Munchausen by Proxy – on a grand scale

One of the characteristics of the Weeping Juggernaut that bothers me most is its ruthlessly pragmatic refusal to treat the human hurt that fuels it.

This Juggernaut would not exist if there were not a great many people who were hurt – through being marginalised, or “kept down”, or worse.  Not all hurt groups are involved, the Juggernaut is selective.  Those involved are women, LGBTIQ folk and people of colour (especially Māori and Pasifika, in New Zealand).

There may be some debate about just how much hurt there is, and about how recent it is, but we all know there is some.  However much there is, this article is about what happens to that real hurt.

Usually, if you know someone who is hurt, you do what you can to help them – by helping them directly or finding help for them, including help in the form of therapy.  And you might take the trouble to remind them that there is more to them, and their life, than the hurt that has happened to them.  Remind them of the water in the half-filled glass.

A therapist would do the same.  From my own experience of receiving therapy for stress or depression, it is common for the therapist to say, “I cannot change the circumstances that have caused this stress or depression (though we can talk about what it is best for you to do), but I can help you to better manage the hurt itself so you are less affected by it or not affected for quite so long”.  Nowadays, this is called focusing on “resilience”.

By contrast, some of those advocates and champions who claim to act in the interests of women, LGBTIQ folk and Māori and Pasifika do nothing to ameliorate the hurt these people have suffered – and nothing to build their resilience.  On the contrary, they keep it alive and fresh, reminding these people that they are victims – not merely that they have been victimised, but that they are victims, that “victim” is who they are.  “Who” goes deep and implies “forever”.

This nurturing message looks and sounds like real concern and empathy.  But that’s just packaging: the content of this nurture is the very opposite of therapy.  In fact, it is so perverse and so damaging, that it reminds me of the condition known as Munchausen by Proxy:

a mental illness and a form of child abuse.  The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick.

This is a key characteristic of the operation of the Weeping Juggernaut in New Zealand and much of the modern West, except that it is happening on a grand scale. The other difference is, the people who provide this perverse nurture for their victim groups are not insane: their actions are premeditated, cool and deliberate.  Strategic, in the sense that they know this is one of the means to achieving their ends.

Unfortunately, exploiting people for power is not unusual.  Exploiting “your own” for gain is less common – and it is worse, in the sense that the exploitation relies on betrayal.

This strategy is, par excellence, pragmatism – in my opinion, the worst possible character flaw.  This is the character of those who operate Weeping Juggernaut.

When people who preach a good end are prepared to use toxic and harmful means to achieve it, it makes good sense to question whether the end is as good as they claim.

______________________________________

Sex is always epic

Lizzie Marvelly was discussing pornography in the Weekend Herald on 5 October:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12273223

Urging good quality sex education as an important step in ameliorating the impact of pornography, she bemoaned the current state of that curriculum:

While some students are learning about consent, healthy relationships, and the unreality of pornography, others are learning the bare basics about sperm fertilising ova.

She stumbled across the truth and didn’t notice.  Yes, sperm fertilizing ova is the “bare basics”.  In fact, that’s what sex is – the mundane seed of the stupendous human epic.

I find it strange to read someone who identifies “bare basics” and then treats them as trivial – like “only the bare basics”

A teaching module that claims to be about sex (eg “healthy sexual relationships” between school kids), but ignores what sex is, is misleading.  Respectful relationships are extremely important, but they’re not really “sexual” relationships if they happen without any regard to what sex is:  they are a safe mimicry of a sexual relationship.

Similarly, a sex-ed curriculum is a misnomer if it ignores what sex is.  It makes sense to talk about things in addition to the bare basics – most obviously, pleasure and love (as sex is such a wonderful bonding agent).  But, pleasure and love supplement the bare basics, they are not a substitute.  If the bare basics are set aside, the curriculum is no longer about sex.

There’s no time here to list all the problems with porn:  suffice to say I can’t think of anything to say in favour of it.  Before you get to the unrealism, dehumanisation and violence, though, the initial problem with porn is that it isn’t sex.  It just looks like sex from a distance.

Kids need to know what sex is – its bare basics and its wonderful supplementary features.  And they need to learn to keep a safe distance from mimicry – whether pleasant (as it often is) or toxic (like porn).

___________________________________

“White” what?

A recent Dominion Post / Stuff editorial informs us that a “white supremacist” group has been causing alarm at Auckland University by putting up posters.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116293520/when-free-speech-on-campus-goes-too-far

It might be true, the group terrorising the campus with posters might be a white supremacist group.  “Might be”, that’s the news.  “Might be”, because the group is not named, so it is impossible for the reader to check.  What does the reader do – trust the editor?

There was a time when I would have considered trusting a news editor.  Not anymore.

We live in era of maliciously false labelling, a practice employed widely in the media – certainly in Stuff and the Dominion Post.  The most common mislabelling is the label “hate speech”, which is attached to anyone who disagrees with “progressive” dogma.

However, “white supremacist” is another label used in the same way.  It is attached not only to actual supremacists (who believe the “white race” is superior to others) but also to people who are simply worried that the white race faces extinction.  Their worry or fear may or may not be fanciful: that’s worth discussing, perhaps some facts could calm them down.  On the other hand, the facts might justify their sense of alarm.

These white worriers may not be dangerous.  Or they may be.  It depends on what they say and do.  But they are not supremacist.  Some might also be supremacist.  But, some are not, they’re just afraid.

Another popular falsehood is that racial supremacism is always “white”.  It is clearly not true.

Consider, for example, the Nation of Islam in the US.  (I should hasten to say that this is not a mainstream Muslim organisation.)  They seriously teach that the evil white race was created artificially (by close breeding) a few thousand years ago, on an island in the Aegean.  They mean it.

I think we whites (I’m afraid I am one) also have a little Neanderthal in us (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/neanderthal-ancestry-in-europeans-unchanged-for-last-45-000-years-65364).  I suppose that’s as good a basis as any for working up a supremacist theory at our expense: time will tell.

Anyway, this kind of editorial is a part of the near-constant propagandising we are subjected to by Stuff.

_____________________________________

Out with the old ….

Thomas Coughlan recommends lowering the voting age to 16:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/116233379/let-teenagers-vote-it-wont-change-a-thing

One of his principal arguments is that we needn’t panic about possible upheaval:

History tells us that mass enfranchisement would be unlikely to change the make-up of Parliament. 

The enfranchisement of women saw more than twice as many people vote in the 1893 election as in the 1890 election, yet the margin between the main two parties shifted by less than 2 per cent

True, but that was because women (and their opinions) vary.  Even if some voted with (or against) their husbands, their votes varied because their husbands varied.

By contrast, 16- to 18-year olds are a cohort that has been indoctrinated in “progressive” ideology at school:  they are a voting-block in waiting.

Addressing the issue of competence to vote, Coughlan gets a little nasty, saying:

The strongest argument for keeping the voting age at 18 is that it is an age at which young people reach an arbitrary level of mental competence required for voting. 

It’s a fair argument – no-one would suggest giving toddlers the vote – but at the same time, we also don’t look at stripping the vote from the elderly.

This is an occasion when one makes an argument by saying one isn’t making it.  It still gets mentioned and does its work.  Like when a judge directs a jury to “ignore what counsel just said”.  Crafty, effective, hardly admirable.

This kind of insinuated insult to elderly folk is intrinsic to the “progressive” revolution:  out with the old, in with the new.  The elderly used to be considered by social justice advocates, but the phenomenon we used to call “political correctness” is not about justice:  justice is for everyone, but this movement is highly selective.

Being young is one of the characteristics you need to be gathered up in the new limited “inclusiveness”:  I guess you have to look good in a Diversity Pride March.

_____________________________________