Looking back at Obama the narcissist
Here’s another trip back in time, to an article about Obama written before the election, in September of 2008. The author, Ali Sina is an ex-Iranian who remembers Khomeni’s ascension to power, and especially his effect on the people.
Sina gets to say “I told you so”—bigtime—because looking at his piece in retrospect he nailed a lot about the man. I don’t agree with everything in his article, but I do agree with its main points about Obama’s narcissism.
Sina writes:
This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them trecherous.
Vaknin says, “When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.”
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.
Let’s hope it at least puts an end to the dominance of its progressive wing. But as events have transpired, that is by no means certain. Sina probably did not foresee the cooperation of Congress in thwarting the will of the people, nor the possible swelling of Democratic voter rolls by 2012 through the mechanism of amnesty.
In his piece, Sina quotes this article by Vaknin, who is the author of several books on narcissism. Vaknin is describing what often happens when the will of the narcissist is thwarted by public opinion turning against him:
The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. “The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)”, “they don’t really know what they are doing”, “following a rude awakening, they will revert to form”, etc.
When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.
If Obama’s polls continue to fall (as I sincerely hope they do), will we see this phenomenon occur? Although I think Obama is at bottom an angry man, I also think he is an extremely well-controlled one. He already has contempt for the people, but so far he has been careful not to verbalize too much of it; it only emerges in the rare off-the-cuff statement (like “bitter clingers”), and is usually couched not in rage but in condescension. So I don’t know.
The blank screen Obama initially tried to project cannot help but be filled in over time, as he reveals himself to the American public. The picture that emerges has not been a pretty one, although some who study Obama saw its outlines long ago (I can claim some small prescience on that score myself).
None of this matters because the Democratic Party, from the top to its grassroots, is now a gigantic cult, in which reality is easily ignored or revised to fit their agenda. Cults generally end badly, sometimes tragically, there is no reason to think this one will be an exception.
The only thing I would add is that I think a significant portion of the Democratic Party shares Obama’s narcissism. I think Obama’s elevation to power does reflect the will of some of the voters on the Left. I don’t mean that as individuals they have the pathological narcissism of an Obama (and so don’t run & get elected) but there’s something that resists reality and embraces narcissistic fantasies at the core of much of the Left these days. I think the Obama phenomenon is as much a reflection of a segment of the population as he is a shaper of attitudes.
That aspect of the Left is what is so worrying. If we were just debating government regulation of Wall Street on its merits or just debating Medicare cuts it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. People can differ on the best ways out of difficult situations.
But, these folks blame/demonize others for disagreeing with them and also blame the same others when reality “disagrees” with them.
There is no reasoning, at least not with folks so afflicted. There is only resistance.
And the hope that more of the population can be reasoned with.
Well, gang, it’s time for me to fold up my huxley gig here and move on.
Neo: It’s easy to call “strawman” when you misstate, misrepresent, misconstrue or misremember what someone said. That is, in fact, a strawman attack when you do so.
See here and here for my responses to your recent strawmen, where I have quoted both of us.
Those posts you do not meet directly. Generally you rely upon your sense of what I said, ignoring points that I did make, then dismiss my posts as “baseless” or “hyperbole” — which as far as I’m concerned is your hyperbole.
I believe I could meet your other claims similarly, though it wouldn’t be worth my time or anyone else’s.
You consider me a troll; I consider you a Red Queen. So there is not much point in my further participation here.
Other than that, it’s mostly been interesting and educational. I wish everyone well. And goodness knows, we’ve got work to do.
Best.
Huxley,
Wish you’d stick around. I’ve always admired your posts.
Ditto. I’m not sure what you are thinking. With every relationship there are rough patches. I’d like you to stick through it.
We’d be better off hearing each other.
The only thing I would add is that I think a significant portion of the Democratic Party shares Obama’s narcissism.
Yup. I think that this has been a driver of the global warming nonsense, the notion that we are so important that we must be careful how we use our power, for we are omnipotent. Or, conversely, it explains the left’s antipathy to suggestions that we are irrelevant and insignificant in the cosmic scheme of things.
Similar considerations apply to the left’s rejection of religion; the very notion that someone/ something might be greater than themselves is hateful to them (man’s fate and all that). Paradoxically, the only exception to that generalization is, of course, Prince Hussein, as shown by leftist iconography, the schoolkids’ chanting, the “O” hand signs, the styrofoam columns, and the “he’s some sort of God” quotes.
He’s already saying this with regard to the healthcare bill. For example, when asked by “Doris” recently about taxes already being too high, his response was right along these lines – there’s a lot of “misapprehenision” that i need to “clear up”.
I guess I’m missing something, Huxley. Sure, you and Neo cross swords now and again… but I’m not getting the sense that the issues you raise go unaddressed, by Neo or by other commenters. I don’t see that in either of the links you provide, nor have I gotten that sense elsewhere.
For example, you say that she considers you a troll… after linking to a post in which she explicitly says that you are not a troll.
You also linked to a comment in which you objected to her answering your arguments as if they were addressed to her — and while I didn’t see her address that issue explicitly, I don’t see the problem with it. neoneocon.com is her house, so to speak; if you disagree here with what she says here, why on Earth should she not respond directly?
Perhaps you saw this as some sort of private conversation… but that’s not the paradigm we generally use here. When I post a comment, for example, I take it for granted that any visitor to neoneocon.com can read it, and that anyone can reply to it.
Beyond that, I guess I don’t see the strawmen you’re referring to, the ones you claim Neo is using to attack you.
For what it’s worth: I’ve met Neo, and she’s good people. She’s not a Red Queen at all. And I think we’ve all seen her bend over backwards to be fair and civil towards those who disagree with her, so long as they do so politely.
Don’t go away mad, Huxley… stick around and make your case.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Back to neo’s post……… I met Obama during his run for the US Senate seat from Illinois, he showed up at a local event to meet people and make small talk.
He was RUDE. He stomped around like a 5 year old, forcing his handlers to apologize for him and try and limit the damage he was doing to his team. He gave no indication of any intelligence whatsoever, imagine my surprise when he won that election.
But, he has many people on his team who do the hard work while Obama walks out in front taking the credit. If the Obama-magic stops working and the republicans gain seats in the midterms, it will be interesting to see who he turns on to blame.
Neo-Neo…VAKnin.
Good stuff. The Bamma is overqualied for true narcissist. Lucky us ! The country is not nearly as important as he.
Victor Volsky is a deep thinker. Being Soviet emigrant, he knows leftist psyhology and philosophy much better than Americans who don’t possess this vital experience. He understood Obama completely even before he was elected. Most of his articles are written in Russian at volsky.us, but the most recent in English is
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obamas_progressive_goose_and_o.html
“When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.”
I think this is absolutely going to happen and when it does, this will happen:
“The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him.”
Which, as Vankin points out, will lead to this:
“When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.”
What will happen then? God only knows. Hopefully, nothing extreme. But he’s the man with the nuclear football. If his world is ending…why not ours?
Huxley,
I would ask you to reconsider. I’ve though of your posts as respresenting an independent voice, and one for reason and moderation, within these comments.
Often, the mood here is one of urgency… as it should be with regard to some of the things that have occurred. But, often there also needs to be an alternate voice which asks whether we have seen everything properly, or whether we are not misjudging something. Sometimes that does mean being the one person who says something unpopular. As one who has been in that position himself quite a few times, I’ve appreciated your own efforts to do the same… to ask if were indeed seeing things correctly or not…. to provide a alternate view to the commonly accepted view here.
Sometimes, there will be heated arguments. Its happened to me… sometimes I’ve just had to accept that my view is being disagreed with, and just be happy that I’ve “spoken my peace” and given my “minority view.” When that happens, I just accept that my point was made, I thank God for the First Amendment, and I walk away to come back and make more points another day.
I’d ask you to reconsider leaving. Keep joining us and posting. Keep contributing. It really is appreciated.
Sincerely,
J.L.
“The left believes that there is no problem that cannot be solved through negotiations, provided the American leaders refrain from attempts to impose Pax Americana and promise to treat their third-world antagonists with respect. Who is better-suited to a policy of engaging America’s enemies than Obama, with his rare rhetorical gifts? True, so far the president has not achieved much success, but it will undoubtedly come later, when the seeds he has sown sprout.”
The Dems aren’t hesitating to impose their version of “Pax Americana”, for starters, with Israel, which is a safe target for them, a good place to feign being “tough”, though it’s obviously just the ultimate appeasement. I don’t fault Obama, he is in many respects an honest enemy of America, nobody can honestly say they didn’t see this coming with him; it’s the rank and file Dems, along with their toads, the MSM, that I now have nothing but contempt for…..
Incidentally, Huxley, hang around, fight the good fight, your presence, like Mitsu (I’m not suggesting I necessarily class you alike), keeps this site informative and active. The controversy makes Neo’s site a credibly important source of challenging dialogue and learning… After all, this “ain’t like disagreeing at Chuckies”, if you know what I mean…..
Well Huxley, I too am sorry to see you go–not least because I’ve always enjoyed knowing that someone else here would share my fond and funny Firesign Theater memories.
I’ve been wondering where you were. I’ve thought it interesting that, after spending so much time pointing out to everyone that Obama hadn’t won anything, that all his goals and efforts had been shot down and/or defeated, and that we were being unduly alarmist about the threat he represented, you dropped from sight immediately upon his (yes, his) passage and signing of the health care reform bill. His defeats were your biggest ace against those here who see Obama as a threat to liberty, representative government, the survival of the Republic, and as being a potential tyrant. When he won the big one, a lot of the air kind of went out of your balloon–or so it seemed to me. And you disappeared.
Different people can very often look at the same set of events and interpret them differently. In looking at Obama and his tenure-to-date, a lot of us see him making moves to seize and exercise power in ways not before seen in an American president, and he has the Democrat party with him. We can’t prove he intends to be a tyrant, but it often looks very much like it. He uses misdirection, but there’s no mistaking “the facts on the ground,” as the saying goes. For example, he claims quite loudly that he doesn’t want to run a car company–but he does run a car company (or two). He may not want the power, but all the rest of us can see is what he’s doing: If he did want the power, this is how he would be acting. He and the rest of the Washington Democrats follow the letter of the law when it doesn’t obstruct them, maybe as a way to retain some hold on the legitimacy they need. But when it would obstruct them, they kick it aside. I’m astonished (and yet not shocked, btw) at the way Henry Waxman is behaving towards the companies who factored the effects of their obedience to the rule of the new health care mess into their quarterly statements–as they are required by law to do. This looks pretty brazen to me, and I’d suggest that if Obama didn’t want the companies treated like that, Waxman wouldn’t be treating them like that. There isn’t even the merest hint, or the slightest suggestion, that he’s opposed to such a power play. And that’s what it is. It’s naked intimidation.
Oh well. Anyway, I for one will miss you. I’ve often thought you were wrong, but sometimes not, too. You seem worthy when you’re an opponent, and honorable and valued when you’re an ally.
Live long and prosper.
I have been trying to discern Obama’s Myers-Briggs type for a while now. Back during the campaign there were lots of people taking guesses, and I was never convinced by any of them.
I now think he’s an INFJ. What does Neo think? (Or anyone else?)
You know, I’ve been wondering–what’s up with Michelle Obama’s belts? http://tinyurl.com/ylx56sq They’ve always had a bit of a “bondage” look to me, would fit with a leather-and-whips routine. Has anyone else wondered about them? Could it tie into Obama’s narcissism somehow, or am I just being completely loopy?
Neo,
Democrats against Obama. 🙂
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/
Reason stated:Ducket, who is now an independent and did not vote for Obama, said the president has “carried things to an extreme.”
Video: How diverse is the Tea Party?
RELATED TOPICS
* Tea Party Movement
* Democratic Party
* Barack Obama
“I think we’ve gone too far on the side of government doing too much,” Ducket said. “The Democratic Party is wanting to take care of everyone, instead of helping everybody stand on their own two feet.”
Roxanne Lewis expressed a similar point of view. A small business owner in Grand Junction, Lewis described herself as a lifelong Democrat and called the president a “phenomenal speaker.” She voted for him because she “believed in what he was saying: change.”
But, Lewis added, “I should’ve listened a lot closer when he talked about ‘spreading the wealth.’ “
btw, don’t look at her next sentence. It’s extreme rhetoric !!!
Huxley,
I’ll add my two cents, for what its worth. I’ve never thought of you as a troll and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a regular reader or commentor here ever treat you as such.
Please stay part of the discussion. I’ve always found your comments interesting, even when I disagreed.
Obama Love
Obama he is my man, he shows his anger, to the public he gives no dam.
He is a progressive in every way, killing jobs is how he earns the union’s back deal pay, in action he is a socialist even when he is just simply issuing a stay: He says he for the free, but he is bent on one single deed, providing a permanent May Day for all of America to see.
He oppresses many while calling them every name, then claiming he and his party is the victim, to help soak in the more fame, he is very hypocritical in his blame, knowing every time it’s always the same, this is Obama’s favorite game.
He blame’s others like the Tea Party, Insurance, Racist, Big Banks, and Israel. Many of us knows his policies have already failed. He shows the signed of being dangerously narcissistic, but our media loves him, as he can fool them into believe he just pessimistic.
He is for big government every time, hurting our economy so we can’t save a dime. He knows the socialism role, will be to take away all our dough. He made a promise not increase the deficit, this promise he knew, to be untrue, but if he created enough civil unrest, he could find some else to have the blame rest, for all his ugly mess, this is where Obama is truly the best.
With government spending billions in waste, I know our government will make it sound great and a honorable place, so they offer money to their cronies in this and every case.
President Obama helps unions gain their dues, no bill is done with out their un-ethical sausage dew. Soon our education system stench will endlessly protrude, and he has no care if you find this rude.
Go Obama, go big O , lets have Government take away more freedoms, come on man, you can help us to transform, again just claim the public is misinformed. Go Big O. why doesn’t every love large bureaucracies? Rah rha ree, lets help O take us to our knees.
“did not foresee the cooperation of Congress in thwarting the will of the people”
There is some hope on this front. People active in the Democratic party have said part of this is simply structural (vs. ideological). The national party org has taken 100% of candidate funding. Ergo, play ball or your cut off… or even better, we’ll fund an opponent. After they get slaughtered in a next election or two there should be a revolt against the current system… and we should see more dissent and free thinking in their elected ranks….
PS
As to the voters… that is rather sad that so few democrats are seeing through Obama’s BS… Last I noticed he had 80% approval from dems.
NeoConScum: thanks. I’ll fix the typo.
betsybounds, I can’t guess the reason for all those belts, but yes, others have definitely noticed them — with entertaining (if not very kind) results:
http://tinyurl.com/yjoc6od
I’m sorry to see huxley leave, too. While we disagreed about the magnitude of the threat Obama poses to the nation, I thought we kept the discussion pretty civil for the most part.
I never regarded him as a troll, and thought that he added to the discussion. One drawback of blogs, especially those of a political nature, is that they run the risk of turning into echo chambers. Like-minded people can self-select and end up reinforcing each others’ beliefs and opinions.
Rickl – I always put my googles on before I contribute to to do exactly that – to hedge against self selection and reinforcement of others’ beliefs and opinions. For example .. . Huxley, did you get your feelings hurt? Does that answer the why of the need to explain?
I don’t understand why Huxley left. Because neo didn’t agree with him? Does he think things are OK in the US?
Huxley,
It’s just this simple: Door. Ass. Bang.
And no sneak peaks back either.
Huxley left because he’s a demented drama queen. The net’s got a gazillion of them.
And the kicker is that, when all the chits are counted, it’s crystal clear Obama is a tyrant. Hence, Huxley left because he was simply wrong.
Buh-bye!
I particularly remember the thread about the left’s tyranny of good intentions. Hux consistently wanted to thread the middle, never willing to concede the obvious bad outcomes of leftist “good intentions.” It never seemed to me that he addressed others viewpoints unless he was offended in some way, and to go after Neo is just plain silly. I think Betsy called it: Obamacare reveals the Zero as the tyrant he is, and Huxley stands exposed, either as a fool or a knave.
Hux, don’t leave, I for one enjoy your repartee.
I could add some comments but it really comes down to it is fun talking to you around this table in the Neo Cafe.
You are one of the gang.
His bigamist father lied to his mother about being married to other women and left the mother and son soon after his birth.
His mother married another man and took her son to a foreign land to learn to be a good Moslem.
He was then sent away to live with his grandparents, whose whiteness and middle class positions clashed with his own self-image.
America has never had so damaged a person as president. Nixon didn’t even come close.
Pray for us all.
The real horror of Obama is that he is still not that unpopular. The majority of those who voted for him would do so again.
I am beginning to understand how the anti-Nazi Germans felt in 1933, trying to explain to anyone who listen not only that their savior was a loon but it was clear to anyone would take even a cursory look. Obliviously those in search of a messiah could care less about reality.
At least we know why Obama is popular in reality challenged places like California.
Doc,
Yes. Well, I do. I suspect others here do as well.
I sometimes look at what is happening on the Big Stage, in re: the Middle East, and especially Israel, and wonder whether we’re looking at what some folks would call the End Times. I don’t profess to know. But I’m at a minimum intrigued by what’s going on. Israel is the focus of a whole lot of hostility from just about everyone, I can’t think of a single nation or group that is on their side. We’re turning from them, and we’ve been the last, best potential hope for an ally they have had in a very long time, and maybe ever. Again, I’m reminded to be grateful for Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson the haberdasher.
I recently mentioned Corrie ten Boom’s father, saying that he pitied the Germans because “the Jews are the apple of God’s eye.” Some responded by pointing out that, in effect, if that’s so, God has a strange way of showing it. True.
But God has strange ways of showing a great many things. What matters is that, in the end, the things are shown.
Where’s artfldgr? I’m missing him, as well!
huxley: I’m not going to waste my time going over the same tired old territory with you.
But I do have one observation: it’s interesting that while you have fought so very hard against the idea that Obama is a tyrant who may enjoy some measure of success, given his ruthless power-mad set of allies in the Pelosi/Reid Congress, and their plans for amnesty swelling the ranks of his supporters at the polls—yet at the same time you have no problem accusing me of being “a Red Queen.” To refresh your memory—if you’re going by the Disney version—that’s “a fat, pompous, bad-tempered old tyrant:”
Count me among those sorry to see huxley go. That doesn’t mean that he is right in his complaints about neo.
He has his blind spots, heaven knows; but he wasn’t wrong to be concerned about rhetoric around there that is sometimes over the top. We need to be judicious in that way; the stakes are rising and the squishy Left is becoming truly frightened. It would be a disaster for predictions of tyranny to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
I’m not saying that the Left won’t go as far as they can, and I have never seen any evidence of principle or self-control among them. And it falls to people like us to stop them. I am all about winning.
But, at least for now, we need to follow Sun Tzu. The first move is to separate the enemy from their allies. The second is to destroy their worldview.
huxley, I would be pleased to meet you someday and buy you a drink. I don’t know whether neo can make the real life introduction.
Neo, huxley’s Parthian shot owed a lot to his early Leftist training: always be the accuser.
Bob From Virginia Says:
April 5th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but I said that on another site the night after Election Day 2008. Only I didn’t say “I’m beginning to understand”. I said “I understand“. And I meant it.
I’m with Gerard, as usual.
Oblio,
Excellent point. Plus, we should always remember that the preferred enemy is on the right.
And we should always remember, also, that Neo is our hostess.
I, myself, think that Huxley ended, here, by setting himself up as the straw man. He knew he would be torn down. He expected it. He counted on it.
I’m just not clear about what he hoped to gain.
I’m going to have to think about this for a while.
Oblio,
I’m not a great believer in the notion of self-fulfilling prophecies–not that there is no such thing, but that the notion makes it entirely too easy to blame yourself for your enemy’s victory. There’s more than that going on here.
@ reader 5:26 pm. An interesting question. I don’t think INFJ. He comes across as a calculating cold fish, except to the enthralled, which says to me either T or FP. To me, he appears to extravert with intuition, so NFP. Is he introverted? I don’t think so, therefore I tend to think ENFP (that is, extraverted intuitive with introverted feeling).
FWIW, Jung opined that politicians “commonly belong to” the extraverted intuitive type (E-NP).
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
On the other hand, if introversion is a possibility, I note that Jung opined that the introverted-feeling type (I-FP) gone awry leads to “banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny… most regrettably distinguished by… unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty.”
I’d say maybe 15% of the electorate had Obama pegged from the start. I place myself in that pessimistic tier. Looking for a silver lining at the time I opined that Carter begat Reagan, maybe something good will come from this.
Obama has been skating on affirmative action his whole life. He has a certain cunning but I am unconvinced he is actually that smart. This healthcare disaster is more an accomplishment of Pelosi than Obama.
So I wonder about Newt Gingrich. Newt overplayed his hand last time and Clinton rolled with the punches and saved his sorry self. I realize Gingrich isn’t an actual player at the moment. But he has been working behind the scenes and the man has a good grasp of both strategy and tactics. When he withdrew from battle in the Clinton years I was disapointed at his unwillingness to continue to fight. As I watch him manuever now I begin to consider the possibility that he was making a tactical retreat and keeping his powder dry. The climate created by the Tea Party is as good as he could ever wish for if has ever planned to return to fight.
At this point a full on Obama implosion may be the best scenario. I wonder if Gingrich has the ability to paint him into a corner and get him to self destruct. I think Obama has a lot of suppressed rage within. He’s never fit in anywhere his whole life, he has a lot of unresolved daddy issues. It’s quite uncharitable of me but I’m hoping the bright blaze of Obama’s self destruction cripples the progressive movement long enough to restore some semblance of the Republic.
It’s a wilderness of mirrors, betsy.
It would also be nice if the fallout from the Obama presidency puts an to affirmative action once and for all.
It will be a much healthier country once we get over “white guilt”. White people have nothing to be ashamed of, or to apologize for.
As usual, I think I disagree with a majority of the comments here.
I think Obama is fully prepared to lose big in November. He sees himself as bringing on Socialized medicine, which he sees as a great accomplishment.
As long as he believes he can hold enough power to prevent repeal, he will consider himself a success.
However, it will be a long two years of fighting with the Republicans.
One thing that Obama has done well has been to send most of the anger over healthcare and the stimulus to congress. By not writing and approving the bill himself, he’s minimized his own damage. He gives generic speeches talking about how great the bill is, but never defends specifics. The press also gives him an “Above it all” image which keeps him somewhat popular.
After the democratic majorities are gone from congress, his ability to pass off the damage will be tougher. His real side might come out when its just him and the Republicans.
James
This post finally unhinged huxley?!
One small note re. amnesty swelling the ranks of voters for 2012. After a person becomes a permanent resident he must wait usually 5 years, (3 years if he is married to a U.S. Citizen in which case he wouldn’t need amnesty.), before applying for U.S. Citizenship. This may be the plan but it’s a little unrealistic to think it will help the Democrats in 2012.
To me, Obama is a smug, cleverly-lying little punk (captured so well in those photos taken by John Drew, when Obama was an Occidental undergrad: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/02/b-cast-interviews-dr-john-c-drew-was-obama-a-committed-marxist-in-college/). Given his ambition and love of power, I’m sure he’s got a lot of narcissism in him, too.
I do not, however, see Obama’s levels of self-absorption rivalling those of Clinton. Clinton is textbook material: his renowned rage; his incredible callousness (telling Juanita Broderick to put ice on her lip after he raped her); his pathetic and transparent need for attention. What do we know about Obama’s personal life that would make us think he’s a Clintonesque monster?
Greg Marquez: whatever makes you think a new amnesty law would follow the rules in place right now about the waiting period to apply for citizenship?
Given his Muslim background, Obama knows very well how to practice Taqiya (deception). This culture of deliberate lie is so rampant in any Muslim country, that it is impossible to grow in any of them without being accustomed to compulsive lying.
I read much more than I post. The brain trust does not reside within me. Long and short, I agree with vanderleun about a now ex commenter to this fine blog. And I too, miss artfldgr.
I know what I want out of life. The opportunity to live and die by my own sword. Within reason, free to succeed. And that has to mean free to fail as well. My rights end where someone else’s begin, and the opposite is just as true. I thought I lived in a country based on those things….sort of. See? Told ya, no brain trust here.
LB100…I’ve been thinking the same. Clinton is absolute textbook Malignant Narcissist. A ‘Black Hole of Need’. Andrew Sullivan wrote the best small piece I’ve ever come across, as ‘TRB’ in The New Republic, soon after Bubba left office. It was titled “Psycho” and was classic. (Andy was still sane in those days.)
Obama is thoroughly Opaque to me. I’d tend more towards INFP or, maybe ENFP. His Self-Regard is huge, but that’s definitely not uncommon among politicians. He is patronizing, superior, overweening and–this always gets me–the MOST inexperienced person in any room. “Overreach” will, I still believe, be his undoing. Hopefully–please God–without too profound and lasting effect upon our Liberty Based country. The Greek ‘Hubris’ is what I’m calling ‘Overreach’. One place he appears to not fall under the classic Sam Vaknin type malignancy is his devotion(to all appearances)to his wife and daughters. Not just devotion, but, more importantly, loyalty & fidelity. Interesting, eh?
Huxley…I’ve got no dog in this race, but, bottom line: Landlord’s House, Landlord’s Rules. Oh, and this pretty much Thick Skinned lady ain’t no Red Queen.
Neo,
My greatest fear about an Obama cracking is on the foreign policy front. There he has far more freedom to say and do things that would provoke a crisis or leave us terribly vulnerable. A domestic setback could provoke him to do something disastrous just to relive his golden moments at the Victory Column in Berlin. It is scary.
@NeoConScum 6:03 am. I’d tend more towards INFP or, maybe ENFP. We’re both leaning towards NFP. That would fit with his chameleon-like personality: he has a very plastic, elastic personality that changes according to circumstances, and people tend to see in him what they want to see in him. (This need not be a deliberate attempt to deceive: that’s just how the NFP types tend to function. Of course, once aware of the chameleon quality, it can be deliberately used for effect.)
Another thought that often comes across my beam re-The One. His very opaqueness–much of it, I believe, deliberate and self engineered–hides his ‘True Believer’ Hard Leftism. He’s not a cynic(I wish he was)and, mostly, not a nimble pragmatist. He is most certainly a dedicated Alinskyite and very possibly a neo-Marxist. The ‘Tells’ for his true sympathies are less hidden when looking at his Latin America behavior. His aggressive interference in the democratic Honduran affairs is fascinating. Despite the Hondurans acting constitutionally, he WANTS Zalaya IN office. He’s very fond of the loathsome Chavez and, quietly, the brutal Fidel. There are other South American ‘Tells’ stacking up with, obviously, a sanguine and vapid MSM-Media in accompanying coma mode.
I think the scariest part of Ali Sina’s article is the following:
What I find scary about this is that, whether he actually intends it or not, Obama’s narcissistic personality is in the process or sowing the wind, and I’m afraid for America that he is about to reap the whirlwind. There are irrational aspects to human psychology that, once loosed, are going to be hard to control again. Obama has already caused so much division and fear, and now he has over 2 more years (at least) to go.
Follwoing up on my above post, I happen to also agree with rickl:
The United States, in 2010, is not the same race-wise, as it was when slavery existed in 1860, or when widespread segregation and discrimination existed in 1960. We have gone through a lengthy process of rooting this racism out, getting rid of unjust laws, and even allowing for about 40 years or reverse “affirmative” discimination. Its time to call and end to this.
The differences that remain between the races today are the result, plain and simply, of people being different… created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, but each person different nonetheless. Different ethnic groups have different cultures and different sets of skills… hence different outcomes.
When there is a verifiable showing that racism has occurred, then it should be acted against. But enough of the knee-jerk reaction of jumping every time someone yells “racism.” Enough of this divisive self-flaggelation. If there is ever a time to declare victory on the war against racism, its when a black president has been elected.
I’ve maintained that President Obama is the political equivalent to Kanye West. Both appear to think of themselves as geniuses, both have bands of rabid fans for whom they can do no wrong, and both are utterly talentless. Kanye West’s performances barely qualify as singing, yet he is called a “great musician,” and Barack Obama’s convoluted and confused replies to reporters bring his reputation as a “great orator” into question. Both react angrily and childishly to any sort of criticism. Both are ridiculously overhyped and over-analyzed.
– G
Narcissist of course, but this is irrelevant. Everybody who run to became POTUS, everybody who graduated Ivy League university in this generation, even everybody to chose Liberal Art department of any university or law school fits this description. (Bill Clinton too, as was already mentioned.) We have a much bigger problem here: a hollow man, a creature without personality, only a mask upon mask upon mask turtled all the way down to … nothing. Zero. Kipling described this type:
The Devil he blew upon his nails, and the little devils ran;
And he said, ‘Go husk this whimpering thief that comes in the guise of a man:
‘Winnow him out ‘twixt star and star, and sieve his proper worth:
‘There’s sore decline in Adam’s line if this be spawn of earth.’
Empusa’s crew, so naked-new they may not face the fire,
But weep that they bin too small to sin to the height of their desire,
Over the coal they chased the Soul, and racked it all abroad,
As children rifle a caddis-case or the raven’s foolish hoard.
And back they came with the tattered Thing, as children after play,
And they said: ‘The soul that he got from God he has bartered clean away.
‘We have threshed a stook of print and book, and winnowed a chattering wind
‘And many a soul wherefrom he stole, but his we cannot find:
‘We have handled him, we have dandled him, we have seared him to the bone,
‘And sure if tooth and nail show truth he has no soul of his own.’
Or T.S. Eliot:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us — if at all — not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Obama’s recent moves on nuclear disarmament and non retaliation suggest that we should be alarmed, indeed.
Obama and friends are trying to establish a dictatorship of the bureaucrat here as they have in Europe, guaranteeing their class in control without the messy problem of counter-revolution.
Read the essay on how Intellectuals hate their countries at Rubin Report for more details.
ELC..8:49am..Yep, I agree. His lying, which is more & more frequent now at 14-months, seems to me to be classic Left-Alinsky-Marxian. Not, like Billy Bubba, who’s lies were pathological, automatic, CYA and often mind bogglingly self-destructive. It simply was his automatic fall-back, as natural as breathing, way. Typical hugely high profile poster-child Malignant Narcissist. Obama’s multiplying lies seem to me to be out of the Left Toolbox-Playbook that was personified with Lenin. His “The American People want..” mime, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is pure Hard Left.
Heres the link to the Rubin Report’s article regarding western intellectuals mentioned by Bob from Virginia, above.
If Obama were gone today, we still have 44% of people with apparent tyranical tendencies themselves. And my guess would be they are raising offspring more screwed up than they are. We talk politics, but the issue is much bigger.
http://biggovernment.com/ldoan/2010/04/06/jobless-numbers-show-minorities-crushed-by-team-obama-policies/
Minorities suffer under Obama’s policies.
Identifying the snake that bit you
is always easier than identifying it before it bites you
the reasonable among us told us to wait till we get bit to be sure.
My final remark about Huxley: Neo has it pegged already -> a mind (and behavior) is a difficult thing to change. It takes an uncommon courage as we all know. Don’t take me wrong – I’m no model of mental health, but I know I don’t spin like a yo-yo up and down on the same string forever either.
Obama is an Alensky informed post-modern political sociopath. And, like all sociopaths, he has no real empathy, nor no normally functioning conscience. And, like all sociopaths, he is a narcissist. For me, the word sociopath is the key descriptor. And I’m still in shock that my neighbors in my country, the country I grew up in, elected this narcissist with those flaws to be our president. I’m mad as hell about it.
Although I think Obama is at bottom an angry man, I also think he is an extremely well-controlled one. He already has contempt for the people, but so far he has been careful not to verbalize too much of it; it only emerges in the rare off-the-cuff statement (like “bitter clingers”), and is usually couched not in rage but in condescension. So I don’t know.
I know. I knew from the beginning… our mistake in using the information of Vaknin is that we have yet to convert it. That is, we have not reshaped that information to fit the difference between a narcissist as an army of one, and a narcissist WITH an army.
What you confuse as self control would not be there if there weren’t others who serve the master with the purple horse! I pointed this out long ago. when the general asks and promotes inane things the general knows who is on his side. but MORE SO…
If I spell things out, then its too long, if I don’t, then few even try
That is, what is the difference between the LOYAL generals who don’t see the purple horse and the LOYAL generals who DO see the purple horse.
Again, the ability to see the whole problem, including the parts which are NOT handed to you are the key to better living (and surviving).
In the tale I told, i said that this was the way to test loyalty. The disloyal do not need such a special test to be found out, but such a test finds them, and loyal ones.
So what is the difference?
I tried to explain it with feminism… but I got explanations that there were differences and some explanation as to how that is important, and I should regard it as such, but never real reasons, or differences.
The people who saw or pretended to see the purple horse were MORE THAN LOYAL; their loyalty went to supporting the REALITY of their leader.
He has surrounded himself with the MORE THAN LOYAL, he has surrounded his SOCIOPATHIC self with others who support his vision of reality.
THIS is the key difference
When he says that the world is racist, the more than loyal will act as if its racist.
They are not just supporting the man, they are supporting his reality
Part of this is natural when you serve a narcissist, but it goes beyond this when serving a sociopath with a vision of the world, the megalomaniacal idea that they are the ones to do it, and a supporting staff of people who will drive us all off a cliff.
HOW did Hitler do what he did?
HIS CORE FOLLOWERS were willing to do anything to realize his vision of reality.
[and he is not a narcissist… he is a sociopath]
Artfldgr: Narcissism and sociopathy are not mutually exclusive.
NeoConScum: Clinton was far better. His lies were mostly concentrated on his personal life. But he had a basic interest in protecting the US, and did not hate it. Obama’s lies are all in the service of his agenda (and about his past, in order to cover up his agenda and fool people), which is destructive to the US. Very much more dangerous.
Both wanted to be big shots. And both were narcissists. Clinton was not a malignant narcissist. Obama appears to be just that.
“”And I’m still in shock that my neighbors in my country, the country I grew up in, elected this narcissist with those flaws to be our president.””
They wanted a leader in their own image. One who believed the world always in strife meant policies and behavior of the exact opposite of what created civilization should do the trick. These people in time may well get identified as the people of the opposites or the 180 degree inverted.
Neo…
didnt say they were, but it took us this long to go from genius and savior to narcisist… not slight ‘normal’ narcisist, but obama isnt one of those… as you point out…. to me he was always a sociopath, given that the leaders of certain groups were ALWAYS such… (and their detractors painted them as narcisists, the lesser of the two evils)
on another note…
Sina gets to say “I told you so”–bigtime–because looking at his piece in retrospect he nailed a lot about the man.
and
Neo: I can claim some small prescience on that score myself
and how about this one?
neoneocon.com/2010/01/09/are-obamas-lies-politics-as-usual/#comment-140532
Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
By Ali Sina — FaithFreedom.org
its a BIG post with MORE good words from SINA..
you see WAY before SINA i was trying to collect different articles that would clue people in.
if you go back you will find many of the same or similar things by the same or similar people that NOW makes more sense.
but then there was no way for me to create enough preponderance. after all, preponderance is completely negated by brevity, no?
I quoted sina in his new article…
i also quoted another, pointing out hitler and his process.
which i hoped you would notice was much the same.
he was seen as a gifted man and hailed as the savior of the country. He was admired throughout the world. He appealed to the masses of people — the working class and particularly to women, and did not just inspire them, he “elevated” them. Thousands rallied to listen to his passionate speeches. He gave them promises of change and instilled in them hope. They shed tears when he spoke. Women fainted during his speeches.
the paragraph was about hitler, not obama..
and i put up other parts of articles, trying to hint at what will happen later (that your now discussing)
These revolutionary leaders need foes. They exaggerate the problems. They make everything look gloomy. They lie, cheat and slander their opponents while casting themselves as the saviors of the nation.
and i put up Ezra Klien…
and info on narcissistic rulers…
Narcissists are pathological liars. They lie even to themselves. Ironically, they are the first to believe their own lies. When normal people lie, they show the sign of distress. Narcissists don’t. They can pass any polygraph test with flying colors. It is this conviction that fools people around them making them believe in their truthfulness and sincerity. In a twisted way they are sincere because, although they are conscience that they are not truthful, they believe in their own lies.
sound familiar?
So the question is: What made these smart and highly civilized people commit such horrendous acts of savagery?
According to Vaknin,
“The narcissistic or psychopathic leader is the culmination and reification of his period, culture, and civilization. He is likely to rise to prominence in narcissistic societies.”
there was a lot more posted there… where i point out the big problem when they have followers to do the dirty yelling and behaviors, and they have followers who are pushing anothers reality..
Vaknin used the term co dependents.
Narcissists have a profound sense of call as they believe that they have a “special purpose” or a “high calling.” In his autobiography Hitler wrote, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Politics and religion offer irresistible lure for the narcissist.
And this is what Obama said about his “calling:” “Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. “I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth.”
there are many more posts where i mentioned this stuff…
the fact that its the last 2 of three posts.
and that i waited till the conversation was had, before i put all that in… that way the people who dont like long posts wont complain.
and note that this is March..
and that was January
and i said you have to get ahead of them
Technically we have caught up to January
keep this up, and we may figure out we lost the game how many months AFTER we lose?
SteveH wrote, “If Obama were gone today, we still have 44% of people with apparent tyranical tendencies themselves. And my guess would be they are raising offspring more screwed up than they are. We talk politics, but the issue is much bigger.”
You are saying what I’ve been saying.
To me this isn’t about just Obama. And identity politics doesn’t solve it. Yes, Obama is the biggest mouthpiece right now giving so many examples of:
1) Not even recognizing alternative points of view
2) Plunging forward no matter the results of their policies
3) Disrespecting people with arrogant behavior all over the world and domestically.
But leftists like Obama have advocated these kinds of things for so long. People on the left have long advocated treating certain allies like Israel like this.
It is a shock to see this from a president. We Americans did this to ourselves. Independents and Republicans like Nyom and Althouse voted for this and it was pretty evident before he was elected that he was this kind of leftist (not a centrist).
Saying I told you so surely does no good. But it is imperative that we recognize this kind of stuff before we elect it again.
N-N..12:56pm…Agreed, mostly. Yes, The Bamma is FAR more destructive than Clinton. However, Bubba IS a Mlignant Narcissist. He would be sucking the wind out of everything still had not The One cleverly–and CYA to the max–snagged Hillary for Sec’y of State. She then ordered Bill’s yap shut. A double winner for The Bamma. Smart and Survivalist.
Obama’s True Believer narcissistic “trust” in himself also led to the new INSANE Nuke Non-Response policy. A Shipwreck.
Artfldgr: I think I’ve said before that I think most of us here have thought this way for quite some time, even before the election. Very few people here voted for Obama. Many of us have worked pretty hard (at least in terms of talking to other people, and in my case writing) to spread the word. Yes, there were a few people saying he wasn’t as bad as all that, but not the majority of people here. And yes, people were hoping it wasn’t as bad as all that—but that’s not the same as disbelieving it. The problem is (as I think I wrote in a post some time ago; I don’t remember exactly which one right now) that the ingredients were put in place years ago to elect someone like Obama. By the time Obama was nominated, and especially after the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, our warnings fell on deaf ears.
You certainly were one of the earliest and most vocal sounding the alarm. But that doesn’t mean most people here were in basic disagreement. Perhaps they were more optimistic (and still might be, even now) than you about whether the nation can pull out of this dive we’re in. But what could we have done differently? And what could we do differently now? I don’t quite see what it could be at this point.
Baklava: We did recognize this kind of stuff, at least most of us on this blog. Very few people here voted for Obama, and when he won the election most were full of trepidation at the harm he could (and perhaps would) do as president.
“We” didn’t elect him, but the American people as a whole did, and we are part of the American people. Perhaps, if the US manages to dodge this bullet, enough of the people who voted for him will have learned some sort of lesson and not be fooled again. The problem is that such a lesson probably only lasts about ten years, and then a new generation who were only kids under Obama will grow up and vote, and can skew an election again because they haven’t learned the lesson. Unless, of course, they are taught history properly, which would require some sort of sea change in the school system.
Where’s artfldgr? I’m missing him, as well!
here i am! thanks!!!
I will not comment on Hux though as i have always commented and see no reason other than to say he will be missed…
if there was no outside world to check our choices against, this could have gone on forever, but eventually, someones analysis results were going to say something. this was a given, since the two sides were different.
we have crossed a line where reasonable interpretations do not sound reasonable any more, or sounds like we are hanging on.
in the absence of such, then what?
when we smelled smoke it was easy to say, its a neighbors barbecue
when we thought it was heavier, it was easy to say its the neighbor next door
when the heat went up, it was easy to say the thermostat was broken, you dont notice, or maybe she has the hot and colds.
EACH item is easy to knock over..
and in the absence of reading lots of long information
preponderance becomes impossible.
so while we were sitting here and saying, smell of smoke, seeing smoke, temperature rising…
TOGETHER become difficult to knock over
but since we normalized atomization as a false way to understanding, or disproving a debate, we could never get over the fact that every fact by itself can have an excuse, but for 400 facts that collection of excuses do not work
fool me once shame on you
fool me twice shame on me
where was part 2?
your constant benifit of the doubt leaves you stuck on fool me once shame on you, as you have to ADD UP the tricks to get to twice. refusal to add them up,a nd yours tuck on fool me once… but each time is different.
if we as a nation applied that, we would have thrown out most of congress decades ago.
sorry to see you go…
[and thanks for remembering me B]
what could we have done differently? And what could we do differently now? I don’t quite see what it could be at this point.
imagine tea party type protests BEFORE the election and the chance to have voted out some of the key people and numbers that they achieved.
if we had changed just two of the progressives for another, what would have happened?
yes… now way after its too late…
but as i said, opportunities do not last, and unlike movies and positivist bs, they dnot come again, and you can lose WAY before you know you have lost.
our inability to see the permanence of things (given we aer so into change), means that we do not react or push hard enough against things that result in fundamental changes to how we live.
its just VERY frustrating, as i took a lot of heat for a while… only now to end up where i said we would end up if we didnt read, study, etc.
that is if we scared them BEFORE They did stuff, they would have pushed off things. but they are converging on a time, and so we can screw them up.
but now, we arent even getting the big thing in health care…
that the politicos who are on the fence get to be blackmailed as to the outcomes for their families, friends and such.
they have no choice now but to side with the despotism.
just draw a little graph and put all the options and outcomes in place and see which option gives them both outcomes… so it will be what they take.
to rely on them making a point to do the right thing, and risking all they did for their family, which they see as dynastic, while we are taught are nothing and can be eradicated. (for a population that will not reward them for this attempt and loss)
if they do the wrong thing, and obama fails, where are they? still in politics, still with money and jobs, and still with health care and stuch for their family and families future.
if they do the wrong thing, and obama succeeds, same outcomes. maybe better.
if they do the right thing and obama fails, they are out and their family is on the outs… after all, its not just obama, its the others, and they are going to blame him and others for that failure and bury him. so he and his family dont do that well.
if they do the right thing and obama succeeds, they are going to be crushed.
we didnt give them a choice…
or better put… we the people didnt give them the option of making a better choice, did we?
what we could have done different is learn…
that would bring understanding….
its not a Jewish diamond cutters strength that does the job, is it?
its his understanding and application of learning to the problem to find the crux, and tap.
and thats the difference…
blindly we will do what they want, as we dont know what would prevent it.
Artfldgr—
The problem in a nutshell is this: everyone sounding an alarm before things have played out (and that includes me) was considered more or less balmy.
Before the election, I told many friends—all who would even allow me to talk about it—that this man was dangerous, and I tried to tell them why, and they looked at me blankly and incomprehendingly.
Most people will not believe the worst of someone that slick unless the worst is staring them in the face. Maybe not even then; look how relatively high his approval ratings remain. His approval now should be limited to the hard core left, but it’s not.
That is human nature in a country that has had the sort of good fortune we have. Too many people are innocent and trusting. Perhaps they won’t be so innocent and trusting in the future. Whether it will be too late or not remains to be seen.
There is tragedy in getting Obama and there was tragedy in not getting him. 4 years of McCain would have merely postponed a leader flushed with irrational liberal idealism. The public was ripe to be taught a hard life lesson and they are getting it. If reverend Wright didn’t register, there was certainly nothing in any book that would have even remotely put a chink in the armor Obama supporters devised.
SteveH: lessons are fine, if the process of learning them is not too dangerous. This process may be too dangerous.
Neo wrote, ““We” didn’t elect him, but the American people as a whole did, and we are part of the American people. ”
That was what I intended to say.
I agree with you on the 10 year thing. I have been disappointed in the elderly for awhile and their tendency to vote for Bill Clinton and then I think Kerry and Gore.
But the young and the old alike are learning what these policies all mean for them. Unemployment for the young. Forcing the young to buy health insurance – less liberty. Cutting Medicare and committing generational theft for the elderly.
We are all wising up.
But the old saying goes about you are a liberal until you either have children or get mugged.
Alas, most people today are cultural savages, Internet users the more so. They are lost among the dazzling riches that surround them. Rather than admit to their inferiority and accept their need to learn and improve, they claim “equal status”. It is a form of rampant pathological narcissism, a defense mechanism that is aimed to fend off the injury of admitting to one’s inadequacies and limitations.
Internet users have developed an ethos of anti-elitism. There are no experts, only opinions, there are no hard data, only poll results. Everyone is equally suited to contribute to any subject. Learning and scholarship are frowned on or even actively discouraged. The public’s taste has completely substituted for good taste. Yardsticks, classics, science – have all been discarded.
Study after study have demonstrated clearly the decline of functional literacy (the ability to read and understand labels, simple instructions, and very basic texts) even as literacy (in other words, repeated exposure to the alphabet) has increased dramatically all over the world.
In other words: most people know how to read but precious few understand what they are reading. Yet, even the most illiterate, bolstered by the Internet’s mob-rule, insist that their interpretation of the texts they do not comprehend is as potent and valid as anyone else’s.
Honey artfldgr……honey.
To bring people to your point of view, you need to start where THEY are, not where you are. It’s tough when you realize you’ve been duped. To open oneself up to that, one has to feel they are in a safe enough environment to be so exposed, to have ears to hear.
Besides, I know I’m a dumb ass. I’ve been admitting it for far too long. Carter made me a Republican. I have to be hopeful Obama will create many new Republicans as well.
br549,
that paragraph was Vanknin…
the article pointed out many of the things i have said here, except when i said them they were off the cuff descriptions…
its from the article “The Age of Stupid”
http://www.globalpolitician.com/26214-intellect-democracy-internet-ethics
The few real scholars and intellectuals left are on the retreat, back into the ivory towers of a century ago. Increasingly, their place is taken by self-taught “experts”, narcissistic bloggers, wannabe “authors” and “auteurs”, and partisan promoters of (often self-beneficial) “causes”. The mob thus empowered and complimented feels vindicated and triumphant. But history cautions us that mobs have never produced enlightenment – only concentration camps and bloodied revolutions.
he even brings up the short texts and other stuff..
Neo, you quoted Vaknin “The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment.”
Isn’t that precisely what happened after the Scott Brown election. Obama tried to tie the Brown victory to dissatisfaction stemming from the Bush administration.