Saturday, September 24, 2011

Psychopaths and Racism.

A Reader asks:

What's a PS stand about racism?

PS... I assume this refers to Psychopath and Sociopath. If yes, then there are two slightly different answers.

I'll begin with the group that is closest to home, and of which I am a specimen: The Psychopaths...

If there was such a thing as a pure psychopath, he would be incapable of acquiring any ideology, politically or otherwise, and that includes Racism.

The core trait in psychopathy, and which sets us apart from other Cluster B. and Antisocial personality types, is the Flat Affect, specifically in terms of absence of the ability to feel Empathy and therefore Remorse(1*).

If you cannot empathize with individuals or groups of other people, you only have logical thinking upon which to base your views. In the case of racism, as with more or less everything in existence, there are pros and cons. I see by far more cons, pronbably because I have acquired some fundamental empirical modern scientific knowledge.

As an example, I think the science of neuro-biology is highly efficient because it fits with all the other natural sciences that I know of. There is too much that speaks against the usefulness (read: possible truth) of a model of reality that says the race defines possible intelligence level and the ethical nature of personality traits in the individual human being.

It is far more useful to stick with the empirical model of natural science which gives us an enourmous amount of data to gain more general knowledge derived from physical differences of every kind. This has given us tools to deal with illnesses and epidemics which used to be deadly - and as we know, these fiends do generally not care about racial differences. Another positive is there's one less synthetic internal conflict to make basis for civil war or revolution. Most of all, we will have far more people who can function based on their personal strengths and preferences instead of their racial heritage.

All of the above are thoughts I can't help but believe in, because my world model has it logically built-in and structured that way.

On the other hand, the emotional aspects of my thinking is almost non-existent. The basis of my ideology is survival. Survival of our species, yes, but our species always begins with me.
And I know mankind is more than logic, I see it everyday. I see it in that most people don't function by logic alone, and many develop a racist ideology in spite of scientific schooling.

If I find myself surrounded by a society that has a racist ideology, I'm likely to use it to my advantage even if it means I will have to lie about what I really think. In fact - and this is where my psychopathy comes in - it is even worse: I may live in a society where the racial ideology agrees with my own thinking, but if I see a Prize of Gratification, but I can obtain that prize only by pretending that I believe in racism, then I am likely to do so.

This is the greatest difference between psychopaths and other antisocial minorities. It's a differences that sets us apart and makes many people - even people from other antisocial and Cluster B minorities - hate us, and for good reason.

Sociopaths(2*) are more likely than psychopaths to acquire a racisist ideology because they are much more likely to adopt the ideology of a social group, but they do it for very different reasons. Because many sociopaths join extremist political minorities, there are quite a few sociopaths among neo-nazi extremists and other racist groupings. Psychopaths almost never thrive in these groups because of their strict hierarchy systems and their very harsh demand for loyalty.

This can sound as if sociopaths are incredibly negative, but lets turn it around and think of another example: In most prisons the sub-cultural code makes rapists very unpopular - no, hated and despised. And it is beyond doubt that sociopaths hate or despise these outcasts just as much, if not more, than the neurotypical groups of inmates do.

There are two small minorities in the prisons who do not hate and despise rapists:
  1. Some of the rapists themselves (not all; many rapists suffer from self hatred to the point where they attempt suicide).
  2. The psychopaths (especially those who's score are high on Factor 1 traits).

(1*) - Some scholars put more emphasis on the factor of Absence of Remorse. I haven't been able to do so myself because I can't understand the importance of Remorse, and I think this feeling, or emotion, depends on the ability to feel Empathy.

(2*) - I should add that what I write about the differences between Psychopaths and Sociopaths are my personal opinions, though not mine alone (ref. Dr. Robert D. Hare, David T. Lykken, and others).

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Psychopaths - The Nature of Proof & Belief. (Part 1)

I just came across a small article about psychopathy. It has a few unfounded claims such as f.x. a picture, immediately below the text, that states:
6% of the world's population are born genetic psychopaths.

The article itself refers to Bob Hare and his book 'Without Conscience' and sums up his views on the general nature of psychopaths. I am pleased to find that the author is aware that psychopaths aren't a group of identical individuals, because this is one of the greatest obstacles that society faces when it comes to understanding what a psychopath really is.

Almost everything that has been written about psychopaths to date focus on the defining traits in psychopathic behavior and personality and leaves out everything else, all the things that makes us individual beings.

Yet experts propose to say they're describing the psychopathic nature per se, and this is is often reflected in the titles of these books, like f.x. Hare's 'Without Conscience - The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us'.

Hare explains in the preface that there is still so much they don't know and don't understand about the psychopathic mind and states that much more research is needed. Yet the title of his book says: 'the disturbing world of the psychopaths among us'. This doesn't indicate that Hare doesn't know everything about psychopaths, quite the contrary, it indicates that he does know everything about psychopaths and that the reader too will learn everything,... about psychopaths' feelings, thoughts, motivations, behaviors, wishes, talents, abilities, habits, ideology, religion, education, the nature of possible present or past criminal behavior, etc. when they read the book.

And people really seem to believe they know what a psychopath is, whether or not they have read a book about psychopathy or not. Those who haven't believe the stereotype myth about the psychopath as a serial killer and drunkard brute. Even psychopaths associate the word psychopath with this type of image (and therefore do rarely think they have any relation to such a diagnosis).

The website isn't only about psychopathy, there is a colorful list of links to articles and sites about Conspiracy Theories, 'Water has Memory', Evil, Zionism, and a lot of so called 'proof' and 'evidence' about these things.

I can't help but make the association between this kind of naive beliefs in what the authors think to be proof and that of those among my readers who think they have seen proof that I am somebody else than who I say I am and that I have a different diagnosis than the one I actually have (I am a diagnosed psychopath).

I adopted a personalized smiley from somebody who has a writing style alike my own, and a few individuals who harbor a personal hatred toward me (a good reason to be suspicious of anything they say about me, by the way) post a list of names and bits of texts and claimed that all this proves I am not me, that I am not who I say I am. And because some people will be inclined to listen to those who shout the loudest, they will also find it hard to not believe this type of slander.

It is not new, and it is not strange or mysterious at all. In fact it is very representative for how the human mind works, and I know the mechanism that convinces people they have seen proof when in fact they have only seen vague details presented out of context, some of them even falsified, and put forth repeatedly as fact in a strong and bold manner. This is how journalists work and it is how propaganda works. It is also how manipulation and gaslighting works, and manipulation and gaslighting are things that I as a psychopath know intimately well. I know how each technique works and how to put them to function in the minds of other people. I have been using a great number of varieties over such methods for the bigger part of my life, and always to my own advantage.

But psychopaths aren't the only ones who manipulate. Everybody manipulate! Some are better at it than others, and many psychopaths are masters. I will be frank and say that I myself am a master at manipulation and gaslighting and everything in between, and I could make most of my readers believe any fancy lie if I wanted to. The irony is that I have chosen, for the first time in my life, to not manipulate, but instead to be honest... completely honest!... and it's possible for me to stay with and fulfill my decision, because I am anonymous.

This to me is a thrill unlike any other, I am learning things and having exciting experiences I never dreamed of because I remain honest within the project of Psychopathic Writings, and I have no intention of stopping.

I know what I do is useful to a lot of people, and I like to know that I have the power to operate constructively - not just destructively as has been my habit in the past. I've said it before: I love diversity and extremes, and complete honesty to me is an extreme I never indulged in before, which makes it fascinating and opens up for unknown new experiences and possibilities. I also know this is the attraction for those who tried to discredit me, but I cannot be worried, for you can't discredit someone who is honest under anonymity.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Psychopathic vs. Normal Perspectives.

The truth about psychopaths is not so black and white as many people believe.

Let me illustrate how easy it is, without having to lie or manipulate the truth, to turn tables about what we think we know: 

Normal People's Truth
  • Psychopaths are supposed to feel less strongly than normal people. They have a shallow emotional life.
  • Psychopaths have a short range of emotions. They are in this way somewhat emotionally primitive.
  • Psychopaths do not really Love others. Their emotions are often only sexual in nature. They are in a way like animals who only are driven by instinct.
  • Psychopaths are supposed to be strongly attracted to excitement, extreme experiences - they use the phrasing thrill seeking.
  • Psychopaths are also supposed to have low tolerance for lack of stimulation - they use the word boredom.
  • Psychopaths have no emotions, which can be observed in various tests - their physical functions don't change under emotionally triggering stimuli (and everybody know that it is the physical responses, and not the psychological perception or interpretation, that matters! (Right?)

Let's see what happens if we interpret this differently...

The Psychopath's Truth
  • Psychopaths feel just as strongly as normal people, but we feel strongly about other things.
  • Psychopaths have just as many and varied emotions as normal people, but their emotions are not always the same as normal people's. We are aware that normal people have emotions we do not have, but they seem to completely overlook the emotions we have and which they do not have. When they notice such emotions, they dismiss them as less worthy or good.
  • Psychopaths do not build mythical emotions over sexuality, they do not have the moral basis to feel such a need. To psychopaths normal people seem like animals, easily controllable because they're driven by instinct.
  • Psychopaths have an unusual emotional depth which makes basis for a much stronger need to experience all life's extremes. Because psychopaths need stronger stimulation they are dependent upon much more inspiring input than are normal people.
  • Psychopaths suffer far more if their emotional depth is not stimulated and inspired.
  • Psychopaths can tolerate far more stress than normal people, which can be observed in various tests - blood pressure/flow, startle response, sweat, etc.

Monday, September 12, 2011

How We Use Remorse. (part 2).

A reader wrote an article in reply to my How We Use Remorse. (Part 1):
with regards to things I can't help, I don't feel remorse about those.

This is exactly the way I feel about it. It's how psychopaths in general feel about it. So it may seem surprising if we still do never feel remorse. But it's simple in a sense, because I always feel I couldn't have acted any differently. That is, of course I'm aware that I can choose another line of action, but seen from my perspective I always have to do things exactly the way I do them, or I wouldn't be me.

But this may not be all there is to it. For I have done things and then later realized what I did was really wrong. It hasn't happened often, but I do remember it having happened. On those occasions I should feel remorse (or so I gather from what I've been told by so many people and psychologists, judges, etc.). And yet I do not. I feel disappointed and sometimes annoyed with myself, with the fact that I've made a mistake.

I have had experienced where I acknowledged I had wronged another person, that I had caused them pain or even suffering. If I have had any contact with these individuals, I have had no problems with giving them a sincere apology. I really do mean it when I apologize for having done something I wish I'd have done differently, or not at all.

But never once did I feel remorse.

The main thing that makes me wonder about it all, is that I can't see why feeling remorse is of any consequence, of any importance, whatsoever.

Isn't the fact that I acknowledge I have done something wrong, or done something I shouldn't have done at all, and apologizing for it - thereby showing that I appreciate it is meaningful to those I wronged to hear me admit this - isn't this what is important? Isn't it what those I wronged feel, and not what I feel, that is important?

Why do I have to feel bad also?...

It is as if there is a silent understanding saying it isn't enough to acknowledge a wrong and give an apology. If you want agreement, then you have to do more than apologize. It doesn't matter how sincere your apology is, you must do more than that: You must suffer also!

This I find unnecessary, unreasonable, and maybe even insincere on part of those who claim to want an apology but say they don't want revenge. If you're supposed to feel bad even if you give an apology, what is that if not revenge? It certainly does not have a logical purpose in and on itself in my understanding.

Or maybe I'm missing something?

I found this short article about the meaning and historical function of Apology. I think it brings up an interesting point. Maybe the idea of what an apology implies in our present culture is not such a universal given after all?

Usually when I give an apology after having realized I did something wrong, I actually feel quite good. I feel good because I've learned something new, something I can use to make better choices in the future.
Indeed, I have always felt good in these kinds of situations... But I have known since I was a small child that I am expected to feel bad, to show remorse, and I knew that if I didn't do so and do it convincingly, then people would be likely to not accept my apology as an apology, and they would think instead that I didn't mean it, that I was dishonest.

To this day it is how it is, and I have become quite adept in displaying the exact right level of remorse in the exactly right way, emphasizing the exactly right little details in behavior, such as bowing my head and avoiding eye contact just enough, make my movements sufficiently hesitatingly slow and my eyes big with a slightly questioning expression ("do you still hate me?... master?"), and so on.

I have to say that all this has sometimes made me dishonest about my apology. I would think: "So an apology isn't enough, they want me to feel bad on top of it?! They don't really accept my apology, they want me so suffer, and even though they claim otherwise, I must suffer, only then will they accept my apology!".

And this has made me silently feel resentment instead.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Slander, Flaming & Naming!!

A few individuals have for some reason become very upset with me. They furthermore do not seem to understand that I will not allow slander, flaming & naming at my website.

I have to assume these individuals are out to do real harm, and they do not care who they hurt in the process as long as they can make others believe anything they say about me. It will not work for a variety of reasons, most of which I am not going to disclose. You will find out in your own good time.

Just so you know: You could be facing criminal charges if you persist in your attempts to hurt people related to me. But I will not be the one placing the charges, nor will I make the decision or participate in a way that you can use to find out who I am. You will still not know anything about my location or my name outside of the Internet - not before, or if, I decide to let those data become public.

I am not expecting you to listen, but some of my readers who might be taken in by your aggressive and seeming certainty pretense might think twice before they follow you, and they deserve that chance because they don't have my knowledge or insight in what drives your behavior and rage against me. I have given you a fair warning, and this way I have my back free. 

But I will address my readers...

It began when I playfully addressed some faulty comments placed by two individuals at another website, and their heated throwing mud back at me. It escalated somewhat, and I am partially to blame because I let myself be dragged into an exchange where I eventually placed flame-like comments where I said what I actually thought.

Despite I never became abusive or attempted to slander neither these two, nor anybody else, and especially not people who might or might not have any connection to them or even exist, my thoughts were definitely not flattering.

Whereas they had thought themselves in the right to write comments to me in the same tone themselves, when I did the same to them they decided to turn it into something more.

Of course I know, when I create a website with a subject such a PW, I also know there will be people who will attempt to track me down. And I have taken precautions accordingly. I cannot be tracked... at least not by any private person. But like everybody else, I have to have some kind of "presence", if even a false one. This is what they have found.

Luckily most of the "identities" these guys have "found" aren't real, they don't exist.

However, there is always the danger that somebody could be linked to me accidentally, and this is why I take this so seriously. If it persists, I will have to take further action.

Now finally back to you, my anonymous readers... Use your common sense, don't believe blindly in anything anybody tells you on a website comment board - or even in the articles themselves. I am a good people-reader, and I know what to look for when it comes to lying.

And there are a few things to consider in this regard:

  • If someone write consistently about themselves, and stick to the subject of their website, there is a good chance they're telling the truth.
  • Especially those who are in fact confessing to something stigmatizing and negative, it is unlikely that someone would go out of their way to make up a lie and then admit and tell it to the world.
  • Use your common sense, don't believe any accusation thrown against somebody.
  • Consider the behavior and integrity of the writer.
  • Use your gut feeling. Your guts will often tell you the truth and if someone is honest or not.
  • Be always suspicious, or at least do not take anything at face value. Give it time and let consistency and gut feeling lead the way.
  • Be especially suspicious of people who write about things that are too good to be true, things such as incredible wealth and fame, which they will not back up.

There will always be people who wants to slander and destroy things for somebody else. Especially so if that somebody else seems to have something that they do not.
I have always had a tendency to trigger envy in other people, especially people of the more sociopathic category. But it comes with the territory of being a strong personality who doesn't bow to the norms.

As my readers will be aware, there are certain very strong codes in the sociopath community. As you will also be aware of, psychopaths do not have an actual community, and we have no code - of honor or otherwise. We are just as likely to turn against each other as against anybody else. But sociopaths will often turn against us, unless we choose to conform to their norms.

Most of the time we DO choose to conform to their norms, for the same reasons as we conform to normal people's norms when we're in their communities.

But why have I chosen to frequent sociopath communities in the first place?... I have chosen to do so because that is where I find people who are interested in psychopathy, and it is also where I find young psychopathic individuals who may want to learn more about themselves.

In order to signal that I represent a minority within the minority, I chose to not conform to the sociopath community's codes right from the beginning, and that of course gave me some negative attention. Luckily I do not react emotionally to negative attention like others - sociopaths included - do, and so I let it be, until comments began to turn slanderous.

I will end this article with this...

Don't worry about me or the persons who have been linked to me. They have not been harmed, nor will they be so.
Every individual who have been named as connected to me, knew this could happen before I created PW, and even so they gave me permission to go ahead with the project. I have kept nothing from them whatsoever, and they are aware of everything that has happened over the past few days.

It was on their own initiative that they wanted to help me with my project because they believe in my idea and in the importance of what I am doing.

Thank you to all of you who have supported me and who have kept believing in me in spite of all the latest events.

If anything, it shows what I have said from the beginning: It is not I who am out to hurt others, in fact I attempted to stop when I realized these people had taken things into the actual malicious intention of destroying my presence and my work with Psychopathic Writings. And I once again thank my paranoia for being foreseeing enough to take precautions from the start, it is because of this that I and my friends and supporters are safe today. I can continue my work!

Thank you all!


Ps. I have found it necessary to block anonymous comments for the time being. But eventually things will turn back to normal. 

In the meantime, I am still available for emails, of course.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011


I am introducing a spam, trolling, flaming and naming non-tolerance policy.

I am doing this in order to re-establish this website as a place where everybody can read and/or leave comments, and participate, safely in intelligent debate.

This website was never meant to be a playground for trolling and flame wars.

I am partially responsible for what has been taking place here over the last few days, which is just that: A flame war initiated by a random reader of another website, and responded to by me. I realize it is my responsibility to see to it that it stops.

This is what I am doing now.

I especially have no tolerance for allegations or accusations made against named individuals! I don't care if the accusations are correct or not, it will not take place here! It does not matter whether or not I know somebody you see fit to mention by name, or if the poster knows them.

Hence I have decided to remove all content that I think does not belong here.

I appreciate the majority of my readers who come with honest and serious intentions, and I will put an effort into providing information and material of exactly that nature, as was always my intention.

I will never abuse, never commit an act of violence, psychologically or otherwise, within the realm of this website and in my interactions with you, my readers!

This is I vow!... 

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Psychopaths And Sociopaths Differences - Why?

What is the Difference between Psychopaths and Sociopaths? Why make a distinction between the two?

The word Sociopath is often used as synonymous for Psychopath. Using the two terms in this way works okay for the most part but has considerable limitations, the greatest of which is that it obscures the fact that despite the two groups clearly have many things in common at a superficial social level, there are fundamental differences which sometimes make us as different as night and day... or, to put it more correctly: As different as are the two points in time '1 min. Before Midnight' and '1 min. After Midnight'. The two are very close, yet they're each at the opposite end of the cycle between Night and Day.

The main difference between our two minorities lies not in our behavior but in our neurological makeup. Sociopaths are not emotionally wired differently from other people in the same way that psychopaths are. Most of all, their emotional neuropsychology is not different from normal people's, and they do not have the flat affect as an build-in condition from before birth which psychopaths have. And this give individuals of the two groups a very different set of motivational factors for behaving the way we do.

A discussion has been going on for a number of years in the psychopathy research community about whether psychopaths are the way we are as a result of our upbringing or are born with a genetic structure that determines our condition. This debate is an extension of another debate called Nature versus Nurture which surrounded the nature of human intelligence, or IQ. It is all about the human condition, about how and why we come to be what we are. And the truth is, of course, that neither nature nor nurture are solely responsible for why psychopaths are psychopaths, it's a combination of both factors. And the same is the case with Sociopathy.

Yet making the distinction can be useful when we talk about these two often internally extremely different types of people which we call Psychopaths and Sociopaths. And much really does speak for it being sensible in this regard to say that sociopaths are sociopaths mainly as a result of nurture, or upbringing, and that psychopaths are psychopaths mainly as a result of nature or genetics, we are born that way. It's a synthetic distinction, of course, but it is useful even so because knowing if somebody has an inborn flat affect, or if it is an acquired condition, allows us to understand the individual better, and most important of all, it allows the individual person to understand themselves better.

As always, categorizing, grouping, and distinguishing, are tools to understanding and dealing more efficiently with the reality we live in (the limiting effects we see are side effects, they're not the purpose). And this alone is my argument for making the distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy. Apart from my personal interest in and fascination with the human psyche, I truly believe it is not only for the greater good that we understand also the differences within a minority - in this case the minority called the Antisocial - but also for the good of ourselves.

It is possible to think of my own best interest and see it in the perspective of the best interest of the majority. I'm aware that the real test would be when I had to choose between the greater good and my personal well being, but for as long as I am not faced with this choice, I really don't see any problem with me trying to further both positions. What's more, I am having a lot of fun doing it. So yes, I am a firm believer in the saying that 'Knowledge is Power', and the more people who have access to knowledge, the greater the possibility that one or two of those who use it will come up with something ingenious and great.

In an upcoming article on this subject I will give examples of some of the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths which I have observed and found to be consistent and defining.

Monday, September 5, 2011

First Time In Prison For Murder. (Part 1)

When I was 18 years old I was arrested for murder and put in a real prison for the first time. I hadn't been accused of or convicted of any crimes prior to that. That is, there were plenty of people who accused me, the police included. But the first murder marked my first time in prison, and it would be spend in solitary confinement under indictment for over a year while I awaited an actual charge - which eventually was never raised. But that part of the story was yet to come.

I remember my first evening in this prison very well. The very first night I was being led through two wings into the farthest wing. It was an old prison, build sometime before World War II, and it had 5 floors. As we walked on the stone floor there was almost complete silence. I could hear no sound from other prisoners. The walls were a faint green color, the painting was falling off, and there were scratches here and there. Along each wall were doors every few steps (the picture looks very much like the prison I am describing, but apparently was taken in Poland or another Eastern European country).

They were massive doors painted in a dirty whitish-grey color. Each door had a heavy locking device, attached inside the wall to a rod which ended in a round flat sign with the number of the prison cell that it was attached to. Whenever a prisoner needed help, or for other reasons needed the guards' attention, we had to press a 'tap' inside the cell a little distance from the door, and the rod would be released and fall down with a 'clank!' into a horizontal position, sticking further out from the wall and thus become visible from a distance. Even so it could take hours and hours before anybody bothered to come and check the reason why the prisoner had called.

This was our only means of calling and getting in contact with the world from inside our cells. We spend minimum 24 hours a day in the cell. It was not a punishment, nor was it disciplinary or even security. It was just custom. It was how things were done. People sat here for even years without being charged, because that is how the system works in that state.

The rod was attached to the lock in a way which made it fall down into the horizontal position  when the guards opened the cell door. Each cell was a one man cell. Two man cells did not exist. All prisoners were kept in solitary confinement until they had been sentenced. This is still fairly common practice from what I hear.

There was a small slit of sorts in the door itself through which the guards would look in at me on their rounds every hour, and whenever they happened to pass by in between their rounds. Sitting inside the cell I could see the eyes of the one who was peering in at me, but there was no way that I could look out or see who the person was or how he looked. It was only the eyes.

At the opposite end of my cell was a small window high up under the ceiling. I believe there was approximately 3,5 to 4 meters from floor to ceiling. The idea with building it like this, I was told, was to make it imposing and intimidating to the prisoners.

The walls themselves were over two meters thick, build of steel and concrete.

The year when I was arrested was an unusually hot summer, and the city was baking in the summer heat. Nobody could tolerate wearing more than an absolute minimum of clothing, so I was in jeans, a sleevess T-shirt and a pair of thin jogging shoes when I was arrested. I had no coat, but a cop gave me his thin, short jacket, which made me wonder at the time since it was so warm I couldn't imagine I'd need any more clothes, and it was his private jacket that he gave me.

That night I found out why. I was put in a cell at the first floor. There were no cellars underneath. In the cell was a thin bed made of some hard "wire" and a steel skeleton. I was given a blanket made of the most rough, itchy material I have ever experienced. But that wasn't the worst part. What would be an ongoing source of irritation was that the blanket was too short. There was no way I could make it cover both my feet and my chest.

And when night fell it became freezing cold. The incredibly thick walls and the fact that light never really could enter made it very, very cold even in the heat of an unusually warm summer. I was led into a cage of sorts, with only an entrance at one end, and widening toward the outer end, with walls at both sides, and a wired fence on top and at the far end, which faced out towards a wall inside the prison. Ther was nothing to sit on, nothing to hold on to, I had nothing to drink, and at the entrance end was an armed guard who always seemed to be looking at me. I found it curious until I realized I almost always was the only prisoner who took the opportunity to get out in this small place for air. When they came and got me, I would go straight from the freezing cold into that hot, warm, cage where I could find no shade because they always got me within an hour before noon.

Inside the prison itself I felt as if I was the only prisoner. Because the walls were as thick as they were, and because everybody were so completely isolated from one another, I could only hear other prisoners when they were being walked through the wing for whichever reason. To see the doctor, to go to the interrogation room, and such.

There was light in my cell 24/7. There was no toilet in the cell. Instead I was given a small bowl to do my business in, and it would be gathered every day after I had been given breakfast. I was given slightly warmed, think coffee every Sunday morning. One half filled battered faint yellow plastic mug.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

The Good Psychopath.

In a recent dispute a reader made the following statement to me:

The irrating thing about you is that you try to make out that you're a good person in a place where it doesn't matter. I think I'm a great person but not a good one, and that doesn't bother me.

I immediately found that this is a topic that has some importance beyond a petty dispute about a minor lie.

Since I began running this website, Psychopathic Writings, I have gone through a learning process that I had never dreamed I would ever experience. And it has changed my perspective in some ways, whereas in other ways my old opinions have been strengthened.

One of the areas where I do think I have made improvements, is in my writing skills. I am not a good writer, I never thought I was, and I don't think I'll ever become a great writer. But I have become better at it, and with better writing skills I think I am slightly better at describing my reality and expressing my thoughts in a way that gets the messages across.

How I wrote in the beginning may play some role in giving the impression that I think I'm a good person rather than a great person. But I know it isn't the whole story.

In one of my very first articles I wrote:

"I am a good person. I Know this, because .... ".

So which is it? Do I see myself as a good person, or merely as a great person?

To be honest, I am not sure what the difference between the two is. Being a great person to me is good. It does not mean that what I am is good for everybody I meet, and I don't believe I ever said anything to make it seem as if I attempted to be good in that way.

And after all, I admit to having killed people, I admit to having been abusive to people, I admit to having destroyed people emotionally and psychologically, I have stolen, I have raped, I have committed break and entry, I have forged and conned, robbed, and I have committed a number of so called white collar crimes that I need not list here.
So no, in that sense I am not a good a person, and I never claimed to even want to be so. - Yet it seems that I have somehow given the impression that I want people to see me as a good person.

Another reader used the phrase 'reformed', he thought I was trying to claim I have been reformed and am now not a criminal person anymore. And I have to say that he's right, I do claim that I am not criminal anymore. However, this alone does not make me a good person. There are plenty of law abiding people out there who are rotten to the bone, as the saying goes. We see them in all walks of life, and only the most naive people will find themselves shocked by such a statement.

So what is it about me that gives the impression that I think I'm a good person? Maybe we should define what a bad person is first. What is a bad person? Is it an amoral person? If yes, then I'm bad. I do not have morals and never claimed to be a moralistic person. I am driven only by my insatiable need to experience life in it's extreme. This I also never made a secret of. So it must be something else.

There is one other possibility that comes to mind, and I think what I'll say now just may be what my reader was getting at:

What if my motives behind keeping this website is not the good of my readers?
What if I am creating a big scheme of sorts, all of which is meant to lure my readers into a trap that I can then use to hurt them somehow?

This would surely make me a bad person, there's no doubt about that. But is that really it? Is that really what my reader thinks to be seeing? And if so, is there any truth to it? And why would they think it the right thing to do to admit it and scare my readers away even before I get started?

My answer is likely to disappoint once again, because the truth has already been stated on several occasions. I say it on a regular basis: My motive for keeping this website is to provide information to the best of my ability and to hopefully play a role in making a difference... some kind of difference, any kind of difference, really. I have a need to be at the center of where things happen, it's in my nature and I do not claim otherwise. Never did. I do not claim to reach for the stars like a saint, or to have all psychopaths' best at heart. As is true for all the psychopaths that I have met, I only really have my own best at heart. But having my own best at heart can sometimes mean to have others' best at heart too, because having others' best at heart will help me in the long run.

And this is what I often have found especially sociopaths do not seem to understand: That someone like me can think beyond my own nose and still put myself at the center of things, all while I am "fighting for some greater good", seems to be beyond - beside, or below - the perimeter of how their minds work. This is the dual nature of being selfish, but being so in a larger or - in my opinion - smarter way... or just different way, if you will.

What I am saying is this: There many ways to skin a cat, and you can't judge someone on their immediate appearance - especially not someone like me. This is why the authorities don't trust me. They know I put my self interest before anything else, though I can make it seem as if I think about the interests of everybody else first. I try to think of it as a way of meeting others' needs and my own needs somewhere in the middle, because I do not have the luxury to try and make everything play only to my own advantage. I did that once, but that is no longer an option.

I don't know if I have answered the question about how I see myself satisfactory. All I can say is this: I think I'm a great person, I really do! And I always have seen myself that way. I do not claim that my life has been a great success, it obviously hasn't, and I will be the first to admit it. But giving into regretful thinking about mistakes I've made in the past will not help me. And I know I have what it takes to make a successful living still, I have proven so in the past too. To me being confident about my own fundamental sense of superiority does not necessitate putting others down all the time or that I somehow openly display contempt towards those I may in fact feel some contempt for.

In my position, as a writer of information that is being gathered and will be used by researchers, and which may be valuable also to a wider audience, it is imperative that I keep a civil conduct and that I do not stoop to lowly flamewars and bickering - at least not of my own making. I'm aware that many in the sociopath community will scorn this decision, and they might, but in my position I cannot afford to follow the road of rebellion. I am too selfish, and I like my freedom too much. I am still enrolled in the psychopathy research project which is the only thing that stands between me and solitary confinement in a prison cell for life.

To put it this way: I am not going to throw my freedom away just so that I can have the correct bad guy attitude in the sociopath and AsPD community. You can respect me for my decision or not, that is up to you. For me, I have no regrets and I have no objection as to your choices, nor that they are different from mine.

I am still not entirely sure about where the idea that I am trying to put myself across as a good person comes from. But I'm fairly sure that is not the general impression people have when they read my articles.

Apart from that, yes: I do treat my readers with respect. It matters to me that they know they can come to me without anxiety or worry about being met with some of the responses we see at some of the other websites frequented by sociopaths and AsPD'ers. My website will never take that line, it is not it's purpose. This is for all who have an interest in the subject of psychopathy and related conditions, let it be known that it is not a playground for antisocial teens, nor a platform where sociopaths can show their assertive skills off.