Clio's Psyche, after conference, #3

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Jun 9

At the conference, I really enjoyed reading a couple of the books that were available, and it's prompted me to not only write a new one but to put two of my own to your attention.

Main one is Draining the Amazon's Swamp, a lengthy exploration of my studies through the history of English literature. It's available here at Amazon.

The second is Essays on the Lord of the Rings, which is a James F. Mastersonian exploration of the saga that tries to argue it more an anti-adventure than an adventure. This is 60 pages; much shorter. It's available here.

Click here to Reply

bdagostino2687

Jun 9

Thanks much, Patrick, I'm glad you made this announcement. Some topic in the interface between psychohistory and literary criticism would make for a very interesting paper at the IPA conference next year, and you can bring display copies of your book for the book table. --Brian

- 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

Ken Fuchsman

Jun 9

Patrick,

It is nice that the psychohistroy conference prompted you to write another book.

Also, please say a little more about each of your books to all of us.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Jun 9

I am tempted to say that both books are about how Patrick attends to what he reads in novels, poetry and film (mostly novels, though), with the first book offering Patrick's gaze through a large gamut of books, that takes one through centuries of literature, and the second, only through a single series. I'm guessing this isn't sufficient, however possibly most accurate and honest, so I'll say further that the first book is a chronicle of my years of exploring literature, from first year at university until the completion of my masters. This undersells, so I'll add that, one, though the original voice is almost entirely there, I did end up correcting my younger self, here and there. And two, I was 27 when I began, so more than ready to write... no duckling. None were simply applications of theory to text. DeMause is there, so too James F. Masterson (also, Brain, some Chodorow), but really, mostly as complements, I think... I have too much respect for my gaze.. So I suppose it's a chronicle, also, of my development of mind through successive years. I think it finishes strong, and climaxes near the termination of the master's part: so not a magpie's random pickings, but a funnelling to a single culminating point, where, revelation???? At times I was asked to adjust to get published (not the whole thing, but parts), but the poetry of the work just had to stand, and the people asking were oblivious that this was a concern... a longstanding beef.

The Lord of the Rings one is recentish.... last year. Very much about the journey as something that actually dovetails individuation, and reveals the malice of how the hobbits got involved in the quest in the first place. In this bit, you get deMause, and such things as poison containers, abandonment depression and flight to action. I suspect there isn't anything like it out there.

Next book might a lot of Updike. He's my Shakespeare, and like him, he's my bet as to who lasts through centuries. I've now done a much larger survey of psychoanalytic thought, so it might reach my audience -- possibly you guys? -- seeming more fit for the field.

Thanks for the request, Ken. I am inspired... the whole conference, but also reading one of Susan Kavaler-Adlar's books (a meeting of literary works and Melanie Klein/Winnicott), which struck me as very similar to what I do, how I enjoy spending my time. Do more of what I like to do, I thought.

P.S.

Draining the Amazon's Swamp may not be everyone's favourite title, but it was inspired, as I remember it, a bit from Douglas's "Terrible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 20s," which is an awesome book, titled awesomely.

- show quoted text -

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Jun 9

You're very welcome Brain. I'm very glad for your support and encouragement.

- show quoted text -

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Jun 9

... and in the meantime, I do film reviews, at letterboxd.

- show quoted text -

bdagostino2687

Jun 10

I think "Draining the Amazon's Swamp" is a great title. Punchy and intriguing.

--Brian

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Jun 16

Other recipients: kfuchsman@gmail.com

Michael Eigen has a new book out as an ebook and paperback, entitled The Challenge of being human.

Here is a link to find ut more about it.

https://www.routledge.com/The-Challenge-of-Being-Human/Eigen/p/book/9781782206538

The Challenge of Being Human

By Michael Eigen

146 pages

e–Inspection Copy

For LibrariansAvailable on Taylor & Francis eBooks >>

Share https://www.routledge.com/The-Challenge-of-Being-Human/Eigen/p/book/9781782206538 http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FThe-Challenge-of-Being-Human%2FEigen%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781782206538&via=routledgebooks http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FThe-Challenge-of-Being-Human%2FEigen%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781782206538 https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FThe-Challenge-of-Being-Human%2FEigen%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781782206538 http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FThe-Challenge-of-Being-Human%2FEigen%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781782206538

Purchasing Options:$ = USD

https://www.routledge.com/products/9781782206538Paperback: 9781782206538

pub: 2018-05-15

SAVE ~$6.79

$27.16

https://www.routledge.com/products/9780429443060eBook (VitalSource) https://www.routledge.com/The-Challenge-of-Being-Human/Eigen/p/book/9781782206538: 9780429443060

pub: 2018-05-20

Purchase eBook ~~$33.95~~$30.56SAVE ~$3.40 12 Month Rental - $20.37 6 Month Rental - $16.98

from $16.9

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Oct 24

sobering summary of the state of American democracy

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

Mark as complete

Judith Logue

Oct 24

Re: [cliospsyche] sobering summary of the state of American democracy

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

- 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

bdagostino2687

Oct 26

bombing suspect found a father in Trump

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

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Alice Maher

Oct 27

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?

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Judith Logue

Oct 27

Re: [cliospsyche] bombing suspect found a father in Trump

Total sense, Alice.

It is how I (have to and want to) live - especially here in a community whervthe way I think is in the minority.

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

Judith Logue

Oct 27

Catalysis Issues

To add to Alice’s ideas and my previous reply.

What if we were able to learn to tolerate (preferably understand) others’ thinking AND feeling?

Especillay feeling.

And what if we were to judge only hateful and harmful talk and actions

(behaviors )??

In addition to work to promote civil liberties for all genders, colors and classes?

What if a political party - preferably parties - embraced this and included it in the principle of “integrity?”

There would of course be disagreement defining harms -

Just some “Blue Sky Visioning” ...since I am just back from APCS to my summer camp

all year ‘round airport community today with weather (WX) in the 80s.

So please forgive any extreme hope and optimism if not inclination to unreality.

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

bdagostino2687

Oct 27

Re: [cliospsyche] bombing suspect found a father in Trump

Alice,

What you say makes complete sense to me as a strategy and position for transforming conflict and facilitating communication. Whether these principles are sufficient to heal the world is a separate question. More on that below, but first let me expand on the strengths and merits of what I hear you saying.

Others have independently come to similar conclusions using different terminology, underscoring the truth, relevance and breadth of applicability of what you say. Jung talked about “mutual shadow projection” and its pivotal role in conflict. Lloyd deMause talked about how groups designate certain despised others as “poison containers,” which is certainly the way Trump functions psychologically for the left, just as Trump’s various preferred scapegoats play that role for Trump and his followers, a classic illustration of Jung’s mutual shadow projection.

As for remedies, some version of the golden rule is a well established norm for ethical relationships that can be found in virtually every culture. A modern version of this is Stephen Covey’s principle, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood,” one of his “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” Perhaps the originality of your work is your approach to dismantling the unconscious barriers to people actually practicing such principles.

That said, I would like to suggest that there are other barriers to ethical relationships and good communication that have nothing to do with unconscious complexes and this gets to the question of what else might be necessary for healing the world. Throughout history, for example, war has not been in the first instance a spontaneous expression of conflict between groups who misunderstand one another but an instrument through which ruling elites use violence to consolidate control of territory and resources.

To be sure, if one of these elites were to undergo a successful psychoanalysis, he or she might emerge as a Warren Buffet, for example, rather than a Mitch McConnell. If the entire ruling class were to undergo such transformation, the whole system might change. But psychoanalysts who actually work with rich and powerful clients can probably attest than I can why this scenario is so improbable. The people who are most motivated to create peaceful and egalitarian arrangements, other things being equal, are not those benefiting from the current system, but those who are so poorly served by existing arrangements.

The upshot of this analysis is that the healing of individuals and groups is necessary but not sufficient to heal the world. It is also necessary to institute policy and institutional reforms—such as demilitarization, a Green New Deal, and worker controlled enterprises—that are going to be popular with the majority but targets of bitter political opposition by most of the rich and most of the professionals beholden to them and to the current system, which serves them so well. We cannot understand the age of Trump, the nature of the Republican Party today, or the conflict between the Hillary Clinton and the Bernie Sanders wings of the Democratic Party using the tools of psychology and conflict transformation alone. I have written more about these things in my book, The Middle Class Fights Back: http://bdagostino.com/middle-class-fights-back.php

Brian

bdagostino.com

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

mfbrttn

Oct 28

Re: [cliospsyche] Catalysis Issues

To pick up on what Alice wrote, I think it is essential to do exactly what Alice is describing. I have a colleague who used to work on community conflict resolution for the Justice Department who described going to one side, listening to them to really understand their views, and then, before leaving to visit the other side, would say: I'm going to see them now. What do you think they're going to tell me about you?

I think Alice's determination to understand what people on the right think and feel, and how they have arrived at those views, is essential to the conflicting sides moving to "finding" each other as real people who can be understood and with whom some kind of path forward can be found that all sides embrace.

It is quite impressive to me how thoroughly the left will not try to listen to how they/we fit into the world the right views themselves as confronting, and how the right so thoroughly will not do the same toward the left. Alice is right, in my view, that the skills of being a therapist listening to people and how their thoughts and feelings came to be important to them are invaluable in being anything like a bridge between sides who otherwise relate only to their own sense of the world -- and relegate "the others" to the "bad role" or "stupid role" instead of to the role of being flawed fellow human beings just like us, whoever the "us" is. Therapists want to know how they are seen in the client's world, and how that view came to be. It's not so easy listening to why others don't like us, but that's part of extending the radical respect we hope they'll come to extend to us in turn.

Alice, I think your write-up here would be a good addition to the next edition of your book.

Michael Britton

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Trevor Pederson

Oct 28

Re: [cliospsyche] Catalysis Issues

I think it's important to notice that the solutions that people are focussing on here perpetuate the status quo.

If the dialogue that Alice proposes is even possible in a world of epistemic bubbles and polarization, it would likely lead to what Brian points to as a new party that splits the difference between right and left polarization so that we still end up at the same political point of being a country that remains right of center.

For me the question is not how to get people to talk and appreciate the different identities that are important to them (i.e. religious identities, ethnic identities, etc.). The question is what is the common ground that can be found between the political right and left so that they can go after a new ideal in which they can eventually let go of the old group identifications that get in the way.

You can call me cynical, but most people have strong identifications with group identities that aren't based upon their rational choice of them. They don't study different religions or the philosophical arguments for a God but instead identify with the religion they were born into. In discussions I see, people can discuss for a bit, but then get to a bedrock of identification that they don't question.

The biggest deficit I see on the left is their lack of messaging and focus grouping. The right makes constant talking points and memes, while the left believes in the goodness of others to listen when they are presented with "the truth."

In my opinion, psychologists on the left have to take this into their own hands and begin to appeal to people on the right, outside of their group identities, by finding the words and perceptions of the world that resonate with them that can align with some of the values of the political left.

Trevor

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Trevor Pederson

Oct 28

Re: [cliospsyche] Catalysis Issues

If you notice, the left's outrage with Trump, Kavanaugh, etc. is not sticking, although they keep going to it.

To keep branding Trump and the right as misogynists, racists, etc. is to not focus on stories like the 400+ million he got from daddy. For people who identify with the great success that they see Trump to be and to be bringing, the latter story would hit harder, than his racist statement du jour.

It's like the left can't believe that what they feel is normative is not normative for the political right, and when they encounter that perception they double down and compare Trumpists to Nazis and diminish the power of that word. In the wake of anti-Semitic violence the left's indictments of Trumpists previous to this will likely mean that this won't buy them much political capital on the right.

Beneath group identity there are ontological relations to the human and non-human environment that are visible in memes on big government and the nanny state, draining the swamp and wall street vs. main street, fairness and decency, etc. that must be tapped into.

There are images and symbols that resonate with the regressions that Patrick mentions and which can also be put to use (along with the memes).

Don't settle for a return to a status quo that remains right of center,

Trevor

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Oct 28

Re: [cliospsyche] Catalysis Issues

I completely agree with Trevor's point about the left's failure to frame its agenda adequately. Cognitive linguist George Lackoff said much the same thing in Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, as I discussed in the appendix to my book: http://bdagostino.com/middle-class-fights-back.php I would only add here that notwithstanding this, very solid majorities of Americans periodically support far-reaching egalitarian reform, which is how we got the abolition of slavery and reconstruction, reforms of the progressive era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and Obamacare. Occupy Wall Street and now the Bernie Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez renewal of the Democratic Party have been the latest phase of this sort. I don't entirely understand these cycles, which Ken has studied more than I; they may be related in some way to child-rearing patterns, but neither deMause nor anyone else to my knowledge has offered an evidence-based explanation.

I have a right wing brother and mother-in-law who support Trump and I go out of my way to understand why they feel the way they do and how they think. I just had lunch yesterday with a retired lawyer from Kentucky who is a Trump supporter and admits he (the supporter) is a racist. I have Jewish friends who are outspoken Zionists (most notably, Arnie) and others who are outspoken critics of the occupation. I have been studying the psychology of ideology since graduate school, and individual people in real life settings provide a wealth of insight into how people's belief systems work.

That said, at the end of the day, it all comes down to who shows up to vote and how they vote and how the votes are counted. There is a complex interplay between economics and psychology, and the competence and mistakes of individual candidates and campaigns as well as unpredictable shocks (such as the so-called immigrant caravan and the recent wave of political violence) can be decisive. Chaos theory, and ultimately quantum mechanics (which governs brains at the atomic scale), tell us that it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the outcome of even simple individual events, much less complex events like national elections. So I don't think anyone can claim to have a crystal ball. This is my third and last post for the day.

Brian

bdagostino.com

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Alice Maher

Oct 28

Re: [cliospsyche] Catalysis Issues

Thanks so much, Michael. I'm delighted that you "got" it. In my book I tried hard not to talk about politics because it's so triggering that even the attempt to go there would prejudice a lot of people. I'm hoping I can do that in my next book, after people begin to understand what I'm trying to do.

BTW, I'm very excited to have been invited to give a presentation for Hunter Elementary/High School - the best public school in NYC. If I can ally with them to create an emotional literacy pilot project, this "idealistic" vision of mine could take off. Young people get it; they really do. :)

arniedr

Oct 29

Other recipients: slswashnj@aol.com, alicemaher@gmail.com, arniedr15@gmail.com

We are in the same boat brother...and sister

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com>
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Cc: slswashnj@aol.com <slswashnj@aol.com>; alicemaher@gmail.com <alicemaher@gmail.com>; Arnold Richards, MD <arniedr15@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2018 8:09 am
Subject: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

I include both: Alice’s intellectual theoretical approach that results in her educational “recipe; AND Arnie’s next step – concomitant with understanding and education -- which is to stand up for the good and against harm and evil. And fight for it when we must.

Good people who do nothing allow evil to triumph as Edmund Burke said a long time ago.

Alice is doing a lot her way. Arnie the same.

Susan is too.

I am in the company of thinkers and doers who are standing for and fighting for democracy in ways that fit your constitution, history and gifts. We are all together in this. Division among us is thrilling for those who foment hatred.

Celebrating our individual strengths and allowing and supporting others who are good to do what we do not do well or do not want to do or know how to do is so important.

We are a community. I want to support each other, not compete with one another.

XO,

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: arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:56 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Cc: slswashnj@aol.com; alicemaher@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

I see it another way We need to use our understanding of the other side to develop strategies to prevail in our efforts to save our democracy We need to tostay planted on both our feet

arnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Maher <alicelmaher@gmail.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Cc: slswashnj <slswashnj@aol.com>; alicemaher <alicemaher@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2018 4:47 am
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Arnie, the model I like to use is this. Our bodies (including our eyes) have two sides that mirror each other. We need both sides for stability, clarity, perspective, depth perception and forward movement. But one of those sides dominates and leads.

As the election approaches, vote for the side that you see most clearly. Move forward with your dominant side front and center. But always remain aware that good human beings, or flawed human beings, or mentally ill human beings, or human beings who see something you don't, exist on the other side. We need them for stability. Don't cut off your left leg to spite your right.

Susan, I'm very please to "meet" you. Unfortunately we can only create a distorted picture of one another in this faceless, toneless medium, so I'm grateful for your questions. I'm 66 years old, raised Catholic but gratefully adopted by my Freudian Jewish colleagues and my son's fabulous in-laws. I've been trapped in a solo private practice so I haven't traveled much, except to the extent that my patients take me with them on their personal journeys. After 40 years in the field, I've learned to imagine the internal worlds of so many different people, each with a different religious, political and cultural perspective. My book (did Judy tell you about it?) represents my effort to harmonize those clashing but all-too-human voices.

I hope we can continue this discussion.

Alice

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:54 AM arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com> wrote:

How can we understand this situation and parse "the other side" without violating our own principles

Is there evil in the world?

Just back from the UWS memorial gathering in honor of the victims of the Pittsburgh Synagogue massacre at Ansche Chesed. Thousands could not get in and there were simultaneous services inside and outside the Shul, with speakers repeating their talks outside. The overpowering sense of communal mourning and outrage was felt in every word by every charismatic speaker, and every burst of applause from the gathered mourners. The singing, the praying, the listening were the essence of "akhdes" - unity in the face of a horrific assault against our People, and specifically against good people who had gathered to welcome the Shabbes in a place of peace and prayer. When it was mentioned that the oldest martyr in the Etz Chayim massacre was a 97 year old Holocaust survivor, there were audible gasps of shock and horror in the shul. There were speakers from synagogues, the JCC, UJA Federation, and from Muslim and Christian denominations. There is a resolve to fight anti-semitism and hate against any group with the resolve of good people fighting to save the "humanity of humanity" itself."

Where does understanding the other side fit into this Is there a limit to empathy and understanding?

Can one have a dialogue with rifles or rockets?

arnie

-----Original Message-----
From: arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Cc: slswashnj <slswashnj@aol.com>; alicemaher <alicemaher@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2018 3:33 am
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Who doesn't understand who?

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/10/28/pittsburgh-jewish-leaders-tell-trump-to-stay-away-unless-he-denounces-white-nationalism/23574390/

How do you try to understand the other without sacrificing your own principles?

Arnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Maher <alicelmaher@gmail.com>
To: cliospsyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Cc: slswashnj <slswashnj@aol.com>; alicemaher <alicemaher@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 28, 2018 6:00 pm
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Hi Susan, Judy and others,

Susan, you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to antisemitism, which is an entity unto itself. My belief is that listening to people's perspectives, no matter how distorted they may be, is a step toward bridging divides and raising the threshold for violence. That doesn't mean we have to believe them or agree with them. We just have to understand how THEY see the world. I think the left fails in that way, and that failure contributes to fueling the flames of the extreme right.

Antisemitism can originate from very different psychological centers, from the psychotic/paranoid/delusional, to the people who are prejudiced from lack of education and fear, to the people who see Jews as different, odd, rich, smart, trying to run the world and succeeding, which may have some small elements of validity. (Don't they have more Nobel Prizes than any other group?) I sincerely believe that we can be more helpful to those people by trying harder to understand their worldview and address their concerns, rather than yelling "Antisemite!!!" from a fight-or-flight mode.

Alice

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:18 PM Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com> wrote:

Dear Alice,

Below are my dear friend’s comments on your post.

If you respond please include Susan.

Judy

From: Susan L Sloan <slswashnj@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:47 AM
To: Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com>
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Sorry, but Alice is hugely off the mark. I sort of get the point about tumpie being “a cult leader,” but anti-semitism goes far, far deeper into a psyche than ‘democrats being ‘traumatized parents.’

Trump’s continued mantra of denouncing any group not ‘American-Aryan’ has been his ‘hook’ to galvanize the delusional, but thinking the Democrats are in any way a traumatized ‘parent’, and, by default, partially complicit is far too naive a statement.

Anti-semitism predates trump and his delusional followers by thousands of years. And, although I don’t Tweet or watch the rallies, I have never equated trump’s inflammatory language with actual anti-semantic rants. He seems to know better, as dim as he is.

The deranged Pittsburgh killer may have been ‘set off’ by all of trump’s obvious utterances of ‘white supremacy,’ but his learned attitude of hatred of a Semantic race was with him long before trump became a ‘politician.’ And the Democrats or Republicans had nothing to do with it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com> wrote:

Comments?

Click here to Reply

Alice Maher

Oct 29

Other recipients: slswashnj@aol.com, alicemaher@gmail.com, arniedr15@gmail.com

Amen!

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Howard S

Oct 29

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Other recipients: slswashnj@aol.com, alicemaher@gmail.com, arniedr15@gmail.com

Dear Judy,

Good morning from Oklahoma. You speak for me as well.

Warmest regards,

Howard

Author of Centre and Circumference (2017) https://www.amazon.com/Howard-F.-Stein/e/B001HCZ62C/ref=ntt_dp_epwpk_0

Light and Shadow (poetry): https://doodleandpeck.com/adult

Listening Deeply (Second Edition): https://www.amazon.com/Howard-F.-Stein/e/B001HCZ62C/ref=ntt_dp_epwpk_0

The Dysfunctional Workplace (with Seth Allcorn): same url as above, amazon.com

Howard F. Stein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Oklahoma City, OK USA;

howard-stein@ouhsc.edu

Phone: 405-787-6074

Poet Laureate, High Plains Society for Applied Anthropology

Home address: 1408 Oakhill Lane, Oklahoma City OK 73127 USA

From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com [cliospsyche@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Alice Maher [alicelmaher@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:41 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Cc: slswashnj@aol.com; alicemaher@gmail.com; arniedr15@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Oct 29

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Yes, we are all in the same boat. This used to be called "the common good," and it is an idea that makes sense more than ever as the world's 7.6 billion people and their leaders try to fashion a common destiny on a single planet with limited resources. I would only add that the most consequential divisions between people may not be between White racists and Blacks, or between Anti-Semites and Jews, or between Nativists and immigrants. What if all this inter-ethnic strife is a red herring that conveniently obscures the real division of consequence, between those who hold vast economic and institutional power over our common future and those who are increasingly desperate about their livelihoods and how they are going to pay their bills? These mundane considerations may not loom large for most of us on this list, but if we want to understand the world in which we live including why Donald Trump is president of the United States, I think we need to understand this larger context.

To see my point, ask yourself why Trump and his supporters target George Soros and not Sheldon Adelson, even though both of them are wealthy Jews? Maybe anti-Semitism is not fundamentally what this is about. Let's look at the economic meanings of ethnic sterotypes and how they have been exploited by power holders. In Europe for centuries, the meme of the "money grubbing Jew" served to conveniently deflect the hostility of peasants away from the aristocracy--which actually held most of the wealth and got rich from the peasants' labor--onto middle class merchants who played little or no role in their exploitation but served as suitable scapegoats because of their cultural otherness.

Similarly, the meme of the lazy Black getting government welfare gives White working people a convenient scapegoat to blame for their troubles instead of the corporate CEOs and political elites who are outsourcing their jobs and trying to dismantle their union and government benefits. It is in this context, I would argue, that we need to understand Trump's demagoguery and the threat that the Republican Party and its propaganda apparatus poses to our democracy. In saying this, I am taking sides in the fundamental political struggle of our day. I expect Alice to continue doing what she does best, which is to facilitate communication and seek to transform conflict. My point, though, is that social conflict is a symptom and not a fundamental problem, and that the fundamental problem--a political-economic system that serves the few at the expense of the many--cannot be solved by conflict transformation alone. It will require policy and institutional reforms that create a system that works for everyone and the common good. I have written about this at greater length in my book: http://bdagostino.com/middle-class-fights-back.php

--Brian

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

drwargus

Oct 29

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Well said Brian. One of my skepticisms about Lloyd's work was that he neglected economic conditions. He suggested that childrearing and childhood trauma were dominant and not significantly affected by life conditions, including wealth and poverty. Furthermore, there is little discussion about power and how money is related to power.

I was speaking with my investment advisor the other day. You know, we used a call investment people stockbrokers. Then they tried to frame themselves differently by calling themselves "money managers." Now the buzz word is "wealth management." It occurred to me that what they are really saying is "status management." People want to maintain their status in society by maintaining or increasing their wealth. Most people fear losing their status in society, and I think that explains some of Donald Trump's appeal.

Bill

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

binsightfl1

Oct 29

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Hi,

It is, indeed, a "red herring" which pivots from

and diverts attention from admitting how we're

being played and from accepting responsibility

for this manipulation and distortion of the truth.

I completely agree with Brian's analysis. It's all

about the beans, (and the bean counters) baby.

Warm Regards,

Burton

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Oct 29

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

I don’t see the need for an either/or or a red herring, both the economic and the tribal us vs. them can be true. We don’t need to discount one or the other; they are both significant problems, though the us vs. them pattern goes back to the relatively egalitarian days of hunter/gatherers.

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Joel Markowitz

Oct 29

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

Points well made, Brain.

Joel

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Oct 29

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Promotion

He didn’t overlook, only emphasized that economic surpluses were the more terrifying problem, for threatening growth panic. He discusses economic depressions, but said were willed— tactic, like anorexia, to avoid seeming worthy of attack.

Mark as complete

Judith Logue

Oct 29

Awomen too!

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)

Nov 5

Everyone on my twitter feed agrees that we'll know tomorrow if we still have a democracy. I'd like to maintain that is way too early to ascertain that. If democrats win, check in the year ahead how many democrats start agreeing with the idea that we are ostensibly in need of "firming up" our borders... and how a return to nationalism -- economic; otherwise -- isn't so bad a thing. In my judgment, this will mean that they too are beginning to project their mothers onto the nation, and soon enough, will start projecting their "bad selves," the ones that stood up for their desire to self-actualization and separate from mother/not further attend to her needs, onto those outside the border/hems of her skirt. Claire McCaskill, discusses her love of borders and fear of the caravan, on Fox News.

Vamik is coming up quite as someone who will help, who IS helping, in efforts to bridge peace and understanding. This is the same Vamik, I presume, who built his earlier career on research into homosexuality, establishing it as sexual perversion, is he not?... he's the one who's linked in with Charles Socardes, the theorist most despised by the LGBT community, is he not? Look, if we learn that not 50 percent of the county has a desire to regress -- we should assume every Republican counts as doing so -- but, as we encounter more and more democrats speaking for firming up borders and return to self-sacrifice/against individualism, that way upwards of 50 percent of Americans are doing so, then collectively they'll seek to find ways to justify an attack on our society's most progressive members for their most representing the "crime" of enabling the most number of Americans to not be broken by such things as prejudice and victim-blaming, so to thereby realize their full potential. We'll see more Americans hating, most especially, groups that seek to assist our weakest.

One way we can expect they'll do that is making them seem those who are counter to what they have always represented themselves -- the holders of expertise; the ones with firmest understanding of facts. Which they will in fact be able to do, because a lot of social science HAS BEEN built, as such people like Steven Pinker argue, on romanticizing, and on projection onto specified poison containers -- white men. While this is not actually a crime, not actually a reflection of betrayal of cause, for what we have seen is only what we see through history when we explore progressive movements -- that they have blindspots; a need, still, for some psychic manipulation, some misappropriation of the world, for purposes of equilibrium, even amongst that society's most emotionally evolved, which are reduced in severity through each generation -- it will be easily established as a crime by a society no longer able to justify to themselves that their own growth is permitted given the specific sacrificial victims progressives have offered in which to offload punishment -- ie., white man -- and who will now seek respite from apocalyptic punishment by pulling the plug on the progressive agencies they had just previously lent their staunch support to. Another look will be taken to all the disproof of homosexuality as a sexual perversion, and it will be found... actually wanting. Homosexuality in particular, because a nation that is clinging back to mother, through nationalism, through merger with the mother nation, feels feminized in doing so, hence the absolute need to destroy "girly men" -- so to ostensibly assure of heterosexuality -- found in periods of fascism. Indeed, this phenomena is already happening, as both right AND left are turning suddenly aggressively homophobic (the left doesn't seem to be able to portray the Putin-Trump relationship as anything other than sucking dicks or bending over). The right is noticing this strange occurrence amongst the left, making it seem that they were only ever in the business of power; are totally disingenuous ... Tucker Carlson did a feature on it.

Vamik will sucked into this hole, as facts, legitimate facts... facts along the lines that Pinker points out, emerge, but ONLY IN WEAPONIZED FORM, for our era will only laud insight, or more focused awareness of the world, if it senses this in ultimate service to doing more to keep people apart from anything as thrilling and satisfying and scorned-parent betraying, as understanding ourselves and the world better.

Note: I think that deMause is right that after periods where huge numbers of people have been deterred from realizing their true selves, depression and great war periods, that afterwards progressives psychically are enabled to pursue growth without it feeling at some level wrong, bad, sinful -- requiring that "containers" be enabled to serve as proxy-sufferers for your own "crimes." So Jazz Age; so 1960s. Only that this doesn't last, and the way growth continues is unfortunately through means as sick and sad but absolutely necessary as this. Late-1970s on, what was fuelled in terms of allowance by the depression lost and world war 2 dead, was depleted. The only way progressivism lived on was to do so in a way which sets it up rather easily for dismissal when society can no longer sustain growth, however qualified/compromised/contaminated. It lived on since late 70s in way which allows people like Chris Hedges to neatly sum it up as about one class enabling itself at the expense of the majority of citizens, while using political correctness to entangle and delegitimize any who opposed. Hedges says progressivism has been about boutique concerns. It has not been about that at all. It needs to be defended, for out of its current form, is where we'll find better, not in any of the opposition. But it can easily be made to seem so.

I know there aren't many demausians here, but maybe this challenge is of help. I push to keep us smart and not surprised.

Click here to Reply

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 5

Speaking of the devil... from today's Outline (an outgrowth of the now-lost Gawker), an article of the rise of transphobia on the (British) left... the rise of "momsyism"-- they're coming for your children! Article advocates that, "Here in the U.K. it’s time for us to get our noses out of each other’s knickers and discover some solidarity with our trans siblings, to offer them the basic respect and recognition they so obviously deserve. It’s vanishingly rare that I think any country should take advice from the shitshow that is the U.S., but with regard to feminism, at least American leftists don’t tend to Lean In to bigotry quite as much."

Quote: You might imagine that rampant transphobia is primarily animated by a conservative movement, as seen in the U.S. in various states’ bathroom bills, or the entire Trump administration. The truth is, while the British conservative right would almost certainly be more than happy to whip up a frenzy of transphobia, they simply haven’t needed to, because some sections of the left over here are doing their hate-peddling for them. The most vocal source of this hatred has emerged, sadly, from within circles of radical feminists. British feminism has an increasingly notorious TERF problem.

- show quoted text -

Eddie Taylor, PhD

Nov 5

Judy,

Your kindness and support is truly appreciated. This group is a blessing.

Eddie

www.eddietaylorphd.com

On Nov 5, 2018 6:36 AM, Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com> wrote:

Dear Eddie,

I’m not sure if this is post 3 or 4, so with reluctance if it’s 4.

Your important video brought tears to my eyes.

The fact that we still have the degree of hate against my fellow Americans who are black sickens me.

Whatever I personally and professionally can do to promote collaboration (love not hate), I want to do.

Please keep posting, even if, and especially if, you are in a minority or alone.

You have allies who are open to learning with depth.

Bless you,

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: Eddie Taylor, PhD <emtaylornupe@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 8:06 AM
To: Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com>
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Prevention

Judy,

I appreciate your words and standing up for Black America/African Americans.

I read through most of post. I understand that there is a difference between saying something and having something to say. For centuries, America has been a difficult place for Black people. We have endured the most morbid acts and cruel treatment from the White House to the outhouse. Whereas, there seems to be a return to blatant hatred, I am grateful for non-Black people who stand up for right, humanity and decency.

My work is focused primarily on bringing awareness to Black America and those who support humanity (for the sake of Black America). We (Black people) have been conditioned to a form of self-destruction that makes for a two-edged sword. A little White child said to me after a presentation, that we are doing so much harm to each other that it takes away from our protests of justice. This group has been so helpful in understanding, as well as considering how the unconscious is involved in such a crucial state. I believe that it will be the work that we do that will greatly contribute to healing this land.

Here is a 2 minute video of what I am doing.

https://youtu.be/cIVseLdO4-0

In gratitude,

Eddie

www.eddietaylorphd.com

On Nov 5, 2018 5:34 AM, Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com> wrote:

Thank you, Arnie. I’ve never known a physician or nurse who would not do what Ari Mahler, RN did. Whether s/he is Jewish or of another color, class or gender.

I just read a Yahoo news article about two black women in a parking lot waiting for AAA and a white supremacist woman threatening them with her concealed weapon and claiming she is a “hot white” American. Law enforcement found her and charged her b/c the black women recorded the assault. We are a largely white group here on Clio’s. I’d like to stand up for my dear African-American friends who go back to my nursery school through h.s. years, and who still communicate with me via Facebook.

So do we intellectuals and clinicians DO something in addition to writing and talking about it? It’s not just about Jews and blacks either. It’s about each of us.

For instance, if we want to promote the psychoanalytic perspective, do we criticize and undermine the significant work of colleagues? Do we not support their strengths b/c of their vulnerabilities and blindspots? From my 54 years of experience in this field, we sure do more of this than otherwise.

An example that comes to mind: If there is a film or creative work or article or idea that promotes depth and psychoanalytic thinking for the general public, do we support the individuals who do not like or agree with specific issues and have real and important disagreements with the protagonist? Do we continue to allow internecine conflict and competition among us keep us from seeing the big picture?

Do we not see the forest because we are stuck picking on each other in the trees? So far, it seems as if the answer has been, “yes, we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.” So far, the right and left are too often doing this in the media, too. Not just listserv participants on most of my professional listservs with very intelligent and educated members.

OK, I’ve reached my posting limit and rant for today! Everyone should be relieved. I am.

Judy

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

From: arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 7:03 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Racism and Violence Prevention

Forgive the length

1 of 131,787

Click here to Reply

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 5

Eddie Taylor,

According to Brittney Cooper, the scourge in black families is spanking... authoritative childrearing. She argues that it came into being when it was of great service because it lead to the ideal sort of child -- a cowed, deferential, fearful child -- that was most likely to survive through an era of slave-ownership -- according to Cooper, a child with a greater sense of self would have been annihilated by slave owners, and their mothers knew this all too well, so, very reluctantly, and with tremendous courage, they applied the lash upon their own children. Within this listserv there are those who reference the work of Michael Milburn, however, who has argued that the origins weren't actually there but actually had roots before that in Africa, and so their "abuse" wasn't uniquely actually a stratagem built out of love but rather sourced the way heretofore all abuse was understood to -- as a register of genuine hate, not love, for the child. (In no way of course is Milburn attempting to minimize the vileness of slavery, even as of course he could be targeted as doing so for believing that the authoritarianism pre-dates slavery in the American colonies. It is impossible to read his work and encounter him and not know him as in the forefront of loving individuals existing today.)

I bring this up because those studying our current "situation," its root causes, are certainly thinking along the lines of economic deprivation, loss of status owing to casual disregard through automation... "progress," but also owing to authoritarian roots in childhood -- psychohistorical causes. People who explore this cause, these types of causes, can't help but be fearful that the spread of Trumpism... of regression, for closed-thinking rather than flexible-thinking, won't just be amongst white people but all ethnicities -- many of whom still raise their children, if not with spanking, still highly punitively. If they explore this much they would expect that all children emerging out of families like this will eventually turn against any other societal group that represents the disallowed "spoiled" child, the person they were deterred away from being... the "bad self," and so, increasingly from them, a turn toward the like of antisemitism, for Jews evidencing, overall, life happily lived. People looking to want to point this out would seem to be discouraged from doing so... because being all for black Americans is a clear marker for their own virtue they can't psychically afford to lose; because they'd seem traitors to everything they've ever believed in; and so if it is inclined to grow and spread, it will do so, mostly unopposed. What you'll encounter from people like us is avoidance... and a furious redirection of distress-from-dissonance onto regressing white Americans, the familiar old target, until guilt owing to removal of these containers of our poisons is taken away from us entirely, an effort that began recently with the rise of Hillbilly Elegy... of the forced conception that those white Americans out there ARE ACTUALLY not deplorable but our most deeply and profoundly ignored. And it'll be like a performance, performance "goodness," rather than about well-addressed/articulated redress of a problem nothing less than our current spread of fascism.

What are your thoughts on this? After Kanye merges with his father Trump and establishes himself as a nationalist, too, when most Americans turn to the next step, towards antisemitism, from forming the nation-as-mother onto isolating target "bad boys," do you think we'll start seeing anti-Semitic thought out of him as well?

Patrick (my third and last post of the day)

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

binsightfl1

Nov 5

food for thought...

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Judith Logue

Nov 8

There is a difference, Patrick, to me, from the capacity for authoritarianism in many or most people … and from the assertion that it IS in ALL of us.

I prefer to use “most” or “usual” or “frequently” or “typically” or “sometimes” instead of “all” or “always” or “never.”

It feels more accurate, at least to me.

Do you have some ideas about how Republicans and Democrats and Independents can progress as well as regress?

And some psychodynamic reasons and a psychoanalytic perspective as to how come this might be able to happen?

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 Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 7:34 AM
To: Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Hooray

Hi Joel.

I don't know that fascist tendencies exist in all of us, because I'm a deMausian, and favour the importance of care and love given to a child so much, that if given amply by parents who have finally had enough love provided to themselves they no longer seek it out of their children, and so genuinely cheer at their progressing beyond them, there is exactly ZERO chance they could even turn fascist. Fascism is regression out of terrible fear of Mother. Without any concept of this, you'll never either stop your own progress forth or think that anyone on the planet has earned their pain.

Your point about democracy being "decadent, " and of how everyone agreed upon it at the time... is something I am thinking of when I argue to expect that republicans and democrats -- both -- will start regressing. I don't ever believe it's about such and such being disproven, or of another way seeming more effective, rational. I think they at the time knew that if this change away from democracy could somehow actually enable GENUINELY more prosperity and, somehow, more individuality... that it was likely overall to encourage, not euphoric happiness, but restive, normal happiness, they would not have "chosen" fascism. They needed to see happiness overall stumped, they needed to see themselves stumped in terms of individuality... for only that way could the ever-looming Mother maybe not see in them the ongoing furtherance of the spoiled individual who so deserved punishment.

Cheers.

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:20:47 PM UTC-5, Joel Markowitz wrote:

As you know, fascist tendencies exist in all of us, Patrick. Collective events determine when they emerge.

Fascism seemed to be the most-viable and most-effective collective system in the 1930s. Mussolini labeled democracy “decadent.” Almost everyone agreed at that time.

Following The Economic Crash in 1929 and the Denial and Regression of democracies, even communism seemed a more-effective system.

The defeat of the fascist nations helped to illuminate the flaws in fascism and fascist dynamics. As we progress, we notice them more quickly and oppose them more effectively.

Psychohistorians must become more psychodynamic to accelerate this process.

Joel

On Nov 7, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhalston@gmail.com> wrote:

And I’ll continue to point out how when fascism came to America, it was bipartisan.

--
<><><>
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

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 8

Hi Judith.

I'm saying the majority will regress. All republicans already have, but, by the simple fact of experienced ongoing progress, more and more democrats will also, as they begin to feel they have trespassed into territory where their mothers will either abandon them for good, or punish them terribly -- both apocalyptic outcomes, that simply cannot be allowed to happen. DeMause believes/believed that there are alive today people who have simply gone beyond the capacity to regress at all. Milestone. From them come subsequent generations that will never end up feeling anxious by too much change; will be able to demonstrate ongoing capacity to delight in it. If I was a visiting 2001 obelisk over all the things that wo/mankind has accomplished over the milleniums, it is this event I would have set myself down to see. This is way bigger than the psychohistorical evolution to jesus (I'm agnostic), and the end of mass child-sacrifice associated with him.

What can we do? Spread the word that demause's theory of psychohistorical evolution is right; that his idea that progress leads eventually to collective fusion with the "good" mother and the splitting off of bad selves and bad mothers onto others, is right. With this knowledge, no matter how many neighbours end up talking "strange" -- coming to agree that however bad Trump is, that acknowledgement should be given to our being nationalistic again, for our valuing the sanctity of national borders again -- and we begin to suspect, oh god, more or less, this will be 1930s Germany -- not actually as bad, but experienced as as bad by a society that has overall improved in childrearing -- it will be no more than about ten years and then will die on its own. Somewhere in the collective mind will be an ongoing tabulation of all the individuality sacrificed through this period, all the potential in lived life, gone undeveloped... and eventually it will be deemed -- enough; enough to satisfy the aggregate mother from out of our childhoods sense that this could amount to sufficient contrition, sufficient penance, for our sin of separating from her and living our own lives. There's a Chris Hedges quote I keep in mind, which goes something like, after 1945, Germans went back to being Weimar again. What he meant was that Germans more or less junked the last ten years of cultural products from their imagination, and went back to when they were more forthright inventive and creative; happy. The literature scholar, Morris Dickstein, said something similar about the Americans after the war. From this awareness, I would encourage people to go for broke, now, in terms of their creativity, harken their work back to the 60s or 70s, if these were our culture's most creative decades, for even if full of crossed-over taboos now, it's exactly where we'll be back ten years from now.

I am very active in a group called the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club. 26 000 members. Different age groups; global. Much of what I do is essentially psychohistorical analysis there. I "see" people there; appreciate and challenge them. It feels to me that my presence there is helping spread good. I also fiercely get at those who are trying to create a bullying atmosphere there, where some people will find themselves unable to brave saying their mind. I feel this is helping encouraging people to brave exposing what they really think there. I'm a therapeutic presence there, is my sense.

I won't do a thing for republicans, for they are lost. I work with democrats, and point out all the ways in which they are ALREADY doing the kinds of things that fundamentally represent everything they are ostensibly devoutly opposed to. If I don't do it to shame, I think it works to get people to stop for a moment... and consider.

Cheers Judith.

Patrick

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 8

The other thing I am doing Judith, is finding ways to work with the powerful interest in the effects of trauma, especially with a younger gen. of scholars. To me, the moment when Freud "backed down" from realizing that sexual abuse of children of abuse was the norm... way back 140 yrs ago, has come again -- with sufficient support this time, that we're upon a breakthrough realization we'll never back down from again. Many of my previous essays in English Literature were deMausian this way, assumed that such and such was the result of early abuse... but the timing wasn't right for this to seem anymore than food for thought, maybe. I might try and tunnel back into these studies, going whole-hog Judith Herman/Body Knows the Score, and thereby join interest with a sense of welcome audience, and maybe play a part in exciting a younger gen. concerning how much is still firmly ripe for them to explore, concerning literature, concerning all things, with the great taboo of "though shall not be aware," finally sufficiently broken through, with the rise of #MeToo.

The huge numbers of people who are #MeToo, is an exciting collection of people to count oneself amongst over the next ten years, but in my judgment, their numbers aren't anywhere near the number of those who'll prove ACTUALLY ANXIOUS, that this is another progressive movement that will mean fewer and fewer lives, crushed and punishment in substitute for one's own felt crimes in life (i.e., individuaating, self-actualizing.)

Forgive syntax and spelling. I'm quickly on the go...

- show quoted text -

Judith Logue

Nov 7

Yes, yes we can!

May love, respect and dignity overtake hatred, disrespect and shaming.

Let’s hope the Democrats and Republicans, too, figure out how to balance healthcare, the economy, immigration and international affairs to promote integrity everywhere.

Thank you, Clio’s Forum, and all my friends on it, for helping save our souls, especially mine through these painful and hard years.

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

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:58 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] hooray

Indeed! Democracy lives to see another day! --Brian

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, 1:58 AM arniedr via Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com> wrote:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/415365-dems-retake-house-majority

visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Click here to Reply

Ken Fuchsman

Nov 7

The still incomplete election results are both major and quite mixed.

The great news is that the Democrats will control the House, and have three talented Chairs heading Judiciary, Oversight, and Intelligence. They will have subpoena power, which Trump will likely often resist in the courts.

The Republicans will hold the Senate. The House Democrats will likely increase their number by over 30, not as strong as the 64 the Republicans gained in 2010. The nation remains deeply divided politically; partisanship will likely remain intense, and divided government will be an improvement but deadlock will often prevail. Trump’s power will often be checked, and that is a life saver for those who believe in constitutional government in the U. S.

In 2014, 83 million voted in the Congressional election of 2014, and likely 114 million in 2018. A dramatic and hopeful increase. In 2017, there were 252 million vote eligible Americans. We still have the lowest percent of our population voting of any highly industrial country.

In 1787, Ben Franklin reportedly proclaimed we have a Republic if you can keep it. He did not say, we have a democracy. If democracy is defined as rule by the majority, that is not our system. In 40 percent of the elections in this century, a Republican candidate became President with fewer votes than his Democratic opponent. This ain’t democracy. Furthermore given that the electoral college system favors focusing on swing states, in the 2016 general election, two thirds of all campaign visits were to just six states, 94 percent to 12 states. California and Texas each had 1 visit, New York none, Florida 71, Ohio 54. Effective candidates do better if they focus their message on what appeals to swing state voters rather than the majority of the populace.

Still, there will be a major attempt to hold the Trump administration accountable, and the electorate has spoken in ways that can limit Trump’s abuses of power. But as Bette Davis said, it’s going to be a bumpy night.

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Joel Markowitz

Nov 7

Read James Comey’s piece in the Op Ed section of today’s NY Times. A bull’s eye for accuracy.

And bless you, Judy. Keep stepping up to the plate! What would Clio do without you?

( Two metaphors so early in the day should bode well for the rest of it. )

Joel

On Nov 7, 2018, at 5:35 AM, Dr Judith Logue <judith@judithlogue.com> wrote:

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 7

And I’ll continue to point out how when fascism came to America, it was bipartisan.

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 7

What are you talking about, Patrick? Our most recent fascist periods were the Red Scare of the 1920s, McCarthyism in the 1950s, Reaganism in the 1980s, George W. Bush's War on Terrorism, and now Trump. The Republicans were in power during all of these periods. In Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others, James Gilligan also showed that these periods of Republican dominance are associated with statistically significant spikes in homicide and suicide. If you dispute these empirical findings, let's hear your reasons and disconfirming evidence.

I say this as someone who has no illusions about the corruption, militarism, and organized stupidity of the Democratic Party. But these things are not the same as fascism, and Gilligan's research shows that for ordinary Americans, who are affected in their daily lives by law and public policy, which party is in power is literally a matter of life and death.

The truth is, you were betting that Trump and Trumpism were going to sweep the US political system, and the electorate proved you wrong yesterday. The effect would have been even bigger if our political institutions were truly democratic, which, as Ken pointed out, they are not.

Brian

bdagostino.com

On 11/7/2018 11:17 AM, Patrick McEvoy-Halston wrote:

And I’ll continue to point out how when fascism came to America, it was bipartisan.

Mark as complete

Joel Markowitz

Nov 7

As you know, fascist tendencies exist in all of us, Patrick. Collective events determine when they emerge.

Fascism seemed to be the most-viable and most-effective collective system in the 1930s. Mussolini labeled democracy “decadent.” Almost everyone agreed at that time.

Following The Economic Crash in 1929 and the Denial and Regression of democracies, even communism seemed a more-effective system.

The defeat of the fascist nations helped to illuminate the flaws in fascism and fascist dynamics. As we progress, we notice them more quickly and oppose them more effectively.

Psychohistorians must become more psychodynamic to accelerate this process.

Joel

On Nov 7, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhalston@gmail.com> wrote:

And I’ll continue to point out how when fascism came to America, it was bipartisan.

Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Nov 7

The term fascist is often used rather loosely. Those who post about it should explain what they think fascism is.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 7

I am using the term "fascist" as synonymous with "right wing authoritarian." Bob Altemeyer, one of Patrick's fellow Canadians, developed a Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) construct for measuring such attitudes, which was essentially an updated version of Adorno et al's F-scale, but more systematically designed to tap only right wing (and not left wing) authoritarianism. A free ebook of his The Authoritarians is available at: https://www.theauthoritarians.org/ Milton Rokeach in The Open and Closed Mind, provided a two dimensional typology for classifying fascism (in this sense) and other ideologies in terms of two core values--freedom and equality. Fascism appears in the quadrant of people who score low in their valuation of both freedom and equality. Below is the complete typology. --Brian

HIGH Freedom LOW

HIGH Democratic Socialism Communism

Equality

LOW Capitalism Fascism

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Nov 7

Brian,

Here is a different definition of fascism

Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda." (https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html)

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 7

I never said Republicans were going to win. I had no thoughts as to specific outcome.... Trump is "people," not "Republican." I said we'll turn fascist regardless of outcome. This is documented. Twice. Check it out. I believe that many who voted Democrat will evidence support FOR Trump... and most certainly for borders and nationalism, where we'll see plenty of genuinely willing bipartisanship.

By fascism what I mean is a majority of a populace projecting their mothers outwards, across a span of geography and a span of peoples, which encompasses them, and their own effort to submit to Her by becoming good sons and daughters who have fully renounced what they believe most drew an apocalyptic, punishing ire to seemingly be on the cusp of breaking through upon them and destroying them -- their individualism, their freedom -- and projecting out these bad selves onto other people. Nationalism, fascism... either work to get at this, but I don't think a proper term for this phenomena yet exists. It would somewhere have to contain the term "mommy," to be apt. I don't know if any longer we have to do the latin root thing, though.

I was speaking, not of the past ... mind you, the 30s in the U.S., were how close to fascist exactly?, but as if from two years in the future, where it will be seen how many of the Bernie Bros who -- as if she was their vile mother! -- so hated Hillary Clinton, actually already were beginning to engage in a good mother/bad mother splitting, and in hating Wall Street so much they would have laughed if all traders were shown before them, hanged, were already beginning to project out their own egotistical, narcissistic, spoiled bad selves onto suitable others, and in becoming "the people," "the commons," already becoming the selves who are making an effort to deface their distinction and personality and fuse... "group," and who would, if called upon, literally die to sustain the renewal of their increasingly mystical-seeming homeland. I was thinking of the democrats who saw in the rise of #MeToo, the greatest effort I've ever seen to make victims know they will no longer be ignored and predators that they will no longer be de facto endorsed, an effort that was unfairly taking down men who most undoubtedly were "falsely accused" -- they all knew of someone whom this for sure had had happen to them! -- and finding themselves secretly gleeful when feminism was no longer allowed to go so uncontrolled as masculinity, masculine self-sacrifice -- always important but always "the last to speak for itself" -- was redeemed as the virtue it always was. I was thinking of the democrats who cheered that more universities were following the U of Chicago example and no longer permitting safe space/trigger warning nonsense... no longer tolerating gender studies and postmodern entanglements and becoming willing to bravely speak up for the good ol' American empiricist tradition, and who, when it comes to uppity students who in their extreme privilege were unmooring us from any capacity to cause due doubt and nurture healthy challenge, were happy to admit that, alas, sometimes indeed "the stick" is the best solution to tantrum-prone children -- no other way to deal with them. Bad selves, bad mommies, being projected out... this is the view of much of republican AND democrat nation, as I viewed them, circa 2020. (Note: some part of this is a fabrication. Specifically the me-visiting-from-another-time part, which is wholesale lie. I ask for Asimovian psychohistorical latitude on this, because... why not.)

Everyone is looking for censures of Trump. Okay. I'm going to be on the lookout for the spread of democrats sounding increasingly nationalistic and way contra previous values, with them actually hating some of the very people they were on the forefront of defending... as they evidently already have been, with the current rise in their delighting in homophobic imagery and all. I expect that many democrats will never recognize what history will at some point make an effort to show -- that they ended up turning, too, as progress became too much for even them to handle, though they never realized.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

david

Nov 7

Here's an excerpt from by 2005 paper titled Fascism Resurgent on defining fascism.

"Stanley Payne in his book, A History of Fascism, identifies the three key features as extreme nationalism, the redemptive power of violence, and the cult of the leader[i]. Others scholars have emphasized fascism’s authoritarian streak, its intolerance of other political or social movements or values. These cite fascism’s opposition to democracy, liberalism, Marxism, modernity, feminism, and homosexuality. Others have stressed fascism’s militaristic, racist, and xenophobic qualities.[ii]

I would like to present a more psychohistorical and psychoanalytic approach to identifying the essence of fascism. I suggest that fascism involves an exaggerated tendency toward the use of primitive splitting mechanisms; dividing the world into good and evil; externalizing the evil by projecting it onto the alien enemy other while claiming exclusive possession of the good for oneself and one’s cohort. This way of looking at fascist impulses and actions allows us to see the commonality among a number of apparently disparate types of political activities. These would include war waged against an identified external enemy; the scapegoating of those who are foreign, alien, or different – whether they be Jews, Blacks, Arabs, homosexuals, immigrants, anarchists, Bolsheviks, communists, socialists, Catholics, Moslems, atheists or secular humanists; and the suppression of ideas which are not in agreement with the dominant political ideology.

As Freud and other psychoanalysts have noted, this type of primitive splitting results in a relaxation of the usual superego prohibitions against harming others. Once a suitable target of externalization has been found, when the enemy has been identified, license is granted to do violence to them. All manner of aggression becomes permissible, war, conquest, and exploitation of foreign enemies as well as persecution and harsh treatment of domestic enemies. Civil liberties can be denied. Radicals and subversives can be criminalized and criminals can be severely punished. Acts of brutal racism or homophobia, hate crimes ranging from discrimination to murder, become justifiable.

This definition of fascism is admittedly quite broad. Note that by this definition various acts performed by left wing regimes, for example, the Jacobin terror of the French revolution, the purges and persecutions in Stalin’s Soviet Union, and the violent excesses of Mao Tse Tung’s cultural revolution can all be considered as expressions of fascism."

i Lee, Martin, The Beast Reawakens, New York: Routledge, 2000. p. 10

ii Payne, Stanley, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995

[1] Lee, p. 9-11

From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ken Fuchsman
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:20 PM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Hooray

- show quoted text -

[i] Payne, Stanley, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995

[ii] Lee, p. 9-11

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 8

The historical and psychological ways of defining fascism seem clearly complimentary to me. Paxton's approach, cited by Ken, takes the case studies of twentieth century European fascism (especially Italy and Germany) and asks what they have in common. As historians typically do, this approach delimits the subject matter by an arbitrary choice of case studies. Psychologists and social scientists try to find statistically robust generalizations from specific cases. Thus, Adorno et al in The Authoritarian Personality (1950) asked what could have motivated European fascism, and whether the same kind of underlying personality might also be present in the United States and elsewhere. To answer these questions, they devised the F-scale and using the methods of survey research, found that similar personality and motivational dynamics could indeed be found in the American public.

The Authoritarian Personality was informed by observation of and reflection upon the European "specimens" of fascism through the conceptual lens of psychoanalytic theory and the picture of fascism they came up with is very similar to the psychoanalytic one David proposes. Patrick is proposing a deMausian view, with a focus on the mother introjects. This merits further research, but in the meantime we can say that existing research by Milburn, Conrad and others has confirmed deMause's view that punitive parenting (by the mother or the father) is a central mechanism for the intergenerational reproduction of authoritarianism (AKA "fascism" in the more general sense), which Adorno et al also concluded (see Milburn and Conrad's 2016 book Raised to Rage). This Adorno/Milburn approach also focuses on scapegoating of despised outgroups as a central mechanism of fascist/authoritarian psychodynamics. Denis O'Keefe's research uses Altemeyer's Right Wing Authoritarianism scale as a variable predictive of anti-immigrant sentiment among Americans, a case study of scapegoating that figured prominently in the recent midterm elections.

Brian

bdagostino.com

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Ken Fuchsman

Nov 8

Brian,

Your definition of fascism as right wing authoritarianism and delineation of the psychological research on authoritarianism raises some questions to me. If there is right- wing authoritarianism, is there left-wing authoritarianism. If so, what is it, and what are it’s historical manifestation’s, and would that include Stalinism, among others? Would there be authoritarianism outside of political outlooks, such as in organized, dogmatic religions? If authoritarianism crosses boundaries, should not the psychological investigation of authoritarianism then include what leads someone to one kind of authoritarianism rather than another? If so, how does one find that out? Also, how do we ascertain if all those who were followers of Mussolini and Hitler manifested right-wing authoritarianism, and whether or not there were other types of personality who were enthusiastic supporters of these leaders? Another question, does right-wing authoritarianism take somewhat different forms in different times and places? Cultural anthropologists regularly critique American based psychological research as depending on a culturally limited sample and then make generalizations about a phenomenon that does not take into account variations in different kinds of cultures. How do you respond to these last anthropological concerns?

I do have more questions, but will stop here.

Ken

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 8

Hi Joel.

Cheers.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 8

Ken,

First, please note that I am not only giving my own definition. I described how the mainstream of American social science research on authoritarianism grew out of observations of and reflections on and efforts to generalize from European fascism. The question you are asking about left- vs. right-wing authoritarianism was posed in the 1950s in response to Adorno et als The Authoritarian Personality, the pioneering study in this tradition of research, which critics said incorrectly attributed authoritarianism only to the right. Two new constructs came out of that controversy.

The first was Milton Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, which probed the personality features associated with closed-mindedness and was explicitly designed not to discriminate between left and right. If you scroll down to Rokeach's typology, which I posted earlier, communism corresponds to left wing authoritarianism and fascism to right wing authoritarianism. What makes them both authoritarian is their aversion to freedom. What differentiates them is that communists highly value equality, while fascists do not. A second new construct was Altemeyer's Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), which narrowed the focus of authoritarianism research to the right wing. This construct and the many studies that have been conducted using it essentially replicated Adorno et als findings using a revised survey instrument that addressed the methodological shortcomings of Adorno's F-scale.

I do not have time to address all your other questions here, but it is definitely the case that different ideological constructs take different forms in different times and places. Those who conduct psychological survey research explicitly take this into account and in fact provide statistical summaries of the demographic characteristics of their samples so readers can see in what ways and to what extent their findings might be biased in relation to the larger population (defined both geographically and temporally) from which the sample was drawn. While we obviously cannot do surveys of now dead European fascists using the RWA scale, psychohistorical research using the available evidence can and should be informed by the findings of current social science research, in my opinion.

I have written an article entitled "Militarism and the Authoritarian Personality: Displacement, Ideology, and Perceptual Control," currently under peer review by J.A.S.P.E.R., which addresses the psychoanalytic aspects of right wing authoritarianism and relates these to a working model of the human brain using Perceptual Control Theory. Copies of this draft research, not for attribution, are available upon request. In this draft article, I did not explicitly address Ken's question about what leads someone to one kind of authoritarianism rather than another, but I did explicate some of the defense mechanisms associated with right wing authoritarianism, especially male machismo and identification with the aggressor. I think this focus is justified because communism is mostly dead as an historical phenomenon, while fascism (broadly defined as right wing authoritarianism) is alive and well. While we do encounter some authoritarianism on the left, especially in, say, Venezuela and North Korea, and in various left organizations that are not communist, I would argue that authoritarianism is much more relevant to the etiology of right wing ideology than left wing ideology. This is not to say that the left is free from psychological problems, only that authoritarianism is less salient than other complexes for those on the left.

Brian

http://bdagostino.com/

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Joel Markowitz

Nov 8

Patrick,

I disagree. A source of our disagreement is my disagreement with deMause. He did that excellent book on childhood abuse through history; but I don’t think ANY of his judgements on history— i.e., on collective dynamics— are valid.

Fascism is a collective state that some nations intuitively decide to employ for a number of psychodynamic reasons. The need for a powerful father to control the state is one of them. Many people see no other solution to, for example, economic disparities, or

to what they see as other “ injustices.”

( I’ve discussed the primary origins of paranoia in individuals on prior posts. )

The U.S. won’t go fascist. It’s currently pulling toward that direction, but correctives are mobilizing. We should, of course, help that mobilization in every way we can.

Democracy is very young. It will continue to self-correct from adopting right wing and left wing attitudes for some time to come.

Joel

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

7:43 AM (8 hours ago)

I enjoyed reading this, Brian. Thanks for it.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

Nov 7

Koretz said in a statement, “As we work to increase security at Los Angeles Jewish community institutions in light of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, bringing the SJP conference to Los Angeles in which leaders and members exhort to ‘kill all the Jews’ and ‘stuff some Jews in the oven’ is also a significant threat to public safety. “

Arnold Richards MD

200 East 89th Street

New York, NY 10128

Phone 6465083398

Fax 2124270585

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Richards

arnoldrichards.net

Publisher:

internationalpsychoanalysis.net

ipbooks.net

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Recipient should check his e-mail and attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

Click here to Reply

david

Nov 7

For a fuller context, here's the link for the article that is presumably Arnie is excerpting from.

jewishjournal.com/.../city-council-unanimously-approves-resolution-ucla-cancel-nsjp-...

Mark as complete

arniedr

Nov 8

Last night I attended an event at the Center for Jewish history honoring Bruce Slovin who was my predecessor as chairman of the board of YIVO and the founder of the center
The mood was somber and Some spoke about getting passports for the children so that they could leave the country if they needed to

There was also discussion of which colleges provide a welcoming safe environment for Jewish students

Arnie

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

mfbrttn

Nov 8

Arnie,

Just to say: I am so sorry that you and all Jews are subjected to these threats, have been and are the object of such, to me, insane hatred, and to such violence. I am appalled at the references to the holocaust as if it did not exist or is a useful allusion to what to do to Jewish people now. That is so vicious. To be beset with the threat of unpredictable eruptions of murderous attacks does terrible things to the heart and soul and spirit, and I respect the persistence of faith on so many levels in the face of it. I also know that a very great many Americans, and people elsewhere, share my feelings about this and wish they could stand with you literally, like the Muslims did in Canada with their protective circles. My family lives in a small town with three synagogues. I will inquire as to how we might be helpful or supportive.

Michael Britton

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

Nov 8

Michael

I am very very grateful for your support. I will send you an article that I wrote about the muder of European Jews called Doorposts if you think it is of interest

please post it on Cleo

Arnie

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

mfbrttn

5:42 AM (10 hours ago)

Thanks, I'd appreciate that.

Michael

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

7:41 AM (8 hours ago)

Pro-Palestinian Jews are amongst the most inspiring people I've encountered. On my twitter feed there's this group, IfNotNow, that opposes Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, that is a delight of empathic individuals, many young. I hope these people are being set up for destruction. That would be what I think is ant-Semitism fundamentally is -- hatred for society's most individuated and emotionally evolved... people, often the youngest and most progressive, who have transgressed, beyond.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

9:05 AM (7 hours ago)

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

I consider myself proPalestinian

I believe that the Palestinians have not been served well buy there leaders since 1948 and certainly not now

They have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity

They were given an opportunity to have a vibrant viable community in Gaza and the first thing they did was destroy all the green houses that the Israelis had built which provided revenue and and jobs for the Palestinians Then elected how much that was committed to the distraction of the state of Israel

Arnie

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

10:05 AM (6 hours ago)

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

Thanks for responding, Arnie.

The last time I heard "never missed and opportunity to miss an opportunity," was made in reference to Black South Africans by White South Africans before Apartheid. It sounds awful... children who can't govern themselves. I'm not as interested in the fact of governship... or of any facts that can't be seen by progressives because it messes up a need to project a certain drama upon the world they regrettably still require in order to function overall truly progressively, that may be seen in our powerfully regressing environment as simply, TRUE, unless they aren't weaponized. Almost always these days, these truths are, are weaponized... acts, with some aspects of "truth," proudly paraded forward as if finally well-meaning but ultimately obfuscatory and entangling ideologies have lost their several-decade-long sway, ONLY because they inhibit people in the world who, in a way it becomes easier and easier to denigrate and stigmatize, are the ones pushing for advancements in emotional health and consciousness which will enable less and less projection and more and more truly honest seeing. It's getting easier and easier to stigmatize... to demonize the ACTUALLY TRULY GOOD -- witness U of Chicago "defiance" against "anti-free speachers" -- people, who are almost always lead by the young.

Third and last post for the day. I wish you well.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

10:27 AM (6 hours ago)

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

You have not responded to the substance of what I said. You responded to one “and essentially changed the subject The subject is the terrible treatment of the Palestinians by their leaders the takeover of Gaza by Hamas that is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and throws Palestinians off rooftops and fires rockets at Israel and uses to civilians as human shields

The only solution is a two state solution

Arnie

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Joel Markowitz

10:46 AM (5 hours ago)

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

But you realize, Arnie, that you’re heavily biased.

You’e right in that the Palestinians have been very unwise in their rhetoric and terroristic actions. You overlook the extreme hardships that they have suffered because the right-wing Israeli government has REFUSED a two-state solution, and has

been oppressive in many other ways.

You can’t explain-away the planting of Israeli settlements on what is rightly Palestinian land …

Were I a Palestinian, I would have behaved in a more-practical way. I would have accepted the ongoing existence of Israel and would have avoided terroristic actions that justify Israeli defensive measures— and that permit additional violence.

I would also hate Israel. But I’d be more practical in the way I dealt with— and mentioned— such feelings.

Joel

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

10:54 AM (5 hours ago)

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

You and I are not going to solve this problem which is why I only respond to messages and don’t bring up the subject myself

I think you and Patrick are biased as well

Biased people should still be able to have a conversation as long as they are open about their background their history how their opinions came about and what their biases are based on

Arnie

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

Alice Maher

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

Hi all,

Sorry if I seem to be popping in out of nowhere. Arnie asked if I might try to mediate. I must admit that I haven't read the details of these conversations because I've been way too busy, but I think I get the idea. Please forgive me if I'm off base.

First of all, I like Arnie's last line, "Biased people should still be able to have a conversation as long as they are open about their background their history how their opinions came about and what their biases are based on." It reminds me of Aristotle's line, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

One of the problems getting in the way is not just the content of our biased arguments, but the style - the way we express ourselves. During my years hosting dialogue forums, I noticed that a significant subgroup of people present their beliefs with links that basically communicate "this is bad, period, full stop." That tends to lead to a split rather than a discussion, because it puts the other person in the position of simply agreeing with them, or disagreeing in a strident way that can come across as accusatory.

If we're going to bridge that divide, we need to create a "play space" within which real dialogue can emerge. Let's share our biases, share how they emerged from our personal histories, and tolerate listening to the biases of others. We're all biased, because we all have identities that serve as a protective skin. Changing that is slow, and it's very hard work. Both sides need to want to expand their understanding rather than listen to themselves fine-tune the same old arguments that only they and their choirs can hear.

Does that make any sense?

Alice

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

We're all biased, because we all have identities that serve as a protective skin.

We do? How do you know this? I personally think this is false. I don't think we're all in need of protective skins. Our age is becoming one where the Right is using this idea of "free speech," "being open to others' ideas," "an open market of ideas," in order to make the Left seem intolerant; only interested in power. Right now, they are identified with, THEY OWN this dialogue, oddly enough, while the Left owns the dialogue of "do not do this; you MUST stop now." Given the Right is, not exactly being CONSCIOUSLY duplicitous, but will be shown to have used this ostensible effort to create bridges, "free speech" environments, only to martial in "truths" that the Left HAS repressed while they essentially owned the space for "legitimate" ideas, in order to completely disenfranchise them and set them up as over-due for pretty much nothing less than extermination, I think the impetus now is for the good to legitimize, not the "let's listen to different takes" point of view, but rather the "this is bad, full stop. stop now. full stop. or we'll come to your homes and scream at you", point of view.

I understand this doesn't sound therapeutic, but I think it's sound.

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

Dear all,

I think it is correct that we all have biases, but agree with Patrick's point that not all biases are symmetrical. I think Alice's intervention is timely and apt. I have already expressed my views about the limits of conflict transformation, and what I have to say here needs to be understood in that light. My bias is that I detest right wing governments, and in this time of resurgent fascism, that includes many governments including those in power in India, Hungary, Israel, Brazil, and the United States to cite only a few examples. I come to this bias as a result of wrestling psychoanalytically with my authoritarian father introjects since college. My father was born in Calabria in 1920 and came to this country in 1926. He quickly became successful in business and became a right wing Republican. Although fighting in World War II in the South Pacific, he admired Mussolini, and thought Il Duce would have made Italy great again if only he hadn't gotten mixed up with Hitler.

In college in the early 70s, as a result of psychological transformation facilitated by Jungian psychotherapy and experimentation with LSD, I overthrew my father introjects and charted a course for my life that diverged from the corporate lawyer life script my father had envisioned for me. This transformation included becoming a democratic socialist. As I indicated in my typology of ideology drawn from Milton Rokeach, this meant going from an ideology that viewed freedom and equality negatively to one that views both these core values positively. I later also learned that I needed to appropriate certain positive qualities that my father embodied, including his courage and perseverance. I would have dreams about being attacked by mafiosi, another form of my father introjects, and learned to master my fear of these inner demons and appropriate the positive potential they embodied, which for me was the key to appropriating some of the personal power I had abdicated when I rejected my father in college.

As for political discussions, I see a pattern in which defenders of right wing regimes weaponize accusations of bigotry against their opponents as a way of suppressing legitimate political dissent. I spent about six hours researching the UCLA controversy that Arnie posted about and conclude it is credible that some members of the Palestinian rights group (SFJ) that wants to speak on campus have expressed anti-Semitic views, but it is also credible that people with a pro Netanyahu agenda want to discredit them and prevent them from criticizing right wing Israeli policies. I have seen too many instances of right wing activists lying about their opponents and falsely attributing outrageous statements to them; I therefore do not automatically give credence to such allegations. The internet right now is also a Wild West in which outrageous accusations that originate on malicious websites end up getting traction in mainstream venues like Jewish Journal, one of whose columnists is Ben Shapiro, hardly a responsible pundit in my book. What is really occurring in UCLA is an empirical question that should be investigated. I cannot justify spending more time getting to the bottom of this, and I wonder how much time Arnie has spent vetting these very serious allegations.

Brian

bdagostino.com

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

Alice

Makes a lot of sense to me

My position is that there should be a space for biased Zionists and a space biased anti-Zionists but no space for those who shout kill the Jews and Jews to the gas chamber

Arnie

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

I agree, Arnie. But why do you give automatic credence to accusations of genocidal hate speech when such accusations are frequently being wielded as a political weapon by people who are willing to lie about their political opponents in order to suppress their right to speak? How much time have you spent vetting the veracity of the UCLA allegations? --Brian

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

arniedr

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

I note that Brian does not include among his list of right wing governments any from the Middle East other than Israel

My source about the SJP come from what is in print the LA city council resolution my friends and colleagues in LA and my grandson who graduated from UCLA film school in June

I will now brag. He had a film in the LA film festival and music video to commemorate the Armenian genocide has had over 3 million hits He was the cinematographer

Also yesterday was the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht it’s interesting that I couldn’t find any mention of that event in either at the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal I may have missed them

Arnie has

Sent from my iPhone

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

re: but no space for those who shout kill the Jews and Jews to the gas chamber

Sure. But also no space for those who make use of the fact that some groups that are more for peace and love and tending than anyone happen to have people who can be made to seem associated with them who do say things like this, as "tag-alongs," in order to specifically target THEM -- the most progressive of young people out there: the people THEY ACTUALLY hate the most, for delegitimizing old previously fully workable ways to project hate. Democrats stand for the opposite of Farrakhan, for example, but the fact that they are in a bind not to be able to completely distance themselves from him, is used by Republicans to suggest either that anti-Semiticism is actually most with them or that they're ultimately interested only in power, and that Zionism is ACTUALLY where those most pro-Jewish "reside."

- show quoted text -

Mark as complete

bdagostino2687

Nov 10

Re: [cliospsyche] Re: Inflammatory ?

Arnie, your point about other right wing governments in the Middle East is well taken. Maybe you were thinking of Iran. Two that come to my mind immediately are Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They are currently allies of Israel, of course. I do not approve of the regime in Tehran, but do think the Iran Nuclear Deal was a lot better than nothing and that Trump's and Netanyahu's policies are making Israel less, not more, secure.

I have always supported Israel's right to exist and feel particularly good about Israel when the populace manages to elect labor governments. I also do not think it is entirely the fault of the populace that there is a right wing government in power there now. Right wing governments enjoy disproportionate support from the rich, from big corporations, and from the military, which tend to dwarf the opinions and preferences of ordinary citizens, whether Israelis, Americans, Egyptians, or citizens of any other country.

This is my third and last post for the day.

Brian

bdagostino.com

The Invisible Counterpoint

Search This Blog

Clio's Psyche, after conference, #3

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

The Conjuring