#Cultism

[anarchistin]

instead of finding their orientation in the actual social conditions and their possibilities, the new leftists base their concerns mainly on a set of ideologies that have no relevance to the requirements of social change in capitalist nations.

they find their inspiration not in the developmental processes of their own society but in the heroes of popular revolution in faraway countries, thereby revealing that their enthusiasm is not as yet a real concern for decisive social change.

Paul Mattick, Introduction to Anti-Bolshevik Communism

[hiimtracher]

I'd be careful around Daisy, after all, she isn't what she... seems...

.

.

.

.

.

green eyes is also not what they seem to be he is what i'd like to call a soul eater

[gamer2002]

I laughed my ass off.

[endlessmazin]

We need to resurrect god of computing.

https://objkt.com/asset/KT1FwmFGXWnNVaX8LZLEX6Mz1Y3iR8JSCM7k/14

[powerwordcum]

My other favorite part of cultsim lore is that Elagabulus the real roman emperor was maybe an avatar of the Sun-In-Rags

[mary-laib]

“I just think that children have a closer relationship with God”

Bro??? You’re child is literally indoctrinated??? She’s literally chanting about how God is going to kill all the nonbelievers and spewing anti-trans rhetoric? How is that normal or Godly?

[invharolda]

The man has been confirmed by Thomas Kales as the second cult leader although his name remains a secret (52656d69746572656e) he has been let out of the psych ward to the normal prison as he didn't show any signs of violence and was very cooperative. There he met Peter Haft who was arrested for hacking to and stealing from bank accounts they were quick to make friends (6d792062656c6f76656420616e67656c) which was found weird as Peter started his criminal path after he escaped the cult with his abnormal intelligence given to him by playing with his and two other brains during the ritual called surgery. We are currently observing the two as they share a room with each other.

Posted on may 25th

[earthling-wolf]

Directive: disagreeable Fe

Shaming

Quite in opposition to the adaptive attitude, the directive attitude doesn't believe in grace; it believes in punishment and the fairness that comes with properly balancing emotional economies. It accomplishes this through the use of shame. Directiveness believes that individuals are only kept in order --and rightly aligned in their personal and societal perception-- by a regulation of pride. It will take it upon itself to "put people in their place" if they are exaggerating their own self worth or diminishing the value of others of a higher tier than they. We see a directive attitude echoed in phrases such as "you don't talk to your elder that way", "you use the right honorifics", "that was a foolish mistake, now your reputation is ruined." To this attitude, a reputation is in large part a proper reflection of what you really are, as it reflects how your comportment is objectively evaluated. Outside opinion is considered legitimate feedback given to you by the culture; negative feedback is necessary as the eternal modulator of pride where pride is only warranted when the tribe acknowledges your abilities and value. Directiveness is both the enforcer and receiver of this shame, and will concede or yield when they measure that they were the one in the wrong. However, unlike adaptiveness which makes itself susceptible to exploitation, the directive  attitude will always defend itself against unjust or unearned reprimand and will only take reprimand when they are in agreement with it.

Retribution

Indeed, when a directive person agrees with the shame, it would rather take punishment deliberately than be the one economically in the wrong. It may actively ask for retribution so that it may face others again without shame; having paid their dues. Balance is to be restored and they want to stand on the right side of judgment's blade. There is also a physicality and combativeness in this directive attitude, where it may believe it's fair game to balance the emotional scales using a physical-to-emotional pain translation. It will want to teach others a very somatic lesson, imposing an emotional experience on others through the vehicle of pain. It's important to note that directiveness is not sadistic by nature, as causing injury is not itself the aim but instead it's the translation of emotional energies through the act. A higher motif arises from this physical channel, where a directive attitude will wish to lock fists with others to truly "level" with them. They may develop a philosophy that "You don't really know someone until you fight them" or "You only really know someone's heart once you cross fists with them." The frustration that is expressed through battle is seen by directiveness as catharsis and as evidence of the reality of hearts. In this sense, the directive attitude wishes to see --as clear as possible-- what lies in the heart of others and may encourage or even invoke that reality out in order to understand the other person better.

Leveling in the Truth

This leveling happens not only at the physical level, but also verbally. The directive attitude is diametrically opposed to adaptiveness in this regard; wishing always to cut through facades and speak frankly the harsh truth of its opinion. Directiveness does not collapse upon hearing the truth, or cave under its pressure, but actually feels relief and a rebuilding of trust. It feels that only after the air has been cleared can anything true and lasting be formed. A directive attitude will compel the person to ask those hard questions, dig at the problem, expose the fraud, heartbreak or corruption and look at it directly with no compromise in attention. It seeks to establish respect through transparency, in feeling another's pain and letting them feel yours. Getting angry at them and asking them to get angry at you. Directive people will be suspicious of any love or friendship that lacks conflict; viewing such things as symptomatic of concealment and compromise. It understands human hearts to be a messy business and is content existing in eternal but necessary friction so long as it does not escalate to unethical levels or into genuine malice. Notwithstanding it's harsh outward comportment, directiveness is ultimately driven by ethics just the same as adaptiveness. It will still hold steadfast to its ethical boundaries, even if it appears alarming in the words it selects for communication.

-Under Stress

Violence

When under stress, the initially honest and cathartic qualities of a directive attitude become exaggerated outside of proper ethical constraints. The impulse to put people in their place regresses into a vengeful desire to defame or humiliate others. What was once a desire to create equilibrium devolves into a desire to cause genuine suffering. The name of the game becomes domination rather than the arrangement of society into balance. A societal order is indeed enforced, but one where others are oppressed under the emotional and physical rule of oneself. Here this attitude becomes predatory and territorial, using tactics of intimidation and engaging in a power dynamic. Under stress, morality is tossed aside and the person resorts to foul play in order to remain atop of the social hierarchy. They may become emotionally abusive and physically abusive. And while all people can experience anger or sudden violent outbursts, directiveness is more prone to a premeditated aggression for the purpose of establishing rule and control. We see directive attitudes often manifest in gang violence, where the same Ti-Fe handling that is used to gather people together is then used to pivot those people against others.

Manipulation

Another effect that emerges from directiveness in an unhealthy individual is a proclivity towards emotional manipulation. Their ability to persuade and charm through oration is channeled into an art-form designed to deceive and attain an advantage over others. Sweet words will fall off their lips while far darker intentions rest beneath them. The person is often keenly aware of the sensitivities of others --how they tick and how they break-- and will exploit these vulnerabilities towards their own gains. They may assert emotional control over their relationships, weakening their lover or family member's opinion of themselves through psychological manipulation and gaslighting. Through months or years of verbal onslaughts they will diminish the confidence of others and present their own opinions as absolute. And through the sheer force of their personality, they will mentally overpower those beneath them --inhibiting their willpower, mobility and life options. Similar to how adaptive  people can create a suffocating dynamic of co-dependence, the unhealthy directive type will use their loved ones to secure their need for control, relevance and ego validation.

Cultism

But this tendency towards manipulation may not stop at the home. The directive personality may extend the scope of their ego across a far broader group or community, using their persuasion to press their perspective and invoke agreement from others. This leads not only to the formation of gangs and cliques but ultimately to the creation of cults. The Ti-Fe oscillation is tribal in nature, and this same tribalism can be used to facilitate communion or to create divisions and special sects with niche ideologies. We see this tendency expressed in celebrities such as FeSi Alex Jones whose followers share an opposition to a perceived network of government conspiracies. It can be seen also in FeSi Tom Cruise who is famously affiliated with the cult of Scientology. The directive person will surround him or herself with those of like mind, creating an in-group/out-group dynamic and reinforcing an aggrandized self-image. The person becomes manic, prone to narcissism and all manner of delusions. As can sometimes happen with the judgment functions, a closed system is formed where the individual is convinced that they understand all that needs to be known and proceeds to act out that truth in the world at the widest scale possible.

[vamos-a-ber]

CHIITAN EXCELSI

[savedbyshriners]

Thought Dump

Recently, I have been going back into researching conspiracies, secret societies, spirituality, etc. it all ties together.

Currently, I'm reading The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall. It's been going through some early living cults, beginning freemasonry, early shamanism and all the things that tie up with these items. I've found that this author wrote MANY things in his time and I'm tempted to go through and read all of it.

Partly what got me back on this journey is reading the book The Secret History by Donna Tartt. The main character, Richard, becomes entangled with some shifty stuff in his ancient Greek class, which references tidbits of ancient philosophy... and now I'm here.

If anyone has any thoughts, recommendations, or anything they would like to share, please do!!! I'm looking for people who are as curious as I am :)

[anarchistin]

honestly couldn't care less abt what any long-dead thinker 'would have thought' about something from today. it's a useless question, purely speculative, and a poor substitute for thinking about it yourself.

source

[hiimtracher]

here my cultists and others have two monsters

[nawirimedsocietas-00]

Do you know that people with low self-esteem are more prone to join cults?

I wanted to take a moment to address a topic that I recently wrote about - cults. I know that this can be a sensitive and controversial subject, but I felt it was important to shed light on the dangers and warning signs of cults :SHAKAHOLA MASSACRE😒😒😒

People all throughout the world have long been fascinated and horrified by the subject of cult leaders. These charismatic leaders frequently have a great deal of influence over their followers, persuading them to give up their families, professions, and even their own identities in order to advance a common cause or vision. There have been innumerable instances of these narcissistic monsters…

[tomorrowusa]

When a party does nothing to stop creeping extremism, it eventually becomes consumed by that extremist mindset. Though in the past eight years that GOP extremism has since morphed into cultism. The GOP caucus members who refuse to vote for McCarthy have only minor policy differences with him. These NeverKeviners are demanding a form of scorched-earth Trumpism.

As Tim Miller wrote on Tuesday...

Their time was going to come eventually. For My Kevin, it appears that time is today.

He woke up on the biggest day of his life knowing he’d lose 5 votes on the first ballot and thinking he could lose 9 more. Throw in a wild card and the worst case was 15 no votes, when he could only afford to lose 4.

What he found is that crazy begets crazy. Once the floodgates opened the 5 Never Kevin votes had ballooned to an unthinkable 19. And then the same 19 voted against him a second time.

These 19 anarchists don’t have any tangible policy objections to a McCarthy speakership and neither do they have a realistic alternative. Their goal—their only goal—was to fight for the sake of fighting and show their constituents they are just as mad at the “elites” as they are. Their only alternative, Jim Jordan, is the man who oversaw the committee that expressed its vision for the party as “Kanye. Elon. Trump.”

In other words: exactly the type of members that this party has cultivated for the past eight years.

I’d argue that this mindset dates back to the Reagan administration with its embrace of Christian fundamentalists. Then there was Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, then George W. Bush in the 2000s, and finally the Trump semi-fascist cult of the 2010s. At each stage, relatively sane moderate Republicans who dared to push back were castigated as RINOs and sidelined from the party.

McCarthy wants to be Speaker REALLY REALLY REALLY bad. But if he caves to the dissidents he could lose the support of the comparative moderates who come from swing districts. And it only takes a handful of members of the GOP caucus to torpedo a McCarthy speakership.

If McCarthy actually does become Speaker he will be a weak one who is constantly looking over his shoulder.

[hellzgod]

Perfume and the cultist want to come out, honestly might be a good time?

[i8i8t]

Conrad Beissel, the founder, charismatic leader, and guiding spirit of the Ephrata Cloisters was born in Eberbach, Germany in 1691. At that time the Protestant Reformation that began during the previous century was still a powerful influence in Europe. In 1720 Beissel joined thousands of others who fled their homelands for religious reasons. He decided to come to William Penn's colony where religious dissenters were welcomed. After twelve years with other religious pilgrims he decided to seek solitude in the forest. That decision led to the founding of the Ephrata community in 1732.

Injured by the City much?