BOOK: A FEW GOOD CARDINALS

“For the toxic narcissist, life is essentially war.” – Anonymous

Get your copy now from one of our sellers below:

Amazon.com		Bookshop.org
Amazon.com Paperback	Kindle eBook	eBook
LULU.COM
Lulu.com eBook	Lulu.com Paperback	Lulu.com Hardcover
NOTE: The concept and narrative of the book is similar across our various distribution channels. Variations exist between the ebook and printed versions. Pricing differences due to commission structure, distribution and printing costs.
BOOK REVIEW: "Bold, lucid, and disarmingly original, A Few Good Cardinals by Carl Vincent lays bare how narcissism and rule-bending warp institutions and relationships, and offers clear, practical strategies for spotting and surviving toxic behavior." — Wrote a Book Blog Click here for the full review on the Wrote A Book Blog. BIBILIOGRAPHY and Resources: Click here for a selection of books, media and other links that made A Few Good Cardinals possible.
“A Few Good Cardinals feels especially well positioned for readers who have spent years trying to understand someone in their life and have found that conventional psychology only takes them halfway there. Not casual readers browsing the self-help shelf, but people who have been in the fog of a toxic relationship long enough to know they need a framework that goes deeper than behavior management.”

El Abra in Colombia is a cave system of considerable significance. It is estimated to be approximately 12,640 years old and reported to be one of the most ancient archaeological discoveries in the Western Hemisphere. The Muisca called El Abra their home between around 600 and 1600 AD. In around 1537 AD, the Muisca, an indigenous culture of the Altiplano Cundiboyacense, negotiated with an invading European power over the source of their gold.

There appears to have been a misunderstanding. To the Muisca, gold could have been a symbol of accomplishment because they owned lots of jewelry made of this precious and highly desirable metal. The conquistadores insisted the Muisca show them the source. The Muisca pointed to their salt mines, from which they extracted the commodity so desired by other tribes it made for excellent trading value. Frustrated, the invaders reportedly killed their counterparts in the negotiation and, to show how serious they were, almost everyone else in the tribe for “good measure.”

In hindsight, what the conquistadores failed to appreciate could hinder anyone today in getting ahead, being appreciated and loved just the same. Bias appears to have hindered them in considering that, to the Muiscas, salt was “gold” as it generated them abundant profit. The invaders, similarly, failed to appreciate that the presence of jewelry did not logically imply that a source of the precious metal was nearby or readily accessible. Perhaps the long, stressful journey, or the pressure from back home to return with abundant riches, prevented them from having an open mind. In addition, the impulse to retribute the Muisca’s perceived unwillingness to cooperate with capital punishment may be indicative of a utilitarian perspective held by the invader: “When no longer useful, discard.”

Manipulation in order to make a target do something they don’t want to do can be considered toxic behavior. When passion dictates decision making, regret may come too late. It is said that to this day, the source of gold in the time of the Muisca’s run-in with the Spanish is yet to be found. Still, failure to obtain meaningful results from manipulative and coercive tactics appears not to have stopped anyone before or after the time of the conquistadores.

What mechanism perpetuates the often indiscriminate use of coercion and manipulation? It seems that it would be the concept of “learning by example,” perhaps in conjunction with the principle of self-justification. If I start something, someone else may try it as well. If the result is not meaningfully challenged, self-justification may give a sense of permission to continue the now newly established practice.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winner: physics. April 23, 1858

 

The counterpart of the toxic person must be the empath. Empathy commonly manifests in three different ways: cognitive, emotional and compassionate. Cognitive empathy may be considered almost similar to narcissism. Compassionate empathy on the other hand embodies the most wholesome qualities of empathy, instilling in the subject to not just feel what another person is feeling but also to take action to perpetuate constructive emotional wellbeing.

Experts seem to agree that the toxic person does not consider their behavior and its impact in the same way as a compassionate or emotional empath appears to do. The toxic person defines everything a bit differently. For the toxic narcissist, a lie may be just an alternate interpretation of truth. Unfortunately, experts have failed to identify in a meaningful way where toxic behavior comes from. The closest we seem to get is:

1. A fear of being unable to meet the demands of a higher authority—whether a person or a deity;
2. A deep rooted conviction that one should pursue a goal whatever it takes; and
3. A sense of separateness or physical dissociation from one’s environment—the inability to perceive the effect of one’s actions as interconnected to a social structure.

Karma is a fundamental law that promises us to “reap what we sow.” When I do a good deed, I (or at least, my ego) may expect a reward. However, if it is indeed my ego expecting said reward, the good deed may be considered objectionable because it does not originate from the right frame of mind: genuine altruism. Philosophers have debated the issue of good deeds for thousands of years and may very well continue the discussion. Meanwhile, as ordinary citizens, we have to put up with, or benefit from, day to day toxic, not so toxic or genuinely benevolent neighborly actions. How are we supposed to know which to expect?

“Everything can be taken from a [hu]man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” – Viktor Frankl, MD, PhD.

There are local, individual instances of abuse such as that between two people. Similarly to their behavior at home behind closed doors, toxic people can operate as a team or organization in order to perpetuate their agenda on a wider scale.

Anybody who has ever had to deal with a bureaucratic organization intent on pursuing its own agenda—against better knowing—may be able to attest to the challenges such institutionalized toxicity brings. We should be able to trust the media based on the premise that journalism’s first obligation reportedly is to tell the truth. How disappointing it must have been at the time, when the radio show War of the Worlds led to the birth of modern day fake news. Newspapers reported an alien invasion in October of 1938, an invasion that didn’t happen. The reason? Publishers apparently feared competition from a “new” medium, radio. Apparently, it was case in which it was okay to abandon one’s principles given a strong enough threat to one’s survival. Did everyone suddenly lose trust in reporters? It seems a new generation of readers and listeners grew up instead and all was forgotten…

When we are acutely aware of the effect of karma, it may strongly direct our behavior. How does that work for the person who denies karma's existence or claims it does not apply to them? Apparently, they shift blame to another person or situation. When they run out of options, they may beg for forgiveness from you or the community, promising they will “never do it again.” Karma may be considered the uncomfortable consequence of behavior, but it may be best, and most conveniently, forgotten by those who stand to lose the most: their own survival.

“Empathy is an important step towards compassion. Compassion for ourselves must be part of that, it must come first even. Once we have compassion for our mind and body, we can reimagine how society should function.”

How much does toxic narcissism cost us? Sometimes there are serious financial consequences like in the 2008 financial crisis. We are in a new potential crisis today with the promise of Artificial Intelligence at our doorstep but questions about how much of the hype is overblown and whether it will incapacitate human ingenuity looming big. What about the emotional and mental toll toxic narcissism can have on our lives? Do the effects of toxic behavior extend beyond the trauma inflicted on its victims, and does it affect one gender more than another? Some voices suggest that men seem more narcissistic by nature. In fact, when I searched online and typed, “are men more narcissistic than women” the auto-fill suggested “why are men more…” instead. Yet, no systematic review to establish the magnitude had apparently been conducted until just a few years ago.

In real life, we deal with narcissism from either men or women—or both at once. It may be so complex that no reasonable research could ever establish a reliable cause and effect at which point most people might abandon the effort and go on with their lives—until something meaningful affects us personally perhaps.

“...the cost-conscious design of the four nuclear powerplants at the Chernobyl site in Ukraine was not an accident—pun not intended. When something leaves little room for error, the impact of one person can be quite significant.”

Are humans their own worst enemy? It should not have been a secret in the 1820s. Jealousy, honor killings, territorial disputes, and war were all very well established practices at the time Michael Faraday invented his electric motor. However, since Faraday’s invention, things have accelerated rather rapidly both for evil and good: the electric car, computers, modern medicine, the international space station. In 1918, Fritz Haber gave the world the Haber–Bosch process to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen gas, considered critical for the large-scale synthesis of fertilizers (think global food supply) and explosives (think mass warfare).

What makes one person seek destruction and another progress and prosperity? It seems the will to survive translates differently from one individual to another. In one personality, it presents as fear and manifests as insecurity. Insecurity, not to be confused with lack of confidence and worry, can, according to experts in the field, be compensated by embellishment of one’s contribution, bullying and imposing control on others.

People born during four distinct periods in the year have a personality characteristic that appears to set them apart from everyone else: the ability to focus on something intently at the expense of something else. The latter part can be a good or not so good aspect as, for example, the person who skips meals in order to finish a project and the person who expects others to skip meals too. Born between December 21 and January 20, March 21 and April 19, June 21 and July 22, and between September 23 and October 22, these people may have a deeply rooted need for their own survival and for following their own path in life. The downside of this often perceived as a one-sided sense of direction is that, if not compensated for by supportive role models and caregivers at an early age, they may think rather highly of their own capabilities and less so of others. In other words, they appear to have a significantly higher risk of developing narcissistic behavior traits than others. Contributing factors other than childhood development, may be trauma, exposure to toxic behavior from other people and more.

Narcissistic behavior that turns toxic includes denying the presence, needs and contributions of others. Peer pressure can apparently legitimize such denial. When toxic narcissists operate together, their manipulation of relationships can turn into institutionalized abuse, corruption and worse. Irrespective of intellectual capacity, the anti-social behavior of the toxic narcissist appears to have an adverse impact on our collective quality of life. Perhaps a solopreneur business as a merchant, artist, inventor or expert with a small support team—where they are accountable mostly if not solely to themselves—suits their talent, skills and dedication much better for the fulfillment of their life purpose.

If the toxic narcissist perceives life as a game or even a theater of war, how does the healthy, adaptive narcissist consider life? The adaptive narcissist may see life as an adventure. Finally, emotional and compassionate empaths may see life and all of its manifestations as a big puzzle to be solved. How well do you know who is who?

Get your copy of A Few Good Cardinals now:

Amazon.com		Bookshop.org
Amazon.com Paperback	Kindle eBook	eBook
LULU.COM
Lulu.com eBook	Lulu.com Paperback	Lulu.com Hardcover
NOTE: The concept and narrative of the book is similar across our various distribution channels. Variations exist between the ebook and printed versions. Pricing differences due to variations in commission structure, distribution and printing costs.
BOOK REVIEW: Click here for the review of A Few Good Cardinals on the Wrote A Book Blog. BIBILIOGRAPHY and Resources: Click here for a selection of books, media and other links that made A Few Good Cardinals possible.
“What stopped me was the decision to approach narcissism not as a personality flaw to manage but as a condition with a traceable origin, and then to bring in astrology, Eastern mysticism, Marcus Aurelius, and Nietzsche alongside modern psychology to build that case. That is a genuinely unconventional intellectual move, and the fact that the book is part biography and part history rather than a clinical guide gives it a texture that most books on toxic behavior cannot offer.” (B. Johnson)

References