CHAPTER EIGHT
PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
AND THE TOOLS THAT
RARELY LIE
Collectivism can be defined by two words: bad boundaries. Having bad boundaries is defined as the inability to understand, or unwillingness to respect, personal boundaries. This can be seen in contrast to individualism, which is characterized by healthy boundaries, personal tolerance, or the ability to understand and respect differences—to respect the individual’s right to personal choice, regardless of personal principles.
Collectivism goes hand in hand with stripping people of their individual rights. With any collectivist in office comes the drive for control of society. An infinite number of laws and regulations will be passed, growing and empowering the bureaucratic government further, and thereby limiting personal freedom by the minute. A recent attempt to further strip the Danish people of their freedom of individual choice can be seen with the Danish socialist government mandates in 2012 that proposed a law enforcing Danish parents to read bedtime stories to their children. This illustrates the perfect everyday-life example of democratic socialism and the severity of narcissism (bad boundaries) that drives collectivists. A collectivist is absolutely ready to strip anyone of their right to individual choice; for a collectivist, anything that feels or sounds right for them must also be right for everyone else.
The reason why the oppressive collectivist mentality originally caught my curiosity was that I found in my early observations that the farther left wing a person casts one’s vote, the more intense is the severity of their pathological narcissism. Today I differentiate between the collectivist and the individualist only through observing signs of narcissistic traits. Collectivists are master manipulators, pathological liars, who in almost unlimited various ways not only try to mislead those around them but also live in an entirely altered reality that allows them to convince themselves of their own deception. Only when one is really convinced of one’s own lies can one truly persuade others to believe those lies.
Marxists, and collectivists in general, can create any pathological illusion. Using wordplay such as “solidarity” as justification for tyranny and the exploitation of the general public, or using terminology such as “tax” to justify extortion, perfectly allows collectivists to twist reality, utilizing this wordplay perfectly, as the collectivists’ pathological mind game. Moreover, by referring to democratic socialism as “welfare,” or affixing the word “social” on a word, or introducing “social” in a sentence (e.g., socialism and social-liberalism), collectivists can create misperception of being or feeling social. Modern collectivists have distorted the term “liberalism” as can be seen with Marxists referring to themselves as liberals, while in reality they support intentionally growing government control as well as limiting the liberties of the nation’s citizenry. Thus, “liberals,” collectivists, contradict the very basic principles of liberalism, which among other descriptions is defined by freedom and equal standing under a non-intrusive government. Social liberalism, or liberal socialism, a perceived ideology, is a great example of these numerous Marxist attempts at twisting the truth. Marxists use liberalism as a camouflage, thereby enabling them to implement totalitarian-collectivism.
The opportunities to delude are plentiful and work perfectly on the frail and ignorant mind. Thus, only the psyche is relevant. After using the tools given in this book and having some practice with them, and given a few minutes of observing behavior and narcissistic traits, anyone with modest insight into the psychological tools of pathological narcissism will be able to identify a person’s level of self-esteem—the severity of the person’s egocentrism/narcissism—and thereby pinpoint where this person likely votes on the political scale.
Note: In consideration for the developing ego in adolescents and younger children, for a psychiatric diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) to be given the person must be no less than eighteen years of age. The undeveloped personality lacks independence and may be swayed through coercion to embrace the ideals of parents, friends, and society. Therefore, it is generally recommended not to use these tools on people who have not yet reached their late twenties.
Whether the parties identify themselves as left wing or right wing, the whole of the Danish Parliament is a body of collectivists. The Danish Parliament includes eight political parties of Parliament spread out over the entire left wing (from communists, socialists, and fascists to social liberals)—all of which perfectly represent the political spectrum and voters facilitating the entire Democratic Party in America—each and every one a collectivist party that operates in breach of personal boundaries. Thus, having created an imaginary right wing, Denmark’s farthest right politics are what most of the Western world would deem center-left wing. Denmark, therefore, creates the perfect facility for social-psychological research, with each party allowing social observations of their unique variations in psychopathy, narcissistic traits.
Psychopathic narcissism is seen frequently in collectivists—likely in more than two-thirds of the population—scattered over the entire left-wing political scale. Of course these figures refer to a society that has achieved neo-communism, such as Denmark’s. Without a strong political right wing and the subsequent liberated mentality to embrace benign envy—the shoulder clap mentality that encourages self-assured behavior endorsing strong self-acceptance—the interminable collectivist suppression is immense.
Accordingly, averaging at least seven easily observable narcissistic tendencies, the most severe form of pathological narcissism, psychopathic narcissism, is easily identifiable on the (radical) left wing in the deeply arrogant and scornfully envious, working-class communist and socialist parties. This sadistic behavior (malignant narcissism) expresses the true characteristic of extreme pathological narcissism. With expectations of being treated entirely as equals without mandatory achievement and entirely unable to distinguish between self and society, these narcissists frequently even dress in accordance with their equilibrium and inferiority-complex fantasies, so as not to appear better than anyone.
Being an academic in democratic socialism only defines what it is to be well educated in anything that does not contradict the core principles of Marxism. The socialist-democrat party—with their ideals of entirely equal opportunities for all without mandatory achievement— is frequently facilitated by voters who hold higher academic degrees. And as a result of better education, socialist democrats frequently appear self-assured. These highly self-regarding and high-flying narcissists, consequently, can often easily disguise their excessive self-importance and truly arrogant and scornfully envious behavior since the symptoms of severe pathological narcissism frequently elude the untrained eye.
While all communists and socialists turn to chauvinism (grandiose sensations of nationalistic or moral superiority) to create a “shared psychosis,” a folie à deux, the national socialists, also knowns as national fascists—although, definite socialists—stand out from other socialists. National socialists, similar to other socialists, in fact believe in social equality. However, national socialists—being racially motivated— believe that only certain superior races, groups, or nationalities are entitled. National socialists utilize “nationalistic feelings of superiority” and create broad politics extending all over the left-wing scale, from the far-left left wing (communist and socialist politics) to Denmark’s imaginary right wing. This makes them quite different from all other socialist parties that every so often turn to employ nationalistic feelings of superiority but generally favor the more elusive feelings of chauvinism. Socialist parties—including the communist party—generally turn to employ “excessive moral superiority” (Machiavellian egocentricity) by utilizing superficial sympathy and the weapon of guilt through framing their politics as to care for society’s weakest. They do so by means of blame externalization by dumping shame on the “farther right” political parties, and so, create a folie à deux. A potent political personality sphere is achieved through narcissistic supply, shared fantasies of excessive moral superiority. High self-regard is attained throughout the far-left left wing’s collective human organism through preoccupation with succeeding at developing the perfect utopian society without any poverty, where all people have equal opportunities and are treated entirely as equals. They desire to accomplish all this while, most importantly, enabling socialist and communist parties to appear empathetic, generous, and thoughtful—the perfect pathological illusion of superficial sympathy— disguising their true tyrannical intent.
Socialists utilizing “sensations of moral superiority” are indeed very different from the national socialists (who favor politics spread across the entire left wing) and tend to lean on the left wing’s imaginary right-wing collectivist politics. Consequently, they are hindered to some extent from utilizing chauvinistic tools of excessive moral superiority. As an alternative, they turn to obvious prejudicial politics: often chauvinistic hate tactics and blame externalization, such as racism. Narcissistic supply is achieved through chauvinism—generally collective “feelings of national superiority”—allowing national socialists to create broad politics all over the entire left-wing scale.
There exists an erroneous perception that Hitler, a national socialist, and his hateful collectivistic, fascist ideals of national supremacy were aligned with genuine individualistic right-wing politics. Ideals perceivably used by Hitler’s national socialists have often been referred to as “right-wing authoritarianism” (big government and control), though one might see this as an oxymoron. The truth is that there are extremists and chauvinists everywhere on the political scale. What I find mind-boggling is how ideals built on right-wing cornerstones (individualism, small government and personal freedom) and patriotism (being loyal to the success and future of one’s country) in its extreme form—undisputedly being ultimate freedom and even lesser government—ever ended up as an oxymoron of totalitarian collectivism, big government, and collectivist feelings of national superiority (the devotion to the country’s people, race, bloodline, and the earth). Thus, one cause, among others, for this twisted worldwide misperception that the national socialists were genuine right wingers is the ability of the national socialists to grab politics from almost anywhere on the political scale in conjunction with the invention of the imaginary right wing on the political left.
With collectivism’s attempt to succeed at creating social equality, utter societal assimilation truly has been accomplished. One of many results of which is severe pathological narcissism. Severe inferiority complexes have led to extreme chauvinistic feminism, where Marxist women have become fiercely masculine and almost androgynous in appearance. Marxist feminists often divorce their husbands in search of independence, yet they remain dependent, marrying the government the next day. Feminist chauvinists, or feminazis, are often in rejection of gender roles, and are entirely controlling of their surroundings, so much so that it has more or less emasculated the Danish males. Forget the Vikings. This explains my wife’s impression of Danish men when she first met me. She often expressed confusion at the Danish male’s emasculated appearance and behavior, which in absolutely no way is meant as an attempt to denigrate Danish men, but she literally thought most Danish males were homosexuals. Feminist chauvinism has gone so far that one is likely to receive a backlash when acting a bit conservative and gentlemanly enough to show a kind gesture such as holding the door open for a woman.
The Radical Socialist Party—the farther right socialists—is generally occupied by feminist chauvinists as well as by voters of higher academics, similar to the Socialist Democrat party. This socialist political party is, however, unique: unlike the farther left left-wing socialist parties in which females dress more womanly, the farther right socialists tend to appear androgynous. As well as being dissimilar, being that this is the first political party on the left wing’s imaginary right wing— these socialists deceitfully portray themselves as liberals—employing a combination of the usual socialist sensations of moral superiority, thus generally portraying themselves as better at economics. Although, more curious is the unique change in behavior on the political scale of extreme pathological narcissism. This is demonstrated by a slight change in their narcissistic tendency of arrogance, by a tiny transformation from the usual compulsive denial to a minutely more observant behavior.
Supporters of the further right, which are Denmark’s center-left– wing collectivist parties—the social-conservative party and social-liberal party—all show clear signs of pathological narcissism, though severities vary. Thus, severe levels of pathological narcissism are frequent. On the whole, levels of pathological narcissism tend to be slightly more moderate. The excessive malignant narcissism (scornful envy and arrogance) found on the farther left wing, consequently, appears to be replaced on the imaginary right wing with contemptuousness, negative attitude, or haughty behavior. Hence, across the left-wing spectrum of the Danish political parties, projections are still frequent.
In the farthest right collectivist politics, and Denmark’s newest potential political hope, founded in 2009, lies the farthest right party in Danish politics. Thus, roughly three-quarters of the voters are collectivists, generally social liberals deprived by obvious, though generally moderate, levels of pathological narcissism. While believing themselves to be right wingers, only one-quarter of these political voters make up Denmark’s actual somewhat centrist group. These people still have the urge to clarify themselves excessively when confronted with reality or with being wrong, which is a significant indicator of the inability to process shame in healthy ways. This lack of responsibility for errors is the reason why the left wing deserves the title, “magical thinkers of infinite excuses.” Oppose this to the truly liberated mind—the mind of a person who comfortably accepts criticism and acknowledges personal mistakes.
Severe pathological narcissism—the oppressive collectivist mentality—is completely obscured by the deception that one-quarter of the Danish populace, the farther right socialists (radical socialists, social conservatives, and social liberals)—the imaginary right wing—refer to themselves as liberals. This allows society to live in the perfect pathological illusion that the collectivist’s maladaptive behavior and severe inferiority complexes are normal. In addition, the collectivist’s excessive sense of entitlement—the inability to distinguish between self and other (bad boundaries)—perfectly establishes the misapprehension that confident self-encouragement and self-assured right-wing individualistic curiosity, openness, and criticism is to be perceived as abnormal. I have personally met no more than about twenty to thirty genuine freedom enthusiasts in Denmark. I believe that out of the roughly 5.5 million people that make up Denmark’s entire population, the actual number of individualistic right-wingers does not exceed 30,000.
While all radical collectivists are indisputably driven by pathological narcissism, collectivists can be categorized in two ways as assessed by the inability or unwillingness to recognize personal boundaries: (1) truly mentally deprived persons—communists, socialists, and fascists driven by extreme pathological narcissism (bad boundaries) who are completely unable to distinguish between self and other, and can be referred to as subjugators; and (2) collectivists—the imaginary right-wing’s social conservatives and social liberals—who are driven by moderate to high levels of pathological narcissism, and are unwilling, rather than unable, to recognize personal boundaries, and who can be referred to as subservient, radicalized by society’s egomaniacs, and therefore, coerced by self-intimidation and mentally subdued by anxiety, co-dependency, and personal feelings of guilt.
This is not to say that libertarians, “true liberals”—known in present times as “classical liberals” renamed by the collectivist’s modern socialist liberal deception—can’t have low self-esteem or be driven by severe pathological narcissism. Signs implying low self-esteem are often racism and prejudices. Easy signs for the untrained eye to observe in identifying higher levels of pathological narcissism are (1) the inability to distinguish between self and other, (2) the inability to process shame in natural ways, (3) the inability to act responsibly upon personal actions, and (4) exploitation of others for personal gain. These can be seen as contrasts to signs of high self-esteem such as being curious, open, observant, positively self-critical, and outgoing in general.
AN EVERYDAY STORY
Just after the Danish election in 2011, I attended a public victory meeting held by Denmark’s newest political party, the center-left wing and farthest right in Danish politics, to celebrate the party’s arrival as a new member of Parliament. Speeches were made and about an hour into the meeting delegates were given a chance to ask questions. A male stood up, and with uncertainty as to if he was about to cry, he said in a wailing voice, “How can we convince people that we are not evil? I have ineffectively tried to explain to family and friends that we simply want to save the welfare state.” In this instance I thought to myself that this is the perfect example of how effective the left wing’s emotional terrorism is, and how forcefully collectivist narcissistic coercion can subdue the individual self.
Truly ironic is when asking a collectivist if a person with low self-esteem or someone who has been brainwashed would be aware of being in those states. The instantaneous compulsive answer—with almost no exceptions—always is “yes!” I have therefore on several occasions—for research purposes—intentionally pushed these exact buttons, triggering the collectivist’s impulses to act defensively upon their feelings of severe inferiority. Proving them instantly wrong by writing down the exact outcome—words, reactions, and even sentences—prior to the discussion and thereby proving the ability to predict their exact reactions. However, even with proof sitting right there in front of them—again not wanting to expose their ignorance—through personal illusion (magical thinking), they will completely deny acting subconsciously on behalf of these inhibitions.
Confronting collectivists with facts is one way to obstruct their magical thinking. To get them to admit anything contrary to the collective thought is no different than getting any justice system to admit misconduct: one gets nowhere. Confrontations only provoke collectivists to act defensively upon their deprived narcissistic emotions.
The collectivists’ techniques of manipulation can be predicted in detail, as can their reactions. Although collectivists are truly elusive, with the right insight one can easily corner them; their reactions are so predictable that a debate can be scripted beforehand.