The trolls, of course, got upset with my exposing their tweets to the world the other night, as was expected. I discovered a new (to me) troll account in my notifications the next day, with a whole bunch of scolding tweets. Instead of reading them, I blocked her (which made them all vanish) and reported her.
Just trying to choose five tweets while reporting her to Twitter Support was nerve-wracking. These people are monsters. If she thinks I’ll read all her book-long tweets to/about me, she’s deluded.
While glancing over and choosing the five tweets, I noted that these (and other) trolls complain about their “targets” asking for help reporting them. They remind me of Trump and his cries of “presidential harassment.”
Victims of Twitter bullying often find that Twitter Support is no help, so they need to ask their friends in an attempt to get Twitter to pay more attention. This is our survival mechanism–so of course the bullies try to turn it around on us, gaslight us, and project their own harassment onto us, for using the best means we have to get online justice.
Oh yeah, and then there’s the concern trolling I saw in those tweets. “She blocks us for telling her the truth!” No, I block you for being a bunch of bullies and a$$holes who can’t accept that other people can come to different conclusions than the ones you want them to…
And I block you for being creepy. Like, seriously creepy. Frickin’ stalkers who go digging for info on complete strangers.
One said to me yesterday, “We know everything about you,” and used my first name for her Twitter handle. These trolls have done this to me before–specifically “Darcy,” three years ago. It only confirms that they found my Facebook back then and were the ones sending me at least some of the weird friend requests coming in back during that time.
And yet–I never gave them my real name. I never connect it to my online handle. I don’t know how they got it.
Why bring these things to light? Why bring their wrath on my head every time I expose them for what they are? Because these trolls have hurt a LOT of people over the past five years; a few of the people hurt are my friends.
People who do their best to track you down and learn “everything about you” when you refuse to give them that information, are stalkers, and no one to give any sort of credibility to.
That’s the kind of people these trolls are: bullies, stalkers, bunny boilers, psychopaths, abusers. They’ve hurt countless people over the past 5 years with their harassment campaigns and refusal to allow people to come to their own conclusions.
This is what narcissists do to keep their victims under control. By refusing to play along, we thwart them and their schemes over their victims. By refusing to play along with the trolls, I become a threat to the triangulation campaign they have been running for years. And by keeping my own mind, I’ve watched their claims fall to pieces–same as with everyone else who’s tried to control me in the past.
These trolls keep trying to bring me down because I’m a threat to them. By standing up to them, I take their power away. And that makes them angry, so they have to find ways to make me feel frightened or small.
You know what? So what. The more abusers try to shut me up, the louder I say it. I proved this to Richard and Tracy eight years ago. The more these trolls try to scare and ridicule me, the more I speak out.
Lots of people have deleted tweets and closed accounts to get these trolls off their backs. I just keep blogging and tweeting. (From my grandpa’s eulogy, it runs in the family. I also have Scottish ancestry: They’re fighters.) Same thing on Facebook: Most comments are supportive, but I get laughs and snarks as well on my political posts. But that just makes me post more because our democracy is at stake and I’m trying to wake people up to it.
Several times over the past decade, I’ve written on here about a guy we encountered in the SCA 20 years ago. He was apparently sociopathic and caused a lot of trouble in our shire. Years later, he went to jail for taking naughty pics of an underage girl. He’s been in and out of court since. I summarized our whole history with him, what I learned afterwards, and a criminal case which hit legal websites and Youtube, here:
Take a minute to read that and you’ll know everything you need to keep up. I describe the weird language he used to protest that he’s not a citizen of the US (Inc) but of the US. Oh, and just as he finally resolved the case I describe in that post, guilty but time already served, he was busted–AGAIN–for violating the sex registry requirement. This time, though, he didn’t take as long, didn’t go through all those lawyers, and just went ahead and pled no contest. That was finally resolved last week.
“i man known as (Muhammed-Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila) am in the state of ‘man’ now: past: forthwith,” the handwritten note filed with the Brown County Clerk of Court reads in part. “Not a Defendant: Respondant all benefits: maybe: waived by i.”
If you were the judge in the former Packers player’s divorce proceeding and received that note, you might be more than a little puzzled about what you were being asked to do.
But the peculiar language that Gbaja-Biamila and his associates have been using to baffle the Brown County court system and confuse the public in recent months is straight out of the “sovereign citizen” playbook born out of the white supremacist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, according to an expert in the subject.
The language is a variation of the “sovereign citizen” movement, started 50 years ago by extremist groups like the Posse Comitatus, said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism who has been studying the movement for 25 years.
At its core, the language is intended to deny the authority of police and courts, which proponents of the sovereign-citizen movement say have no jurisdiction over victim-less crimes and civil matters.
The movement started as anti-government ideology by white supremacists and anti-Semites in the United States in the late 1960s, Pitcavage said. Through natural attrition, those people began to die off, but the movement continued to expand across racial and ethnic boundaries and spread overseas, to other English-speaking countries.
…Proponents claim the U.S. government secretly enslaves its citizens by establishing them from birth as corporations rather than private individuals, by putting their names in all capital letters on legal documents — everything from birth certificates to driver’s licenses.
…Gbaja-Biamila told the Green Bay Press-Gazette recently that admitting to being a “person” rather than a “man” is to accept the state’s illegitimate authority. And like the sovereign citizens that Pitcavage talks about, Gbaja-Biamila believes police, prosecutors and judges have no business charging people with victim-less crimes.
…“Sovereigns believe that if they can find just the right combination of words, punctuation, paper ink color and timing, they can have anything they want — freedom from taxes, unlimited wealth, and life without licenses, fees or laws, are all just a few strangely worded documents away. It’s the modern-day equivalent of ‘abracadabra,’” the law center wrote in an article on its website.
The weird “i man” language is a new variant; the basic point is using language to make it sound like you’re not subject to the courts, and rejecting legal documents. This all sounded familiar, so I went back to the bizarre document written by the guy I knew 20 years ago–let’s call him “J.”
Especially at the beginning and the end of J’s document, you can see the sovereign-citizen-style language. I recall reading in the newspaper back around 2010 that J doesn’t have any documentation, despite being born a US citizen, and that’s on purpose to relinquish the control of the state over him. It also made it difficult for the police to figure out who he was (he has a bunch of aliases). I wanted to pull that up for you, but it looks like old articles have been purged.
Scott Walker used his position as Wisconsin Governor to cover up acts of domestic terrorism, while criminally violating the due process and other rights of [J], effectively denying [J] his First Amendment guarantee to “redress of grievances” and access to various state and federal courts, to a jury trial, and litigation of the merits of [J]’s criminal RICO claims.
Writing in American Scientific Affiliation, Dennis L. Feucht reviewed American Militias: Rebellion, Racism & Religion by Richard Abanes, and described the theory of Richard McDonald, a sovereign-citizen leader, which is that there are two classes of citizens in America: the “original citizens of the states” (or “States citizens”) and “U.S. citizens”. McDonald asserts that U.S. citizens or “Fourteenth Amendment”
citizens have civil rights, legislated to give the freed black slaves after the Civil War rights comparable to the unalienable constitutional rights of white state citizens. The benefits of U.S. citizenship are received by consent in exchange for freedom. State citizens consequently take steps to revoke and rescind their U.S. citizenship and reassert their de jure common-law state citizen status. This involves removing one’s self from federal jurisdiction and relinquishing any evidence of consent to U.S. citizenship, such as a Social Security number, driver’s license, car registration, use of ZIP codes, marriage license, voter registration, and birth certificate. Also included is refusal to pay state and federal income taxes because citizens not under U.S. jurisdiction are not required to pay them. Only residents (resident aliens) of the states, not its citizens, are income-taxable, state citizens argue. And as a state citizen landowner, one can bring forward the original land patent and file it with the county for absolute or allodial property rights. Such allodial ownership is held “without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof” (Black’s Law Dictionary). Superiors include those who levy property taxes or who hold mortgages or liens against the property.
In support of his theories, McDonald has established State Citizen Service Centers around the United States as well as a related web presence.
Writer Richard Abanes asserts that sovereign citizens fail to sufficiently examine the context of the case laws they cite, and ignore adverse evidence, such as Federalist No. 15, where Alexander Hamilton expressed the view that the Constitution placed everyone personally under federal authority.
Some sovereign citizens also claim that they can become immune to most or all laws of the United States by renouncing their citizenship, a process they refer to as “expatriation”, which involves filing or delivering a nonlegal document claiming to renounce citizenship in a “federal corporation” and declaring only to be a citizen of the state in which they reside, to any county clerk’s office that can be convinced to accept it
It all sounds like not only is Gbaja-Biamila part of this sovereign citizen movement, but my husband’s old “nemesis” J is as well. It’s all frickin’ nuts! People wonder if G-B was knocked in the head too many times (he used to play for the Packers); I wonder the same about J….
As I watched the opening statements yesterday for both Ford and Kavanaugh, I paid close attention to their body language and demeanor. Because yeah, I may have trouble with such things, but I’ve been studying narcissism/sociopathy for years now, and how to spot a predator or an abuser claiming to be the victim.
Ford was timid, terrified, quiet, on the verge of tears. Like someone who has been attacked and traumatized and is scared of it happening again. Even Fox News commentators and even Trump are saying she seems credible.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was on the attack: loud, raging, gesticulating, snarling. Complaining about how this affects him–but never a thought to how it has been affecting Ford. Instead of welcoming a full investigation, he evades the question, and derides the whole fact-finding process–a process which, if he’s innocent, should exonerate him. Cold, dead eyes and a terrifying snarl.
Images of Kavanaugh are subject to copyright, and I don’t have $300 to pay for the rights to use one, so I don’t have images of him to clip and paste here. So click on these links instead:
Kavanaugh’s snarls are not the face of an innocent man defending himself/his family from attack. They are the face of a predator whose prey has just exposed him.
My post on DARVO has been getting a lot of hits the past couple of days, especially after it was shared by somebody on Facebook. It quotes Jennifer J. Freyd, who writes,
“It is important to distinguish types of denial, for an innocent person will probably deny a false accusation. Thus denial is not evidence of guilt. However, I propose that a certain kind of indignant self-righteousness, and overly stated denial, may in fact relate to guilt.
I hypothesize that if an accusation is true, and the accused person is abusive, the denial is more indignant, self-righteous and manipulative, as compared with denial in other cases.
Similarly, I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior.
DARVO means deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. It was done to me by Richard and Tracy in their e-mail here. It was done to me by my abusive ex Phil. It has been done countless times throughout the ages to victims by abusers and sexual criminals. This frightening power play keeps countless victims from seeking help, as well, because they are terrified of what will happen to them.
One of the excuses used to not believe and to attack Kavanaugh’s accusers is that they didn’t say anything before. That there should have been a police report if it really happened. But girls and women who are victims of sexual assault or harassment are often too terrified to tell anyone.
If you want to know why they’re so scared, just look at accusations made against Ford:
“She shouldn’t have been at a drinking party.”
“She was going around in a bathing suit.” (1, it was one-piece, 2, a bathing suit or bikini does not mean “rape me,” and 3, it was covered by her clothes.)
“Why was she in that room?” (She just wanted to go to the bathroom, but got pulled into a bedroom.)
“Look how long she took to tell! She’s just doing this for political reasons.”
She’s being blamed. She’s being accused of lying.
Just like happens countless times when victims do speak up. So often, we just stay quiet.
I never told my parents anything that happened to me in school, either. My mom didn’t know that I stopped wearing dresses to school because a couple of boys lifted up my skirt and laughed one day. My parents didn’t know that my high school ulcer and TMJ came from boys sexually harassing me in class and in the cafeteria. They thought that going to classes about stress relief would help.
They didn’t know that–similar to what happened to another accuser, Ramirez–one of the boys pulled out his penis and put it next to me on the table as I ate my lunch, that I think I felt it brush my hand, though I refused to look at it, that the other boys laughed.
They didn’t know how one time, in the line to leave the cafeteria, the boys were harassing me so badly that I crumpled up against the wall to try to protect myself. I don’t even remember what they did or said.
I also didn’t tell teachers about this. I was too shy, too terrified of strangers in general, even though my friends were witnesses and told me to tell.
(That’s why friends should do the telling and not leave it to the traumatized victims.)
My parents didn’t know that my ex Phil tried to force me into anal sex, making me feel raped at least once, or that he forced me into oral sex when he hadn’t even bathed. And no, I never reported it.
No, I don’t remember every detail. I don’t remember who the boys were in high school, or what all they did or said. But I remember it happened.
And I do remember exactly which teacher ridiculed and sexually harassed me in class. There were witnesses. But I never even thought to tell the principal. I just switched classes the following semester.
As for Phil, I told a few friends some of what happened. I don’t remember telling them everything.
I told his new girlfriend, Persephone, about it. I hoped she would be appalled that her boyfriend would rape a girl. Instead, her dismissive reply seemed to suggest that if I were telling the truth, and weren’t just being hysterical or hyperbolic, maybe even looking for attention, that I would report it to the police.
But I was too terrified to tell the police. There was no physical evidence, so how could I prove it, for one. (And this is often the case.)
For another, I didn’t know if a rape charge would hold up in court since I had agreed to have sex–I just had not agreed to have anal or oral sex. I also didn’t want my parents to know we had had sex, because they were fundamentalists who didn’t know about our spiritual marriage, and were definitely against me having sex before marriage. Even when your parents are not abusive, a combination of old-fashioned ideas and parental disappointment can be frightening.
Another reason to stay quiet is hearing “Get over it already!” I’ve been seeing a lot of this in reactions to Kavanaugh’s accusers, when even WOMEN have been saying, “It was 36 years ago! It was just a touch! How can she not have moved on?” or “All teenage boys grope! Who cares? It’s not a big deal!”
(You don’t forget. You don’t move on.)
I had my own version of this a year after Richard’s friends sexually harassed me in a chat room. He saw the whole thing, and how vile their words and behavior actually were. Yet his wife treated it like it was nothing at all, and then Richard tried to mansplain me into believing that I was being “ridiculous” for still being upset over it (and over his continued friendship with these people) a year later. He said it “wasn’t real” and he thought I understood that.
The only one being “ridiculous” here was Richard.
The Kavanaugh hearings are triggering for many of us because we see our own traumas being relived in the accusers, our own fears realized as the accusers are treated just as we were, or as we feared we would be treated if we spoke up.
We see nothing changed, even after decades of feminism and then the #MeToo movement.
We see men treating the hearings as a charade, even going into self-righteous tirades about it: not just Kavanaugh, but Lindsey Graham as well–who seems to have conveniently forgotten how Merrick Garland’s appointment was blocked by the Republicans.
And there was absolutely no legitimate reason to block Garland, while Kavanaugh’s temperament and character have already been proven to be narcissistic and dangerous.
Because yes, what we saw in Kavanaugh yesterday is known as narcissistic rage. This happens when a narcissist or sociopath is called out on their crimes.