I didn’t post anything yesterday because I’m busy reviewing a series of posts I published here in 2004 about a case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and I’ll publish them as a PDF after extensive editing.
As we’ve seen in the previous two articles by Benjamin and Thomas 2, the English of today are completely insane. They’re as cruel to their own ethnicity as a self-harmer in a psychiatric hospital.
At The West’s Darkest Hour, we believe that understanding the psychosis of a single clinical case sheds light on the mass psychosis currently engulfing the West.
I hope that the approximately 9,000-word PDF will be ready soon, and hopefully some of you will be curious about the topic. The title I’ve chosen for this essay is “Malignant Egomania or Lack of Self Boundaries?”
14 replies on “NPD”
I’ll look forward to this. Thank you.
I see Wikipedia has towed the usual line, with: “The cause of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is unclear, although there is evidence for a strong biological or genetic underpinning”, which I doubt, seeing as genes haven’t been consistently/robustly found for any psychiatric disorders. It’s all fair and good them writing in the etiology section: “Findings have been inconsistent, and scientists do not know if these correlations are causal, as these studies do not control for genetic confounding” when there is no hard proof of genetic confounds to be discovered (unless one is going to submit to utilising long-debunked twin study methods and their circular reasoning)! It’s usually the other way around in truth – these deeply biased researchers don’t take environmental confounds seriously!
I’d imagine it’s (early) parental child abuse also. I notice they wrote: “Some studies have found NPD correlates with permissive and overindulgent parenting in childhood, excessive criticism from parenting. Others have found correlations with harsh discipline, neglect or abuse” – do you personally find an overlap with the proposed (equally non-genetic) negative/imposed developmental criteria necessary for the development of autism?
I notice what – at least as I would recognise it – appears to be ‘NPD’ of sorts seems increasingly common in the younger zoomers of my stepson’s age. They simply cannot tolerate the slightest criticism (don’t fundamentally understand what it is to be told off), can be highly passive-aggressive, and seem to display this amazing sense of self-entitlement (good luck trying to discipline some of them, basically). I didn’t notice this to anywhere near the same degree in the older children and teenagers around me when I myself was growing up.
I get what your saying though – the entire West; all post-war generations really – seem trapped in this suicidal mass-psychosis. A people with no loyalty to each other, yet sycophants-by-rote before the Other (and every example of this I experience daily is damning – ‘atomised narcissism for us; timid adoration for them’). The furthest reaches of neochristianity – which I don’t confine, at all, to ‘leftists/liberals’.
How curious!
Yesterday I skimmed the Wikipedia article in Spanish about NPD because I’m in contact with Marco’s cousin, and I texted him the link to that article.
What really annoyed me was that they keep saying the same old crap: that the etiology is unknown!
Even in the YouTube videos of the Jew Sam Vaknin and the Aryan Richard Grannon—both normies—, you can see that a devouring mother causes this syndrome (in the essay that I’ll publish soon, I mention the work of both of them).
Postscript:
What you say about the new generations is very true: they think they’re superior because, unlike ours, they grew up with cell phones!
I need the post-peak oil crisis to work like a combination of the biblical flood and the burning of Sodom so that all these Gomorrah types get a dose of humility…
How have the twin studies been debunked? It’s the strongest argument for the genetics. (let this comment pass ffs, nobody is commenting aside from Benjamin anyway)
“If it runs in families, it must be genetic” is a logical fallacy debunked in Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry by Colin Ross, a psychiatrist I met personally in Dallas.
It’s like saying: if two siblings are mentally disturbed, their condition must be genetic. The fallacy lies in the fact that they had the same extremely abusive, ‘schizophrenogenic’ parents (a word I mention in my forthcoming PDF).
Hi Adunai,
Well, in a nutshell, with reference both to Madness and Genetic Determinism by Patrick D Hahn pp. 25-31 (+35, 47, 53-53, 76, 83, 155, 161), and The Trouble with Twin Studies by Jay Joseph (plus his three other main books, to some degree – in this one Joseph’s reviewed studies before 1962, and as of his publication, contemporary studies also.), geneticists are relying on the Equal Environment Assumption for monozygotic and dizygotic twins. This has been disproven since 1960 even, with Don Jackson’s review paper “A critique of the literature on the genetics of schizophrenia” in The Etiology of Schizophrenia, and with a mountain of empirical studies confirming this. We’ve also got Joseph’s critical analysis in The Journal of Mind and Behaviour Summer 1998.
we could take this back to Franz Kallman’s 1942/1946 single-gene papers in the American Journal of Psychiatry which have never been replicated (he had a bit of an axe to grind, one could say). Kallman provides no detail on how the data on co-twins was collected. Concordance rates vary wildly also, from Kallman’s ‘85.8 percent’ to 11 percent in Koskenvuo’s 1984 study. Concordance rates actually been steadily dropping over the years, with an average of 61 percent for the classical studies and 23 percent for the contemporary studies, i.e. in the more contemporary (and methodologically sound) studies, when one member of an MZT pair is diagnosed with schizophrenia, nearly 80% of the time his genetically identical twin is not. A lot of the time Kallman, et al., have been caught using circular arguments i.e. using the diagnostic status of one twin to help determine whether the other one was schizophrenic or not, and using the inflated concordance rate as evidence of the genetic basis.
Also, how can researchers claim to be measuring the hereditary basis of schizophrenia if they cannot even agree among themselves as to what schizophrenia is?
I won’t go into full detail (you’d really have to read it/them if you genuinely wanted to know this) but there is no such thing as a gene for schizophrenia (we count Genome-wide association studies also in this).
Anyway, I won’t go on, as these are full-length books and I’d be typing all day, but I hope it gives you a start.
Thank you. The issue I have with this in meta perspective is that CT seems to cling to the first thing he saw – schizophrenogenic mother in the 1970s, peak oil in the 2000s, and hasn’t updated his views since. As to the specifically this issue – does it really matter if it’s parental or genetic? Doesn’t parebtal behavior get determined by genes anyway? Isn’t it better to just exterminate faulty families? Who cares how they harm children, by bad genes or bad parenting, if the result is the same?
One of the reasons you’re banned from this site (though I’ve let a couple of your comments slide) is that you’re a troll who doesn’t read my books in English about psychiatry (one of them is available for free as a PDF).
If you had read them, you would have noticed that I include updated references. I’ve even mentioned references from recent years to Robert Whitaker’s work on the myth of “chemical imbalance” in depression or schizophrenia diagnoses (e.g., this interview).
After this comment of yours, I won’t let any more slide…
I’ve just been mulling over that point (“Doesn’t parental behaviour get determined by genes anyway?”) with César privately by email. It’s a complex issue, is what I could conclude. I’m dubious over how much personality even is heritable (as opposed to a sort of environmental ‘diffusion’). I suppose one could use Vendramini’s research from The Second Evolution and make a claim for ‘teemosis’ (i.e. ‘junk’ non-coding DNA). Generally, outside of trauma, I’d say it’s more of parental introjection.
The result is the same, one could postulate (and I do get what you mean) – but I do care how they harm (white) children because it opens up psychiatry’s excuse factory to harm them further by by humiliating them long-term, cutting them off from the truth of their lives, and dosing them up on toxic drugs, as opposed to letting them heal in a compassionate non-medical environment. If it’s a condition that can be recovered from, there is no need to remove them (and most are more of a social nuisance – or a personal hell only – and not a serious matter to deal with). I think it would be up to the victims as to how their parents were ‘dealt with’. If this issue could be nipped in the bud over a few last generations, in tandem with a paradigm shift to society at large, we wouldn’t even have white psychiatric patients. Ultimately, the genetic wishful-thinking is nihilistic.
Also, I care because I’m interested in the truth of the matter on principle. We have the bonus of heaps of case testaments (even before reviewing every error the genetic essentialists have made, in so very many papers). The genetic position – never having materialised (and not going to… how long can they kid us for?!) has nothing but hot air. There’s no need to ignore wholesale the huge body of evidence (!) of a psychological theory (just because it defeats racialist preconceptions) in favour of a non-empirical, non-falsifiable mythology, extended ad infinitum over the top of all criticisms in order to gaslight us from reality.
I can see that the racialist community is going to resist this line of thinking; ie rejecting genetic causation as a primary cause of psychiatric illness and replacing it with environmental causation. The reason is that the racialists rely so heavily on genetic arguments for racial differences; twin studies included. I can see most White identarians challenging that if environment is the primary cause of psychological dysfunction why isn’t it the primary cause for black dysfunction? And how wouldn’t that lead to Leftism?
I still agree with CT and his critique of modern psychiatry and pharmacology. However, it is hard to know where to draw the line between genetics, environment and individual agency.
It shouldn’t be so difficult for racists to see the light.
Before Big Pharma brainwashed the masses, it was obvious to the general public that Hamlet’s mental disturbances stemmed from his suspicions that his uncle had murdered his beloved father. No one, in the days before the psychiatric propaganda of the 1950s and the advent of psycho-pharmacology, would have suggested that the prince of Denmark had a “genetic disorder” that caused him to have suicidal thoughts (“to be or not to be”) high in his castle, due to the terrible dilemma he faced. And Hamlet’s mental disturbances are a reality for millions of people with other existential problems in the contemporary world…
It bothers me immensely when a typical racialist claims to no longer believe what’s said in the media when, for example, when it comes to psychiatry, he swallows it all hook, line, and sinker.
I told Kevin MacDonald I would send him a copy of the recently published How to Murder Your Child’s Soul because he taught child psychopathology at the university when he was younger. But a recent financial setback left me without the money to buy him my book, write a few words on the first blank page, and send it to him.
I wish I had a sponsor so these ideas could begin circulating within the racialist community.
I’ve always taken it – as I think you say – as primarily black racial differences causing their initial dysfunction (general hormone differences; physiognomy differences, testosterone differences, low IQ, etc., all that sort of thing), but that exacerbated by the fact that (even more so than whites, if I refer to César’s Day of Wrath, they treat their children like shit). So I do think it’s both, one layered on top of the other as a further ‘handicap’. Each domain covers what it would cover in terms of behaviour.
Personally, I have a lot of pity for white psychiatric patients – not because they’re psychiatric sufferers per se, but because they’re Aryan psychiatric victims, so obviously our own folk (and I don’t like intergenerational self-destruction, or destruction of the young by adults). My loyalty, and thus pity, is not towards blacks.
That might be one way around the Leftism issue… accept that parental environmental has a great deal to do with it, but just take that as a fact, not a moral statement synonymous with sympathy, i.e. not as a way to mitigate their inherent racial enemy standing.
The other possibility is to realise, and accept that, for all they do to us, they do suffer too (and must thus, by the 4-words, be exterminated for both aspects of that… it’s for their own good to be gone from the planet, as if they’re going to do that to their kids they’re too much of a liability to exist – the 14 words better exemplifies hate and conquest, and ourselves vs. the Other, and what our own people are subjected to by them, but the 4 must be entirely detached and simply weight up all harms committed by them – and us – in a desire to reduce suffering to necessary levels).
Still, I agree with you, I can see it being resisted. Past a certain point, it’s not a yay-boo theory for racialists to even hold an opinion position on either. Their is the data of the experiments and the way that data is handled. Either they are correct, at scientific standard, or they are wrong (and will have to come to terms with that). That’s why I’m glad for the twin studies critiques… they’re not ambiguous. Psychiatry the pseudoscience has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Chillingly perhaps, if the leftists are right on this, they are right on this (not because they’re leftists, but because they’re correct to some degree independent of that). I personally wish the issue hadn’t become so polarised/politicised. It gets in the way of the science. That’s why I say so much blame at Ed Dutton’s, etc., feet over this… the right’s been far too quick to leap headfirst down a dead end, courtesy of what I can only refer to as his career-bolstering brainwashing, and are now in too deep to easily reconsider this issue. Until they seriously review the environment, there’s no way of them telling how many errors they’ve made.
I feel the same way.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, psychiatry was used against Negroes, and against “liberated women”.
I’m not bothered by the violence against them. What bothers me is the lie that both the Negroes who rebelled against their masters, or the women who rebelled against the patriarchy, suffered from “a biomedical disease of unknown etiology”—a lie.
It was perfectly possible to keep Southern Negroes and feminists of that era in line without inventing biological pseudosciences (I explain all of this in my book, How to Murder).
Thanks to CT and Benjamin for really good replies.
I’m glad you mentioned Ed Dutton. I’ve become fed up with him too. I get the problem with being blank slate. However, I think there is also a problem with approaching socio-biology in such a way as to lead to the accusation of “determinism”. Ed Dutton is far along that path. I occasionally read Richard Carrier’s blog and while Carrier is a progressive (sadly) I do find that he makes intelligent criticisms against evolutionary psychology. There is a Goldilocks zone with bio based arguments. I wish the racialist right would be more discriminating in this regard.