Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Narcissism

As the military-intelligence complex becomes more oppressive, the chances increase that dissenters within the ranks will leak information -- not to any real or imagined "enemy,' but to us. Of course, the day may come when the American citizenry will be the only "enemy" left.

The government and their media toadies have concocted what we may call a "new cliche" to explain away these pesky whistleblowers. Anyone who warns the world about covert wrongdoing runs the risk of being labeled a narcissist or a megalomaniac.

That's the theme we've often heard in recent weeks.

It was sounded just now, during the sentencing phase of Bradley Manning's trial. I'm not interested in the question of Manning's gender identification, which does not strike me as relevant to the case (even though most observers seem unduly fascinated by the sexual issues, as people usually are). What bugs me is nonsense like this:
Navy Captain Dr. David Moulton, an expert forensic psychologist detailed to the case to review Manning, took the stand as a defense witness.
Doctor Moulton found traits of “narcissistic personality,” “borderline personality,” and “abnormal personality” in Manning.
Moulton is the defense witness, folks. The absurd logic of trials often requires shrinks to spout nonsense about a defendant during the sentencing phase. The prosecution favored us with a variant of the same tune:
The government’s cross-examination questions to Dr. Worsley focused on its view that Manning’s behavior indicated narcissism or an inability to show empathy with others. Dr. Worsley made a point that someone could seem narcissistic simply because they feel inadequate, not because they’re necessarily narcissistic.

The government prosecutor was persistent in asking about Bradley Manning denying his role in his problems in sessions with Dr. Worsley.

Government officials (and some media) think all leakers must be narcissists. (Note: never mind that the drive to inform the general citizenry of things it should know for its own general benefit is actually showing empathy with and connection to others, and not necessarily a manifestation of a purely “Me first and only!” mindset.) That may partly explain why this line of questioning was pursued here today by the prosecution.
(Emphasis added.)

Dig: We are supposed to believe that Manning is the one who displayed an "inability to show empathy with others." In fact, that poor fellow is where he is precisely because he dared to feel some empathy with the (non-white) victims of the atrocity documented in the "collateral damage" video.

Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe that our Generals, Colonels and other officers are never guilty of narcissism. (Even Patton would have guffawed after reading the preceding sentence.) Barack Obama has countenanced torture -- not to mention numerous broken promises to the working class -- yet no-one accuses him of lacking empathy.

Of course, shrinks never use words like "narcissist" and "megalomaniac" to describe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all of those other media blowhards who hate Manning.

Conscience-free super-snitch Adrian Lamo -- a man who has never shown any contrition even though he bears no small amount of responsibility for Manning's torment -- made sure than an entire movie told the tale of his glorious exploits. Lamo's Twitter feed features this epigram: “you cannot harm one who has dreamed a dream like mine.” Nevertheless, our media does not repeatedly characterize Lamo as a narcissist or a megalomaniac.

And yet, just today, two psychiatric prostitutes were willing to testify under oath that young, idealistic Bradley Manning -- yes, Bradley Freakin' Manning -- is the one who deserves to be called an empathy-challenged solipsistic egomaniac.

Future historians will need to invent a word stronger than "hypocrisy" to describe our times.
Comments:
And then there's the city busses in my oh so progressive city with their huge new ads plastered across the sides. The ad reads "If you see something, say something".

It's Orwellian, but not a peep heard from anyone in progressive land.

So, who ya gonna call? Not Ghost Busters, the FBI!

What year is it? 1984? Nope. Is it 2001, a space odyssey? Nope. It's 2013 and you are under surveillance - everywhere.

Kitty
 
Thanks for this meme expose.

I have noticed this trend in the comment sections of various news stories as well. The irony is that it seems to be the new American consensus that anyone in the news, even if they are revealing painful things at great cost to themselves, must be a narcissistic megalomaniac....because those squawking the loudest about this worship the idea of fame for fame's sake.

I have never understood the fame fetish, especially the dream of celebrity completely unattached to anything worthy of notice.

Let's hope our future historians will have both the perspective and language to capture this era's peculiarity...and that it will be a peculiarity instead of the new norm. Idiocracy was meant to be satire not a blueprint...

 
Kitty, we do bewail that, we do! In fact, this blog went into depth on "Flo's" Big Brother ads for Progressive (the insurance not the ideology!) but the movement as a whole has been successfully lulled by their concept of Obama's handling it. Despite that, there are die-hards like Code Pink, and also Occupy (tho it gets no notice) to fight the powers on drone bombing, tar sands, etc.

The coalition Joseph mentions more frequently these days, of progressives and Libertarians, is needed to combat the abuses of privacy we are facing.


 
Enjoy ->
"But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different.
It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do.
In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us."
->
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER
 
Zee, maybe we can see the "narcissism" meme as being akin to the Randroid idea that the greatest virtue is selfishness. The people who use the term "narcissism" to describe Snowden and Manning never use that word to describe those who, to protect their careers, silently go along with things they know to be wrong.

Thus:

Selfishness = virtue
Self-sacrifice = narcissism
Acting on principle = non-empathy
Looking out for #1 = well-adjusted behavior.

Got that?
 
Joseph, I guess I've got that.. I just went outside to explain to the ghetto pride brigade that decibels need to be kept down at night time due to the law on QUIET enjoyment of one's property. They countered that is only white man's law.

Whatever. People obviously don't care and don't have a clue.
 
I saw this and I thought of Mr. Cannon. I also thought of Austin Powers but thats another story.

http://gawker.com/embassy-closing-terror-plot-uncovered-on-al-qaeda-confe-1052738613

Harry
 
Society's demands for conformance find their specious justification in the assumption that all deviance from the norm is just childish desire for attention. If you grow a mustache it's not because you want to hide a scar on your lip--it's because you want attention. If you wear your hair in a shaggy style it's not because you want to avoid spending time at the barber's--it's because you want attention. If you drive an old car it's not because you want to be financially prudent--it's because you want attention.
 
But here's the thing, snugbug: the majority or at least a large segment of the population now, DO want attention.

The freakishly LOUD music and voices in the "ghetto" (which I was haughtily informed last night is where I live!) are a demand for attention.

The online comments on *anyone* publicly spotlighted are actually jealous of those in the spotlight, regardless of whatever hardships they've incurred as a result. Hardships, public good, none of that is even recognized, since in these adolescent minds the person in the news "won" the goal, ie, to be "famous" and that alone is the recognized "motive."

It's celebrity, not conformity, that has become such a social craving. To the point where context is as distorted as images in a funhouse mirror.
 
If you don't step on heads going up the ladder you are an under achiever.
If you prefer quality of life over quantity of possessions you are stupid.
It takes guts and a thick skin to be a non conformist.
Margie
 
A few years ago I got in a hassle with a couple of prominent activists who worked closely together and whose antics were discrediting our movement. One was blatant in his bigotry against Jews, and the other was a blatant con artist, traveling around lying to induce people to give him money.

Since they could not deny the truth of my charges against them, they attacked the only way they could, attacking my motivations, claiming that I was simply a nobody who was jealous of their success in achieving media attention. Their argument seemed to assume that I must want fame and if I didn't have it, it must be because I had tried to achieve it and failed. Actually I had been trying my damndest to stay in the background, off the stage and away from the cameras, and the assumption that I should want fame quite baffled me.




 
No invention of stronger words is afforded.
Alienation through commodification.
The process is peaking.
Next we'll hear them say:"why don't they eat cake"
The gap is quickly widening.
On a global scale.
The lack of empathy is their's.
What they are selling is surrogate.
Humans sense the fake.
The media dont think.
They try to project their desease.
They say, what they need the masses
to believe.
But the masses laugh, they joke,
they dont UNDERSTAND a word.
"Narcistic" ? What's that?
There is an objective limit to alienation of the human nature.
The limit of the celebrity-market.
The bubble is about to burst, it could be, into a laughter of homeric dimensions.
->
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind