Parentification, when it happens to families/societies

Parentification, when it happens to families, may only be the result of benign practices;

  • Children whose parents’ marriage ended in a fight
  • Children whose parents were addicts
  • Children whose parents were handicapped (physically/mentally)
  • or children of asylumseekers.

(All of which I’ll still consider benign, because there’s no harmful intent by the parents behind it);
Marinka Kamphuis, author of the book “Te vroeg volwassen” (“Adult too soon”)

distinguishes four categories of ways children deal with it, including these two:
Some provide the need of care by their parents; they support, encourage, settle; are easy going and goody. Have no chance to speak of their own needs, talking about themselves maksz them the feel being selfish or difficult.
The opposite of that is the child that has to remain a child; to meet the desire of the parent to care. These are often youngest or handicapped children that are kept small and dependent by the parents clampingonto their important role as care giver. Kamphuis calls this “passive parentification”, and according to some psychologists it is the worst possible kind. Because if one’s parents do not allow one to develop autonomy, one will not learn to take inititiative or responsability; one cannot handle disappointment. This will be a lifelong handicap.

Here I recognise the poor millennial, who was raised in a horrible manner: at sporting events they earned medals by just showing up: no matter the effort that went into the exercise, they earned a medal. Meaning their self respect never got kindled. Now they feel worthless: they try to compensate by clamping onto whatever cause gets thrust into their face and fighting for it: this means that they put maximum effort into e.g. #ClimateChange, in effect trying to please their overlords. The damage of that would be limited, but their overlords are also our overlords, so everyone gets to suffer the effects of their destructive upbringing.

Which is not their fault! It is the fault of the people that callously experimented with their youth, destroying the lives of everyone, all over the planet, in the process. Goodness forbid, but some of these obssessive activists will also enter the profession of politics, which is another nail in the coffin of the institution: another reason to abolish it now, before the damage it inflicts becomes permanent. Millennial activists are drawn to the most outrageous causes, because those have the best potential for offering self-worth. So they inflict outrageous aounts of damage, andbecone outraged when someone identifies it as such.
Another point that dawned on me when I read about parentification, is that politicians (the more socialistic, the worse it is; remember, they are all socialists to a certain degree, from left to right) parentify society, make citizens feel worthless/incompetent/utterly dependent on the care of the parental unit (the “leader”).
This in turn is harmful to society and to the individuals that make up society (in so far as there is a difference), and unlike that described above by actual parents, is done by design and for the purpose of making the politician feel awesome and awesomely needed. Providing more fodder for the position that socialism is antisocial and egotistic, and brings nothing to the world.


Kameraad Klaver wil dat zijn wet zsm wordt behandeld

Voordat het kabinet Klaver 1 valt natuurlijk.

Maar waarom eigenlijk? Ik ken die tekst niet, maar die zal zo zijn geformuleerd, dat de hoofdschuldige van de hoge uitstoot (de klup van de files; de #roverheid) buiten schot blijft; het zal niet meer zijn, dan een hockeystick om tegen het gepeupel in te zetten.

Change, revisited

Part of the reason I wrote the above post is that I’d wish the evil institution (politics) would look at how they are causing effects they claim to be upset about. Classic example: I’ve mentioned it several times already: here in the Netherlands, the people have been suffering from traffic jams, for over half a century (in 2017: 51 years! Since 1966).

And the political movements that complain the loudest about emmissions (and climate change) are the ones that spend most time frustrating solutions for the transportation congestion question. Instead of making more roads they keep repeating the same lullaby: “Bus, train!” over and over again, which has never helped; instead of learning from that, they double down on the citizenry, to teach them (us) a lesson of obedience.
Of course unless they act, a change in emmission levels is never gonna come.
Yes, they must act, because they made the law such that only they can: the people are powerless (I have a whole pile of rejection notices from parliament, announcing they’ve received my letters and chosen to do nothing with them, so there’s no excuse, certainly no “Wir haben es nicht gewüst”.)

A change ain’t gonna come unless you make it

Barry #Obama (the big O) ranted so much about #climate change, yet it never occurred to him to launch an interstate cyclepath network. That would have been such a big and easy step toward reducing #CO2 emissions from vehicles (of course, cyclists do exhale CO2 with their heavy breathing, so that’ll offset it a little bit but I doubt that it has been a factor in his decision to not realise the cycle lane (path) network).

Not meant as a cheap shot at a retired politician, but rather take this to heart: if you wish to achieve changes, you have to work on them, take steps yourself (of course, if you don’t care about change – regardless of your election promise (yaht-zaah! too obvious to let go), and are nowt but a hypocrite that wishes to dance on the ruins of dead planets, to achieve your political – and unrelated – dreams, then this won’t apply to you)

Disconcerting environment-news (climate)

I heard some fairly disconcerting news the other day: solar panels (that have a finite life span), are made of non bio degradable components, so by subsidizing them, warmists are subsidizing the growth of permanent trash heaps; governments should stop subsidizing the pollution of the planet. (They should stop subsidizing full stop, but that’s another disussion)

Brandstofaccijnzen zijn de reden van de files

Want files verhogen het brandstofverbruik (wat weer een hogere uitstoot betekent), en dus meer inkomsten voor de roverheid.
Wegen aanleggen kost geld, en verlaagt de inkomsten. En is dus dubbel niet in het belang van de roverheid (alleen van de burger, die afhankelijk is gemaakt van de roverheid, maar die vinden ze onbelangrijk).

Emissieloos autopark

De Franse en Britse roverheden hadden nog het fatsoen te wachten tot 2040 voordat ze de economie en het milieu verwoestten met het verbod op verbrandingsmotoren. De Haagse Roversbende kon niet zo lang wachten en heeft besloten dat mensen per 2030 niet meer naar hun werk mogen.

En de milieuschade is niet te overzien. Toch een poging: alle bestaande auto’s die geleidelijk van nieuwkoop tot zoveelste-hands tot recycleplek zouden afglijden, en geleidelijk aan werd dat weer aangevuld van boven, met nieuw (-geproduceerde) auto’s. En intussen worden nog bruikbare onderdelen van versleten auto’s gebruikt om andere, nog bestaande exemplaren rijdende te houden.

Maar nee: die moeten straks allemaal in 1* worden gesloopt wat betekent dat de energie die in de productie is gestoken verloren gaat. Duurzaam hoor!
Dat houdt in dat de mensen uit arren moede hun toevlucht gaan zoeken tot vervoer per paard, wat weer zal leiden tot een forse toename van o.a. tetanus en dierenleed.
En de emissies van de energiecentrales dan?