Psychopaths are individuals and, as such, are probably represented in every religion. But, because we are more rational than most people, we are probably represented most prominently among atheists. I live in a heavily Christian country where atheism is so heavily stigmatized, no atheist has ever been elected to a very prominent position in government. A number of folks actually think atheism is “evil” (since believing in Christ is the paramount virtue). Psychopaths are also considered “evil” by a great number of people. Satanism is kind of an anti-religion although it now enjoys status as a religion which enables satanists to have chaplains in the army and such. Needless to say, Satanism is also considered “evil,” perhaps even more evil than atheism or psychopathy.
I have long been aware of “satanism’s” existence in the world. I thought different things about it at different times. During the “satanic panic,” I read Michelle Remembers, a chilling tale of ritual abuse that turned out to be the product of a false memory. The media and I really wanted to believe these horrors went on if only for their sensationally scary value. Of course, we abhorred it but we secretly wanted it to exist so we could enjoy abhorring it with shudders and chills. But the sensational stories all proved to be false. The only real Satanism turned out to be a few legitimate, above-ground organizations that didn’t even worship the devil, much less perform sacrifices. Still Christianity made Satanism seem pretty verboten anyway. Christianity was “good” so Satanism must be “evil.”
I recently saw some videos by Satanists that have gotten me thinking. The one shown below is by a really cool, rational and intelligent guy named styxhexenhammer666. His views are an exact mirror of my own. That made me wonder if I was a satanist without knowing it. Styx was raised as a Christian but he managed to free himself from that insanity. He has, he says, always been drawn to the darkness (which is not the same thing as “evil”). I, who was raised without religion, have always been drawn to the “darkness.” Whatever seems morbid or somehow averse has always fascinated me. I attribute my proclivities to psychopathy. Styx does not. In this particular video, Styx explains why the god of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is evil. He is not alone in this belief. Many of the early Gnostics believed the same thing. It’s really not hard to prove. An infinite, all-powerful deity creates us, finite in power and understanding but with a soul that will exist forever. Then he judges us and either rewards or tortures us for all eternity for what our limited, finite intelligence led us to do.
Styx is a Satanist, but an independent one. He is a member of neither the Church of Satan nor the Temple of Set. However, he holds both organizations in high esteem. Nicholas Schreck, who married Zeena Lavey, daughter of Anton Lavey, founder of Church of Satan, was (or still is) a member of Temple of Set and The Werewolf Order. In some videos, he comes across as super-grandiose, to the extent of being downright cartoonish. Yet in other videos, he shows himself very intelligent and reasonable. Zeena Schreck is now a Buddhist, albeit of the dark variety, Tibetan, of course. She has given a class in the Kali Yuga, the age of Kali, a Hindu goddess who represents the awesome and terrible aspects of nature.
Styx and Schreck seem to agree that Satanism is libertarian in it’s political direction. As such, we can see another similarity between Satanists and Psychopaths. Although we’re not all libertarians by any means, libertarianism seems to fit psychopathy particularly well. The lack of empathy and individual quest for pleasure and other good things make it a good match. James Fallon is a libertarian, one who is honest enough to admit that the policies of libertarianism can lead to real hardship of people who presently depend on government benefits in order to get along. Nicholas Schreck has stated that Satanism is not for the masses. It is elitist. He disavowed any concern for the well-being of anyone who is “weak.” He only cares about the strong, among which he apparently numbers himself. Libertarianism isn’t identical to Social Darwinism but it is close. Schreck’s views are so socially Darwinist as to remind me of Ayn Rand. She called her philosophy Objectivism. 
Lots of labels distinguishing fine points of a philosophy that is pretty much all about survival of the fittest. Schreck’s fundamental principle is that Nature is the guide to what furthers survival of our species. This basis of “the good” led him to some singular views. He also is down on homosexuality (not for moralistic reasons but it’s “not natural”) and rock music (it leads to self-destruction). As such, he gave the impression of a rather tight-assed, haughty individual. In reifying nature, Schreck aligns himself with Anton Lavey (although Lavey didn’t diss homosexuality and he embraced rocker, Marilyn Manson). Michael Aquino, of the Temple of Set, was more focused on the individual separating himself from the Universe. “The Black Magician … rejects both the desirability of union with the Universe and any self-deceptive antics deigned to create such an illusion.”
Styx, who regards Nicholas Schreck as a “mentor,” seems much more down-to-earth and reasonable. He clearly believes in ethics based on a sense of everyone having the right to be free of arbitrary harm. It isn’t clear whether Schreck’s disdain for “equality” would include disregard of the rights of the “weak.” Probably, he wouldn’t harm them but just wouldn’t hurt them either. In this respect, his views are a lot like those of Ayn Rand.
Comparing myself to the Satanists, I find I am freer than they are. They still need to justify themselves by following a system of ethics that they can defend. To harm another without good reason is “wrong,” according to Styx. I agree it is wrong. But I have done so and don’t feel guilty about it. I realize I don’t want any religion because even one that isn’t burdened by irrational traditions feels like a straight jacket. Setians worship individualism. I already have it. Yet, my own form of mysticism would probably clash with the Temple of Set’s goal of being an “isolate intelligence.” I believe we are all one in a metaphysical sense. But, if we are all one, doesn’t that come to the same thing as being “isolate?” If all is one, there is no other. Rather a tricky point but I think it resonates.
Styx sees Satanism as aligned with Universal values. Although he doesn’t use those words, he actually preaches the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” That is compatible with the law of Thelema, “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” What misleads people about the wording of this law is that one’s true will is aligned with the Universal will.
All these labels. All these meanings. What we are left with in the end is individualism. The phrase that resonates with me is still “I am alone. There is no god where I am.”
Links
- Nicholas Schreck interviewed by Tom Mezger on am show called Race and Reason
- Bob Larson Interviews Zeena and Nicholas Schreck in a show billed Showdown with Satanism
- Bob Larson Interviews the Schrecks, earlier in their career.
- Social Darwinism of Ayn Rand. My rebuttal of that philosophy.
- Styxhexenhammer666
- You Tube’s Styxhexenhammer666: A Darkly Illuminating Force of Reason to be Reckoned With by Jennifer K. Hugus
- Is Libertarianism anything more than Social Darwinism? Quora
- Anton Lavey’s Deathbed Recantation of Satanism? debunked by Styxhexenhammer666
- Satanism is Not Evil and is Compatible with other Faiths and Philosphies. Styxhexenhammer666
Dr. Michael Stone said, on the British TV show, 
Wikipedia defines Reparenting, 
I’ll be frank. The very concept of reparenting gives me the Icks. Dr. Bernstein makes a big thing of arguing that psychopaths have a vulnerable side. Huge surprise! I already know I have a vulnerable side. Do I want to expose it to a therapist? Not really. But some people just love the idea of people like me surrendering to empaths and becoming empathic. Dr. Bernstein keeps emphasizing in his speech how hardassed his patients were. The more of a badass, the greater the victory. This reminds me of certain Chick Comics in which a hard-as-nails gangster softens up and “accepts Christ.” Dr. Bernstein begins his speech by describing two such badass psychopaths who break down into tears. He seems to be attached to the image of a psychopath crying. But they had both become seriously ill before they cried.
I have to ask myself, “What’s wrong with me the way I am?” My answer is, “Not a damned thing.” Yes. That’s very grandiose of me. I love being grandiose. Grandiosity works. Why should I become somebody else? Because society thinks I should? Because 
She has blogged about Beth Thomas
The patients of Dr. Bernstein and his team are convicts doing hard time. Those who can’t be “helped” by psychiatrists are sent to a place where they are given up as hopeless. They will probably never get out. That certainly helps explain why they allow themselves to be “reparented.” Do they really break down to be remolded into a more acceptable model? I don’t know. It’s not as if we aren’t capable of crying for an ulterior purpose. Dr. Bernstein reminds us of a shrink who discovered to his consternation that a patient who had been “making progress” under his care had actually been making a chump of him. He found that out when he read the man’s diary. Dr. Bernstein’s successes can be of the same sort. I think he realizes that.
When I taught English in Germany, one of the books I used was called Oh, These English, a humorous look at English ways. One chapter was devoted to The Queue. A more American way to saying this is “Waiting in Line.” The text assured us that the English love to queue up. If there are only two people at a bus stop, they will form a queue. A single man will form a queue of one. A man in a queue is a fair man. This makes perfect sense, of course. If everyone can’t access something at the same time, there has to be an order in which people can access it. Everyone grabbing for it at once, the way people storm the doors of the subway trains during rush hour in New York is brutish and uncivilized. The strongest and most aggressive will get in first. They will get the best seats and the polite, timid and weak will be left with whatever is left over. Is that fair? There are also rules preserving seats for the handicapped since they usually wouldn’t be able to fight their way to these seats. Again, this seems civilized and fair.
So what is my problem? Why do I hate to have to wait my turn? I do accept the premise that queuing up is the fairest way. But these days, it seems I’m having to wait for everything. Can’t talk to someone who’s on the phone. And people are always on the phone. I saw a comedy about this once. A man wanted to propose marriage to a girl but, every time he tried to pop the question, the phone rang. So, at the end, he solved the problem by calling her up, himself. What is it with the phone? Why does it pr-empt face to face conversation. Because the person calling can’t see what’s happening at the other end so he needs to be answered first? I guess. But when do people who are actually present physically get a chance?
Then there’s traffic lights. They are controlled by computer. Our movements are controlled by machine. Does anyone else cheat by crossing against the light like I do? I can see if a car is coming. These lights are on a pre-set length of time regardless of what is happening. Why can’t they have traffic cops? To eliminate jobs.
Please repeat.” But they never do “get it.” So we are presented by a list of options. None of the options ever seem to match my needs. A single operator can understand immediately what I’m talking about. But you have to go through so much shit before you get to reach the operator. Companies don’t want to pay human wages. Computers save money. With all the unemployment, shouldn’t real people do a lot of this work? (One exception is Google, which is amazingly skilled in grasping context and meaning. Go Google!)
But back to trying to communicate on a phone. Technical support or customer support are torture devices. Not that all technical support people are bad. Some are really helpful. Hewlett-Packard has some brilliant technicians. But you have to go through so much before you reach one. They want to know if you are a business or a person. They want to know your name, if you have a case number, even the serial number hidden in the back of your printer. Personally, I don’t like to recite my name to a computer. It reminds me of Emily 
Dickinson’s poem:
Maybe it’s my grandiosity. I am heartily sick of telling my name and spelling it out. And how about numbers? There are so many damned numbers. We have Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, customer numbers, birthdates, zip codes. Ugh! And then there are passwords. I have so many damned passwords. I write them down to remember them but it doesn’t help. My “user name and password” never match. I’m forever creating new passwords.
When you look at all the complaints, there is really one term that covers all the situations: 
I think one of the reasons Americans are so phobic of the word “socialism” is that it represents being one of the crowd. I think many of us are pining to be treated as individuals without “other customers” always being ahead of them. In a small town, you go to the store where the proprietor knows you personally. He has time for you and you don’t have to wait. But the choices in a small town are terribly limited. The price of the plethora of options is being part of the crowd. People are always trying to get a more advantageous position. That’s why those who have an advantage guard those advantages so jealously. White and male supremacy are clearly, not only unfair but tools to keep the oppressed masses from rising up against their oppressors. But I think this is one of the reasons Americans fear “socialized medicine” so much. They know blacks have such a wretched time with clinics for the poor. They are afraid socialized medicine would put those blacks ahead of them, at least some of the time. They don’t want to lose their advantage.
But how do we give up our advantage when, even with a relatively privileged spot in the 99%, we are driven so mad by the constant frustration that comes with being a number, a cipher instead of a person. The solution of uniting to take power collectively looks like more of the same. Still relinquishing our SELF interest. Let’s face it. We want to look out for number one. And we are EACH number one to ourselves. Selflessness? Sacrifice? These words turn my stomach.
In Lord of the Flies, when Simon “hears” the speech of the pig’s head, “Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! . . . You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are the way they are?”
Is the devil stalking me? Has someone placed a malevolent spell on me?
Several months ago, I was presented with my rent bill, double in size. Turns out I had never been credited with the prior month’s payment. Investigation showed my rent check had gone to someone else’s account. That happened the very next month again. Things were ok with the rent for a short while until the time, they lost the check entirely. I put a stop pavement on the lost check and suggested Courtyards eat the $31 charge for the stop payment. OK. But next month, the $31 magically reappeared on my bill. They say it will be alright. Hope so.
debit card was compromised and I had to get new ones. I find debits on my account I didn’t make. I have to go without a card until I can get a new one. This story by Katherine Mansfield explains how I feel.
Since he had retired, since his … stroke, the wife and the girls kept him boxed up in the house every day of the week except Tuesday. On Tuesday he was dressed and brushed and allowed to cut back to the City for the day. Though what he did there the wife and girls couldn’t imagine. Made a nuisance of himself to his friends, they supposed….Well, perhaps so. All the same, we cling to our last pleasures as the tree clings to its last leaves. So there sat old Woodifield, smoking a cigar and staring almost greedily at the boss, who rolled in his office chair, stout, rosy, five years older than he, and still going strong, still at the helm. It did one good to see him.
‘I’ve had it done up lately,’ he explained, as he had explained for the past how many weeks.
Windsor Castle.’
The old man swallowed, was silent a moment, and then said faintly, ‘It’s nutty!’
Old Woodifield paused, but the boss made no reply. Only a quiver in his eyelids showed that he heard.
‘D’you know what the hotel made the girls pay for a pot of jam?’ he piped. ‘Ten francs! Robbery, I call it. It was a little pot, so Gertrude says, no bigger than a half-crown. And she hadn’t taken more than a spoonful when they charged her ten francs. Gertrude brought the pot away with her to teach ’em a lesson. Quite right, too; it’s trading on our feelings. They think because we’re over there having a look round we’re ready to pay anything. That’s what it is.’ And he turned towards the door.
The door shut, the firm heavy steps recrossed the bright carpet, the fat body plumped down in the spring chair, and leaning forward, the boss covered his face with his hands. He wanted, he intended, he had arranged to weep….
office learning the ropes for a year before the war. Every morning they had started off together; they had come back by the same train. And what congratulations he had received as the boy’s father! No wonder; he had taken to it marvellously. As to his popularity with the staff, every man jack of them down to old Macey couldn’t make enough of the boy. And he wasn’t in the least spoilt. No, he was just his bright natural self, with the right word for everybody, with that boyish look and his habit of saying, ‘Simply splendid!’
At that moment the boss noticed that a fly had fallen into his broad inkpot, and was trying feebly but desperately to clamber out again. Help! Help! said those struggling legs. But the sides of the inkpot were wet and slippery; it fell back again and began to swim. The boss took up a pen, picked the fly out of the ink, and shook it on to a piece of blotting-paper. For a fraction of a second it lay still on the dark patch that oozed round it. Then the front legs waved, took hold, and, pulling its small, sodden body up, it began the immense task of cleaning the ink from its wings. Over and under, over and under, went a leg along a wing as the stone goes over and under the scythe. Then there was a pause, while the fly, seeming to stand on the tips of its toes, tried to expand first one wing and then the other. It succeeded at last, and, sitting down, it began, like a minute cat, to clean its face. Now one could Imagine that the little front legs rubbed against each other lightly, joyfully. The horrible danger was over; it had escaped; it was ready for life again.
But just then the boss had an idea. He plunged his pen back into the ink, leaned his thick wrist on the blotting-paper, and as the fly tried its wings down came a great heavy blot. What would it make of that! What indeed! The little beggar seemed absolutely cowed, stunned, and afraid to move because of what would happen next. But then, as if painfully, it dragged itself forward. The front legs waved, caught hold, and, more slowly this time, the task began from the beginning.
It was. The last blot fell on the soaked blotting-paper, and the draggled fly lay in it and did not stir. The back legs were stuck to the body; the front legs were not to be seen.
more kinds of behavior that society didn’t quite accept as right and proper. People who were “difficult” now found themselves vindicated as they were increasingly considered sick the way people with diabetes or appendicitis are sick. Nobody blames sick people and now victims of mental illness wouldn’t be blamed either. At first, people were either neurotic or psychotic. Later on, more forms of “mental illness” were “discovered.” Today, we hardly ever hear the word “neurosis.” We hear a lot about personality disorders, developmental disorders and mood disorders.
conditions have never managed to free themselves from moral stigma. People are still people and, as such, tend to judge. Conditions that are now considered to be disorders are those that cause some problem for society or, at least, clash with accepted social values. Advocates of people with stigmatized conditions can talk forever but society clings to it’s original judgmental view of people who don’t fit the idealized mold.
Addiction is now called a “disease.” So are problematic personalities and even learning difficulties. While it’s nice that alcoholics and addicts are not condemned as often and as harshly as they used to be, the “cure” for addiction still involves free will and discipline on the part of the “recovering” addict. S/he must accept certain dogmas which started in the 12-Step movement and have been adopted and developed further by professional organizations such as Hazelden. While considered victims of a disease, addicts are still expected to play an active role in their recovery.
While the medical establishment has built up an elaborate edifice of dogma, there have always been the mavericks who challenge those dogmas. Even schizophrenia has come under the scrutiny of Dr. R.D. Laing. More radical critique have come from Dr. Thomas Szasz, whose book, The Myth of Mental Illness, attacked the very concept of psychiatry. There is a movement behind these intellectual critiques. 
themselves in institutions where they lose their civil rights. Perhaps that’s why there is less organized resistance to psychiatry. Far from forcing “treatment” on people with personality disorders, psychiatrists are prone to avoid even treating such “patients.” That is especially true for people with Cluster B, the so-called “dramatic cluster” of personality disorders. Of this group, people with Histrionic, Narcissistic and Antisocial Disorders are usually happy to ignore psychiatry. Only people with Borderline Disorder usually seek treatment because they suffer the most. But psychiatrists are usually averse to treating Borderlines. They, in turn, are actively fighting their plight with movements such as 
Most psychopaths, which psychiatrists call people with ASPD, Anti-Social Personality Disorder, are probably the most adverse to “treatment.” Most of us do not believe there is anything wrong with us. An exception is Jessica Kelly, mentioned in my opening paragraph. She hearkens back to when “mental illness” was the alternative to being a bad person. Psychopaths are all-too-often considered bad or evil. Even psychiatrists who supposedly have moved beyond that kind of moralism psychiatry was supposed to eradicate often judge us in moralistic terms. I suspect one reason so many people can’t let go of their judgments is that we are, as Robert Hare puts it, Without Conscience. At the same time, we are hyper-rational which makes us calm and matter-of-fact even when discussing subject matter most people find volatile. Whatever the reason, the magic blanket which so successfully shields other “mentally ill” from judgment doesn’t seem to cover us. There are even books like People of the Lie by Dr. M. Scott Peck who unabashedly mixes Christianity with science.
We are going to have to live with stigma. Correcting the judgments of psychiatry won’t do it. The DSM no longer called homosexuality a disorder. But homophobia lives on. Blacks are equal by law in the United States but are still discriminated against. “Jews need not apply” no longer graces want ads. But antisemitism is a lot harder to eradicate than such overt signs of it. Stigma will last as long as human stupidity which I expect to last as long as we live.
It is well known that boredom is the nemesis of the psychopath. This blog has been a great antidote to boredom for me. But I still suffer from it in between posts. I refuse to write empty posts just for the sake of posting. And such empty posts would not alleviate boredom. Well, here’s a topic I 
can sink my teeth into.
What do other psychopaths experience? I find that few of us really talk about this. One who does is Jessica Kelly. “Imagine that you are stuck in a lecture hall listening to a boring presentation on a topic that you have no interest in. Now, imagine that that presentation will never end until you die.” Zhawg calls his boredom a “need for inspiration.”
Non-psychopaths have had more to say about our boredom than we have. Claudia Moscovici, at psychopathyawareness, made some observations which I can relate to. She says we focus really intensely on our goals but we lose interest in whatever goal we have been pursuing. She quotes Cleckley as saying, “The psychopath shows a striking inability to follow any sort of life plan consistently, whether it be one regarded as good or evil. He does not maintain an effort toward any far goal at all.” Of course, this can be a 
description of where our boredom leads us rather than an explanation of why we get bored. And not all psychopaths give up an interest that quickly or easily. Some pursue careers at which they excel and stick to them throughout their lives. But others, like me, never have a specific life-path. I always took my life a day at a time. Claudia provides an explanation for those who don’t stick to anything for the long haul. “Going to medical school, maintaining a good job, nourishing a relationship, all take hard work, which may not always be exciting. Psychopaths prefer instant gratification and effortless results.” It’s true that I would rather be a racing steed than a drayhorse. Excitement wins out over tedium every time. Andy McNab was successful in his career because it demanded the kinds of challenges a psychopath enjoys.
According to Adelyn Birch, psychopaths get bored easily because we have shallower and fewer emotions so we need “stimulation in order to feel anything.” But she claims we can only satisfy our need with “victims.” “During these times, the psychopath goes on an aggressive pursuit for more. Since they have no conscience, they are uninhibited in their search for relief.” Sure we need stimulation but there are other ways to get it than “victimizing” people.
Years ago, I came up with a strategy for dealing with pain. I focused on the pain itself, asking myself what, in the sensation itself, is “bad.” The more I focused, the more the sensation receded. I had discovered a way to make the pain disappear. The trick is you can’t allow yourself to think you are trying to make it go away or it doesn’t work. You have to be honestly focusing on the pain and trying to be as conscious of it as possible. I developed a philosophy to go with this strategy. I believe that what makes suffering is not the sensation of pain, but the effort to flea from it. Therefore, freedom from pain consists of being totally in the moment, in present time. Acceptance of whatever is happening at that moment is free of suffering. This goes with a lot of yoga and Eastern religion where being present is the key to enlightenment. It is enlightenment.
Boredom is a form of pain. Why not banish it the same way? This technique requires a lot of discipline. I can’t always achieve it. One must stop thought. Thought is like that pacing lion. One popular technique of meditation is the mantra. Think about what a mantra is. It’s a repetition of a word or phrase. I heard a story of a man who was “gifted” with a genie who would do whatever the man told him to do. Trouble was that the genie was so efficient, he finished every task really quickly and the master was burdened with the task of finding more things for the genie to do. Desperate, he went to a guru. The guru told him to order the genie to climb up and down a ladder over and over. That’s the mantra. It’s still a kind of pacing but it also shuts down other activity like thought. It’s a kind of mindlessness. I like to just focus on a single spot in my sight. Whatever it takes.
Google defines fair as: “in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.” Just is defined as: “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.” So the former word is more about rules and standards and the latter about morality. The word, morality, in this context implies universality while rules and standards suggest a sport or game. As a psychopath, I am sometimes shocked at how much a specific example of injustice can bother me. Fellow blogger, James, wrote 
in other words, everyone. For many people, “morality” is whatever tradition says it is. For these people, rules and morality are the same thing. If a girl breaks the rules by getting pregnant out of wedlock, she has behaved “immorally.” Psychopaths tend to think more logically (not that only psychopaths are logical). We are more likely to work out our own idea of what is right and wrong by applying universal standards then appealing to religion or tradition.
As James pointed out, murder is the most universally condemned act. However, “murder” doesn’t apply to killing in battle or even court appointed executions. (Some people try to extend the definition of “murder” to include abortion, killing animals and other taking of life. But it seems clear to me that the reason murder is condemned is not the fact that it ends someone’s life but the fact that it is destructive to social cohesion. A society can’t bond very well as a united, functioning institution if people don’t know whether their fellow citizens are apt to kill them at any time. We have rules to make us feel secure in our social unit. The same is true of stealing and other actions that violate our area of safety. As James pointed out, some acts are allowed in some societies under some conditions but not in others. Rape, for example, used to be allowed within marriage but now it is forbidden. As long as the rules are clear and predictable, we feel safe.
The more pluralistic a society, the more complicated and debatable the rules may become. The United States of America is extremely pluralistic and has a complex, often morally confusing history. As a people, we generally condemn 
with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.” We felt very righteous while Eichmann was being tried for this crime. But our history contains some flagrant examples of the same thing. Our founders practically wiped out the indigenous population to make room for ourselves. “We” also kidnapped and enslaved people from Africa. Slavery has long been a controversial subject, some defending it and others condemning it. The anti-slavery people won. Makes sense since one of the main points of morality upon which the American Republic was founded was that “all men are created equal.”
We have never really had equality in the United States. Defenders of the righteousness of our society say that only “equality of opportunity” is guaranteed by our principles. But we don’t really have that either. It’s generally conceded that our society is become more unequal economically. The 1% is richer than ever and the middle class is daily losing ground. The infamous Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, has compounded economic inequality with political inequality (not that there was ever equality there either) by letting the rich pour as much money as they wanted into political campaigns. We still have one person one vote (supposedly) but the ability to massively advertise for one candidate over another makes the race unequal. Frankly, I don’t understand why 
voters are so easily influenced by advertising. Can’t they think for themselves? But be that as it may.
All of the above is only an introduction to the real topic of this blog post. Why would someone without empathy or a conscience care if someone not oneself is being fucked over? Clearly, some things are unfair. What’s it to me if I’m not the victim of the injustice?
the way the world is supposed to work and the way it really works. We are taught that we live in a fair world. “The policeman is your friend.” I didn’t know if he was or wasn’t because I had had no encounters with one. When I was arrested, it was nothing like I had imagined. Not only were our keepers acting in accordance to an orderly set of rules. They were like thugs. Even so, the news of cops shooting unarmed black people and getting away with it shocked me. It seemed there was a veneer of civilization spread over an abyss of nihilism. Power is the only consistency. Those with power run things no matter how they got the power. They can do whatever they want as long as they appease the ones with more power. And everyone keeps up the facade of a fair, orderly world.
present the facade of being part of the “fair,” rule abiding world. I find my islands of sanity within the whirling tides of lunacy. Not everything is based on the cynical use of power. Many people are just oblivious the reality and just go through life with blinders on. They are controlled by the people of power through emotions and sentiment. Their emotions are powerful. You learn to channel them in the right direction and stay out of the way. It’s a very alienating.
people who continue to believe they can change things. I’m impressed with their good intentions and energy. But I don’t see them winning. No matter how absurd things get, nothing ever changes. Today I read about a 
One of my earliest memories was lying in bed suddenly realizing the extraordinary fact of my own existence. Of course, I already knew I existed but I hadn’t, until then, grasped the awesome implications. Ayn Rand said, about her impending death, “I will not die. The world will end.” So birth must mean the creation of the universe. The world begins and end with every person (and animal, too, I guess). This death we are talking about is a ceasing of consciousness. When we are in a deep sleep or lose consciousness, we experience this (if 
“experience” is the right word). What “exists” without consciousness? There isn’t even any time. You can be “out” for a minute, an hour or a month. It will not register as any time at all. When I went under general anesthetic for surgery, I remember counting backwards and suddenly I had a bandage on my abdomen and was told it was “over.” It felt like a miracle. I knew I had to go through an ordeal. I had to have my appendix removed. But the ordeal happened without me being present. Or, as Ayn Rand would have it, none of it “existed.” The surgery, the doctors, even the entire universe, ceased to exist, at least to me. Another time, I hanged myself. My rope broke after I had already lost consciousness. I became aware of cartoons and then the fact that I was lying on the hard concrete and I remembered what led up to it. The striking thing was that, although the idea of death, meaning non-existence is usually fraught with significance, my first awareness after returning from this “little death” was complete indifference. How could I be indifferent to this extraordinary gift of consciousness.
Of course, not everyone believes that death means the end of consciousness, or “the soul” as some call it. They believe that life continues after death but in another form. There is evidence to support that belief. I’m talking about near death experiences. These experiences generally follow a pattern. The person experienced going through a tunnel and coming out at the other end to light. He sometimes meets others, a mentor or loved ones who had died before. There is a bridge and, if he crosses the bridge, he will never be able to come back. He decides it’s not time for him to die and he goes back into the body where he is told he was clinically dead for a while. Others explain away these experiences by hypothesizing that stimulation to the brain causes “hallucinations.” It strikes me that these “skeptics” are driven by a desperation to prove these things don’t happen.
As a psychopath, I wonder if death would be different for me than for other people. On a page that is simply entitled 
interesting..”
New Age philosophy is a fusion of various currents of thought. Theosophy is a big one. A characteristic of Theosophy is the view that it is universal, that is, it applies to everyone. It is divine. As such, it resembles the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It looks to “divine teachers” for revealed truth. But it also flirts with occultism from such groups as the Golden Dawn, the Qabalah and Rosicrucians. In addition, it takes a lot from Hinduism. Because our culture is fundamentally Christian in nature, these various thread were given a Christian twist. For example, Karma, the Hindu version of cause and effect, has been given a moralistic turn in the West. If you do something bad, you will get bad Karma and bad things will happen to you. This is and isn’t how Hindus use the term. Sure, Karma will affect your next incarnation and you are likely to be born as something you abused (one reason many Hindus are vegetarians). But the idea of sin and punishment isn’t really emphasized.
There is no “bible” or dogma for the New Age so everyone is free to his or her take on things. However, despite the freedom of thought, the ideas of New Agers are remarkably similar and harmonious with each other. I detect two currents, one embracing the “oneness” of the universe. New Age thinking is recognizable as such. “Thou art god,” proclaims the hero of Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. This sums up a major difference between the New Age and Christianity. We are all god or potentially god, meaning we are 
ultimately responsible for “our reality.” This has enabled a trend to laissez-faire political-economic policies. It can lead to blaming the victim and discourage social justice movements. There is something solipsistic about New Age philosophy. If everything is One, then it is all perfect. “It is what it is,” is the cliche of the hour. The New Age is generally about tolerance and peace and enlightenment. But it has been used to justify darker currents. Charlie Manson, for example, can say everything is love, including murder. Organizations like the Church of Satan and Temple of Set have claimed the New Age (to the consternation of most New Agers).
The other current is the old Abrahamic duality. There is good and evil. Many New Agers use the word “Karma” interchangeably with their conscience. Anything that might make them feel guilty is likely to bring on “bad Karma.” Of course, Karma can also represent the “we create our own reality” viewpoint. Thus, you can find yourself blamed for misfortunes. “It’s your Karma,” can be a high cosmic viewpoint or it can be a callous dismissal. A “friend” once wrote off my drug bust caused by her possessing drugs in my presence as my “Karma.” At the same time, she was very paranoid about every 
time I reminded her on the phone that they were “her drugs.” So I pointed out that if she got busted by cops listening to our phone conversation, it would be her Karma. See how solipsistic? A sword cuts both ways. The idea that we create our own reality is supposed to encourage us from taking total responsibility. But it can be used, instead, as a way to evade the responsibility fighting injustice.
Most New Age ideas aren’t really new. In the Bible, Job’s “friends” blamed him for his misfortunes (caused in reality by God’s wager with Satan).
In the novel, God’s Radar, a Christian tells the new recruit, “God will never let a right-thinking man starve.” Pretty much the same thing. The charitable explanation is that people want to believe they live in a just universe. The cynical explanation is that people want to lay back behind “I’ve got mine” and not concern themselves with those who don’t have. Since Christ preached to “love thy neighbor as yourself,” one would think a Christian would believe himself obligated to care for the less fortunate. But there are sufficient ways around it in theology.
CLUSTER B 