Empathy and Fear Based Control

Those with natural empathy intact, who are fully responsive, whose ability to respond is intact, need no rules, nor do they require any regulation.

Empathy is the ability to discern the CONTENT of the other. It is built on self empathy.

Self empathy is to a large degree developed through the child-mother bonding process, in that it is the environment that the new born grows in that is most crucial to her or his development. Environment means the psychological, emotional, material realities into which the child is born.

In utero, the child is in a fully empathic reality, connected to her or his mother in profound ways. They are as one. The child in utero is sensing not only her own world, but that of the mother as well. The evidence is clear : the child is learning all the time, and that learning corresponds to how their physiology and neurology developes.

Thus the child, after birth has to learn and experience empathy as a separate being, and there are key experiences that are biologically mandated to help the new born to develope self empathy, and empathy for others. Prescott's 1975 Paper Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence set out some of the parameters for this development, and his work has been corroborated by researchers ever since.

http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html

What science is now finally 'proving' has been a working knowledge for the human species for 6 million years, and is a working biological reality for many mammals. Our bodies know this. Mothers bodies sense this.

http://birthpsychology.com/free-article/introduction-life-birth

If a child is not given those key experiences, if the relationship between mother and child is in any way disrupted at these crucial stages of early life, then the fundamentals of self empathy, and with that empathy for others are missed out on, and what flows from that loss is what we see all around us, on our daily news : the urge to Power, to control others to meet one's perceived needs.

What baby would not be angry at not being met with the experientials our biology has mandated? Think of the child left to cry himself to sleep in another room, to scream and cry until exhaustion brings sleep. Is this not a common practice in our culture? What of the resignation, the suppression of that rage, the loss of self empathy which ensues from that suppression which is the outcome of such a practice?

Empathy is a multi-sensory ability. Thus the mind, the intellect, the 12 senses, insight, intuition, mirror neurons, the heart field and direct experience all work together in the empathic natural human being.

Being responsive means that one observes, takes in the information, absorbs that field of information, processes that information and generates action to deal with the situation.

The natural inclination of all living organisms is to act in ways that nurture the habitat so as to maintain the optimum conditions for life to flourish, for ALL life to flourish.

Thus the action taken is taken within that ‘ethic’. Ethic here is used as an analogy, for it is deeper than ethics, which are a human concept.

It’s important to comprehend that there exists Societal Institutionally induced conditions that create that lack of empathy, repeatedly. It’s also important to note that trauma that is unresolved can also lead to a loss of self empathy on the personal level, and on the societal level.

Lack of empathy leads to a sense of disconnection, which leads to fear (that one's natural needs will not be met) which leads to a desire to control others (to meet one's perceived needs) and it is the imposition of control that leads to violence...... because self organising nature rejects control in favour of co-operation, and this natural 'resistance' is met with violence to maintain control.

An example is the labelling of certain children as 'disruptive', the creation of spurious diagnoses and the utility of drugging those children to maintain control of the classroom. The system undermines the parents/teachers sense of empathy by enforcing certain requirements upon them, which in order to be met, require that they control the children because of fear of the repercussions. It is the fear that drives the controlling behaviour, not love. Even if it is rationalised as love, it is not love. It is not trust. It is fear.

Hunting is not the same dynamic, so don't go there.... as an attempt to suggest that adverse control is all over nature.... natural hunting exists in the context of the metabolising of materials in ways that improve the habitat for ALL Life..... everything eats.

Those who seek to make change in our Society such that we build in or reclaim a nurturant underlying ethic  must have an accurate understanding of HOW SOCIETY CREATES THAT LACK OF EMPATHY, THAT FEAR, THAT DESIRE FOR CONTROL in both the person and the structure of Society.

Metabolising one's own trauma patterns will release one from the trauma cycles. However action is required to extend that further such that the Societal and Institutional trauma patterns are brought to an end.

Without that understanding, those who are engaged in activism, in protest, or in any other activity to bring change WILL be manipulated, their work will be co-opted and neutralised, and the adverse control will persist...

We see the evidence for this in Institutional 'care' systems all over the world. We see this in the 'greenwashing' PR campaigns of various polluting Corporations. The co-opting and neutralising of good ideas, of the urge to co-operate, to devolve power, is ubiquitous in any Hierarchical system of Power, and it's obvious too that being conditioned into such a system internalises that process, and it is addressing the loss of self empathy that is key to undoing those internalisations.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Speech to Rally Trafalgar Square June 4th 2011

This is the text of a speech I was to deliver at the Rally Against Child Abuse, hosted by Truth and Hope, on June 4th, 2011 @ Trafalgar Square. 

I was also asked to deliver a message to the gathering from Kevin Annett, my friend whose pioneering research unveiled to the world the full horror and extent of the Canadian Indian Residential School System, and forced the Canadian Government and those Christian Churches involved in running that system to finally and grudgingly acknowledge what was done in the name of the Canadian tax-payer,  and of 'civilisation'. His work continues, as does mine, with regard to a full and open accounting for these crimes, and a demand that Society address it's profound lack of empathy and it's resultant adverse behaviour.

There was not time enough to do both. I read Kevin's message, and have published the text of the speech here.....

Child protection is many things.

One of the things it is not and never should be is a set of regulations to be followed willy nilly,  so often 'following orders' whilst ignoring the distress that the enforcement of ill-designed bureaucratic rules results in, because they reduce what ought to be a humane interaction to the ticking of boxes, the filling of forms, the application of formulae, the submission of the human being to an order that is un-natural, and ultimately the rejection of the meaning of the lived experience of children and their parents.

Child Protection must be something far deeper than the dry application of the Law, the provision of a Service, and above all it must be humane, empathic and acutely sensitive to the natural needs of the children, the natural needs of families, of parents and of their communities. 

It takes a village to raise a child. Parents MUST BE SUPPORTED in every way possible.

Child protection, if it is to have any meaning, has to recognise a number of key biological realities.

These realities are felt by most mothers, most fathers and not least, well understood by many Scientists researching the biologically mandated developmental realities concerning the consciousness of babies, in the womb, in infancy and throughout childhood development.

Science and Reality meet in best practice. 

Most parents are doing their best. Under the circumstances.

The Reality is this : The Human Child is expecting to emerge into an empathic and nurturing Society.  The Institutions of our Society are neither in great measure. These are the circumstances that mitigate against natural development.

Our Biology is clear: we observe the presence of mirror neurons, which fire the same neural networks that would be required to make the movements that have been observed, that have been seen, and this tells us yet again, that empathy is very much a multi-sensory ability that is innate, intrinsic and absolutely fundamental to the human being. That is to say, that what we experience is written into our physiology, our neurology. The environment in which we grow is of vital importance, and nature has much to offer in this regard. So much to offer.

Empathy is our most basic nature, not fear. We learn best through love. Self empathy is the basis for empathy with others.

The image of mankind as a potentially rampaging, self destructive mass is a fundamental error. Original Sin and The Fall are fables, malign metaphors, and  they do not describe the biological reality at all.

WE ARE GOOD PEOPLE!

We know that love starts with loving oneself, with self-empathy.

What we also know through experience and through developmental Science, that from within the womb, through birth, infancy and childhood, the development of empathy, as is the case for the development of any other aspect of the child, requires certain biologically mandated experiences that nurture that development.

Being treated with empathy nurtures empathy in the child.

There is a multi-sensory bonding, an experiential process of securing one’s sense of self and this is a learning process, one that is biologically mandated, a process which if disrupted leads to pathology. It cannot be stated any clearer than this:

If Society damages the natural empathic child, then Society will create empathically damaged people, who will potentially repeat the cycle. If those people build Institutions, make rules, effectively codifying their own neuroses into the common lore, they will repeat the cycles.

If ANY Society permits these bonding experientials to be disrupted, then that Society is creating the pathologies that ensue from that disruption.

Where is the empathy and nurturance in our Societal Institutions?

And, as we, the Survivors and the distressed, are all too familiar with, it is those people who are harmed and who suffer, who present the symptoms, which we know as symptoms of distress,  which in truth reveal the presence of Societal pathogens, yet which Society labels as disease, or worse, as dysfunctional behaviour to be judged, who are then scape-goated by this exclusive and judgemental diagnosis. 

If the Society itself is not also diagnosed as part of the problem, and then treated accordingly, and that means a change in the behaviour of Power, of Societal Institutions, then those who suffer the most, and reveal the trauma creation that Society is responsible for, are yet again betrayed.

This omission is the essence of institutional cruelty. Society blames the Survivor. It cannot stand. This is why we are here today.

Institutional Care Protocols, Policies and behaviours cause more harm than good. The proof of this is the re-currant intergenerational trauma patterns, transmitted through each successive generation. The wounds of the fathers and mothers are visited upon the children, because the fathers and mothers are not given the healing support they need and because the judgementalism of Social Services and Organised Religion and adversarial family courts prevails.

Thus the question arises.

Is what we, as a Society, are doing truly Nurturant?

Is what is being done to the Survivors, to parents under stress, by the Institutions of Society truly Nurturant?

How can it be considered Nurturant to NOT support parents whose lives may well be influenced by intergenerational trauma patterns, whose lives may well include incredibly difficult circumstances, such as poverty, sudden bereavement, perhaps even severe trauma, circumstances beyond their control and for whom the ensuing symptoms of these difficulties can make a prison even of what was formerly a home.

The evidence is clear: Institutional Care does not work in the best interests of the children when they remove children from their homes, and when they do not support and assist parents who are stressed and under pressure to the extent that is required and is relatively easy and inexpensive to implement?

The National Coalition for the Reform of Child Protection Services in the USA has helped three states avoid removals of children, by providing the kinds of support that works best for families, for children, their parents and ultimately, for Society. Their work shows some of the possibilities. They have saved State Government many millions of dollars, both on frontline care and in terms of outcomes requiring intervention in later life.

Why is the UK Child Protection System so judgemental, so secretive, so ill informed, so far behind the curve on what really works for children, for parents, for communities and ultimately for Society?

Why does UK official policy mis-interpret the truth that whilst neglect and abuse occur, that their presence has more to do with the kind of Society into which people are born and to which they are forced to conform to, than it does the kinds of people who  are born, who grow up in and become parents in a Society that does not support natural empathic parenting. That lack of adequate support fro nurturant parenting eats away at the very heart of what it is to be human, to be a child of life.

Economics, with which most officials are obsessed, is not the measure of a good life.

Why are those influences, that affect so many peoples lives so adversely, left out of the diagnoses of ‘at risk parents’ when it is OBVIOUS that these influences are very much part of the causality and indicate the societal pathology which these parents reveal as they present these symptoms?

Who benefits from this persistent refusal to admit a holistic diagnosis?

Is that refusal not irrational, or even insane, in and of itself?

Do we not meet this irrationality in our lives, every day?

Are we not the living witnesses to this cruelty, we who have suffered as children and continue to suffer as adults the adverse affects of this Institutionalised, legalised, codified lack of empathy, through no personal weakness within ourselves?

Are we not correct to demand that justice be fully served where real harm and loss has  occurred, and are we not also to make of our efforts a call, a cry from the heart, to place empathy at the very core of how our Society relates to all children?

Who will join this call?

We ask : Will you join this work?

The Congregation of The Faith's 'guidelines' are a criminal failure.

This is an open letter. sent to media, politicians, activists in the UK , Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada and elsewhere.

Concerning the latest set of 'guidelines' issued by the Congregation of The Faith in Rome, to all Bishops worldwide....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/victims-furious-over-new-vatican-abuse-guidelines-2648496.html

to the Editor...

and to all concerned citizens, irrespective of your beliefs.

When an Institution, that has been shown to have failed miserably to meet the legal and moral duties of care to those who have been, for whatever reason, placed in it's care,  which does not, above all else, place the needs of those people who as children were abused, traumatised, physically and psychologically harmed by officials of that Institution, in such manner that adversely affects the Survivors entire life times in the aftermath, and which do not and can not be deemed as adequate with regard to the prevention of further abuses, and after so many years of heart breaking requests by Survivors for honesty,  accountability,  empathy and justice, offers 'guidelines' such as the latest set issued by the Congregation of The Faith, that are not directly informed by the needs of those they have failed, then it becomes clear that the adverse nature of this Institution, as it stands, is a serious threat to the common well being of all those communities it is connected to and ministers to.

Be it State or Church, the same applies.

It is now time for the Irish State to act, as a humane and just Institution, to take the Vatican, the Irish Churches and The Pope, to the International Criminal Courts as part of it's own Institutional healing process, to face charges of Crimes Against Humanity. 

It can do this, and admit it's own past failures, as a measure of it's courage, empathy, honesty and commitment to the well being of all citizens of the Irish State.

What is also important to note is that this applies not only to Ireland, but to many States across the World, that this is a global issue.

The first step in true reconciliation is the admission of wrongs done, acknowledgement of harms caused, full transparency and a realistic commitment to end all such practices that enabled the abuse and harm to occur.

Not so much to punish, but bring about a full accounting, to bring to an end these repugnant machinations of denial, obstruction, intimidation and power play which have typified the response to Survivors from the very first days, so many years ago, that Survivors brought their testimony before the community.

That is not to say that those who have committed serious crimes should not face the legal consequences of their actions. They must. Children have to be protected. Society has to know that our children are safe.

And, importantly, it is long past time to bring about such fundamental changes within the State and the Church as Institutions, that they might become less about Power over people, than about the well being of those people who subscribe to and fund these Institutions.

In essence this is about ensuring that the full meaning and intent of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child be fully and materially implemented without reservation.

This is the call of our times. This is the message of all great sages and spiritual teachers. This is what the future of all our children requires. This and nothing less.

Yours sincerely

Corneilius Crowley

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Mrs. Dorries, MP, Sex Abuse and Teen Pregnancies - Gaslighting the Victimised

Gaslighting the victimised is the Conservative fall back position.

Ms Dorries, is a Conservative MP, who has close ties with Christian Concern For Our Nation, a highly conservative group that campaigns (among other things) for 'Christian family values'. Her efforts are also supported by the Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Medical Fellowship. She misrepresents facts to claim that current sex education is not working. 

She has a Bill in the House she is trying to push forwards.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2011/12/nadine-dorries-abstinence-for-girls-bill-what-you-can-do

Ms. Dorries has often made seriously inaccurate comments about  sex abuse. She claims that teaching abstinence to girls will reduce child sexual abuse – which has outraged abuse survivors' groups.

This week, however, Dorries has gone one step further. Appearing as a guest on Channel 5's The Vanessa Show on Monday, host Vanessa Feltz suggested that teaching children they can 'say no' already happens and that it already happens in an appropriate and sensitive way. The MP replied:

"Well do you know that’s really interesting because...if a stronger just say no message was given to children in school that there might be an impact on sex abuse."

Not content with putting the onus completely on girls to take responsibility for sexual activity of others who might be more powerful that the child is in the situation, she now appears to be saying they should also be taking responsibility to prevent being abused.

http://ontoberlin.blogspot.com/2011/05/nadine-dorries-abstinence-and-abuse.html

A courageous Survivor wrote about some repugnant comments made by a Tory MP, Nadine Dorries, about child sex abuse, whilst promoting her particular 'Abstinence' campaign, on TV, a campaign designed to reduce teen pregnancies (part of her stated concern is the impact teen pregnancies have on girls in terms of education, job and life prospects) and old Conservative trope.

She comprehensively rebutts Mrs, Dorries comments about children saying "No!" to adult sex abusers.

"To say I am insulted that someone would insinuate that I caused my own abuse is an understatement. But this isn’t just about me, this is about everyone who isn’t able to live with the memory of what happened to them. It’s about children who even now are being abused and being blamed for their abuse: by their parents, by their abusers, by Nadine Dorries."".

The show, The Vanessa Show on Channel 5, can be viewed here, Mrs. Dorries speaks at about 19 minutes into the show. Hopefully it will be youtubed for posterity by some enterprising youtube-er.

The blogger, Vanessa, invited her respondents to write to Mrs. Dorries. So I did.

The Letter : copied to her party leader..

Mrs. Dorries,

I watched the Vanessa Show in which you spoke eloquently about your ideas concerning sex education, and teenage pregnancy. Your concern comes across.

However, I think you have not done the depth of research in this matter, that your position as a Public Servant, paid for by the taxpayers, demands.

Eloquence is not enough when it comes to the welfare and safety of children.

You have a duty of care, Mrs. Dorries, that is both legally mandated and morally implicit.

That duty of care is to the welfare of all those affected by the work you do.

Thus it includes all living Survivors of childhood sexual abuse, it includes all those children who are today being abused, and all those who will be abused in the future, because the policies you promote will affect many, many people, and because you made some comments about sexual abuse that I must address.

That duty of care demands that you transcend your 'opinions' and deal explicitly with the facts, the material evidence.

Those who have Survived sexual assaults in their childhoods form a very large part of that dataset. Have you spoken to Survivors on this matter? Are those conversations a matter of record?

Regarding your comments which I have transcribed from the program which were as follows :

"from some of the evidence I have heard, that if a stronger 'just say no' message was given to children in school, that there might be an impact on sex abuse, because a lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place, don't realise, until later that that was a wrong thing to do ... because" .. and you continue to speak of sex being so common in Society, in marketing etc etc and do not return to this matter of 'saying no will impact sex abuse', you do nor return to the moment the child in jeopardy is in, and you talk instead of the over-sexualisation of our children, as a societal phenomenon and of how that is linked to teenage pregnancy, a point that is unproven.

I note that you made a number of comments throughout the piece that it is the girls whose futures are most impacted by falling pregnant. That suggests that teenage pregnancy is key to your position. Your primary concern. No the abuse itself.

You have used 'sex abuse' as a means to an end. To bolster your particular campaign.

That is disingenuous and it is also manipulative. How dare you behave in such fashion?

What evidence to you have to support your contention?

How do you link your campaign, which is ostensibly about telling young girls that they should say NO, as part of their conscious abstinence practice, (which I partly support : sexual activity must to be consensual, well informed, safe and fun for all concerned, and that includes saying no...) to these comments?

As a child, age 8, I was sexually assaulted. By a priest. I didn't understand what was happening, so I could not say 'no'. It was simply put just weird behaviour I did not understand, yet the abuser was in a such position of Authority in relation to me, the child that I acquiesced. He had all the power. ALL abusers do. They are adept at manipulating the situation. Check the facts. Ask Survivors.

Many Survivors have in fact said 'no!', and that has then been ignored by their abuser. This is common. Abusers do not give up easily. Some children say no and are intimidated, manipulated and even beaten by their abusers. There's this question of Authority again.

How does a child, or a young teen say 'no!' and back it up, to an advancing abuser when  all the real Power in the situation lies with the ADULT abuser?  When all their young lives they are taught to respond to Authority with obedience?

The other panellist mentioned the fact that many parents are embarrassed to speak of sexuality to their children, and that her organisation has programs to help parents get over that embarrassment, so that flows of communication between children and parents are more open?

What are you doing to address this really important communication gap, one which abusers are known to exploit?

And what then of children in 'care', in fostering, who might not have the kind of trusting relationship that nurturant parenting ought foster, where the child has no-one to turn to, where we know that sexual abuse is relatively common?

Mrs Dorries, I have to say that 'might have an impact' is far too vague a term to use, for someone in your position, with the responsibility you have, of a duty of care to those whom you serve.

Perhaps you don't see it that way. Perhaps it is others you serve, (ideology) or your own opinions you serve. Only you can answer that. But I tell you this, your comments do not serve Survivors or children who are in jeopardy today, tomorrow and in in the future.

You see, Mrs. Dorries, the roots of abusive behaviour are known, they are well described, and documented.. The dynamics of abuse have been studied for some time, the witness of many Survivors is a part of that dataset.

At the root is a lack of empathy. At the root are a range of situations and societal expressions of power, where societal messages that lack empathy are transmitted by thought and by deed, where the power disparity that exists between a child and an adult is abused by the adult, to meet the adults perceived needs, where the child's natural nurturant needs are not met. Part of that lack of empathy you have ably demonstrated in the comments you have made, quoted above.

Of course I do not hold you responsible for the abuse that others do. Nor do I seek to link you to it in any way.

If you are serious about preventing abuse, (which is another matter altogether than the one you are so exercised about, that of teenage pregnancy) then you must study this material.

You must dig deep, Mrs. Dorries, and you must, above all, speak to Survivors...

Here's some research that would be a good place to start. I offer this to you with respect and with the hope that you reflect on my comments.

http://www.alice-miller.com/ - Eminent Psychologist whose work or intergenerational abuse cycles across whole Societies, has helped many, many people recover from their trauma, has helped people break the cycles of abuse and prevented further abuse from occurring.

http://www.birthpsychology.com/ - the latest findings in Science, on the natural development of children from in utero, through birth, infancy and childhood, which describes in great detail, the natural expectations that all children embody, that are intrinsic, inherent and that if not met, lead to pathology.

http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html - Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence

If you don't, then I, as a Survivor, must assume that you are more concerned with imposing your personal opinion and world view, through the power invested in you as an MP, than you are with the material evidence, the facts of the matter, and that is, in my view, utterly immoral, profoundly repugnant and I am sure that it absolutely disqualifies you from office.

I look forwards to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

I will copy this email to your party leader, and publish it on my own outlets.

Yours Sincerely... etc

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Letter to Media : The 'Troubled' Church

To the Editor,

Regarding an editorial in the Irish Independent, dated May 12th, entitled "A New Day of Shame for Troubled Church" your opening line was as follows: "FEW institutions have taken as severe a battering as the Catholic Church"

I would like to point out that the 'battering' the Church has taken is nothing compared to the harms, assaults, batterings, humiliations that so many children have suffered for such along time.

Let it be that that is NEVER forgotten or minimised in any way, wittingly or unwittingly.

The willingness, of The Church as an Institution, and of it's officials, even still, to mask and deny, to obstruct and suppress the truth says it clearly.

The recent audit of their Child Protection process which revealed that over 290 cases were obscured from view reiterates what I am saying.

If the ethics of Jesus were at all alive in The Church, (and elsewhere) there'd be whistle blowers aplenty, bringing forth evidence so that the accounting was well under way, and Survivors would find comfort and succour in that the necessary steps towards Restorative Justice were being taken.

Kindest Regards

Corneilius Crowley

This letter is in response to an editorial in The Irish Independent, dated May 12th, entitled "A new day of shame for troubled church"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/a-new-day-of-shame-for-troubled-church-2644552.html

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe