THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF NARCISSISM - Part I

This will be a multi-part post that discusses how postmodern progressive leftism encourages and rewards malignant narcissism and sociopathic behavior. I have discussed elsewhere both the sociopathic selfishness and the sociopathic selflessness that characterizes the malignant variant of narcissism.

Between the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, a fundamentally fascist (i.e., a nationalistic socialist) movement; and with the second wind that has been given to the remnants of the 20th century's failed socialist and communist 'experiments' (in which millions of people were slaughtered by the compassionate and progressive left), we have truly entered a golden age of narcissism where, as Wretchard has commented, "....it is this single-minded pursuit of the irrelevant by the self-important that constitutes the greatest catastrophe of our time." In this "golden age", personal responsibility has been trashed; reason and truth trivialized; and the celebration of victimhood is the pinnacle of self-empowerment and self-actualization.

INTRODUCTION

In a book titled WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism, authors Hotchkiss and Masterson identify what they call the "seven deadly sins" of narcissism and their origin:

1. Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

The ideology of the political left in all its various iterations--socialist, communist, radical environmentalism, progressive; call it what you will-- is, at its core an essentially narcissistic and self-indulgent pursuit of power, with all the unhealthy psychological attributes that implies

This is not to suggest that narcissism or sociopathy exit merely within the political left. Clearly it does not. But, having made that qualification, today's progressive leftist is steeped in and encouraged by an ideology that rewards only feelings and not critical thinking or truth; fantasy and not reality; and good intentions instead of actual outcome in the real world. The seven deadly sins of narcissism outlined above lead the the poor, innocent and unsuspecting lefist into cognitive dissonance in his thinking patterns and wreak all sorts of misery and spiritual destruction on the people who are the targets of the leftists' supposed goodwill.

But they neither care nor notice, since the primary determinant of why they do what they do is to make themselves feel good; to escape for one brief moment the emptiness of their own individual souls and the self-hatred and rage that motivate them.

Let's discuss these psychological 'sins' one by one and see how they accurately describe the psychology that is the basis of modern leftist thought.

EXCESSIVE SHAME AND SHAMELESSNESS
I have written about shame extensively in connection to the Arab World, a culture that is primarily a shame-based. In the case of the Arab world, I explained, they were plagued by an excess of shame, which was the underlying root cause of their societal dysfunction.

OTOH, utter shamelessness, the flip side of excessive shame, is highly characteristic of those who think themselves superior to others and not governed by the rules that ordinary mortals subscribe to.

To understand how related these two extremes of shame are, we need to discuss exactly what shame is and why it is necessary for both individuals and society as a whole.

Shame itself, is often an underappreciated psychological state. Particularly in the modern world, but also throughout history, shame-- in limited quantities and small doses--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately.

Healthy shame, in fact, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. To quote Dirty Harry on the subject, "A man's got to know his limitations."
When an individual experiences healthy shame, he or she may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness can be both insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

The key point, whether you are talking about excessive shame or shamelessness--that is the absence of shame even when shame would be appropriate, is that the emotion that drives both states is identical. Like the two sides of the same coin,excessive shame and shamelessess are inseparable. Individuals very often flip-flop between the two extremes when they cannot process the reality of their own unacceptable feelings or behavior.

It is for this reason, the political left shares with the Arab world a basically ""shame culture and why each are fascinated with, and admire (and emulate) the other's behavior.

One way that the shame culure plays out on the political left is in their response to ethical and moral challenges.

Next time there is a huge scandal in the news (sexual or otherwise), note the underlying mental gymnastics that permit the media to "forget" to report ethically inappropriate actions by Democrats compared to Republicans. If such actions go unreported--or only make it to Page 6 of the news, it is as if somehow the behavior is minimized and/or trivialized.

This almost never happens when it is a Republican who has strayed or had a broken moral compass--a topic that can stay on top of the national headlines for weeks on end. And note, that if a Democrat's unethical or scandalous behavior DOES make the front page, you will be unable to discover which political party he or she is actually a member. It may be mentioned, but farther down in the lede; more often it is not even mentioned at all.

Now, ask yourself how a typical Republican responds to scandal. Generally, he or she is capable of feeling both shame and guilt about the behavior in question, whether it is in the public or personal domain; and frequently this acknowledgment of his behavior leads him to resign from office sooner, rather than later. Often, he will retreat entirely from public life. The conservative tends to have high moral standards that he expects not only of himself, but of others and is ashamed when he violates them; even more so when the knowledge of his violation is made public (which Democrats can always count on the press to do). At this point, psychological denial about the behavior cannot be maintained.

This reality is also twisted by the left, who pounce on the supposed "hypocrisy" of conservatives who, for example, preach family values but then have affairs or behave badly. Indeed, this is precisely my point. When a Republican or conservative behaves counter to his standards, he experiences a healthy dose of appropriate shame.

Democrats and those on the left HAVE NO MORAL OR ETHICAL STANDARDS TO BEGIN WITH (that's what moral relativism is all about), hence when their reprehensible behavior is exposed for all to see, they are utterly shameless about it. They have managed to convince themselves that they are, on the whole, morally superior to the common riff-raff (and certainly compared to evil Republicans and conservatives they perceive themselves to be virtual saints; champions of the poor and oppressed and leaders in goodness). For such a person how can any traditional rules of behavior apply? When you subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes how loving, compassionate, and caring and "reality-based" you are as its central theses, then you are home free! So, even when your reprehensible behavior is made public, then you are not mandated to feel any shame--shame is for losers.

And, as a last resort, if you begin to feel too uncomfortable, you can always play the victimhood card--because, after all, if you did something bad someone or something else must have made you do it.

In this regard, I will cite only two recent examples--John Edwards and Barney Frank. Both of whom created a three ring circus proclaiming their innocence and purity endlessly ad nauseum, despite all evidence to the contrary, knowing that they would be defended by the ever loyal useful idiots of the left for as long as possible.

After all, they are better people than the rest of us and this entitles them to behave badly.

Many Democrats and certainly most leftists are completely shameless in the sense that they will never ever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it, going to admit to bad behavior. And in those rare cases where they simply cannot wiggle and maneuver and lie and deceive; or self-righteously tell you how wonderful they really are and all the wonderful things they have done for the 'little people'; they will simply pretend they are still virtuous and have been victimized in some way. What's sad is that they often believe it themselves.

Vanderleun recently wrote a piece about "Democrats and socialists gone wild". In it, he describes the exploits of three of the latest acts of shamelessness by those on the left. In both instances, there are rants and rages against those who accuse them (often by the intellectuals of the left); and for as long as possible they will pretend they are victims of bad behavior by others (this is psychological projection). Note John Edward's latest rant, for example. And how can we ever forget the "I did not have sex with that woman" moment during the glory days of Bill Clinton's victimization by Monica Lewinski?

Let's face the truth here. We all sin and engage in reprehensible behavior from time to time. We are all certainly capable of it. But the shamelessness about it that I am describing is really only typical of those individual with significant narcissistic defects in their personality. Again, without a doubt, narcissists and liars and cheats exist on both sides of the political aisle. But a narcissist in a guilt culture behaves somewhat differently than a narcissist in a shame culture (see the link on shame cultures vs guilt cultures for a discussion of this).

In general, Republicans and conservatives believe they have better ideas. But Democrats and leftists believe they are better people.

This makes all the difference in their experience of shame--or their lack of experiencing it.

MAGICAL THINKING, or Fairy Tales Can Come True.

The second deadly sin is "magical thinking". In psychiatry, this phrase describes a pervasive belief that one can control things or persons or events with one's thoughts or feelings (that's where the "magic" comes in). There is ofter a considerable amount psychological distortion going on, as well as psychlogical projection (see also here). These creative psychological maneuvers serve to maintain the magical thinking and obscure reality and truth, which is far too threatening for the fragile ego of the leftist.

How are these maneuvers manifest in the behavior of today's left?

In general the postmodern political left, which touts itself as "reality-based" is far from it. They emphasize the acendency of feelings over reason--and, as witness to this, they are primarily concerned about feeling good about themselves. They care little about the actual outcome of the social programs that they support, it's all about them and their supposed "compassion". They blindly perpetuate the victimhood mentality since creating and nurturing victimhood and perpetual grievance expands their base and brings in new recruits for their ideology. But let anyone one of those 'victims' from an approved victimhood group break away and empower themselves and you will begin to see the sometimes rather vicious hatred that underlies their loving compassion for the oppressed.

Any who oppose their anti-poverty schemes must "hate" the poor; any who want to empower minority groups to take responsibility for their lives and fortunes are described as 'racist'; any who think that the content of a person's characteer or the qualifications for the job trump race or gender or sexual orientation, are by their definition racist, sexist or homophobic--take your pick.

The highway to today's hell is paved with all their wonderful intentions. They mean well, and therefore if you oppose them by presenting better ideas, you must, by definition, be evil.

In order to preserve the fantasy that people with leftist beliefs are "better people" than those evil righty conservatives we see repeated instances of psychological projection (externalizing their own feelings onto others) and distortion of reality.

Further, we can witness even more of their political "magical thinking" in the foreign policy initiatives of the Obama Administration; as well as in the parallel fantasies that have characterized most of the economic policies of the White House and Democrats. They have the strange notion that reckless spending can go on forever on any program that they deem "essential" and for a "good cause" (when that is determined by the left it becomes sacrosanct).

First, let's take a look at current foreign policy.Bruce Thornton has written about the magical thinking that seems to dominate Obama's thinking:

Worse, however, is the magical thinking that lies behind the mantra of “diplomacy.” This faith in talk is predicated on assumptions about human nature and state behavior difficult to validate by the historical record. It reflects a Western Enlightenment idea that force is an outmoded relic of our primitive past, to be replaced by rational discussion in which give-and-take dickering, negotiation, respect for the other side’s position and demands, and a mutual, sincere desire to adjudicate grievance and avoid conflict can resolve disagreements. The key assumption is that in the end all people are rational and want peace and comfort more than any other good.

Obama has pushed the "reset" button on a number of fronts, but surprise! We are still hated, only now we are also routinely mocked because Obama is perceived as weak and uninvolved. Over the past two years we have routinely thrown our friends under the Obama bus; while appeasing and bowing to our enemies. We have routinely focused on the less important (to our national interest anyway) issues like Libya and Quadaffi; rather than take a strong stance on Iran, a major and imminent threat, not only to the region, but to our national interests in the region. Time and again, Obama has resorted to his supposedly "magical" rhetoric, as if words without the necessary backbone to stand behind them. When he actually does something like give the order to go in and take down Bin Laden (and, I still believe that all the psychological evidence suggests that Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that action, but when it turned out ok was perfectly willing to take all the credit) many on the left had a hissy fit and rushed to condemn it as somehow being "inconsistent with our values."

It's hard to be consistent with one's values when those "values" change on a daily basis depending on which way the wind blows. Remember, the goal is not reason or truth or consistency to values, but promoting a particular ideology. That is why there the left demonstrates "subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next."

For them, their magical thinking is absolute...magic. It makes all those unpleasant realities simply go away when they do not fit into their philosophy

Meanwhile, on the economic front it is undoubtedly clear that there is a considerable amount of magical thinking going on on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to the economy, but recently there has some attempts to start a rational conversation that could address the serious problem with debt and spending this country is faced with. The Ryan Economic Plan, which calls for both tax cuts AND decreased spending is a case in point. Yet, far from using this as a starting point to discuss reality, it has instead been used for the purpose of villifying Republican who now stand accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff.

This new ad put out by the Democrats could just as easily been produced by a grossly psychotic individual, completely out of touch with reality; so severe is the distortion and deception it demonstrates. Meanwhile, in keeping with the magical thinking, the left seems to believe that doing nothing is a safe strategy (and it might well be from a political or ideological perspective; but reality probably isn't going to agree with them for very long; but hey, "In the long run we are all dead", right? So only think in the short run and imagine that all these problems will go away; meanwhile grab as much power as you can now.

Narcissists just know that their fairy tale can come true. They believe as fervently as any religious fanatic that their wishes and feelings are more powerful than reality.

Unfortunately for all of us, what those wishes and feelings actually create is usually a freakin' mess for others to clean up.

In Part II, I will tackle the narcissistic sins of Arrogance, Envy and Entitlement.

UPDATE: Vanderluen notes in the comments that he has a related post on the left and the Seven Deadly Sins (you know, those Biblical ones: PRIDE, ENVY, WRATH, SLOTH, LUST, AVARICE and GLUTTONY. Check it out.

NARCISSISM, PATHOLOGICAL LYING, AND POLITICS

With the classic narcissist, language is used cruelly and ruthlessly to ensnare one's enemies, to sow confusion and panic, to move others to emulate the narcissist ("projective identification"), to leave the listeners in doubt, in hesitation, in paralysis, to gain control, or to punish. Language is enslaved and forced to lie. The language is appropriated and expropriated. It is considered to be a weapon, an asset, a piece of lethal property, a traitorous mistress to be gang raped into submission. --Sam Vaknin, author, Malignant Self Love.

Pathological lying is one of the hallmark characteristics of a narcissist, who does it out of a need to manipulate and maintain control. For the immature narcissist there is an essential emotional truth: lying is an expression of his (or her) mistrust of others; and his (or her) need to maintain a fragile sense of self at all costs.

Being honest (and therefore vulnerable) terrifies the narcissist. Since his primary goal is to control others, through projection he constantly fears that others will try to control him. Thus, lying becomes the modus operandi through which he can maintain his superficial presentation of himself and keep people from learning the truth of who he really is. He never allows himself to be "pinned down", or accountable. More lies are always necessary to cover up a previous lie. And typically, he even begins to believe his own lies and become outraged at any suggestion that he may be lying. Thus he becomes sincere in his lying and others may actually believe the lies because of the sincerity. This is why truly pathological liars (such as sociopaths) are so hard to detect in the population. In general, the lack of an ability to feel guilty about the lies, and the perverse sense that he is "entitled to lie" are standard for the political narcissist.

Having said all this, it is important to remember that lying, no matter how pathological it may be is not in itself a disease. EVERYONE LIES. Most psychological tests have built in scales that detect this tendency to make one's self look better to others.

When you combine an overwhelmning need to make one's self look better (i.e., superior) with a grandiose sense of self-worth; throw in glibness and a superficial charm that easily convinces others of your sincerity; then there is little to stand in the way of easily manipulating others to your will. Of course, it behooves you to also throw into the mix that whatever you do, you do it for the sake of others. Children are a good standby (as in, "do it for the children!").

Let me refresh your memory about some basic psychological defense mechanisms.
Denial, which is an immature defense is defined as an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:
-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)

One type of denial is Repression , a neurotic defense characterized by a seemingly inexplicable naivete, memory lapse, or lack of awareness. Repression is often dismissed as an artifact of diminished attention by cognitive psychologists, but I find that it almost always reflects a rather creative method to resolve some inner conflict for the person who uses it. With repression, affect is out in the open, but the associated idea is out of the mind and unavailable to consider. Someone who has repressed some knowledge may be genuinely astonished that anyone would consider them to have deliberately ignored the issue.

The "forgetting of repression is different from ordinary forgetting in that there is often some sort of parallel symbolic behavior that goes along with it.

Most often repression is associated with histrionic traits. A typical example might be the doting and dutiful wife who remains blissfully unaware of the husband's constant philandering--although the evidence is obvious to everyone else; and she may not understand why she feels anger at her spouse. She may defend him passionately from his accusers, but the anger will find a way to express itself in various ways within their relationship. Or, another example is a devoted public servant and leader of the Party, whose behavior in a recent press conference raised red flags in almost everyone who was watching and listening to her.

Neo-neocon captures the essence of her psychological dilemma, on view for all to witness:

Some people have asked why Pelosi hasn’t just said, “Look, at the time of the briefings I thought waterboarding was okay, but now I see the light and I’m against it.” Such a statement would have arguably gotten her in a lot less trouble than the course she’s taken instead: a series of ever-changing and hedgy excuses that read as lies, culminating in her making accusations against the CIA that have roused its formidable defenses against her.

I don’t think Pelosi is stupid, although I agree with almost nothing she stands for or says. She has shown great political savvy and cunning in her long career. Why does it appear to be deserting her now?

I see Pelosi as having been put between a rock and a hard place by Obama’s release of the “torture memos” and the resultant brouhaha. If she were to make the statement I posited in the first paragraph of this post, she would be admitting something that would contradict the entire Democratic Party “narrative” of the Bush administration’s decisions regarding terrorists.

Going that route would destroy the tale the Democrats have ridden to victory and power: that the Bush administration was evil, lying to us (rather than sometimes mistaken), trampling on liberties for the sake of power and even sadism. How can Democrats contradict themselves by acknowledging now that nearly all of Bush’s decisions in the war on terror were arrived at after due deliberation, analysis of the best information available at the time (the conclusion that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs would be a prominent example), acting in the best interests of our country, and with an effort to preserve as much liberty and protection as seemed possible?

For Democrat leaders to do so would be to undercut their own story about Bush, which was (and remains) vital to their own success.

So, we might reasonably conclude that Nancy's "surprise" in discovering that she was actually briefed by the CIA on its enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, is an example of:

(a) PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL (suggesting she is out of touch with reality)
(b) PSYCHOLOGICAL REPRESSION (suggesting that she has neurotic conflicts)
(c) DELIBERATE LYING (suggesting that she is a liar)
(d) NORMAL FORGETFULNESS (suggesting that she is clueless and inattentive)

Of course, it could well be a vast rightwing conspiracy to take down the poor, hapless Speaker. But I rather suspect it is the Democrats' own neurotic conflicts coming home to roost (to coin a phrase.)

Neurotic defenses may be used by all sorts of otherwise intelligent people; and in this case, the willingness to believe anything that is said--especially when it is said by a Democrat (no matter how obviously ridiculous); while sneering and demeaning anything said by a Republican (no matter how true or obvious) suggests an underlying neurotic conflict.

Perpetual Displacement, anyone? Poor Obama "can't turn the page" on Bush? Or, is it that Obama and Co. are unable to turn that page because their entire success and current power grab depends solely on this bizarre neurosis of theirs?

There are narcissists and liars in both parties, of course; but Nancy Pelosi's rather blatant attempts to play fast and loose with the Truth, even as she loudly demands "Truth Commissions" is nothing more than the extreme narcissism and pathological lying that is peculiar to politics. Victor Davis Hanson is amazed that she--and Democrats, in general--seem not to believe in the god Nemesis:

There is an odd sense among Democrats that nemesis simply does not exist.

A once-vein-bulging Al Gore who barnstormed the country slurring President Bush by calling him a liar now seems baffled about the precedent he set of a vice president (albeit now much more politely in the case of Cheney) questioning the policy of the current president.

A Nancy Pelosi, hellbent on releasing once-classified memos for partisan advantage, and eager to begin 'Truth" hearings, suddenly believes such an inquisition will not apply to herself, despite the fact that she, like so many Democrats from Senator Schumer to Senator Rockefeller, in that dark period in 2001, spoke of the need for, or was complicit in, approving enhanced interrogation techniques.

Then the president himself, who jump-started his campaign in Iraq's crisis year by slamming the commander-in-chief on renditions, military tribunals, email and phone intercepts, Predator drone attacks, and Iraq, now suddenly wishes to explain the nuances and complexities of these policies and why he will continue the Bush protocols — apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy involved with his own prior self-interested stridency. These examples could be easily augmented.

To explain their behavior, Hanson invokes the deity in charge of just consequences--Nemesis; but I would account for it by pointing out the self-satisfied smugness and narcissism of Democratic leaders who pathologically are unable to believe that reality and truth have any hold on them. In psychiatry, we call this delusional.

And the leaders of the Democratic Party (including the Great, Supreme Poobah Messiah) demonstrate their delusional and narcissistic credentials on a daily basis.

MALIGNANT GRANDIOSITY, SHAME, NORTH KOREA, AND IRAN

Recent developments in the multilateral talks with North Korea have been positive, but Kim Jong Il has been concilliatory in the past, and then done whatever he wanted, no matter what he had agreed to do.

Despite the criticisms of this proposed deal, it is a strategy that is used quite a bit by psychiatrists in dealing with unstable individuals; i.e., the malignantly grandiose narcissist or sociopath.

The strategy is simple. Once the demands of the narcissist are identified, then a series of key behaviors with benchmarks for measuring that behavior and a timeline are put in place. In order for the patient to receive what he wants, the benchmarks must be met. Failure to do so causes a reversion to an earlier plan. A simple example is, for a patient on a court order, the court order for treatment will be lifted if the patient demonstrates the ability to stay out of jail or the hospital for a specified amount of time. If the benchmarks are not met, then the court order is maintained or extended.

This example is very general, but the actual plan for a given individual may be more complicated, with a series of specific actions that they are expected to take; with each action part of the reward may be given. As I understand it, the proposed deal with North Korea involves a certain amount of aid paid over time, with each payment dependent on the accomplishments of certain behaviors by the regime (e.g., verification of disarmament).

Now, having said that this is a "tried and true" strategy in psychiatry for dealing with these difficult patients, do I really think this will work with Kim? The answer is "probably not". Kim Jung Il does not keep promises or agreements. He will most certainly look for a way to cheat and have his own way regardless. Additionally, it will give him a certain amount of pleasure and satisfaction if he does so.

But that is the nature of the beast you are dealing with. This is actually the best kind of agreement that diplomacy can reach when dealing with the many malignant narcissist tyrants in the world; though the odds of its working without a VERY big stick to prod things along are very slim; and in the case of the North Korean leader, we are talking about the use of military force and the targeting of his personal health and longevity.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; and Kim's past behavior gives us nothing much to support optimism that he will suddenly exhibit good behavior.

Nevertheless, it is worth a try; particularly in the context of multilateral talks.

What is most interesting to me is the psychodynamics of this type of narcissistically grandiose leader; particularly one who operates within a "shame" culture. The dynamics of a Kim are not much different from those of a Saddam or a Ahmadinejad; and the manipulative and malignant--even catastrophic-- behaviors they engage in are reasonably predictable and consistent.

Even in the context of a treaty or signed agreement, there will be provocation and brinkmanship on the part of such leaders. They will "push the envelope" of bad behavior, always testing to see what they are able to get away with; secretly delighting in and reinforcing their sense of grandiosity whenever they succeed in putting something over on the rest of the world (particularly the U.S., of course; and to a lesser extent the more gullible international community.

So, what is the point of their trickery and subterfuge?

For at least part of that answer, we must go back to the essentials of a "shame" culture--the type of culture that not only dominates the world of the Middle East, but also is rampant in many Asian countries. I discuss "shame" versus "guilt" cultures here.

What ties the megalomaniacs of North Korea and Iran together is their obsessive shame-avoidant behavior, a cultural attribute which is the flip side of their individual malignant grandiosity.

Let me first address the narcissistic grandiosity that is characteristic of all dictators and tyrants, particularly the three mentioned above. Typical symptoms of grandiosity that can be observed in your typical autocratic ruler/megalomaniac like Kim, Hussein, or Ahmadinejad are:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Other people are seen only as an extension of the self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; an inability to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Inflated/exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

ShrinkWrapped has written the following about this type of individual:

In more severe cases, the existence of the other person’s mind and life is simply of no consequence. For the Malignant Narcissist, other people are mere props in the pageantry of their lives. A tyrant can throw someone into a shredding machine without a second thought because the victim only matters in relation to how he can support the grandiosity of the tyrant; beyond that, he is faceless, nameless, worthless. It was no accident that Saddam Hussein was surrounded by sycophants who all grew mustaches to look just like him.

(By the way, Shrink discusses yet another of these malignant leaders--the #2 psychopath in Al Qaeda-- in a recent post here)

These kind of toxic personality characteristics certainly can occur in any type of society; but appear to be more easily cultivated in shame cultures, which by their very nature are usually collectivist-oriented. Thus, it is not unusual to find the toxic combination of individual narcissistic personality traits with those behavioral attributes encouraged within a shame culture; specifically, preserving honor and avoiding shame at all costs.

For both the grandiose and shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to protect the self from feeling low self-esteem or shame. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator to the observer that such individuals are experiencing internal shame.

Most psychological theorists see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience. Most of western culture is predominantly a "guilt"-type culture

In a typical shame culture, what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on one's behavior than even what the individual himself believes. These powerful, preening dictators, who hold complete power over people and who present themselves as little gods, are totally wrapped up in what other people think of them. Humiliation and shame are to be avoided at all costs; and this cultural imperative is only emphasized by the individual grandiosity of the near-omnipotent "great" or "dear" leaders.

From a psychological perspective, it is ridiculous to maintain that it is America's --or any other country's-- "fault" when such leaders behave badly or break their agreements. If they can get away with breaking agreements without consequences they will. This distorted view arises from a perverted notion of what self-esteem is really all about.

The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that people like Kim Jung Il or Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath. Such individuals turn violent toward others who fail to give them the inflated respect they think they deserve.

Nor does high self-esteem deter people from becoming bullies, according to most of the studies that have been done; it is simply untrue that beneath the surface of every obnoxious bully is an unhappy, self-hating child in need of sympathy and praise. Rather, it is more consistent with exactly the opposite--a narcissistically inflated sense of self that much be preserved at all costs.

Let's remember that these tyrants are not psychiatric patients. They do not seek help; nor do they believe that anything is wrong with them. They believe they are entitled to unlimited praise and deference. They believe that their will and their desire is all that is important. Many people who enthusiastically surround such dictators and admire them are sycophantic and self-abasing appeasers (these people genuinely admire the power and ruthlessness of the omnipotent dictator and want some of that aura to rub off on them--see an example here).

One of the most important expressions of the shame culture, as well as shame-avoidant and grandiose persons in general, is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for any inappropriate behavior--up to and including the most disgusting of atrocities. It is always someone else's fault. In this way the shame-avoidant person can successfully avoid the shame that is inevitable when a mature individual takes responsibility for their own malignant behavior.

When they do break the agreements or accords they engage in, the narcissist will blame the other party for their behavior. It will never be their fault or responsibiity. If they blame America as "causing" their duplicity, they will have a lot of anti-Americanism in the international community and the political left to support their description of events--this is called "enabling" behavior). All of this is just a part of the classic shame-avoidant dance that leads into the blurry realms of delusion these leaders and their supporters/enablers engage in.

Iran's leader clearly understands this dynamic, because he suffers from it himself. It is always someone else's fault that forces you to behave insanely when you are humiliated. There is no responsibility for one's own actions; or even for one's own thoughts or feelings.

Psychological health (which dictators, tyrants and thugs clearly lack, since their operating principle is to obtain power over others, rather than exert power over their own aggressive impulses) and healthy self-esteem depend on overcoming shame by progressing to a level of maturity that recognizes objective reality and truth; a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that the truth about one's self is not determined by other people's opinions. When that level of maturity is reached individually and culturally, both shame and guilt become important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group. When a narcissistic and grandiose individual is steeped in such a culture, they easily become monsters and think of themselves as "gods" (or the special envoy of a god in the case of Ahmadinejad).

The issue for western nations is how one addresses such cultures and their grandiose and often irrational, but cunning, leaders.

SC&A in his usual direct manner have this to say:

Diplomats do not solve problems, they effect useful compromise. That is nice when we are dealing with Canada, France or Luxembourg. Diplomats are ineffective when comes to dealing with evil, because evil must be defeated, not compromised with. Evil must be addressed, head on and relentlessly. If you are unsure about what is and isn’t real evil, you are indeed an idiot.
[...]
In fact, as those who insist we establish a ‘dialogue’ with North Korea, that very regime has been at the fore of arms proliferation, selling nuclear and missile expertise to the highest bidder. No amount of ‘dialogue’ will cause the North Koreans to ’see the light.’ They know very well the difference between right and wrong. They have deliberately chosen to starve their nation so that they might field the world’s 4th largest military and they have deliberately rebuffed the civilized world with threats of catastrophe.

It should come as no surprise that North Korea has for decades, counted among it’s allies terrorists and rogue nations and regimes that openly call for the destruction of other nations and entire peoples.

Compromise and negotiation are not a valued part of any shame culture. There can be no compromise with their concept of "honor", for any compromise brings "shame". Thus, in order to maintain honor, lying and any other kind of deceit is completely acceptable--even encouraged. Multiply this times ten when dealing with the malignant narcissistic leader of the culture or nation.

This reality is hard to grasp for the western mind which places a higher value on truth and honesty. Thus, western diplomats seem incredibly naive and laughable to both Asian and Arab minds because they believe in the sanctity of agreement, treaties, and the like. The idea that deliberate deceit or lying as a political strategy is considered acceptable--even honorable --in some places of the world doesn't seem to occur to them.

Kim Jong Il is unlikely to live up to any diplomatic agreement. Eventually, he will bring things to the brink, where he (and most narcissists and psychopaths) like to operate. And, he will be counting on the West and in particular, the U.S. to take the step back and give in when he does. He has every historical reason to be encouraged that this will happen. Jimmy Carter did it; Madeleine Albright did it; Bill Clinton did it. The Democratic leadership currently in Congress is dying to do it.

The conservatives like John Bolton who are criticizing the agreement are doing so precisely because they recognize the essential nature of North Korea's lying, deceitvul leader.

If you make agreements with such leaders, there are several key psychological points to keep in mind when dealing with both the narcissistic grandiosity of the dictator/tyrant and the shame-avoidant culture that nourishes him.

First, with regard to the narcissistic grandiosity it must be remembered that what you are confronting is basically a bully (a bully with nuclear weapons for sure, but still a bully). And a bully will only stop bullying when it is absolutely clear to him that he cannot win. In other words, a show of overwhelming force that is direct, clear and unambiguous is what is needed. In the context of an agreement, you must make any rewards directly attached to the behavior you expect; and if the behavior does not meet your criteria, then there must not be any reward. In fact, there should be specific negative consequences clearly delineated for that eventuality.

The bully must understand that he will not get away with his bullying; that it will not be tolerated-- or there will be catastrophic consequences for him personally.

Bullies like Kim Jong Il will watch carefully to see if the West really means what it says in this area, and if he senses any ambiguity or lack of resolve on the part of the international community or within the US, he will snicker at his cleverness and exploit our indecision to the fullest possible extent.

That is what Saddam believed would happen in Iraq. That is what Ahmadinejad and the malignant mullahs believe will happen in their own confrontation with the West. They have seen the indecision and the lack of will and are certain they will prevail against such weakness.

So it is incredibly important that militarily the US or the international community step up to the plate.

The second part of the strategy must address the shame-avoidant culture that Kim controls. Some sort of "carrot" must be offered to the regime that can help them save face. This is why "rewards" are important in any negotiated agreement. It does not necessarily have to be anything that is high on the North Korean priority list; but it must be something of significance internationally that will increase their status in some way that does not reinforce their already over-emphasized military grandiosity.

This sort of dual behavioral management strategy takes into account both the individual and the cultural psychological dysfunction that underlies the pathological brinksmanship often seen such regimes. Showing any sign of military weakness, willingness to appease or tolerate bad behavior, or a lack of resolve will only empower malignant narcissists like Kim; and failing to offer a way to save face (or reinforcing the worst aspects of the regime in the face-saving) will leave Koreans with an intolerable degree of shame that may be manipulated and cause future problems.



(parts of this post were published earlier)

The Psychopathology of Terrorism

PART I
What is a Psychopathic Personality, or Antisocial Personality Disorder?

There are two terms in the psychiatric literature that describe a particular personality disorder that is socially deviant, dangerous, and frequently criminal: The first term is Psychopathic Personality; and the second is Antisocial Personality. The former term is the one I prefer, because it gives some insight into the inner state of these persons, while the latter simply describes their behavior.

There is a tendency on the part of the public to view terrorism as a psychotic aberration, since those who commit terrorist acts appear to others to be out of touch with reality. Professor Raj Persaud in an article in the BBC News recently said:

While we await the fate of Ken Bigley, held hostage by gunmen in Iraq, we wrestle with the nature of death visited on his two American fellow hostages, each of whom was beheaded.
These horrors seem inconceivable to us - what kind of people commit such acts of barbarity?
The aim of terrorists is to cause widespread fear in order to oppose an enemy which is usually stronger militarily.
One obvious theory to explain the kind of behaviour committed against the American hostages is that it is the product of a non-rational, disturbed or psychotic mind.

Certainly some terrorists have a "non-rational, disturbed or psychotic mind." (Richard Reid, for example). But here we are dealing with a fine line between reality and delusion. In previous posts, I have discussed psychological defense mechanisms, such as Projection. Almost everyone uses Projection at some point in their life. Healthier people will abandon this defense as they mature and develop defenses that are more adaptive in the real world. Those who do not abandon Projection as a primary defense can be thought of as "pre-psychotic" and they will appear more and more paranoid by the outside world as time goes on. In some instances, they will actually descend into paranoid delusion.

But terrorists, by and large, do not suffer from psychosis, i.e.,they are not usually overtly paranoid (some are). They do cling to Projection as a defense mechanism, however. They may have paranoid traits; they may have delusional, conspiracy-based thinking, but they don't have what we call in psychiatry a "thought disorder". What they have is defect in their personality structure. In Part 2, I will discuss the theories that explain the origin of this personality defect, but for now let me describe what a psychopath is.

The psychopathic personality is fairly well-described in the psychiatric literature (I refer you to Abnormalities of Personality, by Michael H. Stone, for an overview of all personality disorders). There are certain traits that are associated with this personality and they are:

1. A glib, superficial charm (think Yasser Arafat; Saddam Hussein and many others)
2. A grandiose sense of self-worth (Osama Bin Laden; Hussein; Al Qaeda's manifesto; attitude toward events that happened 1000 years ago)
3. A need for stimulation / proneness to boredom(enjoyment of near-death experiences; destruction and mayhem for the sake of destruction and mayhem)
4. Pathological lying (no need to tell the truth to infidels; truth in the service of one's goals is malleable)
5. Manipulative behavior (convincing adolescents and children to commit suicide)
6. Lack of remorse or guilt for their behavior (the most heinous acts are presented as something to be proud of and accepted by their acolytes as such)
7. Shallow affect (no real concern for others,e.g., Iraqis or Afghanis who are Muslim are just as likely to be murdered; despite saying that they care about other Muslims)
8. Callousness / lack of empathy (inability to connect with their victims; cold-blooded murder of children--e.g., Beslan)
10. Lack of the usual behavioral controls (e.g., impulsive, reckless) (off-handedly referring to Jews, Women etc. as "dogs", "monkey", sub-human; Saddam's sons and their behavior toward athletes who lost; many other examples of a complete disregard for thousands of years of civilization and self-control)
11. Promiscuous or deviant sexual behavior/attitudes (male dominant/misogynistic; homosexuality condemned, yet behind the scenes sexual abuse of both male and female children)
12. Irresponsibility (sense of entitlement; jealousy; envy of the West)
13. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Many of these traits overlap with the narcissist (e.g., the grandiose sense of self-worth). The traits that generally are ominous and not seen in the pure narcissist are the lack of remorse or guilt for their behavior and the callousness and lack of empathy. Those qualities, combined with the irresponsibility, impulsiveness and failure to accept responsibility for his own actions make the psychopath a danger to others and a serious threat to civilized society.

The antisocial behavior and criminality exhibited by the psychopath can be anywhere from mild to severe. A mild case might be a man who runs off with the assests of his company, changes his name, abandons his family and pretends that the person he previously was never existed. An extremely severe case , would be the man in the mask parading before videocameras as he cruelly and deliberately slices off the head off of a helpless victim. Most people describe this as "sick", but psychopathic personality disorder is not an illness--it is a way of viewing the world, a way of life.

Psychopaths can form groups, where they nurture the delusion that all "outsiders" (e.g., "infidels") are bad and they will exhibit their antisocial behavior toward those outside their own group. They can enlist non-psychopaths into their ranks because they are superficially charming and glib; they lie easily; and they are extremely manipulative to get what they want at the moment. You can see this in characters like Jim Jones, who was able to convince many people to commit suicide at his command. This is not much different from the tactics used by Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Al Qaeda leaders who convince their drones that suicide is a reasonable alternative to living.

The Terrorist "Script"

Sylvan Tomkins, a brilliant 20th century psychologist developed the concept of "Scripts" as a pschological tool to understand behavior. I think this concept is particularly useful in describing Islamofascist terrorism:

Literally, as a piece of writing, a script is an instrument for the management and effective control of a play, film or broadcast. In this counselling /therapeutic context scripts are the tools with which we manage our adult life.
From our earliest and formative years we build a library of scripts through and with which we respond and react to life's ups and down, day by day, minute by minute. Any stimulus is categorised and linked to our response and via our memory is stored in our data base or library. When that same stimulus reoccurs the script will be retrieved and used again at least whilst the response is effective and provides positive affect; that is, it makes us feel better. As we grow older our resource data base increases.

Common "scripts" are used to direct the attitudes and behaviors of the psychopath. In their mind, these attitudes explain the world for the psychopath, and their behaviors give shape to the underlying personality. Scripts are sets of ordering rules that govern how a person interprets, predicts, and behaves in typical and repetitive situations--the kind of situations that make up most people's everyday lives.

For example, a compulsive person's script might say, " I must work diligently at all times." While a psychopathic person might have a script that goes, "I am entitled to take what I want when I want it from whoever has it." The psychopathic terrorist's script is similar to this latter example, but adds, "I am holy and pure in thought, word, and action; and those I don't like because they have what I want or who believe differently from me deserve only death and contempt."

The primary themes that run through the psychopathic person's scripts are: Jealousy, greed, wounded pride, envy, desire for control and power, and self-hatred. These themes often generate certain emotions such as hostility, vengefulness, contempt, and sadism.

Normal people who experience guilt and shame when they do something stupid or bad, and it becomes public, find it difficult to believe that psychopathic people do not feel guilty or shamed by their behavior; or that people caught in the middle of a criminal act can continue to deny any responsibility for that act. It seems incomprehensible. Yet, I have seen this over and over again in my clinical practice. One of the clinics that I cover is at the county jail. In all the years that I have been seeing inmates there, I can count on one hand the number of my clients who take ANY responsibility for why they are in jail. Believe me, I have heard it all. "It was that bitch's fault" (wife-beater); "The police set me up (drug dealer); "I was stoned" (robbery); "It was someone else" (murder); "She was willing" (a 40 year old man molesting a 13 year old girl). I could go on and on.

As we turn now to Islamofascist terrorists, we can begin to see that they meet almost all the criteria listed above for psychopathic traits. They even use the same excuses for their unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their own actions.
"It is the Jews who committed 9/11"; "America is the oppressor"; "Your actions made us have to behead these people"; "Allah says we must kill infidels". Everyone else is to blame for their problems. Everyone else is to blame for their social system and governance. They are poor because of the actions of Israel, America, or anyone else who is thriving. The Palestinians have perfected victimhood as a science. And so it goes. The terrorists' scripts emphasize the wrongs done to them (some of these wrongs go back hundreds of years); the envy and jealousy they feel for the Jews; vengeful fantasies; sadistic power (who exemplifies this better than Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat--both of whom are terrorists down to their deepest souls--who have sold out their respective people for unlimited power and self-aggrandizing glory).

Part II of this post will discuss the origins of the psychopathic personality. How do such personalities develop? And, what can be done to control or eliminate them from civilized society.

MALIGNANT GRANDIOSITY AND THE SHAME CULTURE

There seems to be some doubt out there that the North Koreans actually tested a nuclear device (see here and here, for example).

I, of course, have no way of personally knowing the truth of this, but I can think of a lot of reasons why the U.S. might go along with any North Korean deception in this area.

What interests me is the psychology behind a North Korean deception--if it is a deception; which in many ways would be not dissimilar from the same kind of deception about WMDs that Saddam Hussein foisted on the world (and may be the same kind of game being played by the Iranians).

What is the point of such provocation and brinkmanship on the part of Kim? What was ever the point of Saddam's trickery and subterfuge with the international community?

For at least part of that answer, we must go back to the essentials of a "shame" culture--the type of culture that not only dominates the world of the Middle East, but also is rampant in many Asian countries. I discuss "shame" versus "guilt" cultures here.

What ties the three megalomaniacs of North Korea, Iraq and Iran together is their obsessive shame-avoidant behavior, a cultural attribute which is the flip side of their individual malignant grandiosity.

Let me first address the narcissistic grandiosity that is characteristic of all dictators and tyrants, particularly the three mentioned above. Typical symptoms of grandiosity that can be observed in your typical autocratic ruler/megalomaniac like Kim, Hussein, or Ahmadinejad are:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Other people are seen only as an extension of the self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; an inability to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Inflated/exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

ShrinkWrapped has this to say about these individuals:

In more severe cases, the existence of the other person’s mind and life is simply of no consequence. For the Malignant Narcissist, other people are mere props in the pageantry of their lives. A tyrant can throw someone into a shredding machine without a second thought because the victim only matters in relation to how he can support the grandiosity of the tyrant; beyond that, he is faceless, nameless, worthless. It was no accident that Saddam Hussein was surrounded by sycophants who all grew mustaches to look just like him.

These kind of personality characteristics certainly can occur in any type of society; but appear to be more easily cultivated in shame cultures, which by their very nature are usually collectivist-oriented. Thus, it is not unusual to find the toxic combination of individual narcissistic personality traits with those behavioral attributes encouraged within a shame culture; specifically, preserving honor and avoiding shame at all costs.

For both the grandiose and shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to protect the self from feeling low self-esteem or shame. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator to the observer that such individuals are experiencing internal shame.

Most psychological theorists see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience. Most of western culture is predominantly a "guilt"-type culture

In a typical shame culture, what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on one's behavior than even what the individual himself believes. These powerful, preening dictators, who hold complete power over people and who present themselves as little gods, are totally wrapped up in what other people think of them. Humiliation and shame are to be avoided at all costs; and this cultural imperative is only emphasized by the individual grandiosity of the near-omnipotent "great" or "dear" leaders.

From a psychological perspective, it is ridiculous to maintain that it is America's --or any other country's-- "fault" when such leaders behave badly. This distorted view arises from a perverted notion of what self-esteem is really all about.

The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that people like Kim Jung Il or Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath. Such individuals turn violent toward others who fail to give them the inflated respect they think they deserve.

Nor does high self-esteem deter people from becoming bullies, according to most of the studies that have been done; it is simply untrue that beneath the surface of every obnoxious bully is an unhappy, self-hating child in need of sympathy and praise. Rather, it is more consistent with exactly the opposite--a narcissistically inflated sense of self that much be preserved at all costs.

Let's remember that these tyrants are not psychiatric patients. They do not seek help; nor do they believe that anything is wrong with them. They believe they are entitled to unlimited praise and deference. They believe that their will and their desire is all that is important. Many people who enthusiastically surround such dictators and admire them are sycophantic and self-abasing appeasers (these people genuinely admire the power and ruthlessness of the omnipotent dictator and want some of that aura to rub off on them--see an example here).

One of the most important expressions of the shame culture, as well as shame-avoidant and grandiose persons in general, is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for any inappropriate behavior--up to and including the most disgusting of atrocities. It is always someone else's fault. In this way the shame-avoidant person can successfully avoid the shame that is inevitable when a mature individual takes responsibility for their own malignant behavior.

Iran's latest press release, blaming the US for North Korea's nuclear test (even if the test turns out to be non-nuclear) is just a part of the classic shame-avoidant dance that leads into the blurry realms of delusion.

Iran's leader clearly understands this dynamic, because he suffers from it himself. It is always someone else's fault that forces you to behave insanely when you are humiliated. There is no responsibility for one's own actions; or even for one's own thoughts or feelings.

Psychological health (which dictators, tyrants and thugs clearly lack, since their operating principle is to obtain power over others, rather than exert power over their own aggressive impulses) and healthy self-esteem depend on overcoming shame by progressing to a level of maturity that recognizes objective reality and truth; a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that the truth about one's self is not determined by other people's opinions. When that level of maturity is reached individually and culturally, both shame and guilt become important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group. When a narcissistic and grandiose individual is steeped in such a culture, they easily become monsters and think of themselves as "gods" (or the special envoy of a god in the case of Ahmadinejad).

The issue for western nations is how one addresses such cultures and their grandiose and often irrational, but cunning, leaders.

SC&A in his usual direct manner have this to say:

Diplomats do not solve problems, they effect useful compromise. That is nice when we are dealing with Canada, France or Luxembourg. Diplomats are ineffective when comes to dealing with evil, because evil must be defeated, not compromised with. Evil must be addressed, head on and relentlessly. If you are unsure about what is and isn’t real evil, you are indeed an idiot.
[...]
In fact, as those who insist we establish a ‘dialogue’ with North Korea, that very regime has been at the fore of arms proliferation, selling nuclear and missile expertise to the highest bidder. No amount of ‘dialogue’ will cause the North Koreans to ’see the light.’ They know very well the difference between right and wrong. They have deliberately chosen to starve their nation so that they might field the world’s 4th largest military and they have deliberately rebuffed the civilized world with threats of catastrophe.

It should come as no surprise that North Korea has for decades, counted among it’s allies terrorists and rogue nations and regimes that openly call for the destruction of other nations and entire peoples.

Compromise and negotiation are not a valued part of any shame culture. There can be no compromise with their concept of "honor", for any compromise brings "shame". Thus, in order to maintain honor, lying and any other kind of deceit is completely acceptable--even encouraged. Multiply this times ten when dealing with the malignant narcissistic leader of the culture or nation.

This reality is hard to grasp for the western mind which places a higher value on truth and honesty. Thus, western diplomats seem incredibly naiive and laughable to both Asian and Arab minds because they believe in the sanctity of agreement, treaties, and the like. The idea that deliberate deceit or lying as a political strategy is considered acceptable--even honorable --in some places of the world doesn't seem to occur to them.

Kim Jong Il cannot back down now. He has brought things to the brink, where he (and most narcissists and psychopaths) like to operate. In fact, he is counting on the West and in particular, the U.S. to take the step back. He has every historical reason to be encouraged that this will happen. Jimmy Carter did it; Madeleine Albright did it; Bill Clinton did it. The Democratic leadership currently in Congress is dying to do it.

However there are several key psychological points one needs to keep in mind when dealing with both the narcissistic grandiosity of the dictator/tyrant and the shame-avoidant culture that nourishes him.

First, in dealing with the narcissistic grandiosity it must be remembered that what you are confronting is basically a bully (a bully with nuclear weapons for sure, but still a bully). And a bully will only stop bullying when it is absolutely clear to him that he cannot win. In other words, a show of overwhelming force that is direct, clear and unambiguous is what is needed. The bully must understand that he will not get away with his bullying; that it will not be tolerated-- or there will be catastrophic consequences for him personally.

Bullies like Kim Jong Il will watch carefully to see if the West really means what it says in this area, and if he senses any ambiguity or lack of resolve on the part of the international community or within the US, he will hold his ground because he thinks he is stronger and can exploit our indecision.

That is what Saddam believed would happen in Iraq. That is what Ahmadinejad and the malignant mullahs believe will happen in their own confrontation with the West. They have seen the indecision and the lack of will and are certain they will prevail against such weakness.

So it is incredibly important that militarily the US or the international community step up to the plate. (I suspect we can likely forget the latter).

The second part of the strategy must address the shame-avoidant culture that Kim controls. Some sort of "carrot" must be offered to the regime that can help them save face. It does not necessarily have to be anything that is high on the North Korean priority list; but it must be something of significance internationally that will increase their status in some way that does not reinforce their already over-emphasized military grandiosity.

This sort of dual behavioral management strategy takes into account both the individual and the cultural psychological dysfunction that underlies the pathological brinksmanship often seen such regimes. Showing any sign of military weakness, willingness to appease or tolerate bad behavior, or a lack of resolve will only empower malignant narcissists like Kim; and failing to offer a way to save face (or reinforcing the worst aspects of the regime in the face-saving) will leave Koreans with an intolerable degree of shame that may be manipulated and cause future problems.

THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF NARCISSISM - Part II

In Part I, I discussed the first two deadly sins of Narcissism (Shamelessness and Magical Thinking) and how they are owned primarily by the postmodern progressive left. Today's topics are the next three narcissistic sins: ARROGANCE, ENVY, AND ENTITLEMENT.

Let's start with how the political left actively works to diminish, debase or degrade their political opponents--not in any appropriate way by attacking their ideas; but in a deliberate attempt to destroy them personally so that in their opponents' destruction their own self-worth can be puffed up. In fact, the sine qua non of the progressive political left is the politics of personal destruction.

In this, they have been aided and abetted by the Gurus of Self-Esteem. Most people confuse "self-esteem" with what I will refer to as a "sense of self". It is the latter--not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy "Self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem--which is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect in malignant narcissism is a broken or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem and swaggering arrogance that you see in a typical bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their own self. It was once widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence--and you see that idea reflected today in the platitudes and rationalizations for terrorism or any destructive behavior-- but, the reality is that most violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves.

The triumvarate of cognitive contradictions promulgated by today's narcissistic left, and which claim to be based on "scientific" psychology includes the hyping of (1) self-esteem (i.e., increasing your self-worth without having to achieve anything; (2) hope (i.e., achieving your goals without any real effort) and (3) victimhood (i.e.,it's not your fault that you haven't achieved anything or made any effort).

The first of these cognitve contradictions leads to inappropriate arrogance and an inflated sense of one's own self worth; which, since it is not based on anything real but only only on the denigration or debasement of others, is extremely fragile and must be defended--violently and ruthlessly, if necessary--when challenged.

ARROGANCE

To the extent that a person's behavior is mostly motivated by perceived insults to their self--i.e., their narcissistic core; then the "insult" will usually prompt a typical display of narcissistic rage directed toward the unfortunate individual whose person or ideas threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and often incredibly petty. These rages are generally not beneficial to society-at-large (in fact, such actions often have strong sociopathic or antisocial elements to them) , although the person in the throes of narcissistic rage will often convince themselves that they are behaving perfectly appropriately and even for "the good" of others. You can often imagine them chanting to themselves, "I am so special! I am so special!"; or like Homer Simpson, "I am so smart. S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T", as he accidentally sets the house on fire.

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always justified to themselves, of course, as being "for their own good"); a constant need admiration and adulation; and grandiose, often insatiable ambitions.

This arrogance thuse makes them remarkably adept at the "politics of personal destruction".

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out-of-bounds or over-the-top.

Ad hominem attacks are preferred since the narcissistic is hopelessly outclassed on the battlefield of ideas. Watch carefully and you will notice that whenever an idea or proposal is brought forth regarding the economy that is inconsistent with their ideology, the postmodern left attacks the person whose idea it was, NOT the idea itself except through gross distortion and deception. Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are just two recent examples of conservatives who are personally attacked to ensure that their ideas are not discussed in any rational or civil manner.

And, as mentioned previously, watch the rage and vicious insults that are casually expressed toward anyone who should know their place in the leftist victimhood heirarchy (e.g., a woman or a black conservative for example) dares to disagree with their political positions.

Hence the current state of political discourse and the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns to some extent, but which are constantly decried by the left, even as they desperately try to pin anything bad that happens on their enemies, the conservatives or Republicans.

The tragic shooting of Representative Giffords by a paranoid schizophrenic is a case in point. The left self-righteously and arrogantly pinned that one on Sarah Palin, a go-to whipping boy girl for the left. They desperately need for Palin or any female conservative to be identified as eeeeevil, so that they can bask in the glow of their own goodness and self-righteousness.

Frankly, a schizophrenic is truly sick in every medical/physiological/biological sense of the word; but the progressive left suffers from an illness that is
philosophical/moral/spiritual and ethical sense.

If you want to understand why politics has become so virulent and personally vicious you need not look any farther that this sad truth. While politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; often it is the people of no integrity and values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. And, the less they know of that character, the better (witness the character with tabula rasa who was elected in the last Presidential election)!

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

Arrogance is not necessarily a vice--or even a deadly sin--when you actually have achieved something in the real world to be arrogant about. But spending other people's money and claiming it is your divine right to do so; looting other people's wealth; or seeking to control other people's lives so that you can feel virtuous and powerful is about as deadly a sin as there is. Wretchard writes in "The Fatal Phrase", a post about arrogant serial seducer and former head of the IMF (and the socialist party in France) who incredulously asked a hotel maid he was forcing himself on, "Don't you know who I am?"

People actually like to feel important. they crave recognition and using the words “don’t you know who I am” indicates they believe they’ve arrived and the waves should part before them.

John Kerry is rather notorious for this same behavior. And who can forget Qaddafi's "Tokyo Rose" Cynthia McKinney who assaulted a police officer at the Capitol back in 2006 because he had the temerity to ask for identification from her. Not surprisingly, because he did not immediately recognize her, she framed the encounter that she was a "victim" of 'racial profiling' (see #3 in the cognitive contradictions listed above).

This is not the kind healthy self-esteem which allows a person to face real threats in the real world very effectively because the narcissist cannot deal effectively with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?.

That is why candidates like Obama are so attractive: because this same voting base that once adored Hillary now find her too too obvious and coarse, and have swung over to the unknown, tabula rasa candidate on whom they are able to project their own fantasies without any intrusion by harsh reality.

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides. Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one.

Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’état c’est moi” variety.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts. The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

This aristocratic arrogance that is characteristic of a typical narcissist makes them view all issues through the prism of their own sad little egos.

Let us turn for a moment to another great poobah of unrestrained narcissism and aristocratic arrogance; the pious and morally righteous ex-President Jimmy Carter; who provides a case demonstration of the those who claim genuine superiority over others. "James Taranto tells this pertinent story about Carter by way of John Sugg:

Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "

Geez. I have met many 6 year olds with a clearer grasp of morality than this tired old man who never met a dictator that he couldn't support; and who appears to think that if someone disagrees with him, then they are clearly against peace; against the poor and weak; against the environment; and for torture!

Just as Barack Obama and his sycophants (or Cynthia McKinney and hers) believe that anyone who challenges them must be racist.

These are examples of the two fundamental types of malignant narcissists -- the "grandiose" narcissist, whose exaggerated sense of self-importance is dominant; and the "idealistic" narcissist, whose exaggerated self-righteous veneer of concern for others masks an underlying obsession with imposing their views on everyone else.

Both types are a plague on humanity; and both represent well-traveled avenues and justifications for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" narcissist shares the same psychology as any thug, bully, or tyrant; while the "idealistic" narcissist is the basic psychological fodder for the many groups (run by the grandiose types) who desire to impose their beliefs onto others.

Most narcissists go back and forth between the two basic types, since they are actually flip sides of the same psychological coin. Aristocratic arrogance and pious self-righteousness might appear to be opposites at first glance, but they both are hallmarks of individuals who are unhealthily obsessed with their own sad, little selves.

ENVY

Gaghdad Bob at One Cosmos, took up this topic in "The Envy of the Left (or No Good News Goes Unpunished)"), and I will quote him at length:

According to Webster's, envy is defined as "malice," and a "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, joined with a desire to possess the same advantage." The psychoanalytic understanding of envy is that it is an unconscious fantasy aimed at attacking, damaging, or destroying what is good, because of the intolerable feeling that one does not possess and control the object of goodness. As such, it is an aspect of what Freud called the death instinct, since it ultimately involves a destructive attack on the sources of life and goodness. Particularly envious individuals cannot tolerate the pain of not possessing and controlling the "good object," so they preemptively spoil it so that they don't have to bear the pain.

What is critical--and so perverse--about envy, is that it is not an attack on "the bad" or frustrating, but a hateful attack on what is good. As a result, the psyche of such individuals confuses what is bad and what is good, and cannot experience a sense of gratitude toward the good, the sine qua non of happiness and mental health. The envious person does not want to have a relationship with the good object, but wants to be that object. If it cannot be the object, then it attacks it to eliminate the tension.

Yesterday was an instructive but disturbing case study in the many ways of envy. Here we had such wonderful news coming out of Iraq, but the left found a multitude of ways to devalue, attack, and "spoil" the news through their excessive envy--by ignoring it, by downplaying it, by qualifying it, and by completely assaulting it with near-psychotic delusions.

Bob goes on to detail the general discontent on the left when good news came out of Iraq during Bush's term. If you can recall back to that time, there was NEVER anything that was positive about that war for the left. All good news was twisted and made to appear bad. Harry Reid even went on about how the "war was lost", and this meme was repeated over and over again as the left sought to undermine any and all progress there. The MSM was entirely complicit in this.

Contrast this sharply to the accolades (albeit grudging at times) that many conservatives and Republicans gave to Obama for ordering the operationthat killed Bin Laden. I heard it repeatedly said, even on eeevil Fox News! Granted that they all would have preferred that the previous Administration had been successful at this; and were annoyed that Obama (in his usual arrogant "It's all about me" way took more than his share of the credit); but nevertheless, they managed to control their envy because they realized what a positive event this was for the country.

You would be loathe to find a progressive who, even today, is willing to give Bush any credit at all for his actions on behalf of the U.S. Everything Bush ever did was bad; the same things when Obama does them are wonderful beyond belief.

Bob concludes:

Envy is such an important but generally ignored concept, probably because people don't want to consider the sinister ways it operates in their own lives. But it is a key that unlocks many mysteries, particularly in politics. So strong and ubiquitous is envy, that you cannot have a political system that doesn't accommodate or find some way to manage envy. You might say that one party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones.

ENVY is, without doubt, the underlying emotion behind the Marxist trope, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". The "enlightened" and morally bankrupt left has always believed that economic self-interest means simply voting yourself a share of the money earned by others. They wouldn't know how to create wealth if their lives depended on it; that's why they seek power over others--they see it as the only way they can survive in the real world; but since they cannot admit that to themselves, they will seize other people's wealth with one hand, while signing the political bills that make it impossible to create the wealth on which they themselves depend.

The truth is that they deeply hate those who create the wealth they want to steal, and seek to destroy them--even though at some level, they understand they cannot survive without them.

They count on the fact that this reality never spoken of in polite society.

The envy of the postmodern progressive left is palpable. It is malignant and it consumes them. But they don't care. They have convinced themselves that they stand for things like "peace" and "freedom" and "truth"--but they have really chosen to ally themselves to the side of darkness and despair, slavery and oppression, lies and distortions; and they can no longer even appreciate when a truly magnificent achievement takes place before their very eyes unless they can claim credit for it.

ENTITLEMENT

What can I say about entitlement and the left's preoccupation with it that hasn't already been said? In this area, the political left's narcissism has run completely amok. Any challenge to their supposed superiority is met with rage. In typical projection, they perceive all opposition to them and their policies to be based on the most sinister of motives; people who oppose them are always characterized as lacking intelligence (never mind that Bush got better grades than Kerry--that fact was always downplayed because Bush had to be portrayed as stupid and inept).

This is how they puff up their own inadequate egos. But sadly, denigrating others is never enough for long to keep those egos inflated. They must find others to debase and destroy, like an addict who needs the high.

Narcissists always want more. Whatever you do is never good enough for them, and they also generally show no gratitute or express any thanks--even when someone goes out of their way for them. Like the most spoiled of royalty, they merely expect that they should be the center of your world at all times.

This attitude is normally seen in toddlers, who want what they want and they want it now. Every parent has had to deal with this kind of whining. When you see this attitude repeatedly in an adult, then you know you are dealing with psychopathology. Many adults whimper at the slightest inconvenience, delay, or restriction. Why? Because, like toddlers, they are convinced they deserve what they want when they want it. They are "entitled" to it.

And the left envision a entire society of entitlement. Their doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness are all designed to use entitlement as a justification for redistributing the wealth of others. Their various special victim groups are taught to see everything through the prism of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc. That way they can never mentally leave the ideology of the left and are trapped forever in it, demanding that their needs and feelings always be the first priority of others.

Case in point provided by Mark Steyn:

Since most of The Corner's metropolitan pantywaists seem to be cowering in terror from the light flurry devastating Washington this morning, let me offer this headline from the sports pages of The Seattle Weekly:

Gay, Mentally Challenged Biracial Male Cheerleader Claims Discrimination
He was allowed to join the high-school cheerleading team but was not given a set of pom-poms and was prevented from wiggling his hips. So naturally he wants Washington to take political action. This sounds like a job for Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel, with their well documented interest in biracial males and the mentally challenged.

In psychiatry we use the term "sense of entitlement" to describe the outrageous attitude of some of our more narcissistic clients who believe that the world "owes" them and they want to collect NOW.

This sense of entitlement has seeped into the culture and we have that good old progressive mentality to thank for it. The psychopathy such an attitude engenders is not a pretty sight. But there's a lot of blame to go around, starting with parents unwilling to set limits; as well as the entire worthless "self-esteem" movement that hypes self-esteem at the expense of self-responsibility and accountability.

All these factors have led to a culture of entitlement which encourages dysfunctional and highly antisocial behavior where the only concern is for one's own needs of the moment and their gratification. Many other factors in our culture reinforce this sort of behavior and even reward and enable it.

The influence of the cult of victimhood grows ever wider as the celebration of victimhood and the sense of entitlement promoted by a quasi-religious leftist/Marxist dogma has become a way of life.

As I have noted many times before, this sad situation has come about in part, because so many of the clueless individuals on the political left have an intense narcissistic need to see themselves as "champions of the oppressed"; hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion. Is it any wonder that our "gay, mentally challenged, biracial male cheerleader looks to government to solve all his problems and reimburse him for all his "suffering"?

This attitude also dovetails nicely into the Marxist dialectic (which is the foundation of the entitlement culture) and its greedy, grasping promotion of envy and egalitarianism. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans, Israelis; etc. etc) and the oppressed (everyone else).

The political left proudly stands in solidarity with the oppressed victims of the world; and it is worth noting that their stance is particularly ego-gratifying if those they champion are undeserving victims (i.e., similar to Alfred P. Doolittle's "undeserving poor"-- who have needs as great as the most deserving of victims; in fact, their needs are even greater).

We are seeing more and more ridiculous stories like the one to which Steyn links. Each one more ridiculous than the last in a never-ending attempt to out-entitle each other.

As you can see, there is quite a bit of overlap in the political left's use of Arrogance, Envy, and Entitlement in the field of politics. At the heart of each of these deadly sins is the belief that their ideology produces superior people with superior intellect, entitled to have power and rule over others. But the "superiority" and sense of entitlement that they desperately cling to is just a thin disguise for the deeper and darker emotions of envy and hatred of the good.

In Part III, the narcissistic sins of Exploitation and Bad Boundaries will be covered.

Have a good weekend!