My father's ancestors were first founded in Berwickshire and his ancestors led the first Virginia settlement.
My grandfather's ancestors on my mother's side, were commonly believed to be of French origin but were more accurately of Viking origin, they invaded France and settled in Normandy, then Northhampton. A family name capable of being traced back to Hastings.
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Wowman, learn use to use quote marks to differentiate the quoted material from your sermons.
It looks like this ----> " "
Get it?
[and btw., for posting a youtube video, you----> [youtube] link [ /youtube]
Did he do this to you? All this bitterness as a result of loving him too much
Abraham's faith and commitment were a test. Abraham's confidence was so firm he was willing to relinquish the gift, (Isaac) and throw himself into the arms of God and have trust and faith in his forgiveness.
"God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son," he said (Gen. 22:8, NIV). He was so confident he said to the servants, "Stay here.... We will worship and then we will come back to you" (verse 5, NIV). Cross reference Genesis 17:2 "Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." God revealed himself as one who does not condone sin and yet is merciful.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37187 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You know it was a "test" after-the-fact. For Abraham it was a command.
And he was willing to sacrifice, with his own hand, his own blood, to the voices in his head. Some would call that insane, but it is also effete, and degrading. Any "God" so vain, demanding such symbolic acts to make himself above BLOOD, I no god of mine. He belongs to the Jews, and they can have him.
Any people who must cut a piece of the penis, off, mutilate a boy, to mark him as the symbolically castrated follower of god, deserves the god they've constructed as their ideal image of themselves: vain, petty, life-hating.
Would I sacrifice an enemy? Definitely, and with pleasure.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
The Wowman's handler, whoever that "fine young man" is who "advised her to ignore me" should take notice of how she displays her personal obsession and incoherence, for my asking her to soruce her comments properly, unless of course he too is only emotionally wired,,unless of course there's no such supporter in the first place and she simply made him up.
-
Wowman wrote:
Did he do this to you?
He does a lot of things to me.
Quote :
All this bitterness as a result of loving him too much
Cant get over him even after two goodbye videos? No one else will do, no? I can understand.
But that's another matter. Its deplorable when you scratch at my panties because you want me to love you. Are you jealous of what I give him? Its not a movie set, dear. We do not play Henry and June here, dear.
Anymore incoherent or unrelated remarks in the middle of a serious thread, or improperly sourced unformatted replies [no quotations, no links, no reference to the material you are providing], I will send those posts to the dungeon. Does just hearing the word love soothe you?
Does it soothe you to project yourself into me and imagine me with him?
Do I (ful)fill your fantasies?
I can now understand your attraction, your obsession with me... Satyr does have that charisma.
If you want to start a personal thread about how 'I' [i.e.you] love him or how 'I' love him too much or how 'I' f---ing love him too much, keep your inane projections in the dungeon, or you are always free to just 'go combust in a corner'.
-
Wowman wrote:
Abraham's faith and commitment were a test. Abraham's confidence was so firm he was willing to relinquish the gift, (Isaac) and throw himself into the arms of God and have trust and faith in his forgiveness.
"God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son," he said (Gen. 22:8, NIV). He was so confident he said to the servants, "Stay here.... We will worship and then we will come back to you" (verse 5, NIV). Cross reference Genesis 17:2 "Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." God revealed himself as one who does not condone sin and yet is merciful.
Abraham's lack of surprise and the very fact that God stalled the sacrifice TO PLACE HIMSELF as the FATHER AS THE LIFE-GIVER, just goes to show J-Xt. advocates genetic severance and promotes memetic covenants to define itself.
Again,
Heisman wrote:
"God is almost identical with the defining ability to change one’s “source code”. While DNA, the “source code” of biological life, has been largely unchangeable until recently, Judaism took a leap forward with a systematic Mosaic override of the highest rules of behavior. The laws of Moses were an innovation comparable to a prospective artificial intelligence’s ability to change its own source code. By taking a step towards changing the sociobiological source code of the Jews, the non-biological intelligence of Mosaic law launched the ultimate messianic trajectory of monotheism. The final step in this trajectory for biological humans is the transfer of the informational content of human biological roots into the memes of a digital computational technology.
The deepest roots of Biblical monotheism demonstrate its deepest rootlessness. Abraham’s willingness to kill his son Isaac at the command of God is the classic demonstration that God is not be confused with family values or biological values. God is not slavery to the laws of genetic preservation. Abraham’s willingness to kill his son represents the ultimate, irreconcilable conflict between genes and memes; the ultimate conflict between the rule of biology and the rule of God. The end logic of monotheism was latent in its beginnings." [Suicide Note]
And biblical stories about a "father" told to kill his one and only son, to prove what a pussy he is to God...and Jesus telling boys to leave their families and their commitment to them, if they wish to be with him....
This entire nihilistic culture is anti-family, anti-blood, anti-past/nature/heritage. Children told that if they are not to be considered "losers" they must leave their families at 18 to become good servants to the system, and that they ow nothing to anyone but themselves; women told to feel ashamed about their commitment to family, to a man if he is not like her, a female in spirit; old parents cast aside, like garbage, without care.
This is truly a war.
My thoughts exactly.
Divergense wrote:
Why don't you go first, FC?
What's your relationship with your ancestry?
Concerning my parents, for a while I fell for the propaganda that says you have to reject your parents to be free. That was a bad time. It didn't work, as I am very close to them, it caused me a lot of heart-pain and of course it just complicated the relationship I had with them. Thankfully I became aware of what I was doing, and saw how stupid and ungrateful it was. It was easy to change the pattern back to a healthy relating as this has been my impulse all along -- I had truly fallen for Freud's bullshit.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
I acknowledge that 'I am' due to the genetic make-up of both my mother and father.. I am interested in looking into my parents' history and I am proud that I have such ''exceptional'' (in these times) parents. My family is shettered in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Sweden. We came only together in Sweden, from all these places, to celebrate my great-grand mother's birthday. But since she died 1 and a half year ago, the center is gone and thus all falls apart. Truly a great person she was, and her daughter, my grand mother also.
My mother is born from a Flemish father and a Swedish mother, in Sweden. She grew up in Flemish Belgium and speaks and understands 5 languages. My father is of Dutch-German ancestry. Born in the Netherlands, grew partly up in Germany and moved back again to the Netherlands all in his youth. He speaks 4 languages. Both like to read; as a child he was memorizing the Dutch translation of the poetic Edda and I can recognize myself in him by his search for a religion in his youth but did not eventually.
That is exactly what I was talking about. I actually thought about teaching my children (which I don't have now) the Eddas, a while after I had written this. Nice.
Families fall apart when the patriarch or matriarch leaves the stage - so many conflicts come to the surface. In the best case, all the involved realize their shared gift of life and respect their differences. But they will see less of each other and grow in different directions. People can even come to hate each other, when each sees how the other fall from the tree and rolls down the hill of his own necessities.
Ancestry-cults are designed to prevent such differences to turn into feuds, as well as to protect common ethnographic preferences of which most of the individuals may not be aware, but which mark a segment of the human tree nevertheless.
Quote :
Thus, shortly told how they met. My father wanted to go to the North Cape on his bicycle from Eindhoven just for the sake of personal achievement and his love for sport and to be in nature. My mother wanted to go to Sweden on her bicycle to visit her family, and of course liking to be outside in nature. Thus she left from Nieuwpoort in Flemish Belgium. They met, I believe in Denmark, both spoke Dutch, went in the same direction and decided to go together. From one came the other.
They still have a lot of old news paper articles in which they told their stories, I am interested in delving deeper into it to better understand their past and possibly, gain more selfknowledge - after all, I have their genes.
My first memories are in Sweden, my father took me out of kindergarten to travel for 6 months in Sweden and visit family together with my grandmother of my mothers side. Tents, forests, mountains, catching my first fish, lakes, visiting rocks with runes, rowing in boats, having fun with my father, grand and great grand mother, my first bike; Carmina Burana and Yodel to be my first taste in music. Instead of being filtered within the educational system from year 3; I have had a privilege for having such an life fundament.
To introduce a child to the elements must be one of the most gratifying works nature ever devised for herself. This is much better than trying to cultivate the spirit of a child by granting it all its wishes. A child does not know what there is to wish for.
Beautiful Sweden. I've only seen the southern tip of it but the people impressed me with an extremely relaxed rationality, and a very obvious health. I must say that people in Noord-Holland aren't too unhealthy looking either. The Dutch in general are pretty robust and well rounded - the only problem with them is their opportunism and mistrust of noble ideas. That is from living amidst them and speaking in general. I have much higher opinion of the North-Sea-coast people, they are uninhibited. If you walk on the North-Dutch beach on a summers day, the chirping of children is disorienting, psychedelic - amazing freedom, in every single person except those that are flaunting themselves, one or two lost souls.
Yes, I have recently gained the strange and unexpected confidence that here in the North of Europe an untroubled human type is being raised. There is a lot of money here and a great lack of care for the truth, especially in politics. A combination of social arrogance and athletic ambition - very offensive in some cases, but generally a sign of an awakening spirit.
the chirping of children is disorienting, psychedelic - amazing freedom, in every single person except those that are flaunting themselves, one or two lost souls.
Yes, I have recently gained the strange and unexpected confidence that here in the North of Europe an untroubled human type is being raised. There is a lot of money here and a great lack of care for the truth, especially in politics. A combination of social arrogance and athletic ambition - very offensive in some cases, but generally a sign of an awakening spirit.
Quote :
"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves. Alas, the time is coming when a man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man." - Nietzsche
I wonder if it is not necessary to shed Nietzsche's pessimism. Now that the last man has become a reality, it is of no use talking about him anymore - we can only begin the work of figuring out how to isolate the still-vital humanity from the dead pool of settled-in commonality.
Abraham's faith and commitment were a test. Abraham's confidence was so firm he was willing to relinquish the gift, (Isaac) and throw himself into the arms of God and have trust and faith in his forgiveness.
Confdence would lead one to defy even God or what seems like God. That is confidence and that is love, especially parental love. If it were to turn out that God is an uncaring evil shit, then I would stand against God. And it would be God's or god's (in demiurge situations) own fault, since my nature does not go along with sacrifing my kid. God messed up in creation if that's what he wanted from me. For all Abraham knows God thought he failed the test, what are you a robot, Abraham? I expect my toaster to toast on command but you are a human:
Further Abraham did not know it was a test. And let's look for a moment at what God as a Father is doing, there. One of his children, Abraham, is being asked to kill his own child. What loving father would tell his son to kill his son as part of a test?
Quote :
"God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son," he said (Gen. 22:8, NIV). He was so confident he said to the servants, "Stay here.... We will worship and then we will come back to you" (verse 5, NIV). Cross reference Genesis 17:2 "Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." God revealed himself as one who does not condone sin and yet is merciful.
God actually acted like some spoiled rich noble fucking with one of his servants. Not that I think that was God in Abraham's head.
There is such a thing as dishonorable, were there not there would be no such thing as honorable.
Honoring, respecting, whatever, the dishonorable, is one of the most disempowering things a person can do to themselves. It is mental/emotional slavery. It's what old losers want the young to do, because they are mediocre and lack power, so all they've left is to condition a pristine view of themselves in the minds of the young. The old and The State protects the old from the young through unending manipulation...now why might that be?
There is honor in providing, rearing, for one's offspring as well as choosing and carrying on line of descent; this being the starting point. Ultimately, honor here goes both ways.
Last edited by Hrodebert on Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
There is honor in providing, rearing, for one's offspring as well as choosing and carrying on line of descent; this being the starting point. My parents and select other ancestors can go fuck themselves for all I care. That said, I don't blame them for my miserable existence. I appreciate a lot they have done for me, but ultimately honor here goes both ways.
I never needed a psychology book when all I had to do was observe my relatives, they being the kind they were! Like a hothouse of assorted M&Ms.
But for whatever it maybe worth, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There is honor in providing, rearing, for one's offspring as well as choosing and carrying on line of descent; this being the starting point. My parents and select other ancestors can go fuck themselves for all I care. That said, I don't blame them for my miserable existence. I appreciate a lot they have done for me, but ultimately honor here goes both ways.
I never needed a psychology book when all I had to do was observe my relatives, they being the kind they were! Like a hothouse of assorted M&Ms.
But for whatever it maybe worth, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Ha, right?
My gratitude, Kameradin.
Hrodeberto
Gender : Posts : 1318 Join date : 2014-07-14 Age : 37 Location : Spaces
Just a tangent from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Had to look up this "deFooing"; means detaching away from one's "family of origin".
Shows some murky history with Molyneux:
Quote :
"Bradshaw confronted the truth that you may have a family so dysfunctional, you can never have a healthy relationship with any of them. At that time, you may need to abandon your Family Of Origin, as he termed it, and create your own Family of Choice. Again, I suspect that Bradshaw is the owner of that idea. But, as you can see, Molyneux neatly amputated the healthy part of the idea (creating your own Family of Choice) and concentrated solely on abandonment…."
Seems like it began with jesus' idea being "normalized" into today's circumstance, as "white Xt.", where "white" is in that flimsy way of identification.
Dont know what he did with the concept; I dont follow his channel.
Had to look up this "deFooing"; means detaching away from one's "family of origin".
Shows some murky history with Molyneux:
Quote :
"Bradshaw confronted the truth that you may have a family so dysfunctional, you can never have a healthy relationship with any of them. At that time, you may need to abandon your Family Of Origin, as he termed it, and create your own Family of Choice. Again, I suspect that Bradshaw is the owner of that idea. But, as you can see, Molyneux neatly amputated the healthy part of the idea (creating your own Family of Choice) and concentrated solely on abandonment…."
Seems like it began with jesus' idea being "normalized" into today's circumstance, as "white Xt.", where "white" is in that flimsy way of identification.
Dont know what he did with the concept; I dont follow his channel.
I found an essay;
Molyneux wrote:
"Are People Just Stupid? There is one thought that has occurred to every libertarian at one time or another:
Are people just, like, stupid?
It’s a fair question. The news is stuffed full of government failures. No one likes paying taxes. Everyone knows that politicians are corrupt. Everyone is sentimental about the death of this monstrous Pope – the doddering bigot who covered up pedophiles and condemned homosexuality and birth control. (A good friend of mine, when asked what he thought of the Pope’s death, replied: “It’s a good start!”) The great mystery is: why on earth are people so blind to the tyrannies that rule them?
Another way of asking this is: If we’re so right, why do so few people agree with us?
My wife and I have come up with two solutions. Mine first, since hers is better.
In the turn of the last century in China, girls of a certain class went through a tortuous process known as ‘foot binding’. Through years of excruciating manipulations, their toes were curled inward, towards the balls of their feet, so that in the end they could barely walk. This was done because men apparently liked women with little feet. (Naturally, it was the result of a lack of free markets – women could not earn their own way, so they were utterly dependent on the whims of men.)
Let’s suppose that you were a little Chinese girl at the time, and for some reason, you escaped this brutal practice. You can walk easily. But all the women around you are hobbled, and can hardly get around. Is this really such an incomprehensible situation? Are you the fittest, most athletic woman around? Of course – but only because your feet were never bound!
It is exactly the same with libertarians. For some reason – the subject of another article, surely! – we escaped the general ‘mind-binding’ inflicted by church doctrine, State education and cultural bigotry. (Just as a hint, for the most part it seems to do with having unconvincing authority figures early in life.) The natural intelligence that is the birthright of every child flowered in us – and makes us now tower over the general herd, just as a free-footed Chinese girl sped in circles around her groaning and crippled companions. It is not our intelligence that makes us so much smarter, but the general crippling of others.
So people cannot understand freedom because their minds have been crippled through religion, dogmatic cultures and State schools. That is my explanation. My wife’s is, I think, much more complete, since it incorporates an elegant solution that I need a entire separate article to articulate!
For my wife, everything comes down to the family. People can quite easily understand freedom, but the social cost for them to do so would be far too great, so they scorn it and pretend ignorance. As she puts it, if people grasped freedom, what would happen to their relationships? They’d have to break with their families, end their marriages – quit their jobs perhaps. Everything would have to change!
Thus it’s not that people are stupid – they just can’t handle the effects of letting even a hint of real freedom into their lives. If they have children, they’d also have to take an honest look at their own parenting. And at their own parents of course.
But so what? What’s the problem with shaking things up? Why is it so difficult for people to break out of unhealthy or unproductive relationships?
The answer is, in my view, because mental health has always been defined in social terms – a combination of sustained relationships and productive work. In other words, a popular Auschwitz guard with a long marriage is the very definition of mental health. Moral considerations do not form the basis of mental heath – a compliant Nazi is considered more ‘healthy’ than an outcast one. This form of ‘social ethics’ is largely due to the Jewish influence over psychology. It would be hard for a Jew to say that individual morality is more important than social acceptance, since to be ‘Jewish’ is to automatically place the authority of the group over the conscience of the individual – just as Christians, socialists, Muslims and soldiers do.
This problem of ‘social approval’ is a cancer right at the root of modern psychology. ‘Solitariness’ is always considered sick. Therapists generally consider that a patient who is terminating a multitude of long-term relationships is acting in an impulsive and self-destructive manner. In particular, breaking off relationships with family members is considered only a last resort, usually reserved for physically abusive parents or spouses. Everything else is supposed to be ‘worked out.’
Of course, quite the opposite is true. Of all the relationships in your life, your relationship with your parents and siblings is by far the most likely to be completely screwed up. Not only that, but you also have absolutely no power to improve these relationships.
Harsh? Not at all. Merely logical.
When raising children, parents have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Why should children obey them? Because parents are right? Hell no – ask parents why they hold their beliefs, they don’t have a clue. How could they? The last competent philosopher was probably John Locke, over three hundred years ago. The general social stream of ideas is just muck and confusion, designed by evil people to baffle and paralyze any good souls that accidentally emerge from the sick swamps of modern thought.
Average parents can no more reinvent morality from scratch than they can build a Space Shuttle in their backyards. Still, they have to get their children to obey them – how do they do it?
Oh, the usual suspects. Guilt, shame, withdrawal, criticism, bribery, bullying, manipulation – the usual crap that has passed for parenting throughout history. Guilt, shame and bullying always rush to fill the void when logical morality loses favour, because children must be taught, and if no carrots are to be found, sticks will always just have to do.
So face it: your parents were bullies, or weak curriers of favour, or manipulative emotional infants themselves. You have no respect for them, for respect requires courage, and courage requires logical morality. You do not love them, since love demands virtue, and manipulating children into blind obedience is not at all virtuous. There are only a few possible responses to modern parents: - Contempt - Indifference - Boredom - Hatred - Empty conformity
These are usually mixed into an over-stimulating frappe of conflicting emotions, leaving family gatherings fraught with tension, alienation, dissociation and emptiness.
You are told to repair things with your parents, but that is an impossible task – a complete waste of time that will also make you crazy. Since they hurt you when you were young, you cannot fix the relationship. To make the point with an extreme example, if you are raped by a man, you cannot cure him of his desire to rape. Maybe someone else can, but you cannot. Since your parents bullied or bribed you into blind obedience, you cannot help them become better people. Maybe someone else can. A therapist perhaps. But not you. You have no hope, since their guilt about how they treated you will always muck up any attempt at honest communication.
And really, it is impossible to forgive someone who has bullied a child. Forgiveness is for repairable events, like being distracted or breaking a vase. A bad childhood cannot be repaired or returned intact. Where restitution is impossible, forgiveness is impossible. Don’t even try.
Does this sound too radical? Do you think it extreme for me to say that almost all parents are horribly bad? Perhaps it is. However, if you look at the state of the world – the general blindness and the slow death of our liberties – the challenge you take on by disagreeing with me is this: if it’s not the parents, what is it?
Either the world is not sick, or parents are. Because, as my wife says, it all starts with the family. If you want to perform the greatest service for political liberty, all you have to do is turf all of your unsatisfying relationships. Parents, siblings, spouse, it doesn’t matter. If you can do that, you can speak honestly about freedom.
If you can’t, well, then you have no right to complain about the government. You can’t ask people to give up their illusions about remote political tyrannies if you can’t escape your own domestic tyrants."
While it def. makes sense socio-culturally,, can also see how moving away from family of origins [State as the ultimate parent] to family of choice tallies with Libertarianism, when 'atheism' and break from families unconsciously committing J.-Xt. thought-crimes simply means shifting to stirnerite white-individuality.
Molyneux taught orphaning oneself as as a way to get out of bad familial relationships. He said to treat all family relationships as if they weren't family at all. If it's a good relationship, stay. If bad, leave.
Throughout his shows/call-ins he was always skeptical of a person who suggested they had a good relationship with their parents. He thought there must be some kind of abusive aggression being performed. Rarely, if ever, did he suggest to stay in a family relationship. The N.A.P. applied to all relationships.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"Whenever a criticism is lobbed at Stefan Molyneux of FreedomainRadio, whatever the cause of the criticism may be, someone will attach a criticism of “DeFOO”. DeFOO is something of an acronym for “Departure from the Family of Origin”. At the most basic level, the idea here (as I interpret it) is that it is entirely possible, even likely, that one’s relationship with their family, the parents in particular, is destructive and should thus be severed. When put that way, it may sound mild. One who was uninitiated in the larger discussion taking place may wonder why it is so controversial. The controversy in question roots itself in what many would see as a broad definition of the term “destructive relationship”. Things many people see as normal, such as spanking of children, raising of voices, even political disagreements or unwillingness to discuss certain topics may all fall into this realm if one listens to Molyneux long enough. Ultimately, the premise is that your relationships should all be voluntary, including those with your family, and that your relationship with your family should be just like all your other adult relationships. Criticisms may range anywhere from “It’s not that simple” up to and including “He’s a manipulative cult leader hell bent on destroying the family for his own financial benefit!”. The hyperbole is obvious to me in the latter example, but the reasoning for it makes a great deal of sense.
Challenges to Discussing the Subject of Family
Family is a difficult subject for many people to discuss. In its personal nature, its only peer is sex. Various cultural norms, political implications, legal issues, religious notions, emotional concerns, biological imperatives, and economic matters surround the subject, and thus we often have very strong feelings on it. We all have certain expectations of family, many of which are often in conflict. Not only may one’s expectations of family conflict with those of my other family members, but one may have two or more expectations of their own which are diametrically opposed. For those reasons and others, the limited discussions we may have about the concept of family often resemble our discussions of politics or religion. Unless we’re in agreement, they can frequently be mired in hyperbole, superstition, hostility, and negative emotion. All this negativity is generally preferable to avoid, and thus the topic of family, at least as a philosophical concept, is off limits in much of polite society. Our unwillingness to discuss the subject necessarily leads to a fundamental lack of understanding. When we lack understanding on something as fundamental to society as the family, let us not act surprised when we find ourselves with negative outcomes. Worse than that, many of the few who will touch on the topic will tend to discuss it in ways that won’t upset anybody. Upsetting people need not be the goal, but if one is willing to prioritize tranquility over truth, then truth is likely to become elusive, and take tranquility with it. If your discussions about a concept as personal and convoluted as family are not upsetting to anyone, you really might as well be talking about unicorns.
Familial Obligation
I suppose the key issue here is what one owes one’s family. Emotional support, loyalty, time, material resources, and even physical defense are frequently exchanged within familial relationships. These exchanges are often semi-communal, without any solid measure of account. Thus they can result in unequal exchanging of value, and leave people feeling less than whole on the transactions. If one were to take more out of that relationship than they put in, and then depart therefrom, we can easily predict a conflict on the horizon. This really breaks down into two separate categories. The first would be simple ancestry as a source of debt, the notion that one has an obligation to a family member due to blood ties alone. The second would be obligations incurred during the course of the relationship, for example taking care of one’s parents in their old age, in exchange for the parents taking care of them during their childhood.
Blood as Debt
Blood ties are a scarce resource. For our entire lives, we will only have one biological mother, one biological father, two biological grandmothers and grandfathers. Brothers and sisters may be more or less numerous, but it would be uncommon in most places to have more than two or three, and nearly unheard of to have more than eight. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and the like may be more or less numerous, but scarce and irreplaceable nonetheless. Aside from the religious, cultural, and political implications of these ties, they are the first social and emotional bonds that we build growing up as children. We’ll necessarily build familiarity with these people over time and there’s a certain amount of intimacy that comes with this. Additionally, there may be certain medical benefits in these ties. Just the knowledge of family medical history can be helpful in preventing, diagnosing, and treating disease. In the event organ donation enters one’s medical picture, family members make ideal candidates. So there’s clearly some value to be assigned here, but there is just as clearly no objective legal or moral standard one can apply. As an example, if your brother who you grew up with came looking for money, and you were in a position to give it, you might say to yourself “It’s my brother, I have to help”. However, if a long lost cousin, or perhaps a half brother you had never met from one of your father’s youthful indiscretions came looking for money, I imagine most people would feel quite differently. Thus, it is not the blood creating the sense of obligation, but the familiarity, and perhaps the expectation that the favor would be returned if you found your roles reversed. Should a long lost blood relative show up on the doorstep one day, some value would likely be assigned to it, but likely a far lesser one than that of anyone familiar to us. In any case, the only people who ever chose blood ties were parents who chose to give birth to children. One cannot legitimately incur debt involuntarily. What value one assigns to blood ties is a subjective value judgement that each individual makes for themselves, not an origin of debt.
Repaying Time & Resources
Human beings are not born self sufficient. There are [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. At the very least, they are obligated to delegate that responsibility to someone else through adoption prior to abdicating the responsibilities of care and feeding for their offspring. To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Then there’s the issues of time and effort, changing diapers, caring during sickness, perhaps even paying for a college education, and all manner of things that are all but exclusive to the parent child relationship. Most of us will outlive our parents, and most of our parents will require some level assistance in their old age. The societal expectation is thus that in exchange for raising us in our youth, we take care of our parents in their old age. This is considerably different than the question of blood ties. There’s a measurable exchange of efforts and resources going on here. Molyneux makes the case that this is still not an origin of obligation. Our parents after all made the choice to have sex and give birth to a child for their own motivations. We had no choice in the matter. Foisting a debt upon someone without their consent is slavery, goes contrary to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and is thus invalid as a moral and legal concept. One may still suffer some sense of obligation, be it from societal, religious, or cultural influences, but one does no wrong by shrugging these influences off. To say otherwise would be like saying the paper boy can throw a newspaper on your lawn every day for a year without you ever signing up for a subscription, then show up and demand payment for something you never wanted to begin with. Only now the debt is in the mid six figure range.
Cause for DeFOO
As mentioned earlier, much of the controversy surrounding this subject lies in what many consider to be an overly broad range of causes for the severing of ties with one’s family. Moyneux has even been quoted as saying “Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there – the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.” This would tend to imply that DeFOO is not just a course of action an individual should take in the case of extreme abuse. Rather it is a near if not completely universal instruction that everyone should sever ties with their parents. That’s a fairly radical statement. Indeed if one listens to the Freedomain Radio call in shows, they will frequently hear Stefan turn nearly any discussion into a probing of the caller’s childhood. That probing almost invariably uncovers something Stefan would describe as abuse. Whether he makes the suggestion during the call or not, Stefan’s prescription for addressing an abusive childhood is generally DeFOO. It is however an interesting analogy, and one worth pondering.
The 10th Century Medicine Analogy
Bad Medicine
Doctors who bled patients, affixed leaches to their bodies, and prescribed prayer as medicine necessarily did a great deal of damage, and presumably without any indication of positive benefit. Despite watching patient after patient suffer and die, they continued to accept payment for services they had no reasonable expectation would effect a positive outcome. This kind of behavior went on for many centuries, and even modern medicine suffers no shortage of quackery. It is difficult not to draw conclusions as to character of the people who did these things. These “doctors” were taking advantage of sick people, and doing violence to them for financial benefit. Imagine if today a clinic opened up down the road from you which promised to regrow the limbs of amputees, cure AIDS, or cancer, or autism. Imagine the treatment prescribed was to be repeatedly punched in the stomach. Imagine the price of such “services” was so high as to put the children of the infirmed into debt. When this “treatment” failed, and the “doctor” continued to practice it, surely every right thinking person would view them as the personification of evil. No matter how many other clinics of this nature opened up, the obvious pattern of abusing the sick would be reprehensible. We wouldn’t say “well, he did the best he could” or “you have to consider the time”. He did violence to a disadvantaged person for his own benefit, saw that there was no positive outcome, and continued to do it anyway.
Bad Parenting
Likewise, one need not even look into all the formal studies that have been done on the results of spanking and other violence towards children to see that it has no positive outcome. It is easily observable that it does not work. If spanking prevented bad behavior, then spanking would cease to be necessary at some point during the child’s upbringing. Instead, parents tend to stop spanking between the ages of 10-13. This certainly isn’t because bad behavior ends when one becomes a teenager, far from it. Rather, they stop spanking because the child has both the mental capacity to realize they are being victimized, and the physical strength to resist the attack. Even non-physical abuse like shouting tends to end around nearly the same time. Once your kid stops cowering and begins shouting back, you realize that reason is easier than trying to victimize and intimidate them. Reasoning with a toddler is difficult, while force and intimidation are easy. Forcing and intimidating a teenager or young adult is far more difficult than reason and persuasion. Parents victimize children for no other reason than it is the path of least resistance, and the proof is that they resort to reason the second the power dynamic shifts. Given that most if not all parents who unleash these harms upon their children suffered these things as children themselves, it is difficult to believe claims that they didn’t know any better. Imagine applying that standard to anything other than the relationship between parent and child.
Power Disparity
For a 200lbs man to punch a 200lbs man is generally considered socially unacceptable. Outside of a handful of circumstances, it is also legally actionable. For a 200lbs man to punch a woman of any size is generally deemed to be far more reprehensible. Men typically have upwards of 40% more upper body strength than their female counterparts, and are thus capable of doing more damage in a violent conflict. For that same man to punch someone in a wheelchair, or someone who was mentally challenged, or even another man in control of his faculties but significantly smaller, are all seen as far greater crimes than a man who fights a man his own size. It need not even come to physical violence for us to see the problem here. For someone to shout at, take from, or otherwise victimize or intimidate someone who is smaller or weaker than them, is no different than 10th century doctors defrauding the sick. Legally, these power disparities are reflected in the sentencing and in the nature of the charges the perpetrator would receive. Socially, almost none of us would want to associate with a wife beater, or somebody who assaulted cripples and retarded people. The aforementioned power disparities pale in comparison to the power disparity between parent and child. Not only is there a massive difference in size and physical strength, the child is hopelessly dependent on the parent for their very survival. The abused spouse, the cripple, and the mentally defective person all have infinitely more choices in how, and are infinitely better equipped, to deal with their physically stronger attacker. The child has but to suffer at the hands of the people he or she is led to believe love them the most. This will influence all of his relationships and opinions and decisions for the rest of his life.
No Restitution
If I accidentally back over your mailbox, ding your car, or otherwise cause you some loss, I am rightly expected to make you whole before the conflict is resolved. This is typically done through money or labor or some other exchange of value. Some things are irreplaceable. If I were to accidentally kill your child, or otherwise destroy something of sentimental value, I may well be held to some sort of monetary damage, but I cannot restore that which was destroyed. I cannot make you whole after that kind of loss. If someone does any of these damages intentionally, out of malice, or even out of negligence, there is an additional penalty to the restitution. If a sober person backs over your mailbox, he pays up. If a drunk person runs over your mailbox, he pays up and goes to jail. If a sober person runs over your child and takes her life, he pays up. If a drunk person runs over your child and takes her life, he has everything taken from him and goes to prison for murder. So what restitution is there to make for a parent who assaults and intimidates a child, simply because it is easier than reasoning with him? A childhood cannot be replaced, and the wide ranging impact that those influences will have on his relationships and decisions for all of eternity are immeasurable. In large part, the parent of the same gender is the model for self, and the parent of the opposite gender is the model for spouse. So why do we act surprised when a majority of marriages end in divorce? People are absolutely miserable, and it is because they have been trained since birth to suffer and stay in abusive relationships. Parents don’t just destroy the childhood with their abuse, they destroy the childhood, the marriage, and love itself. Not only for their own offspring, but for the whole of society. There can be no restitution for this, the damage is done, and it is irreparable. One might make the attempt to forgive it anyway, but nothing short of a complete renunciation of the behavior, a thorough willingness to work through the issues, and honest repentance can even begin to make this plausible.
Santa, Jesus, the State, and other Deceptions
Shortly after a child is taught the lessons of force and intimidation, he learns the lesson of deception. He is given religion before he even learns to understand the words the priest utters while pouring magic water on him. He is then given perversions of that same religion with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. At some point he is told that Santa and the Easter Bunny, fictional characters he had actual evidence of in the form of gifts and candy, were fake. They were stories his parents told him, knowing they were false. Stories they worked into elaborate schemes and spent years sneaking around at night, spending money, hiding the truth of. All for the sake of getting the child to behave, and for their own satisfaction to watch his eyes light up for that brief moment in between abuses. Those joyful fictional characters, they’re fake. That all knowing, all seeing, ever judging deity on the other hand, well, he’s real of course. No more extra presents under the tree, no more free candy, no more happy magic, just the ever present threat of burning in a lake of fire for all of eternity if you disobey them or have the wrong thoughts. Needless to say, he’s been in public school for quite a few years before these deceptions even get questioned. On the off chance he figures out the threats of supernatural violence are fake, it is imperative he be indoctrinated into the cult of the omnipotent State, and threatened with violence here in the real world. There he’ll learn that the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], are the brave saviors of mankind. Should he question that wisdom, he’ll be promptly drugged into compliance. Should he resist he will be forced and institutionalized, preparing him for jail and prison later on down the road. These deceptions are just as destructive as the aforementioned force and intimidation. The child learns from his earliest memories that loving someone is to deceive them. That lying is not only okay, but a gift we give to the people we care about.
The Family and the State
After 18 years of force, intimidation, and deception, the child is now prepared to vote. Take a look around. Explains a lot, doesn’t it? “Of course the State is good! They lie, cheat, and threaten me with violence, just like my parents. Look how much the government loves me! I vote for more violence and deception from the State, that’s how I express my love for society!” Free stuff? Must be from that magical figure! A man with a gun orders me around? It’s for my own good. I’m thrown in a cage for an extended period of time against my own will? Just a time out, while I learn my lesson. They told a massive lie, then went to extraordinary lengths to cover it up? It was just to make us happy. It doesn’t matter how badly they treat me, I owe them unquestioning obedience. The people out there who pretend they can separate our political problems from our family problems kid themselves, and they do so at the cost of millions of lives and immeasurable economic catastrophe.
The First and Second Rules of Family Club
1. You do not talk about Family Club 2. You do not talk about Family Club This has larger implications, of course. Since the family is tied to everything, you really cannot talk about anything. You cannot talk about family club, and thus you cannot talk about religion, ethics, morality, politics, economics, philosophy, the cycle of violence, or anything of substance. Don’t you dare question the legitimacy of the State! Of course God exists, now shut up before he strikes you down! Stick to weather, television, and restaurant reviews, lest you upset the matriarch and be blamed for ruining dinner. Remember, Family Club has more in common with Fight Club than just the first two rules. This is where you learned about violence, the hard way. The school of hard knocks is not a university, it is a home study program. So unless you want a refresher course in your mid thirties, you will keep your mouth shut and go with the flow.
But, But, But…
Whatever the excuse inserted after this utterance, it will be the final straw for many a libertarian. Whether it be “the times” or “how I was raised” or “I didn’t know” or “god/State said” matters not. One does not get to lie, threaten, assault, and manipulate, causing immeasurable destruction in the lives of people they claim to love, and then just blame it on someone or something else. One who were at all interested in resolving the conflict, who had any interest in putting forth even the slightest symbolic bit of restitution, would not begin by attempting to abdicate responsibility for a lifetime of wrongdoing. Even as they attempt to deflect and avoid this inevitable collision, they only make themselves the immovable object in the path of the unstoppable force.
You Ask “Why DeFOO?” I ask “Why Not?”
The reward for sex is pleasure, not a debt slave. One does not produce children, and then hold them liable for all the wants and needs of the parents. One does not manipulate, deceive, threaten, and assault, then pin guilt to their victim and tell them to shut up. Unless a parent can honestly say they have engaged in none of the behaviors listed here, a thing I think most people with children today would have as difficult a time doing as a 10th century doctor would have saying he did not bleed his patients, the question is not “Why does my child want to sever ties with me?” the question is “Why has this person suffered me for as long as he has?” While I personally disagree that parent/child relationships are identical to other adult relationships, they are close enough that we need not suffer under them for our entire lives. If I sit down next to a stranger in a bar, and he farts, I will likely move away just to avoid a foul odor, and I don’t have much cause to come check on him in the future. My parents get a little bit more leeway than this. But somewhere between walking away from a flatulent stranger, and blowing one’s brains out to avoid [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] with their parents, is the DeFOO line. Where on the spectrum that line happens to land is a subjective value judgement that everyone must make for themselves. The decision should not be taken lightly, and certainly not made by one’s favorite YouTube personality. For many people however, the choice will become clear. They can either suffer a lifetime of guilt, fear, and manipulation, or sever ties with their family, begin healing, and attempt to find some happiness in life."
If MRAs were those who frowned at child-support,, these libertarians are infantiles in reverse hedonism, advocating 'defoo' against any obligations to parents.
A parent ought to take responsibility for bringing a child in this world and the attitude of not wanting to burden their children, but anarchist individuality is hardly the path or the way that is going to cultivate such an attitude in the present individuals who will become parents - libertarians will only perpetuate MRAs.
To expect nothing back should be the result of acknowledging a selfhood that is more than the present temporal boundary, the realization that we only ever "pass the light on", that we hand it down with our particular stamp on it…
This self-ishness is different to the libertarian advocacy to expect nothing because, "nobody owes anyone anything", etc.
This kind of hedonistic self-stunting selfish-ness is typically J.-Xt. in origin.
The conditions necessary to create the attitude that one must Want to take on duty to one's past, as well as one's future, is how line-ages can be linked to organize the pooled diversity of strengths and weaknesses into a multi-sourceful rich economy and the strength for it.
Else what emerges are "pale shades", no personalities that will tend to weak parenting… and the cycle of absent fathers and mothers, tending to defoo libertarians… endless.
Let me also add that some abuses are hard to detect, - indoctrination or unconscious passing off of ignorance as "tradition" or "family custom" - as amply evident in the "Normalization" of Xt. as among the Alt. Right. Any ignorance can proliferate thus and encrust further into a type, esp. in an external environment that equally validates such ignorance. When ignorance multiplies, you are left with poor capacity to even question anything. There is a thymotic depletion, until decadence or suicide or ressentment,, or in rare cases, as in Heisman, questioning oneself even if, only to death as a self-therapy. Some break out, most are swallowed.
This is why as N. warned, one needs a culture of daring, where Freedom is defined not only as the emancipation from something, but must also be the emancipation from emancipation, i.e. to be grounded to something, to be limited by something. To will greater and greater resistances to one's freedom of becoming, rather than willing freedom per se.
I.E. Aristocracy is an aesthetic science around the notion of the "twice-born" - not by Freeing oneself from one's past, but Fulfilling oneself Off one's past in great willing and willingness.
It is not a breaking off defoo, but an emerging from as a bearing towards.
The typical parent imposes his will on his child wanting to protect the child from his or her own regrets. It takes a strong will to pull back and allow the child to go through its own mistakes. It's hard to do but you can only teach what you've learned from your own experiences and then let go.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
When the human-world validates ignorance and encloses all around, the trust in self and one's faintest instincts alone is refuge to dare past what's Certain and what appears "Objectively evident" and given. Audacious-Subjectivity to build towards an uncertain future is the necessary Vitality to break past the solipsism of logic relooping into more logic, into more logic… and self-validating itself in endless "verifiable" constructs.
This going solo into uncertainty, is the opp. of MGT"ow".
Audacious-subjectivity is not the dwarfing of appetite, but the Lust for developing and lending spirit to one's character.
This lust is life's own lust to grow, to expand, to dominate, to assert… beyond cost/benefit, pain/pleasure, that First determines criterion from its vitality, than resigned to criterion determining it…
Great standards are only born from daring and courage.
Nietzsche wrote:
"A firm reputation. - A firm reputation used to be a thing of utmost utility; and wherever society is still ruled by herd mentality it is still today most expedient for everyone to act as if his character and occupation are unchangeable, even if basically they are not. 'One can depend on him; he stays the same': wherever society is threatened this is the type of praise that means the most. Society sees in this person's virtue, in that person's ambition, in the thoughtfulness and passion of a third dependable ever-handy instruments. This is a source of great gratification to society, and it bestows on this instrument-nature, this staying-true-to-oneself, this immutability in views, aspirations, and even vices its highest honours. Such esteem, which blooms and has bloomed everywhere alongside the morality of custom (Sittlichkeit der Sitte), fosters 'character' and brings all change, re-learning, and self transformation into ill repute. However great the advantages of this mentality may be elsewhere, to the search for knowledge it is the most harmful kind of general judgement, for it condemns and discredits the willingness which a seeker after knowledge must have to declare himself against his previous opinion and to mistrust anything that wishes to become firm in us. The attitude of the seeker after knowledge, which is incompatible with a 'firm reputation', is considered dishonourable while the petrifaction of opinions has all the honour to itself - still today we must live under the spell of such standards!
How hard living is when one feels the judgement of many millennia against and around oneself! It is probable that the search for knowledge was afflicted for many millennia with a bad conscience and that there must have been much self-contempt and secret misery in the history of the greatest spirits." [JW, 296]
One makes no progress simply being wary of deceivers, but by developing Vitality to emerge from the worst disasters, even more stronger, beyond all cost/benefit hedonism.
This is self-selection before Life's own open sea of facing its greatest boons and awesomeness of power [without deteriorating] and its terrible, awefulness of power [without deteriorating].
In preparing oneself within grand life, one sees the deceptions of humans as inevitable nausea that accompanies every great growth. - the meaning of the Overman.
One does not fight against a dis/ease with reason, but with greater health; with rheason.
One does not fight against deceivers directly that drains one's effort, but expand the horizons of knowledge, that is attained only with daring, that all delusions come to dwindle to an insignificance on their own.
Self-selection in such manner, selects out the rest through effortless-effort.
