********, thank you for writing back to me and sharing your views.  Yes, this will help us to understand each other better.  I have been posting on Recovery influenced forums of one sort or another for some time now.  Everyone wants to know, "Are you in therapy, are you  releasing your anger and resentment, how were you abused?"  But no one wants to discuss their political views, or even to admit that they have them.  They won't come out in the open and say that they disagree with my views.  They find other ways of arguing that my posts are out of bounds.  They really don't seem to understand that the solutions are always going to be political.  So you are the first.

From the way you write, I never would have guessed that you are only 16yo.

So I will further share some of my own views now.  Certainly I agree that drugs, alcohol, tobacco, bad eating habits, and lack of exercise add monumentally to health care costs.  They cause a large portion of the total.  Since in the USA much of it is dealt with via reactive Emergency Room care, it might amount to 50% of the total?

Other than that, I agree with very little of what you have said.  Most of what you are saying I would classify under the heading of Self-Reliance Ethic.  I guess you like to call it Personal Responsibility.  That name is fine too.  But as a doctrine to preach at people or as a standard by which to judge people, or as a way to organize our society, I don't agree with it at all.  I also do not agree with any sort of Libertarian doctrine.  I see such as simply a means of imposing outer directed social conformity, and then lots and lots of people patting themselves on the backs over it.  It amounts to a stalking horse for the political right.

http://www.amazon.com/Cyberselfish-Critical-through-Terribly-Libert...

Back when Paulina Borsok was on her book tour I contacted her.  I explained to her that Libertarian views are popular because they sound good, they have a certain kind of cachet, they have sex appeal.  She adopted that language for the rest of her tour.

The Self-Reliance Ethic is predicated on the notion that people are somehow slothful in nature, and so they need someone to teach them to be otherwise.  I do not agree at all with this premise.  I feel that people are lost, tuned out, drugged out, and in denial simply because they have never had a place in this world.  They have never had a chance to feel their repressed feelings or to build alliances and make any kind of a life for themselves.  They have been used by the Family System, they have been used by parents who are living in Bad Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

More than anything else, the Family System exists to enforce the Self-Reliance Ethic.  Anything which you do to promote the Family System is at the expense of children, and so doing it is wrong.

Shari Karney Story
pay attention to her mother Vivian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBOffbeLA98&feature=results_main...

Admittedly I am focused more on problems which occur in families, instead of at the hands of strangers.  I believe that stranger danger is actually just a manifestation of what goes on already in families.

Likewise I am more concerned about what happens in families which have remained within the middle class, families which are able to pay their bills and stay housed, families where the parents can brandish the self-reliance ethic and use it against their children.

The other types of families are less dangerous because they are already so porous.  They have regular contact with all sorts of outside social service agencies.  The dangers are minimized.

I don't see any efficacy in trying to promote any higher moral standards.  As I see it, children are already being consumed in living up to the existing moral standards.  This is how the Good Family Ethic works.

Yes, I want to protect children.  But in doing this I don't see a need for any further intensity in the criminal prosecution of adults.  Rather, I want to see adults held accountable for using children via the Family System, for holding children as house pets, for using them to build an adult identity.  I want to see Jose and Kitty Menendez held accountable.  ( Oops, I forgot for a moment that they have been. )

To say this though means that we all have to be responsible.  There does have to be intervention into the lives of all children.  Yes I am a strong defender of privacy.  But this stops when minor children are at stake.  It is wrong to allow a child to suffer because their parents are having problems.  It is wrong to use the child as a means of imposing some self-reliance ethic upon the parents.

The main change I want to make is financial.  I want to block disinheritance and establish the principle that if someone employs the Family System, then they are responsible.  It is possible that they will be pauperized as a result.  They maybe collected upon.  What we call family dysfunction ( not a model I like to use myself ) will have financial penalties.

If someone is going to employ the Family System, I don't see this kind of potential consequence as that serious.  Some parents would voluntarily accept this.

As far as the Recovery Movement and Therapy, I see this as a situation of persons who have had their teeth kicked in, been defecated on, and even worse.  Yet instead of fighting back, they still want to worship the Holy Family.  So they promote the newest and latest language of Liberal Pedagogy.  The real problem is that they harbor conservative political views.  They don't understand these views and they don't even admit that they have them.

I have been posting on Recovery Movement associated venues for a long time.  The most basic, the lightest, form of redress would be the blocking of disinheritance.  On these forums I have known there to be persons from Norway, Sweden, Ireland, England, France, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Canada.  All of these countries have laws which are different from the US.  Its not just what the laws say on paper, its how courts enforce them.  Yet no one on any Recovery Movement associated venue has ever offered to share how inheritance laws work in their country.

I know a man from face to face 12 step groups.  He has been in such groups for over 25 years.  He has been disinherited.  He quotes the words used by each of his parents in their wills.  Clearly it hurts him deeply.  And as he explains, he really does need the money.  He says that it is because he told his mother that she was an alcoholic.  I listen to the stories and it sounds like sheer horror.  Yet despite this, he has never once raised the issue that maybe their could be some means of legal redress, or that he might want to seek some sort of mediation with the sister who got the money.  Never has he suggested that there should be some sort of legal reform.  Nothing!

I also know that this man holds very conservative political views.

Here is a Vancouver law firm:

http://www.disinherited.com/article/dysfunctional-families

Their message is simple, disinheritance is caused by family dysfunction.  Don't worry about therapists, pillow punching, or releasing anger, just call us.  We deliver.  It doesn't have to reach the level of abuse.  Really, attempted disinheritance is enough.

Yes, they can make this sort of offer because the laws are different in British Columbia.  But on Recovery Movement influenced venues no one ever seems to want to talk about this sort of thing.  They want to say, release anger, rely on yourself, and go on.  I say that this is secession from life.  If you have been violated by the entire society, you must do your best to find some way to fight back, otherwise you will be living as a shadow.

What makes familial violations so harmful is not that they occurred, its that society sanctions them.  They do it with the Self-Reliance Ethic.  This is what underlies all pedagogy.

So I am not really concerned here with the creation of Nanny States.  Rather I am concerned with Big Daddy Socious, the one who enforces Self-Reliance.  And I am concerned with Mommy Recovery, the one who enforces Denial.

The ways the Left was composed in past eras are not going to help us today.  We need to create a New Left for this era, and we need to keep on recreating it as times change.  This is what I want to do, and I am convinced that shredding the Family System and the Self-Reliance Ethic are the was to do this.  There are people who have animosity with their parents and are willing to say No to Recovery.  I am looking for a few such people.

BO
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

 

 

 

 

It Takes a Village

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY27ghojuYs

"you can't surveille people's homes"

Well actuallly you could. But its not necessary. All that is needed is intervention, cracking open the Family System, neutralizing its power. Many of the mechanisms to do this have been in place for a long time. Others have more recently come online.

Here is a woman named Angela who wanted to go to college. She could have submitted to Daddy Self-Reliance and Mommy Recovery.

http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/excerpt_battle_11.html

I am most pleased that she did not. We all need to learn from her example and stand up to Self-Reliance and Recovery.

Somethings can be effectively prohibited by criminal laws. But you will never be able to regulate the emotional dynamics of parent child relationships that way. What you can do though is simply to intervien and to neutralize the power of the Family System. But to do this latter you have to change the ways that we think about it. This is why holding parents accountable is so important. Its the middle class which is held up as the model to follow. Its the middle class that lives in Bad Faith and uses children. Its the middle class who will be most effected by financial redress and public exposure.

BO


 

 

 

 

Bad Faith

 

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/sartre.shtml

Bad Faith represents a self-deception in which the person views self as an object, not as a person with free will. As an object, a person is without responsibility. Religion, according to Sartre, was a form of bad faith, teaching that previous humans, namely Adam and Eve, were responsible for human frailty. The unconscious is also a form of bad faith, allowing people to deny their thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)

Bad faith (from French, mauvaise foi) is a philosophical concept used by existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the phenomenon where a human being under pressure from societal forces adopts false values and disowns their innate freedom to act authentically. It is closely related to the concepts of self-deception and ressentiment.

More than anything its intended to apply to the Middle Classes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEk1JAkyvj4&feature=BFa&list...

It is how children are used. It continues life long in the form of Daddy Self-Reliance and Mommy Recovery. If one does not learn how to stand up to it, find allies, fight back, and score some tangible victories, then one will be progressively pounded down into the dirt.

BO

Views: 14

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service