Ann Barnhardt

1 psychology

At lectures and symposia, you cannot get away with waffling, even assisted by Powerpoint slides. That also applies to blogposts – there are limits.

Ann Barnhardt ignores that and yet she puts together a quite cogent argument [vid at the foot of this post], her main points powerpointed, which goes on for 2 hours and 53 minutes. She wasn’t boring, proceeding from section to section logically and I found her arguments had force in most cases, particularly when supported by concrete examples from public life.

She is though one hell of an eccentric woman but isn’t that always the way with groundbreakers or those with alternative angles? The way the camera cuts to observing her side-on is weird.

Even her identity is a puzzle because there is also a professor, Anne Hendershott, nee Barnhardt and I wonder if it’s the same person.

This is the youtuber Ann Barnhardt here.

2 gaslighting

It appears she’s left the Catholic Church and has dismissed all political parties and politicians, but there’s still a strong strain of Catholicism running through her youtube below, even down to a rosary on the table.

If you are so prejudiced against Catholics [maybe for Northern Ireland reasons], or maybe because your atheism is of the apoplectic type – you get furious at any Christian reference – then you’re not going to like her. Also, being female and in-yer-face, that has an effect on people not unlike our feeling towards SJWs.

She shoots wide, IMHO, a few times, e.g. around contraception – not the right or wrong of it but to what she ascribes it.

Ms Barnhardt opens her lecture with – if you cannot accept any form of metaphysical world, then you’re simply not going to get this at all, which is very true.

Though she herself is personally religious, her argument turns out to be far more psychological and therefore accessible to most readers. She goes into a type of mind [or soul] who runs things. Others have attacked this from a different angle, that of the sociopath or psychopath, she gives it a different name and characterization.

A psychologist says the person becomes that way through some trauma or upbringing, she admits the demonic but does not apply it to all. Interesting distinction.

4 bureaucratic traits

She gets onto feminism and Islam too, quite necessary if you’re to have any credence as an observer of world affairs but the major issue I foresee in the average viewer is the urge to immediately apply these criteria to someone one knows. And it is easy, if a leftist, to immediately apply it to Trump and look no further.

She certainly lists the negatives well but does not go much into the ameliorating traits. For example, given that Trump’s and Obama’s bad traits are as stated and publicized the world over, it’s when looking at the good that the two separate. Trump is known for his constant philanthropy, Obama is known for none. Obama has never been portrayed as one who got much into charity – he tended to play golf in those moments.

This does not come through much in the vid and so the temptation remains to sum up someone we know of – oh look, that’s such-and-such. My feeling is it’s better to just look at the overall arguments, for if she’s right, then we are in the hands of some pretty bad people up there.

And such people always worm their way into key roles.

7 aesthetics

One of her key arguments, very female indeed, is that a main ingredient of the type she portrays is someone incapable of real love. My issue here is that the Venn diagram set of people incapable of real love include not just perpetrators but also victims, plus victims who have become perpetrators, in a vicious cycle.

She mentions coldness, harshness and I’m perfectly capable of that – often I come over as a cold fish – but that does not mean I’m incapable of love, incapable of folly with a woman and/or friend, even now. And as she portrays the [something]opath as substituting mock, playacting compassion for real love, charity and caring, that can also apply to the ordinary person who has had the real thing knocked out of him/her, e.g. an Aleppo child. Not all go on to be perpetrators, some remain just victims all their lives.

6 education dn

One of the major points she makes is that this type we’re speaking of [Them or PTB type] wants to create an environment where no one else can enjoy it either, a dog in the manger approach, deliberately helping create dystopia, such as atonalism in music, ugliness in art, and it derives from hatred inside the soul.

Alinsky was a classic example and that whole tawdry bunch of so-called philosophers, including Benjamin and Marcuse, not to mention Russell. Evidence was in their own perverse sexuality. These were sick people who were able to write and lecture persuasively, as they knew the technique, millennia old.

She gives the motivation a name – pure spite. Spite is a major driver of these people. They will deny someone pleasure or joy, simply out of sheer spite. I’d suggest that there is a difference between a feeling of justice, closure, karma when some baddy gets his … and actual schadenfreude – pleasure in the failure of others.

It’s a very fine line – when does your natural feeling of justice and vindication dislimn into an actual [something]opathy?

Perhaps the lesson is that all of us possess all these traits in some small degree – the issue is when the negatives take over and starts to run the person, who then projects that onto others around, as many as he or she can get to.

32 comments for “Ann Barnhardt

  1. Lord T
    February 8, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    I don’t know. I’ve read a lot of blog posts that waffle on.

    • February 8, 2017 at 1:12 pm

      And that’s your sole comment on the content of the post? A comment on its first line?

      • Lord T
        February 9, 2017 at 11:30 am


  2. Voice of Reason
    February 8, 2017 at 1:35 pm


    I don’t know all of your sources, but President Trump’s philanthropy appears to exist in his pronouncements, but not generally in fact.

    By comparison, tax returns show that President Obama and his wife give over 15% of their income to various charities, which is much above average.

    • February 8, 2017 at 2:14 pm

      There was talk at my place about narcissism and three names were mentioned – Blair, Obama and Trump. She spares no one.

      What interests me in her is that aspect – she takes apart Ayn Rand as well. I like the gal.

      • Errol
        February 8, 2017 at 8:20 pm

        Narcissism is a specific mental illnss brought about by childhood trauma create a a child trapped in an adult’s body.

        Obama, Trump and Blair are not narcissists. They share similar characteristics – egotism, a lack of considerations for others but narcissists are figures of pity behaving as children. Those men are simply borderline psychopathic – look a what they do. A normal person wouldn’t behave as they have. They are not narcissists.

        Please, the condition is too important and little understood to be diminished against the reality of diagnosis and treatment.

      • Voice of Reason
        February 9, 2017 at 3:35 pm

        If there is one thing which infuriates me, it is hypocrisy. Not only were Rand’s ideas completely unworkable, but she (of the free-thinking philosophy) tolerated no dissent in her ranks. She also spent her later years living on the dole.

    • mona
      February 9, 2017 at 5:36 am

      You will find that Trump has become the American Obsession, he has lit a fire,, the Democrats , Republicans the Media also, the BBC despise him but they cannot ignore him. A phenomena the world has never seen before.

      • February 9, 2017 at 8:51 am

        He is but he’s obsessing too personally for mine. He needs to stop moaning and just implement the policy he was elected to do, not cry about the Dems.

    • Lord T
      February 9, 2017 at 11:31 am

      What were the values rather than percentages? This is an old chestnut that may apply here.

      • February 9, 2017 at 11:46 am

        In which way do you mean?

    • Gregory Tingey
      February 10, 2017 at 3:12 pm

      Whereas Trumpolini’s Tax returns are STILL SECRET.
      Yessss …..

  3. graham wood
    February 8, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    AB is a feisty and I think a sincere lady and I have previously enjoyed her take on some aspects of the scene in the USA.
    However a two hour delivery on the subject of DN takes a bit of beating!
    Firstly, I am intrigued by the fact that although she is a Catholic though no longer in the RC church, she does not seem aware that what she describes as DN, but fails to explain, is that it is simply her long winded description of the tiny word “ego”.
    Put differently she struggles to explain that DN is in reality what we all inherit by what Christians call “the fall”, namely a self centered nature which results from that.

    Secondly, one can but admire her stamina! But that said, it is nothing if not ironic that the fact that she spends so much time and effort preparing such a message unwittingly singles her out as a victim of the problem! She herself, alone in a long monologue with no other participation, is at the very centre all through!
    Also, it is odd that having lambasted various groups as suffering from this fell disease – the great and the good, politicians, ‘celebrities’ etc, and others who she finds irritating or unacceptable, she does not own the fact that she herself may be just as much a victim as the rest of us.
    In this context of the biblical idea of original sin, I cannot help but quote the simpler (and much shorter!) explanation given
    by Christian apologist C S Lewis:
    “The moment you have a self at all there is the possibility of putting yourself first – wanting to be the centre – wanting to be God……. What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could “be like gods” – could set up on their own as if they had created themselves – be their own masters – invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God” (Mere Christianity)
    The other rather sad aspect of AB’s comment is that she appears to have no answers, no remedy, no hint as to how we can extricate ourselves from the incessant presence of “self”.

    All she offers is the possibility of a last moment of “contrition” before death, or worse, some nonsense about “if you can make it to purgatory”. She mentions Christ once in passing but fails to
    suggest that He has an answer to the problem – who said:
    “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed”

    I also fail to see how her closing appeal on the lines that if “this presentation may save one through prayer and watching” can function. How can that be I wonder!?

    • Errol
      February 8, 2017 at 8:12 pm

      Religion is an invention of man sourced from ancestor worship due to reverence of the oldest man in the village being the wisest.

      Then some bloke recognised that by ‘looking after’ this elder they get out of chores. They create ritual, ceremony and before long you have religion all brought into being to protect and control access to knowledge.

      God is an invention of man to keep people under control. We’ve replaced that god many times in our history, altered, adapted and modified it to suit our needs but the purpose of religion remains the same: control.

      • February 11, 2017 at 4:46 am

        Clearly most here are not as old as you, Errol. 🙂

        • Errol
          February 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm

          I’m not particularly old, nor claim myself god. I merely state where the invention of religion came from and how it gained power over the populace.

    • February 8, 2017 at 10:23 pm

      Ann has left a comment at my place, nourishing obscurity dot com and invites anyone who would like to know more of her take to contact her. Her site again:

  4. Errol
    February 8, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    This is a woman without any medical science degrees, who has never trained as a therapist, psychiatrist nor sees patients who is describing psychiatry as ‘massively flawed’. She’s a damned fool who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She is ascribing her views on to terms that do not support them. She is twisting terms to suit herself and her own delusions. Feminism is not remotely related to Marxism. I wrote my damned thesis on Marxist feminism as women joining the workplace, not her confused pastische of pretendin that Marxism is an evil force to hate that is twisting women.

    She’s an ignorant crank. If you want to understand how destructive narcissism is, just google it and understand it’s relation to childhood trauma. Do not listen to this poisoned twit.

    • February 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm

      Thanks, Errol, that was apparent in your first comment. Readers will do just that.

      • Errol
        February 9, 2017 at 6:37 am

        Apologies James, I simply find such a person who obviously has no qualifications twisting terms to match her perspective. We find the Left do this – Liberals when they mean oppressors, trades unions complaining about ‘health and safety’ when they want more money, ‘democracy’ when they mean getting their own way: these things annoy us, and hearing someone make trite remarks about communism to explain away her own personal prejudice, without understanding the first thing about it is just offensive.

        We have to be so very careful to not abuse language and make light of what are serious conditions and important terms. Without rational analysis over what’s happened to the term feminism over the years, and how it has been hijacked merely ascribes her own prejudices to escape really thinking about it. That ends up with the Humpty Dumpty problem, where, like Tim Farron, leading the ‘neither liberal nor democratic’ party “… “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less….”

        • February 9, 2017 at 8:34 am

          No need for any apology – this is what we do here, speak our mind and no one shuts us up.

          Main rule is – if you’re talking s***, you’re going to be taken apart, if you’re talking reason, then you’ve added to the knowledge on the topic.

          We needed to know the psyche point of view. On the other hand, Amfortas, retired forces psychologist and Catholic, wrote this at my place:

          “Ann is a strong Catholic Warrior. Warriors often come across as fierce. They are, or can be, but like the powerfully muscled chap, they can be soft and gentle too.

          Narcissism was first mooted by a psychologist (actually a psychiatrist) Scott Peck MD, who placed it along with ‘laziness’ (be that mental or spiritual) as the key factors that ‘enabled’ Evil. His ‘People of the Lie’ examines the phenomenon.

          There are psychologists who have no difficulty in distinguishing ‘soul’ from ‘spirit’ and even ‘psyche’. A few.

          I agree with much of what Ann says, with the caveat that her distinguishing DN while valuable is ‘too accurate’ for the psychological profession. Peck understood it. His peers did not. Evil is seen in behaviours. Evil nevertheless ‘enters’ from outside via our weaknesses.

          Thanks for bringing such a firm and confident presentation. Watch a warrior’s word/swordwork.”

          To which Cherie, a keen non-denom Christian pointed to the life of Jesus, Bible and love as the basis of that faith, which you’d expect her to.

          There was also our Dearieme, a scathing Sky Fairy debunker or “debunker”, however you see it.

          • February 11, 2017 at 4:57 am

            James, I was not a Practicing Psychologist in the forces. I gained my undergrad degrees whilst in uniform but my profession was very different. I did post graduate degrees in shrinkology after I retired from the military and then spent 25 + years as a practicing psych. 🙂

        • February 11, 2017 at 4:52 am

          I am qualified, Errol. She makes clear distinction early on between ego, narcissism and Demonic or Diabolic Narcissism. Feminism is a tool of marxism without doubt from reading the stuff from the Frankfurt School. As for her ending, not only did her entire address fix firmly the Supernatural aspects and with Christ firmly present, but she made it clear that little short of a miracle can save both the DN person and humanity. Did you not listen to it all? Or even at all?

          • Errol
            February 11, 2017 at 7:39 pm

            Feminism is not related to Marxism. One is a rights movement, the other an economic theory. No devils or daemons are associated with narcissism, nor psychopathy. It is simply a lack of empathy and supreme ability to manipulate.

            We used to call such people evil, but they’re just mentally ill. Cruel, nasty, unpleasant but ill. Daemons and devils are no involved. Just people suffering trauma. As a psychologist I would expect you to remove this pseudo religious nonsense form these fundamentally documented mental states.

            God is an invention of man. Religion is an invention of man. Everything is man made. Draw faith from belief. Believe otherwise, but the basis of that is confidence in yourself at best, abrogated responsibility at worst.

            When she started out refusing to acknowledge she had no medical credentials or psychological/therapeutic training whatsoever and yet saw the utterly absurd ‘objective facts’ I didn’t bother. She’s a crank. If I give a lecture on narcissism I reference the childhood trauma and neurochemical imbalances in the brain from such people. I don’t say ‘there be dragons!’ and go find a priest. The former is science, the latter stupidity. She had nothing worth listening to because she is wrong and, just like other nonsense phrases was just telling people what they wanted to hear. Why listen to someone who hasn’t the faintest clue what they’re talking about?

            • February 12, 2017 at 4:28 am

              Evil is just as much an affliction as any other to be studied, Errol. Its what Psychologists do. Well, half-decent ones anyway. I refer you back up the page to James’ note of what I said on N.O. about Scott Peck. He studied evil from a psychiatric stance, and yet here you are, decrying qualifications while omitting to tell us what yours might be, discounting a notable shrink. Unless you can come up with a well argued and illustrated book – of your own; wot youse wrowt – objecting to ‘evil’ as a studyable concept, I will continue with his.

    • Gregory Tingey
      February 10, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      Except, as regards psychiatry, she is spot on.
      As someone who trained as a “hard scientist” I have nothing but contempt for them.

      Not to be confused with Psychology, especially experimental psychology, which is a n other kettle of bananas, entirely

      • Errol
        February 11, 2017 at 7:39 pm

        Except she isn’t. Sorry sir, but she’s a total crank who knows nothing about the subject whatsoever.

        • February 12, 2017 at 4:29 am

          And you do?

  5. Gregory Tingey
    February 10, 2017 at 3:17 pm

    One important point:
    There is such a thing as evil, but I agree with the lecturer that there is no such thing as “sin”.

    Sin is what the church / mullah / commissar doesn’t like & is against the current dictates of the BigSkyFairy.
    Evil is deliberately harming/hurting other people

    • February 10, 2017 at 6:57 pm


    • Errol
      February 11, 2017 at 7:42 pm

      People behave that way because they lack empathy. Because they don’t care about others. They behave ‘normally’ because they fear punishment. The dangerous don’t fear punishment because they cannot conceive of the difference to them.

      It’s not evil. It’s human nature. Simply brought up to not respect others and treat people poorly is not evil, it’s simple nurture. Evil is a tidy, simple and daft term that has no value. It all comes down to attitude and that’s entirely measurable.

Comments are closed.