Thank you for finding this for us!

Take a peek at an earlier chapter from the same blog.

[nomoreverbalabuse.blogspot.com]

"One of the main concepts of the book is: "You, and only you, create all of your feelings" (the book referred to is "The Secret of Overcoming Verbal Abuse" by Albert Ellis and Marcia Grad Powers. The author states the book can be of use but states there is an important area where she does have a disagreement.

Well, ur, not really.

"If that were true there would be no such a thing as verbal abuse.

*If it were only our interpretation of events that hurts us then one could say, "Its not abuse when your husband calls you a fat, ugly, stupid, worthless ****, it's just your interpretation of the event that leads you to feel bad." Give me a break....

'The worst part for me isn't the actual words, it is that this person who claims to love me, my husband, is trying make me feel bad, whether I accept his assessment of me or not.

"You could be a fashion model with a genuis IQ and still be hurt, not because you believe the words, but because your husband spoke them, and tried to make you feel "less than".

"You, and only you, create all of your feelings" is no more true than the old "sticks & stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" routine.

"Or the classic "I'm not responsible for your feelings". Where did that come from? Is it some co-dependency recovery run amok?

" I usually hear someone say "I'm not responsible for his/her feelings" from people who have just done something particularly shitty to another person and now wish to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the harm they caused. But I digress.
"

The person who wrote this blog has reached the heart of the matter. The horror/shock quotient is not always the content of the message, but is often influenced by WHO DELIVERS THAT MESSAGE.

The term 'verbal abuse' may not be enough to provide a full description of what accounts for the impact.

I would invite us to ponder the term 'relationship-specific abuse.' For, verbal content is not enough to account for the stunning power of certain utterances or even gestures.

Its when the words or gestures or battery take place in the context of a relationship based on mutual trust, and thus shatter that trust, that it becomes abusive and trust-shattering.

For we select spouses and friends based on trust that they will never do such things to us in the first place! ('To have and to hold, to honor and to cherish...')

A smirk from a nut on the corner can be dismissed.

That same smirk** from a loved one can be horrifying--for the relational context is completely different. We trust that those we love (and whom WE have chosen to love!) will never smirk at us.

**(Wait--it isnt 'the same smirk' if inflicted by ones spouse. The facial expression thrown out at you by the lunatic and by the spouse expression might be identical if photographed, but the relational context means the target will indeed experience that microexpression quite differently. The trust context is totally different in these two instances. See how rich and complex this is becoming?)

For example, if the local insane drunkard on the corner calls me a filthy name,
I can write it off. The person is, clearly nuts. I have not given this person the
level of radical trust that I would give a lover or ultra close friend.

But if your spouse, your lover or your close friend were, suddenly, within the existing frame of that trust-bonded relationship call you that same bad name that the nut on the corner gave you--you'd be blown away.

And...that is often what blindsides people who enter abusive relationships and dont yet know what they are in for. Abusers romance you first--otherwise you'd never get involved with them.

Its only after the context of romance/trust is established, and youve let someone into your core that a smirk or some nasty words can acquire a radically shattering impact.

When we have chosen to love someone, it calls our own judgement into question when that person abruptly does something we have trusted them never to do. Part of why it is so difficult for people to convince themselves that someone they have chosen to love has broken the trust contract by engaging in abusive behavior is that it calls into question our own ability to discern character--calls into question our sanity.

(Most persons shocked by a first few episodes of trust-busting behavior are too stunned to consider it possible that this person was deceptive and hid something from them during the honeymoon seduction phase of the relationship)


(read the comments, too. This one by CZ deserves to be quoted)

(quote)

Can I just tell you how sick to death I am of hearing such nonsense? Anyone who has dealt with a manipulator knows only too well that specific feelings can be triggered by another person.

While it's useful to believe we have power to make choices no matter what our emotional reactions might have been, it's ridiculous to say other people can't make us feel anything we don't ALLOW them to make us feel.

It's just another way to Blame the Victim and let the abuser off the hook. That's my two cents anyway.

Oh, one more thing. Suggesting we become invulnerable fortresses is counterproductive to creating healthy relationships!! (unquote)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2008 10:14PM by corboy.

'The worst part for me isn't the actual words, it is that this person who claims to love me, my husband, is trying make me feel bad, whether I accept his assessment of me or not.

"You could be a fashion model with a genuis IQ and still be hurt, not because you believe the words, but because your husband spoke them, and tried to make you feel "less than".

But..if it is an abusive guru or a husband whose role is given special religious authority (eg in polygamous societies such as the ones in the news)...we do accept that assessment.

For there are some very important relationships where it is not only shattering to hear abusive language that would be stupid or meaningless to us coming from a stranger, but where we do indeed believe the assessment the abuser has given of us. This is when that person is in a priviliged, "one-up" position of special and enhanced authority in relation to us--and rather than protecting us and fostering our development and autonomy (parents, therapists, healers, teachers) is using the relationship to drain us, diminish us and shock us numb by utterly confounding our reasonable expectation that the realtionship never be used against us in this manner.

The discussions of RR.com deal not only with abuse of trust but this particular abuse of authority/credibility.

For, relationship/trust busting abuse is far more shattering in the context
of the parent child relationship, and in poorly managed guru/disciple relationhships and mismanaged the therapist/client relationships, because of the internalized power imbalance and the transferance regression that takes place in the child, disciple, or client.

And when marriages get tangled up with religious ideology, the ugliness of domineering power (eg husband as superior and God sanctioned master) enters the mix.

For...children do believe what their parents tell them, disciples do believe what the guru tells them, and clients do trust what their therapists and health care provider tell them. And wives in religiously authoritarian marriages are told to take the husband's speech as having paternal authority.

That is why the powerholders in such relationships (parents, gurus, therapists and yes, human potential entrepreneurs who are charismatic leaders) are (or should be) accountable to an ethos of care for the true power they do wield and the trust that people have for them. The more power you have, the greater your obligations to use it wisely and benevolently. That is why one need not have a license to be a pedestrian but must have a license legally to operate a motor vehicle. And as the power of the motor vehicle increases, licensing requirements increase and are more stringent. And motor vehicle operators are legally required to carry liability insurance. So are physicians and licensed psychotherapists.

As of yet, not even in 'New Agey' areas of the US are gurus or Human Potential entrepreneur required to have licenses or carry "spiritual liability insurance." Those who claim infallibility need not carry such insurance, it seems.

Yet in some parts of the country persons who practice acupunture have to have a state issued license. In our city, massage therapists and body workers have to register at the police station.

The obligations of licensed professionals are regulated by law. But there is no central regulatory agency where anyone can go and complain if gurus or human potential entrepreneurs are not using their power skillfully, wisely or kindly.

Even when parents are abusive, someone can call Child Protective Services.

But there is no Guru Protective Services Hotline.

And what makes things especially toxic is when a relationship is run on an ideology that cons us into believing that something that we experience as misery and as shocking is not actually abusive but actually for our own good ... at some future date. And where that same ideology makes it seem negative to insist on fact checking such a radical claim before putting our well being into the hands of the person or group making this claim.

Being in a profession regulated by law doesnt mean that practitioners do not err. They do. And they have accepted the need for a network of accountablity where complaints can be registered and performance can be tracked.

By contrast those trying to have similar discussions about the possiblity of spiritual malpractice find the discussions being disrupted unless there is careful moderation. Big difference.

In the real world one has to have abundant research to back up a claim that present misery can be justified by a high probability (not a promise, a probability) of future benefit.

(eg chemo therapy for cancer. We would not tolerate it unless a ton of double blind research existed to make a convincing case (via rigorous guidelines and standards of evidence) that the benefits do, statistically and non trivially outweigh the risks and that this result has been replicated in in sufficiently large subject samples. Anything short of this is experimental therapy and disclosed as such before one signs the consent forms.)



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2008 11:18PM by corboy.

A gem:

[nomoreverbalabuse.blogspot.com]

Ever notice how those recovering from abuse, whether from rogue gurus or bad relationships are constantly scolded for showing the slightest trace of anger?

And often, one need not even do that. You can write a logical refutation of some trolls disruptive behavior and be told, 'I dont understand why what I wrote bothers you.'

Feh.

In abusive relationships its the abuser who is allowed to be angry and we are forbidden to show any discomfort.

The privilige of anger belongs to the abusive cult leader. If we dare show any human emotion, even on the venue of RR.com, sure enough someone will show up and try to shame us.

Or we, if well and thoroughly potty trained in the New Age scene will ourselves begin by apologizing and assuring our readers 'I am not angry. I am not seeking vengeance.'

How about seeking justice. Thats the grit that enabled us to win World War II.

Now, one cannot competantly fly a Spitfire, an Avro Lancaster or a B-B2 while in a state of rage.

But one can have a hearty desire that the right side win and fly that plane very well.

The wisest fighters for social justice know its necessary to play, take breaks and not be locked and loaded 100% of the time. The fighters who last the longest actually know how to manage their anger just fine.

(However anyone will fry out if in fight mode for too long....compared with World War II, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are over extended, overworked. Even the best need rest. How's that for a motto?)

Thanks to 'helpme' I found yet another goodie on this blog:

"Freedom from accountability means that the abusive man considers himself above criticism. If his partner attempt to raise her grievances she is 'provoking' him. ", says Lundy Bancroft in "Why Does He Do That?".

It is commonly believed that abusive men have a problem managing their anger. This is what Bancroft says:

"Your abusive partner doesn't have a problem with his anger; he has a problem with your anger. One of the basic human rights he tries to take away from you is the right to be angry with him. No matter how badly he treats you, he believes that your voice shouldn't rise and your blood shouldn't boil.

The privilege of rage is reserved for him alone."

No wonder Bob is so unhappy. Despite his relentless attempts, he has never been able to convince me that there is something wrong with me for feeling angry. So I do not dispute his grievances. Yes, I got mad. And I'm not sorry. Anger is a healthy response to abuse.

Bancroft says this about abusers and anger:

HE ISN'T ABUSIVE BECAUSE HE IS ANGRY; HE'S ANGRY BECAUSE HE'S ABUSIVE.

So...when someone does not want to deal with our feedback, let alone our anger, they dont just have an anger management problem...they have an accountablity management problem.

They want the privilige of anger and dont want to see how their rage actually impacts us....

I did not read the link about about Dr. Albert Ellis, so I don't know the context.
But he also wrote a good book called...
Anger: How To Live With And Without It
[www.amazon.com]

ARISTOTLE on Anger:
"Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy."

--------------

To me its all contained in the concept of Assertiveness.
Passivity---> Assertiveness --> Aggressiveness.

We don't want to be too passive, or too aggressive, but Assertive.
But that being said, there is healthy anger, especially in a psychotherapeutic context.

Also, for people who have been abused and traumatized, there is new scientific research showing that in THERAPY, doing imaginal restructuring that involves anger and rage when working through traumatic images is essential.
Trying to be "spiritual" and just detach from rage does NOT work. Then you end up with other problems, like road rage perhaps.
Anyway, its a big subject.

But the fakers like Byron Katie try to PASSIFY their followers with LoveBombs. They want you to learn how to TAKE her abuse and enjoy it, and "love it". Its right there in Byron Katie's text, she wants to train you to LOVE being used and abused by her. Katie will train you to LOVE BEING ABUSED.

Bottom line, cussing out these weasels is perfectly fine and healthy. Especially in terms of Journalling and writing things down if you feel it.
For people who have literally been abused and used, they have to learn to work through their righteous anger and even hatred, not just try to dissociate from it.

But its always the same patterns.
The culty leaders try to con-vince you be PASSIVE, and turn off your critical thinking. They all do it, that is their main technique. Byron Katie does it, so does Eckhart Tolle.

But its OK for them to Rage at their inner circle and assistants. One can be certain that Byron Katie is very vicious and abusive with her inner acolytes, scoldiing, withholding Attention, shunning, then LoveBombing when the person behaves the way she wants. Like puppets on a string.

Read Carol Skolnicks blog posts about "Katie" and her "relationship" with Katie who she "says" she "fell in love with" from a book and a picture, and then intimately hugged and kissed in the bathroom at a LGAT seminar. I don't buy the "story" but the entire thing is very creepy, inappropriate and unprofessional. Its almost like a culty Guru thing! Ya think?!
[soulsurgery.blogspot.com]

So its ok for the Guru to Rage..but you be a good little girl and keep your mouth shut and just do what you are told.
NOT!
People need to re-establish powerful BOUNDARIES when it comes to these culty groups.
They try to pathologize healthy boundaries and assertiveness, just like they try to pathologize critical thinking.
They want to engineer nice little Sheeple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2008 02:06AM by The Anticult.

This website by Dr Delany Dean is full of interesting articles. Here are a few to whet the readers appetite. Dr D is a clinical psychologist, does clinical supervision of interns in training, is an attorney and uses mindfulness based cognitive therapy in her practice. The sidebar of her blog is full of interesting articles.

Dr. D read our discussion on BK and has something to say about her own observations of an LGAT

[www.delanydean.com]

Quote
The Anticult
But the fakers like Byron Katie try to PASSIFY their followers with LoveBombs. They want you to learn how to TAKE her abuse and enjoy it, and "love it". Its right there in Byron Katie's text, she wants to train you to LOVE being used and abused by her. Katie will train you to LOVE BEING ABUSED.

I found this letter from a man thanking Katie for invalidating him when he shared his memories of childhood sexual abuse. He rejected her attempt to get him to convince himself that his inner truth was a lie, but is grateful to her for trying. This is creepy.

[www.thework.com]

Here is an excerpt:

Quote

The last part of our Work together that night was different, however. It was a healing, but in a different way. I mentioned that I do not recall some of the actual childhood abuse I experienced, which I believe to be sexual in nature: incest from my mother and/or my elder sister. I mentioned that “my body knows” what happened. Byron said, “It (the abuse) never happened,” and that “bodies don't know anything.”

What Byron said, did not and still does not make sense to me. It does not ring true. My body does know, and has shouted it to me for years. Only in recent years have I gotten past some of the denial (although not all the specific memories) to face my pain. Getting past the denial has been key to my healing, and speaking out loud, breaking the code of silence around the abuse, has been crucial to taking back my power and moving forward with my life.

In short, I felt very much invalidated with what I heard that night. I almost felt that I was saying or seeing something that Byron did not want to be said or seen. I do know that, to me, it did not feel quite like love. Again, I love The Work and Katie's wisdom and focus on investigating our thoughts and beliefs. This is so important. But let's not invalidate our experience. Abuse issues are messy. They take time to heal, and there is no quick fix, at least not in my view. I believe we create certain experiences to learn from them. Being human means validating the whole realm of emotions and experiences we create in our life, not discounting or ignoring or denying them.

The greatest lesson I received that night was taking back my power and trusting myself. I now know that nobody knows more about me than me. I have learned so much from Byron Katie and many other teachers; they are valid and very helpful. But my final truth has to come from within myself, and this experience helped me know myself just a bit more. I will continue to do The Work, and I thank you for it, and this wonderful experience. Thank you!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2008 02:35AM by question lady.

Dr. Delany Dean seems to have the sensory acuity to be able to see what is going on in these LGAT groups. That is good to see.

Its interesting how most psychologists and shrinks actually CAN'T see what is going on very well. Why?
They have ZERO training and education about it. There is no training on the methods of LGAT's for shrinks and psychologists.

But go and find advanced and experienced PROFESSIONAL SALESPEOPLE, who sell big-ticket luxury items, and they will see what is going on in seconds.
The LGAT is more about salesmanship, and has little to do with "therapy".

Also, many therapists are nice, decent, trusting, bookish people, who often end up getting scammed themselves!
LGAT type scammers LOVE to target MD's as they are the most gullible, probably due to their sheltered academic life.

But go and talk to professional salespeople, they know the tricks of the trade.

Guys, I may have been reading too many stories about espionage.

But I want to offer some food for thought. It may assist us to become much more effective in dealing with disruptive people.

What if some of our disruptive vistors are instructed to troll on RR.com, in such a way that they will feel abused on RR.com and by RR.com?

That way...drumroll...this distracts them from how their boss or guru is actually the one abusing them. And if they ever leave that boss or guru, they'll remain loyally in denial that the guru or boss abused them and instead remember how RR.com abused them...and feel afraid ever to go and talk with us.

In case this is actually being done, if and when someone next arrives to disrupt this or another discussion, we have to find a way to refuse to listen or get sucked in, and at the very same time, say,

"You may have a different perspective later. If so, you are absoutely welcome to return to the message board community.

Like Motel 6, we'll keep the light on for you.'

Imaginary Scenario--Get Your Entourage to Troll on Rick Ross

Suppose you are the kind of guru or human potential entreprenuer who abuses on your entourage and you have a dark side hidden from your adoring public who see you only when you're smiling, charming, beautifully dressed and giving perfumed hugs. (If you're a man, you dont wear any scent, or if you do, it is a very well chosen cologne or aftershave. Rather than hugs, you'll use a gruff charm. In either case, your teeth are perfect, and bad breath is out of the question. At 2 am you will know who and where your dermatologist is.)

You are a guru or entrepreneur with a sunny public side and a dark private side. You want to make sure that if anyone who knows your private side and dirty secrets leaves, or if you kick them out, they will remain afraid ever to tell anyone what a nasty boss you are, who you really are when the curtain has fallen and the smile fades from your face.

In this imaginary scenario, if I were a secretly abusive guru, I would do everything I could to get into my entourage members' heads and scare them away from any person or resource that might assist them to heal and tell the truth in public about me, should they leave, or should I throw a tantrum and discard them.

I would want to find a way to scare everyone close to me (or a candidate for entering my entourage) away from the RR.com site and the RR.com message board. I would want to do something to them to make it unthinkable that they even imagine telling the truth about my abusiveness on Rick Ross's message board.

So I would find a way to ensure that my minions go on the RR.com message board and do it in such a way that they would encounter abuse.

This would be effective. As their abusive guru or boss, I'd be abusing them anyway. They'd already be taught that coming from me, its not abuse. But...ha ha, they still have the actual stress and physical mental and emotional misery of abuse. They just cant link it to ME.

So...I'd find a way for them to link the misery they experience from me to the RR.com message board. I'd want them to troll for me, get dumped on by the users and moderators of RR.com

Then...they'd forget that I am the one who is the present source of their misery and they would blame their misery on the RR.com message board.

And...if they ever did leave me or I did later fire them, they'd be afraid to return to the RR.com message board, especially if they behaved so loyally to me that they got scolded and banned from RR.com.

So, to repeat...if I were an abusive guru who was good, really good at Psychological Operations, I would find a way to expose my minions to RR.com in such as way as to give them the most unpleasant experience possible.

What I would do is immunize my minions against the Rick Ross com message board by....telling them to troll for me or my organization on the board.

And do it in such a way that those using the board (like that bastard Corboy) would fly off the handle and roast 'em.

And r do it so that Mr. Ross would give them repeated scoldings. That way, they'd see Mr Ross as the villain and forget the much worse scoldings I give them.

Meanwhile, back at the ashram, I would be careful to get them to see this as a badge of honor. They would now belong to the elite corps of those who have been kicked off of the RR.com message board.

I would treat this faithful lieutenant as a hero or heroine...until of course, I find a new and more entertaining favorite.

Meanwhile, my discarded minion will still have enough lingering conditioning to feel loyal to and protective of me, despite my utter ingratitude and inablity to reciprocate their loyalty. (Gurus need never reciprocate. Any consideration of reciprocity doesnt apply to us.)

In any case, when my much abused minion leaves (due to depression, stress-related illness) or my flying into a rage and firing that person, he or she will be very unlikely to go and tell the truth on RR.com.

First, this discarded minion will have enough lingering conditioning to feel protective of me.

Two because I encouraged that person to go on RR.com, troll and get punished for it----they will associate RR.com with misery, rather than more correctly, seeing me, their guru, as the real source of their misery.

Just in case some trolls are recruited to do so in order to set them up to feel afraid to ever return to Rick Ross, even after leaving the group, we need to remind them this remains a welcoming place--you may be escorted out of the libary if you happen one day to be drunk and cant stop singing, but if you sober up long term and return, eager to find books and read, the doors are still open.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2008 03:12AM by corboy.

one thing I wanted to mention, is I think its very healthy for Rick Ross and others from time to time to "set things straight".
Why?
Healthy boundaries.
Those who have been in a culty group can easily get sucked into months and years of circular debate and confusion.
At some point you have to draw a line.

If a person gets busted for lying, lets say, 25 times...then its over. (caught 3 times lying is more than enough!!).

So a guru like Byron Katie who has been busted for dozens of conscious falsehoods...its over.
She's doing it on purpose. A person who puts out dozens of falsehoods cannot be trusted, unless you want them to totally screw you over.

And if a person starts to post here with some type of "cover-story" and then tries to "reframe" and manipulate people, then its good to point that out.
The recent poster Ex-Scientology appeared to have an agenda of making the Byron Katie Hotline seem benign. But they were giving false information. Why?
Were they a Byron Katie Hotline person who found this forum with a google search?

So I think its very healthy for a "voice of reason" to set limits and boundaries almost as an example of how to deal with these culty groups. If you don't set strict boundaries, they will never quit until you are on your knees before the guru handing over your wedding ring, or kissing the guru in the bathroom at an LGAT.

or being "invited" to private "Salons" with the Guru...all the signs post to people handing over their bodies along with their minds, money, and valuables.

I totally agree this site has to remain moderated. Too many times, attempts have been made to subvert discussions. In the old days we had some people who kept trying to disrupt another discussion thread elsewhere. They'd be banned and within a day, sneak on under a new name, get banned again, and in 24 hours be back under another new name.

Still---just in case people are being ordered or encouraged to do this so as to deepen their fear of RR.com and at the same time, deepen their loyalty to a boss who is abusive enough to orchestrate them to troll on RR.com so as to deepen their commitment to said boss---

There has to be a way to set the limits, state firmly that such and such is against the rules and guidelines.....and at the same time make it just as clear that if the person ever changes their perspective....they can return.

We are a sanctuary for people recovering, not for those who want to stay asleep.