There is much talk about psychopaths because we live in a feminised society—the psychopath instantiates those aspects of masculinity that are most attractive to women, whereas the autist instantiates those aspects that are most unattractive to women. Both the autist and the psychopath represent masculine extremes, so they are both perverse—but, at some level, all men have psychopathic or autistic features.
In a feminised society, those features evoke both horror and fascination. The psychopath is a figure who is sexually attractive to women: a cold man who is completely indifferent to her and is violent and unpredictable—he’s also a glib shallow charmer. This is the ideal fantasy figure for women, particularly at the sexual level—the psychopath is “the beast” that beauty must tame.
The autist has some similarities to the psychopath—being socially cold and anti-social and single-minded in their task (just being a man, isn’t it?) but they’re not social like the psychopath; they’re socially maladroit, not glib charmers. They’re not unstable, either—they’re as predictable as a model railway set (and get upset if anything is disturbed). The psychopath, by contrast, relishes instability—gets bored easily and shakes things up, and women love that (think how often they change fashions).
So the psychopath is the ideal figure for a woman—he’s cold and indifferent to them and they want to melt his heart (“I know he’s a good boy, deep down,” they say—and the worse he behaves, the more they believe they can rescue him). Hence women are fascinated by them—for women, all men are a bit “psycho” and the dream is that men would be more so (the joke is that most modern men are not cold and indifferent, they’re wet and sympathetic—like Prince Harry *yuck*).
So psychopaths are talked about because we have a psycho shortage—and because, since the feminine view predominates, all men are seen as somewhat “psycho” (or are imagined to be). It’s worth remembering, because the phrase is often thrown around a bit too loosely, what “psycho” actually means—they’re usually fire-starters in their youth, usually torture-murder animals (particularly cats—which I believe gives them occult powers).
I’ve mentioned this too many times now—but there was a boy at my school who crucified a cat, shot it full of arrows, and filmed it. That’s true psychopathy (naturally, the headmaster brushed it off as “boys will be boys”—because he wasn’t that aware). That behaviour is rare—but on a continuum, yeah, all men are like that; and especially soldiers (the headmaster used to be a Marine, and was in the Falklands, so it seemed more “normal” to him—just “high spirits” among the lads).
“Every woman adores a fascist, the boot in the face,” so said Sylvia Plath and, “Girls love a man in uniform”. The soldier is close to a psychopath, the Scorpio type, so that’s what women want—the cold warrior whose icy heart you have to melt (“He’s such a brute to me, he’s so cold and unfeeling but I know there’s good in him!”).
It’s Sergeant Troy in Far From the Madding Crowd (1874) and it’s Flashman the cad (a book for boys sometimes read by women because they fantasise about being seized by the bewhiskered cad Flashman) “You promised to marry me!” “Did I?”—so says Flashman as he chuckles to himself, cute little smirk on his face, as he rides on to the next town.
Women’s fiction is the best when it comes to the mating game—and the one thing women understand better than men, other than how to care for young children, is how the mating game works. They’re less sentimental and romantic about it. So when women don’t mate, like Jane Austen and Margaret Mitchell, you get these great fictional works that sublimate their sexual desires into a fictional form—you get Mr. Darcy and Rhett Butler, who are very like Sgt Troy and Flashman (cads—if not actual psychos, then very close).
The sad thing about Austen and Mitchell is that they never had children, they had to pour all their ambitions into their fictional work. When you get a romantic female novelist like Stephanie Meyer, whose Twilight series bestrode the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s, who has children (good Mormon) you see another aspect. Unlike Austen and Mitchell, Meyer didn’t long for children—she was a bored housewife, so she just longed to be ravished by a vampire.
So her vampires really are true psychos, not just cads like Butler and Darcy. They want to “eat you all up”—they’re cold, they’re charming, they move all the time. There’s little “romance” in Twilight because the series is more about sexual frustration—your impossibly nice and polite Mormon husband—than it is about the desire to have an ideal mate to produce children with.
In truth, we need to become more psychopathic—not “true psychopaths”, who are usually so unstable they are easily caught and mess everything up even if they’re intelligent, but rather more cold, realistic, and hard. Western men are far too soft—too kind, caring, and nurturing (too Prince Harry). Per Paracelsus, what makes something good or evil is the amount—just as arsenic can be poison or cure, as determined by the amount.
We have too many nice romantic idealistic men who are soft and “lovely”—but dull. It’s also a problem because soft and lovely civilisations are crushed by groups, such as Muslims, who don’t take women seriously and coldly deal with them as birth machines (which, to judge by the multiple working-class white brides with seven children by a Muslim I see about, seems to be “what women want”).
The psychopath is the feminine ideal—because it’s women who are the realistic hard-nosed sex about reproduction. It’s men who are religious and genuinely “romantic”—women are most attracted to a “stone-cold killer”. Yet romantic and religious sentiments can turn perverse at the extremes—then you have Prince Harry.