I have redeveloped Scientology into a religion that is less angry and frustrated, but still retains the main principals. Becoming a clear person is achievable but only through identity and independence. If you want to read my revised Coyote religion, get in touch for the full book.

Tonight I’m talking about the controversial Scientology method of ‘Disconnection’.

In the Scientology handbook, disconnection is described as a situation where a scientologist breaks a relationship or ‘cuts ties’ with a supressive person. A suppresive person in laymans terms is someone who hinders your progress in life. A nemesis if you will. Someone who curbs your dreams or hurts your self esteem. The actual Scientology manual states:

“A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets. In order to resolve the PTS condition, he either HANDLES the other person’s antagonism (as covered in the materials on PTS handling) or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.”

Basically this means if someone causes you trouble, or makes you unhappy, you cut them off. I have plenty of Scientologist friends who now have no contact with their sons, daughters, mums, dads, cousins etc because they tried to turn them against the church. This is what L Ron Hubbard DID want to sustain the integrity of the church, so nobody could shut it down. It is not practical however. Here is my coyote rewrite of the entire process:

DISCONNECT:
There are 3 methods of disconnection. In the original religion, it says you should disconnect completely all SPs but this is just not morally correct or the right thing in my opinion:

1) COMPLETE DISCONNECT: You remove these SPs from your life entirely
2) SOCIAL DISCONNECT: You remove these SPs from your social group but still converse with them
3) FAMILY DISCONNECT: Family is incredibly important to some people, and not to others. Families that have been torn apart are bound to contain SPs but, even though you may achieve clear by disconnecting your family, it isn’t always morally correct. blood is thicker than water….

COYOTE SCIENTOLOGY: DISCONNECTION

If a suppresive person is in your life, you need to remove the negative influences of this person from your life. You need to realise what it is that makes these people hurt you physically or emotionally. You need to understand that there are true SPs who are just bad and want to destroy you. They don’t have an explanation or reasoning apart from the fact they are bitter towards the world.

1) SOCIAL BULLIES
They may have learned this from an abusive upbringing, relationship or just hate the world for some reason. These people would be classed as social bullies and should be disconnected from your life completely. If they have friends who also suppress you, they should also be disconnected completely. If you have a friend who associates with these kinds of people, they need to be disconnected SOCIALLY or told to keep these people out of your social group. If your friend will not or can not remove these people from your social group, you must disconnect them also as you will not be able to lose your negative self image. A social disconnect means no facebook, bebo, msn. No sharing of facilities or pubs these people use etc. If possible be socially responsive to these people ie say hello and goodbye. You don’t need to completely disconnect them as this is irrational and not necessary. You can’t be a stronger person by avoiding SPs

2) FAIRWEATHER FRIENDS
In my opinion, everyone has a handful of close pals. I mean close pals. You probably think you have a lot of pals but you don’t in reality. Think of the longest pal you’ve had in your life that you never fall out with. Put them as your top priority. You will meet a lot of ‘friends’ in your life, and it may shock you to realise that 90% of them don’t like you or cause trouble for you. It surprises me to find that there are still people out there who are best friends with people they’ve known for a whole month! You need to know who you can trust. Trust your soulmates (to find your soulmates look up the COYOTE SCIENTOLOGY: SOULMATES section). There are so many that will sit with you and tell you you are right and they always believe you etc and then sit and sell you out when you’re absent. If someone was to say “Your mate, SOULMATE A, said “this” about you”, and you believe it. These people are either not your true mates, or you are not a true mate to them.

Another social disconnect here. You should disconnect these fairweather friends socially. There’s no point in a complete disconnect as it will only make you feel worse for having to avoid certain places. If you remain socially active with these people, you don’t have the stress of trusting them or the worry of meeting them in the wrong places.

FAMILY DISCONNECT:
In scientology, you are told to disconnect SPs even if they are family members. This is not exactly morally correct as there are many families torn apart by the religion. They say that many scientologists have become ‘clear’ by disconnecting their family. To me, clear sounds like someone who is devoid of emotion. Who wants to be ‘happy’ if it means cutting of their family. In some situations were a family hates each other implicitely, a complete disconnection may be the only way forward. To most others though, just because your family don’t agree with you doesn’t necessarily make them suppressive people.

You need to try and work your mind around your family.Blood is definitely thicker than water. If you are part of a family that loves you and they disagree with your lifestyle, this does not make them SPs but rather a group of people who want to ensure you do not make bad mistakes in life.

1) ATTENTION

There are those who self harm for attention which points out a human flaw present in everyone. As degrading and irritating as it is, all humans need attention. Most humans will harm themselves just so they can point out to people that they self harm. They need people to feel pity for them because they don’t feel popular or feel their friends get more attention than them. As much as I hate to say it but these kinds of people annoy me. The ones who come up to you and show you their arms and boast about their self harming are nothing more than glorified cheerleaders. They want u to think they’re insane or out there. It gives them a sense of purpose and, though it is not the case all the time, they are basically the ones who cry wolf where suicide is concerned.

2) GUILT

The main reason people self harm is out of guilt. These are the ones who need the attention and help. They have usually been in abusive relationships, or been abused as a child. They feel they need to cut themselves as it is sort of a penance for what they feel they’ve done wrong. These people are not necessarily suicidal, they just need to feel that they are punishing themselves for the things they have failed in. Those who self harm in this way do not want people to know they self harm. They usually wear long sleeves and cover their scars as well as they can. These people have low self esteem and hate themselves. They need to be reassured that they are decent people. If possible, they need to disconnect suppresive people, as explained in Scientology’s dianetics.

3) BIPOLAR/MENTAL HEALTH

Some people cut themselves for reasons they don’t understand. They feel the need to cut themselves to either write letters to their brain, or to celebrities, serial killers etc. Bipolar disorder makes u do insane things that only these people can understand. When I self harm i try and talk to myself. It’s hard to explain if u haven’t got bipolar but it’s a way of relaying the way u feel to the way u think. It’s like writing a letter to your brain from your heart.

Anyway thats my spraff for the night. Just got arrested by the pigs for fuck all….

Traders were shocked yesterday when share prices rose slightly. Shocking! considering Gordon Brown has just piled in 37 billion pounds. I’d expect a short-term rise for that, wouldn’t you. The problem with piling this kind of cash into an economy on the verge of destruction is that people are only looking at the very small picture.

We’re bailing out banks just now and that is only a small part of the greater problem. Banks are the lifeblood of economy for sure but let’s not forget that there are foundations of society in all different sectors. Housing companies are going bankrupt left, right and center because of the credit crisis so no more houses are being built. People are panicking all over the place which is unavoidable so houses are being sold. The housing market is crashing and I’ve stated for years that this was unavoidable but with no mortgages being granted and no houses being built, it’s only a matter of time before there is no market.

The cost of fuel is through the roof, the cost of living is extremely high and redundancy has never been higher. Our trade with the US is going to take a serious nosedive soon when the dollar and the pound exchange rate is 1=1 (this looks set to happen in my eyes) or even worse, it could even see 1 pound being worth just 50 cents.

I don’t understand why the government doesn’t raise capital to subsidise the economy from routes which I see as being clearly obvious. For example, why not tax gambling? It’s one of the few growth industries in Britain and would fill a gaping hole in society’s funding!

This is more of a late-night rant than a serious discussion so I ain’t gonna waste my time lookin into everything but I just fear that very shortly all our banks will have to be owned by an overseas company like Citibank, E-Trade or Chase just to ensure there’s a certain level of stability in our economy.

All I can say is guys, the cheap credit’s come, your time is up. The building’s on fire, so head for the fucking water.

The problem with L. Ron is his views on everything else was warped and obviously most came through his addiction to Cocaine and Mescaline. He claims that Psychiatry is evil. I have no understanding of this particular belief as I do not believe psychiatry in any way to be evil. If people need it, let them have it. There’s certainly no sense in letting people run about stabbing their parents like 28 year old Jeremy Perkins did when his parents refused to let him see a shrink because of their faith. It may be just me but I’m positive I can see exactly what Hubbard was trying to say when this view came about. He believed, like I do, that people should be able to heal themselves. I don’t like psychiatry myself, I certainly don’t believe it to be evil but I’d rather meditate or use drugs (some legal, some not) to let my feelings and fears out. In the Scientology religion, there are those known as ‘auditors’ who counsel you and help release you of some of your burdens (it has to be added though, how the heck is this not another form of psychiatry???) and I think this practice is tremendous. If I didn’t have such a problem with the church itself I would love to become an auditor as some of the people I’ve seen finally obtain some release from these sessions astounds me. I’ve managed to obtain most of the Scientology material for auditing from an undisclosed source, however, and I intend to understand the entire practice. As for things like the E-meter (a device supposedly used to detect stress), it’s quite plain for me to see that it was just a way for Hubbard to make money, considering he was selling them for a ridiculous price compared to how much he was buying them for.

The term for someone who is clear in Scientology is a condition in which a person is free of the unwanted influence of engrams, unwanted emotions or painful traumas which are not readily available to the awareness of present time. Now I don’t know about anyone else but to me that sounds like a robot and this is completely unattainable in my opinion. I believe that if a person is able to become ‘clear’ then they are unable to create new engrams. Engrams are created by traumatic events so in order to avoid them, this means the person should cut all ties with painful relations. This is how I believe the church of Scientology doesn’t work effectively. To avoid new engrams being created so the person can become ‘clear’, the church recommends that you sever ties with anyone causing you stress. So if my mother told me she didn’t like the job I was doing, it would be creating me unnecessary stress and so the church recommends I remove her from my life. I think I’d rather have an engram there and a family in all honest, the sweet is never as sweet without the sour as they say. I think the problems with disconnection in the church stems from Hubbard’s personal problems with relationships. His several divorces and disconnection from his sons show that the Church Of Scientology could really be ‘life imitating art’ in the words of Andy Warhol?

The story of Xenu and the aliens, in my opinion, is a lot of nonsense and I’d be shocked to find that Hubbard didn’t think so too. This was clearly just a bit of fun for him to see how easily people could adapt their views to a new religion. I don’t believe he had a problem with woman or black people any more than anyone else who lived around the same time. People have to remember the views that the public had about both woman and black people in the 40s,50s, and some of the 60s.
Hubbard’s ‘Fair Game’ strategy is just the mark of an intense person. Fair game is a sort of revenge tactic. If someone speaks against the church then they “may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed”. I have thoughts like this sometimes too. If someone doesn’t get on board with you then they’re against you. Most people with an intense lifestyle (possibly Manic Depressive) feels the need to get revenge on their enemies a fair amount of the time. Obviously this is not proven but I’m just speaking from experience. Drugs can also make you a more aggressive person too.

The Church of Scientology follows Hubbard’s laws explicitly which is why it has gone too far in my opinion. I don’t necessarily blame the Scientologists for being as intense as they are because they are purely following the rules laid out by a ‘madman’. The problem is that I can clearly see what Hubbard obviously believed himself and how people have just taken his words as gospel instead of looking at them as the rantings of someone verging on the edge of sanity.

The one thing that truly sickens me about Scientology, however, is how they claim that the holocaust in World War II was caused by psychiatry. As someone following the Jewish faith I find this insulting and offensive. I think the people who were there have the right to be angry with the church who are merely speculating on an incident they know very little about. If they looked slightly closer they’d find that the holocaust was caused by a madman who managed to dupe the masses into believing his ideas were great; very like the late Ron Hubbard. How ironic.
Therefore I state once again that L. Ron Hubbard was a genius in my eyes. He was probably high on Cocaine, Mescaline and who knows what other drugs when he wrote Dianetics but to me the book does just hit the nail on the head. It has helped me open up my mind to new techniques and ideas I would have never thought of. Some of Hubbard’s auditing techniques are excellent forms of therapy which I wish I could recommend, but can’t because of the church’s secretive nature. Hubbard was going mad, no doubt about it, and I feel this showed in his later lectures and his letters to his wives yet the church still believes every word he ever wrote. There are people who I can clearly see have been helped by the church (I truly believe Kirstie Alley wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for them) but there are others which scare me (Tom Cruise just looks hypnotized by it all). There are also the cases of Lisa Mcpherson to take into account where Scientologists basically killed her by depriving her of food & water for 17 days. They say she chose to go with them when she was taken to hospital but that brings is to the biggest question of them all. If Psychiatrists should be banned, and someone states they do not need a psychiatrist or any help from the hospital, who’s there to question their sanity?

Up until a few years ago, I’d only sleep with people I really didn’t care that much for or with friends so I’d never get too attached to them and end up in the predicament where jealousy would be constant. The problem with this is that, I found that if I didn’t sleep with the people I cared for immediately I’d end up as the guy who was ‘too much like my best friend/brother’. I hate that phrase so much hence why I now pretty much sleep with anyone I like or find attractive .

Now I’m not too sure though which I hate more; being the guy whose too much like a friend or being the guy whose just another number in a little red book.

They say I should go for the nice folk but saying as how I’m erratic, eccentric and wild myself that would be just too dull to comprehend.

My main problems with Christianity’s views on Jesus is that it says that God is greater than man on every level, yet the bible seems set on making God human in the form of Jesus. It seems that certain parts of society cannot comprehend the fact that god would be better than man and need to bring man to the same level as God.

Most religions see Moses and Jesus as the true biblical heroes which I disagree with. If the stories are to be believed, they are indeed great men (though I fear if Jesus was alive today he would be shocked at how he has become a symbol of worship). I believe the true hero in the bible is Judas. He is the only one who is completely human.

He betrayed Jesus to the romans for money. Blood money. A typical human trait; greed. He then tries to rectify the situation showing guilt, and eventually kills himself as a form of repentance. People can scorn at Judas and he has become a victim of hate in religion but he was one of the few who made a bad error in his judgement, realised his mistake and made the ultimate sacrifice; his life.

More food for thought.
Controversial but my opinions as always and not to be taken as anything other than!

“”Her lies went back at least four years. Her denials of using illegal drugs were repeated in a number of interviews. She laid herself open to exposure as a hypocrite. Someone who has courted publicity in a favourable sense can’t thereafter complain if the publicity they attract is less favourable.””

Of course, this means I believe there is justification for invading the private lives of public individuals if they constantly use the media to build their careers. Naomi had no right to compensation. If you take another classic example – Jordan or Katie Price. She uses the media to build her career but unlike Naomi, takes every piece of publicity. She didn’t sue anyone when the sex tape of her and ex-boyfriend Dane Bowers was unleashed on the public, nor when she received defamatory comments like ‘dumb blonde’ and ‘trash’ from the tabloids. Naomi obviously isn’t the only celebrity guilty of double standards. Though not many have sued papers for negative publicity, a lot have still got the nerve to complain about press interference.
Madonna has been heralded as one of the greatest and most ‘provocative’ artists of our time. She has used the camera to the maximum by way of movie performances, music videos, interviews, and even publicity stunts (remember the Britney kiss?). How then can she complain about the press attending her Scottish wedding? I believe she waived any rights to privacy she had when she stepped on stage wearing a wedding dress, screaming about virginity.
Elton John can only be described as a blatant attention seeker, grabbing as much attention as he can. Every concert or magazine article he can appear in, he does. He makes his opinions known to everyone. Recently he complained about Madonna lip-synching, and claimed Robbie Williams was ‘not a well budgie’ . Yet, he still had the audacity to complain about the press recently at a Taiwanese airport calling them ‘rude, vile pigs’ .
I do think it’s justified to invade the private lives of public individuals therefore if they use the media to their advantage whenever possible. In cases like that of the late Kurt Cobain, however, I can understand when it isn’t justified. The fame that came with being a rock ‘star’ was too much for him and his depression eventually killed him. Others who don’t deserve to have their private lives invaded are those who just want to do their job with as little fame as possible (e.g. soap actors and smaller musicians).
A good comparison between the two extremes of who deserves to have their private life invaded and who doesn’t comes down to one soap; neighbours. Two musicians came out last year, one serious, the other not. I’m referring to Holly Valance and Delta Goodrem. Delta released her first album entitled ‘Innocent Eyes’ which showcased her musical talent in her voice, song writing skills, and piano skills. She was glamorous and serious about her music and refused any kind of risqué publicity. Her album sold in millions and she is still highly respected in the music industry. Holly, on the other hand, arrived on the scene with ‘Footprints’ and her first video had her dancing completely naked with heavy make-up on. The video became extremely popular and everyone began buying her albums just for the sheer sex appeal. She then went on to use magazines such as FHM, Maxim, and Loaded to ‘spice up’ her already highly erotic image. When she established herself as an ‘artist’ she refused to do any more dirty dancing and was subsequently dropped from her record label. She began blaming the bad publicity from the media for her downfall. She claimed the media had violated her rights by asking her what she wore to bed and photographing her without permission. She explained that ‘all that isn’t even really important in the long run’ . She caused her own downfall by letting herself become open to bad publicity and it was justified the media exposing her private life. Her first three singles were ‘Kiss Kiss’, ‘Down Boy’ and ‘Naughty Girl’. I somehow don’t think the media are to blame for her downfall. Delta is still doing great.
Being a celebrity or constantly in the spotlight can also mean having a highly important job or being a major representative for a company. I believe it’s justifiable invading the private lives of public individuals if the information uncovered by the press brings the person’s suitability for their role under question. Possibly the most famous example of this is none other than former president of the United States, Bill Clinton. When a new intern, Monica Lewinsky came to work in the White House, shortly afterwards rumours started circulating about an illicit affair between the president and Lewinsky. Clinton famously swore under oath that he ‘did not have sexual relations with that woman’. It turned out he did and was impeached by the House of Representatives. The president has the most important job in America and invasion of privacy is completely justifiable as is exposing his private life. If he lied under oath about one thing, who’s to say he wouldn’t have done it again about something slightly more serious. Clinton wasn’t the only president whose private life compromised his position of course. Ronald Reagan was president in 1983 and came under fire after it was found he was peddling weapons to Iran to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. He lied and the public needed to know about it.
If we look at British politics, it’s right to investigate the private lives of every single member of the labour party or party in power, and even the opposition depending on whether their policies and activities collide. It is interesting that the labour government has recently passed a new gambling bill which could see large casinos rising in our cities and a myriad of new gamblers appearing (or rather gambling addicts). It’s a little coincidental then that a close friend of Tony Blair and the highest investor in the Labour party is none other than a director of betting website bet365.com. Peter Coates, who owns a string of betting shops across Cheshire and the Midlands, has donated more than £100,000 to the party and a matter like this deserves to be brought under scrutiny as it could be seen as a charitable bribe. Tony Blair also has brought in a policy to tackle binge-drinking and Britain’s yob culture, but the tabloids last year ran a story showing his 16-year-old son drunk and disorderly. Private revelations like these can and do undermine authority in public figures, hence why I strongly believe it is justified if the person (s) involved has a social responsibility.
Outside politics, there are equal roles that are played by public figures such as musicians or rather ‘pop stars’ that have a responsibility towards children. Artists like Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, and S Club 7 were all initially aimed at children with squeaky-clean images but as we’ve come to see, they’re now far from that.
Britney Spears, when she released ‘Baby One More Time’, was made out to be a friendly, fun, outgoing, Christian, virgin. When she was depicted on-screen talking on the phone in the early years she came across as one of the nicest people in the world, and children everywhere made her their best friend. No matter how you try and shake an image like that, it just can’t be done and every female star does it at some stage (Christina Aguilera or even Cher for example). Despite what they believe, their audience doesn’t automatically change when they decide to reinvent themselves with a new image. Therefore the media has a duty to Britney’s loyal fans to keep them informed if their idol does something they claim not to. Britney is an outright hypocrite, and her personal live deserves to be exposed to prove just how unsuitable she is to children. She always claimed she never believed in sex before marriage yet she’s allegedly slept with at least 6 men. She’s always taken an anti-drink and drugs stance but has allegedly been seen consuming both by friends (she was even allegedly drunk when marrying her child friend Jason Alexander in Las Vegas). Britney is no longer the ‘sweet and innocent’ girl who hit our screens years ago and children do need to be protected from anything ‘adult’, no matter how small. Recently, parents at one of Britney’s concerts complained about the sexual dancing she performed and deemed it unsuitable for children.
Michael Jackson has been very well respected by millions of people for decades and everyone knows that his goal has always been to achieve world peace, and ‘protect our children’s children’ . His role therefore is as a protector of children, hence why alarm bells started ringing recently when Jackson held his baby son, Prince Michael the second, over his balcony in sheer glee after seeing the press outside. It was justified the invasion of his private life thereafter to protect the children in question. The media later released an article alleging that Michael was providing alcohol to the kids sleeping over, a clear violation of his role.
S Club 7 were also unveiled to the world as the squeaky-clean bunch and even released a children’s television show ‘Miami 7’. With young fans everywhere, it was the media’s duty to invade their private lives to ensure they weren’t involved in anything unsavoury. It was uncovered at a later stage that the boys in the group were caught smoking hash. Not something suitable for children and therefore invasion of their private lives was justified. Same could also be said for Richard Bacon who was fired from Blue Peter after admitting taking Cocaine.
Speaking of which, Angus Deayton was also fired from his role as the host of ‘Have I Got News For You’ after it was found he was allegedly having sex with prostitutes in a seedy hotel while snorting cocaine. His role was to comment on the news headlines in the show and it made him unable to fulfil his role as the presenter. When the BBC sacked him, their official response was:

“It was felt by all concerned that continued stories about Angus’ private life made him the subject of headlines, rather than commentating on them, and made his position as host of the topical satire programme untenable.”

Other role models in Britain include the Beckhams. Many people look up to them as the golden couple of the UK. People want to be just like the Beckhams. The money, the glamour, the stability. Their role is therefore of a stable, solid family and they play to the role. They are seen kissing and showing affection almost constantly in public, and are always pictured with their children Brooklyn and Romeo. David uses the image of the ‘family man’ along with his footballer sex appeal to sell products and the media effectively keeps his career alive, while keeping Victoria in the spotlight too. They have given up their right to privacy like those I mentioned earlier in the essay but also have the role to live up to, making them a very complicated media frenzy altogether. Recently, stories came out regarding David’s infidelity with a woman called Rebecca Loos. The story was never proven true, but never proven false either and it was completely justified the paper releasing the story. It proves that, if true, the Beckhams aren’t as strong a household as everyone imagines and, if false, they are as strong as we are made to believe.
The same role applies to the royal family. We know of Princess Diana’s wonderful charity work and her tragic death, but she was only human in my opinion. Not in most other people’s eyes though. The media constantly report on shocking discoveries about Diana’s troubled past which most people find incredibly droll and annoying but at the end of the day, yes she may be dead but it’s still right to invade her privacy to keep the public informed on her. Her role is, of course, the late princess of Wales (a title which everyone looks up to). Also, we have her sons still living who are the heirs to the throne. We need to be able to see them as royalty and above us in terms of status. They should be the pure, trustworthy monarchs but, that’s just a role. No wonder the papers recently printed news that Harry cheated on his Art exam, was reportedly drunk outside a night club, and that he punched a photographer. They are seen as gods by many but are merely human. They have a role though and the press are right to invade their private lives to oust corruption.
So I therefore believe that all public figures who have either exploited the media for personal or financial gain, or those with a role to play (either chosen or passed-down) should have their private lives invaded. I do believe that those who become famous or are thrust into the spotlight accidentally don’t deserve to have their privacy taken away from them. The public must be kept continually informed on everything that happens to their role models and politicians, whether it should be public knowledge or not. Without knowing everything about everyone in the spotlight, we would be subjected to nothing but lies and falsity. Not to mention, if you take away the right to investigate into the private lives of public individuals, we will lose our freedom of the press. Without freedom of the press, we have nothing and will become part of a lie.

It dawned on me that these 2 mammals are the most intelligent on the planet and with the way the world is going, it looks highly likely that one day we could live in a ‘Brave New World’-like environment where everything is controlled. Everybody is created on an assembly line for specific tasks. Now, in order for this kind of hellish utopia to be avoided, there would need to be a certain element of chaos in the system placed by God (or if you don’t believe in God, by nature).

The orgasm is pleasurable and releases endorphins into the blood. Its existence keeps humans wanting more and more, and humans actually have sex for fun as well as pro-creation. If our society was to be controlled with natural birth being made illegal, the orgasm ensures that there will always be ‘rogue births’. Humans could easily give up sex if it wasn’t so enjoyable so the presence of the orgasm really does ensure that humans will ‘fuck up’ at some point.

Nothing in this world can be controlled and people have to realise this. Those who use contraception will become pregnant eventually and if the world was only full of men, nature would find a way of enabling us to pro-create. That’s the nature of the chaos theory. Food for thought.

This means that for the first few months of your friendship you can be whoever you want to be. If you’ve always wanted to be the person with bags of confidence, that spent years as a lapdancer, spent time in jail or in a bad crowd, or got awarded an OBE then you can be for the first 6 months of your friendship. I call this period the ‘honeymoon period’. You can be a completely fake image of yourself to that person for the first 6 months and it gives you a great boost of confidence and self appreciation.

When the honeymoon period is over, though, and your REAL personality and history come through the magic of the friendship is gone. They know you’re not an ex-supermodel, or that you haven’t had tons of partners. They find out you hate your body or your looks or your hair. After you realise that they’ve realised the friendship loses its pizazz and spending time with that person loses its glamour. This is why most friendships don’t last longer than 6 months.

The other interesting thing about this honeymoon period is that if you’re an A-TYPE person like I mentioned in my Love & Imprinting article (someone who has low self esteem and falls in love with everyone) then instead of having no interest in the friendship, you will more than likely DESPISE your new friend. You’re jealous of their looks, their confidence, their past. It’s amazing how 6 months ago this person was your new soulmate and now you wish they were dead.

That people is the mystery of the human mind.