Living On The Right Half of the Plane

I'll begin this post with yet another metaphor.

The behavior of nearly all physical systems can be modeled by systems of differential equations. Solving these equations as a function of some independent system variable allows for prediction of how the physical system responds to variations in a particular system input. One problem with differential equations is that all but the simplest of them are quite hard to solve. Therefore a system modeler is always on the lookout for tricks and tools to simplify the solution of differential equations.

One such tool is the Laplace transform, by which linear differential equations can be turned into algebraic equations. These algebraic equations can be easily manipulated to determine those functions which are solutions of the original differential equations describing the physical system in question. These algebraic equations can, in fact, be combined into a transfer function which describes the behavior of the physical system. This transfer function is usually written as a factored polynomial expression with a polynomial numerator and a polynomial denominator, like this:

The numbers z1, z2, etc. are called the zeros of the transfer function, and the numbers p1, p2, etc. are called the poles of the transfer function. The poles and zeros are complex numbers of the form a+jb, where j equals the square root of -1. For any pole or zero, the number b can be equal to zero, in which the pole or zero is entirely real. If the number a equals zero, then the pole or zero has no real part, and the physical system is marginally stable. If the number a is positive, the system is unstable – that is, in response to a finite change in a system input, the system output grows without bound until the system destroys itself. When any of the poles of the system transfer function have a positive real part, we say that these poles are on the right half of the control plane, signifying that the system is unstable. One way to make an unstable system stable is to add a negative feedback loop which counteracts the tendency of the system output to grow without bound.

Many social systems behave in the same way as physical systems modeled by differential equations, in that there is some element of instability for which we must compensate by adding a feedback loop to prevent the system from destroying itself. From whence the instability? From the people who make up the social system – “Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied; and a man's eyes are never satisfied.” (Proverbs 27:20) The cravings of each of us require checks and balances, lest by the unrestrained exercise of those cravings we destroy both ourselves and the social systems of which we are a part.

This realization has guided the formation of enduring social structures, including societies, communities and cultures that last over the long run. The members of such social units realize that the happiness of the individual and the happiness of the collective are linked, and that they must be balanced in a healthy way. Therefore, the members of such communities recognize that there must be necessary curbs on the pursuit of individual happiness. A good summary term to describe this connectedness is the Bantu word ubuntu, the meaning of which has been summarized as follows: “I am because we are.”

Looking at social systems in this way enables us to see that the United States was an unstable social experiment from the very start. The American revolution, financed and led by wealthy and wealth-loving upper-class colonists, was an affirmation of “...inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” The underpinnings of this affirmation were, among other things, the writings of John Locke, who believed that the role of the government should be limited solely to protection of private “property”, defined as a person's “life, liberty and estate.” To put it another way, “...all are entitled to lead a free life in the pursuit of happiness, but how they get there is up to them. The pursuit is that of an individual, not of a larger force.” (Cogan, Clio's Psyche, June 2011).

Wealthy people – especially those with a Western mindset – can be quite selfish; thus the emphasis on an individual pursuit in the society created by the wealthy former colonists, a society which was dominated by what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “crass individualism” and narrow self-interest: “...[I see] an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.” (de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840).

That quote is from a portion of de Tocqueville's work where he describes how democracy might slide into despotism. I think there were some things which de Tocqueville might not have anticipated (such as how such a society might slide into narcissism); yet I submit that his quote describes the logical outgrowth of a society built on the individual pursuit of happiness without regard for how each person's pursuit might affect the larger collective. In the United States, therefore, the necessary feedback loop of being forced to consider the consequences of one's individual pursuits on the health and welfare of others was greatly weakened from the start.

This has led to a society which, after only a few generations, produced a number of holders of great concentrations of economic power, people whose actions therefore had a strongly disproportionate and frequently negative effect on the health of the entire community. On multiple occasions, the holders of such wealth and power successfully fought off the efforts of the community to rein in that power by appealing to “the free market ideal,” and the rights granted to men by “natural law,” the chief right being the “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet the unrestrained actions of these people led to frequent system crashes and painful reboots where the ability of individuals to amass large concentrations of economic power was temporarily curtailed. The social system called the U.S.A. was able to recover after each crash because this country still had a large economically exploitable base of natural resources.

Now we are facing what may possibly be the mother of all crashes, and instead of rediscovering our connectedness to each other, many in the U.S. are addicted to right-wing demagogues who want to remove all community restraints on the exercise of individual “rights.” Some of these people are favorites of some members of the “peak oil/collapse” scene. I am thinking of those who agree that our government has become a corrupt oligarchy, those who decry the capture of the government by big business, and who put forward people like Pat Buchanan and Ron and Rand Paul as potential saviors. They even quote Ron Paul publicly wringing his hands over the power big business has at all levels of government. What these people are not sharp enough to realize is that the solution proposed by Buchanan and the Pauls and people like them is to remove all government restraint over the individual pursuit of whatever makes each of us happy.

Such a removal is sold as a means to guarantee that each of us has a crack at becoming a self-made Horatio Alger story millionaire or billionaire. Yet the truth is that the world's dwindling store of remaining wealth has been concentrated in so few hands that in the aftermath of the removal of all government restraint, the free-for-all competition for what's left will be a zero-sum game in which those who were already the fattest predators win and most of the rest of us get gobbled up.  Afterward, we will find ourselves being ruled solely by naked corporate power.  (Imagine, for instance, your children daily pledging allegiance to the flag of Microsoft.)  And then the system will crash, because its owners did not recognize the limits to growth, the consequences of ruining the environment, or the outcome of devouring their own fellow human beings.

So to return to my original metaphor, I feel like a hostage passenger on a bus careening down a mountain dirt road. Someone has drained all the damping fluid out of the shock absorbers, thus removing all the negative feedback which would keep the bus from bouncing off the road as it hits bumps and ruts at a rate which coincides diabolically with the resonant frequency of the bus-shock absorber-tire system. Some of us are about to get car-sick (or is it bus-sick?), some of us are saying our prayers, and too many of us are trying to help the bus to crash by dancing in the aisle. And the bus driver has his pedal to the metal, and whoever gets to drive the bus after 2016 isn't likely to be any better.

The Birth of a "Special" People

(Before you read this, you'd better take a bathroom break, then get yourself a cup of coffee. This post is long.)

Today it's time to delve the origins of American (specifically, Anglo-American) narcissism. To me, the most obvious place to start digging is Imperial Rome in the years from the birth of Christ through the reign of Constantine. Let's look first at the psychological construct of national exceptionalism, which has existed for as long as there have been nation-states. The pre-Christian, pre-Roman Greek state of Athens is an excellent example of this. (See this and this for examples). The Greek example shows one key characteristic of national exceptionalism: namely, that it is created, invoked and promulgated by the leaders of a nation-state when those leaders want to rouse their citizens to war and other inhumane acts against the members of differing nations and states.

The Roman empire was no exception in its claims to exceptional status, as described in a Huffington Post article on the concept of the "just war."  In the name of its exceptionalism, Rome conquered many peoples who had previously considered themselves to be exceptional. It was this empire which occupied Palestine in the days of the earthly life of Christ, and which sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. Both the Romans and the people they conquered viewed exceptionalism as a means to lay claim to an exceptional share of all the things normally valued by people in this earthly life. Yet this empire was also the birthplace of the Christian faith – an otherworldly construct, a commonwealth of strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 1:1; 2:11), citizens of a Kingdom not of this world (John 18:36). The citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven were called to live by values which are radically different from the values of this earthly life. The modeling of these values, moreover, was guaranteed to bring the citizens of God's Kingdom into direct conflict with the citizens of all earthly kingdoms (Luke 6:20-28; John 15:18-16:3). Thus from the death and resurrection of Christ until the beginning of the reign of Constantine the Great, becoming a Christian was not the thing to do if you wanted a comfortable, wealthy life on earth.

Constantine's reign brought some rather drastic changes to the Christian church, which had become very popular among the Roman underclass because of its message of hope to the poor of this world. In fact, the Faith had begun to exert a considerable amount of temporal influence, both economic and political. Thus Constantine found it expedient to legalize Christianity and to extend imperial protection to the Faith. In exchange, the Church began to abandon certain otherworldly values and to embrace and support the earthly, secular values of the Roman state. At the Council of Arles in 314, a number of prominent members of the early church declared that “to deny the State the right to go to war was to condemn it to extinction.” (Source: Constantinian Christianity by Yuri Koszarycz.). The council also declared “Concerning those who lay down their weapons in peacetime, be it resolved that they be excluded from fellowship.” (Source: The Canons to Sylvester from the Council of Arles). The Church abandoned the pacifism of the New Testament and began to legitimize the concept of a “just war.” Through the acts of Constantine, the first State church was born.

This State church was not the sum total of Christianity in the Roman Empire. There were many Christians who for various reasons did not choose to align themselves with the State church. Some of those reasons had to do with conscience, others to do with ambitions of the sort of earthly political and economic power which was now being enjoyed by the heads of the Roman State church. The abandonment of New Testament pacifism and the pursuit of earthly values by the State church and by some of its dissenters led inevitably to armed conflict. The funny thing about all this is that the combatants on each side claimed that God was on their side. Each side claimed a special mission from God which not only excused but vindicated their newly adopted violence and which vindicated their claim to whatever it was they were fighting for.

This should be no surprise, because if a group of people claim that they hold as holy the words of a certain Book, yet they are always refusing to obey certain key teachings of that Book in order to achieve earthly ends, they need to have some insanely awesome excuses for their refusal to obey. So national exceptionalism was retooled to provide the excuse, which now read something like this: “We have a special mission from God in these difficult and dangerous days. Therefore God calls us to fight and die on behalf of that mission. May God bless us in carrying out that mission!” The flip side of that exceptionalism was the demonization of those who were considered enemies of the exceptional State. This silenced the conscience of combatants and legitimized the horrible things they did to the soldiers and civilians who were the target of their warfare.

State churches and ecclesiastically sanctioned violence marked each of the nations who fought in the religious wars which dot the landscape of European history, including the Crusades, the Eighty Years' War, and the Cromwellian conquest of England, to name a few. Each of the combatant nations believed in its own exceptionalism, and each had its clerics who told its citizens how exceptional their cause was, and how this was due to the mission which they had “received from God.” This exceptionalism naturally led the citizens of each belligerent nation to believe that it and its citizens were superior to other nations.

This exceptionalism and superiority got a turbocharge boost in the 16th century through the writings of John Calvin. Calvin was an influential French politician, preacher and theologian who devised a number of Church doctrines which had a profound influence on the culture of England and the United States. A key doctrine of Calvin is the doctrine of predestination. He believed that certain Bible passages taught that God has predestined some people to find salvation through faith in Christ, and that He has predestined others to eternal punishment. He also taught that this predestination has occurred independently of any man's choice in the matter. This was a special case of Calvin's doctrine concerning the sovereignty of God, where he wrote that all that happens in the world is the expression of Divinely permitted and approved Providence. Naturally, since most people in Calvin's audiences wanted to go to Heaven and not Hell, they became very curious about how they might know they were of the elect whom God had chosen for salvation.

A number of sources (including Max Weber) therefore state that Calvinists looked to “success in earthly calling” as a sign of God's election – i.e., material success in one's work. This was combined with the imposition of a duty on hearers to be as successful as possible (in contrast with 1 Timothy 6:9-10, in which St. Paul warns people against wanting to be rich). Naturally, those who were successful in business liked this doctrine, since it allowed them to look down on those whose lives were marked by material struggles, because such strugglers obviously did not have the blessing of God. (An interesting side note: the Church had also historically taught that usury – the lending of money at interest – was wrong and forbidden by Scripture. But Calvin stated that some Scriptures which had seemed to forbid usury had been misinterpreted, and other Scriptures no longer applied because times had changed. (Source: "Usury and Capitalism" from the Wikipedia article on John Calvin.)

This, then, was the flavor of the nationalist exceptionalism which pervaded many European societies just prior to the colonization of the United States: first, a belief that God had endowed certain nations with a mission that condoned armed conflict in support of that mission; secondly, a belief that God had predestined certain people to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation independent of the choice of these people, and third, a belief that material success combined with hard work was a sign of God's blessing upon the elect, and that lack of material success was a sign of the opposite.

The American colonists therefore were already primed for exceptionalism when they arrived in the New World. They preached that theirs was an exceptional mission: to found a new Israel in the New World (for instance, see John Winthrop, Cotton Mather, Thomas Thacher, and Thomas Prince). Later, they preached that it was the manifest destiny of the United States to conquer the entire North American continent (see John L. O'Sullivan). This they did – and along the way, nearly exterminated the Native American peoples who had been here previously, through both overt warfare, trickery and ecological warfare (namely, the near-extermination of the buffalo). In their efforts to expand White American wealth and power, they also involuntarily “recruited” millions of dark-skinned, formerly free Africans from their homelands to assist in the expansion of White American wealth. The wealthiest of these settlers just “knew” that they were exceptional because their Calvinism had told them so. The exceptionalism of the people of the United States also gave rise to an exceptional new religion, namely Mormonism, which, in addition to being occult and arcane, is one of the most racist elitist religions on earth.

The wealthy among the new settlers used the arguments of Calvinism to justify their treatment of the dark-skinned peoples they exploited and killed, claiming that the fact that Providence had allowed the conquest of the North American continent, that conquest must necessarily have been God's manifest will. In addition, these wealthy people compared their standard of material wealth to the stark material simplicity of many Native Americans and Africans and concluded that because God had not “blessed” them, these nonwhite people could not be of the elect; therefore, they could do whatever they wanted to them. The Golden Rule did not apply to the treatment of nonwhite people. (To use clinical language, dark-skinned peoples became “objects” to be exploited.)

In the later decades of the 19th century, the American religious community came into conflict with the spread of the writings of Charles Darwin. Yet in some circles there was a truce, and certain men discovered that it was advantageous to combine allegedly Darwinian concepts with the notion of Divine predestination of certain peoples to blessing and election of others to curses. Among these men were Josiah Strong, a Congregational preacher who in 1891 wrote, “Can anyone doubt that the result of this competition of races will be the survival of the fittest?”, and who lamented two years later that the superior Anglo-Saxon stock of the United States was deteriorating because of immigration. (Baynton, 2014) The late 1800's and early 1900's also saw the development of “muscular Christianity” in Anglo-Saxon society as a response to the perceived threat posed by non Anglo-Saxon peoples. (This “muscular Christianity” influenced the development of the YMCA and of American professional football, by the way.  For more information, see this.) These trains of thought also gave rise to the pseudoscience of eugenics, which argued that some people were endowed with specialness by nature in the same way that Calvinism had argued that some people were pre-selected by God for blessing – and which also argued that some people were cursed by nature in the same way that Calvinism claimed that these were also cursed by God. The rationalism of eugenics led to human attempts to improve the human breed, leading in turn to forced sterilizations of people deemed “unfit” by several states in the U.S. (Another side note: the British government is currently funding forced sterilizations of poor people in India, according to an article published in the Guardian in 2012, and other sources.)

The combination of religious superiority (Calvinism), the record of “Providence” (manifest destiny, social Calvinism, and a long string of seemingly unbroken successes), and botched science (social Darwinism, eugenics) has proven to be an intoxicating mix. This country has been drinking one version or another of that mix for over 200 years. This mixture is the myth taught to generations of American schoolchildren, advertised to generations of American consumers, and preached to generations of American ears in every context from movie theaters to books to political campaigns to church pulpits. (Read The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall, for an example of this.) This is the foundation of American narcissism, the belief that this nation is above all nations in that it has a special mission from God (a mission which conveniently lines up with American imperial ambitions), that Americans (specifically, white Americans) are a special, chosen people, and the belief that both Scripture, Providence and nature bear this out.

This belief in our “specialness” is so pervasive and has been taught for so long that it has become the unconscious foundation of the lives of most Americans, most of whom can no longer articulate the roots of their specialness. They are special just 'cause they are. I think of K. Anders Ericsson, who wrote that it takes 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in order to achieve expert performance in an endeavor. The average American has had many more than 10,000 hours of being schooled to think that he or she is “special” – a special member of a special people and a special nation. From this “specialness” has arisen a belief among many Americans that each one is more “special” than anyone else, including his or her fellow Americans. A recent paper titled, “The Cracked Mirror: Features of Narcissistic Personality Disorder in Children,” expounds the process of the formation of this belief. The author, Karen Kernberg Bardenstein, identified risk factors for the development of clinical narcissism in children. Among these are being the child of narcissistic parents, the child of successful parents, and the overindulged or wealthy child. Consider the vast disparity between what has become “the American way of life” and the standard of material wealth enjoyed by most of the world's population. Is it any wonder that this nation as a whole has the character of someone with a personality disorder? Other factors which contribute to the competing claims for specialness among Americans include the unhealthy glorification of competition – both economic, scholastic, and athletic. If you spend 10,000 hours in concentrated instruction, you can turn just about anyone into an entitled, selfish, first-class jerk.

We now openly compete for stages from which each of us can proclaim his or her own specialness. Think of reality TV, American Idol, and all the shows which were spawned by American Idol. I think of a recent example of “specialness,” the “balloon boy” Falcon Heene whose parents Richard and Mayumi Heene caused national panic in 2009 when they called 911 claiming that their son Falcon had been carried away by a weather balloon. It turned out that the claim was false; the boy had been hiding in the attic of his home all the time that rescuers were looking for him.  It was revealed that his parents had pulled a hoax in order to get their family on reality TV (they had already been on TV once before). His parents therefore did a bit of jail time for their trouble. A few years later, Mr. Heene was able to get himself back in the media spotlight as reporters followed up on the “balloon boy,” who is now an aspiring pre-adolescent metal rock guitarist and front man for the Heene Boyz band. Maybe the publicity has helped Falcon's career.

Later, the American evangelical world produced a religious “balloon boy”: Colton Burpo, whose parents claimed that when Colton was three years old, during an emergency appendectomy, he died and went to Heaven, then came back so he could tell his parents about the journey. Colton's story was “Providentially” discovered by Thomas Nelson Publishers who published Colton's story in the book Heaven is for Real, in 2010. Afterward, the book was “Providentially” discovered by Sony Pictures and made into a movie which was released this year, 2014. Now, I can't prove or disprove another person's religious experience. But I can't swallow Colton Burpo. Luke 16:27-31 is one big reason why. Another reason is that the whole affair smells like stage-managed narcissism to me. Colton's father pastors his own church, and he and his wife have also revealed that Colton is now a high school wrestling star and an accomplished musician who has toured with the band Read You And Me. (If you have the stomach for it, you can watch some YouTube videos of Colton singing and performing. I don't have the stomach for it.) What better opportunity for Todd Burpo to grow his own church and to start a career in Christian media for his son than a near-death experience?

And while we are talking about movies, let me mention the final frontier of hubris, namely, The Interview, a Sony Pictures semi-comedy about two journalists who are recruited by the CIA to assassinate the head of the government of North Korea. The movie is the incarnation of the idea of America as a special nation with a special mission that can be carried out by ordinary Americans who will succeed just because they are Americans, and as we all know, Americans are all just so crazy awesome! The publicity surrounding the movie is the embodiment of American hubris, because when the plot of the movie was announced, many American politicians brushed aside North Korean objections, claiming that these objections were the attempts of a dictator regime to stifle American First Amendment freedoms. (Whoa, dude! You mean to tell me that you can make a movie about threatening to kill someone in another country and the person you threaten can't protest because it would infringe on your First Amendment rights? We are truly a “special” nation.) The movie and its publicity are also an example of what I call “desperate narcissism,” because in the days prior to the movie's release the Obama administration claimed that North Korea had hacked Sony's computer network, and Obama himself promised retaliation. Yet a number of prominent cyber security experts expressed public doubt that North Korea had done such a thing. Sony claimed that it was considering not releasing the Interview in order not to provoke international tensions, but Obama and other politicians pushed back, saying, “We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States.” So this Christmas the movie opened in flag-draped theaters packed full of doofuses and raked in quite a bit of dough in the process. Can anybody say “publicity stunt” with me?

Desperate narcissism. To a narcissist, good attention is the best thing a body can have. But even negative attention is better than no attention. When narcissists are denied attention they get desperate. I'll talk more about the desperate phase of American narcissism in a future post.

Uncle Sam On The Couch

In my last post, I described an educational clinic located in a poorer part of a large American city. I described the healthy cooperation between the tutors in the clinic and the children who are being tutored, and the contrast between these kids – all of them from low income families, and many of them immigrants – and many Americans. I want to elaborate on that contrast. Therefore, today's post will not be directly about post-Peak education.

I have described these kids as “technicals”, comparing them to the small, nearly indestructible trucks used by some governments and most separatists in developing countries. Just like the trucks, these kids are tough, simple (but not stupid), and easy to fix. Their toughness and simplicity both arise from the fact that they are not full of their own self-importance, but they know that they have to share the world with others, and that this sharing involves saying “Please” and “Thank you” and waiting their turn for things. I contrasted them with Americans (and many other native-born citizens of the First World) by comparing the “First-Worlders” to BMW's, which are called “the ultimate driving machines,” but which are complicated, expensive to own and fix, and which need constant pampering. It can easily be argued that a person who is complicated, expensive to maintain, and in need of constant pampering is probably affected by a personality disorder. I submit to you that America's public face – the face put forward in American mainstream media, the face worn by the wealthiest Americans and the politicians they own, the face worn by many, even among the poor, who sympathize with the wealthy of this country – is the face of someone with a personality disorder. Being personality-disordered has consequences, both for our interpersonal relations and the relations between this country and nations and peoples external to it.

In discussing personality disorders, I will be referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The manual is commonly referred to as the DSM-IV. (The APA has published a new edition, the DSM-V, but I think it waters down some key diagnostic points which are pertinent to this post.) According to the DSM-IV, a personality disorder is “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.” According to Joanna Ashmun, a personality disorder is “a pattern of deviant or abnormal behavior that the person doesn't change even though it causes...trouble with other people...”

What are the marks of America's personality disorder? The DSM-IV describes a disorder characterized by “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy...and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. ...a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 
3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 
4. requires excessive admiration 
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations  
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others  
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her  
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes."

These are the characteristics of the narcissistic personality disorder. There is one other key characteristic that is not in this list. This characteristic is called “scapegoating” or “enemy creation,” and it is usually the outcome of narcissistic rage – the inevitable reaction narcissists have toward those who burst the bubble of their false self-image. Bursting that bubble is surprisingly easy – all one has to do is to contradict a narcissist or assert one's right to exist as a human being separate from, and different from the narcissist. M. Scott Peck writes, “A predominant characteristic...of the behavior of those I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at any one who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection. Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world's fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the world. They never think of themselves as evil; on the other hand, they consequently see much evil in others...Evil, then, is most often committed in order to scapegoat, and the people I label as evil are chronic scapegoaters....The evil attack others instead of facing their own failures.” (Excerpts taken from People of the Lie, as reposted on Reflections on Cultic Christianity.) (Another note: Jon Krakauer also mentions narcissistic rage in his book Under The Banner of Heaven.)

Over the last decade or two, most who have written about NPD have written of the manifestation and effects of narcissism in interpersonal relationships, especially relationships of romance and family. These writers have been like most writers of poetry and songs in Western pop culture who have devoted the majority of their efforts to writing about the ins, outs, ups and downs of romantic love. Yet it should come as no surprise that the techniques needed to write a good love song can be applied with equal skill to writing a good song about almost anything else. In the same way, a great deal can be learned by studying the ways in which clinical narcissism can affect and motivate not only family dynamics, but the culture and policies of nations.

Therefore the next one or two posts will explore the origins of the narcissistic American national identity, and the way this identity has guided American foreign policy, the treatment of marginalized groups within this country's borders, and this country's response to limits – both its own human limits and the limits to growth imposed by resource constraints. I'll also make a few guesses regarding likely responses of this country to upcoming challenges, and what those responses will mean to its citizens. In attempting to describe the public American persona, I must say that there are many Americans – people from every national and ethnic background – who don't act like they're personality-disordered. However, theirs are not the dominant voices in America nowadays. Also, in laying out a roadmap for my next few posts, I am sure that I've given away enough to enable someone else to beat me to the punch with posts of their own on the same subject. Go for it, if you feel so led.

One last thing.  My assessment will not be patriotic or supportive of the current wars this country is fighting.  Therefore, what I say may cause a few readers to spew coffee on their keyboards.  You've been warned.

The High Cost of Living Room

Many people in the United States are anxiously awaiting the announcement of the grand jury verdict in the case of the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, by Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson. It's interesting that several weeks ago, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder resigned from President Obama's cabinet. And it's also interesting that a number of law enforcement agencies are “preparing for the worst”: to wit, the Department of Homeland Security, the Missouri National Guard, and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, among others.

This leads me to make a prediction. First, I expect the grand jury to refuse to indict Officer Wilson. Secondly, I expect that the authorities, from Missouri Governor Jay Nixon downward, along with President Obama, to have known all along that this is how the verdict would turn out. Third, I do not expect the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute Officer Wilson or the Ferguson police department. Fourth, I expect protests to result from these things. But while the protests will be largely peaceful, the response of those who hold power will be anything but peaceful. Thus the rest of the world will get to see a fresh display of the hypocrisy United States, which is busy bombing and killing other nations in their quest to bring “democracy” and “human rights” to those nations.

Fifth, I expect a flood of right-wing commentary from the blogosphere, as well as some rather surprisingly right-wing comments from people who brand themselves as “left of center.” The commentary will seek to justify what is in actuality a campaign of oppression and extermination designed to grant a little extra “living room” (in German, Lebensraum) to the largely white ruling classes in the United States at this late hour of their existence. Some of the commentary is likely to come from people who willfully ignore the history of their own forbears who endured the cruelty of nations looking for Lebensraum in the last world war.

Lastly, I expect many disenfranchised people in this country to become quite creative in the art of passive rebellion.

I pray that I may be proved wrong about predictions #1 through #3.

Clueless Conversations (A Look At The Country)

Once again, I am down in So. Cal. for Christmas. This time, I traveled by different means than I normally use. Heretofore, I had always driven straight from Portland to here and back, having developed something of an allergy to flying several years ago. (Who wouldn't be allergic, what with TSA checkpoints, pat-downs of grandmas and grandpas, full body scans, deferred maintenance on aircraft, and pilots who make less per hour than Pizza Hut drivers?) Unfortunately, driving from Portland to So. Cal. takes about seventeen hours, assuming that a driver knows when to judiciously drive faster than the speed limit, and that he doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary at gas stations, coffee shops, and fast food joints. It takes a few hours longer if you decide to drive at or below the speed limit all the way, although you can shorten the time by driving a car with an extremely large fuel tank and doing without bathroom breaks. Good luck with that!

Last time, I was not judicious enough in knowing when to speed. I also made the mistake of believing that since I had never been stopped by the California Highway Patrol, they were therefore harmless. They got me about 25 miles south of Weed, California. My trip wound up costing an extra $200. At least the cop who wrote the ticket was a nice guy, or the trip would have been even more costly.

So this time I took the train, a choice which provided a good opportunity to study some of the features of mainstream American culture, as most of my fellow travelers were Anglo-Americans. I like to use traveling time to improve myself, so I brought my computer, my guitar, a copy of the Good Book, a graduate level text on HVAC system design, and a copy of the New Penguin Russian Course (Я ещё изучаю руский язык).

Most other people also brought computers and other hand-held data display devices, on which the majority were watching movies or playing video games. Occasionally I saw someone reading a book. In almost all cases, the books being read were popular novels. The man sitting next to me had his smartphone plugged into the AC power socket next to the window, and he was following a football game involving the Seattle Seahawks. A relative of his was sitting in the seat directly in front of him, and was doing the same thing on his own smartphone. Occasionally the two men exchanged comments on the progress of the game. About half an hour out of Eugene, an elderly man sitting in the aisle across from me looked over at my fellow passenger and said, “How 'bout them Seahawks! Too bad they don't have a TV on this train. Otherwise, we could watch 'em! I wonder if anybody has a TV or a laptop we could use to watch 'em!” Suddenly feeling uncomfortable in the presence of my company, I decided to move to the observation car, where I busted out one of my books and started to read.

I chose a seat across a table from a tall, thin, quiet blonde woman. She was also reading (her book was a novel), although from time to time she looked at her smartphone. She never spoke. However, most of the people in the observation car were quite talkative, and as I read, occasionally I focused my attention on the scraps of conversation reaching my ears. Two conversations stood out on account of their extreme banality. One conversation was between two men sitting at a table right behind me, and concerned brew pubs in Portland and the opening of a McMenamins pub out on the West Side (west of the Willamette River for those of you who are unfamiliar with Portland). This led one of the men to talk at great length (rather incoherently) about which brand of beer was his favorite.

The other conversation was between two young women at another nearby table, and concerned work and career. It seems that one of the women works at a Starbucks and the other works in a telemarketing call center, having worked in Starbucks for a while as well. Both women constantly used two particular four-letter words in describing the downsides and the high points of their jobs, which included getting lots of free coffee. One of them remarked to the other that she had wanted to work at a Starbucks ever since she was a little girl. Then they discussed their interest in creative writing and some of the writing classes they had taken, using one of their two favorite four-letter words as a noun to describe the things they wrote about.

The conductors announced that they were taking dinner reservations, so I signed up for a time slot. When my time came, I made my way to the dining car, where I was seated across from a quiet, middle-aged married couple. I also was quiet. For several minutes, I sat and continued listening to the conversations of others. A couple of tables down the aisle, there sat a big, burly young man wearing a baseball cap. Next to him was a cute young blond woman. They were obviously attached to each other. Across from them sat an elderly woman. The couple was in the midst of delivering a long lesson in things Americans like to the elderly woman, using lots of pronouns such as “I” and “we” as they went down the list of favorite foods, sports and other things. I wondered at them, because it had seemed to me that all three of them were Americans (whenever the elderly woman managed to get a word in edgewise, she did not speak with any obvious accent).

Directly across the aisle from our table was another table, at which two couples were seated. One couple consisted of an African-American man married to a Caucasian woman. Both were middle-aged. Across the table from them was a young Asian pair who were, I believe, at the boyfriend-girlfriend stage. The conversation shared between these four, and the conversation I had with my dinner companions, were the most thought-provoking ones I heard during the entire trip.

My conversation began slowly. The couple at my table started by sharing some ice-breaking information about themselves. I found out that they had recently sailed up the Amazon River in South America, and were now traveling from Portland to Klamath Falls. This piqued my curiosity and got me talking. “Klamath Falls? Isn't that where the Oregon Institute of Technology is? I know a bit about their renewable energy engineering program.” I informed them that I am an engineer. They then informed me that they had both worked in the engineering field, the husband as a civil engineer and the wife as a drafter. They asked me how I liked engineering, to which I replied that there were parts I hated – namely the attempt by employers to work us like dogs for 55 to over 70 hours per week, world without end. My comment led to a general discussion of present-day life in America.

The discussion covered some familiar ground, such as the fact that people in most other countries – including many Third World countries – seem to be much healthier mentally than Americans, the fact that most immigrants to this country come here in much better mental health than most native-born U.S. citizens, and the fact that immigrant mental health deteriorates with increasing length of time in America and increasing Americanization. The wife then asked rhetorically, “Why is it so that we are so selfish here, so isolated from each other?” “I think it's because of the myths on which this country was founded,” I opined. “Other nations have realized for a long time that their citizens lived in a land of limits, in which everyone had to sacrifice certain prerogatives so that all might benefit. The dominant culture in the United States has always believed that there are no limits to what we can do or have if we want something badly enough. Therefore we haven't learned effective strategies for sharing limited resources with each other.”

That led us to talk about where we believed this country is heading as undeniable limits are beginning to bite us. It was also at this point that I began to tune in to the conversation between the mixed-race couple and the Asian boyfriend-girlfriend pair sitting at the table across the aisle from my table. The African-American male half of the married couple was relating what sounded like a belief that Asian (specifically Chinese) culture, intellectual power and economic might would bring about the end of American hegemony. It was with some effort that I managed to remain focused on my own conversation. At my table, we reviewed the spectrum of the most widely-held opinions concerning the future of industrial society, and of the United States in particular. Then a moment came when our food was all eaten, our energy spent, our words all said. We all excused ourselves and said our goodbyes for the night.

As I returned to the observation car, I saw several new arrivals, including some college-age guys enjoying a night of underage drinking. It occurred to me that they, as well as most of the passengers, were so typical of Anglo-American culture at present: unreflecting, sensual, incapable of articulating anything other than the cravings induced in them by our commercialized culture, and totally clueless about the future. Later, as I tried to sleep, my thoughts expanded to consider how the wealthiest and most powerful members of our society had become utterly incapable of giving ground or sacrificing assumed “rights” in order to benefit the common good. I was particularly mindful of the statement of the president of the NRA to the effect that guns were not the reason for the recent shooting rampages in this country, and that instead of restricting gun access, we should install armed guards in every elementary school in the United States. I was thinking also of the most recent shooting rampage, in which an older white male with a criminal history set some houses on fire and then shot volunteer firefighters as they arrived to try to put the fires out, before shooting himself. I thought of the lack of adult, intelligent, realistic conversations on the part of media figures or politicians to address the violent reality of mainstream American culture, or the multifaceted predicament we now face. We are forced by events to acknowledge that our society is killing us, yet nothing is done to effectively remedy the causes of the killing, because to do so would cause certain wealthy people to lose a lot of money, and would force most of us to live far more simply. And that's something that most people don't want to talk about.