What is New?

WHAT IS NEWEST ON THIS BLOG?
July 30 New Post: Is It Possible that Gen Z and Millennials Having to Work 2 - 3 Jobs Is Contributing to the Nationwide Trend of Estrangement With Parents in the USA?
July 21 New Post: Don't Narcissists Care About Hurting You?
July 14 New Post: Reviews of "Narcissistic Rehab", "Narcissistic Detox" and "No More Narcissists" on Facebook
June 23 New Post: How I Came to Forgive the Narcissists in My Life (and it may not be what you think)
June 6 New Post: Why Do Sycophants Feel They Need to Follow Someone Who is So Unethical, Power Hungry, Cruel and Narcissistic? Comes with Personal Stories and a Deep Dive Into the Subject.
May 18 New Post: Family Obligation and the Scapegoat. Do You Owe Your Narcissistic Family Anything?
April 26 New Post: An Update: New Studies on Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families, Wills and Narcissistic Parents, Dissociation, and Some Other Topics of Note
April 6 New Post: Why Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families Are Unlikely To Turn Into Sycophants. Part II.
March 29 New Post: A Domestic Violence Situation and Tale - from a well known Canadian Musician.
March 9 New Post: Why Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families Find It Impossible to Turn Themselves Into Sycophants. Comes with a Discussion on Largely Involuntary Independent Thinking, C-PTSD and Healing.
February 28 New Post: Don't Get Narcissism Mixed Up With Alzheimer's Disease. How Similar Are They? Comes With a Discussion on Brain Science in Narcissistic Families and in Alzheimer's Disease
February 16 New Post: Perspecticide and Being Invalidated Often Feels Unsafe and Even Downright Dangerous On the Receiving End. Comes With a Discussion on Narcissism.
PERTINENT POST: ** Hurting or Punishing Others to Teach Them a Lesson - Does it Work?
PETITION: the first petition I have seen of its kind: Protection for Victims of Narcissistic Sociopath Abuse (such as the laws the UK has, and is being proposed for the USA): story here and here or sign the actual petition here
Note: After seeing my images on social media unattributed, I find it necessary to post some rules about sharing my images
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Showing posts with label malignant narcissists in power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label malignant narcissists in power. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

How the Reports on Brain Studies of Narcissists Effected How I Looked at Narcissistic Abuse, and My Ability to Go Forward Studying Narcissism. Includes a Discussion About Power. (part II)


This post is part of a series. Here are the posts for the series:

1. A Neuroscience Video on Brain Studies of People with Clinically Diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Brain Studies on Veterans and Victims of Narcissistic Abuse

2. the post you are reading now: How the Reports on Brain Studies of Narcissists Effected How I Looked at Narcissistic Abuse, and My Ability to Go Forward Studying Narcissism. Includes a Discussion About Power. (part II)

3. to come soon: How the Reports on Brain Studies of Individuals With PTSD Effected How I Looked at PTSD and Some Studies About How Narcissists and People With PTSD Relate to One Another (part III) 

In my last post which was about neuroscience studies of the brain of people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as well as some other information on brain studies in terms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, particularly when it comes to soldiers who have fought on a battlefield and ended up with with either PTSD or C-PTSD, and women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse and ended up with either PTSD from a one time incident, or C-PTSD from multiple or prolonged incidents, I've been a bit stunned by that information.  

Instead of going over what was written in that post, I would rather you went to that post yourself before you read this post to understand what is being said.  

In this post, I will discuss how the studies affected me personally and in my writing, and some questions and brain-storming about how to deal with people (methods) with people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder going forward. 

For the sake of not having to spell out "people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder", I prefer to use the term "NPDers". For the sake of making brevity out of "people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder", I prefer to use the term "PTSDers". 

Possibly most of the things we feel frustrated about when we talk to NPDers can largely be attributed to how their brains function. Some of those are these:

Their lack of empathy. With the exception of children, and possibly teenagers, and to a very small extent, people in their early twenties, this won't change. Even if we give them loads of empathy, they cannot return the empathy because it is missing in them. That part of their brain cannot be repaired. And it seems very likely that if you give an NPDer more power, or give into what they demand, or what they threaten, or bend under their torture and abuse (for NPDers who have Antisocial Personality Disorder mixed in with the narcissism), it's bound to kill what ever tiny amount of empathy they have left. This is because of the studies that have been done when it comes power: too much power will always result in less empathy.

And too much wealth is likely to do the same thing


If they have alcohol use disorder in addition to NPD, that can shrink parts of the brain that are essential for empathy too

Furthermore, it can do even more damage to the anterior insula, the part of the brain that is already significantly atrophied in NPDers to cause very little to no empathetic responses when others experience pain or emotional distress (again, read my previous post about that if you want to know what I'm talking about). 

Also, once narcissists achieve great amounts of power and wealth, they use their power to seek more of it. They probably don't know what to do with power as seeking more power with the power that they have already achieved is all that they have done with their lives. In other words, power with domination is all that really matters to them. If their power comes with a great deal of wealth, they may pamper themselves more, get servants, get paid pamperers to do more pampering of them, get more sexual partners to prove to themselves that they can get any sexually oriented narcissistic supply that they want, put taking care of their bodies first to have ever-lasting enjoyment of wealth and power, and ever more sycophants to fulfill their needs and exploitations, but aside from that, you're probably only going to get policies which greatly benefit them and their enablers.

Most everything else is still going to be dictated by their personality disorder: exploiting situations and people, and trying to get rid of people who complain or criticize them about their policies, which to them is often interpreted to mean complaining or criticizing them about their power. 

But what if society and how most of us related to narcissists changed from the way we related to them now .... I get to that further in the post. 

Power, with control and domination, is really all that matters to most of them. The drooling over it is pretty sickening to the rest of us, in terms of how much they want of it, especially if they already have plenty of it and are using it to abuse or to be cruel. I don't know why most of them are so obsessed with this since it isn't necessarily the path to happiness and fulfillment, and it isn't something that can be explained in terms of their brains, or even brain atrophy, but a wild guess is that they don't have much else going for them in terms of relating to people, so they choose a path of least resistance, and viola: getting people to admire them through a false front or persona is what works, and then getting people to do things for them by pretending to be a victim works too. From there, it may not be difficult to build on power and increase power as they go along. 

Again, this is conjecture. I can't imagine how they achieve power and the ability to manipulate situations otherwise. Perhaps the bulk of them are also from wealthy families too where a constant source of money greases the way into getting the kind of attention that would bring them more power. 

But to take a stab at the lack of empathy ... like what does a narcissist do with a lack of empathy except feel really uncomfortable in social situations? Everyone else seems empathetic, and the shame starts bubbling up because they're not feeling it, and narcissists will do just about anything to ward off shame, so they pretend to have empathy so they can be part of the social interactions. Some narcissists get into thoughts like: "Everyone fakes empathy. As soon as they are done pretending they care about one another, they go back home, have a few laughs, and never think about it again." Not all of them think this way, but maybe as many as half do. You can look this up yourself in forums for narcissists. Or head over to Jason Skidmore's channel (The Nameless Narcissist). And by the way, he was diagnosed with a mild form of NPD. *shudders*

Anyway, isn't this what we see in politics when we elect people who are already very powerful and wealthy, and who are displaying narcissistic and malignant narcissistic traits? 

Even in close personal relationships, giving narcissists more power over you seems like an ill-fated, very bad decision that will mean quite a bit less empathetic responses from them when it concerns you, if not continuing more atrophy in parts of their brain.  

Having no empathy comes down to more reptilian-ism. Thus: the cold, non-affectionate unconcerned responses when you are in pain, even a great deal of pain. And since they pretend at pain and victim-hood themselves to get people engaging with them and pampering them, they probably think we are like them. In fact, they do think we're like them - that's also part of what the brain studies reveal. There is very little that they can do to get themselves out of "only perceiving what they are going through" to begin to listen, absorb, let alone care what others are going through. That's a pretty major emotional disability. 

So, knowing that this is all a brain matter in them, and not so much a choice (or it is a choice that they either abandoned in childhood or adolescence, or were shown to be of not much use to them by another narcissist, or perhaps something else altogether), it means that it is a fixed trait in them. The anterior insula has atrophied and that particular region cannot come back. Unlike the PTSDer, it's not even compensated for in other parts of the brain.

It's gone. 

It's good to be aware that this is the reality instead of banging our heads against the wall, asking them to be more empathetic. They can't be.

And do we want their fake empathy instead, which is what they do to compensate for the lack of it? I'd say definitely not. In fact I'd rather them come out and say things like, "I love my golden child so much more than my scapegoat child because he gives me such good positive narcissistic supply. I reward him for it and then he gives me more! My scapegoat seems useless in that department!" It would be shocking to most people these days, very shocking, but maybe it could be normalized eventually so that people would get used to it as a truth for them, and then figure out what societal approaches to take in terms of parents trying to turn children into narcissistic supply. 

Maybe there could be adoption agencies for scapegoated children? Or after-school programs for scapegoats so that they can succeed since most of them get fewer family resources than their siblings and hardly ever get an inheritance

And perhaps we'd be more inclined to stop abandoning NPDs if we knew the truth from the get-go. Abandonment of NPDers is very high for the younger generations. And for many of them, it is NPD they are running away from, going more and more silent with a parent, until the estrangement is complete. So much is published about NPD now, that they can figure out if they have an NPD parent usually by the time they enter high school if there is a computer in the house. You can look up favoritism and find out that if negatively expressed is primarily an NPD trait. You can find that gaslighting is primarily an NPD trait. Same with arrogance. Same with rage. Same with power and control. Same with going on rage benders when criticized. The silent treatment is now being attributed to Dark Triad individuals, but Dark Triads are part-NPD. And when you add it all together and go to a therapist, they are probably going to suggest no-contact. So going no-contact is happening more and more in families and in society in general. For Gen Z around 27 percent have gone no-contact. 

Granted some Gen Zers are just going with the flow (peer pressure), but some of them are genuinely fed up with NPD, especially NPDs who are into power trips who feel compelled to control others, and hurt them in order to control. Considering NPD traits don't change, and that many NPDers are abusive, it is understandable why NPDers are being walked out on. 

It's possible that going no-contact will wipe out NPD proclivities, especially if NPD was a choice, but if it is a brain matter? They will have to figure out what to do with their NPD traits at the very least. Probably many of them will feel they have to hide them a lot better than they used to, to wear a mask of full time NPD charm, which I imagine would be hard for them, if they don't want most people running away from them. 

Even in work places, tolerating gossip is not cool any more, whereas The Silent Generation seemed to "take a bath in it" (at least in my world). This makes it a problem for NPDers who want power and popularity in work places. They are probably not going to get it by "talking trash" about other people any more.  

So how should we proceed with the brain matter? 

Should NPDers just do the opposite and tell the truth instead of feeling compelled to hide all of the traits of their disorder? Would that help anyone?

How would you feel if the following truth was told? "I'm sorry. I can't feel your pain because I have no empathy. I haven't felt any empathy since I was seven years old." Wouldn't we do the respectful thing, as we do with other disabled people, and not seek empathy from them, not burden them with our pain, our feelings and thoughts? Maybe talking about gray rock subjects really is much better for them and for us. Maybe they'd be more humble too, admitting to a disability.  

While it does limit a relationship a great deal especially for those of us who put great value in empathy, especially in close personal relationships, NPDs might seek other NPDs to be their closest friends. Maybe even the power battles could be exclusive to their relationships with other NPDs.

Empathy is what most of us feel sets us apart from many in the animal kingdom, and it's going to be what is highly valued among other empaths, but if honesty were allowed to prevail, perhaps we could accommodate their disabilities in some way.

You wouldn't ask a person in a wheel chair to play basketball with you unless some drastic compromises and compensations were made where he or she could reach the basket, or where it was a different game altogether. 

Likewise, why frustrate the hell out of oneself and them explaining your point of view. Again, their inability to understand, to know what you mean, to get outside their own perspectives enough to stop projecting isn't going to happen. Especially (most likely) for narcissists older than their early twenties. What would be the matter with honesty here too?: "I'm a narcissist, and I'm not going to understand you much, if at all. I'm too liable to go into a state of projection. I'm not going to have empathy for you either. I'm not the best person to talk to about emotional subjects, or injuries that you've had, especially if you need caring responses from me. I can talk about other things,  however." 

The fact is that they wear masks now, taking up different personas to come across as people who are something other than who they really are, pretending to be people who are not disabled in this much of a profound way is more of a horror show, traumatizing as all get-out, when the mask slips and you find out they are not empathetic, not loving, not emotionally regulated (i.e. rage-a-holics), not emotionally attached to you except in terms of the narcissistic supply you dish out to them, not comforting, not stable, addicted to positive and most importantly negative narcissistic supply, and some of them are even addicted to scapegoating and sadism. More often than not, they can't do much else than project who they are on to others, and therefor can't really hear you enough to comprehend your perspectives. ... what if society let them go around without a mask? Where they were allowed to show their disabilities like others show their disabilities? 

After all, many of them feel awful that they trick other people (from looking at their forums). And then some of them feel awful and then say in their forums, "Everyone does it, so I shouldn't feel so bad about it." - that's just one sign that narcissists don't understand that their actions and lack of comprehension cause trauma. And then even fewer say, "They were so stupid to trust me! So they deserved it!" - Now that's pretty sadistically oriented, but most narcissists aren't that way unless they have a lot of Antisocial Personality Disorder traits.

But the problem that remains is this: Would we elect them to political offices knowing of these disabilities? Probably not. Would we prefer them over empathetic people to take care of our children? Probably not. Would we want them to be our nurse in a hospital? Definitely not. And that's where it gets tricky ... what to do with their lust for power ... And I do believe it is one of the more destructive addictions - destructive to self and to others. Narcissists, in general, are more prone to addiction than the general population, and especially alcohol. And a high percentage of them are controlling.

In terms of an addiction to power and control, it's also the increasing lack of empathy that makes them fall from grace and power so easily, so they are in danger of serious narcissistic collapses because of this. It means they and others will suffer when they lose power and control just as both do when they gain it. Power and control for narcissists is always about using others to gain it. Most will lose it eventually, whether from natural causes and death, from abandonments, from being voted out, from being a tyrant. 

What is a person to do when the despotic tyrant is so ruthless, so cold, that what ever empathy they had left is shriveling away at lightening speed? How does a population prevent it? 

The less empathy narcissists feel, the more likely it is they may turn sociopathic (Psychologist Dr. Les Carter talks about narcissists who go sociopathic if you want to explore that issue). Perhaps the least we could do is to pass laws where people who have been charged with felonies cannot run for office. That would, at the very least, weed out people who are found to be criminals, even if it does not weed out potential criminals or criminals who haven't been caught yet. Maybe brain studies need to be conducted on all people seeking public office. Maybe that's the future. Maybe it has to be that vetted so that we don't end up in a dictatorial mess with a murderous tyrant of a leader. I don't know ... 

I have been reading a book on addiction, and it's pretty clear that what ever you are addicted to is probably bad for you. A caffeine addiction probably has the least amount of negative effects, but it does have some. For now it straddles good and bad (i.e. it is neutrally beneficial). 

But it is not just substances that are addictive. There are pornography addictions, gambling addictions, gaming addictions, sex addictions, and even going through many, many cycles of abuse with narcissists. People compare narcissist's Jekyll/Hyde behaviors to a type of gambling addiction where if you please them, you are rewarded, and if you don't, you get a booby prize that hurts. I was never aware enough to know about the push/pull, hot/cold, love bomb/withdraw, reward/punish tactics of narcissists to get pulled into it or realize it was happening. 

The only addiction I was aware that I had was work, but at some point I realized it was hurting me and the rest of my life, and I cut out the insane schedules. A work addiction can mean a diminished social life or a social life of rushed conversations, lack of sleep, lack of exercise if you're sitting a lot, a diet of convenient foods or repetitive meals, a lack of peace because you're on the run all of the time, a lack of nature if your job is inside a building all day and all night (too many all-nighters where every week I had 2 - 3 days of no sleep), and so much more. I became more judgmental of other people who didn't work like I did, but who I also found were happier (I think judging others negatively while also realizing they are living a better life is also part of an addiction).

Like any addiction it had rewards where you dream of even bigger rewards if you just do more of it, practice more of it, and have the right ideas. The heavy work load entailed 16 - 18 hour days which is insane. I realized there was never enough time, or enough practice, or enough ideas to implement all I wanted to do in my work life, and my health was taking a hit. 

When I really took a good look at the issues around work, I realized it was an addiction rather than a part of a normal human life. In other words, I wasn't living life like most people did. At a time when I didn't need to be worried about money, I worried about it constantly, and when my finances were very low, I took many more chances on kinds of work that were less likely to reward. Figure out that psychology!

I wonder if narcissists could give up on power, control, domination and narcissistic supply agendas in the same way. If they were honest about their NPD, and it wasn't something that was shameful to them that they had to hide, then they might not be so impelled to hide these kinds of addictions? They could be more open about the fact that they've hurt others by being addicted to negative narcissistic supply and power. Maybe there could be AA-like meetings for narcissists to deal with all of their addictions, since many types of addictions are so much a part of their disability.  

Maybe if society talked a lot more about narcissist's lust for power and control as "a problem addiction" that can cause many other people, including vulnerable children and young women, trauma. Perhaps treatment modalities could be set up to minimize narcissist's need for power, control and domination?

Perhaps narcissists would have more consequences for punishing others who are resisting their destructive control agendas.

I wonder what Gen Z will do with their own children to keep them from falling prey to narcissists who want to control and to exploit them for their own use? This may be the generation who finally does something about this problem, assuming they can find out exactly what is causing it. Brain studies certainly help. After all, cruel narcissists without empathy and a proclivity to abuse should be halted on getting more and more power over the vulnerable, right? 

Trauma, especially C-PTSD, has shown to be a type of disability in its own right. So society would have two people with disabilities, the NPDer who abuses and produces a PTSDer. The problem with productivity in PTSD is that the type of work that PTSD individuals can do is limited, depending on how disabling their PTSD is. From what I know, it is often limited to the arts and social services mainly, and somewhat less to fixing things. Nursing certainly attracts people with PTSD, but some aspects of nursing seem to be a recipe for deepening PTSD (some of my nurses from being in hospitals last year seemed to have PTSD, and it is high in that profession - and PTSD causes lack of focus, short attention span, and losing a train of thought, not good symptoms when nurses have patients in critical conditions). In individuals with severe PTSD, they can't even work. In addition, narcissists tend to target people with disabilities and PTSD. And abusers in general (whether they are NPDers or not), tend to target people with disabilities

So what's the point of having NPDers running rough-shod in society since they are prone to abuse others to gain more power for themselves?

In order to have fewer people with PTSD in society, and better productivity and peace, you have to get at the root causes of it, and it includes "what to do with the NPD issue in society". Let's face it: there are so many of them, and they are hard to ignore now that you can figure out from Google what is going on and come up with many, many articles on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

A lot of psychologists and social workers think that all NPDers truly care about is masking themselves with various personalities (acting), getting narcissistic supply from others, and getting power, control and domination over others, that they have almost no other motivations in relationships beyond that, and that it is hopeless to try to get them to give all of this up. Thus the suggestions for the general public to go "no contact" with them.

That may very well be the case, but maybe other routes have not been considered, or seen, or tried through creative experimentation to see if that really is the case. 

For instance eyeglasses were invented in 1280. Eyeglasses for the color blind were invented in 2002. Who would think you could read after age 45 with glass squares or circles close to your eyes in 500 BC? Who is to say that there won't be a correction for people devoid of empathy or who have a significant amount of brain atrophy as to cause them to have NPD by 2760? Or maybe earlier like 2076 instead? 

In other words, I don't think we should endlessly think we have no other alternatives than to go "no contact" with them, or the other awful alternative: living through terrible trauma from them. 

It might be just one change that would allow them be assimilated.

Maybe they'd even give up on the "It's all your fault! It's all you, you, you, you, you!" blame shifting tactic they all do if we were open to helping or finding a cure for their disability. Maybe they'd even see a little more clearly what we go through when they're trying to terrorize us into letting them control us more when we don't want it and are resisting it. Maybe some day they'd be more honest about whether it really works to sweet talk people only to terrorize and control them later? 


HOW THE BRAIN STUDIES EFFECTED ME
AND A PERSONAL STORY ON HOW NARCISSISTS TRIED TO GAIN POWER OVER ME

Seeing how NPD is really a disability, it changes how I'll do these posts.  

Yes, it is usually a very covered up, disguised emotional disability, which makes it seem evil (i.e. they do their terrorizing in private). And if they've chosen you to exert their power and control over, and it's done slowly and insidiously, like an invasive species, all the while insisting without saying it out loud, that you turn your own power over to them through what ever means necessary, via their sweet talk, or their threats,  it's not good, not good for them and not good for you. If they insist on holding on to that addiction, like any addiction, you don't enable it.

With other addictions like alcohol, almost all addiction counselors say that if you enable it, it will grow. If you enable it, the addict will die faster. If they don't want to quit, and no one is enabling them, they will probably get to a point themselves where they want to quit, and get to those thoughts of quitting  much, much faster than if you enable them. It's hard to ignore an alcoholic's pleas for help if you are an empath. But alcoholics can bankrupt themselves and the people they love very fast as their disabilities deepen, and bankrupt their own health and the health of others via stress. 

Alcoholics are heavy into guilt trips, and if you're low on self esteem, you're probably going to feel guilty. 

I don't think it is that different than what you go through with NPDs. They are heavy into guilt trips. They are heavy into playing the victim to get narcissistic supply out of you (instead of alcohol and money for the "drinking lifestyle"). They don't want to quit their "power and control addictions", so they stress out you and themselves when they constantly want more of it. They are constantly jealous (at least this is what mental health practitioners have told me about NPDs) possibly because they are too addicted to power and power games that invariably lead to competition with others rather than co-operation with others. Power is a one-ups-man activity after all. If they weren't playing that game, they probably wouldn't be dealing with uncomfortable amounts and intensities of jealousy. They don't necessarily bankrupt you of money, but they bankrupt you in terms of your health, mental health, happiness, well being, peace, and life stabilities that help everyone emotionally regulate. Their addictions cause most of us trauma. 

And if they really knew that the addiction to power mostly led to losing power eventually, then maybe they wouldn't want it so badly. The type of power they want isn't about helping anyone, let alone themselves. For most of them, coercive control (threats, manipulation and terrorizing) is part of getting more power and control whereby it sets off the "flight" trauma response in their victims, at least eventually, if not right away. 

Who really needs an unhappy relationship like that? Not them, and certainly not us. 

As with alcohol, I do believe you have to walk away not to enable it. Both types, people with NPD and alcohol abuse disorder usually punish you for not giving into their demands and addiction. They ghost you. They fight you. They sneer at you with contempt.

And if they feel they can get away with it, they abuse you. And if that still doesn't get them anything, they make it known that you never mattered to them, and they go find someone else. For alcoholics that would be someone who enabled their drinking to "continue the alcoholic lifestyle", and for NPDs, someone who was totally submissive to them no matter how much they were manipulated and abused by the NPD.

Again, who would want that? But for NPDs, they really, really do not want you in their life unless they are getting more and more power, control and domination over you, and here's the catch: it has to be easy for them too. Anyone who makes it hard for them is usually discarded without exception and without an explanation. 

And you know why they don't give you an explanation? Because they'd have to say, "You're too hard to control and you're too hard to get narcissistic supply from, so I'm quitting to find someone easier." Imagine if you had a hidden recorder or the neighbors over-heard them say that? It's "embarrassment central" for them. So they walk away without explanations instead. 

If you refuse to give them what they want, and need to communicate that with them, it's like you have to say: "Okay. Take note that your punishments of me won't change my stance against enabling." - just like you have to do with the alcoholic if you want them to even consider withdrawal, rehabilitation services, a commitment to AA, wanting a life free of addiction. 

For both types, enabling keeps them in role. The narcissist's addiction remains unchanged, and the substance abuser's addiction remains unchanged too. 

Enlightenment and growth often come from a great fall from our usual life and the everyday thoughts that we have. 

With both the substance abuser and NPD, we are also in danger of going back to a co-dependent relationship. There are a lot of circumstances that cause this like getting involved in an alcohol addict's rehabs, and making sure they go to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings afterwards, and making sure they are not drinking. And then finally if they do start drinking again, we have to figure out how we are going to handle it and respond to it. Help them? Tell them to stop? Give them drinks so that they won't go through withdrawal symptoms or drive them to the hospital to go through withdrawal with  Benzodiazepines? - Withdrawal is dangerous without medical assistance.

Must we always save their lives with the drug that is killing them if it weren't for us enabling them, or do we take them to the emergency room to do their withdrawals every time they fall off the wagon (which they may do a lot if they aren't serious about quitting and you are their steady enabler)?

And again, any addiction counselor is going to tell you that codependent relationships are unhealthy and are not going to help solve the problem of the addict who is slowly killing himself with his addiction. Again, a person with an alcohol addiction is less likely to give up alcohol with a co-dependent in his or her life.

And for the NPD, they can't have power over individuals who aren't there to have power over. In both of these cases, they are more likely to fail at holding on to their addictions the less enabling you do. 

If they find other enablers, realize that the enablers are there, in the addict's mind, to keep the addict comfortable with his or her addiction. Don't take it personally, though both types may try to make it your personal failure that you did not enable them, especially if someone else was willing to do it. 

Also, for the NPD, being honest about their power addiction, and getting to a point where they actually want help, may be as profound as when an alcohol addict finally wants to give up the drink because it's effecting his health and life so badly. 

It's pretty clear that NPDers are losing their children over their addiction. Many of them lose their spouses too.  

One of the things lacking in the NPD's life is honesty. If they were more honest, and there were avenues for honesty without the shame and shock they'd get in the present (like being able to talk about their inability to feel empathy), maybe they wouldn't find power and control such a pie-in-the-sky goal after all. Maybe they'd feel more comfortable socially even, and not necessarily enjoy exploiting relationships. 

In terms of my cartooning, I feel embarrassed by some of them now. "Picking on the disabled". So I know that going forward, that will change, and all of the posts I've been working on will undergo changes too. There are some cartoons that are already in the works, but I'll have to really give some thought to continuing following through on those few posts.

My bigger concern is actually scapegoats, and healing, so maybe I can change the focus by the end of the year (two years ago I talked about ending the NPD articles only to find a lot of pertinent information that I should not leave behind).

I was planning on "post-bombing" this blog with a lot of articles this month and every month through December, every week or every other week, to just get them finished and published, and move on to other subjects, but the brain studies changed some things for me (and for me personally) in terms of how I want to discuss the rest of the NPD traits going forward. Don't be surprised if there are a lot less cartoons and more illustrations, or just posts with no art work. 

It's going to take some time for me to figure out a direction. Richard Grannon's video and some of the reading and resources afterward made quite an impact on me.  

In terms of my personal life, I also think about the methods I've tried and how effective or ineffective they were. I've tried many methods with NPD, some of them disastrous, and some that worked a little better in terms of keeping myself "out of the muck" and not being dragged into arguments with NPDs. I didn't know that the method of staying out of arguments and endless pointless explaining was actually helpful in terms of dealing with their addiction to power and control.

None of the NPDs in my life were my boss, not even at any of the places I worked. In places I worked, they were mere co-workers, but they all acted like they were my boss. 

What I would do now ... 

I'm going to take a story from my own life, but I think any woman who has been through DV (domestic violence) can relate to this story. It's like so many other DV stories. 

I began this blog by talking about "Johnny" - a fictional name about a real person. The post is HERE
(edit: I had forgotten that I told this story before in another post as I finished writing this post. It is obvious to me that I need to find other stories, but since I put the time in, I'll keep it. It's the last time I'll tell it - apologies to my readers who have heard it before - there is a small amount of new information, and more about the sycophants, however it probably doesn't excuse redundancy) ... 

I decided to re-tell that story from my first post because it has a lot to do with a power and control addiction.

What ended up between "Johnny" and me was that he was acting like the perpetrator in Sleeping With the Enemy. It was the same sort of ridiculous constant micro-managing, the insistence that everything had to go in its place in his own way. He kept being the center of attention by micro-managing me and by telling me what he wanted on a constant basis.

I did expect the micro-managing to wind down, thinking it was a kind of a joke or phase while the two of us settled in. This was my folly, assuming this. If I had nipped this from the get-go, I might be telling a completely different story. Might. Setting boundaries right away is important with anyone who is this bossy.

The micro-managing escalated instead and never let up.

Then came the insults, the rage and exceptionally loud complaining when his expectations of "perfect  orderliness" were overlooked, or forgotten, with the same kinds of threats, the threatening atmosphere, and even psychotic-like confabulations that the movie presents. As it escalated further, add in  constantly assaulting my self esteem with constant raging F-bombs from morning until night and drinking from morning until night too.

Eventually, he was physically aggressing and not just slamming fists like in the movie Maid. Worse. This was no ordinary NPDer, in other words, and I highly suspect that alcohol was making the NPD so much worse. In fact, I noticed that when he was really inebriated, it was quite a bit worse. I tended to disappear when I saw or heard drinks being made. 

Otherwise, if certain other people came around, the Hyde personality would stop immediately, and then the Jekyll would sound calm with a soft voice, almost too sugary sweet to be believable (contrived), and he'd act thoughtful, more cerebral, tilt his head in a dramatic way as if he really cared, not swear at all, and as soon as the people left, the derision of others, including some of them, would start immediately along with the F-bombs.

If that's not masking in NPD style, I don't know what is. 

It was the Jekyll/Hyde personality that set off the flight alarms in me first.

His wife did not help because she enabled his ranting about tiny issues (imagine Sleeping with the Enemy movie with someone else trying to normalize and defend someone like this). 

Eventually I over-heard a phone conversation with his wife where he was lying about me and comparing me to his ex. Big made up stories about things I supposedly said, and complained about, and did on days when I was utterly silent to not rock the boat. Every single thing that he said to her was made up, a whole half an hour of it. 

I was really spooked. Symptoms started, particularly lack of sleep. Any last respect I had of him also took a huge nose-dive. It was around this time I contacted a domestic violence counselor who said I might want to contact his ex to get the full story of what happened between the two of them from her perspective since I no longer believed what he had to say about her, that I might find some similarities between her story and mine.

I hesitated in doing this because "loyalty" was of the utmost importance to him (as it is with most NPDers, even though they aren't loyal themselves, quite the opposite - note: I did not know he was NPD at the time; I just thought he had a bad drinking problem, and "nasty drunk syndrome"). But I wasn't willing to take the chance at that point. I thought it might make more problems than less ones.

However, because of the lies, false narratives and false gossip, I was done with listening to him about much of anything. When ordering me around, I didn't actively challenge him. Instead, I quietly did what I wanted to do. If I thought he was right, I did it his way, and if I thought I was right, I did it my way. I reasoned that I wasn't going to be shouted at and go into a tailspin every time I disagreed with him, so I resisted his orders without saying a word. 

One time I didn't do it his way, and he accosted me between rooms with his fists clenched, face red, eyes bugged out, "I told you to do ---!" But I didn't let him finish what he was saying. I left immediately when I saw him in that state. 

Eventually, he wouldn't leave me alone and followed me around. I said something like: "You seem to forget that I am an autonomous adult, that I make my own decisions every day, that I have my own successful business and do not need a boss to run it for me, that I drive a car and get to places on time and do not need a boss to help me with that either, that I make constant decisions in my work; in fact they are more about making constant decisions than implementing other people's decisions. The tasks you want done your way are so simple minded that a three year old could do it.  But I'm not a three year old. It seems that you think that I am by the way you are treating me, that you somehow think I need to be lectured at, taught how to do things, and if I have my own mind about things, you want to punish me for having my own mind. No. It's ending now."

From there the abuse escalated pretty dramatically, lots of pushing aside, the verbal abuse had reached the "You're totally useless." "You're a big nobody, do you know that?" "I hope I never see your ugly face again!", "You're nothing to me!", and so on.  

A day after that, a woman who had a little more "real" power than he did, told the two of us to go outside and make up. 

When we were both outside I said, "I just want to be left alone. You do things your way; I will do them my way. I don't have much to say to you other than what I've said before, and I would like you to respect that boundary. If you sincerely want a relationship with me, this agenda to have power, control and domination over me has to stop. What do you say?"

And his reaction to that was: "When I tell you do something I expect it to be done!" with reddened face, clenched fists, and popping blood-shot eyes. 

"Nope I'm not having it. Respect my boundaries" and I walked away from him.

He looked furious. 

The next day, I think he thought I was going to bend and submit by escalating the emotional and verbal attacks even more and by looking scary. He also told more false narratives. At this point I was constantly running away from him when he'd start in on me. 

He could see I was unmoved. At one point he was particularly cruel as he approached me on some steps outside of the building, and I actually started to cry, and then I thought, "Why am I crying? I have to snap out of it!" and I stopped cold. First time in my life that I could stop it cold, in fact. It was like, "I have to have my wits about me, and emotions are going to keep that from happening!"

I knew that crying or pleading with him to stop would be a sign of weakness to him and he'd use it to inflict more pain. I knew not to show pain most of the time. He still insulted me and afterward he took off for a walk to complain to his wife. Although I did not hear that phone conversation (or at least the words being said), I assumed they were full of more false narratives where he would try to prejudice her more against me. 

But some kind of emotion took hold after I saw him returning from his phone call, and my anger was at a boiling point. I said something like "You're just a mean drunk! You think cruelty is a good thing! You disgust me! I suppose you'll have to have a drink after I've said that just to feel better. Sure, have a drink so that you can feel super grandiose again, like you're better than every blessed person on the planet, right? Everyone needs your orders, right? If you just have a drink, you can be a Superman drunk that can insult others in a single bound!" 

This was my big mistake. I lost it. So what I would have done differently was to keep the moral high ground, keep the calm, keep from getting sucked into argument traps. It was a learning experience, in other words.

At the time, I felt my anger outburst didn't come close to his constant insults, name calling, degrading comments, and the false narratives he was trying hard to push on others. At the time I didn't feel guilty considering how much I was provoked. Only later on. At the time, I thought, wrongly, that my outburst might stop him from aggressing and escalating, that he'd back off because I wasn't moved by any of what he was trying to do, that he'd give up trying to control me. Maybe he'd even give up alcohol because I could see some shame, some hiding of the drinks, especially the morning ones. 

Wow, was I wrong! I didn't know how addictions were so gripping, that shame isn't going to stop either addiction. In fact, I could see that he was going to try and flip the shame on to me instead, scapegoat style. Looking back, it seemed so NPD of him.

It didn't work to flip the blame because I knew it was projection and I really didn't listen to him any more about his opinions or shaming or much of anything because I didn't respect him (again because of his false narratives), so it was like it went in one of my ears and out the other. I was fine with who I was. The only thing that was going awry was some of my experimental methods of dealing with him. 

I never found any method that gave me great results, but the outburst garnered the most shame because I felt like I had lowered myself to his level. Since I didn't respect him, I didn't respect myself in that moment.

However, before I could figure out how wrong I was with my methods, I thought what would happen was that he might give up drinking now that I showed him "I knew", but I had to leave for a scheduled surgery.

Normally I would have left a situation like this permanently, but I was concerned for another person in this situation, so I only stayed to protect and monitor. I figured no highly vulnerable person should be under the influence of a Jekyll/Hyde personality with that much of a drinking problem lest the Hyde personality come out while I was gone. Otherwise I might have left. 

And I did leave for a surgery and experienced a close friend die during the same period, and when I came back, the person I was protecting had a black eye. "From a fall," I was told.

None of what I was going through phased "Johnny". Usually most people have some empathy when you're going through a difficult part of your life, or when someone important to you has died. There wasn't any sign of empathy at all. Not even an acknowledgement. None.  

Anyway, upon returning, the next escalation was pushing me around. "Get out of my way!" when he was walking through. Another time he pulled me by the wrist towards something I cannot discuss for privacy reasons and demanded I clean it. 

I started to become concerned for my safety. But not enough. Like a lot of women who go through this, I minimized the danger. "Oh, it can't happen to me!" types of thoughts.

But the question was gnawing at me.

I decided to call his ex-wife. 

Everything sounded so familiar especially the ultra-controlling behavior and micro-managing every move she made, the irrational made up "silly" non-consequential arguments, the projecting, the constant drinking, which in those days was beer. I was seeing hard liquor during my time in his company. But then when she described being injured to the point of getting medical treatment at a hospital twice from being slammed with fists, I became a lot more concerned. Apparently he was in the emergency room when she was getting bandaged up, so she didn't feel like she could talk about the domestic violence. He didn't know I contacted her, and for safety reasons it was thought best if he didn't know especially as he was still in my company. 

Then from there it escalated really rapidly to him standing in doorways that I was trying to pass through. He would block the doorway, clench his fists like he was ready to slug me, shake with rage, with again, a red face and bloodshot eyes. 

I called another domestic violence counselor and told her what was going on in the doorways, and the pushing and shoving, and asked if I was in danger.

"Absolutely! You need to get out of the situation now! Once the physical abuse starts, which it has, escalation is usually very, very fast." 

I told her why I was finding that difficult, and that my husband was arriving soon, so she coordinated something in the meantime whereby there were people constantly coming in and out of the building, some of them mandated reporters, where slugging me would be nearly impossible for him to get away with without being caught and possibly arrested, and that most domestic violence offenders like to do their slugging in private. 

She also taught me to use the JADE method (another method similar to the DEEP Method: "don't justify, don't argue, don't defend, and don't explain").

In tandem with this crowd, in the last days, Johnny's spouse was also there, and my husband. That changed the dynamic too. 

Shortly afterwards, we parted ways.

So, the question for me for many months afterwards was why he escalated the abuse when I told him to stop with the power and control tactics? Like: why wasn't that respected? Not respecting it damaged our relationship for good. The power he wanted was lost because I didn't want him in my life beyond e-mails (if he had something to say to me). And frankly I had the right to decide who controlled me, who I did not want controlling me, and even whether I wanted or didn't want to be controlled. It was my life, my time, my decision about whether and how much control I wanted from others. Why did he think it wasn't?

That was when it dawned on me one day power was not a policy that they decide on, but an addiction!

You try to take what they are addicted to away from them, even if that addiction entails you providing it for them, it's going to enrage them! "How dare you not be controlled by me and NOT give into me so that I can get more power!!!" - something to that effect, with plenty of raging and swearing, "Johnny"-style. It's also part of narcissistic entitlement: "I deserve the upper hand, and I deserve people serving me because my needs are more important than yours or any other people's needs, and what I mean by that is that you're going to follow my orders even though I'm not your boss!" And if you resist, "You're useless to me! I hate you! Nothing you are is worth anything to me!" because all they want from you is submission to their power, to control you, to micro-manage you (micro-managing and domestic violence being the malignant brand of NPD).

They just leave out some words like "I have to control you!! It's my drug!!" or "I must micro-manage you and control you! Just please, please, please step into line and give me that!" - I think even they know that won't get them what they want, so they have to tell you that you are worthless so that you will figure it out for yourself and think, "Oh, if I give him control over me, he won't hate me!" ... But you actually have to respect a person's opinions of you to change your behaviors towards them, otherwise you're usually caught up in a flight response. So, frankly, I didn't care whether he hated me or not. 

The only downside to being hated is that people who hate to this degree usually want other people to hate you too. I didn't know enough about NPD at that time to know about smear campaigns and the level to which they'll go to "divide and conquer" (triangulation is another NPD trait) until someone contacted me that "Johnny" was trying to prejudice others. I tried to explain what I had gone through to counter it.

It's the flying monkey tactic that happens with most NPDers.

Anyway, "Johnny" thought that terrorizing, and taking up all kinds of abuse, telling false narratives works? Maybe the constant bullying and threats work for seven year olds, but I was astonished to think that he was going to try to make it work on me. When I talk about the fact that narcissists don't know their victims, this is what I mean. Maybe through the lens of alcohol, I looked seven?

I actually think at this point that all of the typical tactics that narcissists use like gaslighting, triangulating, idealize-devalue-discard, and on and on, are addictive for them. It's why just about every narcissist uses them. They are, apparently,  all default tactics when they are frustrated with how much power and control they can get, retain and build upon when relating to you. 

I thought it would be all over, and then I'd never have to put up with or challenge his controlling behavior again. 

But I was in the way of something else he wanted ... 

Anyway, there were two people who I assumed both of us were close to. One of them was one of my confidantes, a person I shared personal information with, someone I had conversations with a few times a week, someone who wanted to know that I got to places safely when I travelled, someone I came to trust, and who seemed to care about me.

Anyway, I told them both that my relationship with Johnny was over. 

They didn't like it and tried to control my decision.

More control? I am being expected to put up with that some more? In a dangerous domestic violence situation? No. 

Anyway, I received a letter from one of them where it was as though "Johnny" dictated the letter. They wrote it all from his perspective as though it was the truth. These were people who never visited the building where "Johnny" and I worked, by the way. They didn't ask others in the situation what had happened. So how could they write it in a dictated style as though it was the truth?

Anyway, I've talked about sycophants before, how they puppet everything a narcissist says, how they don't research anything, how they don't want to hear yours or anyone else's perspectives that differ from what they want believe to be true in a situation, how they go along with one party because it is convenient for them or because they want something from them, how they come to conclusions in lazy ways where they don't have to think hard or explore. This is what I was dealing with. 

I was silenced about what I went through. They didn't want to hear it. He was not. That should have told me that the only perspective they were open to and wanted to believe in was his. 

It became clear that one of them wanted me out of the picture altogether, and preferred Johnny's company to mine, and my confidante (who became an ex-confidante) wanted a break from seeing me for awhile. 

In terms of wanting a break, I waited and waited. And then I started "invites" at some point. My husband suggested to them that the four of us get together to talk it out. I also suggested a lunch out between the two of them and me and my husband to chat about the issues. I suggested a meeting between the two of us with our best friends in tow if she was concerned about being supported by someone. I suggested ALANON. I suggested she go to a therapist who specialized in addiction so that she could understand what I was going through, and the personal dynamics that happen around addicted individuals. I suggested therapy between her and me, and actually demanded it after awhile because I didn't see any other way forward to get our relationship back on track. Nothing. 


When her needing a break came to a couple of years, I was done with waiting. During those years the situation was very, very painful. It wasn't getting better. I sent cards to her on her birthday without a thank you; it was a sign of ingratitude. For me it looked like an exercise in self-humiliation. I found myself not interested in establishing the relationship as anything like it had been before. And what do you talk to someone like that about? The idea of meeting with her was giving me a lot of anxiety. If she had asked me to meet her somewhere, I might balk or not find anything to say. She'd dominate the conversation, and I'd have to leave. I reasoned that probably at least half of the pain was due to this open-ended ridiculous waiting period, and that it wasn't reasonable. Most people tell you things like: "I'll get a hold of you in three months. Okay?" 

If all I was going to receive was stonewalling on more invitations, it was just better to say goodbye and to know it was over so that I could move on with my life. I didn't trust her. It was a deep betrayal. And the two of them were seeing a lot of Johnny, so that sent a message. Giving up hope is sometimes what you have to do to move on. It was the right decision and the particular issues with that person faded away into my past (except when I write personal stories, but with none of the prior pain). I concentrated on other relationships and activities in my life. 

A psychologist told me that this happens a lot: people tend to go with the perpetrators more than the victims. Not everyone, but he estimated maybe over half of them do in his experience as a clinician. Supposedly it's the combination of narcissistic charm and love bombing, premeditated attempts to get people to side with them, trying to isolate the victim, and looking strong, powerful and together.

Meanwhile the victim looks like they are falling apart, emotionally and physically, drained, and if they are having trauma they may look spaced out, exhausted and crazy. It's the same principal of voting for the authoritarian dictator-like "strong-man" who can threaten other countries in a single bound over the more intellectual, diplomatic, empathetic leader because I think many brains are wired to see arrogant authoritarians as people who will fight, defend, and provide strong economic policies. Narcissistic enablers and co-bullies also tend to target and bully people who they see as weaker, more vulnerable or disabled. Narcissists are also more concerned with appearances than people.

As far as sycophancy goes, they usually get rewarded in some way by the narcissistic perpetrator that they don't think they will get from the victim, and most of these kinds of people can be other narcissists.

So what were they getting from the perpetrator? European trips on luxury liners.

No morals, no sense of right and wrong, a glittery boat was more important than a long-term relationship. Shows where those people's priorities are.

I didn't know it then, but I was told much later from psychologists who specialize in NPD that if others defend or side with an abuser, and they have a choice to have a relationship with you both (as these two people did), let them go and either deepen the relationships you already have or find your own people. It's very good advice, so I'm passing it along.

In terms of choosing boat trips, and the whole DV experience, a therapist suggested that if I wanted to research or express my disgust, I could do it through a blog. I took his advice and very glad I did.

Since those days I haven't had any more narcissists in my life except for two brief employment situations.

In both situations, I was dealing with a "bossy" co-worker. When I refused to be bossed, in both situations they ran to the real boss to try to get me fired.

In the first place of employment, the boss wanted us "to work it out". Does this remind you of the woman who told "Johnny" and me to "make up"? Well, the situation went similarly except the co-worker didn't insult me, or swear, or have clenched fists. However, she demanded she get her way, and that she was entitled to it because she decided she was the "expert". I said, "It's not like what we're doing here is rocket science. Not even close! A toddler could do this job! This job doesn't need instruction, or even a boss. I have a Master's degree in teaching and know when it is time to teach and when it is time to let go of teaching them. They don't need more teaching. So, just lay off the bossiness, please, and we'll be fine." But she didn't stop, and went to the boss every time she had trouble dominating me. He would come to inspect us, and laugh and say, "Women! They can't get along with each other! Am I going to see a cat fight today?" Then one day she went to the boss and said he had a choice to make. If he didn't fire me, she would leave. She was there longer than I was, and so I was fired. After I left, I found out she got most other workers to leave via bullying them (they weren't fired; they just left on their own). Finally the business fired her, but it was too late: the business had no workers, and no one to re-hire.

In the second situation, the same sort of thing was happening: another co-worker was bossy. In that case, she ignored the real bosses and pretended that she had been given the authority to set me straight. She was more aggressive: constantly telling me that what I was doing wasn't right, purposely telling me to do the wrong thing (sabotaging) so the boss would have to constantly correct me and find me incompetent. I no longer listened to her, obviously. Really creepy, eyes on me almost all of the time. Sociopathic, I think. Anyway, for awhile the bosses thought it best to separate us, but she was still finding a way to invade my work space. Then she fired her.

So it seems to be true that around half of the time, people side with the victims, and half the time with the perpetrators.

After both jobs however, I decided not to deal with narcissists any more, even in places of employment.

Every single "trouble" I had with narcissists was usually over the narcissist's demand or coercion for more power and control. So I really don't know what any professional can do about it to assimilate narcissists into society when an addiction to power can cause so much "grabbing for more control of other workers", and destroy businesses, a peaceful work environment, employees who co-operate instead of being at each other's throats. Narcissists seem too destructive for most people who want peaceful progress.

Keep denying narcissists power and hope so that they'll lose interest in it eventually?  Keep them separated from others in a work place? Put them with a bunch of empaths who won't tolerate them gossiping or unable to compromise?

In terms of putting them in with empaths, this may work. In one work place, the more NPD-inclined gossipy women got uncomfortable with a younger generation of empaths who disapproved of this behavior, and a lot of those gossips left. 

I did talk to a business owner about this issue. He said he had one narcissistic employee and yes, this employee tried to gain power over co-workers, so the employee was transferred to the warehouse. He even became "trouble" there, so the boss split the warehouse into four sections, where the narcissist had his own section and wasn't allowed into the other sections. "Problem solved."

The NPD's addictions to power do not appear to be a brain issue.  But perhaps it is a compensation for atrophy of a number of other regions of the brain? Or an easy way forward for not having empathy? Curious minds would like to know.

A side note: I did a cartoon of an inebriated man complaining about feeling weak, and hung over, going into a booth with limitless alcohol, putting on a superman-type costume coming out of the booth, and insulting one person after the other until shriveling up and becoming weak again and crawling back to the booth to be let in. I had trepidations about publishing that cartoon, as cartoons about drunks don't seem to be all that politically correct these days, but I personally felt much better making it. Comic relief.

Now what to do about the couple who prefers the drunken DV offender and the boat ... 


FURTHER READING AND A VIDEO

Controlling People: 32 Common Traits, Signs and Ways to Deal with Them - by Dr. Carol Morgan for Love Panky

12 Signs of a Controlling Person - by Cindy Lamothe, and medically reviewed by Timothy J. Legg, PhD, PsyD for Healthline

Recognising the Difference Between Love and Controlling Behaviour in Relationships: Warning Signs - by the administrators of National Legal Service (Great Britain)

The confusion between someone BEING CONTROLLING vs. CARING for you - Dr. Ramani, clinical psychologist (You Tube)

Sunday, October 27, 2024

Should We Have Kings, Queens and Dictators Ruling the World Again? Plus a Look at the Headlines (for my series, The Narcissistic Nation)


While presidents come and go in America, and at most can only serve eight years according to The Constitution, what The Supreme Court ruled in July of this year was that presidents have absolute immunity to commit (what might be construed before the ruling was made) as criminal acts, as long as they are "official acts" (something that The Supreme Court never defined, and perhaps will make up as they go), as well as immunity to be investigated should there be inquiries into a president over the possibility of criminal acts. 

What a recipe for potential dictatorship whether sooner or later, yes? 

What the Supreme Court leaves open for the Senate and House of Representatives is that a president can be impeached by a simple majority in the House of Representatives, and a two thirds majority in the Senate, but otherwise gives itself power to decide what presidential acts fall under an official act versus an unofficial one. 

It is also an unprecedented ruling.

Impeachments are pretty difficult to enact, so it changes which bodies of government have more power, and it would seem that the Supreme Court has given itself more power in their ruling than the Senate and the House of Representatives now currently hold. The Supreme Court can also hold impeachments up as they deliberate whether the president is engaging in official acts (or not), especially if there is a national crisis where impeachment needs to be swiftly executed. In the meantime, the president may be committing crimes right and left, to the point where a bigger crisis looms. 

According to Jamie Raskin, a Constitutional scholar, professor and Constitutional lawyer, the new ruling was "made out of whole cloth" - his words - and not something that the founders of The Constitution would have wanted as it was a document written to keep the country from being ruled by kings, queens and dictators. More here.  

And according to Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor for 30 years, the ruling is "a path to dictatorship" - his words. More here.

Under the new Supreme Court ruling, President Richard Nixon would have gotten away with his crimes (ordering the break-in into the Democratic National Committee's main office to obtain information so that it would put him at an advantage to win the presidency). Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

So it is something to be concerned about if you like your freedom, including the freedom to make decisions and choices about your own life, and to have some say over what government officials do and say on your behalf. If you like voting instead of being ruled, and you like talking about what you want to talk about as long as it isn't abusive, and you like reading a press that is not just propaganda, you may want to consider what being ruled by a king, queen or dictator will mean for your life and the generations that follow. 

Now for the definition of what a dictatorship is, I turned to Wikipedia for some excerpts: 

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. The dictator maintains control by influencing and appeasing the inner circle and repressing any opposition, which may include rival political parties, armed resistance, or disloyal members of the dictator's inner circle. ... 

... Stability in a dictatorship is maintained through coercion and political repression, which involves the restriction of access to information, the tracking of the political opposition, and acts of violence. Dictatorships that fail to repress the opposition are susceptible to collapse through a coup or a revolution. ... 

... The opposition to a dictatorship represents all of the factions that are not part of the dictatorship and anyone that does not support the regime. Organized opposition is a threat to the stability of a dictatorship, as it seeks to undermine public support for the dictator and calls for regime change. A dictator may address the opposition by repressing it through force, modifying laws to restrict its power, or appeasing it with limited benefits.[10] The opposition can be an external group, or it can also include current and former members of the dictator's inner circle.[11]

Totalitarianism is a variation of dictatorship characterized by the presence of a single political party and more specifically, by a powerful leader who imposes personal and political prominence. Power is enforced through a steadfast collaboration between the government and a highly developed ideology. A totalitarian government has "total control of mass communications and social and economic organizations".[12] Political philosopher Hannah Arendt describes totalitarianism as a new and extreme form of dictatorship composed of "atomized, isolated individuals" in which ideology plays a leading role in defining how the entire society should be organized. ... 

The one thing about kings, queens and dictators that you can count on is that they get to run the country any way they want, whether you like it or not, and even when the high majority of the population doesn't want it. No one has a say in how it is run. Even if you like how the country is run, the primary dictator can die and another dictator you don't like can take over.

Most of them will send out an army or their secret police if you have any objections, voice objections, become part of a revolt, become part of a group who does not approve of what the government is doing.

Most protests are put down. Most dissenters and complainers are silenced by the government. Free speech is not allowed.

The message is: you aren't supposed to protest or have thoughts of opposition; you are supposed to be supplicating or sublimating, and being dictated to by the dictator.

Many people look at dictators as gods so they won't think of protesting. But those who don't and have concerns about what is happening, it's swept out as not being worthy of consideration. Every governmental action for and against the people is ordained as necessary by the dictator god. Your job is to worship the dictator to get better treatment, or so you might think.

Despotic dictators will do anything they want to do to you, including torture, and tell you how to live, and what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and if you don't like it, they can put you in prison for making a fuss. And most of them won't care how it effects you or your family. 

They will let you know that they are the ultimate authority at every turn. They will raise taxes to support programs or a war you may disapprove of. They will make deals with other dictators whether you like the deals or not.

They will raise armies and draft individuals whether you think it's a war worth fighting or not. They will risk the lives of many sons whether you like it or not.

They can lie to you or tell you the truth, and you won't know the difference; it is up to what you believe, or to hold them in regard even if they are slipping up.

I don't usually write about these kinds of issues. Being ruled by a dictator, I would imagine, is not a way that you really feel part of national decision making. You may have or not have a voice at all. Maybe the rules are so stringent about what you can talk about that you dare not talk, especially about any government matters. You pay taxes, send your sons off to war, get information that may or may not be the truth, and that is about it. I would also imagine that you might purposely try to blot out of your mind the ambitions and policies your government makes (seemingly on your behalf), and that you squash any attitude you might be feeling about what the dictator decides for your country for the sake of your own survival.

The Constitution of The United States of America has been the opposite of all of this (until very recently): it was very anti-authoritarian, very much about compromise, and individual rights, including the right to protest and point out things the population didn't like. Free speech was considered a right and a freedom.

Sometimes politicians and judges distort the meaning of The Constitution, like religious sects distort the meanings in the Bible and Koran, but what it says is pretty clear, and we have mostly shown that we can follow The Constitution. It's text is also obviously a blueprint in how to avoid authoritarians and would-be kings who would take the decisions away from citizens and put it solely into their own hands. Again, these dictators, kings or queens may, or may not, care about the citizens of the country, and they may not be endowed with any empathy at all.

Who cares and doesn't care about citizens' concerns is always up for debate, and that is what elections are largely about.

The Supreme Court, for instance, also recently ruled that any politician can take money from anyone as a bribe. The president can promise large corporations tax breaks, unlimited access to lands, subsidies and other benefits in order to make money for themselves or their campaign. Is that good for you and your community, or is it bad for you and your community? Would you ask your elected officials to make a new law banning bribes, or do you not care, or do you like that idea so that you can bribe politicians to do what you want too? You have the right to voice an opinion on this at the time of this writing, and even gather people to protest any of these decisions - but this may not last by next year.

You won't have that ability if you are ruled by a dictator or a king. You probably won't even know about the bribes and deals being made.

However, as I've said, my blog is not focused on whether dictators, kings and queens are good for our country, or any country, per se. It would seem to me that most citizens would rather live in a democracy, and live in a country where politicians are beholden to all people of a nation, and not just keeping promises (bribes) with corporations and individuals with enormous amounts of money. 

However that choice is not up to me. It's up to a voting public, and what they want, and the senators and house representatives that are serving their state and counties.

This part of my blog is focused on issues having to do with the Cluster B personality disorders and how they relate to abuse, bullyingdomination, power and control.

And occasionally that spills over into discussing politics and world events. For instance this post was devoted to discussing Putin's possible malignant narcissism (now often referred to as Dark Triad), and a little on why malignant narcissists start wars, how it might effect the war in Ukraine, and more to the point, how to avoid voting for malignant narcissists if you want to have peace in the world, and have a little tiny say in how the government is run. And it is tiny, but there may be a lot more voices that echo your own concerns, so not all issues are hopeless.

The population too, is a lot more powerful than any government or any dictator. It's largely why more revolutions are successful than not, especially if a population is being driven into poverty, famine, losing their standard of living, or losing family members to an endless war.

There are only so many rebellious citizens that a dictator can plow down and kill. If more arise, they can be killed too. But revolutions that reach a popular majority will be too hard to fight off. In those cases, soldiers themselves tend to be divided (many do not want to kill their own citizens for a bad policy of their dictator). The dictator, at that point, will be swamped by the population just like allies swamped Germans in Normandy. There were a lot of dead men on that beach, and in some parts of the beach more dead men than live ones, but they eventually swamped the Germans and removed them from the beach and drove them out of Normandy. Germany began to shrink back to its original size before the invasion.

That war was caused by a dictator. And if you read history, a lot of dictators like to start wars. The population goes along with it (for a time, while they are doing well).

But what can happen is that a government and its leaders are toppled and killed off, and there is chaos for awhile until a new form of government is in charge. And guess what kinds of governments citizens like after years of hardship and wars?

Democracies, on the whole.

I will say that I would be happy to be in a world that was peaceful all of the time, without wars, and where basic human needs were met across the planet (food, shelter and clothing). I remember reading about Native Americans and how they were horrified by how white settlers treated other white settlers, and to some degree, how whites treated their own children.

They saw white settlers practicing child abuse. Apparently Native Americans who saw their children as their own future, a future that they needed to take care of if their tribes were to keep existing, and their old people were to be taken care of and revered for their wisdom and experiences, meant that they had to treat the future well, with dignity and respect. Mostly they were horrified at seeing white people letting other white people starve, letting them be homeless, letting them lie in squalor and their own vomit if they were addicted, feeling arrogant and haughty when they left people in dire straights, and so on.

Apparently the lack of empathy was on display pretty early on, and that lack of empathy would carry white settlers to commit a genocide and land grab against the Native American people, or round them up in barely survivable concentration camps called reservations where they would be dependent on the white man. The white man would bring the buffalo (another link) and chestnut tree to very near extinction, making them more dependent. Both were a vital food source and shelter source for them. The Native Americans had good reason to be extremely concerned.

Lack of empathy is a very well known narcissistic and sociopathic trait, and it tends to manifest as early as childhood largely from growing up in home, school and neighborhood environments which are neglectful, violent, bullying or abusive. It doesn't mean that they are the target of abuse. Looking at bullying situations with thoughts like "bullying works" can be all that it takes to lead them down the path of being bullying for life.

In other words, it doesn't set up people to put their best motivations toward their fellow human beings from the very beginning. That lack of empathy becomes a brain matter too (another link and a link to an article I wrote that discusses the subject), something that they, and the people who relate to them, will have to deal with for the entire life of that narcissist or sociopath usually (a tiny minority of them can be rehabilitated, and it takes hitting rock bottom in every aspect of their lives, something that narcissists try to prevent at all costs with on-going prevention tactics including trying to get away with as much as they can without getting caught, blaming others for deeds they have done, lying, and relying on charm to get them through situations where they might be held accountable).

Many psychologists speak online about why narcissists, and especially malignant narcissists, should not be in positions of power. So why would they say that? 

THE REASON WHY CHARACTER MATTERS

So, let's take Putin as our example of character. He allegedly grew up in a bullying environment. He allegedly was the golden child of his parents. So assuming he had that going on in his early environment (and there is evidence that he did), and assuming he worked as a sort of enforcer, bully and spy for the K.G.B., personality would tend to dictate his motives more than his words, his charm, his persuasions, even his political record, his past record on economics, his past record on appreciation for Russian history, its arts, architecture and other cultural advances and contributions.

His main background is primarily about spying, maneuvering, manipulating and bullying, yes? Perhaps this has everything to do with why Dr. Grande made the speculation or guess that he was a Dark Triad, where Machiavellian characteristics are part of the Dark Triad. 

Putin's country was once bullied too (Russians were bullied and some of their major cities were destroyed by Nazis). We know that bullies grow up in environments that are bullying, where a lot of submission is going on where bullies try to make people be submissive to them, and where it looks like, to a child, that you have no choice other than to be submissive, or to be a bully. 

We don't know how his love life went other than that he is divorced. We don't know if he bullied his wife, but we do know that narcissists, which he very well may be, who grow up in environments where submission or bullying is the only choice you have, marriages tend not to work out because of the "be a bully or be a submissive doormat mindset" doesn't work in a marriage or in a family.

In other words, it doesn't matter if he produced economic greatness for the Russian people; it doesn't matter if that is the first thing on his resume or on his mind; it doesn't matter how much "business acumen he has" because eventually the country's main economic focus is now (or will be) the invasion of Ukraine, a disaster for many of its regular businesses and manufacturing plants. 

It doesn't matter if he is outwardly charming, and appears to say the right things at the right time.

What matters is whether he is a bully or not. 

It doesn't matter how much expertise he has on his resume. What matters most is his character because character determines how he treats other people, including how he conducts himself in his personal life, with his rivals, with his friends, with his business associates, with people he likes and more importantly doesn't like, his prejudices and what and how he conducts himself with those prejudices, and with people he is prejudiced against, and how he conducts himself as a leader. 

When some people get leadership positions, they become insufferably arrogant, and hopefully I can explain some of why, in this post and in its own eventual post. Arrogance leads to being blind to other people other than yourself and what you want. One sign of arrogance that we all know about is sticking your nose in the air when you talk to other people. Unless there is something medical going on with the throat or neck of the person, or there is something distracting going on in the background, looking over someone's head is a sign of arrogance and/or they really don't want to hear what you have to say, and don't care either. 

Note: singers sometimes put their nose in the air too, but the reason they do is so that they can reach the higher notes. 

The opposite, a desire for intimately wanting to know and understand your perspectives means looking directly into your eyes. Narcissists on the lighter end of the scale can sometimes do it temporarily. The acting stops temporarily. The judgements stop temporarily. The sighs and flippancy stop temporarily. The lecturing and posturing stop temporarily. Pulling their chin in stops temporarily, and they may even pull their head towards you and off a little to one side to hear what you have to say (however danger: psychopaths and narcissists with psychopathic traits will pull their head straight towards you in an intimidating way, like a staring contest, so be sure they aren't doing that).    

If you've grown up with abusive, arrogant, manipulative parents, it's likely you won't meet them eye to eye either, but I doubt very much you'll be going around with your nose in the air either. I would bet you have a posture that is self protective: arms held in, head down, legs pulled up a little if you are sitting down and your eyes moving side to side as exhaustion sets in (narcissists try to break your boundaries, your self esteem and resolve by lecturing at you constantly). So don't feel guilty that you don't always meet people's eyes; it doesn't mean you are a narcissist. What I'm describing here is doing it with most people and in most situations. 

THE REALITY OF KINGS, QUEENS AND DICTATORS IN POWER

People who want to be king, queen or dictator, usually have pronounced egos (the audacity of wanting to rule everything, right? The audacity of them wanting to push their agenda forward without any roadblocks, right? The audacity of insisting they don't want to be accountable or liable for anything, right?). 

And we can't count on good character from these kinds of leaders. They are in power for life, right?

Many kings and queens were and are tyrants. It's really the only way to hold on to life-long power.

There is also evidence that the more power they gain, and the longer they stay in power, that it literally goes to their head, such that they no longer think clearly about all of the issues facing them, the perspectives of others, and they become more entitled, expecting people to serve them in any way they want. And there is evidence that they tend to feel more and more entitled to be rude, insulting and even dangerous to people who do not do exactly what they want. 

They can tend to lose more power, and lose the ability to respond in critical typical leadership ways, as entitlement starts to take over their thinking process and wishes.

They also tend to lose empathy and get tired of people who are calling for an empathetic response. In other words, they become grumpy and do not want to deal with on-going crises, which unfortunately for them, is what leadership requires. That's another reason they can lose it, and why revolutions can start under their watch. 

It's very possible that the Constitution of the United States of America was written with this in mind. We have presidents who can only serve for eight years. Why only eight years? Possibly that is when the entitlements, the inability to feel empathetically, the inability to see issues clearly without resorting to unrealistic positive thinking ("Everything is great under my leadership!"), and the obsessions to keep entitlements, including wanting to be in power forever, at all costs, start to set in the brain. 

It keeps presidents who want more and more power from applying, and also holds them accountable for power grabs via insurrections, and makes the job more about serving the citizens in the short time they are allotted ... until recently when the Supreme Court tried to make it possible for presidents to commit crimes in office, especially crimes associated with power. 

The inclination to think of power first, and serving the people as you deem necessary to keep yourself in power, is more of a narcissistic trait, obviously, than an empathetic trait. It requires changing your moral and ethical resolves to stay in office and in power, or on the side of candidates who are authoritarian, aggressive, vengeful and who, through strong emotions, particularly rages, decide impulsively on whether or not to head to war - based on the rages.

None of us are prepared for our country to vote for a despotic tyrant. We aren't prepared for our country's leader to lash out irrationally and impulsively against us. We aren't prepared for our country's leader to go against their own citizens or to manipulate voting, or to start invasions and wars to obtain more land, or to go fascist and authoritarian in absolute ways.

There is also evidence that many of us aren't prepared for huge revolutions in our own country either.

And we are especially not prepared to feel threatened constantly by our own government. 

People who grow up in authoritarian dictatorships are used to this, but a population in a democracy is not. 

There is usually "a suspension of disbelief" in voting for a dictator, or authoritarian, where not enough research is put into a vote. 

Meanwhile despotic tyrants think that submission to being controlled equates to a population adoring them and their leadership, and that they have die-hard loyalists who will always come to their defense. Those thoughts are common and cause them to be blind to the issues swirling around them, or to underground revolutions gaining momentum. 

It's a little like a blind leader leading a blind populace.  

HOW TO AVOID KINGS, QUEENS AND DICTATORS
AND THE VIOLENT OUTCOMES THEY TYPICALLY HAVE DURING THEIR REIGN
(ISSUES TO CONSIDER) 

If you are from a democratic country and you want to avoid a leader who will more likely try to grab as much power and take away the freedoms of their own citizens, as much as the people will tolerate anyway (and they will tolerate more and more if fear takes over their psyches unless they plan to make a run for it). 

You will, most likely, see wars too. If you want to make sure the dictator-to-be never gets the country into invasion types of wars, or just unprovoked wars in general, these are the early signs to watch out for:

* Most important: Hypocrisy
     Any leader who wants stringent rules, regulations, strict laws and strict obedience on a population, but who shows signs that he believes these same rules, regulations and laws do not apply to himself or herself, is obviously showing hypocrisy. 
     They don't care if they are hypocritical as long as they sense that a population is paying much more attention to what the dictator says than what they do.  
     The leader will lobby for a loosening of laws when it comes to killing their enemies, starting coups,  invading countries and insisting that they remain in power longer than what the terms of their democracy require, assuming they haven't taken complete control yet. They don't care about the approval of any other government officials except those officials who they have personally elected, or surrounded themselves with, or that they have personally hand-picked to carry out their orders, especially malignant narcissists. In other words, taking away personal power and personal decision-making from the population, while gaining more power for themselves, including never being accountable for their actions, will be, if it isn't already, quite obvious. 
     They will cry, "Not fair!" if they are held to the same legal and lawful standards as the rest of the population, while at the same time they will be taking away freedoms from the population. 
     In general: look for any hypocrisies. The hypocrisies will always reveal entitlement, and those entitlements are necessary to look at in terms of how far a leader will go to obtain power and unaccountability for their actions. 
     For instance:
     - Not to be redundant, but do they reveal that they have a right to behave any way they want, but that others do not?
     - Do they bristle in political discussions when verbally attacked by a political opponent, but spend inordinate amounts of time verbally attacking their opponents? 
     - Do they run negative campaigns but expect other political opponents to stick to policy discussions?
     - Do they seem to feel entitled to start a war even when the population doesn't want it, or never thought it was necessary?
     - Do they expect others to follow orders, but feel exempt from following orders from others?
     - Do they expect to be treated with politeness, dignity and respect, but rarely treat others with politeness, dignity and respect unless they are getting something from them?
     - How much power do they want for themselves, and how much power do they want to take away from citizens?
     - How are tax breaks distributed? Does it almost always go to the people who financed their campaign? To wealthy friends? To people who have some sway in terms of getting their pet policies enacted? And how many tax breaks do they give to the middle class and poor in contrast? - This shows how they regard the rich and poor. It also shows how transactional they require relationships to be (a lot of transactional relationships as opposed to "love of people", or "helping people" is also a sign of narcissism too). 
     - Do they always expect others to cave into them and what they want just about always?
     - Are they compromise-resistant?
     - Are they discussion-resistant, and almost never listen to other perspectives?
     - Do they think in terms of conspiracy theories about others ("They want to take power and money away from me!" but are always trying to take money and power away from others?)
     - Do they always act as though the ends justify the means when it comes to what they want, but call people selfish who just want a little politeness and respect?
     - How much criminality is in their background?
     - How much suffering, unethical behaviors and breaking of laws do they feel comfortable committing to get what they want?
     - How do they treat women, children, the disabled, the downtrodden, the impoverished, wait-staff, bell boys, and pets? Do they show empathy, or a lack of regard for them? Do they laugh at them, show disgust, or show empathy? Do they visit parts of their country which show a lot of poverty or where disasters have taken place to meet people, and hear their needs, and make some promises to resolve their suffering? If it isn't good, that is how they will treat others who have less power than they do, always. In this case, past behavior is a definite sign of future behavior. 
     - Are they slave oriented at all? Do they justify slavery? Do they have a record of not paying people what they are owed ... and in addition, do they not pay a lot of people and say: "the work wasn't good enough!"
     - Do they expect a population to pay their taxes while being "tax cheats" themselves?
     - Do they talk of, or spend a lot of time setting up detention centers and concentration camps? And do they seem like they would rail and fuss themselves if they were in that position themselves?
     - Are they willing to lie to get what they want, but rail and fuss if someone lies to them?
     - Do the needs of the country seem to come second place to their own needs? And if someone else puts the country's needs first, do they insult them?
     - How do they treat the military? Are they polite, or demeaning or demoralizing? Are they willing to waste a lot of lives in order to achieve some sort conquest objective? Do they expect actions from soldiers that they would never expect from themselves? Are they a draft dodger? 
     - Does the "flattery part" of them seem drastically different from "the tough guy" part of them? In other words, do they seem like two different people, one nice, and the other cruel? Jekyll/Hyde personality traits are a sign of narcissism.
     - Do they say they want "absolute power", but would attack any other leader who said that from his own country? 
     - Do they act like a king or queen, that if they rage enough, people will come running to solve their problems? 
     - Do they seem to hate democracy, but wouldn't want to be in an authoritarian-led government themselves? 
     - Do they seem obsessed with getting people out of their way, or locked up, who are putting up roadblocks to their achieving absolute power, but would hate it if the situation was reversed? 
     - Do they expect all government officials, first and foremost, to be sycophants, to take orders from them, whereas if they were in that position, they'd most likely be rebelling against government officials doing that to them?
     - Do they seem to show some disdain for democracy and the rule of law in democracies, but would hate their own freedoms being taken away if the situation was reversed?
     - Do they show any personality traits like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Napoleon, Putin, Saddam Hussein, or other invasive dictators? If so, expect their leadership to go much the same way. 
     The result of all of this?
     Heavily narcissistic dictatorial leaders elicit strong responses from other people. People either seem to love them, pledge their utmost loyalty to them, excuse them constantly for their sins, and to see them as saviors ... or they see them as power hungry liars, and see hypocrisy in everything they do, have contempt for them, their tactics, and their proclamations are perceived as always fake. In some cases, they can't even bring themselves to consider anything in seriousness that they have to say.
     If 30 percent of a population is unwaveringly loyal to them, another 30 percent is likely to express disloyalty, contempt and disgust. They tend to be polarizing figures for this reason, thus the prospect of revolutions is a real threat to peace in a nation, and peace in and around the world. Other leaders cannot count on them or trust them to be consistent and emotionally stable, i.e. thoughtful instead of raging (unless they too pledge loyalty and unwavering support). 
     For all of their bravado, dictatorial leaders are more likely to lose wars, and lose respect than win them for the main reason that they conduct their wars in a much more brutal fashion, without allowing their military to retreat, without allowing their generals to run the war.

Most people do not like being bombed, killed, taken from, and trauma bonded to another nation. Their identities are usually wrapped up in the nation where they were born and the life they have within that nation, otherwise they would leave and live in the invading nation. 

Second most important: Hate speech.
     Hate speech is done to get a populace attacking someone other than the leader for the misery in their lives (whether that be economic policies, disasters, poverty, famine, or disenfranchising). For the despotic tyrant who is not exactly serving his population, but using them for his own power and control agendas, hate speech of other groups of people become a necessary part of their rule, or so they think.
     Often intellectuals are particularly hated in dictatorships unless they can provide services to a dictator.
     If the intellectuals are particularly broad-minded, which many intellectuals tend to be, these intellectuals tend to flee countries that take away freedoms. If they don't get out in time, they are often killed. Dictators have to kill "other perspectives" and that, and the individuals who verbalize other perspectives, are killed first.
     Here are some questions about hate speech (note, it is also important to pay attention to how other politicians are responding to it too):
     - Do they spend a lot more time insulting other politicians rather than talking about remedies and policies? And if they do talk about policies, is it about disenfranchising?
     - Do they appear to be more bigoted, than not? Are there racist slurs in their speech? 
     - Do they appear to be more xenophobic, than not?
     - Do they appear to be more sexist, than not?
     - Do they appear to be intolerant of a lot of people, or groups of people?
     - Do they merely put on an act of morality or religiosity, but everything in their past shows that they are really not moral or practice the tenets of the religion they are trying to appeal to, to get votes.  
     - Are they insulting others a lot? Do they insult groups of people?
     - Do they often resort to calling people names? 
     - Do they twist the names of others, or attach denigrating prefixes to their names to demoralize them?  
     - Do they appear to want to nullify or kill people from another political party or faction?
     - Do they appear to want to kill a part of a population who is becoming more resistant to their rule? 
     - Do they feel they have a right to behave any way they want to any group of people they want, but that others do not have those same rights unless they have the same opinions that the leader does about those same group of people?
     - Do other politicians who want to get power or to be associated with them appear to be afraid to say certain things? Do they skirt around certain issues, appear not to want to upset them in any way? - this shows that this kind of a leader can turn on these politicians at any moment, to hate them, to take away any power they might have, to shun or excommunicate them. Narcissists require absolute loyalty.
     If other politicians are giving them more and more unlimited amounts of power, it shows that they are afraid of being hated, and of the hate speech landing on them. They become more and more like brainwashed sycophants as time goes on, especially as this kind of leader gains more and more power. Eventually a whole government can become corrupted over not wanting to lose their positions and jobs, even if it might mean pleasing a leader they are more afraid of than admiring of.
   And a warning here: politicians who seem to have no backbone, who are willing to give up their ethics and morals to serve a dictator or would-be dictator tend to be narcissists. Narcissists are sickeningly fawning to anyone who they think has more power than they do. They will fawn away every moral and ethic they used to have (or more likely, pretended to have) in order that they will get into position to be the next dictator some day. And for the fawniest of fawners, that can come true for them. A dictator will reward the most loyal fawner.
     - And not be redundant again, are other politicians all of a sudden adopting all of this leader's perspectives when they had some perspectives that differed before? Do they appear to have given up all of their own perspectives, ethics, insights, personal qualities to be a sycophant? Do they look ashamed when the leader makes fun of anything different about their perspectives, or when they insult them, because it isn't what he wants? Does the leader engage in a lot of shaming to get them to comply with his vision at all times? 
     Do politicians either quit, or look depressed, or appear weak, when the rest of their political party is adopting all of the perspectives of the authoritarian dictator? 
     Shame is obviously a powerful weapon, and people who want to "hang on" to something like a career position related to power, often give into the shame first. The holdouts either cave in eventually, or quit altogether. 
     This is what narcissists, and especially malignant narcissists, strive for so that when they do something like attack another country because the other country is a democracy, or free, or has some quality they don't want or like on their border, war and violence start. 
     Violence can also happen from within as the populace becomes more poor and desperate. As many, many freedoms the populace used to have are taken away bit by bit, the more discontent they tend to be. While some people like extreme amounts of law and order, most people like freedoms more. Dictators, themselves, go about in the country and the world as if they cannot be bothered with following the law or being orderly themselves. If anything, they continually break laws and orderly conduct. They break the peace with compulsive unpredictable actions.  
     Hate speech and fear drive these kinds of politicians and eventually the citizenry to cave into being surveilled, losing their independent thinking, their lives, and their childrens' lives to violence, poverty and/or wars (either revolutions or wars with other nations, sometimes both at the same time). 
     Hate speech and shaming can also have a powerful effect on families: giving up their own children to fight and to be killed for narcissistic dictators in wars. Narcissistic dictators seem to need people to die in wars for them, for their so-called glory and terrible legacy that only another up-and-coming dictator would appreciate and want to emulate.  

Third most important: Arrogance and Entitlement
     Arrogance and entitlement for most narcissists translates to: "You must agree to, and have all of the perspectives that I have because I'm superior to you."
     And if this kind of leader/candidate is constantly insulting people who have different perspectives than they have, it shows that they have intolerance and contempt for people who think differently than they do. We also see this among cult leaders: you either believe everything the cult leader has to say, or "you are outside the cult" ... "You are either with us, or against us."  ... "You are either one of us, another superior being and entitled to special treatment as a result of this, or you are one of 'them', not worthy of considering or understanding at all." and so on. It's very insular. It's very close-minded. It's very black and white thinking. They expect the whole electorate to be blindly loyal to them, to follow all of their draconian laws, to be squelched of free speech, and to adopt a communal tradition of "think-alike" modes of perspectives.
     You'll notice that these nations do not have much going for them in terms of contributions to their people, or the world, because exploratory thought is harshly put down and reprimanded.
     These leaders don't want people around who think or believe anything differently from what they are told to believe and think. This is why they have very little tolerance for intellectuals, and anyone who shows openness to new experiences and perspectives. In many dictatorial nations, one of the first genocides is lobbed against intellectuals as Pol Pot did in Cambodia. Leaders find people who are intelligent, exploratory, and humble to be a direct threat to them and their attempts to brainwash. 
     We can see this in religions who practice forms of bigotry: "You are either in our religion, and religious sect, or you are against us" or at the milder end of the spectrum: "you simply don't exist for us". As we know, bigotry can lead to violence. 
     There is generally a lot of pressure to think and believe the way they want you to think and believe. A lot of us aren't great at discerning the motivations of others, but character is much more valid than anything else, and can wreak more havoc than people think. If you are from an abusive family, you know that they are model people to outsiders (as long as they can hold up a fake persona, something that both narcissists and sociopaths use, but that is even liable to show some cracks after awhile).
     As I've said many times before, character is the dominating feature for how things will pan out in the future, which is why I am writing this post, and if you talk to child abuse survivors, they've been living with sneak attacks, crazy-making, deeply flawed analysis of situations which sound more like projection than anything else, experiencing very unstable actions and reactions from their narcissistic parent, a lot of gaslighting, and a lot of abuse. Running countries with this set of traits is dangerous. 
     It is also not realistic for a leader of a whole nation to expect an entire population to think and feel the way a leader wants the populace to think and feel. We are not bees, thinking in the communal style that they do, nor are we born with roles. They are all a result of coercion, whether constant, or violent, or whether gentle and suggestive, starting in childhood. We are taught lessons about bullying and persuasion techniques too, and we are either going to use what we see, react with fear with what we see, or feel contempt and disgust for what we see, and a lot of us will reject it as intrusive, presumptive and unnecessary, and perhaps even feel that all of the differences among us are to be valued rather than held in check. 
     One of the problems with narcissistic leaders is that many of them feel they can read minds, which more often than not leads them to think they are better than others ("I can read minds and they can't"), but which more often than not leads them into developing conspiracy theories that countries, organizations, a population, or certain powerful individuals are out to conspire against them and take away their power, or the persuasive hold they have over a nation. Since power is "all important" to narcissistic leaders, they can act on the delusion that they can read conspiracies of other leaders of other countries (where pre-emptive invasions are likely, whether their own countrymen think it is necessary or not, and whether their own countrymen want the invasion to take place or not). 
     Arrogance keeps the narcissism in place (i.e. unchangeable, as well as entitlements to always get their own way). 
     Some signs of arrogance in leadership types of people:
     * "Only I can fix this problem." 
     * "Only I have the business acumen to solve this economic disaster."
     * "Only I can tell what is a national security problem for our nation."
     * "Only I know what is happening to this country and how to steer it."
     * "Only I know and understand who are our enemies and friends."
     * "I'm the smartest and most bold leader of the world. People are going to thank me for a long time for what I've done for this nation."
     * "Only I am the true patriot and know what is best for this country."
     * "Only I care about this country full time, all of the time, which makes me the best leader to run it." 

Fourth most important: Conspiracy Theories:
     A conspiracy theory is a belief or suspicion that a small or secret organization or person is responsible for a sinister circumstance or event where other probable explanations are not considered. 
     A conspiracy theory can also be considered a lie, where a little bit of truth is coupled with a bunch of lies to get people mobilized against a nation, a government, a certain part of the population, certain businesses (foreign and domestic), certain areas of a country where some opposition to the dictator (or wanna-be dictator) is happening, and usually minorities, or already disenfranchised groups of people.  
     Usually the following groups of people are vilified to keep a conspiracy theory alive that they are infiltrators to an otherwise peaceful and controllable nation. Some groups of people who are targeted:
     * People who speak a different language. 
     * Minorities and people who have different customs or orientations
     * People who are not in agreement with the leader
     * People who are opposed to the dictator's ambitions or ways of running a country
     * Protesters of government policies
     * People from an opposing party (often depicted as evil, gone astray, lawless, not real citizens, unethical, garbage, aberrant to normal human values, less than human, aberrant in terms of sanctifying and promoting life and family or a certain religion, selfish and self oriented, entitled, boorish and unpopular, awry, unruly, dishonest, plotting, "nasty" - a favorite phrase among narcissists, in the minority, unseemly, dangerous, shady, unworthy, disruptive, shameful, indecent, critical, ungrateful, people without merit, disruptive, protesters without grounds to protest, burdens on the country). Most dictatorships tend to adopt anti-intellectualism or anti free thinking, which in turn, can halt progress/modernism, and mean antiquated policies, machinery, infrastructure, national security, and regulation of people. 
     * The press, especially members of a free press where freedom of speech and deep investigative reporting are norms. Most dictators eventually run the press as an arm of the government, hoping to keep the population uninformed enough so that the dictator can run the country more to his liking and where he can control the financial strings and policies how he wants, without criticism
     * The poor and disabled (they are vilified for "taking" from the national coffers and as being a strain on the financial system)
     * The elderly (also accused of "taking" from the national coffers and as being a strain on the financial system)
     * The homeless (seen by dictators as people who find work to be an onerous blockade to unfettered freedom, and are a threat and an inconvenience to those who do work, especially those who work for the good of the country)
     * Addicts (often seen as criminals ... most dictatorships have very stringent drug laws where prison is the likely outcome for people who are using or addicted)
     * Women (often seen as weak, too empathetic, too sexually attractive, unless they are covered up or producing sons, or working in field the dictator approves of, but otherwise aberrant to contributing to society, or keeping working men focused on national objectives). Women in countries with dictatorships, on the whole, experience more domestic violence and lax domestic violence laws, and more prejudice and disenfranchisement than women from democracies, although long held traditions like long-held customs like matriarchal run-families can change that trajectory.  
     * People of a different race that the dictator wanna-be thinks can be singled out and scapegoated. 
     * People who might break laws are already seen as breaking the law
     * Visitors from other countries who are thought to be enemies, spies or are deemed to be rivals. 
     * People from inside the country who are deemed to rival the current leader - someone who may be gaining followers in an attempt to over-throw the dictatorship or get elected to replace the current system of government. These people are usually killed or they have to deal with a kangaroo court. 
     * Refugees (seen as an undeserved burden, and also introducing an aberration of customs and languages which are not common to the hosting country) 
     * People of neighboring countries where the style of government differs from their own (seen as harboring ideas and policies that are opposed to the dictator's style of government). Sometimes these countries are invaded if the style of government is seen as too divergent from their own, whereby that nation is made to adopt the dictator's style of government.
     One thing about narcissists is that they always have to have a scapegoat to keep the blame off of themselves, and to keep people from looking at the deeds of the dictator. The DARVO tactic, gaslighting, and accusing others of what they are doing themselves is the tell-tale sign.
     And what better way to do it than to drown out as many issues as possible with conspiracy theories about their chosen scapegoats, who tend to be minorities or disenfranchised somewhat by society already? And if you are part of the majority and narcissistic yourself, you look at all of this blaming of others as a whitling away of the competition, of giving you greater access to power yourself. 
     If you can disenfranchise women, or keep women out of higher paying jobs, you can disenfranchise half of the population. 
     If a dictator can galvanize enough people to go against any of his perceived enemies, then he can create more power for himself. 
     Ultimate power is about silencing most people except those who flatter and promote the leader, taking down protests, meddling in the press so much so that it becomes an arm of the government, meddling in a justice department or laws so much so that a tyrannical government or ruler can never be held accountable even for fake events or stories. Lack of empathy is rampant, especially for those who suffer under the ruler's laws. There are also scapegoating practices and policies. Law becomes arbitrary and dependent on how much of a scapegoat you are to the ruler or ruling class. Voting becomes obsolete, many jobs and professions become obsolete especially those with an intellectual bent to them except when it comes to the production of weapons, spying on the populace, or jobs that can drain other countries of resources or competition. People must accept their lot in life, or their role, to survive and to keep from being scapegoated (i.e. to be accepted and acceptable to the society under the dictator). 
     What to watch out for in terms of conspiracy theories:
     * There is usually a lot of criticism and insults directed towards an opposition leader or a certain segment of a population or nation. 
     * The dictator often portrays them as criminals, deviants, villains, less than human, a scourge on the nation. To get the most attention, a lot of opposing parties have to be portrayed as baby killers, or baby and child rapists - dictators have no trouble making up stories like this to create shock. Obviously this would get the ire up for most parents and grandparents, and that is the point. A secondary choice are pet killers and eaters, particularly of dogs, cats and certain kinds of caged birds. However, if the press investigates, they often find the facts not to be true, or there is a singular case where it was said to be a custom among a large group of people. However, some people will believe in the conspiracy theories of leaders (loyalists). 
     * Some facts may add up, but most don't. 
     * There seems to be an agenda in vilifying someone or a group of people. There isn't fair-mindedness or open perspectives. Attention is achieved by constantly criticizing a group of people, and seeing another person's perspective is usually completely denounced. Most dictators don't entertain other people's perspectives at all - the focus is always on an agenda of getting more power and control, and eventually invading other nations (as a way to fight off competition, or a bogus "national security measure", or simply to "take" - where entitlement comes in). There is a pretty fair chance of a dictator starting a war, or terrorizing their own citizens, or threatening other nations, of breaking treaties, because the focus is always on the negatives of other nations, other people, other leaders, other influential people (where terrorizing an intellectual class comes in - dictators are primarily anti-intellectual). 
     * As stated above, campaigns, laws and policies are largely focused on the negatives of other nations, groups of people, and particularly on vilifying. I have talked about "trash-talking" in many other posts about narcissism and narcissists; it's the same thing, only on a grander scale. 
     What conspiracy theories can sound like:
     * "These people are a pestilence upon our land. They carry every disease known to mankind." 
     * "These refugees are being kicked out of their country for good reasons. They can't follow laws. And when you can't follow laws, you have to sleep in a tent. That's your punishment for not being loyal to your government and to your leader. I don't care if they are suffering. They are going into other nations to take others' jobs, to get very little pay so that the countrymen will be a minority,. It's an invasion. I say "Stay in your tents and spread disease! We don't need to have the pandemic in our country! And if the rest of you don't follow me, you will all live in a tent too!"
     * "I will incite more fear and vengeance into people that aren't with us than ever before. You know that they eat rats, and then become like rats themselves."
     * "We have to remember that we're racially superior. We're smarter, more able, healthier. Since we have the strength and know-how, we can invade other nations and survive their resistance. Those of us who don't want to, and who aren't up to it, can sit in jail. Disloyalty will always have its consequences." 
     * "I'm not afraid of hate. I can look any person who resembles a tarantula in the eye and know I can take them down."
     * "You know that the people in that crazy other party eat babies and dogs, don't you? Anyone like that should be rejected and pay immediately, and we have the detention homes to make sure they pay."
     * "My only objective is to please you, to promise you that you'll be happier and richer than you were before!" and then while in office they renig on all of the promises (this is called future faking, very common for narcissists). 
     * "Baby haters will pay. We can't have a nation where babies aren't respected and aren't allowed to be born. Women who don't want babies are leeches, and a strain on the system and they should be summarily shunned." 
     * A tell-tale sign: groups of people are given animal names, or referred to as diseases or poisons.    
     
Things to remember:

* Many malignant narcissists who reach power spend most of their time seeking retribution, vengeance and trying to disable or kill people who oppose them. Poisonings, shootings, bombings, hangings, firing squads, torture chambers and torture instruments, "planned accidents", and long prison sentences become constant every day events. They can often get their followers to enact these murders, or disabilities. The whole point is to hurt others who are not followers, and who don't bend to the persuasive speech of the leader. 

* Many leaders with malignant narcissism spend untold amounts of money spying on people who may disagree with them, who may hate that they are in power, who may be thinking of ways to escape their country, who may be organizing a protest, who may be trying to get stories out to a media, who may be indulging in free speech when free speech is banned, who may be complaining in private about how the country is becoming more impoverished, where food and other goods are becoming more scarce. 
     Then there is a lot of time put into how to punish all of these kinds of people - who should be imprisoned, who should die by a firing squad, who should be banned and so on. This takes a lot of attention away from "how to run a country". Malignant narcissists are obsessed with loyalty and agreement with their thoughts on all matters, ambitions and policies. 

* Powerful dictatorships tend to become very militaristic (which means a country's wealth is put toward militaristic goals and weapons). 

* If the leader is younger, they also spend endless amounts of time in sexual conquests, affairs, orgies for some of them, and sexual escapades, and opulent private parties. The number of bed-hosts they want brought to their chambers becomes endless. They are generally not loyal to their marriage partners, seeing them only in terms of being  people who will do their bidding for them, who will put up with just about anything to get crumbs of affection and praise. 

* Narcissists are generally paranoid. If they feel there is a lot of opposition to their power and control agendas, they will be spending most of their time riling people up to attack their opponents, making plans to take the opposition down and making them pay a price for opposing. And because narcissists are so paranoid, they usually start wars with other nations they feel are a threat. 

* Once a country goes towards being an invader of other countries, the objectives of an invasion mean that empathy has to be sacrificed at all times to achieve invasion objectives. You can't care about a person and invade their country or their neighborhood, or their hospital, or their house at the same time.

* Sometimes a population becomes happier and richer under dictatorships, but generally not as much as democracies. There are several factors that contribute to it. There is a squelching of free thinking and intellectualism in most dictatorships because leaders find these people not to be blindly loyal enough, to be too free thinking, too intelligent to brainwash, and a threat to mind control. Dictators spend most of their time gaining more power, relieving their paranoias through aggression, threatening others, vilifying and spreading false gossip about leaders who even slightly oppose them, having affairs, gaining unlimited amounts of wealth, secretly planning revenges and maneuvers, secretly planning ways to lie to their followers, finding excuses and ways to start a war, trying to pass laws which are very restrictive on a population but which give them more and more unlimited powers and freedom to treat people any way they want, looking for loyalists who will do what they say, trying first to vilify the press and then get rid of the press altogether. The objectives are not to make the lives of the population better, but to "pacify" the population enough so that there won't be uprisings. 

* Often the only way to take dictatorships down is a rebellion. Most people won't take that chance out of fear of the consequences (and those consequences are often repeated continuously, and threats, arrests and long prison sentences are given to some people to send a message to the rest of the population).

* Remember that when narcissistic dictators are in charge and they are "ruining" your country, any kind of rebellion can mean a death sentence for you. 

* People who are in long term relationships with narcissists become traumatized and trauma bonded. If you are in a dictatorship and focused on all the ways you are stifled, taken for granted and limited, and how much poverty you are enduring, and receive some sort of erroneous governmental punishment to make you an example of what you "shouldn't think or say", you are going to have the same trauma reactions of either fawn, or flee, or fight, or freeze that domestic violence survivors have. All of these trauma responses have health and mental health consequences. And acting out any of these trauma responses also has consequences under a dictatorship, even fawning, as you will be tested over and over again to do what you are told under any and every circumstance, to break your ethics, and take the rap for the unethical things the dictator orders you to do.

* Would-be dictators who are malignant narcissists generally run campaigns that are full of negativity:
-- fear ("If you don't vote for me, you'll be sorry, and the country will go down")
-- lies, insults and smear campaigns against those people who they deem to be their competition or enemies, and against groups of people they deem to be too weak to fight back (i.e. scapegoats)
-- promoting and espousing a system that is rigged against them unless they, the would-be dictator, gets the power to fix it. 
-- playing on a population's economic fears
-- anger (lots of displays of anger and rage)
-- focusing attention on how wrong it is for others to criticize them, and how people will pay for criticizing them
-- bullying 
-- prejudice: xenophobia, racism, religious bigotry, sexism, misogyny, etc. 

* Malignant narcissists get narcissistic supply (get a hit of dopamine) by hurting other people, or groups of people. They also get narcissistic supply by being outrageous, breaking the norms or niceties of the overall culture, and seeing what they can get away with (to see if people will still flatter them and be loyal to them). If they feel they are taking power away from certain people, they can feel very satisfied, and even laugh when they see destruction of homes, and the torture and pain of others. 

However, all of this cannot happen in a vacuum. There has to be an incredible list of enablers, co-bullies, co-conspirators, the brainwashed, wealthy people or companies who think they can gain more wealth and power by associating with a dictator, people who are authoritarians themselves and want authoritarians in power, people who want a strong parental-type figure to solve their problems, people who feel so weak they are willing to put up with anything to have someone solve their problems, people who feel so impoverished and disenfranchised that they are willing to bypass disbelief to "try out a dictator", people who want others to have the same lifestyle and beliefs that they have and believe a dictator will bring that about, or people who see dictatorship as an extension of their religion and belief system. 

In this Psychology Today article entitled Why Do People Follow Tyrants? (History repeats itself because of human nature.) written by Jean Kim, M.D., and reviewed by Abigail Fagan, talks about the kinds of people who want dictators and who support would-be dictators. 

Very few people want or enjoy trauma bonding over the long run however, so there will always be forces to democratize or re-democratize.

Dictators love trauma bonding however, especially if they are the ones who hold power. They feel they are owed it (again, entitlement taking over everything they think about). As I've said before, they will most often become more emboldened to invade. It's just the way dictators work, how they think, and what they want for themselves, first and foremost, and the legacy they want to leave behind, as sick as that legacy might seem to those of us with more empathy in the brain, and who want a peaceful outcome for our country. 

Some people will try to live in a compartmentalized state where they will put up with it. Sometimes poverty, famine, losing sons to war, losing credibility in the world at large, feeling isolated, used, alone and victimized will create forces to over-throw a dictatorship, but it can be a long process, over generations, or the government is too powerful and has too many loyal soldiers and weapons at its disposal to take down a rebellion or protest that the country will always remain a dictatorship.

And that's the problem. Once a dictatorship is allowed to rule, it's very hard, if not impossible, to unwind it in your lifetime. 

My own belief is that trauma bonding slows evolution in terms of becoming a more peaceful, tolerant planet. It also stunts intelligence. We have a choice to give into destruction or build a utopia.

ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct - Constitution Annotated (U.S. government website_

Lofgren Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision - for Lofgren (U.S. government website)

Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America (Amazon books) - by Heather Cox Richardson
This is in the comments section of the Amazon page:
     The author, Richardson, writes: “Democracies die more often through the ballot box than at gunpoint. But why would voters give away their power to autocrats who inevitably destroy their livelihoods and sometimes execute their neighbors?... The key to the rise of authoritarians, they explained, is their use of language and false history.[ 3] Authoritarians rise when economic, social, political, or religious change makes members of a formerly powerful group feel as if they have been left behind. Their frustration makes them vulnerable to leaders who promise to make them dominant again. A strongman downplays the real conditions that have created their problems and tells them that the only reason they have been dispossessed is that enemies have cheated them of power… Once people internalize their leader’s propaganda, it doesn’t matter when pieces of it are proven to be lies, because it has become central to their identity. As a strongman becomes more and more destructive, followers’ loyalty only increases. Having begun to treat their perceived enemies badly, they need to believe their victims deserve it. Turning against the leader who inspired such behavior would mean admitting they had been wrong and that they, not their enemies, are evil. This, they cannot do.”

The Supreme Court Has Grown Too Powerful. Congress Must Intervene. - by Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan for The New York Times (Mr. Bowie and Ms. Renan are professors at Harvard Law School. They are the authors of the forthcoming book “Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People.”) 

The Supreme Court Gives the President the Power of a King (The immunity decision has enormous implications for Trump’s trial — and the future of the presidency.) - by Michael Waldman for The Brennan Center

If You Care About the Supreme Court, Care About the Senate - by Jesse Wegman for The New York Times

Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Case - by Jamie Raskin for The New York Times
excerpt:
     ... The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals. ... 

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April (The former president’s trial on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election will remain on hold while the justices consider the matter.) - by Adam Liptak for The New York Times
excerpt:
     The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, further delaying his criminal trial as it considers the matter.
     The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen, handing at least an interim victory to Mr. Trump. His litigation strategy in all of the criminal prosecutions against him has consisted, in large part, of trying to slow things down.
     The Supreme Court’s response to Mr. Trump put the justices in the unusual position of deciding another aspect of the former president’s fate: whether and how quickly Mr. Trump could go to trial. That, in turn, could affect his election prospects and, should he be re-elected, his ability to scuttle the prosecution.
     The timing of the argument was a sort of compromise. Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the federal prosecutions of Mr. Trump, had asked the court to move more quickly, requesting that the justices hear the case in March.


Justice Breyer, Off the Bench, Sounds an Alarm Over the Supreme Court’s Direction (In an interview in his chambers and in a new book, the justice, who retired in 2022, discussed Dobbs, originalism and the decline of trust in the court.) - by Adam Liptak for The New York Times
excerpt:
     ... “Recently,” he wrote, “major cases have come before the court while several new justices have spent only two or three years at the court. Major changes take time, and there are many years left for the newly appointed justices to decide whether they want to build the law using only textualism and originalism.”
     He added that “they may well be concerned about the decline in trust in the court — as shown by public opinion polls.”
     Textualism is a way of interpreting statutes that focuses on their words, leading to decisions that turn on grammar and punctuation. Originalism seeks to interpret the Constitution as it was understood at the time it was adopted, even though, Justice Breyer said in the interview, “half the country wasn’t represented in the political process that led to the document.”
     There are three large problems with originalism, he wrote in the book.
     “First, it requires judges to be historians — a role for which they may not be qualified — constantly searching historical sources for the ‘answer’ where there often isn’t one there,” he wrote. “Second, it leaves no room for judges to consider the practical consequences of the constitutional rules they propound. And third, it does not take into account the ways in which our values as a society evolve over time as we learn from the mistakes of our past.”
     Justice Breyer did not accuse the justices who use those methods of being political in the partisan sense or of acting in bad faith. But he said their approach represented an abdication of the judicial role, one in which they ought to consider a problem from every angle. ... 

The Supreme Court Is Getting Very Annoyed With the Fifth Circuit’s Dogged Lawlessness (The justices are running out of ways to politely turn away the Fifth Circuit’s ambitious attempts to push a conservative policy agenda.) - by G.S. Hans for Balls and Strikes

The Supreme Court Protected More Autocrats Than Just Donald Trump (The decision in Trump v. United States is the product of Republican justices who want another Republican president in office.)
- by Madiba K. Dennie for Balls and Strikes

The MAGA Supreme Court Is All the Way Here (John Roberts has long presented himself as the Supreme Court’s principled institutionalist. His opinion in Trump v. United States should be the end of that fantasy.) - by Jay Willis for Balls and Strikes

Why the Heck Isn’t She Running Away With This? - by David Brooks for The New York Times
excerpt:
     ... Two big things baffle me about this election. The first is: Why are the polls so immobile? In mid-June the race between President Biden and Donald Trump was neck and neck. Since then, we’ve had a blizzard of big events, and still the race is basically where it was in June. It started out tied and has only gotten closer.
     We supposedly live in a country in which a plurality of voters are independents. You’d think they’d behave, well, independently and get swayed by events. But no. In our era the polling numbers barely move.
     The second thing that baffles me is: Why has politics been 50-50 for over a decade? We’ve had big shifts in the electorate, college-educated voters going left and non-college-educated voters going right. But still, the two parties are almost exactly evenly matched.
     This is not historically normal. Usually we have one majority party that has a big vision for the country, and then we have a minority party that tries to poke holes in that vision. (In the 1930s the Democrats dominated with the New Deal, and the Republicans complained. In the 1980s the Reagan revolution dominated, and the Democrats tried to adjust.) 
... 

Project 2025 - from Wikipedia (the most comprehensive article on the project without having to read more than 900 pages of documents. 

Project 2025: What is it and who's behind it? Here's an explainer (The 922-page plan outlines a sweeping road map for a new GOP administration that includes plans for dismantling aspects of the federal government and ousting thousands of civil servants in favor of Trump loyalists who will carry out a hard-right agenda without complaint)  - by the Associated Press and the NBC News Chicago staff

What is Project 2025? What to know about the conservative blueprint for a second Trump administration - by Melissa Quinn, Jacob Rosen with Jaala Brown contributing to the report for CBS News

What is Project 2025? (It’s a blueprint for what a second Trump administration could look like, dreamed up by his allies and former aides.) - by Amber Phillips for the Washington Post
excerpt:
     If Donald Trump struggled somewhat in his first administration to move the country dramatically to the right, he’ll be ready to go in a second term.
     That’s the aim behind Project 2025, a comprehensive plan by former and likely future leaders of a Trump administration to remake America in a conservative mold while dramatically expanding presidential power and allowing Trump to use it to go after his critics.
     The plan is gaining attention just as Trump is trying to moderate his stated positions to win the election, so he’s criticized some of what’s in it as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” and insisted that neither he nor his campaign had anything to do with Project 2025.
     Still, what’s in this document is a pretty good indicator of what a second Trump presidency could look like. Here’s what Project 2025 is and how it could reshape America.

Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved - by Steve Contorno for CNN
     
Project 2025 would fundamentally change public education, experts say - by Lexi Lonas for The Hill 

Here's how Donald Trump and his allies plan to reshape the government if he regains the White House. 2024 If Trump Wins - by Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Maggie Haberman for The New York Times   

Republicans Are No Longer a Political Party (It’s become yet another subsidiary of Trump Inc.) - by David A. Graham for the Atlantic
excerpts:
     ... Meanwhile, in Washington, Trump appointed Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, to senior-adviser roles in the White House, barely skirting anti-nepotism rules for the executive branch, even though neither of them had any experience in government. But Trump erred, in his own view, by failing to appoint sufficiently sycophantic aides to other roles. Too many of his appointees were determined to defend the processes of government and the rule of law, infuriating him. He and his allies have vowed not to make the same mistakes again. ... 
     ... In Manhattan this week, a judge is expected to rule in a civil fraud trial that could fine Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, cancel the Trump Organization’s license to operate in New York State, and strip it of marquee properties. Weisselberg is reportedly in talks to plead guilty to perjury in the case, atop a prior felony guilty plea. The Trump administration was, if anything, worse run. It was four years of constant chaos, punctuated by two separate impeachments and concluding with an attempt to steal a presidential election. (Trump is in court over that, too.) None of this is a good omen for the RNC’s future as a Trump subsidiary. ... 

Mitch McConnell Surrenders to Trump (The longtime Senate Republican leader gambled that he could outlast the former president—and lost.)  - by David A. Graham for The Atlantic
except:
     Dour, somber Mitch McConnell was gleeful, if such a thing can be imagined. Surveying the aftermath of the January 6 riot, the longtime Kentucky senator concluded that Donald Trump was finished. “I feel exhilarated by the fact that this fellow finally, totally discredited himself,” he told a reporter. “He put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.”
     That was a little more than three years ago. Today, McConnell surrendered to Trump. The Republican leader announced that he will step down from his leadership post in November, meaning that if Trump wins the presidential election, as he currently seems favored to do, he’ll have a Senate Republican leader in place more ready to work with him. ... 
     ... McConnell and Trump always had an uneasy relationship. McConnell was an exemplar of the old Republican Party—committed to business-friendly and socially conservative policies. He never particularly liked Trump, but they found ways to work together. Trump even appointed McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as secretary of transportation. The greatest achievements of McConnell’s leadership and Trump’s presidency were the same: the installation of a six-judge conservative majority on the Supreme Court and an influx of conservative judges on lower federal courts. ... 

Voters Are Deeply Skeptical About the Health of American Democracy (Nearly half say it does not do a good job representing the people, and three-quarters say it is under threat, according to a Times/Siena poll.) - by Nick Corasaniti, Ruth Igielnik and Camille Baker for The New York Times
excerpt:
     ... Nearly half of all voters are skeptical that the American experiment in self-governance is working, with 45 percent believing that the nation’s democracy does not do a good job representing ordinary people, according to a new New York Times/Siena College poll.
     Three-quarters of voters in the United States say democracy is under threat, though their perception of the forces imperiling it vary widely based on partisan leanings. And a majority of voters believe that the country is plagued by corruption, with 62 percent saying that the government is mostly working to benefit itself and elites rather than the common good. ...
     ... Coupled with stubborn inflation, divisive culture wars and geopolitical crises, voters are expressing exasperation with American politics and a government that they believe has failed to serve them at the most basic level. ...

Should I Break Up With My Trump-Loving Partner? It’s a great relationship in nearly every other way - by James Parker for The Atlantic
excerpt:
   ... the older I get, the more I think that a person’s opinions—political or otherwise—are the least important thing about them. The opinion-making portion of the brain is so vulnerable, so goofy, so effortlessly colonized by alien spores … It’s a write-off, really. How they live, how they make you feel—that’s the salient part. ...

Beware Prophecies of Civil War (The idea that such a catastrophe is unavoidable in America is inflammatory and corrosive.) - by Fintan O’Toole for The Atlantic
excerpts:
     In January 1972, when I was a 13-year-old boy in Dublin, my father came home from work and told us to prepare for civil war. He was not a bloodthirsty zealot, nor was he given to hysterical outbursts. He was calm and rueful, but also grimly certain: Civil war was coming to Ireland, whether we wanted it or not. He and my brother, who was 16, and I, when I got older, would all be up in Northern Ireland with guns, fighting for the Catholics against the Protestants. ... 
     ... Yet my father’s fears were not fulfilled. There was a horrible, 30-year conflict that brought death to thousands and varying degrees of misery to millions. There was terrible cruelty and abysmal atrocity. There were decades of despair in which it seemed impossible that a polity that had imploded could ever be rebuilt. But the conflict never did rise to the level of civil war. 
     However, the belief that there was going to be a civil war in Ireland made everything worse. Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own. The demagogues warn that the other side is mobilizing. They are coming for us. Not only do we have to defend ourselves, but we have to deny them the advantage of making the first move. The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you. The other side, of course, is thinking the same thing. That year, 1972, was one of the most murderous in Northern Ireland precisely because this doomsday mentality was shared by ordinary, rational people like my father. Premonitions of civil war served not as portents to be heeded, but as a warrant for carnage. ... 

Four Lessons From Nine Years of Being ‘Never Trump’ - by David French for The New York Times
     David French is a life long Republican and a writer for the right wing publication, the National Review. I thought his article was interesting because it goes into why "Never Trump" Republican voters switched to being for "Trump no matter what". 
     What he found was that a lot of Republicans stick together, even with different ideologies and morals, and that hate is a driving force (they hate Democrats so much more). Trump is who the Republican nominee is, so they'll be loyal to the Republican party and its agenda in order to keep Democrats out. 
     He also found that being accepted and acceptable by the community of Republicans was more important than not voting, and not voting for a (to them) lowly Democrat. He also found that ideology does not play as big a role as being part of the community of Republicans. 
     The rage that many Republicans feel towards the main stream media is also a factor in why they have decided to only listen to views like their own, to news channels that are committed to Republican agendas and ideals. Many Republicans feel they cannot trust news sources which explore "the other side". - This is quite obvious to me when I see political posts from my Republican friends (so many posts are about how "Democrats will try to steal the election again" - as if it is a fact). The contrary Democrat view is "Trump will try to steal the election again, and will try another insurrection." So the two parties are opposed as to who is trying to steal an election.

Note: For me it is difficult to belong to either party because 1. I like to research (and I usually research all sides as I did in this article about the controversies over vaccines and mask-wearing) and 2. I don't like the fighting, the accusing, the vilifying, the threatening of doomsday scenes, and trying to make either party out to be "the big green evil monster party". I don't want to be part of fighting and infighting and being affiliated with a party puts me in one camp, and I don't want to be in one camp, or in the middle of the arguments. I'm sick of it.
     This means I am an Independent.