Parentification, when it happens to families/societies

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

  • Children whose parents’ divorce was a nasty fight
  • Children whose parents were addicts
  • Children whose parents were handicapped (physically or mentally)
  • 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 at a too young age”). distinguishes four categories of ways children deal with it, including these two:

  1. 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.
  2. The opposite of that is the child that has to remain a child; to meet the parent’s desire 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.


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)

Definition of Fascism by Merriam-Webster is wrong

The dictionary definition of fascism is wrong:

includes the statement

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

It is right in so many respects, yet becomes PC in one: it claims that fascism is racist; “exalts nation and often race”. Whie true that the facists (under Mussolini) attacked Ethiopia, where people of a different race lived. But this was only done for the greater glory of the political monstrosity called the nation.
Fascism wasn’t racist; at least it was not anti-semitic, there were some prominent fascists who were jews. It was only when the frustrated German socialists yanked the fascist strings (and even invaded Italy at one point) when jews got persecuted for their race.

Fascism was the ultimate expression of politics, and its spirit still lives on. The greater glory of the political construct (hence fable) was elevated above all other interests, including (especially) those of the people. This is eerily similar to the right-wing:

  • The right wing sacrifices the interests of the people to big business
  • The left wing sacrifices the interests of the people to their own petty pleasures.

One iftose pleasures will likely be “basking in the glory of a great nation”, this is were the lines between left and right blur: the left will find part of their desired glory in economic power (which led to Stalin’s Gulag slavery).

This is where the myth comes from that fascism means the integration of the state and the corporation: politics finds particular glory in economic power, sobusinesses get preferetial treatment. Also, because fascism is socialism, corporations were nationalized, which also fed the myth.

Argument in favor of the counterterrorism-hypothesis

It is my hypothesis that #9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (i.e. the islamic terrorist attacks there) were not terrorism, but rather counterterrorism.
Anyone who disagrees with me is free to get in front of a live TV camera and proclaim that:

#Saddam #Hussayn was a darling of a man! His regime fully deserved all the financial and operational support that #DC gave it.

It is the unending interference in foreign (Arabic, Persian, Latin American, Asian, even Russian) affairs (which I term “#theFourthReich”) that gets countless citizens killed (if one includes the citizens who got drafted or sign up, the numbers get much higher)
Therefore the original terrorism is Christian, not #Islamic. And that possibly inflaming statement is justified by the fact that it is a practical impossibilllity to get elected to any US government office, unless one is a #Christian.

Referendums in Europe

BTW, if you can find a video by Matt Carthy MEP, view it, the guy’s brilliant, #UKIP has found a worthy spiritual successor. This is a very good one by @mattcarthy

Spain had no moral right to declare this expression of the people illegal. They certainly had no democratic right to do so; a government (even a #junta) only ever has the right to listen to the people. Never any other right.

#Referendums in #Europe are a tragic cause: just look at the last 3 referendums held in the Netherlands.

  1. European constitution: rejected by a majority, so it was renamed and imposed anyway.
  2. IJburg (an artificial island in a river at Amsterdam to create more housing), rejected by 60%, but by way of a dirty trick (an advisory, not a binding referendum), the regime managed to have its way and cause all the environmental damage that 60% voted against.
  3. association treaty with the Ukrayne: the majority voted against, a blow to the prestige of PM Mark Rutte who was the serving president at the time (a rolling fuction, the person & country gets changed), so they desperately went searching for an underhanded means to,push it through anywau.

So, to sum up: #referendums (a #democratic tool) have no place in Europe, because there is no #democracy here.

Further proof: when, much to the displeasure of the political caste, the people had gathered enough autographs to enforce a referendum about the association treaty with the Ukrayne, the scumbags took to campaigning to influence the outcome of the referendum. That failed, so they did the next best thing and igored the outcone, tried to weasel their way anyway.

Don’t blame the Germans pt2

What I originally meant to say in my post was that it was correct to not sue the Quandt family for any profits made by selling batteries for V2 rockets etc. to the nazis, or by selling uniforms to the imperial army a world war earlier.

These people were just trying to make a living under circumstances they had no influence upon.


It’s true that ruthless relentless legal pursuit of business owners like the Quandts (or those behind Boeing, Lockheed Martin,etc.) is the only way to prevent future wars by scaring them out of supporting the warmonger-regimes. It’s theonly way democratic regimes may be convinced to not thrust the entire nation’s economy & security onto the dumps by picking a war of choice (vanity wars, coz: “sending teenagers into the battlefields makes us look good & fearless”)

When a country has been defeated militarily, it is in a horrible state economically, so unless the people there are able to make a living they are doubly punished for something they had nothing to do with.

So, contrary to both invasions of Iraq, which commenced after only negligible planning, any time a regime feels the need to start a war, it must take into account what happens if the war goes as hoped (as well as when it doesn’t), and provide jobs for the citizens of the losing regime, to make room for prosecution of the warfunders.

This will not sit well with the domestic population of the victorious expeditionary army’s politicians, because the war is ruining their economy as well. (Don’t let talk of the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex fool you; perhaps a few industrialists profit, but the majority of the tax victims doesn’t) This means that the war just ought not to be started at all.

Another reason to not take it out on the industrialists is that regimes tend to steer the prevailing mood among the population to breaking point, to where a certain amount of people is foaming at the mouth with warlust. This warlust will affect the entire population to see to it that it’s considered a good thing to at least not hinder the war effort.