I would be the first one to encourage people who are engaged in playing a psychological game of "being a victim" to take a look at that and resolve that as the game, realize the illusion that it is, retrieve their power and move on.

With the topic of victimization, JZ Knight has {once again} appropriated and oversimplified yet another beautiful concept into a meaningless sing- songy buzz wordy, THOUGHT STOPPING mush that has lost all of its potency.

Once again, Ms. Knight demonstrates a tragic case of reach exceeding grasp.

Less kindly, one could legitimately wonder if instead of a lack of comprehension, this technique of oversimplification and distortion is a method of controlling her masses and lining her purse.

There are levels of victimization. When a person is harmed by another [and who hasn't been at some point in their lives?] they are a victim of that harm.

They are injured by another's actions.

Children who have suffered sexual abuse are victims. Children who have suffered emotional abuse are victims. Women who have been raped are victims of rape. etc.

There are people who have been injured by others actions and who suffer consequences of those actions. Nobody is saying they don't have the responsibility to heal themselves but to argue that the hurt never happened is just bulls**t. Sophistry and bulls**t. Its also called denial.

Ironically, if you refuse to admit you have been hurt you automatically become a victim of denial.

The distinction between being a victim and playing the victim:

People who play at being victims are using that injury to build a LIFE POSITION of SUPERIORITY based on the wrongs they have endured.

For a person playing the victim you can never do enough because they use their wronged status as a manipulative tool to get leverage OVER you to get something FROM you [like money and devotion for instance]

People who PLAY the victim demand that you treat them as a special case because in their mind they occupy an EXALTED status that allows them to behave in ways that are not acceptable for the rank and file [followers]

People who play the victim feel that they are IMMUNE FROM CRITICISM because, after all they are SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU, WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE THEM.

Of course, they don't SAY any of those things. They SAY the exact OPPOSITE.

A person playing say a game of being a spiritual victim/martyr will go through the motions of saying things like

"don't worship me" or " you don't owe me anything" or " you can leave at anytime " or "this isn't a cult" or "you create your own timeline but the world is going to destroy itself" or "don't worship me but if you don't pay the right kind of homage to me I am moving to France"

Etc. Etc.

But they will imply danger, insert consequence and behave as though there are DIRE consequences of NOT doing those things

Sound like anyone you know?

My point exactly:

JZ Knight plays the spiritual martyr and victim with all the subtly of a marching band but It's her specialty and her choice technique of control

This is how it goes:

If you notice JZ/Ramtha saying or doing anything incongruous to the "teaching" If you see them lying, scamming, not acting in accordance with the teachings, JZ has a trump card that always works.

She first teaches you that any sh**ty thing she does is the product of YOUR creation. Not Hers.

IF you say anything you are called a victim and a whiner.

That simple,:your evolution is threatened and your credibility is attacked for noticing the obvious.

Another fun by product of this is that after you become self editing and don't notice the obvious you begin to police OTHER PEOPLE so they don't notice the things you have agreed not to notice.

Anyone who notices the obvious is attacked with the same weapon. The accusation of being a "victim".

Further you are stupid because "you created it anyway" and are therefore worthy of contempt and scorn.

Do they ever stop and wonder if maybe you "create" seing deception SO THAT YOU MIGHT SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT?

No, that doesn't compute because it doesn't serve the master [JZ]

I think that's what you see with people coming on this site and going to the sad extreme of criticizing Tree for talking about her experience of being raped and being insulting and dismissive of her pain.

Even going to the extreme of mocking her for speaking out and for not being "over it"

Amazing and very sad to see.

But it isn't hard to understand why she is being attacked.

Tree represents what they have been taught to fear is a direct threat to their evolution into "godhood"

Honesty for one and vulnerablity.

Tree represents the vulnerability of being human that the people who are mocking her experience on a daily basis and fight against.

They work "disciplines" to suppress and pretend vulnerablity doesn't exist.

Tree is not a victim. She is a person who was hurt and injured and who has taken responsibility for her own healing.

She is a threat to some posters on this site because she has taken a step towards REAL power rather than the phoney power of putting someone down for speaking the obvious.

The truth is JZ, to be very kind, is less than honest and her dishonesty is hurting people on a very real level.

This isn't garden variety deception.

Its not like she is cheating on a spouse or cheating on her taxes or telling someone you like their new haircut when you don't. She is hurting people on a spiritual level and that is not something to be ignored as "just someone's path"

My opinion is that those in the RSE are victims of JZ's manipulation and control. IF they stay under her thumb they are still victims.

The irony for me of victims screaming accusations of victim is kind of like a hooker screaming "slut" to passers by outside a *****house.

DM

Very well said.

And, it could get worse...not only are victims reviled and sneered out, but people who refuse to be trapped in the victim role, speak out, and fight back, are actively attacked as victims...u see how that works...
A hits B
B has been taught it is wrong say anything, because, that would mean they are a victim.
A hits B again.
A continues to pick on B.
And, all of A's friends, and some of B's friends start taking pokes at B.
So in spite of the teachings, B fights back.
And gets others to join in.
Victims are the product of Bullies...And so are the lesser bullies.
Example...My daughter used to bathe in oil, because she has excema. When she was little, it got in her hair. At school, people started picking on her, because her hair was greasy. I talked to the principal, who excused the bullies by saying that my daughter's hair did look greasy. What is wrong with this picture? The message...it's okay what they did to her, she deserved it, she shouldn't have greasy hair.
Several studies in psychology have revolved around a syndrome called "blame the victim"..which arises, not because most of us are monsters, but because we all want to see the world and each other as just and fair. So, when we see a victim, instead of addressing the probably very real pathology in the perpetrator, we look for the cause in the personality or behaviour of the victim.
"He or she did not pick on me...so, there must be something wrong with the person they did pick on, or that person must be lying"...pretzel logic.

Cut and pasted from Wikipedia:

It has been proposed that one cause of victim-blaming is the "Just World Hypothesis". People who believe that the world has to be fair, may find it hard or impossible to accept a situation in which a person is unfairly and badly hurt for no cause or reason. This leads to a sense that, somehow, the victim must have surely done 'something' to deserve their fate. Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault (Schneider et al., 1994). This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviours of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable. A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries. In some countries, victim-blaming is more common, and women who have been raped are sometimes deemed to have behaved improperly. Often, these are countries where there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.

This theory dates from very ancient times: the biblical Book of Job offers a canonical exploration of it.

Supporters of this view (once referred to as "Job's comforters") must perforce accept that to do otherwise would require them to give up their belief in a just world, and require them to believe in a world where bad things — such as poverty, rape, starvation, and murder — can happen to good people for no good reason. The cognitive dissonance in doing this becomes too great, and results in victim-blaming.

Another example, this one from the net..A man writes

More blaming the victim.Conservative Nathaniel Blake at Human Events Online links positively to John Derbyshire’s post, then writes that the students at Virginia Tech should feel “heartily ashamed” for not acting more bravely:

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …

Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.

Digg It! April 17, 2007 3:30 pm | Comment (228)

Filed under:
Posted by Nico April 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Permalink | Comment (228)


228 Comments »

*dm,
Thank you for articulating the heart of the matter. What is going on at RSE is difficult to grasp and occurs on different levels. Understanding and being able to hold onto the understanding can be slippery, really slippery.

But it has to be done. We have to understand where we've been and how we got there. And we have to be able to endure what is revealed. And we have to hold onto our integrity, whatever that means for each of us as individuals.

We can't give up, we've got to keep going, we have to find our way. There's too much at stake not to.

Keep talking denotes, just keep talking.

And thanks, you can't imagine how badly I need to hear your voice.

For *denotes meaning from EyesWideOpen

Consent requires sobriety. Only person who is cognizant and whose intellectual and emotional faculties are intact can give valid consent. A drunk person cannot give consent. A man of honor, a man of integrity, a man who is doing his job of providing a safe and secure environment, a “Real” man would not have sex with a drunk woman who had not previously, sober, given consent. Most of the sex that occurred during wine ceremonies was probably not consensual.

There is a possible defense called "Reasonable presumption of consent", where two people have been engaged in a long term sexual relationship...however, that clearly does not apply in the cases cited on this forum as having occured at wine ceremonies at the ranch.