The continuing saga of Maggie Thatcher's demise continues. Fortunately after tomorrow it can all be forgotten and the incident brushed under the carpet. It has been made into something disproportionately more important than it is. This sentiment was echoed eloquently by George Galloway in a 4 minute interview on the BBC today. He rightly voice how the BBC refused to play the full song "The Witch is Dead," and this was the only means the public had to demonstrate their view of this woman. It seems the entire divisive debate has as much venom in it as the great debate of whether Royalty actually has a place in society today. There are those ultra right wing people who no doubt bow down to both Royalty and will be shedding a tear for Thatcher as well. As Galloways said, Thatcher decimated the mining communities and industry in the UK was cut back by a third. The wake of her rule is still being felt. George also considered it sanctimonious and vile ten million pounds should be spent on her funeral. This is a significant point.
If public funds are being spent on an event then every member of the public has a right to comment or make judgement on it. Whether it is a good comment or a disliked comment. In this case it is because a woman died and there is a notion of politeness to never say bad things about those who have died. Yet, dictators and tyrants have died around the world and it has not stopped news broadcasters from still talking badly of those same persons. Simply if someone dies it doesn't make them any better in life. We are remembered for what we did and the impact on other peoples lives. If there are persons who felt they were not treated with respect then or had an negative experience I don't see why they should be muffled in their opinions. There are many people in this country who will view Thatcher as a tyrant. There are no doubt families who have loved ones who passed away because of the effects which had reverberated through the policies Thatcher advocated. Were it possible to weigh on a set of scales the number of lives saved against the number of lives lost through government policy, then Thatcher's scales would be more heavily with lives lost. There is a public right to speak out when public money is spent and it is unjustified. Tomorrow will certainly be such an occasion.
Galloway on this occasion has expressed a general sentiment which a large proportion of the country agree with. It is wholly unfortunate it had to be Galloway who was given air time to say it and no other more respectable MP had. Galloway will say anything to get into the media and to get a gathering. As someone once said to me who knows of Galloway, "George is only concerned about George." Politics has made him, popular, wealthy and possibly even given him some status. One thing is for sure though, I know he would not of got on with the Old Witch.
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
The legacy of our the late Maggie Thatcher is now ensuring she will live
in perpetuity in the history of UK politics. Even in death she has
managed to create a stir. This time it is because her supporters have
protested against a chart hit from being played in full on the BBC. It
is of course "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" and it has become a massive download hit on the internet. As internet sales now count this song is fully representative of what the public consider to be contemporary music. Publicly this song has so much backing it is now a hit, yet a small group of Thatcher supporters think it is inappropriate. If this is the case then I can not help why did these opposing supporters not create an alternative hit by purchasing an different song. There quite clearly is not as much support as publicly they acclaim there is. Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, therefore will not be played in full by the BBC, they will play only a few seconds of the song. The BBC is bowing down. In retort I expect there will be a few complaints from those people who believe it should be playing the entire song, personally I am considering where I stand on this issue. Tory voters will state there is a small minority of people who are rejoicing at her passing, but this can not be true otherwise Ding Dong the Witch is Dead would not of be where it is now.
Maggie Thatcher was not the iconic image of what a powerful woman should be. She was the first woman Prime Minister, an achievement. How she presented herself as a leader was tough but exceptionally divisive. I ask was it necessary to be a person who talked down on people, who demeaned them and came across as a bully? Maggie manipulated the female vote for her own needs, to get herself voted in. She hoodwinked women using gender as an issue, playing on their naivety not on her politics. Many women voted her in just because she was female and they wanted to show the country a woman could do better. Now a great many women have regretted they did so, Thatcher's policies ripped apart the nation as they accentuated the class divide. Further the currying favour with the notion we live in a classless society, we don't. Society by it's very nature will always be class driven and those classes will change, as it is a concept with cloud like manoeuvrability, the wind blows it from one place to another. To an extent, Maggie was an opportunist, she was in the right place at the right time, but she did work hard to be there and to be in the seat of power. Famously she said she lived of only four hours sleep a night. Keeping up with politics is a 24 hour job, or rather 20 hour job. No other politician is said to have been as informed as she was. Pity she was not informed of the devastation and poverty she caused the lower and working classes.
So Ding Dong the Witch is Dead has just as valuable and iconic a place in contempary history as does the passing of the Iron Lady, the two are compatible and useful in understanding two sides of a coin.
Maggie Thatcher was not the iconic image of what a powerful woman should be. She was the first woman Prime Minister, an achievement. How she presented herself as a leader was tough but exceptionally divisive. I ask was it necessary to be a person who talked down on people, who demeaned them and came across as a bully? Maggie manipulated the female vote for her own needs, to get herself voted in. She hoodwinked women using gender as an issue, playing on their naivety not on her politics. Many women voted her in just because she was female and they wanted to show the country a woman could do better. Now a great many women have regretted they did so, Thatcher's policies ripped apart the nation as they accentuated the class divide. Further the currying favour with the notion we live in a classless society, we don't. Society by it's very nature will always be class driven and those classes will change, as it is a concept with cloud like manoeuvrability, the wind blows it from one place to another. To an extent, Maggie was an opportunist, she was in the right place at the right time, but she did work hard to be there and to be in the seat of power. Famously she said she lived of only four hours sleep a night. Keeping up with politics is a 24 hour job, or rather 20 hour job. No other politician is said to have been as informed as she was. Pity she was not informed of the devastation and poverty she caused the lower and working classes.
So Ding Dong the Witch is Dead has just as valuable and iconic a place in contempary history as does the passing of the Iron Lady, the two are compatible and useful in understanding two sides of a coin.
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Thatcher her legacy not
The media has taken a genuflect as news of Margaret Thatcher's death hit the headlines. What is most annoying is the sentiment of not talking harsh of the dead. They go on about her achievements, what she did for the country as though everything Thatcher stood for was great, as though she was the greatest thing since sliced bread. This she certainly was not. The reality is for those working classes who lived through her reign, and it really was very much an autocratic reign, hardship, depression and subjugation took place. She was a bully, she stood for the rich and hated the poor. Everything she did had a secondary or tertiary reason behind it. She completely hoodwinked the Americans as well. They too have some kind of fake notion Thatcher was great, however, considering they voted in Ronald Reagan at the same time Thatcher was around, and we all know Reagan had the start of Altzhiemers, then it goes to show their voting public were no better than the voters of the UK. A great many women voted Thatcher in because she was a woman, and they didn't take heed to her political persuasion or the symbolism of her handbag being as representative as Hitler's moustache. They were misguided. British people voted Thatcher in because it was the 80s and during the 80s the economy was going great. They had money and aspirations to be rich and better than their parents. Voting for Thatcher was saying they were not just on the up, they were aspiring. It was yet again another symbolic act of stupidity.
Thatcher it is known had so many arguments with her own cabinet over her entire tenure all except one member changed (Hestleltine). There was only one way to run the country and it was her way. With her never against her. She was known as the Iron Lady for good reason. Thatcher's third term of government was a chance event which she is forever indebted to Argentina and the invasion of the Falklands. Thatcher showed she could be the female version of Churchill after all, something every Prime Minister loves is a little war, because it immortalises them in history. Tony Blair was the same when he sided with America in a cynical special relationship to hit Iraq. He pulled out all the legal stops and interpretations of international law to allow joining in. Of course the fact he got on charmingly with Bush about as moronic as Reagan is serendipitous fortune again. Thatcher got on well with Pinochet, the Chilean president, the dictator who killed thousands of his own people. Thatcher got on so well with him because he provided radar coverage while the fight back of the Falklands took place. Then of course when he needed an operation and had been exiled she let him come here so he could get fixed up and ensured the international courts did not arrest him.
They say Thatcher saved the UK billions of pounds in the agreements she fought against EU agreements. But it was her predecessor Heath who put the UK in the common market in the first place. She was only fixing a bad deal he'd set up. In Thatcher's relationships with oil rich states, her son Mark (now knighted) was allowed to broker arms deals as a middle man and syphon off a few million into his own bank accounts. While he wasn't getting lost in his car over the sand dunes. Thatcher introduced the right-to-buy scheme, so Council tenants could purchase their own homes with great big discounts. The reason for this was to aid her friend in Westminster Baroness Shirley Porter (Tesco heir) and she changed the voting boundaries to ensure more Tory MPs won seats. Then those council houses left Local Authority housing stock and were sold off by people who couldn't afford them and made a quick buck, only for the same individuals to go running back to their Council's asking to be re-housed yet again.There was no additional social housing built as compensation. She also introduced the Poll Tax, a local taxation system as a way to fund Local Authorities. Rather than this being based on rateable values of houses it was based on individual adults. Millions in public funds was lost as people disappeared and could not be traced.
When Thatcher came into power there was one resounding effect of her leadership. Poor people go even poorer. It was hard times. She sold off British institutions to keep the economy afloat. She sold back to the people those assets they already owned. British Rail, British Gas, British Telecom. Her running of the economy encouraged Building Societies to turn into banks, carpet bagging became a common term. Greed was in the air, the entire country became morally self centred. And the richer and more powerful an individual the greater their riches and power became. She believed in de-regulation and banks got bigger and greedy, Building Societies were carpet bagged and made into banks just so the members could make a quick pound or two. All the money of which went back into the economy as poor people are more likely to spend money. But the security of the Building Societies was lost. The few remaining today stand firm while today's biggest banks are owned by the tax payer. Saved from failure because as private institutions they could not be allowed to go bankrupt.
Thatcher went out of her way to break the unions, to break down terms and conditions of employment which had taken decades to achieve. The contract between employer and employee returned back to that of slave and master. She devastated the coal mining industry. Coal which today could be used to independently fuel fire stations, instead disused and now inaccessible mines have decayed. Today we import 50 million tons of it, it is a travesty of disproportionate amounts. Depression hit the North, it hit every working family and it made all slaves to her ideology. At the start of Thatcher's tenure in office (1979) inflation was 13.4 per cent, when she left it was 9.5 per cent. Not a great change, it dipped and it peaked, she epitomises no special qualities as a Prime Minster by continuing the boom and bust of our economy. Let us not forget as well how it was her government which removed free milk to children in schools. A supplement to children's nourishment, Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher. Another reason why amongst the poor she is hated.
I hear in some parts of the country there were celebrations. Something I can very much understand as a reasonable reaction. Therefore in consideration of a multitude of events there are some pretty good reasons the late Thatcher should not be given a state funeral. She was not loved by the entire country, and only historically will her value be impartially interpreted.
Thatcher it is known had so many arguments with her own cabinet over her entire tenure all except one member changed (Hestleltine). There was only one way to run the country and it was her way. With her never against her. She was known as the Iron Lady for good reason. Thatcher's third term of government was a chance event which she is forever indebted to Argentina and the invasion of the Falklands. Thatcher showed she could be the female version of Churchill after all, something every Prime Minister loves is a little war, because it immortalises them in history. Tony Blair was the same when he sided with America in a cynical special relationship to hit Iraq. He pulled out all the legal stops and interpretations of international law to allow joining in. Of course the fact he got on charmingly with Bush about as moronic as Reagan is serendipitous fortune again. Thatcher got on well with Pinochet, the Chilean president, the dictator who killed thousands of his own people. Thatcher got on so well with him because he provided radar coverage while the fight back of the Falklands took place. Then of course when he needed an operation and had been exiled she let him come here so he could get fixed up and ensured the international courts did not arrest him.
They say Thatcher saved the UK billions of pounds in the agreements she fought against EU agreements. But it was her predecessor Heath who put the UK in the common market in the first place. She was only fixing a bad deal he'd set up. In Thatcher's relationships with oil rich states, her son Mark (now knighted) was allowed to broker arms deals as a middle man and syphon off a few million into his own bank accounts. While he wasn't getting lost in his car over the sand dunes. Thatcher introduced the right-to-buy scheme, so Council tenants could purchase their own homes with great big discounts. The reason for this was to aid her friend in Westminster Baroness Shirley Porter (Tesco heir) and she changed the voting boundaries to ensure more Tory MPs won seats. Then those council houses left Local Authority housing stock and were sold off by people who couldn't afford them and made a quick buck, only for the same individuals to go running back to their Council's asking to be re-housed yet again.There was no additional social housing built as compensation. She also introduced the Poll Tax, a local taxation system as a way to fund Local Authorities. Rather than this being based on rateable values of houses it was based on individual adults. Millions in public funds was lost as people disappeared and could not be traced.
When Thatcher came into power there was one resounding effect of her leadership. Poor people go even poorer. It was hard times. She sold off British institutions to keep the economy afloat. She sold back to the people those assets they already owned. British Rail, British Gas, British Telecom. Her running of the economy encouraged Building Societies to turn into banks, carpet bagging became a common term. Greed was in the air, the entire country became morally self centred. And the richer and more powerful an individual the greater their riches and power became. She believed in de-regulation and banks got bigger and greedy, Building Societies were carpet bagged and made into banks just so the members could make a quick pound or two. All the money of which went back into the economy as poor people are more likely to spend money. But the security of the Building Societies was lost. The few remaining today stand firm while today's biggest banks are owned by the tax payer. Saved from failure because as private institutions they could not be allowed to go bankrupt.
Thatcher went out of her way to break the unions, to break down terms and conditions of employment which had taken decades to achieve. The contract between employer and employee returned back to that of slave and master. She devastated the coal mining industry. Coal which today could be used to independently fuel fire stations, instead disused and now inaccessible mines have decayed. Today we import 50 million tons of it, it is a travesty of disproportionate amounts. Depression hit the North, it hit every working family and it made all slaves to her ideology. At the start of Thatcher's tenure in office (1979) inflation was 13.4 per cent, when she left it was 9.5 per cent. Not a great change, it dipped and it peaked, she epitomises no special qualities as a Prime Minster by continuing the boom and bust of our economy. Let us not forget as well how it was her government which removed free milk to children in schools. A supplement to children's nourishment, Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher. Another reason why amongst the poor she is hated.
I hear in some parts of the country there were celebrations. Something I can very much understand as a reasonable reaction. Therefore in consideration of a multitude of events there are some pretty good reasons the late Thatcher should not be given a state funeral. She was not loved by the entire country, and only historically will her value be impartially interpreted.
Friday, 5 April 2013
Murderers Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson and Marc Tulloch
I have just read an article about the teenage murderers: Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson, 14 and Marc Tulloch, 17. In yet an another incidence of moronic behaviour they killed a boy who was playing football. The victim was Junior Nkwelle, 15. Cherelle apparently did not like the way Junior had spoken to her, she felt aggrieved, so aggrieved in fact she decided Junior had to pay for his behaviour. For some reason Cherelle believed she was special and if insulted by another teenager they should pay for it. Junior paid for it when Marc Tulloch stabbed him in the chest to appease his girl friend Cherelle. It is another act of mindless violence and mindless disregard for life. No doubt both Cherelle and Marc had no consideration for consequences. This seems to be a common thing with teenagers. Junior was not considered as a human being, he was not considered to be the son, nephew or brother of another person. He was not thought of for the good deeds he had done during his life which Cherelle and Marc were not aware of. He was evaluated by a judge and jury of only two people, two teenage kids full of ignorance and self worth. Remarkably these two murderers were not sentenced to murder but rather man slaughter, when this vengeful act was actually premeditated. Cherelle set the whole thing up. In view of this their sentences would seem pretty light Cherelle got 8 years and Marc 10 years. However, they will only serve half this time.
There may have been a degree of verbal provocation, but verbal provocation is something every person must live with during their entire life. It happens every day. Normal people learn if they are provoked to use many different strategies. Walking away, verbal argument, physical violence which is non fatal, verbal reasoning, humour and laughter. The list of coping strategies is endless, it is as imaginative as a human being can be. Whilst the solution from Cherelle and Marc was probably the least imaginative of all.
I am always saddened whenever I read the news about teenagers who are murdered or who are killers and take no responsibility or thought about what they have done. I am saddened to yet again read of this happening in London. On a housing estate (Loughborough Estate) in Lambeth South London. It is an area which suffers from poverty, it has both gangs and drugs issues. It is in fact a common factor of many housing estates in London. With poverty there is ignorance as well. It is poor kids killing poor kids, because I never hear of rich kids killing rich kids in the same way.
Poor late Junior had his life ahead of him, he could of expected to live another 60 or 70 years, had a girlfriend and got married and had a family. Junior and his parents will never see what his sons or daughters would of been like. How he could of enriched this planet. In the meantime Cherelle and Marc will likely serve a total of 9 years and then be let free. It seems in such instances life is cheap. Both sentences should of been double. Maybe they will come out of prison having learnt something, but at that time they will still both be pretty young, well at least they have time to think about consequences. If that is they do.
There may have been a degree of verbal provocation, but verbal provocation is something every person must live with during their entire life. It happens every day. Normal people learn if they are provoked to use many different strategies. Walking away, verbal argument, physical violence which is non fatal, verbal reasoning, humour and laughter. The list of coping strategies is endless, it is as imaginative as a human being can be. Whilst the solution from Cherelle and Marc was probably the least imaginative of all.
I am always saddened whenever I read the news about teenagers who are murdered or who are killers and take no responsibility or thought about what they have done. I am saddened to yet again read of this happening in London. On a housing estate (Loughborough Estate) in Lambeth South London. It is an area which suffers from poverty, it has both gangs and drugs issues. It is in fact a common factor of many housing estates in London. With poverty there is ignorance as well. It is poor kids killing poor kids, because I never hear of rich kids killing rich kids in the same way.
Poor late Junior had his life ahead of him, he could of expected to live another 60 or 70 years, had a girlfriend and got married and had a family. Junior and his parents will never see what his sons or daughters would of been like. How he could of enriched this planet. In the meantime Cherelle and Marc will likely serve a total of 9 years and then be let free. It seems in such instances life is cheap. Both sentences should of been double. Maybe they will come out of prison having learnt something, but at that time they will still both be pretty young, well at least they have time to think about consequences. If that is they do.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Pope Benedict aka Cardinal Ratzinger cover up of Pedophillia
The Catholic Church has been under microscope for some time. Particularly the role the last Pope in his slow investigation and purposeful blocking of paedophilia which has happened in the church. He authored a document which the Vatican kept used as a guide to covering up this heinous crime, the document is called the Crimen Sollicitationis. It was written in Latin by himself in 1962 and describes how the Catholic Church hides and protects it's own clergy who have committed paedophilia. Cardinal Ratzinger who was then re-named after election as pope to pope Benedict. Might I add elected by mortal men in a conclave at the Vatican. Much like the present pope Jorge Bergoglio renamed pope Francis.
Children and the old are the vulnerable in society. As such they should be fully protected with the conscience and morality of every single person. When the law breaks down, or when organizations like the Catholic Church have protected the abusers then something is very, very wrong. Proof of this can be seen in a BBC program called Panorama in which it details how Father Fortune was able to evade detection from the police with the help of the Vatican. Who moved him around from one dioceses to another. The Catholic church instigated a wall of silence failed to turn over evidence which may have convicted father Fortune. The purposefully interfered with a criminal investigation and then stated Fortune would be judged under church law rather than the normal laws which judge the rest of us.
The pressure of this instance and many other ignorant acts by the Prada wearing Pope Benedict no doubt also added to his choice to retire and remarkable how it is the conclave in electing a new Pope chose someone who was characteristically the opposite of Ratzinger. It is still however a sad state of affairs the catholic church have failed to atone for the wrongs it has done in allowing criminal priests to get away.
I do not see how in reality a head of a Church can be allowed to dictate in this way. Whether it be through the evil of ignorance and to the power of an alleged holly organization. Ratzinger in his participation of policy making has contributed to increased incidents of paedophilia in the Catholic church. Simply priests were protected in a similar way the Mafia close ranks and put up a wall of silence. The washing has been done in public and the reality was Ratzinger's damage to the Catholic church has been more invasive than a group of atheist whores, doing business at the conclave. Which being a secretive event may actually happen each time a new Pope is voted in. One thing is for sure there will be a whole many more cardinals not voicing their happiness Ratzinger has gone.
Children and the old are the vulnerable in society. As such they should be fully protected with the conscience and morality of every single person. When the law breaks down, or when organizations like the Catholic Church have protected the abusers then something is very, very wrong. Proof of this can be seen in a BBC program called Panorama in which it details how Father Fortune was able to evade detection from the police with the help of the Vatican. Who moved him around from one dioceses to another. The Catholic church instigated a wall of silence failed to turn over evidence which may have convicted father Fortune. The purposefully interfered with a criminal investigation and then stated Fortune would be judged under church law rather than the normal laws which judge the rest of us.
The pressure of this instance and many other ignorant acts by the Prada wearing Pope Benedict no doubt also added to his choice to retire and remarkable how it is the conclave in electing a new Pope chose someone who was characteristically the opposite of Ratzinger. It is still however a sad state of affairs the catholic church have failed to atone for the wrongs it has done in allowing criminal priests to get away.
I do not see how in reality a head of a Church can be allowed to dictate in this way. Whether it be through the evil of ignorance and to the power of an alleged holly organization. Ratzinger in his participation of policy making has contributed to increased incidents of paedophilia in the Catholic church. Simply priests were protected in a similar way the Mafia close ranks and put up a wall of silence. The washing has been done in public and the reality was Ratzinger's damage to the Catholic church has been more invasive than a group of atheist whores, doing business at the conclave. Which being a secretive event may actually happen each time a new Pope is voted in. One thing is for sure there will be a whole many more cardinals not voicing their happiness Ratzinger has gone.
Toxic parents and parenting
It seems when I look around me there are a large proportion of people had dysfunctional childhoods in one form or another. Their upbringing has come from parents who do not have the emotional intelligence or adultness about them to actually act as adults. At times it is like children raising children. The values of motherly or fatherly love are entwined in their own self esteem, and rather than being unconditional they are fully and completely conditional. Where a child seems no more than a necessary object in their lives, one which defines them amongst their peers. A child is something which tags along, holding a hand, it is an explicit show of who they are, of their place in society. It says "I am a mother/father and am responsible and caring." Which in reality can be quite the opposite. A child brings other advantages as well, financial assistance, emotional , social (against fear of loneliness) and a scape goat for everything. Financial assistance which comes from the welfare state in the form of benefits, emotional because the child can be hugged and social as it gives them a chance to meet other like minded families. Unfortunately those other families can both have good parents or toxic parents. Generally toxic parents can gravitate towards each other, but sometimes this is not the case and they will attach themselves as a friend to a normal parent. Hoping to get some acknowledgement they are the same when in fact they are not.
I can only speak for the working classes and the unemployable classes in this context. As I have no experience of the middle or upper classes but I'm sure toxic parenting has no discrimination. Having money doesn't inoculate against emotional dysfunction which can be transferred to children. Toxic parenting is does not effect all working class people or unemployables. The unemployables are particularly chastised by society and governments, because of their parasitic appearance. However, they probably return back into the government economy every single penny they get out of it in trying to make ends meet from day to day. The same can be said of the working classes, by virtue of low wages nearly all they earn goes on being able to survive. Yet some are happy and very good parents who aspire to love and encourage their children, something toxic parents think they do but in reality don't.
Children begin life as a blank slate. They do not have any maladaptive behaviours but in Freudian terms their early years are all self-centred. Toxic parents are like this, they carry on their self-centred attitude throughout their life. Always seeking to blame other people for their plight, always thinking of what they could of been but never were and then projecting their own ambitions and inadequacies on their children. They are of low self esteem, depressed, suffer from anxiety and are mentally insular. Their imagination to get out of their own rut does not exist. They sap and sap away looking for attention at every turn because of their plight. Then the worst thing of all they take this out on their children. Who they allege to love. Children who grow up confused, who do not understand why their adult care giver says one thing but then acts in a completely different way. A toxic parent's ultimate achievement is to make their own child like themselves. This consequently perpetuates a cycle of toxicity to yet another generation. Children however are not stupid and they grow up knowing this and learning this, some will counter it in their own ways. Unfortunately their lives, emotional, physical and psychological are owned by the parent, worse still legally owned.
There comes a point in their life when they will either allow themselves to be carried along in this behaviour or fight against it. Whether as a teenager or even many years later as an adult. They recall events and know their parents was wrong. They feel aggrieved and then are put in an emotional and psychological turmoil, trying break out. Or are pulled down into the depression of their childhood upbringing. If they think about these things too much they can result in mental illness. It is all to do with their own mental resilience and capability. Coming to this point in their life they are now at a cross road. Either they understand the toxic nature of their parent and accept it, but in doing so they will understand there are certain protective behaviours which have to put in place, they have to guard themselves and be on constant alert. As their parent gets older and more frail, they are seen pitifully but beware they will still have a vicious and spiteful tongue in their head. They further can not be trusted with grandchildren, these grand parents are seen as "nutty." Showing love in one instance and then twisting it in another, their actions are always invidious.
The worse part about toxic parenting is that no law exists against it. When considering the acts of dictators the world may act after time. With toxic parenting the cycle persists until it is broken. Until the child of a toxic parent knows certain behaviours are unacceptable and can not be carried forward. If they are lucky they can then escape to something which approaches normality. The experience and lessons of such childhoods however, are never forgotten.
I can only speak for the working classes and the unemployable classes in this context. As I have no experience of the middle or upper classes but I'm sure toxic parenting has no discrimination. Having money doesn't inoculate against emotional dysfunction which can be transferred to children. Toxic parenting is does not effect all working class people or unemployables. The unemployables are particularly chastised by society and governments, because of their parasitic appearance. However, they probably return back into the government economy every single penny they get out of it in trying to make ends meet from day to day. The same can be said of the working classes, by virtue of low wages nearly all they earn goes on being able to survive. Yet some are happy and very good parents who aspire to love and encourage their children, something toxic parents think they do but in reality don't.
Children begin life as a blank slate. They do not have any maladaptive behaviours but in Freudian terms their early years are all self-centred. Toxic parents are like this, they carry on their self-centred attitude throughout their life. Always seeking to blame other people for their plight, always thinking of what they could of been but never were and then projecting their own ambitions and inadequacies on their children. They are of low self esteem, depressed, suffer from anxiety and are mentally insular. Their imagination to get out of their own rut does not exist. They sap and sap away looking for attention at every turn because of their plight. Then the worst thing of all they take this out on their children. Who they allege to love. Children who grow up confused, who do not understand why their adult care giver says one thing but then acts in a completely different way. A toxic parent's ultimate achievement is to make their own child like themselves. This consequently perpetuates a cycle of toxicity to yet another generation. Children however are not stupid and they grow up knowing this and learning this, some will counter it in their own ways. Unfortunately their lives, emotional, physical and psychological are owned by the parent, worse still legally owned.
There comes a point in their life when they will either allow themselves to be carried along in this behaviour or fight against it. Whether as a teenager or even many years later as an adult. They recall events and know their parents was wrong. They feel aggrieved and then are put in an emotional and psychological turmoil, trying break out. Or are pulled down into the depression of their childhood upbringing. If they think about these things too much they can result in mental illness. It is all to do with their own mental resilience and capability. Coming to this point in their life they are now at a cross road. Either they understand the toxic nature of their parent and accept it, but in doing so they will understand there are certain protective behaviours which have to put in place, they have to guard themselves and be on constant alert. As their parent gets older and more frail, they are seen pitifully but beware they will still have a vicious and spiteful tongue in their head. They further can not be trusted with grandchildren, these grand parents are seen as "nutty." Showing love in one instance and then twisting it in another, their actions are always invidious.
The worse part about toxic parenting is that no law exists against it. When considering the acts of dictators the world may act after time. With toxic parenting the cycle persists until it is broken. Until the child of a toxic parent knows certain behaviours are unacceptable and can not be carried forward. If they are lucky they can then escape to something which approaches normality. The experience and lessons of such childhoods however, are never forgotten.
Sunday, 10 February 2013
Jeremy Hunt the Psycho
Without fail, every time I see Jeremy Hunt I think he is insane. There is a far off look in his eyes, a madness about him, he should be in a white coat and a soft padded room, alone. In this solitary place it would probably be too crowded as well. I don't know if he is a man with an ego like Cameron or whether it's because he has an arrogant hubris like Osborne, or perhaps it is both of these. This is the man who thought even though it was best for all if News Corp won their bid for Sky, even as Culture Secretary for the government. When I see Hunt, Cameron or Osborne something nasty turns in my stomach. They want not to just rule the country but to own it and to hoodwink every single person. But they take us for fools, which part of the electorate probably is, the part which voted for them in the first place and thought they would be the best option.
Jeremy Hunt it is rumoured wear women's panties. I'm sure this rumour is true, it would account for his odd stare. Now he is the Health Secretary, he will no doubt fix up an appointment with a shrink to investigate his preference for women's knickers above boxers. It will be free of course because he is an important person. Well, I'm sure he is in someone's eye's, his mum's? Then again maybe not. Mind he must see a doc every few days, on account of the horns which grow on the top of his head. They need to be ground down every once in a while. He now presides over what will happen with the death camp called Mid Staffordshire Hospital, where it is has been said over a 1,000 people prematurely died. Hunt agrees nobody has been held to account, but he doesn't speak the language of retribution. He defers responsibility to the culture of the hospital but doesn't take it on himself. He says the NHS is to bureaucratic and his solution is another level of form filling. One thing I can say for sure, Mr Hunt will not enter an NHS hospital if there is anything wrong with him, he'll go private, and probably from the profit he makes as a share holder in News Corp, if not shares likely employment opportunity when he leaves.
The Tories will not be in power another term as for the Liberals it will take another 70 years before they can even conceive influence like this again. They will not be in power if my vote counts for something, and I may even help canvas as well. Hunt is one psycho heading to a hotter place, I bet he's even got his own trident.
Jeremy Hunt it is rumoured wear women's panties. I'm sure this rumour is true, it would account for his odd stare. Now he is the Health Secretary, he will no doubt fix up an appointment with a shrink to investigate his preference for women's knickers above boxers. It will be free of course because he is an important person. Well, I'm sure he is in someone's eye's, his mum's? Then again maybe not. Mind he must see a doc every few days, on account of the horns which grow on the top of his head. They need to be ground down every once in a while. He now presides over what will happen with the death camp called Mid Staffordshire Hospital, where it is has been said over a 1,000 people prematurely died. Hunt agrees nobody has been held to account, but he doesn't speak the language of retribution. He defers responsibility to the culture of the hospital but doesn't take it on himself. He says the NHS is to bureaucratic and his solution is another level of form filling. One thing I can say for sure, Mr Hunt will not enter an NHS hospital if there is anything wrong with him, he'll go private, and probably from the profit he makes as a share holder in News Corp, if not shares likely employment opportunity when he leaves.
The Tories will not be in power another term as for the Liberals it will take another 70 years before they can even conceive influence like this again. They will not be in power if my vote counts for something, and I may even help canvas as well. Hunt is one psycho heading to a hotter place, I bet he's even got his own trident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)