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 | 18 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 | 13 Comments

The Amygdala Hijack In Action – A Video Example

In comments after another post, Heywood Jablowme wanted a video of an amygdala hijack. Another commenter posted a video after his comment, of an Occupy Wall Street type beginning the early stages of amygdala activation, as he was out-debated by Peter Schiff. That video was good, but it was only the early stages of a hijack. Once a full amygdala hijack takes place, the amygdala is in control, and the person hijacked will no longer have any say in what happens. That is an important point to understand, because when picturing revolution, we picture people at kitchen tables, with excel spreadsheets and pie charts, trying to figure out logically if a revolution is feasible or practical. That is how you think when your amygdala is in low gear. Once the amygdala hits high gear and takes control, the “you” who is reading this, the you who thinks rationally, is no longer involved in decision making. That is how revolutions begin.

This is a video of singer Meatloaf in what I would say is a level six or seven (out of ten) amygdala hijack initiated by Gary Busey, on the reality television show “The Apprentice,” hosted by Donald Trump. There is no stroke, however it is clear that the peaceful Meat we all love is no longer in control – his amygdala is calling all the shots.

There is a temptation to think that because this was reality television, it might be staged, but I am quite certain this wasn’t. There were little details that jump out to anybody who has dealt with Narcissists and extended periods of amygdala activation. These details are probably not well known enough to have been included in an arranged skit. From Mark McGrath, earlier in the show, repeatedly performing loud, moaning sighs, without realizing it, after leaving the company of Busey (I found myself compulsively making the exact same noise, almost reflexively, after leaving my Narcissist Bob’s company, as a sort of subconscious stress relieving technique), to Meatloaf’s blank, stunned expression right before the meltdown, there are things that will stand out to anyone familiar with what it is like to be around guys like Busey. Plus, Meatloaf seems like a decent guy who would be genuinely horrified to lose it like this when a sick children’s charity was at stake. Based on my experience, this was real.

Meatloaf has probably always been a physically tough guy, for whom violence was always an option, so you won’t get him to stroke out. To get the stroke, you need a pathway in the amygdala which blocks using violence as an amygdala relaxant, (something produced most often by prior trauma associated with fighting as a child). If that violence-blocking pathway isn’t there, an amygdala hijack will likely precipitate violence, before you get the stroke.

As you watch this however, imagine what Meatloaf would have been like, cognitively, had he grown up small and weak. Imagine that beatings endured as a child inserted a few lines of code into his brain’s operating system actually forbidding him, through the application of sheer terror at the thought, from following the aggressive, threatening path Meat followed to blow off that steam. Imagine if his brain had made him bottle up all the mental energy you see in this video. Picture his amygdala just firing off faster and faster, until it literally could not get enough oxygen and nutrients to continue its operations. Imagine if it had no way to vent itself, and reduce its operating load like it did in this video. If you think of Barak Obama, or Henry Waxman, or Dennis Kucinich, or Joe Biden, they would not really have the ability to vent their amygdala stress aggressively, as Meatloaf did here, especially against a manly opponent. When the pressure release valve of violence is clogged up, that is when you get some really weird effects from the amygdala hijack. This will not be one of those cases.

I suspect, due to Gary’s mastery of this, he has never been really proficient at, or psychologically capable of, engaging others violently. In my experience, the naturals, those most innately capable of this type of manipulation, are usually those on whom it is most effective, and upon whom it is most easily employed. They learn to press these buttons, because they experience them being pressed in their own brains far more acutely than we could imagine. They have seen this happen firsthand, from the inside, since they were children. They know all the buttons, because they have felt them being pressed within their own brains for a long time.

Gary is typical of the naturals who regularly hijack the people around them for fun. You would never think he, of all people, would have the complex understanding of human cognition and brain function to be able to do this. Yet he does. Even worse, he understands this on a level that I am not sure I will ever reach. He even enjoys it, proclaiming earlier in the show that he gets a “kick out of keeping people off balance“(emotionally). That is why I have never worried about explaining how the amygdala hijack works publicly. The people you wouldn’t want to know about it already do, almost instinctually.

Some background to the scene, from my memory of the show (which I watched almost exclusively because of Busey). The stars had to go to a craft shop, and purchase supplies to create some sort of craft project for a charity auction. Meatloaf was very task-focused, trying to do a good job, and as he tried to concentrate on his task, Gary began hounding him with subtle annoyances designed to distract him and irritate him, thereby stimulating his amygdala. I believe Busey timed them for moments when Meatloaf was at maximal concentration, to maximize their irritating nature. Every time Meatloaf began to think about what he needed to buy, Gary would ask him a stupid question, like if he would buy Gary’s supplies for him. Often the question would be nonsensical, forcing Meat to stop what he was doing, and then see his ACC’s error detection function light up its neural alarm system as he refocused on a pointless question which made no sense, and had no clear answer.

For some reason, Gary may have designed these interruptions to carry a theme of personal entitlement, and Meatloaf’s subordination to Gary – in Meatloaf’s words they carried a theme indicating that it was, “as if every one exists to serve Gary.” I didn’t catch that theme in what I saw, but more occured than what made it to TV, and that is how it all struck Meatloaf. I don’t know why Gary would add that theme, but I think he knows more than me, so he may have done so purposefully, and that may be important. Perhaps the amygdala has some response to inverted social hierarchies, or inferiors treating you with disrespect, which aids hijacks.

Meat also explained that “Gary lives in his own world… He has no consideration of other people’s space.” The show then showed Meat and Rapper Lil Jon trying to talk, and Gary moved in between them to interrupt, well within the personal space of Meatloaf, with his face just a little too close to Meatloaf’s. As he did this, Gary grabbed Meatloaf’s shoulder, squeezing it, and waved his hand up in between Meat and Little Jon, right in front of Meatloaf’s face, while interrupting with some unintelligble, confusing question. In my Narcissist, although this type of faux pas would be portrayed as being due to obliviousness, it would actually have been a completely calculated action.

Gary even farted in the car on the way to buy supplies, to the consternation of everyone (even that would add to Meatloaf’s amygdala loading). The disruptions added up, because Meatloaf felt he couldn’t focus, and each disruption piled on the last one, as his amygdala began to pass the point of no return. This would also condition Meatloaf’s brain to become reflexively agitated at the mere thought of Gary, causing subsequent amygdala stimulations to have outsized cognitive effects. With the amygdala, if you can get your target to subconsciously anticipate your stimulation, and brace for it, it will actually have an even more potent effect when you deliver it, since they will be neurologically primed to react to it.

While shopping for their craft supplies, Gary also apparently bought many of the same craft supplies Meatloaf bought, so he had an exact set of supplies, just like Meatloaf’s, though he apparently kept Meatloaf unaware of this. I strongly suspect that Busey knew ahead of time, exactly how this would all play out on Meatloaf, when it would climax, and what Meatloaf’s reaction would be. I suspect that he actually planned all of this that far ahead of time. I am awed.

When they got back to the place where they were each to assemble their craft projects, Meatloaf’s supplies “disappeared” under the tablecloth on the food table by the front door. Gary then arrayed his identical set of supplies (which Meatloaf apparently didn’t know he had bought) on the table in front of him. This caused Meatloaf to believe those supplies were his, and Gary had stolen them. Gary made sure he looked super happy and content with himself at one point, as he sat and carefully examined the items, further irritating Meatloaf.

Meatloaf got flustered at the thought that Gary had stolen all of his supplies and was preventing him from working, and the pressure built. As it built, Meatloaf’s face went from worried and irritated, to a blank, stunned expression, as he walked around and tried to hold in what was building. I have seen that exact same blank facial expression – it is the calm before the storm. Don’t ever think that because your target suddenly looks hyper-unemotional as you try to hijack them that you are failing.

I love that as the pressure pops, the first thing Meat does is flex every muscle tight, grimace, and then scream the worst curse word there is, as loud as he can, just to kick things off. Meat, I hear you, and know your plight brother. The fall of civilization, and the return of wanton violence, will be a relief to us.

Note that Meatloaf’s violent reaction in this video is simply a mechanical attempt by his mind to calm his amygdala by eliminating what is irritating it – namely the constant, repetitive air-consumption being done by Gary Busey. Meatloaf’s loaded amygdala has scanned his brain for options to relieve its irritation, and the option that has come to the forefront is simply to kill Gary, or at least beat him severely enough that he will no longer impact Meatloaf’s ability to work. Gary’s existence is so revolting to Meatloaf’s amygdala that Meat’s brain just wants to destroy him, to relieve the stress. Were Meat to actually kill Gary, in a lawless environment, his amygdala would immediately shut off, it’s oxygen and nutrient consumption would immediately drop from the danger zone it is in, and the relaxing sensation this would produce would probably roughly approximate pleasure.

Also notice that as Meatloaf began to become violent, Gary actually squared his body off with Meatloaf, while maintaining that weird, Gary Busey eye-contact, even thrusting his blank, emotionless face forward while holding eye-contact, which was all further amygdala-stimulating. If you were a scrawny Gary Busey, and Meat was getting violent, the last thing you’d do is square off, throw your face into his, and lock eye contact like that. With my Narcissist, that would all have been purposeful. Obviously, you can’t argue with the results – Meat does lose it.

Pay close attention to Gary when he says, “That was all mine in my basket,” early in the encounter. That is the hyper-unemotional, monotonal, affect-free, Hannibal Lector delivery, perfectly done. He even folds his hands in front of him right after saying it, like an innocent choirboy, as the camera zooms in. If you or I were in that position, with Meat suddenly exploding on us, we would have evinced the emotional affect of interest, with our brow low, and an interested, questioning, quizzical look. We would have looked curious, as we wondered ‘why is Meat getting so angry all of a sudden?‘ Gary’s expression is blank and oblivious – and that is very amygdala stimulating. (This is a good example of something you will commonly see Narcissists do, called “Reinforcing the Narcissistic Bubble.” Narcissists will provoke outbursts, and then strike an unemotional pose, so as to reinforce their false reality, where they are the calm, cool, collected one, and their target is unbalanced. They will also try to create a theme in the social interaction of them being the “good,” reasonable one, and you being the “bad,” unreasonable, emotional one. Liberals do the same thing in an effort to out-group you, and it is why both Liberals and Narcissists get upset, if you remain emotionless when dealing with them. Sometimes called Gaslighting, this behavior has even manifested in efforts by Narcisssists to have their target formally diagnosed as mentally ill, and even commited to institutional care.)

Look at Meatloaf’s reaction to that meaningless, emotionless statement by Gary, that “Those were all mine in my basket” – it is reflexive, and explosive. His amygdala begins to go into an even higher gear, and he has no control of it. Subconsciously, Meatloaf wants an emotional response out of Gary so his mind can feel that it is gaining control of the situation, he is impacting Gary’s future behavior, and these negative circumstances will not arise again. When that emotional response isn’t forthcoming, his amygdala flips into an even higher gear, because, ‘By God, this bastard is going to respond!‘ Meat probably doesn’t even hear what Gary said. At this point he is fully reflexive, and the hijack is more of a mechanically induced event, than a logically induced event. Here, with an overloaded amygdala, unable to flag, weigh relative importance, or seek a logical solution, vague themes and physical presentations can supersede the effects of detailed logic and irrefutable reason. As the amygdala enters high gear, its flagging and weighing functions will deteriorate, and details and complex thoughts will become much less noticed than grossly perceived, broad-stroke emotional stimuli. This is why decisions to make Civil War, or just go wantonly killing every Liberal you can find in a bloodly orgy of violence, will not be made rationally, whenever they get made.

After being escorted out by John Rich and asked to wait outside until Rich comes back out to get him, notice how quickly Gary re-enters, and locks eye contact again with Meatloaf, to reinitiate the hijack. Notice how all of Gary’s speech is delivered in the unemotional fashion of the Hanibal Lector delivery. Notice how when Meatloaf reignites as the hijack resumes, and says, “You just don’t fucking assume…And you fucking ask!,” he has taken to looking down at the ground as he talks to Gary, to try and avoid eye contact, so as to diminish the load on his amygdala. After a particularly harsh amygdala hijack, my own Narcissist, Bob, reflexively looked at the ground, and off to the side, away from me as he talked, as if he were autistic, and he couldn’t bear to look at me. He did that to avoid the eye-contact-mediated amygdala stimulation which had become unbearable to him. It would not surprise me if it was experiencing this inability to make eye contact, which schools Narcissists on the power of eye contact, and the sort of stimuli which activate the amygdala and irritate others.

This all relates to politics, in that Liberals try to quiet their own amygdalae by getting government to stimulate Conservative amygdalae in some way. They want to make Conservatives pay for their birth control, to tax them, to disarm them so they can’t defend their families, to regulate their businesses into oblivion, to force them to confront sexual themes and activities which disgust and repel them, to prevent them from enjoying something under the guise of environmentalism, or prevent them from forming free associations to get healthcare or economic advantage. I mean, Leftists try to make parts of US parks off limits to humans who just want to peacefully enjoy them. They even insist Conservatives stop publicly acknowledging realities that bother the Liberal, from the failure of the multi-cult, to the bad effects from destroying the family unit, all so the Liberal can more easily retreat into a bubble of fantasy and false reality that will help the Leftist avoid all amygdala stimulation. That leftist behavior is all amygdala-stimulating to a freedom-loving K-psychology, and Liberals know this. Liberals are the people who feel good when others are irritated. That is not as uncommon a psychology as people think.

The thing is, when Conservatives reach sufficient levels of amygdala stimulation, they will let the pressure out, and it will likely be in the form of violence. We haven’t evolved that much in the last 500 years. The same humans who gladly hunted Comanche nearly to extinction, fought the revolutionary war, angrily killed their own brothers in the Civil War, happily flame-thrower’d Japanese in the Pacific, dragged Mussolini’s dead body through the streets, ruthlessly wanted blood after 9/11, and murdered Khadafi after torturing him on the spot, are all still around today. Push the right buttons, and all of that can happen again.

The danger for us K-strategists is, we tend to fight without thinking clearly, when we approach Meat’s level of amygdala stimulation – and that level of amygdala stimulation is almost the only time we will actually fight. This can lead us to be easily manipulated by r-strategists into fighting other K-strategists. Few Conservatives, pissed that the Federal government is seizing their guns, will hunt down the nearest unarmed Liberal rabbit hiding in their bedroom, and kill them in cold blood in their own house, as the rabbit pleads their helplessness and innocence. Rather, K-strategists will tend to fight anybody but the Liberal, from heavily armed government agents who come to take guns, to radical Muslims trying to implement Sharia on the streets of America, to K-strategists of another race who have been goaded into wanting to fight us by the Left. Even though the Liberal is a vile creature, and the source of all our problems, we are almost programmed to fight anyone but them.

On top of all of this, we have Liberals who, like Gary Busey, instinctively know how to draw out violent urges, and who are almost programmed to pit K-strategists against each other. This is how r-strategists operate and occasionally win. The only way to prevent it is to decide intellectually that when the violence starts, you will only target the unarmed rabbits who engendered it, and you will drive them from your land, no matter how unpleasant the endeavor. Any other path may lead to r-strategists clamping down tyranny and oppression, to assuage within them an amygdala that cannot tolerate stress. In great irony, letting it be known that you intend to follow that path may be the only thing which can stop the rabbits from fomenting war as K-selection approaches.

Returning to the show, what I find really funny about it all, is that aggressive guys like Meatloaf don’t amygdala hijack other people, and tend to be quite decent and moral personally. They don’t even know how you would do an amygdala hijack, and would have no desire to do one if they knew how. I’m sure Meatloaf doesn’t know what happened here. Even stranger, I would bet that if you tested Meatloaf’s IQ, it would be way higher than Gary’s. Yet Gary, of all people, not only knew how to do this, he showed himself to be a master of it.

I saw another episode where Trump introduced Gary to a wealthy and successful friend of his from the world of business, and Gary immediately moved in too close (space invasion), grabbed the guy’s hand to shake it as he squeezed the guy’s shoulder (uncontrolled physical contact/sensation), shook the hand aggressively, in an irregular, choppy cadence (the amygdala disregards that which can be predicted, but activates in response to unpredictability), all while placing his face uncomfortably close to the guy’s face, while locking an uncomfortable level of eye contact (amygdala stimulating). As he did all of that, he said, in an intense, whispering/gravely voice, something very confusing. I forget the phrase but it had the structure of a profound statement about something like love and God and angels, but which on closer inspection made no sense at all (again, flag the amygdala with the appearance of being profound/important, and then trigger the uncomfortable neural alarm of the ACC’ error monitoring function by making it nonsensical). The guy’s shoulders quickly hunched, his face took on a look of anguished confusion as he tried to smile politely for the camera, and he began to turn his head to the side and lean away from Busey defensively, even as they were still locked in an uncomfortable handshake. It was all amygdala stimulation, and Gary seemed to enjoy doing it.

Of all the people I’ve known who knew how to do this naturally, all gave an impression of having very low IQ’s, and limited-to-no technical scientific/analytic tendencies. Perhaps they are morons, or maybe they play dumb purposefully – I don’t know. I have suspected that some forms of intelligence, or perhaps task-focused cognitive models, focus your brain on technical details which deprive you of the raw emotional data the people around you give off, and as a result, your brain fails to develop skills similar to those which Gary’s brain has obviously developed. If you are task-focused, you focus on the idea that someone presents to you, trying to process it, and trying to formulate an intelligent reply that will help them. When you are like this, you tend towards the Asperger’s end of the cognitive spectrum. However, even as you master the physical world around you, you ignore why emotionally, your interlocutors are saying what they say, how saying it makes them feel, and how your reaction affects them emotionally.

Now imagine you were the exact opposite of that cognitive model. Lose the technical intelligence, and suddenly processing the idea technically is totally beyond you, and the emotions are all that you can see. This perceptual model is the opposite of Asperger’s syndrome. Always focused solely on the emotions in interactions, you and your brain become a virtuoso of emotional manipulation in ways the technically smarter can’t comprehend, even as you lack technological intelligence. I also suspect, such a skill at controlling the brains of others, placed in the hands of a child with no other power or aptitude, quickly becomes a pleasurable distraction which is perfected at every opportunity as they grow up – especially if they have a personality disorder which derives pleasure from the unhappiness of others.

This, in the end, is what those who love freedom face. Brilliant manipulators who enjoy the unhappiness of others and know how to irritate and socially manipulate the K-strategists of our populations into fighting each other, and K-strategists who are programmed in such an aggressive and honorable fashion as to be susceptible to the self-destructing manipulations of sociopathic r-manipulators. That , IMHO, the most difficult obstacle that freedom will have to overcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | 36 Comments

Narcissists Enjoy Sadness In Others

Just a quick link to this paper, “The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality,” which found evidence,

…indicating that individuals high on narcissism, primary psychopathy, and Machiavellianism experienced positive affect towards sad emotions

Also,

…primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism were associated with experiencing negative affect towards happy expressions.

If you’ve ever known a Narcissist, you will find them to grow increasingly depressing, as your relationship with them wears on. That depressing quality is a purposeful cognitive manipulation to make you sad, which in turn makes them happy. I’ve actually seen a male Narcisssist depress someone by focusing them on a sad aspect of their life. Once the target was sufficiently depressed, the Narcissist smiled, puffed out his chest, and raised his chin, as if simultaneously exceedingly pleased, and proud of his manipulation. It was surreal, and I would bet my stunned and confused facial expression as I watched, would have been funny as hell on tape.

This is why you cannot remain in contact with a Narcissist. They are like Terminator robots sent back in time specifically to screw up your happiness. That is a primary psychological drive in them. Even stranger, they know this about themselves, and revel in their bizarre urges – as well as your “stupidity” in being unable to figure out that this is what they are about.

Given that it is just accepted today that Narcissists are unusually common within politics, it makes you wonder if our leadership is actually fucking everything up on purpose, and deriving copious pleasure from all the misery they are producing. Could they actually be producing a collapse purposefully, just to watch all the little people get unhappy?

Strangely enough, the science would say that is likely exactly what is happening….

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Forces Exerted By r and K-Selection Effects Mold the Ideological Inclinations of Societies – How Resource Availability Determines Destiny

Here is another graphic supporting the contention that Conservatism is actually a K-selected reproductive strategy, designed to arise under conditions of resource scarcity, and Liberalism is actually an r-selected reproductive strategy, designed to arise under conditions of free resource availability.

A reader pointed to the Economic Misery Index. There is a huge infographic at this link, which will be appended below this post. It points out the relationship between the Economic Misery Index, and violent revolutions such as the Arab Spring. If you increase economic misery (ie. restrict resources), you will get violence, aggression, and demands for freedom and free competition, among other traits. Those are K-selected behavioral traits that confer advantage under conditions of resource shortage, and their emergence under such conditions is no coincidence. Those Conservative psychological traits are designed to emerge when resources are scarce – when a wolf-like competitive K-selected strategy is the best way to survive.

What the Misery Index measures is resource restriction. Since we maintain that the K-strategy and Conservatism are one and the same, we predict the Misery Index should relate to the population’s expression of the K-selected reproductive strategy of Conservatism.

Above we laid a line graph showing the Conservative Policy Mood in the US (from this article at the WaPo’s website), over a bar graph of the Economic Misery Index in the US. On the right is the scale for the Misery Index, and on the left is the scale for the Policy Mood.

There are a few interesting points. First WWII caused a skyrocketing of Conservatism, and this artificial elevation of K-strategy generated a very low Misery Index once the war was over. K-strategists are hard workers, bent on winning. Not many vets came home from the kill or be killed battlefield of that war, looking to slack, craving a government to handle their every need, and wanting a destruction of the traditional family unit. Not coincidentally, they took action and produced copious resources. Notice how the low Misery Index readings rapidly eroded Conservative psychological traits in the populace, and how that raised the Misery Index, as the population adapted to the resource abundance by adopting a more r-psychology, designed to exploit free resources, rather than work hard to produce them.

Early on in the graph, a sudden jump in misery would either stall a decline of Conservatism, or produce a jump in the rate of Conservatism, usually within the space of a year (interestingly, crime (violent competition for resources by those less able to compete otherwise) has also been noted to jump within about one year of sudden rises in the Misery Index).

Vietnam obviously produces a jump in Conservatism, despite relatively low Misery Index readings, as does 9/11, validating war as a K-stimulus. Additionally, the end of the war in Vietnam, the abatement of threat from 9/11, and the end of WWII all served as r-stimuli, indicating that the removal of threat/war stimuli serves to produce increases in r.

Carter sends Misery and Conservatism stratospheric together (quite an accomplishment), only to have Reagan open the debt spigot, and flood free resources into the environment, crushing both Misery and Conservatism. This release of free resources through debt rapidly shifts the population towards the r-selected reproductive strategy of Liberalism, even despite Reagan’s brilliant oratory, political theater, and complete victory in the Cold War. The best leader, with the best arguments, in the most powerful position possible, succeeds in every regard, and yet he is no match for the corrupting effects of free resource availability.

The first Bush term is a bit confusing. The Misery Index rises slightly, and maintains a level which should provoke a K shift, yet the K-shift is somewhat slow in coming. One possible explanation is that just as war can propel the Conservative Policy Mood sky high with a very low resource restriction, a continued rush of borrowed cash flooding the ecosystem could temporarily drive Conservatism lower than it would otherwise go, despite a mildly elevated level of misery.

A second explanation is that the effects of the Misery Index are likely based upon relative levels of Misery. In the graph above, Misery had just dropped significantly under Reagan. If the Misery had been very low during Carter, the populace would have acclimated to that low level of Misery. Once acclimated to low Misery, any sudden rise would tend to provoke a K-shift, even if the rise were less than you saw at the end of Reagan’s term. However, having acclimated to a misery index of the magnitude that Jimmy Carter produced, that same level of Misery would be perceived as quite nice by comparison, and thus release more dopamine, elicit less anger, and be and thus be far less likely to trigger a K-shift.

One must remember, that the Misery Index is, loosely, an inverted measure of societal dopamine activity – dopamine activity similar to the effect of illegal drugs like cocaine. When Misery plummets, societal dopamine release will rise, however when Misery rises, dopamine activity will drop. Just as an addict eventually requires substantial quantities of drugs just to feel normal, it is possible that coming off of Carter’s misery level, the nation as a whole suddenly felt euphoric, even without pushing the Misery index to a significantly low level, and this served to foster an extended r-shift. Deny a family food, and then feed them, and they may change psychology towards r. However, take a well fed and very technology-supplied family, acclimate them to that level of comfort and entertainment, and a mere cable outage might provoke a K-shift, even as they ate heartily. Indeed, many K-shifts occur either concurrently with, or immediately after, sudden spiking of the Misery Index, the main exceptions being conflict stimuli such as Vietnam and 9/11.

If the effects of Misery are indeed relative, I suspect today’s youth, who are from birth acclimated to every comfort, technological accessory, and delicious taste in their freely availble food, are like dopamine addicts whose baseline pleasure requirements are quite high. They need those dopamine highs, just to feel normal. If economic conditions change, and suddenly everyone doesn’t have unlimited data plans, free Apps, social media, unlimited bandwidth, delicious food, free and easy college loans, the ability to acquire healthcare for themselves and their loved ones, and jobs given to anyone (even Womyns Studies majors), they may quickly, from a psychological standpoint, begin to make our most hardened WWII vets from the Pacific look like gay pansies. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was blood.

Also, during that post-Reagan period, a decades-long, constant threat stimulus was eliminated. One moment we were a superpower locked in a never ending struggle with the evil empire of the Soviet Union. The next moment, Communism collapsed, our enemies were gone, and the news was filled with experts pondering how we would now manage as the lone Superpower in the world. That was an enormous threat stimulus suddenly removed. Who were we competing against? A subtle question that I think is enormously important to our human natures and our motivation to compete and produce.

Finally, I think we underestimate how perceptions of political conflict stimulate a K-shift. Had Bush I approached politics more like Tom Delay or Ted Cruz, and constantly demonstrated how leftist policies were destroying the economy, and portrayed Leftism as an enemy to be fought, I think that a K-shift would have begun much sooner. However, being essentially a Northeastern Liberal, Bush I operated as if there was no real fight with the left. Even worse, those Conservatives who were still standing saw their own President ban guns, raise taxes, and fight pointless wars to rescue some Kuwaiti oil princes, or some ungrateful Somalians who would later kill our own military members. At every turn, from lack of loyalty to his own, to support for governmental control and oppression, Bush I fought to weaken Conservatism through wimpy acquiescence to, or embrace of, the left. Judging from the graph, he won, aided by free resources and diminished threat.

There is a lesson to the Political Conservatives in that. Better to take a wimp out by letting him lose in the General Election, than let him infest your movement for four years, erode any K-shift, and drive that curve downward. We probably dodged a real bullet with Romney.

Two years into Clinton’s term, the Misery Index drops suddenly, and the graphs suddenly diverge, with the Misery Index apparently suppressed on a fairly constant basis, even as Conservatism rises aggressively. I suspect that drop is due to the changes in the CPS, which were enacted in 1994, redefining how it measured unemployment, and thus altering what the Misery Index measured. (Overnight, a reading of 1.1 million unemployed was cut by 600,000 (over half), simply due to the change in methodology instituted in 1994).

Still, if you follow the curves after that drop, they do roughly rise and fall together, as would be expected since the index was still a rough measure of relative Misery from year to year. I suspect the rise after September 11th was more due to the attacks than economic misery, but misery probably played a part as well given that the dot-com bubble had just burst.

Of most interest is the growing divergence between the graphs. After the changes in 1994, it seems that Conservatism is now rising faster than the Misery Index is. What changed? There is a possible answer for this at this link. If we are failing to count the unemployed sufficiently, and the number of uncounted unemployed increases over time due to the changes in unemployment measuring implemented in 1994, that might explain some of the increasing disparity between the two curves, starting around 1994. That might also imply that the Conservative Policy Mood could be used, in some fashion, to model general economic conditions, if the government’s numbers prove to be unreliable.

This figure linking ideology to both the Misery Index and warfare, is why this entire blog exists, and why a whole book was written, amassing reams of support for this seemingly strange, obtuse subject. Everything you see utilized tactically in politics today has little to no effect on our political outcomes, by comparison to these r and K-forces. While everyone runs around endlessly debating the same old issues in the same old ways, while Liberals try to infiltrate academia and the media to execute some grandiose plan, while Conservatives debate whether Mitt Romney could have won if something was done differently, they are all ignorant of the real picture. There is a silent, unstoppable force, deep within our species’ psyche, effortlessly moving mountains of our history while we sleep, and it doesn’t really care about any of the things we normally focus on.

It is this force which controls our political destiny – more than any issue, more than any party, more than any political event, and more than any leader or individual – indeed, more than all of that combined. This force is why Ronald Reagan’s debt spending created an onslaught against our gun rights at the end of George H. W. Bush’s only term in office, and why we got an assault weapons ban passed in 1994 that could never pass today. It is actually why Charleton Heston lofted a musket above his head and bellowed, “From my cold, dead, hands!” as well as why that was a brilliant presentation of a conflict stimulus designed to provoke K-mindsets. It is even why that theater signaled the beginning of the end of attacks on our gun rights. It is why we elected a reprobate of uncommon immorality to the highest office in the land in 1992, and it is even why we will almost certainly wage large scale wars in the near future, as that Conservative Policy Mood graph skyrockets under assaults on our healthcare, increasing crime, and an impending economic collapse of unimaginable proportions.

Even more amazing, by the nature of our world, and our own evolutionary history, this force was perfectly designed to be taken by Conservatives, and used as a weapon to enormous effect. Any Conservative leader can introduce aggressive, confrontational, threat stimuli into an environment by being belligerent. However no Liberal, in the face of such stimuli, can remove that stimulus, or reintroduce tranquility, if we don’t want them to. At the end of the day, we call the shots, if only we will choose to.

The real engine which powers this hidden force is actually our world’s reality, so the force is almost useless to Leftists. Until reality can be replaced with fantasy in the real world, Leftists can do no more to stop our wielding of this weapon than they can do to stop gravity. They are helpless before us, and ply their political strategies only with our willing acquiescence to their evil and our passive acceptance of their fantasy.

The day major Conservative strategists grasp the force at work in the graph above, from the macro-level effects down to the effect on dopamine receptor gene transcription within neurons, is the day our battle ends, and our species begins a stratospheric ascent to levels of technological and societal advancement that we can only dream of.

That is why all of this research exists. The moment this becomes widely accepted as truth, is the moment our political battles will become infinitely easier to wage and win.

Misery Index

Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments

Amygdala Activation, Facial Expression, And Aberrant Behavior

In the book People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil, M. Scott Peck described how many strange behaviors he saw in his psychiatry practice were basically produced by a mind seeking to distract itself from some form of cognitive discomfort. I have increasingly found this to be true.

Those who do the most heinous acts usually do not do them for pleasure. They do them to assuage a discomfort, likely originating within the amygdala – the brain structure which detects adversity and triggers an emotional response to it (through use of another structure devoted to creating such pain – the ACC). The sensations produced by the amygdala, which yield these heinous behaviors, are usually anger, sadness, or fear, and they will tend to have been felt extremely strongly for an extended period. When any of these emotions are present in sufficient quantity to elicit heinous behavior, they will often manifest the emotion present in the facial expression as well. If you can train your amygdala to detect subtle signs of such stresses, you can often spot individuals whose behaviors may be so motivated.

In the picture above, the mouths have been removed so that you will focus on how the rest of the face emotes. This is done mainly because people often alter their mouth position consciously to project a certain emotion (say cheese!), but few people alter the areas around the eyes and cheeks as well. As a result, if one wants to read the level of amygdala stimulation in a person, they are often best served training their own amygdala to focus on the area around the eyes and cheeks, and to devote less attention to the mouth. Looking at these mouth-less pictures is an exercise designed to train the amygdala to do just that.

In the picture above, one person’s amygdala is realxed and fully devoid of anxiety, while the other’s is highly agitated, and full of anxiety. One is smiling happily with relaxed, happy eyes, the other is anxious – his eyes and cheeks braced in fear of the next onslaught. One could be saying, “My God, how awesome is my life?” The other could be asking, “Why won’t you stop bothering me, and leave me alone?” The funny thing is, both are technically smiling.

The intensity of the emotional response produced by the amygdala, and the unconscious nature of its elicitation, is so difficult to hide and control that when such cognitive discomfort is present, it will tend to permeate many expressions which should, ostensibly, display no amygdala activation. If someone displays indices of amygdala activation on their face, in the form of anger, sadness, or fear, even when they are smiling, you have a sign that something is likely wrong with the function of their brain.

On the right, in the full photo above, is the Colorado school shooter, Karl Halverson Pierson. He was an avowed socialist who, “became easily aggravated, “always liked to be right” and didn’t like losing.” In other words, he was a leftist with a sensitive amygdala who got amygdala hijacked over the smallest of things. Eventually, something bothered him so much that the only way he saw to relieve the pressure produced by his amygdala, was to bring a gun to school, and kill a bunch of people. In the purest sense, his shooting was an attempt to obliterate a reality his amygdala couldn’t face, and when a Deputy approached, he finally defaulted to obliterating himself to relieve his fear of facing the deputy, which would have been an even worse agony.

Again, leftists and Narcissists have weaker amygdalae which can’t handle stress, or process it into productive actions, and it will often manifest on the face as a subtle anxiety, sadness, or anger beneath their expressed emotions. Leftism is an attempt by leftists to prevent amygdala stimulation by seeking conditions of full government control of everyone, where no one can ever surpass the leftist in happiness or success. When such an individual’s amygdala fires off in response to their environment, anything and everything is on the table to stop the anxiety, provided that what they do doesn’t offer the threat of greater amygdala stimulation. So shooting an innocent girl is a viable amygdala relaxation technique, but encountering an armed individual capable of fighting back and hurting them, such as a Sheriff’s Deputy is not. This is why Communism so frequently devolves into oppressive bloodbaths, and why anyone who lets these idiots within a mile of any real power is a fool.

On the left in the picture above is Claire Davis, the happy 15 year old girl the shooter shot in the head and killed. People don’t fully realize how these miserable losers hate the happy, and how they actively target them. Whenever I hear of a girl killed, or raped, or attacked, I assume it was a happy girl, and the attacker was one of these miserable shitbags, since such attacks always seem to be attempts to reduce the happiness of innocent, happy people who have never had the misfortune to learn what evil is.

Above are two girls, with a more subtle difference in expression. One was genuinely happy and sweet, the other suicidally depressed, judging by her journal entries. The suicidal one ended up kidnapping and slitting the throat of the happy one, because on a visceral level, she envied and hated her (again, according to her journal). The happy girl’s happiness and success stimulated the unhappy girl’s amygdala. The only way unhappy-girl could see to shut off the anxiety was to get her boyfriend to help her kidnap happy-girl, so happy-girl’s throat could be slit, and she would no longer exist as an amygdala-stimulating reality. Only that alteration of reality could shut unhappy-girl’s amygdala off.

It should be obvious that the happy one is pictured on the top. Her amygdala is fully relaxed and devoid of anxiety, and it shows in the area around her eyes and cheeks. Cover her mouth, and there is still no doubt that she is smiling. The one on the bottom doesn’t know whether to cry or look terrified, even as she tries to contort her face into a smile to coverup what she is inside. Around her nose almost exhibits a disgust affect, as if she is responding to a noxious smell. Even the mouth in the last photo, viewed in isolation, doesn’t look like a smile, as much as an unemotional exposure of teeth – especially compared to the happy girl’s warm, infectious smile-shaped mouth in the picture above.

Finally, we have the two paintings you see most commonly when writers discuss Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke.

Here, Paine, an aggressive r-strategist often portrayed as one of the first American Liberals, is trying to smile. Again, ignore the mouth. Focus on the areas around the outer edges of the eyes, and imagine him right after the painting, relaxing his face, and removing all the consciously-conjured muscular forces he is applying to create that smile.

As you look at his picture, ignore the mouth, and perform Silvan Tomkin’s Affect Psychology experiment. Flex your eyebrows to make your eyes and cheeks look like his, and imagine how you would feel as you made that expression. That is not a joyous expression. That is the emotional affect of anguish mixed with a touch of fear, and it belies an amygdala under a fairly high level of stimulation, even at rest, because it lacks the pathways which lead from unpleasantness, to rectification of the unpleasantness, to relaxation. That is prime amygdala hijack material, right there.

This is Edmund Burke, a traditionalist often associated with early Conservatism, and he doesn’t even bother to try and smile for the picture, preferring a blank emotional expression, probably representative of his underlying emotional balance. Here, the absence of amygdala activation is clear – his mind is fully relaxed, and his face betrays not a whit of anger, sadness, or fear.

Although everyone is different, and these indices are not always present, they are often there to some degree. Their nature is biological and timeless – inherent to the nature of our species. Teach yourself first to see these indices in the blatant cases, and you will begin to see them when their presence is much more subtle.

If I could communicate one thing, it is that there is a war, between two types of humans. It is a real battle between good and evil. Leftists and Narcissists hate the happy Americans who make this nation great. Their sole objective is to screw up the ability of those Americans to succeed freely, without the force of an oppressive government ruining things. Wherever leftists see success, they see a target for government seizure and interference. Wherever they see happiness, they see a need for government regulation and oppression. They have no ability to just leave fellow Americans alone to interact freely, and succeed and be happy. They have to intrude, to alleviate an anxiety that they will never be rid of. Even worse, they are so instinct driven, they can’t even see intellectually that they are bringing about the very harshness which will be their undoing and destroy the very facade of civilization that they need, to keep from being killed violently for their evil.

Additional Pic: Here is a link to a picture from some Liberal Democrat gathering.

Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments