Monday, September 25, 2006

Clinton, Shame and Narcissism: Destroying the Eyes of the World

Clinton’s pathetic performance with Chris Wallace this weekend was a wonderfully revealing moment. While the purpose of his humiliated fury was to try to destroy the eyes of the world, for those of us with eyes that survived the attack, it simply cemented the perception of him as a world class pathological narcissist. For those of you who don’t have the benefit of a Ph.D. in psychoanalysis, allow your old Gagdad to break it all down for you. I knew that piece of paper would come in handy some day.

The narcissistic personality has several core problems, all involving dysregulation of one sort or another. First, they are subject to wide mood swings, the reason being that their mood regulation is not internalized but is dependent upon external circumstances. Circumstances good, mood good. But if circumstances turn bad, than their mood will become poopy very quickly, as is true of my 17 month old. In his case, it is entirely developmentally appropriate. However, it’s a little frightening imagining him carrying around the nuclear football when he hasn't gotten his way.

The adult narcissist has a specific difficulty auto-regulating shame, the “keystone” affect of their disorder. It is unconscious and therefore unrecognized, or only dimly so. Narcissists are quite brittle, the reason being that they attempt to bypass their shame by erecting a facade of grandiosity. But when the grandiosity is poked or prodded, the narcissist will bristle. He might well accuse you of having a “little smirk” on your face or being part of a right-wing conspiracy after making some innocent comment that threatens their grandiosity, as Chris Wallace discovered on Sunday.

Narcissism is not a monolithic condition, but is actually situated along a spectrum from mild to severe. However, the most severe narcissists can often appear to be the most outwardly accomplished. One of the reasons for this is that the more severe the narcissism, the more driven they are to accomplish something in accordance with their grandiosity.

(As an aside, this is why it is generally a mistake to elect someone president who desperately wishes to be president, such as LBJ, Nixon, Al Gore, Clinton. Our better presidents could take it or leave it, because they already had satisfying lives and were capable of generating meaning from within--Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush.)

There are two main classes of narcissism, an egotistical, Clintonian type, and a dissociative type. See if this does not ring a bell: the egotistical (also described as the “oblivious”) type is self-absorbed, arrogant, unabashedly self-aggrandizing, attention demanding, and seemingly shameless.

But underneath the smooth and competent facade, these individuals show a preponderance of shame over guilt, the latter of which is much more healthy. For example, in response to Wallace’s question about Clinton's well known failures to take terrorism seriously, a non-narcissist would simply have said, “hey, my bad. I was like everybody else. Before 9-11, I didn’t take al Qaeda seriously, and I’m really sorry about that now. Let's just be thankful my successor is nothing like me.”

But for a narcissist, this kind of guilt instantly descends into shame, which cannot be tolerated. The EJECT SHAME NOW button has been pushed--therefore, the finger in the face and the shrill accusations of unfairness and right wing conspiracies. We saw the same desperate pattern a few weeks ago with the 9-11 movie. We will continue to see it as long as Clinton takes breath, or until he finally realizes that he doesn't have a pale and pudgy legacy to stand on.

As another aside, does this not demonstrate the systematic bias of the left wing MSMistry of Truth? Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice have to deal with these kinds of questions from the press constantly, but when liberals interview Clinton, it’s like a warm bath. He relies upon the liberal media to mirror his grandiosity, and they do a fine job of it. He simply does not know how to deal with tough questioning, both because he’s never had to and because he falls apart unless he has a ready lie at his disposal to ward off both the questioner, and more importantly, his shame.

The narcissistic personality is known to experience rage in reaction to a narcissistic injury--or even the threat of an injury. Clinton, of course, is famous for his infantile “purple fits” of shame-rage, which are not to be confused with manly aggression or assertiveness. Rather, it is the weak man’s imitation of a strong man. It is the same weakness and vanity that caused Clinton to govern by poll rather than principle (and to govern his private life by pole rather than principle).

Speaking of which, awhile back, Ann Coulter took some heat for suggesting that Clinton was not our first black president but our first gay president. This comment is very easy to misunderstand, but there is no reason for homosexuals to be offended by it. Most insightful homosexuals are aware of the fact that there is a substantial segment of male homosexuals who unconsciously feel an absence of masculine power, so they engage in compulsive sexual activity in order to try to appropriate and internalize the masculinity of the anonymous partner.

Naturally the compulsion doesn’t work, which is why it must be acted out again and again. Clinton’s well-chronicled sexual compulsion and subsequent inability to separate crotch and state must be understood in this light, as a blind attempt to gain the spurious sense of masculinity that he lacks. Apparently it hasn't succeeded yet (hey, here's a free tip--next time don't marry a castrating phallic mother. That goes for all my readers).

While on the topic of sexually confused narcissists and their mothers, the history of the egotistical type narcissist will not infrequently involve a seductive type of “wooing” mothering that resembles love, but actually stems from the mother’s own emotional needs. According to Allen Schore, “this type of ‘psychotoxic’ maternal care is the diametrical opposite of emotional deprivation, namely a surfeit, an overdose of affective stimulation,” which is generally more aversive and harmful than understimulation.

Another analyst notes that these individuals are often reared “by ‘adoring,’ doting, narcissistically disturbed parents who have objectified the child and through their adoring gaze have projected onto the child aspects of their own idealized self; these parents have not only failed to find adequate support for the child’s true sense of self but have also failed to provide enough realistic positive and negative evaluation to support some degree of tension between the actual and the idealized self.” Such parenting may outwardly look like a generous gift, but as they say, “yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia.”

*All quotes taken from Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development.

62 Comments:

Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Clinton’s pathetic performance with Chris Wallace this weekend was a wonderfully revealing moment."

I didn't see the program. I wish I had. I am very touched by the depth of caring and concern befitting a clinical psychologist that you've warmly expressed for Bill Clinton's painful struggle with his narcissistic psychopathology.

9/25/2006 08:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Another fine example of idiot compassion. Clinton cannot tolerate the pain of his condition. That's is its essence. That is why others must suffer it.

9/25/2006 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger who, me? said...

I think you hit a hot button [somewhere :-) in TrollVille] with the "mother" stuff...

Overall, a really illuminating post. Clinton is so brittle I actually feel sorry for him, though he might do well to step back quietly and surround himself with yes-people. I know when my narcissism is a-rip, that works for awhile.

9/25/2006 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Who You--

It's funny-Clinton totally identifies with Elvis, and after reading Guralnick's excellent biography of Elvis, I can see why--very similar pathology (although deep down, Elvis was actually a sweet person, not a truly malignant narcissist like Clinton).

9/25/2006 08:47:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Petey," I wasn't going to say any more about any of this, but your remark about "idiot compassion" demands a response.

How is it "idiotic" to feel compassion for someone you regard as being psychologically crippled by a distressing condition? Will reveling in its "wonderfully revealing moments" help to heal it or lessen the suffering that he or others must endure because of it? And, by the way, what "suffering" have you, your alter-ego, or anyone you know had to endure from it?

I don't really expect an answer, and if I don't receive one, I don't suppose there'll be anythnig more for me to say about this except to mention, in response to one of the points Gagdad made, that it has long seemed to me that a person almost has to be psychopathological in some way to want to be president badly enough to do what he must to achieve it and perform the awesomely challenging duties of the job, especially in today's world.

I know Gagdad thinks Bush is a bright and shining exception to this rule. I guess we don't need to get into THAT at this time. :-)

God bless.

9/25/2006 09:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Elvis was actually a sweet person, not a truly malignant narcissist like Clinton)."

Yes, I agree. The William J. Clinton Foundation is destroying innumerable lives with its malignantly narcissistic philanthropy.

9/25/2006 09:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Hedgehog said...

Hey Bob: Any cure available for narcissists? Do they ever change?
I would think they would be hard to get into treatment, because they would be unable to imagine that anything was wrong with themselves.
I imagine that on rare occasions, the world serves up so much adversity that the narcissist is virtually destroyed and then she would have to reboot her personality on a more solid worldview. Does this ever happen, to your knowledge?

9/25/2006 09:18:00 AM  
Anonymous sehoy said...

Another post to read to my husband after dinner tonight. He's a soldier and we are stationed in Germany.

I caught Bill Clinton being interviewed by Larry King this morning on the continuation of CNN International.

It was painful to watch Clinton. So much so, that I had to read a book at the same time. The body language screams: "Liar!"

I actually feel somewhat sorry for the guy. Could it be any more obvious than if he had a neon sign flashing on his forehead?

I really wish he would shut up and fade away.

9/25/2006 09:25:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Nags--

Truth is compassion. If only people had been more honest with you instead of protecting you, you would understand.

9/25/2006 09:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, Cousin. "Compassion" is gleefully revealing the truth that we delight in the psychological afflictions and resulting pain of others, and there's no doubt that when we let this compassion shine forth, it acts to heal the afflicted.

9/25/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

I think you just healed me!

9/25/2006 09:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

I remember the morning after Waco in which a whole lotta people, including children, went up in flames, and there was Clinton in the Rose Garden convulsed with laughter, I mean really hooting away.

I have no idea what he was laughing about, but I was so struck by the glaring "inappropriateness" of it - and mind you, he must of known he was on camera because he was preparing for one of those Rose Garden press conferences - that it occurred to me that maybe he was sociopathic. I'm assuming here that there is a point where narcissism can edge into a form of sociopathy.

I also remember Clinton yukking it up at Ron Brown's funeral, then realizing he was on camera and immediately going into shape-shifter mode, assuming a hangdog expression and dramatically wiping away a tear.

One thing I've recently noticed is that Clinton, now deprived of Airforce One and constant media attention, is looking really forlorn, even frail, like a drug addict deprived of the thing that gave him a semblance of life.It's disturbingly vampiric - it's like attention, adulation is literally his lifesblood. Small wonder he's pimping so much for Hillary - anything to get back on center stage. For him, it might be a matter of life or death.

9/25/2006 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Will--

That is a brillinat observation. If I had time, I would steal it and incorporate it it into the post, but it's off to work!

You might say that Clintion is deprived of the horizontal sustenance that feeds his narcissism.

9/25/2006 09:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, Will. Helping his wife pursue the presidency can only be described as "pimping" and can only be attributed to his own need for attention; it couldn't possibly result from any love for her or any belief that she would be a good president.

9/25/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks Bob!
It is easier to better understand a few family members, after reading your excellent post.
I felt sorry for Chris Wallace.
Clinton projected his rage and paranoia at him, accusing him of smirking when Wallace was clearly shocked and surprised at Clinton's psychotic behavior.
Incidently, why is Chris Wallace so different from his father, Mike Wallace, who is far left?
I'm glad the world got to see Bill Clinton in all his grandiose narcissistic rage, fueled by guilt and shame.
Of course, the left will empathize with him, and "understand" where he is coming from.
But everyone else will see the truth,
and see Bill Clinton and his followers for what they are.
Would 9/11 have happened if Clinton was tough on terrorism and captured or killed Bin Laden?
Maybe, and maybe not.
But we wold have had a stronger military, CIA, NSA, FBI, and conter-terrorist infrastructure and we wouldn't of had to play catch-up.
Yes, malignant narcissism is dangerous and honorable men and women pay the price because of it.

9/25/2006 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger dicentra63 said...

"For him, it might be a matter of life or death."

It is. Folks with Narcissistic Personality Disorder thrive on "narcissistic supply," which is grandiosity to the nth degree, unearned praise and adoration, sexual conquest, or whatever else the narcissist feels s/he needs.

I also feel sorry for Clinton, because you don't develop a personality disorder unless you've been subjected to some pretty horrific psychological torment.

However, once the disorder has developed, there's little you can do about it. NPDs have a dismal recovery rate. (Do they recover at all?)

I am very touched by the depth of caring and concern befitting a clinical psychologist that you've warmly expressed for Bill Clinton's painful struggle with his narcissistic psychopathology.

Uh, narcissists aren't in any pain anymore: that's what the grandiose facade is for. What you do with narcissists is give them a wide berth and hope they stay away from you. Compassion means nothing to them--they are wholly unaffected by it, unless there is some way they can use it as narcissistic supply.

I should know--I was raised by a narcissist.

9/25/2006 09:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

Sehoy - Guten Tag.

I'm always careful of people who evoke an instant pity in me with their "little boy/girl lost" and their big, sad liquid eyes, etc. These are the people who become utterly selfish clingers, who place unreasonable demands on your time and energy, and who will stick the knife in - and twist it - just as soon as it's convenient for them to do so.

hehe - my "word verification" for this post is "MRPTIY"

The Infinite Spirit is such clown.

9/25/2006 10:01:00 AM  
Anonymous ben usn (ret) said...

Your analysis is spot on, Will.
Thanks for the warning.
We would do well to heed it.
Many narcissists are experts at sucking in well meaning folks, draining them dry, and backstabbing them.

9/25/2006 10:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

Right, Ben - then they get to appear on "Oprah".

9/25/2006 10:25:00 AM  
Anonymous ben usn (ret) said...

LOL! You are a stand up cosmedian today, Will!
Funny stuff!

9/25/2006 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Heh, Separation of Crotch and State, good one! Who knew it just took a strong depilatory?!

During the interview, I totally cringed when Clinton was whining about how the CIA & FBI could not conclusively say that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks so far, so Clinton was unable to get him. I wish Chris would have asked about Clinton's, Reno's, and Gorelick's brilliant wall they erected that made it impossible for the CIA & FBI to share information! Talk about bad policies at work and not accepting responsibility for poor leadership! He also looked very bloated and puffy.

9/25/2006 10:33:00 AM  
Anonymous streetwiseprofessor said...

A little free association here, and I'd be interested in your opinion GB:

You mention narcissistic rage, and that narcissists are shame-driven, rather than guilt driven. I note two things: (1) the numerous outbreaks of Muslim rage (e.g., Danish cartoons, the pope's remarks, whatever sets them off next week), and (2) the common characterization of Muslim societies as "shame based" rather than "guilt based." Could (1) be a collective narcissistic manifestation driven by (2)?

I imagine that mass-psychological diagnosis is dubious, but it the parallels are striking. And scary, given the numerous comments to the effect that narcissists are hopelessly untreatable.

9/25/2006 11:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

Lisa, yeah, Clinton never accepts responsibility for anything unless it's something that makes him look like a champ. He made sure that J Reno took the entire hit for the tragic fiasco of Waco - not that she was without culpability, but he was the president, fer cryin' out loud, of course the onus was on him. Unbelievably cowardly and degenerate.

There's a school of thought that goes, well, OK, so Clinton's character was bottom barrel, but character doesn't matter as long as one can perform the prez duties and can be reasonably adept at politicking so that the gov machinery keeps grinding away.

This notion is crap. Although we live in a democracy, the office of the president is, like it or not, an archetype of the Prince. Archetypes are archetypes because they *resonate*, they influence and reflect, to a degree, the spiritual nature of the governed. Royal archetypes such as that of the Prince, King, Queen, mirror the balance of the cosmos - they are "suns", which are intended to give a sustaining life to that which orbits them. As in Shakespeare, when a royal archetype is corrupted, it's as if the entire cosmos goes out of balance.

The damage Clinton did to the spiritual body politic may not be all that visible in the "biz as usual" sense, but his corrupting influence was profound in the archetypal sense - eventually, in the fullness of time, we'll have the eyes to see just how corrupting it was.

9/25/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous tsebring said...

Geez - with Clinton being such a pathological narcissist as he is (and Hillary too, it would seem), and all this talk about narcissistic parents, makes me wonder about Chelsea's mental health.

PS: Accidentally posted this under the Fascism article the first time - sorry!

9/25/2006 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

"As an aside, this is why it is generally a mistake to elect someone president who desperately wishes to be president, such as LBJ, Nixon, Al Gore, Clinton. Our better presidents could take it or leave it, because they already had satisfying lives and were capable of generating meaning from within--Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush.)"

Though I think it is too soon to count Bush among the others, I don't understand why you say it is not a good idea to elect these men who strongly wish to become president--I know you use desperately--but there is an implication that wanting it very badly is a negative sign. I simply think of those who run for a second term--they have to want it badly to go through that nonsense, and especially I think of a Lincoln, a very ambitious man indeed (I am not using the word pejoratively), and the living hell he went through to even make it to the second term. I have always more or less believed that the good presidents, given that they are presidents of the most powerful nation the planet has ever known, were minor lunar avatars, especially a Lincoln, but also possibly a Reagan--particularly in the context of his role in the fall of the Soviet cancer. Their ambition to rule can be seen as coming from outside, if you will.

9/25/2006 12:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Fellowclintonhaterinchrist said...

To paraphrase sportscasting legend Brent Whatshisname: "Yes, Dicentra, yes!" If we can't help those pathetic narcissists with our compassion, then let us do the Lord's work by burying them under malodorous piles of sanctimonious scorn and derision and gleefully pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.

9/25/2006 12:33:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Here is an article which succinctly ties together Billybob, unregulated shame and Elvis in one neat package.

Paul Sperry, My picnic with Bill.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20765

9/25/2006 12:50:00 PM  
Blogger Bro. Bartleby said...

Seems that the word "kill" is in vogue.

9/25/2006 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Wow, Will! That was so beautifully stated. The giant light bulb glowed above my head! It's interesting how once you start to accept and acknowledge real "truths" or archetypes in the cosmos, it forces you to apply them to the micro-cosmos of all aspects of your life. On one hand it is liberating and exciting, while sad, scary, and unknown on the other.

9/25/2006 01:10:00 PM  
Anonymous ben usn (ret) said...

Joseph-
LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, wanted to RULE. They craved power and prestige to bolster their grandiosity to feed their narcissism.
In short, they wanted adoration an confirmation, because they believe they are better than anyone else and deserve it.

Whereas Washington, Truman, Reagan, Bush, among others, wanted to SERVE their country.
They didn't crave power.
They wanted to preserve and continue the ideals, liberties and principles in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights...
The self evident truths that our founding Fathers brought.
Lincoln, with the best of intentions,
greatly weakened state powers and authority and transfered that power and authority to the federal government, but that is a different subject that Bob (hopefully) may address someday, (don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Lincoln, and I understand, somewhat, why he did what he did. He was not a malignant narcissist in any sense).

9/25/2006 01:20:00 PM  
Anonymous joseph said...

Ben,
Lincoln is a kind of prime example of what I mean by minor lunar avatar. I would agree with what you say regarding Lincoln and the switch from state to federal power, if the North had lost the war. In my opinion, that war was about two things, one current and one future. The first was slavery. This was a scourge that had to be removed, and one the country had to be punished for. The second was the need for a very strong federal goverment to resist the future Nazi and Soviet regimes. Obviously Lincoln would not have known these latter things, which is why I say lunar or passive avatar, but if you remove Lincolns actions in grabbing federal control, you also remove the strength of the US military and really the now psychological fact of the United States. At the time of the Civil War, people were citizens of a state, not the United States. That war changed everything for better (in the case of slavery, etc) or worse (in the case of the feds involving themselves in everything).

9/25/2006 01:40:00 PM  
Anonymous ben usn (ret) said...

Joseph-
It is a mixed bag full of good and bad consequences.
I'm not convinced that the combined states militias weren't strong enough, for they did fight wars before the Civil War.
On the other hand,
slavery had to go, and that many states breaking off would have made for a weaker America.
It's hard for me to imagine what would have happened.
My point was that Clinton, Carter, etc., did harm to our country by deconstructing our Constitution, taking away and curtailing our liberties, devaluing life, insane foreign policies, and turning education into indoctrination,
through the prism of their narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

9/25/2006 02:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Connecticut Yankee said...

Dicentra63-- Been there too, only in my case the narcissistic parent teamed up with a narcissistic sibling, so I got a double dose of NPD. Things really got toxic when the non-narcissistic parent died. Bob can probably fit the following into a psychological as well as a theological category-- the one thing that kept me sane during those years was the Christian Church, its worship practices as well as its intellectual tradition and framework.

Streetwiseprofessor-- I've often found myself thinking of Islam (particularly in the last few weeks) as institutionalized narcissism.

9/25/2006 02:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Connecticut Yankee said...

For Bob's readers who may not have seen Chris Wallace's comments after the interview, here they are (H/T: Mediabistro):

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.


The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

9/25/2006 02:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Will said...

Joseph -

Yeah, I've thought that Lincoln must have had "mystic chords of memory" (Abe's own very cool phrase) that extended into the future, foreseeing the totalitarian evils of the 20th c. - which is why he kept prosecuting a war with so many casualties, an unpopular war because of its so many military failures, and a war which, until the last second, appeared was going to cost him reelection. And Lincoln was something of a depressive, so the war had to cost him personally.

As it was, it cost him his life, of which he also had a presentiment.

A prez of any lesser vision would have assessed the situation "logically" and would have said, oh screw it, it's not worth it, let 'em have their own country, maybe we can work it all out later." And for those who think that victory was a hands-down sure thing for the North because of their numerical and industrial superiority - history is replete with victories of smaller powers who had motivation and willingness to sacrifice as did the CSA. Vietnam is a recent example.

Lincoln was a far-seeing giant.

9/25/2006 03:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Jimmy J. said...

Wow, such a great post. And lots of good comments. Great stuff. I'm in awe of it all.

9/25/2006 04:06:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

HWSNBN said "I wasn't going to say any more about any of this,"
Always promising, never delivering. sigh.

Anonymous & other silly named moonbat posters - it's nice to know that the left is still working hard to find an idea - trying to repeat what others say is a good start, with practice the vitriol might eventually work its way out of your system, kind of the verbal equivalent of children tracing pictures before they learn to draw, keep it up, someday you'll get the picture.

Regarding the trick of weeding the power lusters from those who are sure that they are the most suited and able candidate for the times - the task is difficult. As an example, lets take a quick look at two leaders from outside the US.

Winston Churchill, who later developed into a respected artist and author, felt from an early age that he was destined to lead Great Britain through a time that would be its darkest days and save it - it was a deeply felt certainty he had, and a solemn duty that he took very seriously, and he was ambitious to see that he was in a position when the time came, to fulfill his destiny.

Hitler felt that he was inwardly an artist and later an author, and was chosen by fate to lead Germany to world domination, he fed on it, gloated and boasted in his belief, and took it very seriously, and he was ambitious to see that he was in position when the time came, to fulfill his destiny.

Now, it is possible, if you focus in on the ambition itself, to say that the two men were both ambitious for power and prestige - and this is in fact the typical leftist method of zooming in on details shorn of their wider context.

However, with a wider context taken into consideration - properly examining the thoughts and actions and purposes of the two men will reveal to a reasoning mind two drastically different sets of motivations, of intellectual and spiritual depths in diametric opposition to each other, and men who despite a surface reading of their ambitions, are in fact nothing alike.

It is difficult to tell if a man is seeking to lead, or seeking power and fame - if you look only at the office he is seeking, it is much easier to tell the two apart if more of substance is known of their thoughts, beliefs and motivations and how they have played out in their life to date. This is why the current enthusiasm of the media for all things leftist is so tragic and even criminal - we so need someone to do a thorough and unbiased job of presenting a full picture of those who would lead us - perhaps more important than in any other time in history.

Thank goodness for the internet and blogosphere (and of course One Cosmos).

9/25/2006 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger PSGInfinity said...

Bob,

I really like your work. In fact, your site is the only one where I read every post, in order, along with most of the comments.

Nagarjuna, the difference between your posts and everyone elses' is striking. In a bad way.

I'm starting to feel like I'm clueing into your train of thought, and can follow the gist of the ensuing conversation. But I've also realized that; not having read much of anything useful to this site, its better to silently take notes. Lincoln's dictum, and all that.

But I have enough of a political footing to ask a few questions. You raise the concept of dissociative narcissism. Any thought towards turning that into a post? And are there any public types exhibiting that symptomology? Also, any thoughts on Bill's (gack) better half (gack)?

9/25/2006 08:14:00 PM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Nagarjuna, the difference between your posts and everyone elses' is striking. In a bad way."

Thank you. I think your posts are wonderful too. :-)

God bless.

9/25/2006 08:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doc Bob, that was a great post. Now I'm sorry I missed the interview. When you have time, could you elaborate on what you said about Hillary being a phallic mother? I can't really figure her out, the only thing I know about her is, every time I see her on tv, I'm surprised at her lack of charisma and discomfort with public speaking, as if she were a shy child being forced to be in a talent show. Can you analyze her and her relationship to Bill?

9/25/2006 10:37:00 PM  
Anonymous sehoy said...

Guten Tag, Will.

I am enjoying reading your comments. Anyone who talks about archetypes and Shakespeare has my attention.

This is a really interesting discussion with this subject. I have lots of questions. I have lots of disjointed observations too, spilling out. The first one is:

Mohammed Atta.

In the first few hours after the planes hit the buildings, I had come across a report of a cell phone message coming from one of the planes and the passenger was reporting that the hijackers had the stewerdesses in the back of the plane and were slitting their throats. That scared the *blank* out of me, because I instantly knew that we were dealing with something very alien and that whatever it was, it hated women or had so little respect for women that it would slaughter them like animals.

Was Mohammed Atta one of these Narcissists?

I want to know what a phallic mother is, too.

9/26/2006 04:50:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"it hated women or had so little respect for women that it would slaughter them like animals."

Didn't they slit men's throats too? If so, couldn't you be mistaking misanthropy for misogyny?

9/26/2006 05:51:00 AM  
Anonymous TalkinKamel said...

The unusually brutal treatment of the stewardesses (they were unarmed, they were physically weaker than the hijackers, and no threat) and Mohammed Atta's strange Will: he repeatedly asks that no women attend his funeral, no women, especially "unclean" pregnant ones, come near his burial site (which was going to be tons of metal, and collapsed debris) suggest to me that, yes, the terrorists had a special hatred for women.

Maybe that's one of the reasons they were desperate to get into the Islamic paradise; so they could be surrounded by 72 "perfect", ever-beautiful, non-threatening, non-demanding females, in an eternal non-relationship.

One of the most sacred subjects in Christian iconography, by the way, is the Virgin Mary, obviously pregnant with the Christ Child, or holding the Child up in her arms, for all the world to see; a mom/pregnant woman.

There's even one medieval miniature of an obviously pregnant Mary going to visit St. Anne, and St. Anne lovingly patting her big tumy. A crucial difference in outlook here, I think.

9/26/2006 07:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As an aside, this is why it is generally a mistake to elect someone president who desperately wishes to be president, such as LBJ, Nixon, Al Gore, Clinton."

This also works for law enforcement, as I discovered when a ranger. Those who had a long-time desire to do law enforcement really should have been disqualified - and by some wise supervisors either were disqualified, or were squelched. The people who really wanted to be historians or biologists, and did law enforcement as an 'other duty as assigned' (it was a small park; we all had to do a lot of different and sometimes discordant jobs) were far better at it. Less suppressed rage, I think.

9/26/2006 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger dicentra63 said...

Fellow Clinton-Hater in Christ:

"Yes, Dicentra, yes!" If we can't help those pathetic narcissists with our compassion, then let us do the Lord's work by burying them under malodorous piles of sanctimonious scorn and derision and gleefully pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.

(A) I don't hate Clinton. I just don't trust him to act in anyone's interest except his own. He is incapable of anything else. Keep the reins of power away from him and we'll all be ok.

(B) Heaping scorn on narcissists is theraputic for those of us who have been indelibly scarred by their type.

(C) You got a better idea for dealing with malignant narcissists who Lead the Free World?

9/26/2006 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton's self absorption is so obvious it is unseemly. His stepfather was described as a con-man who used a stock swindle to cheat old people out of their life savings. I had read that young Clinton went around getting signatures to help get his step dad out of jail.

There is a difference between wanting to write a story and wanting to be famous for writing a story. Quality output comes from the person whose love is the work, not the award ceremony. A con-man skips the production part and goes directly to the reward part.

That is Clinton's problem and it is certainly driven by narcissism. Eisenhower was drafted. LBJ craved the perks. The former did what he had to do. LBJ did what he wanted to do.

Churchill may have felt predestined but he was a magnificent producer. He invented the tank, and the destroyer. He studied history, and in his early years was a war hero of great daring. Was he a narcissist? I don't know, but he did not seem to crave blue ribbons.

Lincoln is interesting because he worked hard to win public office. He craved votes. He came from a harsh home with one sweet voice, a stepmother. He hated slavery and his second innaugural address spoke of God's punishment. But did he care about adulation? He was driven but for all his writings and speeches he did not reveal his whole self. To me he is a cipher. Was he simply so set apart from society (so ugly his wife mocked his looks and wrote she would not marry him except for his prospects) that he took the path he was best at - debate - and kept on walking. A mystery. He believed strongly in the Bible and ordered his troops to be good Christian soldiers.

Re islamic narcissism. I live by the largest muslim community in the US. They raise their kids, especially boys, differently. Mothers are not allowed to discipline boys. Boys, especially only sons, are allowed to do anything even hit the mother. The self centered hair trigger men created are everywhere. They don't tolerate criticism and don't admit mistakes.

Women are not rated the same as men in conservative islam. They can be unclean, they have less chance of going to heaven, and more chance of being sinful.

While islam does not allow killing the innocent, as Bin Laden joked after 911 in the famous afghan video the family of the non-innocent are also not innocent, including children. This is the catch that allows islamic leaders to piously say in public they are sorry the innocent die while their followers catch the double meaning: that the people at the WTC were not innocent by association.

A stewardess is the perfect animal for slaughter. Not innocent, a lesser sheep, and more likely to enrage and insult the infidel Americans.

Mohammed had no trouble slaying whole populations although he usually slew the men, and took the women as concubines (wife by the hand) or slaves. He was pragmatic that way

9/26/2006 10:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton's self absorption is so obvious it is unseemly. His stepfather was described as a con-man who used a stock swindle to cheat old people out of their life savings. I had read that young Clinton went around getting signatures to help get his step dad out of jail.

There is a difference between wanting to write a story and wanting to be famous for writing a story. Quality output comes from the person whose love is the work, not the award ceremony. A con-man skips the production part and goes directly to the reward part.

That is Clinton's problem and it is certainly driven by narcissism. Eisenhower was drafted. LBJ craved the perks. The former did what he had to do. LBJ did what he wanted to do.

Churchill may have felt predestined but he was a magnificent producer. He invented the tank, and the destroyer. He studied history, and in his early years was a war hero of great daring. Was he a narcissist? I don't know, but he did not seem to crave blue ribbons.

Lincoln is interesting because he worked hard to win public office. He craved votes. He came from a harsh home with one sweet voice, a stepmother. He hated slavery and his second innaugural address spoke of God's punishment. But did he care about adulation? He was driven but for all his writings and speeches he did not reveal his whole self. To me he is a cipher. Was he simply so set apart from society (so ugly his wife mocked his looks and wrote she would not marry him except for his prospects) that he took the path he was best at - debate - and kept on walking. A mystery. He believed strongly in the Bible and ordered his troops to be good Christian soldiers.

Re islamic narcissism. I live by the largest muslim community in the US. They raise their kids, especially boys, differently. Mothers are not allowed to discipline boys. Boys, especially only sons, are allowed to do anything even hit the mother. The self centered hair trigger men created are everywhere. They don't tolerate criticism and don't admit mistakes.

Women are not rated the same as men in conservative islam. They can be unclean, they have less chance of going to heaven, and more chance of being sinful.

While islam does not allow killing the innocent, as Bin Laden joked after 911 in the famous afghan video the family of the non-innocent are also not innocent, including children. This is the catch that allows islamic leaders to piously say in public they are sorry the innocent die while their followers catch the double meaning: that the people at the WTC were not innocent by association.

A stewardess is the perfect animal for slaughter. Not innocent, a lesser sheep, and more likely to enrage and insult the infidel Americans.

Mohammed had no trouble slaying whole populations although he usually slew the men, and took the women as concubines (wife by the hand) or slaves. He was pragmatic that way

9/26/2006 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Speaking of Hillary as the phallic mother symbol - I read a book written by the guy who used to carry Clinton's "football" and had to be close to him at all times - and he relates a story that Bill and Hillary were in the elevator on the way to some function or other and Hillary was screaming furiously at him over something and Bill just stood there quietly like a guilty little boy and took it. As soon as the elevator door started to open, both of their demeanors changed into the suave smiling actors they both are. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. I think the name of the book is "Dereliction of Duty" or something like that. Eye opening book. The Clinton's are sickening.

9/26/2006 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Cap'n Billy said...

Congratulations on your guest appearance with the Sanity Squad!

Your discussion reminds me of something I heard on NPR (when I used to listen to that left-wing echo chamber) when they were broadcasting Clinton's first inauguration. At one point they were taking phone calls, and I vividly remember a female caller, obviously upset that this joker was now president, describe him as a "charming sociopath." I guess NPR didn't have a time delay and were unable to delete it. I've often thought about that during the past 13 or 14 years, and wondered if that caller was a mental health professional.

Kudos for a job well done with your fellow cranium examiners.

9/26/2006 06:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pyschiatrists are admonished not to make armchair diagnoses. It's called the Goldwater Rule since it was promulgated after they embarrassed themselves in the '64 election. It's too bad that pychology doesn't have as clear a prohibition. This sort of politically-driven, obviously biased, "diagnosis" brings disrepute on the whole profession.

9/27/2006 09:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting post Gagdad, but one problem is that, as many have opined, it is possible that Clinton's "outburst" was a calculated political move. Thus, I am not sure how much it can be used to reveal Bill's psychology (even though there is plenty of other evidence for your diagnosis).

Also, everytime that someone rails on Clinton, I feel compelled to point out that, whatever his many problems (and there are plenty) this does not mean that he does not also have some tremendous strengths, including a very keen insight into many things. All of these things can exist at the same time. I think of his presidency in terms of a huge squandering of what he could have been capable of.

On your point about those wanting to be president, I would be interested in your analysis of McCain in this regard. He is obviously trying very hard to be president, but it seems that he may be more in the Truman, Eisenhower, etc. camp. After all, Reagan spent much of his life trying to be president but you think that he is in the "serve" camp. McCain seems to fall in this category, and is possibly in the strange place of wanting to be president because he does not want to be president. Your thoughts, Dr.?

9/28/2006 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow ... unfortunately i do not have the time to adequately analyse this post and write a retort discussing how wrong you are, on a number of levels ...

You are truly sick.

Physician heal thyself.

... just so that you dont get the wrong impression, I am not a big lover of ole Billy Blythe...

In order to understand truth, one must begin its consideration from a truly objective perspective.

try this on for size :
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CountDown-SpecialComment-ClintonInterview.wmv

9/29/2006 12:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,
This was an excellent post, except for the troll comments near the bottom. Would you clean that up please? It's kind of like stepping in dog shit while leaving church.

9/29/2006 04:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and then there's this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWFdPIMIWKE

a bit of history to add to the debate.

9/29/2006 05:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In about 1994, I attended a presentation at Johns Hopkins by Professor Kay R. Jamison on bipolar disorder. She wrote "Touched With Fire," and excellent book.

The symptoms fit Bill Clinton EXACTLY. High energy, exuberance, wearing his emotions on his sleeve, hypersexuality, disregard of danger, fits of self-pity.

On and on and on.

I am convinced this is what he has, and it's why he never released his medical records.

The appearance of his nose leads one to believe it may have inhaled certain substances in quantity over the years, too.

Add a big dose of some kind of narcissistic disorder and you're pretty close to a full-blown sociopath.

9/30/2006 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Pyrthroes said...

Aside from Clinton's other noxious tropisms, this vulgar little twerp possesses a unique ugliness, a quality of the unaesthetic revealed in lack of harmony, squeaking shrillness, an extraordinarily grating presumption that his guttersnipe stupidity will go unrecognized.

We have had good Presidents and bad, but Clinton is the first one personally corrupt. From the Riadys to selling nuclear-engineering data to Chinese military intelligence (to hide which, he erected Jamie Gorlick's "wall") to his pardons-for-dollars (Marc Rich et.al.), this crummy little scamster permanently devalued the American Presidency. No-one will ever think that office beyond sullying again.

Leftists in general, and partisan Democrats in particular, treat Clinton as a helpless pawn of scandal and outrage, as if reality never did intrude. In doing so, they play Clinton's game, meaning they share his shameless urge to sabotage and ruin everything he touches-- tearing things down will make you look big, right?

"Clinton haters" don't waste our time on two-bit dolts like him. But we respect our heritage, and to see absurdities like Clinton drag it through the mud --for eight years, no less-- deeply pains anyone not afflicted with narcissistic Boomerdom's disease.

9/30/2006 01:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for a great post. Would you please do a similar profile of the "castrating phallic mother"?

9/30/2006 01:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Jenn M. said...

I agree with the "Goldwater Rule" posting. This Clinton diagnosis is unethical and a little slanted. But very entertaining, none the less. I'd like to see it as a series of psych evals for public figures.

I'm not so sure that G. W. B. is the model of stability. Especially in his relationship with his Father. I voted for G. W. on the belief that if he got in over-his-head, a highly experienced president was only a phone call away. Now I read that G. W. considers his Dad "the wrong father to appeal to for advice... There's a higher Father that I appeal to."

Now I voted twice for the guy, but a statement like that is begging for some analysis.

9/30/2006 08:53:00 PM  
Blogger JEGjr said...

Like Ann Coulter said (paraphrase), "the next day, the blogoshpere showed that everything out of his mouth was a lie." But the Left is just so consumed with his passion.

"Fake, but passionate."

10/01/2006 01:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to see that in the US it always ends up in Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican thing. How do you expect to be taken serious by the world when you keep pissing down your trouser leg?

10/05/2006 07:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back in 1992, the late great talk show host Jerry Williams - no conservative he, a lifelong Democrat, a dogged pursuer of Nixon, and one of the country's most passionate yet thoughtful and legitimate and respectable (not moonbatty) critics of the Vietnam War - declared flat out that he would not vote for Bill Clinton because he was the Democrat version of Nixon.

Fourteen years on, I see little to gainsay that analysis.

10/19/2006 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger Lily said...

I don't know why those people don't buy Generic Viagra and take the time to enjoy their life and in this way we don't pay the consequences of everything that they do.

9/29/2010 08:36:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home