Q: Which is a good symbol for America, analogous to how the Cross is a symbol for Christianity and the Star of David of David for judiasm? Pick one: (A) automobile hubcaps, or (B) fake window mullions, or (C) styrofoam coffee cups, or (D) golf balls, or (E) chemical underarm deodorants (e.g.: Ban Roll On), or (F) hair sweepings from a barber shop floor, or (G) other (please specify: firstname.lastname@example.org)?
Entertainment: Rich people attending a Broadway Musical performance. Click one of the video monitors to see middle class people watching their television.
It's not polite to say it, but the nature of politeness is to make people pretend to themselves things are not the way they are, to make them afraid of themselves and their social surround to intimidate them be what their social surround wants to deploy them as, not what otherwise they might by themselves become which might not be as useful for the agenda of that social surround and one bad apple can spoil a whole bushel and we were all born to serve the agenda of the group['s leaders], not: the group and its leaders existing for our good, but they won't acknowledge that fact because then we might not like it and consequently each say: "Hell no, I won't go!" ("What if they gave a war and nobody came?")
A child should be
reared raised in an environment that can raise him (her, other) up in the vertical dimension, not in the happenstance social surround of the birth canal or C-section out of which he emerged from the uterus, and that may mean for the child to be raised by non-biologially related persons who are similar to the child, or, if not, at a bare minimum, persons who do not try to make the child be like themselves if the child is more gifted than they are.
To be specific: my parents should have given me up for adoption by a highly intellectual, cultured, esthetically refined childless couple as soon as it began to become clear that I was of a more rarified species than themselves. (Love is not possessive.) And the Headmaster (left) of "prep" school they sent me to should have told them that neither he himself nor his institution was competent to educate a gifted and sensitive child.
For me (BMcC), it was split or succumb. Being schizoid beat having psychically died, 24/7/365.25, but I deserved better than that. The reason the a**holes at Westchester Institute for Training in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy shunned me is that they knew I knew what they were, and they did not like that I could maybe help other people who were not instances of their social surround to survive as themselves and not get reduced to being psychically dead like their smiling faces. I remember you, Martin Kossover, LCSW! This page will be about psychic deadness.
Which came first: The normal child or the normal[izing] products?
Who can say? Whichever way it goes, we end up with a lot of normal people and normal products which together make up normal, normalizing social surround which keeps normalizing everything and everybody more and more to keep everything perfectly normal, or, in brief: perfect. And a young lad should always remember that girls like Tootsie Rolls.
Aside: One despicable effect of normalizing childrearing and normal products follows from Arnold Hauser's observation:
"What men are willing to put up with depends on what they are able to look forward to.
Normalizing childrearing and normal products brainwash people into not having much to look forward to and consequently causing them to put up with very bad things such as, in 1964, when I turned 18 years of age, their country packaging some of us in body bags and also subjecting some others to lifelong mutilation due to their government's leaders' fantasy to kill commies in Vietnam. Are babies born lusting to be killed for their country of origin's foreign poicy, or to wear steel cages to protect their faces from being mutilated by hits from cudgels ("lacrosse sticks"), or to be wage-slaves all their lives working in meaningless jobs to serve a mindless "invisible hand"?
The big question
Q: Would people be normal even had they been given nurturing not normalizing childrearing? Would they still end up being normal had their souls not been Wonder Breaded, i.e.: had their autochthonous faculty of judgment not been destroyed and replaced by a socially conditioned faculty of pre-judgment, the purpose of which is to make the person to see things as their social surround of origin wants them to, not as they would see them for themselves if left to judge for themselves? Does normalizing childrearing for most people just populate previously uninhabited territory (a genuine "tabula rasa"), not needing to do a destruction of the child's own autochthonous spirit first, because normal children, unlike me (BMcC[18-11-46-503]), do not enter this world with any native spirit that would need to be expunged to be replaced by a social conditioned?
From the simple to the familiar
I (BMcC[18-11-46-503]) imagine, perhaps wrongly, that had my parents not destroyed my autochthonous faculty of judgment (well, they did not completely succeed, but they did their "best" and at least crippled me...), as a child I could have perceived "the simple": that which the things in my surround had to say, and, since I did not create the world, there would be no end to what the things had to tell me of themselves, sometimes for better and also sometimes for worse, but all nonetheless coming from the things themselves, not from the masking over everything by my parents' social conditioning.
My childrearing destroyed much of what I was born with, my soul, and tried to stuff back in my childrearers' shared psychoses -- the social conditioning -- of the social surround I was stuck in, as deputized to my two birth parents. Instead of living among the simple, I was stuck with the familiar: The objects in social conditioning are closed predefined stand-ins for the things in the world, so that, when the socially conditioned child looks at anything, the child does not see what the thing itself has to tell him, but just sees the stand-in. The world becomes a big bore because its preprogrammed semiotic content is quickly exhausted, like a TV dinner (right), not abig table of open bowls containing various fresh foods to take or leave, or to take a second helping of, or, again, not. The child's whole lifeworld is a portion-controlled, prepackaged TV dinner. You are what you eat.
Three paths for living
- Externally imposed laws and rules and mores that subject you to coerced penalties. This is the path of degradation, humiliation, demoralization, prudery, bullying, "conditions of employment", a school's "honor code" and all sorts of other offending things which you cannot evade unless you have more power than the people who impose the laws and rules and mores. It is the path of slavery. In a mass society this may be necessary: When there are too many people, your hopes for your living may not matter because governors need to coordinate and manage the otherwise unmanageable mass. Of course, many people don't mind becAUSE they don't "mind" (i.e.: don't , just pre-reflectively conform), similar to sheep in a flock.
- No rules. Chaos, Brownian motion. Luc Besson's film "Le derniere combat".
- Self-imposed rules which you are free to follow and to break as you see fit. This is the path to freedom: You shape your life in self-chosen ways. By following your rules, you avoid the waste of chaotic confusion (#2, above). But since you are the rule-giver and do not tyrannize yourself, you can break or change the rules when you deem they are not "working" for you. Have goals. Strive for them. But when they are not being optimally constructive for you, change them and follow [not "the", but:] your new rules. When you deem no rules are needed, then you can play without your rules being anything other than safety nets to keep you from doing something "stupid" that might risk you unnecessarily hurting yourself, for instance: "playing" a body-contact sport such as lacrosse.