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.
As much as you might be right about Canada, your remarks don't explain why "people have gone along with x or y" in societies or countries that have a completely different history, psychological profile, and stance toward the government.
I don't presently live in Canada and I have limited reports from the ground as to how fanatically people have embraced all the covidian-wokist onslaught, but from what I've heard it's been fanatical enough. Why? I'd venture to say that because as much as they perceive themselves as "peaceful, friendly, common sense, down to earth approach to social issues", they're anything but. Take "peaceful": Canadians are peaceful, but militantly peaceful, meaning that everybody must be peaceful the same way they are. Ditto friendly, they're friendly if you conform to what is deemed as proper. Common sense? We'd have to dissect that, but common sense implies conservatism, and Canadians seem to be the first to hop on the bandwagon of every latest phantasmagoria - the current push for assisted suicide instead of medical treatment being one of them. In a nutshell, Canadians are extremely conventional and very militant, albeit peacefully, in enforcing it. By which I mean to say that the commonplace image of Canadians is not quite accurate.
Anyway, why have people mounted so little opposition? Probably a combination of factors. Fukuyamesque conviction of the end of history probably being the strongest one. Too much to lose by getting off one's bum versus too little to gain. Cognitive dissonance in the sense that admitting that something is wrong would imply the necessity of reaction, while the aforesaid applies.
What we're witnessing is not a rough patch, it's the manifestation of how civilization has grown utterly corrupted, rigged, the purpose of institutions inverted, people's raison d'etre perverted. To fix this, there would first have to be an alternative ideology, view of the world - one that embraces nature, self-reliance, divorces people from reliance on external means (technologies), and so on, so forth. The world doesn't even have that. If at all, it will take decades or centuries to set humankind on a path of freedom (including freedom from having their psyches perverted by malevolent schemers) and meaningful existence.
I definitely could not have said all of that better, or even close to better, myself. You nailed it Paul.
Regarding Canadians...I am not a true Canadian, I have citizenship and a passport, but I do not possess the Canadian "thing." I am pretty much a hot blooded American. And yes, you are right about them. They are typically radical conformists and define "peaceful" and "friendly" with words like compliant and conforming. Not all, but the majority as a whole. I have not been pleased at all with their response to this challenge. Now, those truckers were Canadians! And I do believe their convoy was a display of some pretty powerful resolve!
Your last paragraph is particularly poignant and I am in full agreement...I don't talk much about this because I am considered enough of a doomsayer as is, but I am pretty certain this "fix" is going to take hundreds of years, and may indeed require a complete physical wiping out of what is presently here. Sad, but true.
Thanks so much for sharing this...it had to be said.
Bach (*see footnote) forbid, I didn't intend to dis Canadians. Not only is much of the aforesaid the result of excessive, misguided benevolence, as opposed to inherently malevolent qualities, but also, there are many truly extraordinary Canucks - Lenny Breau, Ron Collier, and Luce Beaudet come to mind (I happen to be a musician). And yes, the trucker protest was magnificent, having managed to incorporate both rebellion and the Canadian niceness. It spread around the world like a wildfire, and if I were just a bit paranoid, I'd think that the situation in Ukraine was launched to prevent the covidian hoax crashing down like a house of cards, as people were starting to realize that it's a pack of lies.
One Canadian that comes to mind in relation to what you wrote is Jordan Peterson. An interesting fella. In one of your articles, you mention technologies as being a bad thing. I think Peterson, if I understand him correctly, says the same thing, in stressing the importance of one being in control of oneself. I don't think that technologies per se are a problem; the problem is that humans have put all their eggs in the technology basket and convinced themselves that everything can be dealt with externally, through technologies. So, instead of using our bodies physically, we use machines. Instead of preventing or dealing with disease naturally, we have pills. Instead of engaging in introspection, we have antidepressants. So on, so forth. Humans are excessively focused outward as opposed to mastering their inner world.
As to being a doomsayer, all things considered, isn't actually a good thing that this world is collapsing? Is the lifestyle of the generic westerner conducive to any semblance of happiness? The happiest people I know are a deaf couple who pretty much ignore everything that goes on in society. Likewise, I teach music and lead a choir in an orphanage, full of mostly gypsy kids who have nothing, and they're so much happier and enthusiastic compared to their middle-class counterparts. Maybe we should rejoice that the current turmoil is happening - the optimist in me says that something good is bound to come out of it.
A new breed of artists and philosophers will now have to emerge - and they'll have to come from the grass roots as opposed to operating based on a grant - and propose ways of reconciling the need for localism with the fact that telecommunications have connected the world. Ways for people to focus on their individuality without being egoistic. Reestablishing contact with nature, as opposed to sanitizing the world (isn't much of the predicament we're facing the consequence of the rather idiotic biblical instruction for man to have dominion of the world?).
Anyway, I enjoy reading your texts and listening to your interviews.
___________
* Mozart dies and goes to Heaven. After going through the admission process, God summons him and says, "Wolfgang, we have this regular Sunday thing here, a little choir and orchestra, and I'd like you to be the musical director in charge of that." Mozart is pleased, but asks, "I'll be most happy to assume that duty, Sir, but isn't the greatest of the great, the one and only J.S. Bach a resident here, and wouldn't he be a better man for the job?" "I'm Bach, you fucking idiot," God retorts.
You nail it here...a psychological profile of "why"...I agree...what I remain perplexed about is how this psychological scenario is so incredibly strong it will override logic and reason so thoroughly and completely. I know that is ultimately possible in any situation (that the unconscious complexes, for example, can supersede all logic and objective reason.) But that is typically in the individual, with specific individual experiences...but this...this is global...and the mother/father/authority/child dynamic should not be this powerful, for this long. BUT...maybe it is, and maybe I am short sighted to say this...it has just been so powerful and persuasive for so long.
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.
OMG...this is so perfect...the digital IDs are like an erector set, "look kids at all the wonderful things you can make with one toy!!"
I am beginning to be certain the "climate change" card is the next one to be played, although it has the disadvantage of not threatening life for a few years yet. However, people will love it that big mommy and daddy government are looking out for them by slapping their wrist and saying "you must be good children now so that your little indulgences don't destroy the world for your own children."
Not that it's all about cars. I haven't had one for 20 years, but I don't expect we'll be allowed on trains or buses either eventually without the requisite good behaviour points.
And the best part is, not one of is less than 20 years old. It's not going to be easy to shut down my truck unless they EMP everyone...and even then, I've got two very old one's that might make it through with simple repairs. And I know where to get fuel...if I run out. Freedom is all I require. I don't appreciate daddy gubment up my ass.
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.
As much as you might be right about Canada, your remarks don't explain why "people have gone along with x or y" in societies or countries that have a completely different history, psychological profile, and stance toward the government.
I don't presently live in Canada and I have limited reports from the ground as to how fanatically people have embraced all the covidian-wokist onslaught, but from what I've heard it's been fanatical enough. Why? I'd venture to say that because as much as they perceive themselves as "peaceful, friendly, common sense, down to earth approach to social issues", they're anything but. Take "peaceful": Canadians are peaceful, but militantly peaceful, meaning that everybody must be peaceful the same way they are. Ditto friendly, they're friendly if you conform to what is deemed as proper. Common sense? We'd have to dissect that, but common sense implies conservatism, and Canadians seem to be the first to hop on the bandwagon of every latest phantasmagoria - the current push for assisted suicide instead of medical treatment being one of them. In a nutshell, Canadians are extremely conventional and very militant, albeit peacefully, in enforcing it. By which I mean to say that the commonplace image of Canadians is not quite accurate.
Anyway, why have people mounted so little opposition? Probably a combination of factors. Fukuyamesque conviction of the end of history probably being the strongest one. Too much to lose by getting off one's bum versus too little to gain. Cognitive dissonance in the sense that admitting that something is wrong would imply the necessity of reaction, while the aforesaid applies.
What we're witnessing is not a rough patch, it's the manifestation of how civilization has grown utterly corrupted, rigged, the purpose of institutions inverted, people's raison d'etre perverted. To fix this, there would first have to be an alternative ideology, view of the world - one that embraces nature, self-reliance, divorces people from reliance on external means (technologies), and so on, so forth. The world doesn't even have that. If at all, it will take decades or centuries to set humankind on a path of freedom (including freedom from having their psyches perverted by malevolent schemers) and meaningful existence.
I definitely could not have said all of that better, or even close to better, myself. You nailed it Paul.
Regarding Canadians...I am not a true Canadian, I have citizenship and a passport, but I do not possess the Canadian "thing." I am pretty much a hot blooded American. And yes, you are right about them. They are typically radical conformists and define "peaceful" and "friendly" with words like compliant and conforming. Not all, but the majority as a whole. I have not been pleased at all with their response to this challenge. Now, those truckers were Canadians! And I do believe their convoy was a display of some pretty powerful resolve!
Your last paragraph is particularly poignant and I am in full agreement...I don't talk much about this because I am considered enough of a doomsayer as is, but I am pretty certain this "fix" is going to take hundreds of years, and may indeed require a complete physical wiping out of what is presently here. Sad, but true.
Thanks so much for sharing this...it had to be said.
Bach (*see footnote) forbid, I didn't intend to dis Canadians. Not only is much of the aforesaid the result of excessive, misguided benevolence, as opposed to inherently malevolent qualities, but also, there are many truly extraordinary Canucks - Lenny Breau, Ron Collier, and Luce Beaudet come to mind (I happen to be a musician). And yes, the trucker protest was magnificent, having managed to incorporate both rebellion and the Canadian niceness. It spread around the world like a wildfire, and if I were just a bit paranoid, I'd think that the situation in Ukraine was launched to prevent the covidian hoax crashing down like a house of cards, as people were starting to realize that it's a pack of lies.
One Canadian that comes to mind in relation to what you wrote is Jordan Peterson. An interesting fella. In one of your articles, you mention technologies as being a bad thing. I think Peterson, if I understand him correctly, says the same thing, in stressing the importance of one being in control of oneself. I don't think that technologies per se are a problem; the problem is that humans have put all their eggs in the technology basket and convinced themselves that everything can be dealt with externally, through technologies. So, instead of using our bodies physically, we use machines. Instead of preventing or dealing with disease naturally, we have pills. Instead of engaging in introspection, we have antidepressants. So on, so forth. Humans are excessively focused outward as opposed to mastering their inner world.
As to being a doomsayer, all things considered, isn't actually a good thing that this world is collapsing? Is the lifestyle of the generic westerner conducive to any semblance of happiness? The happiest people I know are a deaf couple who pretty much ignore everything that goes on in society. Likewise, I teach music and lead a choir in an orphanage, full of mostly gypsy kids who have nothing, and they're so much happier and enthusiastic compared to their middle-class counterparts. Maybe we should rejoice that the current turmoil is happening - the optimist in me says that something good is bound to come out of it.
A new breed of artists and philosophers will now have to emerge - and they'll have to come from the grass roots as opposed to operating based on a grant - and propose ways of reconciling the need for localism with the fact that telecommunications have connected the world. Ways for people to focus on their individuality without being egoistic. Reestablishing contact with nature, as opposed to sanitizing the world (isn't much of the predicament we're facing the consequence of the rather idiotic biblical instruction for man to have dominion of the world?).
Anyway, I enjoy reading your texts and listening to your interviews.
___________
* Mozart dies and goes to Heaven. After going through the admission process, God summons him and says, "Wolfgang, we have this regular Sunday thing here, a little choir and orchestra, and I'd like you to be the musical director in charge of that." Mozart is pleased, but asks, "I'll be most happy to assume that duty, Sir, but isn't the greatest of the great, the one and only J.S. Bach a resident here, and wouldn't he be a better man for the job?" "I'm Bach, you fucking idiot," God retorts.
You nail it here...a psychological profile of "why"...I agree...what I remain perplexed about is how this psychological scenario is so incredibly strong it will override logic and reason so thoroughly and completely. I know that is ultimately possible in any situation (that the unconscious complexes, for example, can supersede all logic and objective reason.) But that is typically in the individual, with specific individual experiences...but this...this is global...and the mother/father/authority/child dynamic should not be this powerful, for this long. BUT...maybe it is, and maybe I am short sighted to say this...it has just been so powerful and persuasive for so long.
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.
OMG...this is so perfect...the digital IDs are like an erector set, "look kids at all the wonderful things you can make with one toy!!"
I am beginning to be certain the "climate change" card is the next one to be played, although it has the disadvantage of not threatening life for a few years yet. However, people will love it that big mommy and daddy government are looking out for them by slapping their wrist and saying "you must be good children now so that your little indulgences don't destroy the world for your own children."
Not that it's all about cars. I haven't had one for 20 years, but I don't expect we'll be allowed on trains or buses either eventually without the requisite good behaviour points.
I wonder what they'd do to me?
I have 6 trucks, a car, an SUV and a tractor.
And the best part is, not one of is less than 20 years old. It's not going to be easy to shut down my truck unless they EMP everyone...and even then, I've got two very old one's that might make it through with simple repairs. And I know where to get fuel...if I run out. Freedom is all I require. I don't appreciate daddy gubment up my ass.
of course....