The term 'projection' was originally given a false causal explanation in terms of nonsense psychodynamics; but the phenomenon is real, and the term is useful.
People really do accuse others of their own faults, their own illicit desires, their own misdemeanors - and on the perfectly understandable grounds that their own character and behaviour is their 'model' for how the world works.
So, projection may be perfectly sincere - the projector may really believe that his enemy is exactly the same as himself, as bad as himself - only worse, for not being the projector, because he is The Enemy.
Currently The West, the global totalitarian leadership class; is accusing its enemies of its own evils all over the place, in an automatic and routing fashion, and without regard to plausibility.
And getting away with it, being believed... Insofar as anybody really believes anything in this post-God culture: belief is now a passive, externally-driven, and labile state.
Believed because The System echoes back the lies from all directions; especially the mass media reflect back the evil assumptions and hostile projections of the political leadership.
The masses realize that the leadership class are liars; and the masses even 'notice' (i.e. have pointed-out by the mass media) a few of the more trivial lies of their leaders.
But the assumption behind all this activity is that liars are the exception among leaders; rather than the truth that only those who will lie to order are eligible for leadership positions. And that while there are specific lies devised, pushed and sustained by The System - these happen against a background of valid assertions, and good motivations.
People cannot, or will not, assume that The System as a whole is evil motivated, or that it is anti-human. They cannot grasp (and find the idea too despair-inducing) that the leadership class uses the masses, cares functionally-nothing for any peoples or nations, for 'rights' or 'freedoms', for 'law' or 'peace'.
Any such private sentiments (which are never strong in those selected for system-leadership) are stripped away (if not simply sold) by the realities of wielding and retaining power in an evil-orientated System.
To notice such matters is regarded as cynical, conspiracy theorizing, and despair-inducing; because in a this-worldly sense all these are true.
If this mortal life and world are all that there is - then it is needlessly cruel to point-out miserable truths - especially when nothing effective can be done to correct or better them them: at least, nothing in a mainstream, socio-political, materialist way.
If mortal life is everything and socio-political reality is that we are ruled by heartless, selfish, and cruel people - then maybe it really is better to be unaware of the truth - better not to think about such things?
This is the 'therapeutic' view of human life, a variant of utilitarianism (in which morality is calibrated against an hedonic calculus) - which traces ethics back to human psychology; and regards the primary duties as reducing suffering, and enhancing gratification.
If this life and world are everything, and yet that everything is hostile and cruel; then it is probably best to regard our discourse as a palliative therapy - the kind of terminal health care provided to those who who are dying, who cannot be cured - but can be helped to suffer less, and maybe experience a few more pleasures.
In other words; the prevalent morality is one of: "eat, drink, and be merry; because tomorrow we die".
In such a situation; one who points-out the situation - who increases conscious awareness of the miserable nature of life - is an enemy.
Only if our world view is rooted in the eternal, and if we our-selves are confident both of our post-mortal salvation, a job-to-do while we still liv. Only when others may share this life-beyond-life if (and only if) they understand and choose spiritual truth... Only then is it worthwhile looking beyond the therapeutic perspective - and to matters of reality.
2 comments:
Yes! We do seem to live under a sort of hospice society, just keeping us all jollied along until we kick (or get kicked). No one wants to face any obvious conclusions. We just had out of town relatives in one of whom is a young man in his 30s, an ivy league grad. I had been eager to talk with him because he was a peck refuse- nik due to his being exquisitely careful about his health. But when I asked him what had prompted him to not get it he completely clammed up. The only thing I could get was that he believed it was well intentioned. Otherwise he drew no conclusions at all. It was all only about his personal health. All attempts to draw him out further were sort of like trying to move fog with a stick.
@AG - I suppose that may be an example of the kind of dissent one sees on the ultra-left.
In this instance, the birdemic stuff was based on a mainstream level of single-issue 'healthism'- but those who take the prioritizing of health to an even higher degree, may refuse the peck because the mainstream are not sufficiently rigorous in their healthism.
It's analogous to Greta opposing the mainstream globalist's action on climate, because it does not go far enough (and is - from her POV - compromised and corrupted by the need to make money from 'sustainable' technologies).
The mainstream actually encourages this kind of leftward dissent - because it sustains the permanent revolution.
No number of negatives will add-up to the necessary positive motivation.
Post a Comment