PREDICTING A DEBATE
When confronted with reality, textbook left-wing collectivists show typical signs:
(1) Compulsive denial, often followed by projections or by diverting attention to another subject. This is caused by magical thinking and, therefore, is generally mounted with an arrogant attitude and haughty behavior. Females often turn toward expressing self-importance. Without any actual insight or knowledge, they are still absolutely convinced they know the truth. Without any intent of learning or listening, they always know better. This quite quickly proves their arrogant ignorance (magical thinking), and therefore, their absolutely deprived omniscient mindset.
(2) The weapon of guilt is now used to coerce—attempted dominance is often achieved through manipulation or reverse psychology—with frequent blame externalization and projections of moral superiority by dumping shame. Nonetheless, since the collectivist thrives in ignorance, one should always challenge their knowledge. Ask and demand they define their previously used terms or subjects as well as their frequently used condemnations. Always demand straight yes or no answers. This will aggravate them and again lead to denial, often switching to another subject, in combination with infinite excuses, “buts” and “ifs,” and oftentimes, intimidation, name-calling, and even aggression. If a narcissistic injury has not occurred by now, the collectivist is either a female or the person’s level of pathological narcissism is likely moderate; however, pushing the debate much further will result in narcissistic injury.
(3) Collectivists live in a grandiose fantasy world of superficial sympathy. As a result of subconscious self-pity, they believe themselves to be motivated by caring for the welfare of others. In addition, there are the usual reverse psychological catchphrases (e.g., “How can anyone be insinuating that my wanting to help people in any way makes me selfish?”). Behind this message of altruism, the magical illusion of unity and selflessness, is always the collectivist’s factual egocentric agenda, or what they personally acquire from collectivism. Therefore, always direct the collectivist back to the true subject: their own personal needs. My usual argument against collectivist statements is to say, “If you want to help others, then vote for fewer taxes and give away what is rightfully yours: your own time and money that you do not need.” But then again, that is not what the collectivist wants, because this form or action demands responsibility, ambition, and the risk of failure.
(4) Their narcissistic egos are exposed and feeling cornered—this being the resultant narcissistic injury, or clear signs of bad boundaries (entitlement)—creating the pathological delusion that you, the perpetrator, are an awkward or difficult person. Hence, the collectivist now generally resorts to leaving the premises, usually mounted by condemnations, in some way implementing the weapon of guilt, and in the process, generally applying anger and attitude, including attitudinal body language, aggression, and name-calling. They will likely never talk to you again. However, as the victor of the debate, all you can do is to sit back and wait for the storm. Setting up people against one another is their absolute area of expertise. They will never back down.
Quick tools to easily spot a collectivist and the signs of pathological narcissism:
Subconscious fears and feelings of inadequacy and exposure in perfect combination with the lack of ability to be self-critical—caused by feeling perfect—generally cause defensive contempt for any therapeutic processes; a great indicator of pathological narcissism is, therefore, quite simply denial that psychology is beneficial. Psychology provides truly powerful tools that rarely lie, and thus act as the strongest weapon against collectivism, of which a war of words must be fought.
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
—MAHATMA GANDHI
A PERSONAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENT
One of the easiest ways to prove how predictable collectivists truly are is with the social experiment that follows: When shopping at the supermarket, after having placed the groceries on the checkout conveyor belt, experiment with the simple act of not placing down the checkout divider, the gadget that one uses to distinguish one’s groceries from the next customer’s.
With almost no exceptions, this failure to act in accordance with subliminal rules will set off the collectivist’s excessive sense of entitlement and will frequently result in irritation, argumentation, projections, and oftentimes name-calling. The experiment is a perfect example of deception that drives collectivists to believe that they are given a personal choice in democratic socialism. The illusion of selflessness and the concern for the welfare of others are but co-dependent measures to avoid feeling personal guilt.
This example works perfectly in a radicalized collectivist society, thus the recommendation is for this social experiment to be attempted more than once. More cultural freedoms and individual choice can be measured in the accruing narcissistic behaviors; hence, falsely perceived by collectivists as social norms, these are brought forth in this social experiment.
Please don’t fool yourself, as here the collectivist again alters reality. The following example has absolutely nothing to do with common courtesy as you can assure yourself that the next person in the checkout line, in one way or another with the intent to create guilt, will show signs of disapproval or utter their dissatisfaction. In reality, these principles are decided by the collective human organism. Triggered by co-dependency, more or less all collectivists will automatically obtain immediate guilt if they don’t place down this divider.
Truly unique is the collectivist’s amazing ability to show disapproval without actually using any words. As mentioned previously, passive coercion is often accomplished in public simply by staring. This undermining collectivist technique, one that is truly effective on the frail mind, is applied in various ways in an attempt to create guilt.
In the example above—the checkout divider social experiment— disapproval is often made known with a silent statement of calmly squashing or pushing oneself past the person who did not place the checkout divider or by banging it down as one roughly places the divider or the groceries on the conveyor belt.
When a person in the queue before me kindly places the divider for me, I always thank them. In response, they do not generally turn toward me to acknowledge my kind comment. If they turn toward me, often they instead look at me with absolute amazement or contempt. Driven by a strong sense of entitlement, of course they take this seemingly curious gesture for granted.
Though the true question to ask in this social experiment would be this: can anything be about common courtesy—like the altruistic illusion of selflessness that is perceived in collectivism as voluntary— when the individual’s right to personally determine if one wants to show a kind gesture is actually predetermined? That is, predetermined by the fact that an inaction as simple as this can trigger people to go noticeably mental. Actions of common courtesy are not truly actions of a kind gesture but are actually measures of expectation applied to avoid confrontations or feelings of personal guilt; therefore, in reality, they are actions of co-dependency and are not truly kind gestures at all.
“Don’t become a mere recorder of facts, but try
to penetrate the mystery of their origin.”
—IVAN PAVLOV