Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Part 2 Collectivism Now the word consciousness, was a term coined by the French
sociologist Emile Durkheim and of course allot of people misconstrue when
people like myself talk about it, we are not bashing anything when we talk
about Mitwelt and our domestic duties its not about erasing those completely.
Its certainly not about running away from them.
Its again about a way of seeing its, its about the
way you do what you do, not necessarily what you do.
So in terms of even collectivism there's a small ''c'' collectivism
which is us all sitting here the ebb and flow the interactions
that we have on a mercurial level in daily society, we all need
each other I mean Jean Jack Rouse, everyone's proven that.
That everything we have is by exchange.
So the practical daily ebb and flow, you know, even the
*** needs and so on the practical needs, nobody is even...
We aren't looking at that at all.
We are looking at the psychic need to immerse
ones self in those states of consciousness,
its the total immersion so that one is not listening to the voice of the imperial self.
E.
Linderman of Harvard says: Modern research shows that much of what appeared to be
biological inheritance is in fact cultural inheritance transmitted socially.(Right
Mitwelt) This equilibrium of the individual, i.e mental health, would therefore
be dependent on his interaction with other members of the social network.
So they understand now that, far even more then genetic
or biological predisposition your character, your mental
health, your pathology, your sanity is largely dependent
on your proximity and conditioning of those around you.
That's basic.
Positive aspects of collectivism?
We are all human beings, as I said one body is more or like another.
When one baby cries in a room other babies often begin to cry.
When one person smiles we tend to spontaneously do the same.
The female menstrual cycle, when women spend
allot of time together it will synchronize.
Sociologist, sociologist Daniel DeLeon said:
When man started on his career, after having got
beyond the state of the savage, he realized
that cooperation was a necessity to him.(Right?
Obviously) He understood that together with others he could face his enemies
in a better way than alone; he could hunt, fish, fight more successfully.
David Hume the Scottish philosopher that: The mutual
dependance of men is so great in all societies that scarce any
human action is entirely complete in itself, or is performed
without some reference to the actions of others...
In short, this experimental inference and
reasoning concerning the actions of others enters
so much into human life that no man, while
awake, is ever a moment without employing it.
Have we not reason, therefore, to affirm that all mankind have always agreed in the
doctrine of necessity according to the foregoing definition and explication of it?
So when it comes to daily necessities even John Jack Rouso
said, yeah many people don't want to live in cities
with other people or in any other kind of republic but we
*** them to do it because there's benefits of doing so.
Right?
The house you live in you didn't build yourself, the meat
you eat you didn't kill yourself, so there's a compromise.
You compromise some individuality for some of the necessities of life.
Some of the great proponents of this collectivism.
One is Jürgen Habermas and of course Ludwig Vilkenstein on the left there.
Habermas points out that we have become slaves by communication...
(mistake and laughter) sorry no...
Hey Doctor Freud take a memo.
We become selves by communication and interaction with other selves.
We speak to be understood.
(These two guys where big on language and communication, the two top thinkers on words
and communication) And when we speak we watch
others and their responses to what we say.
We change as a result of these responses.
Eye contact, watching the facial movements and so on, body language.
They say that the self that I spoke of, the imperial self,
there claiming, is basically a construct of society.
And its very important to find out whether
these pragmatist and positivists are accurate.
It has enormous consequences for us psychologically
and spiritually if they turn out to be right.
As I said are we just what other people have made us?
But one of the biggest proponents in fact almost the father of
the philosophy of pragmatism George Herbet Mead had allot to
say on this and he has said that: ...the individual mind can
exist only in relation to other minds with shared meanings.
So he is basically saying that a mind is a collective entity.
Commentary on Mead points out that: Joint activity, including communicative
activity, is the means through which our sense of self is constituted.
There's Mitwelt to the max, you are what you are
entirely because of the group in which you live.
They have done research on this, they so you go to this tribe...
We have done it, the idioms, the customs, the humor its a
hundred percent based on your society, your social setting.
Commentary of Mead says: ...the individual organism also takes in the collective
attitudes of others, in the form of gestures, and reacts accordingly...
This process is characterized by Mead as the
''I'' and the ''Me'' (so there again he splits
it)...In other words, the 'I'' is the response of
an individual to the attitudes of others, while
the ''me'' is the organized set of attitudes of
others which an individual assumes...(on the
surface this all sounds fantastic) The ''I'' is
self as subject; the ''me'' is self as object.
The ''I'' is know-er, the ''me'' is the known...
You can look these up later on and digest it
clearer than we have time to delve into here.
...The mind or stream of thought, is the self-reflective
movements of the interaction between the ''I'' and the ''me''...
For Mead the thinking process is the internalized
dialogue between the ''I'' and the ''me''...
For Mead, existence in community comes before individual consciousness.
First one must participate in the different social
positions within society and only subsequently
can one use that experience to take the perspective
of others and thus become self-conscious.
Theodor Reik the psychologist said that: The intermediary
stage between the observation of others and self-observation
(Remember Jaynes saying we had no ''I'' even a few thousand
years ago there wasn't any concept of subjectivity at all.
Well in a way these people are sort of footnoting what
he was talking about) The intermediary stage between
the observation of others and self-observation is thus
the realization that one is observed by others...
...self observation is not a primary phenomenon.
It must be traced back to being observed.
One part of the self observes another part.
So when mothers looking at you, and other people are looking
at you, you see that they're looking at someone and there
act of gaze, Ponty would love this because again we're dealing
with perception, this phenomenon of perception which is
deep, but just the very act of somebody just looking at you
gives rise to you mimicking that, embodying that where you
begin to look at yourself and you divide into the ''I'' and
the ''me'' one is the observer the other is the observed.
Theodor Reik says: It takes two to practice
psychology, even psychological self-observation.
When you want to recognize and understand what takes place in
the minds of others, you have first to look into yourself.
Such a searching is only possible when a division
of yourself has preceded the observation.
Self-observation is the result of a late phase of psychology.
Nietzsche remarked.
''The Thou is older that the I''
Every child is selfish, but it is at first not interested in itself.
There is not even a clear-cut self.
Primitive observation is directed to the person or the persons in the environment.
There is no direct path from observation of others to self-observation.
The Thou remains for a long time the only object.
The I is but newly an object of observation - so young that many psychologists
had not discovered it as an object worthy of their attention until recently.
So look how young we are.
Humans are social animals.
By nature we bond with others, live with others, work and play with others.
Our whole lives are spent in some kind of
interaction or relationship with other people.
No matter how we look at it, we cannot ignore the fact that we are
fundamentally connected with other people in our world around us.
Our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings are all influenced by others.
In turn, we influence those around us.
Certainly individuals have different degrees of influence and reciprocation.
The concept of group consciousness (says Percival-Simmons) and of group
identification is necessarily for the further development of the self.
A child has to learn that he is a boy and different from a girl, that he is white
and different from a ***, that he is poor and different from those that are rich.
In these perceptions of difference the child
is learning to identify himself with a group
or groups and these group identifications are intrinsic of the development of the self.
In other words we mirror others and they mirror us.
So what that continuity that biographical self, we can call
it an ''I'', you know its all semantics, a ''me'', a self or
there could be all three depending on the relationships we
have and also the relationship that we have with our selves.
The creator of the Positivist movement, materialist
philosophy Auguste Comte said that: Humanity is the
only thing that can exist because we owe our whole
development to society, no matter how we look at it...
Truth to tell, it is the idea of the individual that is abstract.
Now.
We are a fly on the wall at this point because this is what they believe, right.
They take a page out of these positivists.
Christopher Lasch Culture of narcissism says: The human infant is born too soon.
We come into the world utterly unable to provide for our biological
needs and therefore completely dependent on those who take care of us.
The experience of helplessness is all the more
painful because it is preceded by the ''oceanic''
contentment of the womb, as Freud called it, which we
spend the rest of our lives trying to recapture...
The newborn experiences hunger and separation for the first time
and senses its helpless, inferior, and dependent position in the
world, so different from the omnipotence of the womb, where need and
gratification were experienced as emanating from the same source.
Repeated experiences of gratification and the
expectation of their return gradually give
the infant the inner confidence to tolerate hunger, discomfort, and emotional pain.
But these same experiences also reinforce an awareness of separation and helplessness.
As the infant learns to distinguish itself from its surroundings, it
begins to understand that its own wishes do not control the world...
Arno Gruen says: To be born human is to be born in danger, because
everything we come to know and do as human beings we must learn from others.
Furthermore, because we are the most impressionable,
flexible, and malleable of all creatures, we are capable of
being taught, learning not only more that is sound but
also more that is unsound than any other living creature.
The result is not intelligence, but confusion.
Our socializers, parents, teachers of every kind, bent on perpetuating the errors
which have been visited upon them by their socializer, and perceiving them as the
eternal truths pertaining to the raising and disciplining of children, commit - with
more or less the best intentions - the most awful atrocities upon their victims...
a deformation process called ''upbringing..''
a crippling of the child's potentialities for the realization
of its uniqueness'' So in other words he is talking about the
blurring, this is such an overwhelming form of conditioning
that almost from point go to the so called self, the ''I''.
That's why these so called pragmatists say it doesn't exist, well
I thought you where meant to be top philosophers or something.
I thought you where supposed to be from one of these prestigious Universities,
but you don't know that the reason you think the ''I'' doesn't exists is
because from point go it doesn't have a moment to even breath and by the way
do you see the logical inconsistency of what Mead and others are saying?
They're saying that you can only understand the
self or the ''I'' because others are looking at you
and you digest the fact that you are being looked
at and then you understand yourself as an object.
But surely you must see the contradiction of that.
Surely you must have even the most rudimentary
sense of ''I''ness to even register that, right?
Right?
Right?
Lets get clear on this.
You know it could be me just me sitting at home thinking about it you know.
No but I would say hang on, hang on not only are you people wrong when
you say there is no ''I'' you haven't given it a chance to speak!
But more than that, even in the most rudimentary
way if I notice my mom looking at me or
starring at me for goodness sake I must have
some matrix of an ''I''ness to even notice that.
But there the ones with the degrees.
So that leaves you to wonder then.
Go back to the original question.
We know that this social self this construct is ever changing as we move
through the Mitwelt, we certainly know that there is an imperial ''I'' that
seems to stay consistent through all of that which these people tend to
not want to admit exist, but certainly we must ask ourselves a question.
Is our self only just a persona?
Only a mirroring of other people?
And what happens when those other people aren't particularly sane?
In fact what happens if there completely pathological?
So the danger that threatens, yet again we repeat.
The problem is that underneath our social persona there may be no imperial Self.
There's many people of the highest bracket that believe there isn't one.
So then how do we find out?
Ask other people?
That just perpetuates the problem.
You have to go in and listen, think it out or strip away
layer by layer all the other conditioning, might you not...
Now: On one hand interacting with other people,
and being extrovert and social, allows us
to develop beyond the infantile or animistic
stage; the so-called ''Pleasure Principle''
(I'm not denying that.
Watch how they do things from their posture to...
You know you go to school you are looking at all the other kids, you know, obviously)
However, too much immersion in the world of
other people can mean a loss of ego identity.
Others become the measure of our worth.
and our estimation of what is good and bad in ourselves rest not on
our own rational understanding, but on the expectations of the herd.
And we are all doing it.
The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to critique what he
referred to as ''herd morality'' and the ''herd instinct'' in human society.
He was the number one guy to realize all this immersion and loss of self.
Almost everybody else that realized it is a footnote to this guy.
He says: In individuals, insanity is rare, but in
groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule.
There is the danger.
There is the danger that threatens.
His contemporary Arthur Schopenhauer said: We forfeit
three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people.
Alan Watts said: We seldom realize...
that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own.
For we think in terms of languages and images which we did
not invent, but which were given to us by our society.
We copy emotional reactions from our parents...
Society is our extended mind and body.
Something left out by Mead again, we...
Its a reciprocal circuit.
But he's pointing out this thing.
Taken to its extreme that's just telling you that your mind is 100% colonized.
As we said earlier on, yeah you can think about territorial-ism and
imperialist action and all sort of jack booting in the physical.
That's been documented a million times and I'm all for remedying it.
But how the hell are you going to remedy that when your mind is colonized?!
That's like cleaning a window with a greasy rag
and then complaining you cant see the view.
Erich Neumann psychologist Jungian said: Among primitives, and
wherever the conditions are primitive, the conflict between individual
consciousness and the collective tendencies of the unconscious is
resolved in favor of the collective at the cost of the individual.
That's the fallout that's the problem.
In other words the self basically cease to be our focus
and the world and other people assume, take its place.
The great French sociologist Alain Touraine says: Modern man
is constantly threatened by the absolute power of society.
Rand says: The social theory of ethics substitutes ''society''
for God - and although it claims that its chief concern in life
on earth, it is not the life of man, not the life of an
individual, but the life of a disembodied entity, the collective.
There thinking in terms of the collective and the species and the Darwinist
will try and tell you fraudulently that so does nature think and act that way.
According to you yeah not anybody else.
The internal psychic representative (or agent I say)
of the parents and the Mitwelt is known technically
in the jargon of psychology as the Superego, the Its
workings are defensive and largely unconscious.
(Very very important to understand the anatomy of consciousness.
So how does this happen, they didn't explain earlier
what is the engine of this, how does this happen?
Part of the ego, separate from the ego, called the Superego takes care of this.
It is the inner representative of all that external authority, primarily the parents.
One could split hairs and start talking about how one of
the parents is prohibitive and the other is permissive.
In the Victorian society when Freud wrote that was true.
That has just gone to pieces in the modern age
because the mother can be very prohibitive
and the father might be extremely permissive
there can be one parent families, you know.
That doesn't mean that Freud was wrong as allot of people try to insist.
It just means that time moved on and had he lived he would have also updated
his theories) The Superego molds the ego into the shape desired by society.
It attempts to find a harmonious relationship between the Umwelt and personal will.
When this harmony breaks down, neurotic symptoms occur.
So all psychologists, whether they admit it or not, it certainly
goes for those in the Freudian school who do admit it, there
primary work on you when you come with neurotic tendencies is to
work on the Superego, that's why they ask you about your parents.
Its not some psychobabble nonsense to make money, its because they have to ask
what was your relationship with those authority figures in the beginning.
Because you are embodying it, the next step is to find
out about this inner tyrant, this inner policeman.
The embodiment of all of that.
And how you may be beating yourself up when you are
not doing as your told by the almighty fathers.
And to make a point the consciousness is split
between the ego, the Superego and the ID.
There's a division taking place there.
There is an inner dialog going on between those two hemispheres right.
But shadow, right, allot of people talking about the shadow
especially in the New Age Movement books are written.
Not one sentence I have found to be accurate or even pertinent.
The so called ''shadow'' which we have to face and I agree with that, that you
need to integrate the so called shadow, but what does the word shadow mean?
Its incorporeal isn't it?
Its the shadow of something else, just like your physical shadow is.
So what is the shadow thrown by?
~Well...
the mind.
Yes but its more then the mind, the shadow is ultimately the Superego shadow.
This needs to be pointed out in the introduction, but you don't find it.
It is the Superego structure that is casting the so called shadow that need to be
integrated in other words that which is repressed is repressed by the Superego.
Its doing the repressing.
Repression being that you forget about something
and then forget that you forgot about it.
So the shadow is in fact is the creation of the
Superego or what was the Superego a metaphor for?
Society.
So the shadow is not some weird psychic hob goblin in the back of
your head as often in fiction and the psychobabble it is displayed.
No, you couldn't have a shadow without this
dynamic of interacting with society, you know
being prohibited by society and then repressing
those traits that society does not like.
That is called the shadow.
And the parts that you have learned and despise about
yourself, we will get to *** in the next section.
Therefore do you not see that the shadow is not in fact personal.
Now, Jung did admit this, Jung did speak about this
because he is really the one who coined the term shadow.
When I say that Freud referred to it it was not in that context.
Therefore the shadow is collective.
The shadow is not necessarily yours, this is
very important to realize, the shadow is not
yours it is all of societies impositions and restrictions upon you and then the famous
journey to the underworld right which is as old as the myths by the way and in all the
lands is the hero, the sun going into the
underworld to then face and embrace that shadow.
An age old concept, embrace the beast which is the self.
Because what is the shadow?
Even the text books tell you, it is the repressed content of yourself, its parts
of yourself that you've had to reject, because its being censored by society.
The Lakota Indians call it the Shadow Man and he comes out during war.
And they do rituals to thank him for coming out to war.
Now the: Conflict between the ego and superego (or the will
and the world) is often the main reason for the laundry
list of syndromes such as depression, melancholia, anxiety,
futility, antisocial behavior, aggression, and so on.
(And self *** I'll come to that) Of course we
all know that *** drives are the first targets
of the repressive censor, hence the normal state
of anxiety and tension within human beings.
The best person to address that is Wilhelm Reich.
He was a contemporary of Freud and he went into this deeper than Freud ever did.
But its obviously generally a coffee table fact that it
is the *** desires of children especially when they go
to school that is the first target of parental, social
and then ultimately inner repression and disassociation.
Its a given we don't need to explore it.
Now: Neo-Freudians realized that the dynamics and mores of man's societies
dramatically influence the internal forces of repression (or the superego).
Society's demand for conformity is a leading cause of pathology.
(Its the creation of the shadow) As societies
become more suppressive (we have been talking
about where we are going right) As they become
more suppressive (You repress they suppress.
Right?
Society suppresses and you pick up the slack and do the repressing)
As societies become more suppressive and ''closed,'' the superego
likewise becomes more repressive (scathing and tormenting), forcing the
individual to feel (and to be) increasingly alienated and anxious.
As the superego drags the ego toward the world, and as conformity and
collectivism increase, there is a corresponding repression of Self.
Hence more anxiety of the kinds we have described in the beginning.
So the superego is also key.
The valve of the superego is key to the level of anxiety that
we feel, both of the neurotic kind and also of the other kind.
As they are saying, when you are being looked at what does that give rise to?
Primary narcissism.
In this case I don't mean narcissism in a bad sense.
Its just a primary narcissism, where you start to realize I'm a child, I'm
a person but we know there is the negative sort of narcissism as well.
Five minutes after getting all this approval and smiles and
whatever you get when you are a child we end up craving it more
we become dependent on it and if our parents want to make us
dependent on it then we have got another syndrome to handle.
But these ques and affectations are likes the cords and wait till we
get to Psychic Vampirism by God are we going to do something on that,
but then when we receive the ques and affectations we mirror them back
we give them to other people, through the persona, the pseudo self.
We do that because we want them in return its a transaction we are dealing with
now, we call it love and all that nice fancy stuff its just a transaction.
Its socialization, its acculturation, its also addictive and oppressive.
People are driven to despair and neurosis and all sorts of
craziness pathology, psychopathy because of not getting it.
And the full manifestation of it on the social level
perhaps not individual but social is the Global Village.
The extreme version of it is ''I am you, you are me''
Herbert Meads wet dream.
I am who I am because of everyone that doesn't even make any sense.
That's even self contradictory.
Erich Fromm says: The majority of well-adapted individuals...
have lost their own self at an early age and replaced it
completely by a social self offered to them by society...
They have no neurotic conflicts because they themselves, and, therefore, the
discrepancy between their selves and the outside world have disappeared.
What he is talking about there is that you have repressed the imperial self to
such a degree that that other kind of anxiety doesn't even happen any more.
The suppression and the repression have done there work.
Now: We learned to understand the significance of hallucinations that play
a distinct role in the symptomatology of certain psychotic disturbances.
(Right psychotics talk about hearing voices)
Those patients hear voices that speak of them in
the third person and incessantly comment on and
criticize their actions and failures to act.
Freud traces those voices back to parental criticism.
The development of conscience is regressively reproduced by those patients, who
re-project the voices into the outer world from which they originally came.
So the superego is in hyper-drive, the patient doesn't know what is
happening, all it hears is I'm a bad guy, I'm this that, I'm lost.
And then in order to balance that out they believe they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ.
They do that because they are so needing to quieten that
voice to have some self esteem that its also out of control.
The person is so overwhelmed by the inner dictator.
Now Vance Packard said: Early in the fifties Fortune magazine...
viewed the trend uneasily and used the Orwellian word
''Groupthink'' to describe much that was going on.
It suggested that businessmen while deploring
creeping socialism in Washington might well
look at some of the ''subtle but pervasive
changes'' going on right in their own backyard.
Its writer, William H.
Whyte, Jr., stated; ''A very curious thing has been taking place in this country
almost without our knowing it, in a country where individualism - independence and
self-reliance - was the watchword for three centuries the view is now coming to be
accepted that the individual himself has no meaning except as a member of a group.
So it was instilled it was by design.
Its a hallmark of socialism.
Jung says: The man of today, who resembles more or less the
collective ideal, has made his heart into a den of murderers,
as can easily be proved by the analysis of his unconscious,
even though he himself is not in the least disturbed by it.
We are knee deep in these people.
And as we know inner *** soon becomes external ***.
Now these leaders they think of themselves as the buyers and sellers of human beings.
In fact Francis Bacons term for them was: Merchants of Light.
That's heavy.
There just, there just the inventors of the new and improved model.
That's what there Global Village is all about.
You know what they know?
They know that freedom itself is a very very young phenomena.
Remember when I said before, they say I'm not giving up my power because who
replaces me will be just as bad as me we're all the same so why should I give it up?
They also know that freedom that everybody is crying about, there going oh you
must be crazy that's about five minutes old and you know something there right.
Erich From explains: What characterizes medieval in contrast
to modern society is its lack of individual freedom.
Everybody in the earlier period was chained to his role in the social order.
A man had little chance to move socially from one class to another, he was hardly
able to move even geographically from one town or from one country to another.
With few exceptions he had to stay where he was born.
He was often not even free to dress as he pleased or to eat what he liked...
Medieval society did not deprive the individual of his
freedom, because the ''individual'' did not yet exist.
So now the social individual did not exist
sociologists agree that it is a recent phenomena.
The Julian Jaynes's are saying yeah your thought of
you even being an individual is relatively young.
And Big Brother thinks yeah, and its not good for
you, we're going to take away what you have of it.
Thomas Szasz says: ...the birth of psychiatry
occurs when the study of the human soul is
transferred from religion to medicine, when the
''cure of souls'' becomes the ''treatment of
mental diseases,'' and, most importantly, when
the repression of the heretic-madman ceases
to be within the jurisdiction of the priest
and becomes the province of the psychiatrist.
Oh that nasty craving for freedom, we'll take care of that.
It will just plague you to death that will.
Patrick McGuinn's worse nightmare.
Now these spirits have now usurped, this is one of the
psychopaths that was one of the psychologists who
believed that these medical men especially where saints
on earth he actually called them saints and saviors.
These spirits, he says, have usurped control over the earth and that all
those who are mentally disturbed have become so through their power.
They have a common starting point, a main principle
to which they are subordinated; selfishness.
(so in the earliest days they believe that everyone who was
deranged anyone who had abhorrent characteristics it was
that devilish selfishness and individuality that was causing
it to act that way causing them all that disturbance.
These architects built the mad houses, the bedlams,
the untold suffering of millions, innocent people,
good people, artists, creative, sensitive genius's
where incarcerated because they had this bug called
''selfishness'' This most evil of all evil ideas, he
said, is present in the most remote and in the closest
human relations; it is absorbed with the mother's
milk and finds a fertile soil in the human heart.
What kind of a psychopath is this?
If its in the mothers milk then leave it alone!
The same monstrosities exist today, with there new updated
version of the Global Village, the gulag, the bedlam.
Its my conviction, says Mikhail Gorbachev, that the human race
has entered a stage where we are all dependent on each other.
No other country or nation should be regarded in total
separation from another, let alone pitted against another.
That's what our communist vocabulary calls internationalism
and it means promoting universal human values.
Its Doublespeak, its the erosion of all human values.
More socialism, he says, means more democracy, (there's that
talismatic word) openness and collectivism in everyday life.
Hilary Clinton an expert on the subject.
We must stop thinking of the individual and
start thinking about what's best for society.
That's a classic, heh, we must.
''We'' there's that word, I'm already getting chills from the first word.
You want to stop thinking about individuals, remember that?
Think about the species think about the collectives.
We are you.
We will have head sets later, it will be coming out of the speakers.
We are you, I am everyone.
And the mushroom heads get in on the game.
You remember they where in it in the beginning.
Who can fail to see the need and importance of
thus gradually coming to the establishment of
a world authority capable of taking effective
action on the judicial and political planes?
Delegates to international organizations, public officials,
gentleman of the press, teachers and educators...
all of you must realize that you have your part
to play in the construction of a new world order.
This Jesuit Mason Ratzinger, co-founded the Bilderberg
group the Jesuit Ratzinger, money from Prince Bernhard.
Religion and Royalty.
Crown and gown.
Double-headed eagle.
Cross and Crown.
Behind there desks and lodge doors they're laughing at thinking we
believe all the blue, green, blue and red divisions of outside.
They love it.
Queen Beatrix Bilderberg group member she says: It is difficult (very
very difficult they are recalcitrants) It's difficult very difficult
to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea
of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supranational body.
We will get round to it its very hard work.
Remember that Tom Ridge quote during 911?
Civil liberties is the most precious gift we give our citizens.
Remember that?
Pennsylvania governor.
The man himself.
He said: The sacrifice of personal existence (Now look at this) The sacrifice
of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species.
Robert Temple in Open to Suggestion a book I highly
recommend along with Gustav Le Bon The Crowd, he says:
Hitler was a student of The Crowd, the famous book
by Gustav Le Bon which founded crowd psychology.
It is time we paid this subject more attention,
as so many millions of people have died...
as a result to it.
They have an ideology behind everything there doing.
The influence of repetition on crowds is comprehensible when the
power is seen which it exercises on the most enlightened minds.
This power, says Le Bon, is due to the fact that
the repeated statement is embedded in the long run
in those profound regions of our unconscious selves
in which the motives of our actions are forged.
At the end of a certain time we have forgotten who is the author
of the repeated assertion, and we finish by believing it.
Hes talking about embedded ideas.
The Global Village, the Iron Cage of Bureaucracy, The
Village, is basically technically called a superorganism.
Entities within the organism cannot survive on their own if removed from it.
That's the plan, its been moving towards it for generations.
As I said Michel Foucault called it Total Institution
look that up, we also refer to it as Governmentality.
Government, control of the Mind, ''gubernare'' to row,
steer or navigate or control the direction of something.
And ''menta'' is Mind.
Now: The superorganism is a product of the superego, that is, of our inner surveyor.
We are always watched, we are always safe.
We make our society the Panopticon and become
what Foucault referred to as ''docile bodies''
(We have already explained how that happens, when you self
mutilate yourself.) In effect, we are Panopticonized.
Are we not?
Erich From says: ...the sick individual finds himself at
home with other all other similarly sick individuals.
The whole culture is geared to this kind of pathology.
The result is that the average individual does not experience the
separateness and isolation the fully schizophrenic person feels.
He feel at ease among those who suffer from the same deformation.
(Remember the schizophrenic being the one who is trying to hold on to the last
vestiges of what his imperial self has under all the weight of his terribly torn mind.
That's why they have the troubles they do and are in the state that they are.
Remember that scene in Pink Floyd ''The Wall'' where he goes through
the incredible right of passage and smashes up the hotel room which
is a metaphor for his mind, he slowly methodically, piece by piece
picks up every broken shard and makes this amazing mandala of it all.
Remember that?
Remember that scene?
That is what the schizophrenic has to do to be born again from the flames,
order out of disorder, a Zen action, creation out of destruction.
But not everybody can do that.
And sometimes its quite impossible to do that.
In the psychic vampirism we go into detail case history quotes from
schizophrenics that will tell you what goes on in there own minds and the hell
that they have gone through in relationship to the authorities around them
and also how they where categorized and shunted aside and restrained.
Le Bon says: It is easy to prove how much the
individual forming a part of a crowd differs
from the isolated individual, but it is less easy
to discover the causes of this difference...
the most careful observations seem to prove that an
individual immersed for some length of time in a
crowd in action soon finds himself - either in
consequence of the magnetic influence given out by the
crowd, or from some other cause of which we are
ignorant - in a special state, which much resembles the
state of fascination in which the hypnotized individual
finds himself in the hands of the hypnotizer...
He is mesmerized, he is colonized, he is enthralled, enthralldom.
Its also known as Participation Mystique a primitive concept.
M.
Esther Harding says that: The man caught in such
identification loses his capacity to make an
individual judgment, he relinquishes his autonomy
and vests it for the time being in a group.
Thus he is no longer in any real sense an individual.
He is only a member of a group, identical in all
respects with the other members; what they do
he does, what they feel he feels, what they think
he thinks and what they ignore he too ignores.
Its like a form of reverse possession.
But the man who is psychically little, the
psychically little man, he feels this largess.
By hanging around another bunch of likewise broken souls.
Erich Neuman speaks about the Participation
Mystique he says: So long as the ego was swimming
in the belly of the Ouroboros, a mere ego germ,
it shared in that paradisial perfection.
This autarchy holds absolute sway in the womb, where
unconscious existence is combined with absence of suffering.
Everything is supplied of its own accord, there is not need of the slightest exertion,
not even an instinctive reaction, let alone a regulating ego consciousness.
One's own being and the surrounding world - in this case, the mother's body - exist
in
a participation mystique, never more to be attained in any environmental relationship.
He is wrong, they are working on it.
They know that.
And they want to go back before the ego.
Before your tired of some superego, there going
to do it all for you they have an injection
ready, a pill waiting, a Global Village incarceration
waiting for you in which we will walk.
If we don't have the imperial self on absolute Max we wont have
any choice because the crowd is heading in that direction.
They're going to create that womb.
Watch Demolition Man with Sylvester Stallone and
other movies of that type, Equilibrium and so on.
They are literally know that, remember when I said they know our psychology
they understand libido, the *** hangups, they understand history they know
where we come from, they know these are recent, they are working to create
''Mama'' another great female womb but a technical one an artificial one.
That's why allot of symbolism around this is water, female,
feminine, statues of liberties and God knows what else.
Even the design of the malls and so on.
Watch out for this female symbolism.
Because they know that's the lure.
And if we don't know how to resist that lure we are on the hook.
Le Bon says that: The conviction of crowds assume those characteristics of
blind submission, fierce intolerance, and the need of violent propaganda
which are inherent in the religious sentiment, and it is for this reason
that it may be said that all their beliefs have a religious form.
(There always shacking hands with some mushroom head) The hero
acclaimed by a crowd is a veritable god for that crowd...
The crowd demands a god before everything else.
Just another mysteria.
Louis Laplan says: No matter how effusive our rhetoric to the contrary, most
Americans cannot bring themselves to trust the unaffiliated individual.
We prefer to repose our confidence in institutions,
a brand name, a corporation, a bank.
It is the figure of Babbitt or Cyprus Vance, not Clint
Eastwood, who represents the triumph of the American Dream...
George Simmel sociologist practically the Great
of sociology he said: The deepest problems
of modern life flow from the attempt of the individual to maintain the independence
and individuality of his existence against the sovereign powers of society, against
the weight of the historical heritage and the external culture and technique of life.
The antagonism represents the most modern form of the conflict which
primitive man must carry on with nature for his own bodily existence.
So we haven't progressed anything at all we are still living in the jungle.
Just in a different way.
From says that: ...the vast majority of people
in our culture are well adjusted because they
have given up the battle for independence sooner
and more radically than the neurotic person.
They have accepted the judgment of the majority so completely that they have
been spared the sharp pain of conflict which the neurotic person goes through.
(He is speaking about the positive neurosis of you trying to resist otherwise these
quotes wouldn't be understandable unless we laid that down) that While they are
healthy from the standpoint of ''adjustment'' they are more sick than the neurotic
person from the standpoint of the realization of their aims as human beings.
The insanity of normality.
Jung says that: It is a notorious fact that the morality of the society as a whole
is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the
more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests
entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this.
Hence every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man
when he is in society (or in a group) than when acting alone...
So these Queen Beatrix's these slime these
Hilary Clintons that's what there working on,
they want you to get rid of that individuality knowing that the morality goes with it.
They want that because they are immoral, but if you
are equally immoral then you cant blame them you see.
So there filth and there dirt and there crime
hey, is the kettle calling the pot black here?
Its like any petty criminal standing up there in the dark saying ''Well, hey
they stole from me'' trying to mitigate his case that's what they are doing.
Jung goes on to say: ...for he is carried by society and
to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility.
(Now we see the real season we go for it) Any
large company composed of wholly admirable
persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid and violent animal.
The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable
is its immorality and blind stupidity.
Go and ask the Icelandic people what happened to them, go and find out
what this mob rule, these clicks how they can even do what they do.
Because that's one of our questions.
How can they even do what they do?
How can they sleep at night?
Well if there's no individuality there there's no conscience to worry them.
From says: ...Society is divided into two groups;
those seeking to break their mental and emotional
coding and actualize selfhood, (the imperial anxiety
and the legitimate anxiety crowd) and those
seeking only to conform and sacrifice their identity
to the many ideologies, lifestyles and cults
which proliferate, and which are designed to
erase personal identity and reward collectivism.
You try telling that to your parents and see just by
design there ready to send you to the kookey farm.
But the top intellects have said it.
Written it down.
Now: ...Those who conform, who remain within the relative comfort zone,
who never aspire toward independence of thought or action, and who even
suppress those who do, deeply hate themselves for their love of falseness,
for their material attachments, and for their systemic weakness.
(Now he is touching on where we are going later.
The nerve of the self hatred, breading, festering under people especialy these
big boys at the top) This hatred must, at times, be vicariously processed.
This is achieved in a myriad of fascinating ways, one of which is *** toward others.
(Age of Manipulation 3 we will find out the
fascinating ways of what he is talking about.
The vicarious processing through you.
Through your field through your consciousness through your cells,
then you wonder why you are feeling depressed and unhealthy.
Why life is tough, while you are resting your head on the *** of the one who is
causing it all) The most severe manifestation of such violence is, obviously, war.
So in other words all of the cacophony and chaos
you see, we know its orchestrated yes, but
its also a necessary vicarious processing of
this inner armageddon that's going on within.
When we get to solutions we will find out what to do about it.
Now: ...This surrender of one's own self has often
been praised as the example of ''the great love''
(Look at my medals) It is actually a form of
idolatry and also an annihilation of the self...
Except its in physical terms in war there just dying in the trenches.
But that person is probably already psychically dead long time before that.
There humanity and there sense of self is already long killed off.
What does it matter then how many millions die?
As Colin Powell says: Its just a statistic I'm not that interested in it.
Now: ...This drive is also rooted in a deep anxiety and an
inability to stand alone, but instead of finding increased
strength by being swallowed, strength and security are
found in having a limited power over the other person.
The masochistic as well as the sadistic kind of love are an expression of
one basic need which springs from the basic inability to be independent.
And Arno Gruen puts it in succinct terms he
says: ...a distorted development of autonomy
is the root cause of the pathological and ultimately, evil element in human beings.
They pick up the pieces they are in no doubt about it.
They don't need politicians and religious leaders to lead you astray.
He goes on to say: The more love I turn toward the outside
world the less love I have for myself, and vice versa.
(People cringe when you say that) Freud is thus
moved to describe the phenomenon of falling in love
as an impoverishment of one's self-love because all
love is turned to an object outside of oneself.
We are very young we have allot to learn.
What is the point of loving someone that doesn't love themselves.
And do you really expect them to give you love
if they have no clue how to love themselves.
Keep doing it.
In popular usage, says Rand, the word ''selfishness'' is a synonym of evil; (She
nails it) the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles
of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues
nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word
'selfishness'' is: (simply) concern with one's own interests.
Look how much erosion is taking place.
She described us as living in an *** of self sacrifice.
Now this thing becomes important to understand because the
collectivist mind set, and those who embody it who you will be
meeting watch for this one, in there mind the collectivist
imagines that everything he thinks about and produces and creates
an opinion on, but also what he produces and creates is
everyone's property that's what Ayn Rand went to great length to
show and dramatize that everything I've got the collectivist
says and everything I think about that's everyone's property.
The only trouble is they under emphasize the other side of that.
Everything you produce, think about, have an opinion on and create is his property.
It doesn't sound so good does it?
Everything you think about, everything you create,
everything you do is everybody else's property.
I thought that constituted ***.
Rand goes on to say: A society that robs an
individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves
him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind,
or compels him to act against his own rational
judgment - a society that sets up a conflict between
its edicts and requirements of man's nature
- is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a
mob held together by institutional gang-rule.
Professor Charles Osgood and Stuart Umpleby they
write: In the organization of civilization of
the future we anticipate that the individualistically
- oriented man will become an anachronism.
Indeed, he will be viewed as a threat to the
group organization as well as to his fellow man.
(They are for it by the way) Hence, as stated, he in
all likelihood will have few individual expectations.
While such a picture may not be pleasant to contemplate...
we would be amiss to deal with unrealistic
imagery's that would blind us to future reality.
They cant wait, they cant wait.
Bertrand Russell said it this way: Diet, injections and
injunctions will be combined from a very early age.
To produce the sort of character and the sort of
beliefs that the authorities consider desirable.
And any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
That's why I'm saying you now see us rebelling and creating blogs and all sorts
of things and waving placards you see that might not be happening tomorrow.
That's why its deeper, the perfect slave is being created, hale the providers!
The French poet Charles Peguy said that: Tyranny
is always better organized then freedom.
Tyranny is always better organized than freedom.
And if your disorganized mentally and emotionally
you will take those handrails now From says:
It is the feeling of isolation, of being shut out,
which is the painful sting of every neurosis.
Even the most irrational orientation if it is shared
by a considerable body of men gives the individual
the feeling of oneness with others, (So if all
your looking for is that approval, those ques and
affectations you don't mind what there doing you really
don't mind who there slaughtering you will sit at
the bottom of the pyramid going that was a bigger heart
then the last one, as its being cut out and eaten.
Boy he had allot of blood didn't he?
That was a really good one.
Didn't they come in gangs to come watch hangings and bring
there kids give them sweeties and marshmallows in the
medieval days to watch some poor guy get hung, drawn and
quartered because he tried to kill the king, the real tyrant.
They used to go ahead and carve with a knife some passage from the bible or I repent.
Or the name of the King, that's what it was the
name of the king was actually cut into the chest.
You are owned) Even the most irrational orientation if it is
shared by a considerable body of men gives the individual
the feeling of oneness with others, a certain amount of
security and stability which the neurotic person lacks.
There is nothing inhuman, evil, or irrational which does
not give some comfort provided it is shared by a group.
So how much does the welfare, we will take a
brake right now, but to make it very personal
to us, this is not accusatory or anything but we need to start asking the question...
Yes, how mush does the welfare and behavior of other people preoccupy your mind?
Don't criticize yourself for thinking that way, don't beat yourself or don't
repeat more self *** observe it just purely Zen just observe it scientifically.
Take a day a 24 hour period, a 48 hour period or a month or a week I mean.
And admit it to yourself how much the welfare and the existence of
any other people doesn't matter who it is preoccupies your mind.
Don't judge it don't criticize it and don't beat yourself up for it.
Merely observe it and many many incredible things will happen.
We will come back and look more and unpack another aspect of this
which is the self *** lets take a short 10-15 minute brake.
____ Part Three Self--*** Okay now we unpack
it a bit more, which gets deeper into the
psychology aspect and look at the whole concept of
the self *** because as a matter of fact as I
said before crime in its physical manifestation
of violence and *** as its normally called
has been well documented but the worse crimes are
done to the self and they're not documented.
We are very very young in understanding this whole
concept of self *** or masochism as its often called.
Don Miguel in The Four Agreements he says: In your whole life
nobody has ever abused you more than you have abused yourself.
And the limit of your self-abuse is exactly the
limit that you will tolerate from someone else.
If someone abuses you a little more than you abuse
yourself, you will probably walk away from that person.
But if someone abuses you a little less than you abuse yourself, you
will probably stay in the relationship and tolerate it endlessly.
So again we ask: When you think about yourself, are your thoughts
positive or negative, creative or destructive, loving or violent?
You can look it up.
Psycho-phobia.
R.D Lang.
Psycho-phobia, phobia of your own mind.
Can you believe it?
The fear of our own thinking process.
Each year in the UK more than 24,000 teenagers are admitted
to hospital after deliberately harming themselves.
But only a small proportion - around 13% - of self-harm episodes
are thought to result in a hospital visit and its on the increase.
Lang says that the only death we recognize is biological death.
And in the following talk we will be looking very deeply into the
nature and dynamics of what I refer to as the self murdered person.
They are the worlds greatest threat.
Whether they are on the corporate or governmental
level or right in the bed next to you.
So as I said the fancy word for it is masochism but I refer
to it as self-*** and it is a bit of a bizarre concept
because we don't normally think of people who are walking
around being dead, right, because they are walking around.
But the fact of the matter is you can be psychologically dead.
Self murdered.
How can that person do any good in the world?
In fact they create havoc wherever they go.
And we cant expect the world to be good, pleasant or civilization to
move forward until every shred of the self *** has been erased.
So fixing things on a governmental level is only a
small small part of the action that is required.
We have to deal with this inner *** the violence we
commit to ourselves on a daily even momentary basis.
When all of that stops, then and only then is the person
capable of going out and affecting true change in the world.
Gurdjieff, the mystic.
says: It happens fairly often that essence dies in a man
while his personality and his body are still alive.
If you take a good hard look around you will see he is right.
Søren Kierkegaard said: The biggest danger, that of losing oneself,
can pass off in the world as quietly as if it were nothing.
Look at that (awe) And then this character is running around
sitting on boards affecting change getting married having kids.
Nathaniel Branden in his book The Disowned Self
says: Nothing is easier than for men to practice
self-renunciation; they do every day; it is not a
difficult feat or a moral achievement; it is a disease.
Not selfishness but the absence of self, not self-esteem but self-alienation,
makes possible the barbaric cruelty that men practice against one another.
Now, as I said, something interesting about the mind is that
when you try to do investigation of your own self its not easy.
Partly because of these defenses, partly because of the monitoring of the superego.
So the very action of trying to observe yourself
is difficult, comes with complications partly the
cacophony right created by our interactions with
the Mitwelt and the Umwelt also block it out.
The noise and the cacophony of our external world and our entanglement in those realms.
Often the racket of it blocks out the other dialog.
Remember the Monty Python sketch when they are sitting
in the board room asking why people don't get
enlightened and one character reads from a paper and
says: We have discovered its because people become...
And just as he is about to say ''distracted'' he gets distracted
and sees this skyscraper crashing through the window.
Very very good point though.
Alan Watts says is: Nothing so eludes conscious inspection as consciousness itself.
This is why the root of consciousness has been called paradoxically, the unconscious.
And we alluded a little bit towards why that division took place is because
allot of it is because the repression that took place, the trauma.
The divide and the rise of the ego is because it has
to section off that part of us the ancestral mind.
Its too raw, its too soon in the game of history
for us to visit that pain of what happened
ancestrally through the cataclysms and traumas
and I also must add the genetic interference.
Jung says that: To find out what is truly
individual in ourselves, profound reflection is
needed; and suddenly we realize how uncommonly
difficult the discovery of individuality is.
And unfortunately that is one of those skills that is being lost.
Children today that are coming through the schools don't even have
the hard wiring for that kind of insight that's how bad things are.
They wouldn't know what you are talking about.
A simple critical skills, the introspective skills they were
quite natural to people in the past are now becoming extinct.
Its all stages on the way.
Now From says that: Freud found that if the analyst touched on repressed
material the patient would ''resist'' his therapeutic approach.
This is not a matter of conscious unwillingness on the part of the
patient or of dishonesty or of secretiveness; he is defending
himself against the discovery of the unconscious material without
being aware either of the material or of his resistance...
The patient can turn away from the sensitive topic and talk about
something else; he can feel sleepy and tired; he can find a
reason not to come to the interview - or he can become very angry
against the analyst and find some reason to quit the analysis.
Projection right, all these defenses in other words
what is happening is we are hiding from ourselves.
Theodore Reik says that: The ego has built mighty defenses against the
forbidden impulses that drive and push to gain some measure of expression.
They are pressed into oblivion, into the dark abyss
of rejected and condemned emotions and thoughts.
They are disavowed, banned, and outlawed, and
live in the netherworld, never to be mentioned.
In panic fear of their power, man has rolled obstacles as strong
as the rock of Gibraltar before the door to prevent their return.
They betray themselves, nevertheless, and give notice of their subterranean
existence and activity in little, unsuspected signs, words, and gestures.
They give themselves away in spite of shame and fear.
Remember the imperial self is not going anywhere.
You cant kill it.
You can only cage it but its not going to die its not going to go away.
R.
D.
Lang was spot-on says Jeremy Griffith when he said that humans live with ''fifty
feet of solid concrete'' between themselves and the true world of their soul.
Scott Peck in his book People of Lie he says: A
man fights for a self that is not a true self.
It is only a shell, dependent on abstractions that
do not serve life itself but rather its concealment.
Remember the persona?
You immersing yourself in the Miltwelt is where you actually lose your soul.
You lose the very thing you where trying to fight for and maintain.
And William Barrett he says that: So long as we
remain in the womb of this externalized and public
existence and public existence, we are spared
the terror and the dignity of becoming a self.
So there he is saying you are negating the anxiety
that is the legitimate positive anxiety that
comes with these rights of passage and its
happening more and more in society this phenomena.
The schizoid person feels essentially unlovable.
They have no right to take up space on the planet.
An irrational inner critic, perhaps a vicious
internalized voice of mother or father, tells them
they are hopelessly at fault in some way, clumsy,
ugly, awkward or stupid, nothing but trouble.
These negative conclusions are unshakable.
That is in the extreme forms of the schizophrenic type.
And Christopher Lash says: Twentieth-century people have erected so many
psychological barriers against strong emotion, and have invested those
defenses with so much of the energy derived from forbidden impulse, that
they can no longer remember what it feels like to be inundated by desire.
They tend, rather, to be consumed with rage, which derives from defenses
against desire and gives rise in turn to new defenses against rage itself.
Outwardly bland, submissive, and sociable, they seethe with an inner anger for which
a dense, overpopulated, bureaucratic society can devise few legitimate outlets.
But they are going to start.
They are working on it.
Theodore Reik says that: One of the most important measures of civilization to make
that aggressiveness harmless can be studied in the evolution of the individual.
It will be turned inside, introjected, and
taken over by that part of the ego called the
superego that now in the form of ''conscience''
exercises aggressiveness against the ego.
(He is talking about the superegos totalitarianism,
psychic totalitarianism) The tension between the strict
superego and the subordinate ego is called 'sense of
guilt'' and it manifests itself as need for punishment.
Whence does the sense of guilt come?
(He asks) The first stage can be best designated as a dread of losing love.
(obviously one of the first anxieties is not the physical act of being born
but the idea that you might be separate, that separation from the mother.
But more than that...) A bad deed is one that, when discovered, would
be followed by the loss of love (and of protection) for the child...
(so the child is very innocent it doesn't realize that if it brakes a
window, a vase or pulls the cats tail or whatever it doesn't realize,
in its mind its dealing with the fact that that single act might
lose it completely the sustenance and love and sucker of the parent.
Look how powerful the parent is, and the parent will manipulate this as well.
The tyrannical parents manipulate that fact
that's why all this aberration to the child.
You are just this and your just that, you are going to get a spanking
I'm going to tell your dad when he comes home and all the rest of it.
Working on the child's fear of losing that love.
And of course its even more extreme in certain cases.
Now at this state when this sense of guilt is still a
social anxiety it will remain that at its core that
mean...) anxiety that the father or mother and later the
community will disapprove of and punish the miss-doer.
As a parent can exploit that so can big brother.
Now: Feelings of guilt occur first after one has committed a forbidden deed...
The sense of guilt that is later developed is
often unconscious and is sometimes perceived
only as some vague kind of anxiety or uneasiness,
for instance in many obsessional cases...
in its later phases the anxiety is toward the
superego: so to speak, dread of the superego.
''We analysts have been inclined to assume that any kind of thwarted
instinctual gratification results in a heightening of the sense of guilt.
Freud's newest insights convinced him that this is valid only for
the aggressive instincts (you feel guilty when you feel a swelling
up with aggression, but watch this...) in other words, the origin
of guilt feelings is in the area of the aggressive instincts.
Now: We are led to assumption that guilt feeling is generated
exclusively by aggression and not by any other drives, if this is
correct, we can expect that the same origin and character will
be found in the sense of guilt met in the evolution of mankind.
Religion particularly Christianity, traces the
guilt feeling of man back to an ''original
sin,'' (Right, mans sin against God there you have guilt) which is conceived as
*** transgression, to the 'weakness of the
flesh,'' or to sensual desire.(Or whatever)
Our whole civilization, including our education, is under the spell of this view.
It is common to the moralists, theologians, and philosophers who regard sexuality
as the root of man's criminality and sinfulness, as well as to the educator's
and psychologists (including psychoanalysts) who hope that freedom from ***
suppression will change man and remove the greatest obstacle in our civilization.
This writer is of the opinion that both groups are mistaken and believes that
also the guilt feelings of mankind have their roots in aggression and violence.
...unconscious elements were originally made unconscious
because such thoughts and impulses were not tolerated
by parents and teachers in earlier years, and continued
recognition of them would be anxiety-provoking.
In order to defend the ego against anxiety, resistances are
built up against the recognition of these unconscious impulses.
Which Reich is saying is aggression or anger, right.
But if the child's aggression is legitimate, which it often is, at being
controlled at being manipulated, at being thrown hither and thither.
Having this mental...
Catch 22, and control play that goes on, the whole drama, right.
That child's response that Reich is talking about but didn't mention
that it could be a legitimate expression against being controlled.
So the dynamic then is when natural perfectly legitimate anger
and aggression rises up as he said it gets introjected.
Now women introject more, men project.
Hence bulimia, anorexia and many more things that women suffer, in
fact even bad eye sight its all related to the introjection of anger.
But what he forgot to say was.
If its legitimate than look at the mess that you are in.
You are guilty over a natural expression and this then becomes
a syndrome that then keeps on spiraling out of control.
You end up with a big Cheshire grin as if everything's all right.
Or you try to ascribe to it like: I was a bad kid I deserved
what they did and you go through all of these justifications.
Now technically guilt is over physical misdemeanors
he mentioned shame and that's different.
Shame is over something else, we will have to get to that latter.
Lets just stick with that.
So the instincts that arise in the child, he is in a terrible compromised situation.
And this is working higher up the fractal as
well this is how Big Brother is also working.
You have the guilt over natural instincts that should be allowed to
be communicated and then you introject that anger toward yourself.
Its a terrible syndrome.
Well the justification: I've been treated
horribly by you, so now I can do the same to you.
This is one of the outpourings of this and by the time the kid is age 15 he is
acting this out or its paranoia the persecution complex: Everybody is out to get me.
Yeah well they are!
From a child's point of view that's perfectly rational.
Or the masochism: I expect to be treated badly.
I have never known anything else.
Go and ask aboriginals go and ask native American
Indians they are all suffering from this
syndrome they have been treated like dogs from
day one, what do you expect them to be later on.
They have to take the alcohol to suppress the aggression.
Legitimate aggression about being treated like dogs!
This can happen in the home, let alone in a culture.
Then the egomaniacal, narcissistic, pathological
aspect: I'll stand up for myself (pseudo-self).
I'm out for Number 1.
Nobody else cares to love me.
The problem is there not talking about the true imperial self.
The narcissist is caught in a trap because he is only
speaking about his pseudo self when he is out for Number 1.
That's why its another show an act, a dead end.
He wont get anywhere with that.
Then you have the negation: I don't need this ''love'' nonsense.
Aggression is good (it's a rat race, survival) this
is another syndrome, another kind of human being.
Or strength and power are important (must dominate.
Virtue is a convention) Virtue is merely the convention.
I say Nietzsche but Nietzsche has been so drastically
miss-translated that I have to put this in brackets.
That would be the quote unquote Nietzschian point of view.
And along with it the people that are walking
around saying that guilt and remorse is for
suckers because remember it was the superego that
was doing all the job the superego can crack.
The superego is not, we have been talking about how powerful it is, it can also crack.
There are certain periods in life and also in the chronology of the
human being where the superego is relatively week and can crack down
the middle and become faulty and when that happens the conscience
is no longer working at all as it is in many of these psychopaths.
And even today when we are talking about modern concepts of freedom its the
kind of freedom that has no virtue or morals like From was saying earlier on.
If you have murdered yourself like we said in the
beginning what do you care about anybody else.
Erik Fromm says that: ...the intensely destructive
person will show a front of kindliness courtesy;
love of family, of children, of animals; he
will speak of his ideals and good intentions.
But not only this.
There is hardly a man who is utterly devoid of any kindness, of any
good intention, if he were, he would be on the verge of insanity...
Hence, as long as one believes that the evil man
wear's horns, one will not discover an evil man.
And in the Psychic Vampirism talk we're going to be able to come
out the other end of that knowing 100% how to spot them instantly.
That is going to help the world move forward.
As a matter of fact these people.
In that talk you will find out there is a term for them, its called ''constitutional
psychological inferiors'' they are actually
diagnosable, those people without a conscious.
We have to develop that skill to be able to see them as such.
Oh well I thought that word inferior is never to
be used that is one of those that's just taboo.
Oh is it?!
You are surrounded by them.
You are voting for them.
You are hiring them at work.
You might be given birth by a couple of them.
You might be sleeping beside one.
And so its time we found out.
And there ain't no meter you can pull out and say
honey hang on a minute, lets plug you in here, ***!
It doesn't work like that I'm afraid, right, there is no physical meter.
There is a physical meter and it is called intuition.
Its called rational ability.
But the thing is the terrible paradox again the idea that aggression is
rooted in the true self seeking expression and a society that cant handle it.
So the women introject the men project.
But the thing is even Freud would admit don't expect that repression to just disappear.
That which is oppressed, that anger is just
boiling inside and its just going to come out
in war, in violence and in family feuds and
whatever else it will always find a way out.
$ George P Marrs says: Man is everywhere a disturbing agent
wherever he plants his foot the harmonies of nature are turned to discord.
Nature is the self, self is nature.
If you have self *** against yourself of course
you are going to act in an ecocidal manner.
Osho the mystic said: Your whole idea about yourself is
borrowed from those who have no idea who they are themselves.
Seeking guided from the misguided.
Edward Young the English poet said: We are born as originals but die as copies.
Gruen says: The source of aggression and destructiveness
lies in our culture, not in the individual.
(Remember superego, shadow, superego) And everything
that reinforces the fragmentation of our personality
and closes off access to our inner world contributes
to the creation and growth of our destructive drives.
And didn't we say that the superego being the representative of the
boss hogs as the suppression increases the repression increases.
So this is why I cannot for the life of me leave consciousness
at the door and leave all this conspiratorial research.
Its impossible they go together.
They are absolutely intimately linked.
And Ayn Rand says that: Man is the only living species that has the power to act as
his own destroyer - and that is the way he has acted throughout most of his history.
Right, Cain and Able creation has just happened and one of them is
already a murderer and the god if you read the bible wasn't much better.
Michael Staub $ says that: Harvard psychiatrist
Robert Coles went so far as to speculate in
1967 that there would never be an ''end to mental
illness'' due to advances in medical research -
because ''mental illness'' (he himself put the words
in quotation marks) was ''a social problem involving
the family, the nursery, the neighborhood, the
nation and its economic or political condition''
To treat the sickness of the individual, psychiatrists
had first to concede the sickness in society.
Which they are not doing only a group called the post Freudians and then that
group we discussed the existential psychologists and most of them are unheard of.
Anna Freud created a neo-Freudian school where
they put the entire focus on the superego.
Fantastic research there and they shifted there
entire understanding of pathology during
Freud's time it was thought that men went insane or schizophrenic or had hallucinations
because the ID right the unconscious was
bleeding over its protean content demonic stuff,
right, into it flooding the ego this was originally then the diagnosis of insanity.
By the time Freud had die and had assisted his daughter who had
took over they realized that: No that is only in very rare cases.
It is the superego chipping away and damaging the ego and the
whole movement changed and was then called ego-psychology.
So if you look up on the web 'ego psychology Anna Freud'' this is where they go.
Major, major critic of our society that's why you haven't heard of her.
That's why you haven't herd of Ludwig Binswanger
and Otto Rank also the others in that school.
Or when you do hear about them its imbeciles who
don't understand anything about psychology.
Important quote from James Hillman because he
is never letting us forget the archeology:
...archeology supports the view that warfare is a
development of only the past ten thousand years.
There's the trauma point that I insist upon has to be taken
into consideration the prehistoric origins of all of this.
James Waller says that: Throughout human history, social conflict is ubiquitous.
Wars erupt naturally everywhere humans are present.
Since the Napoleonic Wars, we have fought an average of
six international wars and six civil wars per decade.
(Even god took of one day from all the slaughter
he was involved in) An average of three
high-fatality struggles have been in action
somewhere in the world at any moment since 1900.
The four decades after the end of World War II saw 150 wars and only 26 days of peace
- and that does not even include the innumerable internal wars and police actions.
(There is actually a book called Death By Government,
get it, Rudolph Rummel the writer of that book
proves that governments slaughter more of there own
people than any external adversary, absolutely,
the statistics are there) Buried in the midst of
all of our progress in the twentieth century are
well over a 100 million persons who met a violent
death at the hands of their fellow human beings.
That is more than five times the number from the nineteenth century
and more than ten times the number from the eighteenth century.
So things are getting worse.
So we are going to look at, because after all the post human
world involves the technological assault that is a key part it.
We have looked at some of the psychological its only fair to look a litle deeper
at some of the technology and again I am not bashing science in the least.
PART FOUR TECHNOLOGY Its a total look at scientism, scientism just in the same way as
when you look at the institutions of religion you are not necessarily making a comment
about individual believers, the deity or god so in the same way when we are looking at
science we cannot fault the creations of science
but its the ideology behind the science.
The trickle down from upstairs.
And some of the mysteria they believe in.
Because as a matter of fact I believe the
greatest critic one could have on the scientism
is there fundamental misunderstanding between physical and psychic energy the macrocosm
and the microcosm and that comes out of that
whole Cartesian view that we cannot go into
but that I have gone into in the Disciples of the Mysterium where we explore that view.
Theodor Rozak explains the basic ideology and there concept that you have to fix
there imperfections he says: The astronomical image of man - and it is nothing
but the quintessence of urban industrial society's pursuit of the wholly
controlled, wholly artificial environment - amounts to a spiritual revolution.
This is man as he has never lived before, it draws a line through human
history that almost assumes the dimensions of an evolutionary turning point.
So it has been identified by Teilhard de Chardin,(Jesuit by the way) who
has given us the concept of the ''noosphere,'' a level of existence
that is to be permanently dominated by human intellect and planning,
and which our species must now adapt if it is to fulfill its destiny.
See so the ideology that man is imperfect change is required
an evolutionary turning point in there scheme of things