HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025030.jpg

believe that the threat is under our control, when in fact it is not. Kindly enlighten us as to these profound insights you make in terms of the Control Factor. Siegel: First, let’s distinguish the ”real world” where real battles are taking place from the mental battlefield which occurs in each of our minds. We tend to believe our perceptions are simply clear realizations of what is “out there” and overlook how much our internal worlds can literally determine what we see. When our internal minds become anxious and sense a loss of “control,” they tend to concoct ways to distort our perceptions so as to restore that sense of inner control. I describe the Control Factor as an “active and continuous process” designed to maintain that sense, if not illusion, of control. We natural ly think that our thinking and feeling processes are passive; that they just happen. Yet when faced with truly frightening prospects, the mind is geared to actively distort. Similarly, the sense of control must be continuously maintained so the Control Factor operates constantly. In turn, the sum of this active and continuous undertaking makes these perceptions all the more familiar and thus seemingly all the more “real.” In one sense, the Control Factor is the mechanism of what Andy McCarthy entitled one of his numerous excellent books- willful blindness. The Control Factor is cleverer than we are aware; that is almost tautological as, if our minds are to create ways to keep us in denial, they must out maneuver our conscious thinking. Since World War II, America has had limited experience with threats coming to the homeland. Most of America’s history has been about “over there,” where we have always known that if things got too out of hand (e.g. Vietnam) we could always ret urn home. The current generations, for a wide array of reasons, have had virtually no experience with a threat to this land. (The documentary, Generation Zero, is interesting on this point). Consequently, the process of waking up to such a threat parallels the arc of a typical horror film. In such a film, there is typically a cast of characters surrounding one or two main characters. We in the audience know there is a threat coming — be it a monster, a virus, a psycho killer, an alien, the blob that ate Cincinnati etc. This threat is typically defined by its intent- the singular goal of destroying the characters. Much of the initial exposition shows how the characters first are oblivious to the destruction the threat brings about, then explain it in familiar terms only to finally open their eyes to see that something uniquely terrifying is happening. The next stage usually involves a series of failed attempts to deal with the threat- fr om trying to negotiate with it, to appease it, to coax it, to threaten it with ineffective weapons and so forth. Most of these failings are due to not adequately appreciating the threat for what it truly is and projecting onto it a host of other attributes instead. The final stage generally involves a back-up-against-the-wall decision by whichever characters remain alive. I named this the “turnaround moment” when the character becomes willing to be as ruthless as the threat. That change in mental state is necessary to ensure survival. Ultimately, the storyline is a race for whichever characters remain to wake up fully and use whatever advantages they may still have to beat the threat. This is the same arc our minds go through in battling our own Control Factors, our own compulsions to deny that which is staring us in the face. Ultimately, the question is whether we will be able to wake up while we still have advantages and give ourselves permis sion to fully fight the battle we are in. I said ear lier that there is a structure to the Control Factor. To oversimplify, I view it much as a pyramid where on the bottom are the many minute by minute thoughts that are manipulated. I call this level of maneuvers the many ’”D’s” as they include the psychological defenses such as distortion, denial, demonization, deflection, deletion, detachment, delusion, displacement, discolorization and so forth. Layered upon these are moves such as projection, where we can assign to our Islamic Enemy traits we wish to see in them or introject traits from them into ourselves that we wish not to acknowledge. These maneuvers involve a mixing of identities where we actually lose clarity about who we are and who the enemy is. Projection and introjection are active almost across the board. It is always helpful, for instance, to ask how what the enemy accuses us of is more appropriately descriptive of it. When we add Western Guilt and Shame, our need to be liked, and o ther psychological dimensions, basic thoughts solidify into larger fantasies. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025030