Tuesday, February 05, 2008

A Simple Matter of Fact

In my last post, I skipped a sentence or two that digressed while quoting Sam Vaknin. I did this partly because they rambled a bit, distracting from the point, and partly because I didn't want to have to deal with them in the middle of a post on something else.

Now let's look at that statement.

I compared Narcissistic Supply to drugs because of the almost involuntary and always-unrestrained nature of the pursuit involved in securing it. The narcissist is no better or worse (morally speaking) than others.

Then what does he go on to do? He goes on to state a litany of immoral things a narcissist does to cruelly exploit others as brutally (cold-bloddedly, unfeelingly) as a crocodile would eat them...ending thusly...

The narcissist has no time or energy for anything, except the next narcissistic fix, NO MATTER WHAT THE PRICE AND WHO IS TRAMPLED UPON.

The emphasis is all his, not mine.

So, they do immoral things but are not immoral, eh?

In other words, here we have more of the same thing I was talking about in The Banality of Evil and the Banality of Sounding Smart, the same fashionable nonsense Norm Geras had commented on.

To wit: They do abnormal things but are not abnormal; they do cruel things but are not cruel; they do unconscionable things but have a conscience; they do inhuman things but are human; they do brutal things but have feelings - this never-ending parade of nonsense goes on and on.

Geras' answer: "What better definition of an abnormally cruel person than that he or she presided over or participated in abnormal cruelties?"

Exactly. Straight thinking: If you kill, you are a killer. If you lie, you are a liar. And so on. By definition, immorality is doing immoral things. Cruelty is doing cruel things. Brutality is doing brutal things. Inhumanity is doing inhuman/inhumane things.

What else could these things be? Some inherent quality in one's essence? like good breeding? Nonsense.

There is one exception to this - little children and the insane. Neither know that what they're doing is wrong. And they prove that by doing it right in front of everybody. It never occurs to them that they should sneak around to do it on the sly. Indeed, they often are surprised when they get censure instead of praise for what they have done.

They also have little or no self-control and prove that with their obvious lack of pre-meditation and cunning.

Do psychopaths and other narcissists behave that way? No! They not only sneak around to get away with their evil acts on the sly, they go to great lengths to carve out a false public image of themselves that makes them out to be the very opposite type of person. Thus they PROVE that they know what they're doing is something to cover up, be ashamed of = wrong.

Moreover, they only do wrong in the dark. They are angels whenever witnesses are present. They often take a long time setting up and cultivating a victim before the honeymoon is suddenly over and the abuse begins. That's premeditation and cunning. Most important, if they can control themselves while witnesses are present, they can crontrol themsleves when the coast is clear.

Hence psychopaths and other narcissists are not insane (most of the mentally ill aren't); they just twist everything in their Magical Thinking Machines.

Bottom line: If you know that what you are doing is wrong and if you can control yourself, you are responsible for your conduct. That is moral liability.

The drug addiction analogy is an apt one, and here Vaknin hits the nail on the head I think. It shows that narcissists are like us in that they don't like evil either. Like us, they can't bear to think of themselves as evil.

They don't do evil to do evil - that is, for its own sake. They do evil for the same reason an addict does drugs - for the good feeling he or she gets.

They thus put themselves in quite a fix - how to not think of yourself as evil while you keep doing all those evil things. No wonder they twist everything they think, see, hear, and feel. No wonder they are addicted to dragging other people's name through the gutter (tearing them down off that pedestal) to make themselves seem better by comparisson.

But unfortunately narcissism isn't a drug. It's hurting other people. If hurting people makes you feel good, you like hurting people. So, it's a moot point that narcissists don't hurt people to do evil: they hurt people to hurt people. Wanting to hurt people is malice.

No getting around that.

But narcissits and their sympathizers twist that too! They crybaby that acknowledging a narcissist's malice is malicious.

In other words, knowing the plain truth is an act of malice in their eyes.

It's always the self-righteous and judgemental who commit this absurdity, because they themselves never just face a fact about someone or something and treat it as a simple matter of fact.

They always have to make a moral issue of everything. I suppose that's so they can climb up on their moral high horse and withold sympathy from those they condemn. They thus become such Condemnation Machines that they argue themselves into a corner - condemning the victims of narcissists in order to prop up their fallacious assertion that narcissists aren't to blame for what they do.

Sheesh. And so their holier-than-thou sympathy isn't merely denied: it is MISPLACED.

Matter of fact: Narcissists are predators. When we see a little child or suffering humanity in need of protection and comfort, we see our own image and likeness and, in it, something to love. When a predator sees it, he or she sees nothing but lunch.

Knowing that changes everything. So, stay away from them. Well away.

There's no sense or value in hating great white sharks, tigers, polar bears, grizzly bears, child molesters, sexual predators, serial killers, and your garden variety malignant narcissist: just simply be NOT born yesterday = face the facts about them.

Yes, of course, the animals on that list are as innocent as children or the insane, but a predator's guilt doesn't matter to us except insofar as it proves that they are predators. What matters is that, predators WOULD LOVE TO EAT US.

And you aren't going to change them.

Technorati Tags:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

6 Comments:

At 10:19 AM, Anonymous holy water salt said...

Mine had one public rage. One that he immediatedly tried to spin for his benefit.

But while 99.9 % of his cruelty was cloaked, he did act out right in front of his social circle. He did thsi often, said and did outrageous things--he purposefully did this -as he said, that's key. Walk right up and ACT like blackis white, white is black. I think it's a thrill for them.

Big deal--normal people expect you to act politely, decently...geez they're losers, dupes...according to my psychopathic N.

 
At 10:33 AM, Blogger Kathy said...

That reminds me of the account of Hitler at Munich. He kept daring the allies to war and then stepping out of the room to wring his hands and sweat in fear that they would do what he was GOADING them to - quit being doormats and deny him Czechoslovakia.

It depends on what they think they can get away with. The more they get away with, the higher they fly and the more they push the envelope to prove they can get away with anything. Like serial killers they tempt fate.

But if anyone stands up to and bloddies their nose, the N goes off in search of easy prey.

 
At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The writings of SV prove one thing: consider the source.

I don't believe SV is terribly fond of Robert Hare et al.

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Cecelia said...

The more I learn about narcissists... the more I believe in vampires.

Bear with me: I read a fantasy novel about emotional vampires once. When a character contracted the disease, he would be "hooked" on the most prevalent emotion in his environment at the moment of infection--lust, joy, pain, whatever. Sensibly enough, vampires like him learned to bring up these emotions in others.

Narcissists seeking their supply remind me very much of that... except that the emotional vampire of fiction had self-awareness/empathy/whatever you care to call it that spurs an epiphany that manipulating people to feel badly is *evil*. In the book, moral repugnance led to the vampire committing suicide rather than hurt innocent people.

Narcissists aren't Ns because they manipulate people into feeling "bad" all the time: anybody can do that. They're Ns because no matter their behavior they feel no shame, have no honor, and cannot be honest even to themselves, much less other people.

It's willful evil and I wish people--especially in the "helping professions"--would understand that.

graylor

 
At 10:38 PM, Blogger sonicido said...

My N is the, "King of Implication". He rarely ever outright SAYS rotten and/or deceiving things in obvious phrases. Instead, he implies...which gives the listener all kinds of room for their imagination to build false pictures. And boy, do folks love false pictures. I call them, "gossip whores".

An example of implying lies as truth:
After I signed the decree that raped me financially; he sat in church and would cry and ask for "prayers for my finances" he did this over and over even until now seven years later-
In the beginning, he was driving an old LTD with the paint burned off and wore old nasty clothes. Now, he drives an old LTD with nicer paint. But it is way older than the minivan that I now drive, (thanks to my husband).

You can imagine the brotherly concern of the congregation- illuminating with holy insight-"Let's see...nine kids...20 years of marriage...why! she must have CLEANED HIS CLOCK...poor man..." And they, of course had no clue that he had our family of 11 living on $25K a year up until I left him; while he packed away huge amounts of money for himself. I'm sure they thought that we hardly had a dime after having that many kids-after all, normal parents spend money on their children.

The church would give him food baskets for Holidays and shun me in town, while my husband and our daughter, along with my ex's own kids were eating off the local food shelf.

Unbeknown to his "brethren", he was making $100K a year and paid zero child support because he coerced me to sign a decree that raped me financially; and did not allow me to have legal counsel, nor a hearing.

THAT, my friends, is called implication.
He didn't SAY that I "took it all". He didn't SAY that he was, "broke"-he only asked for prayers for his finances-why, he could have been crying for the sole fact that he lost his wife! I mean, gee-he has them with him every Sunday, where is SHE? poor man, taking care of all those little ones by himself!

Never mind he was working 60 hours a week and didn't even care where they were, except, of course, for Sunday. He needed them on Sunday.

Sick and twisted, I tell you. Implication. A wunnerful tool on the lips of the crafty N, and in the minds of gossip whores. >:[

 
At 6:13 PM, Blogger Writer in Washington said...

Sonicido: I completely understand where you are coming from. (See my comments in the Religion post). My husband's ex is now actively involved in the church we used to attend, pastored by a former friend of my family, and between her lies and her son's--well we are lepers! She, who has had at least seven or eight short term affairs and three "long" term ones is Mother Teresa. Its so sickening and disgusting--warps your view of all mankind.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

craig class janesville