• The differentiation level of organizers and facilitators and thus participants is mild, not wild.

    ByBaffo

    Hunt just shared 2 recordings of him on a situation happening within Human Design events organizing.

    https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DAQG22GBx/

    https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BPWMLBD3J/

    His 2 shares (important shares of personal/individual experiences and perspective) remind me of a topic that is quite large, seemingly important yet so far difficult ‘to tackle’, maybe cause HD is still so young, we are still so new to it.

    Duality vs correctness vs no choice vs 4% vs trajectory vs helplessness and incompetence vs spiritual bypassing vs weaponizing vs gaslighting vs moralism vs new age vs being human vs force fucking HD into a religious mould etc etc etc etc

    https://www.mcha.nl/2024/01/27/i-speak-facts/

    maybe some day we, or future generations can get into it some more. (y)

    An example I have is this, if someone asks if you’d like some cake, there is a response to it, jay or nay, or even if, someone just puts some cake on the table, there can be an Inner Authority reaction to the cake. But no posts, blogs, reels, features explanation videos are being made. We usually don’t even name them.

    When someone triggers however a negative response, they said something negative or false, they ran over you, ignored you disrespected, or even bullied, it is someone seen as if the person is perpetrating, you, then posts, blogs, reels, features explanation videos are being made. And it seems somehow important to name them? I’ve also named quite a few, here on my Blog. Some have been deleted later, cause they apologized, cause I love them. Some were never written but ‘ought to be’.

    There are tons and tons of people that are into HD, that are not for me, and yes I can say loads of stuff about them, as to why, how wrong they are, how not-self they may be, maybe/perhaps, may behave and may be are. Like Hunt mentions, I hope you do not have to explain yourself, when something is correct, and sometimes we just don’t know why something was in/correct.

    Those are the good parts of these shares, great even. However the undercurrent, the personal and individual drama, me versus them, naming them yadda yadda yadda. A large part of the whole (HD Community) is dying for you to explain yourself, so we can agree (!) And if we do not agree, ah yes villains and victims once more !

    How HD events are grouped around people vibing with each other. The differentiation level of organizers and facilitators and thus participants is mild, not wild. We behave amongst each other like 7 year olds. ‘Uuuh you dance weird, you smell funny, I’m gonna tell on you, you can not play with them they are MY friends’.

    Reminding me of this quote by Groucho Marx: “I refuse to join any club that would have me…” to me this true for the larger HD community, I fucking hate their behaviourisms, the religious pretences of what HD is and isn’t and how one should behave and adhere to it. The fucking preachers bitching about my decisions while their own personal lives are riddled with the same fucking bullshit, ‘if not worse’ 😉

    People calling each other psychotic, narcissists and all other kinds of really serious illnesses, for which they have no education to even analyse this, let alone conclude. Just because they don’t ‘agree with you’ while their own personal relations, their relationships with family or kids is way, way beyond ‘complicated’.

    Pretending you are a wolf amongst sheep that need protecting, while they try to eat your liver and some mutton too. Again, 7 year olds… We’re the newbies at this too, however many certificates you acquired, whomever the fuck you interviewed or has interviewed you, or how many clients you’ve ever had. Seven.

    Yet their websites are clean and pristine, priding them selves to be hard on clients, hard hard hard as if that is living your HD radically, as if there ever was a hill with monkeys and they are amongst top monkeys now. Ego/mind masturbation at your expense.

    Even writing about this now, and is why I think it is both a difficult yet important topic, We…. -all- are moralising moralisation. Then again we have become the moralisers, as if there is only one way to be, to live. To live their Design, because they have infringed (?) on us living ours, just like the examples they give about me, and me about them?

    No.

    Something I wrote during my first HD event:
    https://www.mcha.nl/2009/04/10/moonblog-28-4-holding-on/
    Oh the devastation, the disappointment, the resentment, the DRAMA ~! 😀 😀

    The Human experiential way 😉

    The examples given however in the 2 reels by Hunt are important to let newbies (sorry, beginners) know, correctness for you, is correctness for you. A great example of having entered into something seemingly correct for you, and then, life not being static nor stagnant, to realize it is no longer correct (you no longer like this cake), to get up and move. This is golden content. Important. Mechanical, not personal.

    Ok this was somewhat rambling there, which is why I said earlier, a difficult topic I find. No clarity, wisdom, or even singular truth about it, yet.

    So here is some somewhat related Hokshila wisdom 😉
    https://www.mcha.nl/2015/09/03/to-fall-in-love-with-what-youre-not/

    Read More “The differentiation level of organizers and facilitators and thus participants is mild, not wild.”

  • D.A.R.V.O.

    ByBaffo

    Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender (DARVO) is a tactic a person may use to deflect responsibility onto an individual they have abused. DARVO (an acronym for “deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender”) is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. Some researchers indicate that it is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers.

    Process
    As the acronym suggests, the common steps involved are:
    1. The abuser denies the abuse ever took place
    2. When confronted with evidence, the abuser then attacks the person that was/is being abused (and/or the person’s family and/or friends) for attempting to hold the abuser accountable for their actions, and finally
    3. The abuser claims that they were/are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the positions of victim and offender. It often involves not just playing the victim but also victim blaming.

    Origins
    The acronym and the analysis it is based on are the work of the psychologist Jennifer Freyd, who wrote about it in 1997. The first stage of DARVO, denial, involves gaslighting. Freyd writes:
    “… I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower’s credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. […] The offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. […] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.“

    Usage and effectiveness
    Freyd stated that DARVO is frequently used and effective, although the number of people who are inclined to believe a DARVO response decreases once they understand the tactic. However, the examination and determination of who is using DARVO proves to be difficult until the abuser and the victim in a case are clearly established. An example of the difficulty was seen in the Depp v. Heard case.

  • Wake up!

    ByBaffo

    “Het is een epidemie in Nederland aan het worden, het publieke debat is er compleet door verziekt, als het Ăźberhaupt nog bestaat, en het eist steeds meer slachtoffers. Bijvoorbeeld onder millennials, die ‘de maakbare werkelijkheid’ en kreten als ‘biologie is een sociaal construct’ (allebei gaslights overigens) slikken voor zoete koek. Niet snappende dat zij het in ieder geval niet zullen zijn die hier de werkelijkheid gaan ‘maken’. Of zoals professor en strijder van het vrije woord Jordan Peterson tegen een zaal vol Social Justice Warriors (SJW’ers) in Toronto zei – terwijl ze hem monddood wilden maken: “You will be next. Just saying.” Ik denk dan aan de Twinkels van deze wereld, jonge vrouwen die zich gebrainwasht overgeven aan de buitenwereld, without a fight. Het is treurig.

    Stuk rood vlees
    Kun je het ze kwalijk nemen? Een fervent gaslighter, zoals Jeroen Pauw gisteravond weer bleek te zijn, presenteert zichzelf altijd als rechtschapen en fatsoenlijk (‘een beetje bad boy maar ach, vrouwen verslinden is mijn enige zonde’) en wisselt strengheid en doortastendheid af met kalmte. De vermomming is er om de gaslight te laten slagen. “We gaan beginnen”, zegt hij dan altijd. En ik denk dan, ja dat weet ik. Het is goed te zien, als je het wilt zien, hoe Pauw -altijd- bepaalde mensen stress aanwrijft door hun ervaringen te bagatelliseren, te ontkennen en in een ander daglicht te plaatsen. Het is naïef te denken dat hij daar geen speciale reden voor heeft of dat hij slechts ‘kritisch ondervraagt’. Wie bij hem niet goed op eieren kan lopen, wordt ontgoocheld en beduusd, als een stuk rood vlees gevoerd aan de andere gasten die met hem of haar mogen doen wat ze willen. En dat gaat vaak op dezelfde voet verder. In de NPO dog-eat-dog sfeer wil immers iedereen graag aan de goeie kant van de streep blijven staan.

    De gaslighter heeft bijna altijd succes en houdt altijd schone handen omdat er een spanning wordt opgebouwd waar hij onmiddellijk van profiteert (op tv is ontregeling ook zo gedaan) en er tegelijkertijd niet rechtstreeks op kan worden gepakt. Het waarom is niet zo ingewikkeld. Narcisten gaslighten en mensen in narcistische systemen gaslighten, met een vanzelfsprekendheid zoals water stroomt en bomen hun bladeren laten vallen. Gewoon omdat het moet. Als ze het niet doen, dan betekent dat dat zij, of het systeem waarvan ze afhankelijk zijn, ophouden te bestaan. Zo kwetsbaar zijn ze, maar zoveel macht nemen ze, om van anderen hun goedgelovigheid en empathie te kunnen leven.” Sietske Bergsma

    Lees meer: gaslighting en secondary gaslighting is dagelijkse kost als je het eenmaal ziet
    en in onze door gaslighting verlichte maatschappij wordt iedereen langzaam gek