Putting the student in the center...

just got this cartoon from a friend, click to make it larger.

Quite tiredly, thinking loudly: Something that has been spoken about for the last fifteen years here is “To put the student in the center.” At the same time we teachers shall compete in ways we didn't earlier (or have I forgotten how it actually was earlier, am I idealizing earlier times? But this doesn't mean I want old times back either, because it was probably other things then I don't want back now).

Fifteen years ago individual salary was introduced here too. And there are probably other similar things that was introduced then...

We are played out against each other. And many were skeptical to this and still are, thought many would become ass-kissers.

I thought the idea behind this was quite insolent too; as if we hadn't done a good job earlier and put a lot of efforts on doing a good job!

How many teachers try to prove how great they are through their students (even more than before)?

These wonders make me think further: to prove they/we are worth, love for instance? The (unconditional) love we didn't get as kids?

To prove our worth through students, in a similar manner as parents use their kids as outer signboards? Fulfilling the parents needs...

So are the students put in the center or are things done for their best?? Yes, for whose best are things actually done?

Has it become more fun working than it was before?

No, I would say.

Team work is a new model too. But do we work better together today than we did? For a good cause?

When I returned from the last vacation I also thought that

“'The state' isn't that actually WE, all people? We together? All human beings living in a country (or society)!? Not the politicians or power people, definitely not more than all we other people!? We are all entitled to raise our voices and call things in question!? And maybe we ought to do this too?”

Politicians, power people, governments aren't more than we grassroots are actually in this respect? They have only gotten our authorization, and nothing more. And actually, they ought to know this and be aware of this!?

Even in today's world we need to cooperate! We are dependent on each other, in similar, the same or different ways as earlier times' people. We are both strong and fragile, no matter if we are rich or poor.

See earlier postings on unequal societies and the connections to the health (not only among the poor, but also among the rich).

Cynicism and moral…

We have been told (brainwashed with the propaganda) that all people are misusing the systems. The ones in the highest positions in the society have shown little or no moral or solidarity when there has been financial crisis the last almost two decades.

In many people this leads to resignedness and dejectedness:

“What can one do? You can’t do anything!”

This dejectedness in turn leads to cynicism in (too) many people.

“If all other people do, why shouldn’t I?”

and that’s bad and dangerous? How is this for the whole system and the world?

But from where does these feelings stem actually?

Is it the child’s hopelessness? The child’s feelings that it had no options? Feelings of powerless and helplessness? And the child didn’t have any options; it just HAD to find itself in her/his situation. But an adult usually have much more options. Some therapists for instance mean that we have options where we don’t believe we have (also see here about Past Reality Integration Therapy). But those feelings say something about our childhood and the helplessness then. Things we haven't gotten the opportunity or help to integrate.

In some people it just leads to dejectedness (a sort of paralysis and a feeling that it’s no idea trying to change anything, because everything is beyond my power) and in others to a cynicism:

“If other people, why can’t I…?”

People who are less harmed react differently? They act on things and do this in a more constructive and efficient way?

That "the power" is abusing its power (wherever it occurs) is no excuse for other people to do the same I think. Who shall set good examples? And that we have been abused once is no excuse either for us abusing other people or systems I think.

And this (strong) tendency in many people (because of their early history) is also used (quite cynically and deliberately) by propagandists walking the power's errands!? The phenomenon of polarizing and splitting people in dividing and ruling. Also something we were taught early in life by our parents probably, who used this method to make their children obedient and submissive.

The significance of childhood for how healthy the politics is that is practised – and is possible to practise…

When I was writing the recent blogposting about solidarity I came to think of something I read in one of the books John Cleese has written together with his therapist Robin Skynner “Life and How to Survive It” (the Swedish edition). I wrote a blogposting in Swedish about this.

First I want to add that I don’t believe in all their ideas on why people get psychologically ill, are having psychological problems or how to come to terms with them.

However, here I want to quote a little freely from the chapter about "changes for everybody."

Politicians dividing people in ”we” and ”them”, whom always need somebody to blame when things have gone wrong, aren’t really psychologically healthy.

They have less contact with the reality and their opinions are less gone through. Instead we are seeing their deep-rooted emotional attitudes (whom they maybe aren’t aware of).

On average they are more polarized, more prejudiced towards political opponents and thus less capable of seeing the whole picture and work towards the most reasonable compromises, as the soundest in every party are capable of.

Both Stalinists and Nazis were very authoritarian and totally paranoiac.

Differences, disunity and debate are important to be able to make proper political decisions, for they show the whole row of possibilities and through comparing and choosing among those we can make changes in consensus (without manipulation or brainwashing or anything: my comment).

See earlier postings about cults.

The soundest politicians have a lot of other interests in life besides the politics.

The sounder have less needs controlling other people. They are less interested in power for its own sake and more anxious or eager sharing it, as far as possible, giving power to other people in the society.

And when changes are desirable they try to bring those about through convincing people, instead of forcing changes on them. But again: not through manipulation. Sooner or less people will see manipulation through. And if they don’t we will see the results anyway; in a less good working society, workplace, family etc.

The people in the current system getting power are maybe the ones that least of all should have it. But the ones who ought to have the power are held back by the others, because that’s how our system is working. You obtain influence in a party by investing all your time and energy on it – something you are more apt to if you are obsessed by it and don’t have any other real interests.

Thus it’s the human beings whom have less on the side of politics, and the ones with the greatest power-hunger, who get disproportionate big influence and force the sounder and more moderate holding more extreme opinions than they should have otherwise. Which in turn increases the polarization further and conjure more extreme opinions up than most people usually would entertain.

The governing in Great Britain has largely consisted of foisting minority opinions on the citizens, with the result that a great part of the population don’t feel represented in the political process(es).

I wonder: Can this demoralize people? Create cynicism in the worst case and create cynicism if it continues a longer time?

The decisions that are working are the ones that are obtained through a thorough and open discussion where diverging opinions are welcomed and listened to, leading to a real and widely spread unity or in the worst case that decisions are taken by a management one feels is acting with the WHOLE systems best for its eyes.

A bit ironic: for our own good!!??

But this sounds a little as the Summerhill school!

One-sided (or badly supported: my addition) made decisions aren’t lasting. Instead of solving problems they maintain the sad processes in the political apparatus that makes so decisions never are what they ought to be, but always are an exaggerated reaction against the last one-sided decision. The result becomes an endless oscillation between extremes giving overcompensation for what you have lost on the earlier decision.

My comment: The ones that are governing are in many cases governing through dividing and ruling.

The result can become a society that is less sound, more authoritarian, more polarized and group-selfish.

My comment: Exactly what we are seeing.

The trick is finding people whom are less one-eyed.

My comment: why are people one-eyed? Why don’t we have healthier leaders? Or healthier societies?

If I use rhetoric people are paying back with the same coin and we don’t get anywhere. Only in the healthiest contexts we are safe/secure enough to encourage all becoming independent and to express what they feel.

Yes, as the meetings at Summerhill!?

Freedom for the big corporations in US – the freedom’s place of origin on the earth…

Blogging in a hurry. One commentator to this video on youtube:

“This really reminds me how PRIMITIVE human beings are. What beasts we really are. Groups of people still trying to control groups of other people. Human beings are still on that 'Dominate the people and land' mindset; perhaps more now than ever before in human history. What a disgrace humans really are. It's fucking disgusting.”

Another commentator:

”yes and all over the world, it's called the New World (dis)Order...and they view us ALL as slaves, and expendable...doesn't matter what religion, color, country, you are. there's lots more of us than them, they just use divide and conquer to further their evil agenda at the expense of the human race; their love of money and control at the expense of the true values of honesty, and morality will doom us if we don't stop being the sheeple ..wake up and take back OUR power, the power of the PEOPLE.”

The video is taken from here. The website of the owner of this video-channel, see here. And see ”Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. And about John Perkins here.

The blogger here writes that the

”profits are privatized and the losses are socialized”!!!

Yes, that seems to be quite true!?

And at last also see the site Change.gov Barack Obama and his coworkers have created. There you can read for instance:

”Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today” – President-Elect Barack Obama.

My amateur translation to Swedish:

“Idag börjar vi det målmedvetna/enträgna arbetet att säkra att den värld vi lämnar till våra barn är en liten bit bättre än den vi bor på idag.”

Yes, are we going to see a new leader style? And can Obama manage this in this world?

Here another person in great power (and I don't think we are born evil, but made that way, very early in life):

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
-Adolph Hitler

Or:

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

The superclass and oppression…

We had thralls or trälar (slaves) too here in Scandinavia, for instance during the Viking-era. And later people were held as thralls, but in another sense. They weren't literally in villenage, but still villeins in many senses.

Apropos the book ”Superclass; The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” by David Rothkopf a commentator on a blog wrote about oppression, here my a little free translation and additions:

“One can scream oneself blue and it doesn’t matter or make any difference. But remember that the power, the oppression is dependent on psychology to a large degree. It’s dependent on that there are enough stupid people. Not unintelligent, of course, but self-righteous and dumb (foolish, stupid).”

The blog-owner replied:

“Of course you are right, and do you know this is also what David Rothkopf points out, who means that it’s ‘smooth’ for the superclass to govern so long as the voters in the democracies don’t take their responsibility and inform themselves so they can vote rationally.”

Yes, the power has interests in that the people under them don’t!?

For instance, we should all be interested that all people got enlightened! That all had good schools for instance, and had the same chances getting good education, with well-educated teachers (in all respects). I.e., that we all pay taxes for this or contribute.

But it isn’t only a question of money; that we for instance pay for other people’s children (even if we don’t have any own kids), but not least that we don’t want competition on equal terms!!?? I don't have own kids unfortunately and I come from a well-educated family... From the middle-class and maybe not the lowest either. Something you maybe don't see (self-irony)??

And by the way, it feels to me as people use the systems how high or low taxes they even pay. I even get the impression that people use it more (and even much more) in those countries where the taxes are lower… I don’t know if it has with a “national character” to do. :-) I think people are alike all over the world from the beginning though.

However, in some countries people seem to be more loyal to the system - still? But the power has interests that people stop being loyal to it??? They use the method divide and rule more or less consciously. People are played out against each other. And they let the (invisible) power play them out against other people!?

I draw this even further to how it probably was in the family, what many of us all over the world, in all countries and cultures, have in our backpacks (things many had to suppress ad deny and pass to oblivion, and it’s the ones in most denial who needs the power the most!? Once again I think the psycho-historians are right about that the most defended tend to lead, and that power exists as a defence); parents playing out their kids against each other to keep being in power, being the “authority”… As if they should need this??? Can’t they earn it in other ways? More naturally so to say or how one would express this.

And siblings who aren’t exposed join their parents to avoid becoming exposed to the parents’ treatment. Something the therapists Jean Jenson and Ingeborg Bosch have met with clients in therapy. Who painfully and with difficulties have discovered exactly those things; how siblings joined the scorning of them for instance. It’s the same, or the similar, phenomena in the adult world, for instance in politics?? We re-enact things there whether we are aware or want it or not. Where for instance media join the power so they get the feeling that… I don’t know…

There is no true indignation or fury from people in the media for instance. Or those who show indignation or fury are very few, so we hardly notice them, and they don’t get as much space in media as other people get. I wish there were more courageous people in the world. Yes, people with more civil courageous!? I.e. people with more “heart”!

See more about divide and rule, in English and in Swedish, about backward psychoclasses.

Divide and rule...

the Roman consul and dictator Cincinnatus.

A commentator on a Swedish blog wrote about the notion “divide and rule” apropos our current government, politicians and politics (here in Sweden).

In the Swedish part of wikipedia it stands about this notion:

”Söndra och härska (på latin divide et impera, på engelska divide and conquer eller divide and rule) är en angreppsmetod, problemlösningsmetod respektive krigföringsmetod som går ut på att dela upp ett större sammanhang i mindre delar. Förhoppningsvis kan därefter dessa mindre delar behandlas enklare än det större mer komplexa sammanhanget.”

In the English part it stands for instance:

“In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.”

Translated to Swedish it is something in the style:

”I politik och sociologi är att söndra och härska en kombination av politisk, militär och ekonomisk strategi för att få och behålla makt genom att bryta upp stora maktkoncentrationer i stycken eller bitar som var och en har mindre makt än de som genomför strategin. I verkligheten handlar det ofta om en strategi där små maktgrupper hindras från att gå samman och bli mer kraftfulla, eftersom det är svårt att bryta sönder existerande maktstrukturer.”

A Swedish blogger Kerstin Berminge tipped in a posting with the title "Maktcentra som vi inte vet så mycket om" (”Power-centres we don’t know so much about”) about an article by a Michael Nyberg on direktörskubbarna (“The clubs for directors/vice presidents”*). And I have blogged about this on my other blog too.

I want to take this back to the early family, where the parents (preferably the father, but also the mum and dad together) ruled in similar ways? Played siblings out, in a need to keep the control and to exercise power – and to act things out (needing dustbins for emotions of different kinds). Something they probably didn’t need. At least not when the children were small. Why should children need to object if there weren’t reasons? Think if we should have this as a hypothesis that children aren’t reacting if there aren’t any reasons. And have it until something else is proved.

Jenson writes about these things… Maybe I will come back to that.

* The Director's clubs that are mentioned in this article are Association for the Monetary Union of Europe (AMUE), Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, Bilderberg group, Business Roundtable, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), Freemasonry, Group of 30, Heritage Foundation (fighting against the liberal welfare state), Knights Hospitaller, Mont Pelerin Society, Open Society Institute, club of Rome, Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), The Trilateral Comission, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and World Economic Forum (WEF).

When I am sitting here and linking all these sites I start to wonder, amazed (and maybe also startled), what do all these (preferably) men want to achieve actually? What are driving them?

Their needs for power and influence is that surrogates (substitutes) for denied needs and a denied helplessness early in life? They are filling these needs symbolically, but these needs will never get filled. So how much they even gain or achieve they will never get satisfied? How much money or power they even get they will never get satisfied? And what do they cause for other people - and for themselves actually? Destruction and self-destruction? And we "workers" (the trade union I am organized in belong to "The Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees" or what we call TCO) aren't really allowed to organize ourselves in trade unions in many parts of the world. And it looks we are going the same or a similar way here (the power's arrogance...).

I feel discomfort when I realize how many people that are organized in clubs and organizations like these. Maybe this says things about my own history.

And what about dictators on lower levels? Even in families and relations between two only...

PS. When I linked to an earlier posting on diagnosis in my former posting I found this:

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue. "

So true! If you have solved your own things, you don’t look down on or scorn other people, still struggling, with contempt. So long as these people aren’t harming anyone. This is no real compassion and empathy, and maybe also a sign you yourself have things to work on still, and maybe also have A LOT to work on, I don’t know? As some so called “enlightened” behave… I am fairy sarcastic here, yes… Or actually VERY sarcastic?

The father (mother) laughing at the child? Actually very cruelly, not respectfully. Humiliating.

Quickly and spontaneously written in the morning.

PPS. In the shower I suddenly felt: yes, people are played out against each other. Women against men, people from one class against people in another!! We shall compete. Not cooperate, to solve all problems in the world, constructively. No, we SHALL cooperate – but compete at the same time!!! Contradictory is it? You shall but you shall not. Is this a form of Master Suppression technique? And confusing? (and ridiculing, i.e., minimizing, belittling, making fun of is it, and this is a Master Suppression Technique I see now again is it?).

Men are better paid in general here and thus bought I can think and feel. But women are better educated – in general, but we don’t really see this in our wallets? And by the way, does this make men more eager in educating themselves? What incitements do they actually have for this? If they are better paid nevertheless. But we women (some or many of us) educate and educate ourselves even if we aren’t really rewarded. How come? Are we stupid, or falsely hoping?

But I am doing this for my own sake. Because I’m interested and passionately engaged (genuinely I think) and want to manage things.

And I am prepared to pay (taxes) so that people who need help get it!!! If they get sick, unemployed, for health-care, the school etc. Sounds like a sort of manifesto?? A sigh.

After a bike ride to town before lunch, now with the lunch on the stove: Came to think that I have written and/or read about the ruling classes... Searched on it and found this posting on George Montbiot (with links in it), on the ruling classes paranoia.

And if the things above don't succeed you can label people, see former posting.