365. Duration (VIII)
As regards leftism as narcissism, the narcissist is characterised by emptiness—an emptiness they hide behind various masks. Actually, everyone is empty behind their masks; but the narcissist flees from this emptiness rather than accepting it and so becomes engaged in ever-increasing attempts to escape from the void through masks; so it is crucial that other people accept their masks, although the narcissist can never fully believe that they have everyone fooled. Accordingly, the narcissist has poor psychological boundaries; they either feel that other people’s emotions infest them or they project their concealed emotions onto others.
A person without boundaries cannot understand property; if you have no sense of your self then the idea that an object or person belongs to another will bewilder you. Indeed, ownership and boundaries will be experienced by the narcissist as arbitrary oppression, apparently done for no other reason than to be cruel to the narcissist. With few personal boundaries, you cannot think that private property is real or just.
Of course, nobody lives without boundaries altogether; so the narcissist attempts to manage their boundaries in a perverted way. As with the USSR, they have overly rigid boundaries where nothing gets in or out; or, as with the naked hippies I saw cycle through London a few years ago, the narcissist has no boundaries at all—they let it all hang out. Both approaches represent maladaptive behaviour: the idea that boundaries could be adjusted in accord with circumstance does not occur to the narcissist because they have no centre from which to work; everything is considered from the perspective of how it will look to others and whether it serves the current mask they wish to maintain. Again, this relates to the way leftism is mainly concerned about appearances and not the substantial nature of things: what is important is what the New York Times or Pravda or The Guardian says—narcissists are starved of experience because they will not even accept the evidence presented to their own senses, everything is subordinated to the “idea” which constitutes the mask.
If a narcissist is challenged in such a way as to pierce their mask they either curl up and become dejected or explode in rage. This, again, mirrors the way the left operates: if the mildest milky conservative says, “I think, possibly, these ideas are slightly unrealistic—if very noble—but perhaps we should consider the budget and trim the ideas back…” they will be met with either outraged accusations that they are “fascists” bent on the brutal Darwinistic winnowing of the weak, or else the leftist will curl up and say: “They treat us so badly. I’m so depressed—I’m in utter despair at the state of everything.” Often they are not genuinely sad; they just want to advertise how hurt they feel on Twitter for a few day before they bounce on to the next cause.
Since the masks the narcissist creates are unrealistic, they suffer frequent narrative collapse—often burning the relationships they have built up as they do so as people feel betrayed when the reality is exposed. This is analogous to the way the left cycles through causes—whales, blacks, gays, women, climate change, the working class, the white race—although what they propose almost always damages the group they wish to “help”; and this is because they do not really want to help: they just want to create a mask in which they imagine themselves saving some benighted group—to universal adulation, of course. The actual proposals and the groups selected to be “helped” vary as reality pierces the false masks worn by the left.
Narcissism is a characteristically female trait, but women never exercise power in a society. So the left originates with narcissistic men; since narcissism can go along with typically masculine activities—deep-sea fishing, hunting, and shooting—it is no use to appeal to masculinity in general as an antidote to leftism, although masculinity is demonised by the current iteration of the left.