2000 lies

The New York Times says the president lied close to 2000 lies in one year. I think many people agree that ‘lying’ is a main characteristic of the president. However, there is something to say about that, which does not lean on the moral aspect of lying.

No one can lie about something he does not know. Lying is an intentional and deliberate act about something he or she knows but intend to misrepresent, even in compulsive lying. Does the president lie about something he knows the truth about? No, he does not; he is not distorting truths because he has proven many times that he does know what he is lying about. Although going back on what he says is to us considered lying, to him its is not, because what he says is not to him a truth or a fact the cannot be changed. He has given undeniable evidence and proof that his statements do not reflect any assessment of what is happening with him or around him. (Do not rush and think that I am putting him within the category of psychosis or pseudo-psychosis).

The president is neither in touch with truth nor with facts: he is continuously ‘fabricating realities on the spot, at the moment, and reactively’. He does not do that intentionally or consciously (reflecting on what he says). People like us (sophisticated professionals) are giving his lies interpretations and meanings when they are not more than the reactions to the very limited outside reality he could mange.

   Let us examine his world:

His knowledge of the world, as he demonstrated in his views regarding the US involvement in international matters do not exceed the chats in working class places of work or their daily leisure places. His awareness of the agreements the US has with other countries-political or none political- is very tainted by some convictions in certain circles that the US has been taken advantage of since the end of the second world war. His views of what could make the US great again (when the US has been and still is a great country) are the old views of the US before the other nations recovered from the disaster of WW2, and some are great nation in their own right, beside the US. In total, the president exemplifies someone who did not realize, feel, have average desire to KNOW anything that does not pertain to him, himself. The external world does not exit much for him to stimulate his curiosity.

Is he narcissistic?  Narcissus did not fall in love with himself. He loved the boy who was in the image in front of him, thus the narcissist must have an image to love. The president does not have an image. He stands up in front of people and pictures himself to them. He tells them what to see and what to judge of what they see. Everything he does or did or going to do is the most, the greatest, nothing like it, etc. Therefore, narcissism is not a fitting diagnosis, because he believes that the picture he is showing is not a picture.

The most obvious about the president is his exceptionally limited contact with the external world. Nevertheless, he is not a flagrant psychotic person. Another point has to be raised: in all honesty we cannot give him a diagnosis based on symptoms or psychodynamics.

The only thing I think of is Highly Functional Autism. This notion leads to a difficult complex question: How (meaning in what way) could the society deal with an autistic president?

I hope that my remarks about the President of the US - as a foreigner-  are not taken as insults. If I feel that my professional opinion is taken as such, I might be encouraged to try to answer that complex question of how several millions of American cannot see through the title of The President.