Tag Archives: obsession

The Psychopathology of Liberal Progressives.


I am going to use Bahar Mustafa, diversity officer at the Goldsmith University of London as the poster child for Liberal Progressives, she is, from my humble perspective the perfect specimen as I see all of the psychosis manifest in her in perfect proportion.  Indeed she appears to have fathomed the depths of Liberalism and followed it to it’s final conclusion.  In her manifesto she says:

“I represent the most traditionally unrepresented. In an unequal society where power relations in the wide of the world prevail like the institutions, how can one possibly represent all the needs of all people and people by virtue of their gender, race, and class have opposing interests.”  http://www.europeanguardian.com/home/87-uncategorised/opinion/209-bahar-mustafa-s-speech-by-a-white-nationalist-woman

She was recently arrested but you have to remember this wasn’t an isolated event, she has been doing this for a while and escalating the intensity of her rhetoric.  Following the example of other Muslim apologists in Universities in the United States she seems to have targeted White Males, Conservatives, and Christians as the object of her hatred.  She names specifically “cisgender” white men.

Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) describes related types of gender identity perceptions, where individuals’ experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth.[1] Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for “individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity”.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

That means white men who do not feel identify with the sex they were born with and are not ashamed of it and don’t apologize for it.  She sees herself as a champion and leader of her issues. Paul Ekman, who created the science of Microexpressions, said that being in a permanent refractory state (being in a state where your issues or traumas are constantly hyper vigilant) is synonymous with being insane.  Dr. Stylianos Atechlys said, “Obsession is demonic possession.”  I have coined the phrase “Puritannical Obsessions” in reference to the psychosis manifested by the likes of Adolf Hitler.  Hitler was obsessed with purity as a child he sported a cornflower in his cap to show he was in favor of a “Pure” Germany.  The problem with puritanical obsession is that they are not aware of the law of diminished returns. Which means absolute purity can be approached but never reached.  As you reach that point beyond which no more purity can be reached, increased investment in that goal doesn’t yield any better result.  You squander your resources and begin to drift into insanity.  Dr. Atechlys also said “Evil is the exaggeration of good.”

If you examine the case of Bahar, you realize that she was obsessed with her hatred of White men which in her mind was synonymous with the Lowest form of her Bad or her Satan, she demonized them as the Cause of the Bad.  The opposite of her Devil was everything that was not the devil.  What is interesting about this psychosis is that instead of starting with her Highest form of the Good or her God, she started with the thing she hated the most and wanted to demonize.  This is evidenced by her tacit acceptance of the adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.  She didn’t self falsify or inspect her behavior for self referential inconsistencies.  She wanted everybody that wasn’t a straight white man to have everything that they wanted and assumed that straight white men were somehow preventing everybody else from having what they wanted.  She then entered into the “final solution” stage of her psychosis, if white men were only eliminated everybody would be happy and have what they wanted.

A contrarian is a person who takes up a contrary position, especially a position that is opposed to that of the majority, regardless of how unpopular it may be.[1] Contrarian styles of argument and disagreement have historically been associated with radicalism and dissenthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

This is symptomatic of the Secular Liberal Agenda.  Unlike most liberals, Bahar was stupid enough to voice what she was thinking while most liberals conceal it, deny it, and act on it tacitly.  These people don’t have any solutions all they have is problems.  They don’t have a positive existence which means they don’t live FOR something they are defined by what they are against.  They are consumed by hatred and live a lie acting like they are full of love and aren’t doing what they are doing.  Presupposing their own goodness  they give themselves license to stoop to any means in order to accomplish their task.  They have no control over how creepy they let themselves get.  They take no responsibility for their results and they will never admit their failure.  They can’t even defend themselves logically because their is no logic behind what they do, only morbid emotionality and obsession.  She literally took every single position that she categorized as divergent from the thing that she hated.  They are all unique or not normal, exactly like each other.  People like this not only can’t examine themselves they are constantly trying to get away from themselves….

“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.”  ~Plato

Bahar Mustafa “Moral Atheist” & Liberal Progressive.

Obsession and Psychopathology


Dr. Stylianos Atechlys known as Daskalos (Teacher) once said that obsession is demonic possession.  Something I have always thought was interesting is how quickly people introduce you to their issues.  I believe that things end as they begin so I am always very interested in the first meeting I have with a person.  How they approach relationship.  The initial approach.  If relationship is an approaching where two people begin to understand each other, than how we approach relationship is how we approach approaching.  In the initial approach does the person approach authenticly and honestly or do they approach strategically?  Do they approach me as a superior talking to a subordinate?  Forcing a frame and trying to get me to participate?  or do they approach me looking pathetic and trying to elicit sympathy?  Do they approach me telling me how awesome they are and expecting me to agree?  In the case of Charles Manson the first thing you see is the swastika carved into the middle of his forehead.

People flaunt their issues and attract attention to their issues.  How many times do you start a conversation and the person ends it by saying, “god bless.” or “All I need to know is do you believe in Jesus?”  The fact of the matter is that I do believe in Jesus but not the Jesus you believe in.  I believe that Jesus in the quintessence, the fifth element, he was the incarnation of reason which is why they called him the Logoish, and I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man.  So should I say no or yes?

The fact of the matter is that people are either rational and in relationship with truth and reality (which is much, much, rarer than you think)  or they cling to morbid emotions and delusions and psychosis.  Some people are traumatized in certain areas, and rational in others.  When you stimulate a certain issue they enter a refractory state, but each individual has to be responsible for their own mental and emotional health and willing and desiring of being a whole person.


In relationship people will ask you in some form or another “are you a good person?” and this is stupid because psychopaths conceal their emotional morbidity and misrepresent themselves.  They are manipulative.  Psychopaths have to do the wrong things, they have to do things psychopathicly in order to work their will and attain their good.  So stop asking people if they are good people, figure it out for yourself, stop exposing yourself to being manipulated, learn to recognize the behavior and challenge people to be mentally and emotionally healthy.


One of these people always lies and one of them always tells the truth.  If I ask, “are you a good person?”  the psychopath is going to be the first to respond very convincingly in the positive and they will probably even have reasons why they are a good person.

People understand themselves and agree with themselves.  Contemplate that for a second.  The world view of the individual makes them correct in their behavior.  In order for them to be correct in doing certain things they have to perceive the world in a certain way.  This is their gestalt.  This is their philosophy, their soul.  The problem is that people don’t enter relationship to understand the other person in the relationship which is a necessity.  You have to understand how the other person in the relationship thinks.  You have to understand the human organism.  You have to understand yourself,  only in understanding yourself correctly can you understand other people correctly in relationship to yourself.  You have to understand the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases.  You have to know your issues, what stimulates your issues, what puts you in refractory states, when you are in a refractory state should you act and what actions should you take, and how do you get out of a refractory state and back into a positive mental and emotional state.  Do you act when you are in relationship with your morbid emotions?  When do you act?  Do you get good results, do you get the result that you desired?  Why not?  Why are you trying to get the result that you are trying to get?  Why do you desire that result?  Are your relationships based on shared diseases?  or on allying yourself with the better angels of others?

The Psychopath has to attack.  They can’t not attack.  They can’t keep themselves from attacking and they are looking for people to attack and reasons to attack.  They don’t have self discipline or self control.  They can’t stop looking for the thing that they hate so they can kill it.  Recent research suggests that feeling thwarted is the source of anger.  Based on my Shared State Theory of Communication, we communicate whatever state we are in.  So if we are in a state of feeling thwarted, we communicate thwartedness, and we want to thwart.  But antagonizing the problem is not necessarily moving towards the solution.  To use my terms something happened to the person that they never want to happen again, a state they want to avoid, but the psychopath is in relationship with desiring to kill the thing that they perceive as the cause of the state they want to avoid.  But in doing so they are constantly restimulating the refractory state reminding them of the state they want to avoid.  Which means they are keeping themselves in a permanent refractory state permanently, which Paul Eckman says is the same as being insane.  They are obsessed with the thing they are trying to get away from.  The only way the can rest is if that thing ceases to exist in reality.  So we have the form of the conquest.