Mono Messiah Complex Types Prey On The Insecure

I’ll finish this article tomorrow on Monday

WIP 03/12/03

When a child becomes a teenager, it is the era of self-actualisation, the point of their lives where they discover who they truly are, in isolation, comparison and amongst others, to then decide how far they’re going to carve their own path, the straight and narrow or go off-key. There’s a multitude of things to consider, if they are to be popular, invited to parties or self-assured that they are worth something to someone or that they can be someone worth valuing when judged on its own merits. I think when you’re trying to judge more objectively than relatively, not to compare yourself to other people, you have to question whether it’s about what you want to achieve in footing or what you can express to portray in terms of stature.

This is then exacerbated by the fact that from age 15-19, that teenagers will be in the most critical years of their life, of which their behaviour for those short and speedy years of their life, will dictate the majority of what happens in the resulting decades of their life. They’ll soon be at a crossroads where the end of the road evades their skyline.

We’re not here to talk about the conservative Social Identity Theory or its liberal counterpart Personal Identity Theory so we’re not here to talk about teenagers, critical years, personal development, social development, or even self-actualisation. We’re also definitely not here to talk about the crossroads that teenagers face years before their penultimate conflict and penultimate auditioning. This is all about my thoughts on the Evaporative Cooling Theory and some type of abusive person who is common in offline and online communities. It’s funny how the younger generation comes up with the neuvo-terminology of gaslighting to popularise a half-century old term, yet when I was a child, we either called it trivialising, excusing, invalidating or ignoring. Watch me invent my own terminology – mono messiah complex. And no I don’t mean a control freak.

Some atoms aren’t meant to be split

Imagine a person who is introverted who is also submissive and has a problem with contributing to group discussions. A dimly lit introvert who just happens to be socialising amongst a shining extroverted contender, within the specific community in question.

Maybe they have awkward silences in conversations with strangers and familiar friends or maybe they don’t. Maybe they rely on the extrovert to make the conversation flow beyond merely starting a conversation or maybe they can act extroverted if they want to be but it’s not intrinsically them and it’s more like a persona so it’ll never be quite as refined, laser-pointed or adulterated as if an extroverted person was to try to do what they were trying to do. Maybe this, maybe that.

Well using a cost/benefit ratio, if a person isn’t outgoing, then it’s easier to affirm your stature and footing within the social hierarchy, if you are being submissive, as it requires less social intelligence and foresight to be appeasing and placating other people’s demands. It looks like I was inspired by Latebit’s viral article about why people are submissive, for this one.

Also consider who is typically being self modulating and discerning of their perspective and feelings, than it is for the outgoing person with their social performance who inadvertently causes a commotion wherever they go. In short, it’s easier to grease the wheels than it is to grind the gears.

It then reaches a point, where often the submissive person doesn’t feel of any use personally and of any value externally, with the third factor of not having a stake in (social) society, unless they feel they are useful in a contributory way to someone else. They have to feel that they’ve contributed some sort of thing to the other person, in a charitable or therapist style of value, otherwise they don’t feel useful as a person amongst their peers in the social society. So it’s not just about their self esteem isolanary or their perceived personal skills, they see it and their competitive threat to get along socially amongst the crowd, in that behavioural aspect, in a much wider way than most others. This would go on to explain maybe why they would be attracted to various subcultures, niche communities etc, as it provides them a fast-track stopgap to succeed where they otherwise wouldn’t amongst the more outgoing people or more demographically and psychologically widespread yet more balanced composite, of their same age.

The outgoing person causes some type of dependency threat for the neurotype, as on the one hand they need the outgoing person to be there as some type of adhesive glue like yeast to fill in the empty space to give the people something to talk about. But on the other hand, they also don’t want that person to take up all the limelight to the detriment of their contributions and their measley conversational topics.

Further Reading

Here’s what definitely isn’t going to happening

Cliquish nature

They’re not going to be cliquish. Chat rooms provide the best example of what cliquish behaviour is.

In my opinion, most discord servers (chat rooms) are bad because most of them are cliquish. There an “in crowd” and an “out crowd” and if you’re not in it, then you’ll be given harsher treatment for committing the same behaviours whilst being ignored.
But that predates discord, it was like that in the 90s on MSN Chat, Yahoo Chat, Lycos Chat, AOL Chat
It’s just social outcasts and power tripping mods getting flush faced and giddy with the bans, as it’s the only power (and agency) they can excercise in their sucky crappy lives.

Drowning someone else out

No they’re not going to ignore the outgoing person, answer with guarded or nonchalant responses, talk over them or abruptly change the topic after theirs to drown them out, as they proactively don’t intend to be cliquish.

Enter the manipulative saboteur with the mono messiah complex

There tends to be a certain type of person who is territorial but not in the traditional sense by doing “social isolation” by encouraging or pressuring the person of their desire from socialising with their friends and social circles, as one would imagine from what those domestic abuse charities say but instead they do it in a different way. These types tend to commit a wide range of behaviour but they all commit the same types, just at different varying degrees of it, to make it distinctly different from the former.

The british government calls it coercive control now, illegal under the Serious Crime Act 2015 and Domestic Abuse Act 2020. Well that’s definitely not what I’m going to be talking about. What I’m going to be talking about, is anything but that.

I’ve noticed that a lot of these types of territorial people, they are passive aggressive, they won’t be insulting or using shaming language to be forthright, they’d rather be passive aggressive, so they can maintain a veneer of plausible deniability.

This works well on even if anyone else is present in the same room as they do it because they are taking advantage of the fact that the observers in question wouldn’t be able to remember the previous conversations I’ve had with that person, so they can slip in coded messages designed only for me to notice, as I can remember the previous conversation and the observers can’t, given that I actually spoke in that conversation and the presceding one and the observers didn’t.

Their arsenal has three different tricks

Weapon 1: Be a hypocrite

Be a hypocrite. Say or do something, or have someone else do it, then when I start doing it within 30 minutes afterwards, they start to criticise me for doing it, when they or their friend did it 30 minutes ago.

Weapon 2: Deliberately mis-represent words to make facetious accusations


Deliberately mis-interpret and mis-represent my words, to create some sort of intentionally mis-construed meaning of it, to then accuse me of doing something wrong, that is an invention of their own imagination. They know in their head truly that I wasn’t doing it but if they can convince a moderator that I was or even a ringleader of the meetup or community that I’m attending in real life, then they can get me banned, reprimanded, scapegoated, isolated, blemished, or warned. It is their intention to create reservations of trust amongst any observers around me and whoever they would gossip about me to.

Weapon 3: Feign offence under perceived slights

Those 2 attack strategies, I think that I’ve found a way to effectively defend myself against that.
The 3rd one is SOOOO crafty. I need a good way to defend myself against it.

The person pretends to be offended by what you said, feigning offense, which then causes a moderator/ringleader/diplomat/mediator to tell you you’re in the wrong to then give you a warning. The person faking offence by feigning offence, most likely holds a vendetta against you (or me) due to something you said 3-6 months ago that they can’t let go from, or they’ll being territorial by doing some sort of mate-guarding, so by eliminating you, that gives them more time to spend with the moderator without you in the background putting your comments in. Either a vendetta or mate guarding.

When the person pretends to be offended, I need a good comeback I can use for that, something short and snappy, something pithy.

If I am viewed to be trivialising, excusing, invalidating, laying the groundwork for something more severe or perpetuating something, or even of that way against any abusive or criminal behaviour that they claim I indirectly support or are against any precautionary measures to prevent it, then I might get accused of gaslighting or being some sort of apologist for victims being abused.

It’s just like how those psychology/mental health/relationship accounts on instagram and the blogosphere, how they claim that if I claim that someone is over-reacting, being paranoid by looking into things too much, that I never meant to say what they think I said in how it came across, or that they’re being sensitive, according to those accounts on instagram and the blogosphere, I’ll be gaslighting , so if I say that they’re pretending to be offended due to having a vendetta against me or doing territorial mate guarding, they might flip it around and accuse me of gaslighting and claim that “every feeling is valid”.

You see what I’m getting at here?

insert images here

The obvious question is, do I be frank by being confrontational all guns blazing by accusing them of holding a vendetta or being territorial, or do I do something more implicit that is more short and snappy. So I was wondering what short and snappy comebacks I could use in such a situation, when behaviour type 3, when they pretend to be offended, when that happens.

Real life examples

My first example is when I said “snitches get stitches” after a person online maliciously accused an adult of being under 13 on some livestreaming website, to then have the person who reported it get banned as it was found that they were under 13, such a manipulative scheming person (or should I say conniving), falsely and disingenously (disingenous means a person who claims or gives the impression to know less than they actually know) claimed that I was endorsing sexual abuse against children all because the man fancies the woman and views me and my (outgoing podcast worthy) personality as competition. Needless to say, we were all adults in this conversation.

Traits of the preferential vulnerable neurotype

The person with the Mono Messiah Complex was being intellectually dishonest by exploiting several different weaknesses from the person of their desire.

  1. Imposter syndrome type low self esteem, due to being introverted and not good at starting conversations, which makes them feel uncompetitive. Also because they believe that any cushy lifestyle trappings or success, was purely due to luck of a birthright, regional or circumstantial nature, that they didn’t properly earn what they have like how most people who have what they have, did.
  2. They feel that if they don’t have a way to help someone else with either a kind gesture or even a therapist role, that they feel they have no value as a person, at the micro and macro level
  3. They are submissive as they see it as a stopgap fast-track route to compensate for point 1
  4. The outgoing person is a “dependency threat” as they need that outgoing person there to keep it interesting but not too much to keep the focus away from them. Think of it like Roku tv sticks being sold on Amazon that also sells Amazon Fire tv sticks, their distributor is their competitor as a supplier/distributor.
  5. They do not want to be outwardly exposed for having lowly or misguided of knowledge about any given topic or issue, after being pressured into a situation or a seemingly reasonable question, that would rapidly expose this
  6. The person finds it VERY hard to remember details from the current, previous or dated conversations, along with other things that would be useful to remember, so they feel at a loss when the outgoing person uses tiny fragments disclosed or inferred from months ago, to utilise for their laced-in soundbites. They just find it hard to keep track of conversations.
  7. Wanting to outsource their morality and decision making onto someone else, especially for prescriptive decisions (that dictate the future 6 months and 2 years away)
  8. Having an interview cadence that is similar to a cootie catcher (paper fortune teller) in its parity of turn taking and topic time (inbetween basketball and cricket as an analogy for a player’s ball time, it’s more like 5-a-side badminton)

Maybe I should add a new bullet pointed listing here. Who knows?

I’ll expand on that final bullet point. Imagine that someone is playing basketball amongst a team of 14. Well some players will have more time with the ball than others, so much so, that some players will scarcely have the ball once the match is over. Some schools even have rules to prevent one child having the ball much more than others, as in not being able to shoot the ball forwards from below your waist or chest, that you cannot do an under-pass only an over-pass, for instance, to balance out the ball time.

On the opposite end of the spectrum away from the competing for the ball time, well with cricket although each person has the same chance to have the ball by themselves, if one person is particularly good at hitting the ball at a high speed with a good angle and momentum, then they’ll get significantly more seconds until the ball is caught by the opposing team until their turn is over, to the detriment of the hitters who are average or mediocre. To find the middle ground, would be like the 5-a-side badminton.

Sometimes the female neurotype (as often the manipulator is a male who fancies the female who wishes to date them) does know that the male is being manipulative and committing social isolation or is being territorial in an idiosyncratic sense but they keep quiet and say nothing, as either they’re financially dependant on the person or that person has connections (is well connected) or that they hold a position of power even if its lowly (lowly can even be a chat room with 200 members amongst 2 million chat rooms) so they are too scared to speak up in case they get banned then excluded from their current social circle.

As we all know, when it comes to dating, the man’s role is to initiate and the woman’s is to be passively choosing from her suitors, not from my ideal vision but from the (social) gender roles that have existed for decades. We could talk about how we could make it more equal and fair, as much as we want to in a perfect world. But at the end of the day, if the man doesn’t initiate, nothing will ever happen to blossom into anything good of any mutual enjoyment.

I was in a discord server (chat room) and I hadn’t spoken there in 6 months. Some woman in the server said she remembered me from 6 months ago. The moderator, I suspect fancies the woman. Within 15 minutes, the moderator claimed that I was rude to the woman so he muted me for 48 hours, despite the woman not being offended and nobody else finding it offensive, just so he can be the knight in shining armour, to rescue the damsel in distress, so he can gain some brownie points, by being perceived by her to be protecting her and working in her best interest. All for something that was not rude or even borderline rude, that the woman found no problem with. But obviously she’ll keep quiet about it and not argue about it, as she thinks that if she raises the issue, that he’ll ban her for disagreeing and being confrontational with him. I knew that she could see exactly what was going on, she knew that he was being territorial and manipulative but kept silent.

You might be thinking, what does this chat room stuff have to do with real life. Believe me, this sort of stuff can and will happen in real life, to get you ex-communicated from your current meetup or community that you frequent as your social circle, so let this be a warning. Heed the warning against the Mono Messiah Complex, for lack of a better name. This is just the 3 types of manipulative strategies of ex-communication that they do.

And if the vulnerable neurotype does realise that they’ve been manipulated years later, the manipulator will just claim that they never demanded, asked or pressured the person to do anything and that they wouldn’t make them do anything they didn’t want to do or wouldn’t normally do. That it was the vulnerable neurotype’s idea, not theirs and that they didn’t plant anything into anyone’s head as what had previously led up to that point, was all of the neurotype’s making of their own mulling it over after their prior postulating. Well actually the manipulator did plant those ideas in their head through suggestion but as they’re manipulative, they’ve already got their “plausible deniability” as they’d been planning for that type of conversation, years in advance, so they’d already got a way to weasel out of the firing line. Clever isn’t it? You can’t say I didn’t warn you!

When feminists say that women are taken less seriously than men

I keep seeing this question a lot on tellonym and other social networks, the question when they ask men of all people, what they think about women being taken less seriously than men. Well I thought they always used “lived experience” to make them a deffered authority whilst also saying “nothing about us, without us”. It had to be a feminist who asked me that question online.

Workplace behaviour such as….

  1. A woman raising an idea for a group meeting to deafening silence, to then have a man later raise the same idea to get praise and credit for it
  2. A man interrupting a woman intentionally in a passive aggressive way, to silence her input in group discussions and group projects
  3. A man considering it to be rude for a woman to raise an idea that is seemingly better than her idea, if he happens to be the group leader, as if somehow, raising improvements for ideas is undermining the man’s authority

I can’t think of (or remember) any more examples and I don’t know what terminology those feminists call it but I’ve been reading a lot of stuff like that in their blog articles.

I’m sure that some feminist somewhere must of made up some sort of catchy terminology for it but if there is then I’m not aware of it.

My opinion on this, is that there are men, which I like to call, for lack of a better term, having a “mono messiah complex”, where they want to be the “knight in shining armour” and “deferred authority” for another person’s morality.

  • Nobody can know more than them, they have to know the most.
  • Nobody can know better than them, they have to have the best advice.
  • Nobody can make more money than them, they have to make the most money.
  • Nobody can have more friends than them, they have to have the most friends.
  • Nobody can have more facebook and instagram likes than them, they have to have the most likes.

You get the idea!

I’m sure you women have seen men get offended when a woman makes more money than them, even if they’re not dating them.

Under the perimeter of a relationship, the partner divulges sensitive information about themselves, like their employer, religion, home address, etc, as well as potentially being subjected to financial abuse and domestic abuse, in a way that would not be applicable to a friendship. How could I siphon someone’s weekly wage, steal money out their debit card and open credit cards in a friend’s name, in the same way I could for a partner who I’ve been dating for years?

It is then under this scenario, that what I call, the “mono messiah complex”, how

  • They only date women who are less intelligent than them, never more intelligent
  • Only dating women who are more insecure with lower self esteem than them, never less insecure with more insecure
  • Only dating women with less common sense and less discerning nature, never those women with more

My controversial opinion here I suppose, is that I fail to see how these men are specifically targeting only women for that behaviour, if they target both men and women with those abusive behaviours. The ONLY difference is that those men are heterosexual, so they are given greater freedom (or scope) to exhibit those behaviours within a heterosexual relationship, as by definition, a woman entering a relationship, puts her vulnerable to experiencing domestic abuse, financial abuse and infoprying of sensitive information, in a way that would not apply to his male and female friends. If the man in question was gay, he’d be also doing it to his homosexual partners. Well they already do it to their male friends, acquittances and team members.

I have had potential male friends, stop being my friend after 2 days or 6 months, after finding out that I wrote novels, as they’d previously assumed it was just seemingly lowly poetry or journalism clippings. pjournalism cl

By the way, infoprying is a much better term than “social engineering”, within an information security context.

What about medical gaslighting?

Over the years, they’ve expanded that, into what they call “medical gaslighting”, where a woman sees a doctor (or GP) for an invisible illness, to then be told it’s a mental health issue, or that it doesn’t exist or it’s due to bad diet. They’re saying that women experience this much more than men do, so therefore it’s a product of male doctors being misogynists.

I’m not going to comment on that because the way discrimination is in the UK, it is covert (not overt) so by the nature of its virtually clandestine nature, if you only see your doctor for 10-20 minutes every 2/3/4/6 months, then it’ll take years for a patient to finally realise they were discriminated against, due to a series of successive perceived slights and borderline grossly improper behaviour, all which have plausible deniability, as a coincidence or happenstance.

Also often your doctor can change and your doctor could have a doctor above them – unbeknownst to you – that has “veto rights” who can override the doctor’s decision (that you see) from behind the scenes (that you don’t see).

So the best person to know if they were discriminated against, was the patient in question, as they’ll be able to write down a bullet pointed list of 20 behaviours, which in isolation don’t mean much but certainly will when collected together as part of a bigger picture.

Due to the covert nature of discrimination in the UK, it’s not up to me to comment on women being the primary victims of “medical gaslighting”, as they call it, as the only person who would be able to know they were a victim, was the victim themselves. Being on the outside, looking in, doesn’t really do much to resolve or reconcile things. Especially how you can be arrested nowadays for a hate crime (including hate speech) for misgendering a transgender person on twitter.

Where are these abusers most prevalent?

How The Minority With No Formal Power Outweighs The Besotted Majority

When nothing intangible feels transactional, two years feels affirmable

If Social Gating isn’t done, they’ll flood the place and ruin it

Conclusion

Related Posts