Before the advent of modern Western medicine and sophisticated sanitation systems, human beings were relegated to much shorter life spans and constant susceptibility to disabling physical maladies. Whereas people previously were apt to consider their maladies to be simply the will of God, now we see that they were just an indication of our lack of scientific advancement.
The same can be said for the arena of the mind and emotions. Deep depressions and emotional angst were occurrences not previously well understood. Sufferers were considered afflicted by demons or simply to be smitten without remedy by unknown causes. Not that modern psychology in general has offered much better answers than those offered in earlier centuries. The heavy reliance on psychotropic medication in order to mask and further the same lack of understanding of the root causes of these maladies is what generally passes for modern advancement in psychotherapy today. It seems masking symptoms is currently preferred to truly understanding and curing them.
There are avenues of modern psychology that do suggest real evident root causes and solutions, but because of the great difficulty in coming to grips with these causes and applying the solutions, they are not widely applied by the mainstream professional community. They can be understood only esoterically, and not by traditional analysis. They are not understood without the integration of the mind and emotions on a personal level by the professional therapist, who in most cases remains willfully blind to these causes in their own lives, and therefore, as a result, in the lives of their patients.
These more enlightened approaches are designated by numerous titles—primal therapy, regressive therapy, childhood trauma therapy, etc. Their approach springs from the premise that all mental and emotional dysfunction—all neurosis and psychosis—is a product of an inability to process grief and trauma, which is almost always laid down in childhood when the human emotional structure is at its most immature and vulnerable, and the child is unable to face and process the experience. This approach teaches that these blocked traumas must again be accessed in the memory, and this time fully experienced by the now mature adult, who is more able to understand and process the trauma and its resultant grief. They must be experienced and fully reacted to with both the mind and the emotions. Our God given natural human responses must be employed to bring natural healing—expressing anger, crying out in pain, deep weeping. The immature and completely vulnerable childhood system is not equipped to deal with the expressions of a lack of love from a parent—from neglect to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. It is simply locked away until one is better able to process the experience. But far too often it is simply locked away permanently and then acted out for a lifetime.
Unfortunately most professional therapists prefer to prescribe psychotropic medications, dealing with the chemical imbalances that result from these blocked grief experiences instead of with the experiences themselves which precipitate the chemical imbalances, and therefore setting the internal chemical system back in balance. Instead of doing the necessary work themselves, and then seeing clearly in order to lead others in their own attempt to naturally heal, they decide to choose other avenues of approach—mostly to no avail.
While the general field of psychology has offered fresh perspectives to society, irrespective of their limited approach to human healing, there has been a correlative dark purpose applied to the field in general, in order to promote other societal agendas by both some within and without the profession.
When society was informed by the clinical observations of professionals that occurrences from our pasts can lead sufferers to the commission of crime, the assumption was made by many that rather than being correlative, the resultant historical deficit was the root cause of the later committed crime. The conclusion could of course be made then that the criminal was not fully responsible for their crimes, but rather that their criminal act out would not have occurred outside of their original abuse, and that their will and ability to know and to choose differently had been somehow disconnected. This divided allotment of responsibility cut against the grain of America’s long standing Christian heritage and tenets, which had always informed us that each of us was solely responsible for our own actions, and not for those of another, regardless of the circumstances we might find ourselves in. Throughout our history, it was always taught and assumed that no matter if our circumstances were tragic or idyllic, we were never the less still responsible. Whether life started out hard and then became easy, whether it started out easy and then became hard—it made no difference relative to our still remaining moral obligation to God and our fellow man—we were still able to know and to do the right.
As this newly skewed perspective gained a partial foothold in American society, it had a profound affect on our legal profession, and on the adjudication of crime and punishment. Whereas before the introduction of this perspective into society each member was held personally and strictly responsible for their actions no matter their background or experience—thereafter the legal system began modifying its judgements, considering a defendant’s past experiences as at least a partial root cause of the commission of their crime, naturally altering the nature of the perpetrator’s level of responsibility. The introduction of the insanity plea became a common occurrence in courtrooms throughout the country, allowing in some cases brutal murderers to avoid suffering a fate at all equivalent to their innocent victims. This resultant criminal/victim power imbalance made the physical and emotional suffering of the murdered victim and their families and friends subservient to the past emotional suffering of the perpetrator, though they had committed no crime.
There are historical power structures that find this weakening of the American system of justice beneficial to their ultimate goals. The leader of the Italian Communist Party at the time of Stalin, Antonio Gramsci, attempted his own version of the Bolshevik Revolution in Italy. He quickly found that the Italian society in general—the Italian family, the Italian Catholic Church, the Italian legal system, and the Italian school system—all stood by as pillars fully supporting the Italian government, rendering it impervious to overthrow. Italy’s legal system threw Gramsci in prison for 25 years for his sedition, where he proceeded to write his Prison Diaries, in which he ruminated on what went wrong during his attempted revolution, and what could have been done differently in order to realize success.
Gramsci came to the conclusion that any attempted overthrow of a Christian oriented nation would be impossible without first attacking, in a long term fashion, the supportive pillars of the target country. He proceeded to chronicle his recommended means of attack, which focused on the breakdown of the Christian church and its traditional tenets as the seminal attempt in order to topple the remaining pillars, which were all based on the church and her teachings.
One of the tenets of the church that has traditionally undergirded American society is the tenet of personally responsibility. Each person is solely, only, and fully responsible for their own actions, and not those of another, in front of God and their fellow citizens. If, according to the destructive strategy of Antonio Gramsci, this primary tenet of the church can be at least partially degraded, American leftist followers of Gramsci will have scored a victory toward their ultimate goal—subverting the American psychological and legal professions in the ultimate service of their desired revolution.
Considering a criminals childhood experiences and deficits as causative agents in the commission of their crimes, effectively at least partially mitigating their direct responsibility for their crimes—opens the door wide not only for a partial nullification of the preventative influence of the application of strict legal justice, but also for the subversion and breakdown of the traditional American pillar our legal system represents. It is a direct assault on one of the supportive pillars of American society, as intended.
American Renewal