We live in a world of implicit censorship. Wrongthink is ridiculed at best and persecuted at worst. Movements like #MeToo seek to criminalize and ostracize many, when in some cases, no wrong has been done. Demographics are silenced because they are not in the in-groups of the power-elite. Nowhere is this more evident than with matters of psychology. Neurotypicals (both in the “non-antisocial” and “normal” sense) are afraid of the neurodivergent, and thus seek to silence what they fear, so that the horrors they face become without voice. By removing the fangs of the perceived enemy, there is nothing left but the will of those in power. This should be considered unacceptable, but often it is only the marginalized that truly understand the power play involved.
I’m not going to go into a huge recount of the newest forums endeavor, but I encourage everyone to check out the reboot of Psychopath Tree. The technology stack for this go-around is more modern and should make for a more enjoyable experience for any antisocial/psychopathic types that want to join us over there for discussion and chat.
As with all of my endeavors, I will not seek to monetize this. This is a gift from me to you, in part to help alleviate my boredom – and the assumed boredom of others.
More details may be found on Twitter, @Psychopath_Tree, and at the site itself.
I hope to see all of you there!
I loathe writing posts on the maturation and mindfulness that I’ve acquired in recent years. The reason for this is that I do not want the reader to frame these posts under the romanticized light of redemption. When I think of redemption, I think of love stories where someone cleans up their act in order to be welcomed back with open arms by a paramour. Or, I think about the mythical hero of the day, throwing away their background and the odds in order to heroically save those around him. These are tired tropes. I would propose that the antisocial is beyond redemption but not necessarily for the reasons you may think.
A man is born to harm, a man and a friend can harm more effectively, and a group of men united in cause can harm with an efficiency that no machine will ever reach, as the vortex will swallow all. Like sharks surging toward blood on the water, the mob does not care if they care, only that righteous punishment is inflicted on those unlucky enough to be in their sights. As long as man remains a social creature, this vicious cycle will repeat ad infinitum for any cause that the human mind can imagine. Radical vegans, antifa, Islamic extremists, politicians, ordinary men, and all in between celebrate their in-groups as they drag the waters for the bodies of “them” they’ve cast aside. Blood-stained hands and encephalitic masses will dance so long as they celebrate our own. Reject and reform, we must abandon our own.
Both in the spirit of helping other up-and-coming writers and in sharing articles worth reading, I would like my readership to read the following post from a good friend of mine dealing with the dangers of diagnosing another from far away, especially when it comes to targets of high visibility. Read Mr. Schneider’s post, and we’ll continue from there.
Read it? Great. Let’s continue his train of thought, but from an antisocial perspective. What harm is there in diagnosing someone as antisocial (or narcissistic in the case of the linked article) from afar? After all, we know what sheep look like and we know what wolves look like, so if something looks like a wolf, does it truly matter if we are up close or in safety when calling a wolf a wolf? Well, there are the ethical concerns of doing as much, and then there are the practical concerns inherent to such a process. We shall start with the ethical concerns and wrap up this post with the practicality of calling wolves, wolves.