FACEBOOK GROUP FOR VICTIMS OF NARCISSISTS https://www.facebook.com/groups/NoNarcsRUs/1187498977942998/

Friday, October 20, 2017



Like much of America, I’ve been watching the Harvey Weinstein scandal unfold, appalled but not surprised. More than 40 women have now accused the famous and powerful movie producer, whose films have won 81 Oscars, of sexual harassment and even rape.

The Weinstein Company, which he co-founded, fired him. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences threw him out. The Los Angeles police have opened an investigation.

Still, Hollywood has always been about starlets who want to make it big and powerful men who took advantage of them — that’s why everyone knows about the “casting couch.”

So I wondered — was Weinstein just a prolific user of the couch, or was he disordered?

The answer came in an article published by the New Yorker yesterday in which current and former employees of the Weinstein Company described their boss’s behavior. Although no one used the word, they described a raging psychopath.

Here’s how the article starts:
  • Harvey throttled someone.

  • Harvey called an employee a f*cking moron.

  • Harvey threw the shoes, the book, the phone, the eggs.

  • Harvey went to work with his shirt on inside-out and no one had the courage to tell him.

  •  If you f*cking say anything to him, the assistant said to the other assistant, I’m dead

  • Harvey would eat the fries off your plate, smash them in his face, and wash them down with a cigarette and a Diet Coke.

  • He belittled and berated: You can’t name three Frank Capra movies? What the f*ck are you even doing here? 

  • He was funny; he was grotesque, a boisterous, boorish, outrageous, gluttonous caricature of a man, a Hollywood type. A “man of appetites”; a philanderer; a cartoon beast, surrounded by beauties.
A group of employees submitted a statement to the New Yorker saying that they didn’t know how bad Weinstein was. Here’s how they described him:
  • a man with an infamous temper
  • manipulative
  • a womanizer with extramarital affairs
  • unbridled ambition
  • aggressive deal making
  • insatiable desire to win and get what he wanted
  • unabashed love for celebrity
So Harvey Weinstein may be more than a sexual predator. These are all examples of psychopathic behavior.

Harvey Weinstein’s former employees reckon with what they knew and what they didn’t, on NewYorker.com.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

The sway sociopaths hold over their “minions” is hard to fathom

by O. N. Ward

The Tsunami Pounds Ashore
In spite of the adultery and Paul’s clear manipulation in getting me to move to Utah, which was clear to anyone who had two eyes and a brain, Paul’s family rallied around him. I’m sure the money he lavished on them did not hurt, and he likely reframed everything, finally revealing the “truth” about me. He had endured me long enough. Surely, they wanted him to finally be happy.

I had always enjoyed the time I spent with Paul’s mother, and she consistently presented herself as deeply religious and moral, so when Paul took Ella, I reached out to Ruth for help. I was not prepared for her response. She said she was sure Paul was doing what was best for the kids, that he would never do anything wrong or hurtful, and that I was just being melodramatic and would be laughing about this in no time. Knowing Daniel was distressed about Ella, Ruth sent Daniel a letter quoting advice from a famous sports coach that said he should never allow himself to be upset about anything for more than twenty-four hours. Ruth added that Daniel needed to show more respect for his father and his father’s decisions. She was sure Daniel was only angry with Paul because I was encouraging Daniel to feel that way. Worse, she told Daniel that, obviously, I did not value family the way Paul and Linda did.

Ruth’s behavior is another example of “cognitive dissonance” at work. How does a woman who takes great pride in her strong religious beliefs, goes to church every Sunday, and admonishes others for any lack of ethics or morality not even blink an eye at the amoral and hurtful behavior of her own son? How did she rationalize the inconsistency between her religious beliefs and Paul’s adultery and other hurtful behavior? Paul really deserves to be happy? Onna probably drove Paul away—what else was he supposed to do?

Daniel was hurt and incredulous. He wrote unrepeatable words on his grandmother’s letter. Paul sent me an email with a not so veiled threat that he would take me to court for slandering him to his family. Ruth and I never spoke again. Given Ruth’s choice to blind herself to her son’s behavior and to be insensitive and hurtful towards Daniel, I had no interest in continuing a relationship with her even without Paul’s threat.

I was furious at Jessica for her betrayal and for abandoning our relationship at a time when I desperately needed to maintain the close relationships in my life. Some nights my anger at her kept me awake. In a pique of frustration at 3:00 a.m. one sleepless night, I pounded my pillows, sobbing, and then threw each of them against the wall. It did not help. It just made me feel stupid, because I knew my fury was misplaced. I tried to view Jessica as the victim of a brilliant and well-funded sociopath. I had been fooled and manipulated by Paul for almost twenty years. It would be unfair to hold my teenage daughter to a higher standard.


(YWL's wife believed him.  Believes I am stalking him since college and that I made it all up.  I am sad for her.  One day she will find out everything - not just the tale he told her.)

Wednesday, October 19, 2016


Haven't been able to even watch more than snippets of the current Presidential Debates.  I've known too many Narcissists and Sociopaths in my day and TRUMP is hitting every single button.

Another reason - YWL did the same stuff to and said the same stuff about me - and probably still does:

Here's some snippets of things said to me and others by YWL and things said by Trump recently;
  • I never said that
  • She's crazy
  • That never happened
  • She's fat/ugly/I wouldn't touch her/bang her (paraphrased)
  • I didn't do that
  • She's a liar
  • Wrong
  • She's a criminal (YWL meant me; Trump meant Clinton)

And the projection?  Ohhhhhh the projection.  

Anyone who listens to either of these guys needs to have their heads examined, in my opinion.


Donald Trump: Profile Of A Sociopath

by Daniel Berger

With the Republican National Convention now completed, the question of whether Donald Trump would “pivot” to the general election and tone down his offensive and erratic behavior has been answered: absolutely not. In the aftermath of his angry, delusional acceptance speech and his subsequent actions (including his recent invitation to Vladimir Putin to commit cyber-espionage and his outrageous attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan), the question of Trump’s sanity from a clinical, psychological perspective must be raised.
Amazingly, given his erratic behavior for more than a year, the issue of Trump’s mental stability has received relatively little attention. The most comprehensive recent discussion of this subject was in the June issue of The Atlantic. There, a professional psychologist, Dan P. McAdams, provided a psychological profile of Trump for the purpose of assessing the potential impact of Trump’s personality on his possible presidency. McAdams’ portrayal of Trump was hardly flattering, but concluded that, although Trump’s personality is “extreme,” Trump was just as likely to be a good president as a bad one.
Unfortunately, McAdams’ analysis completely missed the point. The question is not whether Trump’s personality is “extreme.” Rather, it is whether he is disturbed in a psychological sense and, if so, whether his possible personality disorders could lead to disastrous consequences if he were to assume the vast powers of the U.S. Presidency.
“Amazingly, given his erratic behavior for more than a year, the issue of Trump’s mental stability has received relatively little attention.”
Given Trump’s obsessive focus on himself, his complete inability to tolerate criticism, his vindictiveness toward his opponents, his bullying and public insults, and his inappropriate and offensive public rhetoric, the disorder that comes most readily to mind is a narcissistic personality disorder. A narcissistic personality disorder is defined as a personality “characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others.” It is classified as a cluster B personality disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 of the American Psychiatric Association (“DSM”) which currently represents the most definitive compilation of mental disorders followed by the mental health profession in this country.
A narcissistic personality disorder can be accompanied by a large number of deleterious traits and behaviors including arrogance, callousness and envy, and is associated with a preoccupation with power, prestige and vanity. Other negative characteristics include “grandiosity” and “a distain and lack of empathy for others.” Worryingly, this condition is also characterized by exploitive behavior to achieve personal gain, exaggeration of skills and accomplishments and intolerance of the views of others. Pathological narcissism is also associated with derogation and insults of others and an inability to tolerate disagreements or criticisms.

Alternatively, Trump could also be suffering from an antisocial personality disorder. An antisocial personality disorder involves a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others and includes such negative characteristics as deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying or conning and manipulation of others, aggressiveness, and consistent irresponsibility. A person suffering from an antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as a sociopath. According to the DSM-5, narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders overlap with each other including in terms of lack of remorse and disregard for the wishes, rights, and feelings of others and can even co-exist, as in narcissistic megalomania.
Based on his bombastic and erratic behavior over the last year, and what is known about Trump’s past (which McAdams and others have referred to), Trump exhibits characteristics of both types of personality disorders:
  • He is a serial and compulsive (pathological) liar. PolitiFact named Trump the winner of its annual “Lie of the Year” Award in 2015 - - a competition which PolitiFact said “was not even close,” unquestionably in reference to the fact that it rated 72% of Trump’s public remarks about factual circumstances as false. Any further doubt about Trump’s capacity for truthfulness should be erased by even a cursory review of the website, Trumplies.com - - a vast compendium of misstatements, inaccuracies and outright falsehoods - - or his speech accepting the Republican nomination for president, or his defamation of Ted Cruz’s father in his first post-convention news conference or his recent statement to the New York Times about NATO which was reported the next day and which he categorically denied. The Times then released a verbatim transcript of its interview with Trump which clearly showed that his denial of earlier in the day was patently false.
  • Trump’s dishonesty in his business dealings is shocking and unprecedented for a presidential candidate. Recently, the New York Times published an investigation about Donald Trump’s business dealings and discovered, inter alia, that Trump was a defendant in literally thousands of law suits primarily brought by service providers and vendors whom he failed to pay for services rendered to him or his business organizations. It is abundantly clear that failing/refusing to pay vendors is part of Trump’s business model. What type of reputable businessman - - with a shred of integrity - - would conduct business in such a manner? For this, and other reasons, several major financial institutions including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs flatly refuse to do business with Trump. Indeed, Trump’s reputation in business is as a scam artist; as Mitt Romney, the last candidate for president of the Republican Party, put it, Trump is a “con man” and “snake-oil salesman.” Readers should look no further than the allegations involved in the Trump “University” scandal to find serious support for Romney’s conclusions.
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Trump cannot tolerate any form of criticism no matter how slight and that he is vindictive in the extreme. The confrontations that Trump had with reporters and news organizations during the primary process, particularly his weeks-long attack on Megyn Kelly are illustrative of this point, as is his shameful, despicable conformation with Khizr Khan and his wife. There is also evidence that has not been publicly disseminated that Trump has misused officers of the New York City Policy Department to retaliate against his perceived enemies in New York City and to harass and threaten the personal safety of his opponents.
  • Trump never apologizes for any missteps or intemperate attacks and has demonstrated a remarkable lack of empathy for persons whom he has attacked, injured, or harmed. Numerous incidents, both recent and historical, establish Trump’s utter lack of either accountability or empathy.
  • Trump has a fixation with the idea of “winners” and “losers” - - a frequent mantra of his campaign for the Presidency. Trump’s universe consists of “winners” and “losers” and Trump particularly focuses on losers - - which includes any opponent or person who disagrees with him. Losers are people who “deserve to lose,” a clear indication of his indifference to, and rationalization for, injuring or humiliating others.
  • Trump’s angry, menacing Convention acceptance speech can only be regarded as delusional and demented and gave the appearance of the ravings of a lunatic. The arrogance and delusional nature of the mantra, “I alone,” repeated in his acceptance speech is a clear indication of the presence of both disorders.
  • Trump’s reaction to protesters during the primaries and to critics at the Democratic National Convention by threatening their physical safety (“I want to hit them”; “They should be carried out on a stretcher”) is highly indicative of antisocial behavior.
  • Although initially regarded benignly by the media as being “unconventional” (“This year is different”), Trump’s failure to conform to established norms for behavior in public and in running a national political campaign for president is also highly sociopathic.
Although a number of commentators on Trump’s mental state (including McAdams) have documented many characteristics of Trump’s possible personality disorders, they scrupulously refrain from exploring the strong possibility that Trump may be mentally disturbed in a clinical, psychological sense and the nature of such disturbances. They refer only obliquely to a possible narcissistic personality disorder by characterizing Trump’s behavior as “grandiose” in nature - - but without any further explanation. They also eschew any reference to Trump as a psychopath or a sociopath.
However, more important than the labels, these commentators fail to consider the potential adverse consequences, if a person like Trump were to acquire the powers of the modern U.S. presidency. Of prime consideration, the president is both Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and heads up the national security agencies responsible for both the internal and external security of the United States. These powers include control of the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, DHS, and other federal agencies, whose operations are largely carried out in secret. Most of the president’s national security powers are historically broad either in the form of inherent powers or as broadly delegated by Congress and, as a practical matter, are typically unreviewable by Congress or the courts, particularly in an emergency.

Predictions - - both good and bad - - as to the possible consequences of a Trump presidency are, of course, a matter of speculation at this point. McAdams, for example, implicitly concludes that, notwithstanding his personality flaws, Trump was just as likely to do good things as bad, citing the presidency of Andrew Jackson as a “populist” precedent.
However, even assuming that Jackson is a helpful historical analogy, McAdams never seriously considered the potential downside of a Trump presidency in light of his personality flaws. Given the strong possibility of one or more disorders in Trump’s personality, Trump represents an extraordinary danger and risk to the nation in the form of abuses of power.
This danger and this risk are not purely conjectural: Trump has already threatened to abuse these powers should he obtain them. The single most disqualifying action Trump has engaged in to date relates to Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post. In response to criticism by the Post and the possibility that a large number of its journalists have been tasked to investigate Trump’s past (as is true of any presidential candidate), Trump has indicated that should he become president, he will launch an IRS investigation of Bezos—the owner of the Post and CEO of Amazon—and an antitrust investigation of Amazon.
Use of federal agencies for political purposes by a president is a flat-out abuse of power and an impeachable offense punishable by removal from office. Indeed, Article III of the Impeachment Resolution that the House of Representatives passed against Richard Nixon in 1974 involved just such uses of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA. In other words, before even assuming office, Trump has threatened to engage in an abuse of power, rising to the level of an impeachable offense!
Under the circumstances it would be prudent to take Trump at his word and, at least, consider the possibility that he would engage in significant abuses of power, if he were elected. Given Trump’s evident ignorance of the complex constellation of policy issues facing the nation from both a domestic and international perspective, his apparent lack of understanding of the constitutional division and separation of powers between our three branches of government and, given his personality flaws and/or disorders, it would not only be foolish, but foolhardy, to turn over the powers of the U.S. presidency to Trump.
In this light, and faced with this reality, all persons of good will who care about the future of the country should do everything within reason to prevent Trump from obtaining these powers.


Friday, September 9, 2016


Lying to get someone into bed is sexual assault

People often tell little lies in the early stages of dating to impress a possible partner.
But at what point do those lies add up to fraud?

Joyce Short, who has experienced this first hand, thinks that lying to get into bed with someone is sexual assault by fraud.

She would like to see the laws in the United States change and is currently working with to bring these types of sexual assault cases to court in New York state.
"When you lie to a person in order to engage them in sexual action, you're sexually assaulting that person, you're not seducing them." - Joyce Short
Here in Canada, consent is sometimes disregarded by the court, for reasons of fraud. Most of these cases involve HIV non-disclosure. Some other cases have been brought to court, but these are few and far between.

"Very few people will ever go to jail due to sexual assault by fraud lie... There are two important elements that make it difficult to prosecute any of these cases...One of them is that the person them self [the victim] has to behave in a reasonable fashion, and this is true in all fraud law... The other important element is that you need significant proof."

Joyce says that because online dating is a popular way to hook up, many fraudulent sexual relationships are beginning online.
The upside to this is gathering sufficient proof against someone to use in court is now easier.
"Fraud is defined by the following terms: You lie, you know that you're lying, you expect the person to believe your lie, they indeed believed your lie and they suffered harm as a result of your actions because you've lied to them" - Joyce Short
But it was long before the days of online dating when Joyce herself was tricked into a relationship built on false pretences — a marriage that lasted three and a half years and included a child.

"The information that I received lead me to have a concept of this person that was completely different than he actually was. It was sort of like what happened in Mad Men when the person pretended to be Donald Draper and in fact he was Dick Whitman."

She says it is up to the individual to screen potential lovers before getting into bed with them.
"I believe that people should think twice about using dating sites.I believe that before they go to bed with a person, and I don't mean the minute before they go to bed with the person...they need to check this person's identification."