Justice For-All

Posts Tagged ‘Sigmund Freud’

Rethinking Officer Friendly, redefining bad touch.

In Freud and the Police, Police Personality, security theater on July 20, 2011 at 12:39 am

What if it was your daughter!!??!!

They always say that, don’t they? That meme is a tool of fear-mongering, designed to re-focus you on a strange, un-named threats, instead of the threat in front of you–someone who employs such ideology. That ideology is pathological narcissism.* And they hurt individuals with their self-centered manipulative perspectives.

And they are destroying the health of American society, while claiming to improve it.

The FBI, and cops, protecting your daughters mind, so you don’t have to!

They want you to fear terrorists with strap on bombs, rapists jerking off around every corner– and the dreaded pedophile lurking on the internet. But the truth is, more kids die at the hands of their mothers  than by strange men lurking on the internet.
But whatever you do–don’t  go near the head fucker!

The truth is—and has ALWAYS been–that children are more likely to be killed by American bombs and unexploded ordinance or depleted uranium [ here  , and also here ] or by female caregivers and babysitters right here in America, the they will ever face from strangers, men, kidnappers, or pedophiles.

Yet the cops make their money by keeping you in fear of strangers. But what is more strange than the mind of a cop? I mean, cops are  stepping up their use of Tasers on children [and here, and elsewhere]!

WAKE UP, peeple. This behavior is emblematic of an institutional psychology disorder.

Whereas it may be true that some pedophile is just waiting for a snapshot from of your kids Barbie Camera while he or she is riding a vibrating Harry Potter broom, it should scare us that he FBI is the agency that raised such an alarm.

I mean, what is in their minds to even imagine such things–what kind of mind could imagine such things–much less project them upon the world?

Oh, I know: the same great minds that brought you the overly broad US Patriot Act, and the TSA feeling up your six year old.

So, we all need a distraction away from the fact that the FBI routinely lies in warrant applications against internet providers, and that they also have virtually destroyed the fourth amendment with DPI technology–the same software that Iran and China use to stifle dissent is used by the FBI and InfraGard snitches.

I say it takes one to know one, as the old saw goes.The question we need to ask is what really endangers your kid online, beside the fact that the FBI can and stores images of your kids in their massive child porn collection?

What is more scary than knowing your government distributes child porn, instead of destroying it? I would suggest that your child’s memory of being trained to accept the hands of officer friendly down her pants might be a step in the ‘further’ direction of corrupting your kid with police state psychopathology.

They are tyeaching this girl to believe thatsuch physical contact is actually “good touch,” when in fact history shows us otherwise.

Sure, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but the infiltration of a child’s mind by police fear-mongering and mind abuse last generations. And it starts with the kind of contact you see in the video.

And there are worse things for your kid to face, I promise you; I mean, after all, that one in 1.5 million chance of someone creepy encountering her or him.

But the daily indoctrination to trust authority–not least of which is training young girls to be felt up by people in authority—is historically, by very freekin far, a worse option, with actual dire consequences.

* The police and FBI profile is one that includes narcisisstic psychopathology http://www.slideshare.net/samvaknin/narcissistic-and-psychopathic-leaders, particularly marked by unhealthy confabulation, meaning narcissists believe they are better than everyone else, smarter than everyone else, etc. because they are the good guys and gals, while forgetting the egregious, historic, criminal violations of US law that are part of their organizational structure.


Police want to peek into your babies diapers…

In Freud and the Police, Police and FBI evidence creation and set-ups, Police Personality, Profile the Police, Uncategorized on June 1, 2011 at 10:10 pm

…and they are relying upon social structures that uphold the police personality, hoping that conformists will affirm that society isn’t wrong to have an unhealthy fascination about what genital is or isn’t dangling there.

Toronto parents Kathy Witterick, 38, and her husband, David Stocker, 39, have faced a brutal public backlash since their refusal to allow the public a peak between the legs of their new-born child.

According to MSNBC, Witterick wrote in an e-mail “that the idea that “the whole world must know what is between the baby’s legs is unhealthy, unsafe and voyeuristic. We know — and we’re keeping it clean, safe, healthy and private (not secret!).”

The police personality, is upheld by the “norms” in society, and society upholds the norms of police repression of non-conformity.
Such an alliance is one that demands to know even intimate details of a families lives, and acts as a social change agent to conform families to the top-down authoritarian model of social control that puts police and their agents first in childrens lives. 
 In a police state, family allegiance comes second to the societal impulse to impose genderized models upon childrens minds. In other words, modern western society, with the aid of police and state structures, wants to “sex your baby.”
Witterick said the argument that children need a sex taught to them in order to feel safe in the world does not hold up in their experience.

The police personality is constantly on the look-out for opportunities to insert itself into your private life, and will stop at nothing to do so. The public at large, in expressing overt hostility towards the childs family, is upholding police structures of secondary control: the reliance of the police on their ability to manipulate public perception before they officially “intervene.”

Police agency primarily relies upon, instills, and upholds fear based responses such as in this case, where both parents agree that the only likely thing to fear isn’t the childs experience with its own gender awakening, but rather social reaction to their refusal to sex their child.

Storm’s parents told the Toronto Star, that Storm’s parents know their child’s sex, as do Storm’s older brothers. The goal of keeping the information inside the family,  is to limit messages that tell young children how to act based on their sex.those messages by the time Storm decides Storm would like to share [his or her gender],” Storm’s mom Kathy Witterick told the Toronto Star.

“We thought if we delayed sharing that information, in this case, hopefully, we might knock off a couple those messages by the time Storm decides Storm would like to share [his or her gender],” Storm’s mom Kathy Witterick told the Toronto Star.

Police enforce mediocrity, and conformity

In Freud and the Police, Police and FBI evidence creation and set-ups, Police Personality, Profile the Police, Uncategorized on May 26, 2011 at 12:06 am

…and they will beat you, Tazer you, spy on you, and imprison you without cause under false charges–they can even break

Conformity should be rendered obscure, not books

Conformity should be rendered Obscure, not books

your arms and get away with it.

However, long before it occurs to you that you must revolt, you will likely have been beaten into submission, or set up on some false charges.

Robert M. Lindner, was a psychologist who told us a little about that in 1956, the year he died. Were it not for his concept of a Rebel Without a Cause, we would likely never hear  his name, save for a  footnote or two in the annals of psychology.

More interestingly, his work “Must We Conform?” provided a piece or two of the template of  the police personality.

Police can harass you, compile false data about you, plant evidence in “official records” about you, and attempt to set you up for crimes before you realize that you must begin to fight them back. By then it will be too late, because by then, they have won: they have created in you the exact thing that gives them their purpose, and their excuse for being.

You are outside the “norm” of mediocre.

You, resistant in the least to their brutal, unaccountable attempts to smash you into conformity, will be looked upon as criminal, and you will be abused by police and the social mechanism;  and actions that fight back, or seek to uncover their crimes at the most extraordinary end will be seen as acts of your—not their–deeper criminality, and threat to “society.”

Sadly, “American society”is not on the side of individuals, and has grown to the bloated and untenable position in the world of exporting violence for oil, and believing in lies before truths, as they defer only to “official sources,” and “scientific opinions”, or art that takes only the form of propaganda;  and a media that guides them like sheep.

Ironically, if you don’t believe me, Google “American Society”. Before you get even one hit on our actual society, you get auto-suggestions at the top of the listings, and The American society of Plastic Surgeons, right at the top.

If that isn’t a suggestion of the importance of enforced conformity, what is?. When you actually get the results, Wikipedia’s definition of the term is on the top, followed immediately by the American Cancer Society. This is how Google, even, ranks the importance of American society.

Robert M. Lindner’s “Must We Conform?”

In the specific context of this blog, and its purpose, one can understand the police personality and the violence they exert over the non-conformist with the translational lens of Freudian pro-script, but we must look upon the Freudians as what I think they really were, as philosophers-doctors who were on to something about the organic mind; an organ with biological impulses in contrast to imposed societal structures that influenced the mind.

But Freud alone isn’t going to supply the answer for why American society has become overly afraid, and willing to kill others first, ask questions later; to character assassinate others first,  find facts later; to criminalize one type of mind over another type of mind.

Whereas the individual struggles daily with the contradictions of hypocrisy in the social condition, or marginalization at the hands of the mass, the police are many things, but what they are not are individual, humane, or clever; intellectual or creative in interpreting causes of individual impulse.

What police are is the antithesis of what one should be, as, in the words of psychiatrist Robert M. Lindner, police and others in the social order are “psychopaths,” and, as the conformity enforcers of the “mass” they have become the ‘ leaders’ of the common Americans .’

We should not be, nor should we consent to be,  ruled by psychopaths.

Lindner’s book, written in 1944 was  called Rebel Without a Cause: The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath, the title of which, and some of the essence of substance, was later adopted in the famous 1955 James Dean movie, Rebel Without a Causewhich has been added to the preserved films of the United States Library of Congress‘s National Film Registry as being deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

Without digressing into the endless loop of discussion of how flawed Lindner’s hypoanalysis was in that case, or wade into Freudian practices and beliefs have been refuted or debunked, critiqued ad infinitum, and debased in modern mans eye’s, there are ideas and concepts that were described by these early Freudian philosophers which remain as pertinent today as they were then.

Lindner wrote, In  his 1954 book “ Must We Conform?” in regards to the end-stages of any given civilization, that the appearance of a “new” breed of men, “whose genesis may be discovered among the conditions that conspire to petrify the forms by which the given civilization or society has chosen to express itself.

“These men, I think, are always psychopathic, dedicated to action and violence rather than the contemplation and compassion.”

He was talking about a modern police state, like Stalin, Hitler, and the emergent McCarthyism and its ominous presence in America.

“They prepare the way for the elevation of a Leader, and on his assumption, and thereafter in his name, rule. He in turn, carries the unconscious drama one step further by getting himself killed and immolated. By his death, he brings about the blood bath in which the civilization dissolves; while elsewhere another society is being born—to follow the same unconsciously motivated timeless cycle.”

Without unpacking all that is Freudian and arguable in Lindners’ statement, what is important is his belief that the leaders of modern (“mass men” as he called them) humans are always psychopathic, and always the violent, action driven antithesis of contemplation, or compassion.

That describes the police mind to a fault.

Henceforth, they are driven by violent, murderous impulses, and that has wide ranging implications for interpreting what the American society has become: a society that is ruled only by the violent overlords; oppressors of freedom, intellect, creativity, or compassionate interpretations of the actions of those who are different.

Rarely, they themselves rebel against their own positions, and do good in the world through individual acts of rebellion against their own violent natures. But those rebellions carry a cost, as Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich of Minneapolis can now testify.

Police are the primary upholders, trend setters and  brutal enforcers of mediocrity. Anyone different will be persecuted, marginalized,  and contained until hyper-masculinized police power  can control, displace, or otherwise conquer ones lack of desire to compete for the position of either a leader or a follower of the mediocre.

You must adjust, writes Lindner.’ Adjustment is the element of humanity that the oppressor seeks, your compliance to its authority at all times is the adjustment they seek; your eradication of individuality, and its consummation by the collective “herd” ,’as he calls it.

You must adjust, he writes, is  ‘the command above the door of every church, synagogue, cathedral—your passport to salvation. They have conspired in the name of the spirit against the spirit of man—though most of them were founded upon protest, and rebellion, these are now the things they hold in horror.’

You must adjust. Is ‘the slogan emblazoned on the banners of all political parties; modern man is homo politicus…Love, hate, friendship, enmity—these have come to have political significance,’and have become the bartering chips of our American society—the transactional devices of deciding who the police can, and cannot victimize.

But there is no freedom even here, since conformity is of the essence of all the political organizations that rule over us. Paradoxically, the systems that most loudly proclaim the right of human liberty, and offer themselves as instruments of change are those systems which oppress most heavily.’

The surrender of individuality is urged, or forced…In the congealing amber of politics the individual is pressed and imprisoned.”

Lindner most presciently anticipated the state of affairs the U.S. is in today, with police misconduct the norm, not the exception, largely because “The sciences have sold themselves to the status quo,” he writes.

“For psychiatry, psychology, and the medical or social arts that depend from them have become devil’s advocates, and sorcerers’ apprentices of conformity. Joined in the criminal conspiracy against human nature, they have poisoned the last oasis for the relief of man. Of all the betrayals, their treachery has been the greatest…equating protest with madness, and non-conformity with neurosis…they labor with art and skill to gut the flame that burns eternally at the core of being. “

These sciences, and the highly politicized and polarizing debates in the hard sciences are especially noteworthy because they are in essence the root cause of the condition of over-policing and poor policing that we suffer from today.

Especially noteworthy as the linkage and unholy matrimony of feminist rape culture studies, or rapeology , allied with polarizing academic liberals,  and police science that has birthed upon our nation children that willingly assume gender based, war-like postures from birth, and police are a reaction formation against the idea of weakness, or the possibility that they themselves could be raped [ this is a subject for a later post].

Hence, our society depends almost exclusively on men being in fear of weakness–fear of being raped, but worse, by living in fear of discussing it.

Modern American media, which is composed of only five companies  [ video here  ],  caters to men who uphold violence based endeavors, like  ESPN, and Bill O’Reilly, ensuring that different versions of male psyche are diffused, demeaned, or demonized.

They cater to women who are indoctrinated through Oprah, the View, and such other propaganda to believe that they are perpetual victims of men (but not men who are police or police structure affiliated; that is a forbidden dialogue); meanwhile every other show on television panders to the false notion that police are heroes of one kind or another, rather than psychopaths who have bullied themselves into the American mind.

And all media perpetuate the myth that police are safe for your children, and provide “idols” who kids look up to, with a constant stream of police “drama” ( cop porn).

Our media carries stories of the ongoing wars that our society has groomed men and some women to fight, and herald’s police dogs as heroes , and punctuates them side by side with the story that rape of women and girls is everywhere, even in your backyard or shed. Never mind that actual stranger rapes are  incredibly rare  in America, or worse, that in the story above, some residents say the girl herself was complicit.

Rather than asking if rape culture is growing, we should question the very bizarre projection, and sexual fetishization of women, and girls at the expense of discussing males or male sexuality in positive terms.

We should question whether and how much our government and our CIA is involved in production of pornography as a tool of social control, rather than repeating CIA disinformation about bin Ladens purported porn stash  [ and we should be re-visiting this odd state of American sexuality and its connection to the notorious CIA  projects MKULTRA and MONARCH which used children as sex slaves  and here ];  and  question an even more bizarre American society bent on the corruption of the natural and basic sexual impulses of human beings.

Lindner wrote at a time when shock therapy and lobotomies were being used on human beings—he wrote that if the psychiatrists, and the drugs and psychotropic dopes; if the evil madness of psychiatrists aligning themselves with the status quo; and if the literature and the “soft persuasion and counsel that apes wisdom” doesn’t “cure” men into conformity, and level him with the “mass,” then

there remains in the arsenals of adjustment  the ultimate weapons: the little black box for shock therapy, and the swift and silent knife for psycho surgery. From the skies the lightning and thunder are stolen to be discharged into the brain, the seat of reason, the home of evolution, and the treasury of manhood. In the convulsion that follows, resistance ebbs and another sheep is added to the flock…”cured” of his humanity.”

Reagan closed the asylums, and Americans built jails to house the mentally ill, right alongside the actual rapist, and murderers. Freudian psychoanalysis was replaced with American drug conglomerates, the dope dealers replaced with scientific opinions that work toward conformity, and against freedom.

I posit that the police powers and their Tazers have replaced shock therapy, and in collusion with media produce the dull-minded programs and propaganda like scared straight, rather than examine the root cause of social dysfunction in America .

Despite the modern trend to debunk the Freudians, the psychologists are as Lindner predicted: merely tools of the police power structure, in collusion with conformist visions of “society,” rather than visionary visions of peaceful possibility.

Cops think guns are penises…

In Police Personality, Profile the Police, Uncategorized on May 17, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Common chimpanzee in the Leipzig Zoo.

Image via Wikipedia

and they like to play with them, and try to impress women, just like chimpanzees.

Cops also often intervene in “domestic violence,” with only one thought in mind: men are the sole perpetrators, women are victims, and cops are the “heroes”–even though statistics clearly show that women initiate violence more often than men, and often with another male accomplice to cover her tracks. Worse,  men who find themselves caught in the cycle of domestic violence ( where more often than not women are the initiators of the violence) are at risk of being murdered by police, even though cops themselves bully women. 

If a cop even tries to take a stand against violence, or the homicidal nature of police in America, he is likely to be labeled a coward by other police. Then, an official black-balling takes place, and a smear campaign behind the scenes. Police even think its o.k. to beat men in wheelchairs, even after those men are handcuffed. You can mosy over to Detective Shaved Longcock, and get an address of where you can write to the cop who beat the guy in the wheelchair, or tell him what  a nut I am for saying that cops are stuck in the phallic stage.

But in the US Virgin Islands, an off-duty ATF agent murdered a man who was one half of a domestic dispute. The ATF “investigated” William G. Clark, and found him “not guilty,” without a trial, or civilian review. Most police misconduct is covered up before it ever goes to trial, and before the public ever gets to see the facts.  We  all know the biases, deceptions, and cover-ups that are the very heart of police investigations.

The Virgin Islands prosecutors came to a different, and more plausible, fair, and human decision: they decided that the ATF agent should face a trial, like any civilian in a similar situation would face.

But American cops are above the law–they are better than you apparently.

“The prosecution of Special Agent William G. Clark for the 2008 shooting death of Marcus Sukow has enraged many federal law enforcement officers, who say Clark was heroically coming to the defense of a battered woman.”

Notice the use of the word “hero.”  Since when did murderers hiding behind badges and killing unarmed men in cold blood become heroic? In the old days, shooting an unarmed person was considered cowardly. As some have noted, “Unleashing a hail of hollow-points without those qualifying conditions is the mark of a coward.

I suspect that there is something of an inferiority complex in the mind of every cop, and that leads them to become bullies in search of victims. As I have discussed earlier, they are also prone to latent homosexual idealization that makes them prone to desire physical contact with other men ( and female cops desire as much from women, but that is another subject) and Sigmund Freud might conclude that a male cops desire to “please the father” is at the root of the problem ( pun intended).

There is also a concept in biological science that states that there is a type of animal that, due to its inferior social status, or inferior physical size, seeks to mate with the mates of others,but on the sly, so that they don’t face consequences. I think cops are like that, despite the fact that many of them are religious. This entire event actually mirrors chimpanzee mating mature: females are promiscuous–slutty, in American terms, or generally just ‘different’ ,because everything turns them on,  and some males are violent in order to gain sexual access to those females.[in case you want to study similarities between chimps, and police]

So, cops are very chimp-like and they use the overblown social control mechanism of “domestic violence” to attemp to insert themselves into the relationships that other males have with females, and establish themselves as idealistic “better mates” for those females. And, it appears, that police generally have been having mating success, mating with violence prone, or violence driven females, because the police power has grown in America in the last several decades, OUTSTRIPPING MANUFACTURING, OR OTHER FORMS OF ECONOMIC POWER.[ harassing citizens here, and harassing journalists here; are we facing a police state morality crisis?]

“According to a police affidavit, Clark was leaving his condo when he encountered Sukow and his girlfriend, Marguerite Duncan. They had been drinking and were having a “disagreement.” Duncan asked Clark for a ride to the guard gate and got in Clark’s sports utility vehicle,” and even though Ms. Duncan claims she never asked for or wanted help from that cop, he stayed around to act like a hero.

What we have, then, is a male, who uses a female who is using another male to gain some favor ( an initiator of much domestic violence is womens’ infidelity, or lies, or implied violence via other males).  That secondary male, who has made himself available, and idealizing itself as a hero, complies. Never mind the sort of manipulation that was taking place: that female chose Marcus Sukow, a 260pound man, as an initial mate; never mind that she was asking a cop with a gun for ‘help’; and never mind how that cop complied so readily and so easily–such is the social structure of chimpanzees, and many other great apes.

But what really matters is this: do we as a society want to be governed by people who act like apes? Or by people who uphold ape-like behaviors? If so, we have become an ape-ocracy, not a democracy.

According to both investigations, Sukow struck the ATF agents car with a flashlight, which, in the American mind, justifies the use of deadly force. The cop had many choices he could have made:

1) he first could have-and likely should have–called actual local police ( since when is it the business of the ATF to intervene in domestic disputes? I am certain they sit back, and watch women get abused all the time, especially if intervention could jeopardize some case they are making against a dealer. Hell they sat back and watched as all of Latin America’s women were pimped out, sold, beaten, or otherwise abused when it was in the US interest to sell drugs–remeber Iran-Contra?)

2) he could drive away, and get the woman to safety–if in fact safety of that woman was the issue, and not the cuckoldry of that 260 pound man; or the desire that cops have to seek attention for heroic behavior, even if that means creating that “heroic” act.

3) the cop could have used non-lethal weapons–cops surround themselves with weapons of all kinds, as they perceive the world to be a threatening place ( you should see how slow the internet connection becomes when I punched that phrase in).

4) the cop could shoot the un-armed man dead. Cops love to play with their weapons–a sort of sublimated phallus, and murder for a cop is a sublimated act of sex.

Guess what the American cop did? The cop shot the unarmed man, instead of driving away, using a taser, or calling proper authorities, like any normal American citizen is asked–told– to do.

Both sides agree that the murder took place this way:

“Mr. Sukow stood there with his hands at his side when William Clarke [sic] discharged his firearm at him several times.” Five times, actually.

What would you have done?  And how long and for what will you tolerate this behavior–this mindset that police have a right to not only insert themselves into situations where they may or may not be required, and to kill first? Are you waiting until American democracy has fully  dissolved, or are you in some way to afraid to speak up, or too paid off by capitalistic complacency to notice?

But I know we share this in common: shooting unarmed people was always considered the act of cowards.

My idealism prefers to imagine another way of doing business, but first, we need to get the apes out of the picture. We need to stop fearing the apes, and when we catch those apes doing bad ape-like things, we need to follow the lead of the Virgin Islands, and put those apes behind bars. These American ape-minded police are ruining it for all of us.

In the meantime, if you encounter an ape, or are accosted by a cop, advice for your safety from them harming you is the same as it is for an encounter with a violent ape or a chimp: “The best way of keeping yourself alive after coming across a great ape is to stay calm, try not to scream and avoid running away,” and if that doesn’t work–and if you can get away with it–you can shoot them. They would probably shoot you, if actual chimpanzees could use guns.

But I don’t recommend that–there are enough chimp-like cops  out there doing that already.

Police are very predictable, understandable, using Freudian analysis.

In Freud and the Police, Police Personality, Profile the Police, Uncategorized on April 27, 2011 at 2:22 am

Sure, Sigmund Freud has been to some degree, debunked in many areas, or merely found to be innaccurate or incomplete in his theories. However, no one remembered to tell cops about that, because if they did, cops wouldn’t be so easy to understand from a Freudian perspective.

For instance, Freud maintained in “Civilization and its Discontents” written in 1929, that “It is clearly not easy for man to give up the satisfaction of [an inherent] inclination to aggression.”

He believed that men are primarily prone to aggression. That in and of itself is in dispute today, as is the definition of aggression, largely due to the fact that American posturing about ‘peace, justice,’ etc., has been shown to be a false flag that inevitably leads to violence directed FROM America TO other places in the world.

And women, too, are prone to violence, as anyone who has ever watched an episode of Jerry Springer can testify. Manycops today are women, and womens aggression is finally getting the attention it deserves [ and here].

So, men may or may not be prone to violence–as Sigmund believed, but we know that cops are prone to violence. Remember Rodney King ( who was recently pulled over for driving without a license–and the cops were a little more “respectful” than last time) or the thousands of unreported and under reported cases of police brutality

Forget Abraham Mazlows ideas, or Carl Jung: both of these guys believed that there IS a road to understanding the self, and enlightenment that leads to personal growth and happiness, and violence was part of the frustration of these goals–not a way of life.

Freud posited that some people likely got stuck in the libidinal mud somewhere, and that only after many years of psychoanalysis could they be free. And, Freud muddled around in the now discredited ideas of anal retention and anal expulsion–so much so that many say he was full of shit.

But he was right about the suppression of libidinal urges that leads to the repression of whole societies. 

In “Civilization and its Discontents” he said  that ” The present cultural state of America would give us a good opportunity for studying the damage to civilization,” which is to be feared when individuality is murdered so that heirarchical “group identities” could thrive.

The police are a large group identity.

Warning us against the “psychological poverty of groups,” he posited that the most dangerous thing civilization could face is when people in a community rely on being  ‘bonded’–into, and of society, as if they must first be somehow “jumped in”– rather than being individuals respected for difference. In other words, the psychological poverty he was talking about meant essentially that ther core of the group ethos was implicit violence–the law of the jungle.

The police of any breed or species are notoriously a fraternal order, complete with a group identity,  a  ‘groupthink’ process ( which is a phrase that is under threat of co-option by right wing police thinkers) and procedures associated to that process. Most importantly, they identify themselves as different than you, me, or us.

Freud, in discussing the individual versus the needs of a society, identified a state of affairs where essentially ‘physically stronger men [and now, women] decide the fate of the world based on their own impulses’ until they meet someone stronger. So if this ‘primal state’ of affairs is to change, and a community be developed,  a majority must come together and remain united against all separate individuals.

But that didn’t simply mean that all the bullies get together and call themselves a society, did it? According to Freud, real ‘leaders’ fell at the hands of those who band together in such a society.

Here is a statement from the website of the Fraternal Order of Police:   “Your job is on the line. Your pension is on the line. Your salary is on the line. Your safety is on the line. You must be on the front line defending your rights against these attacks.”

Did they mention anything in that phrase that applies to you, your rights, or the good of society? No, but they basically wrote the entire bestial motivation structure of the primal police mind. The police mind is always “under attack.”  On rare occasions that’s true , but on most occassions it’s not.

And more importantly, when it really counts, we see that police–and there are so many like “officer” Jason Andersen, and they are not here for you and me, but for one another–they cover each others crimes,[ and here], act criminally together, and no matter how many lies they tell–it sells to a willing  public. (I will address that anomaly in a  later post)

 All for one and one for all was cool when it applied to the fictional Three Musketeers–heroes of the people; a nice fantasy of collective possibility, but doesn’t work so well when we look at Sigmunds ideas of a collective based in aggression.

 Human actions are not motivated bytruly altruistic behavior, as most biologists know today  but some individuals in our society have figured out that if they claim a ‘common good’ intention, and claim the noble cause of ‘assisting the community,’ rewards follow, no matter how deceptive their claims might be. Or, put another way, a wolf wears a sheepskin and claims to be able to tell you about wolves…

But even Freud understood the falsenness of that, and as applied to police psychology, it turns out to be an accurate representation of truth. He posited that man truly followed the creed “Homo homini lupus‘–man is a wolf to man ( quoting from Plautus).

Think back to the last time you were hungry, needed shelter, or other basic needs. Can you even remember one time? Two or more? How about dozens, or hundreds? Relatively 60% of Americans live UNDER the poverty line, with no resources or fraternal orders to speak for them–they are powerless.

It is largely, and almost wholly from these ranks of poor and powerless that the police routinely drag in a face, creates a report, and prosecutes a “criminal. It is from these ranks–ranks of people who never had the opportunity to enjoy even the most basic elements of a sense of “community,” who are “individually” used by the police to justify police salaries, jobs, and careers.

All for one and one for all sounds great and noble,  but it isn’t so cool when applied to a secretive, fraternal, quasi-democratic, but entirely[until now] unmonitored group that not only doesn’t play by the same rules as we do, but also has a huge and powerful lobby that mobilizes whenever their food and shelter is threatened.

Freud posited a useful model of aggression that we can follow to understand the police, and police-state minded groups: stuck somewhere in an anally fixated state, they rigidly enforce “order”. They live under the disguise of acting altruistically for the community, while embodying the very archetype of a willingness towards physical violent domination, and a willingness to murder–these wolves will kill you before they report a comrade who does illegal things–“Que messiers les assassins commencent.[sic]”

It is the murderers who shall make the first move, the very people you have relinquished your own power to who will gladly kill for a paycheck–and hopefully you won’t be in their sights.

This Cop looks like a repressed homosexual

In Freud and the Police, police and repressed homosexuality, Police Personality, Profile the Police on April 27, 2011 at 12:31 am
Rob Ward embodies police sentiments toward peaceful people. He should be promoted, so I will promote him here..

Survey: does this guy look like a repressed homosexual?

Here is an example of the mindset of one, random cop who made his views public on Facebook. His name is Rob Ward, an English “bobbie”. Doesn’t he look like gay waiting to happen? Many cops are so sexually repressed that they take their sexual urge, and turn it into an urge for violence instead. Freud in all his failings, was sure right about anal retentive types, AND latent homosexuality. This guy is a classic example of that.

Notice that Ward particularly fetishizes “long-haired” hippies–not tattooed ones, or pierced ones necessarily: it is the ‘long’, and thus in his mind, ‘feminine’ aspect of hair on men that competes with what could well be his “shortcomings” in other areas, and likely reminds him of the many, wonderful aspects of a human personality that he has given up hope of ever mastering. So his solution? “beat  up anything that challenges my repressed sense of manhood.”

I can just imagine what this guy and others like him in policing do with their batons when no one is looking. Better, yet, eeeeeww…I can’t.