I was just browsing my reader's group posts and ran across the question:
What are triggers?
The answers were not surprising, but by being grouped together, and all being equally simplistic, I wondered: Are we becoming habitual, as a society, in relating seriously concerning survivor's trauma into commonplace discomfort just so we can say "Me, too!"?
That was the gist of a dozen answers -- a topic that makes the reader uncomfortable. That so belittles the devastation felt by people who have true and very real flashback episodes, IMO.
I have been professionally diagnosed with having Accumulative PTSD for about a decade. I have anxiety from incidents that hit a bit too close to memories, but I would never call them "triggers" as they do not create real-time flashbacks as many vets and survivors of devastating violent acts have to deal with.
So opinons, please.
This can be traced to Liberalism, where everyone on team is a victim and being a victim now pays. DEI is about favoring all the victims so they can cut the line. Conservatism is more about self reliance, which had less dependence on the mass mind, and therefore more shelter from the formation triggers of being a victim. Being made into a victim can take away your drive and independence and make you feel like a victim. The effect is like having a mother who smothers you with love and her fears. This can feel safe, but like a drug, it can create a dependency, that can robs you of your own life; comfort versus freedom.
There is an old saying about following the money. The victim industry appears to be a way to grow government. Victims need more upkeep and this can be provided for by growing government, using increasing upkeep, as the justification for its own growth. The "war on poverty" has been going on for over 50 years, spent $10trillion, and has not gained any ground. It is a money pit war, more designed to justify a growing bureaucracy and welfare industrial complex. They get to define poverty to create new victims out of thin air. Not solving the problem, shows the victims of poverty, are pawns of the bureaucracy and complex. If the victims were of primary importance, there would fewer and fewer each year, and not sustainable government and industry growth using debt.
Liberalism is much more pro Big Government. Conservative prefers to shrink government, since being self sufficient; middle class, eliminates the justification needed to impose big government dependency. Self sufficient has built in victimization resistance.
For example, the transgender movement in public schools was an attempt created a new Federal run dependency group of victims that would justify more government bureaucracy, and its attached medical industrial complex; bribes, contributions and union jobs. The parents who wished to stay more self reliant, put sand into the gears. The bureaucracy never fully formed. But the victim propaganda triggers have stayed strong but cannot grow government the way it traditionally does.
The free market is not a monopoly, like government, and is subject to supply and demand, and therefore the current trend is more subject to watching the free market forces, which are better suited to the self sufficient. If you are an adult, and can afford this option, by your self sufficiency, this is your choice. But no new bureaucracy, brain washing and strong arming, to grow Government and the Unions, by defining a new generation of Liberal perpetual victims that the tax payer has to support along with the Liberal complex.
Sending abortion back to the states, harmed the growing centralized abortion bureaucracy, and the abortion industrial complex. This will reduce the justification of central government growth in that sector, that would have required an ever growing supply of new victims, who you can panic; triggers, if abortion gets too inconvenient.
I like the idea of sending all social service to the states, and decentralizing the Federal Government. In the Constitution, the role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare. Provide is about resources. The Federal Government should still be the main "provider= tax dollar" for national defense; military, police, spies/investigative/legal, national defense, border security as well as the logistical, related production industries and economic connections for potential war efforts.
Promote the general welfare, does not mean Federal funding. To me it means to send that share of federal tax money, back to the states, minus say 10% so they can provide only very key services. The central governments jobs will be about promotion. This could involve watching all the 50 state experiments, and encouraging the States to become more efficient and effective based on these test proven results. This is not about growing central government, via expanding regulation and brain washers victim; add more compliance officer Rather it this smaller team will promote the general welfare by solving problems, while respecting State autonomy. This will go a long way to reversing the victim brain washing model of Big Brother Government and the Swamp that rips off the tax payers and victims.
