How to Spot a Dangerous Man

I loosely follow my stats. If I see a bunch of hits coming from one site then I'll follow the link to see what the chatter is. In no less than four different forums in the last month the subject of whether or not the narcissist can be saved has been going on. Whenever this subject comes up rather a lot of heat is generated on both sides. Both sides have very personal reasons for fighting for their view for reasons you can all likely understand. It is usually a Christian who is contending for the view of the narcissist that requires an eternal optimism for their salvation and which usually is the means of justifying, yea, demanding, that people never give up on them. When this subject comes up someone puts up a link to my site as support for the Narcissist Is Doomed to Hell view point. I think I will, for the sake of future discussions along this line, clarify my position. I think my position is already clear but I'll make it more clear just because the emotionality of this subj...

It's superstitiously considered bad form to speak ill of the dead. I say 'superstitiously' because people act like the dead will have their revenge. Maybe it is just that people think it makes the person who does speak ill of the dead look bad themselves. That is true only if by speaking ill they are lying. But when someone dares to speak the truth of the dead, and that truth reflects poorly on the dead, then it is the dead person's fault not the speaker's fault. In case you've missed it there has been a bit of a bruhaha over the obituary for Dolores Aguilar. It first appeared in the Vallejo Times-Herald. It was yanked rather quickly by that paper but not before Aguilar's obit was picked up by the SFist.com, an online newspaper from Aguilar's home town, San Francisco. Then the rumors started to fly about how the obit was a hoax. Both SFist and a journalist from DailyBreeze.com did their research and were able to confirm the obit's authenticit...

A comment on the last post has sparked my thinking. The comment introduced the idea that a ministerial work, or an effort designed to help others in some way, is somehow sullied when the worker offers others the chance to support the work. This idea of payment always contaminating a charitable effort is held by many the world around so I'll address it a bit here. Also, it is very likely that many of us have been taught this by the narcissist. Let me peel the layers back a bit and give you another way to look at this. The narcissist doesn't want to acknowledge the labor and intellect of others as being worthy of being compensated. They devalue us, dismiss us and steal our efforts because they can't stand the idea of having to thank us or praise us, least of all, pay us. We've been taught to think that if we ask for anything in return for our efforts then we've ruined those efforts. The narcissist demands of us servitude. All labor for the narcissist is to be...

I want to examine a little further the narcissist appeaser otherwise identified in my last post as "The Peacemaker". When last describing the 'peacemaker' I put it in a religious context by identifying the N-appeaser as being a member of the Cult of Nice. This cult has doctrines and faith. It punishes and proscribes 'heretics'. The 'peacemaker' himself is a self-appointed priest. His god is the narcissist. The role of appeaser and so-called peacemaker is not a new phenomena. It has been an important role in human societies for millennia. The lengths to which a peacemaker/priest will go to appease an angry god was seen in multiplied and ancient cultures and always appeared in a religious context. Cultures which believed in a capricious, vengeful and angry god had elaborate rituals designed to appease their pagan god. Up to and including human sacrifice. There is mild argument about the prevalence of human sacrifice in ages past, but there has bee...

I have made reference several times to what I call the Cult of Nice. When referring to the Cult of Nice I have commented on how this 'cult' labels it a 'sin' or 'wrong' to hurt someone's feelings. Both Christians and secular types who've swallowed pop psychology seem to often subscribe to this belief. This anti-logic provides a lovely escape hatch for malignant narcissists because you can be made into a 'sinner' for calling them on their garbage, or for simply stating truth. They wave the flag of their 'hurt' feelings and it is supposed that you will then cease and desist or risk being labeled a hateful, unkind person. You're accused of being mean ...which is like a cuss word to the Cultists of Nice-land. The tables get turned so fast that the victim becomes abuser in a blink of an eye in this alternate universe of anti-logic. Those who subscribe to this kind of thinking are not being rational in any way. Which is why I tend to...

My cousin, "Lee", relates her memories and impressions from the first visit to my parent's home as a child in this post. Before we get to that, I have remarked in other posts about my cousin about her exceptional memory. Her great recall has earned the opprobrium of my mother. Back when Lee was under my mother's thumb (1997-2002) my mother began to be annoyed at Lee's excellent recall of conversations, events, time and place. One day my mother told Lee, "you really need to work on this [her memory]. It isn't good to remember every thing that happens. I have learned to not remember certain things because some things are not good or right to remember. You need to learn to do that too." At the time, my cousin's memory was getting in the way of my mother's truth revision and therefore earned her a lecture. The silliness of this demand makes me want to burst out laughing every time I think of it. But, there it is. The confession from a ...

Yesterday morning I decided to thumb through M. Scott Peck, M.D,'s book, "People of the Lie". It has been more than a couple years since I read his book. A recent comment in an email from one of the readers of my blog made me think it was time for me to refresh my memory on what Peck covers in his book. My eye quickly lighted upon Peck's assertion that adults do not accidentally end up in close relationships with evil people. He uses the term "willing thralldom" and contrasts it with the plight of children who, through no choice of their own, are enslaved to evil parents. Peck relates his experience with a very disturbed (and disturbing) couple -- Sarah and Hartley. In the context of this story he states: "We do not become partners to evil by accident. As adults we are not forced by fate to become trapped by an evil power, we set the trap ourselves." pg. 118 Referring to Hartley: "Theoretically he could have just walked away from Sarah. ...

The book," In Sheep's Clothing ", which I referenced in the last post gives a list of seven specific distorted thinking patterns of character-disordered people (pages 22-23). A quick look at the list without the full descriptions is as follows: Self-focused (self-centered) thinking. Possessive thinking. Extreme (all-or-none) thinking. Egomaniacal thinking. Shameless thinking. Quick and easy thinking. Guiltless thinking. I want to focus on number six--quick and easy thinking: " The disturbed character always wants things the easy way . He hates to put forth effort or accept obligation. He gets far more joy out of 'conning' people. This way of thinking promotes an attitude of disdain for labor and effort." (Emphasis mine.) The laziness described above is primarily a moral laziness. It feels easier to run a "confidence" game than it does to live by the rules. The morally lazy disordered character actually looks down on those of us who live...

Elise made a comment on the last blog post that got me to thinking. (Hi, Elise!) She said: It took me 40 years to wise up about my N-mom. And that's without a framework of Christianity (or any other religion) in my head. If I'd had those expectations to deal with too, I shudder to think how much longer I might have wrestled with trying to "fix" her and trying to be the "good daughter". I have made the observation here that it can be extremely difficult for a Christian to justify leaving off all contact with their abusive parents. There is a plethora of Bible verses that are misused to keep adult children from holding their abusive parents to account. In my posts on the 5th commandment I deal with biggest Christian club of all where it concerns the parent/child relationship. Then there is the culture of "nice" that seems to have taken over Christianity. Hurting someone's feelings is a sin now. I contemplate Elise's comment and ponder th...

Do you love the narcissist? Or are you in love with your fantasy of what you wish the narcissist to be? How can you tell whether you love the person or the fantasy? The following applies not only to romantic relationships; it applies across the board of all relationships including parent/child. You can not truly love someone until they have revealed their characters to you. Why is this so? Because who we are is revealed by what we choose to do . Our characters are the sum total of the choices we've made. Until you know someone's character you can not say in truth that you know or love who they are . This explains why so many marriages fall apart. People fall in love with their imagined version of the other person and don't become acquainted with that other person's character until enough time has passed for the consistency of their characters to be revealed. This is why short dating periods are often disastrous in the long-term. We each have a will. How we exe...

This quote is from the site I mentioned in my previous post : The most dangerous predators among us are ingeniously veiled. They carefully surround themselves with people entirely unlike themselves, that is, with deeply empathic human beings who wish to please others , who are slow to judge , who are excessively tolerant and who have an eye for the good to be found in others . They know how to exploit to their own advantage such character traits. It is their association with such people that maximizes their chances of perpetuating the facade and keeping themselves from exposure. " Narcissism & the Dynamics of Evil " The underlining is mine. I want to focus your attention for a moment on the kind of good person, good qualities, and good intentions which are used to support and hide "the most dangerous predators". If good is used for the evil purposes of predators then good itself becomes dangerous. We really must make determined efforts to not allow good t...

If your desire is to live in something resembling the Healthy Family model as outlined in the last post then you are forced to make some decisions. If the dynamics of your family of origin more resemble the Mob Family model you are going to have to recognize the Mob Family will never become the Healthy Family as long as the narcissist is allowed by other family members to maintain their tyrannical rule over them. If you decide to keep the Mob Boss, i.e., the narcissist, in your family then you are deciding to maintain the structure of the Mob Family. You have the right and even the obligation before God and your fellow human beings to fight for the Healthy Family. This means you have to remove the unrepentant and recalcitrant evil doers from your "community" if there is to exist a Healthy Family. You can't have everything in this life. You have to make choices. If you want a healthy environment for yourself and your own family you are not going to be able to opera...