The REPRESSION LAW in the Psychology, the process of repression and veiling (by Dietmar West, published here on 07 September 2020)

Preface

Years ago I announced that I would  present the REPRESSION (in the psychology) and its natural lawfulness as the REPRESSION LAW on this homepage.

But then, for various reasons, I wanted to wait a little longer before publishing it. However, since repression is an everyday occurrence and one is constantly and increasingly confronted with it everywhere, especially by the statements in the media on current events, I was repeatedly encouraged and forced to publish the REPRESSION LAW.

The efforts of the Swede Greta Thunberg to stop the excessive pollution and global warming are also one of the reasons for the publication at this time. This publication I dedicate also to her and her fight against environmental pollution and against the tricky and hypocritical behaviour of the ruling and dominating women (Angela Merkel, Ursula von der Leyen, Christine Lagarde) and men (too many to list them).

There are different ways of describing repression and its lawfulness. One can begin with a detailed introduction to the natural laws, or simply put the law of repression (basic law of repression) at the beginning and then use examples to explain the process of repression. I choose a mixture of the two here, in a rather short treatise, including the direct consequences of repression and veiling, such as the emergence of the unconscious and the conscious. There are other consequences of the repression as well, such as the projection of repressed properties onto other people, which I will also treat later sometime.

The emergence and spread of wrong contexts as a consequence of repression and veiling, as well as the resulting false individual and false collective consciousness and the emergence of contradictions, I already express here. I will go into this in more detail occasionally.

I will go into the opposite of repression, the EMPHASIS (See Content: 6. The OPPOSITE of REPRESSION (of the cause) is the EMPHASIS (highlighting of the cause) in a short description.

Little by little I will say more about repression and, above all, gradually make it easier to understand using more examples.

Content

1. Introduction and basics of repression

1.1 Behavior, advantages and disadvantages, cause and effect, consciousness-wrong consciousness

1.2 Causes, effects, context between cause and effect

1.3 Cause and effect in interpersonal relationships

2. The process of repression and veiling

   + Cause and effect - the connection between events  

    + On the state of knowledge of official science

2.1 In the repression (the process of repression) the actual cause of an adverse effect is replaced by another cause, which thus veils and represses the actual cause

2.2 Repressing and veiling happen in a person's brain

2.2.1 The "trick" in repression

2.3 Defence and attack mechanisms, the conscious, the unconscious

3. THE REPRESSION LAW or the definition of the repression and the veiling

4. THE REPRESSION LAW - Examples

         Example 1: The virus of the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas

4.1 to 4.2.3 The repression, the veiling, the emergence of the unconscious and the conscious

      + General information on veiling

4.3 The reason for repression and veiling

4.4 Example summarized

5. The individual consciousness and the collective consciousness

6. The OPPOSITE of REPRESSION (of the cause) is the EMPHASIS (highlighting of the cause)

   + Primary designation: REPRESSION and not VEILING

1. Introduction and basics of repression

Like other living beings, humans (Homo sapiens, the present-day man to which we belong) developed in an environment, which is why they continue to derive their existence from the environment. Not everything that was or is in the environment is beneficial for people. Even the original nature, as it was before man began to intervene in it, was fraught with dangers for man. By intervening in this primordial nature, man has made changes that are not only beneficial to him. Like other living beings, humans have always fought for territory, for power, for leadership, etc. They began to fight and enslave themselves, which is still given today in changed forms. In interpersonal relationships, lies and deceit have developed further and further, up to the forms that are given today and also in the Federal Republic of Germany of today (in New Germany). There is more and more lied and trickery, promises, seduced (e.g. for consumption, to believe in economic growth and the omnipotence of money), etc. One consequence of this is the struggle for law and justice in many respects and relationships, with it becoming more and more unjust is, especially during the reign of Angela Merkel.

Basically, apart from “technical progress”, little or nothing has changed. People continue to live in an environment that consists of inanimate and animate objects (plants, animals, people). Everyone is surrounded by and integrated into the environment. The human being (every human being) forms a state with the environment, which is constantly changing and at the same time the advantages and disadvantages for humans. For example, one says: “I can no longer endure this state of affairs”, if something in the environment is disturbing or unbearable or is only felt that way and one tries to change this state of affairs. One looks for the causes in order to be able to avoid possibly causes for disadvantages, disadvantageous consequences or, in general, causes for adverse effects. Unfortunately, one also finds that disadvantages cannot be avoided. This results in accepting, tolerating, adapting or resisting, etc. These aspects make up a large part of our behaviour.

1.1 Behavior, advantages and disadvantages, cause and effect, consciousness-wrong

 consciousness

A certain state of affairs (situation), consisting of people and their environment, change primarily through the behaviour of people with whom they intervene in the environment. This is based on natural law through the postbiological development process of humans (see  https://west-dietmar.de/41810.html), which humans go through after their biological evolution (development).

When looked at more closely and more precisely, human behaviour consists of a sum of events that emanate from humans and affect their environment. This results in corresponding changes in state. These constant changes in state not only create advantages but also disadvantages for people. The disadvantages show up to people sooner or later.

Example

Air pollution can take place without humans noticing it. Or, for example, people only notice the disadvantages of "globalization" when it is very advanced and has a direct negative effect on the human organism. (Bad air, bad food because of pesticides, unripe fruits sent around the world, global warming, etc.)

It can be said that the effect of behavior always occurs later than the cause and that people only understand the context (connection) between cause and effect later when they know the cause. In this context one speaks of becoming conscious or of consciousness.

But that doesn't mean that the context between cause and effect must always be correctly understood. The normal case is even that human beings forms contexts that are wrong, which means that an effect is not the result of an assumed cause and one lives in a wrong consciousness. E.g. the consciousness  of "doing everything right or having done it right" basically means that the actions that led to changes produced correspondingly beneficial effects, or are only viewed as beneficial. Later on, adverse effects also emerge and that not the assumed causes led to the effects.

Unpleasant effects result from something disadvantageous. Such effects lead to anger, grief, worry, torment and you want to know the causes so that you can then perhaps eliminate and avoid the unpleasant effects, by avoiding the certain cause. Under the pressure of an uncomfortable, threatening situation, causes are also invented that are not right but are "better than none (nothing)". This is the case with the REPRESSION, whose lawfulness I am describing here.

1.2 Causes, effects, the context between cause and effect

A change - a change of state - caused by human behavior has certain effects. Effects are varied according to the events from which they arise. But you can subject them to a basic assessment and then determine that they are more or less an advantage or disadvantage, more or less advantageous or disadvantageous for people.

A certain change in a state (change of state due to events) is the cause of a certain effect and unfortunately also for adverse effects. Effects do not always show up immediately, but rather later.

In any case, there is a context between changes in state and the effects that they cause and one can speak of a context between cause and effect.

1.3 Cause and effect in interpersonal relationships

Events in the environment, caused by human behavior, also lead to changes of state with corresponding effects on interpersonal relationships. That comes e.g. in what we call trust, suspicion, enmity, friendship, disappointment, etc. Among other things, these produce what we identify and describe as suffering, grief, fear, envy, hatred, etc.

Changes of state that lead to advantages and corresponding pleasant effects are taken for granted by humans.

Changes in state that have negative effects for humans are difficult to bear, they are stressful because they mean a deviation from a state of equilibrium ("normal state").

They also lead to inquiries about the causes and, for example, blame and mutual accusations. But the people who have led to adverse changes in the state of the environment through their behaviour ultimately reproach themselves or are burdened by them. They reproach themselves, feel sorry for themselves, or feel in embarrassing situations or in situations in which they are held accountable. Conditions arise that are difficult to endure and in which a solution is sought.

Adverse effects caused by one's own behavior are, in normal cases, not only uncomfortable, embarrassing, etc., because people know that other people have disadvantages through their behaviour (acting, doing or not), but they also arise for themselves adverse conditions. These consist in the fact that they can be blamed, accused themselves, held accountable, charged and convicted, etc.

This creates a general tendency to distract from the fact and somehow get free from the fact that one is the cause of adverse effects through one's behaviour that cannot be avoided or happened. This leads to lies on the one hand, but also to the process of repression.

2. The Process of Repression (the repression) and veiling

In disputes between people, repression is a common process and its manifestations are diverse. The process of repression is difficult to recognize because the repression does not consist solely in or emerge from the fact that "something" (more precisely a cause) is repressed (displaced, pushed away, shifted, set aside), but because a veiling (a cover, a concealment, an obfuscation) by "something" (actually another cause) else takes place.

It can be expressed even more clearly or blatantly by saying: The veiling first represses what is subsequently repressed by the veiling. So both the repressed and the veiling are still there. The veiling is only present in the brain of a person (subject-related, subjective), while the repressed continues to exist in a state which, however - because of the veiling - "is no longer considered". In the further course of this treatise, everything revolves around this fact, which has so far been considered one of the greatest "mysteries of the psyche".

+ Cause and effect - the connection between events
If one speaks of a cause, one has to know that there are events that lead to other events (effect), which in turn are the cause of other events. This also leads to a "nesting" and temporal deepening of the context according to cause and effect, which also lead to the fact that one speaks or can legitimately speak of the "depth of the soul".

With this stipulation that repression is only possible with simultaneous veiling, I begin to explain the process of repression (the repression) more exactly in the following. Before that, I will briefly talk about the state of knowledge (today 09/05/2020) of displacement.

+ On the state of knowledge of the official science

Up to now, the essential sizes and their context from which the repression emerges have not been recognized and accordingly the repression has been a largely unexplained “psychological phenomenon”. Now, according to my  description, repression is a natural process that can be assigned to the natural science you may call psychology.

With regard to the state of knowledge of repression so far, one can e.g. (Wikipedia) read: "In psychoanalysis, repression is an assumed psychological defense mechanism by which taboo or threatening facts and ideas are excluded from conscious perception".

That is correct and taboo or threatening facts and ideas are even a prerequisite for repression. They also result in disadvantageous situations that are embarrassing, uncomfortable, threatening, etc. But that is by far not enough to ultimately clarify what the repression is, what else is going on and how the entire process is presented in context. And how does it come about that these “facts and ideas are excluded from conscious perception”? And what does "consciously" or "unconsciously" mean?

Official science (the knowledge of the ruling and official recognized institutions and persons) has so far not got beyond the determination of details and much has come to a standstill on the level of conjectures, in some cases even below the level of the findings of Sigmund Freud. This is not surprising either, because the repression has increased significantly in the last few decades. The consequence of this is that the scientists who research the functioning of repression themselves are increasingly repressing and trying to present incorrect results as a success.

Decisive peculiarities and characteristics (properties) of people and their environment, which lead to and cause repression, have not even been considered, which is why these processes could never be understood overall. Therefore, before I proceed to the definition or formulation of the REPRESSION LAW, I will list some of the decisive properties of the processes that make up the peculiarity of repression:

2.1 In the repression (the process of repression) the actual cause of an adverse effect is replaced by another cause, which thus represses and veils the actual cause

Human beings behaviour also leads to changes of states which are the cause of  adverse effects.

In repression the actual cause which leads to an adverse effect is replaced by another cause which then takes the place of the actual cause. The actual cause does not disappear, because it continues to exist in the conditions (in the state) in the environment and is thus only veiled by another cause that takes its place - of course in the brain of a human being.

Repression and veiling take place in one process. Rather, they are a process. By repressing a cause by an other cause, both cause still exists! The repressed cause exists in the actual state formed by people and their environment. The repressing cause exists in the brain of a human being.  

Example

Politicians (e.g. Ursula von der Leyen) can say that we are fighting the causes of environmental pollution and global warming and have decided on a package of e.g. 300 billion money. This statement only distracts from the actual and existing causes, that lie in the capitalist system (globalization with its excessive consumption, excessive and useless traffic, waste of resources, etc.), and veils them. The unpleasant, annoying, harmful effects are only eliminated when measures are taken that lead to the removal of environmental pollution and global warming. Just putting the money down alone does not move anything; it can even be applied and worked in the wrong direction also and makes the situation much worse.

So if you decide to spend or invest 300 billion, this is initially just a veiling of the actual causes. They are in the "system of waste". As long as this is not changed, the causes are not eliminated and accordingly, the announcement of the provision of money only veils the actual cause.

2.2 Repression and veiling happen in a person's brain

If people have caused changes in the state of the environment through their behavior, then a cause of the adverse effect ultimately lies in the changes in state in the environment and it becomes increasingly difficult to understand who or what was the cause of the changes in the environment.

In this way, the brain of the person who caused or was involved in the changes in state, or who benefited from them, has a certain “freedom” to distract from the causes, to pass them on to other people or to invent new causes. This “freedom” is particularly used by the politicians' brains. They commit crimes and then pretend they have nothing to do with it by specifying other causes that veil the real cause.

The human brain is capable of many combinations, e.g. show in fantasies, constructions, ideas, etc. So it is not surprising when the brain invents causes for effects that are not given, that are not correct, but still serve the person, whose part the brain is and thus fends off threatening situations.

Example

When the Swede, Greta Thunberg, goes public and politicians with her demands for environmental protection and against the causes of global warming, Angela Merkel stands up and says that she supports the actions. She says that even she has done nothing against environmental pollution and global warming. The opposite is the case, because she (Angela Merkel) has contributed to the pollution through her behaviour as a frequent flyer - she represses this and veils this fact by saying that she "supports the actions" and thereby flies, and flies and flies - the Merkel.

The ongoing demand for economic growth (growth, jobs, traffic, trade) and the subsequent “growth” already contribute to environmental pollution and global warming, because there are no production processes that do not also generate heat - apart from the harmful emissions.

2.2.1 The "trick" in repression

The trick with repression is that only in the head, i.e. in the brain of a person, is another (new) cause related to the adverse effect. The real cause of the adverse effect is still present in the conditions of the environment!

Example

Angela Merkel says "I am very supportive of schoolchildren taking to the streets and fighting for climate protection".

Her head obviously understands this as a contribution (a cause) against the negative effects of global warming. In doing so, however, she veils the fact that she does nothing - rather the opposite - for environmental protection if she continues to fly and flies and flies and nothing changes in the state.

A person's brain serves the organism to which it belongs and tries to avert dangers and threats with its abilities to imagination, to ideas, to constructions of all kinds, all of which is only possible in connection with an environment. So it is not surprising when the brain creates relationships between cause and effect that are not correct, but still serve the person whose part the brain is.

2.3 Defence and attack mechanisms, the conscious, the unconscious

The REPRESSION is not just a defence mechanism as one can read from the official science. Repression is also a "mechanism of attack". Why?

The process of repression is not only a "passive" event (defence), but also an active event (attack). Because when an actual cause is repressed, another cause must take its place in order to repress the actual cause - this has not yet been recognized at all. This also means that a cause is actively constructed, invented, etc. in the brain of a person (see also excuse, accusation, accusation is part of it, for example "It was you, not me, who sad it, did it, etc...").

The actual cause remains, because it still lies in the state (situation) in the environment (nothing has changed in that), but is veiled by the new cause (substitute cause).

The new cause can (rather) be endured, because it veils the cause and the behaviour, which are the actual (real) cause. The real cause, which one is uncomfortably in the case of adverse effects, is suppressed and veiled, and thus becomes unconscious, that means, it is present, but is no longer associated with the unpleasant, adverse effect. Another (new) cause is now brought into context with the adverse effect and experienced, and makes the conscious (the consciousness of the matter).

After these three highlights of some peculiarities of repression and veiling, I shall now proceed to formulate the law of repression. Basically, the law of repression is a summary of processes that lead to repression and veil and I am also talking about a definition of the process of repression.

3. THE REPRESSION LAW or the Definition of the Repression and the Veiling (the process of repression and veil)

When formulating (defining) the law of repression, I proceed in steps so that the final formulation of the law of repression, in a longer sentence, should be still understood.

First possible basic but inadequate formulation of the law of the repression and veiling:

In the process of repression, in a humans brain, a cause which lies in a state of affairs (comprises humans and their environment) and leads to an adverse effect is repressed by being replaced by another cause.  

Example Corona virus

For decades, humans have had an effect on the environment through their behaviour and created a state that has become the real cause of the rapid spread of the corona virus across the earth. The virus is spreading rapidly in the traffic of goods and people due to globalizing measures. Knowing this is particularly annoying to certain people or groups of people who are particularly responsible for it or who even benefit from this situation. It is the big companies that operate worldwide, the global players, etc. who benefit from these (global) conditions. They distract from this actual cause for the rapid spread of the infections by referring to the virus as the cause and e.g. say "the virus knows no borders", whereby it is the human being who drags the virus across borders. They thus repress the actual cause - the behavior of people by only referring to the virus as the cause!

The previous formulation lacks the fact that the cause for a person to repress lies in a change in the state of the environment, which was brought about by one's own behavior or with participation, or that there is a vital interest in these states, which, however, result in adverse effects !

If you add this condition, then you could describe the law of repression in one sentence as follows:

In the process of repression, in a person's brain a cause that is in a state - which has come about through one's own behaviour, or in which there is a vital interest - that leads to an adverse effect is repressed by replacing it with another cause.  

There is still no reference to the context between cause and effect and that the actual cause is not only replaced and repressed by another cause, but also veiled (concealed). That added, then leads to the following formulation:

In the process of repression, in a person's brain a cause - which came about through one's own or involved behaviour, or in which there is a vital interest - which leads to an adverse effect, is pushed out of the context of this adverse effect by being replaced by another cause, which then veils (obscures) the actual cause.  

Or:

In the process of repression, in the brain of a person, events in the environment, which cause is one's own behavior or behavior that is involved or in which there is a vital interest and which leads to adverse effects, are replaced and repressed by other events that simulate another cause and veils the actual cause.

What is missing here is the fact that the suppressed and veiled (actual) cause becomes unconscious. The other (new) cause, which veils the actual cause, forms the conscious (the consciousness of matter) in context with the (adverse, threatening) effect. Overall, this results in the following formulation of the LAW of REPRESSION:

In the process of repression, in the human brain events in the environment, which cause is one's own behavior or behavior that is involved or in which there is a vital interest and which lead to adverse effects, are replaced and repressed by other events that simulate another cause and veils the actual cause. The actual cause becomes unconscious and another (the veiling) cause is experienced in context with the adverse effect that constitutes the conscious (the consciousness in the matter).

Or:

In the process of repression, in a person's brain a cause that is in a state - which came about as a result of one's own behaviour or involved behavior, or in which there is a vital interest - which leads to an adverse effect, is pushed out of the context with this adverse effect by being replaced by another cause, which thus veils the actual cause, whereby the actual cause becomes unconscious and another (the veiling) cause forms the context between the adverse effect becomes conscious (awareness of the matter).

Such a functioning, as it is expressed and effective in the law of repression, results from natural law because of the unavoidable human error.
A person who, through his or her behavior, is the cause of unpleasant situations, circumstances, conditions, etc., i.e. generally of disadvantageous effects, can, for example, "not feel guilty" through repression and veiling. (You can think of many examples). He does not see himself as the cause, because with the veiling he has brought another cause into context with the disadvantageous effects. This other cause (not the actual one that he is himself) he experiences in context with the adverse effects. This experienced context of cause and effect makes up the conscious and one also speaks of consciousness.

Example:
If someone doesn't consider the consequences (the effects, effects) of their behavior (the cause), you say e.g. "he is not aware of it", or you say for example "are you also aware of what you are doing?".

I hope that by taking this step-by-step approach to formulating the REPRESSION Law, I have helped you understand it. If that is not the case, then you still have the opportunity to understand the process of repression using the following examples from everyday life.

I call the first example The virus of the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. Gradually I will list more examples and treat and explain them from the perspective of repression.

4. THE REPRESSION LAW - Examples

Let me give you example 1: The virus of the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas

On the 12th April 2020 an article by Heiko Maas appeared in various magazines under the title "What Europe can learn from the Corona crisis." There Heiko Maas is quoted among other things:

“ 'You can say that the plague affected us all', says Albert Camus classic. It is currently experiencing a renaissance because we can feel that the corona virus affects us all, worldwide. There is still no vaccine, no cure, for anyone. The virus does not distinguish between rich, poor, skin colour or nationality. It can hit anyone, it doesn't stop at any border. "

In the last two sentences (marked in bold), the repression and veiling are well expressed and so they can be explained particularly well here.

4.1 First of all, the penultimate sentence: The virus does not differentiate between poor, rich, skin colour or nationality

What is the repression and what is the veiling in this sentence?

4.1.1 The repression in this sentence

This sentence by Heiko Maas gives or is intended to give the impression that the virus is the cause of the strong and rapid spread of the infection.

If you think about this statement, you have to realize that it is actually absurd and stupid, because Heiko Maas states something here that is out of the question anyway. Why?

Of course, the virus cannot differentiate between “poor and rich” because it cannot view an account or determine ownership; it cannot read a newspaper; it cannot look into a passport to see “citizenship”; etc. So everything that Heiko Maas states here is actually nonsense.

But this sentence has the purpose of repressing the fact that the cause of the worldwide and above all rapid spread of the infections by the virus are the conditions (the situation) that have come about mainly through Western societies with their globalization.

It is globalization with its insane traffic in the air, on water and on land. The sometimes senseless movement of goods and people devours resources and unnecessarily pollutes the environment. All of this ultimately leads to too little advantage and too much disadvantage. With these incredibly fast transports and large movements of goods and people, the virus is also carried from place to place. This fact is (should, is) repressed by the statement of Heiko Maas The Virus does not differentiate between poor, rich, skin color or nationality. This statement now takes the place of the real cause in Heiko Maas' brain and in the brains of the people who believe him.

On the contrary the actual cause is, as I said, the state on earth that man created and which makes the rapid spread possible and not the virus itself.

4.1.2. The veiling in this sentence

The veiling consists in the said statement of Heiko Maas itself, The virus does not differentiate between poor, rich, skin color or nationality. This statement expresses the virus as the cause. This cause - the virus - represses the actual cause - which is the human being with his behaviour - and by taking its place, it also veils it.

The expression "veils" is exactly right here, because the repressed cause - the human being with his behaviour - continues to exist in the state created by man and still exists. The quoted sentence by Heiko Maas lies - like a veil in front of an existing face -  now in front of the state, which is the repressed cause.

4.1.3 The origin of the unconscious and the conscious in this sentence

The repression and the veiling are a process that takes place in the head of Heiko Maas! It is a process with two meanings (consequences) one must say, because the repression leads to the "unconscious" and the veiling to the "conscious" when the veiling thoughts (a different cause than the actual) arise in context with the adverse effect.

4.2 The following sentence by Heiko Maas: It can hit anyone, it doesn't stop at any border

What is the repression and what ist the veiling in this sentence?

4.2.1 The repression in this sentence

This sentence by Heiko Maas is "structured" according to the same pattern as the previous one.

If you think about this statement, you have to realize that it is actually absurd and stupid, because Heiko Maas states something here that is out of the question anyway. Why?

Because it is not the virus that knows no borders or does not stop at any border, but the person who carries the virus with them. The virus cannot cycle, fly, walk, or run, and it would not cross any border if it were not carried over, driven, perhaps blown, flown, etc. over it.

Viruses don't spread by themselves - they are spread by certain circumstances! They multiply when they have the opportunity.

So everything that Heiko Maas states is actually nonsense!

But the purpose of this sentence is to repress the fact that the cause of the worldwide and, above all, rapid spread of the infections by the virus are the conditions (the situation) that have come about through globalization, primarily through behaviour of human being and their style of life (consumer and throwaway societies).

This sentence has the purpose of repressing the fact that the cause of the worldwide and above all rapid spread of the infections by the virus are the conditions that were created by mainly western societies (consumer and throwaway societies). They have detrimental globalizing effects that make international crimes of all kinds (financial and economic crime, drug trafficking, exploitation of cheap labor anywhere in the world, pollution of all kinds, including ideological confusion, etc.) possible.

4.2.2 The veiling in this sentence

As in the previous sentence, the veiling lies in the wording of the sentence itself: It can hit (affect) anyone, it doesn' t stop at any limit. This sentence expresses a cause, namely the virus is the cause, although it is not the actual cause for the rapid spread across borders, but the human being with his behaviour.

As already said in the explanation of repression, this sentence is just as absurd (one could also say stupid) as the previous one. Because a virus itself has no way of crossing borders if it were not dragged along and carried away - all of this is done by humans through their behaviour in the conditions of the environment created by them.

But this sentence by Heiko Maas has the purpose of distracting from the real thing and to serve the purpose of veiling the actual cause.

The expression "veiling" is exactly right here, because the repressed cause – the human being with its behaviour – still persists in the states, but this cause is veiled by an other cause, namely the virus.

4.2.3 The emergence of the unconscious and the conscious in this sentence

Here too the repression and veiling are a process that takes place in the brain of Heiko Maas. It is a process with two meanings (consequences) one must say. The repression leads to the "unconscious" and the veiling to the "conscious" when the veiling thoughts (a different cause than the actual) arise in the brain of Heiko Maas in context with the adverse effect (the strong and rapid spread of the virus).

+ General information on veiling

It is typical of veiling that they are basically illogical that they are considered fleetingly, although false, sound like a matter of course (like a kind of music in which one does not "want to think"), but also lead to disputes, because at some point and somewhere they create contradictions. Veils are also fatal because they lead to false contexts for all possible purposes and also to the detriment of man and humanity. It so happens that veils glorify and praise that which is actually to be condemned; is sold as a benefit, which is a disadvantage.

Using these examples of the statements made by the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, you could learn how the repression, veiling and the unconscious and conscious arise and how they are connected - how they “work” together.

So far, I have not asked the question of the reason why Heiko Maas represses and veils the fact that the behaviour of people and the conditions they have created are the real reason for the rapid spread of the virus. That should now be now clearly answered.

4.3 The reason for the repression and the veiling of Heiko Maas in this case

Heiko Maas cannot see, accept, acknowledge and consciously accept the form of society in which he and we live as the cause of the spread of the virus, because he is one of the carriers, a proponent of this capitalist, globalized society in which economic growth, worldwide trade agreements, excessive air travel, etc., are almost considered sanctuaries, although they have adverse effects.

Ultimately, the reason is given by the fact that Heiko Maas obtains his existence from this system! And that comes first for him and not the environmental pollution, environmental destruction, the hectic pace, increasing wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other hand and, as now, the rapid spread of the virus across the world. Heiko Maas veils these facts by forming sentences that show the virus and not humans and the conditions created by them as the cause of the rapid and global spread of the virus!

For Heiko Maas there is a vital interest (even if he does not admit it) in the state of the world as it is fundamentally. There must be no doubts about this "fundamental" condition and therefore he represses and veils as soon as disadvantages or adverse effects of this condition appear.

In the head, i.e. in the brain of Heiko Maas, the virus is the actual cause and not the human beings and his behaviour, although they are the cause of the multiple burdens on the earth and people as a result of the globalization practised, the waste, the abundance, the pollution, etc.,

4.4 Example summarized

For the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the actual cause (the human beings and the conditions he has created) is repressed, veiled and unconscious. Instead, the virus (as he says: it does not make a distinction, it reaches everyone, crosses all borders, etc ...) is the cause which, in context with the adverse effect (the strong spread across the globe), make up his consciousness in the matter.

5. The individual consciousness and the collective consciousness

In the previous example, The Virus of the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, I show events in context with the coronavirus as experienced by a person, namely Heiko Maas. If several people experience this as well, then the same effects are the same for several people, i.e. for a collective. Accordingly, a consciousness arises here that is more than just present in a person's head.
You can imagine how as a result, for example, the entire population of a country can develop an awareness of certain events that is based on incorrect contexts between cause and effect. This means that what is given as the cause is not the cause of a certain effect, but something else.
This fact is used in politics or in other areas of social disputes to mislead people in general or to win people over for a cause, certain ideas, views, actions, participation, etc. Politicians or other people say that this or that person is the cause of something bad in order to distract from the fact that they themselves are the cause of events that cause bad effects such as suffering, grief, etc.
Depending on the power and other ways of disseminating information, the consciousness of the masses can be influenced.

6. The OPPOSITE of REPRESSION (of the cause) is the EMPHASIS (highlighting of the cause)

However, when one's behavior does not lead to disadvantages but to advantages, then there is a tendency to emphasize, point out, emphasize or refer to the cause (which lies in the behavior). This then also leads to what is referred to as self-praise, boasting, etc. in the case of exaggeration.
This should be easy to see and understand, because why should a person repress (their behavior) when their behavior has causally led to beneficial effects (to a beneficial state). This is probably also the reason for the sentence "We don't need to hide". "We" with our actions and behavior are the cause that the others have now experienced certain beneficial effects.

Although cause and effect are present in a behavior, these are seldom obvious because they are only expressed indirectly, that is, without being named “separately”.
Even if the cause is referred to, it is not referred to directly and neither in the context with the effect. It is not said “the cause is this and that is the effect”, but one says, for example, “you owe that to me”, or "you have this advantage through my actions." Means: the cause for the pleasant or beneficial effect that was bestowed on you is me, was or is my behavior. Or "without my help you would never have done this", or "that has to do with the fact that ..." etc. This refers to the causes that led to an advantageous state (state of affairs). The cause is, so to speak, brought out and emphasized or highlighted. That is the opposite of repression.

Of course, this mode of action of being the cause of a beneficial effect can also be abused by feigning a beneficial effect - all of which is behavior that humans are capable of.

When repressing

When one represses, a real cause (which threatens to become conscious) is obscured  (veiled, concealed) and repressed in that it is replaced by another cause. As a result, the real cause becomes unconscious and the other (new) cause, which is mentioned and brought in context with the unpleasent effect, makes up the conscious (consciousness).

+ Primary designation: Repression and not VEILING
In psychology, the term repression and not veiling (obfuscation) has given its name to this process, because the repressed cause was and is what one has looked for and is looking for in psychoanalysis. What is behind it, do you want to know?
The causes of adverse effects are often in the immediate vicinity and pointing a finger at them could result in further disadvantages, which is why this is usually followed by further repression and veiling. Over the years, there is a nested "depth and breadth" of veils and repressions according to the events and experiences, which ultimately results in what we call psyche (soul).

When emphasing (highlighting)

When highlighting, the cause (which threatens to become unconscious) is, so to speak, "unveiled" and lighten by showing, applying, describing and emphasizing it in context with the pleasant effect.

Note and conclusion
You can certainly well imagine how not only actual (real) relationships between cause and effect are formed from these basics of processing events, but also those that are incorrect or that do not exist at all, in order to achieve advantages (advantages of all kinds). This also leads to “confusing teachings” that “lead to confused action” (Goethe) and that spread, just as we have to experience it.

So causes are suppressed or emphasized in order to make a state affair appear more or less advantageous.

Published: 07 September 2020 (Zst.: 937.272)

Supplemented on 07 April 2021:  5. The individual consciousness and the collective consciousness

Supplemented on 16 April 2021:  6. The opposite of REPRESSION is the EMPHASIS (highlighting of the cause)

I am still preparing further content for this chapter. In order to be able to inform you at the usual level, I will need a little more time. So please take a look at this page again on a later visit. Thanks for your interest!

Dietmar West