I have been exploring some very sensitive personal material over at a parapolitical forum. I’m wary of linking to it as some of the material relates to family members, and though they are all dead, the implications also include the living. But here are some non-specific points from a later post. If you want the link to the thread, email me and let me know who you are/why you are interested.
I don’t believe there is a left (or a right) among the ruling class, or rather, that there is ever an allegiance to one or the other, because both hands are equally useful. To illustrate, a sample of the psycho-historical perspective, from Lloyd de Mause talking about Germany in the 1920s:
Weimar culture may have produced “exuberant creativity and experimentation” but it also created “anxiety, fear and a rising sense of doom.” By the end of the 1920s, so many reactionary anti-democratic backlash parties had spontaneously sprung up that Weimar was called “a Republic without republicans.” People began to call for “emancipation from emancipation” and “a restoration of authoritarian rule.” If the Killer Parent alter deep in your unconscious hated you for your new independence, rather than lose her approval you fused with her and punished scapegoats who could be accused of being smelly shit-babies full of poisonous lice. What was needed was “a national enema,” a purging that would “cleanse” people of their independence as their mothers had used the purging enema to cleanse them as infants. http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/childh … caust.html
The gist of this is that a period of social and sexual freedom allows for a release of “id” energy (unconscious material), which leads to a corresponding reaction from the controlling ego, i.e., even more severe social/sexual restrictions.
It’s easy to see how this principal could be consciously applied at the level of social engineering: if you want to bring about a higher level of totalitarian control, promote the opposite ideas, those pertaining to individual freedom, sexual liberation, self-expression, and drug use. This goes on both over generations (i.e., propagating a set of values to one generation creates an opposing reaction from the next) and at a smaller, short-term level, over periods of weeks, days, hours, and even minutes (a TV show promotes libertarian values then is interrupted by commercials that promote the reverse, and so on).
A very broad topical example of this would be how the promotion of individualistic, capitalist, consumer values over the second half of the last century has led to a supposed dead-end “environmental crisis” in which individualism is frowned upon and seen as “bad,” and must be curbed (via totalitarian laws) in order to save “the planet” (collective). It also goes the other way, as when the collective “countercultural” values of the 60s, promoting peace and harmony (and individualism!) led to the capitalist feeding frenzy of the 80s, many of the feeders being former hippies who “wised up.”
I am oversimplifying a bit, as I often do for the sake of (my own) clarity. Last night I even did a kids’ drawing:
A couple of qualifiers: I’m not suggesting that socialists and Judeo-Christians are the same people or groups (most socialists are atheists, capitalists often espouse Christian values) but that the values adopted by these groups and ideologies derive from the same value systems (Jesus was a Communist, etc.), often unbeknownst to the adherents.
The model of central ego, libidinal ego, and anti-libidinal ego comes from Ronald Fairbairn’s development of the object relations theory. I just discovered this model this week and haven’t read up on it, but since it seems to fit with my firsthand experience, I’m prepared to wing it. My cat gives a pretty clear illustration of how the libidinal ego and anti-libidinal ego work together: whenever he’s in the mood for affection (libidinal ego) he gets clingy and purry, experiences me as the exciting object; but at a certain point, he suddenly becomes violent and attacks me, now seeing me as the rejecting object and switching over into anti-libidinal ego. The movie Blue Velvet (my personal favorite in my 20s) also shows this triangle pretty well: Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini) is the exciting object that awakens Jeffrey’s (Kyle MacLachlan) libidinal ego; Frank (Dennis Hopper) is the rejecting object and the anti-libidinal ego made monstrous (“Baby wants to fuck!”). The movie shows how, just like with my cat, the one morphs inevitably and shockingly into the other.
Bringing it back to the socio-political realm, a fairly mundane but apropos example of how seemingly “leftist” agendas serve the same ends as the “right” would be the “New Labor” movement in Britain of the 1950s:
The nationalizations created a cheap infrastructure to get Britain’s economy moving again–largely for the benefit of private industry. It was all the old and bankrupt industries that were nationalized—the most unprofitable 20 percent of British industry. For workers, however, there seemed to be little change. A series of studies by the Acton Society undertaken between 1950 and 1952 showed there was a widespread feeling that public ownership had merely provided ‘jobs for the boys’ and the ‘same old gang’ in power again. . . . Thus nationalization signified no new beginning for Labor. It didn’t mark a shift in the distribution of wealth in favor of the working class. Control remained essentially in the hands of many of the same capitalists who were then able to use the compensation they received from the government to invest in more profitable industries. Workers were accorded no greater say in decision making, and gained no economic benefit. Labor’s plan had nothing to do with socialism—it provided a state overview and assistance for the revival of British capitalism [Emphasis added]. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk … morgan.htm
As for the progressive schooling, Brazier’s and the many Fabian and Quaker-affiliated pagan schools that sprung up in Britain during the first part of the 20th century, with their links to Theosophy, Wicca, and Crowley-ism. In retrospect, it looks to me like they were sowing the seeds for the Dionysian eruption of the 1960s (which began in swinging London, around the Jagger-Cammell-Litvinoff-Krays-Process-Strieber nexus). The Woodcraft/Fabian schools (“a mixture of Freud and Red Indians”) promoted the “back to nature” ideal of the 60s that’s now pretty much de rigueur for any “progressive”-minded person in 2014.
One of the primary influences on this mini-movement was Edward Carpenter, an early Fabian G.B. Shaw called “a noble savage” and The Guardian called one of “the founding fathers of socialism.” Carpenter hung out at Millthorpe, a Derbyshire village not far from Sheffield, where he was visited by Shaw, Bertrand Russell, D.H. Lawrence, and Cecil Reddie. He corresponded with Walt Whitman, Annie Besant, Isadora Duncan, Havelock Ellis, Roger Fry, Mahatma Gandhi, J. K. Kinney, Jack London, George Merrill (his lover), William Morris, and John Ruskin, and it looks like he knew Eric Gill too (they were both of what was called “the Bloomsbury set”) (Guardian: “Millthorpe emerged as a countercultural hub in the face of Victorian materialism, becoming an essential stopping-off point for all sorts of confused humanists. . . . Millthorpe was also renowned for its air of sexual liberation.”)
It seems like these Fabian sun/cock worshippers wanted to have their Pie and eat it, and even to get the two sides, left and right, to work together. They wanted to create the naked noble savage living in the wilderness, hunting and gathering and making love till the cows come home, and combine it with the urban dandy, dressed to the nines and master of ceremonies among the ruling class. There were two sides to their socially-engineered Übermensch.
Regarding those royal bloodlines that fell on hard times, maybe part of why they did is that they became lazy and spoiled, as rich kids tend to, and over time the kingdom slipped away? If so, how to address this problem? Send your kids to natural schools where they have to learn to live in nature and develop a “wild” edge? Turn them not into noble savages but savage nobleman?
It’s easy for me to see how this ties into Strieber et al.’s evolutionary management through stress: adversity breeds character, necessity is the mother of invention, etc., etc. These bohemian artistic communities-come-survival camps that mixed sexual freedom, self-expression, and back to nature primitivism (paganism) may have started by shoving the thinnest end of the wedge into the child-psyche (naked kids running around, etc.); but pretty soon the id monsters were running the show.
From Jeffrey Kripal’s The Serpent’s Gift:Consider, for example, the one class of readers who have most deeply understood and appreciated my work on sexual trauma and mystical states: women and men who have themselves been sexually abused as children or young adults and later found themselves entering, often spontaneously, into extremely positive and healing altered states of consciousness. Such readers do not “accept” or “understand” what I am trying to communicate. They know. Their readings are based on excessive life events, on the most troublingly delightful movements of their own minds and bodies. And they are perfectly aware that very few people will ever understand them, that others cannot possibly “get it.” How could they? They have not been through the same life-altering experiences and had their consciousness and energies permanently shifted into other dimensions of knowing and being. One might as well try to explain an orgasm to a 5 year old.
Is it just me or is Kripal’s implied meaning: why try and explain it when you can demonstrate it? Is he being devious or just naive, or a potentially lethal combination of the two?
During the twenties the influence of Freud on the progressive school movement—and indeed on progressivism generally—was marked, and Freudian theory was used to underpin the liberation of the child from adult repression and to justify the belief that the natural impulses should have free expression. In certain of the schools this produced a move towards a libertarian and anarchic ideal. The progressivism of the period, however, largely used Freud as a dissolvent of conservative social values, taking up the attack on traditional religion and upon patriarchal authority. It was, however, an essentially selective reading of Freud, one that passed over the darker Hobbesian aspects of his thought, focusing instead on its libertarian potential, which was then grafted on to an essentially non-Freudian model of-man and his destiny—one that derived from the older romantic tradition. [Emphasis added]
When the libidinal ego gets out of hand, there’s a corresponding reaction from the anti-libidinal ego, which, like Frank Booth, comes knocking. The anti-libidinal ego isn’t looking for love but revenge. As the darker impulses take over, over time, sexual abuse becomes part of the unofficial curriculum; and, if PIE ever has its way, officially too.
And of course, sexual abuse leads to trauma, and trauma, as Jeffrey Kripal and the Esalen (Fabian?) gang seem so keen to convince us, accelerates spiritual evolution!
Resulting in Über-infants like …. [deleted]