Jon Shields (pseudonym)

September 2020 – January 2021

Dear Mary,

I’m writing this letter in an effort to finally make you understand (1). I believe it will require a considerable effort on your part to achieve new insights and to liberate yourself from your habitual ways of thinking, from whatever you’ve been used to, and from what you have taken as life’s givens. Let me begin in this way:

«I greet you from the other side, Of sorrow and despair, With a love so vast and shattered, It will reach you everywhere.» ~ Leonard Cohen

We’re a [feminist state] now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you [men] are studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors...and you, all of you [men], will be left to just study what we do (X).

Mary, like I said in a text message in September, we haven't met since February 19th (2020). That's a very long time concerning parents and their children. For many years now I've also noticed that you have seemed to want to limit your contact with me and that you were angry with me and didn't want to see me very much. But after the Covid-19 crisis in 2020 (the «pandemic»), this has become ever more apparent to me, probably because the crisis with its associated fearmongering has activated unsolved problems, both yours and mine.

If you’ve been angry with me, that’s OK. It is acceptable to be angry with someone. Society tends to suppress this emotion because it is considered inappropriate. Society is not always right. We need to find out why we are angry if this is at all possible. But most of all, we need to avoid getting attached to our anger. We've made it ourselves and therefore we can let it go. Let us also keep in mind the difference between anger and aggression. The former is an emotion, the latter a type of behavior. Emotions come and go, a bit like clouds do. They should be allowed to do so.

As a matter of principle, I’ve never spoken to you about your mother even though I’ve been angry with her. Yes, there was a lot to be angry about. As I see it, it is necessary that I now tell you a little about it. I believe you need to get a clearer view of the way that you’ve been brought up. That’s why I now have to include her in the analysis. I wish I didn’t have to do this.

Here is your main problem: Your mother has taken advantage of you by establishing a relationship with you based on her needs, not yours. (I will explain below.) This began at an early stage when you were a child and has continued up till now. It is difficult to change things at this late stage.

FEMINISM — Firstly: Many years ago (when your mother and I were engaged to be married, I believe), I often spent the evenings with the Bradbury's, that is, your mother, your grandmother and grandfather in their home in 7 Country Lane. Right now I can’t recall exactly what it was that started the particular episode I have in mind, but one evening your grandmother suddenly said to your mother’s face: «You’re evil, that’s what you are!» So this was from a mother to her daughter. Being young and without much knowledge of the world, I overlooked an important signal that something was not quite normal. — I should have pulled out of the relationship right then and there.

The Bradbury sisters have had a somewhat peculiar relationship with their men. Their only brother and their husbands have all died early. I don’t know very much about their brother Mark, but John shot himself and Tim died abroad, quite alone, after a loveless cohabitation with one of your mother’s sisters. The neighbors found him several days later. As for myself, I became suicidal and ended up in a psychiatric hospital for a few days. It nearly ended badly.

It is necessary to mention the animosity your mother always seemed to have for her brother Mark. This has been a very significant factor in my marriage to her. Your mother respects, admires, or idealizes men whenever they are high achievers, have a lot of money, or status, or are unattainable in some way. But unfortunately, her animosity increases proportionally as their performance grows poorer. Unfortunately, my education took longer than expected and my income was limited at the time. She found this problematic and she became difficult, if not impossible, to live with. I do believe it's fair to say that over the years, she came to conflate me with her brother to an important degree. Please pay attention to this dynamic. It has given me some pause for thought. Why she married me I still don't know, but love had nothing to do with it.

So her hatred of Mark was already there when feminism came along. She was the spoiled, youngest child in her family, with a somewhat dominant mother. As you might remember, your grandmother was a highly educated person and all for gender equality, i.e. equal rights and opportunities for women and men. Your mother had not been under "patriarchy" for a minute of her life. Now she was handed the opportunity to underpin her hatred with this new ideology. This represented a great opportunity for her. What could go wrong?

You see, feminism is a kind of exclusive, ideological "two-for-one" deal. For women and girls that is. (Men are not relevant here.) On the one hand, there's supremacy, on the other, the "victim." We now are supposed to believe that women are beings on a higher level than men, that they are more moral and sensitive, articulate and socially responsible, etc., and worthy of admiration. But then again, they also are the long-suffering, helpless victims of tyrannical men ("patriarchy") (and even of powerful women sometimes), deserving of sympathy and commiseration.

Unfortunately, ideological nonsense like this now has been amalgamated with identity politics and has become toxic and dangerous, for men (at first) but for some women too, as time has gone by. We now have gotten to the point where we have a growing number of sexes & genders to choose between (as if this were at all possible). Confusion and chaos have become deeper and more prevalent especially after feminism became the dominant ideology of the State.

Your mother again: Her moral universe is very simple. Whatever she likes is right, and what she dislikes is wrong. This fits nicely into the feminism of recent years and its associated cult of political correctness. One-dimensional, tribal, power-oriented, and totalitarian. (One is reminded of African dictators when their coup has been successful: «It's our turn to eat now!») «But don't you believe in equality and fairness, then?» you might ask. -Of course, I do! The problem is that the feminists do not! Feminism is a totalitarian ideology.

There’s not much to be added here, but if one were to elaborate a bit, one might take note of the fact that when I leveled even the slightest critique against your very tribal mother, she had but one response for whatever I said. It didn’t matter one whit what the critique was about — the rejoinder was essentially always the same one: «What about you, then?» (or: «Who are you to say that?») Other than this, there was just this great, open moral vacuity as far as your mother was concerned. As you may understand, she had set up a very elastic system where she and her daughters always came out on top, and your father and the rest of mankind, well, we were just plain stupid.

In totalitarian regimes, hierarchies are important as you may have noticed, and there was also one in our little family: animals, your mother, and our daughters. Yes, in that particular order, and with you and your sister on top, but your mother was in charge, of course. This conveniently left her in control over the agenda and the relevant narratives. Other than that, children were always right and mothers were always right. And of course, there was a lot of talk about pets, an important topic in this cliquish, girly world. Friends and family were scarce. Positive attention and focus were reserved for animals. Men and people in general usually received mainly negative attention. In this way, your mother managed to establish vertical rather than horizontal social structures in our little family. An important consequence here was that you and your sister became more isolated socially. Contact with other adults and children dwindled from little to almost nothing.

«But where do men and fathers fit into all this,» you might ask? Well, the simple answer is that they don’t. They simply don't belong in this feminist regime and will be emasculated or "defenestrated." It's just a matter of time.

The more elaborate answer is that feminism has formulated ideas on what should be expected of modern women, and about what perspective they should take regarding themselves and other women. There's precious little literature in feminism about what the new "Mr. Wonderful" is supposed to be like. As regards the middle-class feminists, he would be a highly educated man with an important position at work and in society, but when he's back at home again after work, he's expected to let them take over and decide everything. In short, he's supposed to be submissive to his wife and children. In abstract terms, I might put it this way: The husband is active at work, but passive at home. (The feminist wife is active both at work and at home.)

If a husband/father deviates (even slightly) from what is expected of him, he will immediately be punished by being accused of being "aggressive." If this doesn't do the trick, the wife and children opt for the "victim alternative," and he's accused in the vilest manner possible: they are afraid of him. This is the attack for which there's no defense, and this weapon is diligently wielded by women to achieve absolute power within the family. Masculinity was not very highly thought of in the feminist state as you may have gathered; it's now even regarded as «toxic.» Consequently, men and fathers will have to leave unless they submit to this feminist regime.

For a woman like that, there remains but one problem: How does she get rid of her husband while keeping his money? (A very important question, indeed!) The feminist state has an obvious answer to this (which I’m not going to delve into here): the social welfare system and its obliging courts.

I’m not just talking about something that is «political» or «out there», somewhere else, or whatever. On the contrary, I’m touching upon our very lives, upon how we are living from day to day in our homes and families (in what’s left of it, historically speaking). Let’s take a look at how we interact in "the feminist family" (the term is an oxymoron, of course):

In the traditional («old») paradigm, children would be a natural part of the interaction in the family, of course, they would. But they could be noisy sometimes and would make the conversation between the adults difficult (Yes, there used to be something called that — conversation). After a while, the adults would resume their conversation and would even tell the children to go somewhere else for a while if they were just...noisy. Well, not so now. The mothers have been busy creating «other new realities,» you see: The feminist state.

Now this is the way things will sort out: When a child interrupts a conversation, this is what usually happens: mothers (and visiting females) immediately shift their attention to the child (children), and the conversation with the husband is not resumed. Whatever the child says and does, that is what the mother is interested in, to the exclusion of everything else.

And it goes without saying, that my constructive criticism of our children was never acceptable, and the hidden side to her personality became apparent. She took it very personally. Now I had become the problem. — Her children should be "supported", not criticized.

A father then is left with no option but to try and compete for the attention of the child, or to opt out and quietly accept that he has been nullified. As a father, he sometimes is granted a narrow time slot in which he is allowed to talk with the mother about the children, as long as he agrees with her, of course. Other than that, as a husband he is ignored, and she is supremely uninterested in being a wife. There’s not much room for a man here, that’s for sure.

In somewhat technical terms we could look at it in this way: What I expected to live by as an organizing principle, was the traditional triangle mother-father-child. In this one, 1) the adults communicate with each other, 2) with their children and 3) the children freely communicate with each other, and of course with their parents too. As far as I can tell, this principle was not what your mother wanted. She sabotaged my communication with you (both of you) so that I would be isolated from you. She did this because she did not want to acknowledge the fact that a man had participated in making "her" children and that they had a father. They were her children.

More importantly, she did not want to acknowledge the view that children have their own raison d'être (reason for existence), that they are genuinely different from their parents in many respects, and that they in somewhat poetical terms can be viewed as being part of "the mysterious people" (Olle Adolphson & Beppe Wolgers). Your mother has been sabotaging her children: She reserved to herself the «right» to constantly intervene between myself and my two daughters. The consequences have been far-ranging. Taking an objective point of view here, it seems to me as if you and your sister in some sense haven't come out of your mother's womb yet. In a physical sense, yes, but not mentally and emotionally. You don't seem to have developed any sense of inner independence. As the years went by, your mother unfortunately, did succeed in establishing a kind of triad between the two of you and herself, one in which I was excluded from participating, one in which she was the main nucleus, and the two of you like ancillary units. This is narcissism.

Why did she do this? Let me remind you of what I said in the introduction. Your mother had taken advantage of you by establishing a relationship with you based on her needs, not yours. Well, she did the same thing to me: She wanted to have children, not a husband. At some point, she decided that two children were enough and that she wanted to get rid of me. That's the main reason probably, but I can think of two more that seem to be pertinent:

If we look at how she grew up, it is interesting to note that as a child she spent much time with her aunt (on the father's side). This was a fairly masculine type of woman, unmarried, who had spent her working life being a top dog in the national Scout movement. This was, as you will know, a system based on total segregation between the genders (at the time, we naively thought there were only two of them). The other important thing is, that your mother (until she knew better) grew up thinking that girls "got" girls and boys "got" boys.

As you now will see, segregation between the genders was an important element of your mother's childhood. She felt she needed to re-create, in our marriage, a family system based on segregation between the genders simply because this was the system she grew up under, both in her childhood and youth. So this was her motive. In other words, what we're seeing, is a little feminist state, right there from the beginning.

The way she did this, the method if you like, was being consistently negative in her outlook and establishing a girl's club for herself and her daughters. Here she would fill her daughters with a sense of victimhood: you were endlessly talking about your 1) pains and illnesses, about other people, «out there» and how unkind they were to you and your sister. How little they seemed to understand! There was 2) the frequent dose of denigrating talk about people, men in particular. And lastly, 3) your mother "supported" you. She consistently supported you in your self-pity, and in your taking a negative attitude towards life, thus making sure that your intellectual and spiritual levels were falling steadily. From a philosophical perspective, ignorance is the least common denominator here, and from a psychological one, narcissism. She did a great disservice to you but had secured her power over you, and that was the important thing. She is the very image of the egotism of the woman who "lay on her child and smothered it," only that your mother did this twice, not just once as in the Book of Kings.

Day after day, weeks, months, and year after year — what does this regime do to the mental & physical health of children and fathers? It seems to me that this is precisely one of the ways mothers isolate fathers from their children, letting them grow into absolute narcissists. Regimes like this must end badly; you do understand that, don’t you?

I didn’t understand it back then, but now it’s blindingly obvious that your mother established and maintained a symbiotic relationship between herself and you and Susan. Maybe we’re looking at pathology here (2), I don’t know. At any rate, my traditional triangle was eliminated, and our little family had insidiously been destroyed.

The next phase was formal separation (and divorce), and unfortunately, this included a separation between myself and you and Susan. Your mother’s goal had been parental alienation and she now was well underway to achieving it. And the misery just went on and on.

In my case, there also were some special circumstances. At one point, just weeks before the marriage finally broke irreparably, your mother was in a rare generous mood and suggested I move into the bachelor flat in the basement.

Think about all this for a moment, Mary. — I was to live in the tiny flat down there, almost like in some prison, and be living apart from my dear children. Now and then I would hear your feet running across the living room and vaguely hear your voices at the dinner table. You would probably not be permitted to visit me, maybe you wouldn’t have wanted to either, and at any rate, I would not be welcome upstairs at all.

I moved into my brother’s studio apartment instead. As you will remember, he lived just a few minutes further down the road. I lived there for eight months. You and your sister did not visit me there, not even once! (Your mother hates my brother, which may be one of the reasons for this.)

Later, I bought a home nearby, and contact between us improved somewhat — some text messages, birthdays, and Christmases. Apart from this, money seemed to be the important thing, especially as far as you were concerned. This represented a burden on me, financially, and there were many times that I felt I had to put my own projects on hold in order to make sure things went smoothly for you.

Looking back, I now realize I was left with two «virtual daughters,» lots of expenses, and a crushing feeling of having lost my children forever. There’s no denying that.

Before continuing to the next section, I will make a summary of the essential points covered till now: Your mother’s hatred of her brother, from childhood onward, changed into a hatred for me sometime after we were married. She started working toward a triad, with herself and our children on the inside and me on the outside. I was being excluded. Your mother’s pathology and feminism resulted in a girls’ club. Her overprotectiveness and exclusionary maneuvers are the main cause for our family becoming dysfunctional and this led directly to the situation which preceded the breakup. This also created problems for my relationship with you and Susan in subsequent years.

THE BIO-SECURITY STATE — Let’s return to the present time. The situation now is that you have stopped contacting me altogether. Considering a possible timeline here, we may observe that this comes right after two important facts: 1) You now are living on a disability pension and 2) the «pandemic» has recently established the health paradigm as the dominant means of interpretation and understanding in the feminist state. Summing it up then, the State now is providing you with money and ideology.

But it’s worse than that. You see, the State is owned by our global overlords, who control «our» government, bureaucracy, and media. The globalists are behind the three plagues of malignant feminism, packaged as «equality», the «climate crisis», a scam that may have all but destroyed the scientific method, and more recently, the Covid-19 situation, a totalitarian power grab disguised as a public health crisis. I’m not sure you understand this. I think you may have been deceived by their smoke & mirrors. Neo-feudal slavery may be at hand. Ignorance of it will not save you from it. Please consider this:

«Another word for this tyranny now apparently is a "biosecurity state." All governments are working in lockstep to implement the global agenda locally. The Covid-19 epidemic essentially has been over since May-June 2020. Masks are useless and the "vaccines" are insufficiently tested and can be lethal. They are to be avoided at any cost. The "second wave" does not exist. The PCR test is unreliable. It is being used to inflate the number of "cases." Cases used to mean people were sick. It now means they tested "positive." Most "positives" are false positives, meaning these people are neither necessarily sick nor "asymptomatic carriers". The inflated numbers are part of the fearmongering of the MSM, meant to justify the deadly lockdowns and usher in the new dictatorship.» (Editor, AWIP)

The level of fear was systematically increased last year in our society. The lying mainstream media and our government have done your mother's work so much easier. You've been gaslighted into a global covidian cult:

One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is mass conformity to a psychotic official narrative. Not a regular official narrative, like the "Cold War" or the "War on Terror" narratives. A delusional official narrative that has little or no connection to reality and that is contradicted by a preponderance of facts. Looking in from the dominant culture [...], the delusional nature of these official narratives is glaringly obvious to most rational people. What many people fail to understand is that to those who fall prey to [...], such narratives do not register as psychotic. On the contrary, they feel entirely normal. Everything in their social "reality" reifies and reaffirms the narrative and anything that challenges or contradicts it is perceived as an existential threat. (CJ Hopkins)

In a text message that I received from your mother (January 5th, 2021), it appears that you’ve entered a «pact» (of sorts) with her: Yourself, your friend, your sister, and your mother. Just the four of you, no one else. You are the only one who may see each other physically. In her own words:

«[...] I’m only seeing [Susan], [Mary] and [Roger]. We are the only ones who meet each other. I only talk to [Alice] by phone and text. The same goes for everybody else. Same with [Susan], [Mary], and [Roger]. We follow this strictly. We go shopping at night, wearing a mask. I also got someone to build a small separate unit for my horse [Misty] at the old, disused stables at [Heather Hill]. She’s kept there all alone and nobody else has access there. [...]»

So I am being excluded physically, but also electronically, which is quite irrational because there is no risk of any contagion through digital communication. Similarly, you and your mother have built an invisible, separate unit for the four of you, where nobody else has any «access». You now have barricaded yourselves in a «Restricted Area» for the simple reason that you regard the rest of humanity as infectious. Frankly, this is lockdown lunacy. Within a health paradigm this siege mentality would be considered to be pathology, within a religious one, evil and finally, within a philosophical one, foolishness and madness. (Poor Misty!)

To give a summary, firstly: Sara against her brother Mark. Secondly: Sara and our children against me. Then the Covid crisis came and this social structure turned into Sara and our children against me — and whomever you consider to be in breach of the government’s Covid regulations. The «pact» now has become a Covid pact. The triad, the girl's club, still represents a feminist structure but appears to have been equipped with an updated justification. The problem used to be men, now it's viruses, contagion, and COVID-19. The passive-aggressive nature of the pact has become more apparent. Your mother's pathology is casting a pall over you.

Taking an even broader perspective on this, we find that a tectonic shift has taken place during the last decade or so in the Western world, the shift between Center-left and Center-right. Center-left has shown its true face, and it isn't pretty. Authoritarian collectivism now is threatening traditional democratic values and principles and above all, the freedom of the individual. This plague lies at the root of both feminism, climate alarmism, and "covidism." A lot of people have been seduced by all this, and have taken a religious, even a Puritan kind of approach to it, and intolerance is running rampant. Among the feminists, tolerance for disagreement is a thing of the past (3). Reason, facts, and analysis are old hat. Emotions, opinions, "hurt" and "sensitivities" are in. The so-called "woke" are not woke at all; they're sleepwalkers, taking their dreams for reality. Culture and reason have been submerged in a tide of foolishness and hysteria. Presumption of innocence? That's gone too. Now you're guilty until proven innocent. It now has become impossible to be proven innocent because the very accusation is sufficient proof of wrongdoing. It's a race to the bottom. One is reminded of William Butler Yeats: "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold." — Darkness is indeed falling on this world.

You are very fearful and afraid of anything that is in opposition to your adopted worldview. The latter is a fragile construction, resting on a weak foundation. Instead of building from the bottom up, securing a solid foundation first, you've let nonsense take control over your fearful mind. This construction cannot be "reformed" but must be rejected entirely. You prefer to believe I am your problem. I am not. Not so! Your fundamental problem is the fear of discovering, admitting, that "your" little covidian, feminist state rests on nothing. There's nothing there. It is utter emptiness. Your problem is an existential one. This world is not even yours; it has been foisted on you, and you have let yourself be seduced by it.

It's worse than that. You have gotten your mother to the point where she is doing your bidding. It wasn't all that hard, given what I said in my analysis of her (above). I recently said to her that we all should be able to talk with each other even if we don't agree on everything. She answered that her point of view wasn't of any importance. (She was however of the opinion that I hadn't "supported" you.) That's the way you talk when you lack a sense of dignity. Mary, you too are responsible for this state of affairs. You have been selfish. There are no two ways about it. Sorry!

It doesn't have to be this way. You can choose differently. You should face the problem and deal with it: The problem is that you lack sufficient courage to face the world as it is. The problem is one of having the desire, the will, and the courage to grow up and come into your own. You need to find out where you belong in this world. The transition from being a child to being a grown-up is a tough one. I do regret the fact that I have been unable to be there for you to give you the support you needed to succeed in making this transition.

Let me continue on a more specific, concrete level...as a father, as someone who thinks independently (4), it certainly is not my role to cater to ignorance and misconceptions. If you think like your mother (points 1-6), here is what you believe:

1) The corona situation is dangerous. -No, it is not. Except for the elderly and people with serious illnesses. 2) The government's instructions are important. -No, they are silly and not based on science. 3) Face masks are necessary. -No, they are useless. There is no scientific support for their use. 4) You believe that "asymptomatic carriers" exist. -No, they don't. There's no scientific support for this. 5) Too many people ignore the danger. -This sweeping statement is untestable, and consequently, it is not science. (Real science is based on testability.) The supposed danger is grossly overstated. In our country, the overall mortality is at the normal level. 6) You believe you need to limit the number of people you're in contact with. -No, you don't need to do so.

Another thing that should be mentioned here is this: You believe you need "the vaccine". You don't. For sure, the mRNA "vaccine" will not protect you (5). This substance, mRNA, is not even a vaccine, but a medical device, a kind of gene "therapy" technology (a genetic delivery system). Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., says they are "hacking the software of life," by injecting their genetic code into humans [emphasis by this author] (5b)(5c). This technology is not meant to prevent transmission of pathogens and will not produce immunity (6). It has been insufficiently tested anyway and for too short a time. Human beings are being used as guinea pigs and are dying (7). Do not to rush into this (8). Better safe than sorry.

Mary, you're seriously off the mark. This kind of thinking is typical of the authoritarian mind and its consensus and is riddled with misconceptions, generalities, and inanities. If there's any comfort to be taken in this, it would be that this kind of thinking is not your own. It has been imposed on you. The statements I just enumerated (1-6) for you are your mother's words (January 5th, 2021). As always, she's in tune with the ideology du jour and thinks I should «support» you by validating incorrect statements like these. I certainly cannot do so.

And the bio-security state has not been kind to the elderly. They were suffering from many health issues, and now from isolation and loneliness too. Fortunately, neither your mother nor I are being locked up in institutions, and consequently, you and your sister would meet with no difficulty whatsoever in taking care of your aging parents. I now know you’re seeing your mother quite a lot.

In an email to your sister on August 7th (2020), I asked her: «What do you think it feels like to lose your children?» She still hasn’t come back to me on that one. Do you understand what I’m talking about here? Do you understand how isolation affects the elderly? You keep referring to your «situation», your health issues, etc., your pains, your disappointments, and frustrations. (Mary, things have always been difficult for you!) Of course I have compassion for you. Very much so! It's just that sometimes it does get a little too much...

But just to make it clear to you: you've been ensnared by the "two-for-one" deal of your mother and her feminism and consequently, you now are considering yourself to be a victim. In "Unraveling the Mindset of Victimhood" (2020), Scott Barry Kaufman mentions that "the tendency for interpersonal victimhood consists of four main dimensions: (a) constantly seeking recognition for one’s victimhood, (b) moral elitism, (c) lack of empathy for the pain and suffering of others, and (d) frequently ruminating about past victimization." All four of these dimensions seem relevant, but here I'd like to highlight two of them:

(c) Lack of empathy for the pain and suffering of others [Emphasis by SBK]. People scoring high on this dimension are so preoccupied with their own victimhood that they are oblivious to the pain and suffering of others. Research shows that people who have just been wronged or who are reminded of a time when they were wronged feel entitled to behave aggressively and selfishly, ignoring the suffering of others and taking more for themselves while leaving less to others. Emily Zitek and her colleagues suggest that such individuals may feel as though they have suffered enough so they no longer feel obligated to care about the pain and suffering of others. As a result, they pass up opportunities to help those perceived to be in their outgroup.

(d) Frequently ruminating about past victimization. [Emphasis by SBK]. Those scoring high on this dimension constantly ruminate and talk about their interpersonal offenses and their causes and consequences rather than think about or discuss possible solutions. This may consist of expected future offenses or past offenses. Research shows that victims tend to ruminate over their interpersonal offenses and that such rumination decreases the motivation for forgiveness by increasing the drive to seek revenge.

Mary, you often feel afraid, I understand that. This is genuine and I do believe it's true. As a child you were extremely afraid of spiders (9). You never got any treatment for it, as far as I can recall. It just seemed to go away. Well, did it? Is there a possibility of this phobic fear now having re-emerged as a fear of viruses? (Hypothesis: If you seek help for this specific phobia now, will your fear of viruses recede as well?)

But it is also politically correct to be afraid, these days, mind you, and "fear" is being weaponized to further the feminist agenda. You now appear to have been ensnared by «covidism» as well. It seems to me that ever since childhood you have been a victim of propaganda and your mother's controlling behavior. But you keep ignoring this possibility and consider yourself to be a victim of health issues, of your father, and of «the world». You do have health issues, but it seems to me that there's something wrong with your perspective on these things.

What is it that you are afraid of? «Chaos?» Life is both order and chaos, it would seem, and many other things too. Did you ever consider how insignificant we are...in this vast universe we’re in? Has it dawned upon you that time lost can never be recovered? What have you found out about this?

In a text (September 14th, 2020) you’re vaguely referring to what you’re calling «periods» with less contact between us. — Seriously, is it at all contact you’re talking about? And why have these periods been the predominant characteristic of the last twenty-five years?

And during these years, whatever was left of our relationship has gradually fallen apart. If this is your choice, and not your mother's, I could accept that. I would regret it, but I would accept it. Anyway, as a consequence of all this, you do not know me very well. You know next to nothing about what I've been doing during the last twenty-five years or so and you hardly know me as a person at all. And that would seem to be OK with you. It's painful for me to realize that this might be so, but I certainly could live with it. However, is some plain honesty too much to ask of you?

And what about the positive side of life? You may never find joy in this existence until you find the courage to develop an accepting attitude to your pains and difficulties, and neither any joy until you start exercising your innate ability to be grateful. Did you ever consider the enormity of that for which we need to be grateful? — For large & small, for our fellow human beings, for every living thing, for nature, and yes, for life itself. Now your life seems to have stagnated, as far as I can see, and you have no other responsibilities than taking care of your little dog. But was your life meant to be like this? Was it this for which you came into this world, forty years ago?

There also seems to be a peculiar one-sidedness in the way you relate to your problems. For one thing: your physical pains are not simply of a somatic nature. It might be useful for you to consider the importance of reducing self-centeredness and self-pity to achieve a greater degree of well-being and happiness.

And then, how is it possible for you to present contact with your father as an extra burden on top of all the other ones that you have to deal with? What is it about me that makes you think that way? Please tell me. Isn’t it about time we examined this a bit closer?

Is «parental alienation» a problem here? It might also be worthwhile exploring the concept of cognitive dissonance. Caught between your mother and your father, you would naturally experience at least some degree of this uncomfortable feeling. You might check out the Stockholm syndrome as well, once you're at it.

Other concepts might also merit some consideration: taboo, pariah, and outcast. That which, or the one who is under a taboo can not be mentioned. A pariah is shunned as «unclean», and the outcast is «discarded» and rejected. Social exclusion seems to be the common denominator here. Is there anything about me and my life that could have encouraged such harmful social processes? What about the fact that I spent four days in a psychiatric hospital? How did you feel about this at the time? And now? Is there any shame here?

As a psychologist, your mother was under a special obligation, I would think, to help you and your sister through those difficult days when the marriage broke down and I ended up where I did. It should have been important to her to help you escape the burden of social shame because I ended up in a psychiatric ward. Did she help you with this, and if so, in what way? She was ever the «expert», so what did she do in this regard, if anything at all? What is your understanding of all this?

As you will have seen, your mother made me suffer under tremendous stress, and she was the one who passive-aggressively was behind my having to leave our home. There was no other way; it was the end of the road. Two things here: You were a child in your teens at the time, and had a self-evident right to be considered innocent in what your mother did. You'll soon be forty, however, and have kept me at a distance ever since childhood, quite in keeping with your mother’s wishes. To a large extent, you are complicit in her evil. Complicit until you detach yourself from her narratives and start looking at all this. That’s my first point. My second one is: that parental alienation is an issue to be considered in addition to matters relating to your physical health. Or the other way around: Has parental alienation affected your physical health? Both points may be important.

I have been badly hurt by your mother’s behavior, but have nevertheless sincerely tried, both before and after the divorce, to do whatever I could to constitute some kind of counterbalance, to be positive, and to share my thoughts with you under difficult circumstances. I rather think I came up short, I regret to say.

On the other hand, there is tribalism (feminist or otherwise). This is the level of double standards and of hypocrisy, the level of "moral supremacism," specialness, and narcissism. Here we find the "lack of empathy for the pain and suffering of others," that Kaufman mentioned. Unfortunately, this is where you now are. You believe your suffering is unique, that it is special. This belief now has become an integral part of how you see yourself; it now is a constituent part of your identity.

As my daughter, you should do your bit in taking care of your relationship with me. This is just common decency. 'Decency' is a concept that implies 'totality', i.e. the norm, the standard if you like, is valid for all of us. This is the fundamental level, where all people, indisputably, are of equal value, and where everyone is bound by it. You have, however, used the Covid-19 crisis as a pretext to completely withdraw from me. This is heartless of you and your choice to do this is incomprehensible to me. Nevertheless, I will respect your wishes. But I do want to say this: Over the years you have kept someone who deeply respects your integrity at a distance, and have chosen closeness with someone who does not. It is a mystery.

Finally, there are a couple of things I think I need to insist upon: I don’t think there’s anything unique about your difficulties. A very great number of people are suffering, and their everyday life often is painful and a long, hard slog. They are infinitely precious, but few people take the time to stop, think, and reach out to them. I rather doubt that you are one of the few, not at present at any rate. I don’t believe you’re identifying with these people and feel compassion for them. But you really should! People do need you, Mary, and very much so. They need you in ways you now cannot even begin to imagine. You can reach out to people, even if you’re in pain yourself.

And remember: You are a being who can think, to choose with discernment, and to act wisely. You’ve made some bad choices, but you can choose differently. In the deepest (highest) sense, you are free and have always been so. And still, as far as your body is concerned, you are left with this eternal enigma: It is subject to the despairing fate common to us all: We shall be born, [to] suffer and die. ("Fortuna desperata: nasci, pati, mori."). Maybe so, or maybe not. – What Can You Tell Me About This?

You may not understand everything I’m saying now, but I’m sure you will later on if you put your mind to it. Anyway, you need to change the negative field around yourself and your mother to a positive and wholesome one. You also need to develop a stronger sense of inner independence to be able to help people without being damaged emotionally.

Mary, if you would like to have a meaningful relationship with me, you must want it sincerely. I don't need your sincerity "personally". I am beyond that now. But you need it to grow as a human being. As far as I can tell, you have mostly chosen fear and negativity. You would choose wisely if you were to choose love instead. — Love for our fellow human beings and every living thing. I would be there for you. I am so now and always will be.

Your Dad

PS: You might want to meditate on this: As If In A Daze

Names and identifying details have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals. -Editor

Painting:: Father and daughter love by Lidia George. Photo-1: research.uwa.edu.au. Photo-2: PickPik.
URL: http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2021/02/02/feminism-the-biosecurity-state-letter

(1) «Almost all of these patients wrote to get out, but their letters were never read by anyone because they never reached their destinations. The families were in denial about them and the doctors just put the disturbing letters in a drawer.»
«Presque tous ces auteurs écrivaient pour qu’on les libère, mais leurs mots sont restés lettres mortes, faute d’avoir été transmis à leurs destinataires. Les familles étaient dans le déni de leurs fous, et les médecins rangeaient dans des tiroirs ces missives qui les dérangeaient.»
[Anouk Grinberg dans Philippe Godin, Un ovni littéraire: Et pourquoi moi je dois parler comme toi?, 3 nov. 2020]

LINKS

(1) https://tinyurl.com/2hc6tn3e
(2) Narcissism? Factitious disorder by proxy? (Munchausen syndrome by proxy)
(3) https://indianmentalhealth.com/pdf/2019/vol6-issue1/OR10%20SANYA%20PRERNA.pdf
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_thought
(5) https://ian56.blogspot.com/2021/01/criminal-deception-by-pfizer-matt.html
(5b) https://www.technocracy.news/modernas-top-scientist-we-are-actually-hacking-the-software-of-life/
(5c) https://www.qwant.com/?q=%22hacking%20the%20software%20of%20life%22&t=web
(6) https://www.bitchute.com/video/K2OKh4eUm1f5/
(7) http://www.vernoncoleman.com/vaccineskilling9.htm
(8) https://tinyurl.com/yyfazsy6
(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phobias
(2020) https://tinyurl.com/4pcb96ww

(A Father's Suicide Note) http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2014/02/06/a-father-s-suicide-note
(a sense of victimhood) https://quillette.com/2021/02/27/the-evolutionary-advantages-of-playing-victim/
(An Unleashed Feminine Mystique is Destroying Higher Education) https://tinyurl.com/522s3h6j
(As If In A Daze) http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/spiritual-matters/2021/01/15/as-if-in-a-daze
(cognitive dissonance) https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012
(covid-19) https://swprs.org/2018/10/01/covid-19-intro/
(covidian cult) https://consentfactory.org/2020/10/13/the-covidian-cult/
(crisis) https://evidencenotfear.com/
(foolishness) https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/01/locusts/
(grateful) http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/poetry/2009/12/13/those-winter-sundays
(Hour between wolf and dog) https://www.marcchagall.net/hour-between-wolf-and-dog-1938.jsp
(No Future For You . . . th?) https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/no-future-for-youth
("parental alienation") https://www.healthline.com/search?q1=parent%20alienation
(retouched picture) https://tinyurl.com/4yc7zxar
(siege mentality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_mentality
(Stockholm) https://counsellingresource.com/therapy/self-help/stockholm/
(symbiotic) https://www.onelook.com/?w=symbiotic&ls=a
(syndrome) https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/stockholm-syndrome
(triad) https://www.onelook.com/?w=triad&ls=a
(Unemployed man starves himself to death) https://tinyurl.com/24uuhba9
(victim) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/
(What is it that you are afraid of, really?) https://kfoundation.org/the-root-of-fear/
(William Butler Yeats) https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming
(X) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove