It only puts folks off for me to sit on my high chair and say that I'd been warning of this since Trump first announced his candidacy in 2015. But I don't care if folks are "put off."
For about 15 years, I had been studying the history, published works and unpublished writings of a man who was recruited in 1950 by CIA. This was during the great Stalin Panic. In his own memoir, Richard Helms, who had known the man well enough since their sojourn in 1954 Havana, refuses to cite the books of his associate (a total of five or six published) or even mention of his name, despite citations of about just every other CIA author between the 1950s and Helms 1979(?) retirement. Helms specifically noted that there was a dearth of psychologists for screening recruits in 1950, during a massive build-up of personnel in face of the "Panic."
The man -- I'll call him Citizen X for the time being -- was born on Halloween, 1921. His father died when X was about 7. His mother doted on him: a letter from her written at that time to her son as a keepsake would make the reader almost uncomfortable for a certain tone of affection. X wanted to be an actor. After all, Halloween coincided with his birthday, and the tradition of masquerade for tricks-or-treats parallels basic notions of the acting profession. But putting it all together from there, he had an affinity for the spotlight. He liked the attention. It would be addictive, as he would always be energized by an audience from the stage.
So I started looking closely at X's books as part of some armchair research I started around the year 2000. And for some reason, I felt like I knew the author too well. Use your head: it would be the most obvious reason, but even then, I didn't realize it personally. And I made some hypotheses about what I might find in those books, which required vetting by CIA colleagues for any sort of publication. Those hypotheses turned out to be True, as stark as a BlackJack hand with a King and an Ace. The publication gauntlet would present a challenge to someone who might play a game with himself in his dealings with others. Call it "I'm smarter than you are." Or "the people I work with are so stupid!"
If we wanted to look at other aspects of the narcissistically disordered, we find failed marriages, a lack of empathy for others, a bold and brash confidence on the outside but a self-esteem deficit and insecurity on the inside. Think of "the mouse that roared." There is an inclination to jealousy of others. The narcissist often thinks he's on some grand mission or project, and once he is able to define this mission or project on his own terms, he will pursue it without regard to how it may hurt others who get in the way.
If I wanted some analog in popular cinema to explain the psychological pathology, I might go back as far as Fritz Lang's "M" or "Der Kinder Mord." A different twist to the same profile could be found in the original and remake of "The Gambler" featuring respectively James Caan and Mark Wahlburg. And, in fact, the narcissist is often given over to addictions that both he and others would fail to see: sexual addictions, addictions to public exposure, gambling, substance abuse. To such a person, it would be reassuring to boast in public that he "doesn't drink, doesn't take drugs, never smokes."
You would more often find narcissists in the entertainment world -- of course. It only makes sense. People so self-centered, that they are really incapable of loving others or having concern for others. So the pathology often overlaps more serious ones, or manifests itself in criminal patterns. Thus, you see the escape of two prisoners from the New York Clinton facility some few years ago, and the authorities who remarked they could get the survivor to talk and reveal any prison staff who were complicit in the escape. They could get him to boast. He wouldn't be able to help himself.
That is the type of person you have elected for President. And the failure to acknowledge it also shows something about the deficits in character and understanding by his most ardent supporters.
If I had observed a dozen years ago that the Apprentice celebrity was simply a disgusting person, and that his show was patent bullshit fodder to people who don't understand professional management beyond bullying people and putting them under constant pressure, it is not a political statement. It is not a political observation. It is an observation about someone's personality, character and psychology which defines the former, by a "non-psychologist who happened to study narcissistic personality disorder in the course of an historical research project.
If I thought he was a disgusting person during the Birther Frenzy -- any common-sense rational American would probably concur. Those among the public who were energized and driven by the Birther Frenzy have problems of their own, and the simplistic diagnosis -- if you want to call it that -- is either subliminal racism or anger derived from myths about race and personal circumstance. You could call that observation "political" only if you think that these racist ideas or emotional reactions represent anything good about the American Character.
So. I'm supposed to "accept" a "so-called president" despite the fact of my judgment a dozen years ago -- having little to do with politics -- that he was a slug and a monster? F*** you, F*** him and F*** that. We've victimized ourselves, handing that Jackass the "Biscuit." It is impossible to define the POSSIBLE risks which will materialize under this pathological administration over the next four years. And heaven forbid, if we survive that long, when we then see a prospect of eight years. Among those possibilities -- it could be even longer.
Facebook
Twitter