Psychology 101

All psychology can be understood as the continuous method of processing and dealing with anxiety/fear....care, need.
All projections, all theoretical Utopia, all spiritual philosophical dogmas and doctrines...all dealing with existential anxiety/fear.
What is Paradise, other than a state of no fear?
What do all minds wish to associate with their virtue, other than the absence of fear? The honest ones admitting that fear can only be coped with, not eliminated.

Being in 'the moment' an implosion of spatial/temporal dimensions to a noetic 'point', to eliminate anxiety/fear, concerning the possible/probable.....so as to enjoy life, without care about what will be, what may be.

Anxiety/Fear the mother of all automated reactions - distinguishing friend from foe.
And when the need turned to cooperative methods, lust had to evolve, dealing with fight/flight triggered by anxiety/fear; from lust 'love' evolved, adding longer term tolerance, and bonding as a requirement for coping with anxiety/fear.

When man first hears the whispering of his own conciousness emerging, seemingly out of nowhere, his anxiety/fear turned it into an intimate entity; something it could reason with, prey to, grovel before, sacrificing anything, including freedom, including, in many cases, ego, as evidence of its willingness to do anything to deal with anxiety/fear.
And when conciousness of self reached an intolerable level, accentuating anxiety/fear, how did the mind cope?
It projected its own abstractions outward, converting the uncertain unknown into something more known.....at least knowable.
It saw itself reflected back, and its anxiety was reduced to a manageable level.

The 'end of days, 'end of times' the 'last man', the 'end is near', the 'coming Armageddon', the 'immanent collapse'...the 'end of knowledge' the 'end of philosophy', the 'end of the world'.
Such desperation in such ends.
Has the mind lost...itself. Has it declared its own surrender as an end in itself?
Does it want to end it all, for everyone, so that its own defeat is more tolerable?

The un-invested always dreams of a market crash, wanting to hide its own poverty.
Those who hate life paint it with such black and white colours.....even white can hide a death-wish.
is not white the colour of death in Hinduism?

Why have we recovering Abrahamics adopted 'black' the non-colour colour, as our hue of mourning?
Will not absolute heat end us, as fast as absolute cold?

Frost it is:

Irony of ironies, those that declare themselves non-believers of telos, believe in ends.
They only disbelieve in the pagan Greek version. It sounds more profound.
What's in a name? A word.

For the feminine pretty words, spoken by a masculine spirit, create an internal turmoil. She is swept off her feet, losing contact with the ground - she becomes groundless, floating upon the swirling winds of mind, where anything is possible, and the end itself is a welcoming bosom.
Do not go towards the light....death awaits, like a lover.

The feminine spirit wants to belong to something, anything, that will make her feel welcomed, like she belongs, like she is appreciated.
How many wo-men have been lost to the sugar drops of romantic prose, spoken with intoxicating eloquence?
What are boys if not immature males....fe-males.
Too many to count, and yet, no end to them.

Oral Fixations
Oral fixation is what characterizes our feminized, emasculated culture. The bonobo’s indulge in continuous copulation to relieve stress, and reaffirm hierarchies, avoiding the more chimpanzee, masculine-like, violence. They fuck continuously. But we, we Moderns, still trapped in our Judeo-Christian ethics, and a paternalism we claim we’ve surpasses, cannot indulge in orgies of that kind – at least not openly. At least not openly… not yet. We are still contained within the morality of Paternalistic monogamy, and that emotional crutch Christianity has blessed us with. Instead we deal in oral grooming; a continuous yapping, talking just to talk, oral sex, oral narcotics, smoking by sucking down on a phallic-shaped narcotic needle, endlessly feeding, as a baby does from its mother’s tit, feeling the endorphins lull our libido to sleep; this endless suckling from the proverbial teat of mother humanity. What we call education is no more than this suckling from the communal feeding trough, the shared breast.
We do not seek nutrients in the world, from the world, directly, but we remain infantile, forever stunted, retarded, immature, dependent on another to accumulate, and process nutrients for us, because that’s what a mother does: she collects nutrition from the world, converting it, for us, to a digestible form, so baby’s tummy does not get irritated.
And how different are today’s students. Do they not suckle what has already been collected, converted, and then fed to them through the institutional nipple? Are they not digesting processed nutrients?  You can always tell when a mind is stunted. It cannot speak outside references to other people. They, these retards, do not speak of the world by observing the world, but they speak of what someone else said about the world… for them. They suckle, swallow, and burp it up, when tummy is full.
It is said that lakonizein esti philosophein {λακονιζειν εστι φιλοσοφειν}, to be laconic is to be wise; a referenced to the ancient Spartans who spoke with few words and relied on actions, as men do. What was the absence of walls, around their city, but a statement requiring no words, when the Athenians built high walls and then talked and talked behind their protective safety, like women?
Are we not forced to be as women, to be like the bonobo – ‘make love not war’ – meaning talk, fuck, do not use the efficiency, the manly advantage of action? When accosted by a female, or a child, do not slap it across the head. No, you must become like a female, and talk, and complain, and bitch. You can only deal with the other verbally, orally. Calm them down by sucking on their ego.

Φ
Our fixation culminates in endless talk: talk shows, texting, cellphone obsessions, the abstraction of verbosity, endless connectivity using words, eating until we burst, to cope with an unfulfilled sexuality, oral sex in place of actual sex, sucking, everything from cocks to toes. We cannot yet fuck like the bonobos, turning our everyday lives into an endless orgy of fluid exchanges with no outcome other than placating our neurological tensions, but we are getting there.
Sluts, whores, man-whores, everywhere; sex reduced to a banquet, a Chinese buffet, leaving us hungry for more: eat, numb, shit, repeat. Nothing of substance is digested… it all passes through our system leaving very little behind. This is feminization in practice.
We eat incessantly. We talk continuously – we are not allowed to do anything but talk. Everything becomes a joke because it is all talk, all words with no substance, no actions to back them up. We’ve become gossiping women; sluts who orally masturbate the other to prevent him from hurting us.
A man did not need to talk much, because he acted, he had the option of action; his actions spoke for him. Not these days.
Men are not permitted this natural advantage; they are denied the expression of this masculine sexuality. All they can do now is talk, use oral methods. Pleasure with the tongue – cunnilingus. An effete male can count on his tongue to pleasure a woman; to inspire a woman to orgasm. He, as a man, cannot do it in any other way. He might go to jail, if he treats the woman as he knows she wants to be treated.  

Φ
Can we not trace back our Modern fixation with logos and speaking, many sexual practices expressing desire, and many fetishes using the mouth as the instrument of satisfaction, back to our infancy when the mouth, lips and tongue were the closet organs to the processing brain – nervous system still too immature to make use of nerve endings through other parts of the body? Can we not connect our obsession with language, and its profound impact, to its sexual roots in our infantile needs, when mouth pulled, and sucked, and gums bit down hungrily, passionately?
Before we had sensitive fingers our mouth was our only way of exploring texture, solidity, sensuality – our own body suckled and tasted exploring its dimensions.
Do we not, still, pull in air, inhaling the world, to shape it into digestible memetic morsels, hoping to assimilate the cosmos into our becoming? Do we not, with control, and masterfully shape the expelled, unabsorbed, gas into sonar packets; little songs, trying to speak on behalf of uni-verse?
We can connect a male's preference in the female form to his relationship with mother's breast, transferred to an obsession with a uni-versal womb: a preference for the buttocks, and thighs, indicating a male who wishes to fertilize, to spill out and expand, growing into other; does not a preference for breast indicate a man still seeking what he is missing in himself, still absorbing, still wanting, pulling, with toothless biting and hungry sucking creating oral vacuums – and does not a woman's mouth and vagina suck on the male penis, trying to drain it of ‘value,’ trying to fill herself with what she is lacking; her sexual organ shaped to suckle with lips, and toothless bites?

The psychological scarring left by the war experience has yet to be healed.
It is passed-on from parent to child, like a primordial sin, burdening the spirit with a possibility once thought improbable.

Like a child who experiences school and is bullied feels anxiety with going to school, with the entire institution of education, associating anything that hints at the environment and the regimentation with violence.
It's an anxiety that is inherited...the parent passing it no the child.  
This is exacerbated by a herd-psychology, already predisposed to be paranoid and to be anxious.
Herbivores are in a constant state of anxious alertness, made worse after every encounter with a predator.
When the predator takes a bite out of the prey, the prey is never the same. it's psychological and physical amputation, becomes genetic. Its offspring triggered by what they cannot justify...not knowing how or why.

The word 'Nazi' and 'Hitler' are now trigger words, producing specific reactions, associated with victimhood.
They become representation of a events that traumatized and crippled.  
Those sharing this anxiety can share in their triggering mechanics. They become herbivore unifying terms...like a cry in the forest alerts a species but also all potentials prey of a predator being present.
The species alerting may be of a different kind, but the effect is similar. The altered do not know why or when or how...all they know is that they ought to be on a defensive alertness.

The reaction is automatic and inmate, expressing the deepest essence of the organism, despise what it pretends to be, or what it tells itself.
It evokes a shared anxiety/fear, all prey share - a desire to remain safe, within a larger herd, similar, uniform, yet pretending to be different, in some subtle symbolic ways.
A natural prey wants to disappear in a uniformity, when threatened, but displays its divergence, when it feels safe.

Forget what you know, this is an entirely different dynamic: not corporeal, physical, but entirely ideological.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] dynamics apply.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are not literal, but metaphorical, representational, expressions of inner forces, not so much external ones.
A War Like no Other, means we've left the tangible, experienced world, and entered the world = humanity of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here everything is inverted...words come first...then deeds follow.

If we adjust/adapt our thinking to that of our infected enemies, we noetically enter their 'way of expressing their internal distress.
We must adapt to their [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] contexts.
So, these triggering words are really like calls of distress in the forest, informing their own kind, and all species that can relate to being prey, about a threat being present.
We can learn form other species....



 ...all prey tolerate one another due to a common need...one alerting the other if a predator appears. Thee's an innate, instinctive, communion between herbivores, among the preyed upon, something predators can never share.
They cannot tolerate the presence of another predator, and routinely kill each other....but not to feed, to eliminate competitors.



The entire dynamic of human gene/meme conflicts: predators, prey, and scavengers....including parasites.
It's all there.
The entire gamut of human psychology: the proactive essence of the predator, the passive aggression of the prey, and its fatalism already preparing for its immanent victimization; imitation, pretence, fight/flight....it's all THERE!!!
We are animals. If we get off our self-aggrandizing high 'zebra' and dare to see....we can see.

Hyper-Masculinity is overcompensation for the castrated ones, the mentally circumcised. Dreams of fertilizing a cosmic womb, when they copy-paste image, creating clones, imitating a fabricated iconography; having no real father-figure, to draw inspiration from, they adopt rotting cadavers, raising them from the dead, baptize them, make them members of the Kabbalah out of which the true messiah will come. Feeble men-children inflating their testicles with testosterone injections, learning the ‘secret text’ so that it can be recited, as second-nature, to cope with their primary.
An inner female expressing ‘herself’ as macho man, hiding her vagina with a cod-piece.

Φ
With the decline of masculinity the growing absence is being filled in by women, or even children, who take on the symbolic and superficial representations of manhood and act them out, in time becoming convinced that the pretense is, and has always been, the fact of the matter. They do so with a sense of joy, having been released, as it were, from their nature and its constricting determinations, even if momentarily and superficially. As a result men, or what’s left of them, begin to exaggerate their own diminishing masculinity putting on hyperbolic exhibitions which seeks to overpower the female’s own pretended mannishness, with a pretense of their own. The result is absurd in its superficiality, as both remain comfortably entrenched in feminine morals and modes of thinking, neither ever daring to cross the boundary of social etiquette.
Women, being the intuitive creatures that they are, immediately perceive the ruse in the other, although lacking any introspective drive they avoid perceiving it in themselves, which leads to a decrease in their respect for maleness and to the reinforcement of the ideal that both femininity & masculinity are ‘human inventions,’ and that sexual orientation is nothing but a social fabrication; behaviours disconnected from anything real, mere social and cultural ‘performances,’ or gender roles, which can be slipped on and slipped off at will.
All becomes a matter of proper grooming. Nurturing becomes the new word for social eugenics, brain-washing, socioeconomic repression, and indoctrination. Now women begin to believe that being male or female is nothing but a superficial act, a pretense; now they begin to believe that they too can be male, or just like what males are supposed to be like, in a world where the past does not matter and man is entirely determined by his own will.
The fact is that masculine traits and dispositions are selectively outlawed or openly frowned upon – the illusion of sexual parity is supported further by eliminating the corrective mechanisms of nature, and enforcing a strict codes of social conduct.
Men’s hands are tied and the cost for behaving in ways the system does not approve of only increases the ideal’s certainty that sex is simply appearance, as it has been relegated to that very status through string enforcement of specific rules of conduct and language use.  
It is clear that because human behaviour is restricted to within socially acceptable norms that the choice of behaviours is also thusly circumscribed, resulting in a convergence of conducts giving-off the impression of uniformity.
All institutions create an internal form of uniformity, manufacturing individuals that behave in exactly the same ways and think exactly the same thoughts within exactly the same parameters. The only difference today is that the methods have become more insidious and more sophisticated.  
The biological male, having been mentally and psychologically castrated, and wanting to still express his ‘illegal’ masculine energies, settles for socially acceptable mock displays of competence, coming across as childish in that they lack any spirit to back them up, but are purely ornamental.
Both femininity and masculinity can now be acted-out by either sex, making them a fashion statement, with an underlying undisclosed agreement being implicit, that underneath it all humans are alike and that the act, itself, is the fact. Nobody will ‘out’ the other, but only judge them on the performance, and how convincing it is.
We might go further to, reluctantly, say that even in a casual ritual of acknowledging someone’s presence, with the customary “Hi, how are you?” the tacit agreement of civility is maintained with a feigned interest in the other’s well-being. Both understand that in most cases nobody cares how the other is doing, but they go through the motions and they refrain from exposing the lie they both participate in – platitudes of their shared conformity.  
Females being more willing to surrender to social norms, or to any power she is seduced by, or finds herself beneath, is more easily absorbed into these symbolic roles of power, raising the magnification meter higher. She can easily wear the appropriate gear to play the prescribed role she is expected to play by the dominant system… until some more powerful alternative comes along.
Females thrive in subterfuge. To compensate men are prone to exceed these symbolisms with increasingly exaggerated forms of masculine exhibitions.
The exaggerated muscle, the extraordinary phallus, the exuberant romanticizing of femininity, and the over the top luxuriousness displays of wealth and privilege; fame & fortune compensating for the loss of substance, are methods of (re)acting to this female vengeful emancipation which at times becomes crude and cruel on a level that no man can ever match.  

Φ
Hyper-Masculinity, like the masculinization of women, is a consequence of feminization, and the void being formed when men are emasculated and told to behave and think within feminine boundaries. It is the omega-male psychology being propagated, when the alpha is monopolized, and abstracted, within an institution.
And like with omega-males females begin imposing themselves upon them, and they, in response, must exaggerate their masculine traits, to, at least pull-off the appearance, the image, of masculinity. But when boys are not permitted to be boys, and single mothers are raising them with no father figures, other than the institutions and their steady stream of pop-culture caricatures, the outcome is inevitable. Not only are women feeling, unjustifiably, ‘cocky’ – harboring a secret disappointment – cynical about the very idea of being man and/or woman, but a growing population of ‘lost boys,’ finding their male idols on screens, begin emulating caricatures, pretending to be the kind of male that is being used to ridicule manhood.

Φ
Sheltering leads to boredom. Life and all its pleasures must now be revved up a notch to make it noticeable and gratifying, approaching the levels one would experience in natural environments where no lines are drawn and no guarantees are made. As a result masculinity, being socially (memetically) repressed and contained, exhibits a compensating tendency to inflate itself into extraordinary proportions so as to deal with its declining substance.
Males feeling the most repressed and emasculated will be the ones which will be most likely to exaggerate what little masculinity it still is tolerable, and only in the areas and directions it is permitted to do so.

Φ
Mock displays, controlled environments, hyperbole of gesture and appearances, are how modern males deal with their diminishing relevance. They adapt by adopting feminine methods, and feminine mannerisms.    

Φ
Bling-Bling and bouncing cars, impressive careers, muscles, and diplomas, are how males adjust to their emasculation.
Materialism, hedonism, elaborate shows and showing-off, announce the coming of feminization. All is made bigger, more extraordinary, to avoid looking at how small and ordinary it has all become.      

Φ
Hypermasculinity is an adaptation to Hyperfemininity, which can also be called feminization. It adopts the same pretenses, exaggerated displays, to compensate for Hyperfemininity.    

Φ
When you don’t have the brain for it, then you do what every rational person, living in western materialism does: you buy the gear, the outfits; you learn how to walk and talk, in the appropriate manner, to express a desirable character; imitating a character you’ve seen on television or in the movies. Then you get yourself the right soundtrack: something edgy and hard, and in style. Plenty of people out there selling you the image you are recycling.
All you got to do is get the money to purchase whatever you need: hair, muscles, personality, and knowledge… the look. Hell, if women can do it with their push-up bras, ‘slimming’ girdles, hair extensions and all that ‘face-paint’ covering up those blemishes, then why not men? This is a woman’s world, after all, and playing dress-up is what girls love to do. Accentuate, inflate, redirect, correct, parrot the lingo, and you are ‘in’.
The institution is the ‘bar scene’ with a bouncer legislating ‘face-control.
Are you ‘cool enough’ to enter, into the inner sanctum where the reproduction game is played, or will you be kept outside, waiting in hope, unable to even get past the door?      

Φ
All minds have a pattern of thinking and of expression. We call this ‘style’.
When another mind is affected by it then a similar thing occurs as when a body is fertilized by another. The second mind adopts the first mind's style, as best it can, integrating it, inserting it, combining it, with pre-existing internal attitudes; within the boundaries and limitations involved, in both minds, during the transference of data.
Misunderstanding can be considered the equivalent of memetic mutations, produced during this transference; this exchange and sharing of thoughts we call social intercourse.
I think all ideological offshoots begin with such mistakes, during data exchanges – things are ‘lost in translation’ as they say.
The slight variation, a misunderstanding produces, is similar to that game children play ‘telephone’. The sharing of concepts, suing language (semiotics) produce misunderstanding (mutations), becoming embedded in the mind of the other; this is the equivalent of genetic mutations: memetic mutations.  
Sometimes these ‘memetic mutations’ result in something greater than the original, but most of the time in something slightly lower, as the fact that a transference occurred at all means the second mind, the ‘receiving mind,’ was and/or is dominated by the ‘offering mind’. This domination may be the product of immaturity – the receiving mind having not become developed sufficiently – or it most often is the consequence of inferior genetic potentials. As an example of the former I offer Nietzsche. He, after having been seduced, dominated, at an early age by Schopenhauer and Wagner, rebelled, eventually becoming seduced by the pre-Socratics, which helped him overcome his domination by his more modern mentors. I also think this phenomenon of more masculine minds being more easily seduced, impregnated, dominated, by the dead, is a Modern social phenomenon, and one Nietzsche succumbed to. We see it more strikingly in the common, Modern mind, who must always refer and defer to what is most distant from itself, and death is the most distancing state of all. A masculine mind, gradually maturing to full masculinity, will find it easier to submit to a domination from a dead mentor – one more distant from him, in space/time contexts. This spatial/temporal distancing protects the go from the awareness of this domination, and intellectual fertilization.  
The ancient-Greeks had a more healthy relationship with their peers, to aging, and to their own sexuality. The practice of an older male taking a still immature male, a boy, under his wing and totally dominating him for a time, indicates such a difference between modern male sexuality and ancient, pagan, more natural attitudes.
In modern times, precisely because masculinity is declining, and after centuries of Judeo-Christian, de-sexualisation, and de-naturalization, the typical male must display hyper-masculine traits to protect itself from its own socioeconomic emasculation.

Φ
A Modern must always be up-to-date, part of the popular, populist, movement.
He feels no connection to the past, receiving no guidance, or support from there; rejecting anything from the past and of the past He must reject it to identify with the up-and-coming, the new, the trending; a Modern is usually suffering from the absence of a father figure: either his/her own is absent, or is not of a quality to inspire in him/her pride, raising his/her self-esteem. As a consequence the Modern seeks male role models elsewhere: in the immediate environment, in the popular and the tending, the fashionable. Icons/Idols of fame & fortune become his/her surrogate father figures.
Because pop-culture constructs icons based on memetic principles (cultural ideals), the males will reflect this popular, populist, persona of the most socially desirable male. Such a man is inflated, in some areas, so as to distract from the deflation he is characterized by, in other areas. A distorted, caricature is provided, similar to the hyperbole of pornography, giving children, particularly males, a distorted hyper-inflated version of how sexual activities should be, or could be in an idealized reality.

Φ
Hyperbole is, in fact, a Modernistic compensation for being castrated and amputated from all natural identifiers; hyper-masculinity is how Modern boys, lost in a sea of mankind, are given an distinguishing identity, a replacement idea(l) for the one they are told they should be ashamed of.

Φ
Emasculation, feminization, compensates, among biological males, through exaggerated superficial performances, and symbolisms. Among biological females it produces an extreme skepticism, identifying with the cynical attitude. The female, as an agency of nature, will always side with caution: hyper-masculine displays producing, in her, a hyper-reaction of doubt.
In time feminization emasculates biological males to such a degree that they too begin seeking manliness in negation; remaining unconvinced, un-seduced, un-seducible, and resistant to the universally fake.
Caution dictates that all must be made uniformly pretentious and fake. When the mind cannot discern subtleties, it interprets it with absolute uniformity: black/white.  The binary duality of Nihilism – either/or. A mind unable to discern the true from the false, will declare it all false. Nature’s fall-back position is the defensive ‘negative’ – ‘assuming the worse’ to minimize potential costs – fear of the dark is based on this mechanism. Woman are nature’s most pure agencies, and so she reflects, perfectly, this attitude.  

Φ
As females are cultivated to appear more masculine – pretending to be male – the male is pressured to ‘up the ante’, becoming exaggerations of a masculinity he, usually, has no personal experience with. Ignorance forces him to seek guidance from cultural caricatures, or to take what he knows and inflate it to proportions that compensate for what he does not know, or understand.
The performance is a caricature, created by a selection of what is known and understood – mostly based on what the individual’s motive is. If the motive is a ‘positive’ outcome’ then the performance will be distinctly one-sided, exaggerating the positive’; if the motive is negative – such as a desire to ridicule the masculine – then the caricature will be negatively inclined, exaggerating the negative aspects.

The phenomenal categories of male/female refer to specific, obvious, physical differences.
The 'issue' arises, for Moderns, with the concepts of masculinity/femininity. it is here where they seek the advantage and where they try to 'negate' - disconnect, allowing for all sorts of definitions, even the extreme forms of inversion.

Masculinity/Femininity refers to both the physical and mental (psychological) manifestation of a specific reproductive specialized type.
A type that has both physical and mental differences...more or less pronounced.
How these traits display themselves in each individual determines their reproductive potential. Both in symmetry and proportion they either increase or decrease the probability of a successful reproduction.
This is the genetic aspect.

What symbols are used to refer to each type and the traits associated with them, is a matter of culture.
The memetic aspect.
But this is never arbitrary.
The historical context, the particular events that shaped a people, their subsequent relationship with reality, nature, the world, and how this shaped their symbolisms, their language and their traditions, may vary from population to population, each evolved within particular circumstances within particular environmental conditions, but each sharing an ancestry, and a way of interpreting, and relating to different forms of energy.

Male willingness to submit to another male.
It has to do with space/time dimensions.
The further away, temporally/spatially the dominant male is, the easier it is for a male to submit to him, or to admit that he is a superior.
Death is the ultimate distance, but even here space/time factors in. The longer this male has been dead, the easier it is to admit he was superior.

One reason, other than ego, is that distance prevents any challenge to how you've understood him.
He's not present to contradict your judgment of him, as a person, or of what you think he believes.

Many of these men-children are devoted followers to certain iconic figures, because they can believe anything thy want about them. I'm sure that if this dead icon were to come to life and these devoted followers were to spend five minutes with him, they would hate him...mainly because he would look down on them, or he would contradict the delusions they have of him - most of it hearsay, and exaggerated through the distance of time.
And the more obvious and clear he was, while alive, the more difficult it is to spin-doctor him.
Many of these famous idols spoke in allegories, and using romantic language, allowing every imbecile that followed, the leeway to interpret his writing in whatever way satisfied their particular psychosis.

The best standard is experienced reality - empiricism...the world.
All live in it, no matter where or when.
But this brings us back to space/time. Language that is vague has no direct reference to the experienced....this is a distance that can be exploited to interpret and to reinterpret, whereas clear, direct, honest language resists such manipulation, so it is usually less likeable by the majority.

The majority wants abstract art - something they can project whatever crap is on their mind.
Realism doesn't allow for much of this creative licence.
They also want the artist, the creator, to be someone they can relate with - someone they can feel a kinship with, so that they can then imagine themselves being able to create the same kind of art...if they had an interest in doing so.

The two psychological extremes.
We'll have to include extroversion/introversion, as an additional factor, once we've established a general outline of a type.
No absolutes implies that this category includes an entire gamut within the specific parameters - as with gender and race, or any category, it's about approximate degrees, often fluctuating from one moment to the next, or from one period of time to the next; we can also think of a type as a potential, or probability within space/time possibilities....if we want to get metaphysical about it
The individual's available aggregate energies determining the fluctuation in relation to its environment. So the general type is fluctuating never static.
We usually refer to a type as its 'usual' state, or its condition under non-traumatic, stressful, or unusual circumstances - its state requiring no effort, no stress.
In unusual, traumatic times all individuals self-repress to survive.



Met a few of these.



Met some of these...I am one of these.

Here my positions on what a 'true' empath is, and how it does not automatically lead to sympathy, nor to antipathy.
Moderns usually associate it with sympathy, and this is usually the conclusion of empathy. Most get trapped in it.

Ego is at play in both narcissism and empathy.
Ego defined as the lucid part of self - self-awareness, self-consciousness.
The narcissist flees into the esoteric to protect its ego from the exoteric; the empath becomes lost in the exoteric, often neglecting or denying the esoteric, trying to make it inconspicuous and less vulnerable. The ego is engulfed, absorbed by otherness - self-denial, self-sacrifice.
Yet to truly understand another you must sacrifice or repress self- making a narcissist the least likely to understand anyone outside himself - others become projections of himself, usually the negative parts, producing a purification of ego - god-like divinity.
The Messianic Complex is an aspect of this.
The dichotomy of I/other becomes one of absolute good/virtue and absolute bad/evil/vice.
Some minor self-critiques may be accepted as evidence of clarity or integrity.

Balance.
Ego has to walk a fine line - a tightrope - so as to not fall into the other, and become trapped emotionally.
Usually individuals with an undeveloped sense of self, or insecurity concerning self will intentionally make the sacrifice.
The 'talent' to project yourself into other, and then gradually decrease the influence of ego upon the projection, so as to produce a clear and precise understanding of other, is rare, and it usually fails to purify the image of other, without some corruptive influences of self.
The easiest method is to simply project self into other, and imagine how you would feel, react, think in those circumstances...this is what most people call empathy, but its not. It is sympathy.

Some men are so desperate to be liked that they feel embarrassed about it.
They resort to cynicism and humour when someone gets too close for comfort, referring and deferring their ego, they find in quirky novelty a way of indirectly portraying how 'special' they think they are, but always indirectly in case they have to deny it.
Such men never actually make friends, they acquire a network of acquaintances, some of which are individuals they've met through books, or through other popular venues of information dissemination.
They can't make friends because they've never experienced intimacy above a certain level. They lack the subtle vulnerability to make the other comfortable enough to approach, always returning to quirky comedy to push away and to display himself at a distance.

Desperate to belong, to be acknowledged and appreciated - always cultivating an image that will get them what they crave - they inevitably gravitate towards the unusual the extraordinary, reluctant to calm themselves down enough to enjoy the mundane.

Empathy corresponds to objectivity; Sympathy/Antipathy corresponds to subjectivity. In regards to living and non-living other, the mind must exhibit the same ability to eliminate the corruptive effect of need, ego, and, most importantly, of self-consciousness, gradually clarifying an understanding of other, void of need/suffering.
A hunter, if he understands how his prey thinks, behaves, will eliminate his own hunger form the evaluation, and noetically enter his prey's mind, neither remaining sympathetic not antipathetic. Another reason why hunters gave thanks to their prey – having attained a level of intimacy with what they had repeatedly learned to hunt successfully.
Projecting self into the other's predicament is not empathy – this is sympathy; the 'projector' identifying with the mind it is projecting itself into, because it is, in fact, itself it is perceiving in another's circumstance.
Empathy involves the same process as attaining objectivity... in fact they are describing the same process – the latter in relation to both living and non-living patterns/behaviours, and the former in relation to life, and living patterns/behaviours. The latter, by the very nature of the commonality, leads to 'sympathy', which must be wilfully eliminated, as much as possible, if an 'objective' empathy is to be achieved.
The remarkable thing is that as humanity degenerates, due to the process I describe as ‘feminization,’ men lose the ability to perceive objectively even when it comes to non-living patterns. So, they project themselves even into lifeless matter - energies – seeing themselves reflected back. They lose the capacity to discriminate, and to differentiate, which is another way of describing a loss of consciousness, because consciousness is about differentiating, clarifying, discriminating, perceiving the slightest divergence, so as to categorize and through this categorization to achieve understanding.
Consciousness is associated with light, because light exposes difference, whereas darkness makes all seem alike; in the dark, all is uniform shadow.

From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
As individuals may suffer from bipolar disorder, so too can entire cultures suffer the same - Organism-SuperOrganism.
Language (semiotics0 is how memetic bipolarity is diagnosed - dissonance it has been called.

It is also related to Schizophrenia, in that there's an internal imbalance, a fissure, that may develop in a schisms.
The schisms is a mind's defensive measure to maintain itself though it retains two, or more, contrary ideas in itself, simultaneously.
Memetic bipolarity is caused by the intuition of a dissonance between ideology and reality - the esoteric confronted and challenged by the exoteric, sometimes manifesting a joyful abandonment to circumstances - a desire to surrender to fate - and at others time s a depression, a need to recede and hide from the source of friction - i.e. reality.
The individual cannot adapt to the real, egotistically resisting any abandonment of its already established - sometimes absolutely - convictions. When confronted with a choice it will always opt to maintain its beliefs, its ideology, its judgment, rather than change it - it will 'change' its perception of reality, to accommodate its desired judgment, opinion.

A simple shift in objective makes all the difference.

If lucidity, awareness, as an objective, is replaced with survival, then all analysis and understanding is adjusted accordingly; use of language, as well.

Survival is the pre-existing base.
Awareness, 'truth' as we call it, is a objective only for higher life-forms.
Awareness often contradicts survival.

Here we see a basis for the difference between realism and nihilism - Paganism and Abrahamism.

Nihilism is a reaction to emerging self-consciousness. so it's motive is self-preservation. It sacrifices all to this goal - sacrifice is to make the lie divine - noetic, purified (sanctified) in mind.
Reason, awareness is sacrifices for the sake of increasing survival.
Hedonism is a fall-back position - animalism - making survival tolerable. not survival for its own sake, but survival for the sake of pleasure.
The 'ego' making itself the end in itself - sacrificing 'self', and surrendering to fatalism - mortality, to past.
God being the representative of the immutable past (determining = creator), projected forward/outward as inevitable ideal; as noetic theatrical absolute.

All is dynamic.
existence IS dynamic....not it is what is dynamic.
Existence and movement/momentum are synonymous.
Existence IS (inter)active, not existence is what is (inter)active.
The 'what' implies something that may or may not be so.

When this becomes clear 'will' is not what may or may not be self...Will IS self focusing upon an objective.
The act of focusing is the ego, focusing self...self being the unconscious, and the ego the conscious part of self.
The action, the choice, is not what the self just happens to do or not do. It IS the self.
Action, behaviour and self are synonyms.
Things become confusing when the self conceals, or self-controls, or pretends, but even in that case the concealment IS the self, and the pretence IS the self, pretending to be other than what it is, or pretending to not be what it is.  

Presence is not an attribute of identity, it IS the self being present. The appearance is how this presence is interpreted, which may be more or less correct.
Presence is not static, it is always dynamic....otherwise it is non-existent. Appearance is presence being interpreted by another.
But presence is not a some-thing that just happens to act...it IS activity.

*Progressives 'separate' the meme from the genes.
I expand this idea into a nihilistic 'detachment', via semiotics (nervous system), of mind form body.
The Modern approaches man idealistically, theoretically. Everything is, for them, idea = noumenon. ergo all is a social construct.....but only when it comes to humans. Logos is the factor.
Language identifies man as not an 'animal'...or so the modern hope. This is a continuance of the Christian idea that animals have no 'souls'

*A defensive measure to remain 'safe' by becoming insane; to increase your odds of reproducing by going crazy.
Detaching self from reality along linguistic lines, begins by corrupting language. When language has been corrupted it can be dismissed.
From tool to toy.

*Modern psychology is disrespected because it implies that it can 'heal' and/or 'correct' a 'problem' - this is classic nihilistic presumptuousness. When it fails it simply medicates.
Psychology simply understands behaviour and does not even attempt to 'change' it. It can only manipulate and exploit what is already present, what has already evolved.
Man doesn't study animal behaviour to change and/or correct it...but to direct and use it to his own advantage.
The only way to change potentials is to breed them out of a genetic continuum....like man does with dogs and other domesticated species. this takes time....multiple generations for the outcome to approach a predetermined ideal.
Nihilism is this process of social eugenics - socially selecting potential for traits in accordance to their particular ideals. So, it is they who want to make man a social construct, when he is not.

*Moderns are retarded, psychologically stunted individuals - dumbed-down to a level of malleability. They exhibit the same use of language, behaviours, naivete a prepubescent human would. Some manage to advance to the intellectual and psychological level of puberty, and exhibit the same destructiveness, rebelliousness this human phase is characterized by.

*Abrahamic ethos evolved, matured, not secular forms, like Marxism. The same psychologies that found Abrahamisms seductive, and convincing, are seduced and convinced by Marxism or one of the other forms of secular Nihilism.

*Evolution Psychology deals with 'reality' above and beyond any and all cultures - applying across memetic upbringings but also explaining how and why the same behaviours morph differently within different cultures. Genes<>Memes

*"Evidence" means empiricism - perceived phenomena, not simply amassed/collected and categorized - known - but understood. To understand is not simply to refer and defer, but to see patterns within the known, in relation to what is occurring outside your brain = world. To see patterns within the noumena in relation to phenomena.
Not noumena in relation to other noumena. Most remain within human parameters...i.e. politics. For them 'humanity' is world.

*Dunning Kruger effect = 90% of on-line participants in forums.

*'Nazi' is not a term implying 'inhuman'. Anythnig that crosses the line of a one-god' 'one-humanity' idealism.

*I/other is the primal and primary separation of life from non-living energies. Without this separation, life and consciousness are impossible.
This is why nihilism comes so easy to the spirit....because detachment from otherness is a prerequisite for life and survival.
self-identification uses the nil to identify itself: "I am what I am not". the 'nil' serves to distinguish what the 'one' can mean.
Nihilism pushes it to its absurd limit by detaching/separating mind from body, or from the physical, the corporeal and tangible, creating the dichotomy of spiritual/material...corresponding to mind/body, noumenona/phenomena.

*"First cause" is nonsense. It implies what can never and will never be experienced = a beginning out of nil.

*Agnosticism simply acknowledges that, since omniscience is possible, everything is relatively possible - meaning that you cannot exclude any possibility but only increase your certainty of its probability and/or improbability. In the case of any description, or allusion, to an 'absolute' being, 'thing', object, the very idea contradicts the experienced world, so the probability of it is close to absolute 'nil' without attaining it, because there can never be an absolute, including absolute certainty, which also includes the notion of an absolute.

*"Thinking differently" is tolerable only because errors in judgment are protected by a collective - the consequences (costs/risks) are evenly distributed - Marxist style - across the collective; absorbed by the collective, giving the impression of parity. The conflict between right/left is to what degree this ought to occur - how much should be absorbed.

*"Olympic Gymnastics" implies Top<>Down emoting. You begin with an ideal and then work backward, trying to justify it. No matter how the original idea is contradicted the mind retains it in a perpetual state of 'perfect purity' and only tries to validate it by seeking the errors, the imperfections in everything but in it. The ideal cannot be let go of, so the imperfections must be in those who 'imperfectly' hold it in their mind.

*The 'American religion" is a cocnept named 'freedom'....and 'money is the 'messiah' giving access to it. Like all nihilistic ideologies the word is completely detached from reality, and has been 'purified' and made 'divine' by this detachment. the purified noumenon can be 'felt', and understood in whatever way the individual desires. Like abstract 'fArt,' it remains vague and confused enough to allude to everything and anything, so that the observer can project into it, see in it, whatever he/she desires.

*Not only Islam but all three Abrahamic religions are inherently 'violent'. If they are not proselytizing violently, they are proposing end-of-the-world', and if they are not imposing their world-view about absolutes, they are imposing them about humanity as an absolute, or about 'victimhood' as the all-encompassing identifier.

*"God doesn't play dice" is a declaration based on a belief, an absolute conviction, for the existence of absolute order.
If we properly define 'chaos' as randomness, and not as a variant of 'order' as in 'complexity' - hiding our monotheism in this false and faked duality, then 'dice' implies a randomness forcing us to approximate outcomes - risk taking is innately part of living.

*'Struggle" or 'agon' as the Greeks called it, is part of existing, or part fop experiencing existing. Stress brings out the full potentials encased in the memories of your genes - your DNA. Comfort, sheltering, inhibit the full expression of your potentials - both good and bad. The 'best' and the 'worse' come out only in times of stress, in chaos and turmoil, or when otherwise inebriated, breaking down the control mechanisms that keep it all suppressed.
A spoiled brat demands but cannot earn, so it does not deserve.
Moderns, no matter your socio-economic status, are sheltered from natural order. We all live within the regimented, ordered manmade and controlled, environments. It's only because we are imperfect, and our ideologies reflect this, that we cannot produce a perfect system, so the real seeps through, exposing us to a reality we cannot endure.

*They return to what unites them as Abrahamics, Hitler, and Nazism. One is a recovering Abrahamic, now committed to modernity and its egalitarian values, and the other remains a devout Abrahamic, mostly because of his personal experiences with trauma, i.e. his daughter's cerebral palsy.

*Gaad returns to his sexual 'corrective measures' focusing on the madness of post-modernity, expressed through feminism.
Feminism does, indeed, suffer from 'penis envy' A complex not explored in a feminizing world. We know all about 'Peter Pan' syndrome, the 'Oedipal complex' the 'Napoleonic complex' but nobody says a word about 'Penis Envy complex'. Feminists want the institutions to intervene with technologies to 'correct' the 'injustices' of nature, so they support any technology that produces parity between the sexes, such as the contraceptive pill and abortion.

*'Holocaust" is the seminal point of historic congruence for all the post-modern Modern Nihilists - the 'Last men'. It's the convergence point of victimhood. The go-to event that unifies all victims. No other historical event matters as much. All f them are evaluated in relation to this one.
The native Americans suffered a worse 'holocaust' in percentage contexts, but nobody ever mentions them because Americans are 'good' and they can only do 'good'.

*Education has an implied underpinning of Capitalistic/Marxist materialism. It equates value with success, in the socio-economic sense. There is no ambition worth anything if it does not lead socio-economic status. This exploits man's natural social instincts; the need to belong and to be appreciated by members of his/her own group. No knowledge is worth it if it does not affect social status.

*"Why?" refers to causality. It asks for a meaning, which is another way of saying the inter-connectivity of 'causal events' of (inter)activity.
it's a way of orienting 'self' in a world of 'otherness'.

*Münchhausen syndrome is expressed through this continuous reference to Hitler and Nazism.
A collective hysteria.

When what you pretend to be, or want to become, is so different than what you actually are the outcome is crude; internal dissonance externalized.
When mind wishes it were what the body denies presence to; it wears a covering, and cannot pull it off completely. The mind imitates, regurgitates refers and defers, because it cannot be but only pretend to be what the body, with its presence, contradicts. Similarly, a meme alien to the genes that refer to a different historical continuum, carrying different DNA-memories, cannot fully support them - the product is crass, reflecting internal discordance.
In the case of mixed-genes things become complicated. Harmony/Disharmony synthesizing in a confused mess.
The easiest way to deal with it is to disconnect mind from body, making the pretence, the regurgitating references and deference unchallenged by the body's unyielding aletheia – its unavoidable presence.
Nihilism builds its entire edifices upon this disconnection, to prevent the tectonic trembling of the worldly conflicting with the fantastic.

The behavioural parallels are uncanny.

Females are verbal. They commentate for physical weakness with a developed ability to manipulate symbols and to insinuate 'control' indirectly.
They, also, need a front-man. Someone to stand between them and the threat i.e. the world.
When their 'chosen' front-man (host) proves to be ineffective they quickly and easily abandon him, like rats on a sinking ship, and find a 'better' more 'vigorous' replacement, with a callousness few males can match.
Their 'loyalties' last as long as their self-interests are serviced.
Fighting a 'losing' war is unthinkable to them. they always side with the 'potential victor'.

Their interests are best served by stable, controlled, environments, within which they can apply their natural advantages.      
They only 'compete' using insidious methods, and hypocrisy.
Subterfuge is their aggressive methodology. Victimhood is their defensive methodology.
Resorting to 'crying', and pleading, manipulating sympathy, is not beneath them.

They, at once, want to belong to a group, and to stand out, as separate from it.
It can be any group. their only ideal is survival. They succumb to instincts and desire, but they refuse to admit it; rejecting the very existence of such a thing.
They rely on being misunderstood and on being 'too complex' to be known; cultivating a mystery concerning their seemingly 'irrational' behaviours.
Obscurantism and vagueness is their preferred environment. They say one thing, do a second, and think a third.
They always try to appear as being more than what they actually are - adopting fashions and technologies to create a seductive and appealing image.
They have little artistic talent, other than in the manipulation of language, but they are effective plagiarizers and imitators of what is popular.
They seem harmless but they hide the vicious vindictiveness of over-compensating insecurity.

The similarities are uncanny because it is an example of a meme built upon a genetic behavioural type.
Genes to Memes

A child functions with the bipolarity of good/bad, gradually becoming good/evil.
The 'bogeyman' is often used to manipulate a child.

Moderns remain infantile, functioning withn bipolarity: 1/0, absolute either/or.
Nazi, Hitler, or some Modern icon, representing 'absolute evil, is now part fo how they are manipulated and directed. Part of Modern nomenclature.
Short-hand, to dumb-down, and simplify concepts for simpletons, producing a desired reaction.
In Pavlovian terms its the linguistic 'shock' 'correcting' behaviour. The affected adopt it as effective -using themselves as an example of its effectiveness - and routinely apply hoping to produce a similar affect on others - a case of a slave adopting the master's training methods - whip & carrot.

Reputation of the insightful-one goes through three stages:
First, they ridicule him. Second, he is assaulted personally. Third, they claim to have been aware of the insights all-along.

When it comes to absolutes, it's all about subjective motives.
When it comes to absolutes, it's all about the individual's encapsulations, conscious and subconscious, of its own offensive and defensive methods of coping and reacting to an uncertain and indifferent world.
Absolutes only exist as ideas in human, or organic minds. Their utility and meaning can be traced back to that mind, even if the methodology is shared across multiple minds.

What does 'motive' mean, other than movement & momentum, given a subjective direction?
There's always a 'motive', when it comes to an organism's choices and behaviour's, even as lowly as a plant.
We awaken to what?
Existence.
What is existence experienced as?
As movement/momentum, activity; a towards...as a state of 'thrown into' i.e.,Dasein.
What is momentum directed by, focused by, in living organism?
Will.
How is the successful direction experienced?
Pleasure.
How is an unsuccessful direction experienced?
Dissatisfaction - i.e. pain, suffering, displeasure.
Is pleasure the meaning of life?
No, only for a living organism that is motivated - moved, by gratifying need, and placating pre-existing suffering.
Within humanity pleasure is, an end in itself.
Humanity = world; world = humanity. This is another way of substitution God - the idea - with humanity - the tangible, physical, corporeality. If not MIND, then BODY, as the 'immutable' absolute.
Those who place body as the starting 'absolute', are inclined to think of free-will, as non-existent. Body, becomes the all-encompassing past made present - the determining absolute that the mind cannot escape; those identifying with the absoluteness of mind, believe in absolute free-will - mind as 'god', creating existence.
We have the two types of Modernistic binary psychosis - positive and pure Nihilism:
The narcissist, who is convinced mind usurps body, and the cynic, who is convinced body traps mind, and that there is no escape.
Binary = if not body then mind - either/or.
No Hellenic Balance.

For an animal, or a female spirit - a manimal - the gratification of a need/desire it exemplified by the experience of 'pleasure' - therefore hedonism is a regression to the animal state.
Perceiving the transcendental is going above and beyond the sensation of pleasure, or the automatic reaction of emotions.
Ergo, feminization means a regression to a primal, manimal state, where all existence is about gratifying immediate needs and desires, and truth is experienced as the sensation of 'pleasure'; it deteriorated reasoning to the state of instinct and intuition.

Self-Perpetuating Self-Affirmation
The victim complains and whines, and attempts to invert its powerlessness into a form of psychological power over what it fears, i.e. is intimidated by, what it respects - manipulating and exploiting emotions - in typical feminine behaviour.
If the behaviour is successful, reducing anxiety, and respect - the victim becomes emboldened, believing itself the 'victimizer'.
The loss of respect reduces discipline, self-control, increasing the possibility of misjudgement - carelessness.
Carelessness - indifference - becomes carefree-ness, exposing its motives over time - exposing its true essence.
The motive turns others against it, validating its victim psychology.
The process repeats, harmonizing with the cycles of cultural ascent, towards civilization, and its decline towards barbarity.
Another periodic feminine cycle.

The feminine spirit - gene & meme - feels independent and powerful, as long as an external force stands before 'her' and the world - her subjectivity is mitigated by another, and the objective world beyond - parasitism.
Self-deceiving itself it gradually destroys the very power that protected 'her' from reality - the source of her independence and empowerment - her protector/provider.
She accuses it of not living up to her expectations, when the protector is sufficiently weak.

When it is dead, she begs and grovels for a replacement.If, and when, one appears, it is worshipped and feared, as protector/provider, gradually becoming resentful towards it and how it makes her feel, i.e. dependent and weak - un-free. The cycle comes full circle.

Falling into barbarity, is a form of reawakening - the phoenix reborn in flames.
Russia holds the barbarian frontiers, when Europe lies ill and dying.
It is my last source of hope, in the coming Dark Age.

Odysseus - οδυσσομαι = to hate, to be enraged.
Thymotic.

We are in the feminine erotic decline towards decadence.
The masculine lost on the seas of chaos, looking for a 'kingdom', a home.
A recollection, recalling of an Hestia - Εστια = home, hearth.
A central point to order chaos - the point of repeating consistency = order.
Rage turned inward is self-destructive = rage turned outward, with Hellenic balance, can be constructive = pathos.

The human manimal, just awakening to itself, needs certainty, even if it's in the form of an absolute negation.
It needs a finality, a solution, to its dilemma.
Cosmsic indifference, and its own declining self-trust, forces it to make some logical leaps, attempting to protect its own ego from its own quality.
A quality represented not only by its opinions, but by the consequences of its won judgements - judgements it tries to protect, after-the-fact, by trying to integrating the consequences to its ambiguities, usually shaped in the form of obscurities or insinuating jokes.
The narcissist/cynic, bipolar psychosis, becomes a representation of 'positive' and of lure nihilism, corresponding to the binary poles of positive/negative, 1/0, in their absolute forms....or to Christian good/evil, God/Satan.

Usually the two bipolar manifestation of Modernity, if they ever come in contact, promise much entertainment, and fireworks.
In both it's about 'ego' trying to protect itself from its emerging self-awareness, exposing it to how it measures up to otherness, both living and non-living.
One inflates ego, to extraordinary proportions, and the other defalcates world to make its ego appear large, by contract.
Hyperbole is always in play....as is hypocrisy.
Self-Deceit, making deceit of other, more effective, as if the deception of other would, somehow change the 'truth' of what they are.
Subjectivity protects, in the mind of the psychotic, the ego from reality, as if reality requires the agreement of the subjective mind, or its acknowledgement to become true.
Subjectivity believes that all is its won creation, and that there is no 'truth' it cannot deny, out of existence.
Denial of objective reality, implies this self-empowered subjectivity - the other is both what the individual uses to evaluate self, and to dismiss as irrelevant = positive/negative nihilism.

The desperate degenerate both uses the other to justify its own predicaments, while it denies his relevance, either by denying free-will, or the other's importance in its own self-estimation.
It both laughs at the other, because, hypothetically he is trying to 'change the world' and simultaneously tries to change the world; it both claims all could not have turned out differently, but then accuses others for how things turned out.

This is another way Nihilism must, MUST, lie to itself and to others, to remain viable, in an indifferent, to human folly, world.
No matter which nihilistic variant you analyse, you will always discover deception at its core - paradoxes it must explain and justify, to retain its beliefs.
It refuses to change its won perspective - no matter how it is exposed as being deficient - but it must find an excuse in other.
This is why it continuously mistakes any honest analysis of reality as a secret desire to change it, or as a projection of personal judgements.
It cannot think outside binary absolutes, nor escape its own subjectivity, to any degrees it dismisses it as impossible, or faked, wallowing in its self-aggrandizing, self-flattering surrender.
It needs a following, agreement, because it is the only way to self-validate.
The consequences of its self-deceit it must unload on others, because if it dared question its core beliefs it would destroy the protective layer between its ego and the world.

Nothing it has suffered is ever its own fault. It's either part of a plan - declared so after-the-fact - or the faulty and responsibility of another.
God, renamed absolute order, does not require any consciousness. The idea/ideal of it suffices to be used as a unburdening absolute otherness, implying its own victim identity...only sometimes the embracing of victimhood is part of coping.
Consider the intellectual spin-doctoring of a people, justifying why they've been rejected by every tribe they ever came ni contact with, not by questioning their own practices, and attitudes, but by fabricating a narrative where they are cast in the imaginary role of God, who is rejected by all, until they accept Him - a roundabout method of self-accepting, shame inventing into pride.
This is where the idea of man = god, comes from. No earthly kings, becomes either , god is king of kings - the absolute - or man, 'I', am god, and king of kings.
Doric 'homoioi' - equal among the same - becomes an association of self with the divine. A tribal identifier becomes a universal one.

Consider how Gypsies justify their thievery, degeneracy, and trickery - using astrology and superstitions - and why all other tribes, peoples, despise them and do not trust them.
Instead of striving to rise above, they sink lower, simply inverting the 'host's' perspective, so that they can invert the disgust into self-appreciation - they are an example of a parasitical meme.
But they are not the only ones, nor the most successful.

In the Master/Slave dynamic, corresponding to the absolute 1/0, and/or to 'positive' & 'pure' Nihilism: Which is the most reliable slave, for his master?
The one who he is convinced that he is already absolutely free, and so cannot liberate himself further; he who has convinced himself that there is no such thing as 'freedom'. Both would require minimal effort by the master.
For the first, see the US and its citizenry, worshipping freedom i.e. their theoretical idealistic own liberty, as if they were its height, when in fact, they are the depth of depraved enslavement; of the second, consider the sacrifice of integrity to preserve ego, ensuring the most reliable slave of all – Orwellian newspeak – 'that which has no word, has no reality,' can be converted to 'that which is denied reality requires no reason, and therefore no word to be spoken against it'. The power of Logos... both in its absolute ‘positive’ and absolute ‘negative’ manifestations.
A master would require to impose no coercion to enslave those who are ‘incarcerated by their own mind'. He would only have to reinforce the incarceration they impose on themselves. An example of how conspiracies actually work – requiring minimal organization and planning.
Similarly... who can be more ignorant than the man who is convinced he knows it all, or, at the very least, knows the absolute solution to all and everything?
Who can be feebler than the man who is convinced that he is the strongest and most powerful of all?
To manipulate and exploit such minds all you need is to feed into their convictions. But, be forewarned, their outward 'self-confidence' and displayed 'certainty' is a cover for a deeper self-doubt and insecurity. If one fails to appreciate that this conviction is really a defensive cover, then he too will fall victim to its deceit.

It's difficult to rid an impressionable mind from an impressive idea.
Like a spoiled brat, raised on the lap of luxury, with no experience with what it takes to earn what was given to it, it's hard to go from abundance to penury.

Everything pales by comparison, and just will not be enough.
This is the drama of a narcissist, dealing with how his self-aggrandizing identity copes with an indifferent world.
What can compete with a one-God, an absolute authority, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, benevolence?
We see the dilemma faced by 'recovering' Abrahamics.
What could possibly fill in that absolute absence?
Something, no doubt, of equal absurdity and promise.
A narcissist fills in the void with himself, the cynic with the absolute 'nil'.
Others may fill it in with 'humanity', or the absolute cocnept of a one, a whole, a complete perfect singularity.
Something vague enough to avoid being exposed, as the Christian Abrahamic one-god was exposed, as what it truly is; something obscure and yet formidable....like the human ego, or an equal to it theoretical idea.

Some criteria are:
-That it must be absolute, indubitable, certain - telos by any other name, would sound no less pleasing...
-It should be 'positive' even if it is described as a 'negation'. The feeling, the benefit, is what is being described.
And that is a matter of 'beholding- for it is in the mind of the beholder.
-It should be vague enough to evade all definitions, all conceptions, and so remain plausibly deniable.
The bible remained Oracle-like in its verbiage, but the Church went too far in becoming obvious, shattering the magical spell over the hearts and minds of its zombie-like following.
-It ought to stand for 'goodness' though it will deny all forms of morality. Non-admitted 'goodness' protects itself from 'evil' by denying its nature - hiding in denial. The usual method is to use other as the reflection of the 'evil' the 'negative', implying your own 'goodness' indirectly. That's why Nihilists accuses others of fear and hate.
-Adopt the feminine method of associating with the biggest, badest [sic], masculine icon/idol available, or the one who is the most popular, to make the biggest impact.

Many choose to interpret their icon's 'Beyond good and evil' as an absolute amorality.
The typical either/or absolutism.
If not absolute good then absolute evil, and if not absolute good ro evil, then absolutely no good/bad, in relation to the individual's well-being.

The objective can be a subjective goal, within which good/bad replaces universal good/evil. Relative to this subjective intent, motive, the choice, the behaviour is evaluated.
But degenerates want to eliminate even this standard so as to absolve themselves of all responsibility - save themselves form all sin, from all culpability.
They do so by adjusting the cocnept 'god' to a more secular version, i.e. absolute order.
They are 'liberated' saved, from responsibility because God-Creator, becomes Self-determination all, including their failures in relation to their own goals.

Many retain innocence, for themselves, by projecting guilt upon other.
Though they would claim otherwise, they insinuate the other's responsibility in their own failures, or in their own state, circumstances.
if all were fated, determined, then there would be nothing to talk about, nothing to analyse, because all is determined...all one can do is endure; stoically accepting what has been determine.
There are no mistakes.
Philosophy is spiritualized, into a method of coping, of evaluating and coming to terms with what has been already determined - even this has been determined.
What remains is to wait for the next thing determined - like the slaughter in New Zealand - to be processed, after-the-fact as what has always been inevitable; universal intent.
What is implied - but not admitted - that the Universe has as its 'purpose' the emergence of life, as the existence of life - perceived after-the-fact - is inevitable, and part of some kind of universal plan.

God-Creator becomes One-Determining....both absolute, wholes - singularity.

Existence is defined as a cannibalistic, masturbating process - self-gratifying.