It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Democrat-Republican Childhood Sex and Violence programming

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 20 2004 @ 04:27 AM
Democrat-Republican Childhood Sexual Violence

Inspired by the writings of Lloyd deMause,
a pattern emerges predicting the core level basis of the Republican/Democrat rule over the U.S.

The unwavering support level for conservative politicians can be defined in terms of childhood violence.

The basic values of physical violence, ego gratification by punishment, and paternal dominance define
the major premises of the conservative camp.
These are simple projections from such childhood traumatization as conservative parents
glorify discipline by physical punishment by paternal authority.
Discipline is the password to disguise physical aggression,
and is glorified as an attribute only for martyrs to the conservative cause.

The attraction of physical violence is not to solve problems but rather
to satify internal desires to witness physical retribution as taught by parents.
Childhood suffering is a meme which recreates itself anew both in the arena with peers
as well as at home with children. The cycle can be attenuated, but not destroyed.
Violence memes recreate themselves, they even form part of the allure between parents.
Dating conservative couples communicate beyond simple biology:
part of the courtship ritual is violence memes examining each other for compatibility.

The act of punishing the guilty is never intended to reform or alter behaviour of those punished.
Punishment is a violent act to reaffirm self ascendancy and enhance self-image as 'protector'.
Punishment by isolation is not regarded by conservatives as punishment,
but rather as a side-event to the main show of brutalizing prisoners.
Conservative children are neither coddled nor swaddled,
as their parents firmly believe that the best way to teach a child
is to let it 'break a rule' and suffer some form of physical pain as a consequence.
The game, played on both the conscious and unconscious levels,
consists of parental satisfaction derived from venting emotion though physical violence.
Civil police protection characterizes this game: police do not exist to prevent crime.
They exist as 'father figures' to punish criminals, gratifying the community spirit.
Victims are necessary for this to happen, and any complaints are merely 'whimpers of the prey'.
Physical violence and aggression learned by children as a necessary survival skill
in conservative families is viewed as part of the 'game of life'.
Drug enforcement and prostitution prevention are prime games for conservatives.

Paternal rule is the tectonic base of the conservative elite, reinforced by religious masculinity.
The sexual requirements of the father prevail over all other aspects of family sexuality.
As the familial 'god', he can do no wrong, even when caught imbedded in his own child.
Children are taught first that the male is the superior,
and late childhood sees male sexual activities acceptable while suppressing female sexual activity.
A female leader will never be acceptable to childhood victims of conservative abuse,
to the extent that an emergent female leader from outside the conservative prison camp
would at the least be faced with a monolithic opposition,
more probably with outright assassination.
Such a female leader would be regarded as not female,
and thus subject to any extremes in the realm of games of violence.

The core Republicans may represent, according to differing polls,
approximately 50 million of the U.S. population (near 20% at 1998 National Survey of Americans on Values )
subjected to physical and emotional 'discipline' as children of conservative parents.
Members of this core level support cannot, without severe emotional trauma,
abandon their nominal fatherly leader.

They regard the nation as the fatherland, a land of fathers raping the byways and countryside.
Consequently, Republicans spend heavily on prisons, war-toys, and externalizing adventures,
supporting and projecting the sexual activities of masculine princelings to games abroad.
They then discover the need to tax heavily to support their little-boy wargaming.
It is a continual game of spending the government coffers dry,
discovering the 'oops, we did it again' loop, which culminates in extremely shortsighted taxation.
The meme of advertising support to the concept of freedom is driven by the desire
to witness punishment upon those caught errant in their exercise of freedom.
The concept of Freedom gets perverted into a game of 'cops and robbers'.
Liberty is tolerable, as long as society and its members support the conservative party.
In the absence of such support, an authoritarian 'father' arises to re-establish paternal dominance.

Republicans Vote for 'Spend (then_Tax)' 'stern-father' candidates

The unwavering support level for Democrat politicians can be defined in terms of childhod swaddling.

The basic values of sexual tolerance, punishment by swaddling imprisonment,
and maternal domination define major premises of the Democratic camp.
These arise from childhood traumatization as liberal parents
flounder about trying to avoid traditional conservative 'solutions'.

Sexual tolerance arises from the absence of sexual authority by the parents.
In some instances, 'nurturing' fathers (and mothers) take extreme measures to avoid
sexual stereotyping which would raise the spectre of conservative machismo.
Unlike male-centric conservative families where fathers' sexual needs dominate,
liberal families have blurred sexual authority with more tolerance of deviant activities.
Bisexual, homosexual, and multiple promiscuity is neither forbidden nor encouraged,
but rather ignored as inconsequential to the status of society.
Sexual freedom is the first freedom a heavily swaddled child discovers,
as the restraints imposed by swaddling prevent anything else, aside from being a vocal spectator.
Training a child to be an impulsive spectator begins with this act,
and combined with sexual self-discovery, is a potent cocktail for porngraphic addiction.

The use of imprisonment is not to solve social problems but rather to 'wrap up'
behavioural failure, as taught by their parents.
The act of locking away the guilty is, as with Republicans,
never intended to reform or alter behaviour of those punished.
Punishment is eschewed in favor of exiling 'to a more convenient basement'
those apprehended breaking social taboos: 'getting caught' is the catchphrase.
In order to prevent the necessity of imprisoning family members,
infants are swaddled to 'protect them from themselves'.
Objects that symbolize this process range from playpens to infant car seats,
and range in adulthood from pathetic consumer warning labels to immigration officials.
Infants are excessively coddled to the point where
they can no longer bear to be outside large groups of people.
Coerced into being 'shoulder-to-shoulder' (as is popular in Asia),
children find their freedom in crowd numbers.
Being alone becomes a mortifying prospect to a liberal child.
This is a self-reinforcing mechanism which creates massive urban growth tendencies,
which in turn foster increasingly liberal dispositions.
The classic example of this process is, of course, communist China.

Physical violence and aggression are more endured than learnt by Democrat children
with acquiescence to masculine conservativism learned as a necessary survival skill.
Maternal support is the tectonic base of the liberal masses, epitomized by 'Mother Mary' worship.
The gender of nominal Democratic leaders is not a strong factor,
but the defining factor is their 'marriage' to revitalizing
the maternal characteristics of big government.
Any threat to diminish taxation revenue to the 'Mother' government is an ultimate heresy.
The biological mother is replaced by this government 'mother',
almost to the point of religious fervor, and given all the attributes of a natural mother.
She (government) is expected to feed the hungry children of the land, separate squabbling brats,
clothe and organize the national brood, while ever ready to summon the male defenders
in the case of external threats. Note that male defenders are predominantly Republicans.
Government regards 'Freedom' as a philosophical nuisance,
preferring instead to lock-up the children in 'self-protective' swaddling
until their brains become completely compliant to all forms of verbal coercion.
Government regards 'Liberty' as a failure of coercion acceptance programming.

The core Democrats represent, according to differing polls,
perhaps 50 million of the U.S. population (near 20% at 1998 National Survey of Americans on Values )
subjected to sexual abuse and emotional swaddling as children of liberal parents.
Members of this core level support are innately indifferent to any nominal leader,
as long as the leader appears to support the government as a mother providing support.

They regard the government as a mother substitute,
the protector and source of nourishment and succor when things go wrong.
Consequently, Democrats tax heavily n the name of social motherhood,
and then spend themselves into a precalculated situation of needing more taxes.
It is a continual game of taxing the public into depressions which drain the government coffers,
a deadly cycle which demands more social welfare resulting in nation-destroying taxation.

Democrats Vote for 'Tax_and_spend' Grooms for Mother Government candidates.


Althought these two stereotypes do not perfectly encompass the full range of characteristics
of either Democrat or Republican behaviour, they describe fundamental elements of how
liberal and conservative populations develop and procreate.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:53 PM
Very interesting read, despite the assumptions and generalizations it makes. I do believe that the way one votes has a lot to do with how you were raised and the type of relationship you have/had with your parents (or parental figures).
Essentially, I think Republicans want a father figure as President and Democrats want a friend. Allow me to explain...

Speaking personally, my father was (and is) always a conservative man who votes Republican. He is a self-made man who started out as a bank teller and is now CEO of a banking corporation. He is a very compassionate man and has NEVER laid a finger on me or my sister for disciplinary reasons or otherwise. My grandfather was the same kind of man, coming to the states from Germany and opening a very successful local bakery chain.
We were church-goers (not bible-thumpers) and had a very strong sense of right & wrong and responsibility for one's actions embedded in us early. My sister and I love and most of all RESPECT our Dad very much. We loved him, and he was our FATHER not our buddy or playmate (with the exception of sports). He let us be kids, and he was the epitome of the responsible adult. He was Superman in our eyes and could do no wrong. Because of our respect for him, he only needed one phrase that was worse than any physical discipline..."I'm very disappointed in you."

To this day, I think the reason my sister and I consistently vote Republican (with a few exceptions in my case) is a direct result of our love & respect for our father and what he represented to us. I don't want my president to be someone I can necessarily kick back and have a beer with (even though now as an adult I do it often with my father) or who plays sax on the Arsenio Hall show. I want my president to be someone with authority, quiet class, and compassion. Someone better than me, someone like my father.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 04:08 PM
I hate double posting, but...
Before someone tries to twist this around, please do not take my comments to mean that I think Democrats do NOT love & respect their families. I just was relating my personal story and how I think familial relationships are just a part of the rich tapestries that are our psyches and effect the way we vote.

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 04:20 PM
I wonder if you'ze realize that the Democratic and Republican party were once one?
Here is a link to give some historical background.
which leads me to suggest that they are still, all the same.

top topics

log in