Domestic abuse at scale

As most readers know, I believe the West is now a Cluster B society governed by the rules of narcissistic abuse. But I want you to think of it in terms of domestic abuse. Child abuse, spousal abuse. Almost all domestic abuse has Cluster B (narcissism) at its root.

Someone posted a Tweet that lets me give a very clear, specific example of what I mean when I say that American citizens are now all living in a scaled-up version of in-home domestic abuse. The analogy here is to children in such a home. We, the grown citizens, are the children. The government and the media are the abusive parents.

But we “children” are co-abusers, too. Here’s how it works.

First, the illustrative Tweet:

As you read on, keep the idea of people saying a travel ban would make more terrorists firmly in your mind. I want to you apply it by analogy to what I’m about to write.

The Tweet above illustrates how narcissistic/domestic abuser strategies now shape our public discourse. That includes the behavior of the abused, who begin to cooperate in their own abuse by turning on each other and on their own interests.

In the abusive home, the siblings sometimes go against each other, blaming a sister or brother for mom's outburst.

"Why did you say anything? You just made her hit us again!"

My sister and I did this with each other from time to time, although we were allies at other times.

It works like this. Whenever an abuser is unfair to you, lies about you, forces you to lie, accuses you of something you didn't do, or steals something that is yours, the abused set (the siblings, or the American citizens) does this:

"Give up whatever you're told to give up. Don't say ouch when you get hurt. Tell the lie. Allow the lie to be told about you. Nothing belongs to you. If you don't do this, you'll be responsible for the abuser hurting us more."

It should be easy to see that this is a ratchet. It tightens in only one direction. The abuser is the only party who ever receives anything; the abused only ever give up things. Fairness and reciprocity are not operative.

American white leftists are fully mind-indoctrinated into the domestic-now-public abuse paradigm. Like children who mistakenly believe they're "bad kids" for being loud/waking mommie up/having something mommie wants for herself, American leftists believe they have to give up everything they have. They believe they are morally obligated to do this; it’s not just out of fear. That’s what mind-enslavement means. They have internalized the moral logic itself.

So adults say:

“Don't keep out likely terrorists, that will only make more terrorists”.

“Don't enforce the border, because having a home in America makes you an oppressor, and you're not allowed to safeguard what you have.”

”Don’t object to allowing foreigners to vote in your local elections. You having citizen privilege is unfair; it was never fair for you to have rights and privileges beyond what a foreigner has.”

”Don’t object to raising property taxes to fund more failing schools or to build more migrant shelters. It was never fair for you to have a home when other people don’t have one. It was never fair for you to avoid paying to give strangers a home.”

Here is the most important point, the one thing I hope you will carry in your mind after reading this. This logic, translated into plain language, means: “defending your own interests in any context is an inherently immoral act.”

Contemplate how morally perverse that is. It’s literally unnatural. It is against human nature; nay, biological nature itself. It’s an inversion of truth and reality.

It would be bad enough if millions of people went along with it out of self-preservation (hoping vainly to not lose even more, but that doesn’t work). But that’s not what’s happening; what’s happening is much darker.

Millions of leftists believe this. They have accepted the moral logic. They actually do believe they have an ethical, moral, or philosophical duty to give up what they have to those who have less. And, without apparent limit.

That’s why these crazy political maneuvers that steal money, housing, public space, and more, don’t bother them. They’re not joking—they really believe this stuff. You can see that they do because they vote directly against their own financial interests, against the interests of their neighborhoods, against the interests of their children.

Let me anticipate an objection:

”You can’t know that they believe this Josh, you’re just projecting from your own experience.”

This is a very common objection. I notice, though, that such people don’t accuse themselves of projection when they make deductions about the state of mind of other people based on their experience. It’s an objection I usually hear when an audience does not like what I’ve written because it’s emotionally uncomfortable.

No human can “know” the specific contents of another human’s mind. That applies to you, reader, not just to me. But humans can make largely accurate guesses and extrapolations about that by combining personal experience with observation. This is what is known colloquially as “being a human in the world doing normal things.” If that weren’t true, we wouldn’t be sentient.

I’m as confident as I can be that what I’m observing is true. I believe I’m right, and that I’m seeing it accurately. If your mileage varies, so be it.