Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ethel

  1. Jesus Christ, this is shit hot! How the fuck have I never heard this?!
  2. Self therapy by Jay Earley: A commentary For anyone interested in making the world a better place, (all of you, I hope) shadow work is a must. To date, one of the most effective forms of shadow work I have encountered is Internal Family Systems therapy, otherwise known as parts work. This is the most well-designed and comprehensive form of shadow work I have encountered; being an amalgamation of shadow work, inner child work and disindentification. The premise is simple yet paradigm-shifting; the human ego is not one solid mass, as we had previously been led to believe, but rather, is a composite of parts. Inititally, in the early stages of the formation of the ego a person's ego-self is intact, but through repeated exposure to trauma, it becomes fragmented, parts of it section off, forming multiple selves or 'parts'. This is where, for many people, this form of inner work requires a leap of faith, since most people's understanding of trauma is fairly rudimentary. There are still a great many people whom believe that trauma encompasses only things like fighting in a war, being in an accident, or rape, and although those things do definitely constitute severe trauma, it is simply the case that trauma exists on a spectrum, and those of us whom are more attuned to certain things, like myself, will pick up on the fact that children are in fact many thousands of times more sensitive than the average adult. In other words, children can be traumatized by things that most adults would not even stop to consider, such as being emotionally neglected or abused, being lost in a public place, losing a friend, experiencing a divorce, moving home, being taken into hospital, losing a pet or loved one, being laughed at or ridiculed, being misunderstood or having chronically unmet needs, to name just a few. Naturally, this leads to a few of us ending up with accumulated trauma, and as a result, various psychological and emotional issues in adulthood, which, if not addressed can manifest as addictions, coping mechanisms and defence mechanisms. That being said, this book will be useful to literally anyone. It actually forced disidentification from ego through the way the therapy itself is conceptualised: that every thought, perception and feeling you experience can be attributed to a 'part' and your true, authentic, spiritual self is that which observes all of that inner world. The crux of parts work is that a person works with all of these parts compassionately and with love and understanding; in fact the credo of parts work, a term coined by it's creator, Dick Schwartz is "no bad parts". The system and methodology Schwartz has created, and which is desrcibed here by the author, Jay Earley, is nothing short of genius. To give a very brief and simplified version, your psyche is split into various types of parts, broadly speaking, the two main types of which are 1) "exiles" the suppressed traumas you carry, usually related towards "negative" emotional states and negative core beliefs and 2) "protectors" the parts of you which have been tasked with "protecting" you from having to experience the negative effects of early traumas. These are the parts which contain anger, defence mechanisms and coping mechanisms. During the process, a person undertaking parts work first gets to know the protector aspects of them, who will then, after being worked with, understood, validated and appreciated, grant access to more trauma-based and vulnerable parts, which are often children. I will give an example: lets say that a person has a Mother who is an alcoholic. This may cause very extreme trauma within that person during their childhood and cause longstanding grief for the childhood they never had, guilt because they blame themselves, shame because their Mother verbally abused them and powerlessness because they felt they could not escape. However, people cannot deal with these kinds of emotions as a small child so a part of their self fragments off, creating both exiled parts corresponding to the emotions above, and a protector part which may become very tough, angry or aggressive to keep the trauma related feelings under control. This is a brief and rather oversimplified overview but will give you some idea of what I am talking about. The takeaway from this review, and the overall point that I would like all of you to get is that based on the efficacy of this modality in my own experience, there is literally nobody this form of therapy will not benefit. The creator has even had great success in helping many criminals reform and work through issues which created their criminality in the first place, i.e. neglect, abuse etc, but you don't have to have that kind of background in order to benefit from it. In my own personal experience it has, in many respects, given me a new lease of life and has deepened my capacity for disidentification, even when dealing with overwhelming despair. This is key to the whole practice; parts work (internal family systems) literally forces disidentification because it is built into the design of it that you see all of these aspects of you as separate 'selves' with their own set of wants, needs, likes, dislikes. I would posit that everyone will experience the process differently, and in my own case I do the process slightly differently from instructed. The instruction is to dialogue with these parts without allowing them to overwhelm you (a process called 'blending'), but in my case I allow the parts to blend with me just enough that I get a direct insight into the beliefs, perceptions and feelings of that part but with enough of my authentic self to be fully present with the feelings of the part. The book is incredibly simply written and in fact, that is the key to it's success. It can be utilized by anyone, appreciated by anyone and can, I believe, work wonders in anyone's life. The author has set out a highly detailed set of processes and insights, plus there are also illustrations which can often be highly amusing. I will reiterate again; if you are interested in making the world a better place, everything starts on the inside. Buy this book, do your shadow work, heal, learn about yourself and help deepen your self understanding. This book will be absolutely life-transforming if you allow it to be.
  3. This sounds like a great idea. Some of the journalism they turned out in the week after the queen died was laughable. Ickonic is a better alternative. Even better are books. But yeah, walking away from the daily mail sounds like an excellent idea.
  4. Okay, lets try this another way. Leaving yourself aside, do you acknowledge we are now living in a society in which screen addiction is highly prevalent?
  5. sweet Jesus... that's nightmare fuel
  6. I am astonished you believe this could be a possibility. If you have not figured out by now that the PTB want as many people as possible addicted to technology then you must be walking around blindfolded. If they do, as you say, ban "people like you" from using the Internet then you can consider yourself lucky, although I cannot imagine you will find the transition very easy given the amount of time you spend on this forum alone. I am hearing denial. On the one hand you are continuing entertaining the unlikely scenario that the ptb will give a free pass to people with an interest in conspiracies and allow them to opt out of the mass addiction that is unfolding before our eyes, but on the other hand point out that you are reliant upon the Internet for your job. Do you not see the millions of people walking around holding smart phones in front of them, bumping into things? Or did I just imagine that? Which you can say safe in the knowledge that you aren't going to lose your Internet connection any time soon. Screen addiction is an issue. I'll let you in on a secret. A person can have this problem for years before they even become aware of it. You could have a screen addiction yourself and be in complete denial about it. This is one of the most serious issues facing the human race, it's best not to be flippant about it.
  7. More scripted nonsense; paid actors in a play being acted out for the masses. Yawn. Next!
  8. I experienced the terror too. I was walking in some woods one day and began to feel like I was not real any more. It was caused by terrible loneliness, my mind began to slide and it began to feel like I was watching myself, like in a film. My mind wanted to disconnect, almost, and slide away so that I could disconnect from reality, and the moment, altogether. I was in woodland I had never visited before and was terrified I was going to get lost and confused and end up unable to get back home, or become so confused I wouldn't know anything any more. Luckily I have a strong survival instinct and a part of my consciousness began talking to me and trying to keep me in the present moment. I don't know whether it was survival instinct or a higher self but it spoke to me in a loving way and kept me in the present moment until I got out of the woods and back to an area I was familiar with. The voice also kept talking to me until my mind became 'normal' again. I know it was feelings of isolation which caused it. Which is experienced as trauma. It can happen even if you have folks in your life, especially if there is no emotional depth to the relationships.
  9. I have experienced it. Like dissociation, it is caused by trauma.
  10. Your underlying core beliefs play an enormous part in creating your reality. Your shadow. Do parts work. If you are able to, do it by yourself. If you struggle to do it by yourself do it with a friend OR a qualified Internal family systems therapist. It is the best form of therapy bar none, imo. That should reduce your shadow, including negative core beliefs, but it depends on how traumatic your childhood was. It could take time.
  11. Out of his depth - yep, that just about sums it up. But the thing about these types is, knowing fuck all about something doesn't necessarily stop them from voicing an opinion on it. He has a platform, millions of people listening to him, but very little insight to back it up with. He is the normie everyman type which I dislike so much; think they know something when in actual fact they don't know shit about shit. Their entire lives are lived playing for safety and protection from the in-group - which they resolutely do not deserve. They attain money, resources and connection through being fake as fuck, dishonest, two dimensional cardboard cutouts and I dislike them intensely for it.
  12. I watched the video below in the last 24 hours and by the end of it, was angrily aware of a very particular form of manipulation which is highly prevalent in the majority of the population. This "comedian" is talking about how the media like to divide people. Nothing wrong with that, you might think, but wait! There's more. I will now break down this sly narrative for you below, so that in future you will see this and will know it, will know why it is happening and where it is headed if more people don't start challenging it. Here goes: The guy, whose eyes are far too close together - never a good sign, begins by pointing out that the media like to "stir up division over anything", which sounds absolutely fine, and is also absolutely true. Examples are given; the usual subjects, of course: race, gender, climate change. The everyman with hypotelorism then gives a series of headlines which are designed to further prove his point about how the media are enhancing the division between "left" and "right" in society. The headlines are ostensibly of the ilk that they make leftists look silly, reactionary or just plain insane, which the guy then goes on to explain is simply not true, using a series of clips of (presumably) conservative types using the word "woke" in a critical way before going on to say "it's such nonsense". This is fairly manipulative, since at first, he has drawn you in by pointing out that the media like to play people off against each other, but then fails to honestly acknowledge the weaponisation of leftist politics and the legitimate attack on freedom of speech occurring in Western society. This is a common tactic among leftists when faced with accusations of liberal fascism; they play the "that's so silly" card, in an effort to silence critics of any aspect of leftist ideology by trying to make the criticism appear childlike or insubstantial. He then plays the "everyman" card, using a colorful analogy in which he describes the "culture" war as being little more than "five arseholes on the right, five arseholes on the left, and us (the masses, the majority) in the middle, dealing with their shit, like a festival toilet". The message here is that the "majority" of people are essentially reasonable, balanced people who just want peace and happiness; the kind of people who took the Convid vaccine in order to return society to it's previous state - which was already a piece of garbage if people had but realized it. After a crass swipe at religion (because atheism is cool, don't y'know), the "comedian" then goes on to provide an everyman level explanation of how social media companies keep "us" hooked, before inferring that journalists fundamentally just want to care about truth and justice, but are forced to be "rage farmers" because that's what motivates people. Even on this level, mr. everyman is wrong; what actually drives social media addiction and media consumption is dopamine but never mind. He claims that many journalists create news stories from social media content, which may or may not be true, but the best is yet to come in this seven minute exercise in manipulation. He gives an example (presumably fictional) : "woke snowflakes want to ban jaffa cakes" but once again, if he is arguing that the media are endeavouring to create division, how come all of the "examples" he is using are the ones that make leftists look bad? Where are the headlines, fictional or otherwise, which demean and denigrate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of leftist ideology? Hilariously, he then describes the overall situation as a bunch of "manipulative bullshit" which is astonishing given the insidiously subtle level of manipulation at work in this video. Next, and whilst displaying an alarming case of being unable to talk without waving his arms around wildly, everyman then brings his wisdom to it's conclusion by summarizing that "most people don't care about aggressive full stops... or what curry gavin or stacey eat... they'll happily call anyone by the pronoun they want because they don't want their pronoun to be prick. There is no culture war. It's ten fucking people and a dying media who are trying to keep us divided. That is all it is." At this point the audience clap enthusiastically. The crux here is the everyman's assertion that the "majority" of people will use the preffered pronouns of a transgender person because they aren't "pricks" and that it is essentially motivated by decency and goodness and empathy. This is the crux of the whole video for me because it is essentially the key to the entire message. He is trying to infer that the everyman/everywoman types like him don't rock the boat and take the line of least resistance because of some inherent goodness and I am telling you as an absolute fact that it isn't the case. I have been around these types my whole life, and have worked amongst the so-called normies. I can read them like an open book. Their co-operation with the pronoun issue, or any other zeitgeist is motivated by survival alone, i.e. "going along to get along". In a smaller number of cases, probably not very many, it may be motivated by genuinely not wanting to hurt people's feelings, which in this case would actually be projection, but in the vast majority of cases the person is unconsciously attuning to the practice of using "preferred pronouns" because they know that if they don't, there will be severe consequences, i.e. being threatened, bullied, mobbed, intimidated or shamed. Now, I should point out here, I don't inherently care about the pronoun issue. If someone wants to use a trangender person's preferred pronouns, fine. If they don't, fine. I will let people make their own decisions in life and face the consequences of those decisions for themselves. Likewise I have my own particular way of approaching this issue. What I have issue with, where Mr. everyman is concerned, are his sly attempts to manipulate narratives and manufacture false consensuses; trying to infer that normies accomodate transgender people out of inherent goodness rather than out of nothing more than self-preservation. These types are more than happy to compromise their own integrity, honesty and authenticity in order to receive social rewards, favours, in-group rewards, acceptance and conditional positive regard. These types are more than happy to say "she" even when their mind is saying "he" because they know that in certain instances, they will be mobbed otherwise. Then, they will happily lie through their teeth and say that they were thinking she even when they were thinking he. They have a million selves, they're like gollum on steroids. They are the people whom enabled the convid scam, and are now whining like little bitches in the face of the damage done. These people are unwilling to face discomfort in order to be their authentic selves, and also demonize people whose authentic selves contradict the content of the zeitgeist. Everyman bitches like this guy are why I ain't a people person. I give more of a fuck about these people's freedom than they do - mainly because they don't possess enough insight to realize they have none. This is not about whether you say he or she, I don't give a fuck about who does or doesn't do that. But if you are going to accomodate someone, what I do give a fuck about is that you are honest enough to admit why. If someone is doing it because they just don't want to "hurt someones feelings" (projection) then admit it. Likewise, if you are doing it because you are essentially a gutless coward who goes along with manufactured zeitgeist and social conditioning because you're too much of a pussy to do otherwise, then fucking admit to that, too!
  13. This one below is even worse. Cultural analysis of this stuff is always worthwhile. The usual array of pornographic themes are paraded openly which is a problem when you consider that, as someone else said, children are watching this stuff. Children below the age of puberty will be viewing this video and forming a perception of reality based on what they are seeing and hearing, it is a process known as enculturation. These women either know this, or have handlers, simple as that. My money is on the latter, they are MK ultra slaves. We should not be seeing this kind of thing as 'normal' or healthy. It isn't. The ptb want us to look at this kind of thing and be nonchalant and not see a problem with it. Well if they want to make it adults only and put it behind a paywall, fine. Otherwise, fuck off. This is not harmless or healthy. It is crass, vulgar and desensitising. Even the camera angles and movements are designed to exhaust our orineting response and sink us into a hypnotic state. On my second listen to the song it became even clearer to me that the background 'music" is intended to sound playful and childlike; perhaps like the theme tune to a kids tv show. This is deliberate; the makers of this video, and Ariana's handlers, know this; it is a deliberate juxtaposition of something playful and childlike with something vulgar, obscene and pornographic. At the beginning, two swans swim by in the swimming pool; it is a well-known fact that swans are symbolic of purity and innocence - in a music video accompanying a song about fucking. At 0:59 we see two of the women standing next to an angel statue; once again angels symbolize purity, goodness and innocence. Tilting their heads from side to side in one of the scenes is another deliberately childlike gesture; once again juxtaposed with filth, whilst Ariana's hair-pulling continues the pornographic themes. Ariana's choice of juvenile looking hair clasps contrasted with the whores underwear is another clue, as regards the agenda being pushed here. The same is true of the black woman's hair being put in bunches. There are even a couple of butterfly tattoos on Ariana's arm, which can be seen at 2:19. The monarch butterfly, of course, was one of the mk ultra symbols. Towards the end the three of them can be seen lying in front of an old-fashioned television in the way that children could often be seen doing in old American films and tv shows. I literally cry for the human beings who are children right now, I'm not even joking. The world they are growing up in, the world they are going to be living in by the time they reach adulthood; it's actually terrifying and tragic at the same time. Kids are able to go onto the Internet, go onto the largest video sharing site on the planet and within seconds, see their favourite pop stars rolling around like strippers, dressed like whores and talking about being fucked until the daylight. Imagine you had a child and that they were watching this.
  14. It's actually quite interesting what is happening here. I mean, it is horrifying, but it is also interesting. If you notice, although she is saying incredibly sexually explicit things, she is saying it in a really light hearted, soft and innocent voice, accompanied by soft, light, almost "kiddified" music. In other words, there is a clear agenda at work; make a song which sounds innocent unless you really listen to it, a song which sounds almost like a kids song, but fill it with incredibly pornographic content. Ariana and this song are clearly the product of MK ULTRA mind control projects; the endeavour is to corrupt youth, corrupt youth sexuality, sexualise and "pornify" an entire young generation of girls. All of which is sick, insane abuse. And heartbreaking too, obviously.
  15. What Matt Walsh says about finding someone worth listening to even if you don't agree with everything they say is completely relatable, and it's where I was at with David Icke when I first started reading his books in about 2015. I could not understand or believe a lot of what he said, but I thought it was absolutely fascinating and intriguing and still very much worth reading. We call that an open mind. Graeme Hancock is actually pretty tame by truth seeking standards. Also, his theories that there were ancient civilizations long before even the ones we know about are not unique to him. Both Michael cremo and Michael tsarion believe the same, as does David Icke, obviously. In truth, it is not that uncommon a theory as people imagine it to be, and there is compelling enough evidence to back it up that people should at least approach the theory with an open mind. Whilst I am not really in the same place as relative everyman types like Matt Walsh I respect the fact that he defends freedom of expression and people's right to believe what they want. If I had Netflix, and I don't, I would definitely give this a go.
  • Create New...