(Unfair warning: If you seek to gain anything from Dr. Hyatt’s work by your own willpower and mental processes, then do not read this article, for it defeats the entire purpose of reading and rereading his book.)
“Do not take anything in this book literally! Wait, on second thought, take it all literally!” – Joseph Matheny’s quote on the back of the book.
Do you ever wonder what would be possible if you decided to completely rid yourself of limitations – social, psychological, and otherwise? Would you use such methods to assist your fellow beings, or to manipulate them for your own ends? A book for such desire exists, and to be Limitless is the goal of all who persist through it. First-time contributor Donovan, here, to share my thoughts on Christopher Hyatt’s work, The Psychopath’s Bible.
I’m a twenty-something, sheltered white-male in the middle of a state that is filled almost entirely with suburbs. I’m a “Week of Determination” individual and a bit of an optimist, at that. I consider myself introspective and have been playing with psychology, philosophy, and spirituality for about 7 years. That said, here’s what I got from the book.
The Psychopath’s Bible, when read the first time through, appears to be the rant of a mad man hell-bent on enslaving his fellow humans and getting everything that he wants at any cost (be that to himself, his peers, or the planet). Hyatt coins the terms “Toxick Magick” and “Toxick Magician” to describe any person insane and/or desperate enough to follow his methods of multi-layered manipulation. Contained in the book are descriptive and, at times, seemingly-random methods for abandoning one’s preconceptions of self and evolving to become a better being. Targets aimed-at by Hyatt include willpower, morality, fear, belief, value, and image. The book is written with a “no mercy for the weak” attitude and contains legitimate exercises to liberate oneself and make Dr. Hyatt’s family some money in the process (in at least three exercises it is suggested that you buy multiple copies of the book for various reasons). Overall, Hyatt’s writing styles lead the average reader to believe that they are reading pure, self-driven madness so that they may quickly put the book down as they reach for their nearest book of fluffy insignificance.
It doesn’t take a genius to catch Hyatt’s little “winks” throughout the book. The most obvious are his explicit contradictions of previous statements to let you know that you are on the right track; Hyatt constantly puts down people-lovers and species advocates, and yet in a book filled with statements of exclusivity to psychopaths he adds the statement, “If you forget everything else, remember this: Everyone is a Psychopath.” Such a statement must be taken to heart when the author spends the majority of the book “convincing” you of the weaknesses and mindlessness of others. After reading through the book a couple of times, one notices that much of the information contained in the book is nothing but one large contradiction; The Psychopath’s Bible is a book that liberates, yet it is written under the pretense that the methods are only for personal gain and not for the betterment of the species? For a book to be written so well as The Psychopath’s Bible, the author must truly have a passion for what he is writing. In this case, he is essentially writing a field-manual for the evolution and betterment of whomever is brave enough to press onward through the book.
What I’m getting at, here, is that The Psychopath’s Bible teaches people to sift through bullshit to discover the gems within. If you were to perform all of the exercises in the book without raging hatred in your heart, you would appear, to Average Joe, a kind and considerate human being. That, along with the fact that the book itself would not exist if Hyatt did not have a vested interest in keeping this miserable species going strong by whatever means necessary, leads me to believe that this book was written to inspire the evolution of the self and of others. If I’m correct, then Dr. Hyatt had far greater intentions than mere selfishness when he wrote this book fully intending it to benefit those who can decipher its foggy intentions, and he did a stand-up job in doing so.
Then again, I could read this book a third time and discover that I’ve missed the whole damned point entirely. Your thoughts, Disinfonauts?