The Pool of Narcissus

NarcissusThumbby Glenn Fairman
[I]n the third book of Ovid’s Metamorphosis, the reader is charmed with the tale of Narcissus and Echo: a beautiful young man who spurned the raptures of love with a cursed water nymph. Having despised the affections of countless suitors through aloofness and vanity, Narcissus’ mother recalled the birth prophesy of the wise Teiresias that he would have a long life “providing he never knew himself.” It would be the tragedy of this unfolding augury that sealed the fates of the two as Echo wasted away to only a faint repeating voice and Narcissus caught an ill-fated glimpse of his own reflection in enchanted waters. The myth ends in variations where the youth takes his life in a fit of melancholia and becomes a lovely flower. Unable to consummate a union with the cherished object of his inconsolable longing, no existence could be worth living.

This pagan tale, like all myths, serves as a metaphorical window to the psyche — a way to give flesh to the enigmas of the world or to the nobility and perfidy residing contemporaneously in the human heart. It speaks of the folly of self-adoration which culminates in conceit and idolatry — the arrogance wherein the world becomes a veritable hall of mirrors which only at the end unveils itself as an iron cage. That this condition is a regrettable affliction is universally affirmed, since society renders lip service to altruism and the affectation of selflessness. But such a judgment itself becomes suspect in a society thoroughly saturated in the notion of “ego.” It is said that if you want to understand the nature of water, do not go to a fish. Consequently, how formidable a task it is to plumb the depths of narcissism in a society that exudes self-adulation. (Kurt Cobain: “I don’t care what you think unless it’s about me.”) The undertaking may be as onerous as querying a nation of 300-pounders on the subject of morbid obesity.[pullquote]It is said that if you want to understand the nature of water, do not go to a fish. Consequently, how formidable a task it is to plumb the depths of narcissism in a society that exudes self-adulation.[/pullquote]

The prevailing culture in America today marinates in the worship of Self. Our advertising buffets us in a relentless series of waves evangelizing society as to how life can become: fuller, easier, happier, longer, more beautiful, and more in tune with our rising expectations as we unendingly feed into the circular pursuit of filling that cavern without a bottom. Moreover, as Oscar Wilde has so wryly noted, “To love one’s self is the beginning of a lifelong romance;” and the Powers of Commerce who stoke the Acquisitive Dream are wary cupids in Armani suits dedicated to the proposition that such ardor shall indeed by requited. And lest we  believe that such inordinate self love is founded upon a sincere desire for any objective beauty we possess, one needs only to reflect upon the brutal truth that age and its inexorable deterioration only intensifies the narcissist’s passion — for what he sees is not the semblance of things as they are but the chimera reflected on the vacant walls of the soul. Such self-love reigns forever at the center of the subject’s known universe — beginning in rapture and culminating in despondency. Of the latter form, it is a metaphor for the epitomized doctrine of Hell: an amalgamation of solitude and delusion that retreats of its own volition from others and the ever-diminishing light.

The romance with Self is nursed and spoon fed in the young by the enlightened necessity of self-esteem and watered ever judiciously from the fountains of self-actualization. For the former, praise and acclaim are the default condition of educational pedagogy and are handed out like sweets regardless of toil or merit. Few errors have entered into the Science of Human Education that have done such malicious harm to the character of youth as the self-esteem movement. In raising up several generations of discrete black holes where all flattery and tribute are drawn up into the gravity of ravenous personality, our Lettered Titans of Edification have succeeded beyond their wildest aims in cultivating a product that is as fragile as a spider’s lattice and as enduring as a sand castle. Untempered self-esteem, exposed to the universal solvent of the real world of men and women, results in an awakening so rude that it often breeds despondency and cynicism — to say nothing of the greatest of all vices of the Self: self-pity. If we have come to believe that we are fully entitled to a station we have not earned, then our fate must be due to the fault of another. Therein, a shallow cynical indulgence in self-pity renders us both useless to others and loathsome to ourselves.[pullquote]However, as humanity has become untethered from its gods, and consequently its purpose, the act of “becoming” appears less like ripening and maturing and more like the search for a Humanist Holy Grail. Devoid of a transcendent telos, the craving for happiness becomes an end in itself manifesting in: the quest for more things, more respect, and a more beautiful mate. In our narcissism we must have more things to fill up that aforementioned chasm that cannot be satiated, however we might try, by the merely temporal.[/pullquote]

If we are to fully understand how we have been shaped by this Humanist Modernity, we must reflect upon the knowledge that our society’s narcissism has been nourished with the penetrating oxidant of Self-Actualization. The idea that we are self-creating personalities continually morphing until we reach a plateau of sufficient stasis and contentment seems to be a salutary goal; at least on the surface. Indeed, the struggle to ascend out of ourselves and to become more is consistent with our nature. However, as humanity has become untethered from its gods, and consequently its purpose, the act of “becoming” appears less like ripening and maturing and more like the search for a Humanist Holy Grail. Devoid of a transcendent telos, the craving for happiness becomes an end in itself manifesting in: the quest for more things, more respect, and a more beautiful mate. In our narcissism we must have more things to fill up that aforementioned chasm that cannot be satiated, however we might try, by the merely temporal.

In chasing that elusive constellation of happiness, we jettison marriages to a tune of over fifty percent, since we are by right entitled to all the pleasure that our two hands can take hold of. We change partners, families, careers — some even change their sex. In the shadow of the monumental “I,” a great many bounce through serial monogamies because they cannot commit to love for fear that a true soul mate is right around the corner. And if they do commit, in the name of self-actualization they are covenant-bound between themselves and themselves to put to the flames the stability and happiness of loved ones in pursuit of the more perfect orgasm. This society’s free-floating narcissism is antithetical to the nature of true love — since true love is other-centered and willingly diminishes while it nourishes others to the exclusion and often to the detriment of Self. Such love has no contingency and is as forthright and enduring as the Great Pyramid. Selfless love, viewed side by side with narcissism, is as light unto darkness and as liberating and noble a trait as can ever be found in the virtues of humanity.[pullquote]If we are to fully understand how we have been shaped by this Humanist Modernity, we must reflect upon the knowledge that our society’s narcissism has been nourished with the penetrating oxidant of Self-Actualization. The idea that we are self-creating personalities continually morphing until we reach a plateau of sufficient stasis and contentment seems to be a salutary goal;[/pullquote]

While perhaps controversial, some believe Ages that are prone to narcissism are also given to homosexuality. Excessive self-love and sexual self-gratification are intrinsically entwined; and sharing that erotic bond with one most like oneself physically is perhaps a logical progression in the chain. In loving a woman both emotionally and physically, one needs to stand outside oneself and learn of the intricacies of tenderness and patience that are endemic to her gender. That trust and growth that blossoms with caring love and ideally results in the fecundity of life is both sanctioned by the God of Nature or Nature’s God and fulfills the Biblical Commission to be fruitful and to multiply. While I have no doubt that great same sex lovers inhabit the earth, such attraction is undoubtedly rooted in the passionately erotic — towards the proclivity for beings most like one’s self: where a psychological insularity reigns. It is perhaps, as some say, arguably easier to consummate one’s carnal appetite without either the burdensome consequences of exploring a gender little like ourselves or in having to take on the commitments of children and family that often result in a loss of autonomy and disposable income. Remaining Peter Pan for all of one’s days is an idyllic dream for Lost Boys; but it also means never having to take one’s stand in the full organic Seasons of Life. And in this way, it can be said to be deficient.

In Dante’s Purgatorio xxvii, 101-108, the author and his guide, the veritable Virgil, encounter two characters from the Book of Genesis who are meant to symbolize the ethos of narcissism. He writes:

If anyone should want to know my name,
I am called Leah. And I spend all my time
weaving garlands of flowers with my fair hands,
to please me when I stand before my mirror;
my sister Rachel sits all the day long
before her own and never moves away.
She loves to contemplate her lovely eyes;
I love to use my hands to adorn myself:
her joy is in reflection, mine in act.

No greater curse can befall a people than to lose its capacity to truly love. Once they have begun down this stone-laced path, even the maternal natural love issued towards one’s own flesh grows cold and waxes subservient to the grandiosity of Self. Every little callous clinical murder for the sake of convenience betrays this preoccupation with the mirror’s tyrannical hold upon she who stands before it and stares out into infinity — repeating the Devil’s soothing admonition that when all things are considered, we are the last child left on earth who truly matters. The fabled curse upon that Beautiful Boy lay not in the knowledge that he desired, but that he desired only that which was wholly and completely his own: a sterile fate destined for any misbegotten wretch that gazes into a cesspool and calls it love.

Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (1770 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired

This entry was posted in Essays, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Pool of Narcissus

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    A certain amount of self-esteem is desirable, perhaps even essential. But as with all things, one must not take it to excess. Unfortunately, our society has ceased to pay any respect to the notion of restraint on ANY of our desires.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      Healthy self-esteem comes from using one’s abilities to achieve things.

      Self-esteem derived from being simply smarter or more talented in a given area, without wish use of such intelligence or talent is arrogance. But at least there is something there which sets one apart.

      Modern self-esteem is merely egoism is a crude form which has been promoted by those in power who wish, among other things, to break down social bonds by which strong families and groups are formed. Strong families and groups form strong social institutions which are not all government centric. This is something the modern Left does not like.

      • griffonn says:

        One of my children tested as ‘gifted’, and was placed in a special program.

        This particular child was told from the beginning “you are so smart!” and did not learn until early 20’s how to work for anything – did not even realize it was necessary. Being smart, being exceptional, means things will just fall into your lap.

        The truth was a hard lesson, too – a painful one. That’s my fault, not the kid’s fault, but mine. I have to live with being responsible for causing that pain. A parent’s first job is to prepare the child for the world, and teach the child how to use his or her gifts wisely.

        The “self esteem movement” was a bad move – but it echoes a larger bad move, which is the general tendency to prize the reward but discount what the reward signifies. I like to think of it as emotional Monopoly money – a token that means nothing in itself; you don’t really enjoy having Monopoly money if you know in your heart you only have so much because you swiped some from your brother while he was out of the room. It means something only because it is a “marker” – a tangible symbol of having achieved something that is difficult to achieve, that requires talent, or that cost a great deal in sacrifice or intensity.

        Our culture worships these markers. Parents will put their children in balloons seeking fame – fame is another marker that, like self-esteem or Monopoly money, means nothing if you didn’t do something to earn and deserve it. This is how come we had the Wall St. crash: we have created a culture where having the marker “money” is so prized that it has literally become “rational” (in the economist’s sense) to rob your company, then “jump ship” right before the company crashes.

  2. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “While perhaps controversial, some believe Ages that are prone to narcissism are also given to homosexuality. Excessive self-love and sexual self-gratification are intrinsically entwined; and sharing that erotic bond with one most like oneself physically is perhaps a logical progression in the chain.”

    I have often pondered this point. When I suggest this to others, many are surprised at the thought, but then agree that there is a certain amount of logic in the idea. How much easier is it to love oneself than to love someone completely different?

    C.K. Chesterton hinted at this when writing about the degeneration ancient Greece.

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      The act of loving and caring for a being who is so emotionally other than yourself requires patience and an ongoing excavation project that will last a lifetime. This makes man woman marriage (in reality, the only true form) exceedingly difficult, and consequently, rewarding beyond measure. If narcissism is an inwardly focused masturbatory worshipping of self—-the only true gratification of the voluptuary spirit- then homosexuality is possibly a step once removed.

      The roots of Homosexuality appears to be related to psychological, cultural, or possibly endocrine issues (the fetus’ ingestion of maternal produced hormones during pregnancy can affect masculine phenotype development and feminine young boys may pick up on strong cultural cues during adolescence.) It is looking more and more that Homosexuality is not genetic in the strict sense, and recent Harvard studies of twins, despite the attempts of advocacy groups to derail these findings, affirm this. In Neo-Darwinian terms, homosexuality would not be a genetic inheritance that was selected for since homosexuals do not reproduce—–and reproductive success for that gene is the name of the game. The existence of a latent gay gene would by now have been long extinguished.

      Indeed, viewing gayness as a politicized identity like race is a recent phenomena. The act of self-identification solely by means of the object of one’s mating attraction is odd at best. Sexual behaviors and impulses are extremely robust once they have been patterned, which is the very pernicious problem we encounter when society begins sexualizing young boys and girls or when they are groomed for deviancy by individuals or cultures giving mixed messages. I suspect that although heterosexuality is the default healthy expression of such attraction both through nature and revelation, the loosening of these restraints in cultural milieus such as prisons or English male prep schools can tend to cultivate these behaviors—–and sexual acts are behaviors—-not fixed identities. Cultures and civilizations that give a wink and a nod to same sex attraction have more of it.
      Before the 70’s the DSM viewed it as a neurotic aberration. And indeed, a state of arrested development seems to display itself. The gay culture—-despite what windowdressing is portrayed in the media, is given to narcissism, body worship, alcohol and drug addiction, mental issues, depression, hypersexuality, commitment issues, and a host of other behaviors leading to unhappiness. But so is the hetero majority—although not nearly to the same intensity This is not to say that there are not gay men or women who do live healthy and fulfilling lives or that society’s marginalization does not contribute to their destructive behaviors in part. But a growing culture of lost boys and girls with Peter Pan complexes seem to flourish when civilizations and their institutions unravel and imaginations run amok. I could go on and on, but this is a very nuanced topic where chicken and egg seem to vie for preeminence.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        I have used the same Darwinism argument with Leftist who do so love to use the evolution argument in many other areas. Since homosexuals, by definition, throughout history have not produced, how is it that there is still a certain percentage in the population. It is unlikely that it is random mutations constantly taking place. The question of the mother’s hormones is an interesting one.

        I have heard a couple of arguments which try to account for this like the “old maid” or “single aunt” argument in primates whereby certain female primates in a group do not mate as if they did, there would not be enough group members free to forage and look out for the group in general. I am still not convinced.

        • Glenn Fairman says:

          for the materialist naturalist, they are forever carrying philosophic water for determinism: whether economic, physiological, historical or political. Yet, for some reason–their ends are not blind and flailing about–resulting in unquestioning destruction. Behind the determinists mask of Science is a faith that is never acknowledged: in perfection, Gnosticism, peace, equality, the cessation of againstness, and the Beautiful City of Man. Why the dream always ratchets upwards towards greater complexities or higher moralities in a harsh and frozen universe where these celestial ends are the spawn of unthinking brute matter is the question they must pose to themselves on quiet nights when the white noise within has abated.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Very interesting thoughts, Glenn.

        In Neo-Darwinian terms, homosexuality would not be a genetic inheritance that was selected for since homosexuals do not reproduce—–and reproductive success for that gene is the name of the game. The existence of a latent gay gene would by now have been long extinguished.

        With the proviso that that which is selected for isn’t necessarily good (after all, thievery and dishonesty have not been filtered out by natural selection), it’s of obvious interest why homosexuality sure endure when it’s so obviously something that should have been filtered out quickly and long ago (and, really, never should have arisen in the first place except in freak cases).

        But homosexual behavior (whether a product of nature and/or nurture) is obviously fairly common. It’s a different question from the cultural or moral issues (which are not driven by science, except when the gay advocates misappropriate or simply fabricate a soundbyte here and there).

        My own guess is that you’re wrong about one point: Homosexuals (or, lets say, men who sometimes or often engage in homosexual behavior) probably do reproduce, and always have. In our age we’ve carefully parsed things into political categories such as “gay,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” etc., which are likely not scientific categories but mere made-up “identities.” We’ve come to think as either/or. But I’m sure if this has always been the case.

        I think what makes this subject so complicated is that there are many causes and types of homosexual behavior. There are, as I often put it, men who are born as queer as a three dollar bill. Perhaps they are products of the fetus’ ingestion of maternal hormones, as you said. But for some, “choice” has a little to do with their homosexuality as “choice” does for a normal man to be turned on by feminine T&A.

        And there is so obviously a type of homosexual that is indeed more of a mental illness than anything else. That many call it “normal” is neither here nor there, for unless one can come up with a solid Darwinian explanation for it, it has to remain an obvious aberration. And narcissism could certainly be an underlying cause.

        I also think one reason homosexual behavior hasn’t been wrung out of the gene pool is precisely because such behavior does not, and never has, necessitated not reproducing. Men in prison don’t suddenly turn “gay,” any more than they do in English prep schools (interesting subject….I’d never heard of that phenomenon). I think at least some homosexual behavior can be understood in terms of natural male hyper-sexuality. Men will, quite frankly, screw vacuum cleaners and (I have a retired firefighter for a brother) stick light bulbs and other objects up their anuses (which often requires aid calls, of course, to get them out).

        The political, Leftist, or “Progressive” rationale for, and characterization of, homosexuality is completely a made-up thing based upon various grievances and naive Utopian goals, not to mention just sheer ignorance. But the actual subject of homosexuality remains a scientifically interesting question if now a quite untouchable one because of the very real fascist-like culture that we live in now that goes ape-crazy if you dare question “settled” Leftist opinion.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          “My own guess is that you’re wrong about one point: Homosexuals (or, lets say, men who sometimes or often engage in homosexual behavior) probably do reproduce, and always have.”

          Most likely true to some degree, but I think there is probably a difference in the amount of engagement. If some percentage of “homosexuals” throughout history married and had children perhaps certain traits would be passed down. But what about those men who never married who passed nothing down? Does that mean that over the centuries the actual percentage of “homosexuals” has decreased over the years? You wouldn’t think so from the noise put out by the LGBT lobby.

          Which brings up another question. Why are there lesbians? The point regarding maternal hormones would not seem to fit in this case.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Why are there lesbians?

            That’s easy. Oprah. 😀

            One thing in favor of the “hypersexuality” spill-over effect (to men) theory is that it’s completely consistent with men also impregnating women. They’ll stick it anywhere, and often.

            Of course, we need some real-world data to see if this hypothesis has some merit.

            It’s also completely possible that men having sex with men (and goats, and women, and whatever) is the “natural” state of humans, just as many of the other behaviors of mankind are “natural,” such as war, rape, pillaging, thievery, etc.

            And let’s remember, the Left pines for the supposedly “natural”…the nice, fluffy, soft state of humanity that supposedly existed before the selfishness and exploitation brought on by capitalism and the nasty “repression” of the Judeo-Christian influence. The former so obviously is bad because it makes some people poor and “rapes” the environment. The latter is so obviously bad because it has repressed us, made us feel bad about our sexuality (and the crank, Freud, said so!).

            This is what people now believe. These are the underlying premises. So it’s quite possible that homosexuality — like any other human bent-ness — is natural and normal, but not necessarily desirable. And it is a quite possible (really, obviously so) that the Judeo-Christian worldview put the kibosh on humans acting like Bonobo chimpanzees. (The Left, as I’ve said before, is a return to paganism.)

            So this is the grounds of the battle. One side believes that some human impulses (whether a product of nature and/or nurture) should be restrained because human nature is not inherently good. The other side believes that restraint in the first place is the bad impulse and that we should just “accept” everything because human nature is inherently good.

            There is, of course, a lot of room for gray areas and complexity between these two viewpoints. As I mentioned, I think it’s obvious that some people are born as queer as a three dollar bill. But it’s equally obvious that for many, homosexuality is an illness, not just an “identity.”

            But our culture — dumbed-down by a foul education system and drunk senseless on idiot/juvenile pop culture — is no longer in any position to hold a nuanced position where both and all aspects can be considered. That is, we now lack the capacity for discernment, reasonableness, and wisdom.

            Thus we live in this idiotic soundbyte culture of cliches and vapid talking points.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Undoubtedly much historical homosexuality has always been bisexual in reality; one can think of ancient Greeks who had a strong homosexual inclination but also married women and raised families. The point that there are many reasons for homosexuality is also undoubtedly accurate; in particular, many man-hating lesbians are reacting to some bad experience with one or more men. But it’s reasonable to say that the transgendered, in particular, are suffering from some sort of illness. (Recall that in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, “Stanley called Loretta” was described as “a confused revolutionary”.

    • griffonn says:

      If a homosexual were born during an era that does not celebrate homosexuality, he is not going to advertise his preferences. Depending on the culture he lives in, he will either (a) simply banish any inappropriate thoughts and refrain from sexual activity; (b) will have sexual activities that he feels he must hide and be ashamed of; or (c) have sexual activities that he does not feel ashamed of but does feel he must keep private.

      So the question of whether homosexuals exist in such cultures is one that we probably will never know – at least not until we have more information on what causes homosexuality.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Sorry I didn’t get to this earlier. It’s just had a lot to read and so much to do on some days.

    This society’s free-floating narcissism is antithetical to the nature of true love — since true love is other-centered and willingly diminishes while it nourishes others to the exclusion and often to the detriment of Self.

    First off, no honest person can read this article and not blush a time or to in self-accusation. And as Timothy said, a certain amount of “self esteem” is probably fine. I’d probably be more comfortable with a different term, such as confidence, for Dennis Prager has pointed out that criminals in prison tend to rate significantly higher in their “self esteem.” But maybe like so many other things, it’s just (as Timothy said) a matter of not taking a thing that is good in small portions to excess.

    A very interesting idea, too, about homosexuality being brought on by self love (we’ll euphemistically call it). The way Glenn explains it, that seems a distinct possibility.

    I pulled three quotes in this article and highlighted them. And this was my favorite:

    However, as humanity has become untethered from its gods, and consequently its purpose, the act of “becoming” appears less like ripening and maturing and more like the search for a Humanist Holy Grail. Devoid of a transcendent telos, the craving for happiness becomes an end in itself manifesting in: the quest for more things, more respect, and a more beautiful mate. In our narcissism we must have more things to fill up that aforementioned chasm that cannot be satiated, however we might try, by the merely temporal.

    And Glenn did a very good job nuancing the fact that it’s wholly proper and good to try to pursue a better life, to improve oneself, etc. But that craving for happiness indeed can become destructive. This is one reason that I have a problem with Dennis Prager’s “Happiness Hour.” It just seems a bit Southern California narcissistic to me, although I’m thoroughly schooled in his rationale for his approach. But I just see in it the seeds of narcissism. He ought to also at least have a “Don’t expect so damn much out of life and appreciate what you have” hour. But he doesn’t.

    This is an extraordinarily thoughtful article. I don’t think all, or even most, homosexuality stems from self-love. But certainly some of it might. And we do see an epidemic of “self esteem” love wherein people get very upset should anyone prick their protective bubble of gobbledygook beliefs. After all, I have a “right” to believe my pleasing stuff.

    And this perhaps tells us, in part, how we got Obama. To actually have people tell us who he really is and puncture our “hope and change” pleasing delusions is just too much for narcissists to handle. And without mentioning names, I am reminded of an incident when I pointed out in a completely calm, rational, and non-confrontational tone the idea that wherever there are people handing out “free stuff,” such as at soup kitchens, there will be a certain amount of people who will exploit this charity. When I said this, the young girl (in her early 20’s) huffed, puffed — blurted out a few words — and then quickly got up and left the table. I didn’t quite understand it at the time, but I think I understand now that she was so attached to the idea that by holding certain beliefs about the homeless that this made her a saint. And for someone to break into that delusion with reality upset the fragile little emotional makeup of Narcissus.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The problem with pricking people’s bubbles can be seen as a matter of emotional entitlement. We had a letter-writer once who was an aspiring writer but without success. When an editor suggested that she got out more and learn more about people, she reacted very negatively, this apparently being a sensitive point with her (she was largely stuck at home taking care of her mother). When I noted this, she reacted very negatively to that.
      Basically, people have a self-image, and they can’t accept having it punctured. Since the basis of modern liberalism is that they’re entitled to run our lives because they consider themselves ethically and intellectually superior, it follows that any correction of error or criticism of behavior is a challenge to this emotional need to be superior. Even arguing that an opposing view has legitimate arguments in its favor is an attack, since it implies that their view might, on balance, be wrong.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Ditto. There is a decided aspect of the desire or need for superiority in regards to those who are attracted to the Left (or simply indoctrinated by the Left).

        It’s consistent with the narcissistic “Progressive” idea that everything that existed before these precious little snowflakes graced us with their presence can be forgotten.

        And, fine, to some extent. If you invent the internal combustion engine and you put the horse-and-donkey out of business, then good for you. But what the Left does is simply *believe* that everything they do is a major new advance. And they can’t be bothered with measuring the actually results of their “advances” because it’s not really about making a better mousetrap. It’s about stroking their own sense of superiority.

        And, I think, as this culture moves more and more toward a narcissistic orientation, more and more people will feel even worse about themselves and thus the need for the “quick fix” of adopting cultish beliefs such as those of the Left.

        • Glenn Fairman says:

          Before you tear down a fence, give a thought to why it was erected in the first place. This spot of wisdom should be chiseled in stone above every liberal forum where two or more are gathered……

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *