Outrage as MP Advocates Violence to ‘Discipline’ Elderly Relatives

A UK MP has attracted universal condemnation after suggesting that adults should be allowed to use violence against their own elderly dependants, such as elderly parents or in-laws who live with them.

The shocking comments came during a discussion about care of the elderly which focused on how age tends to reduce their mental and physical capacity to behave as fully responsible adults resulting in more inconvenience for their caregivers. Inconvenient scenarios discussed included elderly relatives getting distracted or confused and wondering off when being taken out shopping, being difficult about bathing, dressing or eating, or forgetting about important information despite constant reminders.

The remarks which sparked the outrage came during the Q & A session when the MP stated:

“The problem is that we’ve become far too politically correct about instilling proper discipline in the elderly. They may be totally dependent on us for food, personal hygiene and shelter due to their age but unless we are prepared to use either the threat or actual use of violence on them we are only encouraging them to play up and become unruly, taking advantage of us as caregivers in the process.

If my elderly mother started whining about ‘having tired legs’ in the supermarket or kept losing her purse or forgetting where we had parked the car I personally would have no problem with giving her a quick slap on the leg or arm or, if she was behaving very badly, putting her over my knee, pulling down her pants and smacking her on the bottom….”

“….In fact I blame the rise in so called ‘dementia’ among the elderly on today’s ‘namby pamby’ atittudes where hitting old people is automatically judged to be wrong, no matter how much they are driving us up the wall.”

Facing a huge public backlash and calls for his resignation the MP in question has now gone into hiding, cancelled all future public engagements and is currently refusing to comment any further on the matter.

– oOo-

You will be happy to know I just made up the above story. I wanted to make a point (inspired by this recent news story) about the kinds of insane and barbaric views still, sadly, held by many people with regards to hitting children.

My point is this:

Try reading my made up story again, only this time substitute ‘the elderly’ (written in red) with ‘children’, and substitute the elderly mother being smacked with a young child being smacked instead.

Now I ask you, what is the difference? Does that story become any more acceptable when it is about hitting children instead of hitting the elderly?

Dependent children and dependent old folk both have a reduced mental and physical capacity – that is why they are dependent instead of living on their own and holding down a job. And just like children, some elderly people are also from time to time a bit naughty and mischievous as well. But if some old folk broke the rules of a nursing home by sneaking in the odd cigarette or dram of whisky or betting their whole pension on the Grand National would that give caregivers the right to inflict violence upon them? Of course not!

So what is it about violence against the elderly which makes it seem so horrific? Apart from the fact it’s violence in the first place (generally assumed to be immoral behaviour) I would suggest the main factor is their physical vulnerability – the fact that they are so weak and puny.

So what about a toddler or child who might only be the fraction of the size of any adult? Aren’t they even more weak and puny than even the elderly? Why do we not regard hitting children as just as horrific (or more so)? Why is hitting someone that tiny size not judged as completely immoral and completely unacceptable?

We supposedly live in a society which condemns the use violence. This is especially true when there is an imbalance of power. Two burly men hitting each other is one thing , but a burly man hitting his wife who has less than half his strength is something else altogether.

So how can violence against children by adults ever be appropriate when there is such a HUGE imbalance of physical power in the parent-child relationship?

And it’s not just physical power which parents have over children. A child is dependent on its parents for everything: food, clothes, shelter, emotional wellbeing, protection, security, safety….

Suppose you are out shopping in a shopping mall. You’re tired, irritable and stressed. What would some random adult have to do to you before you resorted to smacking them? Try and think of something specific…….. Or what about your husband or wife? What would they have to do before you smacked them? And what about an elderly dependent parent? What would they have too do before you resorted to striking them physically?

Now what about a small dependent child?

Do you see my point?

This next one is going to be hard …..try and imagine a world where children are afforded the same basic rights as adults, the elderly and even pets (ie you’re not allowed to hit them under any circumstances by the generally accepted moral standards and law of that society). Imagine you grew up in that world. A world where smacking a four year old child was considered every bit as wrong as smacking your eighty seven year old parent.

Does that seem like a more sensible world? A more consistent world? A more civilised world? A more sane world? A more humane world?

Now imagine a world where ‘black’ slaves were not given the same rights as ‘white’ people. A world where you can buy and own ‘black’ people and treat them as slaves. A world where a husband can beat his wife and that is considered pretty normal and acceptable too. And a world where hitting your kids is so commonplace it is considered a fundamental part of raising children.

In that world I bet most ‘blacks’, wives and children would be very obedient to the people wielding violent power over them. But that’s hardly a good thing is it? It doesn’t justify violence being used against them …..or perhaps some of you think it would?

In any other social situation the use of violence against another indicates a total loss of control and/ or a total abuse of power. Slavery and wife beating are two examples of this. There is nothing about an adult hitting a child which suggests it is any different either. Calling the hitting of a slave, a wife or a child ‘disciplining’ doesn’t make any difference either. That’s just a word.

A parent and child rarely plan that child’s beatings in advance like piano lessons. The violence almost always occurs in the heat of the moment – just like other forms of domestic violence usually do, or fights that break out outside the chip shop on a Friday night.

Hopefully most readers will agree that violence against dependent children or dependent elderly relatives is equally immoral, unfair and unacceptable. Hopefully most readers will agree that you can’t instil moral virtue into a child (or anyone else) by treating them immorally. You can’t hit virtue, reason or good sense into a child any more than you can hit algebra or geography into that child.

In reality, hitting children is only ever about the parents losing control or abusing their power (or both) and all smacking does is train children to fear and obey authority which is the exact opposite of teaching them – through example – about thinking and behaving reasonably and respecting other people around you.

Over the last fifty years both African Americans and women (and numerous other persecuted groups) have had to stand up for their rights and fight hard to gain equal standing with those who used violence against them for the purpose of training them to be obedient (subservient). For these groups the battle has been (and still is) a long and arduous one.

The only group left in society who can still be lawfully struck ‘to make them obedient’ is children.

Now, do you think this is because it really is acceptable to hit children…….. or could it be because children aren’t capable of standing up for their own basic rights, not even the right to not be hit by others?

Five Things Schools Refuse to Give You the Definition of (Truth, Virtue, Government, Law, Money)

What is true?

What is good?

What is government?

What is law?

What is money?

Did your school ever define these things for you?

Why not?

Are you able to define them for yourself right now, on the spot?

If the answer is no, don’t you find that a bit alarming?!

From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web – http://www.freedomainradio.com

A Real Life Fairy Tale After All?

Throw your TV in the bin today and check out these links instead!

Sources and related links (youtube)

Invisible Empire – A New World Order Defined

Problem – Reaction – Solution

Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers

American Detention Has Nothing to do with the War on Terror

What Transformed the WTC Buildings to DUST on 9/11?

Dr. Judy Wood – Where Did the Towers Go?

Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia tribunal

Corbett Report confronts Bohemian Grove member

Bush, Cheney, PNAC, & The Criminal Conspiracy To Invade Iraq

Good is Evil

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

9/11 Inside Job: Ten Years Later

ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 (FULL documentary)

Deformed Fallujah Babies Because of DU

Remember Building 7 10th Anniversary TV Ad

Even The Troops Are Waking Up

Age of Manipulation – Michael Tsarion

FreemanTV – Program To Chaos – Oct. 5, 2006

The Entertainment Industry Exposed

The Last Word on Osama Bin Laden

Statism is Dead – Terrorism, 9/11 and Politics

The Last Word on Terrorism

Libya and Imperialism: Dan Glazebrook, Lizzie Phelan, Harpal Brar (EN, FR, PT)

Media collusion with Bilderberg Group confirms hidden agenda Gerard Batten MEP

And finally, if you want to watch the ballet remix version of this video……

Sleeping Beauty: Rose Adagio (Viviana Durante, Royal Ballet 1994)

Some Thoughts on Remembrance Day

A collection of videos and quotes for Remembrance Sunday,

followed by questions at the end.

Video by Stefan Molyneux

Full text (and leave a comment) here.


“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany.

That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

– Hermann Goering at his Nuremburg trial.

Watch the whole series here.

Question 1

Those who promote war – and those who organise, fund and support the waging of war as a policy – want to achieve what?

A War

B Peace

C It’s not that simple, let me explain….

Question 2a

Imagine the following scenario. A man gets drunk and then recklessly and irresponsibly drives home at high speed. On the way he loses control and crashes his car into an oncoming vehicle. A passer by sees the accident and races to the burning wreckage and risking his life he drags unconscious bodies out of the vehicles and saves three lives out of the five people involved, sustaining severe burns and cuts in the process.

Without doubt the man is a hero. But does such heroic action and bravery in the face of danger mean we should also glorify and celebrate drunk driving?

A Yes we should. That makes perfect sense to me.

B No. Although the passer by is a hero for rescuing three people, we need to maintain a distinction in our minds between his heroic actions at the scene (of a crime) and the actions of the other guy – the reckless idiot who’s drink driving caused the whole tragic situation which killed two people.

Question 2b

In parades and ceremonies of war remembrance are we encouraged to maintain in our minds a clear distinction between:

  • those caught up in war (soldiers or civilians) who exhibit bravery, selflessness and heroism in the face of unbelievable dangers, horror and adversity
  • those who fund, manipulate wars from a safe distance – profiting (politically, financially etc) from the actions brave soldiers, profiting from destruction and profiting from the death and suffering of others be they military or civilian, men women or children?

A Yes this distinction is always heavily emphasised because it is so important

B No this distinction is never made at all

C Not only is this distinction never made, it feels like the distinction is deliberately blurred so that we end up honouring those who are responsible for war and who profit from war in ceremonies that are supposed to be about honouring the victims of war.

Question 3

Currently in our statist system called a ‘democracy ‘, the state funds its wars by extracting money from the public’s earnings by force. In addition, loans are forcibly taken out by the state in our names and in the names of future generations who are as yet unborn in order to pay for the state’s wars. You see, wars are very, very, very expensive indeed (which means some people are making a LOT of money from them).

If YOU wanted to start a war and you went around trying to force everyone else to pay you money so you could buy weapons and train armies and stuff, and if you tried to take out fraudulent loans in their names as well, what do you think would happen?

A People would tell you to shove it up your arse

B People would be absolutely fine about the whole thing

Please answer this question again, only this time imagine that you have control of (or significant influence over) the education system, mass media and mass entertainments.

Question 4

Why do YOU personally fund the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

A I don’t fund wars

B I fund these wars because I believe they will bring peace

C I fund these wars because my contribution to them is taken from my earnings by force.

Question 5

We teach our children not to use force or violence to get what they want and not to steal from others to get what they want. These are examples of what’s known as ‘universal morality’. Please watch this video.

Should universal morality be applied… you know…. universally?

A Yes – unless it is applied universally it counts for nothing!

B No – extreme and systematic violations of universal morality by those in positions of power are perfectly acceptable, and won’t lead to a broken society, a world of perpetual war,a  collapsing economy and high level corruption (despite all the evidence demonstrating that it obviously does lead to all these things).

Will RFID Cater to All Our Needs?

Links to source material and other info on RFID:

Katherine Albrecht, author of ‘Spychips’


Stay strong Katherine, sending you healing vibes! x

Video links:

Katherine Albrecht speaks at Brave New Books

Aaron Russo full interview

The Age of Transitions full documentary

We The People Will Not be Chipped

Michael Tsarion – Age of Manipulation – 1/3


More Choreographic Deliciousness from ‘World Order’

My first post on this blog was about this group.

Here is their latest offering. Love it!

作詞:須藤元気  作曲:須藤元気/ Takashi Watanabe/今井悠
Music by Genki Sudo /Takashi Watanabe[over rockets]/Yu Imai  Words by Genki Sudo


総合プロデューサー兼クリエイティブディレクター 須藤元気
Executive Producer & Creative Director: Genki Sudo
チーフコリオグラファー 野口量
Chief Choreographer : Ryo Noguchi

http://www.crnavi.jp/company.html(Crystal Navigation Inc.)
http://worldorder.jp/ (WORLD ORDER SPECIAL SITE)

Understanding and Overcoming the Psychological Effects of Trauma (video)

This video compares the psychological effects produced by witnessing two very different traumatising and shocking events.

  • a TV prank show in which a woman arrives home to discover a shocking scenario: a large meteorite which has landed in her back garden.
  • a large terrorist attack (9/11 and 7/7)

The fact that the TV show is a light entertainment program is not meant to make light of, or mock, the horrific events of 9/11 or 7/7 or the subsequent wars of ‘terror’ and occupation.

Although terrorism and TV prank shows are (obviously!) very different, they can produce many of the same psychological effects, as this video clearly demonstrates.

Unless we understand the psychological aspects of terrorism we won’t ever be able to make any sense of these events (which can actually add to their traumatic effect).

In other words, to understand the psychology of events like 9/11 is to understand the events themselves.

To watch the complete video of psychologists discussing 9/11 and trauma click here.

The official story of 9/11 (in under 5 minutes) is explained here.