Listen, if you’ve ever stepped foot in a family court, you know it’s a bureaucratic meat grinder. It’s a place where “justice” goes to die, buried under a mountain of red tape and expensive billable hours. But the absolute worst part of this dysfunctional system? The kids. Specifically, the kids who are weaponized by one parent to completely annihilate the relationship with the other parent.

For decades, we called this “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS). But the legal system and the psychological “experts” spent years arguing over whether PAS was a real “syndrome.” While they were busy debating semantics, families were being ripped apart.

Enter Dr. Craig Childress.

Filmed at the California Southern University School of Behavioral Sciences, Dr. Childress delivered a lecture that changes the game. He’s not interested in the “syndrome” debate. He’s interested in actual clinical psychology and the attachment system. He’s calling it what it really is: Pathogenic Parenting.

If you want to understand why a child suddenly treats a loving parent like a monster, you need to watch this video and understand the Attachment-Based Model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNuwQNN3q

Beyond the “Syndrome”: Why Science Matters

The old-school “Parental Alienation Syndrome” was based on the work of Richard Gardner. It was a decent start, but it didn’t have the heavy-duty clinical backing to survive the scrutiny of the courts. It felt “anecdotal” to the bureaucrats.

Dr. Childress flipped the script. He moved the conversation away from a fringe “syndrome” and anchored it in established, peer-reviewed science: Attachment Theory, Family Systems Theory, and Personality Disorder Dynamics.

This isn’t just a difference in names. It’s a shift from “maybe this is happening” to “here is the clinical evidence of psychological abuse.” In a free society, the state has no business meddling in families, unless there is clear, documented harm. By grounding this in the attachment system, Childress provides the tools to prove that harm.

The “Pathogenic Parent”: Using a Child as a Tool

In Dr. Childress’s model, the parent doing the alienating isn’t just “bitter.” They are often a “pathogenic parent.” This usually involves a parent with Narcissistic or Borderline personality traits.

When a high-conflict divorce happens, these parents can’t handle the rejection. Their own attachment systems are broken, usually from their own childhood trauma. To cope, they project their pain onto the other parent and use the child as a “regulatory object.”

Basically, they turn the kid into a psychological shield. They create a “cross-generational coalition,” pulling the child into the adult conflict to help them regulate their own collapsing ego. The child isn’t a person to them; they are a weapon to be aimed at the “enemy” parent.

The Three Diagnostic Indicators

One of the most powerful parts of Dr. Childress’s lecture at California Southern University is his identification of three specific diagnostic indicators. If all three are present, you aren’t looking at a “preference” or a “rebellious phase.” You are looking at parental alienation.

1. Attachment System Suppression

The attachment system is an instinct. It’s hardwired into our DNA to seek comfort from our parents. When a child suddenly and completely “terminates” their relationship with a previously loving parent, that is a biological abnormality. It’s like a child refusing to eat or breathe. If a child is rejecting a normal-range parent, something is suppressing their natural attachment drive.

2. Presence of Narcissistic/Borderline Traits in the Child

The child starts acting like a mini-version of the alienating parent. They show a total lack of empathy for the targeted parent. They become entitled, demanding, and cold. They engage in “splitting”, viewing the alienating parent as all-good and the targeted parent as all-bad. This isn’t how kids naturally think; it’s a learned behavior from a personality-disordered parent.

3. The “Fixed Delusion”

The child expresses beliefs about the targeted parent that are completely untethered from reality. They might claim a parent was “abusive” because they made them do homework or didn’t buy them a specific toy. These aren’t just complaints; they are fixed, delusional beliefs. The child is living in the parent’s distorted reality.

This is Child Abuse. Period.

Let’s stop sugar-coating it. When a parent manipulates a child’s internal software, their attachment system, to hate their other parent, that is child psychological abuse.

It destroys the child’s ability to form healthy relationships in the future. It forces the child to participate in a “delusional” reality. It’s a form of “soul-murder” that leaves deep scars long after the divorce is finalized.

As libertarians, we believe in the non-aggression principle. Using psychological warfare to strip a child of a loving parent is a massive violation of that principle. It’s a violation of the child’s right to their own mind and their own family bonds.

We’ve written before about how Missouri HB 2308 is trying to protect children from this kind of garbage, but legislation is only half the battle. The other half is education.

Who is Dr. Craig Childress?

If you’re going to listen to someone on this topic, you want someone who has spent time in the trenches. Dr. Childress is a licensed clinical psychologist who has seen it all.

Before his private practice, he was the clinical director for a children’s assessment and treatment center at California State University, San Bernardino. He worked at the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and collaborated with the UCI Child Development Center. He’s not just a guy with an opinion; he’s an expert consultant and witness in legal cases across the U.S. and Canada.

His work at California Southern University is a cornerstone for anyone trying to fight back against the “pathogenic parenting” that is destroying modern families.

Reclaiming the Truth

The system is rigged, the courts are slow, and the “experts” are often behind the times. But the Attachment-Based Model gives us a scientific framework to call out the truth.

If we want to stop the cycle of trauma, we have to stop treating parental alienation like a “dispute” and start treating it like the psychological violence it is. It’s time to shred the old playbook and demand that the courts recognize the science of attachment.

For more on how the legal system gets things wrong, check out our piece on the myth of “pressing charges” or dive into our blog archives for more raw truths.

Sources & References:

• Video: Dr. Craig Childress – Parental Alienation Lecture
• California Southern University School of Behavioral Sciences: Psychology Department
• Dr. Childress’s Official Site: C.A. Childress, Psy.D.
• Dr. Childress’s Blog: drcraigchildressblog.com
• Research: The Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation (Childress, 2015).

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

When dealing with an alienator, potentially narcissistic, perhaps bipolar this could be the result

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

Parental alienation is one of the most painful and misunderstood issues in family court. It happens when a child is pushed to reject one parent without a real reason. This pressure usually comes from the other parent or from people around the child.

The result is simple but tragic. A child slowly loses their relationship with a loving parent.

This is not just a dispute between adults. It is a serious emotional injury to the child.

In Missouri, lawmakers are now trying to address the problem through Missouri House Bill 2308, introduced by Holly Jones. The bill focuses on enforcing parenting time and restoring the bond between parents and their children when that time is wrongfully taken away.

Supporters call the effort “Time Taken, Time Back.” The idea is simple. If one parent interferes with court ordered parenting time, the lost time should be restored quickly.

That idea could make a real difference for kids.

What Is Parental Alienation?

Parental alienation happens when a child is manipulated into turning against one parent.

It does not usually happen overnight. It often builds slowly through repeated actions and messages.

Some common alienating behaviors include:

• Blocking or interfering with scheduled parenting time
• Making false accusations against the other parent
• Speaking negatively about the other parent in front of the child
• Encouraging the child to reject visits or communication
• Creating fear or distrust toward the targeted parent

Over time the child begins to absorb the message.

They may start believing the other parent is unsafe, uncaring, or does not love them. In many cases this belief has little connection to reality.

The child’s view becomes shaped by one parent’s narrative.

Psychologists and family court professionals have debated the issue for decades. Some still question how it should be defined in law. But many therapists and researchers agree on one thing.

When a child is intentionally pushed to reject a loving parent, the emotional damage can be severe.

Children need stable relationships with both parents whenever possible. When one of those bonds is destroyed, the child loses part of their support system.

Why Children Are the Real Victims

In custody disputes it is easy to focus on the parents. The arguments, the accusations, the court hearings. But the child is the one who lives with the outcome.

Kids do not have the power to fix the situation.

They depend on adults and courts to protect their relationships.

When parental alienation takes hold, children can experience:

• Confusion about family loyalty
• Anxiety and emotional stress
• Loss of trust in family relationships
• Long term identity issues

A child may feel forced to choose sides. That pressure can create guilt and fear.

In many cases the alienated parent becomes a stranger in the child’s life even if they were once deeply involved.

Years later some children realize what happened. They discover that their relationship with a parent was shaped by manipulation rather than truth.

By then the lost time cannot be recovered.

Childhood is short. Every missed birthday, holiday, and ordinary weekend is time that cannot be replaced.

This is why enforcement of parenting time matters so much.

The Problem With Family Court Enforcement

Most custody orders already include parenting schedules. In theory those schedules are legally binding.

In practice enforcement can be slow and inconsistent.

When one parent blocks visitation or interferes with custody, the other parent usually has to return to court. That process can take months.

Legal fees add up. Court calendars move slowly. Evidence must be gathered and presented.

During that time the child continues to lose contact with the targeted parent.

Sometimes the damage becomes permanent before the case is resolved.

This delay creates a dangerous incentive. A parent who wants to interfere with custody may believe they can get away with it.

Even if they eventually face consequences, the lost time with the child is already gone.

What Missouri HB 2308 Does

Missouri lawmakers are trying to fix that problem through Missouri House Bill 2308.

The bill focuses on one key principle: parenting time should be enforced quickly and fairly.

If a parent denies court ordered parenting time without a valid reason, the bill allows judges to order additional parenting time to make up for what was lost.

This approach is sometimes described as “Time Taken, Time Back.”

The idea is not punishment. The goal is restoration.

Children should not lose their relationship with a parent because of interference or delay.

The bill also includes accountability measures.

If a parent is found to be interfering with custody or making false allegations that disrupt parenting time, the court may require them to pay legal fees and related professional costs.

This creates a financial consequence for behavior that harms the parent child relationship.

Supporters say the bill targets several forms of alienating behavior:

• Gatekeeping that blocks communication between a parent and child
• Interference with custody schedules
• False allegations used to cut off contact

By creating clearer procedures and consequences, the law aims to protect children from losing a parent through manipulation or conflict.

Why the Bill Matters for Children

At its core, HB 2308 is about protecting kids.

Children need consistent relationships with both parents whenever possible. That stability helps them develop emotionally and socially.

When one parent disappears from a child’s life, the impact can last for years.

Research in child psychology has shown that healthy involvement from both parents is linked to better outcomes in school, mental health, and social development.

Of course, there are cases where limited contact is necessary for safety. Courts already have tools to deal with abuse or genuine risk.

But when the relationship is safe and loving, maintaining that bond is critical.

HB 2308 focuses on preserving those healthy connections.

By restoring lost parenting time quickly, the bill helps prevent long periods of separation that can damage the relationship between parent and child.

It also discourages tactics that use the legal system as a weapon in custody disputes.

Children should never be used as leverage in adult conflicts.

A Broader Debate About Parental Rights

The issue of parental alienation has sparked national debate.

Some advocates argue that family courts have ignored the problem for too long. They say alienation can destroy families and leave children emotionally scarred.

Others worry that claims of alienation could be misused in certain cases.

The truth is that family law is complicated. Every case involves unique circumstances.

But most people agree on one basic principle.

Children benefit when they have loving relationships with both parents.

Public policy should protect that principle whenever possible.

HB 2308 moves in that direction by focusing on enforcement and accountability rather than ideology.

It does not try to solve every family court dispute. Instead it addresses a specific issue: the loss of parenting time through interference or delay.

Time Is the Most Valuable Resource

There is one truth about parenting that the legal system often forgets.

Time matters more than anything else.

Children grow quickly. Every year shapes their memories, identity, and sense of family.

When that time is lost, it cannot be recovered.

A court order months later does not give back the missed bedtime stories, school events, or weekend visits.

That is why the concept behind HB 2308 is so powerful.

If parenting time is taken away, it should be restored quickly.

The goal is not to punish parents. The goal is to protect the child’s relationship with both of them.

In the end, that relationship is what children need most.

Missouri lawmakers now have a chance to strengthen those bonds and prevent unnecessary family separation.

If HB 2308 succeeds, it could serve as a model for other states looking to protect children from the silent damage of parental alienation.

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson

If you want to see the real American economy, set your alarm for 4:30 AM. Don’t go to a government office. Don’t go to a think tank in D.C. where guys in pleated khakis argue about “labor participation rates” over lukewarm lattes.

Go to a job site. Go to the back dock of a restaurant in any major city. Go to a new housing development where the skeletons of homes are rising out of the dirt.

What you’ll see isn’t a “crisis” or a “threat to our way of life.” You’ll see a sea of high-visibility vests and worn-out work boots. You’ll hear Spanish. You’ll smell diesel and sawdust. And you’ll witness a level of raw, unadulterated grit that would make the Founding Fathers weep with joy, and then wonder why the hell we’re trying to regulate it out of existence.

The political class, the suits on both sides of the aisle, has a vested interest in keeping the conversation about Latin American immigrants centered on fear, bureaucracy, and “the border.” They want to talk about walls, quotas, and “securing the homeland.” What they never want to talk about is the fact that these people are the hardest-working, most determined demographic in the modern U.S. economy.

Why? Because the “immigrant work ethic” is a direct indictment of the bloated, “anti-work” bureaucracy that the state has spent decades building for the rest of us.

My video from Jan 31, 2017

The 5 AM Reality Check

While the laptop class is busy debating “Quiet Quitting” and demanding four-day work weeks for their data-entry jobs, there is a whole world that runs on physical labor. These are the jobs that keep the lights on and the roofs over our heads.

Visual: A gritty, high-contrast silhouette of workers against a neon sunrise on a construction site. Street-art style with bold reds and blacks.

I’ve spent plenty of time on construction sites. I’ve seen the hustle. There’s a specific kind of energy you find in Latin American crews. It’s a “first in, last out” mentality. They aren’t checking the clock every five minutes to see if it’s time for a union-mandated herbal tea break. They are there to grind.

The “Anti-Work” culture that has infected so much of Western society, this idea that labor is a burden to be avoided rather than a tool for liberation, hasn’t touched this demographic. Why? Because they are “hungry.” Not just for food, but for the opportunity to trade their value for a better life. When you’ve risked everything to get to a place where the market actually functions (mostly), you don’t waste time complaining about the humidity. You grab the hammer.

The Risk-Reward Ratio: Migration as the Ultimate Startup

Politicians love to frame migration as a “drain” or a “burden.” From a free-market perspective, that’s total nonsense. Migration is actually the ultimate entrepreneurial act.

Think about it. An entrepreneur is someone who sees an opportunity, calculates the risk, and moves capital (in this case, human capital) to where it can generate the most value. Moving across continents, leaving behind everything you know, and navigating a hostile legal system just for the chance to work? That’s not a “refugee” move. That’s a high-stakes business pivot.

These are people who have looked at the failing, socialist-leaning or corrupt regimes of their home countries and said, “I’m betting on myself elsewhere.” They are the ultimate “Disruptarians.” They are disrupting the stagnant labor markets of the U.S. by providing a service that is in massive demand.

Just like the legal myths I broke down in my piece on the pressing charges myth, the government loves to invent narratives that don’t match the street-level reality. They want you to think of immigrants as passive victims or aggressive invaders. The reality? They are independent contractors in the business of survival and success.

The Bureaucratic Barrier: How Government Stifles the Hustle

If the state actually cared about the economy, they would be rolling out the red carpet for anyone with a work ethic. Instead, they’ve built a labyrinth of red tape designed to keep people out of the market.

Visual: A “Help Wanted” sign being obscured by massive loops of red tape and heavy government “DENIED” stamps. High-contrast, punk-poster aesthetic.

We have licensing laws for everything. You want to cut hair? Get a license. You want to paint a house? Get a permit. You want to sell tacos on the corner? Better spend six months and ten grand on a “mobile food facility” permit.

For the Latin American immigrant, the government isn’t a helper; it’s the primary obstacle. Whether you’re unpacking Trump’s approach or looking at the current administration’s convoluted visa quotas, the result is the same: the state is trying to manage an organic demand for labor that it doesn’t understand.

When the government makes it “illegal” to work, they aren’t stopping the work. They are just pushing it into the shadows, where workers have fewer protections and the state can use the threat of deportation as a leash. This isn’t about “safety” or “order.” It’s about control. A free market doesn’t need a quota. If there’s a house that needs building and a man with a hammer ready to build it, the “legal” status of that transaction should be irrelevant.

Entrepreneurship in the Wild

Have you noticed how many “Landscaping” or “Construction” trucks you see with a family name on the door? Rodriguez & Sons. Gomez Masonry.

This is “Entrepreneurship in the Wild.” It’s not a tech startup in Silicon Valley funded by venture capital and burning through millions of dollars of “funny money.” It’s a guy with a used Ford F-150 and a lawnmower who eventually hires his cousin, then his neighbor, then ten more guys.

Research shows that Latin Americans often view work as a collective achievement. It’s not just “I’m getting mine.” It’s “I’m building a foundation for the whole family.” This is family-first Libertarianism. They pool resources. They provide voluntary community support. They don’t wait for a government handout; they create their own safety net through hard work and loyalty.

Visual: A vibrant, colorful depiction of a bustling family-owned food truck or market stall in an urban setting. Glitch effects and torn paper edges.

They are the backbone of the small business economy. They take the “hustle culture” that influencers talk about on Instagram and they actually live it, without the filters. They are opening restaurants, auto shops, and cleaning services in neighborhoods that the “gentrifiers” are too scared to walk through.

The Historical Mirror: We’ve Seen This Movie Before

If you feel like you’ve heard this “they’re taking our jobs” or “they don’t fit our culture” rhetoric before, it’s because you have. In the 1800s, it was the Irish. Then it was the Italians. Then the Chinese.

Every single wave of hard-working people who came to this country was met with the same bureaucratic hostility. And every single time, those people ended up becoming the bedrock of the American middle class. Latin Americans are just the latest chapter in the same book.

The political class fears this demographic because you can’t easily buy their votes with “welfare” if they are too busy building their own empires. You can’t control them with “regulations” if they are willing to outwork your inspectors.

The Real Lesson

The “Disruptarian” view is simple: Freedom works. Effort works. The state doesn’t.

The determination we see in Latin American communities isn’t a problem to be solved by some bureaucrat in a swivel chair. It’s an energy to be harnessed. It’s the very thing that prevents this country from sliding into total economic stagnation.

While politicians argue about walls, the real economy is being built, one brick, one taco, and one early-morning shift at a time. The state prosecutes the “crime” of being a willing worker. The market, however, rewards the truth.

And the truth is: If you want to see the future of freedom, look at the guy who just showed up to work while the rest of the world is still hitting snooze.

Sources & References:

• The Myth of Pressing Charges – Disruptarian
• Labor Participation and Cultural Work Ethics – Research Summary
• Small Business Administration – Immigrant Entrepreneurship Statistics
• Disruptarian Media – The Gospel of Disruption

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

You’ve seen it a thousand times on Law & Order or some gritty Netflix reboot. A guy gets punched, the cops show up, and they lean over the victim with a notepad. “Do you want to press charges?” the officer asks with a stoic nod. The victim says “No,” and everyone goes home.

It’s a great trope. It makes for clean television. It also happens to be a total load of crap.

In the real world, the one where I live and the one where Disruptarian operates, the “Pressing Charges” myth is one of the most dangerous misunderstandings of the legal system. Most people think they are the protagonists of their own legal dramas. They think they hold the remote control.

I’m here to tell you that once the blue lights start flashing, you’ve lost the remote. The State has it now. And the State doesn’t care about your feelings, your “forgiveness,” or your desire to just “move on.”

I’ve had to learn this the hard way across three different decades, two different countries, and three separate physical altercations where I was the one assaulted. Each time, the same myth reared its ugly head. Each time, the State reminded me who actually owns the monopoly on violence.

2015: The “Boxing Ring” Incident

Back in 2015, I was dealing with a classic case of family-adjacent drama. My ex-wife’s half-brother, a kid with a criminal record full of harassment and terroristic threats, decided to make me his hobby. He was threatening me, harassing me, and generally being a nuisance.

Being a fan of the old-school ways of settling things, I offered him a libertarian solution: Let’s go to a boxing ring. Fair fight. One on one. No cops, no lawyers, just a ring and some gloves.

He declined.

Instead, his step-dad decided to show up at my front door to do the dirty work. He assaulted me right there on my property. When the Pocatello police arrived and interviewed everyone, they did their job. They looked at the facts and determined I wasn’t the aggressor.

Visual: A gritty, high-contrast boxing ring set in a dark alleyway, symbolizing the “fair fight” that the state refuses to allow.

The officer asked me that famous question: “Do you want to press charges?”

I said no. I didn’t want the headache. I didn’t want the court dates. I just wanted this guy to leave me alone. But here is where the “myth” shattered. The other guy, the one who actually started the fight, decided he wanted to press charges on me.

The result? We both got charged.

Wait, what? I declined charges, and he asked for them, so the State just… charged everyone? Exactly. Eventually, the charges against me were dropped (because, you know, reality), and he pleaded guilty to the charges against him.

The kicker? Even though I officially “declined” to file charges in the initial police report, the State pursued him anyway. Why? Because the State doesn’t need a victim’s permission to prosecute a crime. Once they decide a law was broken, the “victim” becomes a piece of evidence, not a decision-maker.

References about that:

• https://opinions.clovisstar.com/public-complaint-against-officer-tyler-evans/https://opinions.clovisstar.com/blog/media/2015/07/
• Recordings with law enforcement about this assault;  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggyGkRZaalQ
• http://opinions.clovisstar.com/blog/media/2015/07/brandons-arrests-3-2016_03_30-22_07_25-UTC-1024×604.jpg
• If any of these files don’t load, use the internet archive, and they are saved:  https://web.archive.org/web

2021: The Irish “Two-on-One” (Athy, Ireland)

Fast forward to 2021. I’m in Ireland. Different continent, same nonsense.

Two of my soon-to-be brother-in-laws decided they had a bone to pick with me. My fiancé called me, frantic, telling me they were on their way and I should lock the door and hide.

Ref:  https://archive.org/details/videoplayback_20260309_1835

I don’t hide.

I told her I’d be a man, and they should be men, and we could settle it one at a time. Of course, they didn’t do that. They showed up and jumped me two-on-one. I stood my ground, didn’t move an inch, and waited for them to bring the fight to me.

Visual: A stylized, glitch-art representation of a recording device, emphasizing the importance of documenting reality when the state gets involved.

Two irish boys against one American (charges filed)

Predictably, after the dust settled, they ran to the Gardai (Irish police) and tried to claim I was the one who assaulted them. It was a classic “cry-bully” move. But just like in 2015, the authorities looked at the evidence. They looked at the footage of the initial confrontation.

They were arrested and charged. I wasn’t.

But the lesson remained: they tried to use the legal system as a weapon. They thought that by being the first to “press charges,” they could control the narrative. They forgot that the police have something called discretion. The police looked at who pursued whom, who stood their ground, and who was the aggressor. The “victim’s” request was just a suggestion.

2024: The Pronoun Sucker Punch

The most recent incident happened just last year. This one was over something as absurd as “incorrect pronouns.” My kid’s step-father didn’t like my choice of words, so he ran out of his house and hit me with a sucker punch.

I didn’t punch back. I used training. I grabbed him by the neck, took him to the ground, and held him there. I had to bite the back of his neck at one point because my ex-wife was literally kicking me while I was trying to restrain her husband.

When the police met me later at a Starbucks, I showed them my recordings. I always record. Always.

Visual: A heavy metal gavel smashing a neon sign that says “PRESSING CHARGES” into pieces.

The officers asked if I wanted to pursue charges. Again, I said no. I’m not a fan of the prison-industrial complex, and I don’t think every scrap needs a judge. So, no one was arrested.

But later, my kid told me something that made me laugh: “The reason you didn’t get arrested is because Mom decided not to take you to court.”

That is the height of the myth. The idea that my ex-wife “allowed” me to stay free is a complete fantasy. The police told me directly that the new husband wanted me charged. The reason I wasn’t arrested wasn’t because of her “mercy”, it was because the police looked at / listened to the evidence, saw I was sucker-punched and acted in self-defense, and exercised their discretion to not charge me.

The Cold, Hard Truth About “Pressing Charges”

Let’s break down the mechanics here, because if you’re a Disruptarian, you need to understand how the machine works.

1. The State is the Plaintiff: In a criminal case, the caption isn’t Thompson vs. Step-Dad. It’s The People of the State vs. Defendant or The State vs. Defendant. The “victim” is just a witness for the State. You are the accuser, but you aren’t the boss.
2. Prosecutorial Discretion: The District Attorney (or the prosecutor) has the sole power to file or drop charges. They can look at a victim who is begging them to drop a case and say, “No thanks, we have a video and a medical report. We’re going to trial.”
3. Domestic Violence and Public Safety: In many places, the police must make an arrest if they see evidence of domestic violence, regardless of what the “victim” wants. The State has decided that “public safety” outweighs individual autonomy in these moments.
4. Evidence-Based Prosecution: With the rise of body cams, doorbell cameras, and smartphones, the State doesn’t even need you to testify anymore. They can run a “victimless” prosecution using your 911 call and the video footage.

The Libertarian Perspective

From a libertarian standpoint, this is the ultimate overreach. Two grown men have a dispute, one assaults the other, and a third party (the State) steps in, ignores the wishes of both parties, and uses the situation to fill its coffers or meet its arrest quotas.

The State doesn’t care about justice; it cares about the monopoly. It cannot allow citizens to settle their own disputes, even peacefully or through mutual agreement, because that would prove the State is unnecessary.

But until we live in that voluntaryist utopia, you have to play the game by the rules that exist. And the rules say: You do not control the charges.

If you get into a fight, don’t assume that “not pressing charges” is a Get Out of Jail Free card for the other guy, or for you. The police are an independent variable. They are an entity with their own agenda, and once they are on the scene, the situation belongs to them.

Final Thoughts

The next time you hear someone threaten to “press charges,” or conversely, someone who thinks they’re safe because the victim “forgave” them, remember these three stories.

The legal system isn’t a tool for your personal use. It’s a wild animal that the State keeps on a leash. Sometimes it bites the person you want it to bite. Sometimes it turns around and bites you. And sometimes, it just stands there and barks while the State collects its fees.

Keep your cameras rolling, keep your hands up, and never, ever assume the State is on your side just because you were the one who got hit first.

Stay rebellious.

Ryan “Dickie” Thompson
Founder, Disruptarian Radio

Sources & References:

• 2015 Incident (Pocatello, Idaho): Public Complaint Against Officer Tyler Evans
• 2015 Police Report: Initial Police Report – Clovis PD
• 2021 Ireland Incident: Video Evidence of Confrontation
• 2024 Incident: Public Record Reference: EPD (Eugene Police Department) case 24-05261.

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

Before we dive into the deep end of the pool, we need to clear the air. People toss the words “responsibility” and “accountability” around like they’re interchangeable. They aren’t. In the world of Disruptarian Radio, where we value individual agency over bureaucratic sludge, getting these definitions right is the difference between being a free agent and being a cog in someone else’s machine.

Responsibility means you are connected to the outcome of something. It’s the duty. It’s the task. It’s being the one “in charge” of the gear.

Accountability is much heavier. It means you accept total ownership of what happens next. It’s the internal commitment to answer for the results, good, bad, or ugly. Responsibility can be delegated; accountability cannot. You can give someone the responsibility to fix a leak, but if the house floods, the accountability still sits on your shoulders.

Older generations lived much closer to the intersection of both. If you didn’t plant, you didn’t eat. If you broke something, you fixed it. There was no middleman to absorb the blow. Today? You could argue that most modern systems, government programs, massive institutions, safety nets, and corporate bureaucracies, are designed specifically to separate people from the consequences of their actions.

Sometimes those nets catch people who truly need them. But more often, they strip away the expectation that a human being must personally deal with the results of their life choices. That disconnect is where the rot starts, and it matters most when we stop talking about abstract “systems” and start talking about the hardest issues we face: teen pregnancy, abortion, and moral agency.

The Question My Son Asked

The catalyst for this whole thought process wasn’t some high-level policy debate. it was a conversation at home. My son asked a question built around a hypothetical, a brutal, gut-wrenching one.

He asked: If I had been born female, and I was fourteen, and I was raped… would abortion be justified?

And then he followed it up with the real kicker: Even if it was justified, would that still be participating in a form of eugenic thinking, where society decides that because a life started in trauma or under “wrong” conditions, it simply shouldn’t exist?

I didn’t pretend I had an easy, pre-packaged answer. Because I don’t. These are the moments where generational thinking hits a wall. Some people have an answer ready before you even finish the sentence. Others wrestle with the moral weight until it leaves a mark. My response wasn’t a lecture or a sermon; it was a perspective grounded in the reality of human agency.

“The question to me from my son was

“”So you think that if I was a girl at birth, at my current age, and a man raped me, getting an abortion because I shouldn’t have to deal with a pregnancy at 14, it would be me partaking in the ideologies of eugenics?”

My Actual Reply to My Son

I told him my thoughts honestly.

And I want to keep this exactly how I said it.

Because sometimes raw honesty communicates better than polished writing.

Here was my reply:

Our neighbors in Puerto Rico, in fact our landlords started their family and had their first child at age 14

This man in that video from the Philippines was age 12

It’s pretty common in recent generations

Mom’s mother, grandma Donna got pregnant at age 15

🤷

Is it right?

Is it wrong?

I dunno

But I had my first legal job at age 14 it’s on record because I paid social security taxes for it

And I had my first apartment by age 15

I wouldn’t have started a family back then personally

I actually waited intentionally until I was 27 for that

But I am just saying, it’s not uncommon

Sometimes the best answer you can give a kid is honesty.

Not a sermon.

Just reality.

Image: father and teenage son having serious conversation at kitchen table | ALT: accountability vs responsibility conversation between generations

Adoption vs Abortion: A Path for Life

I told him something simple, though I know it’s not easy. I believe adoption is a better option whenever it is physically and mentally possible.

This isn’t because I think pregnancy is a walk in the park or that trauma is trivial. Far from it. It’s because adoption creates a path where life continues, and the massive weight of responsibility shifts to someone who is actually prepared and waiting to raise a child.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, hundreds of thousands of children are adopted every year, and there are countless families actively waiting to adopt infants (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb). There is a massive demand for life. When we talk about “solutions,” we have to acknowledge that there are alternatives that don’t involve termination.

But I also told him that acknowledging that option doesn’t magically erase the complexity of rape or the horror of trauma. Hard questions don’t come with easy answers, and anyone telling you otherwise is likely trying to sell you a political platform. We’re talking about the Gospel of Disruption here, challenging the status quo means looking at the raw, uncomfortable truth.

Is It Physically Possible? The 14-Year-Old Reality

I asked my son a rhetorical question: Is it physically possible to have a child at age fourteen?

Biologically, the answer is a resounding yes. According to the CDC, teenage pregnancy has been a constant throughout human history (https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy). Now, does that make it ideal? No. Does it mean it fits into our modern, Western timeline of “success”? Usually not.

But it makes it real.

Modern conversations often assume that a 14-year-old parent is some kind of unprecedented medical anomaly or a sign of total societal collapse. But history, and the rest of the world, has a very different story to tell.

Image: historical painting of young mother with infant child | ALT: historical perspective on teen pregnancy across generations

A Story from Puerto Rico and Beyond

I gave my son examples from our own life. Our neighbors in Puerto Rico, who were also our landlords, started their family when they were fourteen. They didn’t have a safety net or a government agency holding their hands. They worked. They struggled. And they raised a large family of successful, hardworking, responsible adults.

Stories like that fly in the face of the modern narrative that says a teenage parent is a guaranteed “broken outcome.” Sometimes they are. But sometimes they aren’t. Life is messy, and reality rarely fits inside the neat, ideological boxes politicians build for us.

Even the historical figures we hold in high regard lived by different rules. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is widely believed by historians and theologians to have been between 14 and 16 when she gave birth. In ancient cultures, starting a family early wasn’t a “crisis”; it was the norm. Our modern assumptions aren’t universal truths, they are cultural shifts.

Then there’s the global perspective. When I was in the Philippines recently, I talked to a taxi driver who told me, with zero fanfare, that he started his family at age twelve. TWELVE.

[Video: Taxi driver in the Philippines describing starting a family at age 12 | Note: Real world example of generational differences in responsibility and family norms]
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0brhSYjq3qA

Different cultures have vastly different expectations of when “adulthood” begins. Those expectations shape how people view responsibility. If you’re told you’re a child until you’re 25, you’ll act like it. If you’re told you’re a man at 13, you’ll step up.

Personal History: My Own Timeline

I wanted to be honest with my son about my own journey. I didn’t want to give him a “do as I say” speech. I gave him the “this is what happened” facts.

• I had my first legal job at 14. It’s on the record because I paid Social Security taxes on it.
• I had my first apartment at 15.
• I was fully responsible for my own survival before I was legally allowed to drive a car alone.

Image: teenage worker at a small job site carrying tools | ALT: generational responsibility starting work at age 14

I told him: I wouldn’t have started a family back then. I actually waited intentionally until I was 27 to have kids. But I’m saying it’s not uncommon, and it’s not impossible.

We have to separate two distinct questions that people always mix up:

1. Is abortion a reasonable response to rape?
2. Is it “wrong” to have a baby at age fourteen?

Those are not the same issue. One is a question of moral response to trauma; the other is a question of biological and cultural capacity. When we mix them, we lose the ability to have a rational conversation about either.

The Institutional Critique

The reason we struggle so much with these topics today is that we’ve outsourced our accountability. We’ve handed our problems over to the state, the courts, and the bureaucracies. We’ve been told that we aren’t capable of handling “hard things” on our own.

When you remove the expectation of personal responsibility, you create a vacuum of agency. You turn people into victims of their circumstances rather than masters of their fates. This is why some people see Hidden Scrolls and ancient wisdom as “dangerous”, because it reminds us that we used to be stronger, more resilient, and more accountable.

Older generations accepted responsibility earlier because they had to. Today, many people are financially dependent on their parents or the government well into their twenties. Neither model is perfect, but the shift has fundamentally changed how we answer moral questions. If adulthood starts “later,” then teenage pregnancy feels like an end-of-the-world scenario. If adulthood starts “earlier,” it feels like a difficult but manageable reality.

Image: young couple walking through a rural neighborhood with a baby stroller | ALT: accountability vs responsibility in generational family life

Conclusion: Agency over Victimhood

I’m glad my son asked me that brutal question. I’m glad he’s wrestling with the concept of eugenics vs. trauma vs. life. It means he’s thinking. It means he’s not just regurgitating the “correct” opinions he hears on social media.

Raising kids isn’t about giving them all the answers. It’s about teaching them how to carry the weight of the questions.

Responsibility says your choices matter.
Accountability says you own the consequences.

Whether we are talking about work, family, or the most difficult moral dilemmas a human can face, the goal is always the same: Agency. We need to stop looking to systems to save us and start looking at how we can reclaim the ownership of our own lives.

Keep it real. Keep it disruptive.

, Ryan “Dickie” Thompson

Sources & References:

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Adoption Statistics): https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb
• CDC (Teenage Pregnancy Historical Data): https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy
• Disruptarian Radio: Taxi Driver Interview YouTube Link
• The Ballad of the Great Awakening

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO