#you can hold two seemingly opposing truths in your mind simultaneously

[lith-myathar]

Podcast I'm listening to (Struggle Care) just made the point "people truly can't imagine a world where empathy and accountability happen in the same place" and this is all in relation to the idea of co-dependency but i think it's a really good point in general

[acti-veg]

Cognitive Disonance

When it comes to animal agriculture, denialism goes further than just denying obvious truths, it sometimes results in a person’s behaviour being completely incongruent with their beliefs, just as we often see people who eat animals holding two seemingly contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This phenomenon is something that psychologists call ‘cognitive dissonance’; first investigated by Leon Festinger in the context of cult behaviour.

Perhaps the most common example of cognitive dissonance in the context of eating animals is the idea of the ‘animal lover.’ You may have noticed already that most people think of themselves as animal lovers, some even make that a fundamental part of their identity. Yet, these same people are often avid meat eaters. The idea that you can both love someone and pay to have them killed seems intuitively contradictory, yet this remains a very common mythology among those who continue to consume animals, despite having a good idea of what happens to animals in slaughterhouses. 

We see this same dissonance in our most fundamental perceptions of animals; studies have demonstrated that since people are unwilling to consume animals they perceive as intelligent, they are much more likely to deny the mental capacities of the animals they consume as opposed to those they do not. This results in them denying the minds of animals rather than confronting the fact that they are eating intelligent animals, despite believing that this is wrong. How can we account for such widely held yet obviously inconsistent belief systems?

The answer, in part, lies in how we want to see ourselves. No one wants to self-idenfiy as the villain of their own story, just as no one wants to see themselves as someone who would knowingly support animal cruelty. So we find a way to both believe we love animals and act in a way which is obviously not loving; this is cognitive dissonance. We as a society have come up with all sorts of ways of maintaining this shared delusion, perhaps foremost is the characterisation of some animals as ‘food’ and some as ‘pets.’ In order to be loving towards our pets we need to treat them kindly, yet to be loving towards farmed animals we apparently can allow them to be exploited, abused and killed. 

The belief that an animal can be ‘humanely’ slaughtered feeds into this narrative; that there is somehow a ‘loving’ way to end the life of a sentient being for the sake of our taste preferences or fashion choices. This self-deception seems like a lot of effort to go through just to eat animals, but it still represents the easiest option for most people. When presented with the fact that our behaviour is inconsistent with our ethics, we only have three viable choices. 

The first is to  change our behaviour so that it better matches our ethics, which is what vegans do. This involves facing up to the fact that you have been acting immorally according to your own ethics, it demands introspection and not a small amount of self-sacrifice as a result. Alternatively, we can change our ethics to better match our behaviour, yet this is something most people are unwilling to do, since again, none of us want to see ourselves as a cruel person. This leaves us with our third option, and by far the most popular; we change our own perception of our behaviour so that it seems to fit with our ethics, even if that means holding completely contradictory beliefs at the same time. This is not usually a conscious decision, yet it is so pervasive that it goes almost completely unchallenged.

As well as defining how we perceive our existing beliefs and behaviour, cognitive dissonance also has an impact on how we approach new information we encounter. Environmentalists who choose to eat animals are a good example of this. It is very common for environmentalists to deny the environmental impact of eating animals in order to continue to do so; regardless of how incontrovertible the evidence may be. These facts directly contradict our existing beliefs, and rather than have those beliefs challenged, we find a way to dismiss the reports of authoritative, independent environmental organisations as ‘vegan propaganda.’ 

Our cognitive dissonance enforces a confirmation bias which has us dismissing any information that doesn’t fit with our existing world view, and cherry-picking the information that does. This is how ‘fake news’ sources thrive in the digital age; they know that people will not fact-check information if that information reinforces their existing attitudes, beliefs and assumptions. As humans, we are very good at deluding ourselves, and relatively poor at recognising when our beliefs are inconsistent with the available evidence, or are incongruent with our own behaviour. Cognitive dissonance can be resolved, but it requires real self-reflection, introspection and facing up to some hard truths about how we prioritise our own desires against the needs and the rights of other animals. 

It is understandable that engaging in denialism and maintaining our dissonance would be the more tempting option, but personal growth can only be achieved when we are willing to wrestle with uncomfortable truths about our own attitudes and behaviour. Only in this way can we take responsibility for our actions and work to change ourselves and our society for the better.

-An extract from my free eBook: The Green Road - A Practical Guide to Veganism

[sharkiegorath]

@almaviva90​ thanks for mentioning That Article, the only thing that can make me write coherently rn

I mean, God, if it’d just been called an underwhelming/bad show that would’ve been, like,  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it’s your opinion, buddy. But personal bias aside, singling Finn out of all the characters in the series, especially the Scotland Yard arc, is??? It’s compounded by how the article doesn’t actually give any reason for why he’s included, unless you count ‘he’s like this one iconic character except not I guess’. So I’d like to examine the subconscious processes behind why Finn is listed as a Great Character while everyone else - cast and character - is disregarded, especially since positive reviews pinpointed the ensemble effort.

anyway I took this as an opportunity to Go the Fuck Off suddenly synthesizing loose scraps of information I’ve had for some time so bear in mind

“The folks who did stick with it mostly stayed onboard for Bertie Carvel’s Finn”??? Where are you getting this information? Since 2014, positive reviews and tweets mentioned the ensemble. For mediocre-to-negative audience reactions, I’d say there was a 50/50 split between people saying they only continued to watch for Bertie versus only continuing to watch for Brit. I’m pretty sure social media suggested there were more people who started watching for one actor then ended up immersed in the overall series.

Anyway.  Anyway.

The reason the article loosely gives for Finn's impressiveness is silly in the first place. Yeah, he's superficially like Malcolm Tucker, they're both spin doctors who go on shouty elaborate tangents. If it's been done before, why's it interesting? What distinguishes Finn so much that he's not just a clone in a different, allegedly weaker setting - which shouldn’t be worth listing - and how can he simultaneously be so similar that the explanation relies on preexisting knowledge of Tucker? 'He's even less charming' isn't a good reason, because intensifying one trait doesn't necessarily make a distinct character. (And based on what I've seen, isn't Finn less intense?)

Oh, and the fun thing is, that implied reason why he’s a stand-out character isn’t that accurate in the first place.

Firstly: we’re socially conditioned to identify with nominally straight white men, even (especially?) when they’re jerks. We create justifications for them in the absence of explicit excuses; we perceive complexity while oversimplifying other characters, even if we feel positively about them. But I’ve seen enough mediocre TV to think Finn is above-average. Until Ep. 5, I was partially willing to view him as complex because I believed everyone else was complex, and everyone else had interesting dynamics with him. I watched along with the original C4 airing. In terms of ‘sticking it through’, no, I didn’t watch just for Finn, and I had only watched the pilot for Bertie. Finn didn’t seem *that* important in the first two episodes of the main series, it looked like he might leave in the third, and his characterisation from the fourth onwards was tied to the overall plot. It was only subsequent marketing that gave away his prominence.

The article mentions (and dismisses) Bertie Carvel’s own opinion on Finn. (Which may have been paraphrased by the interviewer, but was probably still sympathetic.) He's realistic about his characters' flaws, including unambiguously sympathetic protagonists, including those who try to take advantage of institutional injustice. For him to say something along the lines of Finn not being that bad, Finn probably isn't. Babylon takes place over around a month, under uniquely stressful events. Since Liz's escalating issues make her act 2edgier and more unpleasant than usual, I think it's fair to infer that Finn is also not acting entirely like 'himself'; we don't have anywhere near the amount of context about his personal life as we do for Liz or Richard, but we do see his seemingly stable preexisting workplace relationships. Whether any of that justifies his behaviour is up to personal interpretation.

In Babylon, lack/introduction of context is juxtaposed with the transparency debate. (Actual Critic Genevieve Valentine also noted the narrative style, I'm not desperately bullshitting here.) It's ironic having characters argue about transparency when they aren't honest about themselves. It's not a mystery show, but mundane-yet-important details about main characters' personal lives are revealed suddenly, sometimes as surprises to the audience but not to other characters, sometimes as shocks to everyone. When characters learn more about each other and adjust their opinions, they themselves become more sympathetic in the process because it parallels audience reaction. I'm insistent that the series - specifically the Scotland Yard arc - is a team effort because otherwise Finn is just an asshole bouncing lines off people who don't verbally respond half of the time, and that's amazingly boring.

There isn't much evidence that Richard is a good person or Commissioner besides the word of his best friend and an infatuated woman he barely knows. He mistreats both of them in some way. He’s not mean to his family, but he's mentioned and shown as verbally abusive towards subordinates. Delgado may have had a point, since every other hint he gives to Liz is reliable. Yet the overall audience is probably more inclined to perceive Finn as the most-likely-to-be-abusive character, even though the only evidence is A) his interactions with Liz (who's matched him since day one; arguments aren't inherently abusive and they’ve started to Calm TF Down by the end) and B) his annoyance with Tom, which only peaks in the last two episodes.

Why does this happen? Because early on, Mia says Finn is an ‘arsehole’ - never mind how they usually seem to get along. (The only time they clash, his anger isn't actually directed at her.) No one paints a heroic picture of Finn; he describes himself through fictional villains or less-than-anti-heroes. He's not charismatic like Richard. He uses big words and has a severe gum addiction. Those 'undesirable traits' are subconsciously associated with being a white collar villain, while the obviously wrong actions of police characters aren’t as strongly vilified.

Audiences are so conditioned to expect certain story beats or clichés that we automatically assume they exist, or that there's a strong connection between things that aren't inherently linked. It happens with Liz, who might be negatively viewed the way Finn views her, or through a stereotypically rose-tinted ‘strong female character’ lens. It happens with Finn...who becomes most prominent as he’s part of the arcs of white women and a Black man. In his specific case, is that why the other characters aren't interesting, while he mysteriously pops out like a fucking daffodil in the middle of a desert? After Richard dies, only Finn could possibly fit what the protagonist of a satire 'should' look like, if you shut one eye and thought satires can't be humanist and pretended you didn't see certain scenes and turned off your deductive reasoning.

The worst things about Finn are his casual -ism’s and active role in the institution. I wonder if they’re the Bad Things identified by people who view him as an archetypal career-driven sadist, or if they come to mind at all. He’s not manipulative or a jerk as a default, he’s not motivated by money or power for its own sake. He’s arrogant and abrasive - that’s the rule in his setting, not the exception. Yet he mentally registers as a flat archetype at the cost of recognising his actual pressing issues. Not seeing his deeper issues undermines his dynamic with almost every other character - which, if you’re using him as a reference point, maybe explains why they might not appear as compelling, just maaaaybe. 

The trickiness of contextualization is specifically linked to Finn, who’s implied to have some sort of literary background. (Thanks, inexplicable Shakespeare bust!) In another interview, Bertie says Finn would describe himself as a ‘realist’. Finn occasionally brings up facts, but his concept of realism revolves around how other people construct their own fiction. (A neat thing about how Liz and Finn usually communicate: she ‘sells’ ideas, he gives mini narratives.)

It’s impossible to guard Richard while being honest about him or the police. Finn is opposed to Liz’s policies because their ‘story’ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. He also romanticizes the job, but it’s in a Byronic way instead of straightforward heroism; he knows the truth is ugly and gives people more reasons to hate them, so he thinks they might as well control the narrative while they can. He frames his job as a gritty morally grey drama to justify himself - but it’s the wrong ‘genre’ and he fails to salvage their image anyway. Liz and Inglis have idealized, somewhat self-righteous perceptions of the institution, but they don’t use it to justify really bad things; their morality overrides conventional logic several times and it turns out to be the right thing, or the least wrong thing. They’re the only ones who remotely gain something they want by the end.

The emotional climax or whatever of Finn’s largely background arc is quietly admitting that he needs Liz, that her approach might be better than his, and encouraging Inglis’s interest in transparency - an interest that’ll likely have a long-term impact. Finn’s cynicism begins to recede and it’s largely dependent on them; he represents the shifting status quo, he’s an indication that they succeeded in some way. So he’s quite obviously not static and he can’t exist as effectively as an isolated entity therefore, bite me, Digital Spy.

[brinazzle]

2

During the twelve years he was mayor of New York City, from 2001 to 2013, Michael Bloomberg was an indefatigable “social engineer,” always striving to change people’s behavior for the better (at least in his mind). Whether he was banning public smoking or decreeing that all municipal vehicles go hybrid, his objective was always civic self-improvement. Near the end of his third and final term in 2012, he decided to attack the childhood obesity epidemic. He did so by banning sales of sugary soft drinks in quantities greater than sixteen ounces. We can debate the merits of Bloomberg’s idea and the inequities created by some of its loopholes. But we can all agree that reducing childhood obesity is a good thing. In one small way, Bloomberg was trying to alter the environment that tempts people to overconsume sugary drinks. His rationale was unassailable: if consumers—for example, moviegoers—aren’t offered a thirty-two-ounce soft drink for a few pennies more than the sixteen-ounce cup, they’ll buy the smaller version and consume less sugar. He wasn’t stopping people from drinking all the sugary beverage they wanted (they could still buy two sixteen-ounce cups). He was merely putting up a small obstacle to alter people’s behavior—like closing your door so people must knock before interrupting you. Personally, I didn’t have a dog in this race. (I am not here to judge. My mission is to help people become the person that they want to be, not tell them who that person is.) I watched Bloomberg’s plan unfold purely as an exercise in the richness of our resistance to change. I love New York. The good citizens didn’t disappoint. People quickly lodged the “nanny state” objection: where does this Bloomberg fellow come off telling me how to live my lifeLocal politicians objected because they hadn’t been consulted. They hated the mayor’s high-handed methods. The NAACP objected to the mayor’s hypocrisy in targeting soft drinks while cutting phys ed budgets in schools. So-called “mom and pop” store owners objected because the ban exempted convenience stores such as 7-Eleven, which could put the mom and-pops out of business. Jon Stewart mocked the mayor because the two-hundred-dollar ticket for illegally selling supersize soft drinks was double the fine for selling marijuana. And so on. In the end, after a barrage of lawsuits, a judge struck down the law for being “arbitrary and capricious.” My point: even when the individual and societal benefits of changing a specific behavior are indisputable, we are geniuses at inventing reasons to avoid change. It is much easier, and more fun, to attack the strategy of the person who’s trying to help than to try to solve the problem. That genius becomes more acute when it applies to us—when it’s our turn to change how we behave. We fall back on a set of beliefs that trigger denial, resistance, and ultimately self-delusion. They are more pernicious than excuses. An excuse is the handy explanation we offer when we disappoint other people. Not merely convenient, it is often made up on the spot. We don’t exercise because “it’s boring” or we’re “too busy.” We’re late for work because of “traffic” or “an emergency with the kids.” We hurt someone because we “didn’t have a choice.” These excuses, basically variations on “The dog ate my homework,” are so abused it’s a wonder anyone believes us (even when we’re telling the truth). But what should we call the rationalizations we privately harbor when we disappoint ourselves? Mere “excuse” is somehow inadequate to describe these inner beliefs that represent how we interpret our world. An excuse explains why we fell short of expectations after the fact. Our inner beliefs trigger failure before it happens. They sabotage lasting change by canceling its possibility. We employ these beliefs as articles of faith to justify our inaction and then wish away the result. I call them belief triggers. 





































1. If I understand, I will do. Everything that I am going to suggest in this book works. It doesn’t “kind of” work or “sort of” work. It works. My suggestions will help you understand how to close the gap between the “ideal you” and the “real you.” However, this does not mean that you will do it. People who read my writing sometimes tell me, “It’s common sense. I didn’t read anything here that I don’t already know.” It’s the default critique of most advice books (you may be thinking it right now). My thought is always: “True, but I’ll bet that you read plenty here that you don’t already do.” If you’ve ever been to a seminar or corporate retreat where all attendees agreed on what to do next—and a year later nothing has changed—you know that there’s a difference between understanding and doing. Just because people understand what to do doesn’t ensure that they will actually do it. This belief triggers confusion. It also pervades the fourteen belief triggers that follow. You may be familiar with them. You may think they don’t apply to you. This is a belief worth questioning, too. 













































2. I have willpower and won’t give in to temptation. We deify willpower and self-control, and mock its absence. People who achieve through remarkable willpower are “strong” and “heroic.” People who need help or structure are “weak.” This is crazy—because few of us can accurately gauge or predict our willpower. We not only overestimate it, we chronically underestimate the power of triggers in our environment to lead us astray. Our environment is a magnificent willpower-reduction machine. In The Odyssey, Homer’s classic work from circa 800 BC, the hero Odysseus faces many perils and tests on his return home from the Trojan War. At one point his ship must pass the Sirens whose haunting voices lure sailors to their death on the rocks near shore. Odysseus wants to hear the Sirens so he puts wax in his men’s ears and ties himself to the ship’s mast so he can safely hear the Sirens’ singing without going mad. He knew willpower alone wasn’t enough to overcome the Sirens’ temptation. Unlike Odysseus, few of us foresee the challenges we will face. As a result, the willpower we assume when we set a goal rarely measures up to the willpower we display in achieving that goal. Something always comes up to sink our boat. This belief triggers overconfidence. 












































3. Today is a special day. When we want to make an excuse for errant behavior, any day can be designated as a “special day.” We yield to impulse and short-term gratification because today is the Super Bowl, or my birthday, or our anniversary, or my day off, or National Cookie Day (December 4 if you don’t already know). Tomorrow is back to normal. We’ll be our usual disciplined self then. If we really want to change we have to make peace with the fact that we cannot self-exempt every time the calendar offers us a more attractive alternative to our usual day. Excusing our momentary lapses as an outlier event triggers a self indulgent inconsistency—which is fatal for change. Successful change doesn’t happen overnight. We’re playing a long game, not the short game of instant gratification that our special day provides. 
















































4. “At least I’m better than...” In a down moment after failure or loss, we tell ourselves, “At least I’m better than _________.” We award ourselves a free pass because we’re not the worst in the world. This is our excuse to take it easy, lowering the bar on our motivation and discipline. Other people have to change more than we do. We’ve triggered a false sense of immunity. 





















































5. I shouldn’t need help and structure. One of our most dysfunctional beliefs is our contempt for simplicity and structure. We believe that we are above needing structure to help us on seemingly simple tasks. For example, as Dr. Atul Gawande reported in The Checklist Manifesto, central line infections in intensive care units virtually disappear when doctors follow a simple five-point checklist involving rote procedures such as washing hands, cleaning the patient’s skin, and using a sterile dressing after inserting the line. For many years, despite the checklist’s proven success rate, doctors resisted it. After years of medical training, many doctors thought that the constant reminders, especially when delivered by subordinate nurses, were demeaning. The surgeons thought, “I shouldn’t need to use a checklist to remember simple instructions.” This is a natural response that combines three competing impulses: 1) our contempt for simplicity (only complexity is worthy of our attention); 2) our contempt for instruction and follow-up; and 3) our faith, however unfounded, that we can succeed all by ourselves. In combination these three trigger an unappealing exceptionalism in us. When we presume that we are better than people who need structure and guidance, we lack one of the most crucial ingredients for change: humility. 












































6. I won’t get tired and my enthusiasm will not fade. In the morning, when we plan to work long hours and finish our assignment we are not exhausted. We may feel fresh and full of energy. But after we work several hours we become tired and more vulnerable to throwing in the towel. When we plan to achieve our goals, we believe that our energy will not flag and that we will never lose our enthusiasm for the process of change. We seldom recognize that self-control is a limited resource. As we become tired our self-control begins to waver and may eventually disappear. The sheer effort of sticking with the plan triggers depletion. 



















































7. I have all the time in the world. Here are two opposing beliefs that we simultaneously hold in our minds and mash into one warped view of time: 1) we chronically underestimate the time it takes to get anything done; 2) we believe that time is open-ended and sufficiently spacious for us to get to all our self-improvement goals eventually. (Hah! I’ve been promising myself that this is the year I’ll read War and Peace—and have been promising for forty-three consecutive years.) This faith in time’s infinite patience triggers procrastination. We will start getting better tomorrow. There’s no urgency to do it today. 



















































8. I won’t get distracted and nothing unexpected will occur. When we make plans for the future, we seldom plan on distractions. We plan as if we are going to live in a perfect world and be left alone to focus on our work. Although this state of being left alone has never happened in the past, we plan as if this nirvana-like world will surely exist in the future. We get down to work without accommodating the fact that life always intrudes to alter our priorities and test our focus. Earning an undergraduate degree in mathematical economics taught me about the high probability of low-probability events. We don’t plan for low-probability events because, by definition, any one of them is unlikely to occur. Who plans on a flat tire, or accident, or stalled traffic because of an overturned semi on their way to work? And yet the odds of at least one of these events occurring are high. We are all victimized, more frequently than we like, by traffic jams and flat tires and accidents. This belief triggers unrealistic expectations. (Ironically, as I am typing this on a Sunday afternoon, I have just received an email from a client saying, “I have an emergency at work and need to get your considered opinion. Is there any way that we can talk now?” While the probability of her contacting me for an emergency talk on this particular Sunday afternoon was close to zero [she had never done this before], the probability of some distraction happening on Sunday afternoon is pretty high.) In my coaching, I usually work with executive clients for eighteen months. I warn each client that the process will take longer than they expect because there will be a crisis. I can’t name the crisis, but it will be legitimate and real—for example, an acquisition, a defection, a major product recall—and it may dramatically extend the time they need to achieve positive change. They cannot predict it, but they should expect it—and it will distract them and slow them down. 






































9. An epiphany will suddenly change my life. An epiphany implies that change can arise out of a sudden burst of insight and willpower. It happens, of course. An alcoholic hits rock bottom. A gambler goes broke. A nasty executive is threatened with dismissal. And for a while, each of them sees the light. But more often than not, an epiphany experience triggers magical thinking. I’m skeptical of any “instant conversion experience.” It might produce change in the short run, but nothing meaningful or lasting—because the process is based on impulse rather than strategy, hopes and prayers rather than structure. 



















































10. My change will be permanent and I will never have to worry again. The Great Western Disease is “I’ll be happy when...” This is our belief that happiness is a static and finite goal, within our grasp when we get that promotion, or buy that house, or find that mate, or whatever. It’s inculcated in us by the most popular story line in contemporary life: there is a person; the person spends money on a product or service; the person is eternally happy. This is called a TV commercial. The average American spends 140,000 hours watching TV commercials. Some brainwashing is inevitable. Is it any wonder that we so casually assume that any positive change we make will change us forever? It’s the same with behavioral change. We set a goal and mistakenly believe that in achieving that goal we will be happy—and that we will never regress. This belief triggers a false sense of permanence. If only this were true. My research involving more than 86,000 respondents around the world on changing leadership behavior, “Leadership Is a Contact Sport,” paints a different picture. If we don’t follow up, our positive change doesn’t last. It’s the difference between, say, getting in shape and staying in shape—hitting our physical conditioning goals and maintaining them. Even when we get there, we cannot stay there without commitment and discipline. We have to keep going to the gym—forever. Fairy tales end with “and they lived happily ever after.” That is why they are called fairy tales, not documentaries. 









































11. My elimination of old problems will not bring on new problems. Even if we appreciate that no change will provide a permanent solution to our problems, we forget that as we usher an old problem out the door a new problem usually enters. I see this all the time with my successful clients. They all agree that the euphoria of achieving their dream job of CEO vanishes by the second meeting with the board of directors. The old problem of becoming CEO has been replaced by the new problems of being CEO. This belief triggers a fundamental misunderstanding of our future challenges. Lottery winners are a notorious example here. Who hasn’t imagined the worry-free bliss that comes with sudden riches? And yet, research shows that only two years after winning the lottery, the winners are not that much happier than they were before they collected their checks. The big payday solves their old problems of debt and paying the mortgage and funding their children’s schooling. But new problems immediately appear. Relatives and friends and charities suddenly appear expecting a generous handout. The old problem of a cheap home in a neighborhood with old friends has been replaced with the new problem of an expensive home in a new neighborhood with no friends. 











































12. My efforts will be fairly rewarded. From childhood we are brought up to believe that life is supposed to be fair. Our noble efforts and good works will be rewarded. When we are not properly rewarded we feel cheated. Our dashed expectations trigger resentment. When I coach leaders, I insist that they pursue change because they believe in their hearts that it is the right thing to do. It will help them become a better leader, team member, family member—and by extension improve the lives of the people in their immediate orbit. It will help them live the values that they believe in. If they’re only pursuing change for an external reward (a promotion, more money), I won’t work with them because 1) there are no certainties that we’ll get what we want, 2) if the reward is the only motivator people revert to their old ways, and 3) all I’ve done is help a phony succeed. Getting better is its own reward. If we do that, we can never feel cheated. 
















































13. No one is paying attention to me. We believe that we can occasionally lapse back into bad behavior because people aren’t paying close attention. We are practically invisible, triggering a dangerous preference for isolation. Even worse, it’s only half true. While our slow and steady improvement may not be as obvious to others as it is to us, when we revert to our previous behavior, people always notice. 




















































14. If I change I am “inauthentic.” Many of us have a misguided belief that how we behave today not only defines us but represents our fixed and constant selves, the authentic us forever. If we change, we are somehow not being true to who we really are. This belief triggers stubbornness. We refuse to adapt our behavior to new situations because “it isn’t me.” For example, it is not uncommon for me to work with an executive who makes comments like, “I am no good at giving positive recognition. That’s just not me.” I then ask these people if they have an incurable genetic disease that is prohibiting them from giving people the recognition that they deserve. We can change not only our behavior but how we define ourselves. When we put ourselves in a box marked “That’s not me,” we ensure that we’ll never get out of it. 
















































15. I have the wisdom to assess my own behavior. We are notoriously inaccurate in assessing ourselves. Among the more than 80,000 professionals I’ve asked to rate their performance, 70 percent believe they are in the top 10 percent of their peer group, 82 percent believe that they are in the top fifth, and 98.5 percent place themselves in the top half. If we’re successful, we tend to credit ourselves for our victories and blame our situation or other people for our losses. This belief triggers an impaired sense of objectivity. It convinces us that while other people consistently overrate themselves, our own self-assessment is fair and accurate.   Overconfidence. Stubbornness. Magical thinking. Confusion. Resentment. Procrastination. That’s a lot of heavy baggage to carry on our journey of change. All these rationalizations, some profound, some silly, still don’t completely answer the larger question, Why don’t we become the person we want to be? Why do we plan to be a better person one day—and then abandon that plan within hours or days? There is an even larger reason that explains why we don’t make the changes we want to make—greater than the high quality of our excuses or our devotion to our belief triggers. It’s called the environment.

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/bear-hubris-suicidal/

When dealing with a bear, hubris is suicidal

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

Assuming mankind finds a way not to destroy itself in the near future and assuming that there will still be historians in the 22nd or 23rd centuries, I bet you that they will look at the AngloZionist Empire and see the four following characteristics as some of its core features: lies, willful ignorance, hypocrisy, and hysterics. To illustrate my point I will use the recent “Skripal nerve-gas assassination” story as it really encompasses all of these characteristics.

I won’t even bother debunking the official nonsense here as others have done a very good job of pointing out the idiocy of the official narrative. If you are truly capable of believing that “Putin” (that is the current collective designator for the Evil Empire of Mordor currently threatening all of western civilization) would order the murder of a man whom a Russian military court sentenced to only 13 years in jail (as opposed to life or death) and who was subsequently released as part of a swap with the USA, you can stop reading right now and go back to watching TV. I personally have neither the energy nor the inclination to even discuss such a self-evidently absurd theory. No, what I do want to do is use this story as a perfect illustration of the kind of society we now all live in looked at from a moral point of view. I realize that we live in a largely value-free society where moral norms have been replaced by ideological orthodoxy, but that is just one more reason for me to write about what is taking place precisely focusing on the moral dimensions of current events.

Lies and the unapologetic denial of reality:

In a 2015 article entitled “A society of sexually frustrated Pinocchios” I wrote the following:

I see a direct cause and effect relationship between the denial of moral reality and the denial of physical reality. I can’t prove that, of course, but here is my thesis: Almost from day one, the early western civilization began by, shall we say, taking liberties with the truth, which it could bend, adapt, massage and repackage to serve the ideological agenda of the day. It was not quite the full-blown and unapologetic relativism of the 19th century yet, but it was an important first step. With “principles” such as the end justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the Ten Commandants all “for the greater glory of God” the western civilization got cozy with the idea that there was no real, objective truth, only the subjective perception or even representation each person might have thereof. Fast forward another 10 centuries or so and we end up with the modern “Gayropa” (as Europe is now often referred to in Russia): not only has God been declared ‘dead’ and all notions of right and wrong dismissed as “cultural”, but even objective reality has now been rendered contingent upon political expediency and ideological imperatives.

I went on to quote George Orwell by reminding how he defined “doublethink” in his book 1984:

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it (…) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality“

and I concluded by saying that “The necessary corollary from this state of mind is that only appearances matter, not reality”.

This is exactly what we are observing; not only in the silly Skripal nerve-gas assassination story but also in all the rest of the Russophobic nonsense produced by the AngloZionist propaganda machine including the “Litvinenko polonium murder” and the “Yushchenko dioxin poisoning“. The fact that neither nerve-gas, nor polonium nor dioxin are in any way effective murder weapons does not matter in the least: a simple drive-by shooting, street-stabbing or, better, any “accident” is both easier to arrange and impossible to trace. Fancy assassination methods are used when access to the target is very hard or impossible (as was the case with Ibn al-Khattab, whose assassination the Russians were more than happy to take credit for; this might also have been the case with the��death of Yasser Arafat). But the best way of murdering somebody is to simply make the body disappear, making any subsequent investigation almost impossible. Finally, you can always subcontract the assassination to somebody else like, for example, when the CIA tried and failed, to murder Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussain Fadlallah by subcontracting his bombing to its local “Christian” allies, killing over 80 innocent people in the process. There is plenty of common crime in the UK and to get somebody to rob and stab Skripal would have probably been the easiest version. That’s assuming that the Russians had any reason to want him dead, which they self-evidently didn’t.

But here is the important thing: every single criminal or intelligence specialist in the West understands all of the above. But that does not stop the Ziomedia from publishing articles like this one “A Brief History of Attempted Russian Assassinations by Poison” which also lists people poisoned by Russians:

Skripal by nerve gas

Litvinenko by polonium

Kara-Murza poisoned not once, but TWICE, by an unknown poison, he survived!

Markov poisoned by ricin and the Bulgarians with “speculated KGB assistance”

Khattab by sarin or a sarin-derivative

Yushchenko by dioxin

Perepilichny by “a rare, toxic flower, gelsemium” (I kid you not, check the article!)

Moskalenko by mercury

Politkovskaya who was shot, but who once felt “ill after drinking some tea that she believed contained poison”

The only possible conclusion from this list is this: there is some kind of secret lab in Russia where completely incompetent chemists try every poison known to man, not on rats or on mice, but on high profile AngloZionist-supported political activists, preferably before an important political event.

Right.

By the way, the gas allegedly used in the attack, “Novichok”, was manufactured in Uzbekistan and the cleanup of the factory producing it was made by, you guessed it, a US company. Just saying…

In any halfway honest and halfway educated society, those kind of articles should result in the idiot writing it being summarily fired for gross incompetence and the paper/journal posting it being discredited forever. But in our world, the clown who wrote that nonsense (Elias Groll, a Harvard graduate and – listen to this – a specialist of “cyberspace and its conflicts and controversies” (sic)) is a staff writer of the award-winning Foreign Policy magazine.

So what does it tell us, and future historians, when this kind of crap is written by a staff writer of an “award winning” media outlet? Does it not show that our society has now reached a stage in its decay (I can’t call that “development”) where lies become the norm? Not only are even grotesque and prima facie absurd lies accepted, they are expected (if only because they reinforce the current ideological Zeitgeist. The result? Our society is now packed with first, zombified ideological drones who actually believe any type of officially proclaimed of nonsense and, second, by cowards who lack the basic courage to denounce even that which they themselves know to be false.

Lies, however ridiculous and self-evidently stupid, have become the main ingredient of the modern political discourse. Everybody knows this and nobody cares. When challenged on this, the typical defense used is always the same: “you are the only person saying this – I sure ever heard this before!”.

Willful ignorance as a universal cop-out

We all know the type. You tell somebody that his/her theory makes absolutely no sense or is not supported by facts and the reply you get is some vaguely worded refusal to engage in an disputation. Initially, you might be tempted to believe that, indeed, your interlocutor is not too bright and not too well read, but eventually you realize that there is something very different happening: the modern man actually makes a very determined effort not to be capable of logical thought and not to be informed of the basic facts of the case. And what is true for specific individuals is even more true of our society as a whole. Let’s take one simple example: Operation Gladio:

“Gladio” is really an open secret by now. Excellent books and videos have been written about this and even the BBC has made a two and a half hour long video about it. There is even an entire website dedicated to the story of this huge, continent-wide, terrorist organization specializing in false flag operations. That’s right: a NATO-run terrorist network in western Europe involved in false flag massacres like the infamous Bologna train station bombing. No, not the Soviet KGB backing the Baader-Meinhof Red Army Faction or the Red Brigades in Italy. No, the USA and West European governments organizing, funding and operating a terrorist network directed at the people of Western, not Eastern, Europe. Yes, at their own people! In theory, everybody should know about this, the information is available everywhere, even on the hyper-politically correct Wikipedia. But, again, nobody cares.

The end of the Cold War was marked by a seemingly endless series of events which all provided a pretext for AngloZionist interventions (from the Markale massacres in Bosnia, to the Srebrenica “genocide”, to the Racak massacre Kosovo, to the “best” and biggest one of them all, 9/11 of course). Yet almost nobody wondered if the same people or, at least, the same kind of people who committed all the Gladio crimes might be involved. Quite the opposite: each one of these events was accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign mindlessly endorsing and even promoting the official narrative, even when it self-evidently made no sense whatsoever (like 2 aircraft burning down 3 steel towers). As for Gladio, it was conveniently “forgotten”.

There is a simple principle in psychology, including, and especially in criminal psychology which I would like to prominently restate here:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

Every criminalist knows that and this is why criminal investigators place so much importance on the “modus operandi”, i.e. the particular way or method a suspect or a criminal chooses in the course of the execution of his/her crimes. That is also something which everybody knows. So let’s summarize this in a simple thesis:

Western regimes have a long and well-established track record of regularly executing bloody false-flag operations in pursuit of political objectives, especially those providing them with a pretext to justify an illegal military aggression.

Frankly, I submit that the thesis above is really established not only by a preponderance of evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt. Right?

Maybe. But that is also completely irrelevant because nobody gives a damn! Not the reporters who lie for a living nor, even less so, the brainwashed zombies who read their nonsense and take it seriously. The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro over 600 times – who cares?! All we know is that the good folks at Langley would never, ever, kill a Russian in the UK, out of respect for international law, probably…

That willful ignorance easily defeats history, facts or logic.

Here is a simple question a journalist could ask: “would the type of people who had no problems blowing up an large train station, or bringing down three buildings in downtown New York, have any hesitation in using a goofy method to try kill a useless Russian ex-spy if that could justify further hostile actions against a country which they desperately need to demonize to justify and preserve the current AngloZionist world order?”. The answer I think is self-evident. The question shall therefore not be asked. Instead, soy-boys from Foreign Policy mag will tell us about how the Russians use exotic flowers to kill high visibility opponents whose death would serve no conceivable political goal.

Hypocrisy as a core attribute of the modern man

Willful ignorance is important, of course, but it is not enough. For one thing, being ignorant, while useful to dismiss a fact-based and/or logical argument, is not something useful to establish your moral superiority or the legality of your actions. Empire requires much more than just obedience from its subject: what is also absolutely indispensable is a very strong sense of superiority which can be relied upon when committing a hostile action against the other guy. And nothing is as solid a foundation for a sense of superiority than the unapologetic reliance on brazen hypocrisy. Let’s take a fresh example: the latest US threats to attack Syria (again).

Irrespective of the fact that the USA themselves have certified Syria free of chemical weapons and irrespective of the fact that US officials are still saying that they have no evidence that the Syrian government was involved in any chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, the USA is now preparing to strike Syria again in “response” to future chemical attacks! Yes, you read that right. The AngloZionists are now announcing their false flags in advance! In fact, by the time this analysis is published the attack will probably already have occurred. The “best” part of this all is that Nikki Haley has now announced to the UN Security Council that the US will act without any UN Security Councilapproval. What the USA is declaring is this: “we reserve the right to violate international law at any time and for any reason we deem sufficient”. In the very same statement, Nikki Haley also called the Syrian government an “outlaw regime”. This is not a joke, check it out for yourself. The reaction in “democratic” Europe: declaring that *Russia* (not the US) is a rogue state. QED.

This entire circus is only made possible by the fact that the western elites have all turned into “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” (to use the wonderful words of Boris Johnson) and that absolutely nobody has the courage, or decency, to call all this what it really is: an obscene display of total hypocrisy and wholesale violation of all norms of international law. The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern “journalists are either unemployed or prostitutes” (he spoke about the French media – un journaliste français c’est soit une pute soit un chômeur – but this fully applies to all the western media). Except that I would extend it to the entire Western Establishment.

I would further argue that foreign aggression and hypocrisy have become the two essential pillars for the survival of the AngloZionist empire: the first one being an economic and political imperative, the 2nd one being the prerequisite for the public justification of the first one. But sometimes even that is not enough, especially when the lies are self-evidently absurd. Then the final, quasi-miraculous element is always brought in: hysterics.

Hysteria as the highest form of (pseudo-)liberalism

I don’t particularly care for the distinction usually made between liberals and conservatives, at least not unless the context and these terms is carefully and accurately defined. I certainly don’t place myself on that continuum nor do find it analytically helpful.

The theoretical meaning of these concepts is, however, quite different from what is mostly understood under these labels, especially when people use them to identify themselves. That is to say that while I am not at all sure that those who think of themselves as, say, liberals are in any way truly liberal, I do think that people who would identify themselves as “liberals” often (mostly?) share a number of characteristics, the foremost of which is a very strong propensity to function at, and engage in, an hysterical mode of discourse and action.

The Google definition of hysteria is “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people (…) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior”. Is that not a perfect description of US politicians, especially the (putatively) “liberal” ones? Just think of the way US Democrats have capitalized on such (non-)issues as “Russian interference” (externally) or “gun control” (internally) and you will see that the so-called “liberals” never get off a high-emotional pitch. The best example of all, really, is their reaction to the election of Donald Trump instead of their cult-leader Hillary: it has been over a year since Trump has been elected and yet the liberal ziomedia and its consumers are still in full-blown hysteria mode (with “pussyhats”, “sky-screams” and all). In a conversation you can literally drown such a liberal with facts, statistics, expert testimonies, etc. and achieve absolutely no result whatsoever because the liberal lives in an ideological comfort zone which he/she is categorically unwilling and, in fact, unable, to abandon, even temporarily. This is what makes liberals such a *perfect* audience for false-flag operations: they simply won’t process the narrative presented to them in a logical manner but will immediately react to it in a strongly emotional manner, usually with the urge to immediately “do something”.

That “do something” is usually expressed in the application of violence (externally) and the imposition of bans/restrictions/regulations (internally). You can try to explain to that liberal that the very last thing the Russians would ever want to do is to use a stupid method to try to kill a person who is of absolutely no interest to them, or to explain to that liberal that the very last thing the Syrian government would ever do in the course of its successful liberation of its national territory from “good terrorists” would be to use chemical weapons of any kind – but you would never achieve anything: Trump must be impeached, the Russians sanctioned and the Syrians bombed, end of argument.

I am quite aware that there are a lot of self-described “conservatives” who have fully joined this chorus of hysterical liberals in all their demands, but these “conservatives” are not only acting out of character, they are simply caving in to the social pressure of the day, being the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” mentioned above. Again, I am not discussing real liberals or real conservatives here (regardless of what these terms really mean), I am talking about those who, for whatever reason, chose to place that label upon themselves even if they personally have only a very vague idea of what this label is supposed to mean.

So there we have it: an Empire built (and maintained) on lies, accepted on the basis ignorance, justified by hypocrisy and energized by hysterics. This is what the “Western world” stands for nowadays. And while there is definitely a vocal minority of “resisters” (from the Left and the Right – also two categories I don’t find analytically helpful – and from many other schools of political thought), the sad reality is that the vast majority of people around us accept this and see no reason to denounce it, nevermind doing something about it. That is why “they” got away with 9/11 and why “they” will continue to get away with future false-flags because the people lied to, realize, at least on some level, that they are being lied to and yet they simply don’t care. Truly, the Orwellian slogans of 1984 “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” perfectly fit our world. However, when dealing with the proverbial Russian bear, there is one lesson of history which western leaders really should never forget and which they should also turn into a slogan: when dealing with a bear, hubris is suicidal.

The Saker

[slipslidingaway2017]

Mind and Body

I miss New York. Today would have been a perfect day in the city. The morning was cool and overcast and I know that there sounds would be muted. The city’s constant din would be dimmer. It would be a good morning for a long walk with just a hint of rain dampening jacket and scarf. Squirrels and birds would be out, taking advantage of the calm to work harder than they can when distracted. How like humans they are and we like they.

Then, in mid-afternoon, the sun breaks through the fading clouds. The world is suddenly bright though less bright than a day without clouds at all. The sun is civilized on a November afternoon. The clock has returned to its normal routine after being altered by people’s tinkering. From the afternoon to night is but a small space now and this is how it should be at this season of the year.

In New York I would be rested and I would be calm. But I realize I am those things here, in the South, at home, now. I realize this is unusual. It is not as it has been. Life is better and I am glad.

*****

The last eight months have been trying, tiresome, depressing, endless and seemingly hopeless. My husband Angelo fought multiple diseases. The diabetes he bears was untreated and uncontrolled. The medical industry and all its brilliant practitioners failed him with bumbling disinterest. His body was out of control. As we traveled back and forth from New York to Richmond and to and fro from elsewhere Angelo would suffer what I came to call attacks. His mood would shift without notice from kind and caring to violently abusive. I was the target of his terrible wrath.

Over the months the attacks worsened and became more frequent. We blamed it all on his diabetes but we had no diagnosis. It was speculation. In seven emergency hospital admissions Angelo received no relief; he was merely stabilized and then turned away. His health insurance did not permit psychiatric services and he had no counselor. His blood sugar raged to frightening heights. He assaulted me three times, once raising a bloody wound and leaving me with a black eye I wore for weeks. Angelo and I were alone with nowhere to turn. We could only await the next attack.

Angelo’s turmoil sickened me. I became depressed, more depressed than even the worst days of my life in 2012. I could not understand why I was faced with a seemingly insane partner for the second time in fewer than eighteen months. “Why”, I cried to God. “Why has my life been ruined again after I have just regained my health and my mind? Have I sinned so grievously?” God provided no answers.

I lost hope and committed to take the advice of my family and many friends. I left Angelo and began plans for a single life after less than a year of marriage. He was beyond distraught and I feared for his health and his future. I could do nothing else because I was dying, in my heart and in fact.

Then, like a biblical miracle all changed. In the span of ten days Angelo received access to an endocrinologist - a diabetes specialist. He was accepted as a client of Richmond’s Daily Planet, a decades’ old effort providing health care and mental health treatment to the city’s impoverished. His specialist prescribed self-administered insulin. It had an immediate effect. His therapist prescribed Celexa. This was the miracle. Angelo’s mood cleared and his attacks disappeared. Once again he was the man I married and we reunited, grateful for what we were sure was a gift from God.

Today, six weeks later, Angelo is happy and calm and so am I. We celebrated the first of our anniversaries in love and today will join friends to mark the second.

*****

What about me? My physical health is very good. I joke that I am the healthiest man I know, “but for one thing.” This joke seems real and unreal simultaneously. My fight for health has been long and hard and my victory is my proudest achievement, more important than the position, prestige and “power” that marked my life before it disintegrated. I have decided to move through life in a mode of watchful waiting. I will mind my disease as I must but I will not allow it to rule me as I once did. My decision is the same as many of yours. Did I come to it sooner than you, or later?

                        There is much more to well-being than physical health. In the years I practiced law I represented many men and women charged with serious criminal offenses. Often in these cases I decided it was important to document my client’s mental state at the time of the offense and compare it to his state in the present. To do this I retained counselors and psychologists to offer professional opinions on point.

When I provided the required notice that my client’s mental state was at issue the prosecutor always involved her own professional to conduct an examination and usually to testify counter to my expert’s opinion. The common result was two experienced, degreed professionals offering diametrically opposing opinions on a question of fact.

This result perplexed and concerned me. How can the description of a matter of fact differ to this degree? Who is telling the truth? Is the other lying? I was no innocent. I did what was required to obtain the best outcome possible for my client. But this situation left a bad taste in my mouth.

I came to disrespect these professionals for this example of men and women testifying in what seemed a duplicitous manner. I decided I would never seek counsel myself from a professional counselor or psychologist. When I needed help I sought it from family, friends or colleagues who while untrained were reliably honest.

I have written of the effects on my mind caused by my disease. When I “came to” six weeks after my discharge from the hospital I entered consciousness depressed. I say this not because I was capable of a diagnosis. The situation was entirely unfamiliar to me. I simply knew that life had little meaning, that my relationship had become hollow and that I was lost and unanchored, just drifting from daylight to blessed sleep that removed my torment.

After a month of pain I decided I must seek help. I did not know who to call; that is, I did not know what kind of person could help. I knew little of the hierarchy of mental health practitioners. My experience was limited to one artificial circumstance. My pain was not artificial. It was the primary focus of my life.

I remembered a man I met in my work among Richmond’s LGBT people. Dr. Donnie as he was called was basically the psychologist for gay Richmond. Some people joked he had shrunk half the population of the bars. Despite this joke his reputation was solid, and a friend recommended him. I called him and scheduled an appointment.

As I entered his outer office the morning we were to meet my mind raced through unlettered  possibilities. How would a session run? Was there a couch? Was he going to mine my mind for every guilty sin? Could I respect myself when he was done? After a short time Dr. Donnie escorted me back to his office.

There was no couch and there was no desk, just tasteful decoration and two comfortable chairs, one facing the other. We sat and he began.

After running through insurance requirements we began the substance. He did not question. He asked me to explain why I was there.

I did, with a depth of detail that surprised me. I told him things I had discussed with no one, not because I did not want to but because I could not. I had no one with whom to share my thoughts. Speaking to Donnie felt right and the words erupted.

As did the tears. I found myself choking, gasping for breath as dry sobs racked me. I felt my soul was being ripped from my being as months of trapped fear and worry and hopelessness gushed forth into the air between us. Donnie offered comfort and had tissue handy. I was so glad he did.

When the session closed he said that while he normally saw new patients two weeks after the first session he wanted me to return in one. I had insurance then and so we made the date. I had a psychologist.

So began my journey through the worlds of psychoanalysis and later psychiatry. Donnie was Godsent. In the months following my start we killed the demons of my termination from my job and the end of my 24-year relationship. The moose in the room remained my disease. It was impossible to slay that and my counts were unsteady, prompting fear. Donnie consoled and counseled patience and faith. In time that lesson took hold.

In September 2013 I moved to New York City and was left without Donnie. In my year there I fired three counselors. I could not find one that fit me. None could live up to Donnie. I had learned enough to carry me through, to bull myself through as I had become used to when confronting a problem of any sort. Still the depression returned and at times it was hard. It was very hard indeed.

A year later I returned to Richmond and immediately messaged Donnie. We had three sessions but I had no insurance. To my deep regret I left him. Money was too tight.

Then late last month another miracle occurred. I was given access to a “charity counselor” through Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center. Paula, a licensed clinical social worker and I met four times and we are coming to know one another. She is a vibrant woman, approximately my age and very different than Donnie but as good I think. Paula helped me persevere through Angelo’s troubles. I am blessed to find help just when I need it most.

I have become an evangelist of mental health counseling. When I speak to others of my life I include news of my progress there along with my progress containing my virus. I always receive expressions of interest, caring and support.

Many people are frightened to admit they need help to deal with problems of cognition, clarity, courage and consciousness. Mental illness suffers from an ancient stigma. People living with HIV who need mental health treatment face this stigma together with the newer, very sharp stigma that comes with our disease. This can be overwhelming and it deters many from seeking help, either for their mind or for their virus.

This fear must be overcome because as I have testified progress and health is attainable on both counts. Do not be ashamed to seek help. Do not fear what others may say. Your disease is just that and is just the same as many others that bring support from all in society. Claim your right to respect and accept the help you are offered. Your life will change if you do. Mine has and I cannot imagine what it would be without the help I received from Donnie and Paula and my psychiatrists, Drs. Daniel and Kogut.

My life has changed in uncounted ways since… . It will never be what it was and now I am glad it will not. I have received tools that will aid my travel down a path that is uncertain. Today I believe that no matter what befalls me the journey will continue for a long time, how long only God knows. I have reached an armistice with my body and mind. One will work to keep me strong, the other to keep me happy and loved. I believe both, together we three as one, will succeed.

God bless each of you as you travel your path. Peace, my friends, and strength.