The Bomb in the Brain Part 4: The Death of Reason – The Effects of Child Abuse
Posted by Stefan Molyneux, MA in Freedomain on March 10th, 2010
The scientific evidence underlying the near-universal resistance to reason and evidence. If you want to change the world, you first must understand the unconscious barriers to thinking.
References: http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse4
From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the Web, hosted by Stefan Molyneux — http://www.freedomainradio.com
PTSD: Post Traumatic Sex Disorder
Posted by Rabbit White in Rabbit Write on March 10th, 2010

Because I apparently have to stop working every 15 minutes to check blogs and social networking, I found myself reading about an ex-sex-worker coming out in an interview about her experiences. The write-up was on Bust.com and the writer opened with her abhorrence at the interviewer’s ignorance, who took the typical talk-show “oh my god, people do whaaat” naivety + silent shaming approach.
Pretty typical sex-positive “the media sux” fare so far, but then the writer laid this one on us “We are expected to cheer The Good Sex Workers on because they are subverting paradigms and confounding out expectations of what a stripper is. But while the media loves this story, it marginalizes all of the women who aren’t doing sex work to put themselves through college, or to pay for art supplies. The women of color and trans women and men who are forced into prostitution or who “choose” it because of a lack of other options. I feel like the more I read and hear about privileged women who really did chose to become sex workers, the more invisible those who didn’t have such a clear choice become.”
Wow, now this was a conversation I could get behind. Er, not that I am going to, because I think that the same white, privileged women theorizing over sex-work could be seen as part of the problem. Also being an anarchist, I am not going to prescribe the easy “prostitution should be legalized” tripe, which is what I think the Bust writer was going for.
But her point, which I think was an excellent one, brought another topic to mind. I was thinking of how the writers words “forced into” could also account for women who were sexually abused and unconsciously re-playing their trauma through sex work. In this era of the feminist-sex-worker and the end of ” the courage to heal” feminism (thanks to the so called “false memory” foundation) statistics about abuse and trauma in sex workers have also become not PC or okay to focus on either.
Which brought me to something I read recently from a pro-kink, BDSM-activist. This activist was saying that people need to really give up the question of whether or not people with kinks are re-playing childhood trauma. Their stance was along the lines of, “some children who are spanked grow up to have spanking fetishes, some children who were seldom spanked grow up to have spanking fetishes and some children who were never spanked grow up to have spanking fetishes.” Therefore, this person suggested,’ so what? Stop focusing on whether or not trauma is involved.’
It seems this speaker is caught up in the stigma that comes with child abuse and scared that their sexuality won’t be seen as legitimate if it can be traced to psychological damage. But to spout this idea to your own community is to spread poison. I do agree that yeah, so what, if the person with the kink in question has already done the psychological work on themselves and knows the answers as to why. But if they haven’t, then this is an issue that does need discussed, it is a big deal.
Everyone has a responsibility to their unconscious actions, it really is common knowledge that what is not processed will get repeated. Often, it seems that this unconscious reaction only effects you, as adults we are the only ones responsible for our own happiness, health and success. However, sex is often not solo. Not only could one potentially hurt themselves by re-living hidden traumas but putting a partner into an abuser role (unconscious or not) can be very damaging.
Discovering that your sexuality is re-playing on old wounds doesn’t necessarily mean it must stop. It means psychologically unhealthy practices should stop. The sexual arena is one that operates in the unconscious and for some, working on the past through sex might be a form of healing, others may need to abstain from sex entirely. That is only up to the person in the healing position (and their therapist) to decide. So to the kink activist, yes you can explore the question of whether or not your past shaped your kink and still have a healthy kinky sexuality. In fact, exploring is the only way to a healthy sexuality of any shade.
I don’t think that just those outside “the norm” need to question their sexuality. Rather, I think that being sexually healthy means honest reflection and questioning no matter what your past or present bedroom looks like. While it is sometimes used as one, sex positivity is never an excuse to not examine your past, and healthy sexuality can only come from self-exploration.
Related posts:
Masculinity in Leather
Posted by Rabbit White in Rabbit Write on March 10th, 2010
I forgot to tell you, I wrote a piece awhile ago for Sexis about the history of the gay-leather scene.
“It’s nothing new, but straight men have been slowly getting more in touch with their feminine sides, in ways both emotional and aesthetic. And while that’s not at all a bad thing, I like to think that masculinity is just as beautiful, legitimate and valuable as femininity. I love masculinity. I love the culture of men being men, being gentlemen: the clothes, the haircuts, the strength in competitiveness, independence, ambition and assertiveness. I want to celebrate the best of masculinity, but it’s just not in vogue right now.
When talking about the feminization of men in culture, fingers are often pointed at the metrosexual trend, and some vague stereotype of an effeminate gay man masterminding it all. Actually, as gay culture gains a greater foothold in society, it seems to be given accord largely through this feminized stereotype. And while femme gays may garner more attention, gay culture has rich roots in masculinity that is rarely spoken of. Perhaps uncovering this dusty history could allow for a broader and more accepted celebration of all men?”
Read the entire article here
Related posts:
The Looking Glass
Posted by Nathan McKaskle in Lost Liberty Cafe on March 9th, 2010
Leeeeeeroy!
Posted by Hajnal in The Haj & the Nal on March 9th, 2010
What I most like about myself?
Posted by Tom in Living the Dream on March 9th, 2010
The List is endless . . .
- I always critique whatever I consume both at an intellectual level and in terms of my emotional response to it.
- I am very health conscious about my diet, exercise, and environment, mode of transport, posture and risk.
- I love how deep in thought I can go, loving the feeling of my soul being re-enriched by a time of introspective calm.
- I relish every moment I spend ‘in the zone’ where I know consciously I’m riding that powerful horse of my instincts and the ideas just flow wonderfully.
- I cherish my unconscious’s ability to wake me up on time, remember what’s important, and throw up the most spectacular dreams I could ever imagine.
- I thoroughly enjoy the challenging delight of spontaneity in the day to day.
- I like my dress sense . . . it’s totally . . . me. Same goes for my taste in music, art and film.
- I love the energy and passion I bring to my self-expression.
- I truly value my immense degree of patience.
- I like how forthright I can be and the wealth of emotional energy saved thereby.
- I love how when I’m ill, run down, tired, stressed or just cold how I can wrap up my wellbeing in arms of comfort through eating well, treating myself, and staying curious with how I feel at all times.
- I admire the discipline I take to enacting if not the principles I hold as my ideals at least the first virtue of honesty. In other words, I can totally do whatever I want so long as I remain conscious of that choice and that I also choose its consequences.
- I love the way I smile when I make another breakthrough in self knowledge, like reacting to the punch line of a running joke my unconscious has been playing on myself that I half knew was going on.
- I respect my dedication to self awareness and the exploration of my own psyche in regular therapy sessions, journaling, dream analysis and talking it all over with friends.
- I’m in awe of the acts of integrity I’ve made in the past in dissociating from friends and relatives who were destructive and fed my false self defences.
- I like how I can put my feelings aside to really be there for someone else and get into their shoes in the moment and help them through what they’re dealing with.
- I’m really grateful for the strong, passionate feeling of loneliness that drives me closer to people like a moth to a flame. I have been hurt many times from running headlong into a brick wall with my arms outstretched, but I continue to do so, I open my welcoming arms once more to embrace the next warm feeling of secure friendship.
需要政府的时代已经过去了 (Freedomain Radio ‘Matrix’ video in Chinese)
Posted by Stefan Molyneux, MA in Freedomain on March 6th, 2010
需要政府的时代已经过去了
黑客帝国这个电影的情节是历史上最恰当的比喻之一。为人类的方便而发明的机器后来反而使得人类成为奴隶。这是反乌托邦科幻故事当中最常见的主题。
这种成为奴隶的恐惧感怎么会如此普遍,如此引人注目呢?我们真的害怕家里的电视机和笔记本电脑以后会成为人类的主人吗?
当然不是这样子。
这不是我们所害怕出现的未来,而是我们正在经历的过去。
在理论上,政府之所以出现了,是因为要使得人民的生活过的更安宁,更幸福些。但是呢,最终政府唯一会做的恐怕只有束缚人民。
我们所发明的“服务”机关,最终成为严重损害人民利益的统治权力。
所谓的“民有,民治,民享”的美国政府目前已经把数百万人关押起来,夺取国家总收入的一半资金以上,向外国人实施复杂缠人的不必要的法律法规,并且日日进行拷打,屠杀,侵犯他国,推翻异国政府,同时支撑着700多海外帝国性质的军队基地。另外,还引起通货膨胀,使得未来的人民需要还的债务不断地增多。
我们所发明的“服务”机关,最终成为严重损害人民利益的统治权力。
这个所谓的“为人民服务”的政府概念从历史的客观角度来分析是一个彻底不正确的概念。
国家政府为了保护人民而被人民建立起来这个传说完全没有依据。
在有政府之前的社会里,也就是说在部落时代时,人们所生产的东西只够自己使用,根本没有多余的财产,食物等资源。因此,拥有奴隶很不划算,因为奴隶只能生产使得自己能够生存下去的东西,所以主人没有可夺取的资源。
如果一匹马所能生产的食物只够自己吃,那么人不会去捕猎,驯服这匹马。
然而,当农业技术的提高允许生产多余的庄稼以后,拥有奴隶突然变得很划算。
当牛开始提供剩余的奶和肉以后,拥有牛就变得很划算。
历史上最早的政府和帝国实际上是一群奴隶主,他们明白人既然能生产剩余的食物和物品,所以捕猎,抓获,制服,最终拥有他们是很划算的。
最早的埃及和中国帝国本质上是人类养殖场,在这些地方人们被捕猎,被抓获,被制服,最终被拥有了,正如其他动物一样。
基于技术的提高,这些奴隶的生产量远远超过了抓获和束缚他们的费用。
统治阶级,也就是养殖场的管理人,得到了大部分剩余的生产物品,并给了残酷无情的阶级一部分东西来鼓励他们继续束缚人民。
这个阶级包括警察,奴隶捕猎人,宣传阶级,宗教徒,知识分子,和艺术家。
这个情况持续不断数千年的时间,直到16或17世纪。到了这时候,因为农业技术和方法的迅速提高,所以产生了生产量直线上升的新时代。
英国的圈地运动把该国的农业土地重组规划,导致庄稼收获增加5到10倍以上,而其结果就引起了工业工人阶级的诞生,使得大量人民从农村搬到城市里居住。
这个令人感叹的农业改革就是工业革命的根源和前提条件。
工业革命可不是统治阶级希望释放农奴的表现,反而是统治阶级发现了一个道理,他们意识到了如果给动物一定的自由,它们就会变得令人惊讶得勤快。
当你把牛放在很狭窄的空间里生活,它们会发疯似地撞墙,给管理人添加很多不必要的麻烦。
因此,管理养殖场人员便给它们更宽阔的空间 — 当然,这不是因为想释放牛,而是想提高生产量并减少费用。
“自由放养”的下一步绝对不是“自由”。
19世纪的国家资本主义实际上是“自由放养奴隶制”的崛起。
这个自由现象不是想解脱人民的枷锁而发生的,反而是想提高奴隶的工作效率而已。
与此同时,知识分子,艺术家等人都能享受各种各样的利益鼓励他们隐藏真实的情况。
现代人类养殖场管理学的一个大挑战即时人的“积极性”。
国家资本主义只能在人们有自愿的创业心促使他们努力才能够成功实行。
然而,一旦出现生产量提高的情况,国家政府各阶层一律会扩大人数,使得统治阶级和他们的受益人人数膨胀。这种膨胀会直接影响人们努力工作的积极性。
税务提高了,法律条款增多了,国债上升,生活水平下降。
人们越意识到他们的勤快和努力成果不属于自己而属于他人,郁闷情绪和绝望便越成为一个社会现象。
为了解决问题,统治阶级使用各种各样的新手段,包括:更多宣传活动,抗抑郁药物的支持,迷信,战争,社会道德活动,创造新“敌人”,
爱国主义的反复灌输,排外情绪和反对移民的现象等等。
你一定要搞明白这个世界的真实情况。
当你看世界地图的时候,你看到的不是国家,而是养殖场。
尽管你享有一些很有限的自由 (包括有限的拥有权,迁徙权,结社自由,就业自由),
但这不是因为政府在原则上支持(他们不断的侵犯这些权利),而是因为“自由放养”的动物无比得便宜和勤快。
你一定要搞明白人的实际想法。
国家资本主义,社会主义,共产主义,法西斯主义,民主主义。。。都是动物管理解决方案。
有的方法比较成功(比如国家资本主义),有的效果很差(比如共产主义)。
最终它们都失败,因为把人看成动物来对待严重违反道德和逻辑。
在中国,印度,和整个亚洲的新来的自由现象实际上是当地国家养殖场管理人更新了他们的养殖技术。
他们已经发现了,如果给牛一点自由空间,它会给统治阶级更多奶和肉。
统治者也意识到了,如果不让你离开养殖场,你会变得不开心,精神上将会有问题,工作效率将会下降。
当奴隶以为自己很自由的时候奴隶才会比较勤快。因此,统治阶级需要让你产生自由幻想才能夺取到你的工作成果的最大比例。
因此,他们“允许”你离开,但你到不了自由的地方,只能到另一个养殖场去,
因为全世界都是不同的养殖场。
政府会阻碍你随带太多金钱,会用复杂的申请手续缠住你,会限制你就业的机会。。。
但你总可以“自由”地离开。由于这些麻烦,很少有人真的离开,但自由的幻影仍在。
一千牛当中的一个如果走丢了的话,仍在的999头牛更感觉自己很自由,所以养殖场管理人更加获利。
政府也通过许可制度把你束缚于国家内。最有工作效率的动物是专家,所以统治阶级把类似于电子颈圈的“营业许可证”套在他们脖子上,只让他们在自己的养殖场工作。
为了进一步创造自由的形象,有的养殖场还允许当地动物选择统治阶级事先筛选好的人当中的一个代表。
这些人之间的区别很小,而进行选举时从来不让动物选择直接关闭养殖场并过真正自由的生活。
政府学校是动物的教条灌输基地。
在这些地方,学校教儿童要懂得“爱”养殖场,并且教他们害怕真正的自由和独立性,
让他们攻击任何反对养殖场的叛逆动物。政府也为支持政府的知识分子提供待遇良好的工作单位以鼓励他们。
政府的荒唐矛盾 — 正如宗教 — 只能在向无助的儿童灌输不计其数的宣传下才有人相信,才能维持下去。
民主主义和某种“社会契约”能容许少数人统治几十亿人这个想法真是太荒唐的了。
如果你告诉一个奴隶他的祖先选择做奴隶,所以他也要做奴隶,他会简单地说:
“如果当做奴隶是一种选择,那么我决定不做奴隶。”
统治阶级最害怕听到的就是那一句话,所以他们让奴隶攻击任何说出类似于这一句话的人。
政府不是一种哲学论。
政府没有历史上或逻辑上的继续存在的依据。
政府是统治阶级的一种拥有人类奴隶的借口。
政府是进行暴力的委婉理由。
各种各样的政府机构都属于养殖人类的解决方案和养殖方法。
宗教是一种受欢迎的迷信,使得儿童产生害怕情绪并且愿意付出代价缓解不安的心情。
爱国主义是一种固执观念,使得当地的动物产生对主人的好感。
迷信的相反不是另一个迷信,而是真实。
一个错误概念的相反不是另一个概念,而是客观的证据和原则。
迷信,错误概念,和政府的相反。。。是哲学。
理性和勇气将会把我们释放了。
你不必要当其他人的奴才。
选择看准真相。
从梦中醒来吧。
Also Not Shocking
Posted by Jad in Jad's Universe on March 5th, 2010
The mighty Glenn Greenwald is taken aback by Wolf Blitzer’s ludicrous and antagonistic piece on the “loyalty” of Justice [sic] Dept officials. You see, these officials had represented kidnapped foreigners who have been in cages for . . . just about a decade now. Of course, questioning the state’s blatantly illegal, not to mention obviously evil, actions is grounds for charges of treason. At least, that’s Wolf’s take. Or, to be more accurate, that’s the perspective, delivered by some arch-conservative, that Wolf let go unchallenged by objections or questions.
This is unsurprising to me. My very first memories of Wolf, were of him uncritically covering the first Iraqi slaughter in 1992. Glancing at his CV, he also worked for AIPAC in the 70s. Soooo, yeah, probably not that objective when anti-muslim fervor can be stoked a bit.
The Hook-Up Culture & Honesty
Posted by Rabbit White in Rabbit Write on March 5th, 2010

Just as I was writing my post about the hook-up culture and death of dating as our Grandparents knew it, the feminist blog-sphere was being lit up. In this corner of the Internet the old argument “is the hook-up generation bad for girls?” had been dug up from the bin of tossed around ideas, like a discarded dress with shoulder-pads finding itself once again trendy.
Dusting off the question–which is usually favored by conservatives shaming the pro-sex third wave– was an unusually fresh “girl’s expert” Rachel Simmons who writes advice for TeenVogue. Basically her argument was that during this era of easy hook-ups and birth control pills, girls are being expected to be casual and cool about relationships And that the ball is in the dude’s court on to be bf-gf or not to be. The girls are then left with bated breath, hoping that he will ask. So pretty much the same old story we’ve been fed throughout generations. Only this time they are engaging in blowjobs before he asks her to the prom and she comes down the stairs in slow-motion with a make-over.
Rachel’s thing is that this is detrimental to girls because all of the power lies in the guys court. I would be lying if I didn’t acknowledge that this does happen and that it is a product of patriarch and not so good. But Rachel falls into the trap of pining a bit too much over the courting rituals of old. If the hook-up culture is rooted in patriarchy, old style courting was buried in it. I don’t need to point out how the same thread of sexism that ran through dating and has trickled down into the hook-up culture. Kate Harding already explained it on Salon more swiftly and gracefully then i ever could.
What does get old for me in Harding’s argument though are the many assertions of how the patriarchy hurts women in dating. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is sad that some women let men decide for them when and if they will date. And shockingly sad that women’s magazines and self help books have us ruminating over being perfect for a man. But the patriarchy hurts everyone and the male version of “10 ways to keep a man” is the “how to impress a girl by saying/doing douchey stuff” ala Maxim/Mystery. Both are products of the patriarchy and I’d rather pluck out my eyelashes then read articles on either. But both men and women are hurting here.
What is needed is for men and women to learn honest communication, with themselves and with each other. And if you read my piece on how feminism changed dating, you can probably guess my answer. While the sexual revolution and feminism have erased the old rules, we are still knee-jerking our way through fucking and loving with the old sexist positions. Instead of guessing and hemming and hawing over what each other think, the new relationship needs to be one based on honesty. The advice Rachel Simmons needs to give her TeenVogue readers is to simply start being honest. First honest with themselves about whether or not they truly want a relationship (or if it just seems like the right thing to do.) And second, to start being radically honest with their partners about what they want.
Because that is how we are going to change this. It isn’t going to be about “teaching boys to be more respectful of girls” as she suggests, because really that is not the issue here. It isn’t an issue of conscious disrespect, but rather of playing a silent game and boys and girls being expected to take certain positions within that game. The issue here is that these kids are not talking about the relationships they are in. And let’s be honest, it is not just kids doing this.
Now, back to that question that the TeenVogue readers should first ask themselves, “do I really want a relationship?” Where this gets sticky is in the conditioning on how to feel about hook-ups and boyfriends. Girl-Drive sums this up beautifully in her post on the matter “If we’re told that casual sex is unfulfilling and that we’re going to want relationships, chances are we’ll end up wanting them. And why not? That’s what Seventeen, Glamour, and all my friends always told me.”
We should teach girls that they don’t have to justify their hook-ups to themselves. Further, hooking-up doesn’t mean you should or can have a relationship with someone, explore what you really want. Where I stand on this old “does the hook-up culture” hurt girls is that no, hooking up is fine, great even for some people. I think it is so important for people in Simmons position to let everyone know that teenagers are sexual beings with a right to a sex life, and consensual sex of any kind is okay.
If I haven’t beaten this into your brain enough by now, it is not the hook-up culture hurting us, it is the tired game of non-honesty that is hurting girls–and boys. Even without the old courtship rules, we are still blindly going through the patriarchal motions which positions the male to pop the big questions of commitment and then carry us off into the sunset. All genders need to be liberated from this game and unless we start having intentional relationships where we are honest with ourselves and each other, it won’t happen.
Related posts:
- How Feminism Has Changed Relationships
- Exploring What Intimacy Means
- Ask Rabbit: Finding a Balance in your Dating Personality
A Task for the Believers (or Bring America Home)
Posted by Jad in Jad's Universe on March 4th, 2010
I just caught wind of the coffee party. I don’t know that it will catch on, but the sentiments espoused by the founders and participants appeal, I think, to a broad swath of the not-yet-totally-disillusioned. Here’s the mission statement from coffeepartyusa.com:
MISSION: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.
And their facebook blurb:
We the People demand: Reason and civility in public affairs; A government accountable to the People; Liberty & Justice for All.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that government is anything but an enemy of people*. It sure as hell is no representation of my will, or the will of anyone I know or care to know. But that’s not my rant today. Today I bring a proposal. A simple test which, if passed, will save countless lives and provide the money to fund every domestic project every dreamed of.
I know what you’re thinking, I thought the same thing as I perused this post whose proposal I bring to the caffeinated today.
The claim of the state apologist, captured in the coffee party mission is that it is possible for the state to act in the interests of the citizens and reflect the wishes of its people. Certainly nothing could be more rational in a time of dire financial crises than to repurpose the trillions of dollars spent annihilating distant, provably harmless, civilizations to rebuilding our own.
Clearly, our global wars of occupation are not effective at achieving their stated aims. Both reason and evidence indicate, in fact, that the exact opposite of “national security” is heightened as the list of the aggrieved soars into the 10s of millions and the viability of a life spent violently fighting western institutions increases.
To the coffee party and anyone else who still imagines that the state is the servant of the people. I beg you to apply yourself to this one single, utterly reasonable and most critical of political actions. The coalition awaits and, as Chris notes, it is a truly big tent.
* At least 99.9% of people.



