Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

The similarities are pretty freaky, aren't they?  Of course, program supporters will tell you it's all in your head and it really wasn't like that at all.  

When you think about the scrutiny you were under all the time, it's amazing that you really did not end up dead, insane or in jail, don't you think?  

I think any person who got out of there and is now able to lead an even reasonably funcitonal life should be damn proud of themselves. That kind of shit will make you crazy if you let it.

To have borne the kind of physical intrusions and mental spying perptrated on us as kids in that program takes a will and resilience we often do NOT realize we even have.  Afterall, being convinced of our own insanity and addicition is the first step in "recovery".....riiiiiiight.  I guess I can't really remember the seed's step one anymore.
 

Well, like I wrote, it's not crime to be the victim of a crime.  And you are right, Greg.  "Outing" someone is neither polite nor kind. However, just because you chose to take the high road does not mean that the fact of one's involvement with the seed, or straight or any other program does not mean that it won't be held against them.  By the public and by program proponents.  

It goes to the issue of credibilty, and when a politician avoids the questions, and avoids the issues, well in my book, he or she loses creditiblity.  

I know being an ex-seedy is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.  It's closed chapter for most.  Especially Betty Sembler - who advises us all to "get over it."   But program involvement is a two edged sword wielded by the likes of Betty and Mel Sembler and all of the other proponents of these programs.

Oh? You were in the seed? Straight?  SAFE?  As that line of thinking goes - you must be bitter or angry, or mentally deranged because you dare to quesiton the morality of what these places do people.  It follows then that nothing you say, no argument you put forth is credible because.....you were a "druggie".

I think the guy needs to answer questions.  Questions about his campaign support from the Sembler machine and about why, as Attorney General, he has chosen to look the otherway when he has had opportunities to take action and stop the abuses.

Oh sure, he can jack someone for selling over-priced generators or gas gouging in hurricane panics.  But hey, that's easy because the citizens call and complain, everyone is behind it and it's got full and complete public support.  

Not so with the drug programs.  That  subject is difficult, unpopular and dirty.  It appears that for Charlie, it's easier to just take the blood money and look the other way.

"The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and -- though the principle was never clearly stated -- permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League, which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes. All children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (artsem, it was called in Newspeak) and brought up in public institutions. This, Winston was aware, was not meant altogether seriously, but somehow it fitted in with the general ideology of the Party. The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it. He did not know why this was so, but it seemed natural that it should be so. And as far as the women were concerned, the Party's efforts were largely successful.

**********************

Permission to date?  Sex Raps where sexual behavior was made nasty, shameful and almost criminal?  Contact football games that acted only to  excite, control and extinguish sexual energy? How weird is that?  Weird, indeed.  Real Seedlings  really did earn the nickname "Zombie".  And that was something held up as normal behavior to be emulated....

How many Seedlings  were "lucky" enought to be paired off in Seed-approved relationships and marriages?    I'm sure some seed kids might truly might have been in love, but to submit oneself to "official sanctioning" of something so intimate and joyful because we believed that we did not know better - that we could not pick for ourselves, that's really sad.  

When I think of things this way, I actually feel sorry for the John Underwood-types around here.  They might have beat kids asses and they were vile, cruel persons, but I suspect there's no amount of self-flagellation they won't endure to keep their "dreams" alive.  The stress of carrying on that kind of self-delusion must be wicked - mind-splitting, even.

I just spent the past few days reading the novel "1984" by George Orwell.  I've seen plenty of references to the book since I started posting here, so I thought I'd give it a read.

I think I read it in 11th grade back in 1974 (post 10th grade Seed) and I don't recall my mind questioning anything about my experience at The Seed.  Must have been some great doublethink I was running back then.

There were passages in that book that made my blood run cold.  I'm not a place where I can add those passages right now, but I'll post them tomorrow.

Does anyone else have a "favorite" passage from the book?  

Post it and let's compare and contrast the fiction of the novel "1984" with the reality of The Seed.

Stripe

My brother, he's such a funny guy, isn't he?

That was homecoming present he gave to me at the end of a long journey.  Time to lighten up, so to speak.

Anyone else around care to be stood up and graduated?

Social Security was never intended by Congress  to be the PRIMARY source of retimrement income. Remember, it was part of the New Deal legislation, like the PWA, the CCC and a whole host of other government programs designed and implemented to put cash in the markets and create some movement in the economy.  If I recall my history lessons correctly, Social Security was enacted in 1935 to provide assistance to many of the older persons who lost their entire life savings in the 1929 market crash - those who had no other means of support in old age; it also has provisions for disablity and survivor benefits.

That is has grown from a fall back position to the only provision for retirmement for some citizens is dangerous indeed.  Just like the rest of you, I've contributed all my life, and hopefully I'll personally get some benefit return. Fortunately or unfortunately, people are living much, much longer than the reitrement program ever predicted. Thus the payments to current recipients are greater than the contributions of current recipients.  Yeah, they are spending my money.

Having tried to get benefits for children on behalf of deceased parents with little to no employment history - or establishing disability benefits for a minimum wage worker - I can tell you it's not a pretty picutre.  There's no way a fully disabled person can live on $428.00 per month. It's certainly nothing you would want to count on to protect your family.

Not one single person here, whether you love him or hate him or feel nothing, none of us are going to get any kind of personal notification when this man passes on. As much as he was worshiped by some, adored by others, and some spent great big chunks of their young lives devoted to the guy and his cause, chances are his inevitable passing will be very quite.

None of us make a difference in this man's life today.  I wonder sometimes if we ever really did.  Well, maybe one or two were really loved and cared about, but certainly not the majority of us. But please, at least here, don't judge each other for what is expressed.  Just let it happen and if it dies a natrual death, so be it.  Surely we don't need to segregate the messages into "good" and "bad" so no one get offended.  

This thread was meant as an opportunity to put something out there for Art Barker- like the old unmailed letter routine - except this letter kind of gets mailed. Haven't any of you ever lost someone before you had a chance to make amends or say how you really felt? Say what mattered to you - tell someone how he or she affected your life, how they were a factor that helped change it?      

I simply proposed to have a say.  If he helped you and you want to express that, go for it. Do it now, maybe he will read it or someone will tell him and it will do his heart good.
If don't like him but you can forgive him, or are indifferent, whatever you feel, express it. Or not.  

[ This Message was edited by: Stripe on 2006-05-09 21:31 ]

On 2006-03-23 17:03:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

Quote

On 2006-03-23 16:36:00, Anonymous wrote:


"This woman molested a kid, and was sentenced to 3 years house arrest? Now who wouldn't like to sit home for 3 years and not work?"

You lazy fucker. Who the fuck would wanna be stuck at their house for 3 years? Guess we have a little insight into YOUR social life. "

Apparenly being stuck at home under house arrest didn't stop her from texting messages to the boy and him personal dance movies.

At this point, any doubts you might have about her predatory nature kind of have to be looked at bit.  

What kind of message does this send to the kids -that girls are worth protecting but boys are not?  Hardly fair.