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. 


Opportunistic Obstructionism


When I was fleshing out SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION and EQUITY IN HUMAN RELATIONSHIP, it became obvious to me that psychopaths instead of being authentic and participating behave strategically in order to communicate to you a state.  I am superior to you, therefore when I storm towards you I expect you to throw yourself bodily out of my path, because that is how important I am.

I started observing and documenting psychopathic behaviors because the way my mind works I have obscene abilities of pattern recognition.  From my perspective every pattern, every interaction results in a psychopathic result or a sociopathic result (or neutral).  The behavior that I am going to discuss today is that of opportunistic obstructionism and it’s implications.

Psychopaths are opportunistic.  Just like a pedophile they attack you when you are weak.  They wait until they are in a position to attack you or you are in a position to not defend yourself.  In order for concern to not be valid it can’t create a disparate impact.  If concern is the order of the day then we should both be concernfull of one another, but if I am superior to you I am going to force you into a position where you have to be concernful of me while I am not being concernful of you.  Because I am more important than you.  So I will speed up to get in front of you on the freeway, and then slow down when I am in front.

There are even cultures that adopt opportunistic obstructionism as a passive aggressive tactic.  In the United States there was recently a series of events that communicated to a certain group that they were not as well liked as they thought they should be.  Universally this culture adopted a strategy to walk slower than everybody else and drive 5 miles under the speed limit.  This culture re-branded itself as the “culture of pleasantness” trying to make a societal implicature that their culture was superior because it was pleasant, (and Americans are rude).  They were trying to draw attention to themselves while at the same time not being concernful of other Americans and showing that through the auspices of self-appointed moral authority, they look down on us and at the same time don’t consider themselves Americans not equals but superior to us.

It is important to understand the difference between passive resistance and passive aggression.  Passive resistance is necessary when somebody is forcing you to do something that is wrong.  Passive aggression is a psychopathic tactic to release negative emotion in relationship for the sake of being abusive in a subtle way.


Telegraphing and Psychopathology


I am trying to teach you something about the nature of the psychopathic mind.  Due to feelings of innate superiority that were reified in them as children, psychopaths gravitate towards structures of authority and socially climb as high as they can get on those structures of authority.  They want to be in a position where they have control over others.  Once they get into that position of authority they do not execute the office faithfully, and I am going to explain why.

People that don’t feel like authority figures in their own lives have their need recognition stimulated to be an authority in someone else’s life.  This is because of over coddling from their parental authorities and the fact that they never fully individuated from their parents because their parents wanted to keep them dependent on themselves.

The psychopath has to let you know that they are there, and they have to draw attention to their power over you.  They want you to know that you have to go through them.  You have to recognize their authority over you.  At the same time they want to inform you that  the law does not apply to them, they are above the law and above scrutiny.

Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual’s opinion or discretion.[1][2]

Arbitrary comes from the Latin arbitrarius, the source of arbiter; someone who is tasked to judge some matter.[3] An arbitrary legal judgment is a decision made at the discretion of the judge, not one that is fixed by law.[4] In some countries, a prohibition of arbitrariness is enshrined into the constitution. Article 9 of the Swiss Federal Constitution theoretically overrides even democratic decisions in prohibiting arbitrary government action.[5] The US Supreme Court has overturned laws for having “no rational basis.” A recent study of the U.S. asylum system suggests that arbitrariness in decision-making might be the cause of large disparities in outcomes between different adjudicators, a phenomenon described asrefugee roulette.

Article 330 of the Russian penal code defines ‘Arbitrariness’ as a specific crime, but with a very broad definition encompassing any ‘actions contrary to the order presented by a law’.[6]   ~wikipedia


The English noun tyrant appears in Middle English use, via Old French, from the 1290s. The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning “illegitimate ruler”, and this in turn from theGreek τύραννος “monarch, ruler of a polis“. The final -t arises in Old French by association with the present participles in -ant.[4]

The psychopath, when everybody knows what action they should take doesn’t take that action because their is no ability to draw attention to their own ego and their own issues.  So they telegraph things.  Everybody knows who should get the promotion so they promote somebody else.  Everybody knows what action should be taken so they don’t do it, instead they do something that nobody could have predicted, something spiteful and hateful that creates confusion.  The psychopath wants to communicate to you that they are smarter than you and unpredictable by you, the funny thing is that psychopaths are predictable because you know they are going to do stupid, evil, shit.

Let’s say that there is a court case.  Two people got in a physical altercation that was resolved by one of the person’s correctly using violence but not over reacting, they were well within their rights and they responded correctly.  The psychopath, being in relationship with their authority, will rule against the person who responded correctly because it marginalizes their authority if somebody else judges correctly.  So, even though everybody knows what the judge should do, the judge thwarts reason by punishing the righteous person and granting a complete pardon to the guilty party.  Thereby attracting attention to themselves and the power that they wield.


Obsession and Psychopathology


Dr. Stylianos Atechlys known as Daskalos (Teacher) once said that obsession is demonic possession.  Something I have always thought was interesting is how quickly people introduce you to their issues.  I believe that things end as they begin so I am always very interested in the first meeting I have with a person.  How they approach relationship.  The initial approach.  If relationship is an approaching where two people begin to understand each other, than how we approach relationship is how we approach approaching.  In the initial approach does the person approach authenticly and honestly or do they approach strategically?  Do they approach me as a superior talking to a subordinate?  Forcing a frame and trying to get me to participate?  or do they approach me looking pathetic and trying to elicit sympathy?  Do they approach me telling me how awesome they are and expecting me to agree?  In the case of Charles Manson the first thing you see is the swastika carved into the middle of his forehead.

People flaunt their issues and attract attention to their issues.  How many times do you start a conversation and the person ends it by saying, “god bless.” or “All I need to know is do you believe in Jesus?”  The fact of the matter is that I do believe in Jesus but not the Jesus you believe in.  I believe that Jesus in the quintessence, the fifth element, he was the incarnation of reason which is why they called him the Logoish, and I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man.  So should I say no or yes?

The fact of the matter is that people are either rational and in relationship with truth and reality (which is much, much, rarer than you think)  or they cling to morbid emotions and delusions and psychosis.  Some people are traumatized in certain areas, and rational in others.  When you stimulate a certain issue they enter a refractory state, but each individual has to be responsible for their own mental and emotional health and willing and desiring of being a whole person.


In relationship people will ask you in some form or another “are you a good person?” and this is stupid because psychopaths conceal their emotional morbidity and misrepresent themselves.  They are manipulative.  Psychopaths have to do the wrong things, they have to do things psychopathicly in order to work their will and attain their good.  So stop asking people if they are good people, figure it out for yourself, stop exposing yourself to being manipulated, learn to recognize the behavior and challenge people to be mentally and emotionally healthy.


One of these people always lies and one of them always tells the truth.  If I ask, “are you a good person?”  the psychopath is going to be the first to respond very convincingly in the positive and they will probably even have reasons why they are a good person.

People understand themselves and agree with themselves.  Contemplate that for a second.  The world view of the individual makes them correct in their behavior.  In order for them to be correct in doing certain things they have to perceive the world in a certain way.  This is their gestalt.  This is their philosophy, their soul.  The problem is that people don’t enter relationship to understand the other person in the relationship which is a necessity.  You have to understand how the other person in the relationship thinks.  You have to understand the human organism.  You have to understand yourself,  only in understanding yourself correctly can you understand other people correctly in relationship to yourself.  You have to understand the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases.  You have to know your issues, what stimulates your issues, what puts you in refractory states, when you are in a refractory state should you act and what actions should you take, and how do you get out of a refractory state and back into a positive mental and emotional state.  Do you act when you are in relationship with your morbid emotions?  When do you act?  Do you get good results, do you get the result that you desired?  Why not?  Why are you trying to get the result that you are trying to get?  Why do you desire that result?  Are your relationships based on shared diseases?  or on allying yourself with the better angels of others?

The Psychopath has to attack.  They can’t not attack.  They can’t keep themselves from attacking and they are looking for people to attack and reasons to attack.  They don’t have self discipline or self control.  They can’t stop looking for the thing that they hate so they can kill it.  Recent research suggests that feeling thwarted is the source of anger.  Based on my Shared State Theory of Communication, we communicate whatever state we are in.  So if we are in a state of feeling thwarted, we communicate thwartedness, and we want to thwart.  But antagonizing the problem is not necessarily moving towards the solution.  To use my terms something happened to the person that they never want to happen again, a state they want to avoid, but the psychopath is in relationship with desiring to kill the thing that they perceive as the cause of the state they want to avoid.  But in doing so they are constantly restimulating the refractory state reminding them of the state they want to avoid.  Which means they are keeping themselves in a permanent refractory state permanently, which Paul Eckman says is the same as being insane.  They are obsessed with the thing they are trying to get away from.  The only way the can rest is if that thing ceases to exist in reality.  So we have the form of the conquest.


Understanding, Building a Psychological Profile

Thought Uncommon


When I am trying to understand a person I see how far their personality deviates from the stigma that would be associated with them.  Some people can be perfectly happy fulfilling their stigma.  Some people go out of their way to fulfill their stigma. They feel it is some manner of duty to spout cliches and use shibboleth’s.

When a person deviates from their stigma it can be a sign that they are reasonable and they identify with reason but it might not be.  Lil Wayne and Dennis Rodman both deviate from their stigma in many ways, adopting behaviors that aren’t typically black and male, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that every deviation is towards reason.



In my system we observe over time how a person is in relationship with the world and with the phenomena in the world in order to create a 3-d picture of their soul.  I will…

View original post 601 more words


The Mind Hacker…