Old School Counseling is a term I am using to contrast what I do with what most modern psychotherapists do. It is a way of thinking and working that understands there is growing deviance, dysfunction, and disorder in the world and provides compassionate treatment for people thus suffering from those problems.
We need many more pshrinks such as yourself. Thankful that there are still a few with the courage to act with integrity and speak the truth. May God bless you and be with you always.
Dec 25, 2023·edited Dec 25, 2023Liked by Paving the Way
I'm convinced that one on one counselling makes more sense than brain altering chemicals in prescription drugs. Dr. Peter Breggin is of that mindset. I have his book "Medication Madness" and have to say it makes so much sense that a trip down the rabbit hole on the subject allowed me to come up with a post that has been shared in many places. First posted at Lew Rockwell.com it addresses the issue of mass shootings. The SSRI Connection to Suicides, Spontaneous Murder and Mass Shootings https://www.courageouslion.us/p/the-ssri-connection-to-suicides-spontaneous-2c0
Though some would claim that the drugs aren't the problem, many of us are convinced they are. I am told there are MILLIONS of people world wide on SSRI drugs. And what percentage have to go off the reservation for it to be considered an issue? If 10 million people, a low number I am sure, were on the drugs and only .001% had a reaction that led them to commit an incontrollable act of violence that would be 100 people. Is that number hard to believe? I'm sure the percentage is higher but even at 100, that is a lot of shot up bars, movie theatres, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, fairs, malls, families destroyed, suicides etc. etc. The list keeps growing.
I was very interested to read your description of what it means to be an old school counselor. I revel in, and agree with everything you write, except this: "While we recognize the existence of racism, we believe differential social outcomes are *largely* the result of human bio-diversity, not discrimination." I believe the concept of 'class' would strengthen your big-picture analysis. I think 'toxic masculinity' and disparagement of 'whiteness' lands hardest on those white boys, who aren't given the many paths of advancement that are give to those white boys, who see/feel the "prize" of not enacting traditional masculine ways of being (enabling the ever further feminization of men), and who are "willing" to "recognize" "diversity", because they know they will still win. As I see it, adding the notion of 'class' to your analysis, suggests how "rich white boys" are in a very different boat that "poor white boys," in which case "better" social outcomes are offered to those boys who are willing to-- often because at an early point in their lives they were given the incentive structures and training to-- embrace ways of being that are not easily taken on, without the money and habit-training that comes with a family having money. I don't say this to take the wind out of the sails of your message and reminder that "every man has options," but I feel that by acknowledging the role of 'class' in differential social outcomes puts a focus on ways that class is enacted to fuel woke agendas. So, to "free up" 'traditional masculinity' and to "free up" 'white-ness' there needs to be an acknowledgement of how much rich white boys are recruited to stomp on traditional masculinity and whiteness. Or something like that. Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I very much like the work you are doing.
Hello ws. Thank you for reading and offering your thoughts. I am not sure I understand your analysis completely given the limitations of this forum. Would you be interested to write an article that captures your belief about class? I would like to publish a guest column or do an interview/discussion with you about this distinction on my You Tube channel. It gets at the heart of the matter. Thank you.
Thank you for your offer of clarifying by pursuing! I appreciate your interest & encouragement. I'll admit, tho, I'm more of a muller of things than a person who writes essays or does interviews/ discussions. But, I do like questions (both asking & answering them). I wonder: when you say it gets at the heart of the matter are you meaning in a counseling situation or more abstractly?
More abstractly. We believe one's race is an important characteristic in terms of understanding group achievement. We agree with Left identitarians on this point.
On what culture is the program based? I am struggling to understand your concept of "natural" to no avail...
How does it define "authority"? (In nature, the strong exercise "authority" over the weak.)
What are "interdependence and interpersonal wisdom"?
Who defines all these and on what bases? Somehow, it looks like that the ones who provide the definition consider themselves "authority," but on what basis?
When most people are constantly humiliated and treated like slaves, how is it possibly to "teach them" "how to be happy, loving, productive, and wise"?
Interdependence is the capacity to be both a separate individual and in healthy communion with others. I describe interpersonal wisdom here: www.interpersonalwisdom.com.
Good questions Ray. For instance, is monogamy natural? Or is it a construct which came out of religion? I can look at the bible as a source of information and find both polygamy and monogamy being supported. I'm convinced though that NATURAL law would point towards polygamy. Are acts of sex between the same sexes natural or unnatural? I would have to say that nature shows it is natural but it can also be unnatural. If you go by religious "norms" it is unnatural unless you take into consideration "David loved Jonathan more than a woman" and what exactly did that mean? To me the subject is an individual choice as long as there is no harm or force being exerted. Some people like Mary Pride consider the only reason for sex is procreation. If that were so then someone explain to me why the sex act has a euphoric feeling at orgasm? Surely if it were just for procreation we wouldn't need it to be euphoric. We would just say, let's make children and do it as necessary. And if we understand the natural cycle of a woman and we end up with four children, we would only have had to have sex four times in our lives. So, yes, the word natural becomes a unknown at least on that subject.
We need many more pshrinks such as yourself. Thankful that there are still a few with the courage to act with integrity and speak the truth. May God bless you and be with you always.
I'm convinced that one on one counselling makes more sense than brain altering chemicals in prescription drugs. Dr. Peter Breggin is of that mindset. I have his book "Medication Madness" and have to say it makes so much sense that a trip down the rabbit hole on the subject allowed me to come up with a post that has been shared in many places. First posted at Lew Rockwell.com it addresses the issue of mass shootings. The SSRI Connection to Suicides, Spontaneous Murder and Mass Shootings https://www.courageouslion.us/p/the-ssri-connection-to-suicides-spontaneous-2c0
Though some would claim that the drugs aren't the problem, many of us are convinced they are. I am told there are MILLIONS of people world wide on SSRI drugs. And what percentage have to go off the reservation for it to be considered an issue? If 10 million people, a low number I am sure, were on the drugs and only .001% had a reaction that led them to commit an incontrollable act of violence that would be 100 people. Is that number hard to believe? I'm sure the percentage is higher but even at 100, that is a lot of shot up bars, movie theatres, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, fairs, malls, families destroyed, suicides etc. etc. The list keeps growing.
I was very interested to read your description of what it means to be an old school counselor. I revel in, and agree with everything you write, except this: "While we recognize the existence of racism, we believe differential social outcomes are *largely* the result of human bio-diversity, not discrimination." I believe the concept of 'class' would strengthen your big-picture analysis. I think 'toxic masculinity' and disparagement of 'whiteness' lands hardest on those white boys, who aren't given the many paths of advancement that are give to those white boys, who see/feel the "prize" of not enacting traditional masculine ways of being (enabling the ever further feminization of men), and who are "willing" to "recognize" "diversity", because they know they will still win. As I see it, adding the notion of 'class' to your analysis, suggests how "rich white boys" are in a very different boat that "poor white boys," in which case "better" social outcomes are offered to those boys who are willing to-- often because at an early point in their lives they were given the incentive structures and training to-- embrace ways of being that are not easily taken on, without the money and habit-training that comes with a family having money. I don't say this to take the wind out of the sails of your message and reminder that "every man has options," but I feel that by acknowledging the role of 'class' in differential social outcomes puts a focus on ways that class is enacted to fuel woke agendas. So, to "free up" 'traditional masculinity' and to "free up" 'white-ness' there needs to be an acknowledgement of how much rich white boys are recruited to stomp on traditional masculinity and whiteness. Or something like that. Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I very much like the work you are doing.
Hello ws. Thank you for reading and offering your thoughts. I am not sure I understand your analysis completely given the limitations of this forum. Would you be interested to write an article that captures your belief about class? I would like to publish a guest column or do an interview/discussion with you about this distinction on my You Tube channel. It gets at the heart of the matter. Thank you.
Thank you for your offer of clarifying by pursuing! I appreciate your interest & encouragement. I'll admit, tho, I'm more of a muller of things than a person who writes essays or does interviews/ discussions. But, I do like questions (both asking & answering them). I wonder: when you say it gets at the heart of the matter are you meaning in a counseling situation or more abstractly?
More abstractly. We believe one's race is an important characteristic in terms of understanding group achievement. We agree with Left identitarians on this point.
On what culture is the program based? I am struggling to understand your concept of "natural" to no avail...
How does it define "authority"? (In nature, the strong exercise "authority" over the weak.)
What are "interdependence and interpersonal wisdom"?
Who defines all these and on what bases? Somehow, it looks like that the ones who provide the definition consider themselves "authority," but on what basis?
When most people are constantly humiliated and treated like slaves, how is it possibly to "teach them" "how to be happy, loving, productive, and wise"?
In general, more specifics are needed.
Hello Ray: Thank you for reading. Each of your questions requires a full article in response (:. I have an Odysee channel that might be informative: https://odysee.com/@oldschoolcounselor2018:0?r=FsgJfnpMxtRMNmZES6R43TqYXC6nqcfY
Interdependence is the capacity to be both a separate individual and in healthy communion with others. I describe interpersonal wisdom here: www.interpersonalwisdom.com.
Good questions Ray. For instance, is monogamy natural? Or is it a construct which came out of religion? I can look at the bible as a source of information and find both polygamy and monogamy being supported. I'm convinced though that NATURAL law would point towards polygamy. Are acts of sex between the same sexes natural or unnatural? I would have to say that nature shows it is natural but it can also be unnatural. If you go by religious "norms" it is unnatural unless you take into consideration "David loved Jonathan more than a woman" and what exactly did that mean? To me the subject is an individual choice as long as there is no harm or force being exerted. Some people like Mary Pride consider the only reason for sex is procreation. If that were so then someone explain to me why the sex act has a euphoric feeling at orgasm? Surely if it were just for procreation we wouldn't need it to be euphoric. We would just say, let's make children and do it as necessary. And if we understand the natural cycle of a woman and we end up with four children, we would only have had to have sex four times in our lives. So, yes, the word natural becomes a unknown at least on that subject.