Recovering from Abuse: Perfection. (Gold versus Fool's Gold.)

Recovering from Abuse: Perfection. (Gold versus Fool’s Gold.)

The narcissist imagines himself to be Perfect. But the martyr actually is, for he has so fully given himself to a Cause. How then is one to determine one’s own true identity? To put it plainly: it is most easily revealed at the moment that the two come into CONFLICT. The martyr expends all his energy in defending what is right. Yet the narcissist demonstrates apathy and detachment and tries to sell them as though they were virtues. The narcissist pretends towards a humility that he does not himself possess. The martyr MUST, conversely, assert his own perfection, devoid of false humility, in order to tame the narcissist. (This does not rob the Man of Perfection of his TRUE humility, of course, because it makes one no less humble to admit to one’s actual calibre, especially if one is TRULY Perfect.) The narcissist will try, in addition to turning vices into virtues, to turn the virtues of the martyr against him, as though not only were those virtues vices, but as though the martyr could not possibly be able to discern one from the other. The narcissist mirrors the martyr’s moral authority at the very moment that he himself denies having it, for he (unlike the martyr) obviously cannot back it up and must therefore equally mirror those “people” who somehow find the narcissist “relatable”. The martyr has a Heart of Gold. But the narcissist has a heart of fool’s gold that he peddles as though it were gold even though any scientific measurement, including the testimony of a trained eye, will divulge his insincerity, and he is shameless then in peddling off false gold as THOUGH it were worth the same as true gold.

The martyr is a scapegoat who harbours all other scapegoats. But among those whom he nurtures back to health is the man that the martyr did not want to believe to exist: the villain. The villain challenges the martyr to become a Hero. But the villainous narcissist all so, once found out, tries to turn the martyr into a scapegoat again, knowing that the martyr is comfortable in this role. He does this by appealing to the martyr’s good nature and pretending himself to be the MARTYR’S scapegoat, as though the martyr would not know one when he saw one.

What tipped the martyr off to the narcissist was that the narcissist directly disadvantaged the martyr. At that point, it became clear that the traitor was a villain. Yet what was clear in silence was muddled by lies of the narcissist’s own device.

The treachery was a decisive fact that resolved all ambiguities for the martyr. But by pretending either that this WAS no treachery (a lie) or that it WAS (as though that fact could ever count against the martyred victim) the narcissist depicts the victim as though he were the oppressor. By challenging the objectivity of the most objective person in the group, the villain dispossesses all witnesses of objectivity, cheating them out of their own convictions by appealing to some distant part of their natures that could permit this. Fortitude is made to look like arrogance. Yet it was only ever the MARTYR who actually made a pious attempt to record his own sins before he might project them onto others. It was only ever the martyr that, pure at heart, took the sins of the group upon himself as a scapegoat, seeing all others as being blameless scapegoats. The narcissist only saw all others as being narcissists, hence he somehow convinced himself that because every one was evil then he himself was justified. How did he conceive of this, instead of seeking Good in place of Evil? How did the narcissist find the nerve to call others Evil when he himself could not do so from the very Height of Virtue and Duty? To put it plainly: he believed himself to be perfect. He was above not only the law but Morality Itself. He did not need to make a distinction between Good and Evil that he could live by and that he could judge by. He could simply abide in his OWN Evil, bragging of it and pretending that that boast was itself personal accountability, when in fact his role was not to hold himself responsible to HIMSELF, but rather to Others, especially his Moral Superiors. In the absence of true Goodness, the Evil man could still avail himself of the LANGUAGE of Good and Evil, even when his application of it was clearly pretentious, for only a man who would have died for the Good could truly wield it as a sword of moral discernment. Only by becoming a martyr and by becoming perfect can one step far back enough to witness the degeneracy objectively. And the narcissist tried to make a fool of this person.

Part of being Evil but possessing the language of Goodness is that one can judge of others. One does not have the RIGHT to judge of Others, but one can still recognize the FREEDOM to do so, all the while using the same Freedom to deny Others that right. If all men were Evil, then all would be Equal. No one could judge of him. But no one could stop him from judging of any one. Of course: if not all men were Evil, but some were Good, then the problem would be resolved; one would simply judge if one had the AUTHORITY to do so. So how did the narcissist convince himself and Others that no such Elite exists? Plainly: to the narcissist ANY thing that disadvantages himself is Evil, irrespective of motive or intent. But to the Righteous Man unjust victories are just as shameful as unjust losses, and in an unjust situation he is just as remorseful as a victor as he is as a loser. The narcissist preys on those whom he unjustly disadvantages, turning their plight into a sin. In the absence of a vertical morality he supplements a horizontal one wherein all men are in constant conflict as equals because no man can rise above the rest as a Superior according to whom all Virtuous Men can align themselves and thereby attain transcendence and Holiness. It is only in this way that Innocence can be preserved as well and that the very PALPABLE evils of rape, murder, and betrayal can be represented in a language that can fight them and that cannot be used to ignore them or to misrepresent them. The martyr reminds us that we must treat all others as we would have treated ourselves. But the narcissist tries to CONVINCE us that we must allow for others to treat us however they so please, lest our OWN freedom to hurt each other and to assert our desires at all costs be compromised.

The martyr can live with disadvantage, but not with an unjust disadvantage. When he is made INTO the martyr by the treachery of the villain, he attains a Godlike authority that others find intimidating but that they aspire to ardently. The narcissist attempts again to obscure these facts by pretending that it is the martyr that is narcissistic for taking offense. But the martyr knows that he was wronged and that the only authority on what could justify that wrong would be the martyr himself; anything else would be self-righteousness. This is not to say that the martyr earns the right to be arbitrary. It simply means that in a situation where diplomacy has failed the ends can justify the means, and even the martyr might find himself engaged in a conflict that he considers brutal and unnecessary, but that is justified by the will to redress the grievances. The narcissist, conversely, in starting such wars attempts to turn every victim into a victory, just as he conscripts allies in a previous war that he will then turn into his adversaries in the new one. The narcissist leaves a path of destruction behind himself but finds escape in the “virtues” of detachment (devoid of Justice) and the temporary support of whatever pity might house him. Once that pity has been exhausted, he pretends towards self-reliance by disavowing those whose pity had earned him his advantage at the expense of them and those whom they loved.

The picture is so macabre that one shudders to believe it. Those most inclined to hate the narcissist are themselves unintegrated and prone to projection, but if the narcissist can use their projections against them by reinforcing the notion of an outward enemy, then he will win their favour quickly. These individuals know deep down that they are prone to projection, but they make the mistake of then PROJECTING their own hypocritical tendencies upon the MARTYR. Furthermore, it was only ever the MARTYR who was able to discern, through practice, his own shortcomings (most of which were of his own device, or the result of bullying by the narcissist) from the Evils of the Outside World. The most basic human instinct is to Reform, and there is nothing that should ever turn a Reformer’s Instincts in on himself, because the Problem, if it is substantial, must all ways by necessity be BIGGER THAN the man who gives his life to solving it. False humility achieves nothing.

It was only the martyr who sought wisdom in a panic. It was he that people came to in order to have their own fortunes read and their dreams interpreted. And to whom did the martyr go for aid? In the absence of a reciprocating party, the martyr went to the NARCISSIST. And what became then of the narcissist’s egalitarian generosity? One would EXPECT that a man who pardons all sin and thereby earns the right to silence all moralistic judgment would be the most accommodating in deed. But in fact the narcissist was only ever a MISER. Operating on an equal plain devoid of virtue, everything is a matter of consumeristic preference. Hence the narcissist time and time again turned the martyr away when the martyr was most vulnerable and blamed the martyr later for being weak. Those few times that the narcissist offered the martyr that wisdom which is so rare that the martyr would become grateful for it, the narcissist exploited this gratitude by turning it into debt, as though wisdom were only ever a coveted consumer commodity. But at the earliest opportunity the narcissist would condemn his friend the martyr for lacking that same wisdom and falling into the pit of Confusion and Projection. The narcissist simply does this to escape accountability for ACTUAL misdeeds. Without the TRUE knowledge of Good and Evil, accusations of hypocrisy would become meaningless. So how does the narcissist do it, and why? Simply put: he can hurt those he betrays doubly by pretending that the betrayal itself is neither a fact nor a cause. The martyr reserves the only right to judge when he is made into a victim. But suppose that his victimhood could be turned into a victory. Suppose that the narcissist could GET AWAY WITH IT. The victim would be made to resemble a villain because he would then harbor a “grudge”. Yet this “grudge” can only ever POSSIBLY cast doubt on the martyr’s virtues if the audience FORGETS THE DIFFERENCE between a JUST grudge (born out of an UNJUST disadvantage) and an UNJUST grudge (born out of a JUST disadvantage). So long as the audience subscribes to the notion of Equality, and the Hierarchy of Justice and Injustice is forgotten, then the narcissist can continue down a path of destruction, literally laughing at every victim, because each victim that takes arms against him will be met with an army of fools who have yet to be made INTO victims and that will condemn the victim for his hatred of his own oppressor. But by so doing they are all ready evil, because by confessing that the victim HAS REASON TO hate the narcissist, at least sufficient that the crowd might suspect the victim of harbouring a grudge, the crowd CONDEMNS THE VICTIM FOR HIS OWN VICTIMHOOD. And this is the skewed notion of what “personal responsibility” has come to mean. The language of morality was so corrupted by narcissism that it condemns all men to narcissism, wherein they are NO LONGER accountable to each other’s well-being but only to their OWN. And that means that not ONLY can every man SKEW morality in his own favour. He can all so be accused of doing so BY DEFAULT. The narcissist does this. He preys on the evils of others who do this as well. And then he accuses the martyr of scapegoating him. The martyr knows that he is not only condemning the narcissist for a personal affront but for partaking in the Evils of the World. But the narcissist retaliates by arguing that those Evils are mere projections of the martyr’s psyche!! How does he manage this? Only because the martyr himself operates from this eccentric posture wherein every Evil that he sees is one of his own. But that does not stop him from raging against it. Both the narcissist and the martyr see Evil in the World. But whereas the martyr seeks to defend that which is Good from that which is Evil, and he is outspoken in doing so, the narcissist sees ONLY EVIL IN THE WORLD, and yet he pretends to pardon it. In the process, the martyr must slow his own ascent in order to fight a parasite. And the parasite SHAMELESSLY refuses to change, instead arguing that the MARTYR should change, preying on the martyr’s own sense of guilt for slowing his own moral ascent in order to educate and reform others.

But how does the narcissist get away with ANY of this? Simply put: evil is prevalent. People are so pathetically weak and easily tempted that they can actually use one man’s misdeeds against the man who is both his victim and his superior in virtue, blameless in every sin that the aggressor propagates and unassailable in authority unless that virtue were made to LOOK like sin. So the martyr, in fighting the narcissist for the good of the society, does so alone, without the society. He foregoes social accommodations which the narcissist unabashedly exploits. He only accepts those accommodations which would ultimately be of BENEFIT TO society, whether or not “society” deserves this. The martyr lives with shock upon shock at the villain’s evil and cruelty, and this is made more Kafkaesque by seeing the infinitude of lazy excuses that the narcissist’s pipe-dreaming friends dream up. The excuses become so vicious that they are even used to make the unyielding martyr look like the monster. So even when the insubordination of his inferiors produced rape, murder, and betrayal it is the martyr who is turned into the scapegoat, for it was he who was motivated “not by goodness, but by a grudge”. But the only reason that any one could even conceive of such doublethink is that we forgot the distinction betwixt a Good Grudge and a Bad One. And that was only because we let someone get away with rape, murder, and betrayal. The situation is cyclical, but it is not the fault of victims of this vicious cycle that it is so. By letting Justice SLIDE, pardoning the villain, man arms him NOT only with the tools to repeat the injustice in future cases, but ALL SO to INCRIMINATE those VICTIMS of that injustice when they try to challenge his self-entitled sense of right to do so. And by robbing them of the right to defend themselves against this Kangaroo Court of their Peers, the narcissist repeats the offense, cyclically, and the victim’s account of this is made to look like a tautology. The conclusion is presumed to beget the premise, and the reasoning is made to look pathetically circular on the victim’s part. But it was never the BURDEN OF THE VICTIM to PROVE the conclusion, which is that the oppressor was Evil. That was the responsibility of the JURY – the Society – to REMEMBER that it will not pardon such behavior. The victim HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION to begrudge those who wrong him, because when he ALLOWS ANY INJUSTICE, ESPECIALLY unto himself, for he knows himself and his own condition better than the Public does, he perpetuates the cycle of rape, murder, and betrayal. So it is that no man can condemn him for his crusade of justice against his oppressors. And he need no longer be their scapegoat.

Dm.A.A.