Psychopath has to do their will psychopathicly, the sum of their actions have to take them in the direction of doing their will.  Every time somebody said one thing and did another, this was an act of depreciation based on Equity in Human Relationship Theory.  Every time this happened a person had gotten off their path with me, the path is the rational relationship, the rational praxis.  If this happened 3 times, I would start retaliating in kind.  As I observed this behavior, I realized that I could actually read the mind of the psychopath and figure out what they were thinking and what their hidden agenda was.  What motivated them, what was their end game, what the form of their conquest was.

My ex-gf was the worst, the most consciously evil person I have ever come across.  I communicated to her ahead of time what kind of relationship I wanted and that I wasn’t open to any other kind of relationship.  Our relationship would be a rational working relationship based on a meritocracy of results and reason.  She told me that sounded great and she would participate with that.  But everything she did created a disparate impact in her favor.  We would agree on an exchange, she would do something for me and I would do something for her.  I would succeed at what I said I was going to do and she would fail and she would expect that the show of effort was an equitable exchange.  Later in the relationship she came up with this pseudo philosophy about the evil of transactional relationships.  Which suggested that my kind of relationship, the kind she had agreed to, was bad, she didn’t mention the alternative, but that alternative would have been an emotional relationship that benefited her, allowing her to be the judge of the relationship based solely on the relationship created value for her, and she contributed no value to the relationship.

During the course of the relationship I caught her in lie after lie.  Saying one thing to my face but then when she was in private with EVERY person we were trying to do business with she would tell them what a horrible person I was and how I was taking advantage of her.  To this day people still come forward and tell me that she did the exact same thing to them.  She actively went out and sought people to tell them she was being victimized, at the same time she was telling me how they were victimizing her.  She was mooching off of her father for years, he wouldn’t even give her a key, he was paying her automobile bill.  She would tell me over and over how he was victimizing her.  She was life’s victim, life’s kicking post, victim of everything she touched.

The funny thing was, it became clear after a while that she was a liability, it took me a while to figure it out because I had never met a psychopath that believed their own lies.  In life she had always been rewarded for failing.  Her power play, her modus operandi, the form of her conquest was to act victimized and she could play the victim like nobodies business.  She had the face down, she had the body language down.  She had the tone of voice down.  She was so convincing.  Psychopaths manipulate your emotions.  

My current student, Patrick John Coleman, Elder Shaman living in Chicago, recently told me that she approached him online and told him terrible things about me.  It is so humorous, she literally couldn’t stop using this strategy all of the time with everyone.  They say that Psychopaths don’t reform, they just become more manipulative and this was the case with her.  even having named the form of her conquest, and confronting the behavior, she only had that one, terrible, stupid, strategy for her relationship with the world.  And she had never had to change it, because it had always worked a little.  She didn’t realize that eventually, her rope would run out.  You can only burn so many bridges in the same way before people get hip to your skip.  In the end she was antagonizing herself because people that were trying to help her she was cutting them off from the world, ruining their reputations, and making all of the people that associated with her mistrust one another, and refuse to participate with one another, thus creating no value for her peer group.  And all of this she did to feed her closeted demons, her ego, so that she could have a sense of superiority because she had managed to influence the world, and nobody had figured out she was doing it.  Even when I had figured out she was doing it. . .

ouble standard

The Question, the Feminine Part of Communication.


One of the recurring themes that I discuss with my student, Psychic medium and elder Shaman Patrick John Coleman, is the use of the question in modern conversation.  I noticed in my piece, about a year ago, that with my almost autistic level of sensitivity to communication that the vast majority of communication isn’t solution oriented but instead revolves around the problem itself, and isn’t designed to approach or recognize the solution. ( We are going to discuss an aspect of how that comes to happen.


When I say that Questions are female I am suggesting that they are empty, they are aware of the lack of some presence in the form of the solution or some knowledge or expertise.  Now based on my psycholinguistic models, the conversation is the relationship and everything that happens in relationship leaves a trace in communication, so if society in general is failing at relationship this will be evidenced in the narrative and the conversations that people have.


When a person refuses to ask a question why to they do that?  Because they don’t want to acknowledge that someone knows something they don’t, or has authority on a subject they don’t.

When a person makes an accusation or an insinuation instead of asking a question, what does that reveal about the person speaking?  It reveals that they are emotionally morbid and they are trying to increase their value by getting what they want while at the same time impugning the character and demeaning the person from which they are attempting to extract the vital information.  It is illogical to answer an accusation, so I make sure that I never respond to this behavior the way the person engaging in this behavior expects.  I never respond by giving them something of value, I give them counter intel or I expose their strategy.  It isn’t an equitable interaction because they are trying to get something with something that has negative value.  Unfortunately, this strategy succeeds all too often.

When a person asks a Sarcastic or leading question, what does that reveal about the person?  Often times Sarcasm is a form of bet hedging, where a person can say they were serious if they turn out to be correct and if they turn out to be wrong they can say that they were just kidding.  This is a very toxic form of communication.  My room mate always tells me, “There is always a little truth to joking.”  Too which I respond, “No, be serious when you are being serious and joke when you are joking.”  Although, there are some instances when all a person can do is be sarcastic because they are dealing with a tyrant and overt criticism isn’t acceptable.  When a person asks leading questions, that aren’t legitimate, they are often trying to get you to turn your scrutiny back on yourself.  This is only valid on people that don’t scrutinize themselves, discipline themselves and control themselves.  Some people use this behavior to suggest that no person should ever criticize another person or that some people and groups of people are not allowed to be scrutinized.  It happens because of a feminine instinct to control the focus of attention of others and how they feel about what they are looking at.  The toxic mother figure using this strategy will tacitly try to change the subject and lead your attention back to yourself and make you feel bad about yourself.  This precludes the fact that you might be justified in your scrutiny.

shivah solomon

What is curious to me is that as I see the absence of the uncorrupted feminine principle in conversation, I also see it in relationship, and I see emergent properties in the world that are coming from this failure in one to one conversations and relationships.  I see the forcing of female communication rituals in the form of radical political correctness, and a meritocracy of pleasantness being instituted, which means that you can be an incorrect douchebag pleasantly, but you can’t speak the truth if it is unpleasant or if it hurts someone’s feelings.

In order to evaluate what I have just said, you will need the correct comparison set. Please don’t compare what I have said to your feelings, or what you believe is normal.  These are both biased comparison sets.  The correct comparison set is to compare it to Masculine Communication Rituals.  Remember that Bill O’Reilly in his book “Killing Patton”  pointed out that Patton thought that profanity was the language of the soldier.  And remember that Deborah Tannen created the initial science of Masculine and Feminine Communication Rituals.  Which use a positive form of Agonism to point out the mistakes that other men have made, mockingly, not to ridicule them but so that they will improve.  Furthermore, there is the ancient Greek practice of Parrhesia (  Which Cornel West loves to use.  Remember if you will Socrates pointed out that Pretenders to Wisdom and his students would laugh as they eaves dropped on his conversations. . .

Criticism of Modern Psychology.


First of all, let me make it clear this is not a criticism of Freud, in all actuality it is a defense of Freud.  The psychological field has moved away from Sigmund’s model of the human as an animal motivated by sex.  That frame is unpleasant to the feminine perspective which doesn’t like to allow itself to be scrutinized or criticized and Freud’s model creates a disparate impact that favor’s men.  Which isn’t to say that it is invalid.  A meritocracy of reason creates a disparate impact as well because all people are not equally reasonable, or motivated to become reasonable, or even wanting to become reasonable.

The problem is that women don’t want to think negatively about themselves, so a meritocracy of pleasantness was instituted, which means if anybody is offended that people feel sympathetic too, you can’t say it even if it is true.  Which means that Modern Psychology has invoked the vagueness fallacy.  Instead of speaking about things in plain speech (parrhesia) you state them in such a way that they are completely veiled, impractical, not capable of being understood, and for all intents and purposes, useless.


Psychology, is the study of the soul, but it should instead be thought of as the science of mental health.  To state that someone is a psychologist is to confirm that they are an authority on mental health, and in order to possess that authority one would have to be mentally healthy.  The problem is that isn’t the case.  What often stimulates the need recognition of Modern Psychologists is a need to feel like an authority in someone else’s life because they don’t feel like an authority in their own life.  Being termed a psychologist they are apriorily branded as mentally healthy.  This creates an up down relationship instead of a horizontal relationship with a meritocracy of reason. Or as I refer to it in Rational Praxisism, “Aequalitatus sub ratio”  Equality under reason.


The other issue is that money is exchanged.  This confuses the issue.  Being mentally healthy should be something that we do for no other reason.  It should be a personal endeavor that all rational people take upon themselves.  To know themselves and others accurately.  The radical Atheists try to force the frame that people who are incorrect about facts are delusional, but the fact of the matter is that in order to be a psychological disorder you have to be putting yourself or others in danger.  While people are harmed by other people being incorrect about them and delusionally in relationship with them, I have never heard of a fact being harmed by somebody being wrong about it.


The exchange of money creates an incentive that tacitly re-frames the relationship.  I am not going to go into detail about how the incentive set affects the relationship, but ponder this, people presuppose that the more money you are spending on a psychologist the better they are and the more mentally healthy you are getting, we know that isn’t the case because tests have been done that show there are no specialists in the field of psychology.  Because of the homogenizing of the DSM there is no difference between the novice and the “expert”.


Psychology, in its original form, was known as the talking cure.  A group of fellows would gather around and discuss the nature of reality and the proper form of relationship between things.  All of them being familiar with all of the logical fallacies, and up to date with all of the known cognitive biases, the individuals in this relationship exerted an influence on themselves and each other to become as non deluded as possible, which is to say in relationship with reality.  This is a philosophical endeavor.  As this relationship unfolds, men allying themselves with their better angels and not their worser demons, all parties capable of staying in the relationship become more and more rational and mentally healthy.

As you can see, modern psychology doesn’t compare the patient to the RATIONAL MAN, they compare him to the NORMAL MAN.  This is the comparison set of modern psychology.  And as usual it doesn’t account for Creeping Normality which means that if society is becoming more psychopathic the the psychopath is becoming the norm.  Which means that the psychopath will appear sane when compared with the normative model and a sane person will appear to be a danger to society.  This pattern is increased and enabled by the meritocracy of pleasantness, which creates a camouflage for the psychopath to blend in and not be pointed out or confronted.


This is another issue I have with modern psychology.  Psychopaths were discovered before Sociopaths.  Even psychologists have trouble distinguishing between the two.  My psychological models and psychological technique compensates for this.  Every deviation from rational behavior is psychotic.  But people differ in why, when, and how they deviate from rational behavior. Psychopaths are over coddled children, and sociopaths are neglected children.  Two completely different animals with completely different mind sets and different approaches to reality and each one set off by different things.  But Sociopaths are considered a sub category of Psychopaths because they were found afterwards.

Psychopaths have female minds, and they use feminine strategies and techniques because as Fritz Perls said, “A person emulates whatever behavior they believe is dominant when they want to win.”  Some people believe that feminine strategies are dominant while others believe that masculine strategies are dominant.  Which means that as you put psychological pressure on either, they will respond differently and if you haven’t determined which you are dealing with you can’t correctly predict their response.


I am not a psychologist, I am a guru, I don’t want followers, I want compatriots.  I don’t want people underneath me.  I don’t want people Dependant on me.  I wan’t to be surrounded by people that take responsibility for themselves, and people that want to be mentally healthy and rational.  I am not interested in leading others, I want others to be lead by reason.  I want them to recognized the Authority of reason and Participate with it.

Obama Detection Apprehension.

detection apprehension

A member of the al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula gave a statement in English to The Associated Press saying the group’s leadership ‘‘directed the operations and they have chosen their target carefully.’’