Many people believe that Latin is dead. In a society where Latin is the undercurrent of all Romantic Languages, its offspring are alive and well.

Chris Hedges, in the first 14 minutes of this video, 00.18- 0.14.50 Chris Hedges – American Psychosis, Chris speaks of the dysfunction of our totalitarian state. He says, “We have blissfully checked out.” He has watched societies collapse. He is watching America collapse before his eyes. He says we misunderstand, not only the world, but who we are in this world. He says that nature of illusion is designed to make you feel good. It functions like a drug.

Chris Hedges said in America: The Farewell Tour – Chris Hedges at The Unitarian Church of All Souls 14:15

George Orwell understood that cult leaders manipulate followers primarily through language, not force.

This linguistic manipulation is a gradual process. It is rooted in continual mental chaos and verbal confusion

Lies, conspiracy theories, outlandish ideas and contradictory statements that defy reality in fact soon paralyze the opposition.

Let’s talk about language in a d o p t i o n, or child trafficking.

Mothers, in the beginning, had no words. They were simply erased. Then, they became birth mothers, mothers for the moment they gave birth, then their role and identity banished thereafter. Birth mothers vs parents vs adoptive parents (always in the act of adopting).

From dictionary.com

Surrogate: (noun)
a person appointed to act for another; deputy.
a substitute.
a surrogate mother.
regarded or acting as a surrogate: a surrogate father.

verb (used with object), sur·ro·gat·ed, sur·ro·gat·ing.
to put into the place of another as a successor, substitute, or deputy; substitute for another.
to subrogate.

So, who was picked to be the surrogate? Well, for those of us who gave birth, those who a d o p t e d our trafficked children replaced us, so that makes them the surrogates.

Now let’s talk about gender identity. One used to be a birth mother, we tried to change to natural, or erase the prefix altogether. Many found this term hateful and disrespectful.

Now, women and men are told to use another term, cis.

Cis (noun)

a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin meaning “on the near side of; on this side of” ( cisalpine ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( cisatlantic ).

We now have replaced birth mother with birth parent. Women, mothers, are asked to use cis to explain that we mentally and physically identify as women.

From their perspective, I should state that I am a cis woman birth parent. How detached can I become from my own identity? As much as I let them. I reject all these terms. I will not willingly allow myself to be labeled by men, by oppressors, by cult leaders, by people who speak on behalf of those attempting to erase me. I am a mother. Perhaps if they enjoy extra words to define themselves, we can start using birthchild. A child I gave birth to.

I will not let people who intend to erase me, define me. I will not be labeled as birth to separate the reality of my experience in becoming a mother. I will not be put to the cis, to the side of the identity of (new) woman, or those who were born men and call themselves women. I will not let myself become erased.

I am a woman. I am a mother. Hear me Roar.


Often times, people explain to me that children are often loyal to their surrogates (when trafficked).

I think it’s important to bring in other paradigms to consider what this really means, and instead of making excuses for traumatized people, let’s hold those committing acts of violence accountable. Oh, wait, they are the ones with the money and the power. Let’s just give them a free ride.

Okay, so surrogates hire an agency and a lawyer. They are either well aware or blissfully ignorant that they hold the power in the a d o p t i o n trafficking game. They try to picture themselves as heroes, rescuing a child from some terrible fated existence. But, no matter how much they lie to themselves, the reality is that that child has a mother. That child has a family. Surrogates are (usually) infertile. And, of course, a d o p t i o n does not cure infertility. They cannot empathize with the mother’s temporary situation. It just morphs it into schizophrenia. But, that’s besides the point.

From dictionary.com

noun, plural loy·al·ties.

the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.
an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like


faithful to one’s sovereign, government, or state: a loyal subject.
faithful to one’s oath, commitments, or obligations: to be loyal to a vow.
faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend.

Origin of loyal
1525–35; < Middle French, Old French loial, le(i)al < Latin lēgālis legal

Hm. Now that I am going into the language of it all, and considering the re-phrasing of my experiences, I am starting to see a d o p t i o n trafficking in a new light. After all, in a systemic force, I'm going to pick a part this legal point.

If we consider who has the power in the a d o p t i o n trafficking world, is it the surrogates? Obviously not the parents or the birthchild. If the tables are turned, and surrogates want contact with the parents, or want the records open, or want the original birth certificate, suddenly they are no longer with the upper hand. So, who wins when adoption trafficking happens? Well, those in power. After all, birthchildren and parents of loss often end up with mental health issues, so there's a pharmaceutical bump. Of course the agencies, lawyers and judges make tons of religious tax free multi billions of dollars. The judges, and the court system ultimately hold the keys of the information and data. They know how many adoptees end up in psych wards. They know how many mothers and birthchildren commit suicide. I think about Louise Wise and the Three Identical Strangers” movie. Check out that awesome article.

Three Identical Strangers charts a twisted tale of love and sorrow, weighing human cost against scientific progress. It explores the alchemy of three families brought together unexpectedly and plumbs the depths of the scientists’ deception. But it doesn’t—it can’t—answer all the brothers’ lingering questions. There’s still too many powerful people working too hard to keep the “Twin Study” under wraps.

Or better yet, go watch the documentary.

They know how to redesign our culture into a mostly compliant loyal society. They know the power of separating people, destroying communities, destroying constitutional memory.

Loyal = Legal

When people lose their constitutional memory, they lose their history, they lose their power to impact the world around them. They become self-destructive. Loyalty (Legality) to others means that they are not free to use critical thinking, judgment, to grow and mature into who they want. Loyal is different from respectful. We can respect our parents without being loyal to all that they are. I hope my daughter grows up, learns, and teaches me something new. I hope she can outgrow me. I don’t want her to be loyal to me. I want to nurture her to the best of my ability and set her free so that she can be a light to the world and maybe help to make it a better place. Loyalty is also like a trap, keeping people locked up in a particular paradigm.

Loyalty (Legality) to a Party line. To a religion. To an organization. To an individual. To a concept. It is a cage.

So, to complete the thought… loyalty in a d o p t i o n trafficking isn’t necessarily loyalty to the surrogates, but rather, loyalty to the legal system that defines the roles of all those affected by the adoption trafficking system. It just so happens, by design, that the surrogates are in alignment with the legal (loyal) system, are thus rewarded by the legal (loyal) system, and thus raise those to also be in alignment with the legal (loyal) system.

Imagine if infertile people were actually outraged about being infertile. Imagine if they actually used their anger and directed it at those who created the situation (ie. global warming, pesticides, pollution, glyphosate, et al). Then they would not be so rewarded by the legal (loyal) system.

I’ve been reading and watching Chris Hedges. I came across this article. American Psychosis
By Chris Hedges

I was considering the schizophrenia of child trafficking or the words of the oppressors a d o p t i o n. Where mothers and fathers are ripped of their child because of economics or politics, it’s one and the same.

I’ve been thinking about this, because recently the first child I gave birth to, my birthchild, who was trafficked, contacted me after 20 years. She said that DNA doesn’t make a family. She would have contacted me sooner, but every time she started to send me a message, she was filled with so much anger. Anger at me manipulating her, and attempting to interfere and destroy her family. Of course, she has never asked me my experience or version of the story. No consideration that the family she and I had, was destroyed by her surrogates. No realization that I did not make a decision, that one was made for me.

And, more so than other things, that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t be mad at someone for trying to contact you, and feel that you may have contacted them if they hadn’t interfered. Reason being, that if the interference hadn’t happened, at least in her case, she wouldn’t have been told she was adopted at all. Of course, there is the illusion that perhaps when she was 18 they would tell her. But, since they didn’t have that opportunity, one can’t bank on that being the case, especially with all the other lies. She said that it was my grief, not my love, that did all of those things.

But, I don’t need anyone else to tell me my feelings, or my reasons. I’ve had that my whole life. I am a woman, after all. And, I have stomached the lies of those who snatched and killed my birthchild. My birthchild. I will not stomach their words through her mouth. I am free.

But, I do realize this. That the schizophrenia of a d o p t i o n was not played on only by those who stole my daughter, but also by me. You see, for all these years I have made mistakes. I have tried to see into her life, to reach out to her, to convince those that erased me from her to let me in. I thought that my love for her would be strong enough to make her curious, to guide her back to me. But, she was somewhat right, for it was not just love, but also grief that guided my actions, though I would say more love. How can one, whose birthchild was ripped away and turned against their own mother, act without grief? And, it was not my decision. I thought that when she was just old enough, that she would reach out to me, and want to know the truth of what happened. But, as Chris Hedges explains, we are psychotic here in America. We don’t want to know the truth. It hurts too much. This was my psychosis. That somehow we could reunite, that somehow that bond had not been broken. That somehow I could be a part of her life, even in just glimpsing her world through her public social media pages. This was not so. I was like a stalker looking at a stranger. This stranger was not my daughter. For, no one is truly themselves on a screen. I was looking at my computer. Images of illusion on the screen. Her illusion that she crafted, not for me, but for herself.

Today I let go. I released the burden of someone else’s feelings. Someone else’s life. I am no longer responsible. I know the truth. I let go of the psychosis that has kept me prisoner for 20 years. I set myself free.

The Thing Is
by Ellen Bass

to love life, to love it even
when you have no stomach for it
and everything you’ve held dear
crumbles like burnt paper in your hands,
your throat filled with the silt of it.
When grief sits with you, its tropical heat
thickening the air, heavy as water
more fit for gills than lungs;
when grief weights you like your own flesh
only more of it, an obesity of grief,
you think, How can a body withstand this?
Then you hold life like a face
between your palms, a plain face,
no charming smile, no violet eyes,
and you say, yes, I will take you
I will love you, again.

I had been on social media for many years. Over and over, I got frustrated and would delete and start over.

I had a number of acquaintances that I’ve met and was connected to through the family preservation movement.

I recently found myself also connected to other movements such as the Vaccine pro-choice movement. And, feminist movements, and, so many more.

I started to see that those on my friends list didn’t just disagree with some of my other political stances, they would go for the jugular. I had a friend who was pro-family preservation, anti-Trump, Anti vaccine-choice posting videos of ZDogg, who was in a similar fashion to Trump with his attacks against those who want to selective vaccine, delay vaccine, or who don’t want to vaccinate at all. I found this all very disturbing. So, Trump and his ilk are bad, unless of course they are attacking people whose views you don’t like, then they are good.

Oh boy did I see this as a dangerous path. So, I cut the cord. It sucked, because there are a lot of really good people on Facebook. I had a lot of really positive relationships. But, I also had a number of people who have also jumped ship from Facebook for similar reasons.

Then I saw an email from Richard Gannon, The Spartan Life Coach, who I’ve been watching for years. He has been instrumental in my life with exposing narcissists, narcissistic abuse, and healing from relationships therein. He interviewed Sam Vaknin, Psychoanalyst, in his video, “Sam Vaknin: the TRUE toxicity of social media revealed”.

Same had some good main points I’d like to go over:

1) Signaling triggers anxiety. The type of performance anxiety that occurs on social media by posting creates extreme anxiety. This has led to a heavy increase of suicide rates in 12-24 year olds, and of those, 85% are girls and young women.

2) Vaknin describes this experiment as a “massive engineering of psychology” that is affecting billions of people. One group of people of about 2 billion people who have one type of psychology (who use social media) and about 5 billion people who do not use social media who have a completely different type of psychology. We are the social experiment of a massive scale.

3) Know the people behind Social Media: Vaknin states that the people who created social media fit a very well defined profile. All were 1) Men. 2) Schizoids. Socially inept. Recluses. Hermits. Nerds. 3) Asexual, or low sexual activity. Vaknin states that they created social media in their own image. He says that since social media was created by schizoid, asexual, asocial white men, they created the tool geared towards people like them. Rather than use all of these traits, I am going to use the word “schizoid”, to refer to these men and their profile as it relates to social media.

My own take on this, is the chicken vs the egg question. Which came first in regards to those who use social media: Were the mass population full of schizoids, or did social media turn people into schizoids?

Vaknin has a response to this, too. Bear with me.

He states that because people who do not fit the profile of the schizoid, there is dissonance happening within social media. Some examples are:

Of people who are exposed to screen time using social media: Anxiety increased 20% in teens since 2007. 17% of all teens with anxiety have extreme life threatening anxiety / depression compared to 3% ten years ago. Those exposed to screen time have a decrease in happiness, satisfaction in life, self esteem, while other feelings are enhanced, such as loneliness, anxiety, and depression. He states that 63% of instragram are unhappy. Teen suicide has climbed 31%.

Royal Study of Public Health on social media.

Vaknin states that Social Media is a conditioning tool. It uses relative positioning, which uses our base emotions such as pathological envy, aggression, frustration, and fear.

Social constructed around pathological envy, quantify algorithms with envy and then leverage envy to motivate people to do some course of action. They weaponize envy and other emotions.

All social media encourages aggression in its algorithms in the way that they foster interactions. It encourages peer pressure, gang stalking, brutal honesty. These platforms have been designed to conditioned to have repeat compulsive use. The algorithms that condition repeat compulsive use are aggression, pathological envy, resentment, hatred, and so on.

For example, to foster love would not have the same effect. Love does not motivate or create repetitive actions or foster addiction. Stalking, infatuation, etc are pathological states. These platforms are designed with pathologies in mind. You can’t enhance volunteerism or love and expect repeat usage. It is no wonder, Vaknin states, that social media became a platform for hate speech, fake news, bullying. They were built for it.

Facebook was built to be addictive to children: Former manager compares social network to a slot machine, while the creator of the Like button confesses the tool can be devastating to a users’ sense of self-worth

Twitter limited their characters to 140 characters. Aggressive speech acts are shorter than words of love, for example. Therefore, the limited space available on twitter is also an intentional platform for aggression.

Love, compassion, is effusive. In order to engulf, to accept, to glow, and positive emotions, you need to work hard.

Vaknin states that PBS has come out with interviews with Facebook and determined that it was sinister in its creation. Vaknin states he agrees, that social media, including Facebook is sinister Because of its design from a psychological perspective.

On a similar note…. and especially speaking to Sam Vaknin’s reference to social media being sinister, I need to point out what I recently read.

In the book, Female Erasure, What you need to Know About Gender Politics’ War on Women, the Female Sex and Human Rights, in Chapter 23, “The Girls in the Grasses”, Lierre Keith writes, “Patriarchy is the ruling religion of the planet. It comes in variations…But at the bottom, they are all necrophilic.” Later on, she writes, “…there’s no material reason the destruction must continue. The reason is political: the sadist is rewarded, and rewarded well. Most leftists and environmentalists see that. What they don’t see is the central insight of radical feminism: his pleasure in domination.”

Sam Vaknin goes on to state that positive and negative incentive to regulate behaviors and emotions. He says that in social media the negative and incentivized negative emotions change behaviors, and alters the neuro-plasticity of the brain. Participating on social media exposes people to psychological toxins. Vaknin states that he believes social media is the most asocial tool ever created. It makes people feel bad, and then they withdraw from people. Social media created an unprecendented wave of withdrawal as a reaction to the negativity. On the other hand, those who have aggressive tendencies would find social media the ideal place to go to. This makes social media even more toxic creating an endless feedback loop. It enhances, amplifies and connects these like-minded aggressive dangerous crazy people. It creates a Network effect.

We have numerous ways of connecting. Why choose networking? Such as moderating, forums, etc. We were brainwashed to believe that social media could only be a network model. It is not true. It is the only model that has a network effect. This model was selected on purpose. It leads back to an epidemology. They are an epidemic. Infection, by way of intellectual, emotional, psychological, spreads like a virus, plague, you spread social media. They chose the only model that is self propagating, self replicating, invades your dna (psychological dna) alters your brain by neuro-plasticity, conditions you and later gets you addicted. It creates shared psychosis. It creates Mass hysteria, Death cults, including teen death cults, school shooter role models.

Vaknin was an editor for wikipedia. At one time it was a network. It became a cesspool for hate speech, misinformation, slander, etc. When it went back to a curated venue, the hate speech and violence.

Social media knew about the network design, they made their algorithms to cater to pathologies in its most extreme form. It was intentional.

Richard Gannon asks Vaknin about the split off between the psychologies between those who use social media and those who don’t. He said that those who used social media would be more pathologized. Vaknin agreed. He stated that this is the first time that this is happening. Two billion people are conditioned and addicted to social media. Of those 2 billion, there is no way to predict how many of them will stay on social media, but some proportion will. They will become more sicker, more anxious, more depressed, more suicidal, more in need of therapy, more automatized, more schizoid, less functional. This group would be on an island. They would live on social media. They will swap the delusional world for reality. They will fail the reality test, which is the definition of psychosis.

There has never been such a large number of people who in human history, going mentally sick, so I can not predict what will happen.

It was designed to conditioned. Reality has the potential to heal people of anxiety and depression. This is how we come over grief. What do you do if you are firewalled from reality? And you only have a toxic environment? There is no cultivating influences. They are spread everywhere, men and women, every socioeconomic, every race, all over the world. They are like seeds. They are a group of people exposed to the virus of social media.

Vaknin also states that, like other viruses, social media is self-limiting. 20% of social media users disconnect, delete their accounts and sometimes even give up their smartphone. Other self-limiting behaviors include retreats which do not allow any social media or cell phones.

Even still, there may still be 1 billion people that remain on social media. In physics this is called a phase transition. Its such a big number, that it will have a universal or pervasive effect on humanity. We still don’t understand the extent of the pathology that will happen to those who stay on social media.

How will the healthy people accommodate these people who are on social media. What will happen to those who apply for social security because they can’t stop being on social media. Legislation.

As we dealt with the previous epidemics, we will have to deal with this. The social media epidemic, it is most reminiscent of zombie movies. In other plagues, people die. But, in the social media epidemic, those who are healthy will have a difficult time relating, even through empathy to those who are on social media. These people will live in multiplayer games. It is an alternate reality for them. These people try to talk like they are in reality, but they live more in the computer rather than outside of social media. The effects of social media has been disastrous. Teens prefer to engage with other teens through social media. Teenagers dating has dropped by 63%. Sexual relationships in teens has dropped by 50%. Teenagers sit next to each other texting each other, not talking to each other. This has an effect on family formation. Sex is at an all time low. And reproduction. Less than 1/3 of people under 24 are considering having a family.

More than 1/3 of people under 24 are homosexuals. Vaknin makes a strong disclaimer that he has nothing against homosexual people, he respects homosexuals. But, homosexuality reflects a basic. We know that the historical figures within a certain range, and it is inconceivable they are within a certain range. It is inconceivable that the sexual orientation or sexual preference of people would triple in less than 6 years for those under 34. Vaknin believes that one cause is social media. He states that it is much more comfortable to interact with those of your own gender if you are not face to face. Social media enhances like minded people, as a bubble. People are likely to gravitate towards others who agree with you, who think like you. You will read articles that you agree with. You will see these on your feeds. Social media feeds back what it knows you will like and read. It is easier to connect with people of the same gender, the same socioeconomic status, the same political view, same sports preferences, and so on.

Homosexuality is autoerotic, it is a form of masturbation. It can be as profound and rich as a relationship of two genders. However, homosexual relationships have something that a heterosexual relationship lacks, which is that you are making love to someone of your own gender, in other words pronounced autoerotic elements. This is what social media does. It fragmented society into identical groups. Vaknin calls this identicalness. Identicalness is the tendency of propagating only with people who are very very very much like you. Such as the “selfie” which is someone interacting with yourself. Selfie became popular in 2015.

As far as autoeroticism, heterosexuality is very different, it is heteroerotic, having sex with the other, and there is homosexual which is having sex with someone who is 50% like you, and is autoerotic.

Then there is selfie, which is having sex with yourself, masturbation. The main sexual activity of internet users among men between the ages of 15-45 is masturbation, 51% use pornography to masturbate. Of men, it is 90%. Women do it much less. We have a situation of having sex with ourselves, physically and psychologically, falling in love with ourselves. Developing emotional investment in ourselves called cathexis. We starve when we are emotionally invested in only ourselves. So, then we go through the process of object relations, where we begin to invest emotionally in other people. Social media reverses this process for us, it makes us regress back into the state of investing emotionally only in ourselves.

In Female Erasure, Lierre Keith states that “The real brilliance of patriarchy… it sexualizes acts of oppression… Men become real men by breaking boundaries…The sadist is rewarded with money and power, but he also gets a sexual thrill from dominating. And the end of the wold is a mass circle jerk of auto-erotic asphyxiation.”

Vaknin goes on to say that social media encourages primitive, infantile, baby like defense mechanisms. Such as splitting, friend/ enemy / you like /dislike, binary state. Today there are emojis, but most people don’t use them. It is like / dislike. Black /white thinking, catastrophic thinking. That is why conspiracy theories take off. Social media caters to the most primitive behaviors, traits, defense mechanisms. This is by design. I could see a society where social media is banned.

Richard Gannon stated that if social media is this toxic, then reducing it wouldn’t be enough. The only responsible thing to do would be to stop it, shut it down. If it feeds off of anger, envy, and regression-

Vaknin states, Regression, when you regress, you don’t have impulse control. It is very dangerous, very sick pathologies.

There is a direct link on three continents, anxiety depression and suicide in the most vulnerable group. If there was a legal drug that caused this, it would be banned.

Why not limit social media usage to 2 hours a day? It only enhances the proposition, that it is an epidemic. If social media built it to be addictive, why not start out with limits. He compared it to tobacco and the addition, they knew it was addictive setting out.

But, social media is conditioning is much more severe than addiction. It affects Primal Conditioning. The most terrifying thing isn’t not to have food, not pain, not weather, but to be ostracized, to not belong. People prefer to die than to be ostracized. Priests in the Catholic religion, they ex-communicated people by punishment. This is what social media.

If you don’t behave in certain way, if you are not negative, use hate speech, you will not get likes. If you want to be liked, be aggressive, dumb down, keep it simple stupid. Trial and error, if I am stupid the more likes I have. If I don’t tell people I know something, I get more likes. Social media makes people deny key aspects of their real self. Makes people conform into a regressive, aggressive, dumbed down, in one word a NARCISSIST.

Richard Gannon talked about how he took a selfie and got the most likes he ever received.Vaknin says it forces people to hide themselves, and to lie to themselves. Vaknin states that there is a tiny voice inside us saying, what are you doing? when we post things on social media. So it also forces us to fight with ourselves. This creates internal dissonance. Sharing a selfie automatically opens a person up to vulnerability, to haters, to attackers, and so on. When people post a selfie, their anxiety shoots up. People then become clinically depressed. We have this when we have inner dissonance, when we deny ourselves, creates depression.

Why do people do it? Conditioning. The only reason we do things we don’t like is because we are either conditioned or addictive. One of the main features of addiction. A drug addict gets up, steals money, contact the pusher, and get the drug, the product and gets high. It has meaning.

Conditioning is completely automated and robotic. It doesn’t give meaning. Push lever, get result. Push lever, get result. Social media is condition. It is simple, it is anti-complex. The simpler the activity, the more likely it is conditioning.

Richard Gannon asks about the age regarding social media.

Vaknin states that there are three groups exposed to the internet.

Those exposed at 20years old and older. Used as communication, social network; they would miss out on the most sinister parts. Experienced a family, extended family, nuclear families.

People exposed at adolescent. They would tend to use social media for competition, positioning, connecting for specific purposes, for preferences, emotionless, therefore, they are pretty safe. Mostly single parents.

People who were born as a digital natives, with a tablet. These people are doomed. There are 6, 9, 10 years old communicating on social media. Response is fast. Any effects are immediate, every other mode of communication is lacking. It’s too slow or accurate. It’s too all-encompassing or too intimate. It shapes their brains and reflects their brains. Primitive, defense mechanisms are activated, peer control. They haven’t experienced anything different. Difficult to understand the problems of social media. Not inter-meshed in other social interactions or units, there is no control over usage of social media. These young are joining self mutilating cults, death cults as early as 9 or 10 years old. There is no world in social media, it is the world for digital natives.

These are simulated people. They are in the matrix already. They experience life as a member of the matrix. Their families are in the matrix. They don’t ever, or rarely see them in real life. They are denizens of the matrix. They live inside a simulation. The difference between a 35 and a 15 is years old, is not quantitative, it is qualitative. The 35 uses social media as a tool. The one who is 15 lives inside social media, up to age 24. They perceive reality as being unreal, and social media as real.

This is an unmitigated catastrophe. They will make decisions not based in reality, bad outcomes, disasters. Someone who is a lot younger. So what, reality is a simulation. Reality is a simulation. If we are allowed to plug into the matrix, and I can control the program. So, say I plug into the matrix, I experience a partner, children. I put the information into the computer. I live this way for 70 years until I die. Would you say I didn’t have a family? They are not made of atoms, so what. The emotional reaction is identical to a family made of atoms. There is no difference in principle between simulation (made of electric currents) and reality (made of atoms).

In terms of meeting someone on social media, why does it need to be ambiguous?

Vaknin says that the opposite of ambiguity is intimacy. Whenever we meet someone for the first time, it is always ambiguous. Once we get to know someone, they become less ambiguous. Relationships end in certainty, either ending.

He says that social media is designed to dissuade intimacy, to foster ambiguity. The reason is because intimacy reduces the need for addiction and conditioning. When people are in an intimate relationship, it uses all of our

Intimacy competes with social media. It has social activity. You meet family, friends, etc. We are intimate with networks around this person. It renders the like of social media useless. Social media pervade and rely on loneliness, people who are schizoids, recluses, socially inept, nerds, separated, socially unable to bond and be intimate, it is the only kind of people who become conditioned and addicted.

They try to make the phone indispensable to our lives. Status symbol, branding, functions, and are built on obsolescence. Social media renders itself indispensable. The biggest threat to social media is a healthy, loving, engulfing relationship. So, they will do whatever they can to dissuade intimacy. And, it is built into their algorithms.

Social media is obsolete. A tweet is obsolete in 24 hours. The users are then the employees. Other manufacturers don’t have consumers make their products, but in social media relies on the users to build the content.

Richard Gannon asks, so are you saying that the wizards of social media know that their platform dissuades intimacy?

Vaknin states, yes, they absolutely know it. Social media needs people’s eyeballs. They don’t want people to meet on social media and develop an intimate relationship. People in a new relationship have no mind for social media. It is competition. They need to eliminate the intimate relationship in order to get eyes on social media.

Facebook does not allow google to scan. Because they could steal your eyeballs. Cut down on social media. Almost all men on social media have sexting. They set boundaries. Love and intimacy and togetherness, community, friendship is a threat to facebook.

If social media is the virus, then true intimacy, community, friendship, is the antidote.

One people feel real love and intimacy, social media starts to feel plastic, creepy.

If one attempts to seek out an intimate relationship through social media, it is reaching out to people who are being conditioned to see intimacy negatively. Intimacy is a threat because most interactions on social media are painful. It creates faux intimacy. Putting up a selfie is a slight intimate action. Out of 100 people who comment, at least three will say something negative about the picture. Therefore, they interpret little bits of intimacy as painful, and believe that large amounts of intimacy will be large amounts of painful and will not take the steps towards intimacy. This is conditioning.

These people learn to interact on superficial levels. They are terrified of going any deeper. They are pain averse. Social media has exponentially multiplied the amount of negative social interactions of intimacy and pain.

Dogs who push a lever and are electrocuted to get food will choose to starve themselves. That is conditioning. Every time you press the intimacy button on social media, people get a shock. When they removed the electrocuting device from the lever for the dogs, they still did not choose to press it to eat. They chose to starve. People who have been conditioned that you receive shocks when posting something intimate on social media, these people will not engage in intimacy even in a safe environment. We are all emotionally dying.


Sam Vaknin: the TRUE toxicity of social media revealed

I went to see Fahrenheit 11/9 yesterday for my birthday. It was so moving, I had to write my own review of it.

It is a must see.

But, you know who doesn’t want you to watch this movie?


You know who else doesn’t want you to see this movie?

The Democratic Party.

Michael Moore asks the question, “How did we get here?” He answers the question of what would happen if deviance did not exist in our society. He also gives us hope.

While he neglected to come right out and say, “Trump is our countries’ shadow”, he explicitly shows how Trump won the presidency with his narcissistic whims. Any parent who has been in my circle of OMB (One Mom Battle) moms or dads would completely see it.

But, Michael Moore is a very thorough, research based documentary artist. He doesn’t just demonstrate the storm that Trump has created and thrives in. He shows us how, we’ve been building up for this for 30 years.

He is also fair to Hillary Clinton, in terms of her being a woman confronting the media. He paints a pretty fair picture of what happened, naming all the media sexual predators that interview Hillary. This undoubtedly affected her ratings.

Michael Moore doesn’t not hold back any punches. And, he tells our stories from the trenches of Flint, Michigan. He talks about the water crisis in Flint, how it came about, and shows us the consequences of what will happen if we don’t all rise up. NOW.

He talks to lots of teenagers from Parkland to let them tell their story.

He meets with people who supported Bernie. Replaying those devastating moments when our electoral college failed to represent the voters.

He reminds us of some of the policies that Bill Clinton enacted that alienated a large number of our people.

He showed the mistake that Obama made with Flint, Michigan.

And, he shows us the mistake of failing to show up in our political society, and shows us the victory that could happen When we do show up.

If you voted for Bernie or another third party, You Should see this movie. It will inspire you.

If you voted for Trump or Hillary, You Must see this movie. It will wake you up. Because, failing to know what we did wrong, will put Trump in office for ? more years. And, if you voted for Trump, you need to see what kind of Freedoms he intends to take away from you. If you voted for Hillary and are keeping on the fear tactics, the Democratic party will lose again.

I could keep it there. In a place where it doesn’t get personal. Politics have always been personal to me. But in 2013, I left my abusive ex. He was a narcissist that creates storms. Tina Swithin would say a category 5 hurricane. They know exactly what to say to push our buttons, to hurt us the worst. And, they also know exactly what to say, to get us to do what they want. We’d like to think that we are smarter than that, that we wouldn’t fall into the trap that someone like my ex, someone like Trump, would do.

But let me tell you more of my story. My ex was very charming. I was recovering from a broken heart. That’s the worst place for us, the best place for a narcissist. And, he talked all the charm he could, and I just wanted to believe. And, narcissists are really good at finding that part in us that needs that hope, and they will shine a light, and like a moth, we will follow. Then he has us. We are in that light, and he (or she) will be rubbing some kind of anesthetic on us when he (or she) brings out their hook and implants it into our skin. And, they will tell us, it doesn’t hurt. Or, it only hurts because you are letting go of the bad. But, the reality is, it really hurts. And, we’ve been so lonely, our confidence is down, and he (or she) has given us the only light we have seen in a long time. He (or she) caters to our desperation. When we see warning signs, we fail to heed them, and then we are trapped.

Well, in December of 2013, I left that trap. And, I had to look at myself in the mirror over the years to make sure that I didn’t fall into that trap again. Because, that’s what narcissists do, they build us up, to make us fall, and then we become dependent on them. We think that because they have the answers, we need them. We forget, that we have mirrors all around us, and that we can build ourselves up from the ashes.


Well, let’s give a bit more back story. As Michael Moore demonstrates in his movie, this has been in the making for about 30 years. In my life, as I know is in the case of many, our communities have been devastated. People are getting sicker and sicker. We have a generation of children who have chronic health conditions that we simply didn’t see before, at rates we haven’t seen before.

Our parents are sicker than they’ve been in generations past. We have more strokes, heart attacks, auto immune diseases, and cancer than ever before. Including in our young.

Our communities are struggling like never before. We can’t pay for child care and for health insurance, let alone health care. We want to take care of our parents, but we send them into nursing homes, because, we can’t. We are working more hours, and have more debt than ever before.

We need to take a mirror to ourselves. We need to be honest with ourselves. We need to see the truth of where we are and how we got here. If we don’t, then after some narcissist shines a light in our world, they will hurt us in ways we never thought possible.

Go see this movie.

Let’s take back our power together.

Society wants us to believe that we are unlovable. Corporations make their killings on us believing we are not valuable, lovable members of this society.

I have been having some major epiphanies in my life, and after talking with many of my women friends, I don’t believe I am an anomaly.

Society and corporations have images of women, as objects at best, as sex objects at normal.

My parents never showed any emotional intimacy towards me as a child. There was no “love” with action in the Scott Peck way. Meaning, attention, dedication, and deep spiritual work in the way of love. My father is a narcissist, and I have had no contact for many years. My relationship with my mother is strained at best. My mother never showed me a sliver of caring attention for as far back as I can remember. My story is not unique.

Love is something many people disagree about. Love is defined as sex, as presents, as money, as so many things. Here is the definition I favor, as described by Scott Peck Love, as defined by Scott Peck.

I recently had the extraordinary privilege of meeting up with a dear friend of mine. He reflected back to me some issues that I had struggled with, but was currently unaware of. Through dedicated attention, and with great care, he gave me this information, in the most loving of ways.

I realized, that one of the beliefs I had about myself were that I was unlovable. He said he cared for me. The first time, I didn’t believe him. I left feeling horrible, because clearly, if he cared about me, he’d want to be in a relationship with me, right? I felt rejected. After days of processing, I realized that he didn’t want to be in a relationship with me BECAUSE he cared about me. He didn’t want our friendship to end as both of our past relationships ended in chaos. That I had a pattern. And, through this I saw it all.

I go into relationships doing everything I can to attempt to prove that I am lovable, to the other person. There comes a point, where I start seeing everything that they are doing are proof of their lack of care for me. I failed to convince them of my worthiness of love. What I really failed to do, was convince myself that I was lovable.

So, I had a choice, and I made the choice, to believe him, that he did truly care for me, and it touched me on an emotional, cellular level. Through the days that followed, my walls broke down. My soul replenished from my heart, and I saw that if he could care about me, then others in my life also cared about me. That their actions were not proof that they didn’t care, but that they were choices they needed to make for their own personal life. Of course, I can think this all I want on an intellectual level, as I have done. But, when it poured through my cells, my anger dissipated and a great feeling of gratitude spread through my body.

I know I have a great deal of work to do. But, I feel so grateful that I have a dear friend to walk down this path with.


First, we need to look at and define Narcissistic Supply

1) Narcissistic Supply:


The narcissist, in contrast, is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is insatiable. He directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life, to obtain these pleasurable tidbits of attention. He embeds them in a coherent, completely biased, picture of himself. He uses them to regulates his labile sense of self-worth and self-esteem.

To elicit constant interest, he projects to others a confabulated, fictitious version of himself, known as the False Self. The False Self is everything the narcissist is not: omniscient, omnipotent, charming, intelligent, rich, or well-connected.


The narcissist then proceeds to harvest reactions to this projected image from family members, friends, co-workers, neighbours, business partners and from colleagues . If these – the adulation, admiration, attention, fear, respect, applause, affirmation – are not forthcoming, the narcissist demands them, or extorts them. Money, compliments, a favourable critique, an appearance in the media, a sexual conquest are all converted into the same currency in the narcissist’s mind.

This currency is what I call Narcissistic Supply.

It is important to distinguish between the various components of the process of narcissistic supply:

1. The trigger of supply is the person or object that provokes the source into yielding narcissistic supply by confronting the source with information about the narcissist’s False Self.

2. The source of narcissistic supply is the person that provides the narcissistic supply

3. Narcissistic supply is the reaction of the source to the trigger.”


When discussing Narcissistic Family Dynamics, we can quickly see how one family member feeds into another family member, and feed each other this toxic supply of attention.

There are many books and websites out there to help people depending on their position. It is suggested that the scapegoats of narcissistic parents are most likely to survive and escape the family abuse, however, they usually need to go no contact and get therapy and relearn healthy boundaries.

For anyone caught up in a divorce or custody battle with a narcissist, one excellent site is One Moms Battle. Tina Swithin has dedicated a website, coaching, and two books (so far) to assist those in the struggle.

2) How to deal with a Narcissist in a work setting?
Strategies such as BIFF is an excellent set of guidelines. The more dramatic and emotional a response, the more supply it yields for the narcissist. If we fail to give the narcissist the emotional reaction they want, consistently, it, at least, cuts off his / her supply. Not feeding the Narcissist is the best way to maintain peace over one’s life.


3) Are there groups of people who tend to more likely be narcissists? Who is a narcissist?

Narcissists are people who are hollow and empty inside. They do not feel adequate, loved, empathy. They lack a solid identity, which gives them the ability to transcend race, religion, gender, physical or mental ability, or any other social construct that humans have created. What does this mean? This means that these individuals will take on any of these identities, pass through them, and flow back and forth based on what will help them attain their supply. They will find identities that are “radical” or “extreme” and therefore not accepted by mainstream society as a means to begin warfare. They will make statements that piss off the mainstream, or any other faction in order to stir up the fight. It’s all about the fight. They feed off of this energy supply.

4) What does a narcissist lie?

Narcissists were likely raised in a narcissistic household, or at the very least, a narcissistic society. Yes, our culture, in this colonized land, is infested with narcissists. Most people who start wars and continue wars are likely narcissists. Normal healthy people realize that wars only hurt and kill innocent people and land, but narcissists don’t care. They want everyone to fight “over them”. They feel power and control when they can get this to happen. But, if we try to question them, why, how do you think you are white / black / christian / pagan / poor / when you clearly aren’t? This is a question that simply feeds into their supply. You’re asking the wrong questions. And, it’s best not to engage a narcissist at all or to buy into their false identity. Places that have vague boundaries left up to interpretation, such as religious identities, can definitely tempt more narcissists, especially the more radical, extreme, or simply permissive and enabling. Narcissists LOVE enablers. They are a form of constant narcissistic supply.

5) Those that feed Narcissists: Flying Monkeys

A narcissistic personality disordered mother has flying monkeys. This is a term taken from The Wizard of Oz, where the flying monkeys do the bidding of the Wicked Witch. The flying monkeys may be your neighbor, church members, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandmother, grandfather, nieces, nephews, etc. These people do the narcissist’s dirty work and often pour their own abuse on the scapegoat.

I spent years of my life trying to show various flying monkeys the truth. It virtually never worked, not once in the twenty or so years I kept trying to “clear the air” or to finally be understood. They do not understand because they do not want to understand. Many are willfully ignorant and blind to the situation. There is not some magical phrase and method you have not yet discovered that is suddenly going to cause these people to stand up for the truth.

What I have realized is the flying monkeys generally have their own reasons for behaving the way they do. Some may truly do it out of ignorance, truly fooled for years by the narcissist. However, it is my experience that most flying monkeys have weak characters.

They may know the truth, but lack the backbone to stand up for what is right. They may themselves fear becoming a target of the narcissist. They may have been a target of the narcissist in the past. They may have been taught to get along with everyone regardless. They may also be a narcissist themselves or hiding their own troubling behavior.

There are some exceptions. Someone can innocently become a flying monkey without realizing it. The difference is, you can generally reason with them. In my experience, this is a rare exception to what I have stated above. – See more at: http://echorecovery.blogspot.com/2013/12/flying-monkeys-no-contact-or-low-contact.html#sthash.hBib6P4f.dpuf

6) The Roles of the Narcissistic Family Dynamic:

The Four Basic Roles of Dysfunctional Families:

Golden Child, Scapegoat, Mascot and Lost Child

Dysfunctional families don’t allow people to be their authentic selves. They dance around their shame, denials and addictions, working to keep everyone in their assigned dysfunctional roles — like it or not.

There are four basic roles in the dysfunctional family:

The Golden Child/Hero
The golden child is the one who “can do no wrong”. This child is viewed as being the best and the brightest; even if they’re not.

Some golden children play the part well and end up stuck in the role of success-object, and some golden children are entitled troublemakers who are never expected to actually earn anything, due to their already-favored status. Golden children are expected to abandon their authentic selves in exchange for hollow esteem.

Many golden children wake up much later in life to a nice home, a fancy car, a high-paying job and a supposedly perfect family, all of which they suddenly realize they’d like to trade for something more authentic. Other golden children are the opposite; their lives are a mess because they’ve never had to work to earn their status, and the rest of the world doesn’t reward them similarly for doing nothing.

The Scapegoat
The scapegoat is the child who can “do no right”. This child is viewed as being the reason for everything undesirable and bad, even when they excel.

Some scapegoats enter into the trap of trying harder and harder to redeem themselves in the eyes of their family so they can finally be respected and appreciated for who they really are. They can never be good enough, and will burn themselves out trying to get a pat on the back. Other scapegoats succumb to the role of “bad one” and make waves, because they’re always labeled bad regardless, so they give up trying and rebel in anger.

Many scapegoats spend much of their adult lives still trying to be accepted and appreciated by constantly doing more, giving more and trying more. Other scapegoats spark lots of conflict and difficulties. Scapegoats typically wake up later in life and and realize things aren’t as they should be when their constant efforts to gain respect backfire and get them walked all over at work and at home (or when they get themselves into one too many conflicts pertaining to their adoption of a “who cares” attitude).

The Lost Child
The Lost Child is the child who withdraws in self-preservation. Ignored and invisible, this child experiences loneliness and a feeling of not belonging.

Many Lost Children remain in the background into their adult lives, hiding from conflict and healthy risk-taking, stuck in the feeling of being a frightened outsider or unimportant “nobody”. Lost children typically wake up later in life to find that they have missed out on many emotional things others have had, such as a sense of connectedness and having made a difference in the world.

Often overlooked, many opportunities for better things have likely passed them by as they retreated into a quiet world which focused on something of value to them that was not likely related to confident interaction (and even conflict) with others. Some lost children take an interest in material possessions or other pursuits with limited social/intimate requirements.

The Mascot is the child who jokes and distracts the family from the heaviness of its dysfunction. This child expresses the effects of the family’s painful experiences as humor.

Mascots have difficulty accepting and expressing difficult feelings, and will joke their way out of serious circumstances, avoiding the real issue that needs addressing. Mascots may find themselves in entertainment-related fields, since it’s second nature for them to make light of tragedy, pain and suffering. Many mascots awaken later in life to find they have not been taken seriously, or are always counted on to make everyone feel better, perhaps at the expense of acknowledging their own painful realities.

The Limitations of the concept of family roles

While helpful, the definitions of these roles are imperfect. Some sources claim there are more roles, as many as seven. Some sources claim the golden child/hero only plays the “perfect” role, though there are some golden children who are actually quite entitled, lazy and even antisocial. A similar issue exists with the definition of scapegoats. Some sources claim the scapegoat is “the bad seed”, and others say the scapegoat is the healthiest member of the family.

It’s also been noted that parents may change and mix the roles assigned to a given child based on changes in the family’s needs, experiences, environment and structure. This means it is possible for one child to be both the scapegoat and the lost child, etc., or start out as the golden child and tumble from grace to end up the scapegoat.

Ultimately, these definitions function more like helpful guidelines than scientific analysis, and have helped many people understand the fundamentals of dysfunctional family life.

More Here: http://lightshouse.org/lights-blog/the-four-dysfunctional-family-roles#ixzz3dXcF6bHR

7) Narcissists just want to win.
At the end of the battle, the Narcissist just wants to win. Like CEO’s of big corporations that pay off both parts of the political party, Narcissists will have a hand in both sides of the drama. When there are more than one narcissist, as in a family dynamic, it’s important to realize that they are all lying and dysfunctional, and that there is only one way to not get sucked in, going no contact.

8) But I’m divorced and have children. What do I do?
This is a very difficult situation. Especially because of the level of manipulation that a Narcissist is capable of, and their desire to “win” everything, having a clear, strict boundary separation or divorce agreement is necessary. I strongly encourage people to go to a One Mom’s Battle facebook page or meeting for more support.

9) More resources? There are so many resources out there for narcissistic and other cluster b personality disorders. Here are just a few I’ve come across.

Out of the Fog is a great resource with lots of definitions of personality disorders, behaviors, and ways of responding to them while keeping one’s sanity
People of the Lie, by Scott Peck, PhD.