Sometimes I get anxious over the thought that people lying about me. Repeatedly I will obsess about that thought.
However, I know that it isn't true.
When I think other people are lying about me, it actually is me lying to myself. This is why it's hard to write truthfully about myself, because I don't know if the truth I write about myself is actually a lie or the truth.
Overall, that uncertainty leads me to falsely assume other people are lying to me.
Sometimes when I'm this candid in my blog, a few people might object to it. However, that's their choice.
I am certain that my thoughts are better managed when I write about them. Just thinking about them isn't what the problem is.
By obsessive thinking about a concern until it becomes a worry — that is the problem.
Here is the solution:
Writing about it relieves that worry because of the change of focus from thinking about it to writing about it.
Furthermore, writing about my thoughts requires critical thinking and reasoning. In contrast, thinking when anxious only requires the irrational fear of untruth.
By writing candidly about my thoughts, I am reducing the risk factors associated with anxiety and narcissism.
Self disclosure has the risks associated with exposing my vulnerabilities to the scrutiny of public opinion, but it is counteracted by the narcissism inherent in maintaining a blog.
Thus the benefits of writing about my thoughts and feelings on my blog outweigh these risks.
Showing posts with label narcissism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label narcissism. Show all posts
20141124
When Social Drinking Becomes A Sociopathy (satire)
Rather than a short disclaimer, this article is a satire on the dangers of the risky behavior in drinking known as preloading when social drinkers are determined to party by drinking before a public event due to high alcohol prices at the even and/or strict liquor laws. After my monologue on preloading, I will rant about social drinkers who become problem drinkers, which is when social drinking becomes a sociopathy. Finally, I will give my take about American Psychopath and the rebooted Halloween movies to explain my conclusions about problem drinking.
Before I move onto the body of the rant itself, my exposure to alcohol and drugs needs to be shared because I truly care for the social drinker.
During my life, I have mostly been a light drinker thanks to intolerance of alcohol due to my Asian physiology when one or two drinks often made me drunk. As well, I practiced safe drinking because I was never exposed to peer pressure over social drinking.
Apart from the rare forays into drinking until my early 30s, my drinking days only occurred around social events. 2007 was a great challenge because of reconnecting with a friend I had met 10 years earlier who is a moderate drinker.
Today, I don't drink alcohol and am totally dry since June 2014 mainly because I believe in sobriety and have continued prayer and meditation to distract me from seeking comfort in the bottle.
Because I had a brief history of binge drinking and other risky behavior until I stopped drinking in 2009, I retain the privilege of experience to be the party pooper in regards to drinking. However, the following rant is because I am stone cold sober.
Addictive behaviors occur long before children are introduced to alcohol and drugs around middle school (grades 5-7). Peer pressure only causes addictions when children want to fit in and socialize.
So I am glad that I chose to not drink until well into my 30s. YMMV.
Tolerance to alcohol occurs when a person who drinks needs more alcohol during regular drinking hours in addition to the copious amounts of drink at home. However, the myth that drinking is fun is encouraged by the fact that you only live once, an attitude that will be addressed later on in this rant.
According to the anti-drinking propaganda, it is said that risky drinking threatens people who once lived productive lives.
In aother myth, public health (doctors, nurses, hospitals) is anti-drinking. Actually public health recommends 1-2 drinks a day as being safer than drinking up to 14 drinks or more over a 60-hour period on the weekend, depending on whether everyone is in party mood, due to a public holiday or other event.
Perhaps it is more fun and entertaining to drink 1-2 drinks with each meal from breakfast, lunch and dinner, as long as the intended purpose is social drinking, be it at home or every day. For the purpose of social drinking is to be of good cheer, apparently.
As has been stated before, preloading behavior occurs when prices are high and laws are strict.
According to health officials, alcohol preloading is harmful, only if the drinker drinks more alcohol later on in the evening. Thus, the risk of excessive drinking is higher than not preloading. The resulting higher consumption levels increase risk for injuries and possibly death.
Strict alcohol laws increase the chance of preloading. Additionally, licensed establishments have a high risk of liability serving already inebriated patrons.
Thus, lowering alcohol prices tends to lower risk of preloading.
Therefore, liquor laws need to be moderated. Liquor prices need to be low enough to encourage less preloading but not so low as to encourage binge drinking. Additionally, both binge drinking and preloading need to be addressed through the use of propaganda advertisements.
It is less risky and cheaper to drink 1-2 drinks at bars, pubs and restaurants with affordable prices every day of the week than to preload on the weekend and risk higher levels of consumption.
From the viewpoint of the consumer, public education from middle school to college level should still discourage preloading and risk factors that may be encouraged by the "you only live once" myth (YOLO).
You do live once, but it is a factor that is disproved by preloading due to strict liquor laws and high alcohol prices.
Contrary to the myth that preloading is safe, more people risk dying from alcohol-related injuries including poisoning, fights at establishments and car accidents.
From the viewpoint of sobriety, preloading might indicate future risk for alcoholism when drinking also occurs during the rest of the week. However, I believe social drinkers are potential alcoholics when inebriated if they are led to the belief that drinking is so fun that every day must be a party in order for them to feel in control. After that suspension of disbelief, they may turn every evening into a party and the line blurs between social drinking and alcoholism.
However, the alcoholic will deny he is an alcoholic because of two pernicious attitudes about drinking: "everyone is doing it" and YOLO. However, a minority of people drink that much or more, while the majority of people may be their concered friends and family who are saddened by the fact that drink became more important than them.
I know of people who met in bars, had a few drinks, and flew in for a Vegas wedding, including Britney Spears who had hooked up with a high school friend, partied, got married and subsequently got the marriage annulled. Fortunately her Vegas wedding was not a career-breaker.
Despite all the late night talk show hosts joking about Spears at that time, the risk of ruined ratings reduced their call for less drinking. That's because the entertainment industry needs the extra revenue from alcohol sales and often considers safe drinking behavior to be an economic threat to their industry.
Yet safe drinking behavior is actually no threat to their industry because more social drinkers can spend each day drinking up to 6 drinks a day with meals per person and not lose sleep over preloading and binge drinking on weekends.
Also the purpose of buying liquor - preferably beer - at night is not to drink it all away before morning but to have enough alcohol to stay within the 6 drinks a day limit. Public drinking education should consist of math quizzes to meet that limit and stay within it, in order to maintain a healthy social drinking climate.
Indeed, the sly promotion of "drinking is fun" by a bar or club is done to obtain high drink sales to derive enough alcoholic revenue to offset the hourly minimum wage. Beer bongs, drinking shooters off hot models, and associated antics are actually done to encourage social drinking at levels which not too many social drinkers can sustain. Nor does ladies' night with half price on shooters promote safe drinking.
All this does is lead to a 1-5 percent of a party of revelers to encounter blackouts and all the mayhem that happens during blackouts, especially the ones that last a month, a year, or maybe even a decade or two.
Right now, I have to discuss sociopaths who drink, because they are the people who have lied to themselves so much that drinking is fun. One successful sociopath too many has said, "I like to have vodka in my cereal every morning." They thus center their lives around being the pernicious party animal.
Although the public health officials have labeled them "problem drinkers," their problem is the ability to believe the lies that they tell other people about their drinking. Since their world revolves around drinking and socializing, they are able to socially engineer a way to stay drunk throughout their lives and often turn binge drinking and preloading into performance art.
Along the way, alcoholic sociopaths give a bad rap to successful sociopaths like celebrities, business people and even Randolph Hearst, a publisher who made his money from alcohol advertisers before Prohibition but also made money by being a moral compass when Mae West came to New York City. Yet Mae West helped Hollywood make money by challenging the moral taboos about being a sexy and successful sociopath for the entertainment industry.
A marvelous Hollywood celebrity who was quite successful during her career is Tallulah Bankhead, who not only drank her way around Hollywood but also snorted her way around the secret party scenes, too. Being a relatively successful sociopath, she also slept her way from casting couch to the beds of other celebrities, men and women alike. Once she had to get a hysterectomy after a bad case of gonorrhea, and said in passing to the hospital surgeon "If you think this is going to stop my behavior, think again."
Thus, society must be ever vigilant about sociopaths who shall be detected during their first forays into social drinking before their white lies lead to the bigger whoppers they tell themselves once they totally buy into the YOLO attitude and make it their motto for life. For alcohol and sociopaths are a dangerous mix that may lead to risk of violence to themselves and their loved ones.
Anyway, I am all done with ranting and would like to thank Hollywood for popularizing social drinking (Jackass), cocaine (Traffik), risky behavior (American Pie), decadent hedonism (those crazy movies from the 30s involving dancing the shimmie while dressed in sheer fabric), and a sociopathy that fails so horribly that sexual psychopathy becomes confused with benign sociopathic behavior by the sociopath's victims (American Psychopath).
If it wasn't for Hollywood, then we wouldn't have all the failed sociopaths who crossed the line into their five minutes of fame. If it wasn't for the brilliance of American mainstream media to enshrine individualism as freedom from neo-conservative sheep mentality, then there wouldn't be the Craigslist killer meme.
In conclusion, I would like to insert a sober moment here to end this rant by stating that the sociopath is not a broken individual as a child. Rather, she is not a victim of child abuse, neglect or anything that horrible.
Rather, a sociopath learns early that society is based on white lies which help us to sleep at nights. When a child is fibbing, it is child abuse to force them to stop lying when few parents can stomach telling their children the truth too early but sometimes failing to figure out the truth about their society.
For a sociopath learns early in childhood that toeing the line comes with benefits and risks, including telling a white lie to ensure family harmony. What a brilliant career in big business awaits them, if only parents were taught from middle school about ethic and morals in a manner than benefits every child.
Indeed, when drinking becomes a sociopathy in middle school, parents should admit to the double standard and determine if they are narcissists, empaths or sociopaths instead of lying about these descriptions for what passes as normal human behavior.
Even so, "normal" is the biggest white lie to promote social harmony while leading to the stigma of the mentally ill without just cause. As is "denial" a white lie when declaring that a psychopath is sane.
Personality disorders are not a sign of insanity unless a person described as sociopathic are mistreated by former friends who can only see through the lies of the sociopath but have little insight into the white lies that lead to real whoppers like "the mentally ill are not really normal people".
Truth be told: Hollywood manufactured the propaganda that psychopaths are horrible people but the reboot of Halloween turn the story of a failed sociopath Michael Myers, who was neglected as a child but was molded by unprofessional therapy by Doctor Samuel Loomis and the incompetence of the State into a serial killer, the criminal psychopath.
However, American Psychopath is not an honest portrayal of sexual psychopathy because it leaves out the antihero's childhood. On the other hand the rebooted Halloween movies is only a portrayal of two kinds of sociopaths, the failed sociopath known as the criminal psychopath and serial killer Michael Myers and the successful sociopath, Dr Samuel Loomis.
Hollywood tells us white lies about sociopaths like Myers while showing Doctor Loomis as a successful sociopath. It also only documents the sexual psychopathy of the antihero in American Psychopath in adulthood, but offers no insight on the fact that he is a failed sociopath whose social drinking helped him to fit into urban society.
Those people who fail as sociopaths sometimes develop a psychopathy if they maladapt to the stress that society places on them. Otherwise, they would be make fine successful sociopaths such as many CEOs, world leaders, and celebrities whose normative behavior endear them to their fans.
Perhaps society is just as subtly as sociopathic as it is empathetic, narcissistic, for it encourages us to be normal in our lives, which might be described as one big snafu where the situation is normal but all fouled up.
On a positive note, 95 percent of people are not sociopaths. Most of them do not drink and few of them turn to drugs. Society is not inherently sociopathic. Rather, it might be that the empathetic and the narcissists in all of us realize how to be successful without harming other people.
YMMV
Originally posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 5:55 PM
American Psychopath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psycho_%28film%29
Halloween: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_(2007_film)
Before I move onto the body of the rant itself, my exposure to alcohol and drugs needs to be shared because I truly care for the social drinker.
During my life, I have mostly been a light drinker thanks to intolerance of alcohol due to my Asian physiology when one or two drinks often made me drunk. As well, I practiced safe drinking because I was never exposed to peer pressure over social drinking.
Apart from the rare forays into drinking until my early 30s, my drinking days only occurred around social events. 2007 was a great challenge because of reconnecting with a friend I had met 10 years earlier who is a moderate drinker.
Today, I don't drink alcohol and am totally dry since June 2014 mainly because I believe in sobriety and have continued prayer and meditation to distract me from seeking comfort in the bottle.
Because I had a brief history of binge drinking and other risky behavior until I stopped drinking in 2009, I retain the privilege of experience to be the party pooper in regards to drinking. However, the following rant is because I am stone cold sober.
Addictive behaviors occur long before children are introduced to alcohol and drugs around middle school (grades 5-7). Peer pressure only causes addictions when children want to fit in and socialize.
So I am glad that I chose to not drink until well into my 30s. YMMV.
Tolerance to alcohol occurs when a person who drinks needs more alcohol during regular drinking hours in addition to the copious amounts of drink at home. However, the myth that drinking is fun is encouraged by the fact that you only live once, an attitude that will be addressed later on in this rant.
According to the anti-drinking propaganda, it is said that risky drinking threatens people who once lived productive lives.
In aother myth, public health (doctors, nurses, hospitals) is anti-drinking. Actually public health recommends 1-2 drinks a day as being safer than drinking up to 14 drinks or more over a 60-hour period on the weekend, depending on whether everyone is in party mood, due to a public holiday or other event.
Perhaps it is more fun and entertaining to drink 1-2 drinks with each meal from breakfast, lunch and dinner, as long as the intended purpose is social drinking, be it at home or every day. For the purpose of social drinking is to be of good cheer, apparently.
As has been stated before, preloading behavior occurs when prices are high and laws are strict.
According to health officials, alcohol preloading is harmful, only if the drinker drinks more alcohol later on in the evening. Thus, the risk of excessive drinking is higher than not preloading. The resulting higher consumption levels increase risk for injuries and possibly death.
Strict alcohol laws increase the chance of preloading. Additionally, licensed establishments have a high risk of liability serving already inebriated patrons.
Thus, lowering alcohol prices tends to lower risk of preloading.
Therefore, liquor laws need to be moderated. Liquor prices need to be low enough to encourage less preloading but not so low as to encourage binge drinking. Additionally, both binge drinking and preloading need to be addressed through the use of propaganda advertisements.
It is less risky and cheaper to drink 1-2 drinks at bars, pubs and restaurants with affordable prices every day of the week than to preload on the weekend and risk higher levels of consumption.
From the viewpoint of the consumer, public education from middle school to college level should still discourage preloading and risk factors that may be encouraged by the "you only live once" myth (YOLO).
You do live once, but it is a factor that is disproved by preloading due to strict liquor laws and high alcohol prices.
Contrary to the myth that preloading is safe, more people risk dying from alcohol-related injuries including poisoning, fights at establishments and car accidents.
From the viewpoint of sobriety, preloading might indicate future risk for alcoholism when drinking also occurs during the rest of the week. However, I believe social drinkers are potential alcoholics when inebriated if they are led to the belief that drinking is so fun that every day must be a party in order for them to feel in control. After that suspension of disbelief, they may turn every evening into a party and the line blurs between social drinking and alcoholism.
However, the alcoholic will deny he is an alcoholic because of two pernicious attitudes about drinking: "everyone is doing it" and YOLO. However, a minority of people drink that much or more, while the majority of people may be their concered friends and family who are saddened by the fact that drink became more important than them.
I know of people who met in bars, had a few drinks, and flew in for a Vegas wedding, including Britney Spears who had hooked up with a high school friend, partied, got married and subsequently got the marriage annulled. Fortunately her Vegas wedding was not a career-breaker.
Despite all the late night talk show hosts joking about Spears at that time, the risk of ruined ratings reduced their call for less drinking. That's because the entertainment industry needs the extra revenue from alcohol sales and often considers safe drinking behavior to be an economic threat to their industry.
Yet safe drinking behavior is actually no threat to their industry because more social drinkers can spend each day drinking up to 6 drinks a day with meals per person and not lose sleep over preloading and binge drinking on weekends.
Also the purpose of buying liquor - preferably beer - at night is not to drink it all away before morning but to have enough alcohol to stay within the 6 drinks a day limit. Public drinking education should consist of math quizzes to meet that limit and stay within it, in order to maintain a healthy social drinking climate.
Indeed, the sly promotion of "drinking is fun" by a bar or club is done to obtain high drink sales to derive enough alcoholic revenue to offset the hourly minimum wage. Beer bongs, drinking shooters off hot models, and associated antics are actually done to encourage social drinking at levels which not too many social drinkers can sustain. Nor does ladies' night with half price on shooters promote safe drinking.
All this does is lead to a 1-5 percent of a party of revelers to encounter blackouts and all the mayhem that happens during blackouts, especially the ones that last a month, a year, or maybe even a decade or two.
Right now, I have to discuss sociopaths who drink, because they are the people who have lied to themselves so much that drinking is fun. One successful sociopath too many has said, "I like to have vodka in my cereal every morning." They thus center their lives around being the pernicious party animal.
Although the public health officials have labeled them "problem drinkers," their problem is the ability to believe the lies that they tell other people about their drinking. Since their world revolves around drinking and socializing, they are able to socially engineer a way to stay drunk throughout their lives and often turn binge drinking and preloading into performance art.
Along the way, alcoholic sociopaths give a bad rap to successful sociopaths like celebrities, business people and even Randolph Hearst, a publisher who made his money from alcohol advertisers before Prohibition but also made money by being a moral compass when Mae West came to New York City. Yet Mae West helped Hollywood make money by challenging the moral taboos about being a sexy and successful sociopath for the entertainment industry.
A marvelous Hollywood celebrity who was quite successful during her career is Tallulah Bankhead, who not only drank her way around Hollywood but also snorted her way around the secret party scenes, too. Being a relatively successful sociopath, she also slept her way from casting couch to the beds of other celebrities, men and women alike. Once she had to get a hysterectomy after a bad case of gonorrhea, and said in passing to the hospital surgeon "If you think this is going to stop my behavior, think again."
Thus, society must be ever vigilant about sociopaths who shall be detected during their first forays into social drinking before their white lies lead to the bigger whoppers they tell themselves once they totally buy into the YOLO attitude and make it their motto for life. For alcohol and sociopaths are a dangerous mix that may lead to risk of violence to themselves and their loved ones.
Anyway, I am all done with ranting and would like to thank Hollywood for popularizing social drinking (Jackass), cocaine (Traffik), risky behavior (American Pie), decadent hedonism (those crazy movies from the 30s involving dancing the shimmie while dressed in sheer fabric), and a sociopathy that fails so horribly that sexual psychopathy becomes confused with benign sociopathic behavior by the sociopath's victims (American Psychopath).
If it wasn't for Hollywood, then we wouldn't have all the failed sociopaths who crossed the line into their five minutes of fame. If it wasn't for the brilliance of American mainstream media to enshrine individualism as freedom from neo-conservative sheep mentality, then there wouldn't be the Craigslist killer meme.
In conclusion, I would like to insert a sober moment here to end this rant by stating that the sociopath is not a broken individual as a child. Rather, she is not a victim of child abuse, neglect or anything that horrible.
Rather, a sociopath learns early that society is based on white lies which help us to sleep at nights. When a child is fibbing, it is child abuse to force them to stop lying when few parents can stomach telling their children the truth too early but sometimes failing to figure out the truth about their society.
For a sociopath learns early in childhood that toeing the line comes with benefits and risks, including telling a white lie to ensure family harmony. What a brilliant career in big business awaits them, if only parents were taught from middle school about ethic and morals in a manner than benefits every child.
Indeed, when drinking becomes a sociopathy in middle school, parents should admit to the double standard and determine if they are narcissists, empaths or sociopaths instead of lying about these descriptions for what passes as normal human behavior.
Even so, "normal" is the biggest white lie to promote social harmony while leading to the stigma of the mentally ill without just cause. As is "denial" a white lie when declaring that a psychopath is sane.
Personality disorders are not a sign of insanity unless a person described as sociopathic are mistreated by former friends who can only see through the lies of the sociopath but have little insight into the white lies that lead to real whoppers like "the mentally ill are not really normal people".
Truth be told: Hollywood manufactured the propaganda that psychopaths are horrible people but the reboot of Halloween turn the story of a failed sociopath Michael Myers, who was neglected as a child but was molded by unprofessional therapy by Doctor Samuel Loomis and the incompetence of the State into a serial killer, the criminal psychopath.
However, American Psychopath is not an honest portrayal of sexual psychopathy because it leaves out the antihero's childhood. On the other hand the rebooted Halloween movies is only a portrayal of two kinds of sociopaths, the failed sociopath known as the criminal psychopath and serial killer Michael Myers and the successful sociopath, Dr Samuel Loomis.
Hollywood tells us white lies about sociopaths like Myers while showing Doctor Loomis as a successful sociopath. It also only documents the sexual psychopathy of the antihero in American Psychopath in adulthood, but offers no insight on the fact that he is a failed sociopath whose social drinking helped him to fit into urban society.
Those people who fail as sociopaths sometimes develop a psychopathy if they maladapt to the stress that society places on them. Otherwise, they would be make fine successful sociopaths such as many CEOs, world leaders, and celebrities whose normative behavior endear them to their fans.
Perhaps society is just as subtly as sociopathic as it is empathetic, narcissistic, for it encourages us to be normal in our lives, which might be described as one big snafu where the situation is normal but all fouled up.
On a positive note, 95 percent of people are not sociopaths. Most of them do not drink and few of them turn to drugs. Society is not inherently sociopathic. Rather, it might be that the empathetic and the narcissists in all of us realize how to be successful without harming other people.
YMMV
Originally posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 5:55 PM
American Psychopath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psycho_%28film%29
Halloween: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_(2007_film)
20140906
Acceptance (satire)
Sometimes society practices a covert form of sociopathy by shaming successful people, merely for being sociopaths, narcissists and empaths.
I find the vitriolic name-calling of such people to be objectionable. All it shows to me is a cold-heartedness inspired by fear that is totally unacknowledged and often denied, only to be projected onto other people who do not meet society's sometimes narrow definition of compassion and understanding.
Ultimately, society becomes monstrous when ill-will towards others people results in unwarranted hatred towards sociopaths, narcissists and empaths.
For we are all a part of society, whether we identify with "being normal", whatever that means, or being a sociopath, narcissist or empath. Society's tendency to project its own monstrous cold-heartedness onto people considered "not normal" results in such people as being monsters.
I affirm they are no such thing, and society is better off with successful sociopaths in business, successful narcissists in show business, and successful empaths in all endeavors, for which they all are a match.
This is not the time to be drawing a line between "them" and "us", but to work for the enlightened times of today where nobody is special and everyone is in it for the long haul towards progress for the Earth.
Instead of hate, let there be love for all people regardless of the labels that might divide us. For acceptance of our fellow sentient beings leads to a stronger society, for the good of us all.
Originally posted on July 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM PDT
I find the vitriolic name-calling of such people to be objectionable. All it shows to me is a cold-heartedness inspired by fear that is totally unacknowledged and often denied, only to be projected onto other people who do not meet society's sometimes narrow definition of compassion and understanding.
Ultimately, society becomes monstrous when ill-will towards others people results in unwarranted hatred towards sociopaths, narcissists and empaths.
For we are all a part of society, whether we identify with "being normal", whatever that means, or being a sociopath, narcissist or empath. Society's tendency to project its own monstrous cold-heartedness onto people considered "not normal" results in such people as being monsters.
I affirm they are no such thing, and society is better off with successful sociopaths in business, successful narcissists in show business, and successful empaths in all endeavors, for which they all are a match.
This is not the time to be drawing a line between "them" and "us", but to work for the enlightened times of today where nobody is special and everyone is in it for the long haul towards progress for the Earth.
Instead of hate, let there be love for all people regardless of the labels that might divide us. For acceptance of our fellow sentient beings leads to a stronger society, for the good of us all.
Originally posted on July 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM PDT
20140713
What Kind of Image Do You Present? (satire)
It is all about humility as the antidote to narcissistic behavior.
I would rather present the image of low self-esteem than be a narcissist who seeks revenge against his imagined enemies. What isn't an issue here is self-esteem.
All that is needed for a person is a validated self-image which endures all adversity for the sake of survival. The very fear of the bully leads children of low self-esteem to do nothing when another child is bullied, lest each of them become a target.
However, the cowardice of bullies is what prevents them from making victims of a group of people, except if they have a tinge of sociopathy.
Therefore, no one is special or unique, lest their ego become distorted. Unconditional love may be a factor in preventing narcissism, because not one person has a monopoly on it.
For all of us are blessed with love, yet few of us are to realize its use in validating one's self-image.
Even when it is self-love, the truly compassionate of us sees the joy in sharing love. For it would be impossible to have a monopoly on narcissism.
Though it would be sad if a narcissist thought people loved him for being unique and special. Truth be told, we admire the narcissist out of pity, especially when he is repentant.
Personally, I would not love him because he is special but I would love the narcissist in spite of his positive and negative attributes.
Without his uniqueness, he is just as deserving of love as an ordinary person. Though it is important to respect other people's boundaries.
When their "me-ness" is almost endless, be compassionate towards the narcissists and show them respect. If they leave you at peace, then they have show you respect, too.
It is truly in how you present yourself to other people that counts, not that the whole world revolves around you alone.
This is why my self-image is based on what appears to be low self-esteem but is a compassionate and kindly image of a humbled self.
It is only through the karma of humility that the desire for attention arising from narcissism is remedied. Those people who refuse the gift of humility are like moths dancing in flight around a candle.
For humility will quench the fires of desire that in which narcissism burns for attention in today's world.
20140709
Update on Books I am Currently Reading (satire)
Books I am currently reading:
The Small Talk Handbook, Melissa Wadsworth - I'm reading this to help prepare for future scenarios where it might come in handy.
The Narcissism Epidemic, Jean M Twenge & W Keith Campbell - Certainly narcissism is getting to be a problem, but rather than address the empath and sociopath aspects of this problem, it all gets lumped under narcissism. Within this context, I finished ME Thomas' Confessions of a Sociopath and Jon Ronson's The Sociopath Test as well as Daniel Smith's Monkey Mind.
Joss Whedon: The Complete Companion - This is going to take awhile to read. Perhaps I'm over my league here. I mainly bought this because Whedon created Buffy, Angel and Firefly. So I might be short-sighted in my purchase.
No god but God, Reza Aslan - In this post-911 world, it makes sense to keep abreast of the history of Islam. I started with this book, which leads me to...
Islam, Karen Armstrong - The definitive book on Islam, even though it might be weak on the intervening history between Mohammed and the mid 18th century when the West certainly conflicted at great length with Islam, even though by then it was starting on its decline.
American Crucifixion, Alex Beam - While this book comes across as anti-Mormon, I'm not giving up the chance to read an expose on Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. So far, it reads like a Western, complete with megalomania and a sociopathy so complex, I'm almost siding with the ex-Mormons.
However, the favorable spin on Mormonism tends to condemn the apostate a little too harshly. For example, the slut-shaming of innocent women courageous enough to not participate in Smith's polygamy scheme is unwarranted. Even so, I find the muted name-calling from the pro-Mormon literature unwarranted as well. It made the polygamy chapter hard to get through. Pro-Mormon literature blames Bennett for polygamy, and proclaims Smith innocent of all charges.
My reason for so many books:
IMO I may suffer from mild ADD. When a book gets tiresome to read, I get bored. So I rest a moment, and then read a new book from the stack. Currently, of the above mentioned titles, the Mormon book and the two books on Islam are being read more often than the Small Talk Handbook
If I feel like curling up to a book for a good read, then I can do so with any of the seven books I am currently reading. For me, book reading beats going to bars, hanging out at the beach, and shopping. Though, at some point in the near future, I am going to have to get off my ass and trade in a heap of books I've read.
As for now, I have a lot of reading to do and love it.
The Small Talk Handbook, Melissa Wadsworth - I'm reading this to help prepare for future scenarios where it might come in handy.
The Narcissism Epidemic, Jean M Twenge & W Keith Campbell - Certainly narcissism is getting to be a problem, but rather than address the empath and sociopath aspects of this problem, it all gets lumped under narcissism. Within this context, I finished ME Thomas' Confessions of a Sociopath and Jon Ronson's The Sociopath Test as well as Daniel Smith's Monkey Mind.
Joss Whedon: The Complete Companion - This is going to take awhile to read. Perhaps I'm over my league here. I mainly bought this because Whedon created Buffy, Angel and Firefly. So I might be short-sighted in my purchase.
No god but God, Reza Aslan - In this post-911 world, it makes sense to keep abreast of the history of Islam. I started with this book, which leads me to...
Islam, Karen Armstrong - The definitive book on Islam, even though it might be weak on the intervening history between Mohammed and the mid 18th century when the West certainly conflicted at great length with Islam, even though by then it was starting on its decline.
American Crucifixion, Alex Beam - While this book comes across as anti-Mormon, I'm not giving up the chance to read an expose on Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. So far, it reads like a Western, complete with megalomania and a sociopathy so complex, I'm almost siding with the ex-Mormons.
However, the favorable spin on Mormonism tends to condemn the apostate a little too harshly. For example, the slut-shaming of innocent women courageous enough to not participate in Smith's polygamy scheme is unwarranted. Even so, I find the muted name-calling from the pro-Mormon literature unwarranted as well. It made the polygamy chapter hard to get through. Pro-Mormon literature blames Bennett for polygamy, and proclaims Smith innocent of all charges.
My reason for so many books:
IMO I may suffer from mild ADD. When a book gets tiresome to read, I get bored. So I rest a moment, and then read a new book from the stack. Currently, of the above mentioned titles, the Mormon book and the two books on Islam are being read more often than the Small Talk Handbook
If I feel like curling up to a book for a good read, then I can do so with any of the seven books I am currently reading. For me, book reading beats going to bars, hanging out at the beach, and shopping. Though, at some point in the near future, I am going to have to get off my ass and trade in a heap of books I've read.
As for now, I have a lot of reading to do and love it.
20140614
Narcissists, the Successful Sociopaths (satire)
Last week, I bought a book by author Jon Ronson called the Psychopathy Test. Overall, it is debateable if journalism is full of people, some of whom are successful sociopaths and everyday narcissists.
After reading The Narcissism Epidemic by Jean M Twenge and W Keith Campbell, it's easy to determine who is a narcissist and who might morph into a psychopath. As for those successful sociopaths, it's hard to say.
Is a guy who yells at you for being rude by interrupting his conversation with a fellow traveller a failed sociopath, because his anger far exceeds the situation but qualifies as intermittent explosive disorder?
Is the prostitute on the corner of the red-light district helped when the dual diagnosis verdict is handed for her after stabbing a "bad" John because prostitution is legal and the police won't lift a finger due to their higher moral fortitude?
And are the police successful sociopaths who only Tazer the father concerned for his son who happens to be at an out-of-control house party, outside said party?
I don't know, but if any of them received their five minutes of fame on TV, then they might be guilty of narcissistic behavior. Not like they'd care much, as long as the camera got their good side — that's what might be on their minds.
Who am to judge? Like the medical term "hypertensive", "narcissist", "psychopath" and "sociopath" are neutral terms describing mental disorders. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not just labels.
Even if a person is a narcissist, they aren't all about themselves. Were they truly self centred, wouldn't they have their entourage? Although they might have a lot of friends, I bet they are mostly plastic and if not plastic, trying hard to save up to get some plastic surgery done.
In my books, a successful sociopath has taken all the attributes of the psychopath and turned them into positives. He might be curious as to why the face of person shot in the face ended up like that, but he's more likely to cry over the fact that a dog died, or even worse assault the guy who hit his car and ruined his paint job, than he would care if anyone is annoyed because his dog used to poop on the neighbour's lawn or if his car is the worst gas guzzler in its class.
What I mean is, the successful sociopaths hide among us, and the narcissists hide the best because all they care about is themselves. So most likely they're not going to dwell on this article long before getting bored. Mad props to you, you selfish fuck!
Anyway, I also tend to believe that mainstream media has more than the 1-4% of narcissists and sociopaths because most of the time they are churning out propaganda about the world rather than presenting the raw truth. Most likely we can't handle the truth, so we get propaganda because it'll distract us from the truth.
And the truth is, up to 25 percent of politicians and corporate executives are successful sociopaths, but most of them are narcissists who care more about themselves than others.
Most likely, they also make up middle management positions in any industry, even social housing.
After reading The Narcissism Epidemic by Jean M Twenge and W Keith Campbell, it's easy to determine who is a narcissist and who might morph into a psychopath. As for those successful sociopaths, it's hard to say.
Is a guy who yells at you for being rude by interrupting his conversation with a fellow traveller a failed sociopath, because his anger far exceeds the situation but qualifies as intermittent explosive disorder?
Is the prostitute on the corner of the red-light district helped when the dual diagnosis verdict is handed for her after stabbing a "bad" John because prostitution is legal and the police won't lift a finger due to their higher moral fortitude?
And are the police successful sociopaths who only Tazer the father concerned for his son who happens to be at an out-of-control house party, outside said party?
I don't know, but if any of them received their five minutes of fame on TV, then they might be guilty of narcissistic behavior. Not like they'd care much, as long as the camera got their good side — that's what might be on their minds.
Who am to judge? Like the medical term "hypertensive", "narcissist", "psychopath" and "sociopath" are neutral terms describing mental disorders. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not just labels.
Even if a person is a narcissist, they aren't all about themselves. Were they truly self centred, wouldn't they have their entourage? Although they might have a lot of friends, I bet they are mostly plastic and if not plastic, trying hard to save up to get some plastic surgery done.
In my books, a successful sociopath has taken all the attributes of the psychopath and turned them into positives. He might be curious as to why the face of person shot in the face ended up like that, but he's more likely to cry over the fact that a dog died, or even worse assault the guy who hit his car and ruined his paint job, than he would care if anyone is annoyed because his dog used to poop on the neighbour's lawn or if his car is the worst gas guzzler in its class.
What I mean is, the successful sociopaths hide among us, and the narcissists hide the best because all they care about is themselves. So most likely they're not going to dwell on this article long before getting bored. Mad props to you, you selfish fuck!
Anyway, I also tend to believe that mainstream media has more than the 1-4% of narcissists and sociopaths because most of the time they are churning out propaganda about the world rather than presenting the raw truth. Most likely we can't handle the truth, so we get propaganda because it'll distract us from the truth.
And the truth is, up to 25 percent of politicians and corporate executives are successful sociopaths, but most of them are narcissists who care more about themselves than others.
Most likely, they also make up middle management positions in any industry, even social housing.
20140603
The Sociopathy of Post-Modern Society (satire)
Given that 2% of the population is sociopathic why is it then that most parents consistently lie about drugs ("drugs are bad") while doing drugs ("drinking and smoking") but consider themselves responsible adults?
Could sociopathy be inculcated by the family unit and thus be a cultural artifact rather than a mental illness?
If sociopathy is a cultural artifact, then might not sociopathy be a part of a lifestyle?
And if sociopathy is a part of a lifestyle, might not the lies and the tendency to become a serial killer be a consequence of not giving a shit about others (anti-social tendencies) and the inculcation of a narcissistic personality?
If so, then the way public education is now taught surely is ensuring that sociopathy cannot be eradicated due to it being a cultural phenomenon rather than a mental illness.
For sociopathy could be an abreaction to society, specifically the family.
Indeed, the only way to control sociopathy is to be honest about the fact that we tell ourselves white lies daily in order to survive in a society that expects a lot out of each individual but lacks an efficient way of compensating for the negative effects such as stress.
Am I suggesting sociopathy is learned? Yes, sociopathy is adaptative but is harder to "unlearn" than an addiction. However, I deny it is a mental illness because most sociopaths are not mentally ill.
It could even be argued that post-modern society itself contains elements in it which lead 2% of the population to opt out of the majority and become sociopathic e.g. we have no means in hospitals to ensure that children who are seriously ill do not give up hope and become sociopaths as a result of social isolation from their family unit.
A good example of this is Seung-hui Cho, whose childhood illness contributed greatly to his psychopathy which resulted in one of the largest kill-ratio in the history of mass shootings.
What kind of society is it that can create innovative technology yet lacks the manpower to counsel children so that they don't become serial killers? Even if less than 2% of people become sociopaths, why is it that we put stress on our children so that they end up like Columbine and the Santa Barbara mass shooter?
I mention stress, because it is usually the reason for a harmless schizotypy morphing into a schizophrenia. Even though meditation is touted as a vital part of stress relief, very few people in the West can sit still for it to bring stress relief. Instead, harmful sedatives are prescribed, due to the nature of sedatives as an easy solution to stressful situations.
Sociopaths are not going to "get" meditation for it to make a difference in their lives unless they are in a controlled setting to practice it, and even then, the tendency on their part is to not only lie to others that it works for them but to lie to themselves about it working. Most likely, they might be the reason why most people in the West don't meditate because "it doesn't work", which is an opinion and not a fact but an opinion which leads to the instant fix of a sedative.
Thus the idea that a pill will cure a mental illness is also a big lie, and the result of sociopathy when a lot of people believe in it, rather than in meditation.
However, I am presenting meditation as a cure-all because if sociopathic people practice it, either they'll go on to become cult leaders or become better people.
Everyone else will just improve their lives.
Could sociopathy be inculcated by the family unit and thus be a cultural artifact rather than a mental illness?
If sociopathy is a cultural artifact, then might not sociopathy be a part of a lifestyle?
And if sociopathy is a part of a lifestyle, might not the lies and the tendency to become a serial killer be a consequence of not giving a shit about others (anti-social tendencies) and the inculcation of a narcissistic personality?
If so, then the way public education is now taught surely is ensuring that sociopathy cannot be eradicated due to it being a cultural phenomenon rather than a mental illness.
For sociopathy could be an abreaction to society, specifically the family.
Indeed, the only way to control sociopathy is to be honest about the fact that we tell ourselves white lies daily in order to survive in a society that expects a lot out of each individual but lacks an efficient way of compensating for the negative effects such as stress.
Am I suggesting sociopathy is learned? Yes, sociopathy is adaptative but is harder to "unlearn" than an addiction. However, I deny it is a mental illness because most sociopaths are not mentally ill.
It could even be argued that post-modern society itself contains elements in it which lead 2% of the population to opt out of the majority and become sociopathic e.g. we have no means in hospitals to ensure that children who are seriously ill do not give up hope and become sociopaths as a result of social isolation from their family unit.
A good example of this is Seung-hui Cho, whose childhood illness contributed greatly to his psychopathy which resulted in one of the largest kill-ratio in the history of mass shootings.
What kind of society is it that can create innovative technology yet lacks the manpower to counsel children so that they don't become serial killers? Even if less than 2% of people become sociopaths, why is it that we put stress on our children so that they end up like Columbine and the Santa Barbara mass shooter?
I mention stress, because it is usually the reason for a harmless schizotypy morphing into a schizophrenia. Even though meditation is touted as a vital part of stress relief, very few people in the West can sit still for it to bring stress relief. Instead, harmful sedatives are prescribed, due to the nature of sedatives as an easy solution to stressful situations.
Sociopaths are not going to "get" meditation for it to make a difference in their lives unless they are in a controlled setting to practice it, and even then, the tendency on their part is to not only lie to others that it works for them but to lie to themselves about it working. Most likely, they might be the reason why most people in the West don't meditate because "it doesn't work", which is an opinion and not a fact but an opinion which leads to the instant fix of a sedative.
Thus the idea that a pill will cure a mental illness is also a big lie, and the result of sociopathy when a lot of people believe in it, rather than in meditation.
However, I am presenting meditation as a cure-all because if sociopathic people practice it, either they'll go on to become cult leaders or become better people.
Everyone else will just improve their lives.
20140330
The Cult of the Individual: Man-god or Merely Human? (satire)
Selfish as in self-cherishing, the devotee to the cult of individualism would deny she is in a cult. For the ego, when it is in control of your life, will tell you lies to endure its hold over you.
At its root, selfishness is like death: when the world revolves around you, the easier it is to wander through life, impatient with the concerned religionist, flouting your atheism as if it made you better than a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Satanist, a Hindu, or even a Buddhist.
However, the move from religion to psychology and philosophy of Buddhism ensures our life.
Whether we like it or not, a spiritual friend will come for us, either to set us strait or to help us come to understand that the self that wants attention on its merit is solely the root of suffering and sorrow. As such, narcissism is sure to lead the unwary to self-made hell.
It makes this old fool wonder why people would think they are free when they practice no religion. How free are they really when the self tells them: "Oh, it's another religionist! Let's mock him?"
How utterly vain, and foolish are the selfish!
Were they even a bit wise, they'd work in the soup kitchens and help pass out food and clothes to the homeless — I've yet to hear of that, when atheists care about their fellow man enough to dole out food and clothing for those in need.
I do not know if this is because atheists are modest or if they truly care about the rest of humanity. Hopefully, it is the former because the latter sometimes seems to be so far away when the atheists mock religionists of every faith, be it a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Satanist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or any other organized religion.
For this cult of the individual is surely not a good thing in this post-modern world. Its practitioners often preach entitlement and enable children to carry on the same selfish ideals of their parents. If you dare to confront them with the Truth, then they distort it into a parody of all that is true.
In response I quote Pontius Pilate, "What is Truth?"
Originally posted: February 12, 2013 6:37 AM
At its root, selfishness is like death: when the world revolves around you, the easier it is to wander through life, impatient with the concerned religionist, flouting your atheism as if it made you better than a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Satanist, a Hindu, or even a Buddhist.
However, the move from religion to psychology and philosophy of Buddhism ensures our life.
Whether we like it or not, a spiritual friend will come for us, either to set us strait or to help us come to understand that the self that wants attention on its merit is solely the root of suffering and sorrow. As such, narcissism is sure to lead the unwary to self-made hell.
It makes this old fool wonder why people would think they are free when they practice no religion. How free are they really when the self tells them: "Oh, it's another religionist! Let's mock him?"
How utterly vain, and foolish are the selfish!
Were they even a bit wise, they'd work in the soup kitchens and help pass out food and clothes to the homeless — I've yet to hear of that, when atheists care about their fellow man enough to dole out food and clothing for those in need.
I do not know if this is because atheists are modest or if they truly care about the rest of humanity. Hopefully, it is the former because the latter sometimes seems to be so far away when the atheists mock religionists of every faith, be it a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Satanist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or any other organized religion.
For this cult of the individual is surely not a good thing in this post-modern world. Its practitioners often preach entitlement and enable children to carry on the same selfish ideals of their parents. If you dare to confront them with the Truth, then they distort it into a parody of all that is true.
In response I quote Pontius Pilate, "What is Truth?"
Originally posted: February 12, 2013 6:37 AM
20140226
Are You A Chronic Alcoholic? (satire)
Attention booze lovers! Whether you answer yes or no really makes no difference, for alcoholism consists of a set of behaviors that range from acute to chronic.
If you love booze so much, this is what awaits the chronic alcoholics among you...
One of the disputed signs of alcoholism is more than a drink a day until you get the giggles and start projecting your inner angst as foul-mouthed tirades like a child having a tantrum.
Perhaps the worse thing than this are blackouts during which the chronic alcoholic harms other people yet has no memory of it when sober.
Basically chronic alcoholism leads to a psychosis named for the doctor that described it in detail and what is called "wet brain".
Even though booze is legal, overindulging in drink is known to damage your brain by depleting your body of health in order to ensure that you die very slowly of poisoning caused by alcohol.
One of the signs of such alcoholism is the psychotic rage with a wide range of emotions from melancholy to mania, complete with raging anger to giggly glee. This is what is known as the mean drunk as opposed to the hilarious life of the party drunk. While the sober person is unlikely to encounter harm from the latter, the main harm from the mean drunk consists of gaslighting by an experienced narcissist whose sole means of existence is to make your life hell for daring to ignore his constant need of attention. If he could make you question your sanity, then he is WINNING.
In short, the mean drunk will never strike the first blow but by all intents, tries to goad you into attacking him. While this tactic always works with the drunk people, it never works with trained professionals who have to deal with them day in and day out. This includes temporary shelter workers at homeless shelters and associated building attendant staff and the rare security staff.
If you want to avoid the embarrassment of falling before your pride, then taper down your drinking consumption. Otherwise, you are destined for homelessness or the other forms of self-induced hell the foolish pride themselves in making.
YMMV
Reference:
ALCOHOL’S DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN - Alcohol Alert:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm
If you love booze so much, this is what awaits the chronic alcoholics among you...
One of the disputed signs of alcoholism is more than a drink a day until you get the giggles and start projecting your inner angst as foul-mouthed tirades like a child having a tantrum.
Perhaps the worse thing than this are blackouts during which the chronic alcoholic harms other people yet has no memory of it when sober.
Basically chronic alcoholism leads to a psychosis named for the doctor that described it in detail and what is called "wet brain".
Even though booze is legal, overindulging in drink is known to damage your brain by depleting your body of health in order to ensure that you die very slowly of poisoning caused by alcohol.
One of the signs of such alcoholism is the psychotic rage with a wide range of emotions from melancholy to mania, complete with raging anger to giggly glee. This is what is known as the mean drunk as opposed to the hilarious life of the party drunk. While the sober person is unlikely to encounter harm from the latter, the main harm from the mean drunk consists of gaslighting by an experienced narcissist whose sole means of existence is to make your life hell for daring to ignore his constant need of attention. If he could make you question your sanity, then he is WINNING.
In short, the mean drunk will never strike the first blow but by all intents, tries to goad you into attacking him. While this tactic always works with the drunk people, it never works with trained professionals who have to deal with them day in and day out. This includes temporary shelter workers at homeless shelters and associated building attendant staff and the rare security staff.
If you want to avoid the embarrassment of falling before your pride, then taper down your drinking consumption. Otherwise, you are destined for homelessness or the other forms of self-induced hell the foolish pride themselves in making.
YMMV
Reference:
ALCOHOL’S DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN - Alcohol Alert:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm
20140117
Perfection (satire)
Some people who know a little about nanotechnology think it could create superior human beings with greater intellect, reasoning abilities and, as a consequence, morality. However, the possible risk of death from taking a pill to cause this evolution into Homo Sapiens Magna has dampened research into the use of nanotechnology to make us smarter and morally superior to the average person.
This is because greater intellect does not preclude insanity, which is validated by schizophrenic people being of a higher intellectual capacity than a person with a mood disorder. Even though bipolar people are highly creative, their tendency toward anxiety in novel situations when not manic tends to moderate their intellect.
As for narcissistic peoples, the only thing they know about the most is themselves, so they would apply their intellect once they confirm what's in it for them, which implies the appearance of high intellect without a corresponding sense of compassion for other people. Were anyone to confront them about their past stupid mistake, things could get really ugly in no time.
Even if we were to evolve, the higher intelligence and reasoning abilities might result in the ability to learn to follow a strict moral code as well as the strong sense of compassion and mercy with the strong risk to develop schizophrenia due to sensory overload caused by too much deep thought.
While it would be cheaper to genetically engineer a human being with superior intelligence and reasoning, it would be impossible to correct the inherent genetic destiny of schizophrenia genetically since most schizophrenia is not due to a genetic predisposition but to not learning successful coping skills in response to stress.
In short, there is no gene that gives you superior coping skills. It has to be learned through experience. Thus, the superior man is not born to cope with life. Rather, he learns how to cope with life through his life experiences.
In conclusion, I reject the nanotechnology and the genetic engineering route for creating the perfect man.
Instead, all it takes is Buddhist learning to perfect the man. This includes daily meditation sessions to develop the calm mind (samatha) necessary to solving koans (vipassana).
Though, the easy way to perfect the man is to chant the Nembutsu or even the Nichiren daimoku "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo". This form of meditation is easy to do, and only requires five minutes or less of chanting daily.
Meditation itself helps Buddhists to discover that Buddha Nature inherent to their own live. Buddha Nature can be considered the perfect qualities of the Buddha which passed into the consciousness stream when he died. Superior intellect, reasoning and morality are three of those perfect qualities.
However, I won't consider this exclusive to Buddhists. Christians use the Sinner's Prayer as an aid to perfect, chanting "God have mercy on me, a sinner" out of humility. Indeed, humility is the essential key to perfection, not the science of technology.
YMMV
This is because greater intellect does not preclude insanity, which is validated by schizophrenic people being of a higher intellectual capacity than a person with a mood disorder. Even though bipolar people are highly creative, their tendency toward anxiety in novel situations when not manic tends to moderate their intellect.
As for narcissistic peoples, the only thing they know about the most is themselves, so they would apply their intellect once they confirm what's in it for them, which implies the appearance of high intellect without a corresponding sense of compassion for other people. Were anyone to confront them about their past stupid mistake, things could get really ugly in no time.
Even if we were to evolve, the higher intelligence and reasoning abilities might result in the ability to learn to follow a strict moral code as well as the strong sense of compassion and mercy with the strong risk to develop schizophrenia due to sensory overload caused by too much deep thought.
While it would be cheaper to genetically engineer a human being with superior intelligence and reasoning, it would be impossible to correct the inherent genetic destiny of schizophrenia genetically since most schizophrenia is not due to a genetic predisposition but to not learning successful coping skills in response to stress.
In short, there is no gene that gives you superior coping skills. It has to be learned through experience. Thus, the superior man is not born to cope with life. Rather, he learns how to cope with life through his life experiences.
In conclusion, I reject the nanotechnology and the genetic engineering route for creating the perfect man.
Instead, all it takes is Buddhist learning to perfect the man. This includes daily meditation sessions to develop the calm mind (samatha) necessary to solving koans (vipassana).
Though, the easy way to perfect the man is to chant the Nembutsu or even the Nichiren daimoku "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo". This form of meditation is easy to do, and only requires five minutes or less of chanting daily.
Meditation itself helps Buddhists to discover that Buddha Nature inherent to their own live. Buddha Nature can be considered the perfect qualities of the Buddha which passed into the consciousness stream when he died. Superior intellect, reasoning and morality are three of those perfect qualities.
However, I won't consider this exclusive to Buddhists. Christians use the Sinner's Prayer as an aid to perfect, chanting "God have mercy on me, a sinner" out of humility. Indeed, humility is the essential key to perfection, not the science of technology.
YMMV
20140116
Socratic Three Goods Defeats Narcissism (satire)
Socrates was said to have said that the chief goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned with moral truth and moral understanding, that "wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the state", and that "life without examination [dialogue] is not worth living".
As a Buddhist, I take it that by "the soul", Socrates implies the person who has a finite existence. Therefore, the first truth can be rewritten as "The chief goodness consists in the caring of the person concerned with moral truth and moral understanding." This implies that Socrates cared about other people because they were as ignorant as he was, but vain enough to think they knew a lot more than they actually did.
The remaining two goods are as depicted. For the second, by caring for another person's understanding of moral truth and moral understanding, "goodness bring wealth and other blessings".
Finally, the third good can be rephrased as "the unexamined life is not worth living, however each of us are only able to examine their life based on the previous two goods.
However, today's society appears not to have time to examine their life. As a result, people sometimes lack the ability to care for others with moral truth and moral understanding in mind. Instead, they are too busy tweeting or other wise distracted.
Eventually this may lead to a sense of entitlement if they were taught by their parents that they are unique. It also leads to a secret desire for fame, and if they cannot get it, notoriety. They also end up looking like selfish jerks. Such is how narcissists are made.
Thus a narcissist would deny that goodness brings wealth and other blessings. Instead, he would claim that "my good looks and natural charm bring wealth and blessings."
Then what of ugly men who are wealth? Do all of them come from good families? And of the ones who were originally poor, would being a conceited ass make them think they could but goodness for a pretty penny?
No and no, I say! The goodness arising from a person's caring and concern for other people allows him realize that wealth requires patience, perseverance and politeness.
It is these three attributes that mark the man who successfully applies the three Goods to validate the goodness that results in wealth and other blessings.
Do not tempted to give in to the ignorant craving of your ego. Think before you tweet, and above all, correct your typos! I have no desire to see your cleavage or your abs. I would rather let you tell me what's on your mind.
As a Buddhist, I take it that by "the soul", Socrates implies the person who has a finite existence. Therefore, the first truth can be rewritten as "The chief goodness consists in the caring of the person concerned with moral truth and moral understanding." This implies that Socrates cared about other people because they were as ignorant as he was, but vain enough to think they knew a lot more than they actually did.
The remaining two goods are as depicted. For the second, by caring for another person's understanding of moral truth and moral understanding, "goodness bring wealth and other blessings".
Finally, the third good can be rephrased as "the unexamined life is not worth living, however each of us are only able to examine their life based on the previous two goods.
However, today's society appears not to have time to examine their life. As a result, people sometimes lack the ability to care for others with moral truth and moral understanding in mind. Instead, they are too busy tweeting or other wise distracted.
Eventually this may lead to a sense of entitlement if they were taught by their parents that they are unique. It also leads to a secret desire for fame, and if they cannot get it, notoriety. They also end up looking like selfish jerks. Such is how narcissists are made.
Thus a narcissist would deny that goodness brings wealth and other blessings. Instead, he would claim that "my good looks and natural charm bring wealth and blessings."
Then what of ugly men who are wealth? Do all of them come from good families? And of the ones who were originally poor, would being a conceited ass make them think they could but goodness for a pretty penny?
No and no, I say! The goodness arising from a person's caring and concern for other people allows him realize that wealth requires patience, perseverance and politeness.
It is these three attributes that mark the man who successfully applies the three Goods to validate the goodness that results in wealth and other blessings.
Do not tempted to give in to the ignorant craving of your ego. Think before you tweet, and above all, correct your typos! I have no desire to see your cleavage or your abs. I would rather let you tell me what's on your mind.
20140111
How to Cut Consumerism (satire)
People are so caught up in buying stuff they don't really need, that "spendaholic" is not a stupid joke but becoming more real.
A good example of this is the typical nerd who is a yuppie with a craving for technology, be it an $600 iPhone5S, an $1800 quadcore laptop with a 16" screen, or a phablet ranging from $300 to $500.
Imagine that that every device is crystal meth or ice or coke or pot.
Then that $600 iPhone5S is poke.
The quadcore laptop is $1800 of coke.
Even the phablet is a lot of crystal meth at $300 and enough coke to kill you at $500.
I am pretty sure $2800 of a mix of ice, coke and pot will keep you up for days into you enter your little psychotic episode brought to by amphetamine and its methylated child meth, cocaine and various THC derivatives.
In short, a technophile is addicted to technology. If he isn't making money using it, then it's just another addiction waiting for the next crisis to comfort him.
If you are a sex addict and can afford the shipping charges, then there's a sex doll for you for $3000 (vibrator optional)!
Fucking nerds, you're all addicts!
20131228
It's Not About the Drugs (satire)
Drug abuse is a health issue, not a legal one. It was only turned into a legal issue by the elites who blamed drug use after the 1960s on corrupting moral values, ignoring their role in creating the situation that led to increased drug use through the media.
The elites also blamed marijuana on Mexican immigrants and opium use on Chinese immigrants, so there is a racist element in the elites' demonization of drugs. Today, drug abuse has been associated with its side effect, homelessness, and thus has been the cause of poverty.
However, it is this dog-eat-dog world of competitiveness that is one causal factor in drug addiction. Additionally, drug abuse is a risk of which one of the causes is the increasing narcissism in society.
Just as there are fans of celebrities, there are fans of alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, except that celebrity fandom only affects the pocketbook, whereas drug addiction is harmful not only in terms of money, but also to life and limb.
This is why you never ever see a poor person at a rock concert, because the money spent on a ticket could feed the poor for up to a week. As well, the average poor person is unlikely to become a drug addict. In fact, drug addiction is what puts the middle class into poverty.
If a poor person had a choice between drugs and a place to live, he'd choose a place to live. The myths about drug addiction are part of the overall plan of the elites to perpetuate class warfare between members of the middle class in a perverted form of social Darwinism that determines anyone who is rich is worthy of respect, despite the fact that most rich elites who profit immensely from the suffering of others are only de facto elites. For the only people who respect them are not their peers but a criminal lower in the social hierarchy. Overall, a poor person only fears drugs, because they prevent him from keeping that place to live.
It makes more sense if a working class person has a few beers and perhaps smokes occasionally. Both alcohol and cigarettes are legal drugs. However, the extremes of drug abuse dictate that loss of inhibition caused by alcohol might lead to soft drug use but common sense dictates that hard drug use is the result of risky behavior that places the future drug addict on a path of no return.
Yet drug addiction is not a path but a side effect of a person's spiral into poverty, be it economic if his addiction prevents him from working or merely spiritual if he maintains an income stream to support his addiction.
In most cases of addiction, environment is a strong causal factor. As a fan, everything is focused on the celebrity including becoming a fan along with all that celebrity's adoring fans. Likewise, drug addicts seek out their fellow drug addicts. For we are social animals, and the risks of being a harm to self and others is worsened by the use of drugs alone.
If you chose a celebrity over your drug of choice, that would be safer but I would question the safety of a fan who chooses her celebrity of choice over also having a life outside her bedroom.
Likewise, the drug addict who hides out in her bedroom will soon be removing the smoke alarm to stop going off due to pot smoke. Ultimately the chronic will end up behaving strangely like a certain celebrity who I won't mention since her chronic phase was a distortion of her life before pot. Additionally, most of it was exaggerated by celebrity gossip columns and the paparazzi stalkers who are sometimes failures at being petty criminals. It would not even surprise me that there are bottom feeders in the world of celebrities who plan to profit from being insiders of celebrities, provided they know the vices of their intended "victim".
For a drug addiction is also a side effect of being a narcissist, who makes a drug of his choice a part of his lifestyle, a dangerous accessory of a lifestyle where everyone and almost everything else is but an accessory and basically a means to the end, a reflection of his life.
Once rehabilitated, the former drug addict still face his character disturbance known as narcissism. It will mean giving up former friends of that lifestyle in some cases, and in other cases, changing the dynamics of other friends.
Yet there is no known cure for drug addiction. Instead, the former addict comes to realize life is simpler and less chaotic sober, and many times more valuable than intoxication. Indeed, the hang-ups of sobriety keep us all safe and secure.
For addiction and abuse is not about the drugs at all. Rather it is about the person behind the cravings, a person who only sees the world filled with the accessories which make her feel safe and secure. It is a pity that in the midst of abuse, we forget how precious our inhibitions truly are.
The elites also blamed marijuana on Mexican immigrants and opium use on Chinese immigrants, so there is a racist element in the elites' demonization of drugs. Today, drug abuse has been associated with its side effect, homelessness, and thus has been the cause of poverty.
However, it is this dog-eat-dog world of competitiveness that is one causal factor in drug addiction. Additionally, drug abuse is a risk of which one of the causes is the increasing narcissism in society.
Just as there are fans of celebrities, there are fans of alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, except that celebrity fandom only affects the pocketbook, whereas drug addiction is harmful not only in terms of money, but also to life and limb.
This is why you never ever see a poor person at a rock concert, because the money spent on a ticket could feed the poor for up to a week. As well, the average poor person is unlikely to become a drug addict. In fact, drug addiction is what puts the middle class into poverty.
If a poor person had a choice between drugs and a place to live, he'd choose a place to live. The myths about drug addiction are part of the overall plan of the elites to perpetuate class warfare between members of the middle class in a perverted form of social Darwinism that determines anyone who is rich is worthy of respect, despite the fact that most rich elites who profit immensely from the suffering of others are only de facto elites. For the only people who respect them are not their peers but a criminal lower in the social hierarchy. Overall, a poor person only fears drugs, because they prevent him from keeping that place to live.
It makes more sense if a working class person has a few beers and perhaps smokes occasionally. Both alcohol and cigarettes are legal drugs. However, the extremes of drug abuse dictate that loss of inhibition caused by alcohol might lead to soft drug use but common sense dictates that hard drug use is the result of risky behavior that places the future drug addict on a path of no return.
Yet drug addiction is not a path but a side effect of a person's spiral into poverty, be it economic if his addiction prevents him from working or merely spiritual if he maintains an income stream to support his addiction.
In most cases of addiction, environment is a strong causal factor. As a fan, everything is focused on the celebrity including becoming a fan along with all that celebrity's adoring fans. Likewise, drug addicts seek out their fellow drug addicts. For we are social animals, and the risks of being a harm to self and others is worsened by the use of drugs alone.
If you chose a celebrity over your drug of choice, that would be safer but I would question the safety of a fan who chooses her celebrity of choice over also having a life outside her bedroom.
Likewise, the drug addict who hides out in her bedroom will soon be removing the smoke alarm to stop going off due to pot smoke. Ultimately the chronic will end up behaving strangely like a certain celebrity who I won't mention since her chronic phase was a distortion of her life before pot. Additionally, most of it was exaggerated by celebrity gossip columns and the paparazzi stalkers who are sometimes failures at being petty criminals. It would not even surprise me that there are bottom feeders in the world of celebrities who plan to profit from being insiders of celebrities, provided they know the vices of their intended "victim".
For a drug addiction is also a side effect of being a narcissist, who makes a drug of his choice a part of his lifestyle, a dangerous accessory of a lifestyle where everyone and almost everything else is but an accessory and basically a means to the end, a reflection of his life.
Once rehabilitated, the former drug addict still face his character disturbance known as narcissism. It will mean giving up former friends of that lifestyle in some cases, and in other cases, changing the dynamics of other friends.
Yet there is no known cure for drug addiction. Instead, the former addict comes to realize life is simpler and less chaotic sober, and many times more valuable than intoxication. Indeed, the hang-ups of sobriety keep us all safe and secure.
For addiction and abuse is not about the drugs at all. Rather it is about the person behind the cravings, a person who only sees the world filled with the accessories which make her feel safe and secure. It is a pity that in the midst of abuse, we forget how precious our inhibitions truly are.
20131220
The Big Question on Wealth (satire)
"People who value being wealthy as an end in itself (rather than an outcome on achieving other life goals) are less happy and more prone to depression." — J. M. Zwenge & W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living In The Age of Entitlement; "Ninjas in McMansions", page 129; Chapter 8: "I Deserve The Best At 18% APR."
Eventually, state the authors, materialism that raises one's status is self-destructive. Why is status-driven materialism dangerous? Such materialism is self-destructive, and may lead to bankruptcy, unhappy marriages, and even divorce.
Yet narcissists would be the first to deny that their desire for status has destroyed their lives, as long as they have credit cards, a couple million hidden away in the Grand Cayman Island, and a limousine driven by a trusted chauffeur.
Indeed, who in their right mind would declare to the world that "money is nothing" and transform their energy to practice materialistic consumerism into humanistic philanthropy? By framing the question as such, the narcissist lives in denial of moral poverty.
Earning power is not dependent on soundness of mind, for a few of today's billionaires have never finished college. Sometimes, even their behaviour when seeking status and power takes appears sociopathic.
Are we really entitled to wealth as a measure of our success? This question cannot be answered with a firm "Yes" or "No" because money is supposed to be a measure of your achievement in your life, rich or poor.
Suppose we have two brothers we'll call Gerald and Samuel Jones. Being the financial success in the family, the older Gerald dotes on his elderly parents for helping him to succeed in life. Meanwhile, Samuel has become the "black sheep" of the family.
Years ago, Samuel had been financially cut off because he couldn't pay his bills on time. After the $15,000 bailout for a student loan, all Samuel does instead of completing his degree in Computer Science is spend too much time on the computer.
In contrast, not only is Gerald a financial success, he has recently married Louise. He has argued with his mother over giving Sam any money, to which Mrs. Jones replied "If I don't give him spending money, then he will leave me and go on welfare. That would ruin the family name if he did it."
What Mrs. Jones means is, Sam is captivated by his mother's narcissistic personality; and is willing to trade his independence for dependence on her.
If this imaginary family seems normal to you, except for Sam, then you have not read between the lines. Mr Jones died 15 years ago, but left the family with a hefty inheritance. With Mrs. Jones as the executor of Mr. Jones' will, and Gerald as co-executor, he has ensured that he could invest wisely and maintenance an active investment portfolio which made him a millionaire.
However, Sam was the pampered child, due to ADHD and depression, plus years of Ritalin use. Currently he lives at home. Once a week, his mother gives him spending money. Due to his lack of employment, she pampers him and sometimes may be hear to say "You don't need to go find a job. Your dad left you with a trust fund."
Sadly though, this trust fund is managed by his brother, Gerald, who only doles out his brother"s weekly stipend. Originally he had allowed the trust fund to fund Sam's slow but sure path from college student to drop out with only six months of work, and an offer of internships.
In the end Sam never sought out work because he likes it at home. Although he is fine with the arrangements as it is, Sam wishes he had mone control over his finances. Luckily he knows better than to be a spendthrift but his ADHD in adulthood has made it difficult to hold a job because his behaviour is "odd". At one point, the college president considered him a security threat due to rumours of him being "psychotic".
Since colleges are not in the habit of measuring the learning disabilities that might be comorbid with ADHD, the college staff and some students who have interacted with Sam socially are unnerved by his sometimes erratic and often confrontational behavior.
Honestly, Sam did not quit university; he had to quit because after his brother Gerald got married, nobody could be at home to help out their mother. A housekeeper was totally out of the question, since Mrs. Jones has a peculiar way of putting away the dishes and glasses.
In this story, the mother of two boys might have an undiagnosed narcissistic personality. We do not know about the father, but since he left his surviving family, he must have been a CEO who spent a lot of time away working to afford the mansion his younger son and wife now live. He may too be undiagnosed.
As for the older son Gerald, his narcissistic personality is in check. This allowed him to date, court and marry his wife, who may have had the neurotic urge to avoid moving into his parents' house due to her poor self image.
Lastly, Sam has ADHD but had controlled it throughout childhood. However, the stress of finishing college led him to "drop out" to support his mother. Since both he and his brother have worked together on their mother's will, they both know they will be entitled to a lot of the inheritance when their mother passes on.
In my imaginary family, it appears that nobody is sociopathic except for the reason why Sam actually dropped out, for he was actually asked quietly to leave due to his ineptness in a failed romance with a lovely lady named Sue whose intelligence matched his own.
College life meant that she had to go to pub night, and was well on her way to become a chronic alcoholic in denial, often convincing Sam to come to dances and maintain her legal drug of choice. Sam rarely drinks, because his father died of alcohol-related causes.
When he tried to break off the relationship, Sue tried to convince him that they would surely get married. So when she asked for money for a wedding dress, he gave it to her. When she suggested they get engagement rings, again Sam obliged.
However, Mrs. Jones was canny, and figured Sue was up to no good. "Nobody for my Sammy unless she is honest and trustworthy. Her drinking like a fish rings a bell." Sammy thought he was in love, until Mrs. Jones asked Sue if she had picked out a wedding dress.
"Well, I'd put a down-payment with the money your son gave me," Sue replied. "But, no worries. It'll be worth it, Mrs. Jones."
Then Sue went out with Sam to pub night at the college. At some point during the night, she got him drunk. The next morning, Mrs. Jones got a call from Sam. "Mom, Sue's gone. So's our engagement rings."
In this imaginary world, Sue has the narcissistic personality to work her charms on a neurotic such as Sam and also his mother. Yet the clues were hidden in plain sight: the first clue is drug addiction. A disturbed character like Sue may be highly intelligent, but likes to engage in risky behaviour. For Sue, that consisted of drinking since age 12. After a string of boyfriends, she managed to avoid pregnancy via safe sex.
Each and every ex-boyfriends of Sue, if asked nicely, would admit Sue was a high-maintenance woman. If they were to offer any advice, then it would be "Don't give her money. Buy her things."
So, this is where the story ends: Sam is going to look after his mother until the day she dies, with Gerald and his lovely wife, Louise, occasionally visiting to provide updates on Louise's pregnancy and other chitchat.
Overal, their narcissistic personalities are under control, barely. However, Mrs. Jones put it simply: "Blood is thicker than water. My late husband worked hard and invested wisely. His legacy has been passed on, and when it's time for me to go, my sons will be well looked after, especially my Sammy."
In truth, the Jones' family is wealthy. Even though each of them have some sense of entitlement, they earned it in their own way. Gerald got a wife while Sammy lost at love only to decide his one true filial love is his mother.
In stark contrast, Sue lives in moral poverty. Although Sammy's potential wealth was apparent, it made him an easy target for Sue. When she realized that both Sam and his mother were pressuring her to get married and settled down, she showed her true colors and left before following through.
After declaring the money for a wedding dress and the engagement rings as theft to the police, Mrs. Jones and her son Sam, have yet to recover the money, let alone the engagement rings. Though it is possible that the rings may be recovered one day due to the engraving on both rings: one says "To Sue with love and respect" and the other, "To Sam with honor and trust."
20131204
Confronting Narcissism: The Truth Will Set You Free (satire)
For the sake of this article, there are two types of personalities, the narcissistic and the neurotic.
While this is a simplistic notion of human personality, it suffices. Why? Because an in depth discussion of narcissism and neurosis is outside the aim of this article.
Besides, readers of the social media Twitter tend to have short attention spans.
Also note that anything in bold is the truth that will set you free.
YMMV
Anyway, I'd like to think of narcissism and neurosis as two extremes of what is called human personality.
Neurosis is completely normal, even when a person is limited by anxiety and even worse, phobias. For such limitations are easily overcome simply by practice.
Of course, it is easy for me to say this because I've overcome both anxiety and phobias, mainly by applying Frank Herbert's Litany of Fear to help conquer both the anger that is the root of anxiety and the fear that is the root of phobias.
In contrast, narcissism is abnormal. Narcissistic people are manipulative people. who maintain the egocentricity of youth but have morphed it into narcissism.
However, the egocentric personality believes that the whole world revolves around him, while the narcissist often has a strong sense of entitlement, self-esteem, and the insatiable desire to live his life out by manipulating other people.
Often the narcissistic person believes he is superior to other people, but is willing to manipulate anyone into believing in his superiority.
It's most likely that egocentricity is a component of depression, since the depressed personality tends to view the world through the distorted lens of his illness.
Often narcissism manipulates neurosis in a person who chooses to love a narcissist.
Love will not change a narcissist into a decent human being who empathizes with you and loves you as much as you love him.
Stop lying to yourself because it does not work that way. That is magical thinking, as is love that is blind to the faults of the narcissist.
Early on in any relationship, be it friends or lovers, it is up to you to present the truth about his behaviour as you see it and establish strong boundaries with him.
If he harms you in retaliation (by ignoring it or insulting you) then present the truth again in an even voice and maintain the same strong boundaries.
If this leads to sexual assault, then he broke through those boundaries because he has no respect for you and for your boundaries. Report it to the authorities and break all contact with him. This involves blocking all calls and messages from him. It may even involve learning a martial art, and expecting the unexpected.
If, on the other hand, your neuroses limits to your options to reliance on a friend or mate for emotional support and/or protection, then choose your friends wisely. Do not make the mistake of calling your new boyfriend a policeman, since it could worsen the situation.
Be aware that he will use every trick in the book to manipulate you into forming a bond with him.
Ask for advice from people who know him well, including family and friends. Even his former lovers have good advice.
If you have fallen into the habit of being jealous of rivals, then he will use this against you to "prove" that you love him more than they ever did.
Confronting the narcissistic takes courage but anyone who lets love guide her heart in such matter had better be mentally and physically prepared for the consequences.
Otherwise, you are going to be manipulated into serving him forever.
Whatever I just wrote about heterosexual relationships also applies to homosexual relationships. Manipulative people come in many flavors of gender.
Regarding my advice about not making the mistake of calling your new boyfriend a policeman, the Raoul Moat case in England was an example of a narcissist whose rage against his former partner Samantha Stoddart was fueled by the fact that she'd fibbed to him by calling her new boyfriend a policeman when he was actually a martial arts expert. The real tragedy is that her new boyfriend is dead.
This brings me to relationships with a narcissist. Should a narcissist and a neurotic ever hook up, they may eventually desire to have children.
If the narcissist believes his neurotic wife to be paying too much attention to the child, then he may become jealous of that child.
Eventually it may lead to child abuse, and he will have exercised enough control of his wife to manipulate her into avoiding any confrontation him because she fears the emotional and physical abuse that he uses on her "to keep her in line."
Instead, the neurotic will undergo a lot of stress, which will present itself in overwork, obesity, alcoholism and even prescription drug abuse.
Along the way, she may develop ulcers and eventually cancer. However, the first symptoms will be anxiety and panic attacks, along with phobias. There also will be Stockholm Syndrome, in which she protects her husband in spite of the abuse when offered help.
As well, the narcissistic husband will gaslight the neurotic wife which may lead to involuntary admission to psychiatric wards, where neurotic hospital staff will be manipulated by the husband into believing that her statements of abuse by him are due to medication.
This is why both hospital staff and associated social workers should be trained in detecting narcissists.
IMO I believe some children of narcissists do establish boundaries with their caregivers early and get mistreated as their relationship evolves into becoming the black sheep of the family.
In contrast, narcissistic caregivers who nurture their child to point of narcissism goes beyond normal childcare. Since the children are mere extensions of the caregiver, the behaviour of her child will be controlled to reflect positively on her.
A narcissist will believe that the reason why her child cries is to distract attention from her. She also learns that feeding the child keeps it quiet. If a narcissist is an addict, she may even give her drug of choice to her child to keep it quiet, be it food, alcohol or recreational drugs.
Indeed, a lot of narcissists are social drinkers. Some of them are even recreational drug users, and a few narcissists are both.
In a cruel world, a narcissistic caregiver could be likened the mother of all evil.
I also believe that ego addiction is the root of egocentrism but ego addiction in manipulative people can be overcome after the narcissistic personality is controlled. This can only happen if the person seeks help.
However, I do not believe meditation is a cure-all for narcissism and manipulative people, but rather a preventative since it will lead them to flee when offered to them. Again, meditation will only work if a person humbly seeks it.
While this is a simplistic notion of human personality, it suffices. Why? Because an in depth discussion of narcissism and neurosis is outside the aim of this article.
Besides, readers of the social media Twitter tend to have short attention spans.
Also note that anything in bold is the truth that will set you free.
YMMV
Anyway, I'd like to think of narcissism and neurosis as two extremes of what is called human personality.
Neurosis is completely normal, even when a person is limited by anxiety and even worse, phobias. For such limitations are easily overcome simply by practice.
Of course, it is easy for me to say this because I've overcome both anxiety and phobias, mainly by applying Frank Herbert's Litany of Fear to help conquer both the anger that is the root of anxiety and the fear that is the root of phobias.
In contrast, narcissism is abnormal. Narcissistic people are manipulative people. who maintain the egocentricity of youth but have morphed it into narcissism.
However, the egocentric personality believes that the whole world revolves around him, while the narcissist often has a strong sense of entitlement, self-esteem, and the insatiable desire to live his life out by manipulating other people.
Often the narcissistic person believes he is superior to other people, but is willing to manipulate anyone into believing in his superiority.
It's most likely that egocentricity is a component of depression, since the depressed personality tends to view the world through the distorted lens of his illness.
Often narcissism manipulates neurosis in a person who chooses to love a narcissist.
Love will not change a narcissist into a decent human being who empathizes with you and loves you as much as you love him.
Stop lying to yourself because it does not work that way. That is magical thinking, as is love that is blind to the faults of the narcissist.
Early on in any relationship, be it friends or lovers, it is up to you to present the truth about his behaviour as you see it and establish strong boundaries with him.
If he harms you in retaliation (by ignoring it or insulting you) then present the truth again in an even voice and maintain the same strong boundaries.
If this leads to sexual assault, then he broke through those boundaries because he has no respect for you and for your boundaries. Report it to the authorities and break all contact with him. This involves blocking all calls and messages from him. It may even involve learning a martial art, and expecting the unexpected.
If, on the other hand, your neuroses limits to your options to reliance on a friend or mate for emotional support and/or protection, then choose your friends wisely. Do not make the mistake of calling your new boyfriend a policeman, since it could worsen the situation.
Be aware that he will use every trick in the book to manipulate you into forming a bond with him.
Ask for advice from people who know him well, including family and friends. Even his former lovers have good advice.
If you have fallen into the habit of being jealous of rivals, then he will use this against you to "prove" that you love him more than they ever did.
Confronting the narcissistic takes courage but anyone who lets love guide her heart in such matter had better be mentally and physically prepared for the consequences.
Otherwise, you are going to be manipulated into serving him forever.
Whatever I just wrote about heterosexual relationships also applies to homosexual relationships. Manipulative people come in many flavors of gender.
Regarding my advice about not making the mistake of calling your new boyfriend a policeman, the Raoul Moat case in England was an example of a narcissist whose rage against his former partner Samantha Stoddart was fueled by the fact that she'd fibbed to him by calling her new boyfriend a policeman when he was actually a martial arts expert. The real tragedy is that her new boyfriend is dead.
This brings me to relationships with a narcissist. Should a narcissist and a neurotic ever hook up, they may eventually desire to have children.
If the narcissist believes his neurotic wife to be paying too much attention to the child, then he may become jealous of that child.
Eventually it may lead to child abuse, and he will have exercised enough control of his wife to manipulate her into avoiding any confrontation him because she fears the emotional and physical abuse that he uses on her "to keep her in line."
Instead, the neurotic will undergo a lot of stress, which will present itself in overwork, obesity, alcoholism and even prescription drug abuse.
Along the way, she may develop ulcers and eventually cancer. However, the first symptoms will be anxiety and panic attacks, along with phobias. There also will be Stockholm Syndrome, in which she protects her husband in spite of the abuse when offered help.
As well, the narcissistic husband will gaslight the neurotic wife which may lead to involuntary admission to psychiatric wards, where neurotic hospital staff will be manipulated by the husband into believing that her statements of abuse by him are due to medication.
This is why both hospital staff and associated social workers should be trained in detecting narcissists.
IMO I believe some children of narcissists do establish boundaries with their caregivers early and get mistreated as their relationship evolves into becoming the black sheep of the family.
In contrast, narcissistic caregivers who nurture their child to point of narcissism goes beyond normal childcare. Since the children are mere extensions of the caregiver, the behaviour of her child will be controlled to reflect positively on her.
A narcissist will believe that the reason why her child cries is to distract attention from her. She also learns that feeding the child keeps it quiet. If a narcissist is an addict, she may even give her drug of choice to her child to keep it quiet, be it food, alcohol or recreational drugs.
Indeed, a lot of narcissists are social drinkers. Some of them are even recreational drug users, and a few narcissists are both.
In a cruel world, a narcissistic caregiver could be likened the mother of all evil.
I also believe that ego addiction is the root of egocentrism but ego addiction in manipulative people can be overcome after the narcissistic personality is controlled. This can only happen if the person seeks help.
However, I do not believe meditation is a cure-all for narcissism and manipulative people, but rather a preventative since it will lead them to flee when offered to them. Again, meditation will only work if a person humbly seeks it.
20131130
Dear Beijing, We The West Do Not Want War, Just Your Tourist Dollars (satire)
There is growing evidence that at some point in the not-so-distant future, Beijing will own a significant amount of shares in corporations which currently are considered Western business entities.
A few of the West's elites have been groomed by gifts given to them when they visit China in exchange for favouring Chinese businessmen from Beijing whose associates in Hong Kong, Macau, Shanghai and other major cities both in China and overseas (especially in the Middle East, the UK, and US as well as Africa and both North and South America).
There is also suspicion that during the Gaddafi era, Libya had purchased munitions which originated in China, including chemical weapons which fell into the hands of al Qaeda during the on-going proxy war in Syria.
Complicit in this global reach by China are mass media outlets such as CNN, FOX, NBC and various media empires owned by Conrad Black and Rupert Murdock whose company stock is owned by Chinese interests, both businessmen and various fronts owned by the Chinese army.
Today it makes perfect business sense for China to compete with America and the EU for a greater share of the world's wealth.
Also, there are government loans China has made to America which could have been jeopardized when President Obama prorogued Congress because the GOP vowed never to let ObamaCare become funded after it was enacted.
Had Beijing panicked, it could have called in multi-billion dollar loans that help keep the US economy afloat in today's stock market.
However, mainstream media outlets have been subtly promoting the booming Chinese economy, an economy that involves what the West would call "slave labour".
In villages all across that nation, there are volunteers who manufacture clothing, plush toys and related material made of textiles for the good of China, some of whom are in prisons.
As well, the average wage of Chinese employees who work for Foxconn, maker of iPhones, is under $1000 / month. Most of them work more than 40 hours a week with overtime exposing many of them in excess of 80 hours.
Given that the typical worker may work more than 63 hours a week at over 9 hours a day. In contrast, workers may spent less than 15 hours resting and at leisure. In fact, it is likely that workers spend up to 16 hours working in a given day with 8 hours devoted mainly to eating and sleep.
Such work conditions are deplorable since it has contributed to work-related stress.
One of the side effects of such stress as the recent clash between Chinese Han workers and Chinese minorities mainly from Western China (XInjiang), where a mix of Muslim Hui who were moved there from south-eastern China near the border with Vietnam to counter the influence of non-Sinitic Turkish people (Uighurs) in Xinjiang.
As part of their propaganda, Beijing has claimed that Uighurs are terrorists, when historically they have been freedom fighters dedicated from freeing their Turkic homeland from foreign invaders (the Hui and Han people moved there) after the Soviet era was established and the end of the Great War in 1918.
Such movements of Sinitic people is done to reduce the population density of the region China has conquered including regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet. Historically, Beijing had directed Chinese Hui warlords under its control to conquer the Uighurs due to fear of invasion by Russia along the western border. In response the Uighur warlords aligned with Moscow.
As a result, the Soviet Union fought a proxy war with China with American and British interests supplying munitions to both sides. Much of the German munitions captured by both the UK and the US flowed through the Chinese conduit consisting of volunteers from Shanghai who supported the Allied Nations predominated by the UK and the US with support by Japan, who provided for passage to the trenches in Normandy.
Returning to the Chinese invasion scenario described in this article, I submit the hypothesis that it will mainly an economic one. Eventually in time, so much of the West will be owned by China that the West will openly encourage mass media outlets to spread the propaganda that the East and West will soon become one.
Eventually this will lead to the positive result of increased space travel because both the Eastern hegemony and the Western hegemony of socio-economic progress will influence Big Business and their corporate monoliths to not only invest in China but also allow up to 49% ownership of Western companies.
As well, the resulting economic growth will allow corporate interests to develop space travel aligned along a mix of corporate and government agreements to bring capitalism to the stars, both aligned to the Chinese state capitalist model as well as the Western free-market capitalist model.
Therefore I would like to deny the scenario given in the blog article presented with my opinions on this matter as presented to you.
This scenario sounds distinctly anti-Chinese and indicates a neo-conservative tendency for hyperbole which is out of proportion to the current situation both in the West and in China.
In response to counterarguments that I am pro-Chinese, I also deny that Beijing supports my opinion. Indeed, if they do not already known that I endorse caution about the tendency towards Chinese domination of the West in both the economic and political sphere.
For world domination of the idea that China rules the world is as vile as the idea that America, the EU or even Canada rules the world.
How can there be freedom if China were to not only export its manufactured goods to the West without the West imposing tariffs to protect their respective markets, but also to "export" its people?
Perhaps Beijing might be doing this by supporting Chinese tours in the West. However, it is likely that only the Chinese elites and their supporters among the upper middle class could afford such a move, provided that they retain the Chinese culture.
Yet this same culture also implies a sort of entitlement, which on the long run may explain the prevalence of narcissism in Chinese in spite of their emphasis on teamwork over individual work.
Holding onto cultural traditions which risk the emphasis on self esteem may be disturbing the character of the Chinese people to the point where the narcissistic personality arises, as long as the world revolves around them. For there is a hint of egocentricity occulted by the emphasis on teamwork.
All aspirations of world domination by China externalizes the character disturbances of the Chinese that narcissism brings out in people.
Likewise, any aspiration of world domination by the West is a reflection of the disturbed character that a narcissist truly is.
Having stated this point, I would consider the scenario in the accompanying article as being far-fetched because it retains a hint of Cold War politics in its rhetoric.
In conclusion, the points I have made in this article make assumptions about the economic, psychological, and social aspects of both the East and the West. While the first two aspects are mentioned, and explored in some detail, the social aspects are briefly mentioned.
I am of the opinion that the Chinese would not invade the West as an army when it is better to let the Chinese tourists come visit us. Additionally, it is better to let the Chinese businessmen come trade with us than to plan war with the West in the classic context.
So my response to China is: "We do not want war; we only want your tourist dollars!"
A few of the West's elites have been groomed by gifts given to them when they visit China in exchange for favouring Chinese businessmen from Beijing whose associates in Hong Kong, Macau, Shanghai and other major cities both in China and overseas (especially in the Middle East, the UK, and US as well as Africa and both North and South America).
There is also suspicion that during the Gaddafi era, Libya had purchased munitions which originated in China, including chemical weapons which fell into the hands of al Qaeda during the on-going proxy war in Syria.
Complicit in this global reach by China are mass media outlets such as CNN, FOX, NBC and various media empires owned by Conrad Black and Rupert Murdock whose company stock is owned by Chinese interests, both businessmen and various fronts owned by the Chinese army.
Today it makes perfect business sense for China to compete with America and the EU for a greater share of the world's wealth.
Also, there are government loans China has made to America which could have been jeopardized when President Obama prorogued Congress because the GOP vowed never to let ObamaCare become funded after it was enacted.
Had Beijing panicked, it could have called in multi-billion dollar loans that help keep the US economy afloat in today's stock market.
However, mainstream media outlets have been subtly promoting the booming Chinese economy, an economy that involves what the West would call "slave labour".
In villages all across that nation, there are volunteers who manufacture clothing, plush toys and related material made of textiles for the good of China, some of whom are in prisons.
As well, the average wage of Chinese employees who work for Foxconn, maker of iPhones, is under $1000 / month. Most of them work more than 40 hours a week with overtime exposing many of them in excess of 80 hours.
Given that the typical worker may work more than 63 hours a week at over 9 hours a day. In contrast, workers may spent less than 15 hours resting and at leisure. In fact, it is likely that workers spend up to 16 hours working in a given day with 8 hours devoted mainly to eating and sleep.
Such work conditions are deplorable since it has contributed to work-related stress.
One of the side effects of such stress as the recent clash between Chinese Han workers and Chinese minorities mainly from Western China (XInjiang), where a mix of Muslim Hui who were moved there from south-eastern China near the border with Vietnam to counter the influence of non-Sinitic Turkish people (Uighurs) in Xinjiang.
As part of their propaganda, Beijing has claimed that Uighurs are terrorists, when historically they have been freedom fighters dedicated from freeing their Turkic homeland from foreign invaders (the Hui and Han people moved there) after the Soviet era was established and the end of the Great War in 1918.
Such movements of Sinitic people is done to reduce the population density of the region China has conquered including regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet. Historically, Beijing had directed Chinese Hui warlords under its control to conquer the Uighurs due to fear of invasion by Russia along the western border. In response the Uighur warlords aligned with Moscow.
As a result, the Soviet Union fought a proxy war with China with American and British interests supplying munitions to both sides. Much of the German munitions captured by both the UK and the US flowed through the Chinese conduit consisting of volunteers from Shanghai who supported the Allied Nations predominated by the UK and the US with support by Japan, who provided for passage to the trenches in Normandy.
Returning to the Chinese invasion scenario described in this article, I submit the hypothesis that it will mainly an economic one. Eventually in time, so much of the West will be owned by China that the West will openly encourage mass media outlets to spread the propaganda that the East and West will soon become one.
Eventually this will lead to the positive result of increased space travel because both the Eastern hegemony and the Western hegemony of socio-economic progress will influence Big Business and their corporate monoliths to not only invest in China but also allow up to 49% ownership of Western companies.
As well, the resulting economic growth will allow corporate interests to develop space travel aligned along a mix of corporate and government agreements to bring capitalism to the stars, both aligned to the Chinese state capitalist model as well as the Western free-market capitalist model.
Therefore I would like to deny the scenario given in the blog article presented with my opinions on this matter as presented to you.
This scenario sounds distinctly anti-Chinese and indicates a neo-conservative tendency for hyperbole which is out of proportion to the current situation both in the West and in China.
In response to counterarguments that I am pro-Chinese, I also deny that Beijing supports my opinion. Indeed, if they do not already known that I endorse caution about the tendency towards Chinese domination of the West in both the economic and political sphere.
For world domination of the idea that China rules the world is as vile as the idea that America, the EU or even Canada rules the world.
How can there be freedom if China were to not only export its manufactured goods to the West without the West imposing tariffs to protect their respective markets, but also to "export" its people?
Perhaps Beijing might be doing this by supporting Chinese tours in the West. However, it is likely that only the Chinese elites and their supporters among the upper middle class could afford such a move, provided that they retain the Chinese culture.
Yet this same culture also implies a sort of entitlement, which on the long run may explain the prevalence of narcissism in Chinese in spite of their emphasis on teamwork over individual work.
Holding onto cultural traditions which risk the emphasis on self esteem may be disturbing the character of the Chinese people to the point where the narcissistic personality arises, as long as the world revolves around them. For there is a hint of egocentricity occulted by the emphasis on teamwork.
All aspirations of world domination by China externalizes the character disturbances of the Chinese that narcissism brings out in people.
Likewise, any aspiration of world domination by the West is a reflection of the disturbed character that a narcissist truly is.
Having stated this point, I would consider the scenario in the accompanying article as being far-fetched because it retains a hint of Cold War politics in its rhetoric.
In conclusion, the points I have made in this article make assumptions about the economic, psychological, and social aspects of both the East and the West. While the first two aspects are mentioned, and explored in some detail, the social aspects are briefly mentioned.
I am of the opinion that the Chinese would not invade the West as an army when it is better to let the Chinese tourists come visit us. Additionally, it is better to let the Chinese businessmen come trade with us than to plan war with the West in the classic context.
So my response to China is: "We do not want war; we only want your tourist dollars!"
20131124
Rant about the UBC Rapist (satire)
I am a man and according to feminist thetoric I am inherently sexist. Isn't that too a sexist statement? Yes, neither side of the gender divide is innocent of sexism.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
20131102
The Mother of All Evil (satire)
The penultimate confirmation bias is when some people are convinced satan is real because of crime, war and terrorism.
What actually causes crime, war and terrorism is those nurturing moments of self esteem boosting by well meaning parents morphed into really bad Halloween costumes like the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman-ex-wife trio and the b-gal girls, both of which got too much attention.
In the midst of their narcissism, well meaning people are letting their sense of privilege escalate into death threats. In no time, someone is going to get hurt, usually by outraged people.
Did the two girls who dressed in black-face go out on Halloween like that? Probably not.
As for the Martin, Zimmerman and ex-wife trio, the last I heard, the girl got canned from work.
On the plus side, they are all famous for the wrong reasons in the black community.
However, I am waiting for Al Sharpton to step in and weigh in because that will determine whether the outrage might lead to more black on white crime in north Philadelphia and other ethnic hotspots across the US.
At the moment though, Halloween just got its childlike innocence destroyed by the moral outrage over politically incorrect costumes.
As a result, I am sure Anonymous might be cyberstalking the guilty parties involved when the moral outrage grows strong enough to mount an online lynch mob, rather than attract violent sickos.
Meanwhile in the Middle East, all you have to do is direct a badly written movie insulting Mohammad and people riot, right after the mullahs work them into a frenzy by shouting "Death to the Great Satan!" in Iran and "Yankees go home" in Saudi Arabia.
It is ironic that that notorious movie was blamed for the killing of a US Ambassor in Libya when it actually was a militant operation designed to extract one or more of their own from the CIA compound. The reason why the CIA had captured the men: to determine where munitions ended up. It is most likely the ambassador was killed to prevent anyone in DC from knowing where those munitions ended up.
My guess is, al-Qaeda got their hands on Libyan munitions in Syria.
Meanwhile, back in America, there is little hue and cry that the US government was funneling money into the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the Egyptian people were outraged that America was giving the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt money directly without scrutiny by the military and overthrew Morsi.
Perhaps the CIA planned it that way, knowing how anti-American sentiments are an institution in most mosques in the Middle East, along with conspiracy theories about Zionist control over money and propaganda.
It makes the bad taste in Halloween costumes seem surreal in comparison.
Who cares about bad ideas in Halloween costumes? The really bad thing in DC is supporting al-Qaeda indirectly by siding with the rebels in Syria.
The other bad thing is supporting terrorism and war by buying gasoline for your car. Every time you gas up your dollars makes Kuwait and Saudi Arabia rich. Probably a couple pennies out of every dollar spent on gasoline supports al-Qaeda.
Yet we find this logic to be ridiculous, because in our world of mass consumption, all buying gasoline does is make the gasoline companies happy and us happy that we get to work faster to work than on public transit.
If you love your cars more than public transit in your city, could it be because your privilege of driving a car exclude your positive contribution to a safer ride on the bus? That's assuming that you are a law-abiding citizen in your SUV. Public transit needs your help riding the bus. Just make sure you practice all that socializing you learned when the masses were learning hard knocks from the school of life.
I can imagine the privileged aren't going to give up their second car due to their concern about crime on the bus. Yet they may be suffering more road rage due to air pollution and mainly the mental pollution caused by child care nurturing of self esteem by doting parents without daring to teach humility to their child, lest it traumatize them.
Meanwhile their kids love a certain cute music celebrity - take your pick which one you think is cute - who is fronting hip-hop and the culture it implies. I am not probing deeper into this culture lest I get death threats. I like my face just fine and unbroken.
Regarding that confirmation bias regarding crime, terrorism and war, it is because of laws made by the majority that visible minorities receive justice. If that justice is deserved, then it ought to be meted out humanely. Otherwise it leads to crime. If that justice is inhumane and is supported by the State, then it may become State terrorism. All other forms of terrorism are children of the State, some legitimate but mainly illegitimate. When the terrorism becomes well known, the UN may decide to wage a just war -- that is, if America does not start one to serve its own foreign policy requirements and US government obligations to whoever supported the warmongers in the Senate.
In short, confirmation bias leads to crime, terrorism and war until we only see crime, terrorism and war in the world today.
This occurs when the elites of society opt out of dealing with life. It begins with not teaching kids the value of humility for fear their self esteem will be destroyed forever. It leads to narcissism, which can be summed up as "the privileged self importance a person deserves at all times."
If you really want to stop crime, go ride a bus and share your self esteem freely. I am sure some narcissist will put you in your place.
If you want to prevent terrorism, then free everyone who does not drive by selling that second car.
If you want to prevent war, then sit your ass on the next bus and open your eyes to daily life.
For neither war, nor terrorism nor even crime is due to satan but to humanity's undeserved sense of entitlement.
Yes, I am suggesting that selfishness is evil. However, I am only referring to acts of selfishness which have a criminal component to it. This might include certain hate crimes as well. I am certain that the mass media industry is complicit in it, just to get more subscribers and even higher ratings.
In fact, I'm sure of one thing: consumerism is the mother of all evil.
Pardon me for cutting this short! I have a bus to catch.
What actually causes crime, war and terrorism is those nurturing moments of self esteem boosting by well meaning parents morphed into really bad Halloween costumes like the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman-ex-wife trio and the b-gal girls, both of which got too much attention.
In the midst of their narcissism, well meaning people are letting their sense of privilege escalate into death threats. In no time, someone is going to get hurt, usually by outraged people.
Did the two girls who dressed in black-face go out on Halloween like that? Probably not.
As for the Martin, Zimmerman and ex-wife trio, the last I heard, the girl got canned from work.
On the plus side, they are all famous for the wrong reasons in the black community.
However, I am waiting for Al Sharpton to step in and weigh in because that will determine whether the outrage might lead to more black on white crime in north Philadelphia and other ethnic hotspots across the US.
At the moment though, Halloween just got its childlike innocence destroyed by the moral outrage over politically incorrect costumes.
As a result, I am sure Anonymous might be cyberstalking the guilty parties involved when the moral outrage grows strong enough to mount an online lynch mob, rather than attract violent sickos.
Meanwhile in the Middle East, all you have to do is direct a badly written movie insulting Mohammad and people riot, right after the mullahs work them into a frenzy by shouting "Death to the Great Satan!" in Iran and "Yankees go home" in Saudi Arabia.
It is ironic that that notorious movie was blamed for the killing of a US Ambassor in Libya when it actually was a militant operation designed to extract one or more of their own from the CIA compound. The reason why the CIA had captured the men: to determine where munitions ended up. It is most likely the ambassador was killed to prevent anyone in DC from knowing where those munitions ended up.
My guess is, al-Qaeda got their hands on Libyan munitions in Syria.
Meanwhile, back in America, there is little hue and cry that the US government was funneling money into the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the Egyptian people were outraged that America was giving the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt money directly without scrutiny by the military and overthrew Morsi.
Perhaps the CIA planned it that way, knowing how anti-American sentiments are an institution in most mosques in the Middle East, along with conspiracy theories about Zionist control over money and propaganda.
It makes the bad taste in Halloween costumes seem surreal in comparison.
Who cares about bad ideas in Halloween costumes? The really bad thing in DC is supporting al-Qaeda indirectly by siding with the rebels in Syria.
The other bad thing is supporting terrorism and war by buying gasoline for your car. Every time you gas up your dollars makes Kuwait and Saudi Arabia rich. Probably a couple pennies out of every dollar spent on gasoline supports al-Qaeda.
Yet we find this logic to be ridiculous, because in our world of mass consumption, all buying gasoline does is make the gasoline companies happy and us happy that we get to work faster to work than on public transit.
If you love your cars more than public transit in your city, could it be because your privilege of driving a car exclude your positive contribution to a safer ride on the bus? That's assuming that you are a law-abiding citizen in your SUV. Public transit needs your help riding the bus. Just make sure you practice all that socializing you learned when the masses were learning hard knocks from the school of life.
I can imagine the privileged aren't going to give up their second car due to their concern about crime on the bus. Yet they may be suffering more road rage due to air pollution and mainly the mental pollution caused by child care nurturing of self esteem by doting parents without daring to teach humility to their child, lest it traumatize them.
Meanwhile their kids love a certain cute music celebrity - take your pick which one you think is cute - who is fronting hip-hop and the culture it implies. I am not probing deeper into this culture lest I get death threats. I like my face just fine and unbroken.
Regarding that confirmation bias regarding crime, terrorism and war, it is because of laws made by the majority that visible minorities receive justice. If that justice is deserved, then it ought to be meted out humanely. Otherwise it leads to crime. If that justice is inhumane and is supported by the State, then it may become State terrorism. All other forms of terrorism are children of the State, some legitimate but mainly illegitimate. When the terrorism becomes well known, the UN may decide to wage a just war -- that is, if America does not start one to serve its own foreign policy requirements and US government obligations to whoever supported the warmongers in the Senate.
In short, confirmation bias leads to crime, terrorism and war until we only see crime, terrorism and war in the world today.
This occurs when the elites of society opt out of dealing with life. It begins with not teaching kids the value of humility for fear their self esteem will be destroyed forever. It leads to narcissism, which can be summed up as "the privileged self importance a person deserves at all times."
If you really want to stop crime, go ride a bus and share your self esteem freely. I am sure some narcissist will put you in your place.
If you want to prevent terrorism, then free everyone who does not drive by selling that second car.
If you want to prevent war, then sit your ass on the next bus and open your eyes to daily life.
For neither war, nor terrorism nor even crime is due to satan but to humanity's undeserved sense of entitlement.
Yes, I am suggesting that selfishness is evil. However, I am only referring to acts of selfishness which have a criminal component to it. This might include certain hate crimes as well. I am certain that the mass media industry is complicit in it, just to get more subscribers and even higher ratings.
In fact, I'm sure of one thing: consumerism is the mother of all evil.
Pardon me for cutting this short! I have a bus to catch.
20130112
The State's Agents are Ignorant of Being Played by Narcissists
"Abusive behavior did not make it into the diagnostic criteria of mental health disorders, nor were its psychodynamic, cultural and social roots explored in depth. As a result of this deficient education and lacking awareness, most law enforcement officers, judges, counselors, guardians, and mediators are worryingly ignorant about the phenomenon.
Only 4% of hospital emergency room admissions of women in the United States are attributed by staff to domestic violence. The true figure, according to the FBI, is more like 50%. One in three murdered women was done in by her spouse, current or former.
The blissfully ignorant mental health professionals are simply unaware of the "bad sides" of the abuser – and make sure they remain oblivious to them. They look the other way, or pretend that the abuser's behavior is normative, or turn a blind eye to his egregious conduct." — Dr. Sam Vaknin, in Conning the System.
This kind of abusive behavior is reprehensible. What is worse is when professionals, who commonly, do not receive any training recognizing and dealing with this kind of behavior, go out of their way to protect narcissists and even believe psychopaths just need kindness and understanding.
Tell that to the victims of the Green River killer.
In cases of domestic abuse, often the police will side with the husband, even if his wife has bruises and spends time in the hospital being patched up by doctors and nurses who again are conned by the narcissist.
Even worse then this are the times when the police could have caught the psychopath but let him go until it became obvious they were dealing with a serial killer.
The Pickton case has collaboration between police and the psychopath. In one case, it was likely the police were supplying Pickton with more victims. However, the police did a coverup to protect their asses.
However, a lot of the times, narcissists and pyshcopaths get away with murder.
The following interview with Jane Schwartz is important to seeing through a narcissist's façade: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/NARCISSISTIC-PERSONALITY-DISORDER/D_96TxEDG5Y
Only 4% of hospital emergency room admissions of women in the United States are attributed by staff to domestic violence. The true figure, according to the FBI, is more like 50%. One in three murdered women was done in by her spouse, current or former.
The blissfully ignorant mental health professionals are simply unaware of the "bad sides" of the abuser – and make sure they remain oblivious to them. They look the other way, or pretend that the abuser's behavior is normative, or turn a blind eye to his egregious conduct." — Dr. Sam Vaknin, in Conning the System.
This kind of abusive behavior is reprehensible. What is worse is when professionals, who commonly, do not receive any training recognizing and dealing with this kind of behavior, go out of their way to protect narcissists and even believe psychopaths just need kindness and understanding.
Tell that to the victims of the Green River killer.
In cases of domestic abuse, often the police will side with the husband, even if his wife has bruises and spends time in the hospital being patched up by doctors and nurses who again are conned by the narcissist.
Even worse then this are the times when the police could have caught the psychopath but let him go until it became obvious they were dealing with a serial killer.
The Pickton case has collaboration between police and the psychopath. In one case, it was likely the police were supplying Pickton with more victims. However, the police did a coverup to protect their asses.
However, a lot of the times, narcissists and pyshcopaths get away with murder.
The following interview with Jane Schwartz is important to seeing through a narcissist's façade: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/NARCISSISTIC-PERSONALITY-DISORDER/D_96TxEDG5Y
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)