A diabolical idea occurred to me today.
You may recall that last month I discussed Sam Vaknin in my short posts ‘Mr Darcy’ and ‘Five Minutes’ in the context of what is now fashionable to label ‘narcissism’ on various YouTube channels. I would prefer the term ‘malignant egomania’ or something along those lines, but there are so many videos on various YouTube channels that if I want any traffic to flow to my opinion on the subject, I have no choice but to use the popular expression.
As I have already said, the fundamental flaw of all these channels is that they expose the subject academically, without concrete examples; and they rarely talk about ‘narcissistic’ parents, those suffering from malignant egomania: a condition that compels them to destroy the minds of their children.
The correct way to expose this pathology would be, in the ancient world, as it was done in Greek tragedy: where tragedies were events of a family, even if they used fictitious characters. It is also possible to use real-life people. Those who have read Stefan Zweig’s The Struggle with the Daimon about the Germans Hölderlin, Kleist and Nietzsche will know that it was a tragedy that Kleist burned his History of My Mind before committing suicide. That missing work would, it seems, have marked the beginning of an authentic depth psychology—unlike the epistemological error that reigns in the universities (for example, the Jew Vaknin pays obeisance to the Jew Freud, whom we have roundly exposed on this site).
True depth psychology, which I conjecture would have begun with Kleist, would begin with those who devised the trauma model of mental disorders. Before that, all we had about tormented souls was Zweig’s approach, illustrating it with 19th-century biographical cases. More evolved is to enter the world whose door Alice Miller opened in the second half of the 20th century.
Since, unlike the YouTubers, I have entered the world whose door Miller opened for us (cf. my trilogy), the diabolical idea I came up with means analysing the former friend I talk about in ‘Mr Darcy’ to illustrate what malignant egomania is. In this way I circumvent, one hundred per cent, the fundamental flaw of every vlogger who talks about it: none of them dares to give concrete examples through life cases of real people!
It could be objected that this has nothing to do with the darkest hour of the West. I differ because biography and history are two sides of the same psychological coin. The ethnosuicidal psychosis from which virtually all Western Aryans currently suffer must be analysed. And to solve inexact problems (not mathematical, computational or chess problems), it is important to limit the scale of the problem to avoid confusing ourselves: what has happened to the mental health professions, especially psychiatry (my original contribution to the unmasking of this pseudo-science can be read here). Only then can we hope to solve our inexact problem, or at least come closer to a theoretical solution.
Instead of a pretentious (and failed) metahistorical work like Oswald Spengler’s, limiting the scale means simply understanding ourselves and our neighbours to, from this limited scale, jump into trying to solve the white man’s ethnosuicidal passion. Youtubers cannot do this because they aren’t even able to use the real names of their parents and close ones, as I do in my books.
Whoever criticises his father with his real name will be able to criticise anyone. However, as the person I have analysed is still alive, I will only use his first name, omitting his surnames. (I use the plural because in the Spanish-speaking world not only the father’s surname is used, but also the mother’s. For example, the current president of Mexico is known by his surnames ‘López Obrador’.)
As soon as I can start the series, I will do so, and I will show how understanding a particular case of narcissism can help us to understand the crazy West that, after 1945, only thinks of ethnosuicide.
3 replies on “Narcissism, 1”
In the post above I omitted the first reference I made on this site about the guy I’ll psychoanalyse in my following posts, so as not to overwhelm the reader with so many links. I’m referring to the entry from a month ago, ‘Empathy’.
Criticize the Father.
Now there’s a near impossible task for most men today.
I could go on and on about how my father failed at raising me.
I have criticized him, personally for his failings, severely, relentlessly and ruthlessly. He has been, and still is, a bad influence on me; his presence is woefully unbecoming of a man, let alone a patriarch. I have cut my losses, and we’re not on speaking terms anymore.
I had a close friend who had good knowledge on History from our point-of-view, and yet, he would not delve into the Biography of his own life. To him, it’s okay to criticize the West for betraying the raising of the German Third Reich, but it’s not okay to criticize his father for betraying the raising of his own son. As expected, this guy suffers from various sorts of anxiety problems.
If only he knew the inner peace that comes after you point the finger at your maker. The hatred becomes much more bearable.
I’m not the esoteric type, but if I had to give my two cents, I’d say this:
Wotan/Odin/Zeus went away after we killed his Austrian avatar. The lack of proper Fatherhood is indicative of this. As Berlin burned, the All-father packed his things and left. Then he saw Kalki approaching, and said “Your turn.”
Amen, and what impresses me about the racial right is that its proponents never criticise their biological parents. How are they going to remove the Semitic malware of Judaeo-Christianity if they don’t even dare to take this step?