Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Evil mothers

As we know well, Leftists work hard to suppress information that disrupts their theories and claims.  And in areas where they just about monopolize knowledge, such as psychology and sociology, they often achieve near blackout.  My academic career consisted very largely of asking awkward questions and providing answers that no Leftist had considered in writing.  So I thought I knew where all the skeletons were buried.

Some information has just come to me however which took me entirely by surprise.  I heard of something happening of which I had no inkling.  Despite my many years of experience with academic psychology. I heard of something that had been completely blacked out.

The information came in an email from X, a volunteer social worker who had been at the workface of disruptive child behaviour for many years.  He is a very sympathetic person so gained the confidence of many people involved with child misbehaviour.  And what he heard was like nothing in the books.  I pass on now his words:

What is rarely acknowledged is that there exist many mothers who deliberately manipulate their children to misbehave so that the mother (single or married, but mostly single or defacto) can act stressed and give vent to her own irritation/anger and appear as if she is trying very hard like a martyr with a child that is badly behaved and wearing her down. I believe this manipulation by mothers is more widespread than most people can imagine. These sorts of mothers actually want their child to be badly behaved.

Now I will make an even more extreme claim, and that is that feminist/leftist mothers deliberately manipulate their children to be hateful, to be bullies, and to be socially maladjusted. In my role I had several mothers openly admit their tactics and motives to me for how and why they made their children so bad, and I observed many other mothers in obvious denial about doing much the same. I actually admire the ones who were open about it. At least they acknowledged it and so might change. Those in denial can’t.  

There was one little boy I worked with who was a horrid bully, frequently punching other boys on the nose, taking what he wanted from other children, and all the usual bully stuff. A few years later I met his mother. She was an absolute horror. Being fascinated by human personalities I spent several weeks chatting with her. She admitted to encouraging her boy to be a bully, to take what he wanted, to disrespect his teachers, and not to study at school, because society is bad and should be destroyed and one day it will be.

She told me she expected one day to shoot her brother and bury him in the forest because he comes and sponges off her. After telling me all about her horrid nature she started getting awkward, kindly holding my dustcoat out the way so it would not drag on what I was doing while also brushing my dick with her hand at the same time.

Not the sort of woman I wanted to get involved with, and one I expected would not hesitate to cause me problems if I upset her with rejection, so I acted completely dumb and talked about the job I was doing and other things like I was very focused on them and didn’t notice what she was doing. Its not usually too hard to make women like that not like me and leave me alone in that way. I act dumb and let other men look better.   

Another mother told me how she was training her 11 year old boy to be violent, to smash a neighbour’s car windows and pile rocks on the driver’s seat to make him late for work and annoy him because he’s an idiot, and because she thinks its good to have violent sons.

She also told me she is preparing her 18 year old son to one day beat up her defacto husband and throw him out of the house all beaten up because he is a weak and useless man. She said the defacto was not a real man like her previous husband who would beat her up if she gave him trouble. She said the current one just sits on the couch and trembles and cries when she insults him and tells him he is a useless man. She said one day he will crack and get violent with her and then her son will bash him and throw him out.

Those were two cases of rather gross behaviour by mothers. I have many more cases of more subtle tactics that take longer to describe what they do. I think the subtle tactics are worse for many reasons.

Other extreme cases in which I did not meet the mothers, only the sons, were some criminals in the prison when I was doing volunterering. Most crims are raised by single mothers.

Of course crims are commonly liars but I think I got pretty good at telling what was true and false of what crooks said. To assist my counselling I had access to their criminal records, prior psych assessments, prior psych notes, judges summaries of their court cases, etc.  So it was easy to get a pretty full picture.

I wanted to in the correction system. The psychs I worked with kept to only doing the minimal ordinary part of their work, but I have always explored the outer reaches and peripheries of all my jobs. One crim, a serial sex offender against underage girls, was kept away from school for half of most of his primary school years by his mother and was kept stoned on cannabis and LSD, and of course she had sex with him too.

His mother was a welfare worker. She ran the first needle exchange program for junkies in one of our state capital cities. Last I heard she was still working in welfare, but in another state capital.

These details were in various reports and even the judges summary but as far as I know his mother was not investigated or charged.

Many of the crooks report all sorts of abuse from their mothers. My fellow workers were always reluctant to put that in the crims counselling notes though, but they didn’t mind noting when crims were abused by males as children. The stats have to be incorrect because the feminist psychs don’t want to face and report abuses by mothers.    

Via email

UK: Labour’s identity politics amounts to bigotry

The left loves to lump people by sex or ethnicity and fails to see that this creates more division

Nasreen Khan, who until recently was shortlisted for a safe Labour council seat, claimed a few years ago that schools were “brainwashing us and our children into thinking the bad guy was Hitler” and asked: “What have the Jews done good in this world?”

Apart from earning about a quarter of all Nobel prizes, formulating the theory of relativity, founding psychoanalysis, pioneering game theory and DNA computing; helping to invent synthetic fertiliser and creating vaccines for cholera, polio and measles; producing Roth, Kafka, Proust, Heller, Mailer, Salinger, Pinter; giving us West Side Story and The Wizard of Oz, Mendelssohn and Mahler, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Saving Private Ryan, Google and Facebook, I’m struggling.

Last week Labour finally dropped her, but she’s not the only figure in the party to rue old comments recently. There was Jared O’Mara, the suspended MP for Sheffield Hallam, who had made comments online about “poofters” and a man being “sodomised to death”, as well as various sexist remarks.

Then there is Emma Dent Coad, the bafflingly not-suspended MP for Kensington, who called the Tory Shaun Bailey, who is black, a “token ghetto boy” and “ghetto man”.

The remarks are different, but the common denominator they reveal is something poisonous in parts of the Labour Party: a tendency to put people in boxes, to see the minority status first and the individual second. You might imagine that a so-called progressive party would champion the message that what matters is the content of our character, not the colour of our skin, our sexuality, our gender. Time and again, though, they come back to an obsession with identity and difference.

Before the 1983 election the Conservative Party released a poster which encapsulated the parties’ contrasting approaches to identity. It showed a black man with the caption: “Labour say he’s black. Tories say he’s British.” Since then Labour’s habit of seeing the minority and not the man has only become more pronounced. I never fail to be irritated by their politicians’ ability to speak sweepingly of large groups of people as “communities” with necessarily common interests, when such “communities” are united only by gender, race or sexuality.

In recent years we have had the hideously patronising sight of Harriet Harman and other Labour women travelling the country in a pink bus to “speak to women” before the 2015 election, treating women as a wholly separate tribe with separate interests.

Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has brought more right-on appealing to minorities, encapsulated in his boast that “only Labour can be trusted to unlock the talent of BAME people”, as though the talent of black, Asian and minority ethnic people were something intrinsically different from that of white people.

There are good electoral reasons for doing this, of course. Set yourself up as the only defenders of minorities, make people see themselves foremost as members of a minority, and sweep in the votes.

But it is all so loathsomely condescending, so divisive and so absolutist. Many on the left have a remarkably rigid view of the world: a stubborn cleaving to stereotypes that allows them to see all of life as a great struggle for justice, a fight between the oppressors and the oppressed. All those living in poverty are then helpless victims of “the system”, whatever choices they’ve made. All Conservatives are cruel and selfish. All wealthy people are money-grubbers who deserve to be squeezed until the pips squeak. All women must be interested principally in “women’s issues” or they are betraying the sisterhood. All big businesses are capitalist predators conspiring to rinse the economy and our pockets. And, of course, all ethnic minorities must fall into line and vote Labour.

After Ms Dent Coad’s slur on Mr Bailey, the MP Clive Lewis, sometimes hailed as Labour’s next great hope, doubled down on the offence she had caused by tweeting: “If you think you can fight racism and be in the Tory party then I guess this conversation isn’t going to go very far I’m afraid. If anyone has any understanding of the structural reality of modern racism, you’d not come within a country mile of a Tory membership card.”

Not content with calling Mr Bailey “boy”, Labour now tells this man that he simply doesn’t understand modern racism. Labour owns minority concerns, see? To be in the party, with its noble aspirations to equality, creates a force field against criticism.

Yet what some on the left fail to see is that by endlessly categorising people as minorities and catering to separate “communities”, you do not liberate them but leave them stuck in victim status. You cast them not as individuals but as needy cases who will only thrive through leg-ups, positive discrimination, quotas. You deny them all autonomy.

As Kemi Badenoch, who is black and also a Conservative MP, said in the wake of Ms Dent Coad’s comments: “My message to young black people everywhere is please, please feel free to be who you want to be. Don’t let Labour’s stereotypes and low expectations hold you back and never let them treat you like black sheep who will always follow them.”

The truth is that it is not through the odd comment on social media that Labour perpetuates racism, sexism and homophobia. It is in constantly dividing us into different “communities”, putting people in boxes according to minority and attempting to keep them there. It is this attitude, not a few bad apples, that really needs to be rooted out.


President Trump: Stop The FEMA Religious Discrimination

Last Friday, a Houston federal judge rejected FEMA’s attempt to delay a challenge by three Texas churches asking for equal access to disaster relief aid. The judge also set a December 1 deadline for FEMA to change its position or he would issue a ruling. Since the devastation by Hurricane Harvey in late August, FEMA has denied houses of worship access to federal disaster aid grants while allowing other non-profits to apply. Judge Keith Ellison’s ruling in Harvest Family Church v. FEMA suggests that the end may be near for the agency’s policy that explicitly discriminates against houses of worship because of their religious status.

The three churches – Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God –sued  Churches FEMAFEMA on September 4, because of the agency’s policy of excluding churches. The churches received overwhelming support, including friend-of-the-court briefs filed by a Houston synagogue and the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. But since the start of the lawsuit, FEMA has continued to shut houses of worship out of the disaster relief grant application process. The ruling Friday repeatedly refers to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, which ruled that the First Amendment requires religious groups to receive equal access to widely available public programs.

“Christmas may come early for hard-hit houses of worship in Texas—the Court has set the clock ticking on FEMA’s irrational religious discrimination policy,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at Becket, the non-profit religious liberty law firm that represents the churches. “It can’t come soon enough.”

Judge Ellison heard arguments in the case on Tuesday. Friday, he denied a request by Department of Justice lawyers to delay the case and gave FEMA a December 1 deadline to change its position or he would issue a ruling. In his ruling, the judge recognizes that the Churches’ challenge is a “First Amendment case,” that the Churches here have suffered “significant damage,” and that FEMA’s exclusionary policy is “fraught” with constitutional issues.

“Discriminating against houses of worship—which are often on the front lines of disaster relief—is not just wrongheaded, it strikes at our nation’s most fundamental values,” said Blomberg.

Kate Shellnut of reports that their case brings up the precedent set by the US Supreme Court’s recent Trinity Lutheran playground ruling, which stated in June that a church could not be kept from applying for a public grant “solely because it is a church.”

FEMA’s public assistance program focuses on organizations providing public services, so it excludes “facilities established or primarily used for political, athletic, religious, recreational, vocational, or academic training, conferences, or similar activities.”

Since many churches use their buildings for both religious purposes and for charitable outreach to the public, FEMA clarifies the eligibility of mixed-use facilities and explicitly bars organizations that put on “religious activities, such as worship, proselytizing, religious instruction, or fundraising activities that benefit a religious institution and not the community at large.” Religious nonprofits that run secular community centers, that are open to all, and do not host any worship activities, are an exception.

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in the Trinity Lutheran case brought up how “the court leaves open the possibility a useful distinction might be drawn between laws that discriminate on the basis of religious status and religious use.” FEMA’s policy likely falls into the latter category.

“They’re not asking that FEMA give them the money; they just want a place at the table” to apply for it, said Blomberg.

Houses of worship were among the first to respond in Harvey’s aftermath and they continue to provide aid to their communities. While the court heard arguments on Tuesday, Hi-Way Tabernacle was unloading several tractor trailers of food and goods for distribution to hundreds of people in their community.

Though houses of worship cannot apply for money to offset response costs or to rebuild damaged buildings, FEMA policy lists churches among the facilities that are typically used as emergency shelters.

Hi-Way Tabernacle, an Assemblies of God congregation outside of Houston, is hosting hurricane evacuees for the third time:

As of September 4, the church was sheltering between 60 and 70 people, with more expected. The Tabernacle’s gym has been transformed into a warehouse for the county, storing and distributing food, water, hygiene products, and clothing. Over 8,000 FEMA emergency meals have been distributed from the Tabernacle’s facilities. Relief workers are using the facilities to provide both medical services and haircuts to victims. The Tabernacle has been informed that governmental disaster relief helicopters may be landing on its property as well.

In the first few days of flooding, the City of Houston called on several churches to serve as official temporary shelters, and many others opened their doors on their own. Now that recovery and cleanup efforts have begun, churches continue to collect and distribute materials and prepare damaged homes for renovation, rallying together as “the faith-based FEMA” that often turns out after major disasters, reports Ms. Shellnut.

Samaritan’s Purse is operating out of five areas affected by Harvey, dispatching over 2,000 volunteers. World Vision has collected supplies to help around 100,000 people displaced by the storm. Send Relief and Southern Baptist Disaster Relief are providing hot meals, clean water, and other necessities.

FEMA has already approved $66.4 million in Hurricane Harvey relief funds. During previous storms like Katrina and Sandy, affected households received between $7,000 and $8,000 in assistance on average according to Kate Shellnut’s reporting.

Bizarrely, says Becket, FEMA’s current policy discriminates against churches while at the same time using them for its own relief efforts. The policy also stands in defiance of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran, which appears to protect the right of religious organizations to participate in widely available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.


Loading your tray at the Social Justice Cafeteria

By Alex Beam 

I see that the pitchfork people are coming for Woody Allen. His movie “Wonder Wheel” opens next week, and there is talk of a boycott to protest Woody’s numerous crimes against humanity.

Allen may be the greatest comic writer of the 20th century, for those of us who remember his lapidary contributions to The New Yorker in the 1960s and 1970s. I’m not sure the magazine has ever published work as funny as “The Whore of Mensa,” or the chess-by-fax parody “The Gossage-Vardebedian Papers,” And yes, I know who S.J. Perelman is.

What was Woody’s unforgivable transgression? He had an adulterous affair with his stepdaughter, to whom he has been married for more than 20 years. In the course of a vitriolic divorce battle, he was accused multiple times — and exonerated multiple times — of molesting another stepdaughter.

I’ll read the reviews of “Wonder Wheel” and take it from there.

Welcome to life in the Social Justice Cafeteria! Eat this! Don’t eat that! While Hurricane Weinstein was blowing through town, my wife and I were watching a TV series produced by the Weinstein Company, “Trapped,” a goofy Icelandic police procedural — and saw the logo flash across our screen every night. Should we have turned the television off?

Should I never watch my favorite movie, the Weinstein-produced “Shakespeare in Love,” again? Hey, cinephiles — will you stop watching “Casablanca,” arguably the greatest movie of all time? I read here in the Tablet that its producer, Jack Warner, was “a serial exploiter of women . . . who may well have invented the casting couch.”

I am shocked, shocked.

Speaking of eat this/don’t eat that, Globe food critic Devra First recently ventured into a Chick fil-A restaurant, reminding readers that Boston’s late mayor Thomas Menino pointedly uninvited the chain to set up shop here, because of its chairman’s outspoken support of “traditional” marriage. “Where do we draw the lines about what we consume?” First asked, and it’s an interesting question.

The lines are sinuous indeed. Guess who opposes same-sex marriage? The majority of my co-communicants in the worldwide Anglican church. And yet I pop up at the altar rail a few dozen times a year because, well, I choose to. The state of Israel doesn’t perform same-sex marriages, and yet I’ve travelled there twice, and would again in a heartbeat.

Boycott the NFL? Why should I? If, like me, you are still watching pro football, you are in pretty deep. You are apparently comfortable with paunchy white men raking in enormous amounts of money on the soon-to-be-shattered brains of promising young athletes. You somehow rationalized Baltimore Ravens star Ray Rice smashing the bejesus out of a defenseless woman on videotape.

Even though I deplore Donald Trump, it somehow doesn’t bother me that every member of the Patriots’ Holy Trinity — owner Bob Kraft, coach Bill Belichick, and the Gwyneth Paltrow of quarterbacks, Tom Brady — has been shilling for him since Day One.

Football isn’t a morality play, and it doesn’t claim to be. It’s a violent spectator sport that mimics the ancient drama of battle to huge, appreciative audiences, including me.

The problem with over-analyzing the menu at the Social Justice Cafeteria is that you risk starvation. Bad people do great things, and mediocre people do very little at all. Our world was built with the crooked timber of humanity: the just, the bent, and the halt; the brilliant, disturbed writers who marry young girls; and the God-like quarterbacks who won’t eat tomatoes, for some crazy reason.

Welcome to it.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: