25 minutes in, and she is looking down and to lower the amygdala strain, and unable to speak the word fact on the first try. If Trump keeps it up, this will be fun.
- Since beginning this site, we have encountered what most people would never believe could exist - the massive domestic network of spies and civilian informants, exactly like the East German Stasi, that has been created and deployed against the American people within America, by whoever controls our government. If you are a conservative who supports Donald Trump, it is most likely operating in your neighborhood, and spying on your family, even though you have never seen it, and would never believe it possible. Our writings on this subject are the most important contribution this website will make for America, which is why it is at the top of our sidebar. You need to click here first for the summary, or go to
Please check out the book, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics, which is available at Amazon at the link below. It is also offered free in Kindle format periodically. For more on that offer, see: AnonymousConservative.com. Buy the book now at Amazon.com here: 
[…] Hillary’s Amygdala Hit […]
I noticed about three blows to her amygdala. Instead of grinning from ear to ear her face would take on that blank-yet-enraged expression (I think when Trump mentioned Blumenthal?) and she would clear her throat. Bill’s expression was priceless.
Trump pwned both Hillary AND the moderators hard once he got over his obvious embarrassment. The fly landing on Hillary’s face and shirt was rather surreal, as were the transsexual and Samuel L. Jackson in the audience.
Exactly. The speed of her speech, and her stumbling when trying to say the word “fact” were signs fo high amygdala she wasn’t in control of. As that happens, is when you hit it again hard, before it regains control.
no stroke. r u dissapoint?
I think he may have backed off purposefully. Either he was told over and over to go easy on her to not look mean, or he didn’t want her to stroke on the second debate.
I was hoping he was going to just do it, but it wasn’t bad.
As I posted elsewhere:
Could of been better. Always keep your foot on the throttle when you are in control. Knock that smiling smirk off her face.
Exactly. Once that amygdala is hit, you keep the pressure on to wear it out.
I noticed that Trump seemed much less agitated in this debate. He was much more calm, his face wasn’t red, he was able to articulate facts and policy details much easier. You posted a while back that r-type candidates need beta blockers to perform, and we need the kind of people in leadership who don’t rely on them. Yet I couldn’t help but think the difference this time was that Trump was using beta blockers himself. It also seemed he started to lose composure a bit near the end, which would be caused by the drug wearing off (or perhaps the stress of the events catching up).
Do you have any thoughts on this?
It is not impossible. He did get jacked when he did the direct confrontation, but it was surprisingly well done and controlled. I do wonder what a beta-blocker in a trained performer would be like – that could have been it.
I’ve had my share of stage time in a variety of settings.
I’ve used beta blockers as part of a prescription regime for high blood pressure, never for a performance. They dull the edge you need for a strong performance. Stage anxiety is good for you. Stage fright is a lack of self-confidence.
Please know, beta blockers in a therapeutic does don’t wear off quickly and you’ve got to be careful with large doses lest a rebound effect causes you to stroke out.
Another thing I noted about the debate. Someone in Trump’s camp either reads this blog, or reads someone else who reads this blog, or else someone who thinks very similarly to you.
He did everything you said he should. He said “special prosecutor.” Twice I believe. He said he would send her to jail. He constantly interrupted her.
What kind of denial of expectation would you recommend for him in the last debate? My thoughts is that he should switch tone 180 degrees. Constantly go positive. Be optimistic. Calmly dismiss her insults as unhelpful. Do get into too many negative specifics about her: just assume the case has been made.
I think Trump is actually as much a master of psychology as any great in history, so I think my insights are right, and he just already knows them. Though it is not impossible one of his staff lurks here as part of some alt-right monitoring, and submits updates as part of some alt-right summary.
For that reason, I hesitate to talk broader strategy, because Trump is a genius, and he can figure that out better than me – and I am a little bent. My specialty is amygdala and dealing with defectives, and in that regard, Trump shut Hillary’s ability to act out against him perfectly. Beneath that, I do have a drive to see her laid out which probably clouds my judgment, and blocks me from seeing the right path clearly. So my initial response to your post was “NNoooo!!” even though you may be right, if the objective is winning the election, which it should be.
In short, I am happy Trump will make the call. If he does decide to go nuclear, he has imbued her with an amygdala pathway in this debate which will make her dread the next one. That dread will build as the next one approaches, and aid his ability to hijack her amygdala next time, and if he decides to do it and lay her out, I will not argue.
Clearly, at the least he can degrade her mental function with dogwhistles that nobody else will notice, and that will degrade her performance through the rest of it. At the least she needs dogwhistles, and as a master of game, I should think Trump will be able to pull that off with no sweat. I would do one big hit early on myself, to put her on her heels, and then go positive with lots of dogwhistles, if going high positive was the play.
But I take no position on wrecking her in front of everyone, or going positive. She is so damaged and embittered, in a way people naturally are repulsed by, wrecking her might be very profitable, if high risk. Even if she doesn’t stroke, she takes on a very phony, uncomfortable mien when she is triggered, and is trying to suppress her rage. It is much better for Trump that she look that way, rather than happy and buoyed by the crowd.
And why no mention of the Podesta emails ?
He was definitely holding back after he hit her. I am not sure if he didn’t want to be too confrontational, or if he spared her purposely, so he could really unload in the last debate.
As you suggested he might, he hit her with “Special Prosecutor”.
Yeah, I liked that a lot.
Trump should not have apologized for “locker room talk.” He should have said, “That’s what normal men do. And normal women don’t freak out about it. Now let’s talk about Hillary cackling over gaddafi’s death and ruining US-Russian relations by calling Putin Hitler. Guess what folks, I think the wicked witch beside me is running out of rhetorical spells.”
My favorite part was when Hillary’s rage was so strong that she was hexing the lights over her with her mind, and an aura of darkness and evil surrounded her.
AC, I think Trump may have taken your prior advice and used parts of the “Mike Wallace Debates a Marine” – http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-part-ii-mike-wallace-debates-a-marine/
Excerpts.
First,.. Colonel Connell goes straight for the Liberal jugular, and simply describes his gut emotional reaction to Wallace’s position, and implies it should be every other individual’s response as well.
Second, and even more important, Colonel Connell “out-groups” Mike Wallace. Wallace isn’t in the in-group anymore – he is a traitor on the outside of our group. Liberals are innately programmed to fear this.
This is devastating to the Narcissist’s necessary self-image of being the superior individual (a similar trait to the Liberal’s need to feel superior to the Conservative in some fashion, despite their laughable patheity). Notice, Colonel Connell presents this with no debate, as almost an irrelevant afterthought to another, more important issue. Most people wouldn’t even register it, but Wallace did, and even worse, he never even got to argue with the portrayal. Deep down, every Liberal ideologue knows they are a psychological pansy in a species which reviles such – and the characterization hurts them far more than we can imagine.
Colonel Connell also reinforced this effect through his use of the word contempt. The words angry, saddened, infuriated, etc all portray to a Narcissist (and a Liberal ideologue) their own power to evoke such emotions in their adversary, as well as their adversary’s ability to be emotionally unbalanced and controlled.
Always denigrate the Liberal’s importance and power within the social environment, and never imply they are important enough to warrant a real emotion. In the language of Heartiste, this would be referred to as “frame.” You are so awesome, and the Liberal such a pathetic peon, you really could care less about them, beyond a passing feeling of contempt when they cross your radar.
Many have noted that Narcissists are like children. Offer them two options to explain their behavior, both bad, and those are the only two options they will see. “Either you are [bad option one] or you are [bad option two]? Which is it?” Whatever it is about their personality quirk, this will trip them up quite reliably, especially if you offer some fact, however tenuous, supporting the idea that one of the two bad options must be true. I have used it, and it is incredible how they will limit their thought processes to the two options, and panic if neither is acceptable. They actually do not have the ability in the midst of debate to find their way to a third option which would rescue them from their conundrum.
Of course, Colonel Connell’s’ delivery, totally unemotional, with slit thin eyes delivering a death stare of hatred, was perfect. It even carried just the right amount of a subconscious air of violent conflict. Not so much Wallace could portray Colonel Connell as an extremist who might kill him, but enough Wallace knew that a battlefield execution for such disloyalty might be a possibility in Colonel Connell’s world.
The ‘Tell’ it is working. since it is established that those with amygdala damage cannot make eye contact, or even examine the areas around another person’s eyes to gather emotional cues.
Was out eating and the only TV was not visible from where I was sitting. Photo’s and excerpts seem to show each point and Yes the ‘Tell’ too. Thanks for giving us a heads up on what to watch for.
It is possible Trump figured all this out himself. He has dated a lot of ultra pretty celebrity women, who probably score high on narcissism, and Marla Maples clearly had an amygdala issue, so he could have picked it up there, using his knowledge of psychology to tease it out. He is definitely a mechanistic psychology, and a ponderer – and there is nothing like a marriage to a narcissist to get you pondering about why the fuck this person is so weird.
That said, I loved how he whipped it out like a weapon, to control the behavior of everyone. When the hag moderating the debate decided to come back to the tape, and then Hillary tried to milk it for everything, Trump whipped out that amygdala hit, leveled Hillary, and suddenly Hillary was happy to see the whole thing dropped, and the moderators quickly got off that topic.
I almost think the hijack manipulated the moderators as much as Hillary. Rabbits run in the face of confrontation, be it a pissed off Marine decrying treason, or a billionaire who shows he isn’t politely taking any more shit, and we are now moving on.
Notice also today, Trump pointed out if they still want to talk about the tape, he is happy to keep talking about Bill. That was an amygdala play which will work better because he hit her amygdala emotionally in the debate.
This is unprecedented for a Republican candidate, it is beaucoup K, and the public seem to be eating it up.
Nothing like K-selection approaching to make people want their leader to be a K.