MfM news: "The People" < IS

The missing majority to turn the tide, - the freak wave -, around

is not only the problem

but the Mother of All Illusions

The force of inertia that plagues humanity in its raising toward a better good is precisely that missing majority we call "The People". In the eighties, of the eighteen century that mean, when was the American constitution written, 'We the People' was eighty percent illiterate, yes sir.

'The People' is the illusion that drives mankind down the road of tyranny. Yes John Whitehead, 'We The People' are three strong words, three powerful words that are leading us over the cliff. Because we have reached the edge. Human DNA has been modified in an irreversible way for that same majority with unknown consequences.

The illusion of 'The People' is more deadly than that of belonging to a nation state and that of private property as a pillar of liberty. 'The People' is on its way to give the tyrants 'carte blanche' for depopulating us, for an unending general bloodbath of deaths and illnesses. Thank you Mr. Anonymous, Mr. 'Follow The Orders', thank you 'Mrs. X' because women bare their share of our global takedown. Yes, thanks Mr. Greedy, Mr. Selfish, Mrs. Disdainful ... Mr. Nobody, Mrs. Good-Looking, by following proudly your piece of wood, you take us all right down to the abyss !

You're so much proud of your SUV, your Pay-watch, of your up to date modernity that this same modernity will turn against oneself. In fact, it has already, but we are watching an extinction level, We're talking of live experiments of modifying the human DNA - for ever !!?? We're seeing beyond the blood disorders the women reproductive faculty targeted. It is - already - an euthanasia 'special operation' deployed on a world scale. And those who did it are still at it ... Big time.

Attachment, an essential element of the child's needs

By Bruno Decoret

What makes a baby "attach" to its mother, and more generally to the adults and other children around it? This question has preoccupied psychologists and, before them, philosophers. The more recent arrival of work on animals, and in particular primates, has made it possible to make progress on the subject. Humans share certain developmental traits with other animals, but this cannot be limited to a simple extrapolation.

Little ducks and little monkeys.

Two series of works on animal behavior will influence the reflection. In his laboratory, the Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz studies the behavior of anatidae (geese, ducks, etc.) and makes, among other things, a surprising observation: the little ducks follow, as soon as they are born, the moving object which is near of them. In nature, this object is their mother and it is her that they follow. But if the experimenter replaces the mother with a wooden decoy, the ducklings follow the decoy. Lorentz immerses himself in the pond and breaks the eggs to hatch the little ducks, which will follow him in his comings and goings, without paying attention to the duck who laid and brooded them.

It is not their mother who drags the chicks, but the first moving object they encounter at birth. From these discoveries, Lorenz introduces the notion of imprint, a phenomenon that will link a newborn child to the adults around him. This will earn him, in 1973, the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, along with Niko Tinbergen. At the same time, the American ethologist Harry F. Harlow became interested in the effects of social isolation in rhesus macaques. Young monkeys, bottle-fed but without bodily contact, rapidly develop pathological behaviors.

A mannequin simply covered in fur, in whose arms they can take refuge, calms their anguish. Better still, if they are put in the presence of a feeding dummy (with a bottle) and another covered in fur, the little macaques will spend the minimum time with the feeder and will quickly take refuge with the other. It is this maternal substitute, close to the mother through bodily structure and contact, that has the priority to calm the anguish, and not the substitute who distributes the food. Conclusion: between the two maternal functions of nutrition and security, there is no causal relationship, and the second seems to prevail over the first. If the isolation is prolonged, the little monkeys will show serious behavioral and health problems.

Attachment or drive, the controversy.

What about the little human? At that time, there was already a theorization, the psychoanalytic theory of drives and scaffolding. This states that the young child attaches himself to his mother because she feeds him and satisfies a primary drive, on which he will build other drives, by supporting the first. In this context, two psychoanalysts, influenced by ethological work, will take a close interest in the mechanisms that structure the relationship between mother and child.

René Spitz, born in Austria, analyzed by Freud and collaborator of Anna Feud, is an orthodox psychoanalyst. It is by studying children treated in hospitals and separated from their mothers for a long period that he will make a shocking discovery. Although properly fed and cared for, these children quickly show symptoms ranging from depression to marasmus (state of serious mental and physical degradation) and even death.

Spitz gives this syndrome the name of hospitalism, which he defines exactly as "the set of physical disorders due to an affective deprivation by deprivation of the mother occurring in young children placed in an institution in the first eighteen months of life." From this research, Spitz will develop his own theory of the constitution of the infantile psyche, giving a large place to the notion of object relation, while remaining within the framework of psychoanalysis. He develops it in his famous work "From birth to speech". It is John Bowlby, also a psychoanalyst, who will "take the plunge" and create the psychological theory of attachment. He is inspired by the work of Harlow and Spitz, and meets Lorentz, who will explain to him the importance of the imprint in animals. He defines as behavior of attachment of a newborn, any behavior aimed at inducing and maintaining contact between the newborn himself and the person who takes care of him, his mother in the majority of cases. For Bowlby, attachment is a primary and imperative need of the child, just like the need for food from which it does not arise. This theorization is opposed to the psychoanalytical theory of drives and scaffolding. Like Harlow's macaques, small humans need attachment to their mother, independent of their physiological need for food. The controversy will therefore develop, and Bowlby's opponents contest it, even if he still claims psychoanalysis. any behavior aimed at inducing and maintaining contact between the newborn himself and the person who takes care of him, his mother in the majority of cases. For Bowlby, attachment is a primary and imperative need of the child, just like the need for food from which it does not arise. This theorization is opposed to the psychoanalytical theory of drives and scaffolding. Like Harlow's macaques, small humans need attachment to their mother, independent of their physiological need for food. The controversy will therefore develop, and Bowlby's opponents contest it, even if he still claims psychoanalysis. any behavior aimed at inducing and maintaining contact between the newborn himself and the person who takes care of him, his mother in the majority of cases. For Bowlby, attachment is a primary and imperative need of the child, just like the need for food from which it does not arise. This theorization is opposed to the psychoanalytical theory of drives and scaffolding. Like Harlow's macaques, small humans need attachment to their mother, independent of their physiological need for food.

(...)

quick comment:

In nature, mothers, and fathers are what they are supposed to be, good mothers, true fathers. In human society, mothers and fathers who understand and stick to the real task of being parents more often than not can be counted with fingers. Children will then look for a real strong symbol to switch their need of attachment to. It can be anything from 'the law' of the state, the police, the pirate, the church, the drug, but it always be a fake arm to lean upon, a limited, although idealized, social concept. By attaching to an idea instead of a reality, this attachment will raise it exclusivity against the others. The lack of true parenthood leads toward selfishness, isolation, aggressiveness, sectarianism, war.

This morning,

I woke up in a curfew.

Everybody’s in prison …

! hahahahahaha !

With God !!!

I ask all the people who believe in God, in a God Who does NOT want what happens to us. Because, after all, whatever guilty we might be, we for the most do not want to bow to dictates, to inhuman dictates whose lesser effects rather than absolute slavery we have had to endure for decennials, unwanted wars, unwanted pollution, unwanted criminal healthcare, unwanted corrupted justice, unwanted inhuman jobs and jobs conditions, and neither the ill eating, the medias’ eyes that peep at you, the lack of green and sun, no, we did not want that, our children do not want that, our God, Whoever His name, does not want us to degenerate, to disappear. You know, we’re free. Let's prove it the right way once and for all. We're already in time over !!

Yes !! Freedom is not a vain word, a sticker on a washing machine, we can choose to be bad, but, say, only a quarter are deliberately bad. More or less, just a proportion. The belly, the majority, fifty per cent are neither bad nor good. The drawing power is self-centered, selfish. They themselves count, no one else, under or upper, right or left. They care exclusively of themselves, shutting eyes and ears to anything else than their ego.

This is what we call the people. Now, the last quarter of the whole in inclined to do good. Of them, without entering an analysis, we again find the equation of 25/50/25, and to our sorrow, those who do care truly to do good all the time in any situation with anybody … Well, that’s 25% of the 25% !

Ciao the numbers, not good at that; let’s say that sixteen per cent is what we ought to talk about when mentioning ‘humanity’. With no hope of a significant increase ever, when we look back, and the nearest past being the most self-centered, to say the least. When we speak daily of humanity, we mean the masses, the nations, the people as if that was meaning something since 84% do not care of one another ? “We The People” is an illusion, a problem, a wrong dream, false-opposition !! No less no more than the government, the flag, the property of land. Total illusion.

'The People' represents the lust for power and greed through a greater body of self-centered individuals, all those who sell their human souls for profit, in a word: 'The Majority', the ball at the foot of mankind.