Search Box

Monday, April 7, 2014

Political movements as personality disorders

The essence of narcissistic personality disorder is that people who have it can never admit they're wrong, and can never take blame. No matter how badly they screw up, narcissists will never own up to mistakes: it's always someone else's fault. We've all known people like this.

People who will never admit they're wrong can never learn from their mistakes, and as a result are rarely right.

When you have an entire political ideology based on the inability to take blame and a commensurate need to blame others, you can be sure that ideology is deluded.

The essence of feminism is blaming others -- i.e., men -- for all of women's problems. Most women don't subscribe to this type of thinking. But if you're the type who doesn't like to ever admit fault, it's an attractive belief system.

Don't earn as much as you'd like? It's men's fault.

Don't like the fact that you can't have a full time career and also be a full time mother? It's men's fault.

Don't like the fact that the fireman's test requires one to be able to lift a 160 pound dummy and carry it across a room? It's men's fault.

Feel worthless? It's the fault of our patriarchal society that values men more.

Aren't considered pretty? Men need to be reprogrammed.

Men can be used as scapegoats for everything.

Feminism is essentially a narcissistic political movement. This is not to say that there is no truth to anything the feminists say. But for the most part, feminists are the types who must lay blame for their own lack of accomplishment, or personal issues, or faults, elsewhere.

When you think about it, most liberal thought runs along these lines: it's rich people's fault that the poor have less money. It's white people's fault that black people don't test well. It's the fault of the Group of Eight that Third World countries remain less developed.

Feminism, like most of liberalism, is just narcissism writ large.

11 comments:

Quartermain said...

I think the entire left (feminasties, race hustlers, guilt trippers, identity politicians) is run by sociopaths and the neo-cons are almost just as bad.

John Craig said...

Allan --
I agree, a lot of the hustlers who take advantage of political correctness are sociopaths. I think a lot of people who simply believe in it aren't evil, though, they're just dumb sheep.

Anonymous said...

True, most people who appear to support the liberals are just followers who never put much thought into the logical results of the liberal agenda.

I was one of those followers, and gradually realized the mistakes of liberalism. Thankfully I had 2 good professors in college who pushed me to question leftists ideology and met some good friends who were conservative or libertarian which helped me see the flaws in the liberal view. They did not push their ideology on me, I was just curious how they came to their conclusions and ended up seeing their view were more logical than the leftists.

my parents and both my grandfathers were democrats, who bought into some of the liberal agenda, but voted democrat mostly because they saw republicans as the party of the wealthy. while my father and grandfathers were not fully comfortable with the leftward tilt of the democratics, they never trusted the Republican party. My grandfather could not bring himself to vote for Bill Clinton, so chose not to vote while my father held his nose and voted for Clinton. I chose to vote Libertarian starting in 1992, and never bothered voting in 1988 when I was 19.

Most people have too many other concerns and don't bother paying much attention to the ideology behind the feminists. Unfortunately the feminist movement has hurt females the most, by demeaning housewives and women who choose motherhood over having a career. My sister made this mistake, waited too long to try for kids but missed her opportunity. at least she has a good career, but will never have children. Some of the girls I dated in college find themselves in the same situation today, thinking they could wait and put off getting married or having children and now they regret the decisions they made in their twenties.

John Craig said...

Anon (Allan?) --
Your comment exudes good sense. First off, it made much more sense to be a Democrat back in the 50's and 60's, before they became the part of political correctness. They were were for integration, which I'll admit has had mixed results, but is the fair (and right) thing. They were against Viet nam, and back then feminism consisted of giving women the opportunity to do things they hadn't been given a chance to do before.

But in the past few decades the Dems have slid into a sort of cultural Marxism and rigidness of thought and, really, censorship, that doesn't allow for any free thought or realistic appraisals of human differences.

And yes, the Republican are the part of big business, both then and now.

Your gradual evolution is very commonsensical.

Sorry about your sister. I've known others in the same situation. It's why they call Manhattan an "ovary graveyard." All these women concerned with getting ahead, living up to their Ivy League degrees etc, and before they know it, the motherhood option has dried up. Some of them wouldn't have made god mothers in the first place, but many of them would have, had they not been brainwashed into thinking they could have it all.

Baloo said...

You're running on all cylinders lately. This is reblogged, and, if I say so myself, very prettily quibcagged thus:
When feminism is explained clearly, you wonder why you didn't understand it before — It's not an ideology, it's a mental condition.

Anonymous said...

people forget the democrats were not as leftist in the 60s and they were the War party, getting us involved in WW I , Korea and Vietnam.

one of my grandfathers was somewhat political, as a democrat and an officer in the Army, he often gave speeches at schools in support of the Vietnam war and was an avid anti-communist , like JFK and many other democrats in the 60s. While he probably voted for Carter in 1976, he did support Reagan in the 1980s

my other grandfather owned a tavern and never discussed politics. He would never want to offend a customer and kept his views to himself. As a bar owner he was able to avoid paying taxes on most of his business. It was not hard to do in the 60s and 70s so the tax issue was not much of a concern to him. While today it is much harder to evade income taxes, and too many people pay with credit cards.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Yes, you're absolutely right about the Democrats getting us into wars. They were the peaceniks when it came to Viet Nam; basically everyone supported invading Afghanistan (we went in three months after 9/11), and most Senators voted in favor of invading iraq as well, though of the minority of dissenters were Democrats. And yes, a lot of JFK's positions would be considered arch-conservative today.

Your tavern-owner grandfather was smart; it's big-mouths like me who tend to get themselves into trouble and close off doors for themselves.

Anonymous said...

I was thinking about this the other day when the BBC programme 'University Challenge' was criticised for not insisting on having more women on the show. It's not up to the BBC to decide - it's the universities that pick who will represent them on their teams. Now the feminists are saying that the BBC should ban all-male teams altogether. There is a reason the teams are mostly male: more men apply to go on the show. What feminists want here is not equal treatment (they have that already as there's nothing stopping them from applying to go on the show), but preferential treatment - they want spaces specifically allocated for women, even if the female contestants are not as good as the males.

It's the same principle in politics - feminists are complaining that most MPs are male, yet it's mainly men standing for election in the first place. If women do not put their names on the ballot paper, how are they supposed to be elected? The feminists clearly want to be pandered to without putting in any work.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
You've just put your finger on the essence of feminism in particular, and liberalism in general.

Back in the 50's and 60's, civil rights was all about getting rid of double standards. Now "civil rights" are all about enforcing double standards.

It's sickening, and what's particularly sickening about it is the way the chief proponents of "civil rights" are so self-righteous about their cause, as if they are somehow rectifying wrongs by wanting these new double standards enforced. Any fair-minded person judges people as individuals, not as a member of their group. But, evidently, not any longer.

Steven said...

There has been some good research into the psychological natures of people with different political orientations from Jordan Peterson and one of his students. These are some of the findings:

PC authoritarians are high in agreeableness (compassion) but low in verbal IQ, high in neuroticism (distress levels) and low in openess (orderly rather than creative). I could sum this up as stupid and hysterical but with some kind of good hearted motivation too.

PC egalitarians (politically correct but not authoritarian) are high in compassion, high in verbal IQ, high in openess (creative rather than orderly and conscientious).

The openess dimension (creativity vs conscientiousness) explains why liberals tend to start companies and conservatives tend to run them.

Right wing authoritarians are low in compassion, low in verbal IQ, low in openess.

In fact, the main thing that differentiates PC and right wing authoritarians is the levels of agreeableness or compassion. I don't know about you but this seems true to me. I've said more than once before on this blog that the liberals I know (females as it happens) seem like especially compassionate people, although I think it leads them to accept 'nice ideas' that aren't true and not face reality in certain ways.

I never heard about the right wing non-authoritarians- I guess libertarians- but I'm guessing high IQ, lower compassion, higher conscientiousness, lower neuroticism. Men in general are lower in neuroticism and openess than women so its very much a masculine vs feminine way of seeing the world.

In fact, today's liberalism is very much a feminine phenomenon. Its related to the maternal psyche. There is an instinct to protect and nurture but at its extreme, it infantilises those it seeks to protect.

John Craig said...

Steven --
A lot of good points. I don't like authoritarians of either stripe; never have. Their need for control makes them unpleasant to be around, and I'd associate that quality in general with narcissistic personality disorder.

I also agree that liberalism in general expresses more of a "female" point of view: more compassionate, less logical.

And yes, those who are protected under the liberal regime become infantilized, hence the double standards on gender and race.