No clear difference between psychopathology of self and psychopathology of world

Beyond Meds

This short passage is filled with astonishing insights, articulated so beautifully there is something palpable and acute that happens when I read it.

hillmanMy practice tells me I can no longer distinguish clearly between neurosis of self and neurosis of world, psychopathology of self and psychopathology of world. Moreover, it tells me that to place neurosis and psychopathology solely in personal reality is a delusional repression of what is actually, realistically, being experienced.

The whole world is sick….and you can’t put this right by having a good therapeutic dialogue or finding deeper meanings. It’s not about meaning anymore; it’s about survival.

Psychological awareness rises from errors, coincidences, indefiniteness, from the chaos deeper than intelligent control.

In any system, whether a corporation, a family or the inner arrangements of the human psyche, a vigorous “no” to the good of the whole may serve the good of the whole and increase its power…

View original post 289 more words

It is uncomfortable to feel so real

Beyond Meds

trungpaVulnerability can sometimes make you nervous. It is uncomfortable to feel so real, so you want to numb yourself. You look for some kind of anaesthetic, anything that will provide you with entertainment. Then you can forget the discomfort of reality. People don’t want to live with their basic rawness for even fifteen minutes.

From Smile at Fear: Awakening the True Heart of Bravery by Chögyam Trungpa

Empathy, compassion and vulnerability: collection

Self-compassion, empathy towards oneself and the willingness to be vulnerable paired with ongoing awareness are the qualities we need to nurture so that we might heal our mind and body and after that the mind and bodies of others and then the planet too. Bringing mindfulness to our own lives with these powerful states of consciousness can be part of the beginning of change. Paying attention to a process is changing the process!

Below is a collection of…

View original post 238 more words

Feminism and Adoption

In the past weeks, months, years, I was made aware of the division within feminist movements, especially when I did a paper on Eco-Feminism. The biggest complaints of women of color and poor women, were that too may “feminist” organizations didn’t care about their issues. They were only interested in furthering their own interests and of climbing the ladder of patriarchy. Being better competitors, business executives, climbing the ladder, but not changing the fundamentals that cause inequalities.

Adoption (Also viewed as trafficking) is a topic that many people who are in the movement stay away from or advocate for. There are too many reasons why feminists especially, should Not advocate for adoption.

Let me first specify, that any Industry that does not admit any fault, or attempts to shun / silence / kill its victims is not an industry that cares about the lives it works for. No industry should create victims in order to capitalize on the services or products that it profits by. Unfortunately, adoption is trafficking.

1) Adoption / trafficking is a systemic problem/issue.

Infants and children who transfer from one home to another are never asked for their permission. Many mothers were forced to relinquish in maternity homes, work homes, or in hospitals. The majority of the women were poor. Those who were middle class were being threatened with poverty, most often by their parents who stated they would forcibly kick them out of the house if they did not relinquish their child. There was a systemic attempt to procure infants for those able to pay the price. Poor people can not adopt a white infant child due to the costs associated. There is an intense propaganda machine attempting to brainwash women into relinquishing. There have been movies created on how US agencies will kill parents in other countries for their babies.

2) Media perpetuates the idea that women are sex objects, pregnancy is the woman’s fault, and placing a child for adoption is angelic. This goes with a disordered action plan of Idealize, Devalue and Discard. Pregnant women are treated with great idolization, unless / until they challenge the adoption system or say no to having their baby adopted, or change their mind. Then they are devalued, a type of emotional abuse designed to keep them buying into the kool-aid. Then, once their infant has been secured and the mother has signed the papers, then they are discarded.

3) Once you place a child for adoption, you are mean, cruel, selfish, and nothing that a mother says in negative light of adoption is taken seriously. In addition, adults who were adopted / trafficked are also shunned and silenced if they say anything negative about either their personal experience, or the adoption / trafficking system in general.

5) There is no legal repercussions once a child is placed. Very Rarely do the mothers (or fathers for that matter) who attempt to get their children back succeed.

This is a “non-profit” business model with a profit of over $7 Billion dollars annually, and rising. There is no accountability in the system for those who were victims of fraud or coercion. Where do you go to get justice? Many attorney referral services will tell you to hire an adoption attorney, but most don’t process claims of coercion or fraud. Family law attorneys will state that it is a domestic issue, and are not equipped to handle coercion / fraud. Criminal lawyers will state that because it is adoption, it is a domestic dispute, and will refuse to handle such cases. This isn’t even to mention the cost of hiring an attorney. And, speaking of international adoption, if you think its hard to get an attorney in the US, imagine being in another country and not being able to speak English. Then, people have stolen your child like back in the days of Georgia Tann, and you are completely without resources to get your child back.

6) Current adoption laws are based on hating women and especially poor women. These sealed records and lies were brought about by Georgia Tann, an adopter, lawyer, and social worker who hid her crimes of child trafficking by sealing all records. Today, the system continues to support child trafficking. Georgia Tann’s comment was that, “it was better for children to die (as many did in her care) than to be raised by poor people”.

7) There has been countless brainwashing in maternity homes, pressure in hospitals, adoption agencies, and schools, that has resulted in needless separation of children from their mothers.

The National Council for Adoption has funded the media and created an infant adoption training program to teach lawyers and social workers how to gaslight and brainwash women who are pregnant. It is intentional propaganda.

8) The lack of education of adoption issues forces both natural families and adopted persons into silence in many instances. Most often, due to the extreme propaganda of adoption, many people become perpetrators of adoption / trafficking advocacy.

10) Not all adopted persons even know they are adopted, because of state sealed records. Original birth certificates are sealed, Amended Birth Certificates are created replacing Original Birth Certificates with the pretending “as if” model. This has destroyed any integrity of history.

11) Women who have more power and control (because of age, class, politics and status) who intimidate, lie, and manipulate other women is a direct act of injustice, as is what happens in adoption.
12) The grief that mothers feel after losing their child is more than any person should have to experience in their entire lifetime. This pain is too much for many, and they take their own lives.

Memories of Conversations from Long ago….

The Bible and the Ten Commandments

How Can The Church Justify It?
By Rohan McEnor.

The injustice of adoption is stark no matter which philosophical standpoint you might take.

From a purely atheistic utilitarian standpoint, adoption is morally wrong because the joy experienced by one group of people (adoptive parents) is a direct result of the misery inflicted on another group (relinquishing parents). Equally the `joy’ of raising someone else’s flesh and blood is often a temporary euphoria, erased once the child hits their bastard moment. Equally the `joy’ can be argued as being a form of self illusion – a very inadequate panacea for the tragedy of infertility. From a utilitarian viewpoint the temporary and inadequate tranquilizing of that tragedy cannot be justified by the imposition of a lifetime of tragedy on another.

From a scientific standpoint, adoption is morally wrong because it perpetrates mental sickness on all involved, through enforced delusion. All involved in adoption must play a pretend game: pretend that this is your child, pretend that these are your parents, pretend that your child is dead.

If a person voluntarily lived in such a delusionary world they would be diagnosed as schizophrenic. Yet society, and adoption practitioners in particular, expect all involved to take up such a schizophrenic position without ever questioning it. They then compound the problem with further schizophrenic requirements: pretend that such schizophrenia is normal and should any within the triangle have a desire for reality, they are marked as mentally weak!

However it is ironic that adoption is most obviously immoral if one takes a Biblical standpoint: ironic because so many adoption agencies are church-based and claim that they do an altruistic service for the community through adoption placement.

Surely at least the Anglicare Adoption Agency must have found itself in a theological dilemma when the Sydney Anglican Diocese argued most strongly in February 1998 that the act of procreation through coitus was enacted by God as one of the bonding mechanisms between parent and child. The joy of sex (as the famous book title called it) and the joy of male/female union through sexual intercourse and (hopefully) orgasmic ecstasy, actually bonds the parent to the emerging child. This, according to the Anglican Synod, was one of God’s purposes for sex and the Synod argued that removing any child to non-procreative carers breaks this very important, God-ordained bond, particularly if the original parents are kept secret. Indeed, from the creationist standpoint (that God had a reason for everything), since a child cannot be naturally conceived without orgasm by the father of the child, it would seem that God had a very definite bonding intent through his creation of orgasm.

Equally from a Biblical standpoint one can hold adoption up to the light of scrutiny under the ten commandments and argue a case that adoption violates every single one of them, as follows:

  1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. For an adoption to proceed adoptive parents must place the God of parenthood before the God of the Universe.
  2. Thou shalt not make idols. Adoptive parents must make an idol out of the child, while adoption practitioners must make an idol out of their careers and convince relinquishers to make an idol out of their mythical carefree childless future.
  3. Thou shalt not use the Lord’s name blasphemously. Every church institution which uses the authority of scripture or the coercion of their ecumenical system to contrive excuses for the practice of removing children from perfectly good natural parents, blasphemes the name of their God. Any church entity which does not do everything in its power to keep natural children with natural parents under the auspice of Godly family, is an abomination according to their own scriptures. If church institutions cannot see the centrality of biologically intact families to the nature of the God of the Bible, then they should close their doors and go into something more honest like real estate or used car sales.
  4. Keep the Sabbath rest. For a relinquishing parent there will never again be Sabbath rest.
  5. Honour parents. Adoption shows absolutely no honour or care for mothers and fathers – that is, true mothers and fathers – only pretend honour and care for pretend mothers and fathers. In fact adoption shows complete disregard for actual parents in preference for those who are merely prospective replacement parents.
  6. Do not murder. Murder? Well in my case `Rebecca’ was killed in order for someone else to have their `A.J.’

Every relinquishing mother is murdered so that she can cope with her loss through the manifestation of the false self. Every grandparent’s first grandchild is murdered and given to someone else in secret. There is no end to the bloodshed.

  1. Do not commit adultery. If it is adulterous for a man to move into a family and usurp the position of the husband, and if it is adulterous for a woman to disrupt a family in order to usurp the position of the wife, what is less adulterous about the enforced transfer of the child out of the natural biologically related family, into a non-related family, usurping the position of true biological relationships? Equally that non-biologically related child can often look forward to the confusion of being usurped by future natural born surprise packets! What sort of parental adultery must the adoptive parents suppress in order to claim that biologically alien child as their own?

The self-righteous in the ecumenical community may lack compassion towards single mothers and so regard relinquishment as an unmarried mother’s `just desserts’. Such an attitude hardly justifies the church sector’s dereliction of duty to care.

Jesus exemplary reaction to the woman caught in the act of adultery and his attitude to the pharisees in that famous exchange, surely must lead us to expect that the Christian response to the `girl in trouble’ would not include such harsh judgement as the enforced removal of her child to strangers.

  1. Thou shalt not steal – need one even expand on this commandment in the context of adoption?
  2. Thou shalt not lie – ditto commandment eight. For the most part this article makes a moral case against legal adoptions – that is adoptions that were enacted without any law, by-law, regulation or welfare work practice being violated. However, the reality of recent history seems to be telling us that an adoption cannot be enacted without some sort of lie, even if it is merely the sin of omission – to fail to tell a prospective relinquishing mother her rights and alternatives. Adoptions procured via any deliberate or accidental flouting of law, by-law, regulation or recommended welfare work practice, are immoral purely and simply because they were against the rule of law. Even if you might believe that it was a bad law, if you break it, you are still liable before the courts.
  3. Thou shalt not covet… The tenth commandment is interesting. It instructs us to not be envious of other people’s wives, houses, oxen, slaves, donkeys, land and other goods. Coveting other people’s children isn’t mentioned. I guess God just figured that it goes without saying.

The coveting of other people’s children could be likened to paedophilia without the physical penetration. Emotional and psychological penetration of the adopted child of course, is inevitable. Physical penetration is often just the unfortunate bonus for the adoptee who views their utter compliance as the purchase price for a home to live in and a set of parents to call mum and dad, no matter how dissimilar they may be and no matter what they may be like.

I must say that I personally have been most fortunate in that the adoptive parents of my daughter seem like very nice people.

However I have lived with that assurance for a mere 12 months.

I lived without that assurance for 18 years.

And I acknowledge that many searching parents are not so fortunate.

The tenth commandment is the perfect place to finish, since all adoption is a result of covetousness. Society must stop teaching infertile couples to covet other people’s children. It is not healthy.

Yes, infertility is a tragedy – but it also an immense opportunity. Not for adoption, but for service, which surely must be the bedrock of all morality.

I submit that the practice of adoption cannot be justified on any moral grounds, be they humanistic, biblical or legal and I would be more than interested to debate the case with the so-called adoption professionals of this world.

Any time. Any day.


Narcissism in Baby trafficking / Adoption

I’ve been reading up on narcissism lately. The woman who took in my daughter has shown signs of serious narcissist personality disorder, specifically, the Engulfing Mother. As my daughter nears sweet 16, and attempt to develop her own identity, she will have some serious challenges.

“An Engulfing Mother is one whose Narcissistic Personality Disorder manifests itself in her allowing no boundary to exist between herself and her daughter. She somehow views her daughter as being an extension of herself, rather than seeing her as a separate person….She’ll certainly ignore natural boundaries between people – so she’ll feel free to read her daughter’s letters or e-mail, to ask her daughter overly personal and intrusive questions, to barge into the bathroom when the daughter is bathing or even is on the toilet.”

“She may manifest Narcissistic Rage at attempts by the daughter to separate.”
“The problem persists into adulthood too. The Engulfing Mother might try to be overly involved in her daughter’s marriage, for example, asking inappropriate questions about her daughter’s sex life! Or running down her daughter’s husband, trying to make the daughter unhappy with him.”
Sounds frightening. Serious domestic violence issues. Children of narcissists tend to either become narcissists, or seek out narcissists for partners, continuing the abuse for the next generation.
It makes me think about how people like this could have passed a home study. Because they do, all the time. And, I realize, that many of these agencies are also adoptaraptors, and so, they also are enablers of narcissists. While they want to promote the image of “saving the child” what they are really doing is meeting their own selfish need to create an extension of themselves into the next generation. Agencies and lawyers who allow for narcissists to raise children are enablers or narcissists themselves. Frightening.
How do we get this to stop?  


The Adopted as Hero


In Jung’s Symbols of Transformation, at one point he remarks on the irregular origins of birth for heroes in many sacred traditions:

The hero is not born like an ordinary mortal because his birth is rebirth from the mother-wife. That is why the hero so often has two mothers. As Rank has shown with a wealth of examples, the hero is frequently exposed and then reared by foster-parents (¶494)[i]

This (mythological) rationalization of the necessity of abandonment and fostering clearly goes to the issue of adoption. It shows how culture must glorify such abandonment, as a means by which its heroes get created.[ii]

An outsider may often make a hero; by not being natively acculturated, the outsider may see cultural possibilities and courses of action otherwise invisible to insiders. (Not all heroes originate from the Outside, of course.)  At a most banal level, this amounts to the…

View original post 625 more words

On adoption, corporate media, and matters of “life and death”.

On adoption, corporate media, and matters of "life and death"..

Previous Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.