Psychology 101

Thymotic energies – repressed for too long and having no direction to flow towards – must find a focus to unleash their fury upon – a target to release their libidinal pressure. Any excuse will do, when an image must be cultivated and maintained to attract, and yet still not face the repercussions.
‘Going berserk’ was a state of mind used in battle conditions, to take advantage of an individual's aggregate energies (synergy). Now it becomes a permanent psychological state, particularly amongst young males not raised with male figures to teach them a more eloquent form of masculinity; a masculinity that does not reject femininity but dominates it.

Thieves & Plagiarizers

Thieves quickly pawn their bounty, as if they were the rightful owners and creators, attempting to erase the sequence of events, exposing him as a perpetrator of an injustice.
On occasion, the thief takes a fancy to what he's taken from others, desiring it for himself; a token of his self-appreciation, a memento of his unacknowledged talent.
Wanting to keep them, he slightly modifies his collection so that he can publicly display them, adorning himself with evidence of his crimes, even in the presence of those he stole them from, hoping nobody will recognize them, in their revised state, and him as a thief.
If he is successful he will proceed to slightly modify his recollection, converting himself to the victim of an injustice that was quickly remedied when he reclaimed what was rightfully his own.

Shame & Guilt were not invented by Abrahamism; they were weaponized, used as a tool to manipulate and exploit, basing it on lies.
Christians, in particular, used a hypothetical primordial event, to shame, seeding guilt in its minions.
Just as they promoted a false, and duplicitous conception of free-will, they manipulated a naturally emerging insecurity – self-awareness produced – offering it a possible relief through submission.

Shame – in the Pagan sense – denotes a holding self accountable, not to an external will but to one's own principles, one's own ancestors, values, ideals.
One does not feel guilty about some event that occurred without his participation, or his consent, but one feels guilty when he fails to live-up to his own standards, or when he contradicts, with his actions and choices, his own ideals, and his own conception of himself.

The Jews converted their shame into pride, by inverting the world: flipping the phenomenon/noumenon hierarchy...placing the ideology, representing them, above all earthly kings.
They hid their shame in false pride, making themselves an abstraction, buried in superstitious obscurantism; able, and willing to do the work no other tribe could, attracting the shameless in every tribe...becoming arrogant in their new-found embracing of shame: proud of their shamelessness.

Muslims converted the shame, for having been born human, into a self-liquidating epiphany: cleansing the world of their presence in a final act of redemption.

Plato's Republic offers as a hint into human psychology, through the concept of the Philosopher King: those who crave power are the least worthy of it, and the ones most likely to be corrupted by its intoxication.

The same can be said about those who crave accolades, recognition, love, or who declare their own 'genius', as a matter of fact.
In their desperation they reveal the opposite of what they wish to display.
Their craving for the intoxication displays an ignorance concerning the necessary costs.
Having no personal experience with what they covet, they've built a fantasy around their imagined appreciation of the outcome.
They see a destination reached, but have no way of knowing the path to get there.
A path of uncertainty, trials and tribulations, slowly grinding away arrogance, in the ones who undertake it.
The traveller who begins the trip with confidence, is changed by the ascent. A different man reaches the destination.
Arrogance softened by humility, only those who have reached the destination could ever fully understand.

Dissonance between words spoken and deeds performed, must be quieted by favouring the body’s displays, ignoring the words being spoken; integrating them as one integrates spices into the cooking and presentation of a dish.
Contrary to popular dogmatic narratives, we must admit that ‘first comes the action’, and words/symbols serve the purpose of emphasizing and/or of de-emphasizing with metaphorical displays.

Creativity and insight are involved in humour.
Making another laugh acquires an erotic release of libidinal energies, akin to orgasm, and its hyperventilating spasms.
Creativity appreciated in males, displaying their mental symmetry and proportionality.
The female experiences it as what it is: the brain’s orgasm. She becomes enamoured with the male that can make her body, or mind, or, preferably both, spasm and convulse uncontrollably, signalling her approval (surrender) by throwing back her head, exposing her jugular.
Female orgasm increasing the probability of being fertilized by the particular male’s sperm, corresponds to an increase in female mental receptivity – her 'opening up' and accepting – to the male’s ideas, if he can make her laugh.

From another point of view, feminization implies that all males, including hyper-masculine ones, are emasculated. The popular psychology is distinctly female.
Females are pragmatic, in that they surrender to power, or accept their circumstances. Entropy is irresistible.
Order is imperfect and ephemeral – washed away by increasing entropy.
The male is about order. The female is attracted to the male, but also laughs at him, knowing that despite his superior physical and mental attributes – his superior order – he too must be swept away by chaos.
Jewish comedy is an outcrop of this feminine cynical, ridicule of all forms of order.
The ancient tragic/comedy has given in to comedy, and its outer pretenses, while the tragic is repressed and internalized; the weakling, the coward, the inferior laughs at what is above it, because it will suffer the same fate as everyone else.
That in the brief moment of conscious existence the weakling exposes himself as what he is, for all eternity, fails to register.
What matters for the ‘victim of natural selection,’ is that all, even the beautiful, even the genius, will give-into entropy. This is equality via the negative.

Sadness
Sadness is the readjustment of one’s self-evaluation, in relation to world – a ‘reality-check’; a capitulation of the ideal to the real.
If the process is prolonged the individual has failed to adjust its self-appreciation to reality, and/or its ego is unable to accept this readjustment, when it is a downgrade.  

Sadness is the capitulation of the soul to horror. It weeps for its own fated future and un-vindicated past.

When the inevitable is accepted as inescapable, the first stage is sadness… then anger… then acceptance.
Some never get over the first stage.

When the individual is overwhelmed, or threatened by otherness, by world, it turns inward to preserve itself.
This diminishes its character, the public self, and refocuses on the private self.
This is sadness: cocooning to enable time to heal damage done, or to adapt to the new circumstances due to irreversible losses.

Pity
The emotion with which the ego finds in the other a reflection it is saddened by.
Mixed in with sadness is a bit of joy, for not being this other.
This creates the power relationship between the pitied and the one who pities. Every gesture of compassion a display of superiority.

To pity one’s self is to wish for the other’s recognition of you as being a pitiful; a silent cry for help in a world that does not care.

Pity distances itself from the cruel aspects of its kindness when the intended recipient is so decrepit that he can only respond with abject humility. But when it is confronted with the possibility of full exposure it returns to its symbolic power of condescending gestures.

Pity is extroverted sadness. Instead of turning inwards, towards the private self, the personality, the individual deals with loss and/or threats, with a projection outwards.

Pity is the final refuge of the degraded coward. He tries to evoke it, as a magical shield, or calls upon it as an enchanted weapon to cut to pieces.
Pity is Judeo-Christianity’s last refuge. Self-pity is its pathos.

Melancholy

The quintessential state of mind, produced by Modernity, and its lifestyles, motives, and ambitions, detached and detaching from nature/past, redefining words and producing narcissism, schizophrenia and cynicism, as part of its inter-relating structures, is melancholy; an underlying sense of sadness that goes beyond the immediate – which may be pleasant, and comfortable.
The individual psyche surrounded by easy quantities, loses himself in them, unable to grab onto a single quality that will not be discredited, surpassed, and replaced in the endless progress towards… (?)

A mind (pre)occupied by the entire length of its temporal passing, is caught between a sense of sad nostalgia – when facing its past – and a sense of anxious dismay – when facing the inevitable future.
This mingling of the ‘never to be returned,’ confronted by an unpredictably inevitable future, is what we call melancholy.
Only minds that can exist beyond the shallow boundaries of the undefinable present, can feel this emotion. The simpler mind is forever preoccupied in the ongoing present, losing itself in the mayhem.

To be sad for no apparent reason, when the reason falls away from the immediate.

More, in reference to posts made [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
The organism need not understand or consent to its own behaviour,a s is evident in the reproductive process.

A male mountain goat competes with others male mountain goats, forgoing its foraging, in preparation for the coming winter.
It, essentially, ignores its own well-being,, driven by an esoteric impulse it cannot comprehend not resist, to follow a genetic programming that may result in its death.

This is the mechanism Nihilism exploits.
Specifically the memetic virus can evolve a self-perpetuating mechanism that goes against the well-being of the organism (host) it infects.
This is a case of memes contra genes.
This same mechanism is at work in natural parasites that hijack an organism, making it behave in ways that leads to its inevitable death....and that of the parasite that has corrupted it....because both parasite and the host it infects, using the parasite as the mediating proxy, are dominated by the virus' reproductive impulse. They a re means to its end, and its end is propagation and survival.

These are the basics in the memetic virus, called nihilism.
It infiltrate an organism (organization) via its weakest point - in this case insecurity and vulnerability....since it is a mental, a psychological virus - ergo it is memetic
It manifests in a multiplicity of ways, each determined by the particularities of the host it intestates. This is why Nihilism has so many variations.
The one that interests us is the one currently dominating the west, through its infestation of a power host, called the US.
It was a small player, before this, infecting weak hosts, like Egypt, Spain, Germany etc, taking advantage of their socio-economic decline. A virus always infects weakness.
This infestation has a peculiarity - it is a symbiont...that is, at some point it infected a host that did not attempt to expel it but embraced it, manifesting in a symbiotic relationships...a mutually beneficial one...since the host was parasitical when it was infected via the Zoroastrianism strain.
virus enhanced the hosts' parasitism, and the virus gains reproductive potentials, from the hosts submission to its ends.

This is allegorically represented by 'choseness' and the story about a theoretical, ambiguous, abstract idea, called God, being rejected by all tribes, except one....the 'chosen'.
This is where things become convoluted, because language and the conceptualizing it represents, is corrupted by the virus,a s part of its effects on the host - it uses the corruption of semiotics to zombify the host.

The hosts' survival, nor the symbiont, is the goal....the goal is the virus' survival and propagation. In other words, the nihilistic ideologies, no matter what form it may take.
The ideal is what must survive, even at the cost of both host and the parasite that delivers it.
The parasite is also infected, only it does not know it, nor does it care, interpreting its infection as an invigoration, an enlightenment, an empowerment.

The parasite thinks and acts in ways that destroy both the host it pretends to belong to, and itself...because its own survival; is not the goal.
It is the sick one who does not want to return to health, having embraced its sickness as a new kind of health...inverting reality.

At no point does the infected one need to become ware of its illness...in fact to become aware is the first step towards health - just as the first step towards becoming free of drugs is to acknowledge that you are addicted to them, ignoring the pleasure you feel when under their influence.
The infected one can behave in accordance to the ideology's principles, even if these gradually condemn it to death, feeling pleasure under its influence...not understanding why others are reacting negatively towards it, feeling wronged and victimized by prejudice, because ti cannot understand why others are so negative when they are not infected by the same disease.
A drug addict feels at home around other junkies, and a drunkard affinity among is fellow drinkers.
Perhaps they explain the negative reactions, from those not inebriated or 'high' as envy.....an expression of jealousy towards his pleasure.
A drunk wants all to become as drunk as he is....a junky inadvertently promotes his drug of choice, as a matter of fact.

When the idea(l) is confronted by the real it must adjust its patterns to those confronting it, preparing for some degree of impact, and subsequent attrition. Stubbornness, egoism, mental fog and psychological blindness prevents most individuals from making the appropriate evasive manoeuvres, in order to fall in-line (harmonize) with reality; a violent crash is inevitable.
Depending on how contradictory the idea(l) is to the real, and how fanatical the driving will's ego-fog, or inherited blindness is, decides how devastating the impact will be.
Some are severely traumatized (broken to pieces), spending a lifetime recovering, recollecting themselves; relearning the basics, from the start: how to properly act, and how to properly speak, and how to honestly and clearly look and see; some are broken – never recovering any semblance of their previous condition – existing in their head, as an avatar, barely taking note of the world around them. Their pieces are recollected and compartmentalized, constructing contradictory self-images in their head.
Some they isolate and try to forget about, others they promote and bring to the forefront of their consciousness, making them agents in an mental incarceration unit, populated by multiple personalities, screaming in their isolation cells.
The ego promotes to the position of 'warden' one preferred mental agency as its representative - its character/caricature.

The idea(l) is always a contradiction of the real. Whether this contradiction takes the form of a replacement, correction, refinement or a total annulment is irrelevant. Therefore when one wishes to remain himself, one strives, against all odds, for an idea(l) by constantly resisting the real.
The naive nihilist is the one that thinks this striving can be finalized with a total, and absolute rejection, whereas the cleverer nihilist totally dismisses reality, as a necessary part of the resistance – producing the friction we feel as need/suffering – so as to claim, even to his own surprise, that he is already non-existent. He calls this ‘surprise’ an ‘epiphany’, and the revelation of his hypothetical non-existence, he calls his ‘enlightenment’.

An irony only psychology can shed light upon:
Those who most adamantly profess an admiration of chaos, the nil, or the Dionysian, in Nietzschean contexts, are the most passionate defenders of law & order, or anything that minimized the uncertainty principle, reducing the possibility for violence and destruction.

The only 'chaos' they are obsessed about is an 'esoteric' one...a duplicitous, pretentious admiration, to create an image, and/or an internal turmoil they can easily medicate, escaping internally the vary thing they claim to admire.

Males are beginning to be dominated by a sense of insecurity and vulnerability, expressed as hyper-masculinity.
Their size or aces to weapons does not assuage this creeping feeling of profound confusion.
They are attacked by forces muscles and guns cannot defeat.
A different kind of warfare...an asymmetrical, and beyond, anything they've ever known before.
A 'War Like no Other'....a 'Nebulous War'.
They know not why they feel such unease. They know not how to begin to defend themselves against an insidious, invisible, enemy.
They know not what memetic warfare is about, being able to only deal with genetic, physical enemies.

The nihilist does not begin with the observed.
It proves to be 'too much' for him to accept, or 'too little' to gratify his high idealistic conceptions of himself.

When searching for 'himself' the reflection in the mirror, as a starting point, is insufficient, for the first because he does not like what he sees, and for the second because he is insulted by the flaws of what he sees.
Such psychotics cannot begin building identity from the image of the apparent.
They need an absolute certainty...a one or a nil. Top<>Down Emoting.

The self has to begin with an idealized perfection, a godly conception, the image must be hiding....or it must be negated as too insulting, too hurtful to be acknowledged.
The one who does not want to find himself defines the terms he sues in supernatural, unrealistic, ways, guaranteeing himself a lifetime of seeking and never finding, or of declaring without justifying.

They can never begin with the apparent, the present, the perceived, and work from there, building an edifice of probability.
Both 'pure' & 'positive' Nihilist, must begin with an ideal....called 'god', or symbolized by some other word - given another name.
The ideal is always an absolute: perfect, whole. A one.
It is so only because it is idea, and they must begin with the noumnenon, the idea(l), only arbitrarily and selectively integrating the appearance, as a matter-of-fact concession with minimal, to them, importance.

The apparent is ignored....and what they must always begin with is the manmade, the ideological, the socio-economic, religious, or anything that is a human construct.
They must validate their desired 'outcome"; all is subjective and a product of a subjective mind....not an interpretation of an objective reality, flawed and imperfect, but always a product of a will, some kind of intentional power, some consciousness with purpose.
If not an external, god-creator, Will, then they as that internal, god-creator, Will.

Humility is the desperate disavowal of one's fortune. When faked, it attributes to fortune what was premeditated. This is to say nothing of the falsity/correctness of that attribution from a position of ignorance - being its own vice. The wise measure the probability of its premeditation, without closing it to reanalysis.

If one does not, first, understand the inherent aggression of penetration -evolved heterosexual method of reproduction- then he can never begin to understand the psychologies that evolve to facilitate it - the socialized roles of feminine/masculine.

Heterosexual reproduction evolved after single-cell mitosis.
The fight/flight mechanism had already evolved, and was a hindrance to the heterosexual method.
Lust/Love....are part of nature's way of dealing with the 'problem'.
Eros....a form of hormonally induced madness.
Underlying it all is mortality. Death, the biggest issue for a living organism.
Sex is a kind of antidote.

Concerning the specie homo sapient and Herbivores/Omnivores/Carnivores....

Spengler, Oswald wrote:

MAN is a beast of prey. Acute thinkers, like Montaigne and Nietzsche, have always known this. The old fairy-tales and the proverbs of peasant and nomad folk the world over, with their lively cunning: the half-smiling penetration characteristic of the great connoisseur of men, whether statesman or general, merchant or judge, at the maturity of his rich life: the despair of the world improver who has failed: the invective of the angered priest — in none of these is denial or even concealment of the fact as much as attempted. Only the ceremonious solemnity of idealist philosophers and other . . . theologians has wanted the courage to be open about what in their hearts they knew perfectly well. Ideals are cowardice. Yet, even from the works of these one could cull a pretty anthology of opinions that they have from time to time let slip concerning the beast in man.
Today we must definitely settle accounts with this view. Scepticism, the last remaining philosophical attitude that is possible to (nay, that is worthy of) this age, allows no such evasion of issues. Yet, for this very reason, neither would I leave unchallenged other views that have been developed out of the natural science of last century. Our anatomical treatment and classification of the animal world is (as is to be expected from its origin) dominated entirely by the materialist outlook. Granted that the picture of the body, as it presents itself to the human (and only to the human) eye, and a fortiori that of the body as dissected and chemically treated and experimentally maltreated, eventuates in a system — the system founded by Linnæus and deepened in its palæological aspect by the Darwinian school — a system of static and optically appreciable details, yet after all there is another, a quite other and unsystematic, ordering according to species of life, which is revealed only through unsophisticated living with it, through the inwardly felt relationship of Ego and Tu, which is known to every peasant, but also to every true artist and poet. I love to meditate upon the physiognomic of the kinds of animal living, the kinds of animal soul, leaving the systematic of bodily structure to the zoologists. For thereupon a wholly different hierarchy, one of life and not of body, discloses itself.
A plant lives, although only in the restricted sense a living being. Actually there is life in it, or about it. ‘It’ breathes, ‘it’ feeds, ‘it’ multiplies, we say, but in reality it is merely the theatre of processes that form one unity along with the processes of the natural environment, such as day and night, sunshine and soil-fermentation, so that the plant itself cannot will or choose. Everything takes place with it and in it. It selects neither its position, nor its nourishment, nor the other plants with which it produces its offspring. It does not move itself, but is moved by wind and warmth and light.
Above this grade of life now rises the freely mobile life of the animals. But of this there are two stages. There is one kind, represented in every anatomical genus from unicellular animals to aquatic birds and ungulates, whose living depends for its maintenance upon the immobile plant-world, for plants cannot flee or defend themselves. But above this there is a second kind, which lives on other animals and whose living consists in killing. Here the prey is itself mobile, and highly so, and moreover it is combative and well equipped with dodges of all sorts. This second kind also is found in all the genera of the system. Every drop of water is a battlefield and we, who have the land-battle so constantly before our eyes that it is taken for granted or even forgotten, shudder to see how the fantastic forms of the deep sea carry on the life of killing and being killed.
The animal of prey is the highest form of mobile life. It implies a maximum of freedom for self against others, of responsibility to self, of singleness of self, an extreme of necessity where that self can hold its own only by fighting and winning and destroying. It imparts a high dignity to Man, as a type, that he is a beast of prey.
A herbivore is by its destiny a prey, and it seeks to escape this destiny by flight, but beasts of prey must get prey. The one type of life is of its innermost essence defensive, the other offensive, hard, cruel, destructive. The difference appears even in the tactics of movement — on the one hand the habit of flight, fleetness, cutting of corners, evasion, concealment, and on the other the straight-line motion of the attack, the lion’s spring, the eagle’s swoop. There are dodges and counter-dodges alike in the style of the strong and in that of the weak. Cleverness in the human sense, active cleverness, belongs only to beasts of prey. Herbivores are by comparison stupid, and not merely the ‘innocent’ dove and the elephant, but even the noblest sorts like the bull, the horse, and the deer; only in blind rage or sexual excitement are these capable of fighting; otherwise they will allow themselves to be tamed, and a child can lead them.
Besides these differences in kind of motion, there are others, still more effective, in the organs of sense. For these are accompanied by differences in the mode of apprehending, of having, a ‘world.’ In itself every being lives in Nature, in an environment, irrespective of whether it notices this environment, or is noticeable in it, or neither. But it is the relation — mysterious, inexplicable by any human reasoning — that is established between animal and environment by touching, ordering, and understanding, which creates out of mere environment a world-around.
The higher herbivores are ruled by the ear, but above all by scent; the higher carnivores on the other hand rule with the eye. Scent is the characteristically defensive sense. The nose catches the quarter and the distance of danger and so gives the flight movement the appropriate direction, away from something.
But the eye of the preying animal gives a target. The very fact that, in the great carnivores as in man, the two eyes can be fixed on one point in the environment enables the animal to bind its prey. In that hostile glare there is already implicit for the victim the doom that it cannot escape, the spring that is instantly to follow. But this act of fixation by two eyes disposed forward and parallel is equivalent to the birth of the world, in the sense that Man possesses it — that is, as a picture, as a world before the eyes, as a world not merely of lights and colours, but of perspective distance, of space and motions in space, and of objects situated at definite points. This way of seeing which all the higher carnivores possess — in herbivores, e.g. ungulates, the eyes are set sideways, each giving a different and non-perspective impression — implies in itself the notion of commanding. The world-picture is the environment as commanded by the eyes. The eye of the beast of prey determines things according to position and distance. It apprehends the horizon. It measures up in this battle field the objects and conditions of attack. Sniffing and spying, the way of the hind and the way of the falcon, are related as slavery and dominance. There is an infinite sense of power in this quiet wide-angle vision, a feeling of freedom that has its source in superiority, and its foundations in the knowledge of greater strength and consequent certainty of being no one’s prey. The world is the prey, and in the last analysis it is owing to this fact that human culture has come into existence.
And, lastly, this fact of an innate superiority has become intensified, not only outwards, with respect to the light-world and its endless distances, but also inwards, as regards the sort of soul that the strong animals possess. The soul — this enigmatic something which we feel when we hear the word used, but of which the essence baffles all science, the divine spark in this living body which in this divinely cruel, divinely indifferent world has either to rule or to submit — is the counter-pole of the light-world about us, and hence man’s thought and feeling are very ready to assume the existence of a world-soul in it. The more solitary the being and the more resolute it is in forming its own world against all other conjunctures of worlds in the environment, the more definite and strong the cast of its soul. What is the opposite of the soul of a lion? The soul of a cow. For strength of individual soul the herbivores substitute numbers, the herd, the common feeling and doing of masses. But the less one needs others, the more powerful one is. A beast of prey is everyone’s foe. Never does he tolerate an equal in his den. Here we are at the root of the truly royal idea of property. Property is the domain in which one exercises unlimited power, the power that one has gained in battling, defended against one’s peers, victoriously upheld. It is not a right to mere having, but the sovereign right to do as one will with one’s own.
Once this is understood, we see that there are carnivore and there are herbivore ethics. It is beyond anyone’s power to alter this. It pertains to the inward form, meaning, and tactics of all life. It is simply a fact. We can annihilate life, but we cannot alter it in kind. A beast of prey tamed and in captivity — every zoological garden can furnish examples — is mutilated, world-sick, inwardly dead. Some of them voluntarily hunger-strike when they are captured. Herbivores give up nothing in being domesticated.
Such is the difference between the destiny of herbivores and that of the beast of prey. The one destiny only menaces, the other enhances as well. The former depresses, makes mean and cowardly, while the latter elevates through power and victory, pride and hate. The former is a destiny that is imposed on one, the latter a destiny that is identical with oneself. And the fight of nature-within against nature without is thus seen to be, not misery, as Schopenhauer and as Darwin’s ‘struggle for existence’ regard it, but a grand meaning that ennobles life, the amnor fati of Nietzsche.
And it is to this kind and not the other that Man belongs.

I understand techniques and technologies as man's externalization of internal processes, as these become apparent to him, and to the degree that he can understand them.
An externalization adopting external mediums (phenomena), to return to the world esoteric, (noumena) abstractions.
Here we must include marriage, monogamy, language, as techniques....art.
Technologies are 'art' with a function, a pragmatic application, other than as mere representation and of expunging reactions towards reality.
Techniques & Technologies are reactions with a function, whereas art is reaction with only relief as its function - -pleasure based.
Sex with no intent for reproduction can fall in the category of technique with no outcome, other than self-expunging, pure reactivity - hedonism.
A technique used by many species to reaffirm hierarchies and to rid the group of accumulated stress.

Sociopath = an individual who secretly hates himself so much that he's outsourced his self-hatred.
He seeks his own destruction by destroying the world, or the system that helps preserve him.

He can identify only with himself - understood as his basic needs/desires, experienced as an impulse. The sensations/feelings he is certain of; he can trust.

A narcissist outsources the negative, including his self-hatred, self-doubt, so as to preserve his 'positive' purity.
He unloads upon others the negative, to make himself 'perfect'.
A sociopath secretly wants to die, but he cannot bring himself to admit it, so he redirects this desire through others. He conspires to destroy, to minimize, to negate others, so as to also negate himself.

A narcissists secret motive is survival despite the costs.
A sociopath's secret motive is death despite the benefits.

To understand the psychological difference between different biological types we must properly place them within space/time contexts.
For example the difference between the alpha and the omega male/female is best clarified by properly defining and applying language.
Some preliminary work is important before the picture starts to clarify.

We begin with Hedegger's definition of space.
Space = possibility. Therefore Time = movement/momentum through this field of possibilities.
Probability would be a qualification of possibility - a restriction of it.
Probability = matter/energy, or what we humans call the aesthetic, the material, the tangible. A probability is a perceived pattern within the void/dark field of possibility.  
Space is mostly interpreted as dark and void because the human mind cannot perceive any pattern to identify and appreciate as probability.

Now, all this may seem superfluous given the subject, but without an understanding of space/time we cannot fully appreciate the psychological differences between all living types - from species to sexual, and from dominant to dominated.
I've claimed 'indifference' is a trait of an alpha...or a dominant male.
not absolute indifference but relative indifference in comparison to an omega, for example.
Not indifference towards the desired outcome, but indifference concerning the particular.

An alpha male is indifferent towards the specific female, just as a good hunter, a confident one, is indifferent towards the particular prey.
On the opposite side, an insecure hunter is desperate for the kill; if he fails his confidence will decrease further, reducing his success in the next attempt.
The confident, gifted hunter does not suffer so much from failure of the particular, because he is sure - within reasonable doubt - that he will make the next one. His 'certainty' is based no precedent....another temporal concept.
Precedent = the known & understood past - first-hand Experience and second-hand Knowledge.
Precedent is the foundation of science and reasoning. All judgements are juxtapositions, and good judgements incorporate precedent (past) into their juxtapositions, as a standard for evaluating/judging all that appears is present - because presence in a manifestation of past.

In this case precedent builds positive and/or negative experience.
The alpha's is 'positive' whereas the omegas is 'negative'.
This is not an arbitrary fact, because success and failure are not only determined by the actor's attitude, but also a product of his inherited traits - again space/time in the form of past creeps into our analysis.
A beautiful woman may not know why males are falling over themselves to seduce her, she need not know to take advantage of it.
Presence need not be aware of the past it is a manifestation of in order to behave, act, as it does due to this past.
Knowing and Understanding the past may increase self-knowledge but it may also inhibit the efficiency and the effectiveness of the performance.
For example, a dancer preoccupied with the sexual symbolism of the dance he/she is performing will not dance gracefully, but self-consciously.
We touch upon the topic of 'being in the moment' - what is called 'the zone'. The mind focused on the act, the performance, to the point of excluding all other considerations
What I just mentioned clarifies the difference between gamma and both alpha & omega psychologies.  

Why is the gamma like an alpha but may fail, like an omega to perform on the level of the alpha?
Because of his/her self-consciousness. A factor that inhibits efficiency and effectiveness but also the desire to perform, at all.

But I digress...
An alpha has inherited, or he/she cultivated inherited traits, that increased his general confidence, and decreased his interest in the specific.
Whether he is alpha due to inheritance or personal cultivation is important, but we need not explore this difference within our present analysis.
We call this relative indifference 'confidence'. It is the first thing females think of when the concept of alpha and omega males comes up, because a female's genius approaches all subjects from the emotional angle.
They begin with the apparent, and the apparent is most often an automated emotional reaction the male cannot control, nor be aware of.
In fact control and awareness are also tied together...also another matter to explore.

Confidence means that the individual is relatively indifferent towards the specific, the particular instance, having precedent to gain assurance from.
A confident hunter, having successfully hunted in the past (precedent), will not be overly concerned with making the specific 'kill'. This would be decisive when hunting was a matter of life or death, and not a 'sport' as it is in modern times. A lot more than bravado rested on successful hunts.
Modern superfluousness has blurred the lines between alpha and omega. We need not hunt, when we can survive by going to the market, and we need not reproduce, given the amount of people presently alive in the world, or the alternative avenues to find sexual gratification available to the modern consumer.
Indifference can now be the product of superfluity and modern sheltering....but still we can recognize the differences in demeanour, through behavioural cues.

Many Moderns claim to be secular humanists, and atheists.
Yet, they've simply changed the words/symbols used to describe the exact same concepts Abrahamics espouse, and all monotheists worship.

It's a mater of updating the packaging....semiotics.
They reinvent themselves to pretend they've progressed, or have matured and broken free from infantile beliefs.
It's a method of self-deception, hoping, desperately hoping, that it will be convincing....because without believers their beliefs have no merit; unable to validate them using empiricism, or perceptible experienced phenomena, they must rely on convincing and convictions.
Their ideologies are entirely internal, esoteric, theoretical ideological. They cannot justify them without manipulating and exploiting idiocy, to gain popular consent.

Typically knowledge and understanding does not require consent - the one who knows and understands gains from it, without requiring any acknowledgement.
But the typical moron, retard, Modern, believes in ideas that are impotent, useless nonsense, so he must find followers or supporters or believers that lend credence to them...for a price. When someone 'lends' you something, he/she expects it back, or expects something in return that is equal or superior in value - a lending fee for misers.

Nihilism, and its by-product Feminism has already begin showing its effects.
The first generation of males entirely brought-up in this new-age where women have been given back their sexual power, enhanced by technologies, is starting to produce very tangible consequences.
Increasing males who are un-invested in the system - I call them free-radicals - are increasingly 'dropping out', detaching from reality.
Most find relief in technologies. Technologies compensating on both sides - providing females with a way out of their gender burdens, expanding their options - and placating the increasing numbers of males that need an outlet for their unfocused, disinterested, minds and bodies.  

This is the holocaust of our age.
Electronic numbing - lobotomising, castrating.
Boys unable to find balance, because they've been raised on the hyper-realities of computer simulations.

One male can now impregnate dozens of females, and females can choose to marry their institutional, abstract, husbands - finding some psychological compensation there. They call such marriages 'careers'.
Most will never bear children until this 'new reality' begins forcing them to adapt - as females easily do - to a world where they can find desperate males to gratify them physically, and, ephemerally - like purchasing a dog, or following a soap opera on TV - also psychologically distracting them from the emptiness they participated in bringing about.

The 'nice guy' will find vengeance, since he will be the go-to type - even if secretly females will abhor him and his energy. They will settle for his comforting presence, and grovelling readiness to please - like a pet.
They will not understand why they are unsatisfied, and where all the 'real men' have gone...because they can't think outside conventions, and those are merely repeating the same false narratives.
Demonizing males, after you've criminalized manhood, forcing boys to remain men-children - hedonistic, superficial douche-bags that avoid responsibility, at all costs, because the costs have reached the level of risking bankruptcy, with every copulation.  

Creeps, freaks, nerds, effete emasculated fags....simpletons, imbeciles, fakes....it's all that's left in the Modern market.

Female promiscuity will go wild in the coming decades.
Sluts and whores everywhere - illegitimate children, fatherless, being trained to despise masculinity, to feel ashamed of it; single mothers raising resentful monstrosities, that will require more immigrants to be imported to maintain the system.
A vicious cycle of degeneracy.

Paternalism is dead.
The father has been digitized.
May the gods help us all.

Sloterdijk, Peter wrote:

The difference between a relationship to the world that is primarily about seeing or primarily about hearing has immediate implications for the unusual question of where we are when we hear.  
To see something, the viewer must stand at a clear distance to the visible object. Being spatially apart and opposite suggests the assumption of a gap between subject and object that has not only a spatial but also an ontological effect.
The end result is that subjects see themselves as worldless observers who always adopt a kind of external relationship with the cosmos, which has already moved away from them; in that case subjectivity, rather like a predominantly theoretical divinity, would be first contemplative and then active.
To the extent that the visual world is a distant world, ocular subjectivity accompanies the tendency to interpret oneself as an eyewitness who cannot be involved.  The seeing subject stands ‘ at the edge’ of the world like a worldless and disembodied eye in front of a panorama – Olympian contemplation and optical theology are two sides of the same coin.
Philosophers trying to construe existence from the fact of hearing, however, could not have imagined an observer-subject far away at the imaginary outer limit of the world, because it is inherent in hearing that it never occurs except in the mode of being-inside the-sound. No hearer can believe that he or she is standing on the edge of the audible.
The ear knows no partner; it does not evolve a frontal ‘ view’ of objects at a distance, because it knows ‘world’ or ‘objects’ only to the extent that it is in the middle of  the acoustic event – or,  we could say,  insofar as it floats in or dives into the auditory space. It follows that from the beginning a philosophy of hearing would only be possible as a theory of being-inside – as an interpretation of the ‘intimacy’ that will become sensitive to the world through human wakefulness.  
However, humans usually react in the same way towards the audible as they do to their view of faraway things – namely, by objectifying and being distracted, not being intimate, remaining untouched in a self-protective, distancing mode.  
This reminds us that the liaison between the ear and intimacy cannot be exclusive. In other words, we cannot assume the entry of wakeful intimacy from hearing alone – just as little as we can transform people into mystics by telling them that they are beings-in-the-world.

[The Aesthetic Imperative]

This passage from Sloterdijk's book The Aesthetic Imperative indicates the psychological line between the exoteric and the esoteric thinker, or the introvert/extrovert.
Nietzsche divided it along the lines of herd & predator psychology, implying a divergence between the herbivorous and carnivorous approach to existence, or predator & prey.
We can use this division to fully comprehend the differences between Pagan, and/or Realism, and Abrahamic, and/or Nihilistic attitudes, producing their own outlooks, attitudes and relationships with world; their distinct philosophies.  
A predator is visually dominated – light is its medium; requiring light to focus upon and bring close, what is at a distance; it discriminates and clarifies – distinguishes.
It is separated, distanced from its goal, its prey, its objective, creating the attitude of objectivity: cold and calculated judging, relying on triangulating distances and acceleration (momentum).
The herbivore must evolve a multi-directional perspective. It uses sound and smell for an all-encompassing defensive perspective; it can be preoccupied, with feeding/foraging, for example, and still be alert to potential threats.
The herbivorous prey relies on confusion, creating uniformity to evade predators. Shadows, vagueness, confusion is its preferred environment – it wants to disappear into a collective.
Sound comes to it, as a passive receiver, and it must react, not knowing what it is. Sound is vague, imprecise. The herd must delve into memory to determine its nature, after it has reacted to it – flight.
Sloterdijk comments on this in relation to Cioran's musical theory:

Sloterdijk, Peter wrote:

This is not far removed from Emile Cioran’s curious musical theory:

Cioran, Emile wrote:

All that is musical in us is memory.  
When we did not have a name, we must have heard everything.
Music exists only as remembrance of paradise and the Fall.

If we succeeded in clarifying this Gnostic aphorism, we would have the key element of an in-depth musicology that would embrace both the musical art of the past and contemporary music.  
To explain this I shall simply divide Cioran’s remark into two main statements.  
First, we hear in advance, before individuation, which means that foetal hearing anticipates the world as a totality of noise and sound that is always in the process of coming; from the darkness the foetus listens ecstatically to the world of sound, usually oriented towards the world, leaning boldly forward to the future.
Second, after the formation of the ego we hear backwards – the ear wants to stop the world existing as a totality of noise, it yearns for the archaic euphony of the pre-world interior and activates the memory of a euphoric ecstasy that accompanies us like a night light from paradise. We could say that the individuated or unhappy ear continues irresistibly trying to move away from the real world towards a space of intimate a-cosmic reminiscences.

[The Aesthetic Imperative]

The audibly inclined will worship a return to the womb, where all sounds were comforting, and nonthreatening.
Noise coming to the foetus through a protective shield – vague, mysterious, and comforting. The psychology of Nihilism wants to believe in a vague benevolent all-encompassing Being – a womb. What it lacks in understanding it compensates for with feelings, emotions, delving into its memories to determine the nature of the mysterious sounds – subjectivity.  
Predators using sight, are light oriented, therefore humans would evolve a worshiping of light as divine mediator between subject – self – and objective, object – other.
Herbivores, or herd species, are sound and smell oriented. Degeneration of humans returns them to an infancy, where sight is still developing, permitting sound, smell, and touch to dominate.
Nihilism is a return to a foetal state – a return to the safety of mother's womb; feelings, touch, sounds engulfing them in amniotic love; a state where it cannot differentiate itself from the mother’s otherness.
Herd psychology – preoccupation surrounded by sounds; sounds that must be connected to memories, converting them from a source of stressful readiness comforting intimate.
We notice this difference is sensual approaches in the construction of philosophies, regarding existence.
The Nihilist, or Abrahamic – as this type manifests in the west – is predominately esoteric. It wants to exist within itself, or within a greater Self.  
It considers world a hindrance to its preoccupied imagination, its endless regurgitating ruminations.
Sound is imprecise, but engulfing, just as their usage of communication – language in the case of humans. Predators are silent; prey vocalizes constantly.
They are swept away by sounds – instinctively, intuitively, reacting to vocalizations, the sound of distress, of alertness, of comfortable rumination.
Even when written, the word is repeated internally to reverberate in the mind, as sound. Sound that can then be used to fantasize, to manipulate, in order to construct a perfect, all-encompassing, protective echo chamber. Return to ‘paradise’, or the hope of a coming ‘utopia’, is the psychological desire to return to where and when the world was only sound, beyond the protective shell, triggering reactions but never physically affecting the fetus. Words are used, by human herds, to construct noetic wombs; all-engulfing sonar chambers of music and joy. Herd psychology is a regression to the state of infancy – inversion of time/space – regression of maturity is ironically called ‘progress’: advancement back is inverted to an advancement forward. A world of subjectivity and self-referential sounding boards – inter-subjectivity.
Race, sex are social constructs because vision is not to be trusted, for the herbivore. It only reacts to sound: the sound of rustling, of a baby crying, of a sudden noise that makes it jump; the sound of comforting words helping it immerse in the collective hum.
The auditory dominated herd does not require light to listen. It may close its eyes to the world, and sleep, awakening only to unfamiliar sounds. Herds project an auditory wall of comforting braying, grunting, creating a sonar field – an embracing sound. Predators are always silent.[/quote]

Irresponsible Idiocy

A mind that has spent a lifetime making excuses to absolve itself of any severity of responsibility, concerning its own predicaments, will always begin to accuse others, for its own failings, and mistakes.
A healthy mind will begin with its own accountability, before it moves on to the other's role in its predicament, because even the other's influence is, mostly, based on a personal error. It is ‘I’ who failed to realize what a liar the other was; it is ‘I’ who made the mistake of judging the other trustworthy; it is ‘I’ who failed to accurately assess my environment and all those in it etc. So, my own judgment is to blame, even for the vices of others. I failed to understand what the other is, and what he is capable and/or incapable of. Not to hold one’s self accountable for others, but for one’s own self in relation to them.
It is ‘I’ who failed to adjust my own choices and actions according to others. They can only be what they are, but my judgment of them determines how ‘I’ project their probabilities in relation to my own needs/desires, and my own ideals.
Sometimes some minor self-critique is attempted to pretend that the individual is being objective. Something insignificant, some minor flaw is admitted, or self-critique is indirectly self-flattering; pretence of self-aggrandizement masked as self-abasement.
Such a mind can never grow because it consistently fails to account for its own errors in judgment, its own mistakes, and its own weaknesses.
It blames the world, so it never has to adapt and adjust itself in relation to the world; it repeats the same behaviours, making the same choices, suffering the same consequences. This is a type of victimhood. The mind begins feeling wronged, a victim of other people's vices and errors. Such a mind feels helpless to take its own fate in its own hands. It is always others that thwart its plans and that stand in the way of attaining its goals, because others are always part of its goals - either to acknowledge or to participate.
It never blames its own choices; never judges its own beliefs too harshly. It never takes responsibility for its own mistakes, but it also never seeks the source of these errors in its own ambitions, and the beliefs these are founded on. It repeats the same behaviours, and though it may change its choices – hoping for a different outcome – it never questions the beliefs these choices are founded upon.
When inevitable failure comes, its only explanation is an external agency.
Such a mind cannot break-out of its predicament, for genetic reasons – it is genetically incapable of this level of self-assessment – and because of ego: as time passes it becomes unlikely that it will dare to question decades of beliefs and opinions it has based countless choices upon. It is stuck in a rut that is growing deeper.
The awareness that its countless mistakes were founded on an erroneous central belief would be devastating, and as it grows older and its mistakes accumulate, the psychological devastation grows increasingly traumatic.

Ego does not allow such a mind to doubt its own core beliefs, to seek the error in its own choices and the central principles these were founded on, so it must continuously blame others, or some external force.
Such a mind will tend to prefer determinism as the ultimate self-absolution through absolutes. It comforts itself with a final claim at innocence and victimhood: ‘it could not have been any other way’. In this way it takes 'responsibility' for the outcome without holding itself accountable, without questioning the core values, the core beliefs that produced the outcome.
Hatred for other is released as a final surrender to otherness. The self remains an 'innocent victim' of circumstances, but the world is pulled down with it.
Self and other are now both helpless victims, and in a final act of defensive generosity, it accepts the outcome, not as just and good, but as inevitable – as the product of an external more powerful will, or as a product of omnipotent, mostly unknown and unconscious forces. The idea of an external consciousness is too much for the ego to bear.
Ego is protected with the universality of the claim. It wasn't about the individual’s personal choices and its personal beliefs, but this is the product of a universal truth. Essentially, the one-god's attribute of being the cause of all, good and bad, is maintained. Primordial sin is erased, but so is personal accountability. The individual can only accept God's will, now renamed 'Absolute Order,' because he can do nothing else – it’s a non-choice choice, if he wishes to 'save his ego' and not his 'soul'.
Something very traumatic is avoided. Not only his own role in his own fate, as the most crucial component, but something even more traumatic: the acknowledgement that everything that was suffered was the product of a flaw in the individual's very essence. Not only a flawed belief system leading to errors in judgment, but a genetic flaw, inherited from the parents.
An objective accounting would be subjectively suicidal.
How do you admit to yourself that the basic core beliefs were most to blame for everything you suffered – leading to a failure to accurately judge self in relation to other, and other in relation to self – the very foundation of a value judgment – but more importantly, how do you admit to yourself that even your commitment to flawed beliefs was a result of the inheritance of inferior potentials? This goes to the heart of one's ego.
Of course Christians took this and converted it to ‘primordial sin,’ and ‘eternal damnation,’ that not even death can save you from, offering self-purifying practices to manipulate the central desire to preserve ego, exploiting victimhood – herd psychology – to the fullest.
I believe Marxism capitalized on this core desire to protect the ego from the devastation of self-critique and accountability – there's always relief in denying the existence of self, and in its inclusion within a collective Self.
As long as ego – the lucid part of self – is protected from a psychologically devastating awareness then the sacrifice of self to a 'greater' Self, is justified – no, not merely justified, it is necessary.
In Christianity the eternal 'other' is represented by a lying, evil 'Satan'; in Marxism it is represented by the image of a greedy evil Capitalist.
Ego is preserved as the victim of an external other, swept away by historical circumstances. It immerses itself in a collective identity, finding solace in collective culpability that can always seek further relief by accusing its comrades of failing to live-up to collective ideals. The ideals are never in doubt, it is always their application that were flawed; just as the individual's core beliefs are never doubted, never questioned, but it is always the choices that were based on them that may be flawed – self-critique can go no further than a cursory acknowledgement that some wrong choices were made.

Jung, Carl wrote:

Another thing that struck me was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally, not due to the mixing of blood... the peculiar walked with loos joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro. American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance.

Jung, Carl wrote:

[T]he American presents a strange picture: a European with Negro behaviour and an Indian soul. He shares the fate of all usurpers of foreign soil. Certain Australian primitives assert that one cannot conquer foreign soil, because in it there dwell strange ancestor-spirits who reincarnate themselves in the newborn. There is a great psychological truth in this. the foreign land assimilates its conqueror. But unlike the Latin conquerors of Central and South America, the North Americans preserved their European standards with the most rigid puritanism, though they could not prevent the souls of their Indian foes from becoming theirs. Everywhere the virgin earth causes the unconscious of the conqueror to sink to the level of its indigenous inhabitants.

The Complications of American Psychology

Jung affirms the relationship of a a particular people, with particular genetic qualities, and the environment that shapes them.

It's easier to accuse other, than to seek the fault in self.
It's different to accept consequences, as a matter of accepting what has been done 'to you' than it is to accept responsibility, as a participating agency in your own circumstances - that's not taking responsibility, but it's fatalism: accepting what is inevitable.
This absolves the self from accountability, and only accepts the outcome, as a matter of 'fact'.

Causality is not responsibility.
Responsibility alludes to a wilful component - choice.
The brain does not want to accept that its own choices were 'part of' the causes for its own predicament - but only when these are 'negative' because it has no problem doing so when the consequences are 'positive' .
This is narcissism in a nut-shell.
The narcissist says to himself: "I made this happen. It's my genius that brought this about" ...in this case he doesn't say "This is a consequence of what is inevitable, it is written, determined one way or another, and I had no role in bringing it about".  When the consequences of causality, are 'negative' only then does he attempt to disconnect his own participation from the sequence of events that brought it about. Suddenly, he could not have done anything, it was inevitable, he is a 'victim' of circumstances...though he may not admit it openly he may describe the situation in 'victim-contexts'.
Denial can be absolute or in degrees, preserving the sense of self-criticism.
The individual may deny all personal responsibility for his own predicament, or may ascribe to them a minor degree, preserving the other as the 'evil' the primary factor.  

Dissonance between belief and actions exposes the degree of self-deceiving defensiveness.
This is why I've always repeated that Nihilism has to be self-contradiction, if it is to survive in reality - the disconnection of idea from real has to adjust to the real, otherwise death is certain. The idea, on its own is impotent....useless other than as a self-deceiving, self-numbing, component - when trauma has set-in.
We see this deception in all Abrahamic versions, but also in Marxism and all types of Nihilism.

For example: someone who denies any degree of free-will as a defensive, self-serving coping mechanism, exposes himself when he fails, unconsciously, to follow through with his own beliefs.
There's a dissonance in his own beliefs, according to his own principles.
Although he absolves himself of all responsibility, only accepting the outcome as a matter of 'accountability' and courage, he does not follow through and do the same for others. There he practices a different evaluating standard. He does not absolve other of responsibility but becomes brutal, over-compensating for his self-absolution. He doesn't excuse the other's actions, if they've hurt him, because the other, like himself, had no choice in the matter, but instead becomes doubly accusatory - unloading his own culpability upon him.

At the very least, if the other lied or wronged you, it was you who failed to see this possibility in him - you under-over-estimated him or yourself in relation to him.
The mistake, the fault was in your own judgment.

Examples of of the two expressions of narcissism, corresponding to 'positive' & 'pure' Nihilism:
One is direct and the other indirect. One leis about personal traits, finding ingenuous ways to excuse himself when he is discovered, and the other finds ingenious ways of justifying what he cannot prove.

Absolute free-will and the absolute absence of free-will (determinism) correspond accordingly.

The first cannot show his self-ascribed power, so he must declare it, repeating it, and then find ways to explain why he cannot display his 'superiority'.
Over-inflation of personal merit, ego, hyper-masculinity are all methods of compensating and then defensively explaining failure.
For example: someone can after-the-fact, claim that the outcomes were predicted, bu him, or even intended.

The second seeks self-love through association. He deserves to be saved for an eternity, because he is a 'sinner'...so his feebleness is the reason for his narcissistic overestimation of self.
His submission to fate is the reason why he is noble or brave...it is because he surrender to fate that he is 'brilliant', or 'honest', or whatever way he aggrandizes self. He is 'superior' because unlike others 'like him' he knows, or admits that he is weak, or a slave or a nothing.

If what I say is correct, and Nihilism is a reaction to self-awareness - offering advantages but also exposing the organism to distressing perspectives - then Nihilism is its defensive reaction, overcompensating in the areas it feels most vulnerable - exposed to them through gradually emerging self-awareness.
Absolutes are such defensive measures, dealing with fluctuating circumstances and uncertainty.

p.s. Don't know why that vid of that famous narcissist was taken down, but it was interesting.

Empathy, in its purest sense, is impossible when you are a narcissist, or a psychopath.
Overestimating self, in relation to other, corrupts our capacity to understand the other, just as underestimating self, in relation to other, does, as well.
Understanding other - getting into his mind - necessitates a repression of 'ego' and of self-interests, a gradual elimination of the self-projection...otherwise it becomes a simple matter of placing self in the other's circumstances and then imagining what it would feel like, or what you would do.
This is not empathy, but sympathy.....which can also be antipathy.

Any judgment error multiplies, over time.

The opposite of a narcissist is an empath. It requires the ability to humble the ego to the point that it no longer stands in the way of seeing the other as what he or she truly is, and not as you want him/her to be.
What you do with this insight is another mater.
Usually an empath is reluctant to do harm, because he understands, on a profound level, how this will impact the other....but not always.

A narcissist is incapable of this level of understanding. For him/her the other is always 'beneath', lower, because he overestimates self, or is marginally superior to the average or the majority.
The one who underestimates self is always slavish, insecure, self-abnegating, that may develop into a desire to destroy other, to bring him/her down, 'erasing' the cause of stress and suffering.

This inability of empathize leads to a compensation that goes too far the other way.
The narcissist, for instance, may become patronizing, or overly sycophantic, flattering, fawning...etc.
He/she has not ceased to be a narcissist but in his/her attempt to subdue his true opinion of other, without being able to truly empathize, he/she overshoots his performance, exposing it as being forced, fake.

The use of money is usually how one tries to compensate for any perceived flaw, and this could not be any different for a narcissist. Throwing money at the other, buying their tolerance of his emotional abuse is a way of preventing physical assault or fleeing - fight/flight.

When the feminine has fallen hard for the masculine he can do or say no wrong.
He can call her at any time, even on work days, and she'll happily wake up to greet him when he comes knocking; he can be insulting her, using pretty prose and poetry, and she will melt listening to the sound of his voice reciting; he could be spitting our nonsensical gibberish, in rhyming verse, and she'll think it's the most deeply emotional thing she's ever herd.
Such is the passionate madness of love, but, alas, it as quickly overwhelms as it inevitably dissipates.
Yet, by the time it does she's been fertilized by his seed, and only a risky surgical procedure can save her from carrying it to term, and releasing it into the world, no longer under her control.