The need for control, super egos, responsibility, independency, dependency…

[Slightly updated December 18. Brief addition December 19]

A blogger writes: Now we are going to become controlled down to the last detail, everything we do on the net shall become stored. Orwell’s society is here, twenty years later, but nevertheless. However more veiled.

Today we have the war against terrorism, a war we can never win. And this serves as argument for detailed control of every citizen.

The ones in power are playing on peoples’ tendencies to paranoia; in a similar manner as for instance Hitler once did to justify the Second World War?

Not so healthy leaders are playing on human being’s less healthy sides!?

Are the ones ruling today better in this respect (in not controlling people) than the former who were accused for a Big Brother Society this blogger wonders? (and are they less fundamentalistic or as much, and in some cases more?) And of course you can wonder with all right?

What about the freedom the ones ruling now spoke about before they came to the power? Was this freedom only for the economical elites’; their freedom doing as they like, to not have to contribute to all people’s welfare (including their own), while the people should become held down, in all respects, and become controlled in all ways you can think of?

Yes, I think an economist here is right who said (in my interpretation) that if the resources are distributed more equally this gains the whole societal economy, i.e. us all. And it creates a better society, than a one where we are played out against each other. Something the Scandinavian countries have shown? So far at least. But today... And in the future...

Where does the selfishness come from?

I read an article on Friday “The more we are together. When the crisis advances the ego has to back.”

There you could read that you don’t have to “sharpen your elbows” any longer. Not show your paces either. The ones used to focus on her/himself has maybe not seen this earlier/yet, but the individualism’s time has passed. The most sound would be if individuals could exists in the collective!?

For those individuals it felt right to say: I take responsibility for my own life. I trust myself. But a winner can loose the self-confidence too, when you realize that it wasn’t so easy with the self-realization. When it was shown that it wasn’t enough taking the matter into one's own hands.

A 60 hours week is always a 60 hours week. Even if you chose it yourself. How much individualist you even are, it isn’t enough, you become exhausted/burnout nevertheless.

Child psychologists tell us that our kids have been forced to develop their egos so much so they can’t function in a group at day care centers. The article writer writes that the superego is lying on lit de parade.

Disillusioned people are calling programs at the radio here to talk about old-fashioned things like “societal planning, the community and solidarity.”

However, some are feeling relief over this, among those thinking the “I” has gotten too much space.

What would a healthy “I” be? What is our true self? What needs are we striving to fulfill?

Some even admit that they are a bit malicious. One of those is the Swedish leader writer Göran Greider. In a TV-programme he seemed to have been talking about “the own responsibility.” Another Swedish writer also wrote about responsibility. Who are accused for not taking responsibility for themselves, their lives etc. And are there other people you don't demand responsibility from? The ones governing are talking quite moralistic about responsibility. But are the ruling classes taking responsibility? Are they demanded to take responsibility? Or do they cover it up as if they are taking responsibility "for people's own good"? Things that are really huring are done for our own good!? And they truly believe it is for our own good!

Greider meant that certain amount of selfishness is needed to push the development further, but the results of this selfishness ought to become distributed better to more people. I am not sure... What sort of selfishness should we have? One where we protect ourselves constructively and against real threats?

He means that the society needs solidarity values, so we dare (and can) trust (on) each other, even in the economy.

Alone is not strong, we need each other and are dependent on other people, what other people do and don’t do. What too many govening do is dividing and ruling? Getting power through diving and ruling.

The writers means that the big “I” doesn’t make us happy, not secure or rich either. Is it time for more collective solutions now?

Why are young people today so selfish or egoistic? They haven’t become brought under control enough? They have to learn to be more humble? From where does evilness come? Are we born this way? Do we have innate drives for destruction? I don't think so. I think this is something we have learned very early in life...

That many don’t seem to be why is that? Where have they learned this? What sort of role models have they had? And what society have they grown up in?

I.e. how should we raise young people, small children?

See this reader's letter to Alice Miller on obedience and being a living dead.

Addition December 19: and rebelling... If you are less harmed you rebel in a more constructive way? In a sounder and healthier way? And maybe in a more effective way? With fewer or in the best case no victims?

The sources of terror - and contempt for weakness…

Slightly edited during the day...

Two leaders this morning and a discussion in the morning-sofa on TV made me think and triggered this posting. Here a quotation from the first leader “The Sources of Terror” about the events in Mumbai, India on Wednesday (my a little free amateur translation from Swedish):

“All terror has last of all its origins in social evils [sociala missförhållanden] or political injustices of some kind. Let us hope that heads of the governments in India, Pakistan, USA and Europe are able to keep this in mind even after this incomprehensibly brutal act of violence.”

I think he is right, but this (the social evils and political injustices) is only an explanation no excuse for the use of violence was one of my thoughts. However, it's no wonder people at last start to react.

I also found this blog about this event, see here.

Each Friday a panel (on three persons) use to speak about the last week’s events in Sweden and the world in the morning sofa on Swedish TV. Today one of them said something about:

“...anxious men [in the higher/highest positions in the society and the world] needing to ‘assert themselves’…”

by competing about who is the most highly (well) paid. Yes, why do they need this – and to that degree as we see? Aren’t they good enough being less paid? Will they ever become satisfied though? Aren't those needs actually bottomless?

The other leader "Martina and I" was about the documentary “Martina and I”, i.e, about the woman Martina with Downs Syndrome, who is working as cleaner at a service flat for elderly people (see earlier posting) since quite many years. In this leader it stood about the notion “normality”…

Martina doesn’t have sense for time. It doesn’t mean anything to her. She lives in the here and now, and this can cause problems for her both here and there. But this job is perfect for her the leader writer thought, because older people don’t care about (the) time either.

“A sharp light is falling over the modern working life. How tiny the space is for the divergent/differing, for things/persons/phenomena not being throughout perfect! All those whom aren’t really that productive are pressed out from the regular working life, and in a world where work is such a central part of the life this implies the most severe marginalization of all.

That Martina managed to get a foot into working life has made her to a stronger human being./…/

All aberrant/deviating we let into the ordinary life contribute to change, yes, to reform the normality.”

Yes, it was this with contempt for weakness… And with productivity and cleverness. We have to earn our right to live?? Observe the irony!

You can find the leaders here too.

Conspiracy, sexual emancipation and a little about medication…

Lars Ohly.

Romano Prodi.

George W. Bush.

[Updated June 9 in the end!] Two news-items side by side in the local newspaper today made me think. The leader for the left party in Sweden Lars Ohly said during the congress now that he sees conspiracy behind demands on aircraft security (terrorism in Europe). I searched on the net for this and got some hits there, so people have noticed it.

He said during the congress that once when he was out flying his shaving cream was confiscated. He says that he of course congratulates the European Union for the enormous success in the fight against terrorism which this confiscation marks.

In a speech he said that:

“These rules are an expression for a panic that is created and fills a political purpose. The rulers (the ones in power) want us to believe that the law and order and democracy only can become defended through becoming restricted.”

After the speech he confessed that he believes in a conspiracy.

“Yes, I seriously mean that one does this to create a ground for other changes."

What he means is the increased security leading to a climate where people experience that security is so threatened, that it is justifiable with restrictions in the democratic freedoms and rights (privileges or civil rights).

They asked Ohly whom he thought was lying behind this conspiracy, and he said that George W. Bush after September 11 sent a letter to the European commission’s Romano Prodi with a list on 47 points which USA wanted Europe to introduce.

The other news-item was that many teenage girls have sex against their will. In research the psychologist Gisela Priebe has established that one of seven girls in the upper teens have had sexual intercourse against their own will. Among the boys in the same age one of seventeen have had difficulties saying no.

The press living up to the ideal of sexual emancipation has made it difficult saying no.

This conclusion is made by the psychologist Gisela Priebe who has made research on adolescents being exposed to sexual abuse. This winter her dissertation comes at the University of Lund.

More than 4,000 (4,139) young people in gymnasium-age have answered questions. As many as 65 percent of the girls say that they have been exposed to some form of unwanted sexual action which can be everything from tampering or pawing (tafsande) to sexual intercourse.

Priebe means that the research so far has focused on incest and paedophilia, but abuse between young people in the same age is in fact more common. The girls had been in age 14 in average when they were abused in some form the first time. Eleven percent of the girls had such experiences at 10 or even younger at the first occasion.

Priebe says that it isn’t always a question of physical violence, sexual abuse isn’t always connected to physical violence or force. It’s common with persuasion or that someone uses his/her position. And she thinks there is a widespread picture among young people that one shall be emancipated and sexually accessible. This can make it difficult for many young people feeling they have the right to say no.

Yes, I think Ohly can be right about conspiracies from people in power, giving the power right to control us. And I wondered to what degree this is conscious. From a person like George W. Bush for instance. I reread some pages from “Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?” by the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus. He writes about the possible roots for terrorism and about societal approval and also that (page 191):

“The unrestrained approval of violence in certain political parties and gangs may make such groups attractive to the abused. Although we have very little information about the family dynamics of the members of terrorist organizations, I believe that the history of physical and sexual abuse, and even mental illness [also due to abuse] paranoia, and brain damage is prevalent among them.”

I also skimmed the chapter on prevention and treatment and my impression is that medication isn’t always a secure method… But I have to read this chapter better to say he means this. But our current government want to medicate people with means of coercion (medicate all “dissidents” I wonder quite ironically. Another thing this government does which isn’t properly supported by science?). Addition in the evening: see the last posting today "Can a pill make a murderer safe?"

See Pincus on Hitler and Hatred, the essay "George W. Bush's projection and dislocation of self", and here and here are the links to all earlier postings with the label “J. Pincus” and to postings with the label the “ruling classes’ paranoia” here and here.

And that about sexual abuse: why haven’t young people learned to say “no”? I also wonder (ironically) if they have learned to trust their senses and feelings, and been allowed to respect them, by their parents already.

See the article “Childhood Sexual Abuse – Women’s Mental and Social Health Before and After Group Therapy.”

A common denominator to the topics in this posting is "integrity violations" and their effects?? Which all this above is about?

PS. In his youth Lars Ohly belonged to the Liberal Party!!! (I don't vote on them though, and will probably never do).

Addition June 9: Watch this video-clip about chasing terrorists in Indiana, USA, "War on Terre Haute." :-) And read about Terre Haute here. I didn't know it was a city! :-)