The 4 types of liar (by Peter Saint Nicolas)

The following content marks the return appearance of first-time guest author Peter Saint Nicolas. Mr. Saint Nicolas is a 22-time winner of the most prestigious award in the history of journalism, the Nobel Prize for Literacy.

This brief presentation will provide you insight into variety of ways that people use language. You will learn four contrasting patterns. Ultimately, these are four types of persona (ways of identifying one’s relation to the world).

First, we are making the world a better place.

Second, we are saving the innocent from one or more threats.

Third, we are showing the people the truth.

Fourth, we are governing the focus and the methods of the people.

 

 

Each of those are just patterns in the use of language. Anyone can use any of those patterns.

For instance, when someone is babysitting, they rule the focus and behavior of small children. But they also regularly volunteer at a museum as a tour guide, where they show visitors the truth.

Plus, when they spend leisure time with friends, they talk will argue intensely about why cigarette smoking is bad and tobacco companies are even worse. Finally, they make money by getting signatures for an emerging political movement.

So, these are modes of behavior. They are distinct personas or archetypes, like different scenes in a theatrical play. Or, they are like different roles performed by the same actor, like Indiana jones and Han Solo.

Will the character of Indiana Jones make any reference to Hans Solo (or to Harrison ford)? Only what is in the script of that role will be spoken by that character.

Harrison Ford (which is the name of the actor who plays the characters) can talk about his different roles, but the characters themselves will present a limited or compartmentalized script. If asked, they could sincerely deny being characters that are simply following a script. They would never construct that idea on their own. Their attention is deeply embedded in the stories within their script.

So now let us name these four distinct patterns in the use of language. The patterns could be named in a variety of ways, though for simplicity, I will call them the champions, the saviors, The wise, and the rulers.

The ones who are making the world a better place can be called champions. Sincerity is the foundation of their experience. They gather into groups with other champions to champion whatever cause(s) they can agree on.

Note that if champions ever happen to accomplish a particular goal, they will eventually adopt a new target of reform. They are not focused on producing a particular result, but on sincerely performing the glorious function of making the world a better place. They focus on each goal itself more than on their methods and the effectiveness of those methods. Further, the way that they focus on their goal is with intense sincerity.


They hold a model of how people should be and then they seek to conform their behavior to that model. If other champions have a significantly different model of how people should be, then a champion will either withdraw in disorientation or harshly ridicule the idea that there could be other holy models of how people should be that contrast with their own.

If we think of these patterns as developmental stages, the champions are just trying to be good people. However, it is almost inevitable that different herds of champions Will clash with each other. They are all competing for social glory against any other opposing groups of champions.

What will a champion call someone who agrees with them? A good person who is clearly intelligent.

What will a champion call someone from an composing group of champions? Those people are clearly naïve, hysterical fanatics.

Back to the idea of developmental stages, champions are gathering into social clusters of similar champions. Once the champions are solidly Allied in a stable group, then they as a group can begin to vilify one particular herd of opposing champions as The most urgent threat.

The champion is promoting the honor and glory of their group. The next stage of the Savior is defending their group against some threat.

Typically, the threat is a vilified group of opposing champions (or opposing saviors). However, there can also be non-human threats, such as a disease that threatens the species or a development that threatens the environment or planet.

Even when there is a nonhuman threat that a group of saviors is focusing on, they have a tendency to personalize the issue by scapegoating some group of villains. The villains are vilified as either taking actions that are counterproductive or as simply lacking in enthusiasm for the holy cause.

While saviors may maintain the same intensity of sincerity that we can observe in champions, the saviors add an elevated level of passion, typically in the form of rage.

The Saviors say “those other people should be doing less of the wrong things” or at least “those other people should be doing more of the right things.” They experience antagonism and distress that would be unusual for a champion.

The saviors look fondly upon some isolated group of champions as innocent victims that are vulnerable to the villains. Those victims need a savior!

Further, the actual focus of the saviors tends to be on the villains, not on the victims and the well-being of the victims. If the saviors could just destroy all of the villains, then there would be no more victimization.

The villains deserve to be resented and held in contempt and ridiculed. In fact, the villains deserve to be persecuted and destroyed.

So, because the saviors are so sincerely clear on who the villains are, they do not just glory in the goal of destroying the villains. The saviors actually focus on identifying which methods are most effective for intimidating and eliminating the villains.

Also, a savior may select a single villain as their primary target. Typically, they select someone who was at one time an ally of theirs when they were both champions. Now, their former ally has betrayed them and deserves to be intensely persecuted.

Of course, the behavioral mode of Savior is not actually about any particular alleged threat. It is about being a glorious, holy, loyal savior. In fact, focusing on loyalty may be the fundamental core of what it is to be a savior

So, in the event that a particular villain is eliminated or neutralized, someone operating as a Savior will naturally find a new threat. If there is nothing present that can reasonably be socially agreed as a threat, then it is the holy duty of those in the mode of Savior to antagonize some vulnerable group. In order to be a savior, there must be a villain that deserves to be persecuted and destroyed. There must be a perceived threat or else how can the Savior attract the social validation of any champions?

There is a kind of balance or symmetry between the mode of savior and the mode of champion. Saviors save the champions from threats.

When it is relevant for a savior to recruit champions and train them to be saviors, then they will. However, since saviors in general are competing for social approval and praises for glory, they do not want to many other saviors competing with them.

They want the champions to remain as sincere, helpless champions who cannot protect themselves. They want the champions to remain in need of a savior.

If the champions are not displaying hysterical terror about a particular villain or threat, then the natural tendency of a Savior is to point to some other threat that is (hopefully) Beyond the capacity of the champions to handle. Again, if the savior does not have any champions that are eager to be saved, then one option is to antagonize some target and incite a reaction that can be represented as a threat. The Savior needs the champions to be hysterically frightened (completely terrified) and for them to believe that the Savior at least might be able to protect them.

The third stage or pattern is a variation on the stage of the Savior. Those who identify themselves as wise are compulsively focus on spreading the truth about one or more issues. They are obsessed with waking up or enlightening the masses, which they relate to as naive and hysterical.

So, there tends to be a kind of arrogance and condescension displayed by these wise ones. Sometimes we refer to them as smart people (or as smart asses or even wise asses).

On one hand, they dismiss or ridicule the idea of valuing social validation. On the other hand, they hysterically seek to be socially validated by others who identify themself as wise.

They are the most holy champions because they are the champions of truth. They are the saviors of the masses from misconceptions and delusions and deception.

 


They see through the common hysterias (or at least one of them). They celebrate the superiority of their insight and wisdom.

Rather than protecting the innocent from an external villain that they sincerely perceived as a threat, which is the mode of a savior, they focus on an internal threat. They focus directly on hysteria and fear and delusion.

They are not protecting the world from any particular villain by attacking the villain directly. They may display contempt for some villain remotely, like by wearing a T-shirt or joining in a protest parade. However, they are unlikely to persecute a vilified villain in the intense and personal ways that someone who identifies themselves as a savior might do.

 


These wise ones value analyzing the psychological mechanisms of champions and saviors. They value gathering together with other people who are in their same developmental stage to collaborate in liberating themselves from popular hysterias and delusions.

In other words, they form a study groups to pursue truth together. As they proceed through this stage, they will shift from antagonizing The masses about popular delusions toward relaxation.

They get increasingly skeptical about sincerity, which they recognize as being totally distinct from accuracy or relevance. They also get skeptical about loyalty, which they recognize as being distinct from partnership.

They value independent thinking and intelligence, which can be quite threatening to those who glorify loyalty hysterically. They are cautious of being loyal to delusions or misconceptions.

Not only do the wise value effectiveness, but the issue of being selective about goals. In contrast, the champion is fixated on a popular goal with little concern for methods and effectiveness. The Savior is interested in being effective in their tactics, but they don’t think strategically in regard to prioritizing. They don’t question the holy goal. They are hysterically loyal to it.

The wise question priorities as well as methods. They raise the question of truth which inevitably leads them to the issue of relevance.

However, as long as they are hysterically preoccupied with the glory of being wiser than the masses, they remain stuck in a mode of arrogance. They still lack self respect and so they compulsively seek to be respected for their wisdom.

The champion compensates for lack of self-respect by seeking social validation for their sincerity. The Savior seeks validation for loyalty and sacrifice, as well as for affectively persecuting villains. The wise ones seek validation for no longer being champions or saviors. They seek validation with extreme irony: for the very glorious ways in which they invalidate others.

Is there another stage which is actually beyond hysteria (not just hysterically ridiculing hysteria)? Is there a stage in which the rulers simply seek to influence the focus of others, such as by directly speaking to them or by having a holy Central committee create a curriculum for rituals of indoctrination programming?

The rulers do not deny the fact that all instances of communication involve directing the attention of other people. Many who are not rulers may relate to some instances of conscious influence as somehow shameful. In other words, they are not very good at it and know that it is risky to influence others poorly, so they ridicule interpersonal influence and withdraw in to comfortable seclusion… At least for a while.

Do the rulers criticize and vilify other rulers for manipulating the attention of the masses? They might, but never sincerely. When a ruler vilifies or persecutes A villain for improperly manipulating others, their activity of vilifying some villain is a conscious manipulation of The attention of their audience.

When they condemn reverse psychology, they are not hysterical because they are not sincere. When they vilify acts of ridicule, they are aware of the irony of ridiculing vilification.

The rulers influence or govern or regulate others by controlling the attention and perception and behavior of others, or at least they attempt to do so. That is their goal and they develop effectiveness over time and through experimentation.

In particular, the rulers recognize the value of programming the masses to use language in particular ways. They train the masses to focus away from certain issues by labeling those issues as shameful or things that should not be. So, naturally they label many of their own favorite methods as evil in order to promote a monopoly on those methods.

They also train the masses to focus on certain possibilities that are not currently present, but that should be. In other words, they teach people to downgrade the present reality in favor of some set of ideals. People are programmed to value some model of what should be over what actually is.

The rulers can also present a variety of conflicting models of what should be in order to promote their strategy of divide and conquer. Fundamentally, the masses are programmed to be champions who discount reality in favor of some indoctrinated idealism. The reason that the ideals of the champions are so popular and socially encouraged is because the rulers have publicized those idealisms so effectively to so many people.

The rulers form cults. These cults monopolize the activity of coercion within a particular region in order to extract wealth from their human resources.

In congregations where private property is allowed, the rulers use systems of extortion and call it taxation. Where all valuables are claimed as the property of the local congregation, The rulers extract wealth by assigning jobs to the residents of their plantation or labor camp or prison culture.

The indoctrination rituals of the cult can glorify meaningless political slogans such as “equality through centralization of power” or “separation of church and state.” The state is not just their church, but their God and savior.

 


Again, to the rulers, all of this irony is recognized as ironic. They Are calm and alert and casual about These political slogans of their cult. They are not sincere and hysterical like the common champions and saviors. A ruler ridicules an instance of hysteria like the wise compulsively do, the ruler may use the same words from the same script and the same body language, but they know that they are acting. They do not suffer from the common delusion that their script is anything other than a script.

They present their lines, whether rehearsed or unrehearsed, and monitor the response of the audience. Does the audience seem to be emotionally triggered by a particular statement about what should be or what should not be? If so, the rulers will probably develop that conceptual theme further.

 


The rulers use language to rule. They rule the way that the masses use language. They use language to guide the attention of the masses. They use language to guide the habitual interpretations of the masses. They also use language to guide the perception and experience and emotion and behavior of the masses.

In every instance of communication, The rulers are attentive to their priorities and to the effectiveness of their methods. If they train the masses to have contempt for the idea of “the goals determining the methods,” they will do so attentively. With their purpose clear, they will experiment with different methods to compare the effectiveness of those methods. They will utilize whatever method they perceive to be the best fit for their priority.

Will they program the masses to experience shame if exposed to the exposed of conspiracy? Perhaps. The leader of a cult may come on television and talk at length about his theory of a conspiracy about some terrorist group conducting some terrorist act, but then condemn the ideas of conspiracy theories. The irony of presenting a Theory of a conspiracy and then ridiculing conspiracy theories is clear to those who write the script. Maybe the actor reading the Teleprompter script on TV does not recognize the irony, but the author does.

The goal of the rulers is to rule. They demoralize the masses. They program denial into the masses. They install cognitive paradoxes. They create rituals of trauma and then implement them, all with a very calm attention to effectiveness.


They program the masses to glorify sincerity and loyalty and of course compulsive honesty. The rulers define sociopathy and psychopathy and everything else.

If the masses worship demons named obesity or poverty or stress, maybe the rulers planned it that way. If not, the rulers will still be completely open to vilifying some villain as having planned it that way.

What those other rulers over there are doing is shameful and out rages and just really really sad. You should all be very outraged by it or very depressed and terrified or at least compulsively hysterical. Your life is really similar to having a job as a server at a restaurant. Basically, you need to focus on what you will experience after you die. So you must do the things that Saint Peter tells you are glorious because he is a magic eternal telepathic voyeur who is watching you right now from heaven and he is only going to give you a good tip at the end of the meal if you properly obey the holy commandments of Santa Claus. Also, if your performance is subpar, then you will be eternally tortured by constant agony over how to attract social validation.

Do not feel guilty. Only people who are extremely naive and stupid would feel guilt, so do not ever do that (especially not right now this very moment) or else you will either burst out in laughter or go directly to hell. By the way, you do not want to ever burst out in laughter because this entire message is impossible and forbidden and already self-destructed like three minutes ago.

Irony is for people who do not appreciate hypocrisy. Specifically, You really need to be more glorious than you are. However you are is fundamentally not good enough, which is why you should worship our cult’s model of how people should be.

Note that when I say our cult’s model of how people should be, I mean how people should fundamentally be. It is not just some linguistic model or some kind of script. And this is definitely not a cult. Cults are bad and shameful and deceptive and they brainwash people, so clearly our cult is not a cult because that could be pretty embarrassing, right?


Humility is humiliating. It must be avoided. What we desperately need is some loyal saviors to save the champions from humility by glorifying humility arrogantly. After all, it would make the world a much better place for us rulers… I mean for everyone.

Anyway, there are 4 different primary stress responses. Those are flight, such as crumbling in to submission and sending out a distress signal, which is the disappointment and grief of the champions. Next is fighting, which is what all holy saviors do, especially the glorious martyrs who die for our cult in exchange for promises of eternal social approval. Third is freezing, which is basically what the wise do because fleeing is useless and fighting is quite dangerous (especially when confronted with troops of thugs who carry assault rifles and wear bullet proof vests to protect them from protesters, since protesters in a parade are almost always firing guns as part of their parade).

What is the last of the 4 ways to respond to stress? What is left after fleeing, fighting, and freezing? There is also faking.

In other words, use language not out of hysterical pre-occupation with truth or sincerity or loyalty, but as a tool. How is language a tool? It can be used to influence the attention of others. It can be used to influence their models of reality as in the way that they relate to the world (or interpret their life). It can be used to influence their behavioral responses to their programmed interpretations of what they have been directed to notice.

Language should not be like that. Language should be the other way.

Never ever ever say anything that might offend someone. People who offend other people are ruining everything.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: