There's always been that thing where class warriors were very rarely from the actual working class but it wasn't until we got to the 21st Century when such people ditched any pretensions they'd adopted in that regard, and all of a sudden working class meant Cher, Madonna and Barbra Streisand, and the actual working class were deemed 'deplorable', 'right wing', etc.
"The primary traditional and ideological values may then, for a long time, protect an association which has succumbed to the ponerization process from the awareness of society, especially its less critical components, providing it with a peculiar “mask of sanity.”"
I think this is in line with what I was trying to explore with me "Conan" essay. The mask of sanity or secondary mantle/skin worm isn't immediately detected by the general population, who mostly agree with the tine-tested rhetoric if not the current observable reality. But the tendency for altruistic-leaning people is to at least pay lip service to the former, because obtaing and promoting the latter requires not just ti.e and effort, but the courage (or audacity) to describe the new emperor's finery with any accuracy.
Quote from the PsyPost article linked near the top of the article:
“Assuming that the DEVP is valid, minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways,” they explained. “As grandiose narcissists typically desire fame, distinction, elevated social status, and high social importance, they can be assumed to strive for influential positions that involve social visibility and outreach as well as access to financial and other resources.”
“While pretending to be prosocial, narcissists tend to have low empathy and to be primarily interested in satisfying their self-centered needs. Therefore, instead of striving for reasonable solutions, narcissistic individuals will rather be interested in keeping the perception of problems going to maintain their highlighted position.”
“Also, narcissistic individuals might use the resources of the activist movements for their own private purposes, thereby causing irreparable financial and reputational harm to the activist movement,” Krispenz and Bertrams told PsyPost. “The perception of such narcissistic behaviors within an activist movement might then lead to dwindling support for the activist movement by the public and – in the worst case – could even be wielded against the respective movement.”
"such individuals use ideologies and political activism as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality. For example, a highly narcissistic/psychopathic person may participate in a pro-BLM protest pretending to fight against racism while actually using such protesting activities to meet their own aggressive motives and thrills" As in, virtue-signaling; being fascist anti-fascists; and being reckless as to whether they are actually contributing to increase racial division, aggravate gender debates, and destroy the environment in the name of saving it (renewable energy manufacturing is a HUGE polluter and ignores more severe sources of pollution in the pursuit of greenhouse gases).
Quite remarkable how close the authors come to what A.L. talked about in ponerology, presumably without having read him. Goes to show how ahead of his time L. was, and how relevant his work still is.
'In the Lobaczewski’s terms, a concern with social justice will be more associated with people concerned with actual unfairness or injustice (or at least the appearance of it). When actual injustice exists, altruistic people will be motivated to protest it in the hopes of bringing it to wider attention and ultimately rectifying it. However, as people with a normal emotional-instinctive substrate, they will not necessarily be particularly concerned with tearing down the entire social order, and they won’t be radically anti-conventional. ' It is a situation that is expressed in almost the entire globe and in many political parties. The infiltration of psychopathic elements is undeniable. Here in Argentina is what has happened with the Justicialist Party (a.k.a. Peronism). The party was born with the idea of social justice but both ideologically and philosophically in its origin it was always traditionalist, of faith and deeply Christian roots since its doctrine of social justice is the philosophical/political version of Christianity. But now the party is infiltrated by the psychopathic elements we see in progressive woke, and years ago by rampant neoliberalism. And all this even though its original doctrine is very well thought out and structured where it makes clear and foresees in advance that this would happen in the world.
Interesting article. I've always considered myself a Progressive, but I've been very angry about the Left's abandonment of Women's Rights for Trans Ideology. We've seen perfect examples of Authoritarian violence at #LetWomenSpeak events, which are public open-mic gatherings where women talk about their lives, needs and experiences. Over the last year, they've been met with direct violence from Trans Activists, Liberal Allies, and masked Antifa thugs in most of the English speaking countries. The women who participate are mostly middle-aged and older, but that hasn't stopped the TRA's from breaking their bones. In many cases, we've seen male participants who show up to enthusiastically brutalize women under the guise of Social Justice. TRAs openly advocate violence against "TERFs"- Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists* - and Liberals will ostracize, protest, and campaign to have women banned from social media and fired from university positions if she dares question even the most radical aspects of Trans
Ideology. The Right and the Left are both too extreme on this topic. We need some sane Centrists to work out accomodations in which everyone's Rights are respected, but that isn't happening. Authoritarianism is bad for everyone, no matter from which end of the political field it originates.
*TERF is a misnomer. Most of the Activists are neither Radical nor Feminists (though RadFems have led the charge for decades) and the goal is to exclude male bodies from women's single sex spaces, facilities and events, as well as safeguard children. Many are lesbians and many allies are gay men. It takes guts to show up at these events because the "be kind" crowd are vicious if you challenge their orthodoxy.
Your conclusion that LWA and RWA can act out of the same personality disorders has me thinking of the right wing people of the past who became left wing and vice versa. Of course, political realignment is a natural and normal process but it's the extreme cases who fit into these studies. I'm thinking of a particular extreme right winger now who was an extreme left winger in his younger days. I won't use his name because I have no desire to debate the particulars. I'm politically left but that person and I were penpals mostly based on our shared love of literature. But I was aware that the tone of his politics was very similar to my more left wing friends and colleagues. And his right wing politics eventually crowded out our literary commonality. And I can't even reconcile the man who loved the mysteries and complexities of novels with the narrow-minded pundit he has become. In short, I'd say that the most dangerous people, left or right, are the ones who are sure of themselves.
May 28, 2023·edited May 28, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
I talk about this on the show this week. I have a hard time understanding their apparent finding that **only** psychopathy, not narcissism, not neuroticism, correlates with aggression against hierarchy. My own eyes tell me that doesn't seem to be the case.
I also suspected, but can't know, that the authors were either:
a) unaware that Borderline and Histrionics are often heavily influenced to do this kind of aggression by malignant narcs and psychos
b) Inadvertently, or advertently, washed away the Borderlines and Histrionics under the finding "neuroticism had no correlation." I think, but can't be sure, that they disappeared "lower level" Cluster B behavior (meaning, non-psychopathic, non purely narcissistic, but still Cluster b, such as borderline) with "neuroticism" and then dismissed that set because their instrument didn't find a correlation.
Do you understand this better than I do, Harrison? If you do, or if you'd like to talk about it, would you consider coming on my show for next Sunday? If so, I'd love to have you. Email me at us@disaffected.fm.
Psychologists helped government Nudge units scare the proles into submitting to The Jab...They showed governments how to demonise, isolate, and turn the proles against the "unvaxxed", now they are Framing (justifying as a Target) an amorphous grouping called "the left"...
Psychology reveals that there are psychopaths of all political persuasions, and that not every politically persuaded person is a psychopath...
Psychologists know that State Enforcer groups aka The police are composed of Humans with psychopathic traits - the State is the existence of social psychopathology...
It's a dead certainty that All Billionaires are Psychopaths - or is such a statement Politically Uncorrect ?
There's always been that thing where class warriors were very rarely from the actual working class but it wasn't until we got to the 21st Century when such people ditched any pretensions they'd adopted in that regard, and all of a sudden working class meant Cher, Madonna and Barbra Streisand, and the actual working class were deemed 'deplorable', 'right wing', etc.
"The primary traditional and ideological values may then, for a long time, protect an association which has succumbed to the ponerization process from the awareness of society, especially its less critical components, providing it with a peculiar “mask of sanity.”"
I think this is in line with what I was trying to explore with me "Conan" essay. The mask of sanity or secondary mantle/skin worm isn't immediately detected by the general population, who mostly agree with the tine-tested rhetoric if not the current observable reality. But the tendency for altruistic-leaning people is to at least pay lip service to the former, because obtaing and promoting the latter requires not just ti.e and effort, but the courage (or audacity) to describe the new emperor's finery with any accuracy.
Great stuff.
Quote from the PsyPost article linked near the top of the article:
“Assuming that the DEVP is valid, minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways,” they explained. “As grandiose narcissists typically desire fame, distinction, elevated social status, and high social importance, they can be assumed to strive for influential positions that involve social visibility and outreach as well as access to financial and other resources.”
“While pretending to be prosocial, narcissists tend to have low empathy and to be primarily interested in satisfying their self-centered needs. Therefore, instead of striving for reasonable solutions, narcissistic individuals will rather be interested in keeping the perception of problems going to maintain their highlighted position.”
“Also, narcissistic individuals might use the resources of the activist movements for their own private purposes, thereby causing irreparable financial and reputational harm to the activist movement,” Krispenz and Bertrams told PsyPost. “The perception of such narcissistic behaviors within an activist movement might then lead to dwindling support for the activist movement by the public and – in the worst case – could even be wielded against the respective movement.”
"such individuals use ideologies and political activism as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality. For example, a highly narcissistic/psychopathic person may participate in a pro-BLM protest pretending to fight against racism while actually using such protesting activities to meet their own aggressive motives and thrills" As in, virtue-signaling; being fascist anti-fascists; and being reckless as to whether they are actually contributing to increase racial division, aggravate gender debates, and destroy the environment in the name of saving it (renewable energy manufacturing is a HUGE polluter and ignores more severe sources of pollution in the pursuit of greenhouse gases).
Quite remarkable how close the authors come to what A.L. talked about in ponerology, presumably without having read him. Goes to show how ahead of his time L. was, and how relevant his work still is.
'In the Lobaczewski’s terms, a concern with social justice will be more associated with people concerned with actual unfairness or injustice (or at least the appearance of it). When actual injustice exists, altruistic people will be motivated to protest it in the hopes of bringing it to wider attention and ultimately rectifying it. However, as people with a normal emotional-instinctive substrate, they will not necessarily be particularly concerned with tearing down the entire social order, and they won’t be radically anti-conventional. ' It is a situation that is expressed in almost the entire globe and in many political parties. The infiltration of psychopathic elements is undeniable. Here in Argentina is what has happened with the Justicialist Party (a.k.a. Peronism). The party was born with the idea of social justice but both ideologically and philosophically in its origin it was always traditionalist, of faith and deeply Christian roots since its doctrine of social justice is the philosophical/political version of Christianity. But now the party is infiltrated by the psychopathic elements we see in progressive woke, and years ago by rampant neoliberalism. And all this even though its original doctrine is very well thought out and structured where it makes clear and foresees in advance that this would happen in the world.
Interesting article. I've always considered myself a Progressive, but I've been very angry about the Left's abandonment of Women's Rights for Trans Ideology. We've seen perfect examples of Authoritarian violence at #LetWomenSpeak events, which are public open-mic gatherings where women talk about their lives, needs and experiences. Over the last year, they've been met with direct violence from Trans Activists, Liberal Allies, and masked Antifa thugs in most of the English speaking countries. The women who participate are mostly middle-aged and older, but that hasn't stopped the TRA's from breaking their bones. In many cases, we've seen male participants who show up to enthusiastically brutalize women under the guise of Social Justice. TRAs openly advocate violence against "TERFs"- Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists* - and Liberals will ostracize, protest, and campaign to have women banned from social media and fired from university positions if she dares question even the most radical aspects of Trans
Ideology. The Right and the Left are both too extreme on this topic. We need some sane Centrists to work out accomodations in which everyone's Rights are respected, but that isn't happening. Authoritarianism is bad for everyone, no matter from which end of the political field it originates.
*TERF is a misnomer. Most of the Activists are neither Radical nor Feminists (though RadFems have led the charge for decades) and the goal is to exclude male bodies from women's single sex spaces, facilities and events, as well as safeguard children. Many are lesbians and many allies are gay men. It takes guts to show up at these events because the "be kind" crowd are vicious if you challenge their orthodoxy.
Your conclusion that LWA and RWA can act out of the same personality disorders has me thinking of the right wing people of the past who became left wing and vice versa. Of course, political realignment is a natural and normal process but it's the extreme cases who fit into these studies. I'm thinking of a particular extreme right winger now who was an extreme left winger in his younger days. I won't use his name because I have no desire to debate the particulars. I'm politically left but that person and I were penpals mostly based on our shared love of literature. But I was aware that the tone of his politics was very similar to my more left wing friends and colleagues. And his right wing politics eventually crowded out our literary commonality. And I can't even reconcile the man who loved the mysteries and complexities of novels with the narrow-minded pundit he has become. In short, I'd say that the most dangerous people, left or right, are the ones who are sure of themselves.
I talk about this on the show this week. I have a hard time understanding their apparent finding that **only** psychopathy, not narcissism, not neuroticism, correlates with aggression against hierarchy. My own eyes tell me that doesn't seem to be the case.
I also suspected, but can't know, that the authors were either:
a) unaware that Borderline and Histrionics are often heavily influenced to do this kind of aggression by malignant narcs and psychos
b) Inadvertently, or advertently, washed away the Borderlines and Histrionics under the finding "neuroticism had no correlation." I think, but can't be sure, that they disappeared "lower level" Cluster B behavior (meaning, non-psychopathic, non purely narcissistic, but still Cluster b, such as borderline) with "neuroticism" and then dismissed that set because their instrument didn't find a correlation.
Do you understand this better than I do, Harrison? If you do, or if you'd like to talk about it, would you consider coming on my show for next Sunday? If so, I'd love to have you. Email me at us@disaffected.fm.
Thanks for being on top of this subject matter!
Idle hands are the devil's playground.
All I can say is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72KbeqN7pZ4
Thank HK. Fancy labels? Different names?
No. Call them what they are Evil Psycopaths.
Psychologists helped government Nudge units scare the proles into submitting to The Jab...They showed governments how to demonise, isolate, and turn the proles against the "unvaxxed", now they are Framing (justifying as a Target) an amorphous grouping called "the left"...
Psychology reveals that there are psychopaths of all political persuasions, and that not every politically persuaded person is a psychopath...
Psychologists know that State Enforcer groups aka The police are composed of Humans with psychopathic traits - the State is the existence of social psychopathology...
It's a dead certainty that All Billionaires are Psychopaths - or is such a statement Politically Uncorrect ?