About Us
Saturday 30 August 2014
Wednesday 27 August 2014
Evidence that Spectrums in Analysis - are Infinite and therefore - Erroneous
Each person is made up of samey stuff. But. All different. Like each leaf, snowflake and identical twin sheepz. So. What has that got to do with shrinkage of the mind? Everything! Wanna know why?
Ahem
You have a spectrum for each emotion you feel. 1-10 (or 11 in my case, maybe up to 993 in the case of a BPD Cluster A on smack)
Your emotions depend on:
1. Circumstances
2. Genetics
3. Personal biology
4. Experience
5. Health
6. Beliefs
7. Social Structures/models
Therefore, psych tests can only ever be a guideline and MH pro's need to lose their NPD superior attitude and start working with clients as the boss they are of their own problems. The acting-out of MH problems is simple display of frustrations at NOT BEING HEARD, believed or understood.
Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
Holocaust Denial and Dresden 'Avengers' - get their facts all NPD Cluster C
because 'accounted' for and 'unaccounted for', are two different stats, you do know this?
Holocaust stats
Holocaust stats
Mind Games of the Powerful NPD's - Mossad? WTF?
From: "Sam Vaknin author of \"Malignant Self-love\"" <vakninsam@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:21:02
> To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>
> Reply-To: "Sam Vaknin author of \"Malignant Self-love\"" <samvaknin@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Follow Up
>
> Thank you for reverting, Fred.
>
> I am looking for an investigative journalist with the pecuniary means to
> pursue a worldwide story.
>
> Before you proceed, I want you to know that I am dead set against what are
> commonly labeled "conspiracy theories". I am incorrigibly - nay,
> religiously - addicted to rationalism. See these, for instance:
>
> http://www.globalpolitician.com/2460-conspiracy
>
> http://www.globalpolitician.com/25203--terror
>
> But "conspiracies" - in the sense of "coordinated actions for obtaining
> common goals in a largely surreptitious manner" - do occur, as you well
> know.
>
> My name is Sam Vaknin and I am the Editor-in-Chief of Global Politician
> (globalpolitician.com).
>
> Thirty years ago, in my early twenties, I found myself involved in what
> turned out to be a global conspiracy. Now, with Osama bin-Laden dead,
> Shabtai Kalmanovich murdered, and my health failing rapidly, I feel morally
> obliged to reveal what I know (and thus also to provide myself with an
> insurance policy).
>
> Before I proceed to disclose more, I would like to establish my credibility
> by providing you with a few facts that can be easily verified.
>
> Between 1983-7 Elkana Gali, Motti Hod, Raffi ("hamasriakh", the Stinker)
> Eitan (of the Leke"m) and other military and intelligence figures worked
> together with me (Shmuel "Sam" Vaknin, brother of Sima Gil-Vaknin, Israeli
> military censor) on a "mivtsa" (operation) so secret that only Eizer
> Weitzman and Shimon Peres (and his businessman brother) knew about.
>
> In 1985-7 Gali, myself, Al Schwimmer, Marcus Katz, Efraim Ilin, and Ya'akov
> Nimrodi (all of them protagonists in the Iran-Contra affair) leased (from
> another ex-Mossad agent) a house in 34 Connaught Square in London. They
> hired the services of Bernard Garbacz (Landau-Morley), an accountant, to
> set up for them an offshore (Isle of Man) corporation named IPE.
>
> As a cover story, we collaborated with KGB agent Shabtai Kalmanovich (Liat
> ltd.) and two Americans (probably CIA agents) Jack Peters and Sheldon
> Silverston ( shelusapatriot@gmail.com ) on a deal involving President Momoh
> in Sierra Leone. When Kalmanovich was no longer needed, the Mossad kidnapped
> him and brought him back to Israel to stand trial. Kalmanovich was murdered
> last year in Russia after he threatened to reveal what he knew.
>
> In truth we, "the Six", were involved in something MUCH bigger, something
> that went awry and led to September 11 and had a huge and lasting impact on
> the history of Israel, the Middle-East and the USA. Something that also
> involves Khashoggi, Putin, bin-Laden, fusion energy, Nessim Gaon, Alexander
> Haig, Ronald Regan, Bush Sr., Olof Palme and many other world leaders and
> celebrities.
>
> Following time done in prison for securities fraud (1995-6), I left Israel
> and am now living in Macedonia (where the tail of the abovementioned plot
> still unravels).
>
> If you know someone who might be interested in my story, he or she can
> verify the information contained this message. If it pans out and if (s)he
> would then like to pursue it, write to this e-mail address and we will agree
> on how to proceed.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to consider this.
>
> Sam
>
> Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. (E-mail : senioreditor@globalpolitician.com Mobile/Cell:
> +38970-565488)
>
> United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent Articles
> Archive
>
> http://www.upi.com/search/?sp=t&sLocation=sStories&ss=Vaknin
>
> Editor-in-Chief, Global Politician and Founding Analyst, International
> Analyst Network
>
> http://www.globalpolitician.com/search.asp?keyword=Vaknin
>
> http://www.analyst-network.com/profile.php?user_id=79
>
> Chronicle Media Group
>
> http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/authors/view/941
>
Racist views not borne from truth - not completley
'In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African
kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade
slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the
Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business).
This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless "civilized" ways to enslave their citizens, but that's another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people).
Then the Muslim trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the "barbary states" of northern Africa. As late as 1801 the USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.)
Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira).
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade". In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the norm. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the "identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor.
It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery became widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: for a long time no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, slavery is a taboo subject in the Arab world). MORE
The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business).
This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless "civilized" ways to enslave their citizens, but that's another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people).
Then the Muslim trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the "barbary states" of northern Africa. As late as 1801 the USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.)
Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira).
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade". In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the norm. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the "identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor.
It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery became widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: for a long time no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, slavery is a taboo subject in the Arab world). MORE
Tuesday 26 August 2014
How To Save Psychiatry and Prevent Crime - Use Apps!
No sane person would want to save psychiatry as it is here in some parts of Kensington in London, but it clearly has some uses in the less able part of society.
Psychiatry needs to assert, very loudly - that psychological testing is used for the identification of behaviours that help identify appropriate treatment but that do not define a person as a sum. This is and has been its mistake for years, not being clear on definition.
A good idea would be to send scaled and appropriate mobile apps to clients, get them to complete MMPI-2 type tests prior to hospital consultation in order to maximise effective therapeutic interventions.
Consults could then be more friendly and personalised with the training of MH professionals in personality profile test implementation, this would help minimise the 'mental capacity' errors like that which happened to me. A reasonable and responsible person with a bad back and stalkers, asking for help, got sectioned for 4 months, was forced to take drugs I didn't need (I'm completely clean, don't drink/smoke/do drugs/habits) lost everything I ever owned. Absolutely everything. It left me very traumatised indeed. Hammers to crack nuts are not always the best thing.
I can understand, I can't forgive.
A social problem isn't necessarily the work of a psychiatrist or police, yet it's currently working that way. We have ''1000's of people'' without liberty at the moment. We need to address this properly and the EU hasn't helped here in the UK.
The 'deprivation of liberty' framework in the UK is still proving to impede on liberty and is open to being dangerously exploited whilst mental capacity testing is not implemented properly, as it really should be mandatory for GP's and Social Workers to ensure service users complete app tests prior to interventions wherever humanly possible. The benefits are incalculable! (I am currently 'autiding' the mHealth course with Stanford , when I can focus)
In order to potentiate MH services across the board, personality testing via apps could prove invaluable to help prevent crime and mismanagement of MH services, if done correctly, randomised and with many tests available in order to minimise fraud.
Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
Psychiatry needs to assert, very loudly - that psychological testing is used for the identification of behaviours that help identify appropriate treatment but that do not define a person as a sum. This is and has been its mistake for years, not being clear on definition.
A good idea would be to send scaled and appropriate mobile apps to clients, get them to complete MMPI-2 type tests prior to hospital consultation in order to maximise effective therapeutic interventions.
Consults could then be more friendly and personalised with the training of MH professionals in personality profile test implementation, this would help minimise the 'mental capacity' errors like that which happened to me. A reasonable and responsible person with a bad back and stalkers, asking for help, got sectioned for 4 months, was forced to take drugs I didn't need (I'm completely clean, don't drink/smoke/do drugs/habits) lost everything I ever owned. Absolutely everything. It left me very traumatised indeed. Hammers to crack nuts are not always the best thing.
I can understand, I can't forgive.
A social problem isn't necessarily the work of a psychiatrist or police, yet it's currently working that way. We have ''1000's of people'' without liberty at the moment. We need to address this properly and the EU hasn't helped here in the UK.
The 'deprivation of liberty' framework in the UK is still proving to impede on liberty and is open to being dangerously exploited whilst mental capacity testing is not implemented properly, as it really should be mandatory for GP's and Social Workers to ensure service users complete app tests prior to interventions wherever humanly possible. The benefits are incalculable! (I am currently 'autiding' the mHealth course with Stanford , when I can focus)
In order to potentiate MH services across the board, personality testing via apps could prove invaluable to help prevent crime and mismanagement of MH services, if done correctly, randomised and with many tests available in order to minimise fraud.
Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
Monday 25 August 2014
Survivors mantra 'I haven't done anything, I haven't done anything wrong, I haven't done anything'
Innocent victims of NPD's - be it emotional/physical/sexual (none are 'worse' - this is not a competition and should never be, each experience is unique) will relate to this. And to phobias and phobic reaction
A narcissistic 'influencer' will never, ever allow you to express an opinion that differs to his. If you do, you will be 'destroyed' NPD's aren't stupid in the least
Schizotypal/Avoidant for example, is ALWAYS the result of long-term 'shaping' (negative influence 'model') from the erosion of natural personality via constant abuse, shaming and fear induction with undermining by older, trusted NPD people, who could instill 'be afraid of everything' - which trusting babies take straight to heart, being afraid is the new 'normal' for them, no matter how contradictory the older 'love' (mother/sister/brother/fad/carer) seems, the child equated the 'strength' with 'corrrect' thinking.
I was fortunate as I was loved by my mother, whom, with hindsight and insight, I believe was a bit autistic but not NPD. However, I had older NPD siblings who are/were, one was schizotypal. He never hurt me. The NPD's/ASPD almost killed me- whilst they were maintaining 'hero' status. Very NPD.
The thing that kept me surviving when I had no personalty, no voice and no sense of 'self' - was great TV shows, that proved I was 'right' - Like 'Little House on the Prairie' and 'Columbo'. TV and radio kept me going all my life. It's great to hear that there is now great advice out there and I recommend these things to help heal from abuse, even if it's 'too late' - you can still recover when you think right! So here's what to do!
NPD's stir and lie. They are great fakers but the 'proof of the pudding' is in how they live. Entitled, scheming, backstabbing and 'phony'.
Get REAL control! 'INSIGHT' !
Identify your labels, identify your feelings,give yourself a narrative - TALK TO YOURSELF OUT LOUD (but quietly, you may have NPD stalker neighbours who WILL get you locked up!)
1. Keep a notepad open all day
2. Write down every decision you make about everything
3 Identify which emotion or combination of, you have
4. At the end of each day, summarise all you learned
5. Understand and note down all feelings of 'reaction'
6. KNOW that your reactions are often a mistake, learn to master all of them - not just fear
Do this for two months, start again as you may fail at first. Keep trying, persist.
During this time, do two things - learn to focus, learn a new hobby.
Meantime, the best books for me (READ THE COMMENTS) are John Bradshaw's
Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
A narcissistic 'influencer' will never, ever allow you to express an opinion that differs to his. If you do, you will be 'destroyed' NPD's aren't stupid in the least
Schizotypal/Avoidant for example, is ALWAYS the result of long-term 'shaping' (negative influence 'model') from the erosion of natural personality via constant abuse, shaming and fear induction with undermining by older, trusted NPD people, who could instill 'be afraid of everything' - which trusting babies take straight to heart, being afraid is the new 'normal' for them, no matter how contradictory the older 'love' (mother/sister/brother/fad/carer) seems, the child equated the 'strength' with 'corrrect' thinking.
I was fortunate as I was loved by my mother, whom, with hindsight and insight, I believe was a bit autistic but not NPD. However, I had older NPD siblings who are/were, one was schizotypal. He never hurt me. The NPD's/ASPD almost killed me- whilst they were maintaining 'hero' status. Very NPD.
The thing that kept me surviving when I had no personalty, no voice and no sense of 'self' - was great TV shows, that proved I was 'right' - Like 'Little House on the Prairie' and 'Columbo'. TV and radio kept me going all my life. It's great to hear that there is now great advice out there and I recommend these things to help heal from abuse, even if it's 'too late' - you can still recover when you think right! So here's what to do!
NPD's stir and lie. They are great fakers but the 'proof of the pudding' is in how they live. Entitled, scheming, backstabbing and 'phony'.
Get REAL control! 'INSIGHT' !
Identify your labels, identify your feelings,give yourself a narrative - TALK TO YOURSELF OUT LOUD (but quietly, you may have NPD stalker neighbours who WILL get you locked up!)
1. Keep a notepad open all day
2. Write down every decision you make about everything
3 Identify which emotion or combination of, you have
4. At the end of each day, summarise all you learned
5. Understand and note down all feelings of 'reaction'
6. KNOW that your reactions are often a mistake, learn to master all of them - not just fear
Do this for two months, start again as you may fail at first. Keep trying, persist.
During this time, do two things - learn to focus, learn a new hobby.
Meantime, the best books for me (READ THE COMMENTS) are John Bradshaw's
Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)