Clio's Psyche, after conference, #2

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Aug 24

Just thinking on how Lloyd described Bill Clinton: "He has many of the characteristics of what Robert Tucker calls the "warfare personality"–self-dramatization, extreme narcissism, repeated feelings of conspiracies against him by enemies and an ability to call for a great Crusade that will defeat Evil abroad and cleanse the world of its sinfulness. I would only add to these: a deep well of loneliness, frequent revenge fantasies and an ability to dissociate."

And on this bit from the same article: "Staffers warned Clinton daily not to risk another "bimbo eruption" lest he be caught this time. Yet Clinton, sensing the group-fantasy of sacrifice was asking him to volunteer as the victim, started the affair nonetheless, looking out the White House windows while he was being sexually serviced by her to see if Starr’s snoopers were looking in."

And on what happened to his polling numbers as he admitted to his crimes: "The "Sacrificial Hero" was turned into a god himself since he, like Clinton, had willingly volunteered to be sacrificed. Thus Clinton’s polls, which had been sub-par until his affair was revealed, soared to over 70 percent approval "for the job he was doing for his country"–in other words, for being a sacrificial scapegoat, a poison container for our guilt–an approval level never before reached by a peacetime president."

This, to me, is interesting psychohistory. It argues for our at least considering that when for example the New Yorker shows on its cover hounds now on to Trump himself's scent, it can still all be, the service the media is offering the public, about putting the president into a position where he executes some function necessary to resolve something for the rest of us... it can be about a set-up for his actually ultimately increasing his poll numbers (down... is actually up). For Clinton it was about taking into himself all the hubris that everyone else was feeling; for Trump it could be about demonstrating that resolving yourself to devote yourself entirely to your homeland, to nationalism, to a return to mother, will in fact render you bullet-proof against all your previous sins... this is something the American people might want to know about itself, as they start feeling out how much "ask" they should be making as they, too, regress into nationalism, but have on mind, also, everything they've ever ventured that went past what their parents would have assessed as tolerable. We'll find out, does talking borders to protect your homeland; talking up industries, imagined almost as biological organs, thought to be associated with a once vital national body; talking up protecting innocent women from rape by infidels; talking up the ideals of service, of sacrifice (for the leader; for the homeland), of the military; talking up the idea of your nation as always great, make you bullet-proof against retribution for all your past inclinations and sins? Do we allow and encourage this test of him, so "we" can know for sure how emboldened "we" should be as set about becoming "our" own version of the German Volk. 

NewYorker cover

Click here to Reply

Trevor Pederson

Aug 24

Hi Patrick

How hard of a line do you want to take here?

Would you be open to the idea that there are many narratives that could have been formed around Clinton or did it have to be that one?

Also the way that people perceived Clinton's sin as a public vs. private life distinction, a distinction that saw more assimilation of gays and lesbians during that time too, was a frame that has its own genesis too.

I find it hard to see Clinton as any self-conscious sacrificial hero. I'd say his actions were closer to self-sabotage, but even if we see him that way, then like other scapegoats he should have been crucified or hurt in some major way. He got to stay in as president. Maybe one could argue that the impeachment vote was a major disgrace and a symbolic death, but I don't have a strong feeling for that either.

Personally, I see Clinton's story as a betrayal story in which he moves to "the center" and appeases Republicans and that they then try to cut his throat and show that they aren't satisfied with inching the political center further to the right, but want it all.

Trevor  

- show quoted text -

- show quoted text -

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Aug 24

Hi Trevor, 

I'm arguing that we make use of the history of psychohistorical research to be aware that what a public wants out of his/her president, isn't always what we would expect. How could one actually want a president whom one is ultimately interested in supporting, actually be forced by persecutors into agreeing that he has sinned?; to be successfully pinned down? Lloyd argued that was actually Bill Clinton's means of securing success, his way to enlarged popularity. This is a fascinating proposal, and I think one to keep in mind as we sense the hounds finally catching on to Trump's scent. Might he eventually say, you know what, I WAS working with the Russians. I'll take that on... because Putin is doing for his nation what I intend to do for our own: make it great. But now that I've done so, it's time to talk about what the Democrats have themselves done, and see exactly where we want to settle; whether we want me out, us both out -- or really only more traitorous THEM, the Democrats who actually hate the deplorable American public, and who would have found some way to down anyone who finally spoke up for what they've been saying they've wanted for years..." And the public gauges that he's done his bit, and fair play means now the Democrats get examined... with THEIR being the ones decimated, being the result they actually want to see, for their knowing Democrats equal guilty freedom and self-attendance rather than self-punishment. 

What Democrats won't let themselves know, but which is true, and which the public senses is true, is that once Trump got elected in there was no way that we wouldn't be in the position we are in now, whether or not he had partaken in any traitorous behaviour or not; whether he had been involved with Russia, or not. This lead-in to him seeming precariously settled... is exactly what the public wanted to see happen: the Democratic investigators are a delegate group, helping to force a test on our president, which'll lead to many of our feeling less inhabited by sin. This is mostly deMausian thinking, I believe. If Trump remains stronger a year from now, this might serve for some to take up his research again, because it's the only research I know that would suggest that the best Democrat strategy -- if they could only have resisted the public's urge for them to serve as delegate group -- might have been actually to not close in on Trump as a traitor, for it's a ritual that'll make him fantasied as invulnerable at the finish, and which'll take them to the wasteland. 

I'm saying this now because it seems especially absurd, but really is what I expect will happen. Psychohistory can predict?

- show quoted text -

- show quoted text -

Trevor Pederson

Aug 25

Hi Partrick

I'm arguing that we make use of the history of psychohistorical research to be aware that what a public wants out of his/her president, isn't always what we would expect. How could one actually want a president whom one is ultimately interested in supporting, actually be forced by persecutors into agreeing that he has sinned?; to be successfully pinned down? 

I see many factors and many subjectivities expressed here. Because of Trump's private life, many statements from Republicans in Clinton's time have come up to show hypocrisy. For many people on the right, Clinton was an expression of immoral sleaze and the president was supposed to be a beacon of morality (the good dad) and he didn't show himself worthy of this. The message on the political left wasn't the same. 

The public is fickle and the government often releases information on weekends knowing that the public will be busy and not follow it as closely. Even when such narratives stick they only get a few news cycles before they are too old to be the news. 

I can see people on the right wanting Clinton pinned down and for him to be impeached, but I also think that he became the underdog, who admitted he had a problem and was flawed and deserved a chance, for those on the left. 

As long as you agree that there are different subjectivities, in opposition, and that there are several stories that could take root as THE story, then I can agree that the public wants a story with their current president/parent. The question then becomes what are the factors that make THE story become the dominant one and that's where technology changing our social interactions and the money that the elite spend on focus grouping, spinners, etc. to have an effect.

Lloyd argued that was actually Bill Clinton's means of securing success, his way to enlarged popularity. This is a fascinating proposal, and I think one to keep in mind as we sense the hounds finally catching on to Trump's scent. Might he eventually say, you know what, I WAS working with the Russians. I'll take that on... because Putin is doing for his nation what I intend to do for our own: make it great. But now that I've done so, it's time to talk about what the Democrats have themselves done, and see exactly where we want to settle; whether we want me out, us both out -- or really only more traitorous THEM, the Democrats who actually hate the deplorable American public, and who would have found some way to down anyone who finally spoke up for what they've been saying they've wanted for years..." And the public gauges that he's done his bit, and fair play means now the Democrats get examined... with THEIR being the ones decimated, being the result they actually want to see, for their knowing Democrats equal guilty freedom and self-attendance rather than self-punishment. 

I've had the intuition for a while that the Republicans will do a lot of unpopular stuff, then turn on Trump and distance themselves from him, the policies that they will pin on him (but actually do nothing to change after Trump is out), and ask for a moral renewal. 

I can't see Trump winning back the left, he's too grandiose, unable to admit mistakes, and won't let himself become the underdog for them. Additionally, the wealthy elite don't want to take things to an authoritarian model, and will just flirt with protectionism in order to keep power when they want the neoliberal model to ensure their companies can continue to conquer new markets and find the cheapest labor.

What Democrats won't let themselves know, but which is true, and which the public senses is true, is that once Trump got elected in there was no way that we wouldn't be in the position we are in now, whether or not he had partaken in any traitorous behaviour or not; whether he had been involved with Russia, or not. This lead-in to him seeming precariously settled... is exactly what the public wanted to see happen: the Democratic investigators are a delegate group, helping to force a test on our president, which'll lead to many of our feeling less inhabited by sin. This is mostly deMausian thinking, I believe. If Trump remains stronger a year from now, this might serve for some to take up his research again, because it's the only research I know that would suggest that the best Democrat strategy -- if they could only have resisted the public's urge for them to serve as delegate group -- might have been actually to not close in on Trump as a traitor, for it's a ritual that'll make him fantasied as invulnerable at the finish, and which'll take them to the wasteland. 

I can agree that for many passive-altruists I work with, there is a bad romantic partner, bad boss, or bad friend who is selfish, mean to them, and with whom they are submissive and accepting of the pain they are given. Some go further than just enduring the bad object but enjoy masochistic complaining about him/her but don't make serious attempts to extricate themselves from the situation. If the Republicans don't turn on Trump themselves I worry that the Democrats will be impotent. The left won't be on board with the authoritarian Trump taking us to glory unless its a defensive thing that comes up on War and the right sows enough fear to make the left look for protection. 

I'm saying this now because it seems especially absurd, but really is what I expect will happen. Psychohistory can predict?

The whole point of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud is to be able to predict things. Nietzsche had his over-man and the last man, Marx had communism, and Freud has a depth structure that points to common structures behind particular mental illnesses. I'd like to think we can get to the point of prediction, but the state of things is still more shadow than light. 

Trevor 

- show quoted text -

- - - - - 

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Sep 9

Paul asked me to supply for the group any thoughts I might have on "The Psychohistorian's Handbook." I'm sorry to say, I really have only one... or one so predominant that it seems to dissolve anything other that I was noticing while exploring the text. I was delighted by the extent to which the handbook assumes one might be interested in really deep exploration of psychoanalysis. You can date the book by this... here is a book dating back to an era where psychoanalysis was sufficiently esteemed that it was expected to be part of the knowledge-equipage of anyone truly educated. NYRB sort of thing, where one page is recondite exploration of, say, Lincoln, and next page is extensive essay on Freud. Given that at one point ostensibly anyone who considers him/herself the liberal intelligent -- or the conservative intelligent -- knew Freud, it made sense to assume that perhaps every discipline might be a natural home for deep involvement of his ideas... and so the strong push into History, English... whatever: each as ripe as the other. 

I think now, though, when Freud is dismissed, when there isn't so much perversions of Freud, not so much astray psychobabble but the whole edifice as charlatanism, no less in its most estimable form, it's especially important to take note of those outposts where... nevertheless, he has hasn't quite been abandoned; where the resistance is and has been maintained. So when we hear of how Lacan is still dense in English studies, or of how those in creative writing classes are engaged with 20th-century novels heavily influenced by psychoanalysis, I think we are being reminded that in our time we can't assume as much that every discipline is attracting the same sort of person but only of differing areas of interest, but, perhaps, of different sorts of people -- some more emotionally open, and some less so. 

I know from Beisel's description of his students' interest in psychohistory, and from hearing how popular his courses on psychohistory are, it seems perhaps to many in the psychohistory community that this isn't so -- that history has not actually been demonstrated as more "conservative," inherently, as more the best representation of our refutation, than, say, psychology or English studies. I admit I wish this ostensibly demonstrated truth was more warred against because usually the courses I hear he is teaching are on WW2, and I just promise you, these days, the people I think would most be able to explore their own selves and not so much use their studies as part of their equipage in defence of early childhood experiences -- History as masculine buttress against mom? -- won't let themselves be so immersed in the rat-tat-tat tank battles of that... more likely, they'll be found reading the novels of Zadie Smith. 

In English studies, I remember Geoffrey Hartmann suggested that rather than critical analysis being something studied along with the English texts, it should be seen as primary... that one should study theory, and collect into it subject matter from everywhere. I think we need to find out where the healthiest students are, see if there is a discipline which is proving the most automatic home for them -- maybe gender studies as well? -- and forge our newly updated Psychohistorian's Handbook based on the environment these people have proven most comfortable with. From whatever they've been interested in, we offer branchings-off, to where, who knows?, one might find oneself discussing areas History is more automatically engaged with. So if the new hipsters are reading Dave Eggers and loving him, psychohistory involves themselves very deep with him, in textual analysis of his books, but also of the history of the regions of the world he himself has become so incredibly involved with -- the lost boys' Sudan, Zeitoun's Syria. If the healthiest students are interested in psychology, then we acknowledge "them" as primary, as home, offering ourselves as extensions, not us as more-ranging-and-tempered-by-experience rebuttal. 

Right now, I think the book misleads in that it suggests forging ahead as we have, when it is informed by an aberration of pattern where history really was as open to what we are hoping for with the involvement of psychoanalysis in studying our cultures as any other discipline. When we've re-routed and glued to students who'll carry us along in the way we should hope, I then think the handbook will serve more as a rich link to a community of deep-thinking men and women who've in the past linked psychology to historical developments in very engaging and fruitful ways. I think, then, people will discover here the marvel of people going so enchantingly deep into material -- anyone who read all the recommended texts in this book, would be impossibly deep -- the book will show that there is something to rediscover, in how we used to be. There is: we have lost depth.  

- - - - -

Judith Logue

Oct 28

Any ideas, Ken, how to affect Trump and the Trump supporters so they actually do something to limit racism and violence?

Judy

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

609-915-9155, cell

www.judithlogue.com

www.goldilox.net

www.shAIRing.com

From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ken Fuchsman
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 5:55 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] bombing suspect found a father in Trump

Arnie,

Since 1968, with the exception of George W. Bush, every successful Republican Presidential candidate has run on a southern strategy of appealing to white racists. Trump has just been more overt and demagogic about it than most of the other Republicans. As we know, anti-semitism has long been part of white supremacists outlook. I think Trump’s long history shows he is racist, but I don’t see much anti-semitism in him. Outside of his father, the most influential male in his life was Jewish, Roy Cohn. 

There is no question good people don’t chant “Jews will not replace us.”  Nor do good people tolerate chants of “Lock her up” or “CNN sucks” at their demagogic rallies. As a nation, we are in dangerous times, especially when such a high percentage of the American electorate support a President who encourages anger, prejudice, and violence regularly, and don’t care that he undermines the Constitution and the laws of the land. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2018, at 1:01 AM, arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Trump needs needs to reject  the support from the anti Semitic extremists who say they support him  even if they are part off his base

Good people dont chant "jews will not replace us"

-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Maher <alicelmaher@gmail.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 27, 2018 7:00 am
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] bombing suspect found a father in Trump

I just wrote this on my Facebook page - the public one that I use to advertise my book.  Curious what the group's reaction is.

_____

Yesterday was very intense. With everything going on, how could I possibly "take the side of" Trump supporters?

Before I explain, I need to clarify something. I am attempting to do what I do in my psychoanalytic practice - position myself between opposing forces, stand firm, and move back and forth with the goal of inviting warring sides to begin to come together. It's called "internal conflict resolution" within an individual. I maintain that the same process is possible within society.

We have warring groups, and they're not understanding each other or coming together. One side will win 51% of the vote for a couple of years, but that's not resolving anything. 

On my personal page, I made the mistake of allying with the left to the point where the right disappeared. I'm still in touch with those people, and over time I came to understand their perspective much more than I ever had. Yea, they came on strong and sounded bullying and mean. But they had something they needed to say, and no one was hearing them.

Since they're not here (or here and not talking), I'm trying to identify with them and explain something about where they're coming from. That doesn't mean I'm on their side, nor does it mean I'm on the other side. I'm trying damn hard not to take a side, because I sincerely believe that both sides are flawed.

So why did I/they say that the left is hypocritical? Because of the way they're so quick to label people on the right with language that can feel to them like being called the N word. They're racists! They're Nazis! If you're going to go there, fine. But then don't talk about how lovey-dovey we need to be with all people, no matter what sex, gender, race, religion and culture. How about people with different ways of thinking? Maybe some of them on the extreme ends are mentally ill - that deserves empathy too - but maybe they just have very powerful beliefs about the importance of individual freedom, the role of government, and the fact that a fetus is just as alive as you are. 

If you want to communicate with them, go there. Don't tell them they're stupid, crazy or evil. As a psychiatrist, I know damn well that when you think of someone that way, they'll act out that fantasy. 

Am I making any sense?

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM Brian D'Agostino <bdagostino2687@gmail.com> wrote:

The former attorney of the bombing suspect's family told Anderson Cooper that Cesar Sayoc had been abandoned by his Filipino father and found a father in Trump.  Here is the interview: 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/26/bombing-suspect-sayoc-ron-lowy-attorney-ac360-intv-vpx.cnn

Brian

bdagostino.com

On 10/24/2018 5:38 AM, Dr Judith Logue wrote:

Thx, Brian..

If you did not see Rachel Maddow’s show last night, please Google it.

Judy 

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

609-915-9155, cell

www.judithlogue.com

On Oct 24, 2018, at 5:15 AM, Brian D'Agostino <bdagostino2687@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

The top story on the CNN website today is an article by Stephen Collinson entitled "Trump is at the top of his dangerous game as midterms loom:"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/politics/donald-trump-midterms-immigration-oval-office/index.html   

Collinson suggests, among other things, that Trump is proactively shaping the midterm election into a referendum on immigration using the so called "caravan" coming from Central America as a bogyman to stoke fear and prejudice.  This is a high-stakes game indeed and no-one has a crystal ball.  The big unknown that will determine which party ends up controlling the House is turnout of registered voters.  In "our" ideal (perhaps fantasy) scenario, Trump may inadvertently achieve for the Democrats something they couldn't achieve for themselves, namely energizing Latino voters, who vote disproportionately Democratic.  On the other hand, his framing of the midterms as an anti-immigrant moment may succeed in keeping Republican women in the fold and getting them out to vote, over-riding the anti-Kavanaugh sentiment that had threatened to upend GOP hopes on November 6.  As I see it, control of the House (and possibly the Senate) may depend on the relative strength of these two effects. 

For better or for worse, we'll know what happens in less than two weeks.  For us as psychohistorians, however, the upshot of the above analysis is that there is no monolithic national group fantasy but rather distinct and often conflicting psychoclasses, some numerically larger than others, and each with their own hot-button issues.  We need to understand the political process in terms of the complex resonances and effects--intended and unintended--that Trump's or any other leader's actions have on this divided electorate.

Brian

bdagostino.com  -- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Click here to Reply

Alice Maher

Oct 28

Hi Judy, Ken and Brian,

I just posted this on Facebook. Since it addresses some of your questions, I thought I'd share it.

____________

Yesterday, a member of this group wondered what mental illness has to do with it.

As a psychiatrist, a would say a lot. Often what's presented as a "hate crime" is a paranoid individual who has focused on one group as a target for reasons that have more to do with their internal psychotic reality than the dynamics of prejudice.

That said, when it happens, it happens for complex reasons that do have to do with social forces.

Here's how I think about it, in an abstract way. 

Imagine a person, usually a man, who is struggling with internal demons including massive rage. Maybe he's hearing voices telling him to kill, or maybe it involves another kind of delusional system. Maybe there's a person or group that haunt his imagination and make him convinced that they need to die so that he can save himself and the world. Maybe it's a way to commit suicide-by-cop in a grand manner.

When those people emerge from within a cult, you need to look in two places - 1) the compelling force of the cult leader, and 2) the childhood traumas, misunderstandings, abuses and rejections that, added to problematic brain chemistry, lead to a very fragile psyche containing a great deal of rage.

In the hypothetical model I'm imagining, Trump is the cult leader, and the democrats are the traumatizing, oblivious parents who continually exhort that child to be something he can't be; to think and feel in a way that's impossible for him. The cult leader is compelling because he fills that space.

If we're going to address that problem, we need to look at BOTH directions AT THE SAME TIME.

Thoughts?

Alice
Author: Catalysis: A Recipe to Slow Down or Abort Humankind's Leap to War

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

Judith Logue

Oct 28

YES!👍👍👍

Judy

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

609-915-9155, cell

www.judithlogue.com

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Oct 28

Maybe democrats as -- pushing for individualism and self-actualization: what actually generated the most profound traumas in their lives, with it incurring maternal rejection -- bad selves, rather than bad parents. Parent, more frequently now projected onto nation -- hence, rise in pride in being nationalistic. Trump as foremost servant/delegate OF parent nation. Eliminating selves which contain "your" "bad" attributes, leaves the nation cleansed so "you" feel pure, and garners mother nation's approval. It's easy for me to see democrats as representing a child's "selfish" individuation from the mother, as all Trump supporters knew SOMETHING of individuation during the rapprochement stage -- the first time they came to understand it as the foremost thing they could do to ensure their abandonment/rejection, for their mothers understanding it as their deliberate abandonment of her. 

For the democrat to be as well/or primarily their own snubbing parent... is certainly possible too: someone has to represent the split-off "bad mother." I'm reminded of DeMause's writings on how Hitler/Germans split off the "bad mother" onto England and France, hoping more to command Her respect than destroy Her, but projected "bad selves" onto Jews/Russia/Poland, with the intention only of annihilation. If both "democrats" and "Jews" represent "sinful" self-actualization, why does one only consider the possibility that "democrats" could be both the "bad selves" and "bad mother"?; why couldn't "Jews" serve the same dual role? Democrats have become "foreign" too, with their being designated globalists... but maybe this is the mother who finds someone else, someone other than YOU, actually worth their attendance, reinforcing their status as actually-experienced, spurning parent, whose respect and love "you" ultimately hope to claim. 

This would be the relevant bit from DeMause. Taken from Emotional Life of Nations: 

The path to war, however, did not begin with the killing of Bad Boy "useless eaters" to the East. Indeed, Hitler temporarily made a Nonaggression Pact with Russia and attempted to extend it to Poland. Germany's first task was righteous rape, the knocking of Mother England off her pedestal and, while still wooing her, teaching her a lesson of how she must stop humiliating Germans by rejecting their courtship. Nazi diplomatic language dripped of maternal imagery for the two Western nations, as when Goering asked, "Why should France continue to tie herself to a decayed old nation like England--a rouged old maid trying to pretend that she is still young and vigorous."440 Hitler believed that war would teach England a lesson and make her respect Germany, predicting that "the end of the war will mark the beginning of a durable friendship with England. But first we must give her the K.O.-- for only so can we live at peace with her, and the Englishman can only respect someone who has first knocked him out."441 Mother England, after all, was a "purely Germanic nation" who, like a good German mother, ruled over her children (colonies) with an iron fist.442 Germany had to rape her to dominate and really have her, but, Hitler said, "This doesn't prevent me from admiring [the English]. They have a lot to teach us."

- - - - 

arniedr

Oct 28

Trump needs needs to reject  the support from the anti Semitic extremists who say they support him  even if they are part off his base

Good people dont chant "jews will not replace us"

-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Maher <alicelmaher@gmail.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 27, 2018 7:00 am
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] bombing suspect found a father in Trump

I just wrote this on my Facebook page - the public one that I use to advertise my book.  Curious what the group's reaction is.

_____

Yesterday was very intense. With everything going on, how could I possibly "take the side of" Trump supporters?

Before I explain, I need to clarify something. I am attempting to do what I do in my psychoanalytic practice - position myself between opposing forces, stand firm, and move back and forth with the goal of inviting warring sides to begin to come together. It's called "internal conflict resolution" within an individual. I maintain that the same process is possible within society.

We have warring groups, and they're not understanding each other or coming together. One side will win 51% of the vote for a couple of years, but that's not resolving anything. 

On my personal page, I made the mistake of allying with the left to the point where the right disappeared. I'm still in touch with those people, and over time I came to understand their perspective much more than I ever had. Yea, they came on strong and sounded bullying and mean. But they had something they needed to say, and no one was hearing them.

Since they're not here (or here and not talking), I'm trying to identify with them and explain something about where they're coming from. That doesn't mean I'm on their side, nor does it mean I'm on the other side. I'm trying damn hard not to take a side, because I sincerely believe that both sides are flawed.

So why did I/they say that the left is hypocritical? Because of the way they're so quick to label people on the right with language that can feel to them like being called the N word. They're racists! They're Nazis! If you're going to go there, fine. But then don't talk about how lovey-dovey we need to be with all people, no matter what sex, gender, race, religion and culture. How about people with different ways of thinking? Maybe some of them on the extreme ends are mentally ill - that deserves empathy too - but maybe they just have very powerful beliefs about the importance of individual freedom, the role of government, and the fact that a fetus is just as alive as you are. 

If you want to communicate with them, go there. Don't tell them they're stupid, crazy or evil. As a psychiatrist, I know damn well that when you think of someone that way, they'll act out that fantasy. 

Am I making any sense?

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:25 PM Brian D'Agostino <bdagostino2687@gmail.com> wrote:

The former attorney of the bombing suspect's family told Anderson Cooper that Cesar Sayoc had been abandoned by his Filipino father and found a father in Trump.  Here is the interview: 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/26/bombing-suspect-sayoc-ron-lowy-attorney-ac360-intv-vpx.cnn

Brian

bdagostino.com

On 10/24/2018 5:38 AM, Dr Judith Logue wrote:

Thx, Brian..

If you did not see Rachel Maddow’s show last night, please Google it.

Judy 

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

609-915-9155, cell

www.judithlogue.com

On Oct 24, 2018, at 5:15 AM, Brian D'Agostino <bdagostino2687@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

The top story on the CNN website today is an article by Stephen Collinson entitled "Trump is at the top of his dangerous game as midterms loom:"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/politics/donald-trump-midterms-immigration-oval-office/index.html   

Collinson suggests, among other things, that Trump is proactively shaping the midterm election into a referendum on immigration using the so called "caravan" coming from Central America as a bogyman to stoke fear and prejudice.  This is a high-stakes game indeed and no-one has a crystal ball.  The big unknown that will determine which party ends up controlling the House is turnout of registered voters.  In "our" ideal (perhaps fantasy) scenario, Trump may inadvertently achieve for the Democrats something they couldn't achieve for themselves, namely energizing Latino voters, who vote disproportionately Democratic.  On the other hand, his framing of the midterms as an anti-immigrant moment may succeed in keeping Republican women in the fold and getting them out to vote, over-riding the anti-Kavanaugh sentiment that had threatened to upend GOP hopes on November 6.  As I see it, control of the House (and possibly the Senate) may depend on the relative strength of these two effects. 

For better or for worse, we'll know what happens in less than two weeks.  For us as psychohistorians, however, the upshot of the above analysis is that there is no monolithic national group fantasy but rather distinct and often conflicting psychoclasses, some numerically larger than others, and each with their own hot-button issues.  We need to understand the political process in terms of the complex resonances and effects--intended and unintended--that Trump's or any other leader's actions have on this divided electorate.

Brian

bdagostino.com  -- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
<><><>
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Click here to Reply

bdagostino2687

Oct 28

Yes, I agree Arnie.  I wonder what Jared Kushner is telling him.  But I am not holding my breath; Trump does not listen to informed advice and makes it a badge of honor to act on his "gut," which is fascist.  Besides, even if he listened to his son-in-law, what would Kushner tell him?  Do the right thing, or stay the course because the majority of American Jews didn't vote for you, and AIPAC and Shelden Adelson are not going to go to the mat over this?  Let's not forget that it was Kushner who gave Trump the brilliant advice to fire James Comey.  This is what corruption looks like.  AIPAC and the Adelson types have made their devil's bargain with Trump like all his other supporters and are on a roll.  Do you really think they are going to let the massacre of a few innocent people get in the way of making America and Israel great again? Well, I guess we'll see.

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

Judith Logue

Oct 28

Current Events and Psychohistory

Reply to Brian:

You make complete sense in all your posts, especially about the multiple determinants - as do Arnie and Alice and many others.

Brian, do you think and feel reason will prevail in the next five years?  Any chance of a bipartisan mentality - with less fomenting of fear and violence?

Maureen Dowd’s “Riling up the Crazies” column today omits the reality that good people with intelligence and character are also riled up. 

The fear and fascist crap is too effective so far.

Too few in politics and elsewhere know how to outsmart liars and psychopathy with integrity.

While many are persisting and standing for health and good change, too many are being made sick as well as being harmed.

So far I have not succumbed to cigarettes, alcohol, psychotropics, Oxycontin, heroin or a love sex addiction.  

Or homicide except in fantasy.

That said, so far analysis, intellectualizion  and humor are my drugs of choice.

All on Clio’s are contributing to what works for me.

With appreciation,

Judy 

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

609-915-9155, cell

www.judithlogue.com

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Oct 28

Arnie,

Since 1968, with the exception of George W. Bush, every successful Republican Presidential candidate has run on a southern strategy of appealing to white racists. Trump has just been more overt and demagogic about it than most of the other Republicans. As we know, anti-semitism has long been part of white supremacists outlook. I think Trump’s long history shows he is racist, but I don’t see much anti-semitism in him. Outside of his father, the most influential male in his life was Jewish, Roy Cohn. 

There is no question good people don’t chant “Jews will not replace us.”  Nor do good people tolerate chants of “Lock her up” or “CNN sucks” at their demagogic rallies. As a nation, we are in dangerous times, especially when such a high percentage of the American electorate support a President who encourages anger, prejudice, and violence regularly, and don’t care that he undermines the Constitution and the laws of the land. 

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Oct 28

Re: [cliospsyche] Current Events and Psychohistory

Thanks, Judy.  Demographic trends do not favor a fascist majority in the US.  Nor am I worried about the Supreme Court as such, because as long as we have majoritarian democracy, I believe the Democrats will eventually pack the Supreme Court.  Here are the two things I worry about.  First, if Russian and/or Republican tampering with the actual vote casts the legitimacy of this and/or future elections into doubt, then we're going to have a real breakdown of democratic governance.  There is a simple remedy for this.  By federal law, every state should be required to keep a paper trail of every vote.  If I had any influence with the Democratic Party (Ken, are you listening?), I would advise them to put that reform at the topic of their agenda.

There is no such fix for my second nightmare scenario, but fortunately it is self-limiting in the sense that it is not a stable arrangement that can last for many years.  This scenario is that a third party will form, comprised of former "moderate" Republicans like Jeff Flake and centrist Democrats being marginalized by the Bernie Sanders trend in the Democratic Party.  This third party will be the new "moderate" face of neoliberal capital, and will frame itself as the sensible middle way between the extremes of left and right.  This is a seductive but false narrative, debunked repeatedly by Paul Krugman for example. With Trump's virtually complete takeover of the Republican Party and the ascendancy of the Bernie Sanders types in the Democratic Party, the logic of our political system points to the emergence of such a third party.  If this happens, such a party could capture most of the "independent" vote, enabling Trump to be re-elected for a second term by an even smaller minority of the electorate than he got in 2016.

Sorry to burden you with not one but two nightmare scenarios, Judy, but if you agree with this analysis, at least you will be worrying about the right things. :-)  I am managing the stress by taking a three week meditation retreat at Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa.  I'm returning to NYC the day before election day.

Brian

bdagostino.com

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

arniedr

Oct 28

A majority of Israelis do not support Trump and do not feel Trumps good for Israeli or Jews 

I heard make  Israel  great again as an anti Semitic comment because i believe anti Zionism and anti Semitism in the Middle east in Europe and on college campuses are connected 

I have no problem with opposing sone of the policies of the Israeli  government but many anti Zionists do not believe Israel has a right to exist 

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

arniedr

Oct 28

https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/01/12/famed-french-philosopher-bernard-henri-levy-anti-zionism-is-the-new-dressing-for-the-old-passion-of-antisemitism/

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian D'Agostino <bdagostino2687@gmail.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

arniedr

Oct 28

My relatives in France tell me they feel safer in Israel than in France a view shared by many French Jews  The same for my Jewish friends in the UK and the Jews in Sweeden

 I am beginning  to feel that  way here 

I hope Brian will follow Alice's play book and try to understand where I and many of my coreligionists are coming from

There are now colleges in the US that Jews will not send their children to  - Columbia Berkely  SF State   This is worse than the quota system that prevailed when I was applying to college and medical school 

arnie

-----Original Message-----
From: arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Oct 28

The U S is in a precarious position, if the Democrats do not control the House of Representatives in the upcoming election, Trump and his allies will be emboldened. Besides curtail or end the Mueller investigation who knows what else will be done. The hope is within the Democratic Party, but they have abandoned their roots since Bill Clinton’s presidency and have lost their way. Bernie’s message is on target, but his appeal is limited. Still, this moderate-liberal remnants of a party is all we have now. The Trump coalition has many components. One is that Trump received a higher percentage of women voters than did Romney or McCain. Doing whatever is needed to get suburban women voters to abandon Republicans is helpful. After all 55 percent of Americans live in suburbs. I am sure the Democrats have focus groups on these matters. Overall, the Democrats need to re-group and focus on the economy and being more concerned for all Americans than they have been. After all, during the depths of the Great Recession, Obama did more to bail out the Detroit automakers than he did for the millions whose homes were foreclosed. 

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Oct 28

Isn't this too much homo economicus, Ken? Americans are motivated to recreate the dangerous atmosphere of their childhood homes... WE WANT precariousness. What no one seems to be arguing is how if democrats win control, this is no guarantee of respite, the downfall of this horrendous uptick in identifying with nationalism. If society brings about its own doom because more and more people can no longer avoid feeling like they'll be apocalyptically punished if growth continues, then we'll see an encroachment of the lost so that many democrats, too, start talking of the importance of borders, of taking pride in their mother nations again, etc. What worried many people about Sanders were the large number of Bernie Bros... the number of people who were turning against the "sinful" individualism of the Hillary supporters. For all intents and purposes, they were David Brooks: 

It’s threatened by extreme individualism — people who put the needs of the individual above the needs of the community. It’s threatened by globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place. The greatest threats come from those who claim to be nationalists but who are the opposite.

To me, if democrats naturally -- that is, not primarily owing to focus groups -- are drawn to talking about the economy, and not about identity politics, attend to the, quote unquote, needs of all Americans, rather than focusing on the accomplishments of professionals, aka, the most self-actualized, it'll be a sign, really, of their becoming, too, David Brooks... of their relinquishing their pursuit of the light, to acquiesce to period of penance which will transform many Americans into the good folk/Volk, and many others, into something degraded from that. I'm sure there will be many who'll see the democrat's turn to suddenly evidently LIKING the commons again, as their regaining their virtue. If this were the 60s, I would agree... but since to me this is the 30s I think this is about -- primarily -- their own lack of ability to further sustain in their minds the genuine truth, that self-actualization is not sinful. It'll be about them creating an atmosphere where everyone is encouraged to be types rather than individuals... a period where we lose our adult status and become once again children, striving to show we care about our mother nation too. 

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Oct 28

Patrick,

I think you are missing the main point, if the Republicans control the House and Senate after the November 6th election, Trump and the Congressional Republicans will feel they can go farther than they already have. Don't you perceive the danger?.   

- show quoted text -

 Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Oct 28

Everyone sane/not regressing perceives the danger. The danger they don't perceive is if democrats win, for "democrat" not meaning what it used to mean, as more and more Americans -- including hordes of democrats -- turn nationalistic. To me, republican or democrat, most Americans will over the next ten years sound like David Brooks, or like this recent article from Time Magazine... written quite possibly -- who knows? -- by a democrat. The "advantage" of Republicans winning is that it allows us to believe we democrats are still the source of the light. The disadvantage... for SOME democrats, of democrats winning, is that they will see how widespread the problem is... with so many democrats evidencing their own regression, we'll have to come to the very uncomfortable and terrifying conclusion that there is no escape possible from ten years of hell -- the 50/50 split, is fiction, with the more profound split being 90/10... those for individuation, and those who see individuation as sin, and all the good self/bad self splitting, rewarding and punishing, that will entail.