Things I have thrown down in my diary recently…

Even on a political level: perpetrators play on shame feelings in the victim or the victims!? Leaders that are sound/sounder don’t have to play on such things in people???

Further; insight isn’t enough to change a behavior… Experiencing something that sounds alarming to the amygdale… But what it is about; I mean I can imagine and interpret the possible events that are underlying… Jenson writes that if you rewrite your story/history the failure will be inevitable. Then I am not really open to what it’s really about!? I invent a truth that protects me against the real truth, or that's the risk??

And the alarm can be about all unprocessed things? Things that are triggered more or less? Instead you should need to, or try to, meet the fear more “unprejudiced” (probably not easy at all and feeling almost impossible? Probably feeling extremely scary?).

If the child had been allowed to react adequately with fear, anger, rebellion etc. and got an opportunity to process what she/he experienced, difficult, painful events (which the grown up maybe didn’t think was difficult or even painful), if she/he got an opportunity to express what she felt, and got help with that, including see who was failing, then she/he shouldn’t have had to suppress less things??

Addition in the evening: if already the baby had been allowed to express feelings and needs (anger, fear etc.), without making her/his mom feeling as a lousy mother, or maybe making her angry... Or without making her/his father angry, irritated etc....

Addition September 28: who had the responsibility for whom? For her/his feelings and needs? Actually? And who should have responsibility for the other part? On whom was it and should it be possible to put demands? And on whom not?

Why should (and still shall) the children have to understand someone that maybe ever tried to understand himself or never showed hardly any fingertip-feelings towards others (and least children)? Where the understanding wasn't mutual...

Neoliberals (also confessing to the objectivism) what are their needs about? Are they perverted needs? Do they allow others to exist? To coexist? Really?

Especially when these needs are "exercised" on behalf of others!!?? is that a sign of not perverted needs? But struck me; these unfulfilled needs (and the following egoism) can't it be hidden and "disguised" under a mask of good behavior and good manners?? As our foreign minister's??? Arrogantly floating on top of everything, not seeing himself forced to answer questions he doesn't like?? (and what is that a sign of too? Abuse of power? Now he has the power, so he can allow himself this, and do it very arrogantly??? What people's feelings and reactions? Over injustices and strange things?).

Back to childhood: the children were taught to be really, really good, even this wasn't necessarily outspoken:

"If you are (I am) really, really good and don't have any demands (i.e. becomes entirely invisible, in a way, and in others ways not, because the child wasn't allowed to put her/his light under the bushel either!! Talk about contradictions!? Confusing??) - then!!"

The false hope strengthened!! Including denial of needs (natural, original, underlying, adequate and completely justified childhood needs, not only of food, cloths and shelter)...

The child had to protect her/his mom, had to

"think of mom!!"

So whose needs was it about actually??? The children's or the grown ups (and not only the mom's but also the dad's)? But who has and should have responsibility for a grown up? In first hand she/he her/himself and secondly another grown up - shouldn't it??