Let me give a mini-lecture. Here are some characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy; A narcissistic individual is grandiose in their sense of self-importance and exaggerates their achievements and talents. He expects to be recognized as superior without achieving any great accomplishments; A narcissistic individual is preoccupied with fantasies of his brilliance as well as his unlimited success or power. He fantasizes about beauty or ideal love; A narcissistic individual believes that he is "special" or "unique." He feels that he can only be understood by or should associate with other special or high status people; A narcissistic individual requires excessive admiration and is on a constant search for admiration; A narcissistic individual has a sense of entitlement. He has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment and expect others to automatically comply with his wishes; A narcissistic individual takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends and uses others without regards to the feelings of others; A narcissistic individual lacks empathy and does not identify with the feelings or needs of others; A narcissstic individual is envious of others and believes that others are envious of him; A narcissistic individual shows arrogant or haughty behaviors or attitudes and does not care who he offends. (emphasis mine)
A narcissistic injury occurs when someone defeats or criticizes the narcissistic individual. The narcissist may not show it outwardly, but he is haunted by criticisms and defeats. When a narcissistic injury occurs, the narcissist begins to feel empty, degraded, and humiliated and he is capable of retaliating with narcissistic rage. His reactions constitute disdain or defiant attacks.
What we witnessed last night at midnight --if you bothered to stay up you heard it; if not, you heard it this morning on the news--was an outbreak of narcissistic rage from John Kerry who simply cannot believe that anyone could possibly question anything the candidate has said or done in the past. See Here and Here for details.
From the NY Times:
"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief,'' Mr. Kerry said. ``Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.''
So there you have it. That's the best that Mr. Kerry can do. He has reached deep within his soul and...found it empty. In a time of world chaos, where there is a current war against an impacable enemy who doesn't care about the number of innocents they murder and who would destroy millions of Americans if they had the chance, John Kerry is obsessed with a war he was in 35 years ago. While the Republicans concentrated on an agenda of promoting freedom and liberty and NEVER ONCE CALLED INTO QUESTION MR. KERRY'S SERVICE IN VIETNAM (his behavior since then was, of course, fair game), Mr. Kerry called the President and Vice President "liars", and suggesting that they were only in it for their own personal gain; even condoning his supporters comparing Bush to Hitler and worse.
You see, Kerry's sense of entitlement knows no bounds. His unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment has been fully nurtured by a timid press, reluctant to question Kerry's fantasies of brilliance. Noone is permitted to question him or his achievements. But he seems to think that he can question their honor and motivations with impunity. In his arrogant and haughty behavior toward his fellow Vietnam veterans, he has demonstratedthat he could care less who he offends. He needs admiration so very much that he simply can't bear a few months where some of his less than admirable behavior over the last 30 years is examined (his frightening "sensitivity" on this issue makes you wonder how he would have fared over the last three years with the level of rage, hostility and denunciations which have been relentlessly directed at President Bush. One suspects he would have completely fallen to pieces the first time France didn't like what he did).
There is nothing more important to John Kerry than to make sure his image as an heroic Vietnam vet is protected.
And yes, there is nothing more important to John Kerry than...John Kerry. and
SEPTEMBER 07, 2004
Enabling Behavior For Terrorism
In psychiatry--and particularly addiction medicine--we talk about people who "enable" addicts. Enabling refers to any behavior or action that assists the addict in the continuation of their addiction. Enabling can be either intentional or unintentional, but enabling behavior allows the addict to continue their destructive behavior. An example of enabling behavior is a man or woman who, although they verbally disapprove of their spouse's drinking, repeatedly will go out and purchases alcohol for him/her. Frequently enablers tell psychiatrists that they "only want to help" or that they are "afraid" of what will happen to them if they don't do the things that help the addict (e.g., the addict will beat them up or hurt them in some way).
From this site about Alcoholism, an interested person can find out if his or her behavior makes them an enabler. Here are a few questions that one might ask: 1. Have you ever "called in sick" for the alcoholic, lying about his symptoms? 2. Have you accepted part of the blame for his (or her) drinking or behavior? 3. Have you avoided talking about his drinking out of fear of his response? 4. Have you bailed him out of jail or paid for his legal fees? 5. Have you paid bills that he was supposed to have paid himself? 6. Have you loaned him money? 7. Have you tried drinking with him in hopes of strengthening the relationship? 8. Have you given him "one more chance" and then another and another? 9. Have you threatened to leave and didn't? 10. Have you finished a job or project that the alcoholic failed to complete himself? Of course, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you at some point in time have enabled the alcoholic to avoid his own responsibilities. Rather than "help" the alcoholic, you have actually made it easier for him to get worse. If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions, you have not only enabled the alcoholic, you have probably become a major contributor to the growing and continuing problem and chances are have become effected by the disease yourself.
I would like to propose a corollary use of "enabling"--to refer to those individuals who intentionally or unintentionally behave in such a way as to encourage terrorists and terrorism.
Asking the same questions can be revealing: 1. Have you ever made excuses for terrorists or terrorism ? 2. Have you ever accepted part of the blame for the terrorist's behavior?Examples: after 9/11 the Left responded by demanding that we look at the "root causes" of terrorism and there was a chorus of "America's policies are to blame". Or, for more indepth discussion go here, here, and here, and here)
3. Have you avoided talking about terrorism--even avoided using the word "terrorist"--because you are afraid of the response terror groups might have or just because it is politically correct? Let's see if we can identify all the words being used for "terrorist" (except, of course, the word "terrorist") - rebel, insurgent, militant, militia, guerrilla,freedom-fighter, minutemen(a la Michael Moore), hostage-takers. It is totally breathtaking the amount of effort that is being expended to AVOID using the "T" word. It has become the new political correctness. Is there any doubt that it enables murderers? RantingProfs has some good analysis.
4. Have you bailed a terrorist out of jail, or paid his legal fees? 5. Have you provided financial support or aid to terrorist groups or regimes that support terrorism? 6. Have you loaned money to terrorists or regimes that support terrorism? Well, we have seen this over and over again. Germany releasing the Islamofascists involved in 9/11 because we wouldn't permit access to a key witness in our custody; our own Supreme Court saying that they are entitled to the same priveliges and legal options as citizens of the US (there can be reasonable debate about this issue, but there is no doubt that this kind of decision--IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR--only helps the enemy and enables them to continue to harm us); Our own foreign policy prior to 9/11 consisted of giving money to the Middle Eastern dictators (Egypt comes instantly to mind); the people in this country who unwittingly gave money to charities that purported to help muslim/palestinian children etc. etc.
8. Have you given terrorists or regimes that support terrorism "one more chance" and then another and another? This one is so obvious that it requires only two words: United Nations
9. Have you threatened to be tough with a regime that supports terrorism and then weren't? Every European country comes to mind; US policy for decades also was a textbook example of waffling behavior in this area. At least we seem to have stopped for the most part.
10. Have you finished something like a project or job for a terrorist or a terrorist regime who wasn't able to finish himself? France supporting the development of the Iran nuclear plants is one example; Companies that continue to support the oil industry in Saudi Arabia (they don't have the technical expertise in the country); continued financial support for dictators (and the US has had its share of guilt in this behavior).
As you can see, there are many Terrorism Enablers around. Some of these people truly don't have a clue that their behavior is not all sweetness and light and that it encourages the exact opposite of what they think it does (e.g., some of the innocent groups--like the Episcopal Church--who are members of "United for Peace and Justice"). These "Do-gooders" are usually completely deluded about the nature of the terrorist and often cry that we must "try to understand" why the terrorists are angry at us and want to kill us. They believe that with enough soul-searching we can discover how to change ourselves and the terrorism will then cease. They are the same "useful idiots" who said the same things about communism and socialism in the last century as communist and socialist regimes murdered millions and enslaved even more. They are the pacificists and the genuinely good people who continue to maintain a denial so intense that they cannot see that they are supporting Evil.
A second kind of Terrorist Enabler is an individual or group engaging in enabling behaviors for manipulative reasons and for personal gain--primarily because it is financially or politically beneficial for them in the short run. They are deluding themselves as they appease the terrorists or the regimes that support terrorism so that they can earn a few more bucks from them; or politically benefit from opposing efforts to stop terrorists. In truth, they cynically doubt that the terrorist are really "all that bad", and believe that by befriending them, they can have the best of both worlds.
And then there is the third kind of Terrorist Enabler. This kind is as morally reprehensible as the terrorists themselves because their motivation is one with the terrorist. They do their enabling because they gain sadistic pleasure from the acts of death and destruction that terrorism involves, yet since they don't directly participate in these actions, they consider themselves not responsible. They know that they are supporting terrorism and terrorist regimes, and that is why they behave the way they do. They hate freedom and indivudality; they hate their own country and desperately wish for its destruction. For them I have no sympathy and I feel nothing but the same contempt and revulsion that the subhuman terrorists engender within me.
So, are you an enabler? Is the newspaper you read or the TV station you tune into; or the actor/singer/comedian you idolize an enabler of terrorism? If you think this doesn't matter, you are fooling yourself--just as the woman who buys the alcohol for her alcoholic husband is fooling herself. Someday in a drunken rage, he will beat her up--even kill her. Her efforts at appeasement are folly and they only encourage the very thing she fears.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing