New Show: MindMatters (RIP Truth Perspective)

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
out of topic here, the sierpinskii triangle can be obtained by at least three means: the randomized method outlined in the video above (so-called chaos game), cellular automata, and by the fractal method of drawing triangles inside triangles. They are found as mosaics in the floor of some medieval churches:
1658077236315.png
 

Anthony

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Your interview with John Carter was very informative and you covered a lot of topics that are relevant currently. It's interesting that the idea of a timeline shift is being considered in certain circles. It all reminds me of a quote I recently read from Robert Creegan:

Either we shall have more generous order, wisdom-imbued and boldly marshaling all the sciences for healing and for constructing, or we shall have planned disorder, cunningly rationalized, and marshaling deteriorating science, to break personalities and to enslave, or to obliterate, thoughtful peoples.
 

Ennio

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
We had another opportunity to speak with the inimitable Joshua Slocum. In this interview Josh is, in turns: hilarious, deeply insightful, and even soul-searching in his responses to our comments - a great discussion was had!

MindMatters: Kicking the Cluster B-hive with Joshua Slocum: Queen B's, Homosexuality & Dealing with Narcissists


Joshua Slocum is back! Not only is his Disaffected show bigger and better than ever, Josh has recently launched a new consulting service for all those poor, unfortunate souls dealing with high-conflict people in their lives. And he's back to tell us all about it.

Today on MindMatters we ask the big questions: What do you do if someone close to you has a serious personality disorder? What are the possible links between borderline personality and homosexuality? And perhaps the biggest question of all: why do gay men like Madonna and Disney villainesses? So join us as explore these controversial topics and more, in style.


 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
We had another opportunity to speak with the inimitable Joshua Slocum. In this interview Josh is, in turns: hilarious, deeply insightful, and even soul-searching in his responses to our comments - a great discussion was had!
I agree, great, funny, open, lively and knowledgeable guy! I'm glad he feels more comfortable to be joking here and there. It does help when talking about sad topics. I agree that 'if you have a good time, you will learn more'.

I thought it was interesting that it's an 'open secret in the mental health field' that in most cases the mother of a gay man has borderline personality disorder while the father either has narcissistic personality disorder and is violent, or is passive and enabling. I.e. most have likely been subjected to cluster B parenting. Other things I found interesting/notes:

- It makes sense that sexuality is formed by not only a biological component, but also early childhood environment, and as Harrison mentioned possibly an imprinting phase.
- Interesting that gay men like cluster B women/icons, as they may represent their mothers in a way. As Josh said, 'they like mean girls and want to be a mean girl'. Like Adam, I also wondered why most of them would idolize a certain person or listen to a certain type of music and what Josh said makes sense.
- It's sad that there are likely only a few gay couples that are monogamous. And I think he's right when he says that homosexuals probably are more likely to have mental illness/personality disorder(s)/unresolved trauma compared to the average person. The longer this is ignored, and the more we're told to just accept them as they are (eg their behavior), the less likely it will be that they'll get the help they need or that they'll even see they need help. As Josh said, they've never grown up and are still stuck in peter pan syndrome.

Hopefully, we'll get there one day, where researchers will have the freedom to research causes, trauma and problems associated with homosexuality in order to help them.

Overall, interesting discussion, thanks guys! (Also, the coffeeshop story that was mentioned was just ridiculous!)
 

Deliverance

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Thank you, I learned from this discussion and it appears to me with the distance from the Parisian world of the 90s, to a much more damaged current evolution. The imprint is consistent but denied. This man is fair and realistic.
I observed the situation described as "the awakened eating the awakened" recently and did not understand how much the demand for young employees (still in training in fact) was to take over the business and that this was the education the young people were routinely given. The store has now just closed, and while I see the nonsense, I better understand the strangeness and its just destructive result.

And I take the opportunity to add that I really appreciate the latest articles on the 'psychology of totalitarianism' (and ponerology). This is an opportunity to get into untranslated books, isn't it... Grateful. :-)

Merci, j’ai appris de cette discussion et cela m'apparaît avec la distance depuis le monde parisien des années 90, jusqu'à une évolution actuelle bien plus endommagée. L’empreinte est cohérente mais déniée. Cet homme est juste et réaliste.
J’ai observé la situation décrite « le réveillé mangeant le réveillé » récemment et je n‘avais pas compris combien la demande de jeunes employés (encore en formation en fait) était de prendre la direction de l'entreprise et que c’était l’éducation que les jeunes recevaient couramment. Le magasin vient maintenant de fermer, et si je vois le non-sens, je comprends mieux l’étrangeté et son résultat juste destructeur.
Et j’en profite pour ajouter que j’apprécie beaucoup les derniers articles sur la 'psychologie du totalitarisme' (et la ponérologie). C’est l’occasion d’entrer dans des livres non traduits, n’est-ce pas… Reconnaissante.
 

Tuatha de Danaan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thank you for a wonderful show and really felt it ended too soon. Josh Slocum was very entertaining, open, honest in that he says he has no scientific evidence to back up a lot of what he says but, and I think it's very important, he is speaking from the other side of the aisle, so to speak. From that perspective he is able to impart knowledge he has observed first hand what he has seen in others and in himself.

I learned a lot about this Woke ideology and it's demonic outcome, it is totally hateful in it's never ceasing feeding frenzy. Those two old ladies in the lift are a perfect example of seeing but not computing what exactly was the trigger point. Totally bizarre but an everyday happening now.

Like you said on the show it would be great to have him back again and soon.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
During the discussion (and Harrison, you might have had this session in mind with the duck study), sexual imprinting vs dna and mental conditions was noted. Here is the session from 2010:



Q: (L) We received a question from a reader who wants to ask: "Is homosexuality determined at the early imprinting stage?"

A: In some instances. There are many reasons.

Q: (L) The second part of the question reads: "If not, what determines sexual orientation at an early age?" Well, they just said there are many reasons. Can you list any of those other reasons?

A: Past life influences and more rarely, genetics.

Q: (L) So which of these three reasons is the most frequent?

A: Early imprinting could be said to be marginally most frequent cause.

Q: (Ailén) So you were very close, Laura.

(Perceval) Does the early imprinting case have to do with abuse?

A: Not necessarily abuse as lack of proper input at moments of high susceptibility. Also, in some individuals the sequence of imprint slots is different or not synchronous with the pattern of the majority. In a sense, then, this is genetic though all such individuals do not necessarily develop as homosexuals.

Q: (L) I think that the writer wanted to know is this a condition that can be changed, assuming the individual wanted to change?

A: Not usually.

Q: (Ailén) When you talk about a lack of proper input, I assume then that in some way development is not normal. Does that mean that homosexuals have any impediment to spiritual growth?

A: No, that is not implied.

Q: (L) Well, you know the story of Konrad Lorenz and his ducks. The story is that there is this window of time when the substratum of the duck's psychology is open to receiving the imprint of the mother image. So, these ducks were not exposed to a mother duck, but rather to his boots during that window. They came to see his boots as mother. Forever. These ducks believed that boots were "mother". So what it means is that there are these like… circuit boards… in us where there is a window that opens when they can be written on. Whatever is written on them in that moment is what sets that circuit. It's like a really basic circuit in our makeup. And I think what this means is that these individuals may have either hyper-sensitive circuits, or windows when circuits can be written that were different that other people. Maybe their windows don't open at the same time as the majority of people.

Say for example the majority of people in the first week, they get their mother imprint - probably. Babies that don't get a mother imprint because they are given up for adoption, or there is some kind of extenuating circumstance, they always have this lack because nothing was written in. If they are put in a crib and never nurtured, they never got this imprint. Then the window closes, and whatever was written on that circuit board during that period when the window was open is what is there forever. Okay, so maybe some people's windows open too early, or maybe it opens while they're still really tiny in the hospital and they don't get the imprint of the mother. Or maybe it opens and closes very fast because of their sensitivity. Maybe they get imprinted by the look of the doctor with a mask on his face, or a nurse passing by or a Coke machine.

(Perceval) Maybe whatever the stage is for the imprint of sexuality, maybe it's later and for most people it's at a certain age, but there are some people that for genetic reasons it's earlier or later and so the adults around that person act differently than they would have when the child was younger.

(L) Yes. And when we're talking about something like imprints, you have to take a very specific individual, and then you have to say, "Okay, does this person have..." and then you'd have to ask all these yes/no questions to boil it down. It could be as varied as the number of individuals that exist! And the same for homosexuals. Every one is different. It could be a partial past life cause, there could be a partial imprint vulnerability cause, or even as they said in rare cases a genetic cause.

(Perceval) I wonder what the imprint actually is. What is the actual imprint data? Is it interaction, or words, or treatment by another human being?

(L) Well, let's ask. In a general sense, what is the imprint that determines sexuality for an individual?

A: The pleasant interaction with an adult model at a moment or during the time the imprint window is open in conjunction with the release of specific hormones and brain chemicals.

Q: (Perceval) So you've got a kid, a boy, and if the window is open, then they get more female attention from their mother. But if the window opens later, when the father takes more interest in the boy and starts to treat him "like a man"... like fathers will sometimes chide their sons about things like, "You cry like a little girl" or "Don't be such a little girl", "You gonna wear a dress?", etc. If you had the window open then during that period, and you received that kind of treatment...

(L) In other words, a delayed imprint window.

(Perceval) Yeah, and producing chemicals and being treated that way or laughed at or made fun of, and being made to think that you're a little girl...

(Burma Jones) Though they did say a "pleasant" interaction with adult models.

(Perceval) That's the ideal.

(Belibaste) Usually at what age does this window open?

A: 18 months to 2.5 years.

Q: (Burma Jones) That's a big window.

(L) Yeah, well that's not the whole window, but the range.

(Ark) What I don't understand is why sexuality is not hard wired, and for what reason? It could have been wired like number of legs and then there would be no problem. Everybody this way with two legs and everybody is born heterosexual except with radiation, mutations, blah blah blah. There must be a reason for that, but what is this reason? Why is there this possibility of people being changed in this way that leads to suffering? Or maybe I don't know anything about internal structure.

(Burma Jones) Well, I was wondering if that imprint comes in with an adult model, does that also set the sort of person that you're going to look for to mate with?

A: Yes {think about this in terms of male/femal parents rapidly changing in society - dual mates raising kids}

Q: (Burma Jones) So maybe it's also to make it so that you will look for a mate within your own "group"? Like setting up the parents early on in life.

A: Control system modification.

Q: (Perceval) It's probably like you were saying, a pleasant interaction with an adult model. So, if it's later than 18 months to 2.5 years...

(L) So if you have an unpleasant interaction, it can really mess you up.

(PoB) Does it mean that somebody can make another person homosexual by specific kind of treatment?

A: Yes.

Q: (Burma Jones) Well, it sounds like if you knew when someone's imprint vulnerability was, and you abducted them and put them with someone that you wanted to pair them with, you could set up the whole imprint for them.

(L) Yeah, you could.

(Perceval) The problem is that the normal window is 18 months to 2.5 years, and then there are people who have delayed windows.

(L) And maybe people who have early windows. So, it's like Sidney Baker talks about our individual physiology in terms of health and how completely individual we are. There are certain patterns for the majority, but still there are ranges. So everybody is really completely individual and different.

(Andromeda) Are they talking here about having a role model of the same sex, or the opposite sex?

A: Opposite generally.

Q: (L) So if you have a pleasant experience with a member of the opposite sex during this moment of imprint, that will set you up to be attracted to members of the opposite sex.

(Perceval) It kind of suggests that a normal person in a normal family with both a mother and father, that baby or small child is going to have interaction with both...

A: It should be noted that the infant is sensitive to pheromone type substances that can trigger the imprint window. That part of the process is "hard wired".

Q: (Perceval) So for girls and boys they're hardwired to be attracted to male or female.

(L) So say a female infant is hardwired to be triggered by the presence of the pheromone of a male, and the interaction is pleasant, then what is supposed to get written to the circuit gets written, and everything is fine. If the pheromone opens the window and what happens in the interaction is extremely unpleasant, then everything gets screwed up. And possibly it could be that if there is some genetic difference in the infant, then maybe they are set up so that the pheromones of a female will open the window. So, there are a number of possibilities here. It's obviously an interactive thing that triggers it, writes the circuit, and whatever.

(Ailén) So the way that some homosexuals are overidentified with being gay, like gay bars and that stuff, that has to be just cultural then...?

A: The gay "movement" is a CIA program incepted by 4D STS designed to set up antipathy, differences, and to identify individuals for purposes of inflicting further suffering.

Q: (L) Huh.

A: It is the soul that counts.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Thinking on the first part of Slocum's talk, re being under the thumb of social disorder (partner, friendships, parents and even work etc.) and not able to more easily find a way out, some aspects may have resolved. In this respect, during the last two years under covid-order; and can't speak for others, it seemed to me that it did (can there possibly be a positive note) open up the door to more easily walk away, as many simply showed there truer colors and made the exit (social distancing ;-D) more possible. On the other hand, and for some in certain situations, this may be the opposite as it tied them more together without an exit.
 

cinnamon

Jedi
FOTCM Member
We had another opportunity to speak with the inimitable Joshua Slocum. In this interview Josh is, in turns: hilarious, deeply insightful, and even soul-searching in his responses to our comments - a great discussion was had!

MindMatters: Kicking the Cluster B-hive with Joshua Slocum: Queen B's, Homosexuality & Dealing with Narcissists




Great interview!

Any chance y'all could get Corinna Cohn on? Thought came to mind when Joshua was going on about gay men and their fascination with 'mean girls' as well as the link between child abuse and homosexuality, Corinna was the first person to come to mind regarding trans.
 

brandon

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Fantastic interview! That was really interesting, especially the stuff about imprinting (thanks for the C's session quote Voyageur).. I was telling my gf about it and she wondered why so many gay men seem to be so promiscuous. I dunno how actually widely true that is or if it's largely just how media portrays it - though it seems true amongst the people I've known myself. If you look it up online there are a heap of articles saying, basically, "because all men are" and I know that's a popular kinda stereotype, that men want to sleep around as much as possible... But I don't think that's generally true at all. I think it's a kind of psychopathic viewpoint shown in movies etc as mind programming, to try to normalise it and make it BECOME true...

So anyway this is probably all really basic and obvious stuff. But we were wondering if maybe, beneath the traits that come from early childhood imprinting, there's another layer of low-level hardcoded DNA behaviours, whereby men are driven to find the suitable partner to have a family with.. and once they do, they flip into a non-seeking mode and become protective of that relationship/family.. (at least that seems how it is in my experience)... individual psych variations/culture/etc notwithstanding.... So then, in gay men, that low-level switch is never flipped, and they're locked in seeking mode? That seems like it could explain why, as Joshua Slocum was talking about, stable long-term relationships of the same character as man/woman ones, seem so relatively uncommon between gay men? Not necessarily as a result of psychological damage, but because of a mechanical low-level action due to a criteria (DNA propagation) not being met?

Now I've typed that out, it seems a super obvious idea that I assume has been around for ages :) I'm a newbie to this stuff. Interesting to think about though..
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Fantastic interview! That was really interesting, especially the stuff about imprinting (thanks for the C's session quote Voyageur).. I was telling my gf about it and she wondered why so many gay men seem to be so promiscuous. I dunno how actually widely true that is or if it's largely just how media portrays it - though it seems true amongst the people I've known myself. If you look it up online there are a heap of articles saying, basically, "because all men are" and I know that's a popular kinda stereotype, that men want to sleep around as much as possible... But I don't think that's generally true at all. I think it's a kind of psychopathic viewpoint shown in movies etc as mind programming, to try to normalise it and make it BECOME true...
The way Josh described it in one of his shows is something like this: take the male sex drive, and remove all the "obstacles" which women impose (e.g. through selectivity). That's definitely part of it. It's not that all men are promiscuous, but in a permissive environment, many would be. Cleckley has a slightly different take on it, speculating that the promiscuity is a result of the futility of trying to find love with a partner for which that is impossible. With a new partner, there is always hope that it will work, but disillusion immediately sets in, because the (homosexual) partner can never be what the homosexual truly wants: paradoxically, a heterosexual man. There's a fundamental mismatch. Here's a couple quotes:
The basic reactions of male and female in love, so clearly felt within by the normal, are apparently not well understood by the homosexual, no matter how brilliant or sensitive he may otherwise be. Drawn only toward inappropriate objects, he furthermore approaches them with aims and intentions pathologically different from those of real mating. Disappointed and unfulfilled in each new relation, he is driven toward extremes of promiscuity. In unique bewilderment and in frantic repetitive persistence, he continues in efforts that sometimes suggest the futility of trying to wring blood from turnips, to make bread from stones, or to quench parching thirst in the emetic and impotable waters of the Dead Sea.
The “wolf” or “Don Juan” who tries to have sexual relations with as many women as he can is likely to reveal himself also as antisexual in some important respects. Somewhat like the invert [i.e. homosexual], he cannot really function as an adequate lover or wholehearted sexual partner, nor can he find anyone whom he genuinely accepts as a mate. So he accumulates disappointments and grows ever more bitter in his convictions that love is a fraud and that sex is eventually a bitter frustration.
So anyway this is probably all really basic and obvious stuff. But we were wondering if maybe, beneath the traits that come from early childhood imprinting, there's another layer of low-level hardcoded DNA behaviours, whereby men are driven to find the suitable partner to have a family with.. and once they do, they flip into a non-seeking mode and become protective of that relationship/family.. (at least that seems how it is in my experience)... individual psych variations/culture/etc notwithstanding....
Cleckley says something similar throughout Caricature of Love--not about a switch, but about a fundamental drive to seek out sexual love in the form of a monogamous mate for life.
So then, in gay men, that low-level switch is never flipped, and they're locked in seeking mode? That seems like it could explain why, as Joshua Slocum was talking about, stable long-term relationships of the same character as man/woman ones, seem so relatively uncommon between gay men? Not necessarily as a result of psychological damage, but because of a mechanical low-level action due to a criteria (DNA propagation) not being met?

Now I've typed that out, it seems a super obvious idea that I assume has been around for ages :) I'm a newbie to this stuff. Interesting to think about though..
An interesting sidenote from this article on sott:
Promiscuity is well-illustrated in the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, two gay men who reported in their book The Male Couple (1984), that of 165 relationships they studied, not a single pair was able to maintain fidelity for more than five years. The authors — a gay couple themselves — were surprised to discover that outside affairs were not only not damaging to the relationship's endurance, but were in fact essential to its very survival. They conclude: "The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel" (p. 256).
Cleckley would probably say that that "lack of possessiveness" is not a positive, but a sign of the essential superficiality of the relationship. The relationship may last, but it probably won't be free of jealousy and other conflict.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I just wanted to say a special thank you for the latest two episodes, first with John Carter and then with Joshua. I found both discussions very interesting and inspiring, and both guests are also very entertaining and witty. I hope you have them back soon!

Btw, inspired by Carter's recommendations I've started reading the 'Dresden files' series by Jim Butcher (now reading book 2). I thought I'd read something more light and entertaining for a change, and holy moly, this series sure are fun to read! Butcher may not be any Dostoyevsky but boy can he make good and entertaining stories!
 
Top Bottom