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.


Scientific evidence against the state (psychology)

Psychological studies demonstrate that mankind is not suited for the concept of political leadership.

I just read an interview in psychologie Magazine nr.1 from 2016 (yes, its old…) with professor of evolutionary psychology at the Vrije Universiteit (Free University) in Amsterdam, Mark van Vugt. In that interview, Van Vugt revealed some conclusions from studies into leadership (both elected and leadership in general). I translated this quote from page 90 of the magazine:

Our brain has been formed in a time that leadership – then physical in nature – was primarily a physical matter. Bodily qualities (muscular strength, tallness, willingness to take risks, courage, et cetera) were important. But in our time, those qualities are demonstrably less important: most leaders work in offices and don’t have to impress or intimidate or directly compete. Instead they must take big decisions for large groups of people in complex environments. Yet, job-interview committees still have a prehistoric way of looking at their candidates and primarily choose tall, strong men that exhibit bravery, while the job really has other requirements.

Question: Did such mistakes not occur in prehistory?
It never happened that a stranger got to be in charge of a group of hunter-gatherers. Everyone knew the person they chose as leader through and through. Not only physical qualities but also his personality, because people continually lived among each other. Meaning that there was no possibility for deception. Nowadays, for lack of other information we still use rater superficial properties, such as tallness, charm and a letter of motivation.
One’s followers chose one to be their leader. Because one displayed good ideas and demonstrable qualities. Leadership arose bottom-up. In primordial times, there was no social inequality, there were no possesions, so not so much competition between people.

Psychology has long been based on a faulty image of man. We should more often ask ourselves: what is the evolutionary origin of our behaviour? What are the purpose and the mechanism behind it?

Elsewhere in the interview, he mentions studies that have demonstrated that greater equality leads to better results than authoritarian leadership. From which I draw the conclusion that political leadership (despotism) is undesirable : it’s better to have a society where millions people are not forced into a subservient role, due to a lack of political power, or political prowess (backstabbing, lying, cheating, deceiving)
That’s not the type of equality that socialists like Bernie Sanders, or Jesse Klaver (leader of GreenLeft, the cryptocommunist watermelons that are responsible for so much environmental damage) talk about, which in fact is the exact opposite.

In random order, I would like to summarise two further proofs of the undesirability of (political) leadership, the two Stans.

The first Stan:
Phil Zimbardo’s “Stanford prison experiment”
This study demonstrated that people can’t handle being in charge of other people, they’ll,end up tormenting their underlings.
This was dreadfully emphasized in Abu Ghraib prison.

The second Stan:
Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority” (“the electrocution study”)
This study demonstrated that people are unsuitable to being lead, being given orders, because they have the unfortunate tendency to follow them, even when the effects on innocent people are horrible: such distress that death is a real risk.

Goelag 4: hedendaagse politiek 2 (toekomstige)

In Rusland, is men zo gewend aan de Goelag (iedereen heeft wel een familielid dat in de Goelag heeft gezeten), dat het weinig opzien baart in de volksgeest.
En #Poetin wil dat die smet op de landsgeschiedenis geen aandacht krijgt. Denk je eens aan de westerse staatsterreur: stel dat er geen #revoluties komen die de ahterhaalde gedrochten van natiestaten de prullenmand van de geschiedenis in vegen, hoe zouden toekomstige generaties dan omgaan met de schande van de staatsterreur/het continentbrede fascisme, die er nu gebeuren / dat nu in opmars is?
Hoe zouden toekomstige generaties daarmee omgaan? Als ze slim zijn zullen ze  het van zich afschudden en doorgaan met hun leven. Tenslotte hebben niet burgers dat gedaan, maar politici. Sommige burgers juichten misschien wel die politici toe, maar zij hebben zich laten beïnvloeden door de demagogen. En ja: ZIJ (die goedgelovige burgers/politici) moeten zich schamen – het is maar de vraag of ze dat kunnen – maar het is nergens voor nodig dat ze zich gaan schamen voor het wangedrag van de politici, zelfs al waren ze uit eigen vrije wil & tegen beter weten in zo goedgelovig om zich voor het karretje van manipulatieve politici te laten spannen. Zet gewoon die politici aan de kant en ga je eigen gang. Veel beter om zulke toekomstige dilemma’s te voorkomen.
Stel dat sommigen het zich wél gaan aantrekken, wat voor gevolgen zal dat hebben? Het is nu (2017) al politiek roerig, kun je nagaan wanneer men zich gaat opwinden over dat men o.a. #MKUltra / #Waterboarding en #GuantanamoBay heeft toegelaten ( dat heeft men niet gedaan: de #politiek wilde het, en over politiek heeft de burger niets te zeggen)


I just realized: those assassins, that manned the towers along the iron curtain, what was wrong with them?
What drove them to it, to kill their fellow human beings?

  1. Sadism?
  2. The urge to blindly follow orders? (Milgram/Nuremberg)
  3. Bloodlust?
  4. Fear of reprisals?
  5. Bribery (salary)?

Re 1: The desire to keep their fellow humans from escaping the open-air prison
Re 2: part of the “2 Stans” / the Nuremberg defense (I was just following orders)
Re3: the wish to kill people, since government is an institution of #aggression, it isnit surprising that it would attract people with a propensity for this
Re 4: this would become an infinitely long list of people willing to shoot each other
Re 5: Even so, it would involve sadism, because surely some border-assassins would some day find out that live was hell for the people, and they had a very good reason for wanting to escape, and border-murderer was quite a lowly job in the hierarchy of government, quite far removed from the snobby party-apparatus (elite) which got the serious amounts of money/privilege, and kept their hands clean. Besides, I thought all socialists were supposed to make the same salary, diferentiation in reward for different jobs (meritocracy) was a capitalist thing, Marx preferred “to each according to his need.”

2 Stans

The “Two Stans” offer definite proof that humans are not suited to living in political arrangements. They are two notorious psychological experiments:

  • Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to authority” (the one where subjects were to fake-electrocute other people)
  • Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford #Prison experiment.

Milgram’s electrocution experiment:
Tested how far people were willing to go, applying electric shocks (potentially lethal pain), to innocent people, when instructed to do so, by an authority-figure (Milgram himself, in a lab coat), over some flimsy excuse.
It found that disconcertingly many people were willing to administer extreme amounts of pain/danger, so people are not suitable for following orders, due to a tendency to actually do so, without consideration for the results on their fellow human beings.

Zimbardo’s Stanford University prison experiment:
Tested how people behaved when equipped with power over other flesh and blood beings. The results where quite disconcerting. It’s as if a switch got flipped: the students rabdomly assigned the role of prison guard, showed a proclivity for quite sadistic behavior toward their fellow students, randomly assigned the role of prisoner.
So, people shouldn’t be made to have power over others, because Lord Acton was right: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

#Nationalisme is een reactie op ongewenste prikkels

#Nationalisme is niet meer dan een reactie op de nadelen van het hooghartig opgedrongen transnationalisme: ongevraagd een vreemde mogendheid (#EU) de macht geven over een volk dat nog denkt in #nationalistische termen, leidt tot afkeer van het transnationalisme en dus een stijging van nationalistische sentimenten. De overheid leidt het volk, nix democratie: parlementen zijn oligarchiën.

Dat kenmerkt de mens, of eigenlijk ieder levend wezen: hij/het reageert op prikkels. Soms zijn die reacties uiterlijk zichtbaar, zoals een van pijn vertrokken gezicht als iemand zich prikt of snijdt, sommige reacties zijn minder goed zichtbaar, zoals wanneer iemand geconfronteerd wordt met continue #agressie door almachtige dictatoren, dan vreetdat aan de ziel van de persoon. Kijk maar naar “Russian Car Crash Compilation” video’s op om te zien wat ruim een halve eeuw #communisme heeft gedaan aan het Russland’s sociaal besef: gneraties aan mensen die zo geïndoctrineerd zijn om hulpeloos te zijn. Dat is trouwens wat de despotische regimes in Den Haag voortdurend voor elkaar boksen (mensen zich hulpeloos laten voelen, of machteloos?) door goed te luisteren naar wat het volk wil, en precies het tegenovergestelde te doen.