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

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.

Quote

“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’

http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/

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

 

What is Princess / Warrior Programming?

In the following video Freeman and Jamie discuss ‘Princess / Warrior Programming’ during an interview with Wash Your Brain.

Watch the whole discussion here

Related posts….

Surrender! We Have Your Children Surrounded…

Killing Us Softly – The Negitive Effects of Advertising (video) 

The Fierce Face of the Feminine – Chameli Ardagh (video)

The Fierce Face of the Feminine – Chameli Ardagh (video)

In this talk Chameli Ardagh speaks on how to allow for a natural response towards injustice, without creating more hurt, how to embody the power and beauty of feminine rage, why we are called to step up and give voice to the power of the fierce feminine, and how anger is not intrinsically negative.

Chameli also shows how an ancient goddess archetype of the fierce aspects of the feminine are highly relevant and illuminating for women and girls today.

After watching Chameli’s take on femininity and its potential, consider how femininity is promoted to girls and young women by the entertainment industry through its (largely manufactured) female icons. Pictured below are Rihanna, Beyonce, Lady GaGa, Fergie and Christina Aguilera.

And while you look at the following images, think how would you describe the type of femininity depicted by these female role models?

Is it even female?

Is it even human?

(the inclusion of images of hyenas will make more sense once you’ve watched the video above)

 

 GODDESS KALI


We know that in terms of content and symbolism, nothing in gets into modern big name music videos and stage shows by accident. In this respect music videos are no different to TV commercials. Everything is put there deliberately to promote some kind of message, behaviour, attitude, brand, product or mindset.

These heavily marketed (and thus heavily idolized) young women are being used to sell more than just ‘music’ and ‘fashion’. They are selling complex (although often nonsensical and contradictory) social, spiritual, philosophical and political ideas.

 –

There was a time not long ago when women were not allowed to vote, discouraged from thinking about world affairs and trained to serve men.

As women have gained more rights in society and become more free to express themselves and have a voice in public, one might reasonably expect their natural (and naturally fierce) mother instincts to have had more of an effect on the previously male dominated world. Yet here we still are in a predatory/ parasitic world ruled by violence, surrounded by ‘never ending wars’ and with poor, starving and dying children the world over.

How ‘fortunate’ it is then for those war mongering (mass murdering) men in power, that stretching as far back as Marilyn Monroe, every popular female role model marketed to young girls has helped to steer women in a direction completely detached from – and even in opposition to – mother instincts, feminine power and even nature itself.

Coincidence? …… What do you think?

Now that this information age is enabling women (and men) to educate themselves about some of the true horrors going on in this world, we see any expressions of fierce femininity – even the very idea of it – now mocked and subverted into a tangled mass of non-sense by the ‘culture creators’ of the corporate mass entertainment industry.

In these times of perpetual war (of both terror and occupation) and of rampant corporatism (corporate fascism) a fierce woman is defined for us as a woman in stilettos and a bikini holding a gun. A crazy (but still sexy) bitch – still objectified, but perhaps a little more ‘ironically’ – and now toting a gun, riding a tank or getting sexually aroused in a war zone.

This is because if girls can be brought up to accept this ‘crazy bitch’ programming – and embrace it themselves – then they will more readily accept and embrace the ‘insane corporate fascist’ world around them too. The two complement each other very well. Do you see how it works?

See if you can spot the following in this video:

  • subliminal messages
  • not so subliminal messages
  • cognitive dissonance (mixed and contradictory messages)
  • war and police state  glorification and ‘sexification’
  • occult symbolism
  • the final gesture made by all the women to the men

While young girls learn how to ’empower’ themselves by idolising acts like Beyonce (who’s now even been given an ‘alter ego’ called ‘Sasha Fierce‘), Beyonce herself is shuffled around the globe by her handlers to entertain anyone willing to cough up a couple of million.

Without doubt women do have a louder voice in society today….

… but is it their own?!

For more information on predictive programming and desensitisation

via popular entertainments watch the video series

 Entertainment Does Not Exist

For more images of all your favourite pop and fashion icons check out the

Gallery

Killing Us Softly – The Negitive Effects of Advertising (video)

In this update of her pioneering Killing Us Softly series, Jean Kilbourne takes a fresh look at how advertising traffics in distorted and destructive ideals of femininity. Killing Us Softly 4 stands to challenge a new generation of students to take advertising seriously, and to think critically about popular culture and its relationship to sexism, eating disorders, and gender violence.

Jean Kilbourne, Ed.D. is internationally recognized for her groundbreaking work on the image of women in advertising and for her critical studies of alcohol and tobacco advertising. In the late 1960s she began her exploration of the connection between advertising and several public health issues, including violence against women, eating disorders, and addiction, and launched a movement to promote media literacy as a way to prevent these problems. Kilbourne is the creator of the renowned Killing Us Softly: Advertising’s Image of Women film series and the author of the award-winning book Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel and co-author of So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids.

Part 1 of 2

Part 2 of 2