I like the repeated query in this piece, "Why are people going along with x, or y?" or what have you. From a psychoanalytic perspective sans the jargon, the focus on what is in the measures specifically, i.e. what rights are being violated by the various orders of the day, is misdirected. More important is a focus on the source of these orders and the symbolic functions of this source in the (unconscious) minds of citizens.
Canada in the modern era has prided itself - that is, the citizens have prided themselves - on its peaceful, friendly, common sense, down to earth approach to social issues. We identified ourselves with this ideal of the always affable, honest and straightforward Everyman, our ego ideal if you will. Now this ideal must be protected and buttressed by a constant flow of external verifications. I would contend that that constancy has been projected onto the government. How could Canadians, who were so decent, NOT have a government that reflected their personal strengths? For our society to have lasted so long (and even there, it's a joke that Canadians are so parochial that they think they have any ideological longevity, any political momentum as compared to, let's say, Europeans or South Asians) being so 'nice' means the government must be as nice as their citizens.
And here is where it gets interesting, psychologically speaking. If the government lasts long enough, which it has, then the source of this niceness shifts over time to the government itself, rather than resting in its citizens. What began as a reflection changed overctime into an original source. Citizens project their own assumed goodness onto the institution they've created as a society to care for that society, just as - here it is! - children project their own goodness onto their parents, even when those parents are behaving despicably.
Insofar as children's identities are, to a great extent, established in the persons of their parents, to perceive that one's parents are evil is to annull the goodness in one's self by indirectly allotting parental evil to one's ideal self. And this is insupportable.
So for those citizens whose self-concept is not yet individuated (per Jung), the government must be perceived, facts to the contrary notwithstanding, as good and well-meaning. It is this aspect of the government being well-intentioned that is unconsciously assumed, and fetishized when confronted by the harsh reality of the actual 'character' of the government, by psychologically immature citizens. And it is this unconscious assumption that must not be threatened, and that,therefore, must be unconsciously and frantically strengthened -because a Lockean belief in the goodness of government is, after all, ridiculously shaky when seen from the perspective of a mature individual who understands that greed and schadenfreud are as omnipresent in Canadian government as are honesty and empathy. The unacknowledged assumption of the goodness of government must not be allowed to be examined in the light of day, ESPECIALLY in the face of an enormous and growing amount of data that shows precisely the opposite.
So, this is why the frog didn't jump out of the pot, and why the facts of any particular violation of human rights don't matter. It is under the surface that this perceptual defense (see A. Worthington's 1960s work on perceptual defense) takes place, and prevents any facts to the contrary from being permitted to enter conscious thought because of the unthinkable (literally!) threat it symbolizes against the character of mummy/daddy government and the concomitant character of the childlike citizen.
Great interview, thanks. Jerm is always great too. A number of us have said already that this 'lull' is disturbing, waiting for the other shoe to drop. But, as you mention in the interview, it isn't really a lull - it only feels like one on the surface. The bad stuff is still progressing out of view (if you only listen to the MSM). While everyone has gone back to sleep, Oxford (England) is trialling 15-minutes zones and plans a climate lockdown trial in 2024.
The plan (or rather the purported plan) is to limit people to 100 trips a year out of their zone by car. That number has to be divided by the number of cars people have, so if you're a 2-car family, that's 50 trips a year each out of your zone. Maybe the end point, once everyone is digitally ID'd to the eyeballs, will be one trip a year to see your family. If you're good. And jabbed.
And, as the author says, no-one is saying anything about it - not one of those Oxford intellectuals with their centuries-long tradition of freedom. Shame on them.
Jerm Warfare
I like the repeated query in this piece, "Why are people going along with x, or y?" or what have you. From a psychoanalytic perspective sans the jargon, the focus on what is in the measures specifically, i.e. what rights are being violated by the various orders of the day, is misdirected. More important is a focus on the source of these orders and the symbolic functions of this source in the (unconscious) minds of citizens.
Canada in the modern era has prided itself - that is, the citizens have prided themselves - on its peaceful, friendly, common sense, down to earth approach to social issues. We identified ourselves with this ideal of the always affable, honest and straightforward Everyman, our ego ideal if you will. Now this ideal must be protected and buttressed by a constant flow of external verifications. I would contend that that constancy has been projected onto the government. How could Canadians, who were so decent, NOT have a government that reflected their personal strengths? For our society to have lasted so long (and even there, it's a joke that Canadians are so parochial that they think they have any ideological longevity, any political momentum as compared to, let's say, Europeans or South Asians) being so 'nice' means the government must be as nice as their citizens.
And here is where it gets interesting, psychologically speaking. If the government lasts long enough, which it has, then the source of this niceness shifts over time to the government itself, rather than resting in its citizens. What began as a reflection changed overctime into an original source. Citizens project their own assumed goodness onto the institution they've created as a society to care for that society, just as - here it is! - children project their own goodness onto their parents, even when those parents are behaving despicably.
Insofar as children's identities are, to a great extent, established in the persons of their parents, to perceive that one's parents are evil is to annull the goodness in one's self by indirectly allotting parental evil to one's ideal self. And this is insupportable.
So for those citizens whose self-concept is not yet individuated (per Jung), the government must be perceived, facts to the contrary notwithstanding, as good and well-meaning. It is this aspect of the government being well-intentioned that is unconsciously assumed, and fetishized when confronted by the harsh reality of the actual 'character' of the government, by psychologically immature citizens. And it is this unconscious assumption that must not be threatened, and that,therefore, must be unconsciously and frantically strengthened -because a Lockean belief in the goodness of government is, after all, ridiculously shaky when seen from the perspective of a mature individual who understands that greed and schadenfreud are as omnipresent in Canadian government as are honesty and empathy. The unacknowledged assumption of the goodness of government must not be allowed to be examined in the light of day, ESPECIALLY in the face of an enormous and growing amount of data that shows precisely the opposite.
So, this is why the frog didn't jump out of the pot, and why the facts of any particular violation of human rights don't matter. It is under the surface that this perceptual defense (see A. Worthington's 1960s work on perceptual defense) takes place, and prevents any facts to the contrary from being permitted to enter conscious thought because of the unthinkable (literally!) threat it symbolizes against the character of mummy/daddy government and the concomitant character of the childlike citizen.
Niiice. I adore Jeremy!
Great interview, thanks. Jerm is always great too. A number of us have said already that this 'lull' is disturbing, waiting for the other shoe to drop. But, as you mention in the interview, it isn't really a lull - it only feels like one on the surface. The bad stuff is still progressing out of view (if you only listen to the MSM). While everyone has gone back to sleep, Oxford (England) is trialling 15-minutes zones and plans a climate lockdown trial in 2024.
https://yournews.com/2022/12/06/2467541/report-climate-lockdowns-being-tested-in-uk-as-oxford-county/
The plan (or rather the purported plan) is to limit people to 100 trips a year out of their zone by car. That number has to be divided by the number of cars people have, so if you're a 2-car family, that's 50 trips a year each out of your zone. Maybe the end point, once everyone is digitally ID'd to the eyeballs, will be one trip a year to see your family. If you're good. And jabbed.
And, as the author says, no-one is saying anything about it - not one of those Oxford intellectuals with their centuries-long tradition of freedom. Shame on them.