Chapter 1

Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents

Freud’s ideas took a hit in the 1980’s from which they have never fully recovered. At the time it was understandable. He had been heralded as omniscient, one of the world’s great men, up there with Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Buddha. Something like that. The effectiveness of psychoanalysis had already proven to be far from the cure-all advocates had been claiming for it. Alternative paths to happiness, thousands of them, were becoming popular among the intelligentsia. Freud’s downfall was part of a broader rejection of all authority. In his case it was misplaced.

His brilliance came from his inquiring mind, his curiosity and willingness to describe what he discovered– both good and bad. He was fond of developing encompassing theories, and defending them if necessary. But he was not guilty of building a fortress of immutable beliefs. He admitted when he was wrong and constantly reformulated his theories wherever the evidence led him. He was excited, aware of psychoanalysis’ potential to explain all kinds of mysteries. However, he was a true Eastern European Jew, plagued with uncertainty, with as many questions as answers. He did not think analysis was an out of this world cure all. To quote him, “Psychoanalysis can turn neurotic suffering into ordinary human misery.” Although he placed discovering and understanding our hidden motives as crucial to curing neurosis, even that belief he modified. He came to accept that understanding could only bring us so far. Towards the end of his career he wrote “Analysis Terminable or Interminable describing and accepting its limitations. This was even before it was not uncommon for analysis to last 4 or 5 years, not always with triumphant results.

But regardless of psychoanalysis’ shortcomings as a cure, Freud’s discoveries and observations about how our mind works remain powerfully enlightening. Perhaps his most important realization was that psychic conflict is inevitable. Our brains are made of two very different parts, which invariably are at war with each other.

Human beings’ ancestors were animals. Our raw uncivilized desires and passions usually remain hidden. But they don’t disappear. We are very different than all other living things. No other animal has anything resembling a conscience. Compared to them our brain is startlingly advanced. Our intelligence is remarkable. But, the neocortex, the rational part of our brain, hasn’t replaced what was there before. It is an addition. It sits on top of the older original brain and tries to direct traffic, channeling undesirable impulses and behavior into acceptable forms. Often enough it does the job, but the original animal brain never goes way. It needs and wants what it wants. Some of our most important pleasures come from satisfying the animal cravings in us. On the other hand, the pages of human history are stained with the blood of animal behavior.

It is terrible to acknowledge how low our behavior can become, far too pessimistic to satisfy those who correctly see the greatness in us. But we merely have to open our eyes to appreciate how common animal behavior is. Not everything can be blamed on the internet. It has always been that way, in the past as much as now. And it will be in the future. Human misbehavior, and yes, barbarity has happened too often to be considered an anomaly. We can sing folk songs forever disparaging the insanity of war. We mean every phrase, every word, every syllable. We pray for that wish to be true, to find peace. It would be so fine if we could dismiss all wars as due to men’s hormones. But even if that were true, if chemicals can explain the problem, our inherited animal impulses, our hormones are real. And if they are real, if time and again men are driven by powerful hormones, short of castration, competition and conquest will always characterize men’s behavior. Calling it toxic masculinity can win a debate about the unworthiness of masculine psychology. But if the part of our minds ruled by cave man psychology is simply the way it is, was, and will be, for better and worse, the animal in us must be given the respect it deserves. It cannot be dismissed as just a hormone. Like it, or not, we must take it into account. And it isn’t as simple as assuming our rationality can always master our animal instincts We must respect anything that is real and powerful or we are indulging in dreams about human nature suitable for debate in a college classroom, but unequal to the task of successfully dealing with it in reality.

When the rational mind is working well, it is able to control most of our wildness, turn it off, delay it, manage to find an acceptable way for it to be satisfied. Most people like to flatter themselves that not only are their intentions pure, but their rationality is supreme. They are completely in control of their thoughts and behavior. Some even appear to achieve that. Some, perhaps most, try to be guided by their conscience. But living in the dark recesses of every person’s mind, primitive impulses and desires cannot be made to completely go away. The neocortex accomplishes wonderful things. We can live in a civilized manner, suppressing the storms of passion and unruliness lying beneath the surface. Predictability, stability, and rationality are welcomed.

But we never wholly succeed. Let us leave aside the horrible behavior that can regularly be observed on the news, consider it irrelevant as far as understanding the average person. We might say what is on the news is atypical. Fine, we are more in control than the feral behavior described there. But are we that distant?

Every night dreams take over our consciousness. We enter a reality every bit as real as our morning breakfast eating Wheaties. Usually the dreams make no sense. They take place in unfamiliar locations. Sanity demands they be quickly erased, which no matter how vivid, they usually are. Freud was particularly interested in dreams. He considered them “the royal road to the unconscious.” He spent years trying to interpret his own. I’m not sure he always got it right, but he was not wrong about their importance.

During daytime, even in the most rational person, unsettling emotions may appear. If we are lucky, most of the time they disappear, but we are all familiar with them, unexplained fears, sadness, sometimes hopelessness, when there is no good reason for these emotions to be there. And while unsettling emotions can be overcome by good thinking habits, by philosophical perspectives, epiphanies, by sheer determination, or by whatever comforting tricks individuals develop to keep them controlled, too often, the irrational has a way of exerting its will. Sometimes in minor ways, sometimes catastrophically.

Our determination to fulfill fine intentions often works beautifully in minimizing the untoward effects of losing control. We can achieve a convincing persona to show others and equally important, convince ourselves that we are all right. But always that perspective is built on a lie, trying to be less of an animal than we are. There is a lot more to us than what we try to seem to be, and what we let others know about us. Much of it is wisely private, some of it is forbidden.

Parisian bohemians were thrilled with Freud’s discovery of this wildness. Coming from Freud, blaming society’s prohibitions for discontent was like honey to dress the wounds of those who had been pushed into bohemian acceptance of deviancy. To them, hypocritical bourgeoise demands were the enemy of the vitality and honesty that exist in us before they are crushed. Society ‘s rules and expectations create a stranger locked up within, a secret self. Bohemians considered that locked up person our true self, our natural self, in modern lingo, the person that was meant to be. They were particularly pleased that Freud argued that forbidden impulses not only exist, but can become poisonous if hidden from oneself. He was not just describing psychos. Freud believed our forbidden impulses live and breathe in every person. That perspective was very new.

A century before Paris bohemians got excited by Freud, Swiss philosopher, Jacques Rousseau, wrote about the poisonous effects of society’s prohibitions. He was disgusted by the layer upon layer of deception required to achieve a charade of normalcy. His writings were banned in France. But, he was not alone. Painter, Edward Hicks captured a vision of the essential goodness of nature, man at his best, when he is not repressed by society. We need to embrace the animal in us, be comfortable with it. We need to embrace nature as the most important barometer of what is good, currently a very popular religion.

Peaceable Kingdom (1830-32)

Henry Rousseau made nature and the natural even more luscious

The Dream (1910)

Freud’s discoveries that forbidden, primitive, impulses were an inherent part of human nature got exactly the response that could be anticipated in Paris. Contemporary anthropologist Claude Roy spoke for them. “Psychoanalysis has given us back our childhoods, while history and anthropology have led us to reconquer our past. They have helped us to recognize ourselves in those whom we considered least like ourselves: the child, the sick man, the primitive and the barbarian. Freud’s acknowledgement of the power of the primitive met with thrilled acknowledgement among artists in Paris. Picasso, Gauguin, the surrealists, the list is long of worshippers of nature and the uninhibited. They believed repressed existence exacts an intolerable toll. It turns men into automatons, scrambling to belong, killing their passions and energy .

An early Gauguin painting shows a figure tied in knots, having the hell beat out of him by an angel, while women stare at him as a sinner. Vision After a Sermon captures the oppression he experienced.

Gauguin found the answer. Primitive men lived a life of grace, of simplicity and truth. They had no reason to lie. Gauguin escaped Paris. He went to Tahiti and found paradise. He married a maiden there. His painting shouts with glee, Hail Mary (1891)

Catholic missionaries found something else in Tahiti. They were on a different mission. They had faith that paradise awaited them if they were guided by their conscience, if they gave heed to the prohibitions proclaimed by God. Helping tribesmen to find their way to Christian heaven reinforced the missionaries’ own faith. They not only shared their belief in the heaven awaiting them. They were able to end Tahitian cannibalism. Eating the heart of their conquered enemy’s leader did not bring his strength. It was barbaric and irrational. Similarly, the missionaries were able to put an end to the ritual of human sacrifice that Tahitians used to appease the gods. Christ had taken care of that for the Christians that followed him. The missionaries were willing to share this blessing with Tahitian tribesmen. Indeed, Tahitian war dances eventually became entertainment for French tourists.

Double click.     tahitian

 

Freud saw clearly where his ideas might lead. He didn’t back off his finding that we pay a terrible price living by society’s rules and priorities. Nor did he deny that as we stifle our sinful inclinations, we obliterate much of who we might become. And many times this might exact a high cost. But while the damage done by society’s restrictions is real, he was unequivocal in his rejection of the id, the wild primitive part of the mind. In order to live and function in society we had no choice other than to accept its rules. Artists are understandably enamored by the freedom to reject inhibitions. Their life blood is sin, either lived or portrayed. They understand that sin is an essential part of our entertainment.

Roman citizens gathered at the colosseum to experience absolute wonder, lions, beasts of every variety tearing apart gladiators. They bet on victims, laughed and cheered. During their highly principled revolution, French crowds similarly roared at the marvelous sight of the guillotine chopping off the head from the torso of aristocrats. After the aristocrats were eliminated, the murders continued and continued, finding any and all victims to keep the show going. The entertainment was too valuable to lose. The excitement was necessary.

Flirtation with the horrible, with vice, never changes. Murder in Crime and Punishment electrifies the action as it stimulates moral consciousness. Adultery in Madame Bovary, does the same. But moral misgivings are not necessary. The sheer savagery in Game of Thrones is attached to a good guy-bad guy drama, but even that isn’t critical. The number one video on Netflix, the very savage Squid Game, was streamed 2.3 billion hours. Its follow up depiction of horrible deaths, Squid Game 2 also passed a billion hours of viewing. Evidently, like the Romans, witnessing 6 PM murder satisfies our own craving. We can explain this “sick” pleasure only by acknowledging Freud’s observations.

That doesn’t mean Freud approved of our animal self. Yes through analysis he searched for its existence in his patients. But not so as to unleash them. He believed it was healing enough to acknowledge their presence. And thus (he assumed, he hoped) we could master them.)“Where the id is there shall the ego be,” was his optimistic credo. Freud was an atheist but he had religious reverence for the power that understanding brings.

He continued an ancient Jewish tradition. It was believed by most Jews that they could find relief from their fear of God by discovering what God really wanted. Hence generation after generation of their smartest students and scholars studied the Talmud trying to unravel what God hinted at in the Torah. It went beyond the mere love of knowledge or pleasure in their own brilliance. Sometimes,Talmudic scholars argued all night. They had to have the answer. Understanding the hidden meanings of the sacred scroll God gave to the Jews was crucial. Once they discovered the hidden meanings in the Torah, they could find safety with God by obeying him. Happy God. Happy life. Except, there was never an end to the questions, as there couldn’t be. Unfortunately, the Torah didn’t come from God. On the positive side it became a vehicle for greater and greater moral commitment.

The God part of Judaism didn’t mean anything to Freud. He was an atheist. But over many centuries of practice, the figuring out part was sacrosanct. The ferocity of that desire to understand has been the genius of the Jews in field after field where knowledge is sought.

But to return to the earlier point, the last thing Freud would have considered regarding the importance of the unconscious is the belief that salvation comes from letting it all out. He didn’t need examples of the very screwed up lives of so many artists for him to understand that while repressing and denying forbidden impulses was a heavy price paid by his patients, and for that matter, everyone, when there is a breakdown of ordinary morality the consequences are far worse.

Freud was not a bohemian. He passionately challenged conventional ideas, but he was a thoroughly conventional Viennese doctor trying to make a living for his family. He kept regular hours, starting his first consultation at exactly! 8 AM. (He most likely had a Swiss watch.) And each session lasted exactly 55 minutes. An observer could set his clock by the time he walked each day along the Ringstrasse, Vienna’s grand tree-lined avenue.

Point is Freud’s loyalty to conventional behavior did not interfere with his genius, his determination, the delight he took reporting whatever he observed. Yes, he probably liked reporting shockers. Fame first came to him when he claimed that incest was occurring in patients from the very respectable middle-class families he was treating. Through hypnosis he had found an unusual way to discover what is buried in the mind. Later he found an even more effective way, the equivalent of a microscope to look into the mind, free association.

Patients were to immediately say out loud every thought as it crossed their minds, no matter how embarrassing, trivial, silly or horrible. And when his patients did that, unanticipated motivations and secrets came out. The shocking revelation that incest was frequently occurring made him famous. But it wasn’t to gain recognition. It is what he found. It is what several of his young female patients were revealing. Later he pulled back. Incest may not have actually occurred, but it was in the fantasies of his patients as children, and buried in their unconscious, and in this way, cursing them with otherwise incomprehensible symptoms.

Freud didn’t do studies using statistics about thousands of patients, the modern scientific way to the truth. He simply reported what he observed. Incestuous feelings and fantasies appeared frequently enough for him to reach general conclusions. He argued that what he discovered in his patients , was widespread in most, if not all, little girls. Freud thought that sexual impulses of all sorts were present in every little girl. It was part of normal development. This played a part in the romantic fantasies that girls have with their fathers. Similarly, he found a whole assortment of sexual impulses in boys, men, women, basically in every human being.

It was the Victorian era. Pornography was not readily available, delighting, mesmerizing, hawking perversity to millions of ordinary people. Especially then, sexuality of any variety had been driven out of polite conversation, and even more important, much of it out of consciousness (although perhaps not as much in risque Mysterious spiritualParis) As he listened over the years, he concluded that underneath, all of us harbored every form of sexuality. “Natural man” was polymorphous perverse, meaning bisexual, trisexual, monosexual, potentially turned on by men, women, children, animals, you name it and it is there, anything and everything existed in our unconscious, sometimes resulting in a mighty struggle to be normal. When societies inhibitions are eliminated with drugs, or during wars, the unutterable occurs. Every vice, every horrible behavior can be acted on including joy in rape, murder, pillaging, historically, the traditional prize offered to victorious soldiers.

Whether he was correct about all of his beliefs, whether incestuous impulses were part of every girl’s fantasies or, whether he was correct about a thousand other observations involving sexuality and killing, my main purpose here is to convince the reader that human nature is not only mysterious. It is crazy, dangerous as well as beautiful. Our impulses are capable of being animalistic and spiritual and the two can be combined. We can never be totally understandable, not even with AI. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

In Civilization and Its Discontents he didn’t back off the buried impulses he had described. But he was unequivocal about what should be done about them. Despite repression being the primary cause of our discontent, there was never a serious alternative to meeting society’s expectations.

Repression and neurosis are the price we must pay. Yes, the suffering, the hypocrisy, so many of the lies we tell ourselves stem from this conflict. Many of our greatest pleasures come from release of this underside of our nature. But what choice do we have? When civilizations breaks down, the results are worse. He didn’t need evidence of the danger. In Vienna then, as today, and everywhere else, it is not hard to find uncivilized behavior.

Again. Freud and psychoanalysts were wrong on any number of issues. He didn’t deserve to sit on the throne of omniscience. No one belongs there. Not even Freud knew half as much as he would liked to have known. But the modern emphasis on his shortcomings and disinterest in his ideas has gone too far. Although he is routinely described as a towering figure in the history of ideas, his actual insights about how the mind works are ignored. This particular article, focusing on the conscience, began as an attempt to present psychoanalytic ideas about the conscience as they developed among analysts before those insights disappeared into intellectual oblivion. The reader will also soon realize that many other issues regarding the conscience are wrestled with besides psychoanalytic perspectives. Indeed, analytic ideas are not presented until the final chapter.

We will return many times to the issue of the curse civilization places on us and its blessings, which is not necessarily crucially related to the main topic here, how the conscience is formed and how it operates. The reader is asked to allow my tendency to jump into the ring of hot contemporary controversies. I should know better but I can’t help being pulled into them. While my politics may turn off certain readers, the main part of this article, the examination of how the conscience works is straight forward Judge for yourself whether you are able to consider those ideas, regardless of my politics.

As for the violence of the conscience? Yes it is a catchy title but that is not the entirety of what this article is about. The conscience’s connection to violence is not a usual emphasis. However, it is valid. The two are so often entwined that it is worth pointing out in what ways. Many readers may already be turned off by the grisly description of human nature I have presented. There is more to come. We cannot clothe the elements of the conscience in Disney costumes to lessen their raw power. Too often, hatred drives the conscience. Yes, having good rules in place benefits everyone. Our morality should consist of nothing but honorable purposes. Fortunately, that is often enough the case. But its inherent connection to vicious psychological currents will receive special attention.

One further point. I focused here on Freud because originally this essay was going to clearly elaborate his ideas. That will be the case in the final section, but as I began to explore the various aspects of the conscience, reflecting on the twists and turns of mine, in particular, I realized there was a lot more to understand than Freud’s ideas. Examining the vicissitudes of my own conscience led me to observations that could be productively generalized. Anyway, hold on ‘til the end for the very helpful psychoanalytic theories about how the conscience operates and how that educates our perspective.

Chapter 2

A visit to the particulars stemming from the relationship between violence and the conscience.

We can be proud of the fine beliefs we treasure in our conscience and happy with ourselves to whatever extent we don’t give in to temptation. But, for the most part, the superego, the forbidding part of the conscience operates using fear, namely fear of punishment. Noble beliefs, the ideals represented in the conscience, if they come into play, have to do with what analysts called the ego ideal. But it is fear that usually keeps adults in line. Not only fear of the sheriff for unlawful behavior. Century after century, most Christians and Muslims, whether kings or peasants, feared going to hell.

Hell wasn’t an abstraction. People lived with its reality day after day, particularly after they sinned. Hell meant inconceivable tortures ‘til the end of time. This terrifying possibility was real enough to keep most people from acting up as much as they may have wanted to. And if they did misbehave, it meant many sleepless nights of worry and contrition. Hell was so real for some people, that even minor sins could have devastating effects on mostly innocent people.

Psychoanalysts so often ran across patients racked by guilt that they came up with a description, the “sadistic superego,” a conscience energized by a ferocious self-destructive energy. Interestingly, in the case of those using psychoanalysis trying to free themselves of self-torture, they had no concept of hell at all. Believers in hell would have gone to their parish priest, hoping for relief. Modern nonbelievers paid good money to be “cured” of their guilt. This was so common in America that the purpose of analysis often wasn’t what Freud described: “where the id is there shall the ego be.” What replaced it was dissolving the superego, finding innocence. This often meant blaming someone else, like parents or a spouse, but that is a separate subject.

The obvious conclusion we should draw from the fact that the conscience may torture us even without the existence of hell, is that we can’t exclusively use it as an explanation for all that fear over the centuries. Indeed, the idea of hell (and heaven) did not begin with modern religions. Long before they became fixed in theology connected to specific sins, there were similar beliefs among the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Zoroastrians, and many other cultures which similarly had coherent beliefs to wrestle with the consequences of forbidden behavior. The point is that the conscience is a powerful force in how our mind works with, or without, religious underpinning. It is built into the brain. The analysts were not wrong. Frequently, guilt is the curse keeping their patients from contentment. The particular sin matters to a priest hoping to rescue his parishioner from damnation. But while religions are usually specific about what is not allowed, that aspect may not matter. For instance on Yom Kippur Jews accuse themselves of every conceivable sin, denouncing themselves for crimes never committed, begging God to forgive them. The point is that there is a powerful psychological force built into the psyche independent of particulars. Human beings are invariably cursed with a guilty conscience.

It is explained in the bible. Eating from the forbidden tree of knowledge, original sin got Adam and consequently all of us kicked out of paradise. In Christianity, Christ righted that wrong. Dying on the cross, punished mercilessly, tortured, it was said that he took on the sins of humanity so that Christians could return to paradise, meaning immortality in heaven with him and God at their side.

Most, but not all cultures assign God the role of being the final judge. He is not an acquaintance to take lightly. Muslims take no chances. They fervently say their prayers five times a day in order to convince Allah of their faith and achieve his forgiveness. Orthodox Jews pray 3 times. Performing the sacraments, culminating in confession and appropriate punishment, was long the highlight of Catholic observance. For Jews, by far, the holiest day of the year is Yom Kippur. As in other religions, that centers around clearing the conscience through prayer and fasting. It also should be noted, on that day of seeking forgiveness for sins, Yiskor is addressed to God. The Yizkor prayers, begin with the words “Yizkor elohim nishmat…” (“May God remember the soul of…”) We try to soften the pain and sorrow we have for a loved dead person by appealing to God’s compassion. Presumably we have earned it by being forgiven on that day.

Does prayer primarily result from coming to terms with God’s judgment? Before the birth of Judaism that wasn’t the case. Prayer, praising and glorifying God’s goodness, his fairness and power, was not the primary way to achieve his blessing. Instead, gifts were offered to win God’s approval. Animals were sacrificed, and, as with the Tahitians, human sacrifice was common. In some cultures beautiful young virgins were the offering. Commonly, children were chosen, especially the most prized. The first born son was killed as a special present to the gods. At the time of Abraham’s conversion to Judaism this was widespread.

As the story is told, the very beginning of monotheism, the faith of Abraham is tested by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his first born. He brings Isaac to a rock to slaughter him. God turns out to be less demanding than expected. Abraham doesn’t have to kill Isaac. Instead, a holy sacrament is arrived at. God asks for a piece of Abraham’s penis, circumcision as the holy sacrament, the bind with God that Abraham and his people must perform. This piece of the penis is the very first commandment given to the Jewish people. As reward, God promises a blessed holy land, and that his descendants will multiply and become a great nation. This connection to God is so holy that the rock over which Isaac was to hve been slaughtered, became for Jews, the holiest site on earth . The Jewish temple was built there. After the temple ws built, it was believed that God lived in the temple. Only high priests were allowed to enter it. Sacrifices of grain and animals were brought there. Today, the remaining wall of the temple is holy. Messages are left for God in the cracks of the wall. Moslems also claim that very same rock as one of their supremely sacred sites. It is said that Mohammed ascended to heaven from that rock. The Dome of the Rock is built on that spot, on top of the destroyed Jewish temple.

The offering of an innocent son is repeated in the birth of Christianity. God doesn’t demand Jesus’ death, but his death, nevertheless, became the foundation of Christianity. The cross, where he receives his final torment, becomes an everlasting symbol, the meaning of it all. He dies and is tortured in order to purge the sins of humanity. This was a later interpretation. For decades Christ and all of his followers, were Jewish and were circumcised. But 50 years after his death, the Jewish followers of Jesus, who at that point were the only Christians, had become evangelical. They sought for Christianity to be open to non-Jews. They decided that converts did not have to be circumcised in order to become followers of Christ. Baptism was enough to receive God’s blessing and protection.

One is tempted to believe that finally the bloody process of achieving innocence, being allied and blessed with God’s favor, had been undone. Sacrifice of flesh was being replaced by bathing, cleansing in pure water. Perhaps God was a nice guy. But instead, the blood bath continued. Christians, over the centuries, have tortured and slain those they held to be non-believers, or heretics. There has been war after war between believers in one form of Christianity and other forms of Christianity,Catholics Protestants, Protestants killing Catholics, killing for the sake of keeping their connection to God pure, blessed with the innocence he offers. And of course, blood was shed against Jews, and Muslims, and all kinds of people with a different way of connecting to God.

It was, and is, no different among Muslims. Sunnis and Shiites repeatedly, in addition to killing non-Muslims, have killed each other over the centuries, “Allahu akbar”, God is great they shouted as they killed themselves and killed Muslims with different details in their beliefs. Alawis, Supis, Ahmadis Muslim have been attacked by other forms of Muslim belief. In the history of Christianity, again and again we find the same bloody connection between passionate moral beliefs and violence. Century after century not just Protestants and Catholics went to war. During World War II Ukrainian Orthodox Christians were said to have killed 100,000 civilian Poles because when Poland had considered part of the Ukraine to be part of Poland, they tried to convert them to Catholicism. Ukrainians also joined the Nazis with their idea of purification. They took the lead killing 1.5 million Jews.

It isn’t only ancient history among those on different continents, those cruel people in Europe. There was a significant attack on Catholics in Maine, most famously the “Ellsworth Outrage” of 1854, where a Jesuit priest, Father John Bapst, was brutally tarred, feathered, and whipped by an anti-Catholic mob in Ellsworth, Maine. Despite some wanting to burn him that wasn’t done. They dragged Bapst a mile, tied him to a rail, stripped him and besdies tarring and feathering him, shaved his hair and eyebrows. Bapst had objected to the use of the King James bible in the local schools. The Jesuits were powerful believers in how Catholicism should be practiced. Bapst had come to America after Jesuits were driven out of Switzerland as they had been repeatedly in other Catholic countries. That same year in Bath, Maine,1854, anti-Catholic mobs formed in the late afternoon of July 6th. The crowd marched to the Catholic church, began smashing up the pews, hoisted an American flag from the belfry, rang the bell, and set the building on fire. After the church was burned, a smaller crowd of at least a hundred roamed through the streets all night, looking for Catholics. Bapst, by the way, went on to become the first president of Boston College.

It is tempting to blame all of this violence specifically, on seeking the innocence that the correct allegiance with God brings. But the glorification of God is not essential to the process. In Communist Russia inequality was the highest sin. Guilt centered on individuals and families who had wealth before the revolution. These were the villains. During the revolution, and for decades after, revolutionary frenzy continued. The guilty were killed by the millions. Later, when there were few wealthy or middle class people left, the killing went on against counter revolutionaries. A special feature was public trials, where the sinners would confess, usually with the hope that their family might be spared. The punishment would be a firing squad or being sent for reeducation to the Gulags, a horrible place something like hell, but the opposite, cold, cold, cold, every part of the body perpetually freezing, The sinner rarely knew the comfort of warmth. Most would die in Siberia from the elements. A similar purification occurred in Communist China. In North Viet Nam, Ho Chi Minh, proudly repeated the Chinese and Soviet cleansing. 50,000 farmers who owned their land were killed. And let us not forget Cambodia where the Communist Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 2 million Cambodians, many of them also Communists, but with different ideals about how to reach socialist paradise.

We earlier referred to psychoanalysis’ role in dealing with guilt. In conventional religion, the head of the religious community, the priest or minister is assumed to be speaking for God in eliminating the parishioner’s guilt through suitable cleansing rituals. In psychoanalysis and other forms of conscience cleansing, the analyst is first assigned all knowing wisdom and forgiving power by being “non-judgmental” Meaning, in actual practice, whatever the deed or shameful thought of the patient, whatever is confessed, his approval is guaranteed, He, of course, is not truly non-judgemental. Guilt is assigned to the patient’s quarreling spouse, or, especially parents, who have cursed their child by casting judgements of what should form the conscience of their innocent offspring. Borrowing, what for a time was considered, the attitude of experts, a widespread cultural belief formed that parents shouldn’t do this. Their job is not to teach their children values, be light on punishment, unconditionally love, in this way bolster self esteem.

Being non-judgmental has spread beyond being a therapist’s stance, to being the preferred mindset of secular society. In partnership with “unconditional love” they came to define the highest modern virtues. The ideal is freedom, accepting behavior which was once taught as wrong, not disapproving it in any way. Silencing the disapproval expressed by old values is assumed. The more important goal is to change the disapproval in your heart. If twhat is in your heart remains it is a sign of a fundamentally ugly soul. In contemporary secular America, freedom from parental values, has become the truest form of innocence. That disapproval may have been not only the belief of parents, but of grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents. They all had it wrong. The non-judgmental generation has the right to decide for themselves what is good and bad.

That would be okay. but part of the problem is that redefining values can be trendy, not only from generation to generation, as it once was, but every few years, or even months. Guilt and innocence, sin and acceptable behavior may be redefined. What is considered moral or “normal” and what is considered evil can flip to the opposite. Those disapproving become the guilty. Their narrow mindedness, their hostility is proof of their evil nature. Those ignoring the previous prohibitions are seen as liberated.

An important corollary is modern views of the behavior of those from non-western cultures, what used to be called the third world. According to the old way of thinking they were unknowingly misbehaving. Missionaries saw it as their sacred duty to try to save the souls of those without Christian values, so they could be accepted in heaven and not go to hell. Colonialists did not necessarily think their mission was to exploit non westerners. Satisfaction with their society’s progress and affluence led many to believe that they were offering a better way of life to those without Western advantages. That history has obviously been written. It sometimes required armies to put an end to freedom from Western domination. But despite colonialism being long gone the indictment of Western values remains powerful especially among those challenging conventional morality. Muslim societies are completely against progressives’ most sacred beliefs, against women’s rights, homosexuality, free speech. Low life in the ghettos preach horrendous behavior in their songs. And act on it But disdain for Western values, including progressive holy beliefs, but this is answered with “who are we to judge?” Or the misbehavior can be blamed on arrogant, privileged white people, our predecessors, who caused the present misbehavior. The non-judgmental standard does not apply when viewing our ancestors’ sins. Nor is unconditional love and forgiveness extended to those with different politics, those who place their emphasis on law and order

Christianity’s higher purposes, or Mohamed’s holy guidance have led to moral and just behavior. But tthe moral behavior it has fostered has also served to cover up and justify hatred. Trying to evade this shortcoming, belief in unconditional love has served the same purpose. It is a sword as well as a shield. A peaceable kingdom of the true believers has not materialized from the generosity promised by universal acceptance and love. Just as generations of Christians, believers in Christ have slaughtered heretics and disbelivers in untold numbers, shouting love slogans, believing in unconditional love has not measured up.

There are times of little turmoil. We are unlucky. That isn’t us. Storms of violent disagreement erupt on the internet. Countless prosecutors, made bolder by the anonymity offered by screen names, peoples’. Consciences boil over with judgment after judgement. Protected by anonymity, the “freedom” to be one’s own judge, to choose one’s own values, the ability to occupy one’s own righteous perch, has led to hurricanes of denunciations and hate. Mobs form, appear and disappear as they move on to another. target. This year, Israeli genocide, then ICE terrorism, then the Epstein files. Who will be the next villain? Hard to know But it’s nature will be the same. Violent emotions attached to strong moral indictments are a certainty. Other then a few assassinations, and flare-ups of street violence , so far, compared to what might emerge we have been lucky. The violence has been relatively subdued, but not the hatred. The media, which makes it money by keeping viewers excited, eager for the latest blood boiling episode, fosters outrage. It does its best to keep its stories hot. But is it the media causing the problem? They certainly are feeding the fire. Or is the more fundamental problem a breakdown in the way the conscience is construted today.I doubt that the turmoil will die down after Trump leaves. His behavior and the behavior of those with Trump derangement syndrome point to somthing more seriously wrong. Our culture has lost the equilibrium the conscience, at its best,can provide

I have the benefit of being old. I have lived during many different eras.That may lead to a lack ofenthuisam for many ways society has changed(for the better my children insist) But shortcoming or not, having lived in several era enabes me to compare the “good old days” with the apparent chaos now. Looking back to the 50’s, morality was far more settled. Certainly there was plenty wrong, plenty of discord, the Mccarthy era, overt racism in the South. Most ethnic groups stuck to their own, or were forced to do so. . In New York, there were distinctly Irish, Italian, Jewish Chinese, German, and Black neighborhoods. Each distrusting those who were not similar. There was much segregating done by every group hoping for homogeneity and stability. In my junior high the Italians picked on us Jewish kids. They were much like the heroes in Grease. Still that was an improvement. One generation back my father in law told me when he was akid he had to take a long circutious route to get o the subway. If he or any Jew entered an Italian block in Brooklyn, they were treated as they were invading the boundaries of their nation. Gangs formed to keep out even other Italians, if they were a diffeerent naeighborhood. Considering the plight of African Americans the old ways cannot be defended as coming close to the way humans should behave. I don’t want to claim it his how the world should have remained.

But it was also a time when crime was low. Doors were unlocked. Helicopter parents were rare. They weren’t needed. Children safely played with each other unsupervised. Most people trusted their religious leaders, the neighborhood cops, teachers, the education system, senators, congressmen, even the president. There were rotten apples but most authorities were seen as well meaning decent people who could lead them. Were they back then half of what most people believed they were? Probably. At least 57.4% were, or maybe 63.9%. They weren’t and they were. Still I am turning to that era as one with a stable moral system (for better or worse). Back then people thought America was the greatest. They didn’t have half of what they have today, but the possibilthat they could make things better was a widespread belief. Whether the values were terrific or unforgivable, understanding how the concsceince worked back then, how it was formed, can give us clues about nature of the conscience works during stable times.

As noted, ordinarily individuals take pride, experience innocence and peace, by coming to terms with their moral beliefs. Religions laid out a series of prohibitions. They were given that authority because they were speaking in God’s name. Before secularism took hold, in addition to specific prohibitions, individuals confidence in their own innocence, (the belief that they were good) was reinforced on the Sabbath, joining God on his day of rest. Perhaps on that day, rabbi or priests’ sermons filled believers’ souls with fine virtues they could strive to achieve.

Ideally, believers would not only talk the talk but walk the walk, try to practice what was preached. There were very few who did the latter. There were few Mother Theresas, or Albert Scweizters. Neverthelss, dervived from the sermons believers felt a degree of lasting pride because for a few hours they were inspired by the lofty intentions they bought into. Even if not carried through, or even thought about later in the week, the fine sentiments they had, for whatever time they felt them could wash over believers enough so that they viewed, or tried to view themselves as someday becoming that very moral person. It elevated their image whether deserved by action or not.

Lets us ignore ennobling sermons. There was commonly a belief in God, meaning he was very alive, watching and judging and remembering the sins and kindness of billions of people . Plausible or not most people were kept in reasonable control by the possibility the ever present eyes of the all powerful was on them. The ukmpire in the sky. They rarely felt total innocence since they were bound to sin, but they were innocent enough to not believe that they were really pissing off God.

How id it change? I have argued elsewhere that it seems to have begun during the Camelot years, during the reign of John Kennedy and Jacquline. Those fine intentions that many felt during Sabbath sermons began to be attributed and claimed as permanent characteristics, particularly among the young. https://simonsobo.substack.com/p/jfk-and-jackie-caused-the-mess-we Youthful idealism was celebrated in the peace corps. The young rightly claimed great moral accomplishments, particularly in the desegregation of the South. While previously pacifists had been thought of as cowards, that mind set took off. Warriors are the problem. Never the solution. Make love not war, the cry of the young resounded. ROTCs were shut down in universities throughout America. graually it became unacceptable to use power. (See By the Power of Greyskull) The only acceptable stance was love and acceptance. Among the young, the loving actions and beliefs ordinarily embraced as a result of Sabbath sermons, that transient inspiration and idealism began to define the identity expected by youths.

For the young to feel more innocent than their elders is common in young adults, as they begin their long adult quest to make their way. Unchallenged over the years by disillusionment, in the beginning, the young often trust thier innocence and good intentions and believe they will remain so. It is quite a reversal from their status as children when their parents were the absolute referees.

The idealism of the young is ordinarily dismissed as naivete by adults. That didn’t happen in the 60’s As the culture continued and grew their elders bought in to much of their enthusiasm. Perhaps, it was the sexual revolution which was very appealing. Perhaps there really was too much wrong with America and the entire history of Western colonialism. But the young’s indictment of the West was eagerly accepted as true.

Viet Nam was not simply a mistake, but a result of our basic evil intentions. The rationale wasn’t that different than the Korean War, stopping the march of Communism. But now our enemies were virtuous villagers in black pajamas. When we bombed the Russian ships in North Vietnam harbors bringing war supplies we were accused of being blood thristy murderers, wanting to expand the war. Adult defenders of America simply cratered. I’ve theorized a thousand different explanation for why that happened. I’m not confident of my answers but regardless of the explanation it happened. And not just foreign policy. Every form of authority was undermined.

On April 8th, 1966 the highest authority of all was questioned by Time Magazine’s cover, Is God Dead? The media had adopted a gotcha mentality, taking down leader after leader. First LBJ, then God. It didn’t stop with Nixon. Encouraged by the heroism the young seemed to claim, their criticism turned into shouting, They had decent arguements. The young had not screwed up the world as those over thirty had. Perhaps our power was the result of baby boomers being the largest segment of the population and entitled to rule. Perhaps it was becasue we right about everything. But this kind of devotion to ideals had the usual result, intolerance for those who would did not obediently repeat their sacred mantras. It was our form of virtue signalling

I was one of those shouting. It is true that I have turned against the spirit and beliefs of the 60’s, but I am hoping this will not turn off those on the left who are still believers, seeing me as too much against them to have my ideas considered. I’m hoping that describing how and why I changed will be worth considering. But even if this does not happen, my attempt to explain how the conscience works, and its destructiveness will still be worth reading.

To return to the more general theme:

Pride in one’s ideals, one’s religious values has always been intensified by being part of a community of believers. Group think is always operating. Virtue signaling is not new. Feeling righteous is necessary for those trying to convince themselves that they are truly moral, Besides needing to convince oneself, reinforcement from others in your group, steadies belief. Disagreement powers moral fervor. Acting from fine ideals can lead to wonderful results. But, as I have been describing, it is also a powerful weapon to batter others. Believing in one’s own moral superiority is necessary equipment

When Muslim’s kill other Muslims, or Christians burn heretics at the stake, their innocence is reinforced as the guilty are slaughtered. It brings the satisfaction of victory, a belief that you must be doing something right. It doesn’t bother the righteous that people are getting killed by them. They are confirming the truths that they believe in. I am not describing a hypothetical possibility, or Muslim terrorists, blowing themselves up to kill others, belivving they will are serving God’s will and will go to heaven. The killing has happened again and again in every society. Compared to extremes like that, I supposed we should be thankful that much of today’s cultural warfare amounts to virtue signaling. It is harmless enough if it remains contained to social skirmishes, by attempts to triumphantly indicate to a TV or internet audience not only who has finer moral sentiments, but who is better in their soul. It has made trying to get accurate news almost impossible, infuriating but not yet what is found in out and out war. It, however shares its characteristics. The first casualty of war is truth. Hatred of adversaries completely overrules rationality. Disagreement becomes traitorous. Actual violence in America has so far been limited, occasional assassinations and riots, but we should be concerned that it might get far worse than virtue signaling. We saw mobs attacking ICE agents, in Minnesota. ICE agents fearful, angry losing their cool, taking out their guns and shooting. We saw it at Kent State.

The translation of moral righteousness to political action is worrisome not only because that hatred might lead to more and more bloodshed. Even if it never comes to that, it doesn’t work. Democracy works better when the norm is for every group to pursue their own self interests, no apologies needed. That results in pragmatism, in compromise. Misbehavior is not welcomed but wheeling and dealing, on the basis of self interest, is to be expected. When politics rises above the pursuit of self interest, to rectitude, to concern not about oneself , but higher principles, when idealism won’t allow compromises, the system breaks down. Ideals are absolute. There is not simply disagreement. The other side is against goodness. They are evil. Hence they must be shouted down. If only people had had the courage to shout down Hitler. If only someone shot him.

Moral fervor, passionate belief in the goodness of one’s own motives is dangerous because it makes opponents not just wrong but agents of the devil. Compromise between opposing groups with legitimately different self interests becomes impossible. Once politics is a clash of ideals, it is not unwarranted to believe that one cannot, and should not make deals with the other side. Evil must be stamped out, destroyed. In recent years, old friends have found each other intolerable, family members, spouses cannot no longer talk to each other.

Benjamin Franklin raised his son in England, where he lived for decades. His son was appointed governor of New Jersey by the king. When the revolution came his son favored those he knew best and loved, those from his English home. He was thrown in jail by the revolutionaries, put in total isolation, lost his teeth and hair. He was not allowed a furlough to be with his dying wife. Franklin refused to do anything for him. After the war his father would not forgive him, would have nothing to do with him. Fine ideals and religious beliefs lift people to a higher level of good intentions, to the motivations not normally present in the mundane day to day pushes and pulls between people. It also fosters hatred, and too often unleashes principled slaughter.