lf1

The Opposite of the Sociopath is the Libertarian

By John Hunt, MD

All who read Lovefraud.com know that sociopaths lie, cheat and steal, manipulate, control, defraud. Sociopaths seek out positions of power over others. The low functioning sociopath does this on a small scale—just ruining the life of an unsuspecting spouse, perhaps. The high functioning sociopath does this on a much grander scale, perhaps through the political system—ruining a country.

Sociopaths seek power. What better way to accomplish this than through politics? Think how much politicians have to lie to get elected. It is hard for a good person to get elected, in part because they don’t lie well. Sociopaths lie with practiced ease and no guilt. They concentrate themselves in government, quite naturally.

Ever wonder why government messes up so much? Why Congress is despised? Why presidents so often lie and mislead, strive for control over others, and somehow get away with it? Ever wonder why the government is so internally contradictory, so confusing, so incomprehensible, and yet somehow retains its total power over the people? Ever wonder why the largest debtor in the history of the world—the US government—which is an utterly bankrupt entity, somehow convinces people to loan it large sums of money, and the people accept loan repayment in the form of counterfeit currency printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve? Do you see how sociopathic the government has become? A walking lie, a talking contradiction?

It is because the government is filled to the brims with sociopaths.

Force against fellow man

Politicians and bureaucrats have reserved for themselves the legal right to initiate force against their fellow man. Think about that for a moment. Anyone else who initiates force commits a crime, but not government! They are special! Moral law doesn’t apply to them! Sound familiar?

It doesn’t matter which party is in charge. Most recently they have compelled us to purchase really crappy and expensive financial products from their large corporate buddies (e.g., health insurance). But consider also the bipartisan support for forcible military conscription in the past, unconstitutional/illegal taxation and fees, the protection racket of the IRS, the spying and monitoring by the NSA, mandates for prescriptions for medications sold over-the-counter everywhere else in the world (the effect of which is to keep prices high for the profit of big pharma).

And fraud too. Consider the largest fraud in human history—the Federal Reserve—which creates money without work and doles it out to its morally bankrupt friends. Consider the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare; and the totally illegal accounting methods of the federal government which artificially lower the government’s debt from $90 trillion to “only” $18 trillion, the justifications for which are so willingly accepted by a population in denial of obvious truths. The government is a giant con artist. A giant sociopathic monster. It’s all about control and manipulation. And they systematically gaslight us like crazy starting from kindergarten, to try to make us accept all this blatant criminality as appropriate!

No one knows what percentage of politicians and bureaucrats are sociopaths, but there is assuredly a high concentration of them in that realm. There are two reasons for this: 1) the sociopath’s skill set is perfect for politics and bureaucracy; 2) a position of legal unrestrained power over other humans is simply too intriguing for a high-functioning sociopath to let pass by.

The opposite: Libertarian

The political opposite, and social opposite, of the sociopath is the libertarian. A libertarian ascribes avidly, completely and thoroughly to the Nonaggression Principle. The Nonaggression Principle states that never, NEVER is it acceptable to initiate force or fraud against another human being. Wow. To a libertarian, no end ever justifies the use of an immoral means.

Now, this doesn’t make a libertarian a wimp. If someone attacks a libertarian without provocation, the libertarian wouldn’t hesitate to pop the dude in the face. But the libertarian wouldn’t attack, unless attacked first. The libertarian won’t lie, cheat, steal or defraud, excepting to take back something stolen. The libertarian will not initiate. But the libertarian will defend.

In a world in which cronyism is so dominant, it is easier to be successful by lying, cheating and stealing, or by rent seeking (convincing a politician to give you someone else’s money or property). Libertarians cannot do these things. They are incapable of doing them. How refreshing is that? Libertarians strive for a political system which allows their honesty to be rewarded instead of punished. We are a long way from that society.

Each of us has suffered from the actions of the sociopaths in our lives. Yet we are also the confused and willing victims of the sociopaths in government. We remain in denial about these controllers, manipulators, liars and cheaters. We give them unearned authority and unearned credibility because we are taught to believe that they have the right to tell us what to do. We stick their names on our bumper stickers. We send them money. We vote for them. What are we thinking?

My recommendation? If you want the opposite of the sociopath to be your partner, seek out a libertarian. If you want the opposite of a sociopath to be your representative in congress, to be your senator, or to be your president, seek out a libertarian.

Libertarians and sociopaths

Libertarians are likely to trust any individual who claims to be a libertarian or is a Ron Paul supporter. This is because libertarians abide by a personal code that makes them, by definition, principled and honorable people. However, libertarians are human. They have no greater education about sociopaths than anyone else. They can be faked out by sociopaths too, although usually not for long. Because sociopaths are such effective liars, you of course need to beware that they can put on the act of being a libertarian, the same way that sociopaths often pretend to be Christian—to take advantage of people’s desires to trust others. Indeed, sociopaths can infiltrate any philosophy. But the libertarian doctrine stands so adamantly in contrast to the sociopath’s hardwired and distorted brain, that the sociopath cannot hold to a fake libertarian act for long. Sociopathy used to be called “moral insanity”, and maybe it should be called that again. True libertarians are the opposite: they are morally rational.

To a libertarian, there is nothing more dangerous than lying to oneself. Sociopaths absolutely rely on the ability of their victims to lie to themselves. Libertarianism therefore is a vaccination against the infection and the cancer of the sociopath.

Just in case you have some false impression of libertarians, they are not on the fringe of society, although they are on the fringe of politics! They can be found in the Democratic or the Republican party (always as reformers), or as members of other political parties, or most commonly not as part of any political party. Libertarians are most aptly described as Americans of the style we usually consider the country’s founding fathers to be, except that they are also exceedingly tolerant.

Characteristics of a Libertarian

As a quick introduction to your study of what a libertarian is, here is my list of characteristics. Libertarians are above all individuals, but most all ascribe to these concepts.

  1. They don’t initiate force or fraud against their fellow man. They are principled.
  2. They are tolerant people. Tolerant of anything other than force or fraud.
  3. They don’t use government power to commit force or fraud to benefit themselves or others.
  4. They don’t use propaganda or gaslighting to manipulate the people.
  5. They don’t vote for politicians who want to use government power to commit force or fraud, or to compel people to behave a certain way, or to compel people to buy certain products. They only support politicians who recognize the only job of government is to protect people from the force and fraud of others. To a libertarian, neither democracy nor the voting booth should be considered or used as means of compulsion.
  6. Libertarians favor a strong defense, but don’t attack unless threatened.
  7. Libertarians are commonly described as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Libertarians do not oppose gay marriage. The don’t believe that victimless crimes are crimes. They think marijuana should be legal. They do not think that anyone’s money should be stolen from them and given to another through the tax code. They don’t believe that forced giving is either charitable or moral, but rather “forced giving” is just a form of theft. They never support bailing out Wall Street, nor giving power to one group over another. They don’t ever lend government power to special interests (Special interests are the opposite of the “general welfare” of the Constitution). Libertarians think that government is supposed to work for the people, not people work for government. They are opposed to the NSA spying on American citizens. Libertarians like immigrants. They think that America is not a geographically imprisoned nation-state, but rather a philosophy that can be found all over the world. Libertarians want to put a wall around the welfare state, not a wall around the country. Many libertarians are highly charitable. Many libertarians righteously fight against anyone who uses force against them or defrauds them.
  8. Libertarians are thoughtful people who above all respect the dignity and freedom of the individual to live as each individual chooses.
  9. Because of the moral principles to which libertarians ascribe—which are consistent and predictable based on the Nonaggression Principle—they can, better than most, recognize the fraud that permeates society.

If you want a world in which the sociopaths are not messing with your life and wreaking their havoc on society right and left, learn about libertarianism. If you want a partner that is the entire opposite of a manipulative sociopath, find yourself a libertarian.

The trend in society toward libertarianism is a wonderful thing for those who recognize that sociopaths are the embodiment of evil in the world. The central defining characteristic of a libertarians is moral sanity. Sociopaths, in absolute contrast, are morally insane.

John Hunt, MD is a pediatric lung physician and author of the novel Assume the Physician, which teaches about the medical system through constant humor, as well as Higher Cause, and a soon to be released guide for childhood asthma management.


Posted in: Uncategorized

195 Comments on "The Opposite of the Sociopath is the Libertarian"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Redwald says:

    I was just scanning through a little file of quotations I’ve collected, looking for something entirely different, when I happened upon this little gem. It’s attributed to Edward R. Murrow, although (not surprisingly) it has roots in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, among others, and seems singularly appropriate:

    “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”



    Report this comment

  2. mustard55@me.com says:

    20years, I agree with what you have said, in principle.. I do think disadvantaged people feel better contributing and not just being on the receiving end of a one-way “handout”. However, I also feel that human nature, being what it is, is not going to eradicate the problem of the (variously) impoverished. There will still always be underprivileged people, because there will always be selfish people.



    Report this comment

  3. 20years says:

    mustard55, it sounds like you have it all wrapped up and tied with a bow! (all figured out) — I can understand how hopeless it all seems at times. My position is more optimistic for the human race.

    I continue to appreciate your (and everyone’s) engaging in this discussion — there is so much to learn from each other as we share our varying perspectives.

    So, a few things. One thing is that I think “human nature” is not set in stone as “being what it IS” but rather there are great variances in us…. so many ways to view this concept, but I’ll just select one for the moment: we (individuals) are all at varying stages of psychological/spiritual/social development. This is similar to the developmental stages one goes through from birth until independent adulthood. But it is across many spectrums (not just physical, or learning to walk, but learning to navigate different systems, learning to communicate, forming an identity, forming a relationship with God (or not), learning social norms, etc.)

    Is there some kind of inherent “human nature?” that is something I do not have the answer to! It is one of those philosophical questions that better minds than mine have grappled with throughout the ages. But I would posit that “human nature” is neither all bad nor all good, but is instead a creative learning dimension, learning who and what we are as individuals, and within relationships to others and to the environment or matrix we are surrounded by.

    Will there always be underprivileged people and selfish people? Maybe and maybe not. I like to imagine the possibility that there might not be, and then in imagining it, wondering how that might be achieved or at least steps taken towards that.

    It is interesting that you said as a cause and effect statement, that selfish people are the reason for underprivileged people. I am not certain that is actually true (the true reason for it) but it may appear to be the reason.

    There are many unselfish people (the majority I think) who are in the middle between “selfish” and “underprivileged” and those unselfish people can do a great deal, IMO, to help solve this problem. To remove the power from the selfish people, and empower the underprivileged people.

    To illustrate, I will use a visualization/analogy.

    First, imagine the way things “are” (in the sociopathic system we have now): imagine a pyramid. The top is smaller than the base. There is not room at the top for very many people. The base (the vast numbers of underprivileged) supports the pyramid; if you did not have this base, you would not have the support to allow for the top. The way to maintain this base is through several means: one way is deception by making everyone believe that a pyramid is the only system (no other possible system). Another way is to keep the people at the bottom in a state of desperation and right on the edge — if you kill a few off from starvation, not a biggie because there are so many of them. But the rest will live in fear and here is where you might jump to Maslow’s Hierarchy to explain what it is like to be at the very bottom. There is absolutely NO incentive to give these people a hand up — because the people at the top (and also the people at the higher levels who are in the middle) “NEED” the people at the bottom in order to maintain their positions. Some of the people in the middle may be moved by the plight of the people at the bottom and give them a handout. Or they may feel guilty. Or they may realize that if they don’t give anything, they will appear selfish — so they give for appearances. But there really is no incentive to empower the individuals at the bottom.

    Now imagine a second system. This one also has steps (or stairs) but the top is the same size as the base. The top is anchored in place as something to reach, but there is no need for a bottom base to support the top. People are at varying levels along the steps. They can climb up as they are able, and they can observe others climbing up and learn from them HOW and also that this is possible (which it is). And those who are at the top are yelling encouragement to those who are at lower levels, “you can do it!” And those who are one or two steps ahead of the others, look each other in the eye and reach out a hand and say, “come on, brother. I’ll help you.” And they in turn are helped or inspired by the ones who are but a step or two ahead of them.

    This is just an illustration to get a person’s mind open. Then we can start to think of examples of ways this might happen in our material world.

    I can think of one already. The CEO of this company cut his own salary 90% to raise the salaries of all of his employees: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/news/companies/ceo-pay-cuts-pay-increases/

    Ideas like this can go viral. Or inspire other acts of helpfulness. And these are VOLUNTARY acts — not compelled through force or fraud. This CEO was already in a position of individual strength, which enabled him to take this risk and he decided to take a very large one. Not many would go so far. But I do think he will inspire others to give in this very personal way, which is what strong individuals can do.

    This is all intended as food for thought.



    Report this comment

  4. 20years says:

    One other example or illustration I will offer, has to do with two different ways of giving. One way is from afar, or from a safe distance. This is for example a person who gives cast off clothing to Goodwill, or donates food to the food bank, or sends the kids around the neighborhood on a fund drive for the homeless shelter but never actually visits the homeless shelter. Or participates in the “Christmas Angel” program where you select a recipient (an anonymous stranger) to give to, perhaps a “Boy, age 12” and you take your kids to Target and pick out a toy and a pair of snowboots for this boy, so your kids can learn about charitable giving and you can both feel good about yourselves while doing good.

    Now, none of that is wrong. However, there is a second way of giving that is more personal. This is the way of giving where you see someone on the street begging and you go up to him or her and look them in the eye and talk to them for a few minutes to find out a bit of their circumstances, and what they might need — you may give them money then or maybe take them to a restaurant and buy them whatever they choose. Or, you and the kids go to the homeless shelter once a month and cook and serve a meal there and spend time with the people, talking to them. Or, you find out that one of your friends has lost her job and is having trouble affording food, so you give her a grocery gift card and invite her and the family over once a week for dinner. Or, you volunteer to be a mentor for a child whose family is struggling, and you take time to know him or her personally.

    This is just something to consider, ways of helping each other that are personal and respectful and voluntary. When we take the time to know each other in personal ways, our shared humanity becomes evident, and we find we are all deeply connected and it becomes less easy to turn away from helping one another. Rather than sending all of our money overseas to help those poor, struggling and impoverished people, we discover there are people close by who could use our help. No longer are the impoverished “those” people — but we see that they are our brothers. When the government gets involved in redistributing money (coercion, theft) it puts up a wall between “groups” of people. It creates division. When we are a free group of individuals, and think of ourselves that way, it helps free not only ourselves but each other (the rest of us).

    I also want to mention some charitable giving by businesses. The point here is that it is voluntary and some of these are experiments which do not exactly turn out as hoped for, but it is at least a start, and voluntary (and thus libertarian). Sure, publicizing such efforts gives great PR, but we don’t have to be cynical about it, if it works, or at least give credit for trying. One example is Panera’s Meal of Shared Responsibility where you can pay what you like including over and above (a donation), or what you can afford. It is voluntary. Another example is a local grocery my daughter works at, which will quietly allow food stamp recipients to buy the food they need, when it is clear that they don’t have enough SNAP funds. For example, a person came through the line the other day to buy some cheese and an apple, and that cost $5 but she only had $2 left. They just let her pay the $2. There was no government causing this to happen through force and fraud. This is a libertarian philosophy in action (the store freely chose to do this, they were in a position of strength to do this and it is not prohibited by law)



    Report this comment

  5. philomela says:

    20 years,
    i do not believe that anyone who is struggling just to survive has much chance of moving up your staircase.

    i think we need to change the model.
    we need to recognize the many things people do in our society that have economic and social benefit but that we have delegated to the realm of unpaid labor. we have to look at the very real part that privilege, in the broadest sense, ( not just race and gender), plays in terms of ability to move up that imaginary staircase.

    we also need to re-examine the concept of “charity”. Charity is a paternalistic, power-based, top down concept.

    perhaps if we provided as A social contract A bASE subsistence level of income,(covering basic housing, food, medical care, and education, and childcare) for All citizens simply becAuse they exist, not becAuse they prove they are deserving or worthy And without requiring anything in particular this basic humAn Survival and dignity, And then allow people to earn more, even a lot more (more capitalist in nature-still taxed but not wasted on huge and corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies and lots of money wasted trying to figure out if someone is deserving or cheating the system, And eating up the time, energy, and dignity, of the poor). perhaps from that base of not having to fight for survival and or prove your worthiness to receive charity, we could then have a more libertariAn Society And a society where
    we value not only great producers, and consumerism, but where we have a broader view of what constitutes work
    and contribution to society, and value. people
    living on the edge of economic survival, in a world of obscene disparities, as in our country and much of the world, can never be truly free. we must get rid the paternalistic concept of charity,and base our laws and distribution of the resources on a concept of all are if value, all human beings have a human right to at least the basics in this world of abundance. Scarcity is a lie that keep the poor and middle class fighting each other and voting against there own interests, while those at the top and the spaths keep taking whatever they want and convince us that one can only have theirs but making sure that someone else doesn’t get theirs. in our society, money is power over ….one cannot create a truly libertarian society, when one group has the power of life and death over another.



    Report this comment

    • NotWhatHeSaidofMe says:

      Philomena
      What would you do with those who don’t want your free housing, food, medical care, etc.? There are many who just want to be left alone.



      Report this comment

      • philomela says:

        they wouldn’t have to take it or use it. but most who don’t want it and want to be left alone feel that way because of the price in dignity and privacy they must pay in order to receive that help in our society. if everyone just got a base level without having to prove Anything, wIthout hving there privacy invaded, Without giving up 5heir right to choose how to live 5heir lives or spend their money, it would not be charity the way we model it. even those who just want to be left alone need money And healthcare And fooD And Shelter, but they don’t want to give up their liberty and dignity and free will to get it. being poor is very expensive.



        Report this comment

    • 20years says:

      philomela,

      I appreciate your thoughtful response. Changing the existing model is something I very much hope can happen. All I was doing with my visualization exercise was contrasting a model that has a heavy downward energy (oppressive, weighing people down, no respect for humanity especially the downtrodden) with a model that has a strong upwards pull (lifting people up, a recognition of the sacredness of each individual human spirit embodied here). so maybe think of it that way — we currently have a model of oppression and the “lie” given to us (which so many believe) is that this is the only possible model. That there is no other possibility, so we might as well abandon all hope and thought of ever transcending what we currently appear to have. The “lie” is an illusion. So my suggested visualization is simply an illustration and an expression that I do believe each individual human life is sacred, we are all “brothers,” and no one is above anyone else in terms of value, though we may be at different levels of understanding and awareness, and certainly we are currently at different levels of economic advantage or disadvantage — this economic advantage/disadvantage is a big part of the engine which fuels the illusion of oppression. They way out of it (IMO) is by increasing awareness and evolving in our spirituality. Which cannot be imposed or forced, but only discovered if sought diligently and with free will. That is my view of things, and I know that others have different views, which I respect.

      I totally agree with you that scarcity is a lie. We live in a world of abundance with a small number of people interfering in the lives of many, tricking us in many ways and doing their utmost to keep a vast percentage of us in a state of desperation and fear, so that we do not believe ourselves strong enough to fight back. These are predators and parasites, and we must find a way to get rid of them or at least contain them so that they will not wield such power over others.

      Again, there are more of us than there are of them. Spread awareness and a message of hope to as many people as you can.



      Report this comment

  6. philomela says:

    the idea that people who are poor are poor because their is something wrong with their actions or choices, or because they are lazy, or…..and that if they just fid x,y,z is a concept that smacks of the kind of victim blaming i hear thrust on many of us for the destruction “the spath” caused to us, our lives, and our survival. Victim blaming is an excuse for doing nothing in the face of harm to others. it is a way to feel safe…that it wont happen to us, because we are, better, smarter, more deserving, not as gullible, etc. i cant count the people whom i’ve met who e absolutely certain that they coukd never be conned by A spath, Who rather than believing in the reality of spAths, and that Any of us iS susceptible to being victimizEd, would rather believe that my victimization is my fault And therefore deserved. but even it was because of something wrong oR WeAk or wounded in me, that does not mean that i don’t desrve care or compassion or that i derserved to be victimized or harmed. it takes the presence of a predator for someone to become prey. no matter how stupid or vulnerable one is, it does not mean they are responsible for being victimized. if i walk nakef down a dark street in a bad neighborhood, it still takes the presence of a rapist for me to be raped and no matter how bad my judgement m7ght have been in walking down that street naked, it does not minimize or excuse the actions of the rapist. it would not be because of my nakedness that i was raped, it would be because of the presence and action of the rapist….no rapists=no rape.



    Report this comment

    • 20years says:

      I do know what you mean about this “choices” thing. I too have had friends tell me that my bad marriage was due to a bad “choice” I made. That was not a nice thing for them to think or say. Unfortunately it was a belief I also held, going into my marriage, because I ended up blaming myself too, and the whole thing about “you made your bed, well baby you are going to lie in that bed for the rest of your life!” as some kind of punishment for the choice that I had made. (Divorce was not an option in my mind at that time)

      So it took a very long time for me to gather enough truthful information and realize that my spath husband had acted very nice towards me before the wedding (1.5 years he kept up this nice act!) and so did my friends’ husbands also act very nice toward them when they were dating and engaged…. but once the ring was on the finger, my husband changed into a monster, and theirs didn’t.

      It took me many, many years post divorce to FINALLY understand what it meant, to accept “the part which I played” in the dynamic, without shaming/blaming myself or allowing others to, but simply to see it clearly, without judgment.

      I also hadn’t realized how much I had judged other people according to this “choices” fallacy, until I stopped judging myself. A very tough lesson to learn. For me, anyway! 🙂



      Report this comment

  7. philomela says:

    they wouldn’t have to take it or use it. but most who don’t want it and want to be left alone feel that way because of the price in dignity and privacy they must pay in order to receive that help in our society. if everyone just got a base level without having to prove Anything, wIthout hving there privacy invaded, Without giving up 5heir right to choose how to live 5heir lives or spend their money, it would not be charity the way we model it. even those who just want to be left alone need money And healthcare And fooD And Shelter, but they don’t want to give up their liberty and dignity and free will to get it. being poor is very expensive.



    Report this comment

    • Imara says:

      NotWhatHeSaidOfMe, I would urge you to read a book by Peggy Mcintosh. The title is Unpacking The Invisible Backpack. It deals with a of issues regarding privilege and poverty.



      Report this comment

      • Stargazer says:

        Imara, This sounds like an interesting read. I will share that I lived in poverty for many years, once living from my car and twice living on food stamps. I was on welfare once for 3 months when I was in my early 20’s. The way out of poverty for me was when I was in my early 30’s. I became a stripper for a short time and banked all the money, buying a condo and a car, paying off my car and remodeling the condo before I quit. The job was soulless, and I hated it most of the time, but it helped me more than any group of people, more than any family member, more than any government program. The job was my mother and father. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, survival was my most basic need. It was worth the darkness I subjected myself to by taking off my clothes for strange men to finally have financial freedom. (Now that I’m 54, they pay me to put my clothes back ON! LOL)

        I remember feeling that I wish the government could do more, but in the end I “picked myself up by my bootstraps” and recovered with relatively little help other than my own internal resources. Most people I know would never do what I did, but I was thinking outside the box. It was my innovative thinking that saved my life. I was living with a narcissistic man (whom I later found out was a child molester). I was financially dependent on him. Doing the dangerous and sometimes degrading job that kept me on the outer fringes of mental health saved my life. Having battled with mental health issues most of my life, I felt like I had fallen through the cracks in society for many years. What little help I ever received from the government was not nearly enough. I was very angry about it for many years.

        I have a different take on it now. Looking back to those times – some 22 years ago, I realize how isolated I was. Having come from an abusive family, I had no familial help and didn’t know how to form healthy bonds with those who might become a family and who might have helped me. Now I do.

        We live in a culture that is very isolationist, where things are valued more than relationships. If we look to other cultures such as Latin American culture, they have no stuff, but they are much happier. Their relationships are everything to them. They are part of a family first before they are even individuals. In a different culture, I would have been taken in by a loving family or group of friends and cared for until I could find my own way.

        It’s not just the government that needs to change. We need an entire paradigm shift where people start to understand that we cannot truly find peace and happiness while there are others who are suffering, because we are all connected. A government cannot force us to see this. We need to come to this conclusion on our own. I am seeing the tides of change occur in small ways. I bring this philosophy to work with me every day and everywhere I go. I care deeply for my friends and my co-workers and even a few people who would rather have nothing to do with me. I have observed positive changes in the work environment, as my co-workers start to look forward to going to work to connect with some loving people who care about them. Love changes people.



        Report this comment

      • NotWhatHeSaidofMe says:

        Imara
        Why would you make such a book recommendation to me? It’s a book about white privilege. That’s kinda hostile towards me and seems to make assumptions that are totally offbase. Really not nice and doesn’t add to the topic of this discussion.



        Report this comment

      • 20years says:

        In my search to discover truths about some of these things (privilege, poverty, oppression) I have done a lot of reading and discussing with people. I have one point to make which is very difficult to make and be understood, but I will try 🙂

        That is, that I have discovered that whenever I have a response of “hostility” towards an idea, that means there is something there for me to learn. My “hostility” is my resistance to having my paradigm challenged. I have further discovered that if I can acknowledge this dynamic (within myself) and nonetheless delve into the topic despite the resistance and discomfort, I will be confronted with the (oftentimes uncomfortable) lesson. My “discomfort” does me NO HARM WHATSOEVER, so long as I acknowledge it and choose to look anyway. And be open to whatever messages may come.

        That does not mean I necessarily go away afterwards “embracing” the idea or even agreeing with any of it, but always I find my worldview has expanded, my understanding has increased. And sometimes it turns my world upside down.

        So this is what I alluded to in an earlier post, which is, whenever we feel “offended,” that is a clue to us that there may be a defense mechanism going on within us, if we can but only consider that possibility and be willing to look more closely at the thing which caused that response in us, there is much wisdom there to be found (not necessarily what we think it is, or even what others hope we will see — the lesson is personal and individual).

        Again, that is a clue, it is a difficult concept to get across. What I mean is that a response of “hostility” is a defense mechanism that keeps us stuck. (this is similar to what people sometimes call “hating on” something)

        This (realization of what use we can make of a recognition of a “hostility” response within us) is also something that happens at a certain phase in one’s development, so I mean no judgement by it whatsoever. I only uncovered this myself, after a lot of time spent spinning my wheels.

        I found that, the more I pay attention to the clues my emotions give me, the more I understand the big picture. And the more peace I experience.



        Report this comment

        • NotWhatHeSaidofMe says:

          20years
          Please know that I am okay with direct questions and insights. But I do find nuances hard, they make me wonder what the person really means. I do read A LOT. Because I grew up extremely poor, I looked to books, they were my window upon the world.

          If you are saying that I am feeling offended, well yes. The book that was recommended is about bigotry and racism, that only people of color experience bigotry and racism. And all the rest of us have “privilege”. Which is used to justify why it’s moral to take from us and give the fruits of our labor to those on welfare.

          I can pay attention to the clues my emotions give me and know that I am feeling the same outrage that I felt when dealing with the logic of my sociopath husband. And believe me, no matter how sweet and soft his words, the meaning was hostile.



          Report this comment

          • 20years says:

            NotWhatHeSaidofMe,

            What I wrote above was not intended as personal towards you, but was a general observation about my own life lessons that I have worked hard on, and a statement about where I am in my own journey, what I have learned *so far* but I know I still have a lot to learn… I offered it not as criticism towards anyone here, but because I had such a hard time learning that lesson, I guess my “intended audience” for that posting was someone who is at approximately the same point I was, who was ready to take the next step…. or someone who has already learned this lesson too, a bit ahead of me, who can validate or corroborate what I was saying.

            But I know very, very well that people who have not had a similar experience will disagree or be offended by what I said, or tell me I’m “wrong” or that they can’t understand at all. That is OK.

            But with regard to you personally and with regard to this book specifically (which I have not read but I did go to amazon to see what it is about), I am familiar with this issue of white privilege and I have a similar reaction and conclusions about it — and I found that delving into this topic further is teaching me many deep lessons about myself and my own prejudices and judgments towards myself and others. I can challenge myself and my own beliefs by facing this topic (which I have hostility towards) and what I’m finding is that I still disagree with taking from one to give to another (government welfare) but I am also gaining a new perspective. And my hostility is lessening.

            With regard to your experience with your husband, no I was not at all referring to HIS emotions (his hostility) — only to ours. And what our emotions tell us.

            It is very hard to describe emotions with words because they may stand for different things to different people. I am differentiating between a feeling of hostility (resistance, abrupt rejection, anger, judgment due to our own perceptions or beliefs about something) and feelings of outrage (the anger/hurt of betrayal because of something outrageous done to us).

            I hope this explanation helps — but basically I was talking about me and my experience, not anyone else specifically!

          • 20years says:

            Also…. your husband’s “hostility” (if that is what it was — but it was surely NEGATIVE in nature) would be a clue or lesson to HIM if only he could think of it that way. But I know that sociopaths do not. So the palpable hostility being beamed out of him towards you in a very focused way, IS felt by you and very damaging to you. Of course no matter how sugar coated the words, you pick up on the underlying negative emotion. That IS outrageous behavior on the part of your husband — that is deceptive, and in a stranger you can walk away, but in your spouse we are taught to work through things. But he was not playing by “fair” rules. There is no way to win this game (nor do we wish to play games with our spouses anyhow! A very maddening situation…)

  8. Imara says:

    Could not edit the comment…sorry!! I meant to say it deals with a lot of issues regarding….



    Report this comment

    • Imara says:

      Not I agree with 20years. No offense was intended at all. The dynamics of race privilege poverty and intentional harm caused by people we trusted and loved are all Big life lessons we have to tackle.
      It’s hard!!!
      I too come from a poor family, but have been privileged to get a higher education in the U.S.. I came to this country with nothing but one bag of books and worked like mad for every privilege I have. My kids went to an exclusive private school where they had conferences on diversity and how to be inclusive. I always have said that diversity comes from socio economic differences and is not just a matter of race or color.
      I’m very grateful we live in a country where we can aid people who need a hand up.
      Is there going to be fraud?? Of course!!!
      There are dishonorable people all over each segment of society.
      However I’ve said this before…. When we give from those that have in fairness and dignity to those that don’t, we keep a better happier social fabric for all!!!
      The book was an eye opener for me on issues I had never given too much credence to before I read it.
      I’ll write more ( and certainly more coherently) after I get home.
      Still in Wimberley TX but will get back on Sunday….



      Report this comment

      • NotWhatHeSaidofMe says:

        Imara,
        I am quite familiar with the idea. There’s a famous quote, “From each according to his to ability to each according to his need.”

        You are not “giving from those that have”, you are advocating TAKING… changing the meaning of TAKING to giving is Very Telling.

        My entire family, other than me, are welfare rats. They love that philosophy, that someone OWES them. Their whole social circle ascribes to that belief.

        ps Am so grateful that my child did not need diversity training. She sees people as people, not as segmented victims and those who owe others.

        Envy is not an emotionally healthy path in life. It leads to victimizing and dehumanizing others.

        No matter how sweet and gentle the words, taking is still taking. I have found that if you LET people donate, they give far more because they derive a benefit. There is NO benefit felt when something is forcibly TAKEN, but it does feed the entitlement attitudes of people like my siblings (“mah cheekkk, people OWES me”… never “gee this is to help me get on my feet and be a part of society”.)



        Report this comment

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.