Saturday, April 17, 2021


Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 331 through 339 (of 339 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Canada Adopts Basic Guaranteed Income #74862

    Sorry folks, I’ve been extremely tied up, and also I did see the serious nature of your replies, and so I did not post any inadequate replies.

    nooneinparticular wrote, “There are cases where psychiatric drugs are helpful to people, and I have no problem with people making informed decisions about what they put in their body, and doctors prescribing drugs when they make sense.”

    Well, I don’t see psychiatric drugs as ever being helpful, anymore than alcohol or street drugs are helpful. But maybe within your post we do have a solution. Maybe along with delicensing psychiatrists, we could also just deregulate the drugs. Treat alcohol, street drugs, tobacco, and these formerly prescribed drugs in the same way. There can be restrictions about place of sale and use and on advertising and packaging, but otherwise people can do whatever they want.

    I would still advocate against the use of any of the chemicals. But of course others will see it differently, as they do today. The way I always present it is, “Some people are going to prescribe alcohol and street drugs for themselves, and it will always be very difficult to do anything about this. But about the licensed doctors prescribing mind altering drugs, this we should be able to put a stop to.”

    And my own position is that our county’s doctors, those who the poor are sent to, are the worst in prescribing stuff, and in their approaches to talk therapy. I feel that they should be criminally prosecuted.

    And I am deeply sorry nooneinparticular for the ways you have been mistreated, taken advantage of, and made to suffer. And I do understand how it would tend to be causes just by being singled out at a very young age. And also today I see the role of we the survivors not as Recoverying or getting Cured, but to start striking back and stopping these same sorts of injustices as they are still going on today.

    lily.c wrote, “The least we can do is give our solidarity to people who’ve already taken direct action against the system,
    instead of playing into “respectability politics” that just make it easier for the state to isolate and hunt down the bravest among us.”

    Well yes! This is exactly what I want to do. So who has taken direct action, and where can I meet them and how can I help them? I mean besides John Brown, he being a bit before my time.

    And as I understand you, playing into respectability politics only makes one a target. Well yes I agree with that completely. I am involved in a number of political conflicts right now. One thing which makes me different from some of the other activists is that I am so far out of the circles of power that I am the only one not sucking up to elected office holders. One party said to me, “You alienate those who might help you.” Well, I don’t want their help. And actually I am already a target of them. So by waging a fierce campaign against them, I am not making my situation any worse. Actually by speaking up and making the conflicts public I am giving myself some degree of protection.

    I am knowingly saying things which I know that no one else involved would say.

    I helped put a Pentecostal Daughter Molester into our state prison. But this is not because I see in the state the solution. It is simply that that way was better, educating police, prosecutors, and courts. I would not have gotten involved unless I was ready to follow the John Brown example and drag him out of his well kept suburban home and kill him on the sidewalk myself.

    Now I try to educate people about his church, as they are the real menace. Everyone in that church has black sheep children, and usually a black sheep sibling too. That church exists only to legitimate familial child abuse.

    One area I take very strong exception is with the Autism Advocates. I see them as Uncle Tom’s. I go with Sami Timimi, who says that Autism does not exist.

    And so the characteristics which are getting labeled as Autism are mostly just the responses to living in abusive environments and living without social standing.

    And so the worst are people like John Elder Robison, Temple Grandin, and Nick Dubin. They need an Autism identity because they have accepted the Self-Reliance Ethic, and so they are actually legitimating all manner of abuses in trying to give themselves an exemption. They are teaching people to accept abuse and to ask for pity.

    But then I read about the Autism Self Advocacy Network, and they are a bit better. But they still believe that there is such a thing as Autism and this Neurological Difference. I do not agree with them. And I think this falls into what you are saying, “just make it easier for the state to isolate and hunt down the bravest among us.”

    There is no reason to apply a stigma to one’s self. And it does not matter if people try to define it as a positive either. It is still going to be seen as a deficiency.

    Punish the abusive parents, the abusive school administrators, the abusive doctors, the abusive peer groups, and the abusive workplaces.

    Teach those who are being persecuted how to stand up for themselves and to protect each other, and to protect the children of today.

    I do see the characteristics which are being described as Autism as being largely caused by parents. Refrigerator Mother is overly simplistic. What I think it really amounts to is just some degree of difference, like mostly high intelligence, sensitivity, and mystical abilities. But then you have these abuses, from parents, schools, and doctors. So the greatest amongst us are being converted into Homer Simpsons, and so in the face of this mortal attack they often turn inwards just in order to protect themselves.

    So this is war, and so I want to change the rules of engagement so that we can start winning it. What we are facing is a continuation of the Nazi Eugenics Movement, and so we must act. Under international law those engaged in wars of self determination are exempted from any requirement to take prisoners.

    No reason to ever go along with this Neurological Difference description.

    And really no reason to go along with “disability benefits”, which is this respectability politics. Better to band together and take by force.

    And then as far as an economic safety net, that should be for everyone.

    The place I would start fighting back is by going after the parents, and the doctors, and then by teaching children how to protect themselves in all situations.

    I say that these doctors and parents are preying on children simply because they are children and not well equipped to fight back. And so it is hard to redress any of it in real time. So it is always going to come across as revenge, and then portrayed as psychotic.

    I care for my Inner Child, but not by the liberal pedagogy of Nurturing, Empathy, and Attachment. That stuff is just a sugar coated form of abuse, it is neuroticism. I care for, teach, and protect my Inner Child, as he is going to be an Apache Brave.

    And this does not mean that I am cold, harsh, or insensitive. No, everyone wants to do well. They don’t have to be harmed to want that. The middle class family was invented to exploit and harm children, in order to justify the lives of the adults. So from this we get all the hardness and coldness.

    Today my inner child would respond to psychotherapists and learning disabilities doctors by physically incapacitating them. Or at least he would leave them with a very serious and very credible threat. I want everyone to come to see the necessity of this, otherwise they and parents will continue to abuse children.

    So there would be nothing wrong with a group of familial abuse or medical abuse survivors acting to stop such things as they go on today. Mostly though this does not happen.

    I could say much more about this, but suffice to say, I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who going the furthest and taking the most direct forms of action today. So where are they? I’ll show myself worthy of being counted as a comrade.

    Sorry my post has gotten to be so rambling. I am just blown away by the feeling that for the first time online I can really say what I think, because I am not alone.

    And thanks for showing me this:

    I mean, people who abuse children because they are children and so they can, they sleep soundly today. This should not be so, and they should not be able to disinherit them either.

    A note, I know of someone who just got an elected office. She goes on about how much she liked Nancy Reagan. Well obviously she has not read the very brave book written by Nancy’s daughter Patty.

    Yes, I go along with this completely:

    I do think that out of the Autism issue, there is a potential for direct action. All the more so as some parents are killing their children, and usually getting a great deal of approval over it. And then also, it all is clearly Muchausen’s By Proxy. At the core, it is about parental rejection of the child. In this sense I am convinced that Bruno Bettelheim was correct.

    Mostly the arguments against an economic safety net are parental arguments. And this is why so many people have such an emotional investment in them.

    And I’m glad to hear that someone else is inspired by John Brown and Harper’s Ferry. I’ve heard that there is a John Brown Society and that they have an annual event at his farm in Elba New York.

    And of course for those of us seeking to follow John Brown, it makes little difference if guns are legal or illegal.

    And also, resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act did involve lethal gunfire on a number of occasions.

    Extremely Good:

    I’ve been lectured to, denounced, and banished from so many Recovery Movement and Therapy forums in the last decade, that I am so pleased to finally have found some place where there is some affinity of thought. Recovery and Therapy are really just liberal pedagogy, becoming the parent and making the child wrong.


    Join My Backup Forum:

    in reply to: Revolution Instead of Therapy and Recovery #74320


    I am very sorry over what you were forced to experience. That you were treated in such a manner is completely unacceptable, and it must be redressed.

    Of course the idea was to completely break you, or even to cause your death or suicide. I am so glad that you did survive and stay sane. I am deeply moved by your ability to talk about it all of it at this time. You have been able to stay in touch with your feelings. And this is why you can watch such videos and know that there is something deeply wrong with what is being shown, while others are dissociated and will be taken in and will likely end up doing similar things themselves.

    The problem is not that people are somehow born evil, it is simply that they are made that way, when they are abused and there is no one to tell them that what is happening is wrong, and no one ever to help them stand up and obtain redress.

    Unfortunately though, all that you experienced is almost certainly still going on somewhere. The form and the rationalizations might be different, but the intent of destroying children simply because they cannot stand up for themselves, is still the same.

    And it will continue to be the same until we the survivors who see and refuse to unsee start standing up and taking action.

    You wrote, “A healthy society would understand this, try to promote values of honesty and integrity “. Well unfortunately our society uses children. The middle-class family is something which has been a long time in coming, but with the rise of industrial capitalism, it is upon us. It would be hard to even imagine something more perfectly designed to suck the life out of children and make them available for the use of the adults.

    And then of these doctors and behaviorists, this is all just more variations on Medical Munchausen’s.

    You spoke of, “artificial Family Unit”. Well yes, that is exactly the point we have come to. Some people think that the answer is to be found in newer pedagogy manuals. I strongly disagree. I say that the existence of pedagogy manuals of any type is where the problem starts.

    “It would take several generations to fully undo that damage…” Well yes, and I think your statement highlights another truth, that the present form of the problem is entirely new. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, things were different. Life may have been hard for children and for adults and certainly there would have been forms of both intentional and unconscious cruelty. But it is only the present which has this bizarre phenomenon of so many people earing a living by claiming to be experts on what is good for children, and hence engaging in child exploitation.

    I mean some of it does come from religious teachings, but in earlier times not that many people would have read such things. Books were expensive and not that many people could read anyway. And to my view, the happiest families I have ever seen are Mexican immigrants who have read zero pedagogy manuals, and often are not even literate in English or Spanish.

    But the modern form, the selling books of ideology, probably started with:

    And in his day he would have been seen as a liberal.

    And then of course:,_or_On_Education

    And this is all about making the child believe that they are in charge and are being taken seriously, when in fact they are not at all. They are being duped and manipulated.

    So today the themes are attachment, empathy, nurturing, and communications skills. And always how it works is the parents are bolstered and get bragging rights. The pedagogy manuals promote parenthood, and they make the parents look good. And hence the middle-class family is designed to feed off of children.

    And what really makes the current era different is not just the amount of written information available, it is simply that the parents are not living up to their own values, they are not admitting that they have choices, and that they did not need to have children. But they did so, in order to look good.

    And so as you indicated on another thread, bad people manipulate laws to their favor. Very true, but this is why it is we the survivors who must organize and act.

    The most common forms of child abuse come down to malicious and crippling psychological manipulations. Very hard to fight this in real time. It always has to be after the fact. So it looks like revenge. But in fact, the abuse is still going on to this day. It happens every time one of us survivors walks into the office of a psychotherapist or takes a seat in a recovery group meeting. And it exists anytime someone tells us to forgive, to live and let live, and that no one owes us anything. We are again being made wrong and our awareness continues to be targeted for attacks.

    So the only way to change this is to stop asking for pity, stop accepting pity, and instead start striking blows.

    Eventually there will have to be serious and universal intervention. Prohibition on disinheritance, complete economic safety net with unlimited support for going to school, and then for children themselves there have to be escape valves everywhere. No child should ever be trapped in a family home. There should always be redundant and very high quality back up available 24-7 and at a moments notice. And when you smell parent v child conflict or animosity, action must be taken. The parents must be made to know that they either have to change their tune at once, or they will be extremely sorry.

    My own view of what the people running these behavioral conditioning centers deserve:
    ( from Schindler’s List )


    in reply to: Canada Adopts Basic Guaranteed Income #74311

    third attempt to get these links right:

    8. Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, and the Impending Crisis of the Union, 1855-58

    9. John Brown’s Holy War: Terrorist or Heroic Revolutionary?

    John C. Fremont, June 18, 1856 Republican Platform

    Catching up now, let me reply nooneinparticular’s most recent reply.

    nooneinparticular wrote,

    I just warn though that laws exist to be broken, and the really bad ones will always manipulate any law in their favor.

    The only way forward is total abolition, and to start over – with everything. These people have wormed so deep that the institutions are completely bankrupt and inherently guilty, no matter what they may do to reform themselves.

    Since overt abolition is impossible, the only way to live one’s life is to hold these institutions in utter contempt. It is no crime to lie, cheat, and steal from a society that is itself a lie, a cheat, and a theft.

    Total abolition? What do you mean by this? Eliminate psychotherapy and all developmental disability assessment and treatment? Sounds great to me! It’s comparable to eliminating Medical Munchausen’s.

    These things are after all simply repackagings of the doctrine of Original Sin.

    And as far as the really bad manipulating the law in their favor. Well yes, that is what this psychiatric, psychological, and developmental disabilities system is. And this is why I am not just interested in reforming it, as that serves to legitimate it. I want to find ways of promoting open conflict, and I want the perpetrators to be penalized.

    And of course much of the worst of it is taxpayer funded. Where I live I’ve seen that the very worst forms of therapy are those provided to the people not able to pay, to the people who have gotten 5150ed and who have accepted the idea that drugs are in their best interest.

    And then where I am we have this publicly funded 24hr Suicide and Crisis Hotline. The people who staff that are horrid. You could never denigrate people and trivialize their affairs that way, unless you were protected by anonymity and the telephone system. They do it, because they can get away with it, because they know that not many people will be willing to come out into the open with complaints.

    And yes, people will continue to print parenting manuals, books which objectify children and promote parenthood, books based on ideas like attachment, empathy, nurturing, and communications skills. These sorts of books make the parent right, and promote middle-class identity. And the middle-class family feed on children, it was invented as a way of denigrating and neuroticising children.

    So again, this is why I am interested in promoting open conflict, and never in asking for pity.

    So for anyone just jumping in, how do going after parents and going after pschotherapists have anything to do with a Basic Income Guarantee and the creation of an economic safety net?

    Well most of the society does not go after parents, it exonerates parents and promotes parenthood. The people who might be inclined to see things differently get shunted into Therapy, Recovery, and Religion. These things exist in order to suppress political consciousness.

    And then the arguments against an economic safety net are always a recapitulation of parental doctrine, that the child is defective and needs to prove otherwise. You show me someone who is without basic needs being met, and I’ll show you a situation where there is an argument that that person deserves to suffer. This is always a parental argument. And then those who have suffered the most, are those most likely to be in need of such a safety net.

    What makes the middle-class different is that it is where people have choices in how they will live. And the most important choice is in whether or not to have children. But people don’t want to face that choice, to admit that it is a choice, so they live in Bad Faith, and so children are used, exploited. I don’t like to call it abuse, because that makes it sound like something aberrational is happening. That sets the bar way too high. So I refer to it as exploitation, the child is being used by the adults to give the adults an identity. And our society and the parenting books and the psychotherapists promote this.

    So then those of use who see this, I mean really see it, shouldn’t want to sit on the sidelines, we should want to strike blows. Otherwise you are just watching more injustice day after day right in front of your own eyes.

    So here is something encouraging which I have just learned of, though I’ll admit that the source might at first seem controversial. This is from Satanic Temple, and this group seems to have positioned itself to be the poison pill in the separation of church and state debate. They don’t go along with Anton LaVey, and they say that he and the groups which have been inspired by him are Fascist. Satanic Temple does political protests, and always on behalf of the must vulnerable and most marginalized. So besides Satanic statues on public property, and Satanic prayers in schools, they are looking to set up secular charities for the homeless, to offset the Christian Evangelical message of pity.

    But then they also have this anti-corporal punishment project, and I am really impressed by this:

    You might watch their front page video.

    You might read this FAQ pdf

    and this

    and this

    and this

    So aside from issuing these religious exemption cards, they are actually offering Satanism as something playful and silly, and as a way of standing up to the Christianist culture.

    But also, if faced with a threat of physical or psychological punishment, they are advising children to resist, and to contact 1. Law Enforcement, 2. Satanic Temple, 3. ACLU.

    So there is zero pity seeking in this. Zero!

    There is no endorsement of liberal pedagogy, like attachment, nurturing, empathy, communications skills, as that still endorses parents and this idea tha children need to be made to submit. So in opposition to this they are teaching children to resist!

    So I love this, this would have made a difference in my life as a child. It would have shown me that there are some who believe that the way children are treated is unjust. And it is an exemplary defense of the innate dignity and worth of every human being.

    This kind of a group could do what no one else ever did, tell me that my parents are wrong, and without making any excuses for them.

    It is also the sort of approach which could likely end in ground level interventions, bringing the conflicts out into the street.

    So I am most encouraged by this project, and I hope we can use it as a model to do other things. This project does oppose those parents who have signed papers authorizing physical and psychological torture. And it is easier to get numbers of people to rise up against school administrators than it is to get them to rise up against their own parents. But this later does still need to be the ultimate objective.


    in reply to: Canada Adopts Basic Guaranteed Income #74252

    David Blight, links about John Brown, attempt to get links to post correctly:

    I ran out of time yesterday, so let me now continue responding.

    nooneinparticula wrote:
    “I don’t see a situation where any amount of violence would be helpful…”

    I agree with you about the vast majority of situations. And at this time all I am calling for is the preparation for strictly defensive violence when needed, and this is only a small part of a much larger initiative intended to establish justice.

    As far as what those limited situations where violence could be helpful, consider security guarding for events, body guarding, and most interestingly, process servers. If you are operating in a confrontational mode, the odds are quite great that you will eventually encounter violent people.

    Now with good training and organization, even those using firearms can be disarmed quite easily by those not using fire arms.

    I’ve always supported the Guardian Angles.

    For one thing, it counters the fear which police and their supporters will often pander to. And it also counters many of the justifications for reckless civilian gun possession.

    I still say that if one is embarking on a course of revolutionary political activism, capable defense should be a component of it. Though it should be firewalled off from the primary initiative thrust.

    About process servers, professionals are divided about what sorts of weaponry should be carried. Some believe that it should be limited to non-lethal weapons. But they all agree that there is a high potential for danger, and that whatever one is doing, they must be well trained.

    They also agree that divorce cases are the most dangerous types of process service. There have been some extremely ugly situations. When one is served, then in that instant all the rules for an intense situation change, and the subject knows that they have been had. Reckless and crazy acts are not unheard of. And so when it comes to service in child v parent lawsuits, given the high level of investment in being right and making the child wrong, these could be even more dangerous.

    Then there is just the simple fact that no one knows what the future will hold. Circumstances can change.

    Another theme of the novel, though not unrelated to the first, is ‘the issue of resistance versus collaboration’. Beauvoir seems to be saying that to not actively resist the German occupation is in effect to accept it. This, argues David E. Cooper, is an illustration of an existentialist view of the nature of freedom, according to which an individual is just as responsible for not refusing something as for choosing it. Any distinction between choosing and not refusing is elided.

    Simone de Beauvoir shows a group of people, minor left activists, who by a change of circumstances, and in opposition to a declared peace, end up blowing up train stations and performing close range assassinations.

    None of us know what will happen tomorrow, and the forces of normalization which it sounds like we have all have faced, are those very same forces which use eugenic and social Darwinist arguments to justify persecution. So we are all vulnerable and the stakes are extremely high.

    nooneinparticula wrote:
    ” …but that is different; it’s not about the morality of violence, but futility and stupidity in doing so. ”

    Well I’m not sure if you are saying that violence is always wrong, or that it is morally superior to follow the path of strict and absolute non-violence. If so, I strongly disagree with you.

    Dr. John Henrik Clarke offers an outstanding critique of Martin Luther King, in effect saying that he did not understand Gandhi. King made the mistake of saying that non-violence is morally superior, and making this superiority the objective, and thus losing complete sight of what the struggle was about.

    Dr John Henrik Clarke talks about Gandhi and Martin Luther King

    Dr. John Henrik Clarke – Dr Martin Luther King Jr and The Dream

    I actually find Martin Luther King tedious to listen to. He’s full of it. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Now eventually, like during the last year or two of his life, this changed. But most people don’t know much about him from that later era.

    nooneinparticula wrote:
    “Furthermore, running to the hills with a gun is what they (the people who oppress us) want – that would further isolate us from society, legally and physically. ”

    This I agree with completely. These white militia types, they’re just getting a sexual charge out of guns. They are celebrating their own impotence. They aren’t ever going to use those guns for anything except brandishing, and they do it because they know that being white, they aren’t going to get into any trouble. So of course I’m not going to follow their example.

    And I think the real problem, once a possibility of violence is considered, is that it becomes too easy to kill someone or to talk about it, rather than to do the much harder job of dealing with it at a socio political level.

    nooneinparticula wrote:
    “The objective is not so much to convince most people that we’re prone to violence, but because taking an openly violent stance implicitly isolates us and disallows even the meager participation in society we are allowed. It is far easier to stoke us to violence than for them to raid, house by house, people who are trying to live what little lives we can.”

    Yes, I agree completely. Don’t want to be “taking an openly violent stance”.

    nooneinparticula wrote:
    “Far more often than calling us crazy and violent, they call us stupid and incompetent; it is the presumption of incompetence rather than the presumption of violence that strips most of us of basic humanity.”

    Yes, I agree completely.

    So we need to reclaim that competence and show that we are nominally non-violent, but not absolutely or unequivocally non-violent, and that we are pursing an organized and life affirming collective plan.

    The non-violence of Gandhi was not pacifism. Rather, it meant exposing activists to a high level of risk. Sometimes the risks would be even higher than those faced by those intent on violence. Gandhi did this knowing that eventually his side would win this way, because the other side was boxed in. They were boxed in because there was always the proximal threat of an intense and explosive genocidal violence. So in this kind of a situation non-violence could win. He was also mindful of the kind of a peace he wanted to have, for the decades which would follow. And so he knew that a racially based violence would be poison.

    Unfortunately though, in most situations those calling for non-violence are actually calling for non-engagement. They are preaching Live and Let Live, and claiming that this is morally superior. They are collaborators, and there aren’t words strong enough to properly describe such persons.

    Now, nooneinparticular, I know from you other posts that this is not your intent. But we have to be mindful that we are not seen as endorsing collaboration with abusers, and of going the same way as Freud, and of his generations of followers, and just refusing to engage.

    So I say that right now what is most important is to select some targets and then make organized strikes.

    I am interested in Child v Parent lawsuits, in legal contests to overturn disinheritances, in legislative actions, and in legal and direct action campaigns to close down selected psychotherapists and these Rotenberg and Koegel and similar centers. And I’m interested in organized actions on behalf of the poor, like another Welfare Rights Movement. And I am interested in some selected interventions in Parent v Child situations, and also against corporal punishment of children in schools. It should be at all levels, Judical, Legislative, and non-violent Direct Action.


    Profile and Posts

    in reply to: Canada Adopts Basic Guaranteed Income #74216

    @Lametamor, I completely support your petition. I fully support the premises of the petition and the assertion that psychiatry allows criminal violence and brutality, and that psychiatry is absolute crime. I would like to know who started this petition and about what groups are behind it, because I want to start working with all of them.

    I also feel though that signing petitions alone is not enough. There are ways we can intervene right now. And in so doing we will show people that psychotherapy is wrong.

    I go with Jeffrey Masson who writes, “The practice of psychotherapy is wrong because it is profiting from another person’s misery.” And throughout his book he shows over and over how psychotherapy offers absolutely nothing except to tell the complaintant that they have to live with their problems by themselves.

    He also explains that the kinds of issues being handled in the psychotherapist’s office are always matters which should be handled in some other venue. I interpret this as meaning in a court room, in the political arena, or on the revolutionary battle field. What ails the supposedly mentally ill is simply that their political consciousness is under siege, and so they are being forced to passively accept injustice and believe that the problem lies within themselves.

    So there are lots of ways we could start going after psychotherapists, and I want to be involved in all of them, but I also know that I can’t do any of them on my own. Once we start going after psychotherapists, it will show people that we are not passivated, we are not seeking pity, and we are not afraid of standing up for ourselves. And further, that we can build functioning alliances will show that we are not crazy, lazy, or helpless.

    So how could one go after a psychotherapist? Well basically it comes down to lawsuits, getting laws changed, or street level actions designed to discredit them. This third type of action is my own personal specialty.

    So for example, you could try to sue a therapist because they were trying to discourage you from standing up for yourself and seeking justice. They were trying to discourage you from filing a lawsuit. They were giving bum legal advice, and charging money for it, but without having a law license. This is of course what they always do.

    You could sue your therapist because he was saying that you are the cause of your own problems, and hence standing with the parental abusers. He might say, oh well yes I feel your pain, but they just didn’t know any better, and so we have to learn to live with it. And besides, that was all in the past.

    None of it is in the past, because we still live in a world where the abused continue to be re-abused day after day.

    Or he might try to inculcate you with the newer pedagogies, based on ideas like empathy, nurturing, attachment, and communications skills. He would try to make you wrong for your anger and commitment to redress and social reform. All these pedagogies are is a way to promote parenthood and to put the parents beyond challenge. And the same for the therapist.

    He would be doing in effect the same thing religion does, trying to make it that all your problems are simply because you are not willing to forgive.

    Well this is the intentional infliction of harm on someone who is already wounded, and it should be possible to collect damages for it.

    We could try to get laws changed to make the situation more favorable for going after psychotherapists. For example, they used to say that a child complaining about sexual molestation was imagining it. They still do basically take this attitude, but they cannot discourage the child from reporting it, and they must report it themselves, or they could end up in a prison cell. So this is a big improvement.

    In some states now it is unlawful to try and enact sexual orientation modification therapy upon a juvenile. I say this is a huge step forward. But it should be unlawful to enact ANY sort of psychotherapy upon a juvenile. It should be unlawful to enact any sort of psychotherapy upon anyone under any circumstances.

    At a minimum, psychotherapists should be de-licensed. We should force the government to stop licensing them. Instead just let them be what they are, like psychics, fortune tellers, and witch doctors. Maybe this is the best solution too. Maybe this is starting to happen in that there are various schools now of Philosophical Counseling. And when you seek such, you decide which sort of philosophical teaching you want to learn from.

    One commentator said that psychotherapy works well only when the therapist is living a more radical life than the client. To me this makes sense. But usually it is not the case, as the client is leading a socially marginalized life, forced into this posture by familial child abuse, but trying to find ways forwards. But by contrast the therapist leads a conventional life, bolstered by a high income and a professional license, and so profiting by telling their clients that they have to submit.

    So my own expertise and experience are in the area of sidewalk protest and confrontation. These are always local actions, and usually the police get involved. I don’t break any laws, and of course I would never be in any way armed. But I do push the very limit. Usually the object of the protest is completely decimated once the see that police are powerless to do anything about this, and so then it can go on ad-infinitum, and that I can re-engage any time I want to. I have closed down many businesses.

    So with a psychotherapist, it would be even easier, because they are required to hold a license and because the client confidentiality laws make it hard for them to defend themselves and answer the charges.

    So lets say one of us has had a bad experience with a therapist. Or suppose someone we know has had such an experience. So we get them to sign an affidavit and we post it online. Or maybe we get such information from an ongoing lawsuit and we contact the plaintiff. Always we get a signed affidavit and post the unedited statement online. We carry picket signs impugning the therapist and we pass out fliers. What we want is for other victims to come forward and sign statements. Usually what they would amount to is the therapist started out with, “Tell me all, and I feel your pain.” But then at some point, as described by Jeffrey Masson, the therapist tries to convince the client that they have no choice but to accept the situation and stop trying to fight it.

    So upon reading these statements, other people should come forward with similar accusations against other therapists.

    So we can go after the business partners, the landlords, and insurances for the therapists and for the landlords.

    Eventually, because we are organizing and standing up for ourselves, we can force the govt to impose much tougher rules, or just to stop licensing therapists out right.

    And I mean really, do you think murder, robbery, or the rape of a man’s daughter are outlawed because kings and governments care that much about the welfare of their subjects?

    No of course not, they are outlawed because otherwise people would take the matter into their own hands, and so the state would lose all authority. And so it goes with familial child abuse. There will be effective laws and enforcement when it becomes clear that there is an organized force which could take the matter into its own hands.

    And likewise with these government licensed therapists. They will be stopped when it becomes clear that there is an organized force which is dealing with them by themselves.

    Rape of a man’s daughter is outlawed, but rape of your own minor daughter is very rarely dealt with in any manner at all. This will change when it becomes clear that the survivors are organized and that they are acting themselves.

    So, @nooneinparticular, I had not planed to open up a lengthy discussion about violence. You can see that my call for the preparation for the use of defensive violence is only the last in a list of 6 issues. But maybe such discussion is necessary.


    ( please join )

    Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, and the Impending Crisis of the Union, 1855-58

    John Brown’s Holy War: Terrorist or Heroic Revolutionary?

    in reply to: Canada Adopts Basic Guaranteed Income #74194

    agent provocateur? @upraising, that is certainly not my intent, and certainly I do not stand with or for the Right.

    I’m only calling for preparation for defensive violence, and this is only a part of a larger spectrum of actions which would also include public advocacy, judicial and legislative actions, lawful protest, and non-violent civil disobedience.

    I am though opposed to any all encompassing and absolute rejection of violence, as that feeds into the rationalizations of the oppressors, putting out the message that the poor and the marginalized are deficient and hence not fit to live. The New Economy and Neo-Liberalism are nothing more than the old Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movements.

    And I know that the system wants us to believe that all violence is done by crazy people and that all crazy people are violent. While we can’t directly determine what people will believe, most people will be able to see for themselves what is and what is not crazy.

    Mostly I just want to refuse to accept this rationalization that the poor are somehow deficient, and for people to start standing up for themselves. And so along with the morality labels, I want to put an end to the use of psychiatric and developmental disability labels.

    1. Reject the Therapy, Recovery, and Salvation Seeking paradigms entirely. Instead offer political consciousness and action.

    2. Stop letting people profit from middle-class family child abuse. The middle class family was invented for the exploitation of children.

    3. Accept that we do have to create a cradle to grave welfare state, and then do this on such a scale that it is efficient.

    4. Be ready to defend, as their will be violent and extreme attempts at persecution and scapegoating.

    Capitalism and The Family are two sides of the same coin. You could never have had one without the other. The central element is the disavowal of responsibility and blacksheeping. So it is in the family that one learns to denigrate, and then the criminal laws protect the denigrator.

    So while I would not advocate reckless violence or lawlessness, we do need to start applying sane and organized pressure, besides becoming ready to defend.

    The stakes are high. The old Social Darwinism + Eugenic Pseudo Science + money from the same German, British, and American firms that financed the Nazi Party, and then today on top of that you’ve got the neo-Con movement, neo-Liberalism and the New Economy.

    Claude Berr

    part 1

    part 2

    part 3

    @nooneinparticula. Certainly a collective economic security is cheaper to implement than individual security, and all the more so as the primary cost of living is that of keeping up with the Joneses. So yes, establishing this security could well require the implementation of many socialist programs.

    And yes, 40 years of trickle down has been a disaster, as will be TPP. But we cannot let that dissuade us. And remember the central focus always has to be refusing this idea that the poor deserve to be poor, and then likewise all forms of middle-class child exploitation. And the psychiatric and disability labeling system are the lynchpins of this. So we cannot let ourselves be dissuaded by what any ruling class might want.


    in reply to: Revolution Instead of Therapy and Recovery #74129


    I really feel for what you have been through. And I am moved by your insight and sensitivity. I hear you saying that there is bad coming from all quarters, and it is not just from the family. I agree with this and I accept it.

    My view though is that you have to go to the center to strike. Or if you can’t do that, then attack in places where you can win, but still keep in your mind that getting to the center is the objective. But under no circumstances should any of us ever give up and just throw up our hands in resignation.

    So you’ve talked about all different kinds of abuse in the school system. And this is horrid. Much of it I see as a system designed to instill social conformity via harassment and bullying. And then even when someone is not going to be made to conform, they still do the harassment and bullying because this solidifies the group, turns it into a primitive socius.

    So of course this is unhealthy for anyone, but especially for someone with intelligence and sensitivity. And so such a person will very often have to develop in defensive ways, and then they get labeled as deficient. And worst of all, they may come to believe this themselves. And I am so glad that you have seen thru it! And otherwise we couldn’t even be having a conversation like this, we’d be talking about therapy and recovery instead.

    But let me posit this, suppose I am a school styled bully and I am shouting out insults, the kind which attempt to take away someone’s basic humanity and right to health and happiness. We hear these kinds of names all the time. Some are medical, some are psychiatric, some are about developmental disabilities, some are moralistic, and some are eugenic. So if one goes to a school or any other primitive socius environment, they are at risk for being taunted with these names. And make no mistake, these kinds of names can be lethal.

    But where does this really come from, and why does it still exist? Why are our institutions and our people not further reformed in accordance with Enlightenment goals, like eliminating slavery?

    Well for one thing it is Neo-Liberalism, the placing of all human life into the service of Capitalism. This always works to subvert, undermine, reverse the progress towards Enlightenment goals.

    Sami Timimi insists that autism does not exist, and that all we are seeing are the machinations of Neo-Liberalism, in the form of a resurgent Social Darwinism and Eugenics.

    And then with this Lynn Kern Koegel, University of California Santa Barbara, I say she is teaching parents how to psychologically torture their children. I say that at a minimum she should be arrested and imprisoned for life.

    But this gets to The Family, something created from representations, because this is what is being defended. I mean, all you have to do is go to one of these chain bookstores and you’ll see the huge section of pedagogy manuals. These purport to be enlightened pedagogy manuals, not overtly violent. Rather, they emphasize concepts like nurturing, empathy, attachment, and communications skills. But they are still pedagogy manuals, and so they are still instructing parents in how to break their children, make them submit. No child properly instructed in nurturing and empathy can ever reject the teaching, or ever challenge it’s parents. So it is a doctrine designed to promote parenthood and a parental identity. And these books promote neuroticism, and they seek to make children neurotic.

    So the problem is not that you or I had parents, or siblings. The problem is The Family, something created by Capitalist and Neo-Liberal representations, and something which is quite reactionary, and which promotes denial and child exploitation.

    So when I hear someone using those sorts of names, especially saying things to denigrate the poor, I know that they are really just repeating the ideas they learned from their family. So maybe the parents said things like this. Or maybe the parents were poor themselves and they still held such views. Most poor people lack political consciousness.

    Now I also know that modern Child Protective Services breaks up too many families. They break up families which could work well if they just had better outside support and a more conducive environment. And this axe more often than not falls upon poor families.

    Okay, but this is not where my direct attention lies. I am looking at those able to at least maintain the appearance of being The Family. I am looking at the middle-class.

    So you wrote, “I know there are some really foul parents out there who aid and abet what is wrong.” I’m not saying anything like this. I am not interested in teaching parenting skills or pedagogy. I’m not interested in reforming or replacing bad parents, because that still amounts to promoting The Family, asking people to kneel down and venerate The Holy Family.

    Rather, I want to stop people from profiting off of The Family, and this means going after the people who are financially solvent and preventing disinheritance and then responding to parent v child animosity by penalizing the parent.

    I say that these other types of abuses and the craziness of our Capitalist society all come from the lies we tell about The Family.


    in reply to: Revolution Instead of Therapy and Recovery #74096

    I don’t look at it as blaming parents, and even calling it that is an attempt to exonerate them.

    “You shouldn’t blame a guy just for firing six bullets into you.”

    The parents are just doing what our society expects them to do, turning Einstein’s, Mozart’s, Andy Warhol’s, and Elon Musk’s into Homer Simpson.

    And most of the time the kids go along with it, and so they become just like their parents.

    But when they don’t, it’s because the parents aren’t living up to their own values, and they aren’t admitting that they have choices.

    And yes, I agree with you that our educational system and our society are all screwed up. But you have to start somewhere, find some places to strike.

    And I agree with you that none of us can do it alone. I know this, and this is why I’m posting.

    So I’m not blaming parents, I’m just acting, intervening.

    I dealt with one guy who had a huge investment in blacksheeping his eldest daughter. I helped to put him into our state prison, for sexually molesting her.

    But now I want to set the bar much lower, and I want comrades.

    But one thing we should most certainly do right off is stop accepting the Therapy, Recovery, and Salvation Seeking paradigm.


    in reply to: Canada Adopts Basic Guaranteed Income #74081

    I think a basic income guarantee is mandatory. Capitalism is what creates unemployment. And the people who run Guild Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco have got it right. Poverty is caused by social marginalization.

    So a corollary is simply this, everyone wants to do well. They want to win the admiration of family and friends. So if they are not doing well, then there must be some social marginalization or disability at work here. But as the main problem is marginalization, then we should not talk about disability as usually this just means more marginalization.

    And of course it is absurd that people should be accepting psychiatric labels. These are just an extreme form of oppression.

    So for there to be justice there has to be this basic income guarantee, or what amounts to cradle to grave welfare.

    The typical person on welfare takes far less out of our economy than those employed do. And if the welfare recipient is not driving around much in a car, then they are treading far more lightly on the earth than those who senselessly burn up gas and dump CO2 into the atmosphere to do jobs which produce absolutely nothing which people need to live.

    Now welfare takes money out of gov’t coffers, but in the US welfare has never been more than 3% of federal expenditure. This is much less than corporate welfare and other expenses directed to the betterment of the middle class to maintain political allegiance, or to keeping the poor down. So welfare is a cheaper way to keep our society going than the present state of affairs.

    And then as far as federal accounts, it is the federal gov’t which controls the printing press, the furnace, and interest rates which multiply the availability of money by the inverse of the interest rate. Suffice to say, federal accounts and the money supply are all under gov’t control, hence it is artificial. It is just a matter of who and what are being served by it.

    So as those who are not doing well are simply the victims of social injustice, we must redress this social injustice.

    1. Stop using psychiatric labels, learning disability labels, or morality labels.

    2. Offer people value producing work, not nonsense just to get a paycheck.

    3. Provide this cradle to grave welfare system as efficiently as possible, and understand that everyone wants to be a useful and meaningful part of our society.

    4. Follow my recommendation and hold parents accountable for exploiting their children, using them to give themselves a adult identity. This amounts to psychological child abuse. So besides criminal prosecution where practical, also prevent disinheritance and offer something like a divorce from one’s parents when their is parent v child animosity. Make the parents pay, and pay dearly. Make it so that child exploitation no longer pays.

    5. And for those who insist on calling the poor lazy or immoral, know that this is how Capitalism works. It is the family where this starts, with the designation of a child as the blacksheep. Those who denigrate the poor are just doing what their parents did to them. So the poor and marginalized need to start standing up for themselves rather than submitting. They and all of us must start engaging in public advocacy and non-violent civil disobedience.

    6. And then since the New Economy and Libertarianism are really just the old Social Darwinism and Eugenics movement, saying that the poor are not fit to compete, we all need to be prepared to do more than just be non-violent. We don’t want to be like Anne Frank’s father, hiding in an attic waiting for the Gestapo. We need to be ready to engage in guerrilla warfare, the use of lethal force, and without taking prisoners. Unless we are willing to do this, then we are helping the eugenicists who say that we are not fit to live. Gandhi and Jesus lived in violent revolutionary times. They were able to accomplish their works only because others were maintaining the constant threat of lethal violence.

    I’m new to this forum, and I’m very glad it is here, and I find this thread to be extremely important!


Viewing 9 posts - 331 through 339 (of 339 total)