Hiding In Plain Sight

RSS

Once upon a time you claimed to be more than one person running this blog. Now you are an individual woman. What happened?

Anonymous

My friend has other stuff going on so I do this myself now.  If I need her advice, I ask her, and she gives me her perspective.  That’s about it. 

I was married for a long time to a verbal abuser - everybody was his victim, not just me. And for a long time my response was to defend him by aggressively attacking his detractors. I was like Wings - very articulate, verbally adroit, and good at using one's words against them. It kept me in place, in the relationship, for far too long. I totally get where she's coming from - she can't back away yet. I hope she can soon.

Anonymous

Anon, I’m sorry you went through that.  I had a similar experience with a family member, though it sounds like my experience wasn’t as bad.  But one incident clarified for me what was going on, and that moment changed everything.  It’s a huge moment, one that changes your life.  I’m glad your life changed too.

It’s a tough position wrt wings-andgrace.  I strongly agree with the Tea Blogger’s post about the issue.  However, when Wings herself is dismissive of victims and starts victim-blaming, that’s a problem, and, like anyone, she deserves to be called on it.  Unfortunately that does play into the us-v-them that Andy creates.  It’s the same vicious circle with Andy - making him the subject of so much conversation does feed his narcissism, but what are we to do?  Not comment?  No, that’s not right.  In fact, it’s dangerous and irresponsible.

I also hope that in pointing out her dangerous misconceptions about victims, she might someday come to the realisation that she is one.  It’s a faint hope, but a hope nevertheless.

The situation leaves us in some very difficult binds and we have difficult choices to make wrt how we talk about Wings at present.  I reiterate that everything I say about her, I say with the awareness that she is a victim.  At the same time, she must bear responsibility for her own words and actions.

When the time comes for her to break free, I hope she takes heart from people’s response to Abbey.  That response has been overwhelmingly understanding and supportive because we can empathise with her and what she went through, and we respect the fact that she has taken responsibility for her own actions.  We understand that she acted in a context of extreme abuse.

I too hope that Wings can get free soon.  When she does, there will be support for her, if she wants and/or needs it.  This is meaningless to her now, but hopefully it will mean something someday.

Do you post on FFA?

Anonymous

In general, and not on the topic of Andy Blake, I used to post there fairly regularly, back when it was on LJ.  These days, no, because I can’t track DW and it’s annoying to have to go back and check for additions to threads.  I don’t tend to get into discussions about Andy there because usually what I have to say, I post here.  Now and then I’ll maybe add a small comment, but nothing major.  Maybe a correction if there’s misinformation, that kind of thing, or I’ll post a link to something relevant if I have it handy.  I never start threads about him or add anything substantial - like I said, if I have anything substantial to say, I say it here.

I do read the conversations about Andy there, though.  Obviously it’s a topic I’m interested in.

Did you ban agentsex? Her notes don't appear on your posts, so you must have banned her.

Anonymous

As I have said before, I blocked her so I don’t see her notes, but I didn’t know that meant other people don’t see them either.  I guess if you want to see what she has to say, you’ll have to go to her blog.

Though coincidentally, she just emailed me asking me who I am.  So hey, why don’t I take the opportunity to answer here so that it’s on public record.

I’m not going to say who I am because it really doesn’t matter.  I’m a fandom nobody.  If I told you my tumblr name, you’d be like, huh, I never heard of her.  But I’m not going to tell you my tumblr name because I don’t want my fandom tumblr inundated with messages meant for this blog.

I’m keeping my identity to myself not because I’m some big mystery, but because I want to be able to control how much this blog impinges on my everyday online life.  By keeping it separate, I can open it when I want to and close it when I want to, and more importantly, when I need to.  As I’ve said before, I know no one makes me do this.  This blog is my choice.  And control of it is my choice.  Just as control of my online identities is my choice.

Also, I don’t expect anyone to simply take me at my word.  Another reason for my anonymity is that from the start, I have said I am offering a counternarrative to Andy’s own narrative, because I don’t believe his narrative.  I don’t believe his claims hold up under scrutiny, and so that’s what I argue.  It’s up to each and every reader to make up their own mind about those arguments.  Therefore it’s unnecessary to appeal to a “real name” behind this blog, and in fact I think it would be distracting.  This blog is not about me.  I am not its subject.  Its subject is Andy’s ongoing history of abuse.  If you’re convinced by the arguments here, it’s not because I make them.  It’s because the arguments are convincing.  Likewise, if you’re unconvinced, then that’s because you find them unconvincing.  It’s totally up to you, the reader.

So I won’t be saying who I am, and I won’t be engaging with Agentsex here, at her blog, or by email, or indeed anywhere.  I’m simply not interested in her agenda, her opinions, or her comments.  She can say what she wants whenever she wants, but not to me.

And that’s pretty much all I have to say about Agentsex, this blog, and me.

Comments on a post by WAG

I want to comment on Wings-andgrace’s post here.  I’m not reblogging it because I have no wish to intrude or be provocative, but there are a couple of points I’d like to flag.

1.  Quote: “good to know I’m considered a fragile little victim.”

The image some people around Andy have of victimhood is appalling.  This kind of mentality is pure victim-blaming, as if it is fragility that somehow attracts abuse.  No.  It’s not fragility that makes a victim.  It’s an abuser that makes a victim, and an abuser may seek to abuse anybody, “fragile” or not.

2.  Quote: “Underhanded, a bit rude, and definitely selfish. Also sounds pretty damned human. … I understand that as a good manipulation tactic.” 

Wow.  Engaging in manipulative tactics in relationships with other people is just human.  I don’t think so.  Also, Del has just described how his mother manipulated and abused others, and Wings handwaves this, as if it’s just some ordinary thing that Del—who was abused by a mother with NPD—is making a big deal out of.  Again, utterly dismissive of a victim.

And once more, Wings is immune because she’s not a “fragile little victim”, she’ll ask Andy for repayment of money.  Disregarding the fact that Del was offering an example of manipulative behavior, not the only form of it

3.  Quote: “And he’s been officiall diagnosed with NPD? Has he said that? Has anyone said that?”

Pretty much, and that’s someone who knew him very well.  But she knows well there is no paperwork.  So demanding it is another silencing tactic.

So Wings may laugh all she likes, but there is nothing funny about her victim-blaming and her manipulative methods of ignoring and trying to silence Andy’s detractors.  I wonder if we are seeing Andy’s influence here, some quiet theme in his interactions with friends that reassures them that strong, un-fragile people like them can’t possibly be victims.  What a neat method of ensnaring someone, if so.

Asking you to explain all of it is the opposite of trying to shut you up. You're being a jerk to wings who has been so polite to you despite the misinformation you've spread about her and the constant disrespect you show her. Stop being a bully. Jfc.

Anonymous

delwynmarch:

Asking you to explain all of it is the opposite of trying to shut you up.

Wrong. Asking someone to spend an infinite time explaining an infinite number of things is by definition a tactic to shut them up, because it’s impossible to do.

You’re being a jerk to wings

Your opinion. I disagree. Heh.

who has been so polite to you despite the misinformation you’ve spread about her

I apologised for this, it wasn’t offensive misinformation, and I did not spread it intentionally. Don’t make it look like I slandered her or something.

and the constant disrespect you show her.

Erm, what? What disrespect?

Stop being a bully. Jfc.

What what?? How exactly am I being a bully when SHE came to ask ME a question? I very specifically made sure NOT to bother her, which is the exact opposite of bullying.

Now let me tell you what I think is going on here: Andy has noticed that 1) nobody cares about what Agentsex is saying, and 2) I’m open to discussing with wings-andgrace. So he sent wings-andgrace to ask me a question he knows I can’t answer in less than 100K words, and which is completely irrelevant to anything anyway. In other words: he’s trying to derail me from my goal, which is exposing his various lies and manipulative tactics.

Well, screw that. Wings-andgrace has clearly shown that she’s not actually interested in the question she asked me, so this topic is over.

THIS DERAILMENT IS OVER. Any further message on the matter, whether anon or not, will be ignored/deleted.

The demand for proof has become a silencing tactic that Andy, via his mouthpieces, has been using for some time.  It’s not bullying to note it as a silencing tactic.  As I said in my last post, the proof is there.  It’s there in the same patterns being played out yet again.

Wings-andgrace is a victim here, but that does not absolve her of responsibility for her actions.  And Del called her on her actions.  That’s not bullying.

Plus, the truth is that Del doesn’t have to write that 100k words because they have been written, and more, by Abbey, Diamond, and other victims.  They describe going through the same patterns as Wings is currently going through.  There is also a wealth of other resources, including this blog and many other commentary blogs and communities, that, taken together, provide a history of Andy Blake and his patterns of dangerous behaviour.  In that context, demands for proof are obviously silencing tactics.  The sheer amount of information is impossible for one person to reproduce, so to ask them to do so ensures they cannot respond, at which point the asker can say, “aha, you can’t prove it!”  Meanwhile, they ignore all the other proof out there.  It’s obviously a tactic and not a genuine request.

___________

I  want to note that this blog has had a long-standing policy of not commenting on posse members.  Obviously given the present circumstances, commentary on Andy’s manipulation of Wings is different.  As long as she is the new Constant (or whatever he’s calling it now) then she will be mentioned with Andy.  But with the proviso, always, that while she does have personal responsibility, we recognise that she is a victim here.

so i've been reading a bunch of posts where you and others deconstruct Andy's claims about his "mental illnesses", and now i'm curious about something: do you think Andy ever actually believed his multiverse/magical channeling fantasy at all, or was it just a tool he used to ensnare people?

Anonymous

delwynmarch:

wings-andgrace:

delwynmarch:

do you think Andy ever actually believed his multiverse/magical channeling fantasy at all

Nope.

or was it just a tool he used to ensnare people?

Yep.

If I thought that Andy, at any point, had come even close to believing any of these things he’s said, then I wouldn’t treat him like I do. It’s because I’m 100% sure that he’s always deliberately lied, AND that he’s always been perfectly aware that he was lying, that I act the way I do where he’s concerned.

This was recently brought back to my attention. I’d like you to provide the proof that has lead you to be so sure of yourself. Because I literally cannot comprehend how you could be so confident in something I don’t think there is actually firm proof for.

Okay.

But first, you’ll have to clarify which part of his claims I’m supposed to provide proof about. Which one(s) would you like me to focus on?

- The belief that he was a rare lesbian Pagan Paladin?

- The belief that the Lord of the Rings books depicted actual historical events?

- The belief that he and others could channel fictional characters, as in have their bodies and minds taken over by fictional characters?

- The belief that when he was channelling such a fictional character, he gained that character’s knowledge and abilities?

- The belief that he could channel real people?

- The belief that he duplicated the soul of real people, and that his own soul was replaced by those duplicate souls, several times?

- The belief that he was tasked with a mission to help dozens of dead fictional people find peace?

- The belief that he was tasked with a mission to help dozens of people living in parallel space-time continuums find peace?

- The belief that the world depicted in the Narnia books is real in some alternate universe, and he was in contact with that universe?

- The belief that the world depicted in the Harry Potter books is real in some alternate universe, and he was in contact with that universe?

- One of his many, many other claims?

Please note that the ONLY proof that Andy EVER believed any of these things is Andy’s own word - the same word he now gives that he doesn’t believe in any of it anymore.

I just want to add that, as far as I see it, the burden of proof here is on Andy.  However, if you want proof, there is plenty of proof of his previous actions, some of it from his own “apologies” (with the disclaimer that this is Andy, and his apologies are demonstrably not genuine).  And now he is repeating patterns and has been for some time.  I argued in my second post that this repetition of patterns was worrying.  In June 2013, I argued that Andy was in the process of reeling people in, as he had done before.  And now one of those people is reeled in and living with him.  This latest repetition—living with someone he has been grooming—is proof that the patterns persist.  If the patterns are persisting, then chances are very, very high that behavior is persisting also.  And that’s why those of us who keep an eye on Andy can be so confident.  Because the persistant patterns are proof.

So for those who demand proof, it’s there.  It’s just that you’re not seeing it.

Sep 7

Submission from the Tea Blogger

TRIGGER WARNING: Death of a child.

I’ve spent more than a month thinking about this post and whether it should ever make it out of my personal notes. On one hand, Andy’s complete lack of empathy and caring is something that I think is very important to write about, and this demonstrates it more powerfully than just about anything else I’ve seen thus far. On the other hand, I’m not sure how appropriate it is to bring a member of Andy’s family—a child, no less—into the discussion. In the end, I decided to proceed on the basis that Andy was the one who posted publicly about the child in the first place, and what I’m writing does not concern him directly.

Read More

Sep 6

Hello again

Hello everyone.  Apologies for my longer-than-expected absence.  I’ve been settling into a new place and job and it’s been pretty busy.

I’ve been reading and catching up, and I’ve got two submissions I want to post.  (I’m especially enjoying tracerthanfiction.)  I don’t think I’ll be able to keep up as much as I did in the past, but since there are so many other blogs now whose aims are broadly similar to this one, perhaps that’s not a bad thing.

Thanks to those who sent me messages while I was on hiatus - very much appreciated.  :)

AndySphere Meta Volume 1: Mental Illness (But He’s Feeling MUCH Better NOW)

kumquatwriter:

Andy is nothing if not a prolific writer. I think it is in part deliberate; he obfuscates his actions by burying them in massive piles of words, which is incredibly daunting to wade through. He regularly contradicts himself and changes his stories, but with the sheer volume of text it is difficult to compare/contrast and establish how his story has mutated over time.

However, it isn’t impossible, and I’m going to take a sampling of documents he’s written and look at what he’s said on certain topics over the years. This isn’t a breakdown of a single post - there are sporkings and analyses of his work elsewhere.

This post - which will be the first in a series, as there’s just that much text to go through -  is going to instead compare excerpted statements from different documents over time. Let’s just call it Meta. These will be kept under the tag Andysphere Meta, so they may be easily tracked.

Shall we begin?

Read More

Some more "hiding in plain sight"

delwynmarch:

Andy reblogged that post.

If I may quote a few passages:

"Snape deeply enjoyed being a vile person.”

What Snape felt for Lily was not love; it was possessiveness. He wanted her to be his. He wanted her to leave James for him. He wanted her to pick sides for him. He wanted to hold her close and smother her and never let her go. Snape didn’t love Lily; he loved himself. He was a narcissistic, bitter, emotionally abusive creep who couldn’t deal with the fact that his first crush ended up marrying someone else.”

People are responsible for their own actions.”

IN CONCLUSION

Romanticisting Snape is not only incredibly stupid and short-sighted, it’s dangerous. Putting men like this into fiction and presenting them as “good guys” or morally grey or brave or deserving of sympathy encourages the boys who read these books to behave like Snape, and it encourages the straight girls/gay boys who read these books to accept the existence of these men in real life and to want to date them. Which you don’t ever, ever want to do.

If you ever meet a Snape in real life, run the other way, and don’t give him your sympathy.

tl;dr Having a sad backstory does not automatically make you sympathetic. Doing one good thing does not automatically make you a beacon of bravery and justice. Fuck you, Snivellus.”

Either Andy is the most self-unaware person ever (nope), or he’s openly mocking anyone who gives him any sympathy (yep). I mean, it’s right there in the text: “If you ever meet a Snape in real life, run the other way, and don’t give him your sympathy.

What do you think someone who twice created a cult of personality focused on him, massively abused many people, never properly apologised for it, keeps playing the woobie angle to escape and deny his responsibility in everything bad and wrong he ever did, and is currently spreading lies and horrible stigma about already-maligned mental illnesses in order to be allowed to get into the exact same situations as the ones he used before to abuse people - what do you think that person is, if not a Snape!?

This reminds me of a post about DAYD by Peg Kerr.  I’ll post an extract here:

The other thing I thought about, even as I was reading it, that as much as thanfiction was doing right, it was, by contrast, extremely odd that he got one character entirely wrong: Severus Snape. Practically every other character was developed by carefully extrapolating from canon, but unlike Neville, the visible hero who was adored by everyone, thanfiction chose to make Snape (the lying spy who led a secret double life) out as a total monster, and what’s more, he violated canon to do it. And in doing so, thanfiction ironically obliterated and eliminated Snape’s secret heroism. Rowling made the point that Dumbledore wanted Snape in place as Headmaster so that when Dumbledore died, Snape could protect the children from the Deatheaters that Dumbledore knew Voldemort would put in place at Hogwarts. Remember, Harry and Ron and Hermione thought it extremely odd that when Ginny and Neville and Luna were caught trying to break in to Snape’s office to steal the sword, Snape only assigned the puzzlingly light punishment of sending them out in the Forbidden Forest for one night with Hagrid. But in thanfiction’s re-envisioning of the story, that punishment is not a sinecure at all: Snape’s clearly trying to feed them to the werewolves. And the whole business about how Snape doctored Neville’s potion when he was sick with the dragon pox in an attempt to kill him: that doesn’t fit at ALL with what canon says Snape was trying to do that year: protect the students. Snape eggs on the Deatheaters torturing students, and it is Snape who comes up with the idea of kidnapping Luna from Hogwarts to blackmail her father. Again, this goes totally against one of the key points of the seventh book, that Snape was truly Dumbledore’s man. Once more, could it be unconscious? Perhaps. Perhaps whereas Neville was most like what thanfiction desperately wanted to be, Snape was what he was most like in reality, but he had to reject any semblance of Snape to himself (and deny that Snape had any good traits at all)…just as when thanfiction, cornered by his own lies, has resorted to claiming that Amy Player is NOT HIM AT ALL but, in fact, his evil mentally ill twin. Thus, to obscure that they were one and the same, he didn’t hesitate to slander and denigrate Amy Player himself.

Such an interesting analysis, though I highly doubt it’s unconscious on Andy’s part.  I’d say it’s very conscious.

hazelhaegtesse:

arse-moriendi:

1purp0se:

(x)  Andy posted this recently.  It’s obviously a rebuttal to anyone questioning his claimed diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  But since he can’t actually engage with those people and their analyses directly—since he doesn’t have paranoid schizophrenia and is lying about it—he writes this airy-fairy, we-are-all-special-snowflakes post instead.  Using his patronising Andy-toneTM for extra persuasiveness.  The truth is, mental illnesses have certain criteria.  If an illness doesn’t fit the criteria, then it isn’t that illness.  It’s not about judging people or telling people they’re not mentally ill or failing to acknowledge that people are complicated.  No one is talking about fabric and holes.  People with actual experience of schizophrenia are saying I know about schizophrenia and Andy does not demonstrate the symptoms of the illness he is claiming to have.  That has nothing to do with extended, confusing metaphors about fabric and holes and trees and whatever.  Andy only needs such metaphors because he has nothing solid to bring to this discussion.  It’s more and more apparent that the one thing he definitely does not seem to have is experience of schizophrenia.
Also he’s still very much harping on an inability to remember dates.  See captain-ameribun's comments on that topic here.
I read about this post first on FFA and someone there has an excellent response.  I’ll link it and c&p it here.  I hope they don’t mind.  Read it in discussion context here.

You can fake being bright, bubbly and extrovert when you have clinical depression, but that doesn’t mean the symptoms vanish or that you won’t be exhausted by the effort of it.Cynical, quiet, introverted pessimist isn’t a mental illness.You can be a sloppy, disorganised, laid-back person who has OCD, but if your obsessive compulsions don’t disrupt your life enough to qualify as a disorder then you don’t have OCD. See ‘Hoarders’ for details.Meticulous, extremely organized, high strung isn’t a mental illness.You can front as an articulate, easily intimate person with a popular vlog, and a customer service job who has social anxiety, but the symptoms are still there and fronting is exhausting; you, unlike Andy, will need downtime.Reclusive, awkward, insecure person who stays home most of the time isn’t a mental illness unless it interferes with your life to a point where it qualifies as a disorder.You can be 300lbs and have anorexia; weight isn’t a part of the diagnosis.You can be 96lbs and be healthy; weight isn’t part of the diagnosis.You can be autistic and love conventions; hating crowds isn’t central to the diagnosis.You can be neurotypical and think they’re overstimulating and confusing, because finding huge crowds of people overstimulating and confusing isn’t a mental illness.But being paranoid, and avoiding people, is an integral part of a severe paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis. I’d raise an eyebrow at anyone who said they had OCD, but their obsessions didn’t negatively impact their behaviour at all.


Why yes, Andy, that IS a list of common cultural misconceptions about mental illness.
Now, as for the list of the ways mental illness can affect people…
…wait, this was supposed to be it?

Very nicely done, but I would like to point out that hoarding is not OCD. Trust me, I know this one (alas). It’s more akin to a personality disorder, and used to fall under the diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (which is, again, not the same thing as obsessive-compulsive disorder). It’s got it’s own listing now in the DSM-V, and in my experience it is something very much akin to a personality disorder, given that it is permanent, does not particularly distress the hoarder (it is egosyntonic, unlike OCD), and generally comes with a profound lack of insight in the hoarder.

Thanks for the extra info!  Reblogging to put the correction on record, so to speak.

hazelhaegtesse:

arse-moriendi:

1purp0se:

(x)  Andy posted this recently.  It’s obviously a rebuttal to anyone questioning his claimed diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  But since he can’t actually engage with those people and their analyses directly—since he doesn’t have paranoid schizophrenia and is lying about it—he writes this airy-fairy, we-are-all-special-snowflakes post instead.  Using his patronising Andy-toneTM for extra persuasiveness.  The truth is, mental illnesses have certain criteria.  If an illness doesn’t fit the criteria, then it isn’t that illness.  It’s not about judging people or telling people they’re not mentally ill or failing to acknowledge that people are complicated.  No one is talking about fabric and holes.  People with actual experience of schizophrenia are saying I know about schizophrenia and Andy does not demonstrate the symptoms of the illness he is claiming to have.  That has nothing to do with extended, confusing metaphors about fabric and holes and trees and whatever.  Andy only needs such metaphors because he has nothing solid to bring to this discussion.  It’s more and more apparent that the one thing he definitely does not seem to have is experience of schizophrenia.

Also he’s still very much harping on an inability to remember dates.  See captain-ameribun's comments on that topic here.

I read about this post first on FFA and someone there has an excellent response.  I’ll link it and c&p it here.  I hope they don’t mind.  Read it in discussion context here.

You can fake being bright, bubbly and extrovert when you have clinical depression, but that doesn’t mean the symptoms vanish or that you won’t be exhausted by the effort of it.

Cynical, quiet, introverted pessimist isn’t a mental illness.

You can be a sloppy, disorganised, laid-back person who has OCD, but if your obsessive compulsions don’t disrupt your life enough to qualify as a disorder then you don’t have OCD. See ‘Hoarders’ for details.

Meticulous, extremely organized, high strung isn’t a mental illness.

You can front as an articulate, easily intimate person with a popular vlog, and a customer service job who has social anxiety, but the symptoms are still there and fronting is exhausting; you, unlike Andy, will need downtime.

Reclusive, awkward, insecure person who stays home most of the time isn’t a mental illness unless it interferes with your life to a point where it qualifies as a disorder.

You can be 300lbs and have anorexia; weight isn’t a part of the diagnosis.

You can be 96lbs and be healthy; weight isn’t part of the diagnosis.

You can be autistic and love conventions; hating crowds isn’t central to the diagnosis.

You can be neurotypical and think they’re overstimulating and confusing, because finding huge crowds of people overstimulating and confusing isn’t a mental illness.

But being paranoid, and avoiding people, is an integral part of a severe paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis. I’d raise an eyebrow at anyone who said they had OCD, but their obsessions didn’t negatively impact their behaviour at all.

Why yes, Andy, that IS a list of common cultural misconceptions about mental illness.

Now, as for the list of the ways mental illness can affect people…

…wait, this was supposed to be it?

Very nicely done, but I would like to point out that hoarding is not OCD. Trust me, I know this one (alas). It’s more akin to a personality disorder, and used to fall under the diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (which is, again, not the same thing as obsessive-compulsive disorder). It’s got it’s own listing now in the DSM-V, and in my experience it is something very much akin to a personality disorder, given that it is permanent, does not particularly distress the hoarder (it is egosyntonic, unlike OCD), and generally comes with a profound lack of insight in the hoarder.

Thanks for the extra info!  Reblogging to put the correction on record, so to speak.

The Recruiting of Agentsex by Andy Blake

delwynmarch:

One problem I constantly run into when discussing Andy Blake, is that most people don’t understand the sheer SCALE of manipulation we’re actually dealing with. Andy Blake is not just a manipulator; he’s a Master Manipulator.

So, well, since Agentsex so obligingly provided us with a case study, I figured I’d give people a taste of it.

Please note that I’m not saying that my speculations ARE what happened. Of course not: unlike some people, I’ve never claimed to know what other people are thinking.

I’m just giving an idea of what this interview looks like from the point of view of someone who was manipulated by such a Master Manipulator for years. You people don’t have to accept it - but I challenge you to find a better explanation to everything that happens around Andy.

A quick reminder of the setting: Agentsex has offered to interview Andy by phone. She has her computer turned on and available.

Let’s start.

Read More

Such an amazing breakdown of this “interview”.  It hit on so many points that bugged me when I read the transcript.  Reading this was light lightbulbs going on over my head - “Yes, that’s why that didn’t sit right with me!”  And also, “I didn’t even notice that.”  Brilliant, Del.

This breakdown should be a huge warning to anyone—including Agentsex—who even considers interacting with Andy Blake.

If you don't mind answering, why do you think 'channeling' is such a big part of Andy's modus operandi? It seems like there would be other ways to get what he wants out of people.

Anonymous

kumquatwriter:

I honestly don’t know. I can’t wrap my brain around how he operates because it’s so fucked up. But I can say it has some benefits for him.

* It gives him the ability to claim authority on any topic, regardless of his real background.

* It gives him unlimited tragic backstories to exploit.

* It allows him to play good cop/bad cop, devil’s advocate, and to argue any point from any perspective - which is dizzying when he’s trying to wear you down.

* It creates dramatic emergencies that can interrupt at any time.

* It causes constant disruption, which keeps you from concentrating or organizing your won thoughts.

* It allows him to be incredibly cruel or vicious, then turn around and be the hero and comforter.

* It lets him introduce and become terrifying villains and threats to fight, while simultaneously becoming innocents to save and wounded to heal.

* It gives him a platform to explain away any doubts, because the channeled characters have secret or special knowledge/abilities.

* It creates an extra layer of secrecy, which he exploits with “hiding in plain sight.”

* It allows him to humiliate you with outrageously inappropriate or bizarre behavior in front of people who don’t know, which you are then responsible for dealing with.

* It creates a constant stream of “new friends” to experience things with - sharing events, movies etc with someone who has no experience with it.

* It allows him to have multiple types of relationships with one person - romantic, platonic, parent/child (in both directions!), mentor, student, sibling, friend, enemy.

Actually… After going through all of those, it is pretty clear exactly why he used/uses “channeling”

Tree, House, Person, Holes

delwynmarch:

I see Andy is back to his “let’s drown people in words” tactic.

So let’s see.

andythanfiction:

You can be a bright, bubbly, optimistic extrovert who has clinical depression.

Yes - because not being bright, bubbly, optimistic or an extrovert is not symptomatic of clinical depression. Also, your clinical depression will show up in some other way.

You can be a cynical, quiet, introverted pessimist who doesn’t.

Yes - because being cynical, quiet, introverted, and pessimistic, does not mean having a mental illness.

You can be a sloppy, disorganized, laid back person who has OCD. 

Yes - because not being sloppy, disorganised or laid back is not symptomatic of OCD (though I’m not sure about the laid back part, but whatever). However, your OCD will show in some other way.

You can be a meticulous, extremely organized, high strung person who doesn’t.

Yes - because being meticulous, extremely organised and high strung does not mean having a mental illness.

You can be an articulate, easily intimate person with a popular vlog, and a customer service job who has social anxiety. 

Yes - but your social anxiety will show in other ways.

You can be a reclusive, awkward, insecure person who stays home most of the time and doesn’t.

Yes - because being a reclusive, awkward, insecure person does not mean having a mental illness.

You can be 300lbs and have anorexia.

Yes - because actual weight has nothing to do with anorexia.

You can be 96lbs and be healthy.

Yes - because some random weight number has nothing to do with determining whether one is healthy or not.

You can be autistic and love conventions.

Yes - because being unable to handle any crowd is not part of the diagnosis of autism.

You can be neurotypical and think they’re overstimulating and confusing. 

Yes - because finding crowds overstimulating and confusing is not a sign of mental illness.

I remember books I read when I was 4, verbatim, and keep a ‘verse of 100+ characters in my head.  I can’t tell you without asking someone whether I met my friend Meg in March or May of last year.

Yes - because there are many different types of memories.

I believed for years that I was being hunted by the government, but trusted total strangers easily and happily worked around all kinds of security types (it didn’t hurt that I thought I could read their minds and had precognition).

Nope - because paranoia doesn’t work like that. Good try, hiding this lie among a pile of self-evident truths, but no.

I could rattle off logical fallacies and pick apart an argument for rationality and rhetoric and then tell you, with total sincerity, that I could channel elves and Harry Potter was based on a true story.

Yes - because being delusional doesn’t affect your intellect, only what you think is true.

 Some days, I can stare at a picture of my murdered friend for hours to draw her.  Some days, I’m triggered to a full flashback by a screenshot of the movie Brave because when she smiles.

Yes - because there isn’t just one way to react to trauma, even within one single person.

People are complicated.

No kidding.

 Mental illnesses are not who we are.  They’re the holes cut in the fabric of us, and we are the fabric, not the holes.

No, fuck you. If your fabric has holes, then you ARE a piece of fabric with holes, DUH! My son IS autistic. My ex IS bipolar. My sister IS psychotic. I AM anxious. Is any of us reduced to our mental illness? Of course not! But are these mental illnesses an integral part of who we are? Absolutely. We wouldn’t be the same people without these mental illnesses.

People can have their fabric be shaped like our holes and not be broken,

Fuck you again for even implying that mentally ill people are broken.

not to mention that an entire popular psych test is based around the fact that if you tell people to draw person, house, tree, no two people will draw the same thing.  My tree-shaped hole will not look like your tree-shaped hole, but that’s ok…

Can’t comment, never heard of this test.

and unless you’re me or my doctor or closely involved in my real life, not your problem or business, no matter what the illusory and incomplete intimacy of social media makes you think.  

Fuck you a third time for saying that it’s none of my business when YOU SPREAD HARMFUL LIES ABOUT AN ILLNESS SOMEONE I LOVE ACTUALLY HAS.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you’re not ok because your fabric is shaped like what they think a hole should look like.  

Which is not what we’ve been saying about you. We’ve been saying that your holes are incompatible with the holes which define the mental illnesses you claim to have. If having Mental Illness Tree is defined by having a tree-shaped hole, and you don’t have a tree-shaped hole, then you don’t have Mental Illness Tree, DUH!

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you’re not ill because you are more than your holes.   

I repeat: you don’t have MI Tree if you don’t have a tree-shaped hole. End of story.

If what’s happening in your brain or heart or life is causing problems for you or those around you, get professional help.

What is happening in YOUR life is causing problems to LOADS of people in REAL LIFE - because you keep spreading lies and harmful stereotypes about mental illnesses that these people actually have.

 If it’s not, you’re probably ok, no matter what shape your fabric is or what tree, house, and person look like for you.

Which is not your case, not even by a mile.

Different posts, astonishingly the same conclusion!