All content on this blog is fictional and any resemblance with actual events are purely coincidental. When you choose to read this blog you also agree to not get offended or try and use any content to defame me as a person or anyone connected to me. If you cannot commit to this agreement you are violating the agreement you agreed to by reading this blog. I repeat that by the act of reading this blog you are committing to this agreement of not getting upset or using content in a way that could be considered an act of aggression. If you cannot follow this agreement I urge you to not read.

fredag 31 januari 2014

In Search for Truth Suppression

This post will be dealing somewhat about the use of these psychopathic manipulation tactics in the dealings between people in general, and not only political, as the former post delt with. It's cause to most people in Daily Life we will now and then be attacked by psychopathic minds out to ruin you and your reputation. Normally they'll do it for Money or Power. But sometimes just cause it amuses them. For the fun of tearing you down, more or less. Well, to an observer it seems like that is the only reason, but if you look closer there is almost always a vendetta going on in some way or another. To ignore a psychopaths needs and to put other peoples need before the psychopaths will be enough reason for a psychopath to steal your most precious belongings and share them with her friends. For instance. There is many examples on what a psychopath would do, but they all have one thing in common. It goes totally over the head of all outsiders. They will just not be able to comprehend that what the poor psycho is doing is a vendetta to revenge some ancient wrongdoing the psycho feels you have done them. This is cause it will in many cases be so unrelated and so distant in the time that it will hardly be able even for yourself to understand that the origin of this persons horrible actions today has its origin long time ago, when you ignored her and put other interests before her. That is cause in your world you did not ignore her and you did your best to stay in touch and make her feel included. She still will not like it and will feel like second best and no psychopath will ever accept the position of second best.


So back to the list. A psychopath will dummy up a subject. That is the first thing she will do. To take an example. To make a Court believe she has nothing to do with an errand put forth to them, and she being an innocent party, she will make claims making it out as such. The subject is then stupid as those going to the Court of course went there cause when she was in charge she did illegal things, errors, kept secrets, didn't send out stuff and so on. But she will write like this to the Court:

"As discord unfortunatly occurs I see it as preferable that regard is shown to that the designated administrator is a good communicator and that the person concerned works to get the parties to cooperate again. Also highlights that the parties are represented by themselves and not by spouses or other parties."

Ok, what has she done here is very simple. She has totally deflected from the truth that she's been caught lying and withholding documents, saying they don't exist, and many more complaints. It's not a matter of different opinions, misunderstanding, or anything else I've been told by others she says is the case. Here she calls it discord, like we are arguing with her. We have not been arguing with her, only trying to make her follow agreements and sharing information instead of going over our heads and lying about talking to estate folks who claims - according to her - that summer cottages have been a stagnant market for 20 years, when the truth is it's been a booming market going up hundreds of procent over the general inflation rate. Lying and telling your associates fairy tales are not something I'd place under "discord" but an attempt to fraud. So she dummies it up so the Court will think it's us being unreasonable, dragging in outsiders, not talking ourselves, like stupid imbeciles. It's all lies. Actually it's in real Life HER husband who has meddled. Once he phoned home to my husband and told him to handle me, as if I was out of order for asking a legit question to his wife and she was really nasty in her reply. I've only asked her if what she'd noted was truly the correct value of a car that the car firm had reported. The person who had taken in the report from the car firm acknowledge that she had NOT used the correct figure, hence my question was fair and valid. Still she claimed I now needed to pay what she had dreamt up and not what the car was actually worth. So her husband phoned and tried to talk sense to us, and HE talked to my husband instead of me, like I was an imbecile. Her husband also claimed I lied about a document they are withholding, even though there is a witness, the third party present when I read it, who knows that I really did read it and that this person, the husband's wife, took away the document after I read it. Nothing of this is some little discord and nothing has to do with my husband or the other complainers wife. It's all doings of the letter writer herself and HER husband.


That was point number 1 about dumming up the subject, like it's not even real and never happened. Which is what she's doing there when she tries to explain it, but fails to tell anything about it. There are more things she's very good at and she excel on I would say. If I'd be her professor in the Academy of Lying I'd give her an A for Point 2, which is to wax indignant and put up a "how dare you" act. She is so good at playing the victim she by now has me convinced, and I'm not kidding you. I have to go back to reality and check that she indeed is lying and really rude and brushing me off like a little annoying bug all the time, before I see that she has no right to act that way. She's the one spreading out ever since God knows when that I have mental issues. My co-complainer even got one of those smear mails from her where she wrote that him and her would from now on work together behind the other TWO parties backs, and that BOTH of us was mentally instable. I doubt the party in the US realizes she's been smearing him too, but she has ALOT. So what she wrote up there - "get the parties to cooperate again" and "by themselves and not by spouses or other parties" are pure bullocks. When my co-complainer wrote to the other parties about an important issue they had totally missed in the property care, she even replied to him that she was so thrilled "we are ALL talking again", while I was not in that conversation at all. Only represented by my co-complainer. So, again, she's telling she want us ALL to talk, while in reality is happy I am out of the game. Her talk about her wish for all of us to communicate is there to make her sound like an agreeable person, only out for everyones best. In the next paragraph she indeed mentions that she's the one we put our faith in before, so the logical conclusion by the Court ought to be that SHE is the reason we went to the Court. But by using tactic number 2, showing she is the willing party and only done all her best, she will manipulate them to think she's been wronged, hence a slight act of indignation, but not one of the better ones I have from her:

"As I up to now have signed for the estate I find it of importance that the administrator who is appointed as soon as possible gets a status report of both economy and agricultural activities."


As I said I have really over the top ones where she is totally clothing herself in the White gown of martyrdoom. I have TWO mails from her husband too, where he is doing the same thing and accusing me of all sorts of criminal behavior, and God knows what absurdities he's pertaining to, as the context of them is that he will report me to the police if I don't shut the F**k up. Truth is not very high in value in their marriage, obviously. As I said we went to Court cause we found out she was constantly lying to us. The biggest lie was that she never showed us the agreement she'd signed for a house and now she wanted the whole house for free, more or less. She's been saying since 2011 that she's paid that house two times over. In reality she didn't pay any rent at all for it, no electricity and very little maintainance costs, if any. Many times she even rented out the house as a summer cottage to foreigners willing to spend money in our beautiful country. It was not her house to rent out, but at that time even I believed it was, but the paper she showed me proved it to me that those people telling me it was NOT her house had been telling the truth. Putting together all the rent and all the electricity bills and all she's ever earned on renting out another persons house I think she must have gotten somewhere around 1-1½ million of worth more, and that is before she even managed to swindle the whole house off us aswell. The agreement she had signed with the owner was that she could buy it out after his death at a fair amount, the accurate amount, nothing else. And it was to be part of her lawful share, which is 1/4 of the whole property. For instance, I could at tops get from the estate something like 1½ million at the end. Even if I put all gifts on top of that I will end up far less then 2 millions. If we'd agree to give her the house on top of her 1½ million, she'd have 2 millions already there, and if we added her old gifts and benifits from having this house for free, she'd end up somewhere atleast twice as much of value then what I'd get. And in our country ALL is shared equally if nothing else is stated in a testament, and it's not. All the old gifts and the house rent free I can't do much about, but to give her the house, against the will of the previous owner, is just too much of a nasty criminal behavior for me to accept. She will still end up with 1-1½ million MORE then me, even without a house worth about ½ million. So should I just let her have her way - steel from the dead? What do you think? Perhaps that's the best way when dealing with psychos, who will do anything to harm you if you stand in their way. But is she really a full fledged psycho? Does she really not have any real human emotions?


Her whole life she's been calling me more a mother to her then her real mother, who used to smack her if she had the nerve to disturb her nap on the sofa - atleast according to her, as I've not seen it myself. And it's absolutely true. Ever since she was born when I was at the ripe age of 9 have I tried to look out for her, help her, encourage her, and love her. I knew very much about how to love little children as my "real" mother had taught me all about that. Of course, my "real" mother was a made up entity I had found at the back corner of a closet, while closing my eyes and pretending it was the arms of my real mother enfolding me, while it was just the corner in the wall in reality. I did that alot when I was a very small child and my mother used to have father punish me physically on my bare naked buttom for all sorts of unknown reasons, I remember not having a clue about as at the time. So of course my biological mother was the same as hers, but for conveniance I was the one to look after her, which I in many occasions failed to. I knocked her front teeth out when on a swing, thinking mother took care of her, but she went to look for me and when she entered under the trees tightly hanging branches it was too late and I smacked her in her face, poor child. I think I was an old responsible woman of about 11 years old at the time. Still, it felt horrible to have hurt the toddler, but I really didn't know that I was on babysitting duty at that time, so I did try and have some quality playtime by myself. I did tell her I didn't mean to punch her teeth out and that I had tried to not hit her by parting my legs, which of course only made the damage worse, so was I the dumb one for doing that. It was a reflex and nothing I did consciously as all I didn't want to do was to hurt her. I never wanted to hurt her and it was to her I made up those famous lines I've been telling children in my care ever since. The lines goes like this "you are sweet and kind and wonderful". That was words I could had died to have heard from my biological mother, but she is more talented in devaluation then the other kind.


I will not bring up the third point, claiming all the allegations are paranoid rumours and not true at all, as that one has not manifested quite yet - officially - in the Court case. She does use bringing up straw men on Point 4, when she claims my complaint is about me thinking her choices of administrators are not qualified enough, which I never ever have stated anywhere. I only states in my first request that I do not want anyone from two specific firms. This request is then not acknowledge by the Court, who instead claims that I've stated that I did not want ONE particular person from each of these firms. So they choose another person from one of the firms I've said I didn't want ANYONE from, and that without even commenting on my request, which makes it an invalid judging. Bringing up straw men is used to divert attention from the REAL issue and to make everyone think your opponent is talking about a totally irrelevant subject that is of no concern. Here I have a great example of this in her new letter to the Court:

"The reasons for why (my full name) sees Hakan (surname), Amber laywers, as not suitable can not be seen as adequate. He happens to work on the same firm as Niklas (surname) who in what I understand earlier case at Vaxjo Courthouse on the injured party represented (my full name) of age and no longer living at home son."

The case had nothing to do with the suitability of said laywer, as she puts it, but that I did not want him or anyone else on the same firm my son used, due to the risk OTHERS might think I have an advantage due to that, and also due to the fact she's such a clever smearer. She's also misrepresenting the truth with two statements in this short paragraph: 1) My son's case is ongoing and we are still in close contact with that firm. 2) My son is still living at home and has been living at home all the time this has been going on. It's true he's of age as he'd recently turned 18 when all this came to be. The old age of 18... Well, very recently he turned 19 and he might be moving out as soon as he gets some kind of income. At the moment he has none so what does she think he's living on in his fancy house of his own? Roses and fairy tales? Well, then she might help him out, and top it off with some of all that champagne they like to sprinkle on their little helpers. My guess is that her favorite little helper, the biological mother who used to smack her whenever she bothered her, has read my son's girlfriends Facebook page and she's been bragging to her friends her father rented an apartment to her. Good for her, but it's HERS (actually her fathers) and even if my son spends alot of time in it since she moved there the other week, it happened this month, it's really close to us and he's still officially totally living with us as he can't even pay half that bloody rent with no income. So that's my guess where that little misconception came from. Good old drama Queen mother. I did tell the girlfriend to ban the old hag long time ago, but she pitties the little old granny, who acts so sweet and caring to her, asking about how her dog is doing with us. As if she really cared, dumping the dog in April 2012 on me and never been seen ever after. She's never asked me in any of her mails since I went NC back in April 2013. They are so masters of making people pitty them while they are ripping the throats off their victims.


Here is the proof I was right from the start to oppose to have the lawfirm Amber, as my sister here claims it's to MY advantage to choose this firm, so hence I have no right to oppose it. She wants to make the Court believe that is not the very reason I declined them, which I clearly state to them, that I do not want them as it does not "feel right" to have the same firm we are using. It does not feel right cause my lying sister will and here does imply it's somehow to my advantage:

"If possible it should in that case be to (my full name) positive advantage this connection, but as I presume that Hakan (surname) is a professional and clever professional and Amber attorneys is a serious business I consider that risk not existing. There is no challenge."

Later on in the letter to the Court she describes how her own attorney in her hometown recommended this particular person for the job. It's a lawyer working directly under another lawyer she recommended earlier on. That lawyer was the same lawyer mother and she had contact with in 2005 when they tried to have dad declared "unfit" so I'd not call either of them "unpartial" in any sense of the word as this is the firm they took in to have father declared legally incompetent for re-marrying. So the story how my sister found this lawyer is weird, so weird she even offers to give the Court proof that this is how she found him. No proof on how she found his boss though earlier on. The lawyer Hakan was contacted by us as soon as we found out that he'd been suggested and we told him we didn't want him on the job. Still he ignored our request and took the job, inspite of finding out that we didn't want the affairs of our son being mixed up with these issues. That this attorney so totally ignored us is evidence he's actually HOSTILE towards us, as he never replied to our plead to honour our feelings in this issue. The thought that choosing him would be in favour for me is implanted by my sister so I can never get any fair deals whatsoever, as anything going in my favour will hence on by her and our US-brother be put down to my connection with this lawfirm. You see the manipulation? She knows full well this is the lawfirm we're using and she's known it since atleast September and writing this in January she proofs she wants to make sure I am in the dog house. Cause this lawyer will do his BEST to never do anything in my favour to show the Court he's not partial towards me in any way, shape or form.

Shortly I will post many more letters our two "enemies" have sent in to Court as they are so full of different tactics straight from the list in my precious blog. Go back and read that list VERY carefully. You will surely have use for it in your own dealings with psychopathic minds. Remember, alot of people are not truly psychopaths in general, but are prone to selfish narcissism, where they deliberatly go out to hurt others if it is in their own favor. They will excuse this behaviour with the success myth our society promotes. That you need to be out there and take your winnings to succeed. So they do just that - walk all over other people to gain money, fame, power, property, or whatever they want to get from other people. Alot of the times they will use other peoples work and take credit for it. I say that as in this case my co-complainer has done a horse work to sort things out, and then "she" comes in and sign it, send it in and took all the credit for it in all letters she wrote to the Court. Most she has done is phone people behind our backs, smear me (obviously) and make people believe she is trustworthy and honest. Typical con artist stuff. The taxes she had my husband do, but he really didn't want to do any of it, but she begged him. Now he's mad as hell for her slander that he had meddled without her consent. Not only her consent - like I said she BEGGED him to help her every time. When it comes to the caretaking of the property she phoned a young couple next door, paid them to do some work, but not from her own pocket, and one time she took her 19 year old son up there to cut some of the grass. Not much, but a small part that was seen from the neighbors windows so she thought they'd done it all. In reality I've been the one working the garden with the help of many other relatives on my side and my co-complainers. So what has she done really? Made phone calls, paid others to do work, and had others, including myself, to do the actual work. I did my part freely and gladly, and even paid others myself to help out, but I do not approve of her taking credit for any of it, neither does anyone else. Her hard work is phoning people, she loves her phone and phoning people, cause it's easy to be phony in a phone. Get it? It was a joke.

Psychopaths do not like jokes. They do not get jokes. They get hysterical, angry, threatening, but they never ever get jokes. They might pretend that they understand a joke, but they don't. If they make jokes themselves they are mostly plain insulting to someone and not funny at all, then they'll state that you have no sense of humour cause you got insulted by the insult, they call a joke. They are the jokes, cause they don't get that a joke needs to be funny and not only insulting. If you are mad at someone I can get that you make insulting jokes, but they make them anyways. My joke about the phony phone might seem insulting, but hey, I'm mad as hell so I'm entitled to tell a kind of insulting joke about someone who's been insulting me with smear campaign for God knows how long now just cause she has some kind of grudge towards me. Perhaps it's cause I moved away from home when she was 13? Or that I married when she was 18? Or was it the baby girl I had when she was 20 - shortly she got her hands on that house?

Without the con artists we work well together - atleast we can endure each other. So remember, it's important to find out who are the liars, and who are lied about, or you are decived by evil.

Yes indeed, shortly after I gave birth to the families first grandchild, my little sister, just a girl herself, gets a house to play in none of us grown ups could use when coming to visit. At the time I had no idea and I think it took me a couple of years before I realized that she had "gotten" it, and then I truly thought she had gotten the house for nothing and free, just cause she was worth it. She told me she had and that it was all hers, and I believed her. It took me a few years before I thought it was quite unfair, as for instance I had four times the number of children she had. Oh, she does try and make it out as her old new husbands earlier children from his previous marrige are hers too, but they are not. She's tried to describe herself as a mother of three, while she's a mother of one who divorced her first husband when the boy was five and ever since only had him half time, until he moved totally to his father. I was his godmother, but I hardly ever saw him. There was a time I asked if he could come and visit in the summers, on vacations, but it never happened. Honestly I don't think neither she or the boys father wanted me to get to know the boy and put ideas in his head. Ideas which could have enrichened his life from their total materialism.

Honestly I have a quite resent candidate for causing a typical psycho-revenge. My guess is that a major revenge is about dad appointing ME in 2005 to be the handler of the estate in case he got indisposed due to illness. I seriously doubt someone like her would forget and she did tell us back in 2012 that she'd been in contact with those appointing such handlers, and that dad had not given ANY such directives. Why would he lie to me back in 2005? Why would he show me a paper where he signed it on to me? Why tell me he had booked a time with their office? Someone has been telling fibs, and I doubt that was dad doing it. So go back, read the tactics and look for them whenever you accounter mischief in this World. You will be amazed how many times you will see them used, in media, on forums, everywhere. To reveal this is crucial for all our survival. We need to learn to see when people are pulling the wool over our eyes, trying to make us see things as they are not. Good luck with that, my friend!

IngRuna - Circle of Love

onsdag 22 januari 2014

Manipulation Techniques or Psychopathic Behaviorism?

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression 

1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
After Reading this you  might feel like retreating into this cozy
Hobbit hole? This end of the Fifth World sure sucks big time. 

tisdag 21 januari 2014

En planet, psykopater och själen

A Planet Versus The Psychopaths

En sak jag hörde T.S berätta i en annan intervju kändes nära hemma, nämligen den intervjun med tavlorna och hur han nästan dött och sen kände det som om någon annan kom in i honom och hans gamla jag inte längre var där, fast minnena av hans gamla jag verkar han ialla fall nu ha kvar. Innan vi kommer hit är vi så stora att bara en fraktion kan komma in i kroppen, så min tanke är att inte en annan kom in i honom, utan en del av han själv som inte var hjärtligt trött på det här stället och som med en mer ren själspillra kunde han “vakna upp” som han då gjorde.

Det tror jag är en anledning att jag aldrig riktigt köpte konceptet så jag kunde fejka mig fram och leva “psykopatiskt”, trots all utbildning som borde lett till en gyllene karriär inom näringslivet. Men det kändes aldrig riktigt rätt hur mycket nerladdad hjärntvätt jag än erhöll. Att alltid ha det i bakhuvudet hur verkligheten EGENTLIGEN ser ut liksom tar den väldigt begränsade ambitionen ur en, även som jag just då inte precis fäste vikt vid den kunskapen. Att det inte var dags att tala om detta då hade jag vetat sen jag medvetet la det på minnet 1967 ungefär. Så min tanke är att många gör så när de nästan dör, byter lite av det här enorma självet och låter en fräschare del fortsätta där den gamla velat dö – resa hem (vilket var anledningen att man nästan dog).

En del jag berättat om min erfarenhet av minnesförlust för, vill göra det till något som händer oss alla när som helst, men det var det inte. Tror jag varit med om många såna stunder i mitt 50+ liv att vi tonar bort och missar nån halvtimmes bilväg, men vi VET vilka vi är och att vi har barn och alla känslor för alla vi VET att vi känner. Det känns lite löjligt när man försöker återge en ny upplevelse för människor som förminskar den, men det är ju så människor är. Det okända skrämmer dem. Kanske om man varit en charmig, hypnotisk guru de skulle lyssnat med tindrande ögon. Jo, så är det faktiskt. Vi människor som helhet är BEROENDE av de där “tjusarna”, med en och annan av oss som emellanåt ser igenom det.

Min upplevelse var alltså inte när jag faktiskt upptäcktes vara på dödens tröskel, enligt läkarna, utan senare. Och det var inte någon halvtimmes bilkörning som försvann, utan längre tid och startade mitt i en medicinsk undersökning. Faktum var att jag själv uppfattade det som jag förlorat medvetandet. Kanske helt passande ord för det egentligen - förlorat medvetandet. Strax innan jag var tillbaka upplevde jag det som om jag sov och drömde. Döm om förvåningen när jag ser mig själv körande bilen, när jag tror mig själv vakna upp från en dröm! Tittade ner och undrade om jag åkt iväg i sjukhuskläderna, för plötsligt mindes jag att jag svimmat på sjukhuset. Men nej, “någon” hade bytt kläder på mig också. Fantastisk person, eftersom jag var medvetslös.

Men vem jag var och alla relationer hade jag helt glömt bort, så jag stannade bilen och tänkte att någon i min ålder kunde ju ha barn. Tänk om det sitter ett barn och väntar på mig. Stackars den. Så jag tog fram telefonen och slog ett nummer som stack ut som viktigt. Det råkade (?) vara min mans. Och han informerade mig om att ett barn anlänt till hans arbetsplats, som jag skulle hämta upp. Då mindes jag vagt att vi varit hos en doktor med en tonåring den dagen, men inget mer.

Som tur var visste jag hur jag skulle åka för att komma till platsen jag skulle, fast jag inte visste på ett medvetet plan. Efterhand som jag umgicks med tonåringen på vägen hem så började saker komma tillbaka och det är väl så det är med temporär minnesförlust. Rent tekniskt sett, som vetenskapen vill göra det. Men när jag hörde Sheridans berättelse och tänkte på att jag faktiskt helt och fullkomligt efter jag vaknat till saknat alla gamla bindningar till det som varit och minns saker nu mer som om det “hände någon annan”, som om jag kopplat upp mig på ett medvetande i den här spelplanen och laddat ner det här.

När jag nu tänker tillbaka på saker jag helt blockerat sen väldigt lång tid tillbaka blir jag arg som man blir när man hör om något som hänt ett litet barn, som inte är en själv. Vilket är min genuina själsliga grund, det är bry mig om barn. Om jag hör en sorglig historia om någon annan, speciellt ett litet barn eller en ung fin människa börjar jag gråta. Saker jag inte gråtit för sen jag var en patetisk tonåring som tänkte skriva en bok när jag blev stor om min elaka mamma, kan nu när jag tänker på dem få mig att gråta, som om det är en berättelse jag hört om någon annan. För det är kanske just det som det är - någon annans lidande?

Det är lite konstigt det där att jag inte tänkt på saker och sen nu när jag “minns” dem igen känns de inte som förut i alla år, för till och med hur det kändes förut minns jag, men inte som om jag kände det längre. Så är det som Sheridan säger om honom själv, att hans första “jag” tröttnade och dog och en annan del, hans andra “jag” kom in och fortsatte spelet, eller inbillar jag mig bara att sånt här kan hända vem som helst som nästan dör?

Är det därför jag inte längre kunde tolerera BS? Att massor av gammalt groll inte längre hade betydelse, medan sånt från min egen familjs blockerade historia verkade sinnessjukt? Människor jag haft känslor för, som jag nu ser bara var reflektioner av samma "abusive" mentalitet jag växte upp med, har ingen som helst betydelse för mig längre. Jag går tillbaka och ser att hösten 2011 fanns massor av såna känslor kvar, hur jag än försökt trycka ner dem. Smärta över kärlek som inte blivit mottagen eller kastad i ansiktet som en våt, kall trasa. Nu är allt borta. De var kanske bara reflexioner, smärta per Proxy, för smärta som egentligen kom ifrån avvisanden som litet barn av de som borde älskat mig, hållit mig i sin famn och pussat mig och sagt att jag var bra precis som jag är.

Vad jag sen lärt, efter jag insåg att min familj är inkapabel att på riktigt transmutera sina roller från barndomen nu som vuxna stofiler, är att hela familjen blir störd av sådan kärlekslöshet. Det är inte bara syndabockarna som blir knasiga, inte bara de som utvecklar psykopatiska drag själva heller, utan allihop blir lallande idioter i en sån familj. För alla känner det som om DE inte fick tillräcklig kärlek och kommer sen, långt efter de kyliga föräldrarna gått hädan, bekämpa varandra. Därav fulknep och lögner för att spela ut andra, från de med psykopatiska inklinationer (= lögnare). Och därav attacker och förtal från de som lärts upp att försvara de psykopatiska beteendena. Kanske tror de på sin egen rättfärdighet, kanske innerst inne känner de att de har fått allting om bakfoten, för bevisen är till den andra sidans favör, men det spelar ingen roll, för de spelar bara upp en inlärd roll och kan därför inte gå utanför programmet. Det går inte.

Nu talar jag inte om MIN familj per se, för alla Er som gillar att projicera över allt som skrivs på ett personligt plan. Jag talar om vad jag lärt mig av att lyssna på människor med sjuka dynamiker i sina närmiljöer och hur det sen lever kvar där långt efter den som initierade en sjuk agenda lämnat oss. En sån sjuk personlighetstyp är någon som stämplar barn i tidig ålder, kanske innan de ens fötts, som bra eller dåliga och sen återspeglar denna bild i allt som den sen utsätter de här barnen för. Därmed kan de lyckas skapa människor som ser sig själva som bra eller dåliga. Kusligt när man tänker på det, för det är inte vad de här barnen gör som betyder något, utan vad de stämplats som. I värsta fall kan det sluta med sånt lidande för det negativt bombarderade barnet att denne tar livet av sig.

Den här dynamiken kan vara lite flytande också har jag förstått. Speciellt så länge som någon med den här sjukliga agendan fortfarande är i livet, så kan denne som hämnd för någon mer eller mindre verklig oförrätt straffa ett tidigare utsett gott barn genom att nu göra om den till ett ont. Det verkliga skälet till omvändningen hålls oftast helt hemligt, och istället hittas det på en fullkomligt fabricerad orsak. En sån orsak jag ofta hört är avundsjuka.

Så om DU är arg på person A för att den stulit 10 tkr av dig, hittar person A (eller en annan person som stöttar den) på att du är avundsjuk på den och alla dennes vänner för att de är så framgångsrika och populära, medan du är ensam och misslyckad. Om du är ensam och misslyckad eller inte spelar ingen roll, för de har säkert av egen avundsjuka spritt ut det redan i mindre skala. Nu drar de nytta av denna förvrängning av verkligheten för att det passar dem och får folk att inte uppfatta att person A faktiskt stulit pengar av dig och att du har all anledning i världen att inte lita på den personen längre.

Kändes det igen? Om inte så har du inte levt på den här planeten, utan på planeten Lala-land, där lyckliga lullande idioter bor som föredrar enhörningar och fluff framför den bistra verkligheten. Om du inte vill ändra verkligheten, ignorera den och lulla vidare in i min Blåa Fantasi, mitt blå piller, och upplev sagor och historier från landet längesen. Det här är Kärlekens Röda piller som vågar se det som är för att förstå det och transmutera det genom förståelsen. Målet för mig vore att alla förstod sånt här och verkligen SÅG när de blev manipulerade, till och med den allra subtilaste mind-fuck.

Men det är inte en realistisk dröm för alla som INTE totalt brutit med sitt program och helt glömt bort allt som de trott var hela deras liv och dem själva och allt som var. De kan inte göra den resan. De måste gå genom något så fullkomligt chockerande, som ett personligt 911, för att vakna upp. Många är de som TROR de vaknat, att de sett igenom den dynamik de levt med ett helt liv, men även om man vet det är fel och att det någon gör inte är rätt, så är ens programmering att tolerera det. För det är så programmeringen fungerar och det är DEN programmeringen som fullkomligt deletas när man förlorar sig själv och inte någonting finns kvar en stund, tills minnena laddas ner igen. Men bara för att minnena laddats ner, med känslor och allt, betyder inte att man har samma relation till dem.

För det är mycket märkligt detta fenomen jag lagt märke till att så väldigt många som går NO CONTACT med människor de levt med hela sina liv är såna som stått på dödens tröskel. Om och om igen vittnar de om att det var just det att de nästan dog som gjorde att de vaknade upp. För den snusförnuftige kanske det ter sig som att de tyckte att de inte fick tillräcklig uppmärksamhet och därför tjurar och bryter med sin oomtänksamma släkt. Men tänk om det är något mer, nämligen att någon annan kommit in i dem och den nye har inte samma band till skitstövlarna som den gamle själen hade? Att plötsligt råder en känsla av att man inte kan acceptera de här människorna längre och deras minst sagt märkliga och sårande uppförande. En känsla född ur ett renare sätt att se på något man förut var för hjärntvättad att se.

Just det, minnesförlusten kan helt enkelt ha förstört år av hjärntvätt. Omintetgjort acceptans programmering för idiotbeteenden. När man förut skulle internaliserat, surat lite, klagat nån dag och sen kommit över det, som det så fint heter när man ignorerar problem, så kan ens nya jag inte tolerera skitbeteende. Vad händer då med de som INTE haft en minnesförlust, hur ska de kunna göra samma lätta val? Kanske de inte kan och kanske det inte är meningen. Kanske måste de själva bli plågade länge till av samma elaka skit de på ett plan valt att torteras med och på något vis lyckats att leva med, som om det är normalt och helt acceptabelt. När någon är ledsen för att den inte kan hjälpa någon annan att ta sig loss så är det förstås sorgligt, men om programmeringen är för djup spelar ingen roll vad man säger. Man får bara hoppas att de man inte vill ska plågas mer också vaknar till och sätter upp sina blockeringar mot det som de programmerats att tolerera.

Hoppas du tycker om videon och intervjun. Det finns många till på YouTube och massor av bloggar om psykopati och andra mindre allvarliga störningar, som gör att människor beter sig minst sagt bisarrt mot varandra.
IngRuna- Kärlekens Cirkel