Now Why Would White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly Say That?!

Narcissistic Wounds That Time And The ‘Lost Cause’ Ideology Has Never Healed

Oh the good ole days! An oft romanticized time of the way things were. Depicted as an idealized cultural phenomena obliged by factions of faith and made legally admissible through sentiments of free will and independence. This church and state was reinforced by shades of chivalry, goodwill, faith, intellect, and fortitude through dichotomous views — of what is for the good of society.

The symbolic violence of the Civil War in ‘fighting the good fight’ predicated on alternative interpretations of honorable intent and quixotic rationalizations has reemerged once again from the White House. The former General John Kelly confabulated with Fox reporter Laura Ingraham on a recent decision by a historic Episcopal church in Virginia to remove plaques that memorialized Robert E. Lee and George Washington, of whom were frequent parishioners.

I don’t watch Fox News…but okay..
Me

“I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man,” Kelly told Ingraham. “He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it’s different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.” — Washington Post ¹

These socially accepted fictions of the United States are to be endowed with a racializing and dehumanizing psyche that serves as the basis and argument for the existence of superiority. The “exclusive interview” typify the nagging narcissistic injuries predicated upon this white self-concept. As an American this is something I am having trouble relating to.

Robert E. Lee is an unapologetic white supremacist and slaveowner. This is fact. It would make better sense to not culturally identify with someone so wicked and foolish. Lee makes specious arguments in defense of slavery that are actually counterintuitve. In Lee’s own words…

TheAtlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee ²

The ‘honorable’ Lee also attempted to subvert the laws in his own state — the enslaved were to be freed upon their previous master’s death — because he wanted to continue their enslavement and keep them as his property, even though a Virginia court forced him to free them.

TheAtlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee ²

White supremacy is a malignant form of narcissism

Robert E. Lee is the confederate embodiment of a narcissist, bully and a tyrant. Only a narcissist would internalize an imagined sense of injury from fellow humans not wanting to live under their bondage, and would go onto insist on flagrant Othering. The feeling of scorn and resentment felt in slaves revolting, fleeing, or seeking emancipation is like a narcissistic wound. It is a psychopathic disregard without compunction and an inability to recognize humanity.

Not having the inhibitions and scruples imposed by empathy and conscience, he can easily lie, cheat, manipulate, destroy, and kill if he wants to — or, when powerful enough, order others to do it for him.

After resigning from his commission to the U.S. Army in 1861, Lee followed his home state of Virginia in the secession of the Union (treason) to form the Confederacy. This fool should have known that a defeat of an industrialized Union Army by a loose collection of southern rebels would be remote or far-fetched yet, he sacrificed the lives of, and killed more Americans (of the Confederate, the Union: Blacks and Whites) than any traitor or terrorist we know of to this day. How we continue to glamorize his legacy and role is unfathomable to me, but willfully blind historians and fanatics continue to plagiarize these inane sentiments with an illiterate view of history.

Here is a look at all the compromises over slavery that were enacted leading up to the Civil War.

SOURCE | American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning, 2009.
SOURCE | American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning, 2009.

So yeah, there was a failure to compromise, but then there were failures to realize too, the obvious, that the enslaved are humans and white conjectures of psuedo-science in the realm of superior or inferior genetics are bereft of any intellectual integrity in its racial applications.

The only compromise that would have worked is to give up tyrannical whiteness for equality. Only thing that impeded this was that they had already constructed a false Self of America, a sense of self-worth and values that are fraudulently wrapped up in the sincere fictions of whiteness as their true self, even in light of contradicting inconsistencies, utter falsehoods, along with malevolent and immoral reasonings. Motivated ignorance, insensitive beliefs, and Self-conflict over narcissistic injuries to the white Self brought about the Civil War.

The process through which the tyrant gains popularity and power usually baffles the outside observers and historians looking at it from the perspective of time, as its main ingredient, narcissism, somehow remains invisible to both participants and observers.³

The Chief of Staff’s paralogism here is replete with sincere fictions and guided by motivated ignorance.

The term “sincere fictions” can be extended by arguing that these fictions are constructed to conceal unwelcome aspects of past, present, or future actions by White individuals in a racialized society. ⁴

This character defect comes out as drivel. Really? Lack of an ability to compromise on both sides is what led to the Civil War ☹️. There are only two consciences battling within one self — the White Self. It just so happened to have played out on the battlefield of the Civil War, and now again in civil discourse. What there is really in all of this is this great ability to ignore or reduce those who were enslaved within this conflict, or Blacks, and or people of color, or women, or the LGBT, of whom are now socioeconomically enslaved by white male privilege, which never gets mentioned by Kelly. So what are you taking about sir? Because I get the sense of some aggrieved entitlement boiling over here — a stew being stirred up by the Cook-in-Chief, Donald Trump here.

The narcissistic mixture of elevated expectations, resentments, and desire for revenge on specific targets and/or society in general for not meeting those expectations is what sociologist Michael Kimmel (2013) called aggrieved entitlement.³

The attitudes and behaviors from this narcissistic group to which the White house now represents and leads is more pointedly narcissistic rage, in which they are hell bent on purging mentally and physically all whom are weak and undesirable in their Make America Great Again quest. The Negotiator-in-Chief is here to compromise of healing all narcissistic wounds of white resentment.

I guess there is no compromising human dignity
Me

Ms. Huckabee’s displays of white innocence (naiveté) is palpable as she remarks on the many (obviously white) historians take on the wrongheaded ‘Lost Cause’ ideologies that are still espoused today in an attempt to legitimate the indefensible.

This in and of itself is the unapologetic collusion between Trump, his flunkies and supporters to marginalize and oppress by dehumanizing Others. The inability of Kelly to show some respect, and humility by apologizing to Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) for his character assassination of her falsely, even in light of video evidence contributes to the fomenting of incivility in our racialized society.

“Oh, no,” Kelly replied. “No. Never. Well, I’ll apologize if I need to. But for something like that, absolutely not. I stand by my comments.”

Wow, and people respect this guy?🤔😑. I guess so if you have people who respect Robert E. Lee, I guess they will believe anything that feeds their malignant and infected narcissism.

It appears the more that I write the better I perceive.