Personality disorders, self-esteem psychology, and relationships
Personality Disorders Holocaust
With personality psychology we see even worse outcomes. What we see in effect is an effective
holocaust perpetrated against people accused of personality disorders, along with an
institution of de facto totalitarianism against everyone else. Using disorders whose definitions
are very similar to the Nazi definition of Jew, the believers in personality psychology are
waging a de facto holocaust on those accused of these disorders, as well as creating a de facto
totalitarianism for everyone else.
As people have been presented as being criminal by virtue of their personalities, what has in
fact been instituted is the Orwellian concept of crimethink: That one can be made criminal by
virtue of how one thinks. And with that has been put in place a de facto totalitarianism that
aims to control people's minds, people's personalities, and pursuant to that people's lives.
Which de facto totalitarianism has then been forced on countries intended to be free, with
predictably hypocritical, oppressive and disastrous results.
First the hypocrisy. Every white, part-white, Asian, Hindu or Middle Eastern person living in
United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Latin America, is there
because their ancestors were immigrants. Immigrants are people who left their family, their
community, their country, their tradition, and their way of life, to pursue a different way of
life in the New World. According to the believers in personality disorders, that is something
that only a sociopath or a narcissist would do. Which means that all of the aforementioned
populations are descended from people they would describe as possessing narcissistic or
For the people living now, that can affectuate in only two possible outcomes. Either they have
kept true to ways of their ancestors - meaning, to ways of supposed narcissists and sociopaths -
and are now living according to narcissistic or sociopathic adaptations - or they have broken
with the ways of their ancestors, in which case they are supposedly narcissists or sociopaths
themselves. Either way, this means that every white, part-white, Asian, Hindu or Middle Eastern
person living in United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Latin America,
is supposedly a sociopath or a narcissist. And if the black people on the territory of these
countries (except South Africa) think that they are exempt from it, they should think again.
Either they are African immigrants or descendants of African immigrants - in which case they are
supposedly sociopaths or narcissists by the same mechanism as the preceding - or they are
descended from slaves who at one point refused to be slaves any more and who are therefore
supposedly sociopathic or narcissistic as well.
According to definitions of sociopathic and narcissistic character, as same can be portrayed also
all the people to whom the contemporary world owes what it has. Who but a supposed sociopath or a narcissist would have the chutzpah and the temerity to break with the ways of the time to create such things as representative democracy, as was created by American founders at the time when monarchy was the supposedly divinely ordained order, and as has since then become the order of the First World and much of the rest of the world? Who but a supposed sociopath or a narcissist would have the gall to build railroads and skyscrapers and computers, to work to cure diseases, to conceive of any new idea or a theory or invention to which the world owes what it has? Who but a supposed sociopath or a narcissist would break with the ways of the time to do such things as create free markets, abolish slavery, start large-scale industry or charity or religious or social organization, push for women's or workers' rights, confront institutional corruption, develop the underdeveloped parts of the world, or confront such wrongs as sex trafficking and drafting of
children into wars? And finally, most relevant for the people in psychology, who but a supposed
sociopath or a narcissist would think up of something such as psychology as did its founders and
doggedly put it forth despite the fact that it was in complete contradiction with ways and
beliefs of the time and were scandalous to those ways and beliefs?
To the people whom the believers in personality psychology describe as sociopathic or narcissistic, is owed every significant improvement in history, whether it be political, scientific, social or economic. To such is owed the science of psychology itself and their own place - both as psychological practicioners and as residents of the New World. And the believers in personality disorders, in pathologizing risk-taking, passion, freedom of thought, personal freedom, innovative thinking, and willingness to take strong stands whether or not they be the popular stances in the time and the place, are denying the benefits of the same to the countries in which they operate and condemn these countries to floundering shorn of what made them great - or even possible - in the first place.
It should not be seen as coincidental that American academia significantly lost the amount of Nobel Prizes won by American scientists once these beliefs became widespread in academia. Nor should it be seen as coincidental that these beliefs have lead to a war against liberty and an effective totalitarianism taking place in ever greater sections of the free world. As more and more people and groups are demonized, pathologized and destroyed, the noose tightens more around the necks of all others and makes liberty harder and harder to come by. This results in a profound de facto totalitarianism that would not tolerate difference from itself even within the privacy of people's minds. Not even the Communists have been able to come up with a more insidious and more profound way to rob people of freedom, nor with a more hypocritical ideology, nor with a more complete usurpation of people's lives.
The belief in personality psychology is not only war against life and liberty; they are also a vast drain on competitiveness. Any mind that produces innovation is a mind that is original. An original mind will be seen as pathological or even as evil by those who equate health and goodness with the ways and beliefs of the time and the place. As the minds that are capable of innovation and creativity are attacked, thus lessens the country's ingenuity and intellectual quickness. This results in the nation losing competitiveness. Ingenuity will not abandon humanity, but it might very well abandon the countries that practice such ideologies, leading to these nations falling behind as the rest of the world, immune from such errors, surges ahead.
For an ideology such as this to exist in nations bound by their constitutional principles to protect and affirm freedom, is an act of violation of constitutional principles and thus in itself an act of narcissism and sociopathy. A violation not only in face of constitution, but also of liberty and of national good. The practicioners of such beliefs must be seen as such: sociopaths and narcissists by their own logic - and perpetrators of holocaust and de facto totalitarianism in the free world by the logic of history. They, not the people whom they attack, are the true threat to the well-being of the nations in which they practice their beliefs.
Another such usurpation has been done in the name of self-esteem. The con runs as follows. First the person is told what to esteem themselves by, and in accordance to what code. Then the person
is told to take responsibility for his life as a matter of achieving this manipulated code which is introjected into his consciousness under the rubric of self-esteem. The actual situation by transitive logic: The person is told what life to have and what to be and is made to take responsibility for living according to the lies of the people dishonest enough to perpetrate such a transparent fraud.
Besides serving as a method of brainwashing and enslavement, self-esteem movement also does much that is of poison to humankind. The person who has higher standards will always find it more
difficult to think well of themselves than the person who has lower standards. In rewarding self-esteem, one therefore rewards those who lack standards and punishes those who have standards, resulting in an inverted value situation in which those who have the least expectations for themselves flourish and those who demand more of themselves are left licking their boots.
There are also many people who believe that abuse in relationships happens to people who do not
possess high enough self-esteem. In fact, abuse happens a lot more against people who do have
high self-esteem and who because of that may not be content to be someone's "kitchen bitch," punching bag, beast of burden, or any other parts of what is known as the traditional wife role.
The worst abuses happen not against women who think poorly of themselves, but against women who think highly enough of themselves to not be content with perpetuating wrongful, oppressive attitudes and adaptations such as ones that masquerade as "tradition" and "family values." In the worst abuse situations, the abuser is trying to bludgeon the other person into subservience and out of her selfhood, including out of any self-esteem that she may possess. That does not happen because of low self-esteem. That happens because the person has high enough self-esteem to have objections to unfair, unrightful, and oppressive arrangements and ways of life. And portraying such a person as instead being lacking in self-esteem not only misdiagnoses the situation, but having fully misdiagnosed the situation prevents real solutions from being achieved.
In misconstruing everything as self-esteem, the people who believe in the concept have misrepresented what actually is happening and created a universal diagnosis that is plainly wrong and whose effects have been highly deleterious. Now, people who are at the receiving end of any kind of wrong are accused of lacking in self-esteem and portrayed for that reason as being bad to anyone with whom they may come in contact. This scares away any potential support and makes it easier for the bully to continue to bully. Instead of seeing the bully for what he is and what he does, it is now those at the receiving end of the same that are being blamed for his behavior. This gives incentive for the bully to abuse, knowing that the person at its receiving end will be blamed for it, seen as lacking in self-esteem or as damaged goods, and denied any potential support or love or respect. The worse the abuse, the more the person at the receiving end is seen as pathological, the less support for her and the greater the bully's ability to injure, oppress, and entomb her. The result is a downward spiral leading to ever greater violence and abomination. This shows just how far from sanity, righteousness and integrity the concept of self-esteem has taken the world.
As the person at the receiving end of abuse and brutality is slandered as causing it through low self-esteem, such a person is denied a way out of the situation. Such a person is also denied a future and denied support. The result is perpetuation and incentivization of abusive practices. This - along with manipulating people into de facto slavery as part of striving to meet an imposed self-esteem construct, and along with inverting value and giving the world to its worst elements - have been the fleurs du mal of self-esteem psychology.
Relationship Blunders and Elizabethan Script
On relationships, psychological thought is just as confused, but that does not make it any less overbearing. The thought on relationships centers around the concepts of equality and power balance, without making any credible case as to why this is necessary or even right. It is frequently heard people say such things as that "relationships are about equality." Of course that is nonsense. The relationships that exist in the world are about any number of things, equality being the case for only a small minority. Far more relationships are about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism; a vast number are about family and children; many others are about shared goals and attitudes; and of course there are some that are about romantic love. With this being the case, why would it be more rightful to listen to someone who wants to define all relationships according to a fad of psychology or ideology than, say, to an Islamist who wants all relationships to be led by polygamous wife-beaters, to the "father's rights" movement that wants women to have no rights at all, to a Gennady Zuyganov who says that his household is "matriarchy in the kitchen" (and patriarchy outside the kitchen), or to maniacal women who see all men as rapists and pedophiles and want to castrate all men and eat them all for lunch?
There are other beliefs that are totally wrong as well. One is that one must love oneself before one can love another. What the people believing such things don't understand is that this would exclude from love the bulk of humanity for the bulk of the time that humanity has existed, as well as majority of humanity at this time. In most cultures, especially Christian-influenced and Islam-influenced, loving oneself is seen as a great sin and is ruthlessly bludgeoned out of people since earliest ages. And yet we see love constantly taking place between people in these cultures, as we have seen it take place constantly in Western culture prior to its exposure to the idea that loving oneself is a good thing and far prior to the idea that loving oneself must be coerced. That there be interpersonal love in cultures such as 19th century Russia and Romantic-era England and Germany, as well as such cultures as modern-day Afghanistan, shows that this claim is wrong. One does not need to love oneself before one can love another; one must need to love another in order to love another.
Another wrongful belief is that romantic passion is somehow incompatible with "healthy relationships." The correct response to that is, if you see passion as incompatible with healthy relationships, then your idea of healthy relationships is worse than worthless; it is sick. The cold, prissy, prudish, anal-retentive control freaks will always be threatened by anything that is warm, anything that is passionate, and anything that is not easily quantified or easily pigeonholed. The sickness in this case belongs to the cold, prissy, prudish, anal-retentive control freaks who have such beliefs.
If one is to take someone's advice on love, it would be reasonable to get it from someone who's actually loving. Very little of worth can be learned on this matter from cold mean-spirited harpies who portray romance as rape, love as a patriarchial construct, marriage as an institution of oppression, or beauty as a myth that enslaves women and destroys their self-esteem. One may learn far more about love from women who are actually loving people - as can be found far more in
women from cultures that develop in women warm and loving qualities, including those women in America who have taken objection to political correctness.
One major problem in English-speaking countries has been what I call the Elizabethan script. As Queen Elizabeth I came to power, her lover betrayed her and became part of a plot to murder her.
Needless to say, Queen Elizabeth had to choose between love and power and chose power. Since
then, many women in Anglophone cultures likewise have had to decide between love and power, resulting in powerful women having to go without love and the women who chose love having to take the subservient role. The Anglophone cultures will improve, and the lives of women in Anglophone cultures will improve, if it becomes possible for women in these cultures to have love and power both. And that requires an attitude on the part of men to allow and value such qualities, just as it requires an attitude on the part of women to stop seeing men as women's enemies.
There are many parts of the world where the Elizabethan script is not in place. Kristina and Nestor Kirschner are a married couple, and each partner has been the Prime Minister of Argentina - first the husband, then the wife. Benazir Bhutto and her husband have likewise been Prime Minister of Pakistan - first the wife, then the husband. Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel are a married couple, and each partner has been a major political figure in Southern Africa. In all cases, the man and the wife have had a loving relationship and both had power.
There are many men who, once they've had sex with the woman, see her as being below them. This
understandably leads many women to regard sex as degrading and to avoid it; but that is not the solution either. The real solution is simply that men value the women that they have been with and be supportive of their ambitions, and stop seeing the fact of them having had sex with the woman or the fact of them being with the woman as a reason to treat her as less than oneself.
A major error of women who seek equality with men is that of equating equality with sameness. That puts them in a race where they can only be second, while denying them the benefits of what is uniquely feminine and what men cannot do or cannot as easily do. A human being has both the physical nature and the volitional nature. In focusing on the volitional nature where men and
women are indeed equal, many of this persuasion want to do away with the physical nature in which
they are different. That leads to disastrous outcomes. Human beings have both physical and volitional natures and should be able to enjoy the benefit of both natures. That is as much the case for the women as it is the case for the men.
The thought on relationships must be thought that is life-affirming. Both physical and volitional natures are present in human beings, and the two must be acknowledged, valued, and be able to interact and fulfil one another. This will create more integrated human beings and more complete experience of relationships, as well as a more complete experience by people of life.
From essay Errors of Psychology at