The Old 180 Trick

As they allegedly say in est: “We do it because it works.'

As Harry Rosenberg has allegedly stated,

 “We don't know why it works but it does.”

Well Harry, I suspect that even if you don't know WHY it works, I think your brother Jack knows why...”

You see, all of my assessors and evaluators, “out there in the world of reality,” most of whom are “strangers” to me, the primary trick in being like the dysfunctional “normal” is the use of the 180 “switch.”

Concrete example from my own “case”:

I claim that people like bus drivers and library employees are talking about me; some knowing who they are talking abut and some of them not knowing.

Psychiatrists claim that would not be reasonable for a group of people like this to behave that way.

Nexus point: Psychiatrists and I agree at this point.

Splitting point: Psychiatrists then move to the next “logical” step...therefore since it would not be reasonable for a large group to behave this way, it must not be happening or have happened. So an alternate explanation is needed to explain away the perceptions and reactions of the one who claims it did. Bingo! “brain disease” causing him/her to believe it is happening when “really”, it isn't.

They do this because the alternative would be to accept what I said at face value and know that large groups of people DO, in fact, behave this way and that I am the one in touch with this reality while the group members are in denial and living in the fantasy world.

But WHY would they do that?

First because they like to feel “superior” to inferiors and in the second place because when they get caught acting out in an abusive manner they want to conceal the truth to save themselves any negative consequences. So their victim is kept in place as their scapegoat, treated as expendable or as a “sacrifice” to the “god” of dysfunction and then attacked further for “complaining” about the abuse which all others just KNOW does not really exist and the victim is only SAYING it did to “seek attention/fame which is a feature of his/her “mental illness” and should be ignored.

The abuser is the enabled and the victim “disabled.” the abuser often then smiles. The smile is “interpreted” by the deceived group as being pleasant to the victim despite the false accusations. They smile is known to the victim to be a smile of satisfaction about obtaining and keeping power and control and the abuser knows the victim knows it. They both know that no one other than the pair of them actually understand what is going on and why. So the abuser 'wins” because the rest of the group look for reason or “logic” in the abuser where there never was any and conversely see the irrationality/ insanity in the victim instead.

It is the Starting Point that is “Switched”

Because the starting point is switched so is the end point. It all comes out reversed. This is what you “fail to see that is right in front of you.” It is the false premise. This is not sanity; it is the opposite.

The premise is that of a reality reversal and the subsequent split premise that is necessary to attempt to “make sense” of that reversal. That reversal is either:

A. that we all “choose” to be victims or we could not be victims

                                     and/or

B. choosing the opposite by learning how to be really good at excusing ourselves for being aggressors, and getting away with it.

It is about responsibility at that nexus of meaning. To get out of that insanity it means seeing that the “reality” that works for everyone is the opposite of the one presented in est. That is

A. Choosing to STOP accepting responsibility for being targeted as victims.

                                    and/or

B. Choosing to accept responsibility for choosing aggression and victimizing others by blaming the victims you choose for what you do TO them.

Concrete Example of Differences in Level of Consciousness

When I ask, “Why are you doing this to me?”, I am not asking my psychological abuser “Why are you saying the same (mocking or sarcastic or contemptuous) thing over and over again?

(To get a distress reaction from me)

I am asking her or him, “Why are you trying to GET a distress reaction from me BY saying the same thing over and over again? (mocking, contemptuous etc.)

Again, this is an example of how the same WORDS can have completely different meaning depending upon context, and the levels of consciousness in which different people operate. I can also tell you that this splitting of reality itself is very, very common.