WhoDoesYourThinking

Who Does Your Thinking?

This essay is in two main components with an afterword. 

1. Sociology which outlines a very common theme in contemporary Western culture,  and

2. Psychology which explores the hidden roots of it using Transactional Analysis. 

3 Afterword. 

1. Sociology

She has been put into a position where she had to put her Facebook Relationship Status on ‘For Your Eyes Only’ mode so her fiancé could see that was still valid but nobody else could. Everybody else who saw her Facebook status saw no information about her relationship status. This was to appease the critics in her life who wanted her to split up with him. 

There are two reasons: their own jealousy, and because they want her to be under their control, not independent from them by her being more strongly bonded with a partner. She did not stand up for her right to be in a dedicated relationship but instead felt she had been forced into manipulation. For him, manipulation is a sign of a duplicitous personality who can not be trusted. On this basis, when he found out what she was up to, he was offended and made a decision to discuss it with her prior to ending the relationship. To have outright ended the relationship on this basis would have been a knee-jerk reaction albeit an understandable one. 

The same people pressuring her to end the relationship have also pressured him and caused him problems by involving the authorities, all of which bounced off him because the authorities can see it for what it is based on the actual evidence; that her friends and family, her peers, are abusive, jealous women trying to control her. 

This entire statement is re-branded as ‘mansplaining’ in the language of what used to be called radical-feminism but has now been rebranded as normal-feminism due to the extremists activities which used to be considered a form of domestic terrorism but is now considered normalised. The malicious personality traits are being used as agents of agendas of segregation by extremists controlled by a cult which is effectively destroying the stability of this nation under the guise of progressive feminism. 

He believes in a relationship with an equal is a meeting of hearts, minds, bodies and soul. He respects the wisdom of a certificate on the wall of the local Marriage Registry which states; “Marriage is the world between two people to the exclusion of all others.” 

She is not exclusive. She has empowered the fray of peers and community, along with their segregation agendas. 

Both of the bitter, jealous, controlling people in question are themselves in marriages. His role, his intent is to protect her from them. However he has been compromised because she has rights to do what she wants, as endorsed by feminism. He was forced into a position, to protect his relationship. He offered her a hard line. To live in accordance with the confines of empowering a stable, loving relationship or to choose to live in accordance with feminism. She decided to try to have both because Feminism promises she can have both at the detriment of the stable loving relationship. Once again she proved these two disciplines are mutually exclusive. It gets tested almost continuously which is exhausting for everyone involved and amusing to the people throwing spanners into their home life. 

There are two paths before you.

You are in a position of empowerment to choose which path. 

You must choose one. 

You can choose only one.

If you choose and change your mind, the game resets 

but with a handicap and with the couple being regarded to have low integrity. 

If you do not choose, you are not exempt from consequence. 

If you do not choose, others will choose for you. 

If you do not choose, you are regarded to have no agency therefore are of low integrity. 

On one track, there is your loving fiancé.

On the other track, there are a community of bitter people, some of whom already are married and some whom hate men, all of whom want to split you up from your fiancé.

You must choose which to sacrifice. 

If you change your mind, you will have sacrificed both. 

The handicap to that is you will be regarded as having low-integrity. 

 

Having a high integrity relationship is a form of empowerment. 

You are deciding what to empower. 

The reason this equation is valid is because there are only so many hours in a day to decide where to put your attention. Attention is energy. It is a form of currency. We are powerful energies, which is why others seek to control us and society teaches us we are worthless, as a tool to control us.  

The critical question is; 

do you want a fiancé, or 

do you want to be owned by the community of jealous people who want to control you? 

The jealous people will describe marriage as slavery. Remember, half of them are already married themselves but for whatever reason which is nothing to do with you they have not ended their  own marriages. 

People living in fear do not trust the Divine. 

They are ‘Godless’ and disconnected from Source, Spirit, the holistic nature of reality. 

They turn instead of false idols to worship, to cults, 

such as for example the theories and philosophies of extremism and social agendas, 

or to false friends and manipulative relations. 

A successful marriage is one where the partners listen to each other and not to outside voices persuading them to cause friction within their family home. 

When people are diagnosed with Personality Disorders it is very often because they cause friction for other people, to disrupt the Harmony. 

The very fact that she chose to listen to them and not to her loving fiancé is all the evidence required to prove she does not respect marriage nor men. The string of men who she exploits along the way who are not scared off by her friends and relatives are persecuted at a higher stake by those same people, even when it bounces off them. The amount of problems those people are causing for men because they do not respect men adds to the mens stress associated with dating the girl in the first place. It is damaging antisocial behaviour. 

She could have simply said to them;

“That’s my boyfriend and I love him, leave him alone, he means more to me than you do.” 

But she is too afraid of the consequence, were she to raise self-respect boundaries to protect herself and her chosen life-partner, the world they are building together. The sociopaths would raise the stakes and cause even more problems for them as they observe her slipping out of their control.

She plays this game for self-validation. 

2. Psychology

She plays this game for self-validation. 

At the core of it is the female psychology which women known too well. 

Women emotionally exist on a spectrum, along a line of neurosis at one end and princess at the other. This is Yin energy. 

What stabilises her is the masculine assertive Yang energy, which either boosts her toward princess or toward neurosis. Women love and fear Yang depending how safe they feel with it, and seek to control it the same way men seek to control and understand the feminine quality of Yin yielding energy.  There are two sources of Yin and Yang which affect the balance of our own Yin and Yang; internal self-harmony, external other peoples influence. 

This explains why women are drawn to some men but fear others, and men are drawn to some women but not others. Yin and Yang naturally work to harmonise with each other. 

There are four quadrants each with its own expression; 

Fearful yin (vulnerable dependant & vulnerable narcissism) - black hole 

Confident yin (classical femininity, the worlds most treasured healing energy) - soothing star, life-nurturing 

Fearful yang (overt domination) - exploding or collapsing star

Confident yang (assured protection) - radiant star, life-giving 

The question then, what brings confidence?

The answer is stability. Inner stability feels like inner peace. 

It is to have trust in the universe as a beneficial provider. 

This is the best place to place trust. 

Most relationships are not so clear and simple as to be black and white. 

They are entanglements which function on many levels of being. 

What creates a perception into a specific dimension of awareness? 

Experiences. 

Trauma-bonding creates connections on sub-Dom, passive-aggressive, push-you-pull-me levels of relating. In todays society, we basically as a generalisation all have varying trauma. We all function on a mish-mash of unregulated and non-identifiable levels of trauma-bond which we project outward onto others. 

Social agendas will program us to shut down such complications on one side (marriage counselling methods) or the other (segregational feminism). 

3. Afterword

The resolution is always going to be open, honest communication about feelings and practicalities. 

Of course, situations where the clash of mixed necessities and compromises built on compromises are going to be used as leverage for energy-manipulation unless you can gain sufficient empowerment for a clean break.

This fosters for the society of ‘mutual self-interest’ where people are disposable, replaceable and expendable having fulfilled purpose. This creates a pandemic of Narcissism.

"The problem is people treat things like people and people like things." anon

"The problem today is people don't cherish good people, they try to use them." Bob Marley.

"Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things." Sir Terry Pratchett.

"The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, 

but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively." Bob Marley. 

How do we defeat that? 

Respect for one another needs. 

Reinforcing the institute of happy marriages instead of destroying it.

You can see what the enemy to community is when you have the Humanitarian understanding which defines us as Being Humans.

  

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?

Five questions to ask before deciding whether to end your relationship or not. 

Changing The Goalposts

google dictionary

Dictionary definition of the word delusional. It means two things. It means confused and it also means purposefully being manipulative. In general in society we all use it to mean the first of these. It is equally as valid to knowingly use the other meaning. A person who is a trickster, is delusional. A person who has been tricked and operating on a false premise, is delusional. The both are delusional, although the incentive is different in each case.

From my experience with this, it has become apparent that people with a cognitive disability or other form of mental impairment react in one of two ways when accused of being delusional. There are two stages in both cases. In both cases, the first stage is to react with hostility. If a person is consciously tricking other people, they will then attack as their second stage. A confident and adept manipulator will often use another person who they have deluded already, to do the attack. This is called proxy. In the case of the delusional person not realising they have been tricked, their second stage is to re-evaluate the situation. Both of these must be compared to a person who if accused of being delusional, does not attack because they are not delusional.

In modern jargon, the second type; the tricked (as opposed to trickster) is known as a flying monkey, from the movie the Wizard of Oz.

The attack of a trickster is likely, within the framework of contemporary culture, to be an allegation that the person exposing their manipulation, is bullying them.

The narcissist will play the victim role in attempt to convince and recruit onlookers (flying monkeys) that they are innocent and that their narrative is the accurate version of events. It creates a smokescreen, disempowering the person exposing them from being able to do so.

The only successful way of dealing with the situation is to detach and take neither side. Although there is no need for sides because this division plays into the hands of the trickster and their paradigm instead of maintaining objective clarity to see the situation as a whole for what it is. Only by stepping back from the situation to analyse it from both points of view can the observer remain positive and non-biased. An objective person hears all sides and questions all, to positively determine equity.

So we have here a problem that the trickster is either recruiting new flying monkeys to protect them and to persecute those who would expose them, or that nobody wants to get involved, has the effect of isolating whoever is exposing the trickster. In either case, the trickster has won their game. This is not to say the exposer wants to play any games.

For the purpose of being able to step back and analyse a situation for what it is, without being drawn into taking sides, it has become necessary to develop a simple framework to help with analysis.

For the purpose of being able to step back and analyse a situation for what it is, without being drawn into taking sides, it has become necessary to develop a simple framework to help with analysis.

The following blueprint has only six steps, which outlines a strategy. Many variants exist. We are calling this The Llanelli Strategy although it is also called “Changing the Goalposts”

1 Establish situation.
2 Agreement. An accord.
3 Second party acts on that accord.
4 First party removes and/or changes the accord. This has the effect of changing the context of 3 the actions.
5 Second party has a human reaction of the ground being whisked out from under their feet and is destabilised.
6 Having been manipulated, second party is now socially persecuted both for having been duped ergo inferior and/or for behaving (see 3) in the wrong way in accordance with the framework of the new context. That the second party has not agreed to the new accord is irrelevant to those who are in agreement with it (flying monkeys).

I have personally witnessed this occur in all levels of society from and including but not exhaustively: single mothers, social workers, school teachers, family counselors, job centre, private enterprise, police, solicitors, mental health functionaries, GPs, nurses, &etc; in all cases the strategy is employed for the purposes of manipulating individuals so as to take from them.

Dealing with this situation has only two possibilities. The winning strategy is not to play it at all, which is impossible. The game is about ‘being played by’ narcissists and their support/abuse network.

There are three aspects of this, correlating to stages of the 6 step strategy;
2 Do not agree. Solipsism in the community is impossible. Aloofness is.
5 Distangle.
6 Expose. This requires indisputable proof (actual evidence which is actual evidence).

Remember: onlookers will enter the situation at step 4 and will be using the new dominant narrative as their operating framework, which is pitched against the target. The flying monkeys rarely know that they are being manipulated. They believe they are the good guys, although by their actions (they are step 2 and 3 in a game while the target is at 5 and 6 in a different game) they are in effect persecuting somebody who has been selected by an abuser who they believe to be a hero. They are also targets being manipulated as part of a larger game.

The defence is to open their eyes to that they are deluded and to objectivity (to change their minds thus recruit them to persecute the abuser instead of the abuse victim). It is all about Context Control.

Unfortunately, the targets context is the one perceived as being abusive; so nobody wants to see things that way. The target is calling for people to question their own actions, which nobody likes to do because it is too close to feeling destabilized for comfort. Spiritual disciples do that by default, which is in part why they are targets by those seeking to dominate others through context control.

The fundamentalist and dogmatic part of the mind which we rely on for stability, is commonly called the Ego (not what Freud and Jung used the word to mean). Narcissists rely on that.



©2018

Real Reason

This blog continues the narrative of Irreason.

Real Reason

If you are having to resort to using reason (agenda) to achieve balance, you are not in balance. If you are not in balance, the assumption that reason will get you there is an unbalanced assumption. Another word for 'unbalanced assumption' is 'irrational'. It is irrational that the use of reason will result in harmony.

When you let go of all that, detach from all mental diversions, and accept the moment as it is, and simply be, not owned by a specific idiom, context, condition: that is the only way to return to balance. Harmony cannot be created by forcing diversions upon a natural equilibrium. If a thing achieves perfect balance, all reasons dissolve, all agendas vanish.

Anybody who is using reason and promoting the use of reason as a dominating faculty above the nature of letting go and accepting and permitting peace to occur naturally, is not functioning as an agent of harmony but as an agent of perpetuating disruptions. Why choose one imbalance over another unless it is to exploit for gain? 

"Problems cannot be solved by the level of awareness that created them." Albert Einstein

RAPO

Nickelback- S.E.X.

DISCLAIMER: COPYRIGHT MATERIAL USED FULLY ACCREDITED, WITHOUT OFFICIAL CONSENT, FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, WITHIN INTERNATIONAL FAIR USE POLICY. 

Games People Play

The Psychology of Human Relationships

byEric Berne, MD

CHAPTER 9. SEXUAL GAMES

Some games are played to exploit or fight off sexual impulses. These are all, in effect, perversions of the sexual instincts in which the satisfaction is displaced from the sexual act to the crucial transactions which constitute the payoff of the game. This cannot always be demonstrated convincingly, because such games are usually played in privacy, so that clinical information about them has to be obtained second-hand, and the informants bias cannot always be satisfactorily evaluated. The psychiatric conception of homosexuality, for example, is heavily skewed, because the more aggressive and successful ‘players’ do not often come for psychiatric treatment, and the available material mostly concerns the passive partners.


2. PERVERSION

Thesis.
Heterosexual perversions such as fetishism, sadism and masochism are symptomatic of a confused Child and are treated accordingly. Their transactional aspects, however, as manifested in actual sexual situations, can be dealt with by means of game analysis. This may lead to social control, so that even if the warped sexual impulses remain unchanged, they are neutralised as far as actual indulgence is concerned.


3. RAPO

Thesis.
This game is played between a man and a woman which might more politely be called, in the milder forms at least, ‘kiss off’ or ’indignation’. It may be played with varying degrees of intensity.


1. First-Degree ‘Rapo’, or ‘Kiss Off’, is popular at social gatherings and consists essentially of mild flirtation. White signals that she is available and get her pleasure from the mans pursuit. As soon as he has committed himself, the game is over. If she is polite, she may say quite frankly ” I appreciate your compliments and thank you very much”, and move onto the next conquest. If she is less generous, she may simply leave him. A skilful player can make this game last for a long time at a large social gathering by moving around frequently, so that the man has to carry out complicated manoeuvres in order to follow her without being too obvious.

2. In Second-Degree ‘Rapo’, or ‘Indignation’, White gets only secondary satisfaction from Black’s advances. Her primary gratification comes from rejecting him, so that this game is also colloquially known as ‘Buzz Off, Buster’. She leads Black into a much more serious commitment than the mild flirtation of the first degree ‘Rapo’ and enjoys watching his discomfiture when she repulses him. Black, of course is not as helpless as he seems, and may have gone to considerable trouble to get himself involved. Usually he is playing some variation of ‘Kick me’.

3. Third-Degree ‘Rapo’ is a vicious game which ends in murder, suicide or the courtroom. Here, White leads Black into compromising physical contact and then claims that he has made a criminal assault or has done her irreparable damage. In its most cynical form White may actually allow him to complete the sexual act so that she gets enjoyment before confronting him. The confrontation may be immediate, as in the illegitimate cry of rape, or it may be long delayed, as in suicide or homicide following a prolonged love affair. If she chooses to play it as a criminal assault, she may have no difficulty in finding mercenary or morbidly interested allies, such as the press, the police, counsellors and relatives. Sometimes, however, these outsiders may cynically turn on her, so that she loses the initiative and becomes a tool in their games.

In some cases outsiders perform different function. They force the game on an unwilling White because they want to play ‘Let’s You And Him Fight’. They put her in such a position that in order to save her face or her reputation she has to cry rape. This is particularly apt to happen girls under the legal age of consent; they may be quite willing to continue a liaison, but because it is discovered or made an issue of, they feel constrained to turn the romance into a game of Third-Degree ‘Rapo’.

In one well-known situation, the wary Joseph refused to be inveigled into a game of ‘Rapo’, whereupon Potiphar’s wife made the classical switch into ‘Let’s You And Him Fight’, an excellent example of the way a hard player reacts to antithesis, and of the danger that beset people who refuse to play games. These two games are combined in the well-known ‘Badger Game’, in which the woman seduces Black and then cries rape, at which point her husband takes charge and abuses Black for the purpose of blackmail.

One of the most unfortunate and acute forms of Third-Degree ‘Rapo’ occurs relatively frequently between homosexual strangers, who in a matter of an hour or so may bring the game to a point of homicide. The cynical and criminal variations of this game contribute a large volume to sensational newspaper copy.

The childhood prototype of ‘Rapo’ is the same as that of ‘Frigid Woman’, in which the little girl induces the boy to humiliate himself or get dirty and then sneers at him, as classically described by Maugham in Of Human Bondage and by Dickens in Great Expectations. This is Second Degree. A harder form, approaching Third-Degree may be played in tough neighbourhoods.

Antithesis.
The man's ability to avoid becoming involved in this game or to keep it under control depends on his capacity to distinguish genuine expressions of feeling from moves in the game. If he is thus able to exert social control, he maintained a great deal of pleasure from the mild flirtations of ‘Kiss Off’. On the other hand it is difficult to conceive of a safe antithesis to the Potiphar's wife manoeuvre, other than checking out before closing time with no forwarding address.

Relatives.
The male versions of ‘Rapo’ are notoriously found in commercial situations: ‘Casting Couch’ (and then she didn't get the part)’ and ‘Cuddle Up’ (and then she got fired).

Analysis.
The following analysis refers to Third-Degree ‘Rapo’ because there the elements of the game are more dramatically illustrated.

Aim: malicious revenge.
Roles: seductress, wolf.
Dynamics (Third-Degree): penis envy, oral violence. ‘Kiss Off’ is phallic, while ‘Indignation’ has strong anal elements.
Examples: (1) I’ll tell on you, you dirty little boy. (2) Wronged woman.
Social Paradigm: Adult-Adult.
Adult (male): “I'm sorry if I went further than you intended to.”
Adult (female): “You have violated me and must pay the full penalty.”
Psychological Paradigm: Child-Child.
Child (male): “See how irresistible I am.”
Child (female): “Now I've got you, you son of bitch.”
Moves:
(1) female: seduction; male: counter-seduction.
(2) female: surrender; male: victory.
(3) female: confrontation; male: collapse.
Advantages:
(1) internal psychological - expression of hatred and projection of guilt.
(2) external psychological - avoidance of the emotional sexual intimacy.
(3) internal social - ‘Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch’.
(4) external social - ‘Ain’t It Awful’, ‘Courtroom’, ‘Let’s You And Him Fight’.
(5) biological - sexual and belligerent exchanges.
(6) existential - I am blameless.

The Naked Truth

The Naked Truth

I switched off because I was fed up of fighting a defensive position, against playing roles in other peoples drama, in which they needed me to be a bad guy to justify their bid for social support amongst people who did not question their motives & integrity, people who accepted their games as the reality. When someone dominates a narrative, the people worth relating with are those who question that narrative as being definitive. Today when people lie to my face because they have sided with another liar, and I can see through all this, I tell them, you are lying to me because you are a zombie. And what upsets them is not that they perceive my statement as an insult, but because they perceive it as the truth. I have ability to hold mirrors up to people face. Why would I choose to hide behind their face when I can wear my naked skull?

So I dedicated a lot of time to the contemplation of “Keeping the Peace” as justification of lies. I can not respect a liar. I barely accept those who cannot tell the difference between truth and lies and assume ‘what they have been told’ is the truth. It is a mental health dis-order called Cognitive Dissonance / Disbelief Syndrome. So many people suffer this and can end it easily by aligning themselves with Truth. The foundation of spirituality is “to see truth you have to be truth”.

Why would you respect a person who knowingly lies to you? It is abuse because it is attempt to mentally impair them, to deviate their cognitive function away from truth. They certainly do not respect you enough to create an honest world between you. Why would you knowingly create a dishonest world whenever you are in a situation to? Is it because you perceive that the liar has more power than you, so you enable and endorse that? You can depower them so easily by exposing, confronting and reprimanding them.

The conclusion I have come to in the situation above is that for those people who lie and create zombies, for personal empowerment for which we historically use the word ‘liche’ (“leech” and “leige”), or under the justification that they lie to keep the peace, both require that the person who has been lied about, the victim of the slander, one who has less influence amongst the zombie horde because they avoid and dump hate onto the target, should exist with less peace. So it is untrue that lies keep the peace. It creates stress and pins it onto the victim.

The victim has three choices. These are the three worlds within the victims power to manifest.

One: (inaction) accept the situation and let them think whatever they want, because they are zombies they are incapable of clarity of thought anyway. This is to endorse the slander and be a party to it.  Remain identified as “victim”.

Two: (action) protest and attempt to win zombies over to the truth by telling the other side of the story which they have never asked to hear because they are zombies. Discredit the liars. Refute being ‘victim’ yet perpetuate war instead of bringing peace. Justified by; truth and understanding within a community which has been perverted by lies.

Three: (ascension) rise above the whole situation, detach, and know that aligning with truth means to rise above the dirt in which the zombies wallow, to attain a spiritual purity which liches cannot even see. Let them rot in their own deceptions and illusions.

In terms of transactional analysis it look like this:

adult - adult = truth - truth
parent - child = liar - zombie
child - child = zombie - zombie

“Grown-ups can handle the truth” and the famous retort: “Why do you lie to your children?” (Your duty is to support them to survive in adult life.)

“All this will be for nothing. We will have been for nothing. Defined by their histories, distorted to fit into their narrative. Until all that is left of us are the monsters in the stories they tell their children.” Captain Flint, Black Sails

Cick HERE for Universal Truth

AuthorityAbuse

Recognizing Abuse In Authority (& Why)

Abuser wants to be an Authority enabling energy domination, ergo assumes a Parent-Child attitude and does not respect that the person he is talking with is an Adult requiring Adult-Adult discourse.

Talking to an adult as if they are a child is demeaning, even insulting unless the Adult remains Adult enough to rise above it, to establish their status as Adult rather than Child by responding accordingly, which largely relies on experience that makes the Adult an Adult in the first place.

Here we identify two levels of Adult - one which is a more mature Adult than the other. Both however are Adults, even where the Adult is inexperienced to justify to the Authority that he is not a Child.

The fail is the error of assessment that the Adult is a Child, made by the Authority. It must be recognised that the Authority by making this mistake is not suitable for the role of being an Authority.*

This can be remedied only in three ways:

- the Authority shifts from Parent-Child to Adult-Adult. This is the proper way for an Adult Authority to function.

- the Authority remains in Parent mode creating tension between the two parties because the Adult refuses to become a Child - this shows that the Authority is being more Childish than the Adult. The Adult can opt to step down into Child mode either so both parties can engage Child-Child which is unlikely given that the Authority will then immediately revert to being Parent-Child. This is a domination tactic which is unnecessary for Adult-Adult communication and explains why the Authority is unfit for role as such. We call this Manipulation Of Position Of Authority (where conscious) and Unfit For Role (where unconscious). If the Authority is unconscious of this, it reveals they are not fit for position because they are actively a Child playing Parent wearing Authority role far too big for them. If the Authority is aware of this, they are an Abuser.

- The two parties cease to have any communication. The Authority may repeat this approach with the next client while the Adult finds a different Authority who is capable of Adult-Adult to communicate with.


* Authorities are not fit for role if they make such mistakes. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where most of the time this goes unchecked. The result is chaos and the widespread enablement and acceptance of abuse by authority figures unfit for role. Adults question the Authorities being fit for purpose, Childs cannot. It is itself a mark of Adult status. Remember always: Authorities are Functionaries of a System. The System is there to serve the People. Not the other way around. Freedom factors on this.


Example:

Perry’s agenda is to become a literary agent for money. The arena he is in enables his position of authority over his clients (a variety of writers hopeful to become published authors). The foundation of his job has two aspects, both of which are: to make decisions for other people to progress. First he reads and criticises their work, then he decides if it is good enough to be published by the publishing house he works for. His position is that of authority and he has some power, as much power as his clients respect him with, as much power as his superiors respect him with. So long as he selects clients who bring the company money they will be happy and because there are a lot of people buying books, he does not have to worry much about which part of society he is alienating and encouraging because people will buy books form the company anyway. So nobody is looking too heavily over his shoulder. Most of his job is focussed on finding clients and because there are many writers seeking to be published, this is easy too. He can be very selective and reject as many writers as he likes because he is in a position to do so. In his discourse with potential authors there is a limited amount of to-and-from discourse regarding their books and the companies expectancies of quality. This situation enables him to play energy strategies within the simple dynamic outlined by Dr Eric Berne. The very basic grid structure applies and we can identify it astutely to the situation.

A result of Perry’s decision to pass only specific writers to his company for publication means he is the sole decision maker on what merits quality. It is an important job. Perry has decided to fall back on textbook academic teachings of what constitutes a good book. The summary of this is that all writers must conform to the proper patterns with no deviation, no risk-taking, no experimentation or individual expression. Effectively Perry requires writers who conform to ’painting by numbers’. As a result all of the writers who Perry passes are interchangeable, anyone of them could have written any of the manuscripts he passes without the reader ever truly knowing any difference between them. It caters toward a specific mindset, that of the academically programmed to conform to the academic program.

Perry spends his life wondering why rival publishing houses who have an entirely different approach are producing best-seller after best-seller of avant-garde, risky manuscripts that do not conform to the rules. Perry’s company sell bog-standard, middle-of-the-road easy-reading to a specific audience.

Perry’s methods have resulted in many writers avoiding him entirely and boycotting his publishing house. Perry seeks only submissive writers who redraft their manuscripts to conform to the blueprint Perry is imposing on them. Anybody who thinks differently from that model does not buy books from his company - which is why the rival companies are producing best-selling authors and his is not, despite it being respected as a long-running cornerstone of the publishing industry. 

This is the critical juncture:

Perry engages his clients as a Parent-Child authoritarian figure with intention of making writers conform to the textbook format.

Other companies engage their clients as Adult-Adult with intention of making the book as good as possible on its own merits, regardless of proper academic formats.

The Best Sellers do not conform to the academic textbook format because the books which really stand out, are those which really stand out. It is so obvious and simple that Perry is behind his own back a laughing stock of the industry despite his simultaneously being respected for his standing in it.

When new authors deal with Perry for the first time they have to make the decision which camp they fall into and whether Perry’s publishing house is the right one for them. The tried and tested formats which create format authors for a format audience do have a higher success chance than the multitude of risk-takers of whom only a tiny percent ‘make it’ to become best-sellers.

Thankfully there is a wide range of publishing houses which sit at various proximities within the third category, which is a balance between the extremes.

See also:

Energy Games
StoneWall

BitchPack

Energy Games

The Games People Play by Dr Eric Berne

ISBN: 0-345-41003-3
Published by Grove Press

Transactional Analysis of Social Psychology

Dr Eric Berne teaches a very basic system for;

1 recognising: how people interact.
2 what happens when we do, in terms of ‘energy’ shifting from person to person.
3 establishing a perception from which we can observe that energy does shift between people, and that this phenomena forms a foundation of how people create and manipulate situations to enable them to shift energy in their own favour.

Games People Play was published in 1964 and is no less relevant today. The social focus has shifted, the jargon we use in 2017 is different to that used in 1964, and yet the situation is the same. The basic model created by Dr Berne is the same and is still highly useful in assessing interpersonal situations. The model reveals underlaying structures and dynamics of social scenarios.

I use its guidance often. Combined with my own experiences and the knowledge base from another book called The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield which teaches about what happens when people are low- and high- on energy, the different worlds we manifest, this forms the basis of my world view.

My specialist focus is on exposing abuse and establishing methods to deal with it holistically. This has made me both friends and enemies. There are two camps - those who work positively to create energy for the betterment of all (Service to Others) are those who fight for Humanitarian ideals, and those who exploit individuals for service to dysfunction (Service to Self) are those who abuse and permit abuse.  

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

The rules of the boardgame Diplomacy are very similar to the basic interpersonal model by Dr Berne. They both operate a black/white step-by-step structural outline in minimalist terms to observe  the flow and exploitation of energy between people and groups of people, and how various strategies develop to manipulate this for personal gain and/or communal gain. The conclusion of Diplomacy is that alliances and stability are more important, desirable, successful than are power, control and domination. This is compatible with the conclusion of Games People Play which is that successful people do not play (energy control) games.

See also:

StoneWall

AuthorityAbuse

BitchPack