My Thoughts on the Origins of Psychopathy.

This is a comment I wrote in response to a youtube video posted by Thomas Sheridan giving his thoughts on psychopathy.

____________________________________________

I don’t think that psychopaths are not human. I think they are human. It’s just that their psychological development remains stuck at a very early stage.

Melanie Klein came up with the idea that there are two psychic positions that a human can take when gauging the world around him or her: The paranoid-schizoid position and the depressive position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid-schizoid_and_depressive_positions

An infant from birth to 4 to 6 months adopts exclusively the paranoid-schizoid position. Essentially, a person who sees the world exclusively from this psychic position has to split both himself and the world around him into 2 parts, good and bad. Later, the infant, provided he enjoys an environment of security, acquires the ability to see the world around him from the depressive position as well. In this psychic position, both the self and people around him can be integrated, with each part incorporating both good and bad.

The example I think Melanie Klein gave was of the breastfeeding mother. An infant operating exclusively in the paranoid schizoid position, just sees the breasts. If she offers him her breast, the infant sees the mother as good. But, when she leaves him, she becomes another mother who is bad whom he wants to destroy. The infant is only capable of part object relations. He can only gauge the usefulness of his environment in terms of what’s in it for him. She gives him milk, then she’s good. She doesn’t, she’s bad.

I think psychopaths operate exclusively in this paranoid-schizoid position or if they can reach the depressive position, they cannot make any use of it. It’s there. They see it. But, they can’t live it.

My theory is that a normal person operates with facility between these two psychic positions, much like a pendulum fluidly swinging between the two psychic positions.

An infant operating exclusively in the paranoid schizoid position has only two psychic positions. To keep this simple and to stay with the breastfeeding mother example I gave earlier: 1) mother bad, self bad. 2) mother good, self good.

Later, with the advent of the depressive position, the infant acquires a new outlook and two new positions are opened up to him. 3) mother bad, self good. 4) mother good, self bad.

By integrating the good and bad of both his self and of external objects such as his mother, he recognizes that he and his mother are separate. He now acquires the ability to pick and choose particular behavioural traits of his mother and father and others that appeal to him and reject other behavioural traits without fear of retribution from those who have behavioural traits that he doesn’t approve of (see 3 above). He also acquires the ability to reject some of his own behavioural traits and modify his own behaviour accordingly ( see 4 above). In addition, in contrast to the previous paranoid schizoid position, he can now build up a complex picture of both himself (his own internal narrative) as well as of other human beings which can lead to the development of friendships and relationships based on mutual respect and equality. Human beings, after all, are not black and white, not something useful or not useful. We are, each of us, a photomosaic. We are inherently complex.

We are not a single bit of information: a zero and a 1 – just 2 values. We are in fact comprised of many bytes of information with 255 values to each byte.

Anyway, the above represents my flawed thoughts on this matter. But, that’s okay. We are flawed individuals

 

The Legal Mechanics of Paternal Surrender/Paternal Abortion

Regarding the mechanics of paternal abortion/paternal surrender, I think an opt in arrangement would be best.

If the assumed father is informed before the birth that the child is his, then he should be given a maximum time frame of 19 weeks to decide if he wants to be the father (opt in). If 19 weeks elapse, and he makes no decision, he forfeits his right and responsibility to raise the child. (opt out)

I base 19 weeks on the fact that abortion is available to women up to 24 weeks gestation in most western countries. I calculate a maximum 19 week time-frame from this. 24 weeks minus 5 weeks – a woman on average finds out she’s pregnant at around 5 weeks gestation. Let’s say that a woman tells the assumed father that she is 10 weeks pregnant with his child. The man then has a legal right to consider whether he wants to opt into the duties of fathering that child up to the 29th week of her pregnancy – 19 weeks after she has informed him.

However, paternal surrender needs to be adopted in combination with other measures.

A mandatory DNA test at birth will determine who the biological father is.

I think the same maximum 19 week time frame can apply after birth too if the father is not informed until after the birth of a child that is biologically his and the same opt-in/opt-out rule will apply.

If the man was informed before birth he was the assumed biological father but the subsequent DNA test at birth reveals that he is not the biological father, then he is automatically opted out and the biological father is offered the maximum 19 week process of opt in/opt out instead.

If the man opts out before or after birth, he’s not to be punished with child support payments. If he opts in before or after birth, then he still has joint-responsibilities with the mother to support the child.

So that’s two things, legal paternal surrender and mandatory DNA test at birth, that are going to cause a lot of short term pain in society before the long term gain kicks in.

I think a new Ministry for Adoption will help tide things over in various jurisdictions. Given that, as things stand, an estimated 10% to 12% of children are not biologically related to the man who is assumed to be the father, I can anticipate that many men, upon learning from the DNA test at birth that he is not the biological father, will opt out of fathering the child. I can perfectly understand this. Both men and women have a biological imperative to pass down their own genes, not someone else’s. Additionally, many men may feel betrayed by a woman who led him to believe that the child was biologically his when, in fact, it was not. The mother who has no father to support the child will have the option of giving the child up for adoption and the new Ministry for Adoption will have a remit to place these children with psychologically stable two parent families.

Over and above this, there ought to be mandatory joint custody so that in the event of a subsequent separation or divorce the child will have the benefit of continuing to be raised by two parents. This right is provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 9). Secret family courts must also end. All orders of family courts including orders for joint custody or visitation must be enforced. Custodial sentences will be imposed on those who refuse to comply. In the UK, it is estimated that about 5000 parents a year – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact with their children. They’re not punished. They should be punished with incarceration. In the UK, a man recently got a 3 month prison sentence for filming crown court proceedings in Manchester. Why not give these parents who defy court orders a similar punishment?

Whether we like it or not, part of the role of law is to deter. For the personality disordered, the threat and execution of punishment is probably the only thing that is going to adjust their behaviour.

My Thoughts on Malcolm Turnbull’s campaign against Domestic Violence.

I was reading a little on the Australian Mensline website. Australian PM, Malcolm Turnbull, recently allotted funds to them to run men’s anger management programs in Australia.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbulls-scathing-attack-on-men-who-commit-domestic-violence-20150923-gjtpqt.html

(because, as we all know, domestic violence is never a woman’s fault!)

I read with interest the section on emotional and mental well-being.

https://www.mensline.org.au/emotions-and-mental-wellbeing/index

Some of the info is sound, I suppose. But there’s some dodgy stuff too. How about this?

image

Really? So men work like drones until they retire and then, and only then, do they acquire the ability to define themselves by who they are rather than what they do. I figure this is daft. What about children? Can they achieve self acceptance for who they are rather than (or in addition to) what they do? Apparently not, according to Mensline Australia. Those august heights are reserved for retired men only. As well as all women? Anyway, men, keep working, muling and toiling away and turning over your wallets to serve the holy vajajay.

Or how about this perspective?

image

It looks like the human doing known as man poses a potential threat to the post-retirement wife too.

And, there’s this.

image

Yeah, right! Women are more likely to express their feelings directly – like throwing plates or other potentially dangerous items at their spouse.

And then there’s this.

image

This may well be true. But aren’t women just as manipulative of their environment and people in it?

Alas, the tragedy of modern times is that the problem of domestic violence remains one defined as a gender problem (active men do unto passive women) rather than as an inter-generational and personality disordered one. The latter conclusion seems more plausible given, for example, Martin Fiebert’s compilation of hundreds of two sex studies on domestic violence around the world that show that women can be just as violent as men in domestic settings, if not more so.

http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

image

The enemy here is not men. The enemy are borderline, histrionic, narcissistic and anti-social (psychopathic) personality disordered people (almost all women) who milk the corrupt, secretive and unaccountable police and family court system to break up their own families, to expel the other spouse from the home, to own and manipulate their kids, to alienate them from their biological fathers and, oftentimes, to have the government look after them financially as a substitute husband and father under the old school definition of the father and husband as a walking wallet. Talk about objectification.

Societies will be reaping a grim harvest in later years if we continue to deprive children of their human right to be raised by both their biological parents. Indeed, this grim harvest has already been reaped.

image

image

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child confers on children the right to be raised by both biological parents.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

For example, article 9 section 3 states that:

“States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”

So let’s implement laws and practice that is in accordance with the child’s best interest. The bond between father and child is every bit as strong as that between mother and child.

My Thoughts on Abortion and Marriage.

Dear Vince Byrne, Presenter of People’s Internet Radio ( http://www.peoplesinternetradio.com/ ),

I enjoyed listening to your latest Sunday podcast on prostitution, abortion and the constitution.

These are all issues I take a keen interest in. About halfway through your broadcast, you asked the public to get back to you with alternative thinking on the question of abortion. I write this letter to you to do just that.

My thinking on the abortion issue is that, globally, abortion is never going to be banned. In the Republic of Ireland, we are on the wrong side of history on this issue just like we are on the wrong side of history with regard to the Angelus, a religious institution, broadcast daily on our state broadcaster, RTE. Other jurisdictions with developed economies will not be following our example on these issues. Other states with developed economies don’t almost blanket ban abortion like we do and they don’t allow a religious celebration to chime daily on taxpayer funded television stations – the separation of church and state and all that.

With that in mind, we need to broadly look at the issue of equitable reproductive rights between men and women. We need to place abortion within the broader context of reproductive rights and, in turn, we need to place reproductive rights within the context of a strengthened marriage contract.

Throughout the western world, we now see total fertility rates that are often way below the replacement rate for developed economies (the replacement rate is the total fertility rate at which women give birth to enough babies to sustain population levels) of approximately 2.1 (the number of births per woman). In Germany, it is expected that there will be 10 million less people living there by 2050. In Japan, it is expected that there will be 17 million less people living there by 2050. In the Republic of Ireland, the fertility rate is now below 2. Against this backdrop, we can better understand the current migrant crisis in Europe as hundreds of thousands immigrants from completely different cultures (often war-zones, unstable societies or authoritarian regimes) move in to make up for the shortfall in both the population and the workforce of destination countries. Similarly, millions of illegal Mexican immigrants have moved to the United States in recent decades.

MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way, has been growing as a movement since the 1970s in reaction to the emergence of second wave feminists and their assertions that men were not needed at all. Gloria Steinem triumphantly stated that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. MGTOW has been a huge social phenomenon that has received little recognition in our culture. When I type the words, “MGTOW” into wikipedia, I am redirected to a wikipage on Maximum Takeoff Weight. This movement has paralleled the rise of divorce and separation. Already by the early 1970s, a majority of children in the United States were born to parents who were either divorced or separated or who would do so.

In the 5th century BC, the Greek playwright, Aristophanes, wrote the play Lysistrata, about how the women of Greece withheld sex from their men in order to force them to negotiate peace with one another. In other words, the women went on strike. However, the truth is that in the modern age in developed economies it is men, not women, who have gone on strike by abandoning marriage. This gradual abandonment of marriage has resulted in a drastic decline of the fertility rate. If this continues, populations in developed economies will decline, populations will age and more pressure will be placed on working age populations to support dependents, principally pensioners and children.

We need to examine why men have abandoned marriage and how we can encourage them back into supporting this much maligned institution. At stake is a healthy and sustainable fertility rate, of let’s say 2.4, that will ensure that nation-states can not just survive but thrive. At the heart of marriage lies the question of reproductive rights and property rights. Marriage has always been about the raising of children and the passing down of wealth and property from parents to children. In the Republic of Ireland, divorced and separated men with children feel nowadays that they are getting a raw deal with divorced men only receiving custody of their children 10% of the time. This inequity is happening throughout the western world. Similarly with regard to property and wealth, divorced or separated men feel that they are being fleeced unjustly. In the media, we learn about celebrities and tycoons, almost exclusively male, who have had to pay their ex-spouses tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars after a divorce. Men like Michael Jordan or Paul McCartney who through their talent and hard work earned their money had to give tens of millions of it away. These public humiliations leave their mark on men collectively.

These two sets of rights, the property/wealth root and the offspring/children root that supply the tree of marriage so-to-speak, need to be re-balanced by means of legislation so that men no longer feel that they will be in danger of receiving a raw deal if they enter into a marriage contract. They need a guarantee that should the marriage or cohabiting relationship (with or without children) fails, they will receive a just settlement.

In my previous blog post, I made the following suggestion.

https://paulcarr.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/my-thoughts-on-marriage/

Alimony should be ended. Surely feminists, if they truly believe in equality, would agree that a divorced woman can find her own independent source of income – “Girl Power” and all that. Child Support should be tied to the father having adequate access to his children. Research shows that provided the non-custodial parent has supervision of his child/children at least 35% of the time, the negative repercussions of single parenting for the child/children can be minimized. That, of course, is in society’s best interests. Studies have shown for decades the multitude of negative outcomes for the children of single parent homes and single parent neighborhoods. Poorer educational outcomes, lower IQ scores, teen pregnancies, increased drug addiction, juvenile delinquency, adult crime and other maladaptive behaviors are closely correlated to growing up in a single parent home. Throughout the western world, a single parent home means a single mother home 90% of the time. In summary, good citizens are the products of intact families almost without exception. Don’t blame me for that. That is what the statistics have been saying unambiguously for decades.

In relation to the aforementioned offspring/children root, I make the following suggestions.

1) A mandatory DNA test at birth so that the father knows for sure that the child that his spouse tells him is his is, in fact, his. If he learns the child is not his, he has a right to forfeit fathering the child.
2) A new Ministry for Adoption to be set up. Given that an estimated 10% to 12% of children are not biologically related to the man who believes he is the father, I can anticipate that many men, upon learning from the DNA test at birth that he is not the biological father, will forfeit fathering the child. I would perfectly understand this. Both men and women have a biological imperative to pass down their own genes, not someone else’s. Additionally, many men may feel betrayed by a woman who led him to believe that the child was biologically his. The mother who has no father to support the child will have the option of giving the child up for adoption and the new Ministry for Adoption will have a remit to place these children with psychologically stable two parent families.
3) Mandatory Joint Custody so that in the event of a separation or divorce the child will have the benefit of being raised by two parents. This right is provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 9)
4) Paternal Abortion. A man is given the right to opt in or opt out of looking after a child if he is informed by the mother that he is the father of the child before the child is born. He also has the right to a time frame to make up his mind. Given that abortion is available to women up to 24 weeks gestation in most European countries and other developed economies, men should have a right to a 19 week time-frame (24 weeks minus 5 weeks – a woman on average finds out she’s pregnant at around 5 weeks gestation) to consider whether he wants to father a child. Let’s say that a woman tells him that she is 10 weeks pregnant with his child. The man then has a legal right to consider whether he wants to opt into the duties of fathering that child up to the 29th week of her pregnancy – 19 weeks after she has informed him. In the Republic of Ireland, abortion, except when the mother’s life is at risk, remains illegal. However, it is only a question of time before an amendment will be put before the people to repeal the 8th amendment. When that happens, the people will almost certainly vote to repeal it.
5) The end of secret family courts. Enforcement of all orders of family courts including orders for joint custody or visitation. Sentences imposed on those who refuse to comply.

Marriage needs to be updated for the 21st century. Its rules ought to be transparent, unambiguous and seen to be enforced so that both men and women feel that they won’t be tricked later if they choose to enter into a marriage contract. Hopefully, in time, we will see a recovery in the fertility rate to a sustainable level.

My thoughts on marriage.

Marriage is a female racket. It is appropriately called “matrimony”. I looked up the definitions of matrimony and patrimony just now. Patrimony means the passing down of property from one generation to another. There you have it, men are workhorses, wealth generators, walking ATM machines (talk about objectification!). Matrimony, by contrast, means the institution of marriage. Matri- is derived, of course, from the Latin for mother. Marriage has historically been about giving mothers the resources to raise kids.

But the times, they are a-changing. To end this racket, the two roots that supply this matrimony tree with nutrients needs to be severed – the property/wealth root and the offspring/children root. In the media, we learn about almost exclusively male celebrities and tycoons who have had to pay their ex-spouses tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars after a divorce. Men like Michael Jordan or Paul McCartney who through their talent and hard work earned their money had to give tens of millions of it away. Men know full well how rigged marriage is against them. Small wonder then that the ranks of MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way) have swelled as a counterpoint to the emergence of toxic third wave feminism since the 1970s. Small wonder, the fertility rate throughout the western world falls far below the replacement level. Small wonder, immigrants from completely different cultures (often war-zones, unstable societies or authoritarian regimes) are invited in to make up for the shortfall in population and the workforce.

Alimony should be ended. Surely feminists, if they truly believe in equality, would agree that a divorced woman can find her own independent source of income – “Girl Power” and all that. Child Support should be tied to the father having adequate access to his children. Research shows that provided the non-custodial parent has supervision of his child/children at least 35% of the time, the negative repercussions of single parenting for the child/children can be minimized. That, of course, is in society’s best interests. Studies have shown for decades the multitude of negative outcomes for the children of single parent homes and single parent neighborhoods. Poorer educational outcomes, lower IQ scores, teen pregnancies, increased drug addiction, juvenile delinquency, adult crime and other maladaptive behaviors are closely correlated to growing up in a single parent home. Throughout the western world, a single parent home means a single mother home 90% of the time. In summary, good citizens are the products of intact families almost without exception. Don’t blame me for that. That is what the statistics have been saying unambiguously for decades.

As I have written previously, there should be mandatory joint custody in the event of marriage or separation where children are involved. There should be mandatory DNA testing at birth to determine if the baby truly belongs genetically to the father. If it does not, the father has the right not to raise the child as his. There should be paternal abortion rights for men meaning that a man should be informed in a timely fashion by the mother that she is carrying his baby and he has the right not to raise an unborn baby after it is born if he wants. There should be open family courts whose rulings are enforced against those who may break them.

Marriage needs to be rebalanced as an institution that commands the confidence of both men and women. Until it is, fertility rates will remain well below replacement levels and nations, over a few short generations, will either go completely extinct or will become totally unrecognizable. Europe, for example, may well be replaced by Eurabia.

My Thoughts on Parental Alienation.

The subject of female manipulation has exercised my mind recently. Many feminists and many in the mainstream media take the view that this is a 50/50 thing which I think is absurd. Recently, there was a two part series on parental alienation written for the Irish Times by Fiona Gartland. One week, the story of a man who was alienated from his child by the child’s mother was published and, for the sake of balance apparently, a couple of weeks later, the story of a women who was alienated from her child by the child’s father was published.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/parental-alienation-one-father-s-experience-1.2335461

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/case-study-a-mother-s-experience-of-parental-alienation-1.2350463

Sometimes, I feel that we pursue political correctness too much. This is also the outcome of the feminist belief that men and women are basically the same in terms of their mental functioning when they are not.

From an evolutionary biological perspective, men and women are different, not just physically but also in the way our brains are wired. Women are more manipulative than men and men are more aggressive than women. Angry Harry has elucidated this difference very clearly in this article.

http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenandChimps.htm

There is nothing wrong with these traits in and of themselves but, in our society, male aggression is pathologized whereas female manipulation is exonerated. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our secret family courts.

Parental alienation, whereby one parent seeks to alienate a child or children from the other parent represents a extreme manifestation of this trait of manipulation, turned to destructive ends. In the United States, women gain primary custody of their children after divorce or separation, 82% of the time. In places, like Canada, the UK and Ireland, it’s more like 90%. Women have more opportunities than men to engage in this reprehensible behaviour, behaviour that has been rightly characterized as child abuse.

If this phenomenon was really something that both men and women engaged in in equal numbers, feminists would be calling for parental alienation to be made a criminal offence with automatic custodial sentences for those who engage in it. They know full well that this is overwhelmingly a female offence so they are silent.

Adult Sex Work and the Shoddy Journalism of the Irish Times.

Dear Kevin O’Sullivan, Editor of the Irish Times,

I refer to this article

[Screendump of entire article below]

entire-article

[Highlight of passage where the word “caramelise” is used below.]

caramelized

in the Irish Times today where it is reported that the latest Amnesty International Council Meeting has voted to endorse a call for the decriminalization of adult sex work around the world.

The resolution means the ICM calls on Amnesty’s international board to “adopt a policy that seeks attainment of the highest possible protection of the human rights of sex workers, through measures that include the decriminalisation of sex work”.

This is welcome news.

However the way Kitty Holland has written this report leaves much to be desired. It is written that ““Amnesty International considers human trafficking abhorrent in all of its forms, including sexual exploitation, and should be caramelised as a matter of international law.”

“Caramelized”?! Clearly Amnesty International meant “criminalized”. Is your newspaper supposed to be the national newspaper of record or a reiteration of the Onion ?

There are more examples of bias in this article, for example , the silhouetted adult sex worker at the top of the article which is stigmatizing I think. Adult sex workers are made of flesh and blood like the rest of us. How about showing them as such?

Also mention is made of the “successful” Turn Off The Red Light campaign. “Successful”? TORL legislation or Swedish model legislation that seeks to abolish with a stroke of the pen adult sex work has not yet been passed by the Dail. One shouldn’t count one’s chickens before they are hatched et cetera.

And the article is categorized under “Religion and Beliefs”. I personally would categorize the article and the good news contained within under “Human Rights”. We religionize so much in Ireland.

Religionize. Caramelize. [sighs]

Kitty Holland trivializes Amnesty International by referring to it as a charity. I prefer to look at it as an International Human Rights Organization. Naturally, she makes no mention of the trend amongst International Human Rights Organizations including those of the United Nations family in recent years to endorse the decriminalization of adult sex work. UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS), WHO (World Health Organization) and UNDP (United Nations Development Program) have already endorsed the decriminalization of adult sex work.

Paul Carr