Gaslighting in relationships: all you need to know

There are people who always want to be right about everything. This type of behavior is manifested in all human relationships, including couples. Lately it has become a trend the term_ gaslighting,_ which refers to a person who wants to convince the other that he/she is wrong, even if he/she is not. In reality,_ gaslighting _is a strategy to gain more power by making the other person confused and questioning his or her own life. GASLIGHTING IN RELATIONSHIPS is something that happens very often. This behavior is more common in men, who try to psychologically subdue their partners. It is a subtle form of emotional abuse. This attitude is very harmful and aims at destroying the self-confidence of an individual, who comes to doubt her own sanity. Generally, those who gaslight their partner are narcissistic and manipulative men. This individual only wants to subdue his partner, who in reality is his victim.

Here are some examples of GASLIGHTING IN RELATIONSHIPS.

  • HE TELLS YOU THAT EVERYONE LIES TO YOU EXCEPT HIM: this manipulative man questions every one of your friends and family. He speaks ill of each of them and tells you that they all lie to you because they consider you unintelligent. He wants to convince you that the only person who always tells you the truth is him. He advises you not to trust any of your friends or family. The reality is that he wants to isolate you from your environment so that he can control you better.
  • INCOHERENCE: what he says never coincides with reality. He describes a reality that only exists in his imagination. Everything he says is adapted to your convenience. The goal is for you to doubt and be confused about what the truth is. You should never trust him, the only valid thing is your own criteria.
  • FAKE: He never does what he says. His words never reflect the truth, but are a story told according to his intentions. He will try by all means that you create him, since he wants to be the center of your life. You must beware of this man, because he is capable of doing anything to control you.
  • HE INVENTS A REALITY ALL THE TIME, INCLUDING OTHER PEOPLE: for example, he tells you that you are very messy and that others also think that about you. He dares to invent that others have certain thoughts. He tells these lies to make you feel helpless so that he can dominate you.
  • HE QUESTIONS YOUR VOCATION: you are happy developing in your vocation. Your partner doesn’t like that because he feels he can’t dominate you. That’s why he starts telling you that your job is badly paid, that it’s useless and that the best thing you could do is to stay at home. He manages to confuse you, because you think he wants to protect you. In reality, he wants you to stay home to keep a close eye on you. He doesn’t want you to have a life of your own, because he feels that you belong to him.
  • HE DENIES WHAT HE REALLY SAID: when you remind him of something he said, he denies it outright. He does this to confuse you and get you to question your own mental health. This man has no scruples, he only wants to destroy your identity to control you.
  • HE MENOSPRECIATES YOUR EMOTIONS: when you feel bad, sad, overwhelmed, he belittles your emotions. He tells you that you are too sensitive, childish and exaggerated. He adds that your feelings are meaningless, that it would be better if you had another personality. This man’s behavior is very dangerous and you should stay away from him now.
  • GASLIGHTING IN RELATIONSHIPS, SOMETHING WORST THAN YOU THINK: this attitude can destroy a personality.

Getting to know this manipulator better

The man who tries to make his partner doubt his own mental health in order to dominate it is a seriously harmful individual. He is basically an egocentric, self-centered, narcissistic and manipulative man. This individual is an unscrupulous and shameless being. He wants to destroy his partner’s personality in order to control it. He will show no mercy in order to keep her from her job, family and friends. Unfortunately, gaslighting in relationships is much more common than one might think. No woman should allow her partner to harm her in such a way. The reason many women are victims of this type of emotional abuse is that they are not aware that they are suffering it. GASLIGHTING IN RELATIONSHIPS is nefarious for women’s emotional health, therapeutic help is very useful in these cases.

Trusting oneself: the best defense for women

The reality is that any woman can be a victim of GASLIGHTING IN RELATIONSHIPS. To prevent that from happening, you have to build up a strong self-confidence that no man dares to break. If you have values, ideals and dreams of your own, you must always defend them. If your partner questions them, you should ignore those comments. If you see that he persists in his negative attitude, you must separate yourself from him. You must prioritize your life and never allow another person to question your mental health. Keep in mind that these individuals are unscrupulous and will do anything to weaken your identity.

Final thoughts

GASLIGHTING IN RELATIONSHIPS is a subtle form of emotional abuse that occurs within the dynamics of a couple. It usually happens that the man wants to convince his partner that she is wrong, to the point that she doubts his mental health. The ultimate goal of this manipulator is to destroy his partner’s identity in order to completely dominate her. The best way to defend oneself from this type of individual is to build strong self-esteem. We all have solid ideals from our childhood. These values must be maintained throughout life and never be allowed to be destroyed by another.

If we come to the sad conclusion that our partner wants to control us using this manipulation the only solution is definitive separation.


Stop Lone Wolf Terrorism by Ending Muslim Immigration by Daniel Greenfield

Lone wolf terrorism is the biggest trend in Islamic terrorism. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism, it requires no cells stretching across countries the way that 9/11 did. The perpetrators don’t even need to enter the country under false pretenses the way that the World Trade Center bombers did.

In many cases, they are already citizens. Some were even born in their target country.

Classic counterterrorism is directed at organizations. It’s inadequate for stopping individual Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen who was able to murder 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando or closely related duos like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston or the husband and wife team who carried out the San Bernardino terrorist attack which took the lives of 14 people.

Even the standard technique of planting informants into mosques, deeply opposed by the Islamic lobby in the United States, fails when individuals decide to act alone or only trust their wives or brothers to be in on the plot with them. If an individual Islamic terrorist fails to let his plans slip, either online or to an FBI informant, stopping him can be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible without a stroke of luck.

And Islamic terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

The reason is simple. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism which required organization and infrastructure, the new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims.

Lone wolf terrorism operates entirely off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. Any Muslim or Muslims who have settled in a particular non-Muslim country can answer the call of Jihad at any given time without warning.

There is no way that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies could begin to monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. The FBI alone has almost 1,000 active ISIS cases it was investigating last year in all 50 states. It does not have nearly the resources it needs to handle them.

As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow. No matter how much law enforcement expands the scope of its operations, it will not be able to keep up with the high natural birth rates of the Muslim settler population whose terrorists don’t need a fraction of the training or skills that trained law enforcement figures do. The more the Muslim population grows, the more terror attacks like Orlando, Boston and Nice will get past law enforcement.

Any technological or logistical solutions to this crisis on the law enforcement end will only be band aids.

The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

If this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again? Accompanying these rising population numbers will be rising influence by the Islamic lobby. Islamic groups such as CAIR with a history of terror ties and opposition to counterterrorism will have even more power to stymie law enforcement investigations. The end result will be far more successful Muslim terrorist massacres taking place on a constant basis.

Muslim immigrants are already inherently privileged when it comes to their ability to enter this country ahead of far more peaceful and far more deserving groups. For example, the vast majority of Syrian refugees admitted to this country are the Muslims who perpetrated and are perpetuating their religious war in the region rather than their Christian and Yazidi victims who face slavery and genocide at their hands.

This Islamic immigration privilege must be withdrawn. Muslim immigration must at the very least be scaled back to a level that law enforcement can cope with. At best it must end entirely until the Muslim world manages to stabilize its way of life to the extent that it can peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims.

There will be endless arguments over what percentage of Muslims support terrorism, but our own experience of recent attacks shows that many of them came from attackers who overtly appeared to be “moderate” and “ordinary”. For every Islamist activist dressed in Salafist fashion and tweeting praise of ISIS, there is at least one, if not many more, whom you would pass on the street without a second look.

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaevs did not seem like Jihadists. They would have been classed with the general category of “moderate” Muslims. And then they struck.

That is how it is.

The internet has decentralized terrorist training camps. Any Muslim can acquire the skills and equipment he needs to kill a few or a dozen or even a hundred if he chooses to follow his religion.

Not every Muslim will shoot up a nightclub or bomb a marathon, but we have no foolproof way of telling them apart. And even many Muslims who would not shoot up an office party in San Bernardino will still sympathize with the perpetrators. And even those Muslims who don’t will often continue supporting the Muslim lobby of organizations like CAIR that stymie law enforcement investigations of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim immigration makes Muslim terrorism worse.

Once we understand this inconvenient truth, then everything else naturally flows from it. The type of terrorism that we are dealing now won’t be beaten by breaking up organizations or droning terrorist leaders in training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. The enemy is right here. He speaks our language. He walks down our streets. He looks at us with hate in his Halal heart and he plots to kill us.

He may pledge allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but he is part of the larger organization of Islam. It is this organization, more than any of its Jihadist factional subdivisions, that represents the true threat.

Lone wolf terrorism is a viral threat that is spread by Islamic migration. We can only end it by closing the door. As long as the door to the Muslim migrant stays open, we will live under the threat that our neighbor or co-worker will be the one to kill us tomorrow or the day after that.


Whitewashing Muslim Violence and Blacklisting Reality By Selwyn Duke

The media and effete powers-that-be have been twisting themselves into Halal pretzels Islamsplainin’, rationalizing how a given Muslim terrorist attack isn’t really “Islamic” or isn’t significant.These contortions can become quite ridiculous, such as suggesting that recent Allahu Akbar-shouting Munich shooter Ali Sonboly might somehow have had “right-wing” motives because, among his violent passions, was an interest in Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

A more common (un)intellectual contortion is the minimizing tactic of claiming, as i politically correct authorities’ wont, that a given jihadist attacker “has no ties to IS” (the Islamic State), as if there’s nothing to see here if a man doesn’t provide notarized evidence of allegiance to the boogeyman du jour. Yet this is much as if we’d claimed during the Cold War that a Marxist terrorist attack wasn’t really a Marxist™ terrorist attack because we couldn’t find a connection to the Soviet Union. The issue and problem wasn’t primarily the Soviet Union but communism (Marxism birthed the USSR, not the other way around), an evil ideology that wreaks havoc wherever it takes hold. Likewise, the IS didn’t birth Islam; Islam birthed the IS.

Nonetheless, moderns will often use the misdirection of focusing inordinately on national or group associations when discussing terrorism. This is a dodge, one designed to help us avoid uncomfortable truths and which relegates us to playing an eternal game of whack-a-mole. The USSR is gone but communism is still a problem (witness North Korea and Cuba), and insofar as it’s less of a threat, it’s largely because its ideas have been discredited. Bad ideas’ standard bearers will change. But as long as the bad ideas remain tolerated and credible, they’ll always win converts. In fact, the reality that today’s terrorists are diverse makes the point. They may be Iranian, Afghani, American, Albanian, German or from any nation whatsoever; they may be part of Hamas, IS, al Qaeda, the U.S. Army (Maj. Hassan), some other organization or no organization; they may be of any race or ethnicity, be rich or poor, and male or (occasionally) female. They only have one truly common thread: being Muslim.

The point is that, ultimately, this is a battle not of nations or organizations but of
ideas, and ideas are powerful. Beliefs matter. Every action begins with a thought — or, at least, with a reflex response reflecting a world view that has shaped one’s thoughts and emotions.

Yet there’s more to understanding Muslim violence. A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them
more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period. And while the study authors had their own, mostly politically correct explanations, I think I know a major reason why. Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence.

Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent
of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira. And, respectively,
21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.

That’s what you call a full dose. Also note that while access to these two more obscure Islamic canonical texts was once limited, the Internet age places them at everyone’s fingertips. Couple this with the violent preaching of immigrant Imams and that Muslims consider violent warlord Mohammed “The Perfect Man” and thus the ultimate role model, and the German study’s findings are no mystery.

Speaking of mysteries, though, the true effect of Islam will remain one unless we delve further — and break ourselves of certain misconceptions common to our times. In the grip of religious-equivalence doctrine, many moderns have a habit of painting all faiths with the same brush; militant secularists hiss that they’re all bad while many conservatives will behave as if all
“real” religions are good; consequently, conservatives sometimes reconcile dislike for Islam by insisting it is “not a religion.” But like ideology, “religion” is a category, not a creed; it contains the good, the bad and the ugly. So while religion isn’t bad, there is bad religion.

Now, most belief sets that have been embraced by man — whether we label them “ideology” or a “faith”; be they Nazism, communism, the Aztec religion involving mass human sacrifice or something else — have been what we today would call lacking to awful. This understanding lends perspective: Islam is not an anomaly, historically speaking.

Rather, it aligns more closely with man’s default for belief sets: violence-enabling/tolerating wickedness.

It is Christianity that is anomalous — as a real religion of peace. Why does grasping this matter? The common assumption that a belief set labeled “religious” must involve generally peaceful injunctions is a result of projecting our own historically anomalous Christian
standards onto other, often historically normal belief sets. This understanding can break us of the emotional reluctance to accept that what we call a “major religion” could be destructive. Instead of wrongly believing we must place Islam in a lonely, sparsely occupied “abnormal” category, we realize we merely have to accept that it’s closer to that oh-so tragic, bloody human norm.

Now, there’s yet one more thing to consider about the impact of Islam.

When analyzing the effect of a religion, people understandably focus on its injunctions. What does it dictate? Yet such an analysis is insufficient because man’s default is not to be saintly but uncivilized; people will naturally display many if not all the Seven Deadly Sins and be generally barbaric unless some civilizing agency tempers their fallen nature. Thus, as with a person, the true measure of a religion is not just what it does but what it fails to do — its faults of omission, not just of commission.

It is clear to me that while Islam may be better than the Aztec and some other pagan religions, it nonetheless does a relatively poor job taming the beast. In fact, it apparently gives great license to our sinful nature. Considering greed, lust and sloth, why is it that many Muslims believe it’s licit to rob, rape and leech off kuffars (non-Muslims)? Does Islam do much to temper the envy and pride fulness inspiring so much anti-Western hatred? What of the officially approved bearing of false witness called taqiyya?

Then there’s that father of violence, wrath. Danish psychologist Dr. Nicolai Sennels, who worked for years with incarcerated Muslim youth, points out that anger is highly accepted in Muslim cultures; moreover, the ability to intimidate, he writes, “is seen as strength and source of social status.” He concludes, “Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behavior.”

Also note that the West’s foundational faith, Christianity, and its root, Judaism — the two faiths Westerners are best acquainted with and whose norms they may reflexively (and unwisely) project onto Islam — have as the basis of their moral law the Ten Commandments. Islam’s moral law is Sharia. And ne’er the twain shall meet.

In other words, even if given Muslims aren’t mindful of their canon’s violent injunctions, even if jihad is the furthest thing from their minds, they will as a group still be more prone to violence. That is, as long as their hearts and minds embody what Islam does, and what it fails to do.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to


How Hillary’s Big Ideas Will Bankrupt The Nation

Election 2016: Amid all the depressing name-calling, mud slinging and character assassination in this election season, there are, believe it or not, serious issues. One of them is the vast expansion of government spending and taxes that a Hillary Clinton presidency would usher in.

Clinton has left the campaign trail littered with her ideas for bigger government and has proposed major increases in taxes to pay for it in part. A new report from the center-right American Action Forum says that 13 major new spending proposals from Clinton would “have a dramatic effect on the federal budget.”

How dramatic? The AAF says that Clinton’s various plans would boost taxes by $1.3 trillion over the next decade, but it would grow spending by an even larger $3.5 trillion. That’s an added $2.2 trillion in deficits for the next 10 years. As for public debt — that is, only the money that the government owes the public — it would nearly double, says the report, from $13.968 trillion today to $25.825 trillion in 2026.

We know, we know. Such recitations of numbers can have a numbing effect. You can only predict fiscal disaster for so long, and then people start to tune you out. But the threat is real — and the numbers are alarming.

The list of new spending ideas from Clinton is truly breathtaking, but in a bad way. For instance, she wants to spend $1.6 trillion on guaranteeing up to 12 weeks of paid family leave, $347 billion on child care, and $107 billion on “debt-free college.” Then there’s $66 billion for universal preschool, even though study after study shows the benefits of preschool to be negligible. But hey, it takes a village, and to say no to such feel-good projects makes you a big meanie.

The fiscal impact of all this spending will be ruinous. Under current law, the federal debt held by the public is expected to reach 85.6% — an already high level of debt that well exceeds the 70% or so that economists believe marks a troubling level for any nation. Under Clinton’s plans, however, federal debt soars to 93.5% of GDP, a potential disaster. Moreover, the resulting deficits will reach 5.7% of GDP, up from 2.5% just last year.

“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money,” the late, great Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, who was Hillary Clinton’s senator for most of her youth, once reportedly said. Except he said it back in the 1960s, when a billion dollars was an almost inconceivable sum. Today, we’re talking trillions.

But these aren’t merely numbers. They are in fact a measure of the amount of money siphoned out of the highly productive private sector into the low-productivity public sector. As such, every dollar of potential private investment taken as taxes or borrowed by the government will act as a brake on the economy’s growth. One of the causes of today’s epic shift from 3% GDP growth to 2% GDP growth is a steep and continuing drop in business investment — the true engine of economic growth, productivity and higher wages for all — from the nonstop growth of government.

Higher government spending is a direct tax on growth. Nations that spend more inevitably grow more slowly. Those who vote for Hillary Clinton and all of her many ideas to spend more should know that they are voting for lower incomes, more poverty and fewer jobs.