“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label emotional immaturity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emotional immaturity. Show all posts

A Tantrum with a Business Card: Emotional Immaturity & the Impulse to Retaliate



🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Working Paper No. 2025-06-R01

Filed Under: Shame Reflex, Regressive Behaviour, Annotated Pettiness


🧠 Emotional Immaturity & the Impulse to Retaliate

A Field Guide to Petty Behaviour in Grown Bodies


🎩 Executive Summary

Retaliation is not the pursuit of justice.
It is the nervous twitch of the unregulated ego.

Behind the impulse to strike back lies not strength, but fragility in silk gloves — a desperate attempt to reassert control when one’s illusions of moral superiority have been punctured.

This paper is not a comfort. It is a mirror.


I. What Is Retaliation, Really?

Retaliation is what emotionally undercooked people do when:

  • They are held accountable

  • Their behaviour is reflected back to them

  • Their story stops working

  • Their performance is no longer received with applause

It is not righteous indignation. It is emotional indigestion.

"You hurt my feelings with reality, now I will punish you with drama."


II. Why the Emotionally Immature Retaliate

Because to them:

  • Accountability feels like betrayal

  • Boundaries feel like abandonment

  • Accuracy feels like attack

They do not reflect. They react — swiftly, messily, and with a tone of moral panic dressed as authority.

They do not say:

“You’re right.”
They say:
“How dare you notice.”


III. Telltale Signs of the Retaliator Class

  • They rewrite the event to cast themselves as protagonist and victim

  • They confuse correction with humiliation

  • They deploy social performance in lieu of inner work

  • They escalate before they self-reflect — if they ever do

They are often seen issuing:

  • Surprise “concerns”

  • Retroactive clarifications

  • Carefully worded emails in HR-safe language with a subtext of:

    “This person made me feel small. Please make them disappear.”


IV. Retaliation Is Regressive

It is psychological time travel — back to the logic of the playground:

“You embarrassed me. Now I’ll get even.”

What follows is not strategy, but symmetry — vengeance without structure, wrath without weight.

It is the behaviour of someone who cannot hold discomfort, so they throw it like a hot coal into someone else’s lap — and call it professional.


V. What Retaliation Reveals

Far from proving power, retaliation betrays:

  • An inability to sit in one’s own shame

  • A need for external correction to feel like personal persecution

  • A hunger for control over another’s reality, not just one’s own

Retaliation is not a power play.
It is a tantrum with a business card.


⚖️ Conclusion: Don’t Be Impressed. Annotate It.

Retaliation is not evil. It’s just underdeveloped.
It is the psychological equivalent of being bad at chess and flipping the board.

So when you see it, know this:

  • You’ve stepped on something sensitive

  • You’ve threatened someone’s self-narration

  • You’ve made the invisible visible — and they’re punishing you for your vision


🪞 Final Note from the Mirror Court:

Retaliation is a confession.
And in the Archive, we always let them speak first — so we can footnote it later.



💁‍♀️ On the Institutional Failure to Recognise Disability Harm: A Case Study in Bureaucratic Callousness



ON THE INSTITUTIONALISED FAILURE TO RECOGNISE DISABILITY HARM: A CASE STUDY IN SOCIAL WORK INEPTITUDE


17 January 2025

A Formal Reflection on Correspondence with Ms. Kristen House


The Context

It is with both gravity and weary inevitability that I place before the public record the following lamentable exchange — a demonstration, if any further were needed, of the systemic incapacity within certain child safeguarding authorities to comprehend, prevent, or take responsibility for the very harm they so loudly profess to oppose.

The correspondence, originating from Ms. Kristan House of Westminster City Council, responds to my desperate and explicit warnings regarding the medical and existential danger posed to me by persistent harassment.


The Exchange

Sent: 14 January 2025
From: Polly Chromatic (pollychromatic@me.com)
Subject: You Will Cause My Death with All Your Harassment of Me

"You're probably going to cause my death as you continue to exacerbate my asthma with hostile behaviour and disrespecting my boundaries ... if the judge threatens me again, I'm going to make a police report against her.
When you cause my death, all the evidence is here."

Link to Evidence Provided:
https://youtu.be/b_CL0cfe06w?si=O2eumSiUzvxmNayx


Response: 15 January 2025
From: Kirsty Hornal (khornal@westminster.gov.uk)
Subject: RE: You Will Cause My Death with All Your Harassment of Me

_"Hi,
I am afraid that link is not working, are you able to resend?

What happened with the judge? I am guessing you have been in court over the past few days as you are speaking about threats from the judge. What was the outcome?

I also note other emails about panic attacks? I really hope you are ok and that you feel you can reach out to Dr. Reid about these issues.

Thank you Noelle

Kristen"_


❖ ANALYSIS: ON THE FAILURE TO RECOGNISE CRY OF DISTRESS

It is difficult to overstate the extraordinary inadequacy of this response.

In the face of a direct declaration that ongoing harassment is contributing to my respiratory deterioration and placing my life at risk — accompanied by clear evidence — Ms. Hornal's chosen approach is threefold:
— Dismiss the urgent evidence by complaining the link is "not working";
— Gossip idly about court outcomes;
— Refer me back, with breathtaking negligence, to a general practitioner.

No acceptance of responsibility.
No urgent safeguarding response.
No reasonable adjustment.
No procedural reflection.

One might almost admire the unwavering mediocrity — were it not so dangerously unfit for purpose.


❖ ON THE LEGAL BREACHES INVOLVED

The conduct documented herein constitutes:
— A violation of Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 (failure to provide reasonable adjustments);
— A violation of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (failure to have due regard to disability-related harm);
— An interference with Article 8 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to private and family life and to physical and psychological integrity).

It also, quite plainly, constitutes a catastrophic ethical failure on the part of a registered social work practitioner.


Yours, with grave concern and unwavering procedural fidelity,
Polly Chromatic
M.A., Human Development (Social Justice)
pollychromatic@me.com

Supporting Documentation:
Google Drive Archive Link



Documented Obsessions