#psychiatrists versus psychics

[thevalicemultiverse]

Psychiatrists are just people who weren't smart enough to become psychics.

Alice: You know, I will allow that, because maybe if Bumby had been psychic, he would have gotten it through his thick skull that Lizzie was genuinely not fucking interested in him. I don't know if it actually would have made a difference, but still.

[saint-hildegard-of-bingen]

If you love our country, please read this article, and continue to work to save our democracy. And stay hopeful!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The despair felt by climate scientists and environmentalists watching helplessly as something precious and irreplaceable is destroyed is sometimes described as “climate grief.” Those who pay close attention to the ecological calamity that civilization is inflicting upon itself frequently describe feelings of rage, anxiety and bottomless loss, all of which are amplified by the right’s willful denial. The young activist Greta Thunberg, Time magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year, has described falling into a deep depressionafter grasping the ramifications of climate change and the utter refusal of people in power to rise to the occasion: “If burning fossil fuels was so bad that it threatened our very existence, how could we just continue like before?”

Lately, I think I’m experiencing democracy grief. For anyone who was, like me, born after the civil rights movement finally made democracy in America real, liberal democracy has always been part of the climate, as easy to take for granted as clean air or the changing of the seasons. When I contemplate the sort of illiberal oligarchy that would await my children should Donald Trump win another term, the scale of the loss feels so vast that I can barely process it.

After Trump’s election, a number of historians and political scientists rushed out with books explaining, as one title put it, “How Democracies Die.” In the years since, it’s breathtaking how much is dead already. Though the president will almost certainly be impeached for extorting Ukraine to aid his re-election, he is equally certain to be acquitted in the Senate, a tacit confirmation that he is, indeed, above the law. His attorney general is a shameless partisan enforcer. Professional civil servants are purged, replaced by apparatchiks. The courts are filling up with young, hard-right ideologues. One recently confirmed judge, 40-year-old Steven Menashi, has written approvingly of ethnonationalism.

In “How Democracies Die,” Professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard describe how, in failing democracies, “the referees of the democratic game were brought over to the government’s side, providing the incumbent with both a shield against constitutional challenges and a powerful — and ‘legal’ — weapon with which to assault its opponents.” This is happening before our eyes.

The entire Trump presidency has been marked, for many of us who are part of the plurality that despises it, by anxiety and anger. But lately I’ve noticed, and not just in myself, a demoralizing degree of fear, even depression. You can see it online, in the self-protective cynicism of liberals announcing on Twitter that Trump is going to win re-election. In The Washington Post, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a Never Trump conservative, described his spiritual struggle against feelings of political desperation: “Sustaining this type of distressed uncertainty for long periods, I can attest, is like putting arsenic in your saltshaker.”

I reached out to a number of therapists, who said they’re seeing this politically induced misery in their patients. Three years ago, said Karen Starr, a psychologist who practices in Manhattan and on Long Island, some of her patients were “in a state of alarm,” but that’s changed into “more of a chronic feeling that’s bordering on despair.” Among those most affected, she said, are the Holocaust survivors she sees. “It’s about this general feeling that the institutions that we rely on to protect us from a dangerous individual might fail,” she said.

Kimberly Grocher, a psychotherapist who works in both New York and South Florida, and whose clients are primarily women of color, told me that during her sessions, the political situation “is always in the room. It’s always in the room.” Trump, she said, has made bigotry more open and acceptable, something her patients feel in their daily lives. “When you’re dealing with people of color’s mental health, systemic racism is a big part of that,” she said.

In April 2017, I traveled to suburban Atlanta to cover the special election in the Sixth Congressional District. Meeting women there who had been shocked by Trump’s election into ceaseless political action made me optimistic for the first time that year. These women were ultimately the reason that the district, once represented by Newt Gingrich, is now represented by a Democrat, Lucy McBath. Recently, I got back in touch with a woman I’d met there, an army veteran and mother of three named Katie Landsman. She was in a dark place.

“It’s like watching someone you love die of a wasting disease,” she said, speaking of our country. “Each day, you still have that little hope no matter what happens, you’re always going to have that little hope that everything’s going to turn out O.K., but every day it seems like we get hit by something else.” Some mornings, she said, it’s hard to get out of bed. “It doesn’t feel like depression,” she said. “It really does feel more like grief.”

Obviously, this is hardly the first time that America has failed to live up to its ideals. But the ideals themselves used to be a nearly universal lodestar. The civil rights movement, and freedom movements that came after it, succeeded because the country could be shamed by the distance between its democratic promises and its reality. That is no longer true.

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are often incredulous seeing the party of Ronald Reagan allied with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, but the truth is, there’s no reason they should be in conflict. The enmity between America and Russia was ideological. First it was liberal democracy versus communism. Then it was liberal democracy versus authoritarian kleptocracy.

But Trump’s political movement is pro-authoritarian and pro-oligarch. It has no interest in preserving pluralism, free and fair elections or any version of the rule of law that applies to the powerful as well as the powerless. It’s contemptuous of the notion of America as a lofty idea rather than a blood-and-soil nation. Russia, which has long wanted to prove that liberal democracy is a hypocritical sham, is the natural friend of the Trumpist Republican Party, just as it’s an ally and benefactor of the far right Rassemblement National in France and the Lega Nord in Italy.

The nemeses of the Trumpist movement are liberals — in both the classical and American sense of the world — not America’s traditional geopolitical foes. This is something new in our lifetime. Despite right-wing persecution fantasies about Barack Obama, we’ve never before had a president who treats half the country like enemies, subjecting them to an unending barrage of dehumanization and hostile propaganda. Opponents in a liberal political system share at least some overlapping language. They have some shared values to orient debates. With those things gone, words lose their meaning and political exchange becomes impossible and irrelevant.

Thus we have a total breakdown in epistemological solidarity. In the impeachment committee hearings, Republicans insist with straight faces that Trump was deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Republican senators like Ted Cruz of Texas, who is smart enough to know better, repeat Russian propaganda accusing Ukraine of interfering in the 2016 election. The Department of Justice’s inspector general’s report refutes years of Republican deep state conspiracy theories about an F.B.I. plot to subvert Trump’s campaign, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the promoters of those theories, who pronounce themselves totally vindicated.

To those who recognize the Trump administration’s official lies as such, the scale of dishonesty can be destabilizing. It’s a psychic tax on the population, who must parse an avalanche of untruths to understand current events. “What’s going on in the government is so extreme, that people who have no history of overwhelming psychological trauma still feel crazed by this,” said Stephanie Engel, a psychiatrist in Cambridge, Mass., who said Trump comes up “very frequently” in her sessions.

Like several therapists I spoke to, Engel said she’s had to rethink how she practices, because she has no clinical distance from the things that are terrifying her patients. “If we continue to present a facade — that we know how to manage this ourselves, and we���re not worried about our grandchildren, or we’re not worried about how we’re going to live our lives if he wins the next election — we’re not doing our patients a service,” she said.

This kind of political suffering is uncomfortable to write about, because liberal misery is the raison d’être of the MAGA movement. When Trumpists mock their enemies for being “triggered,” it’s just a quasi-adult version of the playground bully’s jeer: “What are you going to do, cry?” Anyone who has ever been bullied knows how important it is, at that moment, to choke back tears. In truth, there are few bigger snowflakes than the stars of MAGA world. The Trumpist pundit Dan Bongino is currently suing The Daily Beast for $15 million, saying it inflicted “emotional distress and trauma, insult, anguish,” for writing that NRATV, the National Rifle Association’s now defunct online media arm, had “dropped” him when the show he hosted ended. Still, a movement fueled by sadism will delight in admissions that it has caused pain.

But despair is worth discussing, because it’s something that organizers and Democratic candidates should be addressing head on. Left to fester, it can lead to apathy and withdrawal. Channeled properly, it can fuel an uprising. I was relieved to hear that despite her sometimes overwhelming sense of civic sadness, Landsman’s activism hasn’t let up. She’s been spending a bit less than 20 hours a week on political organizing, and expects to go back to 40 or more after the holidays. “The only other option is to quit and accept it, and I’m not ready to go there yet,” she said. Democracy grief isn’t like regular grief. Acceptance isn’t how you move on from it. Acceptance is itself a kind of death.

[meditativeyoga]

Apply Yoga + Meditation to Relationships

Meditation as well as yoga exercise allow you to weather the unexpected storms in your relationships.

At his wedding, Chuck's godmother provided the new couple one little suggestions. 'Never go to sleep angry,' she cautioned them. 'Make up before the day is done.' Chuck thought this was really reasonable, it went right together with his research of Eastern ideology. Greed, hatred, and deception were the sources of suffering. Why would certainly he and also his better half want to feed the fires of such devastating forces?

Yet things had actually not exercised as he had actually pictured. Some years right into the marriage, Chuck and Rachel had battles that never seemed to get fixed, a minimum of not in the way he thought they should. Chuck still believed that they must not go to sleep mad, but consequently he would keeping up all night refining his rage while his wife slept.

In a session with me a number of days after the most up to date argument, Chuck told me just what he had been with. He and Rachel had been owning to a good friend's celebration, however the published directions were incorrect. Chuck left at the indicated exit, goinged west as he was instructed, yet could not discover the next landmark. Why wasn't it there, he asked yourself? He snapped at his other half, thinking that she wasn't reading the directions properly. Irritated with his tone, she guaranteed him that she read them simply fine, but she asked him to quit for directions.

He guaranteed her he would certainly yet then sped up past the gas terminal. They were late currently, and also he was persuaded he might find the location: It was someplace on this road. He had actually passed it the day before, he bore in mind. Careening about trying to find the sites showed in the invitation, he ultimately stopped at a neon-lit rapid food joint directly from a David Lynch flick. A group of four young people in gold chains eyed his vehicle. He headed back in the other instructions as his spouse expanded an increasing number of irate.

He asked her very steadly to please quit chewing out him, yet inside he was seething and also mad. Rachel did not find his forced calm enticing and continuouslied be irate with him. He became taken out while dreams of crashing their vehicle started to blossom in his mind. There is absolutely nothing that Chuck disliked as high as being chewed out in a car. He did not like requesting directions as well as took satisfaction in his ability to find his way, also when lost.

He really felt that Rachel did not trust him when she shed her temper like this and also routinely took it as an impact to their love.

He ultimately stopped for directions at a neighborhood motel, owned to the event, as well as spent the night waiting for her to ask forgiveness, after they found that their host's published directions had, as a matter of fact, been faulty. Chuck and also Rachel danced when, to Aretha Franklin's 'Respect.' The paradox of the lyrics was not lost on him.

My good friend Michael Eigen, a New York psychoanalyst who, unlike the majority of Freud's offspring, is not put off by the quest of the sacred, informs a story in his book Psychic Deadness (Jason Aronson, 1996) regarding a meditator called Ken that came to him for assist with his violent temper. Throughout my talk with Chuck, flashes of Ken kept breaking via. Ken's case research study is qualified 'StillnessStorminess,' with the arrowheads showing a vibrant relationship in between both states, one that both Ken and also Chuck were reluctant to accept.

The heart of the story is Ken's anger, as well as his efforts to utilize Buddhist reflection to calm it. Rage faded and peacefulness opened up within him in meditation. It was not a peace that can last. Ken still obtained mad in the midst of household life, much to his discouragement. His expectations, for himself and for his family, were as well fantastic. He required that reflection tranquil residential life, and also, disappointed whenever conflict broke up his reflective stability, he condemned himself or his household. He desired his family members to live by his values, to driven themselves around peace and also tranquility, making meditation the center of their lives, too. He was outraged by the turmoil of household life and also attracted a growing number of to the simplicity of silent sitting.

' Part of Ken's problem,' states Eigen, 'was his covert dream to regulate his household (maybe life itself) with one mood. He was not content to appreciate tranquil, after that enter the tumult of actual living. He wished to rule the last by the former. An unconscious seriousness structured his harmony. Reflection centered him, yet it concealed a dictatorial need that life not be life, his wife not be his partner, his youngster not be his child.'

The totalitarian demand that his partner not be his wife ... I spoke with Chuck regarding that. He desired an apology from Rachel, and also he can not think that she would certainly keep it. A subconscious seriousness structured his serenity. What regarding exactly what his godmother had stated? Why could Rachel never ever say she was sorry? 'Why can you not just release?' she maintained firmly insisting, in a recognizing recommendation to his years of meditation practice.

Chuck felt that he had to defend himself, however he was missing the opportunity to absolutely no in on the feeling of self that was at the origin of his suffering. Tibetan Buddhists call such times 'damaged virtue,' when you are wrongly implicated as well as you believe to on your own, 'I didn't do that!' The self that we take to be real is most visible at these times of indignation, as well as in order to have the liberating insight of egolessness, we have to first find the self as it really appears to us. Those minutes of damaged innocence are prime celebrations for this most emotional of spiritual work.

In his publication, Dr. Eigen probes Ken's relationship to temper and also his devotion to serenity. Ken was not simply attempting to quiet his own mind, he was striving to silence a disorderly early environment. 'In time he realized that he attempted to get from meditation the calm he never ever received from his moms and dads. Partially, he made use of reflection to calm his moms and dads (in subconscious fantasy), in addition to himself.'

But meditation frustrated Ken in its failing to change his life. He desired too much from it, and also he started to hate what could not be changed. Rather than utilizing meditation technique to relocate in between states of storminess as well as serenity, to let go of one as the other held, he tried to make use of reflection to dominate life. He required treatment to instruct him exactly what he may have likewise gained from yoga: the best ways to removal in between placements with recognition and versatility. Chuck was really like Ken in his relationship to rage. He had a formula for how points were intended to go. If he and also Rachel had a fight, they ought to have the ability to refine it. He would aim to confess his faults, but his spouse must have the ability to, too. If she was going to get so angry with him, she ought to a minimum of be able to say sorry. But Rachel did not such as to chat about such points. She got mad, but when it mored than it was over. She did not like all Chuck's rules.

Chuck had trouble enabling the fight to disappear on its own. He kept wanting that apology. Several evenings after their battle when going to sleep, Chuck had actually transformed his back to Rachel yet was stunned as she nestled versus him. Nearly against his will, he relocated into her soft qualities and heat. She felt good to him, and he for a moment valued her motion. A few of his anger thawed. 'As in yoga exercise, so in the emotional life,' I said. The activity between kinds is as crucial as the asanas themselves. If you are obsessing on what an asana ought to appear like, you are not really doing the asana. Understanding is more vital compared to the exterior form, and also awareness could pass via several states: anger, frustration, or happiness. Yoga exercise is accepting all the states without hanging on as well as without pushing away.

I informed Chuck a story from Jack Kornfield's brand-new publication, After the Ecstasy, the Laundry (Bantam Books) about Zen master Suzuki Roshi of the San Francisco Zen Facility. Trainees were constantly asking him how you can deal with difficult feelings like temper, although they currently knew just what he would state. 'You inform us to simply rest when we rest as well as eat when we consume, however can a Zen master simply be mad in the same method?' somebody when asked him. 'Like a thunderstorm when it passes?' Suzuki Roshi responded. 'Ahh, I want I might do that.'

Mark Epstein, M.D., is a psychiatrist in New York as well as author of Going on Being (Broadway Books, 2001). He's been a student of Buddhist meditation for 25 years.

[allisonawakened]

Do you think that mediums are also psychotic? Bc some of the symptoms of being a medium such as seeing and hearing things aren't there can also be seen as psychosis

Evening Lovely :)

I have to confess, I’m a little in love with your question. That may sound weird, but I absolutely adore people looking at things from a different perspective.

* Keep Reading to learn my thoughts on Mediumship vs Psychosis *

Mediumship vs Psychosis

My experience in seeing and hearing things has led me to firmly believe that there is a fine line between possessing these otherworldly gifts / abilities, and dealing with or battling any form of mental health issue, mental distress, or downright psychosis. The two worlds are so closely tied to each other, that oftentimes gifts / abilities can be misdiagnosed as mental health issues or vice versa.

I do feel though that not all ethereal / otherworldly things (or suspected Ghost’ie things) can be so easily written off as Mediumship abilities or Spirit involvement. The same can be said on the other side of the coin. I suppose the real determinant / difference between the two worlds requires a trained / certified Medical Professional to truly diagnose any underlying issues going on. 

Accuracy of the messages, if shared aloud, can also determine if this is a legit, for real thing, or just the beginning of some deep-seated mental issues. 

I believe though at the same time, that it is possible to be so gifted that it leads to psychosis, or a break down in mental & physical health. Look at some famous Psychic Mediums - like Edgar Cayce for example. There can be a certain “shelf-life” to possessing, using, and engaging with these spiritual abilities. Or even a very “manic” vibe to the intensity of the gifts & spiritual experiences. This is where self-care is SO. VERY. ESSENTIAL. To Spirit work and honing / using / practicing with real, legit, Mediumship abilities.

Sometimes I look back on my own journey and wonder, “How am I not totally cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?”. I even get asked how I knew it was Mediumship ability in the beginning and not some deeper psychosis. In my personal circumstance, I am totally a Type-A / Perfectionist / Control-freak kind of person, and so failure is never an option. And in reflection, back then I would never have allowed some annoying Ghost’ies to get the better of me.

That being said, I do see a lot of mental / spiritual struggle, especially in young children, teenagers and youth. And in all of those circumstances I would always recommend / say the same thing I’ve already mentioned - the only way to know for sure if there is Mediumship ability versus some form of psychosis, would be to consult a Psychiatrist / Psychologist / Medical Professional that is trained in understanding and dealing with mental traumas, illnesses, conditions & disorders.

To to sum that all up…

I believe some Mediums could be dealing with psychosis, but not all appear to be affected in that same way. I also believe true Mediumship ability can absolutely lead to psychosis at some point or another if self-care is not taken seriously and practiced regularly. I do not believe that all those with psychosis are natural-born Mediums. 

And at the end of the day - I feel it’s always important to balance spiritual perspective with knowledge / guidance / advice from a trained / certified Medical Professional.

[amycathryn]

Empathy 101

Mantis is My Hero

Caveat: Long read. It's less of a blog and more of an empathy course...

Not gonna lie. Mantis is da bomb.com. She is the first superhero on the big screen to have empathy as an actual superpower. If you don't know who Mantis is, and aren't as nerdy as I am, she's a prevalent character in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. I'm genuinely excited about her character for 2 reasons:

She has all of the abilities an advanced empath would have.

Her character is an inspiration for empaths.

As someone who's been empathic as long as I can remember, it's refreshing to see this ability interpreted as a superpower more than a curse. I myself have traversed the interwebs only to find articles mostly on how to tell if you're an empath, or how to cope with it—not really any on how to harness it or increase it.

Another reason I'm writing this is because clients and friends alike keep asking me how to deal with their empathy on an overwhelming scale. So, I'll not only go into detail on what empathy is, why we have it and the signs of empathy (along with external links), but also the pros, cons and empathic hygiene. I also fully intend to come out with an Empathy 201 blog/course at a later date that goes into more detail.

Ok. So What is Empathy?

Well, from my research there are two definitions. One is used by psychologists, while the other is more prevalent amongst spiritualists.

The psychological definition of empathy defines it in regards to emotional intelligence—The ability to understand what others are feeling within their own frame of reference. It's the ability to gauge the emotions of others and "step into their shoes" so to speak.

The spiritual definition of empathy is having the ability to sense other people's energy and take on the feelings of others as their own. An empath is often times energetically influenced by people around them (even if they can't see the person). They can take on another person's dreams, emotions, physical pains and even mood swings. 

The difference between the two terms is their origins. The psychological term relates to how well one person can psychologically understand another on an emotional scale (which can be a learned trait), while the spiritualist term is more energetically-based (and is an inherent gift that manifests both naturally and with discipline). In this blog we'll go into detail on the spiritualist meaning of empathy.

Signs You're an Empath 

Here's a list of the traits that most empaths have in common. If you find yourself saying "that sounds like me" to a majority of items on this list—then chances are, you're an empath too! 

Caveat: I'm not a psychologist, psychiatrist or doctor. Some traits may also be signs of potential psychological issues. I leave that to your best judgement—so if you feel you may need help, then please seek out a professional.

You can feel the emotions of others regardless to proximity. They can be the person in the cubicle next to you or a good friend in another state.

You always have an uncanny way of telling how others really feel, even if they put on a mask. You can know how they're feeling even if you don't see them or hear them at all. You just know.

Being highly sensitive either physically, emotionally or both. This can include foods, music and having emotions that run deep. You may bruise easily or have odd skin allergies. You may have even been called "too sensitive" because of these feelings.

You love nature. Nature energizes you and you feel at home when out in nature—whether it's camping, walking in the park or simply just being outside. 

Crowds drain you. Especially after being around people for a period of time.

You're introvert or lean introvert. This one is huge amongst empaths that I've seen. Usually the stronger the empath, the more introvert they are.

You crave solitude. Being alone recharges you and helps you focus both mentally and emotionally.

Animals love you and are drawn to you (because they can sense empaths).

People say you're a great listener and find it easy to talk to you.

You are drawn to help people through teaching, counseling or healing.

It pains you or discomforts you to come into physical contact with others.

You always know how the people closest to you feel.

You can tell when someone is lying to you.

You can tell if someone likes you or has feelings for you—and maybe even how much.

You get reliable gut "feelings" about people—you know good people from bad people when you see them.

Perfect strangers walk up to you and start talking to you about their personal problems.

You get odd mood swings when you're in crowds more so than when you're at home.

You get odd physical pains (such as headaches or cramps) in crowds more so than when you're at home.

You get stressed or anxious when you have to go to the grocery store or places where large groups of people congregate.

Anxiety attacks happen primarily around groups of people (versus when you're by yourself).

You drink or use other drugs because it "numbs" you—you know it "helps" you deal with being around people for extended periods of time. Caveat: Imbibing to cope with empathy is never the best solution. Please read the empathic hygiene section on healthier ways to do so.

You loathe liars. You can not only tell a liar when you see one, but you have a very low tolerance for them.

You actively remove yourself from drama and drama queens—because they drain you. You can tell a drama queen from a mile away and they always leave you feeling drained after you've been around them for any period of time.

You have weight issues. Many empaths have weight gain or weight problems because they're subconsciously creating a physical shield against others due to their hypersensitivity.

You're a people pleaser. It's hard to say "no" when you know it will bring someone else joy—even if it hurts you.

You have an unshakable drive to help/serve others.

When you're having a conversation with someone, especially if it is emotional or deep, you have a hard time discerning where your emotions stop and the other person's emotions begin.

You can always see both sides of the argument—which can even make arguing difficult because you forget your emotional position!

You're creative and a creative thinker.

People find it easy to tell you deep, personal stuff.

You make friends VERY easily, but don't feel close to a majority of them as it tends to mostly be the friend talking and you listening.

Music, inspiring quotes, movies and other creative outlets have a tendency to provoke deep emotions within you.

When you touch someone, you can feel their emotions with a deep and almost indescribable understanding.

You dislike horror movies or movies with excessive yelling or violence.

You tend to be drawn to people who are suffering. It's not uncommon to find empaths in a toxic or enabling relationship.

You avoid being "in the way" of others or asking for help because you're afraid you will be a burden to them.

What Being an Empath is Like

It's easy to forget the energetic aspect of life when you're in "work mode" or doing daily chores—but the empathy never really stops. Even I forget that sometimes. Touching people is difficult, and sometimes even painful—so big crowds (regardless of the amount of shielding I do) can be a challenge. I usually have to mentally prepare myself before going into a grocery store.

Perhaps the biggest issue in overcoming being an empath (for me at least) is finding friends that are energizing. Those are the people you can have deep, meaningful conversations with that spark your drive (versus the people who just want to talk about their problems). There are plenty of people out there who want the empath to be their friend—but only so the empath is there to listen more so than have a mutual relationship. Discovering friends with a deep zest for life that actually listen can be an absolute treasure of a find.

On the same token, it's a privilege to see the humanity in every individual I encounter. Just about everyone feels and has some goodness in their hearts. Being able to see that is a gift and a blessing. Helping people foster this spark through empathy is also a privilege. Touching someone and allowing that deep, emotional connection to establish with them, sometimes just for a moment, is also a gift—even if it's painful sometimes. The best way I can describe it is it restores my faith in humanity—being able to feel the humanity in another. Being momentarily a part of the humanity in another.

Pros & Cons

Pros of Being an Empath:

Here's a list of the positive attributes of being an empath. Please don't abuse your gifts. Karma can (and will) be a real bitch if you use them for selfish reasons. Always ask for a sign from God to use your empathic gifts with others, and if you are going to do heavy empathic work on an individual, their verbal consent is mandatory. Always remember: just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Automatically knowing the emotional mood of a crowd (and have the ability to sway it).

You can easily gain the trust of people .

The ability to sense the types of connections people have with the the ones they're close to (both good and bad).

You can change the emotions of another person .

You can tell when someone is lying.

The ability to see into another person's emotional memories—what their memories are (especially the emotionally charged ones).

The ability to see into another person's home.

The ability to see into another person's soul—you can see the good, the bad and the potential in their hearts.

The ability to sense other psychics, intuitives, psionics and basically anyone who knows and is aware of energy on one level or another. More advanced empaths can sense the degree in which the abilities others have, and possibly even latent abilities.

The ability to change the emotional state of a crowd.

The ability to alleviate the pain in others by taking it on as your own (but don't do this—just send it into the ground).

Cons of Being an Empath:

Here's a list of the negative attributes of being an empath. I put these out there as a sort-of caveat for those wishing to increase their empathic gifts. Be prepared to deal with these issues on a higher level if you intend to increase your spiritual gifts.

Intimacy can be difficult—touching others is something an empath may subconsciously or actively try to avoid.

Feeling drained after being in a group for a long period of time.

Getting headaches, emotions or pains out of the blue that aren't the empath's own.

Being drained around certain individuals (usually energy vampires or bad people in general)

Going weeks without being alone for an extended period of time can increase anxiety, fatigue, mood swings and even depression in some highly sensitive empaths.

Knowing things about others that you don't want to know because they touched you (i.e., that they like you, hate you, or a bad childhood memory).

Having difficulty focusing in large crowds.

You get fed up with your lower-vibrating (energy) friends. Fast. This happens a lot with people who experienced an empathic "boost" later in life. You become much less tolerant to those around you that aren't your "true" friends.

A subconscious tendency to take on the moods of others. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage, depending on the circumstances. I put it under "cons" because if you're not consciously guarding yourself empathically, you can subconsciously be emotionally swayed by others very easily.

Empathic Hygiene

Just like brushing your teeth or putting on deodorant, empathy requires hygiene too. We try to remember to use deodorant and brush our teeth every day—so should that mentality flow into taking care of our energetic selves and our empathic gifts. To not only increase your abilities, but also be a healthy empath, you must know and practice these three things: Cutting Cords, Grounding, and Shielding.

Cutting Cords

Cutting cords is probably the most important thing any empath should know regarding their gifts. This is because cords are what make up empathy. Every time you come into contact with someone on any level, you are connecting to them via an invisible energetic tether. You do this (subconsciously) with everyone you are near, touch or even make eye contact with every day (to one degree or another). You will also tend to have very strong cord connections with the people you're closest to. 

Cutting these cords is necessary for the well-being of every empath—otherwise, we'll be continuously bogged down with the emotional energy of all the people we have ever come into contact with. Often times we can have both good and bad cords connected to the same person—so it's helpful to understand the difference between the types of cords before cutting them (don't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak).

An exercise I like to do on a daily basis is what I like to call the "guillotine" method. I imagine a guillotine "slicing away" at the negative cords I have with others. Works like a charm every time. Other methods include praying for Archangel Michael to clear the energy away, the "plucking" method (where you "pluck" the cord out of you), and just plain standing with your back to a tree. Trees are amazing about taking our negative energy and grounding it.

The trick is visualization. Visualization is key to understanding and utilizing energy—and empathy.

Grounding

Grounding is necessary to stay focused and also a great way to remove toxic energy from the body. It helps us center ourselves here in the physical world. I ground all the time—especially before and after every reading I do. Many religions and even some forms of martial arts (such as qigong exercises in Tai Chi) incorporate grounding into their practices.

Grounding, in summary, is connecting to Mother Earth—putting your energy in the earth, so to speak. Grounding is an excellent way to reduce stress, anxiety and helps bring balance to your body's energy. I'll often times recommend grounding to a client that I see is unfocused, afraid or "fuzzy brained". There are a number of ways to ground, but my favorite method is what I call the "roots" method.

The roots method goes like this: You can be sitting or standing—it doesn't matter. Just begin to imagine roots growing out of your feet and into the ground. You can be 30 stories high—just imagine your feet growing roots that sink into the ground. It may take time, especially if this is your first try, but you'll feel a "shift" when you've successfully grounded your energy.

Then imagine all of the negative energy in your body just falling into the ground. The earth can take whatever energy you throw at her—and she transmutes it into good energy. 

Stones can also be an excellent method for grounding. Sometimes I'll recommend darker stones to clients who need assistance with grounding. Good stones for grounding include smokey quartz, black tourmaline, hematite, nuumite, shungite and obsidian. Darker brown/black stones in general tend to be great for grounding, protection, and even transmuting negative energy into positive energy. If you're interested in using stones to assist in grounding, I would recommend going to your local metaphysical shop and picking up a few of the aforementioned stones and see what resonates with you. One of them will just "feel right" when you hold it.

And finally, another excellent way to ground is to take a salt bath. Salt baths rock and can become highly addictive! I recommend this to a majority of my empathic clients. It's excellent for extracting toxic energy and calming the mind. I do this probably about twice a month. It's a great way to "reset" the energetic body if you're feeling tired or drained. Not to mention, it helps with softening the skin and muscle aches if you use epsom salts. The only down side is you'll probably need to clean out your bathtub first.

Shielding

Shielding, simply put, is an energetic term for blocking the energy of others. It's a great way to protect yourself, much like you protect your feet by wearing shoes when you go outside. It acts as a barrier against the "raw" emotions of others.

There are probably a thousand methods to shield—ranging from simple to advanced. For the sake of this blog/course (being a "101" blog/course) I'll keep it simple. I may write on the more advanced ways to shield at a later date. 

Shielding, as with other ways to harness energy (empathic or otherwise) requires "feeling" and visualization. A great method of shielding I recommend for clients is the "Glenda the Good Witch" bubble. If you've seen the Wizard of Oz, you probably remember the scene where Glenda the Good Witch in all of her splendor floated down to the good citizens of Munchkin Land in a beautiful rainbow bubble. 

Well, like Glenda, imagine yourself in this beautiful rainbow bubble—filled with light and peace. Imagine it surrounding you from front to back, head to toe. Visualize it growing a thick, impermeable shell—and tell it to last all day. I recommend shielding every day–especially if you will be around other people. This shield will help keep you from establishing unnecessary or unwanted empathic cords with others and vice versa. 

When you shield (and do so often) you'll notice an improvement in your energy and ability to be around others for longer periods of time without growing tired quickly.

Increasing Your Empathy

So after all that reading you still want to increase your empathy, eh?

Well, there are several methods to do so. The first being meditation. Yeah, I know. None of us really have the time for that. But we make time for the things we want, and meditation is the best way to increase your abilities overall. This is because meditation helps you become more aware of your energy and sense it better because it forces you to inflect.

Porcupines.

Yes, porcupines. I see empathy and the empathic abilities of others as porcupines. It's like a thousand tendrils spilling out of a person—with many of them connecting to the tendrils of another. Visualize your tendrils—your porcupine needles—growing. If that is difficult, inflect on your relationships with others. watch how that shifts your mentality and thought patterns. This is what empathy feels like. It's that shift because you're "honing" in on that person. You can even practice with a friend that's interested in increasing their empathy as well. Focus on connecting to each other and notice the shift. That's the energetic shift of empathy. Just be sure to always cut the cord after you're done with the exercise. 

Another method is to work with a friend and guess how they're feeling without looking at their face or body language. Try standing with your back to them and feel what their emotions are. Then turn around and see. Take turns putting yourself into different emotional states (with your backs turned) and get a feel for their emotions.

In Conclusion

The key to increasing empathy isn't power or energy per se—it's discernment. It's the ability to keenly understand the energy around you, and how it works. 

Just remember, with great power comes great responsibility. I strongly recommend reading my previous blog post on the ethics of being psychic.

Please use your superpowers for good. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me.

Good Luck! 

[bountyofbeads]

Democracy Grief Is Real https://nyti.ms/2LRLcSL

I have been in a deep depression since Thanksgiving and feel totally defeated and exhausted so I'm heartened to know there's a reason for it. 😭😭😭

Democracy Grief Is Real

Seeing what Trump is doing to America, many find it hard to fight off despair.

By Michelle Goldberg | Published Dec. 13, 2019 | New York Times | Posted December 13, 2019 |

The despair felt by climate scientists and environmentalists watching helplessly as something precious and irreplaceable is destroyed is sometimes described as “climate grief.” Those who pay close attention to the ecological calamity that civilization is inflicting upon itself frequently describe feelings of rage, anxiety and bottomless loss, all of which are amplified by the right’s willful denial. The young activist Greta Thunberg, Time Magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year, has described falling into a deep depression after grasping the ramifications of climate change and the utter refusal of people in power to rise to the occasion: “If burning fossil fuels was so bad that it threatened our very existence, how could we just continue like before?”

Lately, I think I’m experiencing democracy grief. For anyone who was, like me, born after the civil rights movement finally made democracy in America real, liberal democracy has always been part of the climate, as easy to take for granted as clean air or the changing of the seasons. When I contemplate the sort of illiberal oligarchy that would await my children should Donald Trump win another term, the scale of the loss feels so vast that I can barely process it.

After Trump’s election, a number of historians and political scientists rushed out with books explaining, as one title put it, “How Democracies Die.” In the years since, it’s breathtaking how much is dead already. Though the president will almost certainly be impeached for extorting Ukraine to aid his re-election, he is equally certain to be acquitted in the Senate, a tacit confirmation that he is, indeed, above the law. His attorney general is a shameless partisan enforcer. Professional civil servants are purged, replaced by apparatchiks. The courts are filling up with young, hard-right ideologues. One recently confirmed judge, 40-year-old Steven Menashi, has written approvingly of ethnonationalism.

In “How Democracies Die,” Professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard describe how, in failing democracies, “the referees of the democratic game were brought over to the government’s side, providing the incumbent with both a shield against constitutional challenges and a powerful — and ‘legal’ — weapon with which to assault its opponents.” This is happening before our eyes.

The entire Trump presidency has been marked, for many of us who are part of the plurality that despises it, by anxiety and anger. But lately I’ve noticed, and not just in myself, a demoralizing degree of fear, even depression. You can see it online, in the self-protective cynicism of liberals announcing on Twitter that Trump is going to win re-election. In The Washington Post, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a Never Trump conservative, described his spiritual struggle against feelings of political desperation: “Sustaining this type of distressed uncertainty for long periods, I can attest, is like putting arsenic in your saltshaker.”

I reached out to a number of therapists, who said they’re seeing this politically induced misery in their patients. Three years ago, said Karen Starr, a psychologist who practices in Manhattan and on Long Island, some of her patients were “in a state of alarm,” but that’s changed into “more of a chronic feeling that’s bordering on despair.” Among those most affected, she said, are the Holocaust survivors she sees. “It’s about this general feeling that the institutions that we rely on to protect us from a dangerous individual might fail,” she said.

Kimberly Grocher, a psychotherapist who works in both New York and South Florida, and whose clients are primarily women of color, told me that during her sessions, the political situation “is always in the room. It’s always in the room.” Trump, she said, has made bigotry more open and acceptable, something her patients feel in their daily lives. “When you’re dealing with people of color’s mental health, systemic racism is a big part of that,” she said.

In April 2017, I traveled to suburban Atlanta to cover the special election in the Sixth Congressional District. Meeting women there who had been shocked by Trump’s election into ceaseless political action made me optimistic for the first time that year. These women were ultimately the reason that the district, once represented by Newt Gingrich, is now held by a Democrat, Lucy McBath. Recently, I got back in touch with a woman I’d met there, an army veteran and mother of three named Katie Landsman. She was in a dark place.

“It’s like watching someone you love die of a wasting disease,” she said, speaking of our country. “Each day, you still have that little hope no matter what happens, you’re always going to have that little hope that everything’s going to turn out O.K., but every day it seems like we get hit by something else.” Some mornings, she said, it’s hard to get out of bed. “It doesn’t feel like depression,” she said. “It really does feel more like grief.”

Obviously, this is hardly the first time that America has failed to live up to its ideals. But the ideals themselves used to be a nearly universal lodestar. The civil rights movement, and freedom movements that came after it, succeeded because the country could be shamed by the distance between its democratic promises and its reality. That is no longer true.

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are often incredulous seeing the party of Ronald Reagan allied with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, but the truth is, there’s no reason they should be in conflict. The enmity between America and Russia was ideological. First it was liberal democracy versus communism. Then it was liberal democracy versus authoritarian kleptocracy.

But Trump’s political movement is pro-authoritarian and pro-oligarch. It has no interest in preserving pluralism, free and fair elections or any version of the rule of law that applies to the powerful as well as the powerless. It’s contemptuous of the notion of America as a lofty idea rather than a blood-and-soil nation. Russia, which has long wanted to prove that liberal democracy is a hypocritical sham, is the natural friend of the Trumpist Republican Party, just as it’s an ally and benefactor of the far right Rassemblement National in France and the Lega Nord in Italy.

The nemeses of the Trumpist movement are liberals — in both the classical and American sense of the world — not America’s traditional geopolitical foes. This is something new in our lifetime. Despite right-wing persecution fantasies about Obama, we’ve never before had a president that treats half the country like enemies, subjecting it to an unending barrage of dehumanization and hostile propaganda. Opponents in a liberal political system share at least some overlapping language. They have some shared values to orient debates. With those things gone, words lose their meaning and political exchange becomes impossible and irrelevant.

Thus we have a total breakdown in epistemological solidarity. In the impeachment committee hearings, Republicans insist with a straight face that Trump was deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Republican Senators like Ted Cruz of Texas, who is smart enough to know better, repeat Russian propaganda accusing Ukraine of interfering in the 2016 election. The Department of Justice’s Inspector General report refutes years of Republican deep state conspiracy theories about an F.B.I. plot to subvert Trump’s campaign, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the promoters of those theories, who pronounce themselves totally vindicated.

To those who recognize the Trump administration’s official lies as such, the scale of dishonesty can be destabilizing. It’s a psychic tax on the population, who must parse an avalanche of untruths to understand current events. “What’s going on in the government is so extreme, that people who have no history of overwhelming psychological trauma still feel crazed by this,” said Stephanie Engel, a psychiatrist in Cambridge, Mass., who said Trump comes up “very frequently” in her sessions.

Like several therapists I spoke to, Engel said she’s had to rethink how she practices, because she has no clinical distance from the things that are terrifying her patients. “If we continue to present a facade — that we know how to manage this ourselves, and we’re not worried about our grandchildren, or we’re not worried about how we’re going to live our lives if he wins the next election — we’re not doing our patients a service,” she said.

This kind of political suffering is uncomfortable to write about, because liberal misery is the raison d’être of the MAGA movement. When Trumpists mock their enemies for being “triggered,” it’s just a quasi-adult version of the playground bully’s jeer: “What are you going to do, cry?” Anyone who has ever been bullied knows how important it is, at that moment, to choke back tears. In truth there are few bigger snowflakes than the stars of MAGA world; The Trumpist pundit Dan Bongino is currently suing the Daily Beast for $15 million, saying it inflicted “emotional distress and trauma, insult, anguish,” for writing that NRATV, the National Rifle Association’s now defunct online media arm, had “dropped” him when the show he hosted ended. Still, a movement fueled by sadism will delight in admissions that it has caused pain.

But despair is worth discussing, because it’s something that organizers and Democratic candidates should be addressing head on. Left to fester, it can lead to apathy and withdrawal. Channeled properly, it can fuel an uprising. I was relieved to hear that despite her sometimes overwhelming sense of civic sadness, Landsman’s activism hasn’t let up. She’s been spending a bit less than 20 hours a week on political organizing, and expects to go back to 40 or more after the holidays. “The only other option is to quit, and accept it, and I’m not ready to go there yet,” she said. Democracy grief isn’t like regular grief. Acceptance isn’t how you move on from it. Acceptance is itself a kind of death.

🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅

Ukraine’s Leader, Wiser to Washington, Seeks New Outreach to Trump

President Volodymyr Zelensky still needs backing from the administration. He is proposing a new ambassador and weighing hiring lobbyists to build better ties.

By Kenneth P. Vogel and Andrew E. Kramer | Published Dec. 13, 2019 Updated 12:44 PM ET | New York Times | Posted December 13, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — Eager to repair their country’s fraught relationship with Washington, allies of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine have met with lobbyists with close ties to the Trump administration, hopeful of creating new channels of communication.

After more than two months of anxious waiting, Mr. Zelensky finally appears to have won support from the White House for a candidate to fill Ukraine’s vacant ambassadorship to the United States.

And Mr. Zelensky, still deeply dependent on American assistance, has been signaling, in hardly subtle fashion, that he and his officials will not assist in the impeachment process, keeping quiet in particular about the fact that his government knew weeks earlier than it has publicly acknowledged that Mr. Trump had frozen nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.

Nearly every world leader has struggled to figure out how to deal with Mr. Trump. But few face greater pressure to find the answer — or more hurdles to doing so — than Mr. Zelensky.

Wiser now to the ways of Washington, he and his team are carefully trying to reestablish themselves in a variety of ways as an important ally with a substantive agenda deserving of Washington’s attention and support.

They have a long ways to go. Mr. Zelensky’s team has been discouraged by the absence of expected support from Mr. Trump for Ukraine’s peace talks with Russia, as well as the lack of follow-through from the White House on a promised Oval Office meeting with Mr. Zelensky that the administration had quietly signaled might happen in late January.

Mr. Zelensky’s allies were frustrated further by Mr. Trump’s meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. And when the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani paid an unexpected visit to Kyiv last week in a continued effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump’s political opponents, no Ukrainian government officials met him.

Asked by an official at the German Marshall Fund on Friday what the Zelensky administration wants from Washington, Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, who has been in Washington this week meeting with administration and congressional officials, said “all we are asking from our colleagues in the U.S. administration is fair treatment.”

He added, “We don’t want to be shamed and blamed.”

The continued push to try to overcome Mr. Trump’s grudge against Ukraine suggests Zelensky administration officials have concluded that impeachment will fail in the Senate and that they will almost certainly need to work with Mr. Trump for at least another year, and possibly another five years if Mr. Trump is re-elected.

“Our relations are not in good shape,” said Olena Zerkal, a former deputy foreign minister under Mr. Zelensky. “I don’t believe in any chemistry between our leaders.”

Mr. Zelensky’s willingness to accommodate the Trump administration has hardly gone unnoticed in Kyiv.

After the White House released a rough transcript of a July 25 call between the American and Ukrainian presidents, Mr. Zelensky was panned in Ukraine on social media for seeming too eager to please Mr. Trump. That included signaling a willingness to pursue the investigations sought by Mr. Trump into political targets like the family of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“Monica Zelensky,” the Ukrainian president was called on social media in Kyiv, in a reference to the intern whose sexual relations with Bill Clinton led to the last impeachment proceedings of an American president.

Even a White House visit, if it happens, risks being seen not so much as a triumph for Mr. Zelensky as more kowtowing to Mr. Trump, who could cite it as evidence he never linked such a visit, or American military assistance for Ukraine, to investigations that would benefit him politically.

“In Kyiv, we have to place bets on the current power in Washington,” said Nikolay Kapitonenko, professor at the Institute of International Relations. But outreach to the Republican administration is not risk free, he said, adding, “Zelensky understands that taking any side is dangerous.”

The importance of American support for Ukraine — and the desire for more of it from Mr. Trump — has been on display in recent days.

An American diplomat traveled to Kyiv to express support for the Ukrainians headed into Mr. Zelensky’s first face-to-face meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday in Paris.

But Trump administration officials privately told the Ukrainians that Mr. Trump himself would signal support, according to Americans and Ukrainians familiar with the matter, either via Twitter, as first reported by The Daily Beast, or possibly even an invitation for Mr. Zelensky to visit the White House next month. While Mr. Trump posted more than 100 tweets on Sunday, none expressed support for the Ukrainians headed into the peace talks.

The Trump administration had also resisted calls to levy sanctions against a Russian gas pipeline that would circumvent Ukraine. The White House reportedly worked to undermine congressional efforts to block the pipeline, though sanctions language was added to a $738 billion military policy bill that passed the House on Wednesday. And the military assistance that Democrats accuse Mr. Trump of using as leverage to force the investigations reportedly still has not fully reached Ukraine.

Those are among the issues that may help explain why the Ukrainians are considering stepping up their lobbying in Washington, despite potential political and financial costs.

During his campaign and early in his presidency, Mr. Zelensky proclaimed that he had no need to hire lobbyists like the government of his predecessor. “I never met a single lobbyist,” he said. “I don’t need this. I never paid a coin and I never will.”

Yet, in the weeks before Mr. Zelensky was elected in April, his advisers quietly worked with a Washington lobbying firm, Signal Group, to arrange meetings in Washington with Trump administration officials, as well as congressional offices and think tanks that focus on Ukraine-United States relations.

Mr. Zelensky distanced himself from the arrangement, even though Signal Group reported in a filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, that it was paid nearly $70,000 by Mr. Zelensky’s party through a lawyer named Marcus Cohen. Mr. Cohen, on the other hand, claimed that the money came from his own pocket, not from Mr. Zelensky’s party.

The Justice Department’s National Security Division, which oversees FARA, sent a letter to Mr. Cohen requesting information about the arrangement, then urged him to register as a foreign agent, according to people with knowledge of the situation. One of the people said that the division also audited Signal Group’s filings, informing the firm in a letter in October that the inquiry was closed.

Signal defended its FARA filings as accurate, and referred questions about Mr. Cohen’s representations to him or Mr. Zelensky’s team. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Zelensky “may find that it is best to be his own spokesperson on this subject for a while to prevent others from interpreting his words for him,” at least until “trust can be rebuilt,” Heather A. Conley, who was a deputy assistant secretary of state in the bureau of European and Eurasian affairs from 2001 to 2005, said in an email.

Ms. Conley, who is director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was among the think tank officials who met with one Mr. Zelensky’s advisers in April in a meeting arranged by Signal and Mr. Cohen.

They discussed Mr. Zelensky’s anticorruption and economic overhaul plans, Ms. Conley said, adding, “Ukraine faces a fraught landscape in Washington — with or without a lobbyist.”

The discussions about hiring a lobbyist, which are described as preliminary, have divided Mr. Zelensky’s team.

Some are concerned that hiring a lobbying firm with ties to Mr. Trump could jeopardize Democratic support. And some are wary of becoming involved with K Street at all, because of the specter of Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for crimes related to his lobbying for a deeply unpopular former Ukrainian government.

Yet two of the firms being discussed for possible lobbying engagement have links to Mr. Manafort, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

A representative of one of the firms, Mercury Public Affairs, which worked with Mr. Manafort on his Ukraine effort, met in Kyiv last month with a top aide to Mr. Zelensky. The lobbyist, Bryan Lanza, has ties to the Trump White House, and was in Ukraine on unrelated business according to people familiar with the meeting.

It was arranged by an American lawyer named Andrew Mac, who himself registered last month with the Justice Department as an unpaid lobbyist for Mr. Zelensky. Mr. Mac, who splits his time between Washington and Kyiv, was appointed by Mr. Zelensky last month as an adviser responsible for building support among the Ukrainian diaspora.

In a sign of the scrutiny in Kyiv on its new government’s tumultuous relationship with Mr. Trump, and efforts to calm it, secretly recorded video and photographs circulated of Mr. Lanza’s meeting with the Zelensky aide in a restaurant.

In an article featuring the photographs, a Ukrainian news outlet noted that Mr. Lanza helped lift sanctions against the corporate empire of the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a Kremlin ally. That arrangement was assailed by critics in Washington as a sweetheart deal that represented a capitulation to the Kremlin, while Mr. Lanza also lobbied to help remove potentially crippling sanctions on the Chinese telecom giant ZTE.

Mr. Mac said Mr. Lanza had been “very effective in working for his clients on difficult matters.”

Another firm that was discussed by Mr. Zelensky’s aides, Prime Policy Group, also has a Manafort link — albeit a more dated one. It was started by Charlie Black, a former business partner of Mr. Manafort’s in the 1980s and ’90s. Mr. Black’s firm has represented other clients in Ukraine, including Sergey Tigipko, a Ukrainian billionaire and former official in the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych.

Mr. Black said he had not had any conversations with Mr. Zelensky’s team about a possible contract, but would not be opposed to such an engagement.

Mr. Mac met this month in Washington to discuss Ukrainian energy issues with the former Representative Billy Tauzin, a Democrat turned Republican from Louisiana who is now a lobbyist. While someone with knowledge of the deliberations said Mr. Tauzin was not being considered as a potential lobbyist for Ukraine, he has connections that could be helpful. His congressional staff once included Dan Brouillette, who was confirmed this month as secretary of the Energy Department, upon which the Ukrainian government has relied for help with its power supply during brutally cold winters.

Ms. Conley suggested that Mr. Zelensky would be better served by an ambassador than a lobbyist, but the process of filling that vacancy has not been quick.

At least three names had been floated in recent months, and the Zelensky administration’s current preference for the position, Volodymyr Yelchenko, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations, had been awaiting approval since late September or early October, according to people familiar with the process. They said that the State Department had signed off on Mr. Yelchenko weeks ago, but that the Ukrainians had grown anxious waiting for the White House to do so.

Officials in Kyiv were told that the approval would be formally communicated this week, they said. The White House and State Department did not respond to questions about the approval of Mr. Yelchenko.

Some attributed the delay to a quiet push by some Trump allies for a prospective ambassador who is closely aligned with Mr. Giuliani, Andrii Telizhenko, who had served as a low-ranking diplomat in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington under the previous government.

He was embraced by Mr. Trump’s allies after claiming that the former American ambassador to Kyiv and other Ukrainian officials worked to undermine Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign. In recent months, Mr. Telizhenko has worked closely with Mr. Giuliani to advance those claims. As part of the effort, the two men traveled together to Hungary and Ukraine last week to record interviews with former Ukrainian officials for a series of programs by a conservative cable channel seeking to undermine the impeachment proceedings.

It is unclear whether Mr. Zelensky’s team ever seriously considered Mr. Telizhenko as an ambassador candidate.

Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington, and Andrew E. Kramer from Kyiv.

🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅

The Party That Ruined the Planet

Republican climate denial is even scarier than Trumpism.

By Paul Krugman | Published Dec. 12, 2019 | New York Times | Posted December 13, 2019 |

The most terrifying aspect of the U.S. political drama isn’t the revelation that the president has abused his power for personal gain. If you didn’t see that coming from the day Donald Trump was elected, you weren’t paying attention.

No, the real revelation has been the utter depravity of the Republican Party. Essentially every elected or appointed official in that party has chosen to defend Trump by buying into crazy, debunked conspiracy theories. That is, one of America’s two major parties is beyond redemption; given that, it’s hard to see how democracy can long endure, even if Trump is defeated.

However, the scariest reporting I’ve seen recently has been about science, not politics. A new federal report finds that climate change in the Arctic is accelerating, matching what used to be considered worst-case scenarios. And there are indications that Arctic warming may be turning into a self-reinforcing spiral, as the thawing tundra itself releases vast quantities of greenhouse gases.

Catastrophic sea-level rise, heat waves that make major population centers uninhabitable, and more are now looking more likely than not, and sooner rather than later.

But the terrifying political news and the terrifying climate news are closely related.

Why, after all, has the world failed to take action on climate, and why is it still failing to act even as the danger gets ever more obvious? There are, of course, many culprits; action was never going to be easy.

But one factor stands out above all others: the fanatical opposition of America’s Republicans, who are the world’s only major climate-denialist party. Because of this opposition, the United States hasn’t just failed to provide the kind of leadership that would have been essential to global action, it has become a force against action.

And Republican climate denial is rooted in the same kind of depravity that we’re seeing with regard to Trump.

As I’ve written in the past, climate denial was in many ways the crucible for Trumpism. Long before the cries of “fake news,” Republicans were refusing to accept science that contradicted their prejudices. Long before Republicans began attributing every negative development to the machinations of the “deep state,” they were insisting that global warming was a gigantic hoax perpetrated by a vast global cabal of corrupt scientists.

And long before Trump began weaponizing the power of the presidency for political gain, Republicans were using their political power to harass climate scientists and, where possible, criminalize the practice of science itself.

Perhaps not surprisingly, some of those responsible for these abuses are now ensconced in the Trump administration. Notably, Ken Cuccinelli, who as attorney general of Virginia engaged in a long witch-hunt against the climate scientist Michael Mann, is now at the Department of Homeland Security, where he pushes anti-immigrant policies with, as The Times reports, “little concern for legal restraints.”

But why have Republicans become the party of climate doom? Money is an important part of the answer: In the current cycle Republicans have received 97 percent of political contributions from the coal industry, 88 percent from oil and gas. And this doesn’t even count the wing nut welfare offered by institutions supported by the Koch brothers and other fossil-fuel moguls.

However, I don’t believe that it’s just about the money. My sense is that right-wingers believe, probably correctly, that there’s a sort of halo effect surrounding any form of public action. Once you accept that we need policies to protect the environment, you’re more likely to accept the idea that we should have policies to ensure access to health care, child care, and more. So the government must be prevented from doing anything good, lest it legitimize a broader progressive agenda.

Still, whatever the short-term political incentives, it takes a special kind of depravity to respond to those incentives by denying facts, embracing insane conspiracy theories and putting the very future of civilization at risk.

Unfortunately, that kind of depravity isn’t just present in the modern Republican Party, it has effectively taken over the whole institution. There used to be at least some Republicans with principles; as recently as 2008 Senator John McCain co-sponsored serious climate-change legislation. But those people have either experienced total moral collapse (hello, Senator Graham) or left the party.

The truth is that even now I don’t fully understand how things got this bad. But the reality is clear: Modern Republicans are irredeemable, devoid of principle or shame. And there is, as I said, no reason to believe that this will change even if Trump is defeated next year.

The only way that either American democracy or a livable planet can survive is if the Republican Party as it now exists is effectively dismantled and replaced with something better — maybe with a party that has the same name, but completely different values. This may sound like an impossible dream. But it’s the only hope we have.

🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅

Donald Trump Wanted Another Roy Cohn. He Got Bill Barr.

EVEN BETTER.

By Caroline Fredrickson, Ms. Fredrickson is the author of “The Democracy Fix.” | Published December 12, 2019 | New York Times | Posted December 13, 2019 |

President Trump famously asked, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Demanding a stand-in for his old personal lawyer and fixer, Mr. Trump has actually gotten something better with Bill Barr: a lawyer who like Cohn stops seemingly at nothing in his service to Mr. Trump and conveniently sits atop the nation’s Justice Department.

Mr. Barr has acted more like a henchman than the leader of an agency charged with exercising independent judgment. The disturbing message that sends does not end at our borders — it extends to countries, like those in the former East Bloc, struggling to overcome an illiberal turn in the direction of autocracy.

When Mr. Trump sought to have President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announce an investigation of his political opponent, he likely expected a positive response. After all, politicized prosecutions had been part of Ukraine’s corrupt political culture for years.

On Monday, when Michael Horowitz, inspector general for the Justice Department, released a report that affirmed the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was justified, Mr. Barr immediately turned on his own agency in defense of the president.

“The F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” he said.

Similarly, Mr. Barr’s response to the report from Robert Mueller on Russian interference and Mr. Trump’s purported presidential misconduct was to cast doubt on his own staff, questioning their work product as well as their ethics and legal reasoning. Even before he became attorney general, Mr. Barr questioned Mr. Mueller’s investigation of the president for obstruction of justice in a 19-page legal memo he volunteered to the administration.

And where he could have neutrally passed Mr. Mueller’s findings to Congress, he instead took the widely criticized and unusual step of making and announcing his own legal conclusions about Mr. Mueller’s obstruction inquiry. He followed up this Cohn-like behavior with testimony in the Senate, where he insinuated that the United States government spied on the Trump campaign. Mr. Barr apparently has decided that, like Cohn, he serves Donald Trump and not the Constitution or the United States, flouting his oath of office and corrupting the mission of the Justice Department.

In the past, the United States has, however imperfectly, advanced the rule of law and supported governments committed to an anti-corruption agenda. According to George Kent, a State Department official who testified in the House impeachment inquiry, Russia sees corruption as a tool to advance its interests. So when the United States fights a kleptocratic culture, it serves not only lofty humanitarian goals but also our national security. Mr. Zelensky ran a campaign and was elected on a platform that put fighting corruption at the forefront. He should have received extensive and unmitigated support in that effort.

In the former East Bloc countries, despite the hopes of many for a post-Soviet era where democracy would thrive, the parties and politicians in power have consolidated their control in a manner reminiscent of the Communist era.

Autocrats understand that supposedly independent institutions such as the courts and prosecutors are vital to locking in their power. In Romania, a crusading anti-corruption prosecutor who was investigating top government officials was fired at the same time as the government advanced legislation to cabin the ability of other prosecutors to pursue cases against political officials. Poland’s right-wing populist Law and Justice Party has attacked the independent judiciary and has sought to remove judges who do not follow the party line. Hungary has followed suit. Bulgarian politicians have persecuted civil society groups that have criticized their abandonment of the rule of law.

While several United States ambassadors have attempted to support anti-corruption efforts in the region, they have been continuously undercut by the White House. In addition to firing Marie Yovanovitch, who served as ambassador to Ukraine, in part because of her anti-corruption focus, Mr. Trump hosted Viktor Orban of Hungary in Washington over the objections of national security officials who did not want to elevate a corrupt leader with close ties to the Kremlin; furthermore, the president has tried to cut funding for anti-corruption programs.

Mr. Trump’s focus on cultivating foreign leaders who can help his re-election has overwhelmed our national interests in the region. That is certainly a shame for the anti-corruption activists in former Communist countries who have depended on our help and leadership since the end of the Soviet era and who have seen their justice system turned to serve political ends.

But for Americans, we must worry that we face a similar domestic situation: a prosecutor who bends to the political needs of the president. Mr. Trump may no longer be able to call on Roy Cohn, but he now has a stronger ally in the United States’ top law-enforcement official, who thinks that if the president does it, it can’t be wrong.

🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅🎄⛄🎄🦌🎄🎅

How Trump Weaponized the Justice Department’s Inspector General

The president and his allies have turned investigations into a political tool for use against their enemies.

By James B. Stewart, Mr. Stewart is a New York Times business columnist. | Published Dec. 13, 2019, 6:00 AM ET | New York Times | Posted Dec. 13, 2019

In his report on the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, and in testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Inspector General Michael Horowitz of the Department of Justice demolished President Trump’s most sensational allegations about the Russia inquiry: He concluded that the opening of the investigation was lawful and legitimate, that there was no improper “spying” on the Trump campaign and that the F.B.I. wasn’t part of some “deep state” conspiracy to overthrow the president.

That hardly stopped Mr. Trump and his allies. The report “was far worse than expected,” the president asserted — after already predicting it would be “devastating.” “This was an attempted overthrow and a lot of people were in on it and they got caught, they got caught red-handed,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room at the White House.

Attorney General William Barr was quick to pile on, too: “The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” he said in a Justice Department statement.

Media coverage and Senate hearings quickly shifted to the F.B.I.’s procedural failings, which Mr. Horowitz labeled “gross incompetence.” By the end of the week, Americans could be forgiven for thinking that the F.B.I. was indeed part of some sinister coup attempt — precisely the opposite of what Mr. Horowitz had concluded.

So much for the supposedly nonpartisan and independent office of the Department of Justice Inspector General — a position that, before the Trump administration, most Americans hardly knew existed. To a striking degree, Mr. Trump and his allies have turned the post into a potent weapon aimed at his supposed enemies in the federal law enforcement agencies.

Their ability to wreak political havoc with the latest Horowitz report is part of what has now become a clear pattern: Call for an investigation of a favorite Trump target; speculate about the likely outcome; seize on any collateral evidence that emerges; spin the results; then move quickly to the next investigation. Repeat.

The White House and Republicans in Congress insisted the inspector general open an investigation into the origins of the Russia inquiry, even though it was already thoroughly covered in a report from the special counsel Robert Mueller. Investigators armed with virtually unlimited time and budget will nearly always find something (as critics of the special counsel role have long argued).

Mr. Horowitz uncovered some new details, and the irregularities he discovered in the F.B.I.’s FISA application process may well prompt a needed overhaul of the standards for intrusive surveillance of American citizens. But Mr. Horowitz conceded that even if all of those problems had been corrected, he couldn’t say the outcome would have been any different. Nor do they fundamentally change our understanding of how and why the Russia investigation began — already reported in considerable and accurate detail, including in this newspaper and in my recent book, “Deep State.”

But no matter how redundant, such investigations can serve as useful fishing expeditions. Six House committees conducted investigations of Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi attacks. All of them absolved her of any wrongdoing. But it was in one of those investigations that a committee uncovered her use of a personal server for her email correspondence, which led to the F.B.I.’s Clinton email investigation. That provided candidate Trump with his “Lock her up” chant — and arguably cost her the presidency.

Mr. Horowitz, citing requests from members of Congress and the public, spent 17 months examining the F.B.I.’s handling of the Clinton email case. His conclusion: There was “no evidence” that the decision not to seek charges against Mrs. Clinton was “affected by bias or other improper conclusions,” the opposite of what Mr. Trump had been asserting for months.

But during that investigation Mr. Horowitz uncovered hundreds of texts between an F.B.I. agent, Peter Strzok, and an F.B.I. lawyer, Lisa Page, that suggested animus toward Mr. Trump and also revealed that the two had in the past engaged in an extramarital affair — information eagerly disseminated by the Justice Department and Trump allies.

Since then Mr. Trump has tweeted about Ms. Page over 40 times, caricaturing her and Mr. Strzok as “love birds” conspiring to bring down the president, with Mr. Trump often using the most vulgar terms to whip his supporters into a partisan frenzy. At a rally in October, Mr. Trump simulated an orgasm while saying: “I love you, Peter! I love you, too, Lisa! Lisa, I love you. Lisa, Lisa! Oh God, I love you, Lisa.”

Citing that incident as the last straw, this week Ms. Page sued the Department of Justice for unlawfully releasing the texts, which she said had “radically altered” her day-to-day life.

The existence of an investigation provides the president and his allies with unlimited opportunities to speculate about the outcome, while the inspector general is bound by confidentiality restrictions until the report is released. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, confidently predicted the inspector general’s report would demonstrate a “system off the rails” before he read it.

This may help explain why Mr. Trump, in his efforts to pressure Ukraine’s government to open investigations of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, didn’t really care whether the Ukrainians actually conducted such an investigation — only that one be announced. That would have given him and his allies the opportunity to speculate about what the investigation was finding to tar the Bidens without any risk that an investigation would exonerate them.

It doesn’t matter if the report itself turns out to be something of an anticlimax. To his credit, Mr. Horowitz didn’t abandon the objective evidence in an effort to please his overseers. He certainly didn’t reach the answers about Russia or the Clinton email investigation for which President Trump and his allies so fervently hoped.

Yet there’s just enough in the Horowitz report to fuel “deep state” conspiracy theories. Mr. Trump has seized on reports from the inspector general to excoriate James Comey, Andrew McCabe and other former F.B.I. employees as “traitors.” Many media reports have focused on Mr. Horowitz’s “scathing” criticism of the F.B.I. rather than his broader conclusions.

Mr. Trump can be confident that few people will actually read the dense, legalistic prose of the Horowitz report — just as relatively few Americans read the entire Mueller report — which shows the F.B.I. largely fulfilling its mission in extraordinary circumstances.

The pattern has already started again. Mr. Trump has moved on to the next Russia investigation being conducted at Mr. Barr’s behest by United States Attorney John Durham of the District of Connecticut. This week Mr. Durham took the extraordinary step of criticizing the Horowitz report, fueling renewed speculation that this time Mr. Trump will finally get a result he wants.

“I do think the big report to wait for is going to be the Durham report,” Mr. Trump said, once again speculating about a report that hasn’t been written. “That’s the one that people are really waiting for.”

James B. Stewart is a New York Times business columnist and the author of “Deep State: Trump, the F.B.I., and the Rule of Law.”

[joneswilliam72]

Us Review: What happens when our shadows run free? And what the hell is with the rabbits?

WARNING TO THE READER:

I have done my best to keep spoilers out of this review. It would – however – be impossible to affect my interpretation of Us without a few of them. That said, I thank you for reading The 405 Film section (as always), but I would most recommend reading this review AFTER you see Us, if you're planning to – which you really should be. The film is really best approached cold and meditated on after viewing.

If you're fine with that warning, read on.

Are humans ever born evil? Or are they made evil?

The nature versus nurture debate has long raged in science, philosophy and art. Indeed, thinking on the question has also forged central areas of thought in early psychology – which seemed to take the stance that evil and good are partitioned in the human psyche into what becomes one's personality.

That great but flawed early psychologist Sigmund Freud called the dark part of the human psyche "the id." The id in his psychoanalytic theory of personality operates on purely instinctual drives, and seeks to satisfy these base, primitive needs as quickly as possible because it operates on the Pleasure Principle which seeks to maximize pleasure and avoid pain whenever possible.

In Freudian theory, the id is balanced out by the seat of morality and inhibitory (and thus very controlling) "superego" and "the ego" which seeks to moderate the drives of the id and the often controlling nature of the superego. The ego is essentially caught in the middle of the two. It is the conscious part of the personality under Freud's model (although not all parts of the ego are conscious).

Swiss psychiatrist (and former friend and collaborator of Freud's) Carl Jung took a different approach to the central question here. He conceived of our dark side as "the Shadow" – which, like the id, is totally separate from our conscious personality (what he also called "the ego" with other parts – which Jung conceived of as archetypes or innate tendencies that mold and transform the individual consciousness �� like "the Persona").

The Shadow is composed of instinctual drives but also whatever we may consciously deem unacceptable – drives like power, lust, domination, greed, envy, wrath... murder. All these things get pushed into the Shadow. As Jungian analyst Aniela Jaffe said, the shadow essentially is the "sum of all personal and collective psychic elements which, because of their incompatibility with the chosen conscious attitude, are denied expression in life".

It is thus interesting – and immediately piqued my attention as a longtime student of Jung's writings – that Jordan Peele as the writer of Us decided to use the term "shadow" to describe the doppelgängers of the family in the film: dad, Gabe Wilson (shadow named Abraham) – played by Winston Duke; mom, Adelaide Wilson (shadow named Red) – a tour de force performance from Lupita Nyong'o – we ultimately get our understanding of what's happening principally from Adelaide and Red; daughter Zora Wilson (shadow named Umbrae) – played by Shahadi Wright Joseph; son, Jason Wilson (shadow named Pluto) – played by Evan Alex.

So, in essence what is happening in Us, is (at first) a home invasion thriller with the shadows as invaders (and all that means symbolically). It is here that we see some of what we can presume were cinematic influences here too: Michael Haneke's Funny Games immediately came to mind, as did (paradoxically) 2008's The Strangers. But that is – of course – far from the totality of Us.

Peele's deft hand as director is really evident throughout, even when the home invasion part of the film is ostensibly over. He effortlessly and perfectly guides the film over a razor's edge of tension. One can only speculate that he learned the art of perfect timing in the comedy he's done. As Jonathan Kite (another creative with experience in both genres) told me in our interview (which you can read here):

"In general, I think that comedy always serves horror. I think that they're extreme emotions being ... Getting yourself to laugh is a natural reaction and being scared and jumping is a natural reaction. And, they're both, they're both shared experiences. Which is why, I think, comedies and horrors do so well in large groups because you scare one, you're probably gonna scare everyone in the theater. Or you get one person to laugh, a lot of people are probably gonna laugh."

Which is another interesting part of Us: there is a good amount of effective (and overt) comedy here. It very effectively balances out the tension throughout. It is also for this reason that people who don't do well with horror should not be dissuaded from catching Us in the theater: Peele knows almost intuitively when the audience needs a break in a moment of levity.

Of course, the film does evolve from the point of the home invasion. Which gets to the social statement inherent in Us – and, indeed, the USA's zeitgeist right now – what would happen if all our shadows were running around in bodies that look exactly like ours but are paradoxically untethered from ourselves? With Donald Trump in the White House despite scandal after scandal and him showing some of the worse penchants of humanity (even with the summary of the Mueller Report finally being out and saying that the Report “did not establish" Russian collusion) – and the President's penchants for the horrible not phasing many of his supporters – the premise of Us fits the times we are living in like the gloves the red jumpsuit-clad shadows all wear.

But there is still more fertile psychological fodder at play in Us. What happens when we use violence to combat the evil, violent and base? Circumstances – nurture – paradoxically can make us more like what we're fighting when we do that. We too can be debased.

This nature versus nurture theme becomes ever more prevalent as we progress through the film and towards the ultimate twist which evokes yet another great film that revolves around the idea of the doppelgänger or double: Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo. The variable of madness as a central force affecting the behavior of the shadows is also thrown in.

Beautifully cerebral social horror is what Us ultimately is. It probes the psychology of the individual and abstracts that to the social in a very eloquent – and highly entertaining – way. Some reviewers – however – felt a little intimidated by those cerebral qualities.

For instance, many were fussing over the meaning of the rabbits in Us. I think the symbolism here is pretty straightforward though: first, when Red tells her fairy tale during the home invasion part, she speaks of having to eat raw, white rabbit as Adelaide would eat food. This suggests the idea of the white rabbit being equal to a white lamb or white dove in symbolism – innocence, moral purity, goodness. The shadow by definition thrives on the evil or that which destroys the innocent, morally pure and good.

Second, rabbits are also often the prototypical animal for visual similarity among individuals in a species of animal in nature. This gets to the scientific side of the doppelgänger and its possibilities in nature. To quote my original article looking at the science and history behind the doppelgänger before Us came out (read it here):

"Science has proffered a number of explanations for the doppelgänger phenomenon. The evolutionary one  basically says that because you don't see much of the diversity between how individuals look in other species, it really isn't surprising to think there's someone who looks exactly like you somewhere. For instance, can you really tell two squirrels [substitute rabbits] apart? Thus goes this explanation that maybe we are to some degree, just seeing what we want to see there, and that diversity does not really exist – at least, not to the level we believe. Ergo, there could be someone out there who looks exactly like you. The possibility of the genetic lottery randomly combining the same options a number of times also adds credence to this idea.

Still, other studies have pegged the likelihood of an exact doppelgänger as about 1 in 1 trillion. And even if there was a higher likelihood, this explanation really doesn't say anything about the malevolence that is so often ascribed to the doppelgänger."

In summation: go see Us. There are less than a handful of films that evoke all these questions in such an incredible, entertaining and moving way. Us is insanely cerebral, superbly-conducted psychological and social horror that – in my view – eclipses the also superb Get Out.

That $70.3 million opening – the third-biggest horror opening of all time (behind It and the newest iteration of Halloween) – is only the start to a film that has the aesthetic and cultural potential to go much further.

Cheers to that. Cheers to seeing what else Peele has in store for us too.

from The 405 https://ift.tt/2HTObZN