I wrote the piece below 3 1/2 years ago. Thought it would be a relevant addition to our understanding of the events in Sandy Hook this past week. Some have asked me to post something about the 3D nature/nurture connection in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. This link also has several FPL posts on the subject of parents and their connection to their children's disturbances. At the 3D level, there is always a cause and effect relationship between parents' unactualized disorders and the disturbances found in their children.

We do come into each lifetime with certain predispositions, yes, including genes, to move us in the direction of a particular life task/seed plan that at the soul level, we have chosen to enact. This is so, and would seem, in a sense, to exonerate parents from the heinous things they do to switch on the genes, to bring forth the predispositions in children who do heinous things.

Indeed. At the levels of consciousness higher than 3D, there is no blame to go around, no guilt, no punishment, but... there also are no psychological disturbances, no crimes, no suppressed, distorted emotions, no erroneous beliefs or paranoid fears. But to arrive to that place, that vibration, we need to clear up all denial at the lower levels. So, here's something on that:


This is a very important story, by Jesse Kornbluth, about a very important book, COLUMBINE, by Dave Cullen.

Kornbluth, in his article asks the question, "Do you know who your children are?" Spinning off the conclusions in the book about the two boys who went on the infamous killing spree in a Colorado school in 1999, finally, after ten years, it is coming into some level of mainstream consciousness that these two murderous boys were not ever "normal" kids. They were deeply disturbed psychopaths, overlooked by an educational system and a society that places little value on regularly keeping tabs on the mental and emotional health of its children.

I wrote about this issue respectively in 1998 and 1999, in letters that were published in the New York Times. Those letters landed me on Barry Farber's nationally syndicated radio program. Mr. Farber featured me on the show because he seemed to think that it was a radical idea that these killer kids were not normal, but discernibly ill. Farber suggested I should be on a presidential commission for my unique insight!

How sad, I thought, that recognizing severe emotional and psychological problems in our kids would be considered so uniquely brilliant. But of course, that goes hand in hand with the narcissism I write about all the time (just do a search for the word on the FPL blog).

Parents, teacher, doctors, society at large, all want to see in their kids what they want to see, and when they don't, they want biology or nature to be the problem not parenting. (Take a look at the flack I got on this blog for suggesting any parenting connection to autism.)

Here's Kornbluth:

"No writer has scored an interview with either set of parents, so we cannot really know how they were unaware of their kids sneaking out at night and buying guns and writing about killing in their journals. The opening line of Eric's? 'I hate the fucking world.' It wasn't as if there was any murkiness about his feelings. Dylan? He just 'craved death.' Getting him to go along with the massacre plan wasn't a career effort for Eric."

Parents are always part of the problem, folks.

1 comment:

loff56 said...

Hey Pete.

This is not so much about the entry at hand here, but I'm interested in the one you cited regarding autism. I must have missed it the first time around, but thanks for providing the link. Understand I'm getting in on this for the first time.

I can't say that I agree or disagree with the idea that autism is entwined so thoroughly with the parents' psyche. Mostly because I just don't know enough about it. But it's really a fascinating idea that I haven't really heard much about.

I'm curious about the research (if any) that's been done on this. Do you know of any studies that have been done to isolate parental involvement as a major contributing factor to autism? Perhaps twin studies to rule out genetics. I think I've heard of studies done with twins separated at birth which isolate environmental factors from genetic factors. (Although this is probably a statistical long shot for autism). What about controlled experiments with treatments involving the parents versus not involving the parents. To be quite honest, I didn't think that autism was a curable thing. If it's truly a psychological problem does that mean that there are hopes for a psychological solution? Also Fischkin makes an interesting point about having one child that's not autistic. If it's the same genetics (same parents obviously) and the same parental "issues" (for a lack of a better term), why the two different results? Or do the psychological factors involved with two separate births alter the psychological hair-triggers enough to get two different results?

I'm sure you've heard a lot of skepticism on this idea, but I'm not coming at it from that angle. I've just never heard of this, and I would be mighty impressed by the power of psychology if there was some real hard evidence for this idea.


blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online