Thoughts on Narcissism. Part 1: Real evil.

So, This is part one of what I think will be a long 6 or 7 part series. As already explained in the introduction.  

As already stated, it is going to explore the theme of narcissism and how applicable it is in society. The first two parts, this one and the next one, are going to be in support of the general theme. The following parts after that are going to look at the sociology of society. What might be considered collective delusions and the motivations people have for holding them. That might cast doubt on the legitimacy of this claim. 

There is a lot of variation in the abuse community and, I will state clearly. There are a lot of very evil people walking about. The abuse community has explanations of some behaviours that are then taken and misused by others. Such as the term gaslighting. Which, originally was about a person that very deliberately attempts to drive another person mad through cunning deception. Making them doubt their own reality, for strategic ends such as having them committed and claiming money. The term though, by some has been expanded to include pretty much any attempt at evasion or clarification when they are accused of something (hence "threatening the other persons reality").

However, there is also a strain of people that are really seeking support for genuine evil and abuse committed upon them. This can be a little strange sometimes. Reading through Quora, you will read someone that is committed to believing their partner is a narcissist because they talked to someone on facebook. So, jealousy really. Then you will, in basically the next post, read a post by a woman that disagreed with her husband and had her bones broken in three places. 

So let's talk about "evil". This concept might be discussed later, such as when I discuss confusion people get into which makes them think their partner is a narcissist when it is just a normal person. I wonder if sometimes people legitimate adaption to bad circumstance are behaviours that are non positive. 

To get a clear understanding of this I am going to include a couple of quotes from my spiritual base, the Law of One:

Ra: The entity polarizing positively perceives the anger. This entity, if using this catalyst mentally, blesses and loves this anger in itself. It then intensifies this anger consciously in mind alone until the folly of this red-ray energy is perceived not as folly in itself but as energy subject to spiritual entropy due to the randomness of energy being used.

Positive orientation then provides the will and faith to continue this mentally intense experience of letting the anger be understood, accepted, and integrated with the mind/body/spirit complex. The other-self which is the object of anger is thus transformed into an object of acceptance, understanding, and accommodation, all being reintegrated using the great energy which anger began.

The negatively oriented mind/body/spirit complex will use this anger in a similarly conscious fashion, refusing to accept the undirected or random energy of anger and instead, through will and faith, funneling this energy into a practical means of venting the negative aspect of this emotion so as to obtain control over other-self, or otherwise control the situation causing anger.

Control is the key to negatively polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst. Between these polarities lies the potential for this random and undirected energy creating a bodily complex analog of what you call the cancerous growth of tissue.

Here, from session 46.9, we are really focusing on the negative experience. What the channel is saying, and I have included the quote so this can be confirmed. Is that if someone that has made a commitment to the negative/ satanic side. When they experience anger, not only do they suppress it but the best way it can work for them is to use it against someone else for a non positive purpose. Such as intimidation, or abuse. 

I have heard people who grew up in really abusive situations explain this. That as soon as the 'scapegoat' left, the abusive family members developed cancerous conditions and such. 

There is a lot in the Law of One about the fact that the negative exists as a legitimate energy, a legitimate spiritual path of a sorts. But I also wanted to bring in this quote for discussion:

Questioner: Then what is the motivation for the… Oh, let me finish that question first. What is the motiv— what is the mechanism that this unusual sixth-density entity would wish to gain to polarize more negatively through wandering?

Ra: I am Ra. The Wanderer has the potential of greatly accelerating the density whence it comes in its progress in evolution. This is due to the intensive life experiences and opportunities of the third density. Thusly the positively oriented Wanderer chooses to hazard the danger of the forgetting in order to be of service to others by radiating love of others. If the forgetting is penetrated the amount of catalyst in third density will polarize the Wanderer with much greater efficiency than shall be expected in the higher and more harmonious densities.

Similarly, the negatively oriented Wanderer dares to hazard the forgetting in order that it might accelerate its progress in evolution in its own density by serving itself in third density by offering to other-selves the opportunity to hear the information having to do with negative polarization.

Questioner: Are there any examples of sixth-density negatively polarized Wanderers in our historical past?

Ra: I am Ra. This information could be harmful. We withhold it. Please attempt to view the entities about you as part of the Creator. We can explain no further.

The relevant part here then is 'Please attempt to view the entities about you as part of the Creator'.

There is not much substance to this statement and I believe it was discussed a little more elsewhere. The idea that even with negative entities bearing down on you. You don't perceive them as super evil. But as somehow being of God that deserve love or something like that.

This is another part of why I am bringing this subject up. To call someone a 'narcissist'. To classify them in such a way. Brings in answers as to their behaviour. Essentially: They're evil and it can't be helped.

But a more theologically/ spiritually sensitive view might not be to use such a demonisation. 

I will explore these themes. In part 2, I am going to talk about having been involved in this kind of literature myself, then from that I am going to start taking the concept apart. Finally, potentially, coming back to my own real life examples.  

 

Plan for thoughts on 'narcissism'. (Part 0: Introduction)

I have an idea for a set of articles. I want to work though, a coherent set of thoughts on the concept of 'narcissism'.

It will be from both sides. It will make points in favour of the concept. But the goal of the set of articles is really to demystify the concept of narcissism and to cast doubt on its existence.

I have had so many ideas on this that they haven't been able to form into a single article with points. Even a long one. So it is going to be many parts.

These are the parts and concepts I hope to explore:

• The legitimate cause for knowing about concepts such as narcissism and the mainstream view of psychopathy. Most probably referencing the Law of One. The theme of good and evil.
  
• Anecdotal experiences. Reasons I am invested in this. My personal experiences of interactions I have had with people that might be considered 'narcissistic'.
• Modern sociology. An argument that will use porn use and it's narrative, to show how collective themes permeate the culture. The power unbalance in society that is not noticed by a lot of people.
  
• Further and into the red pill. Larger amounts of male virgins in recent times. Pick Up Artists and concessions men sometimes make.  
• The real delusion sometimes shown in society probably referencing a video by 'Taylor the Fiend'.
  
• A description of narcissism. Probably referencing a youtube channel called 'The Common Ego'.
• A break down of these same sorts of behaviours from a different perspective. Bringing in a video by Pearl Davis. This will also expand the concept of cultural toxicity away from just the narcissism subject to spirituality in general. 
• Bringing in the main argument. That the concept of narcissism is fundamentally supported by sociological trends, that are in turn based on misperception and lying, and is too much of a shallow term to be used in real life to be useful. 
• Conclusion. 

Obviously all that can't go in one article.  

The point I am doing this. That I am articulating it all. Is really for ME to stop using the term. For me to have insight into this kind of thing.

Psychology, Philosophy, Status.

Here we go, back at it.

I feel it is good to blog again today. The reason being is that I am taking in a lot of information. I don't feel comfortable taking in any more information. So it is time to express some information.

Also, the issue that I talked about in my last few posts has had time to settle a bit. As I talked about, I believed that I had 'conditioning' that was kind of toxic of bridging that electromagnetic connection 1-8. I did a whole video on this. I do feel now, that I might have moved into more of a 21-45 expression. 

I could do with a bit of the luck that I have identified in connection with blogging and such. But this is kind of rare. Just sometimes things happen and I get a feeling. In relation to the Law of One, karma, and service to others, I think there is some precedence for this kind of thing.

My thoughts at the moment are on status. There are a lot of very relevant everyday signs that status is a very big concern. Despite the modern zeitgeist to kind of not really directly address it. 

I am also looking at philosophy now. As per the last few posts. Going into what Christianity really means, trying to understand things in that lens didn't really work for me. Despite recently saying that I am NOT going into philosophy. I am actually doing so, and I feel it to be a very productive area for me. 

Philosophy, I tend to think of as the male side of psychology. Where psychology is the female. Psychology is concerned with the internal state and best practices. Philosophy is mostly concerned with the outer world, and it has a very strong element of the thing that matters to men a great deal... Status. We can see this clearly in the work of someone like Neitszche or Rene Girard. But even in those that are not so outwardly concerned with status. It is there, and it is there in a big way. Think about Soren Kierkegaard who, from my understanding, talks about theological concerns in a sense. Actually, if you get into it, it is all about status and how it traps people away from his more ideal state. 

It is slow going looking into philosophy. I have a Kierkegaard book and I have only read a few pages. There was an insight on about page 5, summarising Kierkegaards thoughts, not even getting past the introduction. The insight was about faith and was so profound I put the book down immediately. That was more than a week ago. My brain is still fried trying to figure it out. 

I have met something that challenges me intellectually! I hope as I look into philosophy more I will be able to absorb more of it.  

But why status and philosophy? It is something I think about. It is something I fret over even. It will come to pass in this time of great change. For others definitely, and maybe me as well, that a lot of guys will go from a relatively low status position to a relatively high status position. As Trump rolls back DEI and such.

I think it is a worthwhile question to consider these things. To have a model of status and how it works in shifting situations. My impression is that a lot of guys have this. Perhaps all guys. But in my mind, it is certain, not a nice imagining or a plan. But a certainty. That I will gain status in the future. I am doing not a single thing in my physical life to make this come to pass. I am not even a healthy person, although I am improving. But my "logic" is no match for this certainty. Outside a Q style world change I cannot see even a possibility of how this could come to pass in the real world. 

Perhaps this is because I feel that the knowledge I have put together, about the human design chart and Law of One, is needed in the world. Or I believe deeply in the Q narrative. But it is just as likely a natural male belief. That all men have. Perhaps that all men should have as they strive for glory. I cannot be sure at the moment. 

Thus, I wonder things like, when I do gain in status, how do I treat those around me who treated me badly due to my current low status position? If they suddenly want to be "friends" again?

I have also observed a lot about how status works in the real world. Especially when those with left wing beliefs come up against those with right wing beliefs. The things each side expects from each other. 

So another thing of note I think is, say you have two people who are reacting to each other through an ideological lens. Then something comes along and gets rid of that as a concern. Something, some big world even, deletes the barrier between these two different sides. So each person is left to justify themselves without referring to their political beliefs. What happens then?

So yeah, these are my thoughts. It is of course a terrible strategy in blogging to say you are going to stop blogging on a blog you don't advertise much and don't have the ability to advertise much. (When I post on twitter I get 0 views reliably!) But I'm just updating you on my thoughts here.