Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
News, Politics, and General / Re: Replies To Steve
« Last post by forbitals on July 31, 2019, 07:11:51 pm »
Well some have said that Psychotherapy works well when the therapist lives in more non-conformist ways than the client.

But this is usually not the case though because the clients tend to be more socially marginalized, whereas the therapist enjoys a good degree of wealth and legitimation.

I imagine that when David Smale did therapy sessions that they were more like Philosophical Counseling, and that this new Diagnostic Manual is intended to steer it more that way.

Please tell me if I am correct.

Okay, but do we really want people making appointments with counselors of any type?  How about peer relationships and political activism?

If John Brown had consulted with a therapist, would he have raided Harper's Ferry?

If Huey Newton and Bobby Seale had consulted with a therapist, would they have founded the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and then approached Oakland Police while carrying fire arms?

Would suffragettes in jail have gone on hunger strike and had to endure the feeding tube, if they had first consulted with a therapist?

Here Shari Karney, she did see a therapist, but only for a while.  Then she committed herself and worked tirelessly to find a way around SOL's, finally just having to get the laws changed.  This took about 10 years and involved much conflict.  But as she said on her web page, this is why the US Roman Catholic Church has had $2 billion in judgments against it.

Excellent made for TV movie:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108110/

I believe that if she stayed in therapy, or was the sort of person who would stay in therapy, then her legal fight never would have proceeded.

Karney is a survivor of early childhood familial sexual molestation.  And she never was able to sue her own parents.  But she opened the door to all such suits, though most have been against large institutions.  Seems to me that people are still not ready to deal with abuse within The Family.

But no one would ever accuse Karney of just doing nothing, or of aiding the perpetrators.  She is ferocious.

So I put this forward as a question, and please tell me if I am wrong or right.  Seems to me that a universal among therapists is that they are not interested in political fights over anything other than therapy.  They are certainly not interested in revolutionary activities.  Their view is that the issues and the solutions exist between the client's two ears.  While they won't anymore do like Freud and call the client's liars, they still see the client's basic complaints as being unimportant.  Rather their objective is to help the client learn to live with things as they are.

So I ask this as a question, and it is the basis of my claim that all forms of Psychotherapy revolve around something like Original Sin.

Other's knowing more than me have said this about Freud, that it is all based on a religious world view, and that it comes down the client being the one who is wrong.

I see Life Coaching as wrong or foolish for the same reasons.  But Life Coaching is likely to be shorter term and of more narrow focus, and it is not government endorsed.

In the 70's feminist groups would meet and discuss things like Incest, ****, and other horrors of a life restricted to domesticity.  They saw these rightly so as political issues.

But in the 80's concern of these issues spread to a broader and hence more conservative portion of the populace.

Hence, it all became fodder for Therapy and Recovery.

Susan Faludi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIC4uKSFpL0

https://www.amazon.com/Rocking-Cradle-Sexual-Politics-Happened/dp/0201624710

Today I read that psychotherapists say that the number one concern of millennials is that they will not be able to save enough money to retire.

Okay, so is their therapist going to change anything about this?

Why are they not at political meetings and in political protests and writing political articles, to try and bring this country to Social Democracy, and to end this politics of private wealth accumulation and of inflating the stock and real estate markets?

When one emerges from the office of their therapist, what objective circumstance of their life has changed?

I say, only if you believe in Original Sin, would you say that something has changed.

Yes, the clients are part of the problem, they seem to always be attached to reactionary social and political views, and to me this is the real source of their problems.

But you don't find therapy clients leading the charge for legal redress.  In a civilized society wrongs are redressed by law suits.  And most other industrialized countries do not even allow disinheritance.  But try to talk about this with therapy clients and they are mortified.  They don't want to even look at such ideas, because that would mean breaking out of the fantasy which therapy has created with its bad models of cognition, and seeing just how abusive this world really is.

I talk online to people who believe in therapy from other countries, and they talk about how their parents abused them.  I ask them about their country's more favorable inheritance laws, and they have zero knowledge of such.  And I am talking here about even civil law countries where the client will not even need a lawyer to collect.  Therapy has put them into this film representation type world, created by reflected memories made into a story line, and this is not how cognition works.

Where you find people who want to fight, its in those like Shari Karney and in those like the Munchausen's Survivor Julie Gregory, people who very early on excused themselves from Psychotherapy and Recovery.

Gregory ends her book, not in therapy, but dialing Montana CPS, because her mother has got a foster child, and a whole new pile of medical books, and she seems to be doing the same stuff all over again.

So I feel that the basic premise of therapy is that it is better to keep it within the therapist's office.  If this were not true, then therapists would have vast experience and knowledge about legal and political fights.

We want people hooking up with political comrades, people who are willing to take to the barricades.

What does the therapist think their sessions do, unless they believe in Original Sin or otherwise have a low opinion of the client?

Jeffrey Masson says that virtually all of the stuff discussed with a therapist would be better discussed in some other venue.  I have yet to see anything myself which contradicts this.

Deleuze and Guattari say that Psychoanalysis, but meaning Psychotherapy too, have been created by Captialism and that they are completely parasitic.

There is this 4 hour BBC documentary, Century of Self.  It is a deep and cutting critique of all forms of Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy, and Psychology, and its effect on politics.

They start by showing this Psychoanalysts Ball held annually in Vienna.  People say that because of Psychoanalysis, people can speak freely.  Example, say someone is a maid.  If they tried to complain about this they would be rebuked for not accepting their social position.

Whereas with Psychoanalysis they are free to say what they feel.

Well, is this really true?  A most basic area will be the exploitation and abuses which are the middle-class family.  So the client starts to speak.  But does the therapist really side with them?  Usually the therapist will say things which tend to exonerate the parents, and which tend to excuse what happened as being of the past, the old pedagogy manuals.

And Jeffrey Masson writes that it is part of the training to at a certain point stop listening and shift to trying to get the client to accept what has happened and to forgive.

And isn't it true that Psychotherapy is just Pedagogy Round 2?

Try to get the client to kneel down and worship the Holy Family, while acknowledging that there have been mistakes and errors, and that the old pedagogy manuals were worse than the new ones.

But the client must not see that the entire system is rotten, and all Pedagogy Manuals are just lessons in how to abuse children and get away with it.  The angry client is to be turned into a helpless neurotic.

Alice Miller writes about artistic representations of the Sacrifice of Isaac.  Why is Isaac mute and compliant.

She says that if Isaac were to raise his hand against Abraham, then "that would start the war that we all fear."

Well this is where we see the limitations of Alice Miller.  Its her Psychoanalytic training, its the effects of religion, and I say that also she was weakened by her experiences in the Warsaw Ghetto.

She finally wants Isaac to just ask "Why?"

I say that we have to strike back, we have to bring on a revolution, whether we fear it or not.  I do not fear it.

Paul Mones says that most of what we know about familial child abuse comes from the Richard Janeke  patricide case from Cheyenne Wyoming.

People learn when thing happen, and they happen regularly.  And we all learn when we act.  I learned a huge amount from being intensely involved in a child sexual molestation prosecution.

I say that it never will be like this in the therapist's office, and that someone is a therapist because they have committed themselves to the view that it is better to keep it in the therapist's office.  And I see this as being a universal truth.
92
News, Politics, and General / Re: Replies To Steve
« Last post by forbitals on July 31, 2019, 07:11:30 pm »
Well some have said that Psychotherapy works well when the therapist lives in more non-conformist ways than the client.

But this is usually not the case though because the clients tend to be more socially marginalized, whereas the therapist enjoys a good degree of wealth and legitimation.

I imagine that when David Smale did therapy sessions that they were more like Philosophical Counseling, and that this new Diagnostic Manual is intended to steer it more that way.

Please tell me if I am correct.

Okay, but do we really want people making appointments with counselors of any type?  How about peer relationships and political activism?

If John Brown had consulted with a therapist, would he have raided Harper's Ferry?

If Huey Newton and Bobby Seale had consulted with a therapist, would they have founded the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and then approached Oakland Police while carrying fire arms?

Would suffragettes in jail have gone on hunger strike, if they had first consulted with a therapist?

Here Shari Karney, she did see a therapist, but only for a while.  Then she committed herself and worked tirelessly to find a way around SOL's, finally just having to get the laws changed.  This took about 10 years and involved much conflict.  But as she said on her web page, this is why the US Roman Catholic Church has had $2 billion in judgments against it.

Excellent made for TV movie:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108110/

I believe that if she stayed in therapy, or was the sort of person who would stay in therapy, then her legal fight never would have proceeded.

Karney is a survivor of early childhood familial sexual molestation.  And she never was able to sue her own parents.  But she opened the door to all such suits, though most have been against large institutions.  Seems to me that people are still not ready to deal with abuse within The Family.

But no one would ever accuse Karney of just doing nothing, or of aiding the perpetrators.  She is ferocious.

So I put this forward as a question, and please tell me if I am wrong or right.  Seems to me that a universal among therapists is that they are not interested in political fights over anything other than therapy.  They are certainly not interested in revolutionary activities.  Their view is that the issues and the solutions exist between the client's two ears.  While they won't anymore do like Freud and call the client's liars, they still see the client's basic complaints as being unimportant.  Rather their objective is to help the client learn to live with things as they are.

So I ask this as a question, and it is the basis of my claim that all forms of Psychotherapy revolve around something like Original Sin.

Other's knowing more than me have said this about Freud, that it is all based on a religious world view, and that it comes down the client being the one who is wrong.

I see Life Coaching as wrong or foolish for the same reasons.  But Life Coaching is likely to be shorter term and of more narrow focus, and it is not government endorsed.

In the 70's feminist groups would meet and discuss things like Incest, ****, and other horrors of a life restricted to domesticity.  They saw these rightly so as political issues.

But in the 80's concern of these issues spread to a broader and hence more conservative portion of the populace.

Hence, it all became fodder for Therapy and Recovery.

Susan Faludi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIC4uKSFpL0

https://www.amazon.com/Rocking-Cradle-Sexual-Politics-Happened/dp/0201624710

Today I read that psychotherapists say that the number one concern of millennials is that they will not be able to save enough money to retire.

Okay, so is their therapist going to change anything about this?

Why are they not at political meetings and in political protests and writing political articles, to try and bring this country to Social Democracy, and to end this politics of private wealth accumulation and of inflating the stock and real estate markets?

When one emerges from the office of their therapist, what objective circumstance of their life has changed?

I say, only if you believe in Original Sin, would you say that something has changed.

Yes, the clients are part of the problem, they seem to always be attached to reactionary social and political views, and to me this is the real source of their problem.

But you don't find therapy clients leading the charge for legal redress.  In a civilized society wrongs are redressed by law suits.  And most other industrialized countries do not even allow disinheritance.  But try to talk about this with therapy clients and they are mortified.  They don't want to even look at such ideas, because that would mean breaking out of the fantasy which therapy has created with its bad models of cognition, and seeing just how abusive this world really is.

I talk online to people from other countries and they talk about how their parents abused them.  I ask them about their country's inheritance laws, and they have zero knowledge of such.  And I am talking here about even civil law countries where the client will not even need a lawyer to collect.  Therapy has put them into this world, created by reflected memories made into a story line, and this is not how cognition works.

Where you find people who want to fight, its in those like Shari Karney and in those like the Munchausen's Survivor Julie Gregory, people who very early on excused themselves from Psychotherapy and Recovery.

Gregory ends her book, not in therapy, but dialing Montana CPS, because her mother has got a foster child, and a whole new pile of medical books, and she seems to be doing the same stuff all over again.

So I feel that the basic premise of therapy is that it is better to keep it within the therapist's office.  If this were not true, then therapists would have vast experience and knowledge about legal and political fights.

We want people hooking up with political comrades, people who are willing to take to the barricades.

What does the therapist think their sessions do, unless they believe in Original Sin or otherwise have a low opinion of the client?

Jeffrey Masson says that virtually all of the stuff discussed with a therapist would be better discussed in some other venue.  I have yet to see anything myself which contradicts this.

Deleuze and Guattari say that Psychoanalysis, but meaning Psychotherapy too, have been created by Captialism and that they are completely parasitic.

There is this 4 hour BBC documentary, Century of Self.  It is a deep and cutting critique of all forms of Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy, and Psychology, and its effect on politics.

They start by showing this Psychoanalysts Ball held annually in Vienna.  People say that because of Psychoanalysis, people can speak freely.  Example, say someone is a maid.  If they tried to complain about this they would be rebuked for not accepting their social position.

Whereas with Psychoanalysis they are free to say what they feel.

Well, is this really true?  A most basic area will be the exploitation and abuses which are the middle-class family.  So the client starts to speak.  But does the therapist really side with them?  Usually the therapist will say things which tend to exonerate the parents, and which tend to excuse what happened as being of the past, the old pedagogy manuals.

And Jeffrey Masson writes that it is part of the training to at a certain point stop listening and shift to drying to get the client to accept what has happened and to forgive.

And isn't it true that Psychotherapy is just Pedagogy Round 2?

Try to get the client to kneel down and worship the Holy Family, while acknowledging that there have been mistakes and errors, and that the old pedagogy manuals were worse than the new ones.

But the client must not see that the entire system is rotten, and all Pedagogy Manuals are just lessons in how to abuse children and get away with it.  The angry client is to be turned into a helpless neurotic.
93
News, Politics, and General / Re: Replies To Steve
« Last post by forbitals on July 31, 2019, 06:55:55 pm »
Well some have said that Psychotherapy works well when the therapist lives in more non-conformist ways than the client.

But this is usually not the case though because the clients tend to be more socially marginalized, where as the therapist enjoys a good degree of wealth and legitimation.

I imagine that when David Smale did therapy sessions that they were more like Philosophical Counseling, and that this new Diagnostic Manual is intended to steer it more that way.

Please tell me if I am correct.

Okay, but do we really want people making appointments with counselors of any type?  How about peer relationships and political activism?

If John Brown had consulted with a therapist, would he have raided Harper's Ferry?

If Huey Newton and Bobby Seale had consulted with a therapist, would they have founded the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and then approached Oakland Police while carrying fire arms?

Here Shari Karney, she did see a therapist, but only for a while.  Then she committed herself and worked tirelessly to find a way around SOL's, finally just having to get the laws changed.  This took about 10 years and involved much conflict.  But as she said on her web page, this is why the US Roman Catholic Church has had $2 billion in judgments against it.

Excellent made for TV movie:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108110/

I believe that is she stayed in therapy, or was the sort of person who would stay in therapy, then her legal fight never would have proceeded.

Karney is a survivor of early childhood familial sexual molestation.  And she never was able to sue her own parents.  But she opened the door to all such suits, though most have been against large institutions.  Seems to me that people are still not ready to deal with abuse within The Family.

But no one would ever accuse Karney of just doing nothing, or of aiding the perpetrators.  She is ferocious.

So I put this forward as a question, and please tell me if I am wrong or right.  Seems to me that a universal among therapists is that they are not interested in political fights over anything other than therapy.  They are certainly not interested in revolutionary activities.  Their view is that the issues and the solutions exist between the client's two ears.  While they won't anymore do like Freud and call the client's liars, they still see the client's basic complaints as being unimportant.  Rather their objective is to help the client learn to live with thins as they are.

So I ask this as a question, and it is the basis of my claim that all forms of Psychotherapy revolve around something like Original Sin.

Other's know more than me have said this about Freud, that it is all based on a religious world view, and that it comes down the client being the one who is wrong.

I see Life Coaching as wrong or foolish for the same reasons.  But Life Coaching is likely to be shorter term and of more narrow focus, and it is not government endorsed.

In the 70's feminist groups would meet and discuss things like Incest, ****, and other horrors of a life restricted to domesticity.  They saw these rightly so as political issues.

But in the 80's concern of these issues spread to a broader and hence more conservative portion of the populace.

Hence, it all became fodder for Therapy and Recovery.

Susan Faludi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIC4uKSFpL0

https://www.amazon.com/Rocking-Cradle-Sexual-Politics-Happened/dp/0201624710

Today I read that psychtherapists say that the number one concern of millennials is that they will not be able to save enough money to retire.

Okay, so is their therapist going to change anything?

Why are they not at political meetings and in political protests and writing political articles, to try and bring this country to Social Democracy, and to end this politics of private wealth accumulation and of inflating the stock and real estate markets?

When one emerges from the office of their therapist, what objective circumstance of their life has changed.

I say, only if you believe in Original Sin, would you say that something has changed.

Yes, the clients are part of the problem, they seem to always be attached to reactionary social and political views, and to me this is the source of their problem.

But you don't find therapy clients leading the charge for legal redress.  In a civilized society wrongs are redressed by law suits.  And most other industrialized countries do not even allow disinheritance.  But try to talk about this with therapy clients and they are mortified.  They don't want to even look at such ideas, because that would mean breaking out of the fantasy which therapy has created and seeing just how abusive this world really is.

I talk online to people from other countries and they talk about how their parents abused them.  I ask them about their countries inheritance laws, and they have zero knowledge of such.  And I am talking here about even civil law countries where the client will not even need a lawyer to collect.  Therapy has put them into this world, created by reflected memories made into a story line, and this is not how cognition works.

Where you find people who want to fight, its in those like Shari Karney and in those like the Munchausen's Survivor Julie Gregory, people who very early on excused themselves from Psychotherapy and Recovery.

Gregory ends her book, not in therapy, but dialing Montana CPS, because her mother has got a foster child, and a whole new pile of medical books, and she seems to be doing the same stuff all over again.

So I feel that the basic premises of therapy is that it is better to keep it within the therapist's office.  If this were not true, then therapists would have vast experience and knowledge about legal and political fights.

We want people hooking up with political comrades, people who are willing to take to the barricades.

What does the therapist think their sessions do, unless they believe in Original Sin or otherwise have a low opinion of the client.

Jeffrey Masson says that virtually all of the stuff discussed with a therapist would be better discussed in some other venue.
94
News, Politics, and General / Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Last post by forbitals on July 31, 2019, 04:03:23 pm »
Awesome article Bonnie.  I can't believe that someone could write this just in the time since your last article, not unless you were already highly conversant in these matters.

Now you know that Social Dawinism was a doctrine of the late 19th Century.  It got started in the UK, but it really came into its own though in the US.

And then even with the populist reactionary William Jennings Bryan, he objected so to Social Darwinism, and to Darwinism because, being Secretary of State, of the carnage he saw from WWI.  I certainly am not a Creationist, but I can respect someone who was that deeply influenced by WWI carnage, and saw it as being related to a low regard for human life.

The kind of Social Darwinism which gets spouted today is a later development, more pseudo scientific.  The idea runs something like, we have laws of evolution, and these favor the greatest.  But then you have the laws of Democracy, and these substitute numbers, and so Democracy is counter evolutionary.  This one speech was the key to street brawlers winning the support of the Business and Finance Sectors, Industry Club in Dusseldorf.  This speech has been printed in books going way back.  I only connect to this kind of a source because it is online.

http://www.der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/32-01-27.htm

And he talks about ~Bolshevism~ as some kind of moral and genetic degeneracy.  He will still be talking like that Nov 1942 as Allied Troops are landing in North Africa.  And then in Aug 1943, as Italians are throwing down their rifles and running and turning against their own Fascists, it's still ~Bolshevism~ and the ~N-word~.  And then in Paris in the weeks following June 6, 1944 the black shirt wearing Vichy Propagandist Philippe Henriot is screaming into radio that Liberation will not occur in his lifetime and talking about famine and starvation and using those same two words, ~Bolshevism~ and the ~N-word~.

And while Berliners might have been tolerant of homosexuality, and homosexuals had been quite welcomed in the Nazi Party, this did not mean that the rest of the population shared such views.  Things changed once power was obtained.  They blamed the Reichstag Fire on a homosexual communist and beheaded him.  And then at the end of June 1934, Night of the Long Knives, when Rohm had expanded the SA to 8 million men and was clearly threating the Reich, his homosexuality was used as the reason to kill him.

All of the methods of isolating and stigmatizing, and the all of the pseudo science used to justify the extermination, were practiced and perfected on homosexuals and communists, before these were then applied to larger population segments.

They called people who did not conform to their pseudo science "Contragenics".  There was a continuum, the worst being homosexuals, but then also including unmarried people, childfree married couples, and married people with a small number of children.  Only married people with a large number of children were exempt from this labeling.

https://www.amazon.com/Pink-Triangle-Nazi-Against-Homosexuals-ebook/dp/B0058U7HPI/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=pink+triangle+nazi&qid=1564605246&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Some years back there was talk that there could be a "gay gene".  I ask, and especially with all the amniocentesis, is that really a good way to go?

I doubt that any such gene ever will be located, things just don't seem to work like that when it comes to human behavior.  But even talking about it, does not seem good to me.  Would LGBTQ activists want to advance the idea of 'Neuro Logical Difference", "Neuro Divergent", or "Neuro Diversity"?  I would hope not.

In my view, people want these kinds of biomedical explanations because they have already been so bullied and stigmatized that they feel that they need something, anything, to legitimate their own existence.

Ever since the dotcom boom in the 90's, our official and popular politics has really been just Social Darwinism.

And then here, showing how it took the Eugenics Movement, the Mental Hygiene Movement, Universal Schooling, and a definite contribution from the Nazi Party, until you could have the concepts of Autism and Aspergers.

https://www.amazon.com/Constructing-Autism-Unravelling-Understanding-Social/dp/0415321816

And also the ~works~ of Hans Asperger were unknown in the US, untranslated, until the mid 90's.  So people were not getting ~diagnosed~ with ~Aspergers~ in the US, or anywhere in the English speaking world, until the mid 90's, and ~Autism~ was still thought of as something more disabling.  So I think they were telling people that they had ~ADHD~ when they seemed to be somewhat insulated from the Herd.

And then with the rise of Neo-Liberalism, starting in the late 70's with Margaret Thatcher, continuing with Ronald Reagan and with his right wing economists, and then made into a kind of social chic during the dotcom boom, you get a vast popularization of the ideas of Autism and Aspergers, and going to the concept totally unsupported by any evidence, of "neurological difference"  and then "neurodiversity".  I am convinced that this is a huge mistake.

One of the biggest boosters for the ~New Economy~ and for this idea that Autism - Aspergers - Neurological Difference being a chic, was this Wired Magazine, showcasing the business movers and shakers, and also employing one Steve Silberman.

https://www.amazon.com/NeuroTribes-Legacy-Neurodiversity-Silberman-2015-08-25/dp/B01F7X7SUE/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=steve+silberman&qid=1564602717&s=books&sr=1-2

Sami Timimi and his coauthors are totally opposed to the idea of ~neurological difference~ and for any kind of a computer industry chic, and they say that the reason for the explosion in ~Autism~ assessments if simply the rise of Neo-Liberalism, Tony Blair, and the associated desire to dismantle the welfare state.  Timimi calls the move to try and do ~Autism~ accessments, "Psychiatric Policing~ and a resurgence of the Eugenics Movement.

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Autism-Medicalising-Emotional-Competence/dp/0230545262

Bonnie, it looks to me like there is so much which we are likely to agree on.
95
News, Politics, and General / Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Last post by forbitals on July 29, 2019, 07:34:44 pm »
No one is saying that Autism is an illness. But then really, that does not mean anything. We could say that mental illness is not an illness. Some times ~mental illness~ is used to make allowances for people, even to get them off for crimes. Other times ~mental illness~ is used to indict someone, even to convict them of crimes.

Autism can and does work exactly the same way, and it is used in these ways regularly.


So why would anyone want to pin a label on themselves?


And why do we want to call for “diversity” when there is no proof of difference, no benefit obtained by claiming the difference.


I walk into a café, one guy is talking with his friend, two women are talking to each other. Another guy is eating food. I am intending to read a book.


Which one of us needs to call for “diversity” in order to be accepted as legitimate?


Remember, the first best line of defense when you’re legitimacy is attacked, is the middle finger.


Some people will attack your legitimacy, but packaging it as For Your Own Good. Again, the middle finger, or harsh toned direct words, will usually solve that problem.


But some people need lessons in respecting people and their privacy. So if the middle finger does not work, I will usually go into Marine Corp Drill Sergeant Mode.


Face 2 face, people do not try to mess around with me.


And so what is this Neurodiverstiy Movement, and things like the Autism Self Advocacy Network?


Walker asks how we deal with Autistic people? Well in the work place and in community service groups, one finds all sorts of people, with all sorts of communications styles. So how do you deal with them? You deal with them no differently than anyone else. You just have to be tolerant. I don’t mean tolerant of their category of difference, and I don’t mean making presumptions about them. I mean just tolerant of them as they are.


I want to tell a brief story here, decades ago, for a while I had an autistic girlfriend. Or rather I should say, I had a girlfriend who had been convinced that she was autistic.


I was only a year older than she, and she told me about the institution she lived in. It was only by happenstance that I met her.


She was not different from anybody else. She was just as communicative and engage able.


In those days I did not know anything about Autism, other than as shown in that movie RainMan. And I thought autistics did not talk at all.


This girl was nothing like that, just like everybody else.


I still though did come to feel that it would be a mistake to keep seeing her. The issue was simply that I thought it would be taking advantage of her. Its not that she was disabled in any way. It was simply the disadvantage, the compromised personhood which she was experiencing in living in the institution. She was at a huge social disadvantage, and this did come across.


Overall I would say that she was guileless. Her feeling were right there on the surface. I see this as a positive. But I also know that she would have a hard time in adolescent girl culture. And then no tight or revealing clothes, no high heels, no makeup, no bombshell hair. She would be targeted.


But this does not mean that there was anything wrong about her, or any reason she should have to accept a ~neurological difference~ label.


There was however one thing which stood out. And I have seen strange issues related to this in girls before. She had strabismus in one eye. In my view, particularly with a girl, that will change how people react to her.


Why did the parents send her to this school? Why did the parents have her ~accessed~? Were the parents embarrassed by her, as comes across in many autism narratives? Was she being targeted in a Muggle Bully School?


She should not have had to have been institutionalized. A well run communal home would have been better.


Louis Theroux’s Video About Autism is really good. But it is down. Autism is really controversial, and most of the advocacy has been parents defending themselves, or now this Recovery Movement version. Theroux’s video was not pro-parents.


Here is his Medicated Kids Video, but it too is not kind to parents, and the video has been adulterated. Still worth watching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezLbzJcr7QQ


Someone believes that they have Autism, then they are an abuse survivor. It is not necessarily the parents, and they do not cause Autism. They couldn’t, Autism does not exist.

But convincing someone that they have Autism, or the Neurological Difference, that is abuse.









People see that “Brain Chemical Imbalance” is nonsense, and so they refute it.

Why would the same people then go along with “neurological difference”. It is the same biomedical model, something which could somehow, scanning electron microscope on brain biopsy slides, explain human behavior.


Suppose I wrote a book,


“Does Your Child Have Evil Spirits In their Brain?”


“Learn how you can save your child and save yourself.”


And then if I worked with children and parents to promote this, and real children were harmed, don’t you think I should be sued for everything I had, if not incarcerated?


Why are people putting up with “neurodiversity” and “radical neurodiversity”?

I wrote of my short term ~autistic~ girlfriend above. Bad enough that people were telling her that she had ~autism~, but then to make it worse by saying that there is some genetic or neurological basis for it, when there is no evidence for this anymore than there is of ~Brain Chemical Imbalance~.















Continued from above:

Sure we have an Autism Industry, part of our nationwide nexus of FixMyKid Doctors. And then we have parents who want to find the locus of Original Sin in their child, and who have children for that reason.


But now, these self identifying ~Autistics~ who are promoting the ideas themselves?


Well, it helps them exonerate perpetrators.


And it does matter how we use it. Like Wittgenstein explained, there is no such thing as private language. So if you want to use ~radical neurodiversity~ or ~autism~ in some other way, or like an emerging species of super humans who are going to take over the world, that does not mean that I am going to go along with it.


And I want to reply just a bit to Bonnie here, because I feel that she really is missing some crucial things. There was this Magnus Hirschfeld, and here it talks about Roehm’s troops ( Brown Shirts, SA ) destroying the Hirschfeld’s Sex Research Institute in 1933.


https://books.google.com/books?id=_H2RBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT85&lpg=PT85&dq=magnus+hirschfelder&source=bl&ots=guJxCgzYdA&sig=ACfU3U0rSGZqvYNpy-c969AfjBX_LtPHNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid6IWrm9vjAhVWGDQIHUjiDeoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=magnus%20hirschfelder&f=false


Well Hirschfeld was at that time the leading thinker on homosexuality. Though I don’t think he called it that. He understood homosexuals as a third sex, and this was what he explained in his books.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld


And there had been this serial child killer Fritz Haarmann in Hanover Germany. In 1925 he was apprehended and convicted and executed. But it seemed highly likely that what Haarmann was convicted of doing actually required a great deal of help, and coming from the Nazis who controlled Hanover police. Haarmann was being used as a provoking agent.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haarmann


The populace was terrified of this killer. they sung ditties about him. There was the claim that remains of murdered children were being cut up and sold as horse meat. But who ever may have done that, was getting official assistance.


Haarmann was like their Jeffrey Dahmer.


And so the Nazi’s used all of this to discredit Wiemar tolerance of homosexuality. In fact, ordinary Germans were somewhat tolerant of homosexuality, and especially in the big cities.


But when economic times got tough, and people were being told that homosexuals were the reason, and then this child killing, then that tolerance went away.


So the Nazi’s used this, and their control of Hanover Police, to discredit the liberal views of homosexuality.


Magnus Hirshfeld, having no direct evidence about these crimes, he was brought in as an expert witness to try and discredit the attacks on homosexuals. But the Nazi’s turned the entire thing into a show trial, not of Haarmann, but of Wiemar liberalism and of this “tolerance” approach towards homosexuality. The Nazi’s won, totally terrifying people about homosexuality. And clearly this opened the door to their later interment and final execution of homosexuals.


So I want to draw your attention to this.


1. I am not sure that the word homosexual is entirely neutral and problem free.


2. Generally a tolerance based approach is stupid, whether it be for sexual orientation, or this non-sense “neuological difference”. The only real way is a militant self defending approach.


3. You or I may use these diagnostic terms and mean no harm, but I think that is also a mark of ignorance. Autism is today often used to convey the sense of some sort of disorder and propensity for extreme violent crime. And like with the Haarmann case, people who want to can really agitate and inflame the public.


4. You don’t want to be opening doors to labeling. Best to always meet such labels with a cold like steel refusal, and a demonstration of willingness to defend self an others.

5. So no, I think people do have to be careful about “homosexual”, but about “autism and neurodiversity” even more so. And remember, Hirshfeld thought there really were 3 sexes, and no one goes along with that today.







Continued from above:

And I have heard accounts of things like this, of a mother describing how something really deep was set off in her when she saw the child being on the ground, surrounded and bullied by other children.


Its like that incident made her forever disown the child, and may indeed have started the child down the road of not being one of the herd, of somehow being different.  And today he or she would probably get labeled as ~Autistic~.


And then in Lytel's book there are graphic scenes which show you how much Lytel and the husband hate their son Leo, and this is without any white coats or labels in the picture.


And then I did not think of this when I first read Lord of the Flies, the character Simon.  If I had to today pick someone who is the prototype of what the ~Autism~ proponents are talking of, it would be him.


He was sitting in a closed thicket, communing with nature.  Jack and his hunters had gotten all worked up chasing a pig.  The pig broke into the thicket, followed by Jack and his people.  They right away turned on Simon, and he was the first boy that they killed.


No reason is given why they would want to kill Simon, no deliberation about it, it just happened.  I would say that they killed him because they had already known that he was not really one of them.


And this book predates most of the ~Autism~ hysteria, and the book never uses any labels or tries to explain Simon.


Most people are in the herd, and they are of it too.  They don't need to think about it, they probably are not even capable of thinking about it, they just do what the herd expects.


But some of us are not really of the herd, we think outside of it.


Autism is nonsense, Autism and Aspergers are just concepts invented to justify the abuse of children and adults.  And I think it a horrible mistake to be perpetuating and biologizing these via ~neurological difference~.


Okay, but there are people who for whatever reason seem to have Mystical Abilities, and often with High Intelligence.  Most of today's people claiming to be ~Autistic~ would probably all into this category, Mystical Abilities and High Intelligence.  Its just that once someone accepts the idea of ~Autism~ they are accepting all of its Eugenic Foundations, and this of course includes the Self-Reliance Ethic.


So for example John Elder Robison and Temple Grandin could be interesting people, were it not for the fact that their entire world view is shaped by the need to hold up the Self-Reliance Ethic and show their unquestioning support for it.


Based on a book I read long ago in college, I would say that these are the people who are probably going to get made into Shamans, Mystical Abilities and High Intelligence.  And I think I want to drop the idea of High Intelligence, as that gets to Lewis Termann and to the same sorts of Mental Hygiene and Eugenics stuff.  If someone is not of the herd, then they will have high intelligence automatically.


Really it is Mystical Abilities, and that just means not being of the herd.


Both men and women, but more men.


Book said that in primitive societies adults scrutinize children for signs of mystical abilities.  They value shamans.


When the find one, the first thing they do is separate the child from the parents.  And this does seem to be the key and the life saving step!


They are placed then under the care of an adult shaman.  Their path to adulthood will be longer and it will entail more risk.  Whereas normals reach adulthood at sexual maturity, a shaman does not reach adulthood until much later, perhaps as late as age 30.  It might entail vision quests and finding a totem spirit.


And the life of a shaman will be more risky, usually.  People may feel jealous of the shaman or threatened by the shaman.  But nevertheless, they serve an important roll.  But as Shamanism is probably something which is possible in all of us, and because it goes way back, so people have an in bread fear of it, or a fear that their child could go that way.  Separation from the parents is crucial.


A book about esotericism I read said that with most births the child resembles the parents.  But there are some births which come from above, where the child will not resemble the parents, and these births are always announced.  Citing Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptist to name but a few.





So is Shamanism ~Autism~?  No it is not.  ~Autism~ is a concept which is perpetuated to justify the abuse of children and adults.


Where does autism come from, what created it?


Autism is created by


1.  Captialism


2.  The Middle-Class Family


3.  The Self-Reliance Ethic, a capitalist over coding


4.  Mental Hygiene and Eugenics Movement

5,  and now, Resurgence of Mental Hygiene and Eugenics in service of Neo-Liberalism
96
Philosophy, Religion, Esoteric, Occult / Re: BioPolitics
« Last post by forbitals on July 27, 2019, 05:15:09 pm »
BioPower - BioPolitics



This Judith Butler, I think she is the one who really goes into how to fight against BioPolitics and BioPower.

Judith Butler, born 1956, now at UC Berkeley 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler


This video is also good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPTz0-cWDgs
97
News, Politics, and General / Re: Reply to Bonnie B., about honor
« Last post by forbitals on July 27, 2019, 04:10:28 pm »
No one is saying that Autism is an illness.  But then really, that does not mean anything.  We could say that mental illness is not an illness.  Some times ~mental illness~ is used to make allowances for people, even to get them off for crimes.  Other times ~mental illness~ is used to indict someone, even to convict them of crimes.

Autism can and does work exactly the same way, and it is used in these ways regularly.

So why would anyone want to pin a label on themselves?

And why do we want to call for "diversity" when there is no proof of difference, no benefit obtained by claiming the difference.

I walk into a café, one guy is talking with his friend, two women are talking to each other.  Another guy is eating food.  I am intending to read a book.

Which one of us needs to call for "diversity" in order to be accepted as legitimate?

Remember, the first best line of defense when you're legitimacy is attacked, is the middle finger.

Some people will attack your legitimacy, but packaging it as For Your Own Good.  Again, the middle finger, or harsh toned direct words, will usually solve that problem.

But some people need lessons in respecting people and their privacy.  So if the middle finger does not work, I will usually go into Marine Corp Drill Sergeant Mode.

Face 2 face, people do not try to mess around with me.

And so what is this Neurodiverstiy Movement, and things like the Autism Self Advocacy Network?

Well, it's the Autism version of the Recovery Movement.  It's the survivors of abuse, who have decided that they can build for themselves an adult identity, by taking the place of the doctors, and abusing survivors themselves.

Nick Walker, he rejects the high functioning versus low functioning dichotomy, but why does he feel a need to call for a ~neurological difference~ identity at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0TrcbUyjSM

Walker asks how we deal with Autistic people?  Well in the work place and in community service groups, one finds all sorts of people, with all sorts of communications styles.  So how do you deal with them?  You deal with them no differently than anyone else.  You just have to be tolerant.  I don't mean tolerant of their category of difference, and I don't mean making presumptions about them.  I mean just tolerant of them as they are.


I want to tell a brief story here, decades ago, for a while I had an autistic girlfriend.  Or rather I should say, I had a girlfriend who had been convinced that she was autistic.

I was only a year older than she, and she told me about the institution she lived in.  It was only by happenstance that I met her.

She was not different from anybody else.  She was just as communicative and engage able.

In those days I did not know anything about Autism, other than as shown in that movie RainMan.  And I thought autistics did not talk at all.

This girl was nothing like that, just like everybody else.

I still though did come to feel that it would be a mistake to keep seeing her.  The issue was simply that I thought it would be taking advantage of her.  Its not that she was disabled in any way.  It was simply the disadvantage, the compromised personhood which she was experiencing in living in the institution.  She was at a huge social disadvantage, and this did come across.

Overall I would say that she was guileless.  Her feeling were right there on the surface.  I see this as a positive.  But I also know that she would have a hard time in adolescent girl culture.  And then no tight or revealing clothes, no high heels, no makeup, no bombshell hair.  She would be targeted.

But this does not mean that there was anything wrong about her, or any reason she should have to accept a ~neurological difference~ label.

There was however one thing which stood out.  And I have seen strange issues related to this in girls before.  She had strabismus in one eye.  In my view, particularly with a girl, that will change how people react to her.

Why did the parents send her to this school?  Why did the parents have her ~accessed~?  Were the parents embarrassed by her, as comes across in many autism narratives?  Was she being targeted in a Muggle Bully School?

She should not have had to have been institutionalized.  A well run communal home would have been better.
98
Philosophy, Religion, Esoteric, Occult / Re: BioPolitics
« Last post by forbitals on July 26, 2019, 06:26:09 pm »
2019
Foucault's analysis of modern governmentality : a critique of political reason / Thomas Lemke ; translated by Erik Butler
99
Philosophy, Religion, Esoteric, Occult / Re: BioPolitics
« Last post by forbitals on July 26, 2019, 06:17:37 pm »
Thomas Lemke has written other such books, but above not in libraries yet.

http://csul.iii.com/search~S0?/alemke%2C+t/alemke+t/1%2C4%2C22%2CB/exact&FF=alemke+thomas&1%2C4%2C
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]