In this piece, we will explore several common strategic blunders that folks would be well-served to consider.
Reprobate Virtue Signalling
Many have indulged in sin that they later regretted. The shame of sin sometimes drives people to radically overcompensate: a losing strategy. Sin is harmful to our spiritual and physical well being and that is why we possess the inbuilt capacity for shame. The shame mind-state is unpleasant and thus we seek to minimise it, so if we are ashamed of the sins that we commit, we will be less likely to commit them in the future.
The road from sin to salvation is long and arduous, requires much introspection and study, it does not involve finding people more degenerate than you to ridicule so you can feel less shame about your own shortcomings. This is the underlying motivation of people who watch shows like Dr. Phil and those who join Internet communities “just to laugh at people”: behaviour that ironically inspires little shame from its proponents.
It is clear to the wise that virtue is cultivated, not repetitively crammed down the throats of bystanders unlucky enough to be found within earshot. There is no need nor benefit to constantly remind others of one’s “virtue” by haranguing those that supposedly don’t meet your moral standard du jour. It is also clear that those who aggressively point out the flaws of others while failing to practice self-improvement are merely deflecting, care very little about self-improvement and are only interested in feeling better than other people. This behaviour reflects little more than an inferiority complex and associated willingness to use others as pawns in your own sick game of proving to yourself that you aren’t a degenerate shitbag.
Falling Victim to Empathy Miners
Since the shame mind-state is so very unpleasant, psychotic parasites are sometimes driven to exploit it. If you allow someone to identify you with sin, you are also empowering them to absolve you of said sin, which is of course the point of empathy mining. When someone attempts to shame you, what they are really saying is: “you are not acting the way I would like, so I will invoke my tacit moral superiority to patrol your behaviour and the mechanism of control shall be to put you into such an uncomfortable mind-state that you will change your behaviour such that I will retract the allegation that caused the shame in the first place”. There is nothing inherently wrong with invoking this sovereign authority, but it must be done in a benevolent manner (i.e. motivated by a genuine desire to help and guide others) if it is to be effective.
Let’s take for example: the oft-cited “sin” of “idolatry”. The problem with accepting an imprecise label such as “idolator” is that you are also accepting whatever definition the accuser chooses: you are in their power the moment you identify with their label. This is why I refuse to don labels invented by psychotic hacks and rootless grifters that realised they could find more success in fiscal parasitism (sometimes referred to as “usury”) by persecuting “idolators” via mercenary golem armies than they had selling the idols themselves.
Wanting to Have One’s Cake & Eat it Too
There are few things more repellant than people who want power without associated responsibility. Nowhere is this more evident than those who attack viable leaders and yet are themselves too cowardly to step up to the position of leader themselves. These bottom-feeders want the prestige of being able to form the opinions of others yet are too cowardly to also assume associated duties.
Lets take the example of the “intellectual” portrayed below:
This pretentious gasbag has made several false allegations about me as well as attempted (and largely failed) to rally people against me. Apparently he didn’t like the fact that I had more than one reason for not wanting to spend infinity hours analysing video footage that would never meet a forensic standard in any respectable court of law. He needed to be reminded that solutions-oriented people are always more effective than problem-oriented people via the following metaphor: “you are spending hours describing to me why a pile of shit on your living room floor smells bad and I am trying to clean it up – which of us has the more correct strategy?”. He was thoroughly shamed in the process. Such is the risk of attempting to undermine my cult prestige.
Learn from Domingo’s mistake!
In spite of the fact that no atheist has ever won any debate throughout the entire history of civilisation, many people still arrogantly espouse atheism. Madame Blavatsky, founder of the now thoroughly discredited Theosophical Society, was considered an atheist by Swami Dayananda who stated in a lecture:
Those who practice yoga, though but to a small extent, they are always the same externally and internally, and in their dealings they are upright. The dealings of these people are marked by deceit and falsehood. If they knew yoga ever so little, they would not be such dangerous atheists, unbelievers in God. That they are wholly ignorant of yoga, is proved by the single fact of their having no faith in God. Hence the certain conclusion from all this is, that their contradictory professions and doings do not deserve to be put any faith in, and the best thing is, therefore, to keep aloof from them.
Here, we see one of Swami’s (less than successful) attempts to boycott individuals falsely purporting to represent truth, logic and morality.
Since all ideologies function theocratically (in that they are hierarchical values systems) denial of God or the utility of religion restricts one to identification solely with the ego. This leads to an unhealthy fixation on the ego as the supreme source [of consciousness], which leads to an overinflated sense of self-importance: narcissism, or self-worship. One need look no further than the massacres & oppressive tyranny carried out in Soviet Russia and China to understand why Swami correctly identified atheists as dangerous. It may end up being the case that there are more spiritual differences between atheists and believers than between believers themselves.
Failing to Understand Testimonial Authority
When I worked as an audio and video analyst, we had to take courses in expert witness testimony. The reason we spent so much time learning how to properly present ourselves and our evidence is because the character, appearance and wisdom of the opinion former does indeed inform their credibility.
It is not an “ad hominem” to dismiss testimonial authority based on character defects and it is immature to think that one’s personality has no bearing on their credibility. Indeed, pundits are de-facto avatars (living embodiment, personification) of the ideologies they represent – accept this fact or don’t, but don’t be surprised when you get no traction because of your own personal shortcomings.
The traditional perspective is that no testimonial authority is valid until it is validated. The standard of validation depends on the school (learn about valid testimony in my school), and so the process of validating one’s testimonial authority is anything but trivial, nor should it be. To place one’s faith blindly into unvalidated testimony is to be perpetually weak to whatever systematic flaws are intrinsic to the ideology of the person who formed the opinion in the first place!
Lazy shitbags will try to tell you differently, but luckily you can just ignore them.