Monthly Archives: February 2016

Feminism And Human Waste

Actual human waste.

Smudging oneself with menstrual blood, real or fake, has become a motif for some feminist groups. Why not faeces, you might wonder? Oh, sorry, no faeces available,those were all sent to a museum of conceptual art, in the original toilet bowl, along with a mosaic of clipped toenails and nose hairs.

When trying to decide what type of agitation is more disturbing in this day and age, radical feminism probably takes the lea.You do not make a point by re-enacting that scene from The Exorcist in a public square. There seems to be a strange fascination these activists have with body parts and bodily functions; just when you thought mooning or giving the bird were a last resort for the linguistically challenged. Idiocracy, anyone?

It’s fair to assume that few in the crowd will pay attention to the actual message when half-naked women mimic sticking crucifixes up themselves. Instead, they will ask themselves other questions. Are these women high on bath salts? Did they just escape from a hospital? Are they dangerous? Are they going to pull out guns and start shooting?

The first thing that confuses me about some feminists is that they claim they don’t need to bare their tits and butts to attract attention, like weaker women do. And they make this point precisely by baring their tits and butts.


As proven by this list and many others, there is no limit to the lunacy of their complaints – from being outraged by hurricane names to finding ”sexist” notions within physics. Just as weird was the campaign against mistletoe, which would have you think women get routinely raped under a bundle of leaves, in good conscience. Actually, they were baited by an internet community into joining that, which shows how easy it is to get them to back up any absurdity.

If I attempted a parody of a radical feminist protest, it would be something like this.

 #Ilovemycrack Today was incredibly exciting! The sisters and I made a racket! After being sweat shamed in a supermarket, my friend (who so humbly refuses to take credit for this brilliant idea) decided we should protest against soap. I mean, why should the patriarchy force us to be neat and pretty and perfumed, like little Barbie dolls? A woman should not be embarrassed by any aspects of her natural condition, right? So we stopped washing completely for a month  and headed to a park; that was the proudest walk of my life. On the way, people kept turning around wondering where the dead animal was. We stopped at the bandstand, near the zoo, and started singing our most famous song; at first the keeper thought some of the Capuchins had got out and were screeching in the trees. Then we were almost shot by PETA, who mistook us for a bunch of raccoons because our faces were covered in runny mascara; they wanted to liberate us from the slavery of human ownership. Being a rebel is so exciting! So we ran into a bush and someone called the police; luckily, they all fainted when they came near us as they were not wearing gas masks, and we managed to get away. Seeing their faces turn green was amazing! Four men down! Girl power!!! 

But wait – all this is nothing. NOTHING.

Please do not click on this link if you’re squeamish or about to eat.


Efficient Or Inefficient Ways To Fight Bigotry

Later edit, in light of the possibility of this post being associated with right-wing propaganda.

Perhaps it’s easy, when living in a country where civil rights based on sexual orientation are not likely to ever be reversed, to disregard the fact that elsewhere this threat is very real. Not just in countries which haven’t reached that level of secularism yet for understandable reasons – but also in the “first world” (in the US for instance).

It’s also easy to fail to understand the level of stress people can experience when facing bigotry on a frequent basis, as well as lobbying to have their rights reduced or revoked. It’s easy to think that when laws are passed the battle has been essentially won – when in fact there are powerful factions constantly agitating for a reversal, enjoying popular support based on false ideas such as religious dogmas. It’s far from over, as long as this agitation persists.

When analysing social issues online, one tends to relate to what they observe locally, and fail to take into account that elsewhere the situation might be very different.

That said, the radical left has made a point of pursuing social justice through methods which are not, in my opinion, helping. Such as suing left right and centre for bigoted views (refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings and such). The only effect these tactics seem to have is of radicalising those who hold the views, basically feeding them.

They are the perfect material for scaremongering religious propaganda. “You see? This is what they do; they are all like that; they want to destroy us; we must fight back.” 

Someone who is already apprehensive will respond to being attacked in an even more virulent manner (besides the real consequences these lawsuits have on innocent people depending on the business being targeted). That will likely lead those people, whose opinion might be neutral to begin with, to embrace the views of the bigot, out of solidarity and resentment. It might also lead others in those communities, after observing this phenomenon, to embrace those views.


This post does not imply that someone can change their sexual orientation and was not born that way; suggest that religious people are right in their assessment of others as a “collective enemy”; imply that complete social harmony can ever be achieved through any means.

Instead it argues that petty litigiousness is callous and inefficient on a large scale; that it’s not easy for intolerance to end, as long as the left reinforces stereotypes and the feeling of mass persecution through these actions; that when those who were previously persecuted reach power, they behave like their former oppressors; that being unanimously liked is not achievable.


By far one of the most intensely discussed ideological conflicts today takes place between a vast segment of the world’s religious population, as well as conservatives in general, and sexual minorities. As the latter gain belated visibility, many struggle with a radically changing world, which they hastily equate with a doomsday scenario. However correct they may be in asserting that the world is becoming more irrational by the day in some ways, they do not differentiate between individuals of another sexual orientation and the aggressive left, which only claims to represent them.

There is so much to say on this subject. It becomes clear that both sides are demonising people they only interact with during these heated debates, laden with slogans, cliches and mindless shouting. Both get their motivation in the echo chamber of their peer groups, without stopping to look at each other as actual human beings.

The conservative and religious stance

And by that I’m referring only to those of the opinion that any minority today is encouraged to be sanctimonious and very easily offended, as well as the opinion that education is too focused on identity politics. By default I’m excluding those who are genuinely consumed by rage or hatred and are inclined towards violence.

It’s probably difficult for those who are still trapped inside the bubble of religion to consider that others have different instincts than they do. They can’t relate to others’ biological reality, just like they can’t picture  being deaf or blind if they are not (I’m not making a pejorative comparison here; there are simply different ways of relating to the world). So it’s easier for them to brush it aside as deviancy and justify mistreating people who never did them any harm, from a comfortable distance. 

The right wing is putting up a line of defence against broad societal changes, arguing they want to keep notions surrounding the family “normal”. The thing is, when they talk about “our ways”, “our traditions”, they actually think those ways are intrinsic to them – when the reality is we are a product of the social engineering of  our time. What some of us hold as sacred was given to our elders by the indoctrination of their day, just like we’re getting ours now. We are told from birth how things are and how they should be. The truth is anybody’s guess.

Normality is fluid, it is based on norms, not nature, therefore it’s artificial, changing with every generation, according to the interests of those in charge.Even the concept of sanity has been modified through time in order to filter out eccentric ideas, keeping people in line; political systems have long used insanity as a label to discredit dissidents.When someone lets go of the strong emotional attachment to this figment of normality, they’re already on the path to freedom. Those in power, by changing laws and principles from one day to the next, are not taking anything from people – they’ve never had it in the first place. It was never their reality; the script has always been written by someone else. 

Norms and laws come and go; political systems come and go. What we are left with, at the end of the day, is our intuition, the only thing that can’t be manipulated. What we can do is treat people as individuals, as we perceive them by interacting with them, regardless of the category or movement they form part of.

Religious people see themselves as the main resistance to sweeping societal changes ; it’s easy to understand that they feel threatened, even if that has no basis in reality (these changes have no real impact on their lives).

Freedom of speech is under constant threat, being reduced by the day. However, history teaches us that the underdog has very sharp teeth and as soon as it lands a position of power, behaves exactly like its former oppressors. If  religious people were given the same amount of power tomorrow as the radical left has right now – the power to censor and sue for offensive speech – we would end up with blasphemy laws, after all this trumpeting of free speech. Equality is only pursued in the initial phase.

Arguably, we are lucky to live in a culture developed on Judaeo-Christian values, which have evolved overtime. Things could be much worse. If Islam had managed to take over Europe during the Middle Ages, that wouldn’t be the case; everything down to the small things we enjoy would be different. Jean Valjean would have his hand amputated, Madame Bovary would be stoned to death before getting to commit suicide, Snow White would be kept as a house slave by the seven dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty would be gang raped by a hundred sweaty men while unconscious.

Even so, giving undue influence to the church has never had good results. Also, religious people do a huge disservice to all who stand up to what they perceive as the totalitarian left when they throw Bible verses at non-believers. It’s beyond me why they think that will ever work.

Who you are versus what you are

When showing righteous indignation before the cases of LGBT people callously bankrupting conservatives over cake icings , many forget that those people don’t do so because they’re gay – they do so because they, as individuals, are greedy and the law gives them the privilege. Members of any other category would be tempted to do the same if they could.

Moreover, I’m not sure that outside of political activism, there is such a thing as a gay community. Maybe I’m wrong, but if sexual preference is biologically driven, that would be like saying the ginger community, the blue-eyed community or the tall community.  There definitely isn’t a ”heterosexual community”  to be treated as a whole. My point is that many individuals in this perceived group might have absolutely nothing in common in terms of how they think or live their lives. Treating them as a homogeneous group by saying “they do/ believe/ say/ like so and so” doesn’t make any sense.

Then there is the slippery slope argument – it’s true that there are other “sexual minorities” riding the coattails of the LGBT movement, using the fact that tolerance has become the most important value in society in order to squeeze in through a narrow opening of acceptability. However, one cannot demand that individuals who simply are gay or transgender and had nothing to do with that association foot the moral bill for other people’s poor choices of association, or for what those groups are doing today. Everyone is responsible for what they personally say and do.

A pain in the collective leftist butt

When Lucifer met Kali, they must have shagged under a full moon and spawned gay conservatives. You’d think that, from the amount of hatred these people get from self-professed liberals, simply for having a different political inclination. Whilst straight conservatives are usually mocked with derogatory labels, gay ones are genuinely, viscerally hated.

Although I disagree with conservatives on almost everything, I can’t help noticing this phenomenon.

The radical left is incredibly hypocritical when using this cause to garner sympathy. Like any good cult, it stands unflinching beside its devotees – unless, of course, they start dissenting even slightly. When it comes down to it, they don’t care about the discrimination an individual might suffer, if that individual refuses the collective stance.Cognitive dissonance is rampant. When a gay liberal is attacked, it is automatically assumed that homophobia is involved, regardless of the nature of the dispute. When a gay conservative is attacked, no matter how viciously, the motive is thought to be purely political.

To me it’s quite clear that “progressives” are using gay people, crying crocodile tears for them, as well as for those who feel singled out due to their race or ethnicity, in order to advance their message.

Once / if they achieve what they’re aiming for, allow me to suspect they won’t give a toss about anyone’s grievances. There is a valuable testimonial on YouTube given by former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov in the 80s, describing the way a bloodless Marxist revolution takes place, through cultural subversion; how groups are created and spurred on to make noise, in order to destablise a country. According to him, as soon as the new system is put in place, all these revolutionary groups (feminists, sexual minorities etc) are forced back into underground activism in order to build an image of stability and harmony. Although his message can be interpreted as conservative, the man did have decades of experience with these tactics and they are oddly similar to what is going on today.

Moreover, the concept of “homonormativity” has been introduced ( a presumed tendency of gay people to emulate the lifestyles of heterosexuals), as if sexual orientation placed people in antagonistic positions on all levels. It’s a case of being accused of fraternising or emulating “the enemy”, instead of supporting the free choice anyone should have, of living however they choose.

”I’m calling my lawyer!”

A lot of folks (even moderate leftists I think) wonder when this pettiness of suing over trifles will stop, as it has reached absurd levels. It’s frightening to see masses agree that it’s fair to ruin someone’s business if they cause you offence even once.

Denial of service is immoral when it’s state policy, making it impossible for a person to access it anywhere, or when that service is vital. If you’re in the middle of a desert during a torrid summer and the only shop within 30 miles refuses to sell you water, that is a problem. If you’re refused a certain icing on a cake for a same sex wedding, you can simply go fifty metres up the road and find a different bakery to spend your money in. What will happen at the most, if you’re a reasonable person, is that you’ll be temporarily annoyed.

Whereas, when you put said bakery out of business, you are taking your small frustration against an entire family (or group of families, depending how many people work there), with the actual desire of taking their money or ruining them. That makes you, at its mildest, greedy and vindictive, and when you seek to destroy them completely (by inciting harassment), it makes you a sociopath. I mean, really, who are you – a Roman emperor, who with a single gesture orders someone’s head chopped off? Who died and made you God? The law should not give people the possibility to behave tyrannically because someone doesn’t like them.

There is so much at stake – the lives of everyone who depend on that business to continue and who are not to blame for an offensive stance taken by one owner or employee. The ripple effect can be substantial, making collateral victims.

In the above-mentioned article, these are some of the things apparently inflicted on the couple by those who refused the cake order:

Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

They could basically pin that list of afflictions on anyone who dislikes them even slightly, for any reason.

The other thing is, once the goals of some advocacy groups are reached – usually through legal reforms – they might appear to become pointless. In order to keep making a living by obtaining sponsorship for their cause, they must keep finding problems. Woe is them if systemic discrimination actually ends, as they will have to pack their placards and go home. Some are professional picketers; if there is no problem to raise hell about, one must be created.

That’s why these cases are often crafted by agitators, who purposefully target business owners with a declared traditionalist stance. Like feminists, they don’t consider taking their campaigns to genuine backward societies where gay people are prosecuted and killed – but they’ll gladly ruin lives at home with the smallest amount of effort. This is needless.

If the religious right is mainly at fault for this acrimony – as without religion this discussion would not even exist – the left is often not helping.



Learning To Tell The Difference

Much of the acrimony in society today – and always – has to do with the oversimplification of political debates, turning many who would otherwise mind their own lives into rabid enemies, needlessly clashing, verbally and sometimes even physically, as a ripple generated by ideas people in high places have thrown at them. As expected, those in charge, who orchestrate this violent division, remain untouched by its effects.

   This post, which is the first of many of the same type, is based on the mass inability to tell the difference between those who draft up hate speech legislation and those the legislation claims to protect/ speak for.

The ridiculous level of offence taking we currently face (on issues such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation  and identity politics in general) seems deliberately organised in order to create strong conflicts within society (who benefits and why is subject to anyone’s speculation). One is egged on to choose sides between the left and the right, the right defending free speech and objectivity, while the left claims to seek the protection of those who appear vulnerable – which is a valid point, as vulnerability does exist; however, many compellingly argue that leftist campaigns are themselves the reason why extremism is oozing into the mainstream.

In multicultural societies, people might  adapt to each other naturally to a greater degree if it weren’t for the constant hyping of their racial and cultural differences; this hyping had been a staple of the far right until recently, when the left took over, to do a much better job due to their wider platform and influence. I sincerely believe most people would not give a shit about race if society at large just stopped bringing it up every two seconds, inventing a new micro-aggression per week.

Instead of giving everyone a voice, the left stifles the opinions of those who do not want to be defended or represented through censorship; these voices are seldom heard, facing bullying and threats on a frequent basis. There’s nothing political zealots (and cults) hate more than one of their own who does not sing in tune with the rest of the choir. Thus we end up with an awkward way of relating to each other, always wary of causing offence, and these people are caught in the middle, disagreeing with the agenda yet being treated as if they were themselves part of it. They are treated as hypersensitive, entitled barrels of gunpowder waiting to be lit up any second, just because others started political agendas in their name.

And of course, hard-line nationalists and race puritans are milking this with both hands, making more proselytes by the day, failing to see that we are being manipulated into hating each other. It works like this. First, the left picks a ridiculous trifle to make a fuss over, such as a common term which might be suggestive in terms of race, gender etc. Then the far right reacts with outrage, winning more people over, as they are shocked and tired of the carry on.Then the minority in question starts responding to the far right, with the backing of the media. Then society at large starts debating this initial hot air and becomes divided, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left, concluding that “the issue does matter”.

Undoubtedly, this conflict does not unfold without individual victims.

First, this fist-in-the mouth attitude the left has, of provoking them and not letting them respond, will infuriate some to the point of turning them into hooligans. They will make victims out of innocent people, targeting them randomly with violence at bus stops, on back alleys and wherever convenient, based on easily identifiable traits such as skin colour, dress style, foreign language or accent. Disenfranchised and aggravated by their peer group rhetoric, they will get angrier with every perceived micro-aggression and at some point see themselves against a homogeneous group of adversaries, attacking them blindly, regardless of their age, behaviour or vulnerability. These Katie Hopkins types boosted by testosterone and physical strength, once over that line of humaneness, are capable of anything.

Secondly but just as tragically, innocent people will be persecuted with fines, jail time or character assassination for a few words, either explicit or ambiguous, which will reverberate over their families, affecting many lives, all sacrificed on the altar of the left’s “tolerant” world view. The fact that some don’t understand how unreasonable that is- not to mention typical of totalitarian systems – is truly frightening. The same people who congregate in their hundreds of thousands to support campaigns for the liberation of political dissidents in non-democratic countries will gladly  see someone rot in jail in their hometowns, for uttering half a sentence.

Thirdly, and very alarmingly, organised neo-Nazis are seeing their ranks inflate across Europe, like smelly water rising in a drain; at some point it will flood the streets and the whole place will stink. Unlike hooligans the community dislikes, shouting abuse on the bus on the way back from the pub, these people write manifestos and organise demonstrations to prove their popular support. Whilst a decade ago they were inches short of a joke in most countries, it’s impossible to ignore them nowadays; there are so many groups with an expanding platform. Unfortunately, most people feel the need to run towards a group for protection and representation; when infuriated with the left, instead of abandoning the political scene altogether, they flee straight into the arms of these characters.

In any mass conflict, in today’s world anyway, opposing sides do not evolve organically, being nudged and prodded and thrown red herrings until they end up taking their anger against their peers – other confused and manipulated people.



Recovery Forums – A Tool Against The Family

For those of us of the opinion that the family as a concept is being pounded on with a battering ram, it’s easy to see how the ever-expanding identification of abuse (especially emotional) is aiding this ”progressive” quest. After years of observing this phenomenon, its role in isolating individuals within society is becoming clear.

Besides the fact that their gains are sometimes financial – for example, forums which charge for membership or sell a lot of improvised material – they are, even if not admittedly, part of the crusade to  elevate one’s transitory feelings to the rank of absolute truths, which is a typical SJW attitude.

Eager to capitalise on grief and confusion, these groups resemble ambulance chasers, mastering the art of convincing people to see victimhood in murky situations, in order to cash in on the profits. 

Akin to talented divorce lawyers, they strongly encourage exaggerating the harm one has experienced through rejection, emotional unavailability, instability, lack of support, criticism etc – thus making it easy for those who are momentarily displeased with a significant other to think they  should consider cutting contact altogether.

A few examples of the fallout of wrongfully identifying a significant other as a sociopath, psychopath or narcissist:

  • People going through a difficult time in a viable relationship or marriage can freak out and give up, to later regret it.
  • Break-ups and divorces can escalate into a huge mess, with children being particularly affected by a parent’s suspicion that their ex  is disordered, which can escalate into hysteria.
  • Parents can end up alienating children from their former spouses, to later realise the mistake, as well as extended family.
  • Adults can disassociate from their parents or siblings due to grievances they’ve kept hidden for years, suddenly convinced they are dealing with something more serious.
  • Teenagers can be – very easily – persuaded that the difficult relationships they have with family members (who often fail to provide emotional support at an optimal level) are in fact abusive.
  • Impressionable young people in general can start seeing disordered types everywhere and have an even more difficult time integrating into society.

To complete the process of isolation, another list of attitudes pushed by these groups as healthy, conducive towards healing.

  • Spending one’s precious energy overanalysing every word, gaze or gesture they receive on a daily basis, in order to identify hidden intentions (and finding oneself accurately described in the DSM as a result).
  • Blaming one’s upbringing almost exclusively for the decisions taken in real time.
  • Demonising any friends who show difficult behaviour and eliminating them from one’s life straight away.
  • Once out of  a romantic relationship, ossifying  selection criteria which make sure one will run scared of most potential partners.
  • Living with a pervasive sense of danger in relation to the outside world.
  • Unearthing mistakes made years ago by others, which are no longer relevant (excluding serious maltreatment which affects a person for life).
  • Identifying as a victimised empath to the point of muddying one’s sense of responsibility in everyday life and absolving oneself of all blame for one’s troubles, regardless of their nature or importance.

This is not only prevalent in romantic relationships, which are the prime target nowadays, our culture inviting people to wallow in dissatisfaction and constantly scrutinise their partners for the smallest clue of wrongdoing. It is reaching far beyond, as many start to analyse their past, sticking labels on those who raised them, in a bid to rid themselves of negative influences. As someone who has partaken in this hysteria, seeing it as a personal quest at the time, I can safely argue it has become a fad, and a dangerous one at that.

There is a positive way of going about changing toxic attitudes one has inherited from previous generations; that is part of self-improvement and a noble goal. The catch is trying, to one’s best ability, to understand those attitudes in their original context, instead of judging previous generations by today’s standards, in  Maoist fashion, eager to write off any wisdom passed on by them. As usual, balance is the key to everything.

People have grievances, from the mundane to long term issues which need addressed. Leaving them to fester in the basement of unacknowledged needs or frustrations can make them seem insurmountable; at times they rise to the surface like an overflowing septic tank, bringing a person into a state of crisis. This is not necessarily, in real time, the fault of those who share their life, though it might feel or appear that way – hence separation is not necessarily a solution to anything.

For abuse recovery communities, knowing just what buttons to push at just the right time is guaranteed to reel in some potential believers.

In this bid, they discourage forgiveness, open-mindedness and empathy, feeding one’s need for validation right away, before even having enough data regarding each case. Evidently, this does a major disfavour to those who are simply mistaking and would benefit from objective advice (though it is difficult to be objective with so little insight, which is why I’m against seeking advice on the internet on such complex, delicate matters). Rage and bitterness are parasites of the mind; they end up consuming their hosts.

No one on the internet is able to understand your exact situation. It’s impossible. Even if you wrote a novel for them to read, you still wouldn’t be able to paint the entire picture – let alone in a few paragraphs posted anonymously.

What they do is look for buzzwords which trigger them and identify with your feelings, without accurately understanding the cause (which might be unknown to you as well). It’s not you inviting them into your reality; it’s them dragging you into theirs.

They start by encouraging you to refer to yourself as a survivor of abuse. This label becomes part of your identity and, depending on how consumed you are by it, it can take over. For those who still post daily about ”their P’s”, some of whom exited the stage years ago, the label ”survivor” has doubtlessly become their identity. How toxic is that? If you were a woman who divorced Bob  five years ago, when asked to introduce yourself, you would not say, ad infinitum,  I’m Bob’s ex-wife or I’m the one Bob stood up at the altar or I’m the one Bob’s mother always hated. It’s the same thing; defining yourself by what you meant to someone else or what that person did to you.

That takes away from your  real identity, from your energy and vitality, not to mention optimism and confidence.

Last but not least, one has to consider that calling a loved one a psychopath or narcissist, especially publicly or over a prolonged period of time, can end up in a permanent rupture, which wouldn’t necessarily happen with other insults or grievances. It’s a very strong statement to make and should not be made lightly, especially at the nudge of an internet community.

The internet might seem like an immediate source of relief and comfort when we are dissatisfied with those closest to us; at times we end up using it in this sense for trivial reasons. It’s far too easy nowadays to air one’s underpants for all to see, only to regret it later. But at the end of the day, it’s those same people we collaborate with day in and day out; when it comes right down to it, we have them and they have us, through thick and thin (genuine cases excluded, of course).

The thought that we can get a balanced perspective on our intimate problems from complete strangers is a mirage, an illusion, as the only ones able to solve them are those who are directly involved.


A Link To This Blog On PF


(Sorry for torturing anyone’s eyes with the font size so far; I had no idea how to enlarge the screen shots.)

A couple of days ago, there was some traffic to this blog coming directly from Psychopath Free. The referrer list shows it started with a PM sent by a long time member and reported by an administrator. A thread was then created on the Meta forum (it can’t be accessed unless one is logged in so it must be there).

The number of views is very small and chances are the thread itself is hysterical or venomously derogatory. Or no longer exists. If anyone who reads this blog from time to time still has access to their account on PF, perhaps they can tell the rest of us what is going on; that would be much appreciated.

However, I take it as a good sign; there is a (slight) chance the issues brought up here were briefly discussed or at least seen by some of the new arrivals, who still have a chance to hit the road before they disclose too much.

I’m not holding my breath for an open discussion or public explanation for the unfair treatment of hundreds of people (or more), some of whom were unceremoniously booted right after a donation or book purchase.

As it was truthfully put in a comment by a former member, the blog and other similar information on the web will not be enough to “make a dent in that monster”, but it might make a small difference to individuals.

The biggest danger of all is not even the treatment one experiences on the forum or the data which might not ever be of use to the team. It’s the false certainty they give those who take a seat at the McDonald’s of pop psychology, which PF has metastasised into. The over-processed, artificial junk which cannot be customised or altered even by the passing of time. In fact, it’s safe to compare the PF dogma to the famous cheeseburger with fries which looked exactly the same after four or five months – not altered by time or wisdom. It takes some members weeks to snap out of it and realise they are intoxicating themselves, whereas others have been there since the beginning.

The thread mentioned by Stefan in a comment below shows just how little it takes for someone to be targeted. A bit of doubt, not even blatantly expressed, but only hinted at. For that reason alone it’s worth posting the conversation (with no exposure of anyone’s private story, of course). This is so far removed from their corny PR material, which claims they welcome people with open arms.

Nothing this new member posted suggested they were less of a victim of abuse than anyone else on the forum. And yet…


@sychokarma, not sure what you are asking for clarity on or, in fact, your question? Would you like to elaborate?


@Phoenix Oh just kind of wondering if normal people (e.g. ass***) might also have no guilt or shame when they simply want to get away from you or don’t want to be responsible for things?


@sychokarma. IMHO, If you have truly been in a P-type relationship, through education, awareness and resultant knowledge you will be easily recognise and know the difference. 

(I guess the “be” was a simple mistake.)


@Phoenix Hmm ok thanks!~ Be well 🙂


Totally agree. I have met assholes… but a p… omg! Omg! Omg

Hey @Wildfire, so what is the diff. you felt between the ass*** and psychopath?!

Then you’ve answered your own question

@jordy but what is the diff? Normal people might not feel guilt or shame when they want to avoid headache or responsibility.


That’s a very considered response (NOT) and in my book, passive aggressive ending!


Non disordered people DO feel guilt and a degree of responsibility, that’s the difference. Are you claiming to have had a relationship with a disordered person because if you are you really should know the difference

@jordy The thing is normal people can feel shame or guilt but due to ego or avoid responsibility, they might pretend not to show it. In that case, how do we know?

That’s a very considered response (NOT) and in my book, passive aggressive ending!

@Phoenix hmm not sure what you mean but sounds like you are happy 🙂



@Phoenix oh so you have banned him 5 years ago? Good!! Could someone who is normal might also feel no guilt or shame sometimes (just ass***)? Lol

Why are you asking about normal people? Don’t you know how normal people act? And are you suggesting that @Phoenix was possibly talking about  normal person? Lol?


I personally feel that any interaction with @sychokarma may well be heading for the META board any time soon as their username, IMHO, says it all for good reason! As in reverse meaning!


Sorry folks I am going to be in a meeting. Will get back later!


And, do we really need or, want, your apology? Or are we in any way, awaiting your return for some kind of “karma” experience to teach the already converted anything?


Sounds like the xP…vanishing in the middle of a discussion, but stating that he was too busy to stay of course. Not okay.


Lol, very true, lol

@Phoenix @jordy I find it concerning… There is another topic currently going on also started by a new member about the same issue…


If you have any kind of concern about anything on PF, then you have the opportunity of reporting your concern by pressing the black triangle withing that particular post to give and explain your feelings and/ or concerns.


Why are you asking about normal people? Don’t you know how normal people act? And are you suggesting that @Phoenix was talking about a normal person? Lol?

@Victoria assholes are also normal people vs psychopath. So i wonder what is the difference between assholes and psychopath?

You don’t. Trust your gut instinct and if your gut is telling you this is one fu#kd up spunk wipe who thinks playing games is the way to do things, you show him the door, close it and never open it again for him

@jordy what is the diff between assholes and psychopath?

Sounds like the xP…vanishing in the middle of a discussion, but stating that he was too busy to stay of course. Not okay.

@Aurelia I actually do have a meeting and now I am back. But who cares, you guys should be shamed of bullying while crying you are psychopath victims.


And, do we really need or, want, your apology? Or are we in any way, awaiting your return for some kind of ”karma” experience to tech the already converted anything?

No I don’t apologize but I do need to talk to people I want to talk so I am letting them know I will be back shortly. Hehe

This member didn’t even realise he/she was about to be booted. That’s how quick it was.

Any of those who pretended not to notice the absurdity, as one does when they spot a big pile of dog shit on the pavement and just walk past it pretending the air around it smells like roses, could be next. Any of them.

And before they are, they will consider advice on their deepest issues from these people, which is the saddest thing of all.

Yes, it’s their establishment, they can do what they want with it. Except they advertise it as a life-saving, all-embracing community.

People have the right to have the superficiality and gratuitous capriciousness pointed out before they rush to disclose their childhood rapes, court cases or therapy sessions. They think this so-called community will take them seriously. That is clearly not the case.


Akin to other times, a quick peek instantly revealed the latest witch hunt, which can be seen below, as a red flag for those who believe the public image of the website. The recently banned member had given a lot of details (unfortunately) regarding her situation, including legal, all of which were used against her by an admin in the end, in her impromptu psychological evaluation, the admin using words such as “cold” and “lacking empathy”.

All of this, of course, for criticising the website and its lack of seriousness. The member (presumably) had been “supported” by the site until the post below, when they instantaneously turned against her (aside from two  who dared to like the post and probably won’t last long either as a result).

I covered as much as possible of the OP’s personal story; the last post however, by said admin, would not make sense without the quotes left in place. If the banned member ever finds the conversation on this blog and wants it removed, it will be (though I have a feeling she is stronger than the people who posted there put together). So I apologise in advance if this causes any bother.

This case is very relevant to the fact that it is impossible for them to provide “support” for anything but  relationship or family related problems, as what they cannot identify with is irrelevant to them.


All in all: we NED service for:

-victims of psychopath crime. It is a special class, they have over 200% higher chances of better treatment by justice because they manipulate law enforcement agents and I saw how badly prepared these people are

-parents of psychopaths : a mother posted this here. For me, it was the most serious post in this forum. Most people didn’t even pay attention.

-legal advice for psychopaths in the workplace

-education for fraud in business caused by psychopaths

-education for victims’ families: families do not usually understand that targets are not stupid gullible imbeciles. They were targeted by professionals, frequently people who are borderline geniuses. Nobody is immune to them.

Victims of hard-core psychopaths have their whole lives shaken and need help – LEGAL help, financial help etc.

Unlike most of you think, there are no special types of psychopath victims because psychopaths come in all shapes and forms (of behavior). The most damaging are the ones who target the highest prizes. Or the signature killers. But then we don’t need a forum for their victims, do we? They are dead…

The post had followed an infuriating experience with the legal system; one of incompetence and greed; however, they had no empathy at all for her situation.They saw red. Her actual suffering ceased to matter.


I’m confused. When you say “unlike most of you think”, do you mean members of this forum? Or the public, in general?


Uh… well, you see, even your reply shows that these forums are for people who suffer the results o a love relationship with a psychopath. My problem was not love at all.

You see, there so much more related to psychopathy damage… We’re talking about an average of 50 BILLION dollars/year in the USA alone. These crimes destroy lives. It’s not “silent treatment”…

Yeah, yeah… I am resentful: my life and many other lives are totally damaged, we need help, I was asked by my daughter to look for these groups but all I can find is another version of “codependents anonymous”. 


If these forums are for people who suffer the results of a love relationship with a psychopath, then I’ve been in the wrong damn place fr almost two years. I’m here because of a friendship.

So his actions disrupted your life? Guess what? Every person here had their lives DESTROYED by the actions of the psychopaths they knew. You thin you’re the only one left without a past or future? Really? Did you even suffer at the hands of a psychopath? it doesn’t sound like it, based on your words.

You just pissed all over silent treatment, which is one of the worst forms of abuse known to man. You just referred to this site as ”codependents anonymous”. Take your PHD bullshit and piss off. We don’t need crap like that from an “educated” woman.

“Did you even suffer at the hands of a psychopath? It doesn’t sound like it, based on your words.”

Because, according to this member and the admin, as they appear to put it, the only way to <suffer> is to actually have had feelings for said psychopath. It doesn’t matter if they burn your house down, poison your dog, steal your life savings or persecute you at work. If you never had any heartbreak through disappointment, silent treatment, disillusion etc, tough.

“So his actions disrupted your life? Guess what? Every person here had their lives DESTROYED by the actions of the psychopaths they knew.”

By reading between the lines, one sees a clear message of “what happened to us is more serious than what happened to you; your life was disrupted; our lives were destroyed”. Just by the way she is phrasing it, it’s almost like winning a competition. If I’m not mistaking this is the same member who was annoyed at others maintaining their “no contact time” intact although they had slipped and contacted their suspected psychopaths.

“You just pissed all over silent treatment, which is one of the worst forms of abuse known to man.”

I don’t know about others, but if I had to choose between silent treatment and being the victim of actual crime, the choice would be an easy one.

“Take your PHD bullshit and piss off. We don’t need crap like that from an “educated” woman.”

Best suited here would be one of Peace’s quotes describing the loving and respectful atmosphere on PF, where members can safely express their social frustration at someone who simply mentioned having a higher education at some point. Once she has become fair game, everything goes.

Better yet, one of those videos with autumn foliage blowing in the wind and soppy music in the background, describing how angels with broken wings (and no PhD) are welcome to the forum. I’m not trying to make fun of this situation; it’s simply grotesque.


Whether it involves a psychopathic parent, child, sibling, other family member, spouse, romantic partner, or friend, it always involves a ‘love relationship’. But based on your other posts, you wouldn’t understand that, because you admitted you had no empathy.

Correction, she had “admitted” having no empathy towards the psychopath. Was she supposed to? Would it cross the mind of anyone who had just been robbed by an unscrupulous individual?

You’ve only discussed revenge and retribution and aggressive retaliation.

Again – what attitude would you show, let’s say, a hedge fund crook? Would you describe to them your heartache over the betrayed trust ? Would they care? Would you expect them to?

“one thing we share in common is we cared about the people we discovered were/ are psychopaths. Apparently you don’t”

It seems she is implying the lack of said feelings makes the psychopath’s actions less real and their impact less serious. She seems to doubt the member considered suicide at all, as if no one in human history has, based on circumstances which had nothing to do with heartbreak (political persecution, poverty, debt, harassment, a ruined career, to name but a few).

Again and again, this type of damage is reduced by PF to bad break-ups. As mentioned above, unless you sing their praises and fit into the only narrative they can successfully process (so&so broke my heart), they will not even take you seriously. 

Plus – isn’t the goal of their forum to help members achieve emotional detachment from the psychopath, so they can move on? Don’t they reprimand others for still having or showing feelings for their ex partners? But in this situation it’s somehow wrong to show detachment? What are they playing at?

I can only imagine a dialogue between another normal individual and one of these PF types (again, not making fun of the situation, but just to show how bloody ridiculous they are).

“But he never stole your heart!”

“He stole all my savings; is that good enough?”

“But he never gave you the silent treatment!”

“Yes he did; he took off with my money and I never heard from him again. How’s that for silent treatment?”

And so on.

22 Shades Of Gender Confusion – And Counting

Surprisingly, I find myself linking to a Daily Mail article (though other publications have picked up the story as well). Also, this video  and this other video come to mind.

The list on the survey given to English school kids as young as 13 regarding their gender comprised 25 options; however, the last three were “not sure”, “rather not say” and “others”, the latter being hilarious since the masters of language-twisting have already stretched the limits of their own creativity. Who the hell can come up with others? Unless, of course, non-human or partially human labels are accepted as well.

Pandering to social justice warriors, the system is introducing more identity politics into schools, to further confuse the already confused youth, some teenagers doubtlessly being left unable to recognise the world they grew up in as young children. Today, nothing seems to make sense anymore.

Not surprisingly, in order to compile such a long list, they had to use reworded labels and definitions over and over again.

To start with, it includes the conventional “boy”, “girl”, “male”, “female”, “young man” and “young woman”. The only difference between “boy” and “young man” is coming of age, which has nothing to do with gender. Hence they could have simply used any pair of the three, the other two pairs being superfluous. Instead, they multiplied them and ended up with six different options.

Trans-girl and trans-boy, fair enough, that does apply to real life, though the age of it being taken seriously is ridiculously low nowadays and many argue even toddlers are able to make an accurate choice regarding their identity (besides choosing to be Batman or Harry Potter). One is referred to as an adult at 18 for specific reasons; minors need legal representatives when making crucial decisions; however, social justice warriors argue young kids are able to give informed consent to be mutilated with gender reassignment operations and put on cancer-inducing hormone “treatments”.

“Tomboy”. That is not a gender. That word has been used for a very long time to describe very active girls who enjoy boys’ hobbies and hang around boys, but that says nothing about one’s main lifestyle choices or gender.

“Gender fluid” is said to describe those who have “different gender identities at different times”. Basically, they are two or more people in one body, presumably choosing a different name for each one, perhaps different clothes and voices. This sounds a bit like multiple personality disorder, with the difference that the person is aware of switching between identities. I’m assuming it doesn’t refer to those who pretend to be of their natural gender in order to better fit into society, and at night time walk around in drag. This is about people who genuinely have two different identities; one male and one female. Or another couple selected from this list… or more, who knows. We are legion. Let’s just hope no young man chooses to incorporate – as his female side – the identity of his dead mother, who lies mummified in a basement.

“Agender” – “those with no gender identity or a neutral identity”. This term was invented on planet Earth, yet does not apply to it. You can talk about asexuality, which refers to the lack of sexual attraction towards one sex or another, or the lack of sex drive. But every single child is brought up as a boy or girl and thus has a gender identity. I’ve heard of people switching from male to female and vice-versa, but never of having / believing to have/ wishing to have no gender at all. Though the current experimental generation being brought up in Sweden might one day include many of these uprooted, confused people.

“Androgynous – partly male and female; of indeterminate sex”. So I assume androgynous people are androgynous at all times, unlike the gender fluid, who contain multitudes. Let’s look on the bright side – if at some point they deliberately try to confuse others through their appearance, at least they won’t go the transgender way and sue people for misgendering them.

“Bi-gender – those who experience two gender identities, either at the same time or varying between the two.” If it happens at the same time, one is androgynous, right? And if it varies, one is gender fluid. So there was no need for “bi-gender” at all.

From here on, everything apart from intersex is basically repeated and reworded, with nothing truly distinct being added.

“Non-binary” – basically androgynous.

“Demi-boy and demi-girl” – basically androgynous.

“Genderqueer – those who do not subscribe to traditional gender distinctions” – so basically androgynous or agender, if there really is such a thing.

“Gender non-conforming” – the exact same thing with a different name.

“Tri-gender – shifts between three genders, which could include male, female and genderless or be another combination”. So basically gender fluid (those who contain multitudes).

“All genders – someone who identifies as all possible gender options”. A label which teaches us that either gender doesn’t really exist or this person has so many identities they are worth studying. Anyway, gender fluid would cover this one as well.

“In the middle of boy and girl” – How many more categories based on androgyny can they make up?

“Intersex – someone with genetic, hormonal and physical features that may be thought typical of both male and female”.  Although this is a natural occurrence, as I understand, for most people born with mixed physical characteristics a choice is made (usually right after birth) regarding their gender and they are brought up with an either male or female identity. Of course, that has been changing lately.

OK. Now that we’re done with genders.

If we think that any gender could be of any sexual orientation as well,i things really get complicated.

Forget being attracted to both sexes as a tricky situation – imagine what happens if you have multiple identities and each of them has their own sexual preference or preferences. What if you’re biologically female, gender fluid, sometimes feeling female and sometimes male, and you’re attracted to men? Does that make you a straight woman or a gay man, or both? Is your partner considered bisexual by default, as you alternate between identities?

And if you’re androgynous, how can you tell if you’re gay or straight? Very confusing indeed.

Not to worry though, confusion isn’t all bad, at least that’s what “genderfuckers” think. No, honestly, that’s a word; it describes those who include traits belonging to both sexes in their appearance, for the fun of it, such as bearded men in skirts or high heels. It’s a thing now. Apparently.


After more pondering on this complicated issue, there are even more questions to ask regarding the implications of generally accepting the fact that people can have two or more genders simultaneously.

Is every gender one is thought to have associated with a distinct identity?

When one thinks of themselves as interchangeably male and female, it makes sense to appear as such in order to make the change recognisable by others (to be treated as their chosen gender at the time of their choice). That would mean alternating between a male and female appearance, a male and a female name and potentially other characteristics as well. It doesn’t make sense to be Miss John or Mr Lilly. And sure enough, a simple search on “gender fluid” reveals people who do dress differently and adopt different names.

If so, how often are these identities interchangeable? 

Some suggest a choice is made each day according to how male or female or agender that person feels that morning. It makes sense (to the extent any of this can make sense) for the choice/ identity to last as long as the appearance does. I don’t suppose switching every five minutes is likely; I can just picture a dialogue:

“Do you really think that about me?”

“No, that was Dan.”

“So you’re… Dana now?”

“No, Dana doesn’t think that way either. Only Dan.”

“So you’re not Dana either? Like, right now, who are you?”

“I just realised I had a completely different side as well; genderqueer; I think I’ll name them Dingo.”

“So… that would make you genderqueer as well? You as in your… source… identity?”

“No, silly; I’m trigender. Only Dingo is genderqueer.

Trigender? Kind of like the Holy Trinity, three different entities who are simultaneously one being? Is that applicable to humans?”

I’m quite confident it wouldn’t work that way (and sorry if that sounds very insensitive).

What legal implications are there to identifying as more than one person?

Even if one’s personality remains the same all throughout, with opinions and attitudes being consistent, which is less confusing than having different personalities as well.

Purely for administrative purposes – how would having two or more identities work in terms of getting a job and on occasion turning up as somebody else? Which identity is legally responsible and would this person sign with a different name according to how they felt that day? Does anyone else see how that would be a problem?

“About that raise you mentioned, Dana…”

“Ask Dan. He’s got to sign for it. He’s not in right now and I can’t forge his signature. That wouldn’t be right; I would be breaching my own rights.”

“Uh… When is he…due back?”

“When I feel more male.”

“Can you.. like… give him a call, at least? How do you contact him? Is he… in there? Of sort? Do you have to conjure him up? Because right now it feels like you’re just being a bitch not wanting to give me a raise.”

Surely nothing this ridiculous would happen – however,  though it’s hard to imagine outside of creating humour, if the law protects someone’s right to emulate the Holy Trinity if they so wish, who’s to say that employers won’t be forced to do so as well? That would be a first in granting someone the privilege to sign using two or three different names, which would be illegal for the rest of us.

Is gender really just a state of mind?

My question is simple (and logical I dare think) : if biologically, gender-specific traits are determined by hormones (testosterone for men and estrogen for women), how can anyone be SURE they actually identify as the opposite sex, without having had a genuine experience of what that is?

Intersex people are actually born with male and female characteristics, at a physical level, which gives them a combined experience of the world, therefore they are unique in that sense. However, most people are not.Chemistry is a real issue here; hormones play a significant role in the perceptions and behaviour of a human being. Men who think they are partially female identify with their image of women, without knowing exactly how women actually feel, and vice-versa, because that would be impossible.When somebody says “today I feel more male”, what they must mean is “today I feel like displaying characteristics I interpret as being male”.

The intention behind my post is not to pointlessly cause offence but to doubt the “science” (is there any?) behind this very popular tendency of fragmenting people’s identities.