Raiders of the Lost Plot

It seems neo-paganism is becoming ever more inundated by popularity-mongering sociopaths who try to play it for some rebellious fashion statement, where fantasy rules by the proxy that truth is purely subjective. In essence there are no real facts, just opinions, hence all opinions qualify as truths, no matter how erroneous. This gives them the liberty of stretching what little they know to fit whatever wishful precept they strive to allure a following without having to go to any investigative lengths for the sake of authenticity. Rather, whatever they chose to dress up from selectively exotic bits of foreign culture, history and philosophy becomes "authentically" theirs. Genuine archaeological and anthropological sources on ancient history are usually avoided for more controversial authors such as Zacharia Sitchen, Erich von Däniken and Graham Hancock. On the subject of modern esoterica and mysticism, 18th century romanticism is favoured, especially what its philosophers conceived of classical history, whereas witchcraft and sorcery inclines to be portrayed in a medieval gothic setting as influenced by the Arthurian myths, often adding the archetypes given by such infamous 15th century manuscripts as the Malleus Maleficarum.

Apparently, it's unimportant whether these themes are credible or not, as long as they beguile some profound sense of oo-ah, much like the religious rapture you see in revivalist churches. So, as much as they allege to be breaking from regimes, they are actually imposing their own with each pop-cult cliché they push as their salvation. Of course if you resist and dare to question their motives, that's where a number psycho-manipulative tactics will come into play. It's much like what any cult leader conspires to cull the nay-sayers; using false kudos, altruisms and other forms of emotional blackmail; playing on the vain assumption that everyone suffers some misunderstood need "to belong". This persistent bombardment is especially annoying to solitaries who prefer to keep their contacts discrete and not be fanfared into appeasing the whims of popularity seeking hoards. Usually their personal circumstances are already complicated enough without some wannabe shyster trying to get on their case.

Don't ask me what dreams of avarice compells the need for a servile following. They will tell you everything they think you'd like to hear, to seem so above reproach and unsuspect of complicity.  Fortunately, sociopaths of this calibre lack their own creative originality, thus`jump onto any bandwagon they think they can exploit until people just plain lose interest. In essence it's really just a competition for the Alpha role of social dominance as measured by consensus and the number of their following, hanging out wherever they think they can allure enough quarry away. It amazes me the number of surreptitious invites I get from this kind so completely oblivious to the fact that I take no prisoners and would sooner shoot them than even give them the time of day...and when I do, how quickly they go running to my colleagues for sympathy as if they didn't know better. Been there, done that, set fire to the t-shirt, so what does it really mean?