Correcting the smear [Trump is a ‘Narcissist White Supremacist Habitual Liar Lunatic]

 An ANT is an Automatic Negative Thought

The map is not the territory. Here’s the Objectivist correction to the ANT: “Trump is a ‘Narcissist White Supremacist Habitual Liar Lunatic.’”

1. Diagnose the errors (Objectivist classification)

• Labeling/package-deals: This string mashes together undefined, highly-charged labels and treats them as a single verdict. That’s a package-deal and a floating abstraction—words detached from clear, factual definitions and essentials. Justice requires defining terms and judging by evidence and degree. [1]
• Arbitrary assertions: Claims like “white supremacist,” “lunatic,” or even “narcissist” are often thrown out without evidentiary reduction or standards. The arbitrary is neither true nor false and must be dismissed on sight. [2]
• Mind-reading/social metaphysics: Attributing inner motives or clinical conditions from afar (“narcissist,” “lunatic”) treats imagined consciousness as evidence. Independence demands first-hand judgment from words and deeds, not presuming access to someone’s mind. [1]
• Context-dropping/false alternative: “Habitual liar” globalizes from selective cases to a total identity claim, skipping context, base rates, and domains. Proper method distinguishes specific false statements from a proved, quantified habit across contexts. [2]
• Injustice in evaluation: Moral judgment must integrate the full context and essentials relevant to your purpose (e.g., policies and actions impacting rights), not smear with catch-all epithets. [1][2]

2. Objective corrections (what to do instead)

• Break the package into testable propositions: Replace the smear-string with discrete, factual claims you can verify or falsify (e.g., “On [date] he said X; source Y shows it is false”). If you lack evidence, suspend judgment. [2]
• Define terms by essentials before using them:
  • “White supremacist” would require explicit advocacy of racial hierarchy or rights-violating actions grounded in such a doctrine. Absent that level of evidence, the charge is arbitrary—drop it. [1]
  • “Habitual liar” requires a demonstrated pattern: operationalize “habitual” (frequency, time window, domains), compile cases, and check base rates against peers. Without quantification and method, don’t universalize. [2]
  • “Narcissist” and “lunatic” are clinical or pseudo-clinical labels. Unless you have legitimate diagnostic authority and data, don’t substitute diagnosis for moral judgment. Judge observable statements and actions. [1]
• Keep full context and degree: Use probability and scope, not binaries. Say “likely,” “sometimes,” “in context A,” when warranted; avoid “always/never.” [2]
• Judge by actions that matter ethically: Focus on policies, directives, and consistent public positions affecting individual rights. That’s justice by essentials, not by insinuation. [1]
• Form the rational replacement: “I will not use package-deal slurs. I will judge Trump by specific, evidenced statements and actions. Where a statement is false, I will name the statement, the evidence, and its scope; where a policy violates rights, I will name the policy and the principle it breaches.” [2]

3. Examples of corrected, reality-based formulations

• Instead of “habitual liar”: “On [date], he claimed X; according to [verifiable source], X is false. I will track such cases over time before concluding there’s a pattern.” [1]
• Instead of “white supremacist”: “I have/not seen evidence that he endorses racial hierarchy or rights-violating measures based on race. I will reserve judgment pending concrete evidence.” [2]
• Instead of “narcissist/lunatic”: “I can’t know his inner psychology. I will judge the observable: statements, policies, and their consistency with facts and individual rights.” [1]

4. One-sentence correction

• “Drop the smear; state only what you can prove about specific words and deeds, in context and by degree, and suspend or refine judgment as new evidence warrants.” [2]

5. Quick checklist before you speak or post

• Is each term defined by essentials? [1]
• Do I have concrete evidence, reduced to perceptual facts? [2]
• Am I judging actions and statements, not minds? [1]
• Did I quantify scope and frequency instead of globalizing? [2]
• Does this judgment integrate full context and serve a rational purpose? [1][2]

Bottom line: The smear-string is a package-deal of arbitrary, context-dropped labels. Objectivism demands you replace it with specific, evidenced, context-kept judgments about statements and actions, stated in measured terms and tied to objective standards (facts and individual rights). [1][2]

Sources

1 Conquer Your Negative Thoughts by Daniel G, Amen

2 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff