Here is Snopes on the email that TF has publicised.
Now, Snope’s pages are protected so I can’t quote directly but they do link to the article written by Sam Vaknin. It differs little from the email quoted by TF. Actually, if you read it it could equally if not more so be applied to the immediate past President and most particularly to his cohorts of loving supporters. Remember all of the “left-wing-media-bias” wailing from the likes of the right?
At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.
And again...
Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression.
Sound familiar?
And how about this?
The narcissistic leader fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.
Remember the "I talk to God every night"? Though honest reflection would apply that fragment more to Cheney than to GWB. After all he was the one that "denied" himself the earthly pleasures collected through the good offices of Halliburton Corp.
“Fascinating” stuff!! What sport! What brilliance!!
Until, as Snopes suggest, you dig a little deeper.
The contents of this website are not meant to substitute for professional help and counseling. The readers are discouraged from using it for diagnostic or therapeutic ends. The diagnosis and treatment of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder can only be done by professional specifically trained and qualified to do so.
The author is NOT A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL.
In other words, the validity of the email, the original article, are of as much validity as the mindless prognostications of the probligo.
Does that mean I should be famous?
5 comments:
Thank you for the tip of the hat, although it is a double edged sword. The legal disclaimers which are posted are done in order to avoid litigation by idiots who would try to sue based on information gleaned from a website, similar to the stupidity warnings placed on other items, "do not use electric hair driers in bathtub -serious injury or death may result".
Obama's personality is perfectly described in the article I pointed to, a valid warning, and so I thank you for alerting your readership, well done and thanks again for the tip of the hat, even if you meant it for a whole other set of reasons.
Actually, TF, the rantings of this little man - on this topic at least - are so generalised as to apply to just about every politician you might like to name.
Further, I think that as a general rule you could justifiably argue that the higher the political position held the higher the level of narcissim.
As an illustration -
The Jonkey - no question; nacissistic
Auntie Helen - hmm, certainly narcissistic.
Muldoom - no question.
Holyoake - the epitome of narcissism
American Presidents -
GWB - no question. Made a cult of neo-con.
Clinton - hmmm, different kind - but certainly the cult of the personality so yes narcissitic.
JFK - strange this one. I think that the public made him rather than it being his narcissism.
Nixon - No question. Narcissist to the bone
GHWB - Doubtful. Struck me as an honest guy.
How about Britain -
Thatcher - no question. Narcissist.
Wilson. Poor guy. Almost no character.
Brown - coloured just like his name. Won't last.
Losers?
McCain - probably lost the election because he is not narcissistic enough.
Kerry - No. Again one of the reasons he was unsuccessful.
Goff - Nah, won't lead a government.
Here is how Vaknin himself lists his "qualifications".
Education
Completed a few semesters in the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa.
Ph.D. in Philosophy (major: Philosophy of Physics) – Pacific Western University, California, USA.
Graduate of numerous courses in Finance Theory and International Trading.
Certified E-Commerce Concepts Analyst by Brainbench.
Certified in Psychological Counselling Techniques by Brainbench.
Certified Financial Analyst by Brainbench.
Full proficiency in Hebrew and in English.
And, let's dig just a bit deeper again...
California Miramar University is not accredited[3][2] by any higher education accreditation agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (agencies that recognize the accepted higher education accreditors in the United States). As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions. In some jurisdictions the use of degree titles from the university may be restricted or illegal. [1][4] Jurisdictions that have restricted or made illegal the use of credentials from unaccredited schools include Oregon [2][5], Florida, [6] Michigan[7], Maine[8], North Dakota[5]New Jersey[5], Washington[2][9], Nevada[2], Illinois[2], Indiana[2], Texas,[1] and Mexico.[10] Many other states are also considering restrictions on unaccredited degree use in order to help prevent fraud. [11]
Well, TF, there are the qualifications of this little "Doctor".
Seems that I might know quite as much as he does about a lot...
Mebbe I should be famous.
Probligo;
Thought you might be interested:
Snopes is the final say ONLY if they agree with your point of view.
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email..
But for several years people tried to find out whom exactly was behind snopes.com.
Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding.
Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.
So, Lucy, are you saying that Wikipedia is wrong about the status of California Miramar U? The one from which Vaknin received (bought?) his "Doctorate" (in "Philosophy of Physics")? Could it be malicious editing of the entry on the part of a Vaknin enemy - I guess.
And are you saying that the man himself has left out of his c.v. the supposed "qualifications" that would give substance to his "diagnosis" of Obama? Or do you think that his c.v. has been hacked by more of his "enemies".
I am aware that Snopes has as much credibility as the ol probligo, which the main reason why I always try to get more concrete (like the man himself and WikiP - and the latter is open to criticism) and reliable independant sources.
I notice that is something where a very great number of people fail. Better to publish as widely as possible some unattributed and inaccuarate email that has come from a "friend" than it is to try and confirm the validity and accuracy of the information.
Heigh ho!!
Post a Comment