Most Parents Fail In Their Primary Function

The primary function of parents is to teach the young what it will need to know to get by in the world. That is all. And once that information has been taught, to let the young fend for itself.

Most (not all) parents fail in this relatively simple task, abysmally.

Consider a kitten. It learns that food and water comes in bowls, and how to drink, by watching its mother and imitating. It learns of the litter box the same way.

And larger cats in the wild learn hunting and killing from watching their mother, and then joining in as they get older.

Ducklings follow their mother closely, learning what to do and what not to do by simple observation.

Human children also learn a lot by watching and imitating. The difference, though, is that much of what is learned this way is then punished.

A child sees its parents opening doors and going outside, opening cupboards, etc. But when the youngster just does what it is programmed to do - imitate its parents - the human parents punish the child.

This does not happen in the animal world.

Apart from this "error" in human parenting, there are far more errors.

See. The animal learns what it needs to learn to get by and it is then left to fend on its own. Human children are not taught hardly anything about fending on their own, before being left to fend on their own. They then revert to the instinctual "observe and imitate" program. Little do they realize, those who they are observing and imitating likewise don't know how to fully get by. And so we have a situation where everyone fumbles through life without fully being able to flourish.

We need a few things to survive and get by and flourish...

The ability to gather food. In the past this was actual physical farming or foraging and hunting. Today, it is a trip to the supermarket or fruit & vegetable store. And as children learn by observing and imitating, what the parents eat the child learns to eat, and also buys as it grows up on its own. Thus, bad eating habits, which cause health problems, are passed on to the child. And the medical profession then says it is genetic.

The ability to prepare the food for consumption. In the past, this went about as far as peeling certain things or cracking open a shell to get at the nut inside. Today, this is cooking and adding flavors. And kids really want to learn this which is why they always want to "help" when you are in the kitchen. Of course, the past meant no cooking and eating food raw so all nutrients were available. Today, much of the goodness is cooked out of the food. With many health problem ensuing as a result of low nutrient high calorie food.

The ability to shelter. In the past this was more how to dig a hole and make a cave, or build some kind of dwelling. Today, this is how to buy a dwelling someone else has built, how to rent a dwelling someone else owns, or how to be an owner-builder.

The ability to survive after your usefulness has been outlived. In the past this was achieved by having your children look after you, or by you simply walking off into the wilderness to die. Today, parents rely on welfare to look after them, because their children can't hardly look after themselves let alone aging parents.

See. To look after yourself in the past required the same things as are required today. Today, there are slight changes. And in today's society, parents fail.

Children don't know how to gather nutritious food. Hardly know how to cook it. Have to learn about buying, renting or building a home all on their own. Are left totally in the dark about financial matters.

A child who is not taught about financial matters in this world of money, is as ill-prepared to survive and flourish as a child not taught how to hunt properly in days gone by. Or the farm child not taught how to keep some of the current crop for bad times and replanting the following season.

But the parents don't know any better. They teach what they know. And if they themselves don't know, then they cannot pass it on. They cannot teach their children about things they know nothing about.

A lot of parents leave the teaching up to schools. But schools don't teach financial matters either - or really anything that matters. Schools are designed to churn out good worker drones. Not independent and self-reliant people who know how to get ahead in life.

Consider the family dynasties. Such as the Rockerfeller or Kennedy families. These wealthy families teach their children about money matters. Everything about money. How to make it, keep it, grow it and protect it. And this information is passed on along the family line.

Mr and Mrs Middle Class do not teach their children everything there is to know about money. Mainly because, they themselves don't know.

And many Mr and Mrs "We're Upper Class" also do not teach their children about money. As can be seen by how their children have no clue about money. And how their children follow the inbuilt program of "watch and do". They see their parents spend money on credit cards and buy ornamental magnifiers (do-dads that make them look like they have plenty of money), and do likewise.

Does this mean the dynasty families do not fail their children in teaching them everything they need to get by in life?

No. They fail to. It's just that they do not fail in the money area - where much of today's getting-by is based from. Instead, they may fail in how to treat people, or how to eat healthy, and so on. But it isn't noticed as much because with money you can buy the best health care. But without money, you are forced to rely on public health care.

Does this mean the die has been cast and everyone's fate is set in stone?

No. Parents of today can create a dynasty. But they must first learn how to correctly manage money, how to make, keep it, enable it to grow and to protect it. And then to pass this information onto their children from the very beginning - like the Rockerfeller children were taught (even at 5 and 6 years of age they had to "manage their accounts" from the weekly allowances they received).

It seems to me it is not the making of the money - although, obviously, the more you can initially make the better - it is more the managing of the money, that is important.

In "The Millionaire Next Door" the author discovered that while a lot of migrants made money, their children did not. He put this down to the migrants making their money any way possible (because they had no choice) but then teaching their children to "go to school and get an education so you can get a good job so you won't have to work hard like we did." Without realizing it was their work ethic, combined with another factor I'll mention in a moment, which enabled the migrants to become wealthy.

And what of this other factor? Oh. Debt. The migrants had no personal debt. And with no history in the country, they are unable to get "credit". So they are forced to save and to only pay for things in cash. By the time they can get credit, they are so used to living frugally and without debt, they continue on in their way. Getting wealthy.

Their children are born into a hyper-spending world were everyone they know buys things on credit. Even the act of going to university sees the child graduate in debt. Not a good way to start working life.

Anyway. The parents can teach themselves about money and managing it, then pass this information into their children from the earliest beginnings.

Other areas too. Like health. Many parents are very slack. For example: While visiting a client her son dropped the peeled apple he was eating. It rolled along the carpet into the tiled floor we had just walked on. The mother picked up the apple and gave it right back to the child to eat without washing it or anything. No wonder her child was "sick" all the time.

Swimming. All children should be taught this. Same with driving. Reading. Writing. Basic math (you only need basic math to function well in the really real world). And so on.

Respecting other people's property rights is likewise needed to be taught. Alas, it isn't. Parents have this "learn to share" BS thinking. And coupled with sending little ones off to day care all the time, really shirk their responsibilities.

What happens at day care is... kids teach each other because 30 kids to 1 days care worker is too much. Watch and do is the order of the day. And they emerge from day care with all kinds of "habits" they picked up from the other kids.

Because day care is a communal thing, learn to share is the order of the day. And no one learns about property rights.

And it won't be taught in school either. Because it would then be seen that the biggest infringes upon property rights is the govt. As the govt own the schools, they will not teach anything that makes them look bad. As schools are run by lefty-socialist types, they will also not want to teach respect for property rights as that goes against the lefty-socialist agenda.

What this all boils down to is this: parents fail in their primary function. That doesn't mean they are bad parents. For they can only teach their offspring what they know. And as they don't know what they don't know, they can't teach it. And only teach what has been passed on to them, or the bits and pieces they may have picked up. And as most people do not like to be different, most parents have no desire to find out what it is they don't know.

Some, however, do have the courage to break out of the herd to learn the better ways. These "rebels" will teach their children as much as possible about finance and other matters. And a new dynasty will be in the makings.

You've Been Naughty. It's Not Your Fault But It's You Who Will Be Punished

A mother yelled at her toddler today in my street. The toddler had walked out through the gate (which had been left open) into the next door neighbors garden, and started playing with the dirt.

Totally engrossed in this new thing called dirt, the toddler's focused mind did not hear mom calling. But when mom found the child, boy oh boy. You'd have thought the kid did something horrid.

Don't leave the yard. Don't play in dirt. Answer when I call you. Blah blah blah. I was four houses away and could hear it all. And it got me thinking...

You see. Mom had been irresponsible. Mom had NOT been paying enough attention. If mom had been doing her duty and supervising her child, it would never have happened. But mom was a slacker. The child got out and started playing with dirt. And so instead of accepting the responsibility that mom made a mistake, mom chastised the child.

It reminded me of when I was little. I escaped my yard and crossed the road to play with the kids who lived there. I was like 3 or something.

Well. Did I get in trouble or what.

It wasn't my mom's fault that she wasn't paying enough attention to me. It wasn't her fault that she wasn't supervising me adequately. Oh no. It was all my fault. It was my fault my inbuilt curiosity saw me cross the road. So as a result of my mom's faults, I get punished. My mom tries to get rid of my genetically inbuilt instinct to explore the world around me and learn.

And so it is with most parents. They blame their children for their own lack of supervision. And try to beat out of the kid, the kid's natural instincts to investigate the world around it.

The parent's job is to prepare the child for living in the world. To teach the child the skills it will need to get by with as little harm as possible.

Smacking a kid for something the parent did wrong, is not teaching the child anything other than "life isn't fair."

The child's world does not involve neighborhood gossip, or workplace goings on. It's world is what it sees from its parents. And what it sees from its parents does not compute.

If another child wants to take a toy and complaining ensues, or resistance is shown, instead of telling the taking child not to take other people's stuff, people tell the child who is having his stuff taken, "you must learn to share."

The child doesn't see its parents sharing anything. And learns that mom and dad are full of it. There are rules for them and rules for the child.

The child gets punished without explanation. No education take place. It is just "learn by punishment". If you don't get punished then it is ok to do it again. Otherwise, don't do it again. This is what the child learns. Not the underlying reason.

I think parents need to evaluate much of how they teach their children. Because blaming a child for your own lack of supervision is just not on. And punishing a child after it does something, when you hadn't instructed on that thing before hand, is also not on.

You want to teach a child to be responsible? Then it starts with the parents.

Caring Is A Matter of Perspective, Or Is It?

A comment in an entry further down, asked about giving up when wanting a person to care about something. I took this to mean, for example, wanting someone else to care about the same thing you do. Such as wanting someone to care about the environment because you do, and not understanding why that person just doesn't "get it" and continue to disregard the environment, as far as you're concerned.

I answered from my libertarian point of view... that other people are not your property and to let them be instead of trying to manipulate them to your way of thinking. And I've given this a bit more thought and feel this is also needed...

What one person deems as caring might not be thought of as caring by another person.

Cast your mind back to your childhood days. And particularly, when you were being punished for a wrong-doing. You may have been in the process of being smacked on the bottom, and the smacker would say something like "this hurts me more than it hurts you" or "I'm doing this for your own good". As if to say "I care so much about your well being I have to do this."

At such times, I am sure, you did not feel like the person smacking you cared about you at all. And why would you, you are being physically harmed.

So here we have a situation where one person thinks they are caring and the other person does not think they are caring. And both could think the same thoughts of the other.

The smacker could think, "why don't they get it and understand I am doing this because I care?"

And person being smacked could think, "why don't they get it and understand I don't see the smacks as caring?"

And it is even worse because of how society expects us all to behave.

Society decides what appropriate caring for a given situation should be, and people act it out accordingly lest they are seen by people not to care. After all, what would other's think if they saw you not "caring"?

Take funerals for example. I refuse to go to them and so don't. And fail to see how my going or not has any bearing on whether or not I cared about the person.

Some might say it is paying your last respects. And to that I ask why I must go to a funeral to do that? Why can't I pay my respects in my own way?

It seems to me, funerals are more about showing other people you cared about the person, whether you actually did or not.

Someone dies and people that the deceased hadn't seen in years and years and years turn up. Why? They couldn't be bothered keeping in touch when the person was alive, why come a visiting when they die?

And what of the act of visiting in the first place? That is also something along this caring line which can be misconstrued.

I don't like visitors, generally speaking. They are an imposition. Because I am thus expected to "entertain" them and feed them and supply beverages to them. They eat into my time and resources. And because I don't like visitors, generally speaking, I tend not to be one for the same reasons. I don't like being put out by visitors and so don't put out other people by visiting them.

Some might see my actions as not caring about the person. But from my point of view I am caring about them. I care about them so much I don't want to put them out just to "entertain" me. To me, the greater the frequency of my visits, the more I am imposing on that person. Interfering with how they want to spend their time. They are not my property to be controlled for my entertainment pleasures and feed and water me. So I leave them be. (What I don't like done to me, I don't do to others.)

Of course, this is not how "society" sees things. All the podies think visits means caring. Appearance means caring. Cards and letters continually mean caring.

(Side Note: Guests - not visitors - are different because guests are invited whereas visitors are not.)

Let me ask you who you think cares more in this situation...

A person is in a car crash and ends up in hospital. They are a bit banged up. But nothing some R&R won't fix, because the body can heal itself quite well thank you very much, as long as it is not interfered with.

Person A sends a "Get well" card and a bunch of flowers.
Person B visits the person in hospital, along with the 100 other people who come a calling.
Person C researches some of the drugs the doctors are giving the injured person, gets hold of a couple of "how to get well without doctors sucking your money out of you" books, and sends the lot to the injured person.

Who do you think cares more... person A, person B or person C?

Here is how I see it...

Person A is doing what is expected. They are honest enough not to devote their time to the injured person - but - feel they must send something because "what would the injured person or others think if they didn't send anything". Person A doesn't care but is acting out a role of caring.

Person B is the next step of a Person A (with certain exceptions). While the injured person needs rest, they are intruding and expecting the person to spend time with them in chit chat. Person B must be seen to be 'caring' while to me, the actions are of someone who does not care. It's like... hey, stay awake and chat with me even though my presence is interfering with your recovery.

Person C, on the other hand, has done something which, if acted upon by the injured person, will help the injured person get better and heal quicker. Person A and Person B did nothing to help the person get better. Person C devoted time, money and effort to help the person get better. So to me, Person C is the more caring and not the others who make a show of caring but do nothing to actually assist the person in getting better from their injuries.

And yet, as far as societal behavior is concerned, those who sent a card and intruded on the injured person's recovery time, are thought of as more caring than the person who actually tried to help the injured person get better. Those who send sympathy are deemed as caring while those who try to help are not.

Depending on how much the injured person has been brainwashed into accepting that cards et al are more caring than actual assistance in healing, they may also think Person C doesn't care. Yet, a few seconds thought reveals they actually care more than the others who have done nothing to help in the healing. (Of course, some people seem to prefer "sympathy" instead of actual caring.)

So just like the child being smacked, that a person cares all depends on which point of view you are taking. As I try to deal in reality regardless of accepted societal behavior, appearances of caring are not actual caring in most instances. And what societal behavior doesn't consider caring is almost always actual caring.

I think we can blame this state of affairs on the bleeding heart liberals (regardless of which political party they claim to be a part of). Who try to use emotion to justify everything. And everything is about appearances and how much we are seen to care by other people - regardless of the reality of it all. It's good-guy-badgism gone haywire. Like when I objected to having an ambulance tax added to my electricity bill. The leftist govt-representative response when I called my local member of parliament said, "Don't you want old people who can't afford $700 for ambulance trips to have medical care?"

See it. Trying to use my objection to being forced to pay an ambulance tax, as me not caring about old people and not wanting them to have medical care. And it is this kind of BS emotional argumentation which permeates throughout society. Convincing everyone that to appear to care is all that matters. And if you don't appear to care then you don't really care.

That "appearing to care" isn't actually caring is lost on the podies. They buy into and perpetuate it by their good guy badge behavior. Such as telling everyone about their tsunami relief giving.

How can you tell if someone really cares or is only making an appearance of caring?

Easy. Do their actions lead to a betterment of the person on the other end, or do their actions only look good on the surface or in some way are they a form of control?

Controversial Tsunami Thoughts

Unless you have been living in a cave the last week, you would know of the tsunami which has killed over 100,000 people.

Anyway. As with all these mass-death things, charity organizations sprang right into action asking for money for tsunami relief. And thousands of people gave - and are still giving.

I find a couple of things interesting about all of this...

Thing # 1: None of the charity organizations have explicitly said what form this relief they are collecting for, will take.

Considering they have none of their own equipment to handle relief, everything must be hired. So much of the money will be spent on aircraft hire and the like. All the while governments, who have plenty of equipment to handle this kind of thing, actually get down to the task of getting aid to those who need it. The govt get things done while the charities continue to collect money for unnamed "relief".

If the "relief" the charities will provide is food, by the time they get around to it almost all the people will have starved. So food cannot be part of their relief effort. That has to be left to those who can get it in right away - governments.

If the "relief" the charities provide is shelter, again they will be too late. People cannot wait two weeks or more for shelter. And again they won't have to because governments will have provided some shelter before anyone.

Seeing as the "relief" that the charities could provide will have already been provided by governments around the world, exactly what form will this relief take? The charities do not say. So when you give money to them you don't know what you are getting for your money.

Let's assume the "relief" is money to help rebuild homes. WHO does the building? Is there a buddy-system in place where the charity has specially-chosen contractors who do the building - and who get paid for everything they do?

My experience with customers who come to my business after going to charities, reveals the charities are running a bit of a con game.

One guy went to the charity. The "supplier to the charity" was sent to help and was going to charge the man $130. As he had used the services of my business before he called me and my business did the same thing for $30.

This has happened several times. And with different charities. So I have to assume it is right across the board and they are all guilty of it. In other words, they are just as corrupt as the United Nations when it comes to distribution of money.

Thing # 2: People give and then let you know about it.

If you feel so strongly about giving to the slush-fund which will be spent in ways you are not told, then so be it. Give and then get on with your life. But some people don't do that. They make a big song and dance about giving.

Take the Russian tennis player for example. She made a big deal out of giving $10,000 to the Thai government. Why couldn't she give in private, if she was so drawn to give. Why give in a big public show. Why couldn't she be like the Australian person who gave $500,000 (half a million dollars) anonymously? That, to me, is really giving from the heart. Not this "give in public so everyone knows you gave" thing.

To me, letting people know in public that you "gave to tsunami relief" is a good-guy badge thing. You want people to think good of you. You are trying to prove what a good person you are by making a public show of your giving. As such, I cannot take any such giving seriously. I question the motives of such public giving.

Thing # 3: When giving money, how much is enough? Is $10 a good amount? How about $100? Or maybe $1,000? How much money does a person give to buy peace for their conscience?

It's like "See, I am a good person because I gave $10 to tsunami relief". While ignoring the more important questions of "what form will this relief take" and "How will your money be spent".

What will your $10 be used for? A gallon of aviation gas for the aircraft? The rent on the pallet boxes of blankets sit on?

And notice how none of the business the charities deal with do things for free. They don't give the charity free use of aircraft. The gas suppliers don't give free gas. The food makers don't give free food. The people who work for the charity don't do it for free either.

It seems, the only people who are charitable are those who give their money. After that, every step along the chain takes that money.

Years ago. 1974 to be exact. A cyclone destroyed the capital city of one of Australia's states. And like clockwork, the charities announced they were accepting donations for cyclone relief.

What the public don't know is that so much money was raised, IF it had been given to the citizens of that city, they each would have received $100,000. So a family of four (2 parents and 2 children) would have received $400,000. And that is in 1974 dollars.

As it was, after everyone had taken their bite of the slush-fund, each family was lucky to get $10,000 worth of "relief".

Thing # 4: What is the country's own govt doing to help its own people? I see news crews bring stuff; armed forces bringing stuff; but nothing from the country that was effected.

From an Australian point of view... why does a country of about 20 million (Australia) need to give aid to a country of over 200 million (Indonesia)?

I don't get it. How can a country of over 200 million people need the piddly little bit of help Australia is able to give.

Thing # 5: While it is not nice that many people have been killed in this mass life ending event, I don't recall giving my permission for my govt to give my money in aid. The govt takes my money (in the form of tax) and gives it to these people, without my permission.

If I want to give, I will give. I don't like being forced to give in this manner. And to justify it as a noble thing to do in the event of a tragedy, leaves such reasoning open for other money grabs and spends.

Why should I be forced to pay for your good works - no matter what the reason?

Thing # 6: Where does the line get drawn for such a thing?

Just today a family got washed out to see by a freak wave, at a beach in Australia. Should we give money to the survivors of that family who have now lost loved ones as well as livelihood? And if not, why not? How many people need to be killed by the sea before we actually do help? One? The breadwinner? Two people? Four? Or do we only care when it's a few thousand - even though those few thousand are made up of one's, two's and breadwinners?

Medical Profession Murders Actor - Film At 11

The other day, Jerry Orbach, who played the character "Lenny" in Law and Order, the dad in Dirty Dancing, and who had numerous stage gigs, died. The media report I heard said he had died of prostate cancer which had been diagnosed a month ago.

I say, he did NOT die of prostate cancer at all, he died because he was murdered by the medical profession.

How can I say such a thing?

Easy. I know how cancers work and the accepted "treatments" for them. And a man who has cancer long enough to be diagnosed with it, will not, under normal circumstances, up and die a month later from that cancer if left alone. He will only die due to "treatment".

Let me give you a brief run down...

There are ONLY three ways the medical profession is ALLOWED to treat cancer...

1: Surgery (cut)
2: Radiation (burn)
3: Chemotherapy (poison)

If they treat cancer using anything other than these three methods, no matter how harmless that method is, that will lose their license to practise medicine.

To add to this folly, the only three treatments which can be experimented with are the existing three which have shown to be ineffective.

Anyway. For a cancer to be large enough to be diagnosed, it has to have been growing for many years. At least a decade, say. And one of the least deadly forms of cancer when left alone is prostate cancer. There have been reported incidents of 90 year old men who, while getting an autopsy done after their death from other reason (like car crash), it is discovered they have had prostate cancer for 30 or 40 years!

Onward.

Often, the first action taken with prostate cancer is surgery. In this case the murderers will electrically fry the cancer or cut it out. Either case WILL lead to incontinence in the near future. Sometimes, a larger "chunk" will be removed.

It is not a good thing for an organism to have a large chunk of itself removed. So such a thing should ONLY be done as an absolute last resort and only if the life of that organism is under IMMEDIATE threat.

Surgery can be followed up with radiation or chemo. Radiation treatment has the not-so-pleasant side effect of killing the immune system. As the immune system is the best line of defense of anything, to kill the very thing which is most likely to defeat the cancer is stupid.

Chemo is so bad is should be banned. The chemicals are so harsh the murderer who gives them to you wears a fully protective suit so as not to get any on their skin. Because if they did, it would eat their skin away!!! And yet, they put this vile stuff inside of you. No wonder you feel like shit after.

Chemo does damage. Your liver has to deal with it. Your immune system - or what's left of it - is finished off. And this is supposed to make you better. (Sheer madness, it is.)

If I give someone arsenic over time and they die, I will be accused and found guilty of poisoning and murder. Yet, when a doctor gives a person a chemical which is so strong it kills them in weeks, they are let off and the patient is said to have died of other things, such as the reason they were given poison in the first place.

And what is extra strange about this is, it is willingly accepted by the public. Even though they know better.

E.g. No-one disputes that Ukrainian politician Yushchenko was poisoned. The change in the man was quite remarkable. And yet, when a more drastic change happens once someone starts getting chemotherapy, the decline in that person's health is never put down to the hideous chemicals being given to them, it is always blamed on the cancer.

Anyway. Jerry Orbach's story is an all too common one. A person walks into hospital in relative good health, is diagnosed with cancer and a short time later they are dead. As if they had managed to live all this time but, coincidentally, the cancer turned super-nasty and finished off the person just at the same time they were diagnosed. There are people doing time in jail for crimes with less coincidence (sorry, circumstantial evidence) involved.