I was reading in The Guardian newspaper, a headline that is tipped “Moscow’s Influence.” This being because one of the candidates in the Bulgarian elections is not wholly opposed to the Russians.
This is a quote from the article:
“Voters in Bulgaria and Moldova could extend Moscow’s influence in eastern Europe on Sunday in potential fresh blows to the European Union.
Bulgarians are expected to elect a Russia-friendly former air force commander as president in a runoff election, setting the stage for months of political uncertainty for the EU member country.”
It’s not as if the elections in Bulgaria aren’t free: Bulgaria is part of the European Union and also part of NATO. If those guys can’t keep an election free, what use are they? Furthermore, if a Bulgarian happens to like the idea of someone who can deal with their political neighbours to the East as well as the West, that really is up to them.
But then, Bulgarians read the equivalent of “Bild Zeitung Sofia” rather than the British media.
The Important Thing To Note.
It must be stated that these British journalists believe they are right. If you cannot accept this simple fact – and fact it is – then you need to do some homework. In other words, read on: because this post is about why the British Media has such headlines. This has to do with the way people perceive things. In previous posts I have spoken of the nature of perception: we can see what we can see, and there is no getting around this. Because the things we cannot see, cannot be aware of – that is to say, cannot perceive – are literally invisible.
They really are not there. It’s the kind of invisibility that means a European politician cannot dream of doing anything else but being honest in the way that the English couldn’t imagine wanting to speak a foreign language. It is beyond them to think of such things. And this is why the likes of the Guardian post headlines with a banner about Russian interference. They can’t imagine a world that is different.
Now this is where we have to put our thinking caps on, myself included because this is not something that is easy to explain.
Sympathy And Antipathy.
If anybody is to have a fair chance at balancing their viewpoint, it is crucial to understand the nature of the things we cannot perceive. That goes for me, too, nevertheless, in attempting to describe them, I am dealing with my own limitations as much as describing those of others. Perception is nothing if not reflexive, which leads to its paradoxical nature for those who have not grasped the essentials.
Wherever you see a group of people – Guardian journalists are as good an example as any – you will meet people who have gathered on account of their sharing a ‘world view.’ It is comforting to speak with those who agree with you, even if they disagree on the details, they share the same general point of view. In psychological terms one can call these ‘sympathies.’ The collection of things one likes, but are not and cannot be aware of.
However, in and of themselves, sympathies are not a problem. They are insidious to deal with, but cannot be dealt with unless one has tackled other areas of one’s psychological make-up. That is to say, one cannot become aware of one’s sympathies unless one has tackled one’s antipathies.
Which is where the fun starts. Because these groups of people who have gathered together for reasons that appear comfortable, will share perceptions that make them feel uncomfortable. These in psychological terms are our antipathies.
Only there’s a problem with the things that make one feel uncomfortable: they’re not nice. What has to be stressed here is the inner nature of this feeling of discomfort. Because it won’t be shared with by everybody. Some people don’t feel uncomfortable at the thought of spiders. Some people don’t feel uncomfortable at the thought of garden slugs. Some people don’t feel uncomfortable at the thought of the things they do on the toilet. Some people don’t feel uncomfortable at the thought of Russians.
But this is only to describe the feelings of discomfort. The real point of this post is to say that these antipathies are unconscious. Put the other way around, they are beyond our ability to perceive.
In being beyond our ability to perceive, they are invisible to us. Perception is hermetic in every sense of the word.
Which is why it is quite reasonable to state that the Guardian newspaper is entirely within its rights to talk about Russian interference. Only when this is seen in terms of antipathies, one will see more of the shortcomings of the Guardian journalists than any interference, real or imaginary.
The Big Question.
Why then do these journalists see Russia as interfering and thus making them uncomfortable? I detailed the process in my post ‘Milena Sees Witchcraft All Around Her,’ (1) where the things one sees that make one uncomfortable are those things that scared you as a child. Things that are long forgotten. So completely forgotten that there is no possible way to remember them.
That doesn’t mean they have no influence on our lives, quite the opposite!
It’s that when someone has a dolly standing on the cabinet in her livingroom, this isn’t seen as a dolly, but as the only thing it can be: the sign that someone practices witchcraft of the darkest order. Whatever it was that scared Milena about witchcraft means that it now pollutes – and there is no better word for it – pollutes her mind. Distorts it. Distorts it against someone who raised her antipathies.
Therefore it is me who is the wrongdoer here: because it is I who raised her antipathies. She saw something that made her feel uncomfortable and since she didn’t do this, it is I who must be at fault. I told you perception was paradoxical.
Now: given that she has no access to her subconscious, it is hardly surprising that she should blame me for the things she cannot handle. Only, is it fair to blame the Russians for the things the British journalists at the Guardian cannot handle? Putin is blamed for raising their antipathies in the way I was blamed for practicing witchcraft.
Is this what journalism has come to in our day and age? These journalists are acting like toddlers yet imagining themselves adults! (2) Indeed, ‘The Guardian’ itself is asking people to support their newspaper and journalism of this kind.
Only try telling them! If you do not agree with them, you will make them feel uncomfortable and are therefore a threat. You just cannot win in a situation as perverse as this. Unless you agree with them wholeheartedly – put better, that you appear to agree with them wholeheartedly – you will be villified.
Now in fairness, it has to be stated that I do not know the manner in which the Russians display their subconscious; if the British media were free of such unconscious prejudices, it would be a lot easier to discern.
(1) This was my original post dealing with antipathies, back in 2014: Milena Sees Witchcraft All Around Here
(2) More on this here: Toddler Taming