The principles of Democracy have been, and continue to be for many, eternal tomes to the guiding ethics of individualism. The founders, framers, and thinkers who set about to create a truly free country knew that it was governmental collectivism that most endangered individual autonomy, and it is autonomy, in the sense of being truly free, that I'd like to discuss today. What I'd like to say is that being free to make choices, being free to determine ones own values, being free to engage with others on a level of honesty and passion - these are all components of what the founders must have had in mind when they set about drafting the constitution, the federalist papers, and the declaration of independence. I've often said that analysis of founding documents is far less revelatory in terms of Spirit, in a Hegelian sense, than simply glancing a single time at the papyrus of the Constitution with a properly Judeo-Christian framework in place. It would seem counter intuitive and anti-rational to some who have been trained in the language of disengaged rote memorization and repetition of values very often descended directly from un-vetted intellectuals within academia and the elitist Left - however, I think many American's have had the experience of simply looking at the constitution in it's original format and being overwhelmed by a spiritual sense of historicity. It is the tradition of the constitution that is really at stake. What I'm here to tell you is - we, as individuals, no longer have the freedom to make choices. No longer do we have the freedom to determine our own values. We have lost the freedom to engage with others on a level of honesty and passion. Just think, for a moment if you will, about the last time you got really excited about something you cared immensely for - there is a strong likely-hood, I would suppose, that people whom you talked to about it - perhaps those closest to you - looked upon your passion about a particular subject with disdain for the very fact that you cared. Perhaps we think of ourselves as being fully able to decide what we believe to be true about the world - but again, I'm going to say, in our day and age this is very much in dispute. And, unless you're a very strict Calvinist like some of my ancestors were, it's going to be difficult to find anyone who does not believe that the choices they themselves make during any given day are not, to a degree, 'free'. What I'm here to say is that, due to a complex apparatus of what Freud termed psychical energy and it's systematization by collectivist ideologues, we are no longer free in that individualistic sense which our founders undoubtedly intended. The key to understanding what I'm getting at is in this peculiar notion of 'psychical energy' as properly understood (don't bother looking it up on the internet, you won't find it). Described in some specificity by professor Robert Solomon in his analysis of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" entitled "In the Spirit of Hegel", psychical energy is best understood as the premise that the brain is of near identical structure to the universe - that is, the physical structure of the brain resembles the physical structure of the universe; as such, the energy of the mind correlates with the energy of the physical world. It was under such a premise that Freud and early proponents of the emergent post-war psychologist priesthood advanced the premise that we could use the same laws governing the physical world to govern people, which resulted - more or less - in the use of near undetectable methods of inculcation of values, designed wholly by academic collectivists. That's really the rub of it - the whole notion of propaganda, which was openly admitted to having been used. I'm certainly un-aware of any valid criticisms regarding the ethical basis for using psychology to, say, sell more of a product of some sort - given there is no psychological or spiritual side-effect. Anyone trying to tell you that flashing a millisecond image of buttered pop-corn on screen while one is at the movie theater is sinister in any way is really misrepresenting the basis of capitalistic enterprise. It is obviously of dubious ethics to instill in a peoples a morality that runs contrary to Democracy, which is a claim that I'll talk more about later. But returning to the idea of psychical energy. Perhaps you've heard someone, at some point, mention the old new-age adage 'vibrations' to describe a persons emotional underpinnings. So, you're saying something critical of someone else - and this is described as being a 'negative vibration' - and all of that sort of thing. There is a sense in which this view is very much of kin to Freud's theory of psychical energy. Psychical energy theory does, in fact, posit that the mind has a kind of physical energy apart from electro-chemical stimulus. I do not personally think this to be the case myself, but many early members of the psychologist priesthood proposed that the energy of individuals could and should be controlled - most notably, and most often demonized by media theorists, of those who believed that we should use psychical energy to achieve enlightened ends, was daughter of Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud - who thought that in order to prevent catastrophe the U.S. must implement unconscious social control with the goal of keeping the 'irrational' aspects of human nature from becoming the dominant force of American civilization (see 'Century of the Self'). What I have in mind here is the way in which this new priesthood of intellectuals trained in the art of the unconscious was, intentionally or unintentionally, undermining the principles of autonomy, self-determination, and Democracy. Why? How? What? For clarification, I'll direct you to the following passage from "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley Jr. - "We narrow down our search primarily to an evaluation of the influences that stem out of the departments of Sociology, Philosophy, and Psychology. Most particularly, we are here concerned with those... within these departments who actively disparage or encourage religion... those instructors and those texts that are overtly or covertly hostile to religion, whether through the 'silent treatment,' active opposition, or supercilious disparagement." Now if you'll simply make the slight leap to the following - "Religion, Freud believed, was an expression of underlying psychological neuroses and distress." (http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundfreud/p/freud_religion.htm) Freud's view of religion from this standpoint added with the subtle methodology of Buckley equals the following: Psychology's main goal is to make passive, undermine, subvert, and transform traditional religious passion - the end result being a wholly collectivist society with values resulting from the academic elite rather than an individualist society with values resulting from God.
This is FORMULATION A (will be referenced accordingly)
DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED