In our society the "political spectrum" is accepted as a reality. Its made a reality by its acceptance. I have said since the mid 90s that the political party's are basically mind f$%&ing devices, designed to facilitate the unintegrated minds of the people that are their members; they are a product of their environment. Now, while I still maintain that is true on a party plank level to an extent, I have backed off the more furious view I once had. Over the years it became clear to me that the Republican Party was the LESS WRONG. Leaving my party affiliation aside, and also leaving aside a discussion of the plank level philosophical inconsistency of each party and also the philosophical inconsistency of the average people they serve lets return to the idea of the political spectrum.
The right is conservative, republican. The left is (modern) liberal, democrat. The world of political views is thus most often viewed as a spectrum. True, you will hear the proud free thinker who adds his incremental twist on things to encourage his view that he is a step beyond: he speaks of a wheel, which is necessitated to make sense of autocratic socialism, anarchism, and of course the libertarian who's "so far right, he's left" or vice versa on his issue positions.
What I submit to you is that the modern secular liberal and the fundamentalist Christian conservative are basically not opposites at all, as I have said before, they are the different sides of the same coin. In fact the world of political thought is not a spectrum. The spectrum is like a dress size. For the purposes of providing for the lowest common denominator we apply labels like left of center, moderate, far right, etc. to candidates so voters can select the size of dress they know already they wear.
The true division is, to borrow Dr. David Hawkins term, a pagoda where the vast majority of the population have a lower and less evolved view of politics in which they equate their own desires and emotional positions with what policy ought to be for everyone. As you move beyond that you find those who are more or less pragmatists, but if you have worked in politics, more than anything they are weasels who manage, mostly, to stay one step ahead of the pack of lies that are chasing them down, forced to stop occasionally to fend off, defend against, being seen in the light for what they are. As you move beyond pragmatically driven faux Realpolitik "ideology" you find a land of reasoned balance between ideals and finite time and resources to use. In this instance "ideals" does still refer to emotional positionalities mixed in with actual ideals, sentimentalities and such, however let's leave that be and get down the road. It is my position that the majority of those who climb into high power are of this ilk. They live a life of quiet desperation where they must maintain the public image that got them elected (their dress size) while in hushed tones talking amongst themselves in the context they share. Its not so much Jeckel and Hyde as Jeckel and HIDE. When an outlier like a Michele Bachman, a true believer gets thrown into the mix, a true believer meaning that Bachman is a great example of someone who had nothing but emotional positionally, a dress size, and the ability to occasionally parrot a few talking points strung together into an actual real world policy idea, you can see the grown-ups like Hillary Clinton for example noticeably afraid to interact with them. There are TB's and grown-ups on both sides, bear that in mind. The grown-up liberal is one hell of a good leader and politician by the way, if they could only wag the dog.
What I am getting at is that enlightened political thinking is very rare, but also delivers one to power when that is the path its possessor chooses. It delivers its possessed to power and success in almost any business or career endeavor. There is an elite out there, who we would know more about if not for them having to hide who they are to get elected.
Our subject here is not the characteristics or a name list of who qualifies. Basic rule: if some dill weed on AM radio thinks they are "an illuminati leader", then there's a good chance they are one of the grown ups. What the Illuminati-freak is sensing is that there is a mode of being that disagrees very strongly with his or her own highly emotionally charged, sentimental, wholly prescriptive, wildly naive, out of the box off the shelf prepackaged politics and the mentally disordered psychologically fragmented self that is behind the curtain somewhere...in part. What the conspiracy theorist, who somehow comes to actually believe that evil and lies are more powerful than love and truth, is saying is that they are scared of people who are better than them, much much better than them, and that people who are better than them have a bare bones basic understanding of the true and good being true and good. Basically, people who think this way are telling you that's how they would act if they could, they hold on to a belief that forceful domination of the world and its people would be enjoyable. We call these people? Infantile.
I say in part because most people, not just these worst cases are living life as less than whole. Fragmented psychologically, projecting the unresolved aspects of themselves into the world. And what is the key aspect most likely to be denied to be a part of one's self? What is it that most people believe is true about others but not themselves?
"The unknown ‘‘dark side’’ of our personality–-dark both because it tends to consist predominantly of the primitive, negative, socially or religiously depreciated human emotions and impulses like sexual lust, power strivings, selfishness, greed, envy, anger or rage, and due to its unenlightened nature, completely obscured from consciousness." (Stephen Diamond , Ph.D.) Their SHADOW. Living in bourgeois middle American society these people desperately projecting onto other people their own unresolved shadows may end up being well in excess 75% of the people you come into contact with. In fact, amongst the lower and working class, you find the shadow less often dissociated from, however it most often involves the shadow being less effectively projected or less effectively managed. In other words: there's a lot of fucking and getting high in the trailer court. They suffer because they grapple with the work the bourgeois pretend does not exist. The bourgeois ABSOLUTELY RELY ON having the working class "indulging" themselves to maintain their own dissociative situation. The bourgeois dissociates from the shadow. The working class is destroyed by their shadow.
None of these are fit to lead.
In my experience in close knit upper middle class communities or even big city society the projection game is full on, but at a lesser rate.
It is among the aristocracy, the famous, the affluent, the well compensated, the artistic or creative, the professors, the athlete, the, yes, quite often, highly technically skilled, the scientifically oriented, and the political elite that you tend to find rather well integrated selves less dependent on dissociation. The classic example of this is the aristocratic view of joy/pleasure and suffering/toil. The aristocrat does not in any way see suffering and toil as leading to greater joy. He or she is different than most people in that they see, quite rightly, that joy leads to joy and suffering leads to suffering. Wherever you find an unintegrated psychology or a fragmented self or a person whose comfort literally depends on the projection of their shadow onto a bad guy, you are also dealing with what I call the "Midwestern work ethic", but its true all over America, its really just the way most people see the world: if you work and suffer and sacrifice then you can have a little pleasure, go to Disneyland, enjoy your six pack after work. HOWEVER, they also see that joy and pleasure leads to suffering and toil, lack. If you drink too much you will be unable to work. If you go to Vegas and you gamble too much you will not be able to make the mortgage. Pleasure leads to suffering. Just as suffering leads to pleasure.
What we have just described here is dualism. In fact no dualistic world exists but for the presence of those who insist upon it. (Dr. David Hawkins I credit for this understanding. A great teacher.) In fact there is no suffering VS joy. There is only joy and the lack thereof, on a scale of degrees. The same with true VS false. There is no false. False is a lack of truth. There is truth, and in degrees, and there is a lack of truth. False is not an independent thing, not a thing at all. True also of darkness and light. Darkness is not a thing! Darkness is when no light is present. We think in these terms all the time most of us, and it extends to every part and parcel of our religion and politics, it permeates our creature, it forms what we are in the world and informs every perception and action we have. Think about how commonly we talk about the light switch or the TV. It is switched off. The tv is on or off. We are talking about? Electricity correct? And what is evident is that "on" means electricity is flowing, and "off" is simply a lack of electricity, not a thing itself. (Totally stole that from Dr. Hawkins.)
Dualism does not exist. Seeing the world in a dualistic way does not cause an unintegrated self, and an unintegrated self does not cause forceful dualistic thinking and living. They simply go together, they are one in the same.
Now lets get back to our title line. Environmentalists (almost always on the Left) look at the climate change data and what do they conclude? They conclude that man has caused these changes. The changes they say are anthropogenic. Caused by humans. These anthropogenic changes are destroying the world! The WORLD IS GOING TO END and EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE; IT WILL BE A CATASTROPHE! Catastrophizing is a symptom of most serious mental diseases, keep that in mind. All you have there is the projection of the aspects of power and destruction, rage onto mankind as a whole, or more commonly the government, projection of the shadow, and perhaps what I would call the father too, the powerful destructive and angry, and in so projecting the environmentalist finds something to be angry at. Something its ok to be angry at. Do you see where we are going here? Outrage. Public outrage. Outrage and activism is getting angry at some part of the person not integrated into their mind/self/life that they have projected into the world so that they can be angry and own that projected portion of themselves and through so doing temporarily enjoy wholeness. The mealy liberal with the terrible facial hair and Vans shoes whining about a world he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND is not just ignorant, its more than that, he's enjoying temporary wholeness by MAINTAINING THE FACT THAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND! On the liberal side of politics the father, the benevolent caretaker, is projected onto what? That's right: the government. But so too is the shadow, its evil policies controlled by selfish men in smoky rooms near country clubs and helicopter pads! They want for us to suffer! No. No they don't. You are just not a whole well integrated person and you are working hard to stay that way.
Now I have been hard on the liberal, but the right wing version is a creature I abhor encountering in groups. We all know the stereotype. Right wing Christian conservative law and order republicans whose views on either gun rights or abortion cannot be voiced without being visibly perceived to be cheese slipping off a cracker. They want everyone punished harshly. They want to be angry about the things you want to take from them, but they want to take stuff you want from you. Abortion is murder. God hates fags. Its in the Bible and that's the final word. God punishes and brings down judgement on man, and when man does not follow the Word of God, come then the End Times, and the Rapture. The WORLD IS GOING TO END and EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE; IT WILL BE A CATASTROPHE! Catastrophizing is a symptom of most serious mental diseases, keep that in mind. These men and women will tell you about their God, just like the liberal will tell you about greedy corporations, the benevolent government of the people and the corruption of oligarchs. They will tell you about their "blessed" lives, and their love for the word of God, they will let you know Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. They will also tell you that the same God is going to send souls to eternal damnation for fucking each other in the ass. Or that an abortion destroys life, is murder, and thus is an affront to God, unless of course we are talking about the death penalty, that's not murder because...well, because. Oh yea, and if you notice, their crusade for the Will of God always assumes one very interesting fact doesn't it? Yeeeesssssss. That God needs their help ! (Dr. Hawkins there too.) God is God. God does not now, never ever ever will need any help from you whatsoever to "make" what God "wants". End of story. The loving God who blesses you? Cares for you? Completely without peer or limitation? Loved you so much he gave his one son's life for your salvation? Now you are telling me God will be angry if I ( ) and furious if I ( ) and needs us to do ( ) to save ourselves from damnation. Then in the next breath they will talk about the unconditional love of Jesus and unconditional salvation Jesus provides them. Clearly they don't understand a damn thing about unconditional love, that goes without saying, but what do you notice here? From our above evisceration of the common modern liberal we can see that they imagine their father to possess human qualities. The Creator has a human personality? That's very interesting isn't it. Human characteristics like anger and rage, vengefulness. I see. God, they endow constantly, with human features, an anthropomorphic God. But what if these features are not God's at all but the projection of an unintegrated aspect of the self out onto God? The projection of the forbidden desire to rage and destroy. The projection of the shadow. The projection of which allows them to become angry with the criminal, the abortion clinic, the homosexual, the drug user.
They are the same man these two. They believe they are opposite of each other. They are not.
What does it mean? It means if we want, if you want to world to work better, maybe we decide to change the way we see things. Have a broken idea that contradicts another broken idea? Then change it. It might take a whole day! Now, do I think that will happen? Not really. That's why I have this trash can full of nickels. Do I think that letting folks know ahead of time as possible if I'm able that there's a better path is a duty I have to the world who maybe doesn't "see so good"? I do. I do think that.
That is all.
11/28/14 - 00:33
THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE ARTICLE. JUST GUIDES FOR EXPANDING IT.
Fact: the climate is changing.
Supposition: human actions have been proven to be the proximate cause.
Fact: the climate has always changed.
Fact: there's dozens of changes in known history that would wipe out 90% of preindustrial human civilization.
Supposition: Catastrophizing is a condition of ego limited consciousnesses with basic value inversions operating at their core within that person
Supposition: the conclusions of the anthropomorphic global warming catastrophe model are convenient as a means to satisfy the ego limited consciousness's interest in Institutionalizing their own self limiting value inversions.