How to Converse with Commie Sociopaths

An interesting look at the psychology of the Leftist Leadership and how we can leverage them

Recently, I was provided an opportunity to speak with a somewhat inebriated and over-enthusiastic self-avowed communist. The results of the conversation provided useful insights into the mental state of intellectuals who would call themselves “leftists” or what we would consider the leadership caste of the “Woke” progressive ideology. The individual in question shall remain unnamed for my safety, but certainly fits the physiognomy of the leadership caste. Think a Hassan Piker gym-bro type, but with a few visible and obviously dysgenic physical traits.

He’d lived a relatively easy life and spoke as if cocaine and other expensive drug habits were casual in the circles he ran in. I suspect he’d consumed a fair quantity of nose-candy before our conversation, but I have no proof.

This is a guide on speaking with the leadership caste of the Woke Leftists as most of them express the same personality traits. Few realize how easy it is to turn them away from their decaying ideological base. If we can speak to them without triggering their defensive hackles, we might make better use of these sociopaths.

---

---

The Commie

Conversation began easily; he was inebriated, and I was significantly less inebriated. He asked me about my political positions, which I dodged by responding in kind. He stated that he considered himself a Communist. Not a Leninist, of course, that would be ridiculous. More of a Trotskyist. Stalin, of course, was right out when it came to human rights, but that didn’t mean he didn’t make things work.

He claimed that he hated “liberals” because “liberals” were too far right for him and didn’t stand for anything. “Liberals” just defend capitalism, and they’re mostly idiots who will support the status quo.

“In reality, we need to be ready to y’know, kill people to get what we want.” He said emphatically.

He then showed me the pistol he carried with him at (I presume) all times.

In his eyes, democracy is stupid. Most people are idiots and cannot govern themselves. So you need a hierarchy or ordained leaders to govern on behalf of the people. He thought most conservatives were reactionary idiots who didn’t understand economics and that the current political systems were just tools of capitalism.

The conversation continued with him stating that: Donald Trump is just another useful idiot, and he’s being used by greater powers with specific (capitalist) interests. Elon Musk is an idiot, but his simple-minded drive to get off the planet is something commendable. The problem is that most people don’t have a large vision for the way the world needs to work. We should be reaching out for the stars, but most people are just tribal idiots who aren’t able to see the big picture like he can.

Rather than trying to bring everyone up, we should make poverty socially acceptable and comfortable so those who aren’t idiots (him) can have the resources necessary to initiate their (his) vision of interstellar ambition.

The real problem is that most people are stupid, and He is the adult in the room.

---

Early on, I realized that the person I was speaking to imagined himself morally, intellectually, and emotionally superior to basically everyone. A “communism would have worked if I’d been in charge” type of character. Most of them are this arrogant, I suspect. It wasn’t that he thought communism in its classic incarnation was a good thing. He was well aware that large swaths of people would see marked declines in their quality of life under a communist system.

Rather, he believed that credentials and managerialism were superior to individual liberty on the basis that “most people are idiots” and that resources should be allocated away from the general population and towards large civilization-scale projects. Specifically, his large projects.

Odd that he called everyone else useful idiots.

This person was a narcissist at heart. He sought leadership via Woke Progressives because leadership in a communist nation would afford him resources. He was from a moderate upper-class background (He’d claim to be middle class if ever questioned). A Champaign Socialist type who likely comes from a family with net assets measured well over the 1 Million mark (probably in the 10 to 20 million net worth range). He presumed that his wealth and family could insulate him from any degradation suffered by the majority of the population. He’s likely never experienced true hardship in his just under 30 years of life, and imagines a romanticism around it that doesn’t translate well into the real world… and he has a great deal of trouble empathizing with others, but he’s pretty good at rhetoric. “We together can accomplish great things, if you give me more power,” at both the personal/local level and the transnational/global level.

It was quickly apparent that this individual was a sociopath or had a lot of sociopathic traits. He had attached himself to Leftism as a means to an end. He didn’t believe in the ideology at all; it was a means to other ends. His professed “communism” was an attempt to seize ideological influence and social capital, not because he believed in the rhetoric about a “global family” but because it was good rhetoric for getting what he wanted.

With that assessment made, his intentions were relatively easy to reorient. Sociopaths like him can be useful if set to a proper purpose. So why not alter his political position not through appeals to morality or truth… but pragmatism… He plays the role of leftist identarian, but doesn’t give a shit about identity. He has generic anti-white, anti-male talking points to garner clout, not because he cares about the premise.

He wants power, and he wants to direct human “progress.” Most of the Woke leadership caste have their version of what this looks like: space colonies, a one-world state, genetically engineered super-humans. All of these brilliant minds are willing to build their version of paradise over billions of bodies if need be. Because they are the smart ones… also because they’re bizarrely oblivious to the fact that all the others think the same way.

The resulting conversation offered useful insight into the psychology of the Woke Leftist leadership… they use words like magic spells to achieve power, and do not care about the content of their words as long as it accrues to them more social capital to spend.

---

Leftism/Woke progressivism tends to attract Machiavellian sociopaths who each imagine themselves to be the smartest one in the room. I was impressed by this character’s ability to describe the majority of objectively successful people (Trump, Elon Musk, Most leftists, all liberals, fascists, conservative identitarians, intersectional identitarians, reactionaries) as idiots.

Arrogant, Machiavellian, sociopathic traits, and a Grand Vision. Also lacking the self-awareness to realize that every single other person in the Communist/Progressive leadership caste behaves and thinks the same way he does. “Those other left-wing extremists are just idiots who aren’t listening to me because they’re too stupid to.”

It was Fascinating.

---

Arguments from Pragmatism

To briefly summarize… His stated real goal was vast interstellar conquest/colonization. By appealing to the “Grand Vision” of this sociopath, it was possible to get him to cede ground on specific subjects. To the point that I believe that it is possible to actually reorient these sociopaths towards productive campaigns on the Right. Pragmatism trumps ideology for them because they have no ideology:

• Monarchy is a better form of authoritarian rule than communism

• Christian (or otherwise unified) moral systems need to be implemented to maintain social order

• Gender relations need to be predicated on what works rather than what the current left-wing dogma says about egalitarianism

• The Left is a failing cultural institution, and aligning oneself with it is a losing long-term proposition

---

I permitted my inebriated frenemy to talk. He seemed to enjoy the sound of his own voice. I made suggestions as the opportunity arose. Rather than arguing methodology (he doesn’t care about method; he cares about his Grand Vision for humanity and enforcing it through whatever means are available), I appealed to pragmatism.

I suggested a Monarchy over communism. Most people are idiots and aren’t capable of governing themselves. Instead of an oligarchic/managerial communist state, a Monarchy is more effective. Specifically, a monarchy managed by a divine mandate of some type: a church/cultural system of higher moral authority.

He was intrigued, as it’s rare to see one abandon the social framing of classical liberalism. [This is one massive cultural advantage of monarchism at the moment: no baggage.] Of course, the arrogant narcissist imagines himself as King and not as a serf, but that’s a problem for him to figure out.

---

---

---

Another critique was that we must adjust our systems for human nature, even in service to his Grand Vision. Humans are tribal, reciprocal violence and warfare were the norm for thousands of years. Rather than making a moralizing argument, I stated that Liberal-universalism worked only because it was riding on the coat-tails of Christianity. Christianity cracked game theory in a way that allowed for large-scale coordination of effort between human tribes with minimal coercion.

---

---

One can make pragmatic arguments for religious moral authority. Most people are idiots (he isn’t exactly wrong there). A religious moral authority combined with a monarch works well to keep the majority of people in check.

If you want a population that’ll listen to you and build your great project, aligning with atheists is self-defeating. Atheists and pagans are tribal peoples who have difficulty organizing across tribal boundaries. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia experienced this problem. The solution is to use a higher religious moral authority rather than expending resources on massive coercion projects to maintain legitimacy. Materialist ideologies do not work for large-scale organization.

He rather liked the potential rhetoric one can create: “It is the holy duty of humanity to ascend to the stars”

---

---

If he wants to establish a grand vision for humanity, he should work with the Christian Nationalists and internationalists to build a unified ideological center rather than some nebulous form of ‘communism.’ He wants to win, not to be bogged down by ‘Leninist’ vs ‘Trotskyist’ vs ‘Stalinist’ vs ‘Maoists’. The in-fighting in the Left is itself an endless source of irritation to him, I’m sure.

---

---

He described a preference for eugenics. A project opposed on the basis of “who decides who gets sterilized?” Which is a moral argument. Moral arguments don’t work against this type of arrogant sociopath. I avoided the question because he’s not entirely wrong. If we could consistently engineer humanity, it’d be worth investigating. Some nations (China) are already working on that project. Some nations (China) are excellent examples of why we might not want to endorse such a project.

So, pro-eugenics and anti-racial-identitarian. That’s not to say he understands either very well, but they probably sounded like good positions when he was soaking up information to describe his Grand Vision. Racial identitarianism is a problem for him as tribal groups are hard to organize. While individuals can be judged as individuals, a reasonable argument regarding groups could be made by stressing the “return to the mean” function of multi-generational genetics, but doing so would be tricky. Especially doing so in a way that didn’t immediately raise his ideological defenses.

Through this whole conversation, the man’s eyes lit up when I spoke to him. I was probably one of the first people who undertood his language. One of the first to speak at his level regarding his Grand Vision.

Not “shit’s fucked man, like capitalism bad…” stoner-commie talk. Not “White people are the best, we should return to Odin…” wignat talk. Definitely not “in the egalitarian future communist workers state, I’ll be a poet, and we’ll be able to uplift the oppressed child-molesting trannies and make every one equal” bullshit talk.

I engaged with him as a materialist with a similar predilection for the Grand Vision (in his case, interstellar civilization). “If you want to accomplish this goal, here’s options on more efficient ways of going about.” I dropped ideology, justice, truth, honesty, and decency and spoke to him as a single-minded sociopath like him: What routes can I offer him to more effectively see him toward that goal.

He initially spouted the normal points of gender-egalitarian that he’s supposed to believe. He did the same with race. My response was an appeal to pragmatism and not tradition. I suspect he’d never heard such an argument before.

Pressing the point, he eventually acknowledged that patriarchal societies produce inventors and explorers, and matriarchal societies have produced stagnancy. I think that he just wants women working on his grand project as workers rather than producing the next generation as mothers. Therefore, egalitarianism between the sexes results in a massive working population for the grand vision… of course, it’s also produced the largest demographic collapse in human history. So long-term realization would require an abandonment of gender-egalitarianism in a way that doesn’t gel with his neoliberal sensibilities.

He seemed too old to be this arrogant. Easily late twenties to mid thirties. I’ve met few people below the age of 28 who think that “communism will fix things.” A great man once said that young men shouldn’t go into politics until the age of 30. Thus he has very little life experience, and a sufficiently narcissistic vision of reality as not to understand that there exist people unlike himself.

---

The End Goal

Unfortunately, some of these sociopath-arrogant assholes are smart. Pretty damn smart it if we’re going to be honest. They’re Machiavellian bastards, but they’re pretty good at accruing resources. We should be using them for our ends (bettering our people and nation in a general sense) instead of letting them run roughshod in our homelands.

The most important appeal you can make to these types is pragmatism in the abandonment of leftism as their cultural engine. The Left is in cultural decline for the first time in 300 years. The Left will likely continue declining for several generations. Why chain yourself to a sinking ship? The Right is in ascent, and it has the tools and ideological framework to implement a Grand Vision, just a little differently. That argument alone might be enough to sway these human resources to our side opposed to the demonic death cult that is leftism: our anti-human, anti-life opposition.

To paraphrase Machiavelli, “It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both, but one must avoid ever being hated.” At this point, The modern incarnation of the Left is hated by the majority of the population.

Should you talk to one of these guys, aim them at the Christian Identitarian Right as potential supporters. DO NOT send them to support the fascist racial-identitarian Right. The reason is pragmatism, this time on our part. Machiavellian Sociopaths are going to be a problem no matter where they land. One of the fundamental weaknesses of materialist moral systems (Fascism, Communism, Liberalism) is that they are uniquely unsuited to identifying and rooting out Machiavellian sociopaths. That’s why they glommed onto Communism in the first place: it’s easy to say the words and use the rhetoric to build social capital and then wield that social capital as a weapon. The same is true in Fascist systems, unfortunately. Classically liberal systems were resistant until the growth of Atheism as a precept of Liberalism. As soon as there was an atheist-materialist moral framework in Liberalism (circa 1990 or so), the sociopaths came out of the woodwork.

Christianity has had 2000 years of practice rooting out Machiavellian Sociopaths from its ranks. I trust that it can, ideologically, continue to do so. Leftie sociopath types are like animals that need to be on a short leash, and if kept restrained, they’re useful; if unrestrained, a disaster.

In reorienting, they’ll be as arrogant about the Right as they’ve been on the Left. They’ll think it’s as easy to conceal sociopathic intent from Christian Nationalists as it is to conceal it from communists. It’s their mistake to make, but not until after we’ve acquired useful resources.

These types of sociopaths are going to exist; it can either be to our benefit or detriment. If successful, we can make a cultural tool out of a tactical problem.

---

I hope he woke up with a hangover the next morning and some very strange ideas floating around his head. Do this enough times, and we can neutralize the threat they pose to our peoples, nations, and humanity itself.

---

I recommend the following books (in descending order of importance). Contained is an excellent set of tools for making the necessary appeals to pragmatism should you be presented with the opportunity.

[Book Review] Starmaker

[Book Review] The Ecotechnic Future

[Book Review] St. Thomas Aquinas

[Analysis/Review] The Limits To Growth

[Book Review] Breaking Together

[Book Review] Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order