Ruben Zandstra

Thanks, I will see if I can find anything from Bernard Lempert when I get a chance. Right now Google only brings me some French entries unfortunately. DeMausse has quite specifically written about contemporary aboriginal tribes: see the "happy aboriginal childhood thesis", http://psychohistory.com/articles/on-writing-childhood-history/ As to what is fundamentally better in modern culture compared to primitive tribalism concerning the care of children ... well, the one defining improvement is that children now pretty much survive their childhoods instead of facing really terrible odds most of the time, most of which relate directly to tribal culture / psycho-class. But I agree; deMause might be too optimistic as to the progress western civilisation is making in terms of childrearing. And it's not necessarily a straight road forward.

Hi Kodama! I read the Continuum concept a while ago, so my memory may have lost some detail. I too thought it was mind-blowing, and it absolutely changed my perspective on (my) parenting. That having been said, I've taken some distance from some of the ideas / conclusions that Liedloff seemed to lead me to at the time. This may have to do with the fact that shortly after reading the CC I took up reading Lloyd deMause ( for instance http://psychohistory.com/books/foundations-of-psychohistory/chapter-1-the-evolution-of-childhood/ ) This quote comes to mind: "The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused." DeMauses' historical approach is in taking the types of childrearing throughout history as the central subject matter, discerning between different levels of empathy towards children, categorizing them in "psycho-types". The fact that apparently Liedloff's particular primitive tribe was very benevolent towards infancy does not convince me that deMauses thesis is false. (Of course it doesn't exactly prove he is right either) But I have come to suspect that Liedloff may have been romanticizing and idealizing her experiences among the people she was with, for instance when she was stating that it was "other tribes" that were violent war-mongers, without giving any clear idea as to why her tribe was peaceful and the others were not, other than (if I recall well) that the other tribes had been "more in contact with western culture" So in brief, her solution appeared to be in the realm of rejecting modern culture. Anyway, I'm basically plugging Lloyd deMause here, I'm pretty convinced he will blow your mind even more. In a not necessarily comfortable way btw, brace yourself.

I certainly understand your fear when it comes to starting therapy Knatz, as I've had plenty of it myself. Still, I think it's possible to make a lot of progress with a good therapist who has not been exposed to thinking from first principles, whom you might disagree with on many topics, and who is most likely an oblivious statist like everyone else out there. I think the main point is that the therapist's loyalty should be with you above all. Above any communist headquarters, above rigid doctrines, and above any insurance-companies. Once all that has been more or less established after some talks, you could decide to just get down to business. It's probably not going to be about the evils of the State most of the time anyway, at least if you want your money's worth.

I'm not familiar with the swedish health care situation, but from what I know about sweden in general it's bound to be regulated to death with therapists following all sorts of lunatic rules in order to get paid and stay licensed. On the other hand, I've read about this in Sweden: http://wildtruth.net/dvd/healinghomes Might be worth checking out. On another note, finding a good therapist is not easy anywhere, and you probably wouldn't succeed in two tries if you were living in Manhattan. Hope you succeed though, best of luck,

I'm mostly interested in self-knowledge, peaceful parenting and voluntaryism in the personal sphere. I've not consumed any mass media for a couple of years now; we don't watch public television, I don't read the papers or watch the news, and I download all content that we consume, add-free. It's been a detoxicating experience, pretty much like quitting smoking. With the exception of MH17 and the Ukrainian civil war; I've been kind of obsessed with it lately and I do a daily twitter search for #MH17. The conflicting propaganda is really excruciating, perhaps especially for us being the taxfarm-tribesmen of most of the people that were killed.

Just want to say Hi, TF! Welcome and nice to see another dutch member on the boards. Pablo's facial expression is certainly one of royal bereavedness btw

Hey Andrei, welcome. I'm in the north east of the country, near Zwolle. There's another moldavian FDR member in your area, I've pointed him to this thread.

Mises.nl, other than that, pretty much what you mention. Have to say I don't follow any of these sites with any regularity ... generally there's too much trolling going on imo. What topics are your main interests btw? You might want to check out some of the facebook groups, search for "FDR meetup NL" and the likes. Also, there's a european skype call on saturdays, skype-handle "philosophy.europe.call"

Just my thoughts: Even extremely immoral persons would probably have at least some virtuous traits. If they wouldn't, then they would most likely be very unsuccessful at being immoral. The more successful someone is at being immoral, the more dangerous we could judge singular virtuous traits to be in the end, since they are then merely the bait with which people are being lured into being exploited. I think a list of virtuous traits would only become helpful if it came along with a method of really narrowing down how a person scores on combinations of traits, both virtuous ones, neutral ones and immoral ones. Perhaps a "psychopathy test" - type of questionnaire could be the basis for a "potential mate" survey.

Welcome Sleipnir, nice to meet another dutchman here.

I haven't researched it myself, but according to the sources this would be good place to start: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig11/weber-c1.1.1.html I'd be interested in anything else you can find on the topic!

Are you on speaking terms with your sister?

In my opinion the distinction between rational and irrational emotions is descriptive of their origins, and is not about the emotions themselves. It's a helpful distinction at that. Emotions are preceded by thoughts or central beliefs, which can be true and helpful, or false and misguided, I think Albert Ellis (RET) made a good case for that. Irrational core-beliefs typically stem from adverse childhood experiences and have been formed around illusions that had to be maintained in order to best survive under the given circumstances. A rational belief would be: "I own myself". Rational emotion --> When I receive a tax-form I might feel angry, scared and / or annoyed. An irrational belief: "People must treat me well, if they do not then that is intolerable." Irrational emotion --> I might feel anxious, have pangs of self-doubt or become enraged when treated poorly by a waitress in a diner.

criminal behavior / lack of work-ethics depicted as deeply romantic choices

If I'm not completely wrong informed I think things went to hell quite quickly once governments started selling licences and protecting the license-holders with laws and a monopoly on force. This has been quite clearly the case along the west coast of Canada and in Iceland I think. The licensing industry has eliminated the social forces that restrained everyone in the past from harvesting at other peoples expense, and of spoiling common interests. Anyone even considering cleaning the whole area of fish in one go in -lets say- nineteen century New Foundland would quickly find himself ostracized (at best).