- Children are Slaves
- Reich's view of Armoring
- Family Indoctrination
- Learned Behavior
- Starts Early
Children are the last of the slaves to be freed. Why is this? Is it because they are ubiquitiously seen as anything / everything but slaves?
They have no lobby seeking to free them from their life as, first their parents slaves, then as they begin to mature, as slaves of society. In fact, there are powerful forces / groups / organizations aligned to keep them in their place — as slaves without rights, chained first to their family, and if that fails, chained to a foster home. As minors by law children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world.
Most children are created for some kind of selfish purpose on the part of parents; most are a means to at least some further end: "emotional satisfaction, to provide extra work force for the family, to have someone to transmit the family name, to guarantee support in old age, to obey God's commandments, to gain self-esteem or reputation for virility, as a vehicle of status and conspicuous consumption, a source of consumable entertainment, mere emulation of others, and an illusory sense of immortality. Also note the extremely common case in which conception is not intended at all, but is the greatly regretted (but ultimately accepted) by-product of sexual activity undertaken for its own sake.
David Brahinsky, in his book Reich and Gurdjueff – Sexuality and the Evolution of Consciousness, begins to explore perhaps the most powerful supression of a child's individuality. In his discussion of Hostile Suppression of Genital Play, he writes, "Reich came to believe suppression of sexuality is of fundamental significance in armor formation and development of emotional illness. Sexual feelings are extremely powerful and until suppressed, are experienced as normal, very pleasurable sensations. Children have no idea that those feelings that give such pleasure are so ‘wrong.’
"Not all suppression of sexuality is carried out with overt violence or obvious hostility. But when it is, infants and children are put in the position of having to defend themselves. First of all, the infant or child must inhibit its behavior as a means of self protection. Of course, hostility can come in various forms, the form of overt violence — an adult might shout at or strike a child when the child touches its genitals or engages in sex play with other children, for example — or the hostility can be more subtle — the adult might express disgust, moral indignation, shame, or indifference. When children are inhibited in sex play they are forced, to begin with, to pull their hands from their genitals. If the inhibition is consistent, they become afraid to touch their genitals. This means they must keep their hands away from ‘there,’ even when an impulse to touch arises, particularly when in the company of others.
"It can be seen then, that behavior on the part of adults that we consider perfectly reasonable, moral, and in the best interests of the child — suppression of genitality which, in children, of course, cannot result in pregnancy, often the rationale given for suppression of adolescent sexuality, leads to chronic muscular armoring. Suppression of sexual feelings is crucial therefore, not only because it is suppression of a powerful, essential urge in itself, which feels to the one being stifled as if their very being is at stake, but also because suppression of this urge leads to massive armoring, armoring of the entire body in all the segments.
"Infants and children obviously have no understanding of what is happening to them when adults condemn their natural expressions and can take the hostile reactions in only one way, as an expression or a statement, that what they feel is “bad,” that what they wish to express is “bad.” In other words, such suppression is taken as a comment on their very essence, that they, in essence, are bad. This attitude towards the living is very well expressed in the popular conception of the doctrine of original sin, which is an obvious cultural and institutional expression of the feelings of a large segment of the adult world towards infants, children, sexuality, and life itself.
By the time we reach adolescence, our character structure has become a many-layered labyrinth. At the “bottom” are the core or essence drives which continue to pulse. On top of them or surrounding them, the armor used to inhibit these drives which is layered according to the time the various impulses were suppressed and the intensity of the suppression. This layer is covered over by the facade, the “face” we present to the world and to ourselves.
"To speak of armor as a labyrinth is to imply that it is not neatly layered but that the combination of core drives, suppressed emotions and impulses, anxiety, and the facade, intertwine in ways that are often confusing. The nature of the labyrinth depends on the timing and the severity of the suppression, but generally, according to Reich, as mentioned, the earlier the suppression occurs, the deeper will be the armoring.15 It develops differently if repression occurs when the impulse is at its peak of intensity or if it occurs when it is weaker. These and other factors determine the type of labyrinth that develops, the “character type.”16
"Is it any, wonder that adolescence is a difficult time? During this period sexual impulses become organized around the genitals and the urge to superimpose or mate with a lover begins to surface. The labyrinth of armor is already well formed and added to the tension this produces is the fact that these genital impulses are not allowed free expression.
"Teenagers are not told that this is a wonderful time to explore their sexuality. Parents don’t offer their homes for uninhibited, guilt-free sexual activity — condoms provided. This sounds ridiculous or horrible to most of us; immoral. Thus the damage done by sexual suppression in childhood is intensified in adolescence, and the armoring needed to deal with such suppression can only evolve and rigidify. In Gurdjieff’s terms, false personality and the buffers gain in strength at the expense of the essence."
See additional excerpts from this book at: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12206.0 and http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12206.5
Family is, by nature, an environment that seeks to homogenize its members and oppress the child since day 1 of their life. If you are different then you are very likely rejected, that is evolution’s wings at play. Some people never mature out of this stage, never realize that they are an individual, outside of the family pride. But sadly most feel vicitmized, and may never realize that there is a world outside of family obligations.
Isn’t “brainwashing” kind of the definition of child rearing? Teach the offspring to believe the same as you. And believe for life too.
The following is an excerpt from book, Children of the Future, by Wilhelm Reich
The Source of the Human "No"
"When a child is born, it comes out of a warm uterus, 37 degrees centigrade, into about 18 or 20 degrees centigrade. That's bad enough. The shock of birth, bad enough. But it could survive that if the following didn't happen: As it comes out, it is picked up by the legs and slapped on the buttocks. The first greeting is a slap.
The next greeting: Take it away from its mother. Right? Take it away from the mother. I want you to listen here. It will sound incredible in a hundred years. Take it away from the mother. The mother must not touch or see the baby. The baby has no body contact after having had nine months of body contact at a very high temperature-what we call the 'orgonotic body energy contact,' the field action between them, the warmth and the heat.
Then, the Jews introduced something about six or seven thousand years ago. And that is circumcision. I don't know why they introduced it. It's still a riddle. Take that poor penis. Take a knife-right? And start cutting. And everybody says, 'It doesn't hurt.' Everybody says, 'No, it doesn't hurt.' Get it? That's an excuse, of course, a subterfuge. They say that the sheaths of the nerve are not yet developed. Therefore, the sensation in the nerves are not yet developed. Therefore, the child doesn't feel a thing. Now, that's murder! Circumcision is one of the worst treatments of children. And what happens to them? You just look at them. They can't talk to you. They just cry. What they do is shrink. They contract, get away into the inside, away from the ugly world. I express it very crudely, but you understand what I mean.
Now, that's the greeting: Taking it away from the mother. Mother mustn't see it. Twenty-four or forty-eight hours, eat nothing. Right? Penis cut. And then comes the worst: This poor child, poor infant, tries always to stretch out and to find some warmth. Something to hold on to. It goes to the mother, puts its lips to the mother's nipple. And what happens? The nipple is cold, or doesn't erect, or the milk doesn't come, or the milk is bad. And that is quite general. That is not one case in a thousand. That is general. That's average.
So what does that infant do? How does it respond to that? How does it have to respond to that bioenergetically? It can't come to you and tell you, 'Oh listen, I'm suffering so much, so much.' It doesn't say 'no' in words, you understand, but that is the emotional situation. And we orgonomists know it. We get it out of our patients. We get it out of their emotional structure, out of their behavior, not out of their words. Words can't express it. Here, in the very beginning, the spite develops. Here, the 'no' develops, the 'NO' of humanity. And then you ask why the world is in a mess.
. . . because breeding happens for the wrong reasons and continues unabated, without conscience or foresight. I object to unlimited procreation of our species, as did Gnostics who condemned human breeding habits as ignorant, joyless, and irresponsible. Those ancient seers and guardians of the Mysteries were dedicated to fostering the genius of our species through education, vocational training, and visionary practices aligned to the living earth. In that role, they opposed the breeding of future generations merely to serve the existing one. In short, they objected to human use of progeny as a means to an end. Sadly, this is just how it goes with almost all breeding in the human population. But no solution to this problem can be achieved through eugenics programming or a geopolitical mandate, only through individual accountability.
Nobody taught them . . .
There is an Eastern saying: "Man is asleep, only death will wake him up". When someone is close to death, he often realises how he has constructed his life.
There is a wonderful Tibetan meditation called "the death meditation". You sit alone and, after you have perceived your body, you imagine that your life is at its end. You are living the last moments of your existence. Have you ever asked yourself what the last minutes of your life will be like? What will you think? How will you feel? You may have a list of things you would have liked to do but you have never done.
Tibetan teachings tell us to write this list right now and to fight with all our strength to do what is written on it. Only then will your life be full, when that sheet has become white again, and then will be able to accept death because you feel sated by your days.
Your life will no longer be a misfired shot, something that has escaped from your hands, you will have held it, you will have fed upon it, so you will feel more able to let it go. Learning to live today is the only way to learn to die tomorrow. We do not know how to live, that's why we are afraid to die. We do not know how to live because nobody has ever taught us. At school they taught us about the life of Mazzini and Garibaldi, historical characters who died centuries ago, without explaining their inner dramas, or showing us their humanity. And so we didn’t realise that we can become heroes too, special individuals, they made us feel more isolated.
They didn't teach us these things because nobody taught them.
For example, they didn't teach you that you are mechanical and that you tend toward mechanicalness. That you repeat models of behaviour, that you don't live in the present but you are constantly projected into tomorrow and into its worries, or into yesterday and its regrets. They never taught you that anxiety, tension and nervousness are the origin of many illnesses. Medicine and immunology have confirmed this theory, and this has opened new horizons for treatment and prevention. They didn't teach you to love your body but, on the contrary, they taught to you to hate it. They forbade you to touch it, to look at it, to love even the most secret areas, and so they created perversions, the sense of sin and guilt.
They never taught to you to become an individual, and so they created divided beings in conflict with themselves, with a thousands egos and ten thousand masks. They taught you to strengthen your personality instead of what lies beyond it. They taught to you always and constantly to defend yourself and to trust sometimes your heart and sometimes your head.
They made individuals who are not unitary, sometimes too cerebral, sometimes too emotional.
Religion has taught you to see God as the source of the worst negative emotions. God, who asks us not to commit sin, and who prepares the oven to put us in if we do sin. God, who always asks too much and who condemns us at every turn. The new generation, who understand the deceit hidden behind this psychological domination, have stopped having ideals and a personal spirituality. Television has become their God, and VIPs their idols. The entire mechanism has turned to the advantage of depersonalisation.
You are depersonalised and you're not aware of it. You are not the master of yourself, even if you think you are. You can see it simply by observing yourself. They always taught you to consider the world, to envy those who have more, to put on your best appearance... they never taught you that there is no more interesting performance than yourself. Had they taught you this, you could have widened your inner sky. Instead, you have only learned to make your image look better, but you misunderstood the way to become better. What does being better mean? It means having the capacity to understand ourselves and to overcome our fears and our conflicts, developing new strength, new energy, a boost of life.
You have huge potential, and yet you reduce yourself to using only a miniscule part of it. That's because, in order to use your resources, you don't just need to know how, but, above all, you have to dig to draw upon them. You have to acquire new tools and use them, excogitate new plans and change the way you think, question your mental schemes and drum up the courage to walk towards new horizons. I invite you to build a new you rather than a good image of yourself in the eyes of the world. I invite you to do some practical work. Don't put it off till tomorrow, start it now, so that you can develop the wonderful potential which lies inside you, the force you don't believe you have, but that in actual fact, you do have, even if you don't use it.
I invite you to try and make some efforts in this direction because, in this field, even the smallest effort leads to everlasting results which no thief in the world will be able to steal. Where should you start? You can start from here and now, if you do the things I am about to tell you. First of all you must decide to start today, with me, a new life, a new relationship with yourself. The root of the world "relation" comes from the Latin relatio, from referre, which means "to refer".
I would like you to achieve a new way to refer to yourself; I would like you to communicate with yourself in a completely different way. Sometimes we decide to start a new relationship with others, from another point of view, to put aside all the grudges and to start again under a new light of respect, love and listening. I would like to ask you to make peace with yourself, to begin to love and respect yourself more, to listen to yourself, to observe yourself, to remember yourself. The more you learn to do this, the more you will surround yourself with a new energy, with a positive aura which will surround your family, your friends, your life. The more you love yourself the more your capacity to love others will grow.
You can start immediately if you want. You only have to shut your eyes now, together with me and begin to listen to your body. Did you know that the first step towards love is listening? Start to senseyour own body and start talking to yourself. Tell yourself: You are all right. I neglected you during all these years of life together. I treated you badly, both physically and by feeding you with bad thoughts and destructive emotions. I often allowed the surrounding environment to possess me and I died away instead of shining in the dark. That's because I sharpened my physical ear instead of my inner one. Now I will listen to you, and I sincerely wish to start a new relationship with you. I have decided to love you".
This self-projection will help you; it is only a handy stratagem, a means, you don't have to become schizophrenic. You only have to start to respect yourself in the same way that you would respect your best friend. Now that you have made this promise to yourself, you have to keep it. Aren't the promises we make to ourselves the most important ones? And yet they are exactly the ones that we tend to break most easily. That's just the way we are, we prefer to betray ourselves.
Do you realize how radical this change is that I am urging you to make?
"I am asking you to learn loyalty to yourself, which is against what you have learned from society since you were a child. "Loyalty towards ourselves" has been denied because our essence has been denied, so that we could become integrated with the "system".
Their efforts served to develop not your real capacities, but your masks, to make your integration more prestigious and attainable.
They denied your uniqueness, they rejected your differences; how could they have taught you to be loyal to yourself? For this reason the work will be difficult. You will have to fight against years of deeply rooted conditioning. It will seem that you are fighting against yourself, when you are actually working for yourself. Now some harmful attitudes, poisons which the world has injected in us all, have become part of you. You defend them as if you were defending yourself. You defend your image, but you don't realise that your image is not yourself.
You may think you are a Communist instead of seeing yourself as an individual who shares some ideals with Communism. Or you may think you are against Communism and have become so deeply identified with the idea that if you met a Communist you wouldn't feel at ease. However, when you were a child you weren't a Communist, you weren't a Fascist, these are clothes you put on later, when nobody taught to you to be yourself. You become your ideas, you become your football team, and your real Essence disappears…
Around your roots poison weeds have grown, fed by years of conditioning. It will be difficult to eradicate them, because they are dangerously entwined. You are the only one who can do it, and nobody else can do it for you. Close your eyes together with me and feel how short your life is.
Get closer to yourself, stay with yourself, and start to sense your body. These hands and arms that always do what you ask them, obedient servants. Have you ever been as aware of your body as you are in this moment? You have dressed it in thousands of different ways, but feel its nakedness only now. Start to look for what your clothes don't beautify, but only hide. Now begin to observe your thoughts. How many thoughts you have thought! You identify yourself in so many of them! Leave them all, and observe them while you sense yourself. They are your products not your boss.
Now observe your emotions... terror and ecstasy alternate with each other, suffering and joy, like a wheel, giving you sublime instants and endless suffering. Go beyond. Try to see beyond your emotions, they are your product too, they are not yourself. This is the most difficult thing. It is possible to abandon an idea, but it is impossible to leave behind emotions that were born inside you. You identify too closely with them. However if you could see them, even before you express them, you would understand that it is possible to live an existence of freedom, and not of slavery. Existence. Instead of enjoying tenderness and allowing ourselves to plumb the depths of grief, in order to understand the message it is giving us, we reject the emotions that hurt us and we become deaf to ourselves. Or we shelter under the poor gutters of negative emotions, just because worry and anxiety are the only routine procedures we know to face our problems. We are so rooted in our usual emotional ways that we don't even wonder if there may be a different way to face them. Changing would mean too strong a transformation for us even to consider.
And so we are unable to hold onto even positive emotions. Good news can't cheer us up as much as bad news can bring us down.
Stay sitting down, with your eyes shut, and see all this: means, instruments, things we often don't use because we are too wrapped up in the movie of life. Try to get up from that role of passive spectator, get onto the scene and go beyond, go backstage. Try to make yourself the director. The director of your body, of your emotions, of your thoughts. Come back to yourself definitively and forever.
This is new birth: a new relationship with ourselves. However, there is a risk that these will remain just printed words. It is more than a risk, it is a certainty. When you will raise your eyes from this sheet you will forget your intention, believe me. This happens because in a person’s life new births should happen every day, every day the intention should be reasserted. Because everyday we have to fight against the mechanical degeneration into which the world is falling, and us with it. And the work, if we are alone, is of titanic dimensions. That's why it is helpful for searchers to join work groups where they can use those aids which can make the Great Work a bit lighter.
Alone it is almost impossible.
Family - are you obligated to them?
The entire idea of a family is something you feel you have no control over. Many cultures tell you that your life must revolve around your family. Many other cultures tell you to always respect your family. You, in the end, are told that you have no power to end or change a family. The family, however, has all the powers over you.
Whether by will or by thinking you have no choice, you probably associate with your family or you may think that you are obligated to being connected to your family. Many parents make you feel that you owe them for bringing you to this world, while many siblings tell you that you are connected to them forever.
You are always expected to do things for your family. It is as if being born into a family makes it a rule that you will serve that family.
The family must never be disobeyed or distanced.
In the end, you may be proud of being able to choose different things in your life, but you may have never thought of being able to choose a family. How come?
Why do you accept your blood family without any questions?
What is it about a blood family that makes you like them?
Your blood family could be comprised of good or bad people, or both.
They may raise and give you shelter till you are older. They help you in things and they also make sure you are safe from harmful things.
Society does not tell you why you should value your blood family, but society does tell you to respect them and be loyal to them forever.
You are not allowed to choose your blood family, and you are not allowed to choose whether or not to change such families with a replacement.
You were brought to this world to carry on the name of your blood family and to carry on the traditions passed down to your blood family by their past blood families.
In the end, a blood family exists so that you can live your life to promote the idea of a family.
Society also trains you through your blood family. Your blood family makes sure to tell you, or brainwash you, since birth to respect and be part of your blood family.
Your blood family is a catalyst for you to accept a certain culture.
Your blood family rarely gives you choices. Instead, it tells you what is right and tells you what is wrong.
Being conditioned to this every hour of the day for 5, 10 and 15 years surely has a life-long or maybe a very long lasting effect on you.
Your views of culture, people, world, internet, cars, life, love, cell phones, hatred, animals, and everything else is probably affected by the teaching your blood family bestowed upon you during your childhood. And that is of course, as our society says, nothing to worry about!
Blood families are meant to teach you what to like and what not to like.
Antinatalism is a philosophical position that asserts a negative value judgment towards birth, standing in opposition to natalism. It has been advanced by figures such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Paul Ehrlich, Heinrich Heine, Emil Cioran, Philipp Mainländer, Philip Larkin, Chris Korda, David Benatar, Matti Häyry, Thomas Ligotti and Richard Stallman. Groups that encourage antinatalism, or pursue antinatalistic policies, include the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and the Club of Rome.
Arguments for antinatalism
Supporters of the position assert that antinatalistic policies could solve problems such as overpopulation, famine, and depletion of non-renewable resources. Some countries, such as India and China, already have policies aimed at reducing the number of children per family, in an effort to curb serious overpopulation concerns and heavy strain on national resources. Paul Ehrlich, in his book The Population Bomb, argued that rapidly increasing population would soon create a crisis, and advocated that coercive antinatalistic policies would have to be pursued on a global level in order to avert a worldwide crisis. Although the crisis he predicted did not occur in the timeframe he expected (his predictions, coming in 1968, anticipated disaster by the late eighties), he stands by the book and maintains that without future depopulation efforts the problem will worsen.
Other proponents of antinatalism appeal to the ethical side of the issue. David Benatar, for example, argues from the hedonistic premise that the infliction of harm is generally morally wrong and to be avoided. Therefore, he asserts that the birth of a new person always entails nontrivial harm to that person, creating a moral imperative not to procreate.
Criticism of antinatalism
Some parents hope that their children will provide for their parents in old age; this opinion is viewed by antinatalists as extremely selfish. Criticism of antinatalism may also come from views that hold value in bringing potential future persons into existence, but there are also views holding that there is no such obligation.
- National Alliance for Optional Parenthood
- Population control in order to decrease population growth
- Voluntary human extinction movement
- Natalism, the counterpoint to antinatalism
- Nietzschean affirmation, a contrasting stance in favor of life, by a one-time follower of Schopenhauer
- Negative Utilitarianism
- Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis
- ^ a b Benatar, David (2006). Better Never to Have Been. Oxford University Press, USA. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001. ISBN 9780199296422.
- ^ "RMS -vs- Doctor, on the evils of Natalism". http://www.art.net/Studios/Hackers/Hopkins/Don/text. Retrieved 2 September 2010.
- ^ "Steven Levy Revisits Tech Titans, Hackers, Idealists". http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/04/ff_hackers/all/1. Retrieved 18 November 2010.
- ^ BRIAN E. DIXON (28. April 2008): In food crisis, family planning helps
- ^ Meadows, Donella (1993): Die neuen Grenzen des Wachstums: die Lage der Menschheit: Bedrohung und Zukunftschancen. Stuttgart: Dt. Verl.-Anst. ISBN 3-421-06626-4
- ^ Heinz Werner Wessler (30. Januar 2007): Indien – eine Einführung: Herausforderungen für die aufstrebende asiatische Großmacht im 21. Jahrhundert. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung
- ^ Paul R. Ehrlich; Anne H. Ehrlich (2009). "The Population Bomb Revisited". Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1(3): 63–71. http://fragette.free.fr/demography/The_Population_Bomb_Revisited.pdf. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
- ^ Leone, Catherine (December 1989). "Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility: The Dilemma of Fertility Choice in America". Washington State University.
- ^ Do Potential People Have Moral Rights? By Mary Anne Warren. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 7, No. 2 (Jun., 1977), pp. 275-289 
- Morgan, Philip and Berkowitz King, Rosalind, "Why Have Children in the 21st Century? Biological Predisposition, Social Coercion, Rational Choice", European Journal of Population 17: 3–20, 2001
- Steyn, Mark (December 14, 2007). "Children? Not if you love the planet". Orange County Register (Santa Ana, California). http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/child-birth-homeless-1942317-year-percent. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
I'm not sure what this page is all about, but it came up in a search about family indoctrination of children
Note: 63 comments, all about how cute the baby is.
Not one word about brainwashing!