How to Deal With Narcissists is Free Now Through This Weekend.

The new book, How to Deal With Narcissists is free today, Saturday, and Sunday, in Kindle format, for those interested. It is mostly stuff you’ve seen on the blog, so I don’t recommend you spend too much time on it if you hang out here regularly.

One new item in the book is an insight into the amygdala hijack. I’ve spent a lot of time pondering why some presentations seem to amp-up amygdala hijacks stratospheric, while other presentations fail to set off the requisite brain-shock. Matt Forney was a good example. His brash style was in stark contrast to the Stillface mien I found was so effective on narcissists and liberals in person.

As I’ve ruminated on this, I suspect I may have found an answer to what the underlying mechanism is. Suppose you and I meet in a wrestling competition. We clinch, I drop and pick your ankle, and you trip and fall. How angry would you be at me? Not much. Even though I made you fall, you were expecting me to try, so you will simply regroup on the spot, and continue to fight, emotionally unaffected.

Now suppose you show up at work, and walk by me. As you do, I stick my foot out and trip you, and you fall, rolling to the side, and landing exactly as you did in the wrestling competition. Unlike in the wrestling match, you will get angry.

This is a gross exaggeration of the difference in stimuli that I suspect narcissists and Liberals are hypersensitive to. In the new book, it is named a violation of expectation. The reason I think a violation of expectation sets off a heightened amygdala hijack is because it primes the ACC, with an error stimulus, and that primed ACC then delivers a heightened emotional/neural alarm when the amygdala is triggered in some way, and calls for aversive stimulus.

Your ACC is constantly on guard for errors in the environment. In fMRI’s it will fire off a warning if you see the word blue, written in red letters. Detect an error in the chain of calculations in a long math problem, or detect a typo in written text, and as your amygdala flags it for relevance, your ACC fires off a small burst of neural alarm, to draw your attention to the error. This is likely the ventral ACC, which is mostly tasked with emotional responses, and which I suspect is a key structure responsible for the aversive stimulus triggered by the amygdala during an amygdala hijack.

So, all taken together, if I pick your foot while wrestling, your amygdala triggers negative sensations as you fall, and realize you are failing to dominate. However since you were expecting the pick, these negative sensations are tempered somewhat. But if you weren’t expecting anything bad to happen, and I trip you, your ACC first loads an error stimulus, turning it on, and producing a mild neural alarm. Added to this is a call from the amygdala for aversive stimulus due to the unpleasant sensation of falling. Combined, the violation of expectation triggers a call in the ACC for a neural alarm, which then amplifies the aversive stimulus produced when the amygdala adds to that call, with a call for aversive stimulus. This may even be why a guy on the highway, cutting in front of someone unexpectedly can produce anger in someone who will other times, willingly let people in, in front of them,

As is discussed in the book, this is probably evolved. An animal which notices something off around him, in the environment (such as sudden silence in a forest normally abuzz with activity and animal noises), would be well served to enter a cognitive mode in which any subsequent amygdala-triggering stimulus would produce an amplified effect. I think this is a large part of why the baby in the Stillface video freaks out. Look at his face in the beginning, when the mother ignores him. His first expression almost says, “Wait a minute – something isn’t right here…” His expectations were violated.

When I think of the facial characteristics I associate with narcissists and liberals, I used to think of their glassy eye’d look as amped in some form. But as I view those faces through this lens, I begin to see them as expectant. Nancy Pelosi isn’t amped – she is poised in expectancy. She is waiting to see something she expects to happen – and on some level needs to see happen.

This is why I think Matt Forney’s brash amygdala hijacking pieces work. Feminists are expectant. They need to see their feminist group-think rehashed by everyone. If someone steps out of line, they need to see a world where the slightest reproach will snap that person back into a state of timid supplication. When Matt is brash, feminists enter a state like the Stillface baby. They begin to say, “Wait a minute, something isn’t right. He’s saying these things, and he isn’t afraid. He’s laughing! Oh my God, I’m hyperventilating, and now my left arm isn’t moving, and I’m starting to black out!” When a University president says it openly, and without fear, they add to that a need to vomit and run out of the room.

Likewise, my narcissist was constantly looking to piss me off. If I thought he was loyal, and he pissed me off, I’d get irritated, but not take it out on him. He would get to see me miserable, without any cost. But he also expected his ploys to work. Part of the narcissist’s wiring is expectancy. They need things to go according to their script. When I went Stillfaced, and then tore up his false reality and destroyed his false-self, his amygdala fired off a call to his ACC for aversive stimulus over the insult to his false reality, but his ACC was already on fire from the Stillface violating his expectations. What resulted was a total brain meltdown.

Again, we are fairly normal. If I sued Matt Forney for something, dragged him into court, and my lawyer said bad things about him, he’d be pissed, but he would still go out to lunch and eat. Mike Wallace experienced that same thing, and he collapsed in the courtroom and needed to be rushed to the ER by ambulance, where he was then hospitalized for several days. He eventually tried to commit suicide. That is the horror all of these characters are running from. Understanding it is key to our battle.

The violation of expectation is not the entire ball of wax, but I think it will someday be seen as one more step forward, towards a day when we will be able to contain liberals and narcissists as potently with words, as we could easily do with arms.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

How to Deal With Narcissists – New Book Release

How to Deal With Narcissists
The new book, How to Deal with Narcissists has finally been finished and submitted, and is about to come out in Amazon Kindle, softcover, and hardcover within the next week or so. So another book, and another cheapo DIY cover. Ten or fifteen more books like this, and one may actually feature a passable cover. I hope readers find the cover as funny as I do – I call that handsome character “Hillary.”

Barring an Amazon screw-up, the Kindle will be free to blog readers for three days, beginning this Friday. EvoPsych will also be free on Friday, for one day. If you do download the new book for free, it is not necessary, but a quick sentence-or-two long Amazon review saying how unique this theory about NPD is, would be greatly appreciated.

To be clear, this book is not written for the regular readers of this site, and I don’t recommend anyone who is here for the political stuff buy it. You already know the underlying premise, and given your mechanistic minds, you can probably extrapolate out everything in it, so I am not sure it is even worth your time to look a free copy over (although the book will have a segment on amygdala hijacking narcissists). Even if you’ve finished dealing with your narcissist, and are still awed by the psychology, it may not be for you, as delving deeper into that abyss is not the most pleasant trip to go on.

The book is really a sort of boutique product which will hopefully be worth it’s weight in gold to anyone trapped in a Narcissistic relationship, and desperate to map out a path to freedom. That life-situation is a very strange place however, and I suspect if you haven’t been there, much of the book will seem similarly strange, exaggerated in nature, and of limited importance and utility to you. If you someday find yourself trapped with such a nutjob, however, then definitely beg, borrow, or steal a copy from somewhere. It will help.

This book’s underlying purpose is actually half an effort to help the poor loyal people who end up in relationships with narcissists through no fault of their own, and half personal vendetta against all narcissists. Since reading the study validating my long-held belief that many, if not most narcissists actually feel joy at the sight of the misery of those loyal souls who help them, and feel misery at the sight of their “loved” one’s pleasure, I have found myself increasingly splitting the world into this evil, and the good which opposes it.

I do not see much space in the middle, as I look around– I assume the neurostructural underpinnings driving this cognitive divergence, when they differentiate, drive each side to its polar opposite due to their being somehow mutually exclusive. As I split the world ever more, I see these characters on both sides, ever more – two opposing forces of good and evil, locked in a perpetual struggle to either create happiness in the world, and the people around them, or destroy it wherever they lay eyes on it, whatever the cost. The guy who “innocently” ruins the party somehow, and the noble souls who could never believe he did it purposefully, because they mistakenly think that everyone must enjoy seeing their friends happy.

The book does have a relation to politics, obviously. If you really understand NDP, it becomes obvious that what we are seeing today is a peaking of political narcissism, and it is the same battle I see above, writ large, complete with an unbelievable false reality that the narcissist demands everyone accept, under threat of an epic rage and emotional freakout.

Yes Liberals wouldn’t last two seconds in a state of nature, but in their mind, they are the “awesome people” who everyone should be grateful to, for deigning to tell us how to live, what to do, and what to think about everything. Yes, no Liberal would ever get elected if we prevented the idiots in our society from voting with IQ tests, but the Liberal position is always that of the super-intellectual – we who would easily pass the IQ tests, just aren’t smart enough to see what the idiots keep telling us. Yes, we are evil for not giving the Liberal full control over all of our lives and our beliefs, because, given their awesomeness, they deserve nothing less. Yes, the Liberal demands to be told only what makes Liberals feel good, but it is we who are evil for acknowledging any reality they don’t like, and making them feel bad. And, of course, yes the Liberal just ruined everything for everyone, betrayed our people, destroyed our great nation, and collapsed our global economy, but it was wholly accidental – they have no idea how devastating their policies are – they are just confused and mistaken. We should never hold them personally responsible for this awful accident, because they are our loyal countrymen.

Liberals and Narcissists are the exact same animal. Nothing enrages each like the sight of someone enjoying success and happiness. They will never have the balls to lash out at you openly to your face. And after they wreck everything, they’ll claim it was an accident, and they are still loyal to you. Everything which is happening to our nation – I’ve seen it play out myself, at the level of the individual personal relationship, and there is absolutely no difference. It is uncanny. Both levels even have a burning instinctual drive to control the perceptions of everyone around them, by demanding to be the central hubs of information which inform everyone, be it the narcissist who demands to know everything so they can tell others first, or the Liberal media deciding what the people need to know – and what they don’t.

To that end, where The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics is ammunition for the non-narcissists in our political battles at the national level, it is my hope that this new work will serve the individual foot soldiers, locked in this battle at the individual level, in families and personal relationships. Together, perhaps both works can work together to deliver some sort of selective pressure blow to this awful, noxious evil which afflicts our great human race, and which is so bent on the eradication of any chance for any individual to step up and pursue happiness themselves.

I’ll post a link here when it goes free. Comment moderation should return over the next few days, and posting will follow.

Below is what Amazon will have on its site about the book:

A comprehensive guide to dealing with the narcissistic personality, How to Deal with Narcissists offers valuable insight into how narcissists are formed, what effects these developmental experiences have on the narcissist’s brain, and how this information can be put to practical use in dealing with narcissists.

It begins with a fascinating case study of one narcissist, and the childhood experiences which conditioned his brain to exhibit the narcissistic personality. It examines how these events altered the functioning of a specific brain structure designed to process and manage stress responses, and how the altered functioning produced by these events went on to alter his behavior into adulthood. It also examines how these precipitating events inculcated a hostile worldview common to the narcissist.

The work goes on to examine how this altered brain function produces the forces which are behind every aberrant narcissist behavior, from the creation of a false reality, to the nonsensical narcissistic rage. It examines how a knowledge of this motive force can be used to precipitate specific reactions in the narcissist, and how this can be used to manage social interactions.

The book goes on to examine specific scenarios in dealing with narcissists, and the dangers and risks inherent to operating within their sphere. From coping with narcissist in-laws, to raising narcissist children, to the risks which have claimed the lives of past narcissist victims, this book touches upon it all. It was created as a one-stop volume for the narcissist victim who wishes to once again live, and enjoy freedom. In that vein, it is unique within the field.

Based on extensive real world experience, the latest scientific information, and rigorous examinations of previous academic work in the field, How to Deal With Narcissists is the one guide you cannot be without when confronted with this noxious psychology. Given the rapidly rising prevalence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it will be the must have survival guide to navigating the social currents of our modern world.

This book contains some explanatory examples of narcissistic worldviews which political liberals will find disquieting and unpleasant to read. For that reason, it will prove most useful to those of a neutral or conservative political bent.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Edward Snowden Will Release a List of Names of the People NSA Has Spied Upon

Snowden’s finishing piece will be the list of names of Americans which have been spied upon by the NSA. If it is the full list, that is big. However, if Snowden is a double being run by NSA, and it is a partial list the NSA wants given out to make it all look like this is no big deal, then, not so much. Assuming it will be a full list, it is tempting to immediately see the scandal as being the Conservative names on the list, but a bigger scandal looms.

If the NSA has routinely gathered intelligence on “keystone” government officials – those who support the entire edifice of the government – things will get interesting. Suddenly we go from a government elected by the people to serve the people, to a government secretly run by maybe a handful of people whom nobody has heard of, through blackmail controlled, elected proxies that we are allowed to select – if they will do the bidding of the secret powerbrokers. And maybe even that is a generous view of how free we are and how much say we have.

There will be hearings, and political posturing by angry Senators and Representatives, but I suspect none of this will matter now. Like it or not, the forces of r/K rule our political (and revolutionary) predispositions, just as a practical matter. As long as everyone’s bellies are full, few men will put their families and children at risk to change a system which is currently allowing them to eat and survive.

Under conditions of r, fighting is almost always maladaptive, from a practical standpoint, even if it’s moral propriety is unquestioned. Even if the moral propriety is unquestioned, those who would fight first, before the masses are ready, are probably best served waiting themselves, until the environment is favorable to their cause anyway. By waiting, they will increase the chances of their victory, and maybe their own survival, to witness the freedom they create.

When r turns to K, people will begin to exhibit generally pissed off, irritable dispositions. When they see that their families might not get to eat because some welfarite needs the money for their EBT-card-fueled rock-lobster dinner, there will be no moral reason to not tear down the government, probably through massive secession, and they will all be emotionally primed to do it.

Those will be, as the old saying describes, “interesting times.”

Regardless, if the Zerohedge article above is even half correct, then this will be the biggest revelation about our government in history, and maybe the biggest revelation ever. We, the greatest and most free nation in history, could, theoretically, live under a government that is essentially identical to Russia’s, where a few unknown Oligarchs run everything and control everything, from business, to the legislature, to the military, to the judiciary – all while we believed that we lived under the exact opposite form of government.

The only thing which would be more historic would be a full, global economic collapse, or maybe a minor ice age.

Editors note: The Narcissist book manuscript is being finalized, which will make comment moderation sporadic at best for the next two weeks or so, given the volume of spam comments received daily. Hopefully blogging will be back to normal soon. My apologies. On the bright side, the Narcisssist book will be free in Kindle form for anyone here who wants it, for five days or so, when it is first released.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Bill Whittle says “Be the K”

Bill Whittle is a frequently seen celebrity on the Tea Party talk circuit, former contributor to National Review Online, as well as the engaging host of such shows as Afterburner, Firewall, and his weekly podcast The Stratosphere Lounge. He also, through paid memberships such as mine at BillWhittle.com, funds the production of such old school, patriotic feature films as the soon to be released The Arroyo. They are a nice counterbalance to the anti-American leftist propaganda that Hollyweird routinely turns out.

He has recently reviewed the material on r/K theory and politics, and come to the conclusion that it explains a lot (for a discussion of it, and an interesting thought experiment about human K’s placed in r-bodies, see this Stratosphere Lounge, beginning at 59 minutes in).

In a tweet, he coined the phrase “Be the K,” as a catchphrase designed to entice people to “Be the K.” Bill recognizes his mission in life is ultimately to be the K, and he also recognizes that every human should feel this way.

We all, deep inside us, feel that “the K” is somehow what we should be. But what is K, and why do we feel this? It is a question that often arises, as I try to figure out why some people immediately grasp all of this and embrace it with an almost religious enthusiasm, while others seem perplexed as to why, even if true, any of this has any importance to our debate.

The question of what is K, struck me as I read an email a little while back. A reader had encountered two thugs in a parking lot. They were attempting to surrepticiously maneuver into a position of relative superiority to him, from which it appeared they intended to strike quickly and harshly – whether to rob him or just assault him was unknown. Possessing the well developed amygdala of a K, he called their play before they ran it, and calmly faced off with them, at which point one thug quickly said to the other, “Let’s go,” and they beat feet out of there.

So who was the K, the guys who wanted to jump him, or our peaceful reader, for scaring them off with his palpable bad-assery?

This was touched on in the book, but probably not enough. You will see K identified as five behavioral traits as part of the scientific analysis of it. There are more traits that evolve from the group-centric urges, from honor of rules, to respect for authority, to willingness to sacrifice, to compassion for, and loyalty to your weak, but all of those traits are actually an outgrowth of the fundamental nature of what K really is.

K is really a spirit. K is technically a trait, or a suite of traits, but all of those traits have one fundamental, underlying purpose. They are designed to promote the creation of evolvedness, complexity, advancement – whatever you want to call the larger quality of “greatness.” This trait, designed to favor greatness among its carriers, then produces great individuals to carry it. The entire universe is, in reality, an engine of greatness-production, and we K’s are the warrior-servants who, by our very spirit, revel in creating it for our Creator.

Some will concern themselves with K’s genetic roots, as if that is where you will define what K is. K almost certainly has many genetic means of being encoded, but K doesn’t care for any of them. K is in the genes on some level, but it is not of the genes. As the K’s of the world compete, they carry an inherent urge to see the weaker versions of K fall back, and the stronger versions of K succeed, even if their own genetic version of K’s material roots proves inadequate, and it is they who must fail as a result. Where the weaker K-genes fail, the K grows stronger, and more likely to produce a level of greatness, that the last version couldn’t imagine.

This ephemeral K-Spirit that inhabits us, is actually piercing the veil and crossing the boundary between the spiritual and the material – actually reaching into the physical world, and molding its own genetic vessels molecule by molecule. We K’s recognize innately that our own personal value is miniscule, in comparison to what we have been blessed to be a part of creating.

Inherent to the K-spirit is an individual’s lack of concern for themselves, and a love of the K-Spirit itself. Where we fail and fall, we know that a greater, immortal good that we are a part of succeeds, and this enthuses us.

We recognize the sacrifice of K’s who have served on behalf of K in the past, from the Founders of America to the warriors of our nation’s military battles. As we are lovingly awed by them, we hope one day to be remembered similarly by the K’s to come. Our lives and our purpose are all dedicated to K – we are that spirit, it is what defines us, and in doing so it binds all of us together as one.

I have no doubt, if ever we figure out the underlying mechanism behind the universe, we will find that somewhere, embedded deeply in that software code, will be at least a few lines, designed to see K arise from the earth spontaneously, foster its ultimate success, and thus favor the production of greatness in the world. Increasingly, I believe it was the whole purpose of the entire program. Without that snippet of code, greatness would never arise in the universe, and the universe would be a bland and boring exercise in futility and pointlessness. In coding that element into the ultimate program, we were given life, as the universe was given purpose.

Opposite us are the r’s, but who are they? You can talk about amygdalae that can’t see threat, or r-selected reproductive strategies, or even draw the obvious rabbit parallels. All of those will convey the weakness, patheity, and foolhardy nature of Liberals, but they won’t touch on the real, fundamental force that we perceive operating within them, or why we oppose them so much, instinctually.

In the end, r-Liberals are merely the destroyers of greatness. Every urge they feel, every desire they have, works to that end. For this reason, r’s are the eternal enemies of K, as the pursuers of failure and destruction. Where we seek a world of striving, they seek a world of oppression. Where we want greatness to arise, and see those who produce it rewarded, they seek to crush it, and see those who dared produce it punished. To them, the very presence of success and greatness is prima facia evidence justifying a death sentence for whatever produced it.

The very idea of a world where greatness dominates, and thrives, is abhorrent to r’s. Find a company that is successful, and they will label it “Big Something”, and then set about trying to destroy it with taxes and regulations, no matter the good it does for others. Find a businessman who creates something great, and Liberals will seek to demonize him as evil incarnate for advancing the world and succeeding in his field, (unless he is willing to repurpose his acquired wealth into some greatness-destroying endeavor himself).

Find a smart student, and Liberals will seek to diminish his intellectual advantages, by dumbing down the tests he takes. Find a nation which works well, and Liberals will seek to destroy any vestige of greatness within it. Find an enemy who wants to destroy greatness, and the Liberal is on his side.

We laugh at the movie Idiocracy, but the truth is, that is the Liberal utopia that the Liberals are attempting to walk us toward. The only addition Liberals seek, that was not in the movie, is a plethora of violent imbeciles who actively terrorize anyone with the gumption or determination to try and rise above the morass of idiots, and produce something great.

Which brings us back to the question, who was the K in our intrepid reader’s parking lot encounter? Was it the two thugs, who sought to sneak up on a fitter opponent to exploit surprise and numerical superiority, so their idiocy, weakness, and inability to perform violence would win out over his skill and ability? Or was it our reader, who without thought squared off with evil, sought to enter the battle regardless of the outcome, and was content that the battle would reward fitness, whatever way it went? The answer is obvious.

K is about the mission of fostering greatness. It is the firefighter saving others, so they may one day strive freely. It is the martial arts instructor passing on his knowledge to the next generation of K’s who strive. It is the soldier, fighting so that his countrymen may strive in freedom in pursuit of their greatness. It is the NRA member who seeks to see all of his fellow K’s able to defend their families against evil, so their greatness may shine free of criminal oppression. It is that Tea Party supporter who just wants government to stop interfering in our eternal search for greatness.

If there is one overriding quality I have found among people who see this work, it is not that they grasp the science, or that they are hyper-intellectual eggheads, or even that they support Republican candidates assiduously. The reason they see this is because they are the K. The K-spirit fills them – even if they do not know exactly what it is, or how it figures in the grand plan of the Universe. They feel that spirit inside, know they are a part of something greater than themselves, and they want to serve that purpose selflessly.

Deep down, the r’s know that this is why r can never win, and that is why r’s are so bitter and spiteful. Eventually, r must fail, due to the very nature of the universe, and it is that thought which haunts the r’s, wherever they go.

Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Political Ideology, Epigenetics, and the Amygdala

Some may wonder why the book spends time on epigenetic effects. It includes epigenetic effects because that will ultimately end up being one of the prime motivators of a culture’s ideological bias.

One of the things which I have seen first hand is the slowly corrupting nature of resource excess and peace. This doesn’t happen all at once to a culture, but rather creates a slow, perceptible slide from generation to generation. When I began martial arts training, I rolled with a club that was full of vets fresh from the Korean war. These guys were hard men, in a way you don’t really see today in civil society. The lead instructor had left the Special Forces in the Army, and you knew it within minutes of meeting him. He wasn’t scary, so much as you instinctually sensed that he was the immovable object and the unstoppable force. He could break a 2.5 foot 2×4 leaning against the wall with an inside stomp kick, while in cowboy boots – something he would often note was a very effective way to deal with the outer front of an opponent’s knee in a clinch, if you set it up right.

He was a really bad dude in ways I would never have imagined, had I not actually met and known him, but so were the other vets at the club. They didn’t just do one martial art. They were as proficient with firearms and blades as their hands, and they had a mental quality that is tough to describe, but which would instantly put “normal” people today on edge around them. These were men for whom the study of being able to destroy other men physically was almost a religious duty. You could have dropped these guys into the hardest prison in the nation, and there would be no doubt that the worst, most violent men in those prisons would have instinctually given them a wide berth. I just don’t meet guys like that today all that often, yet in my travels, I found they were relatively common back then in a few circles.

As I continued to study the arts I noticed something. Violent men, simply dedicated to learning how best to hurt others, began to give way to a more gentle, less threatening, more fun-loving variant of human. Vietnam era guys were tough, but they didn’t have that cold, violent, ruthless edge. Later generations gradually became more and more into fun than they were into the art of hurting people. Even today, I am pretty sure most martial artists would freeze up if they suddenly had a dead body at their feet to dispose of. That first group I knew wouldn’t have even blinked. They’d have instantly started running through a list of potential dump-sites they had made note of in their travels, as they mustered up some 12 mil plastic sheeting and shovels.

Today, I feel kind of funny writing about these guys, as if nobody would believe they could exist. I write that last line in the paragraph above, and I wonder, “Does even claiming to have known guys like that make me look crazy? Will readers today even believe guys like that existed in this country in any numbers, or will they blow this article off as fantasy?” But those guys were exactly like that, and they were different for a reason. Their eyes lit up describing the sky going bright at night, with the white phosphorus artillery shells even illuminating where they were, which was presumably pretty far afield behind the official front lines of the war they were fighting.

Even as I marveled at their steely fierceness, they came from even harder WWII era stock that was forged during a time when evil so threatened the world, we could have ended up enslaved if just a few things had gone differently. In that war, we flame-throwered Japanese to death on a regular basis, bombed civilians like it was a video game, and God have mercy on anybody who objected to any of it, or had any sympathy for anyone outside of our American in-group. Our very species was fundamentally different from the fun-loving, peaceful people of today.

If you view this article through that prism, you will begin to see why epigenetics is so important to politics. What is being altered in the mice epigenetically, in the study (full paper here), is the ease and degree of amygdala reactivity and conditioning to a specific encountered stimulus the parents were exposed to – in other words, the ability of the amygdala to learn to perceive and respond to a threat stimuli indicative of future harshness. Although the article references a specific gene for an olfactory receptor possibly being affected, there are genes for neurotransmitter receptors which affect amygdala reactivity and conditioning (A specific gene for this type of neurotransmitter receptor has been associated with ideological predispositioning.), and it would be surprising if the expression of these genes was not affected by epigenetics as well.

That is what I beleive was different in my old, Korean War vet friends. Experience had taught them that violence comes and when it does you don’t screw around – and for some reason, they seemed to have learned the lesson particularly easily. That is the foundational mechanism of political ideology too. As we don’t experience harshness, our society loses this ability to train our amygdalae to recognize various problems in the offing, and our debt bubble becomes no concern, our military is just fine with a gay/lesbian/transgender core force, and 80 lb elderly lesbian women make great Generals, so long as you don’t call them bossy if they snap at you.

The change described in that study on mice is not being done through genetic selection altering allele ratios in the population over time, or through the dopamine desensitization which occurs in an individual due to copious, prolonged, endogenous dopamine release due to pleasure and ease. Rather, the change that study noted is occurring through stress application to the parents, which is altering gene expression in the offspring. The offspring get the same gene sequences as the parents, with the same promotors and repressors, but their body is less able to read some genes, or more able to read others, or some combination thereof, due to changes made to the DNA molecule’s peripheral parts, or other accessory structures altered, added, or removed, all courtesy of the parent’s biochemistry.

A similar study done in humans, might say that repeated exposure to threat stimuli followed by the infliction of harshness, would produce humans whose children would learn to associate threat stimuli with subsequent harshness, faster than their parents did. In other words, the amygdalae of the children would more quickly learn to predict the onset of harshness based on an analysis of current conditions. They would probably also exhibit increased amygdala volume, and better structure their behaviors and decision making to avoid harshness later. This will be no surprise to those who read the book, and saw the research examining how epigenetic effects would affect the expression of an r or K-selected reproductive strategy in mammals. This is just yet another piece of confirming evidence.

Those Korean vets I knew came from parents who, (based on a cursory examination of the traits their kids carried), probably sliced a bloody swath during WWII through a place where the threat of their own violent end at the hands of a brutal enemy was ever present. Next thing you know, I’m sparring with guys who would have put the fear of God into a bar full of PCP-laden Hells Angels.

Take away the threat stimulus of war and shortage, and decades later I’m laughing, as I fight, at the ridiculous comedic antics of a twenty-something goofball opponent, who I couldn’t imagine ever killing anyone. For decades I marveled at that phenomenon as I watched it slowly play out in front of me, long before I ever knew why it was happening. It wasn’t genetic – it was too fast, and there weren’t enough people dying, or enough selective breeding. It wasn’t an endogenous bio-chemical desensitization, it was too gradual, over generations and decades. Epigenetics is the only mechanism I am aware of which fit what I observed, and I have no doubt, that is what it was. And the mechanism I saw there is the same one I see playing out in our politics as the decades pass, and each new generation seems to lack something the previous generation had. Today, as I look out on the nation, I see a rapidly growing cadre of imbeciles, totally blind to the economic destruction and national and cultural failure that each election brings us closer to. This is why those imbeciles are out there, and why they are growing in number.

Note that this would also indicate that if Republican leaders became confrontational, aggressive, demeaning, and willing to engender a conflict-filled environment when dealing with Liberals, they would not only shift the population towards the right today. They would make it easier for the next generation of Republicans to condition American amygdalae with conflict and promote a more Conservative ideology in the populace then too. Of course, given what is coming economically, that will occur sooner or later anyway.

Nothing in the book is there by accident, and I am pretty sure that there is very little to add of any meaning. It is at least fifty years ahead of its time, if not more. After the book finally catches on one day, it will be funny to watch people who hate it, grudgingly admit that all along, it was the one-stop-shop for understanding everything about the political battles which have molded our civilizations for eons.

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments

The Temporal Theory of Political Partisanship

I don’t advocate reasoned debate with Liberals, but it is probably useful to understand how they think at the mechanistic level, so as to be better able to mold strategies to confront and repel their movement. To this end, it is illustrative to examine the neurological differences between Liberals and Conservatives, to see just how they are prioritizing data differently, and how this produces the different motive forces behind these respective ideologies.

As discussed previously, Liberals as a whole tend to exhibit larger Anterior Cingulate Cortexes (ACC), while Conservatives as a whole tend to exhibit larger Amygdalae. In the study of psychopathy it is assumed increased volume of a structure will correlate with increased usage, and therefore functionality, and this would make sense. When you lift weights, your muscles grow to meet the new challenge, and there is widespread evidence of brain modeling in response to cognitive challenge, which similarly alters structural volumes while increasing complexity.

So Liberals are likely exhibiting increased usage and activity of the ACC. What does the ACC do, and when does it light up? The ACC has been called a “Neural Alarm System,” because its activation is associated with that painful cognitive sensation you get when your brain is uncomfortable with some stimulus. Such ACC-activating stimuli, that have been noted in the literature, are social exclusion, physical pain, envy of others with superior amounts of self-relevant resources, or even the detection of an error in some information that you had assumed was correct.

Notice that all of these are “in-the-moment-pain” stimuli. The ACC is an organ designed to guide you towards comfort, and away from discomfort, based on experiences in the moment. In a world of Grasshoppers and Ants, those who rely on their ACC to guide them will be Grasshoppers, worried solely about the moment, and guiding themselves based solely upon stimuli produced by it.

If researchers are correct, and volume is related to usage, one with a larger ACC could be expected to have had a history of experiencing an increased amount of in-the-moment cognitive pain in their history, and they could be expected to focus their attention on such stimuli preferentially, to guide their decisions and actions. It would not surprise me if this creates a feed-forward effect, whereby someone solely focused on such momentary pain (and less prone to endure such immediate pain to diminish pain in the future), would experience even more of such immediate pain in the future. As the grasshoppers worry about avoiding in-the-moment-pain now, they only create even more in-the-moment-pain for themselves later, as the winter approaches.

As a result, that increased ACC usage would increase their ACC’s functionality, producing increased ACC usage in the future. That would heighten their perception of such pain later, increasing their sensitivity to it, making them even less willing to endure it, and even more likely to encounter it again and again in the future.

Again, this is adaptive, in the r/K paradigm. The r-strategy is about exploiting the bloom, without worrying about the future. Eat, sleep, love, avoid conflict, and put as little into raising that kid as you can, all so you can eat, sleep, and love all over again, as soon as possible and as often as possible, again and again.

Now as discussed, Conservative amygdalae are, on the whole, larger than those of their Liberal counterparts. The amygdala is an organ most often associated with the purpose of perceiving, and flagging as relevant, threat cues which indicate that in-the-moment-pain is a future outcome of present, unpainful, conditions. Again, if usage and functionality correlate with volume, as is assumed they do, this would indicate that Conservatives are individuals who have a history of perceiving and focusing upon threat cues indicative of future in-the-moment-pain. In a world of grasshoppers and Ants, the Conservative is the Ant, seeing future adversity, and adjusting their behavior, regardless of present pain, with an eye to avoiding future-pain before it begins.

Again, in the r/K paradigm, K-strategists need to endure hardship to get resources, so we need to be able to prioritize future-pain vs present-pain, and endure hardship in the present to avoid worse hardship in the future – it is what we are designed for. If three of us stumble on a rare piece of food simultaneously, we are going to need to endure temporary discomfort to have a chance at acquiring it, likely in the form of a fight between us. K-strategists don’t pay as much attention to the now, as they do to the future, and if you look at policy inclinations, you will find Conservatives think similarly.

Interestingly, if this is true, one would expect that such Conservative individuals would be more adroit at avoiding future in-the-moment-pain, and thus use their ACC less to generate it, and thus exhibit a smaller ACC volume. Conversely, if Liberal amygdalae are less functional, one would expect them to be less adroit at avoiding future in-the-moment pain. Thus they would use their ACC more under such pain stimuli, and exhibit increased ACC volume from such exercise of the organ, resulting in increased sensitivity to in-the-moment-pain, and less of a tendency to respond to amygdala input calling for more in-the-moment-pain.

This divergence likely represents a developmental knife’s edge, and we are designed to go one way or the other, because nature most often culls for either r or K.

Just like threat stimuli and in-the-moment-pain compete for your attention, the amygdala and the ACC offer competing cognitive forces within the brain, and because of this knife’s edge, one or the other will tend to win out. Use and develop your amygdala, and you will see your ACC atrophy. Answer to your ACC, and you will pay less attention to what the amygdala says, and end up using your ACC much more as your amygdala atrophies, and fails to guide you from that future pain.

In politics, Conservatives and Liberals can’t stand each other. Each acts as if the other is purposely causing them pain, and in reality, each is. Liberal ACCs are repulsed by our willingness to tolerate in-the-moment-pain now, to facilitate reduced in-the-moment-pain later, while Conservative amygdalae are freaked out by the Liberal’s willingness to create potential in-the-moment-pain later, all to reduce in-the-moment-pain now.

Since each of our brains are focused on different types of competing pain, (the temporally near, and the temporally far), each of us not only cognitively deprioritizes the type of pain our opponent is focused upon, we actually increase it, while seeking to diminish the type of pain we are focused upon. As an example, while Liberals try to diminish the immediate economic pain of certain people being in poverty now, they expend resources so profligately that they set the stage for a later economic pain which Conservatives see and find intolerably agonizing. Conversely, as Conservatives try to minimize the threat of a later economic crash that Liberals are oblivious to, they enact austere economic measures now, the immediate pain of which traumatizes Liberals. Whether you look at the gay marriage debate (molify gays now, or protect the next generation of children in traditional families later), national security (avoid war now above all, or fight now to acquire more certain security later), promiscuity and cultural degredation (don’t judge and make feel-bad now, or judge to protect decent civilization later), gun control (ban the bad guns now, or tolerate guns and aggression in the law-abiding citizenry to diminish crime later), national debt, bigger government vs. freedom, or other issues, our battle is almost always that between an ACC-centered focus on the immediate moment vs a forward looking amygdala-focus on the risks and threats of the future.

Clearly partisanship has a neurological basis, and we are both, from a cognitive neuroscience perspective, justified in viewing our opponent as a hurtful enemy, even if an unconsciously malicious one.

I would like to end this post with a magnanimous and hopeful statement indicating that this opens some sort of door to communication between us, and that some day Conservatives and Liberals will hold hands while skipping through a dandelion-filled field, but the reality is, this only reinforces the rabbit/wolf, r/K paradigm. The only way peace could be brought about would be for Conservatives to discover a way to ignore any threat of future consequences, or for Liberals to find a way to diminish the degree to which they are beholden to the pain of the now. (Obviously, only one of those solutions would be amenable to efficiently forestalling a future collapse of our civilization, while the other is a recipe for the end of civilization as we know it.)

Liberals and Conservatives are like two different species with two different, incompatible psychologies, driven to hurt each other, and both competing to fill the same niche in an ecosystem. Even worse, for whatever reasons, we are only becoming more rabbity and wolf-like, as the collapse that we all know is coming, approaches. I fully expect that at some point, these two cognitive models, so increasingly intolerant of each other, and so instinctually quick to ascribe their differences to malice, will end up creating far more turmoil than either would care to experience.

It is unfortunate that Liberals cannot perceive the temporally-far pain they are creating for themselves, but it is fortunate that we wolves are a forward looking bunch, as we head into a particularly selective period where only the forward looking will survive. If you think Liberal ACCs are large now, wait until this all plays out.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

How Narcissists Use Amygdala-Focus

One of the things I find most irritating is that I know how truly outrageous the Narcissistic psychology is, and worse, I know that because it is so outrageous, few people will believe the unvarnished truth about it. Yet if you understand it, the wildly uncontrollable, bizarre forces which drive it, and the detail with which their seemingly illogical behaviors are thought out and planned, you can harness the very weapons the Narcissist uses against you. Here we will try to enter the mind of a Narcissist, going about their day.

Imagine you have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You actually get pleasurable feelings when you see other people bothered. You have been like that since you were a child. As a result, you have spent all of your time experimenting, and you have developed irritating techniques to annoy people, in much the way that we have tried to analyze the amygdala hijack here, and standardize its application. You know set-ups, methods, themes, amygdala focusing techniques, and exactly the things which will irritate other people most. You’ve practiced them at every opportunity, because irritating people and not getting caught, is the only pleasure you get.

Now you are in the grocery store. You are about to irritate people, to assuage your own cognitive agony, and feel better at their suffering. The first thing you do, is figure out how you will irritate them. The checkout lines are long, so you decide to stall the checkout line and hold people up. You’ll wait on line, start to get your stuff checked out, then remember one little stupid item you wanted, like a single tub of yogurt, and run off to get it, thereby holding up the entire line.

There is a problem with this plan. Done by itself, you have found that this is only minimally irritating to people, because many are not paying sufficient attention to realize what you are doing. So what do you do, to increase the irritation factor? You spend five minutes focusing everyone’s amygdalae on how irritating it is to be held up in a checkout line, and you get them irritated by their being held up, so their amygdala is fully focused on being irritated due to being held up. Only then, do you add to that irritation, and hold them up some more with your own spur-of-the-moment desire to buy one single tub of yogurt at the last minute, and your selfish willingness to hold everyone up while you run off to get that one tub of yogurt that you could easily do without.

In your defective Narcissist mind, it is perfect, unless one person unemotionally screws up your plan, Hannibal Lector style, everyone laughs at you, and then they all just goes on their way happily. Then, you freak out.

Old Birdface in this story is the Narcissist, and yes, Narcissists put this much conscious thought and effort into irritating people they don’t even know. There are those who will say that all of this must be unintentional. It isn’t, and moreover, it originates with a very specific psychological nature that is innately programed to derive satisfaction from the discomfort of others – and to seek to create that discomfort around them. This psychology is far more common than you would think. You just don’t notice it, because it reflexively camouflages itself at every opportunity, and it is so weird and contrary to your own, you tend to think it must be rare.

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this specific strategy, (ie. prime someone for irritation by focusing them on how irritating something is, and then do it to them “accidentally,” due to temporary “inattention.”). It does work, though not as effectively as the Narcissist will think, based upon their projection of their own damage upon you. We aren’t nearly as sensitive to this type of irritation as they are, which is why understanding this can provide such a powerful weapon to you. Using it on them is a low-cost way to produce a high-value cognitive agony in them.

And yes, I expect you to think that this is all crazy, because the very idea of doing all that purposefully is insane. But it is not by chance that Old Birdface is the guy who bitches loudly for five minutes about being held up (right before he holds everybody up), or that he is the one guy who “forgot” his single tub of yogurt, (which was written on a very small shopping list he brought), or that he suddenly remembered it by chance, without even consulting his list, at the very moment that he had already begun to check out, or that he is unbothered by holding everyone else up after he just got done bitching about how long all of this is taking. He is not oblivious. That is just the camouflage he uses.

Hear me – ***That***Was***All***Planned***. This discomfort-desiring-psychology actually plans this pointless irritation, all so they can smile later at having left the people in their wake emotionally irritated.

But even if you succeed, how irritating could it all be? I thought the same thing, before seeing my Narcissist’s brain shut down, as if stroked-out, due to me doing this same type of petty irritation to him. Now I know, to a Narcissist, this appears as potent torture. For some reason they don’t realize we are only mildly bothered by it.

Not unrelated is the fact that as Narcissists strive to make you emotional, you can go hyper-unemotional and freak them out, or that if you laugh at them (and get others to laugh at them) they can begin a cognitive collapse that will terminate in a nervous breakdown (Listen to the end of this crank-call (It’s a NSFW captioned video). At the end of it, the girl begins a physical breakdown produced solely by her brain, in response to the repetitive, hyper-unemotional delivery of the phrase “I’ve got balls of steel……” among others, but her amygdala is initially tripped earlier in the tape when her friends first laugh at the situation she is confronting at around 35-50 seconds in).

Narcissists seem to do this for fun. However the truth is, it is actually driven by a need to flee from a much darker force that is stalking them constantly, and you can unleash that force upon with suprising ease.

Liberals are driven by these same behavioral drives and cognitive weaknesses. They have a deep psychological need to destroy happiness and irritate those around them that is so fundamental to their nature, I am not even sure they are consciously aware of it. The state of our nation under their leadership is no accident – no matter how outlandish that may seem. If you don’t like seeing people happy, you find the rich, and the successful, and the happy, and the contented, and you set about screwing up their lives under the guise of their happiness being unfair, their behavior being wrong, immoral, or inconsiderate, and them being evil.

Many of the most committed Liberal ideologues are actually deriving joy from how they are reducing the happiness in the nation, and destroying our social organization. Whether it is screwing up the healthcare of people who enjoy having their healthcare, or trying to make everyone render their families equally vulnerable to crime, or taxing the happy rich people on the grounds that their success and happiness is unfair, Liberalism is more about diminishing the happiness of the happy, than alleviating the suffering of the unhappy, no matter what any Liberal tells you.

Liberals are a truly evil enemy, every bit as much as the Narcissist, and we need to view them as such.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

r-selection, Liberalism, Birth Control, and Pregnancy Ambivalence

In the book it was predicted that birth control would cull the pool of r-strategists, since a low-parental-investment drive, combined with a technology which facilitated avoiding parental duties altogether through a sort of purposeful self-sterilization, would lead to any responsible r-strategist culling their phenotype, through the use of birth control to eliminate all parental investment.

We predicted that this selective pressure would select among all r-strategists for those who were less rigorous in adhering to their birth control regimens. This would produce a population of r-strategists with a less responsible, less outcome-oriented psychology. This less responsible model would then eventually become the de facto form of r-strategist in our populations. Eventually today’s Liberal would appear a paragon of virtue, foresight, and responsibility, compared to the directionless imbeciles who will populate the new Liberalism 2.0.

Although the book didn’t predict its emergence this soon, psychologists have begun to study a new phenomenon which they have termed, “Pregnancy Ambivalence.” Basically, it has been noted that there is now a large subset of people who are ambivalent about whether or not to have children in their temporary sexual relationships, and thus they are adhering to birth control less rigorously, or using less reliable methods to avoid pregnancy. Although it hasn’t been found to be more common in Leftists yet, given their diminished conscientiousness, shorter relationship durations, and greater numbers of partners, it will not be surprising when it is.

If you understand how Darwin works, and acknowledge that he operates on humans just as he operates on other species, these things become clearly evident. Whether it is birth control selecting among r-strategists for those who lack responsibility and outcome-focus, or whether it is the fact that Liberalism, blindly followed, would produce the exact society and culture seen in the movie Idiocracy, these rules are very simple, and their effects unavoidable.

It always makes me laugh when Liberals assert that as our species matures, and we approach the ultimate in technological advancement, our future society will be unabashedly Liberal – as if Liberalism is an inevitable epitome of societal advancement. The truth is that Liberalism devolves everything it touches, from society, to culture, to the very ideologues who make up Liberalism itself. You cannot actively reject any scheme, anywhere, which rewards quality, in a world which will spontaneoulsy devolve anything genetic which is not actively maintained by a postiive selective pressure. r will always be about quantity over quality, and thus it will always produce the shoddiest product possible – and make it even more shoddy over time.

If ever an alien race from another solar system were to reach Earth, they will not have spent the last ten million years of their technological advancement facilitating the reproduction of imbeciles, hedonists, and cowards, and trying to strike down those iconoclasts with ability, drive, selfless motivations to see their groups succeed, and who care about how children are raised. If those aliens arrive, they will be the most K-strategist of K-strategists, and if we were to exhibit rabbit-like qualities, they would most certainly be happy to treat us as such.

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Hannibal Returns

On Friday, February 28th, Hannibal will return to NBC TV for its second season. I endorse watching the show to internalize the Hannibal Lector mien, a combination of facial expression and socially dominant, unflappable, ultra-logical presentation which I have found useful when performing the amygdala hijack on Narcissists and Liberals. But the show is great in so many other ways.

First, if you are going to watch it, you should know the premise. It began last season with FBI Agent Will Graham, a brilliant FBI profiler who has an autism spectrum disorder that makes relating to people difficult. He was teaching at the Academy at Quantico, when Laurence Fishburn’s Special-Agent-in-Charge Jack Crawford asked him to consult on a case. Due to his disorder, Will is able to look at a crime scene, and feel how the killer felt as he committed the crime, based solely on imperceptible details within the scene the killer left behind. This gives him enormous insight into the killers he chases, but unbeknowns to him, it also exacerbates an inflammatory disorder in his brain which makes continuing to function normally, difficult. As the disorder progresses, Will begins to experience blackouts, nightmares, and hallucinations.

Eventually, Agent Crawford arranges for Will to be seen by the brilliant psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lector. Unaware of Will’s inflammatory illness, Crawford hopes that this psychiatric support will help Will hang on to his sanity, as he helps solve case after case. Of course Hannibal is in reality a prolific serial killer, known as the Chesapeake Ripper. Trapped in the ennui of a serial killer’s latent period between murders, Hannibal is bored with life. He is fighting the monotony by pursuing an intense interest in the culinary arts (sometimes serving human body parts from his past victims) and deriving pleasure from manipulating those around him into ever more extreme situations, just to see what will happen.

When he meets Will, Hannibal immediately recognizes his inflammatory brain disorder, and he begins to exacerbate its effects as part of a complex strategy to gaslight Will – altering Will’s perception of reality to make him think that he might be suffering from mental illness. Obviously the allure of toying with the cases being run by the very FBI that is pursuing his Ripper alter ego, and using Will to that end, is too tempting an opportunity to give up.

As Will begins taking on cases for Agent Crawford, a mysterious copycat serial killer begins creating copy-cat crime scenes of each case. These scenes are ostensibly designed to help Will solve his cases. In reality, Lector is using facts about the cases gleaned from his interviews of Will, combined with his brilliant understanding of psychology, to organize these killings himself. Although these copy-cat murders will guide Will’s thoughts on his cases and help him to solve them, they are also designed to implicate Will as the copycat killer later on. As the season closed, Lector brilliantly framed Will for all of the copycat murders, and Will was locked away in the very same home for the criminally insane which Lector is doomed to one day inhabit. In the dramatic climax, the scales fell from Will’s eyes, and he realized what Lector was, but it was all too late. In the last scene, Lector was seen on a visit to Will, triumphantly standing before him, as Will stared out helplessly from within his glass room in the dungeon.

The show places you within a fascinating fantasy world, filled with brilliant serial killers who have each perfected their murderous craft in their own unique ways. Their occasional interactions with Lector, whether they be pitting their specialized methods of carnage against each other, or simply interacting as Lector moves the human pieces on his chessboard, are immensely entertaining. There are good guys and bad guys, and each show consists of an immediate clash between the obvious ones, combined with a continued struggle with the less obvious one. The dialog is well written, the acting brilliant, and the staging of the scenes will leave you entranced. The show is really an exciting work of art, from the opening credits (with a background soundtrack that perfectly captures the descent you will experience when confronting a cunning, but damaged psychology), to each creative new serial killer’s signature, and the scenes they leave behind. But even as you ride each week’s rollercoaster of adventure, awe, suspense, and emotion, the show is so much more than mere entertainment.

Hannibal Lector, played by actor Mads Mikkelsen is the psychopath. Narcissists run from aversive stimulus – all of their illness is a flight of denial from things their amygdala cannot face. But the psychopath is freed from aversive stimulus. They are cast adrift on a sea of amoral possibilities, drawn only by a soft current of transient whims. In reality, a total lack of aversive stimulus renders many psychopath’s disordered, and unable to plan the present to suit their future – something which usually leads to outcomes such as prison. But for whatever reason, some can see forward, and plan – avoiding adverse outcomes later on. If their intellects allow, they end up as politicians, lawyers, surgeons, or financial geniuses. Lector is the worst of all. He can see the future, but every option is too boring for him, and he recognizes innately that his intellect offers him special privileges not afforded to the average psychopath.

Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal is brilliant. From his presentation being just normal enough to escape notice as aberrant, to his motivation for his crimes being the banality of boredom, it could not be better written or acted. When Lector says, “Will is my friend, I am loyal to him,” you know Lector is a psychopath, you know he feels nothing of the sort, and yet emotionally, you will feel as if he might be telling the truth. The alternative just seems less likely. Even though you know the character, you know he feels nothing, and you know he is evil incarnate, you still are sucked in – left feeling that he may have some spark of empathy, and would do the right thing for Will, if the need arose. It is exactly like that in real life, when you encounter a damaged psychology, and listen to their protestations of normalcy. It will just seem more likely that they are normal. That you can still feel sucked in, in a television milieu where you unquestioningly know the reality, is both amazing, and sobering.

Even how the relationship between Will and Hannibal formed is haunting. Con men will often target marks through friends of the mark. This was how the Sun Gym Gang operated. If a person you don’t know approaches you cold, you will treat them cautiously, but if a friend introduces you to them, you will often feel as if it would be disloyal to the friend, to not trust their acquaintance.

That is why Will’s blind trust of Lector, and his complete inability to apply his gifts to unraveling the psychopath before him are so logical, and so tragic Once Agent Crawford introduced them, Will allowed Lector access to his inner circle because he trusted Agent Crawford. Once Lector gained access to that trust, Will could not begin to fathom that someone in that inner circle would not reciprocate the loyalty that he extended to them. It is just haunting, to see Will taught the lesson that you can only really learn one way. It is those closest to us who elude us the most.

As Season Two begins, Will is going to be incarcerated for all of the copycat murders, and his goal now will be to bring Hannibal to justice.

Some may not see the utility of the Hannibal Lector mien in the amygdala hijack. To understand, you must go back to this post showing a video fo an amygdala hijack. In it, Gary Busey triggered an amygdala hijack in singer Meatloaf while exhibiting the emotionless facial expression below, to exacerbate the hijack.

Although we can only speculate as to why unemotional countenances so fiercely exacerbate the hijack, it is beyond doubt that they do. I once attempted to hijack my Narcissist, and seeing him hijacked, I tried to enhance the effect with a very emotional, excited display of body language and expression. He immediately, visibly gained his composure back. It was bizarre. When I hijacked him later, and went hyper-unemotional, his hijack went stratospheric.

I am not a fan of the Gary Busey mien, because it looks “off,” (though it may have an enhanced effect, due to that “awkwardly staring” quality). You can get away with it in a hijack, mainly because if you do the hijack right, everybody will be looking at your target, and ignoring you. Nobody on that video remembers what Busey looked like as the hijack was going down. Indeed, do a Google search on “Meatloaf Gary Busey,” and just about every post you see will talk about what a psycho Meatloaf is, and how he just went off on Gary, despite the fact that Meatloaf seems to be, to me, the decent guy. Regardless, political amygdala hijacking is about socially out-grouping your opponent, something best done while looking as sane as possible yourself.

For that reason, when I hijack, I prefer to be less obvious to observers, and the Hannibal Lector mien is the best compromise I have found that will allow you to facilitate direct eye-contact, remain suitably unemotional to avoid flagging the target’s amygdala with emotional cues, maintain a perception in the target that they are being intensely stared at and examined fearlessly by a superior, yet still seem plausibly normal to anyone who happens to glance at you. Not only is it devoid enough of amygdala flags to be amenable to being employed as part of the hypnotic-focusing aspect of amygdala-hijacking, but it also has a suitably Alpha aura about it, which will appeal to those who are synthesizing game and political amygdala-hijacking into one art.

Combine it with various theme presentations, dogwhistles, intense eye contact, squaring of the body, occasional bemusement at your opponent’s shortcomings, and if possible, space invasion and uncomfortable physical contact, and you will have their amygdala struggling to keep up with all the stimuli striving for its attention. If that amygdala is weak to begin with, you can seize enormous control over the interaction, and maybe even make your target look insane.

Enjoy the show, but don’t get swept away by it, and forget to internalize Hannibal’s presentation.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Matt Forney is One Bad-Assed Amygdala Hijacker

Matt Forney writes some brilliant articles on leftists and Narcissists. Of particular note, he is a master of the amygdala hijack of feminists, in written form. I am awed, given that he apparently isn’t a natural like Gary Busey, yet his acquired technique is clearly of that caliber. I was reading his article on Narcissism and feminists here recently. He aggregates several pieces of interesting material in it. First, and most amusingly, he quotes a “leftist” commenter on another site who describes his own behavior as “rabbiting.” Tsk, Tsk. The Dread Ilk is everywhere.

Second, Matt links to a feminist, who read one of his amygdala hijacking articles, and immediately had an amygdala hijack herself. The feminist post is here. (Amusingly, in her description of herself, she specifically says that she likes rabbits.)

After she posts how awful Matt’s article is, she goes back to it and actually reads it (note that we have described how Narcissists and Liberals operate on vague perceptions of broad stroke stimuli, rather than laser focused, concrete, amygdala-driven analysis consisting of careful stimuli flagging and relevance weighing. We see crisp, clear ideas and complex relationships, while they see vague, ephemeral shadows, that trigger overwhelming emotions. They have probably learned to only see vague shadows, because of what happens when they look too closely at reality.)

After the feminist goes back and tries to carefully read Matt’s article again, and actually focus on the ideas in the article, she then returns to her post and adds the following edit:

EDIT: GUYS PLEASE BE CAREFUL READING THIS BECAUSE I THINK I’M STARTING TO GET A BLACKOUT FROM SHEER ANGER AND I’M ONLY ON HIS FIRST “REASON”

EDIT 2: HEY, FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, SINCE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO TAG THIS AS, PLEASE JUST… TRY NOT TO READ THAT OK? HE STARTS TALKING ABOUT STUFF LIKE… DEPRESSION AND SELF-HARM AND HOW THAT…. IS A RESULT OF BEING A CONFIDENT GIRL AND STUFF… AND HOW ANTIDEPRESSANTS ARE A SUBSTITUTE FOR “A MAN’S LOVING EMBRACE” AND IT TOOK ME 10 MINUTES TO TYPE THIS BECAUSE I’M DIZZY AND HARDLY BREATHING AND I’M HAVING A BLACKOUT.

That is an amygdala hijack, and it is that overwhelming, uncomfortable physical response which drives a whole host of negative behaviors in our political sphere, from a need to make guns just go away so they can’t be found, to an uncontrollable urge to feed people who disagree with your views into wood chippers and gas ovens. When that sensation is chasing you, there is no limit to what you will do to other people, to evade it. I am increasingly convinced that more evil is wrought by people fleeing that sensation, than all the greed and self-absorption in the world. We need to understand the amygdala hijack, because it is real, it is the source of our problems, and it can even be the solution.

Interestingly, those feminist sites have actually begun to post “trigger warnings” on reposts of manosphere material. Some readers have found that specific ideas (ie themes) trigger their amygdala hijacks, so they have begun to label their posts with “trigger warning tags.” These people who suffer from amygdala triggers actually know that certain themes are so painful to contemplate that they can’t read them, or they will throw-up, have a blackout, hyperventilate, etc.

Talk about a goldmine of tactical intelligence on the leftist cognitive model, and how to create themes which trigger amygdalae. There will be enormous power in the analysis of trigger warnings, as people perfect this art. If you can combine triggering themes with the Gary Busey-esque mechanical stimulation techniques, you will be a leftist amygdala-wrecking machine. Imagine, preparing for a Presidential Debate, with a feminist-compiled list of innocuous themes which perfectly disable liberal feminist brains, to the point that many feminists actaully black out just from hearing these ideas. Now imagine that the Democratic Presidential Nominee opposite you in the debate is Hillary Clinton, who is herself a feminist with exactly that type of cognitive model. That is dog-whistle heaven, and best of all, no observer even has to know you are doing it. Even if she doesn’t black out, in her degraded cognitive state, she will be much more prone to blurt out things like, “What difference does it make?” when you ask about piles of dead American bodies and America’s utterly destroyed economy. When you activate an amygdala, even with a weak hijack, the first thing which happens is cognitive degredation, which is useful in itself – especially in a highly stressful public setting like a debate.

As you read the hijacking article that triggered the feminists, notice how Matt moves quickly, delivering loud, stimulatory, aggressive hijacks like a rapid fire machinegun. Notice how he simplifies associations between criticisms to their basic elements, such as between antidepressant use, and the inability to get a man, and then delivers them with an amygdala-stimulating edge. If you use antidepressants, and you can’t get a man, and both of those concepts are seen as criticisms, then seeing those two things put together critically will trigger the amygdala prior to any conscious thought or analysis in a leftist – especially if the delivery is critical, colorful, and dismissive.

Of course in nature, the negative sensation is designed to drive such women to try being more considerate, and try finding a loving man they can share loyalty with, but instead these women choose to short-circuit the warning by seeking fellow travelers, ensconcing themselves in a bubble of perceptions that there are no good men, and then not reading any articles, or positing any thought about anything which might disrupt that amygdala-assuaging mechanism. (It is kind of a shame, because one can’t help but notice how such girls could find much greater happiness if they would just reach out for psychotherapy to rewire their brains to be less sensitive to criticism.)

Notice also how Matt’s original post unemotionally out-groups his targets, assumes the sale, and reinforces it’s outgrouping theme with simple statements that would easily appeal to an impartial observer. Matt relates a story about how a leftist says they talk to their brother about leftist stuff until the brother is irritated. Leftist reading that thinks, “I talk about politics all the time too, and people get irritated.” Matt then postulates a theme of, ‘Who wants to be around an irritating person? Irritating person must be defective, and the type of person nobody would want to be around, because they are irritating. People like that always end up with no group of friends, because nobody likes them, due to their personal defectiveness.’ It is a brilliant implementation of taking a theme designed to out-group, presenting it simply, masking it as a story, and then presenting it all unemotionally.

I often speak of theme presentation, and there is a reason. Theme presentation allows you to get an idea into the head of a Narcissist or Liberal who would otherwise disregard the idea immediately, without any analysis at all. Milton Erikson, the father of hypnosis, actually specialized in telling stories with themes that mirrored the lives of his patients. He noted that if he told patient X that they shouldn’t cling to their spouse so tightly, the patient would rebel, and reject the idea that they even clung to their spouse. But if he told the patient about a friend whose wife divorced him because he wouldn’t let her hang out with her friends, and added that the friend ended up losing his job, and dying alone and penniless, then the patient would stop clinging to their spouse and adjust their behavior. I suspect his patients had sensitive amygdalae, of the sort that looking too closely at their own lives was cognitively impossible. However, looking at the unimportant lives of outsiders would allow them to unemotionally examine behaviors that they themselves performed, and make changes in how they saw themselves and their behavior.

In essence, by presenting a theme, especially through metaphor or analogy, within a critical piece, Matt is instinctually doing the exact same thing that the greatest master of psychology ever, did all those decades ago, but moderating it to increase the sting. By moderating the degree to which he “themes” his attack, he makes the idea just distant enough from his target that their amygdala lets the idea in, and examines it. However, once inside and examined closely, the idea suddenly links the target with the criticism, and the idea explodes like a little flash bang grenade right inside their head – but by then it is too late. So tell a leftist they are irritating, and nobody would like them, and they will disregard it, probably while laughing like Joe Biden at the ridiculousness of the idea. However, walk them through a story in which they clearly see an irritating person they wouldn’t like, and then show how they are clearly just like that individual in a way even they can’t deny, and you can bypass this defensive mechanism, and shock their brain with the aversive stimuli they are otherwise so effective at ignoring.

The funniest thing is, after he attacks them, Matt’s targets then run off to spread his evil seeds far and wide throughout the internet, out of a compulsive need to find other fellow travelers to tell them that Matt is the evil one, and they are all sane. As you finish his piece, take time to marvel at his understanding of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and false realities, and his even more clever manipulation of it to generate massive blog traffic.

Utterly brilliant.

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments