The claim I want to make is that Anti-Liberalism/Fascism is Fusionism, is what amounts to a social implementation of the dynamics of an enmeshed family, where you have an overactive government both enabling and compelling an underactive citizenry, whose agency it steals in the name of “helping” it.
The whole thing consists in naked mental illness, and this has long been obvious, but this is beginning to bridge the gap between politics and psychology.
Books like 1984, and We, and Brave New World describe different forms of this illness and its methods, but rarely reach the Why. That some people are evil is clear, but why? What is behind the why they offer, which is clearly not the real why?
https://michaelsamsel.com/Content/Couples/fusion.html
What he is describing amounts to failed individuation, which is to say maturity, which is to say retarded emotional growth that has lapsed into the pathological. In general, this is the clear fault of the parents and “system”, who have failed to set rational and clear boundaries, and to enforce basic standards of emotionally and socially integrated behavior.
“In a fused relationship, each participant believes they are compelled by the feelings (especially ‘negative ones’) and vulnerabilities of the other. This results first, in a great deal of compliant caretaking behavior that can’t be sustained, second in a great deal of repression of anger and resentment, and third, when the first two strategies become unbearable, the feelings of the others are disputed and invalidated. It doesn’t occur to participants that they can listen, acknowledge, but not ‘obey.'”
Think about this dynamic, and the INABILITY–not the unwillingness, mind you, but INABIILITY– to tolerate genuine diversity which we are seeing expressed across our political world, and particularly on what should be Liberal and tolerant college campuses. Is this not a highly descriptive and useful analysis?
Another: “It is considered a real ‘crime’ to do or say anything that upsets another member. The most anxious or constricted family member dictates the ceiling of freedom of action or freedom of expression.”
Can you not see the genesis of Acceptable Speech, speech as violence, and Safe Spaces here?
More: “Life is reaction-rich with very little real effective action. Said differently strong reactions are allowed but strong actions are not.”
Speech, for these people, constitutes action. Genuine, meaningful, measurable, observable change for the better is something THEY DO NOT EVEN ATTEMPT. I can’t see that blacks who have been voting for Democrats for 50 years have gotten any reward for their efforts; or that any elected Democrats have really tried to do anything but throw crumbs from the royal coach as it passes the unwashed masses. Once elected, they quickly notice the benefits of royalty, and quickly forget where they came from, if they ever cared at all.
And: “Difficulties and feelings are automatically projected outward. When asked to talk about themselves, participants talk about others–this is usually blame, which is rife in fused relationships. If one tries to redirect attention back onto the member of interest it only lasts only moments until the ‘other’ is being talked about. This ‘other-focus’ is far from a healthy interest in others. Despite talking about others, participants are trying to get their own needs met.”
Think about this: is politics not the perfect place for people to hide WHO DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MANAGE THEIR OWN LIVES? You get to be angry all the time, talking about other people all the time, and deflecting from your own real and obvious failures ALL THE TIME.
All of this is understandable. All of our problems have sources, trajectories, and solutions, if we somehow manage the will and intelligence to actually solve them.