Recently I've been dealing with paranoia concerning the way I analyze people and gauge a response. I'm not a sociopath but my moral compass has been poisoned by the influence of evil when I was an SJW, so I know what what it's like to be morally lost and lost in the certainty of an ideology. As a cute, female child I was a pathological liar and got away with absolutely everything. I stopped being like this because of the countless amount of times it came back to me sooner or later in some way. Still, my novels are full of romanticized sociopaths and psychopaths, because I feel attuned to a chaotic neutral alignment. Now I know that it really does describe madmen, and I find that it's part of being an artist, but it's no way to function in society.
My sociopath tendencies are my obsession why the 'why' people are a certain way. I tend to desire to analyze how people think and to plan responses in advance in order to please them in a controlled, tested kind of way. I do this sometimes without thinking, sometimes in a very calculated way. As a woman, this is my 'forté' but in a horrid way, clearly. While the dark power of men resides in their bodies, the dark power of women emerges from the pool of chaotic energy that has a talent at recognizing people's face, the emotional aura of situations and to act accordingly. A woman can make you feel horrible about yourself, your life, and your relationship with her in seconds. Her use of black magic is a powerful weapon and a protective mechanism against the bodies of men. So, if I feel unsafe, I will tend to make myself look small, unimportant, but also overly nice and busy. It will come naturally, especially if I'm with my son. If I feel offended, or provoked by a conversation I am having with a friend, I will attempt to understand their mentality and either mirror it or perhaps slightly calculate how I can slip into her psyche and reorganize her brain. This is a very cool one.
Emotionally manipulating women can be either really tough or really easy. Women tend to be overly emotional, so it's important to have just the most neutrality possible and insert so much nuance that she's really confused about her views of morality. This mainly applies to morally relative people. You kind of nonchalantly slip in a view, suppose you're against abortion.
"It's not that I'm against women having abortions, I just find that it's really unfair to end the life of a person before it's really started. If I would be that fetus and I could be conscious, I wouldn't want to die. I would be abhorred to know that my mother didn't love me and had someone murder me in the womb, a place of safety and security. How... how is that not infanticide?"
"Well, the mother can choose what she does with it because she's going to be a mother and maybe she's not ready."
"If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, should she also not be ready to have sex? I think mature people should have sex, adults..."
"Yeah, but a teenager is horny and they do stupid things and have sex early and become pregnant."
"I understand. Perhaps some cases there could be a 14-year-old who could have an abortion so she can finish her high school. But what about older women? Why do they hate being mothers? Do they not understand that it's part of being a woman? It's the most feminine thing they can do. Do they hate femininity?"
The liberal, morally relative person will express emotions. I'm utterly sensitive (I'm basically an SJW when it comes to being triggered, but I keep it all inside, control it, and use that energy and stress to feel what the other is feeling, especially women) and so I sense their emotions, their responses. Heavier breathing often means they're triggered, as well as faster eye movement and small interjections like 'uhh' and 'well...' In that moment, it's usually a good time to add in some nuance.
"It's not that I want to go up to a pregnant woman who is unsure about being a mother and say: 'you have to have the baby and it's your fault you got pregnant' but I would perhaps try to make her see how beautiful motherhood is. I know not all women can afford to have children and there should be exceptions, but I just think it's morally wrong."
The person will mellow out and insert their own nuance. The fact that they might utter something in order to attempt to jive with your point of view, might activate in their brains the notion that they might be wrong. Women don't want to be the ones to disagree, to be socially ousted, but if you have integrity and faith in God, then you must admit to being persecuted because of your beliefs.
Liberals with relative moralities 'feel' their way around situations. They know pedophilia is bad because it 'feels' bad, but homosexuality is okay because it 'feels' okay. Liberal morality is a feeling game in which people with objective moralities and sociopathic tendencies (at this point, I can barely help it) have a definite advantage. I believe this is why it is better to have an authoritarian regime than to let people do what they wish. Relativism is too difficult to deal with and case-by-case scenarios where we let slide one immorality for the sake of 'love' or 'freedom' or some other fetishized ideal, we anger those who have been denied the pleasure that the exception has found. There is no other answer than to be objective, than to be ruled by someone or something; I choose God.
This is something I have a lot more to say about, but I'll end this here for now. I can empathize and I'm sensitive to human suffering; I'm not apathetic, I'm a Christian! But I am aware that I analyze people far too much and tend to desire to toy with their minds and emotions. I do this mainly with sheep and puppets, hollowed-out Libs and people I don't like very much. A smart person won't be able to be played with, any individual really,
the collectivists are targeted by this because they have no steady
identity. Perhaps it's cruel, perhaps it's black magic, but honestly I see it as my noble side coming out to play. I guess I'm an aristocrat at heart. Haha.