British Psycho.

About a year ago I became interested in the study of sociopaths and the effects they have on society. I read several books on the subject, but one of particular interest to me was titled, Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight. Unlike the books, The Sociopath Next Door and The Psychopath Test, Confessions of a Sociopath was written by a sociopath, therefore the narrative was focused on insight as opposed to observation.

For those uneducated on the topic, sociopaths lack empathy (for all intents and purposes, sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing, but for the sake of confusion I'll use the term sociopath). Jay Harris defines sociopathy as such:
"Sociopathy is a syndrome in which either one or both of the orbital frontal association cortices cannot assess socially unconditioned somatic signals. Sociopaths cannot emotionally condition social experience. Because they have no capacity for emotional organization, sociopath’s source memory has no relevance to behavior."
One of the most common tests to diagnose sociopaths is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (a score of 30 or more confirms diagnosis as a sociopath/psychopath; most people have at least a few of the traits). There aren't any conclusive theories as to the cause of sociopathy, and there is no treatment or therapy. Some think sociopaths are born that way, others (myself included) believe sociopaths have the genetic predisposition to sociopathy that is environmentally triggered very early in life (toddler years or before). Estimates vary (sociopaths know they're different and avoid psychiatrists like the plague, so conclusive data is difficult to attain), but anywhere from 1% - 5% of the U.S. are thought to be sociopaths (more extensive research is done on prisoners and roughly 15% - 25% of the U.S. prison population is made up of sociopaths, which is also about the same percentage of inmates who engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated).

Individualized societies, like the U.S., are more conducive to producing a higher percentage of sociopaths than collective cultures, like in East Asian countries, where that type of behavior is intolerable and virtually non-existent (.003% according to a study in Taiwan). In a trust-based society populated by people who operate on shared morals, sociopaths (particularly those of high IQ; sociopath intelligence is represented along the same bell curve as non-sociopaths) game the system without emotional hangups such as remorse or guilt.

The higher sociopathic prevalence in individualistic cultures like the U.S. is likely the result of natural selection (there are evolutionary advantages to being a sociopath, as well as having sociopaths in a society). To the sociopath, life is viewed through the tunnel-visioned lens of wins and losses. The high IQ sociopath has the tendency to become a CEO, lawyer or politician (10 most common professions that attract sociopaths). The average IQ sociopath plays sexual partners for personal gain, becomes a soldier, or games the welfare system. The low IQ sociopath commits petty crimes to see if he can get away with it. Life literally is viewed as a game.

American Psycho.
In her book Confessions of a Sociopath, the author M.E. Thomas (who writes pseudonymously) is a diagnosed sociopath who founded and moderates a website for sociopaths. She writes that she has dealt with thousands of sociopaths (and non-sociopaths - "empaths," as she calls them - who think they might be sociopathic) on her forum, and she claims that of the many questions she is asked on a daily basis, the main one is, "Do you think I'm a sociopath?" It's common for many people to have several sociopathic traits, but, aside from lacking empathy, which only that person knows for sure, she ultimately bases her determination on taking jabs at their sexuality (eg "What, are you gay or something?").

Sociopaths don't have an identity, they play roles (remember, life is a game to them). Thomas states she has encountered thousands of sociopaths and she has never met one who wasn't at least bisexual (herself included). If the person takes offense to her sexual ribs, she eliminates them as a sociopath. When you consider that homosexuals and sociopaths represent roughly the same percentage of the population (about 2% of the U.S. population is homosexual), and exhibit many of the same characteristics (narcissism, high suicide rates, manipulative behaviour, etc) it's almost analytically impossible to ignore the possibility that there may be a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, the majority may be one in the same.

German Psycho
This observation led me to pose the following hypothesis: All sociopaths are LGBTQ, and most LGBTQ are sociopaths (technically just B, but didn't want to leave anyone out; tomayto, tomahto). Undoubtedly, detractors will pass this hypothesis off as homophobic conjecture, but due to lack of empirical evidence (according to Thomas, sociopaths know they're “different” and refuse to go to psychiatrists. There's nothing advantageous that accompanies a sociopathic diagnosis.), the doubter's rebuttal would be conjecture as well.

The significance of this, aside from homosexuality being accurately identified as a mental disease, as it was until 1990 (personally I view homosexuality as a genetic defect that acts as an evolutionary firewall for the gene pool), is on exhibit in the status quo. The "trans" agenda is currently at the forefront of the Marxist movement. Ten years ago nobody had even heard of the term "transgender," and now 1.4 million Americans identify as such, doubled in just the last five years:
"About 1.4 million adults in the United States identify as transgender, double a widely used previous estimate, based on new federal and state data.

As the national debate escalates over accommodations for transgender people, the new figure, though still just 0.6 percent of the adult population, is likely to raise questions about the sufficiency of services to support a population that may be larger than many policy makers assumed.

'From prior research, we know that trans people are more likely to be from racial and ethnic minorities, particularly from Latino backgrounds,' Jody L. Herman, a scholar of public policy at the institute, said. 'And they are also younger.'"
The following prediction almost seems too easy: Five years from now, at least 2.8 million people will identify as "transgender." But will there really be that many more people held hostage in the opposite sex's body? Or will the vast majority be sociopaths disguised as "transtrenders" doing their part to unweave the moral fabric of society for their "misery seeks company" pleasures? Doesn't it seem as if homosexuals and sociopaths are the happiest when they make others unhappy? All in the name of love and rainbows, of course.

If the trans/sociopath overlap were established at a disproportionately high rate, almost certainly that would discredit the trans movement. Sociopaths at their worst are serial killers, and at their best are emotionless predators gaming something or someone. SJWs will have a hard time finding advocates of potential serial killers (although I'm sure there will be a few disturbed souls on board, like the feminist who proudly held her "Will trade racists for rapists" sign). Even if researchers found my hypothesis inaccurate, I'm confident that the findings would show a statistically superfluous amount of trans-sociopaths, as well as trans-psychotics.

Transgender isn't an identity, it's a role. It's not a physiological reality manifested independently, it's a psychological delusion based on conformity and collusion. A person is born either male of female, any gender identity differing from one's biological anatomy is an influenced, assumed role. Nobody would check the “trans” box if that box didn't exist. As Steve Jobs used to say, "people don't know what they want until you show it to them" (for the record, I believe Jobs was a sociopath).

Gay man.
As I've already stated, and which can't be overemphasized, sociopaths don't have an identity, they play roles. But nonetheless, as a rational empathetic person, I'm all for compromise. I wouldn't have a problem with Washington D.C. granting gender neutral driver's licenses as long as the licensees agreed to submit to a psychiatric evaluation to prove that they aren't delusional or sociopathic. As healthcare officials will attest, the biggest problem with mental illness, is the mentally ill don't think they're mentally ill and refuse treatment. As long as they can pass an examination that states they aren't a threat to themselves or society, and aren't sociopaths gaming the system, then give them their desired "X" for gender on their driver's license (and if Target wants to spend $20 million to build gender neutral bathrooms in all their stores, that's their decision, but considering their stock has dropped 25% since the announcement, and during a record high bull market at that, their PR stunt speaks for itself).

The Army has a slogan that says, "be all you can be." I agree 100%; as individuals we should be all we can be. Not just for ourselves, but for our family, our nation and our God. But in the same breath we shouldn't be disillusioned by ourselves, or anyone else, into believing we're something we are not (it took awhile, but about age seventeen I realized I wasn't Larry Bird). The transgender movement of today, will be the trans God-knows-what of tomorrow (radical liberalism can't stay stagnant, it always has to double down). In my mind, the only difference in a woman who claims she's really man and a wacko like Jim Jones who claimed to be the messiah is that it's still politically correct to call Jim Jones a wacko (I was actually banned from Facebook recently for saying, "Trannies are mentally ill").

The modus operandi of the trans movement is transparent: transplant the morals of traditional Western culture with the depressive emptiness of degenerative Marxism. The modus operandi of the sociopath is also transparent: assume whatever role necessary to achieve the end goal, leaving a path of destruction along the way. When the two are merged you have another cog in the wheel for a future cultural Marxist dystopia.


  1. Reinout van Hulst8 July 2017 at 12:40

    "the doubter's rebuttal would be conjecture as well". This is a dirty trick. You present a thesis without empirical evidence. Those who reject it because of that do not put up an unsupported conjecture, like you. They simply tell you that the burden of proof is on you, and that you fail to provide it.

    The idea that transgenderism and homosexuality are the same is nonsense. Homosexuals are men who want to have sex as men with other men. That is completely different from not accepting your biological sex.

    The distinguishing feature of a sociopath is a lack of empathy, not that they are playing roles. In fact, all of us play roles all the time (Shakespeare).

    The many homosexuals who work with great dedication in hospitals, churches and other social services debunk your idiotic idea that they 'are the happiest when they make others unhappy'. And it debunks your equation of homosexuality with sociopathy.

    1. "The many homosexuals who work with great dedication in hospitals, churches and other social services debunk your idiotic idea that they 'are the happiest when they make others unhappy'."

      Just like the one "good" mulatto you know that proves that blacks are "exactly" the same as other groups and should therefore be given.....whatever they want? Is this for the rest of eternity or until the rest of us become as enlightened as you?

      Face it, homosexuals are unnatural. Why? Because they don't conform to what Nature intends. Just because pleasure for them can be obtained in other orifices, the drive to reproduce is defective in homos. The cause for their defect is irrelevant. I think a large percentage of them were exposed to sexual abuse at an age that is buried in their subconscious, before they even understood the sensations they were experiencing. But, it is still unnatural, regardless of whether they were born that way or not.

      And trannies are even more unnatural. Anyone that tries to tell me that it is not a psychological disorder to surgically alter the sex you were born with so you can pretend not to be the sex you are is a foolish, deceived individual that doesn't understand the need to segregate from or quarantine diseased individuals.

    2. Reinout van Hulst8 July 2017 at 18:20

      I just took down that stupid assertion that homosexuals are happiest when they make other people unhappy. That is not meant to say that homosexuals are exactly the same as heterosexuals. Just that they can be caring too.

      But spare me your silly arguments about a benevolent mother nature that guides us through life. Nature is an abomination, a constant war of eating and being eaten. The cancer that kills a small child is also nature. Should we therefore not treat it? And planes and books are 'unnatural'. Should we therefore abolish them? Nature makes us a beast, culture makes us human.

      Contrary to transgenders, homosexuals do not deny what is there: neither their biological sex nor their desire for other men. Transgenders do deny objective facts, they are crazy. Even that would not be a big problem, though. The problem is that they want to force other people to believe in their craziness.

    3. Look, no one said Mother Nature was benevolent. But someone that claims it is an abomination loses all credibility. Is gravity an abomination? I'm sure a lot of people have resented gravity the moment their bodies are broken, but it is no more an abomination than oxygen. All part of the natural order of things. Homos are not. Whether you or someone that you love is a fag doesn't change the fact that their actions are "unnatural".

    4. Reinout van Hulst9 July 2017 at 14:15

      It does not matter whether actions are 'unnatural'.

    5. Of course it does. Your understanding of nature is incredibly defective. I have to conclude you are a homo given the ease with with you were triggered. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

    6. Reinout van Hulst9 July 2017 at 15:59

      According to the same specious argumentation, I could say that you are a repressed homo because you cannot keep quiet about it. If you want a good reflection about the abomination of nature, you might read Arthur Schopenhauer. Anyway, whether something is natural or not cannot be an argument for or against. Unless you introduce some god who has made nature and meant in a certain way. By the way, this must be an extremely cruel and sadistic god.

    7. Speaking as one myself I would say Reinout is definitely "a little lite in the loafers". Still you should read Schopenhauer. I read somewhere that Hitler had read Schopenhauer in the trenches. If you're going to defend nature at least have some idea how awful heartless she can be. I can no longer understand why homos simply won't admit what they do is unnatural as in against the primary intent of nature. Sex evolved so we could reproduce ourselves. Perverted sex does not result in reproduction ended of story. I would say this a very good post and have myself read the book by the female sociopath. I am satisfied in my own mind that I have sociopathic tendencies. Compared to some of the other homos that I have know real bush league. I am no longer an active homosexual and couldn't be happier about that.

    8. Thank you for your comment. I do not say this to insult you but I have read Schopenhauer and other German "philosophers". And I have come to the conclusion that German "philosophers" are ranked based on the weight of their books. The more words, the more "profound". Schopenhauer characterized the phenomenal world as the product of a blind and insatiable metaphysical will. And he was an atheist. How is assigning consciousness to some force that cannot be measured any different than speculation about God, or, for that matter, how is it not just mental masturbation. Furthermore, I do not believe that humans have the wisdom for me to accept some author's opinion about "nature" anymore than I would accept their opinion about God. Being articulate does not mean you know anything more than any other person, especially about things that humans do not have the capacity to understand. Do you believe that nature is somehow a sentient being?

  2. The author admits that a lot of what he says is speculative, but just based on personal observation, I think a lot of the speculation is accurate. Of course, any conclusions based on self-reporting have to be taken with a whole shaker of salt, but being able to guess right is the functional equivalent of acting on certain knowledge and I'm thinking that Mr. Moore guesses right more often than not. One caveat - I think that sexual misconduct, even of the most perverted sort, often has more to do with average human weakness or sexual hedonism than it has to do with sociopathy.

    BTW, the many links are appreciated. I'll have to chase them down.

    1. Took the test for the Hare Psychopathy checklist. Looks like I'm in the bottom eighth of the population for primary psychopathic indicators and in the bottom 20th for secondary psychopathic indicators. So maybe 90% of the population is more psycho than I am. Should this make me feel vindicated or very very afraid?

  3. 1-Sympathy is not absent in the psychopath;it's repressed. 2-There has always been a strong connection between homosexuality and narcissism/psychopathy(self-love) in psychology literature. 3 As far as people with disturbed and disfuctional mental disorders are concerned, projection and projective identification explain how they make others in society unhappy. The "why" is because they are unable to accept and express they're own unhappiness due to their need to believe in their own gradiosity.

  4. "like in East Asian countries, where that type of behavior is intolerable and virtually non-existent"

    A case could be made that the upper castes in Asia are 100% sociopath.

  5. comments and thoughts.
    I am not educated- just talking out of my ass. Similar to the author's statistic regarding East Asian sociopaths and other things like that. Basically, shooting the shit.

    thought 1) Babies are very sensitive. If something repeated and traumatic happens to them when they are infants or toddlers- the emotion of terror or extreme grief of some sort can become too much to process- so as a survival mechanism- the baby's brain shuts off or disengages from emotions. Like a circuit breaker when there is an overload to the electrical system. So the little baby or toddler can continue to live and function. Perhaps this defense mechanism becomes permanent for the baby over time.

    Thought 2)sociopaths doing violence implies that they do have emotions.

    thought 3) I think homosexualism is a kind of fetish and not genetic. But like many fetishes they develop from such an early age that it seems like they are born with it. There are strong environmental factors that create or facilitates the response or development of homosexuality. Then - like many fetishes- the person indulges it - which reinforces the behavior. It begins to rule them. Then the person builds his/her life around thier fetish.

  6. Anyone who has had the misfortune of living in gay urban neighborhoods or done lots of business of them can confirm the admittedly unscientific observations in this excellent essay. My fear is that lack of empathy is being bred into us through the use of mediation, technology that makes having an immediate experience impossible. Faceberg may or may not be a sociopath, but that kind of tech-induced autism is rampant compared to the 80s-00s.