What Will The Future Bring Under Obama? (NPD in a president)

zimbio.com ^ | Nov-26-08 | Ali Sina

[ransomnote]

This is what narcissists do best. They give vacuous promises, paint their own bogus world in all the colors of the rainbow and hype their audiences with false hopes. If you are an Arab living in a desert and all you can think about is sex and gluttony, they will promise you a paradise of orgy and debauchery with rivers of water, honey, milk and wine. If you are a proud German, defeated and humiliated, they will promise you mastery over all other races. If you are an American, have everything, are bored with opulence and do not know what you want, they promise you change without telling you about the nature of that change. As long as it is change, you don’t care one way or another. To Iranians, Khomeini promised democracy. That is what they actually wanted. What a rude awakening they had! I wonder whether other species are as stupid as we humans are? Animals don’t seem to be so enthusiastic about their own self-destruction.

Obama has described himself as “a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Sometimes all we have to do is to listen and the truth comes out. This is the most telling revelation that he is a narcissist. You can’t describe narcissism in better words.

[ransomnote]

This article explores, in a rather unique way, observations that contribute to the theory that Obama is a pathological narcissist. It starts out in a vague manner and I was unclear at first where the author was leading - and then it gets much better. The author weaves history and observation together and eventually begins to develop a set of predictions about what will happen during Obama's presidency based on world history and the opinion that Obama is a narcissist like other tyrants. The author's predictions (written a year ago) for an Obama presidency are quite dire - the article is uneven and sometimes veers into hyperbole but then it lands on details about Obama that come together well and that I haven't seen pulled together and synthesized like this anywhere else. IMHO it's worth reading but sometimes stumbles before getting back on track to portray the possible outcome of the worst US presidency ever.

[ransomnote]

PS: I did a quick search on the author before posting. I am impressed that he is a Muslim who has rejected that religion as oppressive and violent and now he apparently deflects routine criticism he receives from other Muslims with direct unflinching bluntness.

[kalee]

for later

[nathanbedford]

This is a fascinating article which sacrificed some credibility by over reaching with its rhetoric. Nevertheless, I find myself in agreement with the bulk of the analysis and for the reasons which I expressed in these two vanities which I think anticipates much of what is in this article:

THE OBAMA PATHOLOGY

Saturday, October 04, 2008 11:52:25 PM · 1 of 21 nathanbedford The idea of the Authoritarian Personality originated in The Frankfurt School as a means of undermining the position of the father within the family circle and thereby undermine the family itself and ultimately the nation as a bulwark against communism. It was heavily larded with pseudo-Freudian analysis and was expanded to subvert all institutionalized authority. Every season we see an article, usually by some college professor with too much time in his hands or sometimes by psychiatrists acting either singly or in gaggles, opining that the current president, if he be Republican, is somehow psychologically deficient. No Republican president or Republican candidate in my lifetime has escaped this ritual psychoanalysis.

A recent excrescence of this genre is the book by Naomi Wolf in which she ludicrously argues that America, led by George Bush, is on the verge of descending into fascism. I have posted my objection to this sort of pseudoscience and I have tried to debunk this cheap propaganda so I am reluctant to engage hypocritically in the same game now. Well, I am going to do it anyway. I aim to indict about half of our whole society. The half, and likely more than half, that will vote for Barak Obama. My psychological conclusions do not pretend to the trappings of the "science" of the psyche and adorned with the word games of Freudian analysis, rather they are rooted in common sense.

The conclusion of anyone with common sense who has seen the films of innocent children singing their Obama songs or who has watched the quasi-military chanting and saluting of the Obama Youth in military garb must conclude that there is something very, very wrong with these people. I remember when I first saw the YouTube Children singing their Obama song I became conscious after a while that my mouth was gaping open, so appalled was I. My reaction to seeing the paramilitary gang marching into the karate hall was a mixture of embarrassment that these kids would make such fools of themselves and anger that adults would so brazenly manipulate children. Then I felt a creeping sense of unease that there was something potentially very sinister going on. Dear merciful God, this is Orwellian!

Beyond a very healthy repugnance to the spectacle of brainwashed children put on display, beyond the inescapable Maoist symbolism of it all, a commonsense person asks, what kind of man would permit this to go on in his name? What kind of parent would not seek to protect his child from such a man? What kind of pathology would lead parents who presumably love their children to consign those children to the demons of mind control? How could Americans fall for such a transparent cult of personality?

Unfortunately, we need not be uncertain about what kind of man would permit this grotesquerie to be advanced in his name. History provides us with plenty of examples: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Il come to mind and now we add Barak Obama to the list. Why has he not spoken out and repudiated this? Would not a decent man do so if only for the children?

If Obama will not speak out now as a candidate when a little modesty, even false modesty, would advance his chances, what will he do when he gains office with no resistance anywhere on the horizon; no opposition in either the House or the Senate, no voice in traditional media to be raised against him, no institutional resistance on a national level of any kind organized to discourage him? Because he condones this obscenity one must ask, Is Obama really a narcissist as has been claimed? If so, how far will he go when he has the levers of power in his hands when there is no effective resistance to his ego?

How dangerous is Barak Obama?

Is he too dangerous to be put in a place where he could literally get us all killed? Or Is he the indispensable man in some sense? I do not think so. There is nothing in his career that suggests that he is the man for this season. In a time of war he has no military experience. In a time of looming financial disaster, he has no economic credentials. If he is potentially dangerous and if he is not indispensable, why would so many people want to put him in a position where he could do us harm, even get us all killed?

My commonsense explanation is that there must be a pathology, a mass psychosis, that brings people to the point where not only are they eager to make him the most powerful man in the world but they are invoking his name and calling upon him to be their savior. This they do rather than falling on their knees out of fear of The Real God. This is the Obama pathology.

To a middle-class conservative who instinctively rejects conspiracy theories and normally wants to think the best of people because that's what he learned in Sunday school, this deification of an empty suit is as bewildering as it is frightening. What in the world are these people thinking? Do they not weigh the risks of consigning their fate to an unqualified man, worse, a person tainted his whole life with stunningly dangerous confederates including felons and Communists and terrorists? What is the upside? What is it about this man whose career is utterly uninterrupted by any accomplishment which would motivate these people to risk their children and my children to whatever he might do to them? How do they know? How can they be sure? Don't they have any doubts?

My problem is that I am seeking after that which I cannot find. I want to find an explanation in logic for a phenomenon of emotion. It is easy for middle-class conservatives to overlook the power of emotion even though history provides plenty of examples even within our own culture in America. Can logic explain why so many drank Jim Jone's Kool aid? Why Charles Manson commanded such blood loyalty? How many cheered OJ Simpson's acquittal? Why did princes Diana's passing traumatize a nation? These are not questions which are answered with everyday commonsense. One almost has to go to the Bible to see the answer in Old Testament allegory which lets us know that evil is and there will always be worshipers of the golden calf.

I fear that in November we conservatives might find ourselves involuntarily embarked upon a journey that is foreign to our epistemology. We may be going into dark places and we might well be pushed into a netherworld where our common sense values are of no use because it is a place where down is up and black is white, a place where gravity does not pull but pushes, a place where we will need a pocket translator in order to converse in English with our government, our children's teachers, and our keepers even though they superficially use the same words we do. We sense we are about to be overwhelmed by forces guided by the ghost of Saul Alinsky.

I fear the downside of the Obama Pathology after his election may extend to dimensions we cannot begin to fasten to our everyday understanding or to our common sense. We have no way of knowing what will come because we don't know anything really about Barak Obama. We do not know if he is purely evil, we do not know if he is a committed communist, we do not know if he is a racist, we do not know if he wishes to see the submergence of the United States into a greater world order, we do not know if he is a megalomaniac, we do not even know, God help us, if he hates America. We do not know, in short, if we are backs - to- the- wall confronted with the Liberals' quadrennial nightmare: A real Authoritarian Personality.

We do know that Barak Obama has already encouraged a cult of personality whose implications are truly frightening and fundamentally un-American.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................

About one month ago in response to an article which appeared here a Free Republic recounting Obama's achievements in organizing the voter drive in the Illinois which led to the election of Carol Moseley Braun, I commented as appears below. At that time I did not draw a distinction between a sociopath (public model for which to me has always been Bill Clinton) and a narcissist. As you point out, I am still not sure that the distinction is valid or at least useful.

And I am very wary of indulging in a favorite pastime of the left which is to psychoanalyze Republican candidates to their discredit. On the other hand, can one truly understand Richard Nixon if one does not put searchlight on the Demons? Can one understand the near superhuman drive of Lyndon Johnson without seeing a super human ego? The distinction between Nixon and Johnson on the one hand and Obama on the other hand is twofold: the former two have real accomplishments to their credit and Obama, as I try to point out in my reply below, does not. Nixon and Johnson in their own way betrayed personal foibles which illuminated their psychological conditions. But Obama does not philander, does not drink, at least in excess, maintains a healthy workout regimen, in public at least is always in possession of his savoir-faire, and his worst personal character flaw seems to be an occasional furtive cigarette.

Indeed, the opposite is true, he asked almost perfect pitch for his audience. If one listens to the replay of the old public radio tape of his calling for a civil rights movement to redistribute wealth, one would swear one was listening to it professional announcer on National Public Radio. When he addresses SEIU Or Acorn he can get down for the struggle. He has no difficulty whatever in appearing presidential. The man is a chameleon-a sign of a sociopath.

The article poses a warning which I think bears attention:

As things go badly wrong and adulation turns into antagonism, we may see a very different side of Obama than he has succeeded in presenting to the public during the past two years.

I have been posting for a long time that I see danger in Barack Obama getting us into a war when his personal power is challenged. This, of course, is contrary to the views customarily expressed here on Free Republic that Obama is neutered by his ideology and his foreign policy will be a reprise of Jimmy Carter's, but on steroids. I think that you this is a real danger in the man which the author points alludes to.

Here is the reply:

To those conservatives who indulge a psychological need to disparage the talents of Barack Obama, this article should serve as a well earned slap in the face.

To those conservatives, like myself, who are arm chair bean counters in the game of handicapping elections, let this article be a disquieting wake-up call that many of our assumptions upon which we hope conservatism will build a come back may be as ill-founded as the bluster of those who downgrade Obama's talents.

First, the matter of Obama's talent, or better put, his charisma. Sometime ago I wrote a post which I think captures Obama and explains why his combination of charisma and shallowness make a very dangerous political combination, but one with undeniable electability:

"I think he is a narcissist who survives and prospers not by addressing problems but by manipulating people. Narcissists like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are not stupid, they are wonderfully clever and exceedingly effective in reading their victims and manipulating them.

I think that Barack Obama has a worldview provided to him, posthumously, by Saul Alinsky which gives him a framework for analysis. In other words, Obama does not "analyze", rather he "sorts" and puts data into their appropriate slots provided by the philosophy of Saul Alinsky. He has learned a vocabulary which enables him to contrive a front of effectiveness, a seriousness of purpose and depth of character which is all a sham.

Think of Barack Obama as the professional coordinator at its Alinsky meeting. For those old enough, think of Barack Obama as the leader of an EST meeting of the 1970s. These experiences give him an eschatology, a vocabulary, a forensic ability to manipulate, and ego satisfaction. What was he doing as editor of the Harvard Law Review if he was not producing actual work? He was acting out as a community organizer with the shtick modified to fit a new venue. If one examines his career at every level the pattern is the same. As a constitutional law lecturer he produced no written work but he was evidently perfectly fit to the culture of the law school. In the Illinois Senate he voted present but ingratiated himself with the Daley machine. He barely passed go in the United States Senate but he knew the vocabulary and he passed muster with the likes of George Soros. In each instance, Barack Obama behaves as a narcissist, very shallow, producing no work product, but selling a great package.

If one takes away the Marxist belief system provided to him or reinforced in every step of his development from his mother to Frank Marshall Davis, to Columbia University, the Harvard Law school, William Ayres, to Reverend Wright, one is left with a truly hollow man. That is why Obama is such a dangerous ideologue. There is no Obama apart from a lifelong sham, a compensation for always being advanced beyond his competence because of his race and his ability to manipulate. He simply cannot stop the act and get off stage because there is nothing but the act.

Obama is a man without a soul and without a spiritual compass. His relationship to Reverend Wright reveals that he has no real spiritual quality to him for there could hardly be a more right apostasy in the church which he attended for 20 years. It has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with ego satisfaction. It is the opposite of the Judeo-Christian message.

Obama cannot abandon his radicalism because there is no other there there. He is a massive compensation system. His body is a life-support system for his narcissism and the narcissism is utterly dependent on the received wisdom from Saul Alinsky and the rest of them."

Viewed from the perspective of this article, one might properly question whether I got it wrong about Obama relying on his ability to manipulate rather than upon him a capacity to produce honest results. Reading the article, it appears that Obama's success was primarily a public-relations phenomenon in enlisting black McDonald's owners and black radio station owners. The worry is that the voter registration drive is a model of both public-relations sensitivity and dynamic management skills in organizing and harvesting the black vote. If I got it wrong, if it is the latter, if the Chicago voter operation is truly an example of honest results, it is ominous in the extreme.

This interpretation is ominous because we can find parallels to the 2008 election and to Obama's course of governing. The enlistment of black radio station owners and the attempt today to kill talk radio by forcing it into African American hands stands as an example.

The article speaks of Obama's training 700 registrars. This echoes my remarks about his forensic skills and narcissistic needs merging as was the case for EST trainers of the 1970s. This explains much of Obama's need daily, actually by count more than daily, to appear on television. It also confirms the foolishness of those who complain that Obama cannot speak without a Teleprompter.

Is Obama only a narcissist, a Bill Clinton style sociopath, or is he the real deal as his supporters claim, a man who has unperceived talents to produce honest results and organize a Chicago voter drive, a successful primary campaign, a successful presidential election campaign? Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that when pressed for a single qualification which entitled Obama to be president, his supporters fell back on his ability to run a campaign.

Before we conclude that Obama has wonderful organizing skills, let us note that in each of these three incidents, all three of them campaigns, Obama was working with race. In the voter drive it was 100% a race effort. In the primary campaign it got down to a nasty slugfest over race between Obama and the Clintons. In both the primary and in the election campaign Obama enjoyed virtually 100% black voter loyalty. Equally important, in those two campaigns he enjoyed unprecedented media support and that media support was predicated on race.

Conservatives clearly will observe that Obama's alleged organizing skills are not so apparent when it comes to governing. But let it be considered for a moment that the governing of the Obama administration still rests on only two legs: the race card and the Saul Alinsky world view.

[Robert DeLong]

Obama will likely start universal health care. The majority of Americans will like this and frankly it is overdue. You have to give credit where credit is due.

On tThis point I disagree with him on, but the rest I think he is spot on. A very informative and in my opinion accurate take on our future. I foresaw this future with him which is why I held my nose and voted for McCain.

God, please bless America again. Let us beat back this usurper.

[Richard from IL]

Good article

[ransomnote]

Obama-as-Narcissist PING!

In case anyone is interested in reading more about the Obama/Narcissist angle.

[VampireStateNY]

Count me in, please. I used to be close to someone with NPD (long ago, thank God!), and the similarities between their behavior and BO’s are chilling.

[COUNTrecount]

Thanks for the ping.

[1951Boomer]

Thanks. This topic fascinates me. First, I want to make sure I am not a narcissist. Then, I want to know how to spot and then manipulate those who are.

[1951Boomer]

“I think he is a narcissist who survives and prospers not by addressing problems but by manipulating people. Narcissists like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are not stupid, they are wonderfully clever and exceedingly effective in reading their victims and manipulating them.”

But are 100% of the people in his close circle totally manipulatable, if that’s a word? I mean, how big of a toolbox do you have to BE to almost be robotically controlled by the likes of Klintoon and Barry Soetero? I would pay big money to be at an event where either man tried to single me out and schmooze with me because they sensed that I was a holdout. I’d love to have either of them approach me. I’d glare right into their eyes and give them a piece of my mind. I’d use every nonverbal signal of rejection I could. I’d then turn my back on him and start talking to whoever was nearest me. Remember after Juanita Broderick’s rape and bitten lip (and the “put some ice on that” comments) when Hitlery grabbed Juanita Broderick’s hand and said, “We SO appreciate your help, Juanita”? If ONLY Juanita had had the presence of mind to pull her hand away and snap right back at her. But people seem to fall into a hypnotic trance. They slink away like whipped dogs. I just wish that someone out of 300 million could dent this guy’s faux persona.

[ransomnote]

(smile) why do you want to manipulate those who are? (smile)
Most people who wonder if they are a narcissist are not narcissists. NPD’s do not believe there is anything wrong with them but find great fault with everyone else. Sometimes NPD’s admit they did something wrong etc. but it’s always to appear modest or in an area they didn’t value.
We all have narcissistic tendencies that we try to minimize and grow through. You can read the material and think ‘hey...I remember the time I had that thought’. But approx. 10% of the population are so severely wounded that they don’t have a conscience, are narcissistic personality disordered and therefore have very damaging relationships with people.
Here is a list of 9 traits that professionals use to diagnose NPD. A person must have at least 5 of the traits to receive a clinical diagnosis of NPD. Remember that these behaviors are marked and profoundly damaging in their impact and sometimes very well hidden in people so don’t worry if you have NPD if you can identify with a point here or there and make sure that you look at creative ways that a person can actually fit the criteria.
* grandiose sense of self-importance
* preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
* belief that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
* need for excessive admiration
* sense of entitlement
* takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
* lacks empathy
* often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
* shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Read more: http://narcissistic-personality.suite101.com/article.cfm/narcissistic_disorder_diagnosis#ixzz0WJKwbpSf

I did not realize a close friend was NPD for over 20 years (well I was young when I met her) partly because her false image of herself is that of ‘martyr’ and ‘saint’ so no matter how bad I felt after talking to her sometimes, no matter how disappointed I might be to encounter callousness in her at crucial times in my life- I kept prompting myself to remember all the self sacrificing things I knew she had done. An expert on NPD asked me once “She’s your friend? Ok then. Does she build you up or tear you down?” I stumbled around for an answer. He kept interupting me and asking me the same question. I finally conceded that she was a very nice person but had a limited emotional range and was not able to be an encouraging person - she had a different personality that liked to serve. He again asked the same question (up or down) and I focused a little more to realize that she tended to chip away at my self esteem but I thought she genuinely saw flaws in me that she was commenting on and that isn’t wrong per se. But after alot of evaluation I realized that she is fun, entertaining, flexible etc. only when it suits her, only to serve her interests. When she bought a new car (we were both so poor at the time it was quite a feat) I celebrated with her, thanked God etc. About a year later, I was also blessed with a car - you should have seen the look on her face. She sat rigidly in the car as we drove into town, her back barely touching the seat. After looking around the interior she asked in a judgemental tone of voice ‘so - how many upgrades did you buy?’ I was started - I said “none! I was trying to get the guy to keep the floormats and give me a discount instead!’ she silently turned to look out the window. That was all she could say - she acted like I had received something that she should have received. And sadly I had to look closer at this ‘self-sacrificing’ friend and see a thread of this behavior had persisted throughout our friendship. She has NPD but not to a severe degree (she can keep friends and jobs without her NPD interfering much) and is fairly well hidden. She always said I was different from all her other friends...I began to notice that they were far more intense narcissists than she was. I wondered ‘what does she get out her friendships with them?’ and then I realized ‘nothing. And that’s what she gets out of her friendship with me - nothing. In her world her friends are objects that help her do what she wants to do - she had no concept of ‘loyal friend’ and found nothing emotionally rewarding about friendship. All these years I thought we had mutually supportive friendship and I had to face the fact that she really had no regard for me or my happiness; we had a good time sewing together and shopping for fabric because these are activities she likes to do. Once you start looking, you wonder how you missed it all these years. I have to say - it’s crushing to go through that because you realize that they will never understand the warmth of friendship, the love of family members etc. They hear about it, read about it, want it, and are not capable of it.

[1951Boomer]

My comment about making sure I’m not a narcissist was facetious. And by “manipulating,” I meant that I’d love to know what it takes to humiliate these people and maybe even deconstruct their egos. How does a narcissist get a taste of his own medicine? Such humbling, if possible, is what needs to happen to Barry Sotero. But it’s hard to deconstruct something when there’s no “there” there.

[ransomnote]

Pardon me for missing the fact that you were being facetious - I can be pretty slow witted at times!
As I delved into the ‘why’ of narcissism and looked for the more subtle traces of it instead of just looking at that list of 9 traits, I started finding things that could be said of me at some point in my life. It really really creeped me out. I have read others who have done this kind of research who have said the same thing so I wondered if we shared that degree of paranoia!
I have spent many battle hardened years in the presence of NPDs. I know what you mean about wanting to manipulate them - and it can be done. But it has, in the past, always been people I had thought better of before discovering they were NPD’s and I was always in the midst of experiencing a loss so I couldn’t really focus on much other than getting away from them. Once you’ve been around them - too many of them? - you really just want to get away.
When they are humiliated or manipulated they experience ‘narcissistic injury’ which can trick them into revealing the darkest, harshest side of their personality - it’s really ugly. I have been procrastinating doing my homework all day (it’s due by midnight tonight), have not yet responded to another post I received this morning, and this kind of discussion is so interesting to me that I must forcibly tear myself away now before I get a chance to drown you with more commentary. But I will make time for one more idea. A narcissist watches your face and body language and says whatever they say for the sole purpose of seeing the emotion they want you to have register on your face. Often - they want to see fear, intimidation etc. So weakness (the garlic to the vampire) of theirs is when they are doing their best ‘you outta be afraid of making me angry!’ act, looked bored and as others have pointed out better than I have - laugh at them. Hard to see themselves as your master if you laugh at their pretensions.

[nathanbedford]

You ask a very troubling question: Why do the henchmen of narcissists remain under their spell?

History is replete with examples of individuals coming into the orbit of such demagogues who become powerless to break free of the gravitational orbit. Two individuals of history, Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler were noted for the hypnotic power of their eyes. When Stalin died all of Russia mourned the man who had murdered them in their tens of millions. But rather than focus on the Sun God who can grab and hold people, let us consider the psyche of the satellites caught in the gravitational pull. Sometime ago I wrote this post :

You ask, in effect, why do leftists behave the way they do? You rightly cite the suicidal belligerence of the Palestinians and the mindless hostility of American liberals. We are witnessing a tribal or a cult phenomenon.

I have been preoccupied for some time with the power that draw well-intentioned people into liberalism and I've concluded that it is the power of the cult. Consider how very difficult it is to pry a teenager loose from the clutches of a cult. It requires professionals and an intervention of the most intense level. My first experience with this phenomenon came from exposure in the 1970s to people who had gone through EST. They exhibited many of the characteristics which mark the present day liberal. A smugness, an ill disguised feeling of superiority derived from a belief that they alone are possessed of special insights and truth. A belief that the rest of humanity is benighted and unworthy except as candidates for conversion.

These people were so myopic and yet so convinced of the superiority of their Weltanshaaung that they were obnoxious. We called them, "est-holes."

The est experience consisted of "seminar training" in which the individual was stripped clean of his ego which was replaced by a new belief system imposed on the crushed individual by the est facilitator. This is typical of a cult. It is even typical of the Marine Corps but that is in pursuit of a worthy goal.

This phenomenon is so strong in its appeal because of the "power of surrender."

I believe that the principal distinction between conservatives and statists is that the latter are God players and as such they are in unremitting rebellion against God. Conservatives on the other hand tend to be believers. In the Christian faith we come to our salvation as an individual experience. One would think that a God player would be an individualist but for some reason which I do not understand they tend to be collectivists. In effect, they find their salvation in the group. Think of the Bloods and Crips. The act of surrender of the ego to the group yields a wonderful feeling of integration and well-being. The individual can renew that feeling by re-immersing himself into the group. That which threatens the group also threatens him. Consider the American Indians such as the Iroquois who were quite loving toward their children and considerate of each other and yet were unbelievably brutal and indifferent to the agony of those prisoners they tortured. They were outside the tribe, they were the "other."

I believe this accounts for the scatological language and the sheer nastiness of the posts one finds in the liberal blogs. There is no restraint so long as one stays within the cult. One of the primary taboos of this cult has to do with race. Liberals consider conservatives to be racists and hence beyond the pale. There is no opprobrium so debased that it cannot be applied to these people who, virtually by definition, are racists.

As new converts get drawn to the flame, they sense the release to be obtained from surrendering to such a group.

Last April there was a report that Obama recommended Americans embark on an environmental "mission." I wrote the following post as an illustration of the phenomenon I am trying to articulate:

Obama: Americans Want to Be on an Environmental ‘Mission’

April 23, 2009

I think Obama actually believes that the country once summoned will experience a spiritual release through devotion to the environment. This is a little understood phenomenon which motivates liberals in very many of their causes. When the individual surrenders to something other than himself- typically for the liberal that means the "collective," but it can be to virtually anything- he is rewarded with an emotional release, a feeling of integration. This phenomenon has been well-recognized by psychologists.

Recall Hillary Clinton's summons in 1969 for a more "ecstatic" experience. She was trying to articulate the same phenomenon. Think of the calls by liberals in the wake of 9/11 for George Bush to summon the country to a "sacrifice." Instinctively the liberals grope for this emotional experience. It matters not that the summons would have been fatuous. What did they want George Bush to summon them to? To plant victory gardens? To collect old tires? To ration gas? The point, of course, is that the war on terrorism was waged against us to cause us to change our lifestyle. No matter, logic has nothing to do with the emotional satisfaction.

I think we should consider the entire Obama administration to be a mystical call to the nation to join with them in this kind of mystical release that he found as an agitator and group leader for Saul Alinsky.

Yes, we are now being governed as though we were in a giant EST meeting and may God have mercy on all of us.

[ransomnote]

Here’s a link to a page that does a good job of outlining some of the causes (there are competing theories) of NPD (scroll down the page to ‘causes’:
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=what+causes+NPD&page=1&qsrc=0&dm=all&ab=0&title=Narcissistic+personality+disorder+-+Definition%2C+Description%2C+Causes&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minddisorders.com%2FKau-Nu%2FNarcissistic-personality-disorder.html&sg=kkIoByfk0n6KxpS7jvRT4Y9Be3H0mHGXLoSjSh2bdZw%3D&tsp=1257752040919

There are so many takes on what causes NPD. Environmental, genetic susceptibility, etc. There seems to be similarity of argument among alot of what I have read for those instances when it is believed that a specific person likely developed NPD largely do to dysfunction in the home during early childhood. The argument tends to be that a baby must bond with a parent (usually the mother) in a stable relationship (usually said to occur between 2 -4 years of age) while the baby begins to construct his own personality (tough job - modern science can’t do it for the baby, mom and dad can offer support but cannot perform this task for the baby). During this time - the baby receives attention from the mother that ‘validates him’ by looking in her eyes and watching her react to him. He laughs - she lights up. He cries - she looks concerned and soothes him. It’s sort of a ‘I think thererfore I am’ effect that he undergoes during this time of bonding. A super nervous parent, a parent who is hospitalized and unavailable, a parent who has significant emotional damage, may have a hard time playing their role when baby needs them.
So perhaps a nervous parent sees the baby screaming and picks them up and starts to say “Nothing is wrong, there’s nothing to cry about...” or otherwise tries to ‘give’ the baby the thoughts and feelings the parent believes are ‘good’ or appropriate or comforting. If this happens too much - the baby’s own personality construction job is interrupted - as nervous mom tries to do some construction of her own.

An absent parent isn’t there at all and substitutes help (other family members etc.) but the baby isn’t bonded with them yet or has to play catchup. A wounded parent may be too harsh or neglecting them - an insufficient or unstable bond is present during baby’s construction project. Abuse at this age tears apart the construction process. Or perhaps another sibling is born and needs medical attention and both parents are overwhelmed trying to take care of both children.
Some babies make it through ok (some psychologists say that mom doesn’t have to be perfect, she can make mistakes, she just has to be ‘good enough’) and some fail to retain the personality they were trying to build. They can’t really separate from mom around age 4 as expected with their own personality intact. They move through development with this problem and intervention can stabilize and help some of them make it through but others, if their little construction projects are torn apart and they are unsupported, leave childhood without a personality. By the age of 18, it is believed that those who could have been rescued with intervention are no longer reachable. Science doesn’t know how to build a personality and the window of opportunity closes forever. I get sad thinking about this. There are said to be other contributing factors but your question was about Barry’s upbringing.
When I have heard about his early life - the main thing I notice is instability and what might be self-seeking parents. According to this recent article by Obama’s step brother, their father was physically abusive and Barack aknowledged that his father did not care about his wife and children. Here’s the link to that article: http://cbs11tv.com/national/Mark.Ndesandjo.Obama.2.1290838.html

The following article (link at the bottom) says that Barack never saw his father after around age 2 which meant that Baracks’ mother was without support and may have been in enough emotional upheaval herself to have any stamina left to give Barack. But when I read about his mother - she sounds like she wandered around seeking her own personality - as if she had none and was trying to acquire one.
This quote about Barack’s mother expresses the impression I get rather well “She felt that somehow, wandering through uncharted territory, we might stumble upon something that will, in an instant, seem to represent who we are at the core,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s half-sister.”
And wander she did: “...she married an African student at age 18. Then she married an Indonesian, moved to Jakarta, became an anthropologist, wrote an 800-page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java, worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women’s work and helped bring microcredit to the world’s poor.” until she wandered right out of Baracks life. It sounded like baby may never have been the apple of her eye - which is where babies need to be, especially during the critical ages from around 2 - 4 years. Oh I forgot to post the link to the article about Baracks’ mother, here it is: http://www.barackoblogger.com/2008/03/nyt-profile-of-baracks-mother.html

[ransomnote]

Great posts. Thank you. You supply an answer to part of the mystery behind liberalism that I have been searching for for quite some time.
I have been baffled by the extent to which liberals have cast conservatives as the non-human ‘other’. I have watched their alienation of us as ‘the other’ increase more rapidly then usual starting around the time that Kerry was running for POTUS. They are ...proud?...of their...hatred?...for people who don’t agree with them? I know they are, but what is there to be proud of in this climate of celebrating diversity? It’s their own perceived superiority that they are celebrating and they hate me for not celebrating their existence too. I get the feeling that I vigorously disagree with their vision of the future and they hate me personally or wouldn’t mind if I died at their feet. Naturally, I am not speaking of all on the left - I mean those who step forward to try to speak loudest on behalf of their party. I don’t hate them as individuals - I hate their plans for our country. But they hate us personally. And stepping away from their worthless leader would make them forfeit claim to that sense of superiority, wouldn’t it?

[ransomnote]

Obama/Narcissist Ping!

Even I can’t recommend reading my last overlong post but there are three links to other articles within it that you may want to check out. The first link is a page discussing possible causes of NPD. The second is a recent article (nov 6, 2009) about Baracks brother and father, and the last link is about Barack’s mother.

[nathanbedford]

And stepping away from their worthless leader would make them forfeit claim to that sense of superiority, wouldn’t it?

Dead on!

The coming together of the twin supports of liberalism in America: Race and cult are literally embodied in the very person of Barack Obama. I have no doubt that his biography reveals, indeed reveals in his own words, that he consciously exploited race to manipulate white people as well as black people. There can be no doubt that he encourages the cult of personality. For any Democrat who has "drunk the Kool aid" to repudiate Barack Obama is to repudiate his own ego. He cannot do it. That is why Barack Obama's approval poll numbers are so stubbornly holding near the 50% mark and why I believe he will be difficult to beat in 2012.

These psychological and emotional impulses apply as much to the opinion shapers in the media as to the drudges in the Democratic Party. That is why the media contorts itself and abandons every journalistic ethic and even common sense in their coverage of this man. That is why we will have difficulty in the next election.

It was hopeless to confront an "est-hole" with reason because cultists are as impervious to reason as diarrhea is to a logic. Before the last election and ever since, I have been consistently saying that John McCain would lose that election, and we are likely to lose the next election, unless Barack Obama was and is morally destroyed. Nibbling away at the edges of Barack Obama's credibility and effectiveness in office will have effect only on those not already seduced. There are many independents who voted for Obama because they were voting against Bush. These people can be persuaded. Republicans, of course, were never duped. Beyond these people, the walls created around the cult by the Democrat party and Barack Obama himself must be shattered because the egos of the individuals,, like those who passed out at every Obama rally, must be shattered before they will abandon their fantasy. Thatis why John McCain's campaign was doomed from the start.

I think ridicule and satire are the best methods of showing that the Emperor has no clothes.

[alexander_busek]

I mean, how big of a toolbox do you have to BE to almost be robotically controlled by the likes of Klintoon and Barry Soetero? I would pay big money to be at an event where either man tried to single me out and schmooze with me because they sensed that I was a holdout. I’d love to have either of them approach me. I’d glare right into their eyes and give them a piece of my mind. I’d use every nonverbal signal of rejection I could. I’d then turn my back on him and start talking to whoever was nearest me.

It is easy for people who have not been "swept away" or "fallen under the spell" - or have already been vorwarned, and so who are skeptical from the get-go - to say that they'd recognize these impostors for who they really are, and that they would be immune to their blandishments.

If, on the other hand, you had met someone who was, essentially, a blank slate, i.e., about whom you had no preconceptions, then they could proceed to establish their ethos (as used in Rhetorics) with you.

Few people can then resist.

Regards,