The White Knight or Captain Save-a-ho Profile


I have this concept of people falsifying themselves by their method.  The White Knight is the one of the most annoying of these people.  In my philosophy, everything said and done is congruent with a soul or world view.  The question is who is speaking or acting, how to recognize a psychological profile.  The White Knight is the self appointed champion of feminineness and feminine virtue.  Sometimes an arm chair philosopher, sometimes an effeminate homosexual, but always a closeted hater of reason and masculinity.

The White Knight is a Gomer, a pussy starved, vagina worshiper.  He will say that women are equal to men in one sentence and in the next he will argue that women are the moral superiors of men and the judges of true masculinity.  Women are capable of doing anything a man can do, but apparently not fighting their own battles and defending themselves in reasoned debate.  If he is capable of being reasonable for even the briefest period of time you will find that once the conversation turns towards women his ability to be logical and stick to his train of logic flees him.  The White Knight is completely incapable of detecting his own horse shit.

His strategy has value for him because he thinks it increases his chances of getting laid.  He turns a blind eye to the logical fallacies and stupidities of women refusing to scrutinize them or criticize them.  He doesn’t realize that he is protecting women from the truth and reality while at the same time saying that they are as capable as a man at making logical decisions.  Women don’t need men but apparently they need him.  By championing her in her error he is showing that he conflates women with stupidity and incorrectness and he thinks that women aren’t capable of dealing with reality or being held to an equal standard as men.  If the woman allows herself to be white knighted she shows tacitly that she agrees with him about women.

From his perspective he is the only good man.  His cock is saved from being a cock because of its service to femininity, and therefore it is the only good cock.

He socially climbs by lying to women and telling them what they want to hear and fighting their battles for them.  He thinks he is very clever but he doesn’t realize the he is perpetuating the very sexism that he claims to be against with his behavior.  He is also reifying gender roles.  This is what is fascinating, the guy that is calling women on their shit is treating them as equals, and the guy that is protecting women is also falsifying his own position by his method.  It is fascinating how many of the people that come out of ivy league colleges do exactly this, I call them highly educated idiots.

Manipulating women is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I know, I was a male stripper.  One of my most successful strategies that I discovered before I realized that as long as I was manipulating women I couldn’t feel loved by them, was to create competition between women.  Some men have learned this trick better than others.  Women are more interested in competing with other women than they are in being in relationship with their man.  Women will do crazy things to establish sexual dominance over another female.  I recently stumbled upon an “artist” that paints crappy paintings and then attaches fruity feminized sentiments to them.  He has a huge following and he is doing exactly this, playing women off each other.  I have seen better cave art, but the neanderthals had better watch their back, if he keeps working on his craft he might catch up with them.


white knight

The Sociopath and the Philosopher

Christopher Dorner

In rhetoricparrhesia 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.

I am going to demonstrate my models of psychopath and sociopath.  I have made it clear in the past that I disagree with the models currently in use because of the way in which the terms were created,  I don’t think a clear demarcation or understanding of the two mentalities has been made.  The sociopath is like a zen monk or a samurai, a warrior philosopher.  the psychopath and the sociopath are based on two completely different models.  The psychopath is a social climber who seeks out groups of people and attempts to move to the top in them.  The sociopath on the other hand is in relationship with nature, reality, and truth.  He is a death seeker, a philosopher, he wants to know what is real and he can survive in a state of nature on his own.  The psychopath steals or uses other peoples resources and never contributes more value than he consumes while the sociopath creates more value than he consumes and gets good results in reality.  The psychopath will conceal his true nature, his intentions, his narrative, he doesn’t want to be known accurately and capitalizes on deception and manipulation of others.  The sociopath on the other hand, wants to be known, wants to be evaluated correctly, will fight you on a level playing field and will tell you exactly what he is going to do.  His speech is  ugly, abrasive,  unpleasant, about ugly subjects and is in general off putting.


“All narrative is doxography.”  me 🙂

In my system I view thoughts, actions, and words as tautologies of a certain perspective, the trick is to correctly recognize who is talking.  I am going to quote some exerts from the APOLOGY by Plato which was the trial of Socrates as Plato remembered it.

And this, O men of Athens, is the truth and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet, I know that my plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth?–Hence has arisen the prejudice against me; and this is the reason of it, as you will find out either in this or in any future enquiry.

Some one will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong–acting the part of a good man or of a bad.  Whereas, upon your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when he was so eager to slay Hector, his goddess mother said to him, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself–‘Fate,’ she said, in these or the like words, ‘waits for you next after Hector;’ he, receiving this warning, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonour, and not to avenge his friend. ‘Let me die forthwith,’ he replies, ‘and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by the beaked ships, a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth.’ Had Achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man’s place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying.

…either acquit me or not; but whichever you do, understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.

For I am certain, O men of Athens, that if I had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And do not be offended at my telling you the truth: for the truth is, that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly striving against the many lawless and unrighteous deeds which are done in a state, will save his life; he who will fight for the right, if he would live even for a brief space, must have a private station and not a public one.

This was a specimen of the sort of commands which they were always giving with the view of implicating as many as possible in their crimes; and then I showed, not in word only but in deed, that, if I may be allowed to use such an expression, I cared not a straw for death, and that my great and only care was lest I should do an unrighteous or unholy thing. For the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten me into doing wrong; and when we came out of the rotunda the other four went to Salamis and fetched Leon, but I went quietly home. For which I might have lost my life, had not the power of the Thirty shortly afterwards come to an end. And many will witness to my words.

 And if any one says that he has ever learned or heard anything from me in private which all the world has not heard, let me tell you that he is lying.

I don’t believe now, and i have never thought, that the disrespect for authority was a psychopathic trait, I think it has always been a sociopathic trait.  But I will modify that by saying because of the similitude between the female mind and the psychopath, the psychopath would have a contempt for male minds, but would most likely kiss ass anyway to ingratiate one self to the authority.  Sociopaths on the other hand don’t have a problem with Sapiential authority, or uncorrupt authority, they have a disdain for psychopaths in positions of authority, and they refuse to participate with corrupt authority, this is fascinating because if you go back to the Augure’s the ones that created the concept of authority, the word authority, and the philosophy of authority, authority DOESN’T extend to unjust laws or actions, and even the highest authority is still under the law not above the law.

In closing, it is my belief that the sociopath is a hunter gatherer mind, a male mind, while the psychopath is a female mind, from agricultural society.


Criticism of Psychology

Jack Nicholson


First of all I think that the field attracts people that don’t feel like authorities in their own lives because something went wrong with their individuation process from their parents.  I refer to this as “displacement”.   Specifically I feel that when a person doesn’t feel like an authority in their own life, because they perhaps had a rich parent that constantly threatened to disinherit them if they didn’t always do what they wanted, and the child listened to their parent, concealing their resentment but believing that the parent was correct in their actions, so they wanted to be an authority figure in someone else’s life since they can’t be an authority in their own.  They become a police man or a psychologist.  It attracts damaged people that are trying to figure themselves out.  They are emotionally morbid and they want to attack passive aggressively, to lord their modicum of authority over others.

Secondly, as Nassim Nicholas taleb said in his book BLACK SWAN, psychology is a field without experts.  There is no difference between the diagnosis of an expert and a novice, (because it is the diagnostic statistics manual doing all the thinking, imho).

Not all experts deserve the title[edit]

Taleb also questions the authority of experts, asserting that the truth behind science is limited to certain areas and methods. In many areas having an academic degree and presenting oneself as a scientist is irrelevant. Indeed, authority can stifle empirical experience which, so many times, has proven to have a sounder basis for accuracy.


Lastly and my greatest most heartfelt criticism, Psychology doesn’t protect itself from creeping normalcy and normative judgments of social norms.  Which is to say the psychologist is interested in protecting the largest group of people in society.  So if society is filled with superficial, sarcastic, psychopathic, covertly hostile, opportunistic, social climbing morons that can’t detect their own horse shit, the psychologist feels it is their duty to protect the normals from the not normals in order to make society as pleasant as possible.  It is as though a parent has two kids and for the sake of their own peace they let one of the kids pick on the other one because that one never complains, instead of being worried about what is just and true they just let the one kid get picked on and they even say to that one, “Why can’t you be more like your retarded brother?”  You know like Harry Potter and his fat Muggle cousin.  They don’t just protect the biggest group of idiots, they frame the smarter more creative people more correct people as victimizing everybody else.  Their whole concept could be summed up by the sentence, “you are never going to get results going in that direction and you are just going to make yourself and everybody else miserable so why don’t you just give up and drink the koolaid?”


I think that the field of psychology should be done away with for the most part, except for dealing with the clinically insane, veterans, and hospitals, and things such as that.  I think that people should be taught the cognitive biases, and study the logical fallacies and become fluent in them.  The talking cure was originally used by Ludwig Wittgenstein (who was related to Sigmond Freud by marriage and who corresponded with him) who spoke about philosophy with the Vienna Circle.  He used it to keep himself from going insane (as I do, study philosophy that is).  The Vienna Circle more or less created the modern philosophy of science, AND THEY WERE A SUPPORT GROUP USING THE TALKING CURE!!!  In order to unleash the highest common good, people need to have venues where they can discuss the knew high intellectual stuff that they just learned.  Not having anyone to understand you or be able to evaluate you is depressing.  It also creates a counter incentive to learning higher philosophy and makes it almost impossible to remember it because you never get to talk to anyone about it.

The up down relationship that exists today between the psychologist and the patient frames the relationship in a certain way.

  1. There is something wrong with you.
  2. I am superior to you.
  3. I know more than you do.
  4. I am not concerned for you, I am in relationship with your money.

This tacitly influences the relationship and effects the outcome.


Winning Against vs. Winning together


Winning against is a form of conquest in which a person will try to social climb in a group using strategies that are harmful to the group, that don’t create value for the group but only for themselves.  One step back from terrorism they risk the survival of the group by demanding more than they have contributed to the group, and more than can be sustainably afforded by the group.  They enter into relationship with the group with the expectation that they will come away increased in value without feeling that they need to contribute something equitable to the group.  They only engage in win/lose behaviors in the group, not win/win endeavors for the group.  This is essentially an act of theft since any act of theft in an economy decreases the value of all of the money in that economy proportionately.  This usually has to do with an attempt to increase one’s stature in the group without having earned that stature through hard work and sacrifice.  They didn’t take down the biggest game, but they wait until the big dog is weak and attack him opportunisticly.


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.



Thought Uncommon



I wanted to start doing pieces on psychopathic behaviors and strategies in the work place.  This will be my first addition.  Functional psychopaths always argue for and defend authority.  They argue in favor of authority and for the correctness of authority and the infallibility of authority.  They do this because they are social climbers and they wish to possess that authority.  They argue for the expansion of the authority.  

I know what you are thinking:

“Isn’t problems with authority on the psychopath checklist?”

Why yes it is but in my psychological system it is a sociopathic trait.  You have to understand how the categories were created there is an entire teleology of events and the definitions were not fleshed out correctly.  It is still very confusing even for professional psychologists.  

Authority is an up down relationship, a vertical relationship and not a horizontal relationship.  Psychopaths are natural…

View original post 54 more words

Deconstructing for Value

Thought Uncommon


My philosophy is about maximizing value and being efficient with value.  My psychology is about deconstructing for value based on my models.  Every event, everything said, every interaction creates value for someone.  What I do is deconstruct the event, narrative, action, or thought process to discover who it created value for and who it depreciated to see if it created a psychopathic, a sociopathic or a rational process.  It is most meaningful to do this with specific instances and those are the very instances that people project their issues onto and get the most offended at.  Which doesn’t make my models less correct, it actually makes them more correct.  What you have to remember is that everything that I post more or less is part of the same integrated model and comes from the same perspective and philosophy.


Above is an example of two narratives, that of my ex-gf and…

View original post 717 more words

The Mind Hacker…