As to why you are losing subscribers, I think you have been spending too much time ranting about how dumb peasants are and not enough time giving actually interesting and informative analysis. I think it's a classic case of Twitter syndrome. You spend all day looking at dumbass takes until all you can do is complain about how dumb people are online. I don't even follow all these retards so I don't get much satisfaction out of reading your rants against them. That's why I've considered unsubbing, anyway.
Rol...I mean Rurik imo you are totally correct that ideologies are cancerous. You and Anglin have both done outstanding work deconstructing how ideology is used to disarm the critical thinking capacity of the masses. With the Artëm tier Stalinist imo what they basically want is справедливость from top to bottom in society and since Russia has been such a shitshow in all of living memory Stalin was the most recent anchor. That is Stalin was the least bad ruler of the empire since Stalin, and Stalin was actually a mixed bag in that he did some good amongst some very bad. On the other hand everyone else since than has just been bad. And with the traditional Russian "the Tsar is good and the boyers are bad" formulation Stalin really did fight the boyers, and it's true that after the boyers murdered him they dumped their own crimes on him which Stalin predicted with his quote about how after his death a bunch of trash would be thrown on his grave.
With this subject I always need qualify that I'm not actively trying to engage in Stalinist rehabilitation because the problems he addressed belatedly were problems that arose due to a foreign ideological virus he played a starring role in spreading in Russia. However a neutral analysis of Stalin would indicate he went through a learning curve "and began to hate them" or "not appreciate them anymore" and he actively did what Zanons claim Putin has been doing. That is trying to tame and kill his way out of a pit he helped dig in the 1st place. He lost that fight and with that trash dumped on his grave the Artëm tier Stalinists than see the struggle and subsequent post mortem slander fest as some kind of archetype. The valiant king fighting to the death against the rapacious boyers. It's the справедливость they are looking for and projecting. How does one avoid the pitfall of ideology while keeping the archetype? Humans can do without ideology and should in fact, but they can't do without archetypes.
As for the Christianity I'm certainly counted amongst those who are true believers and Dostoevskys observation that if there is no immortality of the human soul than all is permitted is completely irrefutable imo and further more objecting to any mass degeneracy on any terms other than personal dislike is hypocritical and delusional if "good" has no ontological existence of its own. All that exists in this scheme is brute will to power in a pointless, ridiculous universe. As I know you know this has nothing to do with ideology it's a matter of 1st principles that come way before ideology. As Nietzsche observed regarding the murder of God, isn't man compelled to become god just to be worthy of accomplishing the deed? IMO the ideological plagues flow directly from that metaphorical deed of murdering God, when the 1st principles men claim to live by are no longer anchored in God but men you essentially have the masses enslaved. That is men are now living by moral codes they don't actually think have any ontological/divine basis, they are living according to values thought up by other men. Total slave morality and the one thing Nietzsche was absolutely correct about.
Generations of that will domesticate the masses and prepare them to accept anything. Thats why I said I'll always have a soft spot for a guy like Prigozhin, he filled that spot on gods throne in his own nihilistic univers and did not live by any code save his very own. That's why the joker archetype is so damn appealing to the masses. In our modern world where God is dead the masses instinctively recognize that he isn't actually doing anything wrong and infact he is the superman that they are too cowardly to be.
Anyway I know your go to anchor is identity and I don't object to that. My question though would be what makes identity better than Joker/Tony Montana if the "good" doesn't have an ontological anchor beyond the preference of men? How does identity prevent the appearance of a parasitical priest class on its own. You are right about identity imo but that identitys inherent sacredness has to be anchored outside itself beyond the reach of spooks and priests somehow doesn't it?
Well, I'm no materialist, so identity for me isn't just DNA. I believe in an ethnic oversoul. It makes sense to me that such a thing would have to exist. I use Jung's theories and Sheldrake's theories and esoteric tradition, and pre-Platonic thinking to flesh out the idea.
In fact, as I and most bible scholars argue, Yahweh is the ethnic deity of the Hebrew people. It says as much in the OT if you read it in Hebrew - that Yahweh is part of a pantheon and given the people of Jacob which means "deceiver" i.e., Israel to govern. The Greeks in turn believed that they were the sons of Zeus. The idea is ancient and makes sense to me intuitively. Also, in the OT, it literally says that the blood of the chosenites is what binds them to their god.
Now, I understand that in the Septuagint, the words Yahweh and Elohim are replaced with Lord or God, and Christians have to believe in that version (while also acknowledging that the name of their deity is Yahweh and that Yeshua literally means 'salvation from Yahweh' and saying 'hallelujah" which means 'praise Yahweh' at the liturgy). Among right-wingers christians, the hebrew words are denied or, like Christian Identity preaches, they allege that scandinavians were the people written about in the OT.
Regardless of one's political views, Yahweh being the name of god is 100% true doctrine. Christians are considered "spiritual israel". The gifts to the people of Israel have never been rescinded.
To me, as someone who is pro my own people, I simply believe in the same concept that is depicted in the OT, only I believe that it applies not just to the chosenites. My people also have a sacred ethnogenesis even if we don't have a fairytale about it anymore.
But all things material were once metaphysical and retain their connection to the higher realms. This is believed by all religions. You have to believe this to not be a materialist.
Sadly, what I believe is called "idolatry" among Christians even though they have no objection to the concept so long as it is about Yahweh and his chosen nation of priests.
Long story short, yes, Identity is my anchor, but that doesn't mean that identity has no metaphysical value to me. I believe in the profane, material, DNA identity as well as a spiritual identity. My soul is Russian, not just my body.
Ideology believers have bodies that are ethnically designated (nowadays even this is denied actually), but their identity is different. They are "spiritual israel" or they are "spiritual proletarians" (even tho the term is an oxymorony). This is an identity crisis pure and simple. It causes confusion and problems.
What definition of "Ideology" would not include "Authoritarianism"? And with all this musing about "ethnic oversouls", it seems to be a very short step to advocate for the divine rights of kings over the foolish peasants.
As for Rolo's book: when I read it, I thought it was a rant in support of authoritarianism and against liberal democracy. Rather than opposing all ideologies in general, the book specifically advocates for the ideology of "victory" and claims (like all religions) that Authoritarianism is not an Ideology, it's the simple truth.
So, just as Artem is a Communist, Rolo/Skywalker is an Authoritarian. It seems gross to me. I can only deal with it because "he doesn't promote it much, he seems to just like the aesthetic."
And Rolo was so quotable!! But I can't quote "Rurik Skywalker" when I go arguing with Simplicius. The new name is so Disney, it would be like quoting Donald Duck. I'm on my own now.
I don’t consider nationalism an “ism” or an ideology either.
If a problem occurs, a communist has a prescribed solution that he can point to in a political holy text and frame it through his class struggle worldview.
You don’t have that with nationalism.
As for authoritarianism it isn’t an ideology either and neither is an oligarchy. These are just archetypical structures of political governance. Oligarchies are notorious for using ideology to justify their reign. But take Feudalism as a counter example. It doesn’t matter what you believe in medieval warring Europe what matters is your last name. It is a system built on nobility and their competing claims on land and power, not on belief. You can say oh well believing in nobility is an ideology but that is different than a system built on correct belief like Communism or Christianity. In other words it doesn’t matter what I believe what matters is my identity in feudalism. There are other identity based systems though like nationalism where an Indian say can’t just believe the right things and become a German.
I agree there's a distinction between simple, factual descriptions of archetypal structures of governance, as opposed to passionate and organized advocacy of some particular archetype; which I would call "ideology".
In the more authoritarian systems (such as medieval feudalism) it might objectively be true that the beliefs of individual slaves don't matter much. But strangely enough, even in such systems, the rulers expend a great deal of effort creating propaganda to justify their reign. As if perhaps they're afraid that one day the peasants might gather their pitchforks in revolt.
"Nationalism" is not just one thing. There are "nationalisms" based on race, ethnicity, territorial boundaries, ideologies, or a mixture of all these factors.
>"Nationalism" is not just one thing. There are "nationalisms" based on race, ethnicity, territorial boundaries, ideologies, or a mixture of all these factors.
" I'm no materialist, so identity for me isn't just DNA"
I am no materialist either. DNA is not a fixed material thing, it is an evolving antenna connected to the universe, pure information receiver and transcripter.
Orthodoxe Judaism think of soul as Jewish. A family friend of my parents, born Frenc Christian, fall in love with a Sephardic Jewess. In order to marry her, he had to convert. This how I leaned. To be accepted as an Orthodoxe Jew, he had to be recognize as a soul which had been wrongly incarnated in a Goyim body (wrong DNA, not fit for the soul). The conversion had been long and the guy had to leave all his precedent life beyond, even his kids. For the anecdote, he, his wife and their Jewish children move to political Israel and after one year, She couldn't stand the atmosphere and the communities there and they resettled in France. I verified in litterature what we had learned from "the horse's mouth".
"I" don't think "my" soul is French (long noble roots in Normandy), it just went into that very body and the whole great and tragic history.
...the whole great and tragic history"... carried in it. I am dealing with it and give respect to my ancestors. The soul has a much wider history and origin...
It's pretty clear that yeah Yahweh was part of a pantheon, the prophets were a sect that rejected the other gods and were hated for it etc. Solomon built temples to the gods of his wives and well the constant theme of the old testament is the prophets objecting to stuff like this. Alexander and his generals incorporated the pantheons of the locals in the empire into their own, in the Roman Empire Romans converting to the Pharisiac religion wasn't uncommon at all. I think this is likely the origin of the Ashkenazim as opposed to the Khazar thesis.
Basically I don't really think a case can be made that the old pre Christian spiritualities were non proselytizing. I think they all were to some extent so that's why I don't think they can be properly be called ethnic religions. They had plenty of room for non tribal deities. What sort of makes the OT prophets unique is that were so dead set against that practice.
>Basically I don't really think a case can be made that the old pre Christian spiritualities were non proselytizing
They were tolerant, it was the hebrews who weren't. The greeks and vedics would just seek local equivalent deities. The hebrews were given a mission to smash all the other "idols" and force the whole world to submit to Yahweh. They largely succeeded through Islam and Christianity.
Yes, the Khazar thesis is bs. DNA shows italian roots.
If you Google image Hellenic/Roman period synagogues they almost all have depictions of Helios, the Greek zodiac etc. So they were fine with putting images of the local deities in their places worship. Now to me that is a bad thing "hello my fellow Hellenes/Romans etc". Of course the ethic pornographers do the same with fake conversations to Christianity but none the less my point is that they made inroads into local pre Christian cultures just fine and the hardline intolerance of the Yawhee sect of the OT prophets was a stumbling block to this. That is I identify the modern ethnic pornographers more with the people that were happy to mix and adopt other deities as needed to advance their agenda as opposed to the prophets who were always against any mixing.
When Christ told the Pharisees that the Gentiles they converted were "twice the sons of hell" as they themselves were I see very strong evidence that the tolerance was a defect that they were exploiting. Better no tolerance, that is the prophets were right. And if the Ashkenazim are mogrels descended from Roman converts that would suggest Christ also agreed that the hardline anti mixing stance of the prophets was better for everyone.
Yes, but the prophets were not American-style isolationists. They were quite clear in the OT that the goal of their religion was to conquer and enslave the entire world. The nations would be forced to pay tithes to Israel (central banks) and to worship Yahweh but they would not be accorded privileged status with their worship. They would be Noahides and could not convert to Judaism or be accepted in it as equals, only as second-class slaves.
Christ told the pharisees they were of the devil and the works of the devil they would do. When Satan creates new converts they are twice the son of hell that he is. Of course, Satan is the master at exploitation, and of materialistic conceptualizations, particularly ones relating to Scripture.
When Isaiah prophetized that the people would see but not see hear but not understand, this was a prophecy about not seeing or hearing Christ. It's the prophecy that just keeps on going.
I am late with answering this, but where did you get that Christians are "spiritual Israel" ?
YHWH, Yahweh or Yahve is indeed the God or the chief God of Jacob/Israel/the 12 tribes/Juda. Jews are his people like Romans were the people of Jupiter. So quite naturally the alliances that were made to them are still in effect. Crucially the alliances do not include entry into paradise.
But Christians are part of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ, not a spiritual or mystical Israel. Christians are also adoptive sons of God; hence Our Father, who art in Heaven ... The most important promise made by Jesus was the salvation of the soul. He also stated that mere Jews do not go to heaven : "For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20).
I have no idea what spiritual Israel is or what it can mean. It is simply unrelated to normal Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, even Nestorian).
Christianity may give birth to ideologies but is not an ideology in itself. The goal of a Christian is to live in Christ and to let Christ live in him. Do you doubt it ? The reference book for living a Christian life is the "Imitation Jesus Christ" by Thomas a Kempis, the reference book for spiritual growth is the Philokalia. I dare you find an ideology in them.
You may have spent too much time in the USA, like Rolo. There, heresies abound and most of them devolve into political ideologies. But that is not the nature of Christianity. In normal European countries, Christians have stayed out of ideological fights since the collapse of the "Christian democracy", itself a CIA/MI5 Christian-themed fabrication to counter Communist influence. Poland is an exception; it is living through a "Christian democratic" moment of full-scale transition into an American puppet, not even a vassal.
>I am late with answering this, but where did you get that Christians are "spiritual Israel" ?
From Paul's letters and church doctrine. You can find this all explained in detail with just a quick google search. Here, I found something that might explain why Christians are spiritual Jews and why this is considered a good thing. If you havent heard of this before, this certainly explains why you remain a devout Christian probably:
The phrase spiritual Israel is used in two primary contexts. The first is as a reference to the entire body of Christian believers, in distinction to the political or racial people of Israel. Spiritual Israel is also sometimes used to suggest concepts related to replacement theology, in which the promises directed toward Israel are now given to the Church, instead.
Galatians 6:16 refers to the “Israel of God.” Given how frequently Paul dismisses ethic or national divisions in this same letter (Galatians 3:26; 4:5–7; 6:15), it is unlikely that he encourages such divisions here. Instead, he refers to the readers as being similar to Isaac: they are the “children of promise” (Galatians 4:28). Paul has a spiritual group in mind in Galatians 6:16, not an ethnic one. This reference to spiritual Israel is clear enough, but not every reference by Paul to Israel is spiritual in nature. Some, such as Romans 9:4, are national and literal. The context is key.
There are other places in the New Testament that suggest a “spiritual Israel” in that they echo terms used in the Old Testament to refer to the Israelites. First Peter 2:9 uses the same terminology as Exodus 19:5–6 in reference to Christians. Galatians 3:29 uses the term heirs, as does Isaiah 65:9. All Christians are “fellow citizens” and members of the house of God, according to Ephesians 2:12–13. Romans 10:12 also says the same—there is no national preference with respect to salvation. Just as we become spiritual “sons of Abraham” by faith (Galatians 3:7), so we can be considered “spiritual Israel” when we receive Christ. In the sense that ethnicity and politics have no relationship to salvation, the term spiritual Israel presents no noteworthy problems.
Replacement theology, on the other hand, uses the concept of a “spiritual Israel” differently. Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that the many promises God made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church instead—Old Testament prophecies are allegorized in order to make them applicable to the church. Replacement theology presents major theological problems, because Scripture says that God has not forgotten or changed His promises to Israel (see Romans 11:1–2, 11, 23, 26, 29). Teaching that promotes a “spiritual Israel,” in the sense that the Church is the focus of God’s prophetic promises for Israel, is not biblically valid.
I read the epistle to the Galatians. Israel of God (6:16) is in the farewell and may or may not mean that the Christian community is a new Israel : in that sentence Israel of God may refer to the community who lives according to the new rule (of faith) or to the part of Israel that is not hostile to Christians. In the epistle Paul contrasts the circumcised and the uncircumcised a lot.
The epistle to the Galatians explains that Christians are made adoptive heirs of Abraham and to his covenant because Abraham had faith in God. God's promise is that Abraham will have a large descendance, that is name will be honoured through time, that he will be a blessing to those that bless him and a curse to those who do not. That promise has certainly been valid towards Christians. One last promise was made after the non-sacrifice of Isaac : "your descendance shall occupy the strongholds of his enemies". This is true for Jews. It does not seem to apply to Christians. That promise was made after the circumcision and the non-sacrifice so it is of a different nature.
1 Peter (2:9) is not a convincing reference to a spiritual Israel:
* "you are a chose descendance" => chosen instead of fleshly i.e. adoptive ; chosen in the spirit
* "a royal priesthood" => you do not depend on the Cohens and Levis ; spiritually ordained priesthood as opposed to inherited priesthood
* "a saintly nation" => a new saintly nation, Israel being the old one ; sainted in the Holy Spirit
* "a people destined to be saved" => Israel never received this
This sentence is the basis for the church and its organisation independently of Israel. One can build a case that the Church is a spiritual Israel from this statement. But it does not follow necessarily. The main churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian) have never developed this concept and have insisted on the Church as the body of Christ; and rightly so.
I have also spent some time investigating the 97 times that Israel is mentioned in the catechism. Nothing useful came out. In the vein of spiritual Israel also remember reading about the "circumcision of the heart." So the theme does come out but has remained marginal.
Ditto for me. Dear Rolo, please do explain the origin of the universe and living things. All the athesits and cultists and gnostics stop dead right there.
Have you produced an audiobook version of your new book? If you haven’t, but plan to, I hope you use your own voice and then push for it to be available on Apple & Amazon, though Amazon may block you.
You know, it’s only going to get worse, considering WHO really controls most governments, most media and most social platforms attacking good writers/creators, mostly indirectly, with clever word-play, shadow banning, as well as programed algorithmic shit-bots & trolls. I don’t get why you’d lose so many subscribers. Considering what I publish, I’m surprised I have any real human subs, at all. For whatever the reason, most of my subscribers stay with me, with only one or two dropping off after I publish something new criticizing, for instance, Israel’s masters or hardcore American Left vs. Right fight club ring leaders—most of whom are directly attached to AIPAC monies. I’m frequently attacked by random, militarized, Israel-supporting bots, some of whom are almost real persons I discover hiding out in their parents basements slinging nonsense for reactions.
Yeah, thanks, me too. I do, will try NOT to suck, in spite of the chronic infestations of moles, trolls & bots. If marc is in your email name, I just upgraded you to a “lifetime paid subscription” so you can post comments, as I’m doing for all new free subscribers “just this year,” with other special privileges that will be evolving over time, such as my live broadcast still in pre-production. You can visit the still-frame version of my live program on FairTradeBakeGame.tv in the meantime. Like your name tag Chunky Monkey.
So long as your email stays the same, you should be fine. If you do change name tag and you ever have a problem getting back in, just let me know—I never break promises, as a few self-fulfilling end-of-time disciples have learned. That is, I don’t discriminate, and even let some of the monsters keep their paid subscription. BUT…though I’m never “trying” to cut anyone, even those with extreme views, I always promise to eliminate chat-rights for the real Nazis with Eugenicist-agendas trolling for real fist-fights. Some goons seem to think that because I’m anti-Israel “colonialist leadership” and HATE their sprawling militarized-boarder, that I’m pro-Nazis or a KKK supporter. I’m just too “on the spectrum” to comprehend nationalistic race-divisions, but the monsters do try-hard.
Being right doesn't mean you have to be popular. Or right all the time on everything. To me what you say makes the most logical sense and it is the truth I seek above everything else. If I wanted a fairytale I'd not be subbing.
One thing though I'd say I'm still more hopeful than you and that comes down to my understanding and interpretation of the Russian people, which could be incorrect. As said in other comments I am hedging the West falls first. All empires fall. Adam Curtis "Can't Get You Out of my Head" had an interesting conclusion at where we may be going but his documentary on Russia last year was piss poor and insulting.
I bet a lot of the exiting subs heeded what you said, about having a low IQ because they disagreed with you, and thus intimidated by your self-evident brilliance, found another corner of the web in which to engage in self-abasement, shamed to be in your sight. ;-)
There is no need to cover tracks. The "official" crash investigators will do that, just like the FBI and the CIA completely gutted the once venerable NTSB in the TWA 800 "investigation" and how the US gov covered the Israeli 9/11 operation.
Haven't read the book yet but will get there. If there was ever any doubt about Wagner's fate, this latest desecration should remove it: Graves of Wagner soldier in south Russia bulldozed
Well, this is embarrassing. It suggests that #prigozihndidntfakehisdeath. And also that Christians are satanists. I tried to explain to them that they are celebrating Saturn on Christmas but ... you see people cant use their heads, hearts and eyes. They never have. Like Neo from the Matrix - they must learn how to do it. Their eyes hurt because they never used them. And if this ever changes I think we all be dead long time ago but yes, humanity will be free at last.
It is not an article of faith that the date chosen for "Christmas" is actually the day of Jesus' birth. God times babies for spring, not the beginning of winter. S little known "Shepherd's holiday" is far more likely the actual day. Regardless, the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the central fact of Christianity, not dates and places. The modern apartheid so-called "Israel" founded by terrorists and assorted murderers does not sit on "holy land" either. Christianity is the New Israel, the old destroyed forever in A.D. 70 after they had chosen to crucify the Son of God.
If one wants to hear a very interesting Jewish criticizing the "tribe", that guy is the best one can listen to, Roger Dommergue. Very briefly, he says that circumcision is what is so important and psychologically detrimental:
doesn't mean he's wrong any particular thing or everything in general does it? he was right on the covid thing back then when there were few that were.
I haven't followed your links yet but I will. What did you mean to write in that first sentence? There's a typo I think, it doesn't make sense to me.
later: I've checked both links and it didn't turn out well. I can't get good intelligible english translations of either. they both appear very interesting indeed but I'm stumped, stopped. :(
ChatGpt or any iteration of language programming can be 'right', yet not human. My dear neighbour is a truck driver, he didn't believe in the whole covid...
What I meant was that some people claim that Vaknin is not a psychopath because 'they' don't have conscience of being such, so he would be faking again and scamming to make money, and that worked.
To bad you can't follow the provided links since they are indeed very valuable.
You mean the sentence should have been not the confusing:
"Even if some claim that a psychopath doesn't know is one, that is not true."
but "Even if some claim that a psychopath doesn't know it is one, that is not true." ?
Which still ain't good but kinda makes some sense.
After watching some of Sam's vid I kinda (meaning I can't be sure) get the impression that Sam is claiming he is a psychopath. But I don't understand well enough to know if he means it in jest or in 'pure theory' or theory reductio ad absurdum as in we are all 'autistic' because we can all be located somewhere on the autism spectrum if we try hard enough.
But I'm still left wondering what's going on. Are you just claiming that Sam is a psychopath. Is that it?
I meant that in the ongoing scientific 'psychopathy' debate (which I thought you knew), some pretend that a psychopath will never make the claim to be one. That is why some thought Vaknin was just faking to make money out of claiming he was one. I have read for instance the instance of a Canadian surgeon who had discovered that he was a psychopath after doing a test (probably, Hare's one) and reflecting upon himself he accepted that fact. He said that what had played positively for him was the fact that he had a positive environment. But it is true that most psychopath will always try to hide their cold nature. Martha Stout is a good start for reading about psychopathy, as well as Robert Hare. That one is also a very interesting one:
Because many thought he was faking as he had been jailed for fraud and some smelled it was his new business, the guy who made the documentary I linked offered Vaknin a challenge. He would be tested by the best specialists in the different way of diagnosing essential psychopathy, ranging from Hare's test to imagery. Vaknin accepted, his wife to and thus stated the doc. The film maker, had chosen to film himself during the time he would spend with Vaknin, thus offering another insight, the impact of Vaknin on him.
Vaknin is seen as sometime a intellectually charming bright mind (claiming to be a psychopath) and behind the scene being an asshole and a bully, toward the film maker and his own wife.
Most of the tests concluded that he was a narcissist. His wife was tested in a clinic specialized in women victims of psychopaths and was found to be the typical personality for falling in love with narcissists.
It has been demonstrated during the doc that he has faked his diplomas, so the english wikipedia entry is a fraud.
So I am claiming that he is a psychopath out of this knowledge. Vaknin is a typical essential narcissist raised in an educated environment.
Okay. Thank you. Makes things a lot clearer for me. Very interesting, too. I had no idea, none at all, never having 'followed' or investigated Vaknin. My sole interest was his support for the truth in the covid thing and he very soon fell silent in that which was fair enough, so did Ioannidis etc., once the truth was told what else to say?
So he's a psychopath and a narcissist. I knew back then he was forever on about narcissism, it kept intruding into this posts, I found it very tedious.
I suppose the next question, if one sticks with the subject - and I'll take a bit of look into it - would be 'What does it matter?' So many of our popular causes celebres turn out to be much ado about nothing. :)
As to why you are losing subscribers, I think you have been spending too much time ranting about how dumb peasants are and not enough time giving actually interesting and informative analysis. I think it's a classic case of Twitter syndrome. You spend all day looking at dumbass takes until all you can do is complain about how dumb people are online. I don't even follow all these retards so I don't get much satisfaction out of reading your rants against them. That's why I've considered unsubbing, anyway.
that was Rolo, I Rurik Skywalker, will change things up a bit.
thanks for the constructive feedback.
Rol...I mean Rurik imo you are totally correct that ideologies are cancerous. You and Anglin have both done outstanding work deconstructing how ideology is used to disarm the critical thinking capacity of the masses. With the Artëm tier Stalinist imo what they basically want is справедливость from top to bottom in society and since Russia has been such a shitshow in all of living memory Stalin was the most recent anchor. That is Stalin was the least bad ruler of the empire since Stalin, and Stalin was actually a mixed bag in that he did some good amongst some very bad. On the other hand everyone else since than has just been bad. And with the traditional Russian "the Tsar is good and the boyers are bad" formulation Stalin really did fight the boyers, and it's true that after the boyers murdered him they dumped their own crimes on him which Stalin predicted with his quote about how after his death a bunch of trash would be thrown on his grave.
With this subject I always need qualify that I'm not actively trying to engage in Stalinist rehabilitation because the problems he addressed belatedly were problems that arose due to a foreign ideological virus he played a starring role in spreading in Russia. However a neutral analysis of Stalin would indicate he went through a learning curve "and began to hate them" or "not appreciate them anymore" and he actively did what Zanons claim Putin has been doing. That is trying to tame and kill his way out of a pit he helped dig in the 1st place. He lost that fight and with that trash dumped on his grave the Artëm tier Stalinists than see the struggle and subsequent post mortem slander fest as some kind of archetype. The valiant king fighting to the death against the rapacious boyers. It's the справедливость they are looking for and projecting. How does one avoid the pitfall of ideology while keeping the archetype? Humans can do without ideology and should in fact, but they can't do without archetypes.
As for the Christianity I'm certainly counted amongst those who are true believers and Dostoevskys observation that if there is no immortality of the human soul than all is permitted is completely irrefutable imo and further more objecting to any mass degeneracy on any terms other than personal dislike is hypocritical and delusional if "good" has no ontological existence of its own. All that exists in this scheme is brute will to power in a pointless, ridiculous universe. As I know you know this has nothing to do with ideology it's a matter of 1st principles that come way before ideology. As Nietzsche observed regarding the murder of God, isn't man compelled to become god just to be worthy of accomplishing the deed? IMO the ideological plagues flow directly from that metaphorical deed of murdering God, when the 1st principles men claim to live by are no longer anchored in God but men you essentially have the masses enslaved. That is men are now living by moral codes they don't actually think have any ontological/divine basis, they are living according to values thought up by other men. Total slave morality and the one thing Nietzsche was absolutely correct about.
Generations of that will domesticate the masses and prepare them to accept anything. Thats why I said I'll always have a soft spot for a guy like Prigozhin, he filled that spot on gods throne in his own nihilistic univers and did not live by any code save his very own. That's why the joker archetype is so damn appealing to the masses. In our modern world where God is dead the masses instinctively recognize that he isn't actually doing anything wrong and infact he is the superman that they are too cowardly to be.
Anyway I know your go to anchor is identity and I don't object to that. My question though would be what makes identity better than Joker/Tony Montana if the "good" doesn't have an ontological anchor beyond the preference of men? How does identity prevent the appearance of a parasitical priest class on its own. You are right about identity imo but that identitys inherent sacredness has to be anchored outside itself beyond the reach of spooks and priests somehow doesn't it?
Well, I'm no materialist, so identity for me isn't just DNA. I believe in an ethnic oversoul. It makes sense to me that such a thing would have to exist. I use Jung's theories and Sheldrake's theories and esoteric tradition, and pre-Platonic thinking to flesh out the idea.
In fact, as I and most bible scholars argue, Yahweh is the ethnic deity of the Hebrew people. It says as much in the OT if you read it in Hebrew - that Yahweh is part of a pantheon and given the people of Jacob which means "deceiver" i.e., Israel to govern. The Greeks in turn believed that they were the sons of Zeus. The idea is ancient and makes sense to me intuitively. Also, in the OT, it literally says that the blood of the chosenites is what binds them to their god.
Now, I understand that in the Septuagint, the words Yahweh and Elohim are replaced with Lord or God, and Christians have to believe in that version (while also acknowledging that the name of their deity is Yahweh and that Yeshua literally means 'salvation from Yahweh' and saying 'hallelujah" which means 'praise Yahweh' at the liturgy). Among right-wingers christians, the hebrew words are denied or, like Christian Identity preaches, they allege that scandinavians were the people written about in the OT.
Regardless of one's political views, Yahweh being the name of god is 100% true doctrine. Christians are considered "spiritual israel". The gifts to the people of Israel have never been rescinded.
To me, as someone who is pro my own people, I simply believe in the same concept that is depicted in the OT, only I believe that it applies not just to the chosenites. My people also have a sacred ethnogenesis even if we don't have a fairytale about it anymore.
But all things material were once metaphysical and retain their connection to the higher realms. This is believed by all religions. You have to believe this to not be a materialist.
Sadly, what I believe is called "idolatry" among Christians even though they have no objection to the concept so long as it is about Yahweh and his chosen nation of priests.
Long story short, yes, Identity is my anchor, but that doesn't mean that identity has no metaphysical value to me. I believe in the profane, material, DNA identity as well as a spiritual identity. My soul is Russian, not just my body.
Ideology believers have bodies that are ethnically designated (nowadays even this is denied actually), but their identity is different. They are "spiritual israel" or they are "spiritual proletarians" (even tho the term is an oxymorony). This is an identity crisis pure and simple. It causes confusion and problems.
What definition of "Ideology" would not include "Authoritarianism"? And with all this musing about "ethnic oversouls", it seems to be a very short step to advocate for the divine rights of kings over the foolish peasants.
As for Rolo's book: when I read it, I thought it was a rant in support of authoritarianism and against liberal democracy. Rather than opposing all ideologies in general, the book specifically advocates for the ideology of "victory" and claims (like all religions) that Authoritarianism is not an Ideology, it's the simple truth.
So, just as Artem is a Communist, Rolo/Skywalker is an Authoritarian. It seems gross to me. I can only deal with it because "he doesn't promote it much, he seems to just like the aesthetic."
And Rolo was so quotable!! But I can't quote "Rurik Skywalker" when I go arguing with Simplicius. The new name is so Disney, it would be like quoting Donald Duck. I'm on my own now.
I don’t consider nationalism an “ism” or an ideology either.
If a problem occurs, a communist has a prescribed solution that he can point to in a political holy text and frame it through his class struggle worldview.
You don’t have that with nationalism.
As for authoritarianism it isn’t an ideology either and neither is an oligarchy. These are just archetypical structures of political governance. Oligarchies are notorious for using ideology to justify their reign. But take Feudalism as a counter example. It doesn’t matter what you believe in medieval warring Europe what matters is your last name. It is a system built on nobility and their competing claims on land and power, not on belief. You can say oh well believing in nobility is an ideology but that is different than a system built on correct belief like Communism or Christianity. In other words it doesn’t matter what I believe what matters is my identity in feudalism. There are other identity based systems though like nationalism where an Indian say can’t just believe the right things and become a German.
See the difference?
Also my metaphysics is mystical and experiential. It doesn’t matter what you believe what matters is how good you are at meditating, essentially.
The Vijnana Bhairava describes the ultimate technique , master that and transcendence is guaranteed.
I agree there's a distinction between simple, factual descriptions of archetypal structures of governance, as opposed to passionate and organized advocacy of some particular archetype; which I would call "ideology".
In the more authoritarian systems (such as medieval feudalism) it might objectively be true that the beliefs of individual slaves don't matter much. But strangely enough, even in such systems, the rulers expend a great deal of effort creating propaganda to justify their reign. As if perhaps they're afraid that one day the peasants might gather their pitchforks in revolt.
"Nationalism" is not just one thing. There are "nationalisms" based on race, ethnicity, territorial boundaries, ideologies, or a mixture of all these factors.
>"Nationalism" is not just one thing. There are "nationalisms" based on race, ethnicity, territorial boundaries, ideologies, or a mixture of all these factors.
Exactly!
Thanks. I'm just grumpy because you've proven yourself smarter than me about Prigozhin.
" I'm no materialist, so identity for me isn't just DNA"
I am no materialist either. DNA is not a fixed material thing, it is an evolving antenna connected to the universe, pure information receiver and transcripter.
Orthodoxe Judaism think of soul as Jewish. A family friend of my parents, born Frenc Christian, fall in love with a Sephardic Jewess. In order to marry her, he had to convert. This how I leaned. To be accepted as an Orthodoxe Jew, he had to be recognize as a soul which had been wrongly incarnated in a Goyim body (wrong DNA, not fit for the soul). The conversion had been long and the guy had to leave all his precedent life beyond, even his kids. For the anecdote, he, his wife and their Jewish children move to political Israel and after one year, She couldn't stand the atmosphere and the communities there and they resettled in France. I verified in litterature what we had learned from "the horse's mouth".
"I" don't think "my" soul is French (long noble roots in Normandy), it just went into that very body and the whole great and tragic history.
Respect
...the whole great and tragic history"... carried in it. I am dealing with it and give respect to my ancestors. The soul has a much wider history and origin...
It's pretty clear that yeah Yahweh was part of a pantheon, the prophets were a sect that rejected the other gods and were hated for it etc. Solomon built temples to the gods of his wives and well the constant theme of the old testament is the prophets objecting to stuff like this. Alexander and his generals incorporated the pantheons of the locals in the empire into their own, in the Roman Empire Romans converting to the Pharisiac religion wasn't uncommon at all. I think this is likely the origin of the Ashkenazim as opposed to the Khazar thesis.
Basically I don't really think a case can be made that the old pre Christian spiritualities were non proselytizing. I think they all were to some extent so that's why I don't think they can be properly be called ethnic religions. They had plenty of room for non tribal deities. What sort of makes the OT prophets unique is that were so dead set against that practice.
>Basically I don't really think a case can be made that the old pre Christian spiritualities were non proselytizing
They were tolerant, it was the hebrews who weren't. The greeks and vedics would just seek local equivalent deities. The hebrews were given a mission to smash all the other "idols" and force the whole world to submit to Yahweh. They largely succeeded through Islam and Christianity.
Yes, the Khazar thesis is bs. DNA shows italian roots.
If you Google image Hellenic/Roman period synagogues they almost all have depictions of Helios, the Greek zodiac etc. So they were fine with putting images of the local deities in their places worship. Now to me that is a bad thing "hello my fellow Hellenes/Romans etc". Of course the ethic pornographers do the same with fake conversations to Christianity but none the less my point is that they made inroads into local pre Christian cultures just fine and the hardline intolerance of the Yawhee sect of the OT prophets was a stumbling block to this. That is I identify the modern ethnic pornographers more with the people that were happy to mix and adopt other deities as needed to advance their agenda as opposed to the prophets who were always against any mixing.
When Christ told the Pharisees that the Gentiles they converted were "twice the sons of hell" as they themselves were I see very strong evidence that the tolerance was a defect that they were exploiting. Better no tolerance, that is the prophets were right. And if the Ashkenazim are mogrels descended from Roman converts that would suggest Christ also agreed that the hardline anti mixing stance of the prophets was better for everyone.
Yes, but the prophets were not American-style isolationists. They were quite clear in the OT that the goal of their religion was to conquer and enslave the entire world. The nations would be forced to pay tithes to Israel (central banks) and to worship Yahweh but they would not be accorded privileged status with their worship. They would be Noahides and could not convert to Judaism or be accepted in it as equals, only as second-class slaves.
Christ told the pharisees they were of the devil and the works of the devil they would do. When Satan creates new converts they are twice the son of hell that he is. Of course, Satan is the master at exploitation, and of materialistic conceptualizations, particularly ones relating to Scripture.
When Isaiah prophetized that the people would see but not see hear but not understand, this was a prophecy about not seeing or hearing Christ. It's the prophecy that just keeps on going.
Hello Rurik,
I am late with answering this, but where did you get that Christians are "spiritual Israel" ?
YHWH, Yahweh or Yahve is indeed the God or the chief God of Jacob/Israel/the 12 tribes/Juda. Jews are his people like Romans were the people of Jupiter. So quite naturally the alliances that were made to them are still in effect. Crucially the alliances do not include entry into paradise.
But Christians are part of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ, not a spiritual or mystical Israel. Christians are also adoptive sons of God; hence Our Father, who art in Heaven ... The most important promise made by Jesus was the salvation of the soul. He also stated that mere Jews do not go to heaven : "For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20).
I have no idea what spiritual Israel is or what it can mean. It is simply unrelated to normal Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, even Nestorian).
Christianity may give birth to ideologies but is not an ideology in itself. The goal of a Christian is to live in Christ and to let Christ live in him. Do you doubt it ? The reference book for living a Christian life is the "Imitation Jesus Christ" by Thomas a Kempis, the reference book for spiritual growth is the Philokalia. I dare you find an ideology in them.
You may have spent too much time in the USA, like Rolo. There, heresies abound and most of them devolve into political ideologies. But that is not the nature of Christianity. In normal European countries, Christians have stayed out of ideological fights since the collapse of the "Christian democracy", itself a CIA/MI5 Christian-themed fabrication to counter Communist influence. Poland is an exception; it is living through a "Christian democratic" moment of full-scale transition into an American puppet, not even a vassal.
>I am late with answering this, but where did you get that Christians are "spiritual Israel" ?
From Paul's letters and church doctrine. You can find this all explained in detail with just a quick google search. Here, I found something that might explain why Christians are spiritual Jews and why this is considered a good thing. If you havent heard of this before, this certainly explains why you remain a devout Christian probably:
The phrase spiritual Israel is used in two primary contexts. The first is as a reference to the entire body of Christian believers, in distinction to the political or racial people of Israel. Spiritual Israel is also sometimes used to suggest concepts related to replacement theology, in which the promises directed toward Israel are now given to the Church, instead.
Galatians 6:16 refers to the “Israel of God.” Given how frequently Paul dismisses ethic or national divisions in this same letter (Galatians 3:26; 4:5–7; 6:15), it is unlikely that he encourages such divisions here. Instead, he refers to the readers as being similar to Isaac: they are the “children of promise” (Galatians 4:28). Paul has a spiritual group in mind in Galatians 6:16, not an ethnic one. This reference to spiritual Israel is clear enough, but not every reference by Paul to Israel is spiritual in nature. Some, such as Romans 9:4, are national and literal. The context is key.
There are other places in the New Testament that suggest a “spiritual Israel” in that they echo terms used in the Old Testament to refer to the Israelites. First Peter 2:9 uses the same terminology as Exodus 19:5–6 in reference to Christians. Galatians 3:29 uses the term heirs, as does Isaiah 65:9. All Christians are “fellow citizens” and members of the house of God, according to Ephesians 2:12–13. Romans 10:12 also says the same—there is no national preference with respect to salvation. Just as we become spiritual “sons of Abraham” by faith (Galatians 3:7), so we can be considered “spiritual Israel” when we receive Christ. In the sense that ethnicity and politics have no relationship to salvation, the term spiritual Israel presents no noteworthy problems.
Replacement theology, on the other hand, uses the concept of a “spiritual Israel” differently. Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that the many promises God made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church instead—Old Testament prophecies are allegorized in order to make them applicable to the church. Replacement theology presents major theological problems, because Scripture says that God has not forgotten or changed His promises to Israel (see Romans 11:1–2, 11, 23, 26, 29). Teaching that promotes a “spiritual Israel,” in the sense that the Church is the focus of God’s prophetic promises for Israel, is not biblically valid.
I read the epistle to the Galatians. Israel of God (6:16) is in the farewell and may or may not mean that the Christian community is a new Israel : in that sentence Israel of God may refer to the community who lives according to the new rule (of faith) or to the part of Israel that is not hostile to Christians. In the epistle Paul contrasts the circumcised and the uncircumcised a lot.
The epistle to the Galatians explains that Christians are made adoptive heirs of Abraham and to his covenant because Abraham had faith in God. God's promise is that Abraham will have a large descendance, that is name will be honoured through time, that he will be a blessing to those that bless him and a curse to those who do not. That promise has certainly been valid towards Christians. One last promise was made after the non-sacrifice of Isaac : "your descendance shall occupy the strongholds of his enemies". This is true for Jews. It does not seem to apply to Christians. That promise was made after the circumcision and the non-sacrifice so it is of a different nature.
1 Peter (2:9) is not a convincing reference to a spiritual Israel:
* "you are a chose descendance" => chosen instead of fleshly i.e. adoptive ; chosen in the spirit
* "a royal priesthood" => you do not depend on the Cohens and Levis ; spiritually ordained priesthood as opposed to inherited priesthood
* "a saintly nation" => a new saintly nation, Israel being the old one ; sainted in the Holy Spirit
* "a people destined to be saved" => Israel never received this
This sentence is the basis for the church and its organisation independently of Israel. One can build a case that the Church is a spiritual Israel from this statement. But it does not follow necessarily. The main churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian) have never developed this concept and have insisted on the Church as the body of Christ; and rightly so.
I have also spent some time investigating the 97 times that Israel is mentioned in the catechism. Nothing useful came out. In the vein of spiritual Israel also remember reading about the "circumcision of the heart." So the theme does come out but has remained marginal.
Thank you for prompting me to look into this.
Ditto for me. Dear Rolo, please do explain the origin of the universe and living things. All the athesits and cultists and gnostics stop dead right there.
No they don't lol.
Denying the existence of the material universe is not an explanation of how the universe came to be or how inert elements combined and came to life.
I dont deny the material universe. You're arguing with a phantom.
Have you produced an audiobook version of your new book? If you haven’t, but plan to, I hope you use your own voice and then push for it to be available on Apple & Amazon, though Amazon may block you.
You know, it’s only going to get worse, considering WHO really controls most governments, most media and most social platforms attacking good writers/creators, mostly indirectly, with clever word-play, shadow banning, as well as programed algorithmic shit-bots & trolls. I don’t get why you’d lose so many subscribers. Considering what I publish, I’m surprised I have any real human subs, at all. For whatever the reason, most of my subscribers stay with me, with only one or two dropping off after I publish something new criticizing, for instance, Israel’s masters or hardcore American Left vs. Right fight club ring leaders—most of whom are directly attached to AIPAC monies. I’m frequently attacked by random, militarized, Israel-supporting bots, some of whom are almost real persons I discover hiding out in their parents basements slinging nonsense for reactions.
Just started subbing and look forward to reading your work. Just hope it's good.
Yeah, thanks, me too. I do, will try NOT to suck, in spite of the chronic infestations of moles, trolls & bots. If marc is in your email name, I just upgraded you to a “lifetime paid subscription” so you can post comments, as I’m doing for all new free subscribers “just this year,” with other special privileges that will be evolving over time, such as my live broadcast still in pre-production. You can visit the still-frame version of my live program on FairTradeBakeGame.tv in the meantime. Like your name tag Chunky Monkey.
Got to find ways to more anonymous on here it seems. But thank you that is very kind. Tag may change with time but it works for now. Thanks again.
So long as your email stays the same, you should be fine. If you do change name tag and you ever have a problem getting back in, just let me know—I never break promises, as a few self-fulfilling end-of-time disciples have learned. That is, I don’t discriminate, and even let some of the monsters keep their paid subscription. BUT…though I’m never “trying” to cut anyone, even those with extreme views, I always promise to eliminate chat-rights for the real Nazis with Eugenicist-agendas trolling for real fist-fights. Some goons seem to think that because I’m anti-Israel “colonialist leadership” and HATE their sprawling militarized-boarder, that I’m pro-Nazis or a KKK supporter. I’m just too “on the spectrum” to comprehend nationalistic race-divisions, but the monsters do try-hard.
Being right doesn't mean you have to be popular. Or right all the time on everything. To me what you say makes the most logical sense and it is the truth I seek above everything else. If I wanted a fairytale I'd not be subbing.
One thing though I'd say I'm still more hopeful than you and that comes down to my understanding and interpretation of the Russian people, which could be incorrect. As said in other comments I am hedging the West falls first. All empires fall. Adam Curtis "Can't Get You Out of my Head" had an interesting conclusion at where we may be going but his documentary on Russia last year was piss poor and insulting.
A nice little appendage to further illustrate my point: https://youtu.be/t3QiLEB6erc?si=vQ5CkHsUSGObB5tx
Was greaty to see Neil with Corbett recently.
I bet a lot of the exiting subs heeded what you said, about having a low IQ because they disagreed with you, and thus intimidated by your self-evident brilliance, found another corner of the web in which to engage in self-abasement, shamed to be in your sight. ;-)
Please stop jumping the shark.
There is no need to cover tracks. The "official" crash investigators will do that, just like the FBI and the CIA completely gutted the once venerable NTSB in the TWA 800 "investigation" and how the US gov covered the Israeli 9/11 operation.
Haven't read the book yet but will get there. If there was ever any doubt about Wagner's fate, this latest desecration should remove it: Graves of Wagner soldier in south Russia bulldozed
https://youtu.be/TAZKcPoms7c?si=VY2vhcHBmZGQcE0z
Well, this is embarrassing. It suggests that #prigozihndidntfakehisdeath. And also that Christians are satanists. I tried to explain to them that they are celebrating Saturn on Christmas but ... you see people cant use their heads, hearts and eyes. They never have. Like Neo from the Matrix - they must learn how to do it. Their eyes hurt because they never used them. And if this ever changes I think we all be dead long time ago but yes, humanity will be free at last.
It is not an article of faith that the date chosen for "Christmas" is actually the day of Jesus' birth. God times babies for spring, not the beginning of winter. S little known "Shepherd's holiday" is far more likely the actual day. Regardless, the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the central fact of Christianity, not dates and places. The modern apartheid so-called "Israel" founded by terrorists and assorted murderers does not sit on "holy land" either. Christianity is the New Israel, the old destroyed forever in A.D. 70 after they had chosen to crucify the Son of God.
I’m curious, what exactly did you do that made people unsubscribe?
Yes, Putin really has become a Trumpian clone with the accompanying acolytes.
MRGA
Putin doesn't have his elections stolen though.
I wish I had our host's view on Mouravieff. Maybe some readers have theirs, it is also welcome.
Respect
I guess you would be completely in accord with all Sam Vaknin is saying? And probably what he wrote in his book (which I haven't read) ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZLNOcmLIAI&t=19s
idk who he is, but it sounds more or less right.
Sam Vaknin is a psychopath. Even if some claim that a psychopath doesn't know is one, that is not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmijuOgqRfk
This is a very interesting documentary about him.
If one wants to hear a very interesting Jewish criticizing the "tribe", that guy is the best one can listen to, Roger Dommergue. Very briefly, he says that circumcision is what is so important and psychologically detrimental:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ssXJBAGT8c
doesn't mean he's wrong any particular thing or everything in general does it? he was right on the covid thing back then when there were few that were.
I haven't followed your links yet but I will. What did you mean to write in that first sentence? There's a typo I think, it doesn't make sense to me.
later: I've checked both links and it didn't turn out well. I can't get good intelligible english translations of either. they both appear very interesting indeed but I'm stumped, stopped. :(
ChatGpt or any iteration of language programming can be 'right', yet not human. My dear neighbour is a truck driver, he didn't believe in the whole covid...
What I meant was that some people claim that Vaknin is not a psychopath because 'they' don't have conscience of being such, so he would be faking again and scamming to make money, and that worked.
To bad you can't follow the provided links since they are indeed very valuable.
You mean the sentence should have been not the confusing:
"Even if some claim that a psychopath doesn't know is one, that is not true."
but "Even if some claim that a psychopath doesn't know it is one, that is not true." ?
Which still ain't good but kinda makes some sense.
After watching some of Sam's vid I kinda (meaning I can't be sure) get the impression that Sam is claiming he is a psychopath. But I don't understand well enough to know if he means it in jest or in 'pure theory' or theory reductio ad absurdum as in we are all 'autistic' because we can all be located somewhere on the autism spectrum if we try hard enough.
But I'm still left wondering what's going on. Are you just claiming that Sam is a psychopath. Is that it?
Sorry for the confusing sentence.
I meant that in the ongoing scientific 'psychopathy' debate (which I thought you knew), some pretend that a psychopath will never make the claim to be one. That is why some thought Vaknin was just faking to make money out of claiming he was one. I have read for instance the instance of a Canadian surgeon who had discovered that he was a psychopath after doing a test (probably, Hare's one) and reflecting upon himself he accepted that fact. He said that what had played positively for him was the fact that he had a positive environment. But it is true that most psychopath will always try to hide their cold nature. Martha Stout is a good start for reading about psychopathy, as well as Robert Hare. That one is also a very interesting one:
https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893
Sam Vaknin claimed he was a psychopath and made a lot of money publishing books from that perspective, which had no precedent:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/350646.Sam_Vaknin
Because many thought he was faking as he had been jailed for fraud and some smelled it was his new business, the guy who made the documentary I linked offered Vaknin a challenge. He would be tested by the best specialists in the different way of diagnosing essential psychopathy, ranging from Hare's test to imagery. Vaknin accepted, his wife to and thus stated the doc. The film maker, had chosen to film himself during the time he would spend with Vaknin, thus offering another insight, the impact of Vaknin on him.
Vaknin is seen as sometime a intellectually charming bright mind (claiming to be a psychopath) and behind the scene being an asshole and a bully, toward the film maker and his own wife.
Most of the tests concluded that he was a narcissist. His wife was tested in a clinic specialized in women victims of psychopaths and was found to be the typical personality for falling in love with narcissists.
It has been demonstrated during the doc that he has faked his diplomas, so the english wikipedia entry is a fraud.
So I am claiming that he is a psychopath out of this knowledge. Vaknin is a typical essential narcissist raised in an educated environment.
Okay. Thank you. Makes things a lot clearer for me. Very interesting, too. I had no idea, none at all, never having 'followed' or investigated Vaknin. My sole interest was his support for the truth in the covid thing and he very soon fell silent in that which was fair enough, so did Ioannidis etc., once the truth was told what else to say?
So he's a psychopath and a narcissist. I knew back then he was forever on about narcissism, it kept intruding into this posts, I found it very tedious.
I suppose the next question, if one sticks with the subject - and I'll take a bit of look into it - would be 'What does it matter?' So many of our popular causes celebres turn out to be much ado about nothing. :)