"Trust me. Without Vard, no one would call me a narcissist."
I'm pretty sure I don't need a bandwagon to see the signs personally. It's not like you're the only narc I've encountered.
You want Ed to be why people think that, for that is an easier story for you to swallow. If it wasn't him, it'd be someone else, and as long as it's someone you'll never have to really face what's going on.
"The sides thing is real too, and it's by no means a coping mechanism. Am I not stuck here having to solo some of you ?"
It's not a matter of sides. You instead try to make it into a matter of sides so that you can more easily handle what's going on. Either you can deflect it by playing the role of martyr, or you can feel like you're winning and showboat. Without a middle ground you are able to translate it into something you can more easily grasp.
"It's funny how their efforts to defame me go unquestioned, meanwhile you claim I perform unprovoked attacks on Alia."
It's unquestioned because it's obvious, as they aren't even trying to hide the fact. It's also not worth noting since you do plenty to defame yourself alongside them.
As for the Alia thing, it comes up often enough from you to appear as a fixation you're unable to drop. You elaborate on it to unnecessary degrees while it does nothing for you to do so. Paired with that is the desperate digging into the past so that you don't find yourself without a reply, but the stuff you dig up makes the desperation transparent.
"As a reminder, you for one would say I'm arrogant, why can't you see that I'm forced to believe that I'm smarter than you ?"
I and others see fairly clearly why you're forced to believe that. 
You need it to be the case to feel better about yourself. True or not, it's the preferred tale that allows your internal script to continue. Another example of how people "choose the facts", something that's blasphemous to you since you need to believe your tales are true to continue to function.
"Between you and I, you're the attacker. I'm not even putting any effort into this discussion and just defaulting to the truth."
"Attacker" and "Defender", another case of black vs white, a binary appraisal.
It's not that simple, but at this point I don't expect you capable of understanding that.
"Now It'll sound a bit conceited, but the truth is the ultimate line of defense. What I say is comprised of the truth while what you bring is based off of wishful thinking, probably because you don't want to admit to yourself of the errors you've made by groupthinking, and appearing as a groupthinker."
I'll admit when groupthink influence is the case, and have in many instances, but this is one where I can be quite assured that it's independent of that.
This sounds more like wishful thinking on your part, needing that paragraph to be the case so that you don't have some sort of breakdown.
"I'm aware it sounds arrogant to you and some others, but for the intuitive, they know the truth and I appear innocent to them. Cause I am."
In conclusion, another case of defaming what you've defined as an enemy before giving a quality to all who pick a side...
How can you take yourself seriously when you follow such transparent patterns? The motive for this brand of thinking you're displaying is barely shrouded at all.
