top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Wonderland narcissism (through the mirror)

As related many times, I think the left—the progressive left in particular—can be characterised by its narcissism. Narcissism is the desire to maintain a self-image—to preserve a narrative; if the narrative is broken the narcissist explodes in rage or collapses. For the progressives, the storyline they must preserve is roughly “I am a good, decent person who is kind to everyone”; hence people who make racial jokes or report racial differences are “evil racists”. On Twitter, progressives will even say, “It’s called being a decent human being,” when confronted with a “hate fact” that should be suppressed.

Reality must be pushed away to preserve the view that you are “a good person” and to reduce the anxiety that comes about if you consider that races are different, men and women are different, homosexuals differ in sexual practices from heterosexuals, and so on—all these are “unknowns” and provoke fear and anxiety in the narcissist. But if you just say “everyone’s the same, everyone’s like me, everyone’s just plain decent folks tryin’ to get along” then the idealised self-image can be preserved.

It’s connected to politeness and to middle-class social mores because the middle class lives by its reputation—and someone who has an excessive interest in reputation protection is a narcissist. The image must transcend reality. You can tell it’s a leftist vice because the Marxist regimes were only really good at one thing—propaganda. Everyone has some affection for Soviet propaganda, because it’s actually good—because it’s produced by narcissists who want to preserve an image (happy peasants, heroic workers, mighty dams).

However, there’s an irony here. I flicked through a book by a psychotherapist, Alexander Lowen, from the late 1980s about narcissism. He said that the term had “exploded” in usage in that decade—and a manual on Personality Disorders from the mid-1990s said the same (suggested it might be “over-diagnosed” because it’s a fad).

Here is the irony: the accusation that people are “narcissistic” comes from the left. It comes, if it comes from anyone, from Christopher Lasch—who was a leftist and who, in the late 1970s, wrote a popular book about how American society had become “narcissistic” (hence the explosion of “political narcissism” in the 1980s). When Lasch spoke about it he meant “consumer society” and “capitalism”—and that’s why today leftists say Donald Trump is “narcissistic”. Trump might be arrogant or suffer from hybris (rightist faults), but he’s not a narcissist—he’s actually rock-solid; he does work in images but he’s not possessed by his images.

In fact, it was the same story in the Lowen book. Lowen, who was Jewish (a salient point we will return to), uses bodybuilders and computer programmers as examples of narcissistic people who are not “in touch with their feelings”—by which he means “in touch with the experience of their bodies”. Hence he argues that someone who exercises moderately but is “in touch with their feelings” is healthy, whereas the bodybuilder is not.

It’s where the phrase “he’s not in touch with his feelings” originates (in this psychotherapeutic milieu)—you’ve probably heard it quite often. It’s always directed at men. Indeed, the manual on PDs from the 1990s said that narcissism is primarily a male problem, like Narcissus himself. However, this confuses the issue: narcissism is a male pathology but it’s the female norm. It’s women who look at themselves in the mirror all the time—vanity is the feminine vice. Women actually love a narcissist (“He looks at himself in the mirror all the time”) because it reflects, like a human mirror, their own state back to them.

So the idea is that the prototypical mid-80s Reaganite consumer who went jogging with his Sony Walkman is a narcissist—he works hard at work, like a machine, to maintain his machine image (Patrick Bateman). By contrast, “nu-males” are “in touch with their feelings” and have better orgasms because they don’t treat women like objects (and so experience “love” not “sex”). Lowen even says that soldiers are narcissists, because they create images to depersonalise themselves to become “killing machines” (being only “human” with their “buddies”).

The problem with this analysis is that it doesn’t understand that the problem is over-identification with “the image”, not the particular image. Men like Lowen and Lasch identify a very particular image with “narcissism”—and it’s actually the successful male. Lowen had a client who was a computer programmer who “acted as if he was already dead” from when he was a teenager onwards to overcome his fear of death—he was an effective operator, a human machine (saw himself as such). He saw love as a matter of honour and respect—whereas, in Lowen’s opinion, he should have been “in touch with his feelings”.

As it happens, “to live as if you are already dead”, far from being a pathology, constitutes the old advice of philosophers. Because men like Lasch and Lowen conceptualise narcissism in specific terms (the bodybuilder, the computer programmer, the soldier) they pathologise only masculine activities (rightism). To be a man-machine who gets the job done and beats the opposition because he doesn’t fear death and so provides for his family becomes “narcissism”. What he needs to be is a “new man” who cries in front of his wife and says, “You know what, I just don’t feel like going to work today.”

Yet narcissism is about the preservation of a story against reality, not about your feelings as such—for sure, a bodybuilder can be a narcissist if he maintains a story about his body-image against reality, but to harden yourself is not in and of itself narcissism. This is the kicker: Lasch, Lowen, and the feminine coterie that follows them are actually the major narcissists—they project their narcissism onto effective men and try to sabotage them by turning them into “new men” (to sabotage them helps them to preserve their narcissistic image as superior—more “moral”, not hard).

The accusation of “narcissism” is a shit-test against effective men to see if you can get them, as with Prince Harry, to cry in public and turn into women—who entrap men in a narcissistic storyline against reality and then call it “escape from narcissism”. Prince Harry is enmeshed in narcissism that presents itself as “authenticity”—it’s all total bullshit, all the TV tie-ins and family soap opera and so on.

Men who harden themselves—who “live as if they are already dead”—are not narcissists because life is hard and you have to harden yourself to survive. The reason they are “like machines” is that that is what is required to survive in a competitive world. It’s not because they’re “in love with their self-image” of themselves as a machine, it’s because that is what reality requires—it’s the opposite to narcissism.

It’s the men like Lasch, Lowen, and their female followers who conceptualise this as “narcissism” because they are narcissists who have a storyline “I am a kind empathetic person who loves everyone” that they want to protect. That is how women think because it is the female prerogative to think in that way because they are protected by men—hence not exposed to reality in all its savageness.

Further, women are actually wickedly competitive but they are detached from their feelings, being unable to express anger, and hence they are the greatest narcissists—they can only be “nice girls” (for biological reasons) even if they feel immense anger inside, hence women take subtle deniable cuts (bitchiness) at people; just like narcissists always do.

Hence women are the great narcissists who are “out of touch with their feelings”—they are always confused about what they feel and hide it all with a “kind” facade. When men act this way they are actors, politicians, and feminised men—it’s perverse. But it’s nothing to do with being a “hardened” man—that is to be in touch with reality, reality is war and violence.

The connection with the Jews, as with men like Lowen, comes about because the Jews are a feminine race. They experience emotions more strongly than other races and also like storytelling to cover up the harshness of reality (Freud, Marx, St. Paul—storytelling for slaves, women, and children to make-believe “everything will be alright”).

Jews pathologise—through psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and psychology (fields they dominate)—healthy Aryan instincts (the computer programmer, the soldier, the bodybuilder). Rather, you should weep and complain, and moan constantly like a woman—or like Bernie Sanders—and tell a story about “the struggle for social justice”. And, indeed, Meghan Markle is half-Jewish—and her father, a former Hollywood guy, is a massive narcissist (just like his daughter).

The Jews project in other ways too. Judaism tells the Jews they are an elite people who deserve to rule the world and that all other races are inferior to them—and that God has given them a special mission to rule the world, a special message to do so. When people object to being roped into the latest Jewish “world salvation project” (which reliably kills millions)—such as Marxism, Freudianism, or LGBT—the Jews project and say, “Our enemies want to take over the world and kill everyone who isn’t like them.” No, that’s what you want—we just want to “exit” your global slave state, for which wish we are demonised.

So, as usual, everything is topsy-turvey and upside down. The fad for “political narcissism” was started by the left, by Lasch, but it’s projection—the Reaganite “hardbody” was not a narcissist, Bernie Sanders is. It’s the left that has a storyline to preserve, the storyline is that if you’re a man you’ll be okay if you engage in demonstrative (i.e. narcissistic) weeping. This is not real. It’s either a shit-test from women to break effective men, to see if they’ll cry or “express their feelings” (exposed as weak)—or it’s a projection from an alien race that doesn’t understand how Europeans can be “so cold”, and so tries to pathologise normal European behaviour as “narcissism”.

It’s Alice through the looking glass—but only one side in the political divide loses its shit if you break its narrative storyline, just like a woman starts to cry when you catch her out in her lies (“How could you, you beast! You’re pure evil! An abuser! You’re a narcissist!”—yes, the Jews are like that too). From the USSR to the trans today, it’s the left that’s narcissistic—the Pharisees don’t like it when Christ breaks their self-serving lies.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page