There is an old joke that goes something like this: “Why do Baptists forbid fornication?”NewZealandDoc’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Because it might lead to dancing.”
I've found out the tough way that the idea that the jabs have shortcomings must be terrifying to some, as it then leads rationally to including the possibility of longer term severe damage and even death. Some otherwise smart and reasonable folks won't go there and so block any attempts to give them research information. Then for some there's the issue of their pride, wounded at realizing they got conned into getting injected with an experimental mrna substance. I've had to learn to just let go.
As long as they don't pressure me to get the jibby jab, I go about my business of creating parallel social structures which will one day supercede our current insane, corrupt organizations.
Dr. Garcia, I hope you read this comment. You've touched here on a subject that has held high importance to me since the early 1970s, when I was not yet 20 years old. I have no credentials in psychotherapy or social systems like politics or government. Yet I'm a life long student of individual and collective emotional health. Reading your article this morning gave me a sense of excitement, the true cause of which is that I believe I have a contribution to make in this area. I wish that you and I could have a private conversation on this subject. There is way too much to go into here in the comments section. The freedom of free association is merely the tip of the iceberg. Why (and how) the movement started by Freud, et al, has been squashed is part of that, but it is not the most important part. Really wishing we could talk...
The extant question for me, which you've pointed to here, is this: How is it possibly that so many otherwise intelligent people fell so completely for such an obvious lie as the pandemic narrative?
Distrust in government is well established among people who pay attention. I mean, who hasn't been negatively affected by lying politicians or bureaucrats at some point in their lives? And yet intelligent people who ought to have known better fell right in line and refused to examine well established contrary evidence even before the threats started. It's like they'd somehow been programmed to respond that way, which seems ridiculous on its face, but what other explanation is there? And if that's the case, why didn't I succumb to the programming? I'm no genius, I just have an inquiring mind and some basic scientific training. Lots of people as qualified as myself in my circle, and yet they all folded. Not one of them saw through it, and yet the entire operation was festooned with more red flags than a Soviet Victory Day parade!
I, like others here, have already figured out the pathology of the virus, its likely origin, the motives behind the official response, and subsequent attempts to co-op the resistance, but that first question just hangs there with no logical explanation. Why did so many fall so easily for such a blatantly obvious load of bullshit?
I lamented the absence of Carl Jung here, perhaps it is his articulation of the importance of Christianity, captured in 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections' ... perhaps one of the books 'they' will burn?
Jung identifies the capacities of good and evil within the individual but above all, the need for self-knowledge of personal wholeness (pp362), avoiding self-deception and self-illusion. The kakistocracy is the manifest consequence of the spiritual and social narcosis of its constituency. We reap what we sow.
Now we exist in the grip of a spiritual battle and what it must inevitably bring, an awakening of clarity, and the individual choice between the diabolical and the celestial.
This article resonates with my thoughts about Dr Jordan Peterson with his governing body (CPO) wanting to take away his license for his thinking points . I then wondered about the the rest of the people in the CPO and what happens when their clients have thoughts that are against the current narrative - will they try to sway them towards their bias ? As someone who has had the privilege of a psychoanalysis many years ago , I shutter to think about the possibility of those "not allowed "topics of conversations .
I am grateful that you found what I wrote useful. I am open to any and all feedback, positive, negative, or a mixture of both. I want to learn from others as much as I can.
When you make the connection between freedom of speech and psychotherapy, Doc, you invite a very interesting array of considerations.
One of these considerations is the role of psychotherapists in defining what is adaptive and what is not. This definition is the basis for a power to coerce. The Soviet incarceration of dissidents within locked mental hospitals, is the example that comes to mind for most.
I will offer no apologia for the basis of those incarcerations, but they have their analogue in the "free" western countries, and the power to impose coercion is necessary under certain extreme conditions. The issue is with abuse of that power.
In a very real sense, psychotherapists define reality and enforce their belief of its composition on their patients. The cuddly term is "clients," but a client only remains such for as long as what they reveal to the therapist is considered "harmless."
When we consider the matter calmly and agnostically, we will probably agree that there is a need to endow someone with the power to define reality for those whose behavior poses physical danger to others. Our agreement should not, however, engender heedlessness.
Reflecting on the authority of psychoanalysts opens a much broader discussion about The role of "therapeutic models" in societal regulation of behavior patterns. If we approach the discussion with an understanding that to a significant degree, behavior is truth, we can obtain a view of how and why "truth" is increasingly seen as something to be imposed from above, rather than discovered from within.
I'll offer one example; civil commitment of sexually violent predators (SVP) after release from prison. Putting aside the obvious question of why legislators would pass a law imposing de facto double jeopardy (if the offender is mentally ill, their first and entire custody would be of indefinite duration in a locked psychiatric ward, not a penitentiary. If not mentally ill, they would serve their finite sentence in prison and be subsequently released without conditions,) a host of other questions come to mind.
It's an aspect of thought architecture that plays an important role in understanding the mechanisms by which thought and speech are constrained.
I was touched by your understanding that the essence of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically informed psychotherapy is freedom. I would add that the therapeutic effect of these methods relies on two people engaged in the search for truth. As you say, it is very difficult to be honest with oneself when that means facing feelings like guilt and shame. It is even more difficult to be honest with another about those things we find difficult to bear ourselves. But the treatment offers a maximum of safety when the analyst is non-judgmental, and skilled at understanding the way a person shields themselves from painful feelings. While the therapist has empathy for the patient, the patient may not have empathy for him or herself, when it comes down to the most painful feelings.
So if a patient is committed to facing the truth about his or her feelings, and does their best to say everything as it comes to mind, the treatment can be very effective. When a person has faced all the things they never really wanted to face about themselves, there is a lot less need for their old defenses. It is the pathological defenses (for example projection) that create the painful symptoms and personality problems that bring a person to treatment in the first place.
Thus as psychoanalysis is built around the goal of having emotional freedom it requires a search for the truth. If the therapist can't bear the truth, he/she will limit the patient's ability to conduct the search. If the patient refuses to bear the truth, he/she will get little benefit from the treatment.
Psychoanalysts are people with their own fears and limitations. The government was engaged in PSYOPS to induce terror, fear, and panic about the coronavirus, in order to make people WANT to get injected, with what we now know is a bioweapon. (https://bailiwicknews.substack.com) That psychoanalysts are about freedom and truth only shows how successful PSYOPS can be against millions of unsuspecting Americans.
Freedom of speech, thought, creativity - it all goes together. Can't have one without the other. These are dangerous times we are living in. We must do everything we can to fight this - humor is a great opportunity, so thanks for the baptist joke.
The consequences of this shot are only beginning. No one wants to discuss all of the adverse reactions ,including death that are and will continue to occur.
Yes: "The new normal is not to debate or discuss, but to disavow and disallow. "
One way to break the rigidity is wth silliness, aka meme fu.
Here's one: https://transcriberb.substack.com/p/block-steve-kirsch-on-twitter-be
Neurotics build castles in the sky.
Psychotics live in them.
Psychiatrists collect the rent.
I've found out the tough way that the idea that the jabs have shortcomings must be terrifying to some, as it then leads rationally to including the possibility of longer term severe damage and even death. Some otherwise smart and reasonable folks won't go there and so block any attempts to give them research information. Then for some there's the issue of their pride, wounded at realizing they got conned into getting injected with an experimental mrna substance. I've had to learn to just let go.
As long as they don't pressure me to get the jibby jab, I go about my business of creating parallel social structures which will one day supercede our current insane, corrupt organizations.
Dr. Garcia, I hope you read this comment. You've touched here on a subject that has held high importance to me since the early 1970s, when I was not yet 20 years old. I have no credentials in psychotherapy or social systems like politics or government. Yet I'm a life long student of individual and collective emotional health. Reading your article this morning gave me a sense of excitement, the true cause of which is that I believe I have a contribution to make in this area. I wish that you and I could have a private conversation on this subject. There is way too much to go into here in the comments section. The freedom of free association is merely the tip of the iceberg. Why (and how) the movement started by Freud, et al, has been squashed is part of that, but it is not the most important part. Really wishing we could talk...
The extant question for me, which you've pointed to here, is this: How is it possibly that so many otherwise intelligent people fell so completely for such an obvious lie as the pandemic narrative?
Distrust in government is well established among people who pay attention. I mean, who hasn't been negatively affected by lying politicians or bureaucrats at some point in their lives? And yet intelligent people who ought to have known better fell right in line and refused to examine well established contrary evidence even before the threats started. It's like they'd somehow been programmed to respond that way, which seems ridiculous on its face, but what other explanation is there? And if that's the case, why didn't I succumb to the programming? I'm no genius, I just have an inquiring mind and some basic scientific training. Lots of people as qualified as myself in my circle, and yet they all folded. Not one of them saw through it, and yet the entire operation was festooned with more red flags than a Soviet Victory Day parade!
I, like others here, have already figured out the pathology of the virus, its likely origin, the motives behind the official response, and subsequent attempts to co-op the resistance, but that first question just hangs there with no logical explanation. Why did so many fall so easily for such a blatantly obvious load of bullshit?
I lamented the absence of Carl Jung here, perhaps it is his articulation of the importance of Christianity, captured in 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections' ... perhaps one of the books 'they' will burn?
Jung identifies the capacities of good and evil within the individual but above all, the need for self-knowledge of personal wholeness (pp362), avoiding self-deception and self-illusion. The kakistocracy is the manifest consequence of the spiritual and social narcosis of its constituency. We reap what we sow.
Now we exist in the grip of a spiritual battle and what it must inevitably bring, an awakening of clarity, and the individual choice between the diabolical and the celestial.
This article resonates with my thoughts about Dr Jordan Peterson with his governing body (CPO) wanting to take away his license for his thinking points . I then wondered about the the rest of the people in the CPO and what happens when their clients have thoughts that are against the current narrative - will they try to sway them towards their bias ? As someone who has had the privilege of a psychoanalysis many years ago , I shutter to think about the possibility of those "not allowed "topics of conversations .
I am grateful that you found what I wrote useful. I am open to any and all feedback, positive, negative, or a mixture of both. I want to learn from others as much as I can.
When you make the connection between freedom of speech and psychotherapy, Doc, you invite a very interesting array of considerations.
One of these considerations is the role of psychotherapists in defining what is adaptive and what is not. This definition is the basis for a power to coerce. The Soviet incarceration of dissidents within locked mental hospitals, is the example that comes to mind for most.
I will offer no apologia for the basis of those incarcerations, but they have their analogue in the "free" western countries, and the power to impose coercion is necessary under certain extreme conditions. The issue is with abuse of that power.
In a very real sense, psychotherapists define reality and enforce their belief of its composition on their patients. The cuddly term is "clients," but a client only remains such for as long as what they reveal to the therapist is considered "harmless."
When we consider the matter calmly and agnostically, we will probably agree that there is a need to endow someone with the power to define reality for those whose behavior poses physical danger to others. Our agreement should not, however, engender heedlessness.
Reflecting on the authority of psychoanalysts opens a much broader discussion about The role of "therapeutic models" in societal regulation of behavior patterns. If we approach the discussion with an understanding that to a significant degree, behavior is truth, we can obtain a view of how and why "truth" is increasingly seen as something to be imposed from above, rather than discovered from within.
I'll offer one example; civil commitment of sexually violent predators (SVP) after release from prison. Putting aside the obvious question of why legislators would pass a law imposing de facto double jeopardy (if the offender is mentally ill, their first and entire custody would be of indefinite duration in a locked psychiatric ward, not a penitentiary. If not mentally ill, they would serve their finite sentence in prison and be subsequently released without conditions,) a host of other questions come to mind.
It's an aspect of thought architecture that plays an important role in understanding the mechanisms by which thought and speech are constrained.
I was touched by your understanding that the essence of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically informed psychotherapy is freedom. I would add that the therapeutic effect of these methods relies on two people engaged in the search for truth. As you say, it is very difficult to be honest with oneself when that means facing feelings like guilt and shame. It is even more difficult to be honest with another about those things we find difficult to bear ourselves. But the treatment offers a maximum of safety when the analyst is non-judgmental, and skilled at understanding the way a person shields themselves from painful feelings. While the therapist has empathy for the patient, the patient may not have empathy for him or herself, when it comes down to the most painful feelings.
So if a patient is committed to facing the truth about his or her feelings, and does their best to say everything as it comes to mind, the treatment can be very effective. When a person has faced all the things they never really wanted to face about themselves, there is a lot less need for their old defenses. It is the pathological defenses (for example projection) that create the painful symptoms and personality problems that bring a person to treatment in the first place.
Thus as psychoanalysis is built around the goal of having emotional freedom it requires a search for the truth. If the therapist can't bear the truth, he/she will limit the patient's ability to conduct the search. If the patient refuses to bear the truth, he/she will get little benefit from the treatment.
Psychoanalysts are people with their own fears and limitations. The government was engaged in PSYOPS to induce terror, fear, and panic about the coronavirus, in order to make people WANT to get injected, with what we now know is a bioweapon. (https://bailiwicknews.substack.com) That psychoanalysts are about freedom and truth only shows how successful PSYOPS can be against millions of unsuspecting Americans.
WOW
Freedom of speech, thought, creativity - it all goes together. Can't have one without the other. These are dangerous times we are living in. We must do everything we can to fight this - humor is a great opportunity, so thanks for the baptist joke.
Well said :) 💕
Insightful, as usual. Thanks.
The consequences of this shot are only beginning. No one wants to discuss all of the adverse reactions ,including death that are and will continue to occur.
In my experience, living in the center of Texas, "fornication" and "dancing" were transposed in the local telling of the joke, FWIW.