Tag Archives: self

“The Decision” – Bernard, I got it

In my effort to move on and face the world that was left behind with Bernard’s passing, I continue to write on the topic, on that which I learned from the man who embodied the sum of all relationships that I could ever have with any human. (I referred to him elsewhere as self-complete).

In the beginning of this year, Bernard asked if me if I had made my decision, the decision of who I am. At the time, I found this question difficult to understand. I wrote several blogs on how I no longer wanted to cater to the picture, the idea, that I had of myself. The secret wishes that motivated me to pursue certain activities, and that shaped my interests and preferences in the world and patterned my relationship with others. Wishes that are build on lies, grandeur, arrogance and manipulation. Through the process of self-forgiveness, I shed the outer layer of these secrets yet I see that I am not free of self-judgements. Secretly wishing to be this or that is directly born from the inner mental eye that we cast upon ourselves not realising that this eye cannot see in physical reality and yet, it determines what we place into Pandora’s box, where we hide ourselves away.

A few pages of self-forgiveness later, I realised that all I wrote out was that which I no longer want to be and by doing so I worked on a process of elimination, which I grasped in hindsight has nothing to do with making a decision about who I am. Though, it was a necessary step because it created a clearance within me, and although I am still working on picture ‘elements’, they are no longer the fuzzy bunch but a few fist-size rocks that clearly shimmer through the water, as I chisel away at them.

With the accumulation of the insights that I had during my farm visit, I realised that to make a decision about who I am is the substrate of stopping my reactions. Especially fear and anxiety are at the root of a meandering, wavering Self that bends over backwards at each crossroad because it is spineless and brings no firmness to any situation. And this much was true, making decisions was one of my greatest “weaknesses” thus far. That’s not to say that I faltered at every step of the way, in some areas I have been more decisive than others but as a general approach to choice, I have developed a canon of tactics to deal with decision-making times. One of the ways I disguised indecisiveness for myself was to believe that I am a patient person – “I can wait, really” – until my environment makes a decision for me. This is what happened just recently when Bernard died. The decision to walk my process for real emerged from Bernard’s passing. I could no longer postpone the reality that I am walking this process for myself, that I must rely on my Self and not on Bernard. I must lead myself and probe, investigate and conduct this self-study, because now the decision has been made for me – Bernard is dead.

Making the decision – of who I am – is much simpler than I ever expected it to be but of course much harder to implement. The decision lies within that which I bring to each situation – the Self-relationship I bring to the world. A situation is a collection of moments with a distinct set of encircling stances – circumstances – that are formed through all entities that participate in a particular situation. The decision that answers the question “who am I”, is my position within those encircling stances. Position is an interesting word in this context, because it denotes primarily a location in space based on coordinates that are physically measurable. Strictly physically speaking, no body is ever without location in space.

The decision about who I am is therefore whether I chose to have a relationship with myself or not. This Self-relationship is actually a place within my being where I am whole and inseparable from myself, no matter what happens in my environment. When I chose to have no relationship with myself, in which case I am not the one directing my position, I will be directed by my memory in form of reactions such as fear, anxiety but also happiness and sentiment, which “move” me in every way, in the words I speak, in my gestures, in how I approach tasks, what I do and what I don’t, and how other’s manipulative faculties influence the way I live my life. By contrast when I am in a relationship with myself what moves me is the central point within me, it’s my internal pivot point of equality and oneness with myself. So, in essence the difference lies in whether I bring myself to the situation holistically, or whether the situation is ‘brought’ to me, where I receive the situation based on my database of memories and other people’s opinions and beliefs. These memories, beliefs and opinions act like wedges which I allow to exist between myself and the world, and as a consequence, I experience myself in separation.

What has happened since is that once I made the decision to walk the relationship of my Self, I enter situations differently. Sure, I am in the developmental stages of building a relationship with Self yet I am clear on the position that I take within myself. When I am one and equal with and to myself, then, losing my connection because of reactions is only a temporary occurrence and I drop the separation immediately and reconnect. It happens in the moment, my awareness shifts back to my body. The answer to the question “who am I ?” is therefore “I am ‘how’!” – I am connected to myself – which I see now is the gateway to all other relationships that I create in the world both physically and conceptually.

So, Bernard, if you were here, I’d say to you “I got it”.


Bernard Poolman at the Desteni Farm



Filed under All

Critical positioning just isn’t enough – comments on Patrick Henningsen’s post on the Occupy Movement

During my research on the internet I often read up on the latest political developments posted by the “Centre for Research on Globalization”. I generally see value in the posted insights, though as I found out today, this depends largely on the author who has contributed to the current edition.

When I read the recent post I realised that critical positioning towards world affairs just is not enough to make valid statements that will help us create a better future for all. The article I am talking about, titled “Here’s the Risk: “Occupy” ends up doing the bidding of the global elite” by Patrick Henningsen, makes this point.

The article starts out with a first promising sentence:  “History shows us it is easy for ‘grassroots’ campaigns to become co-opted by the very interests they are fighting against”. When I started reading here I was quite intrigued in finding out where the author would take this provocative phrase, and saw it as a great opportunity to expose a much overlooked point by those who are fighting on behalf of the Occupy Movement.  However when I read on, I saw that Mr. Henningsen simply gave us an overview of similar occurrences in our political history with a concluding paragraph that reads like this:

“When the dust settles and it’s all said and done, millions of Occupy participants may very well be given a sober lesson under the heading of “controlled opposition”. In the end, the Occupy movement could easily end up doing the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they were demonstrating against to begin with. To avoid such an outcome, it’s important for a movement to have a good knowledge of history and the levers of power in the 21st century.”

From the first line of this article to this concluding paragraph, the relevance of the issues that are being raised initially is entirely missed from the perspective that I am coming from –  namely, to create a viable future for all humans.  Moreover, the content and choice of words for this opening sentence already implies the issue that would need to be addressed if the author was going to write a bit more than a historical review. Mr. Henningsen’s choice of words then does not justify the concluding paragraph.

The dead give away of where this article should be taken is in the use of the word ‘co-opted’. To co-opt something means that that which is being co-opted is disconnected, in some shape or form, from the lived and shared reality. It means that not all aspects of the idea have been understood, or have been properly evaluated. To ‘co-opt’, in the case of the Occupy Movement, means that those who are part of the movement come to this movement to fulfill a reactionary role, which meets, in logical manner, with more reactionary control by those who are in charge of the money.

It means that Occupy movers have not understood that their reaction towards the global financial and political situation entails a form of aggression similar to the aggression that is being launched in the name of the global money markets. A co-opted act or idea states clearly that somewhere is a flaw where the idea or the act has not been pinned down, where it has been left ‘open’ so that it can be used against those who are acting on the idea. Thus, the outcome is all the same, it has no effect in containing the real issues, or bringing about changes that can be practical and useful for the population.

In the last paragraph, the author sums up the dilemma of the Occupy Movement of being one of lack of knowledge about similar historical situations as well as knowing the “levers of power in the 21st century”. Again, this is a missed opportunity to point out that just ‘knowing’ is not enough as the author himself demonstrates by having written the historical review. What is missing is common sense, or a practical solution that addresses the real underpinned issues of the bigger picture. This bigger picture tells us, first of all, that we are all in the same boat i.e. one planet. This common sense ‘knowledge’ would already take us back down to earth in grasping that any form of aggression will not resolve the situation. It would tell us that the Occupy Movement does nothing more but Occupy our time and common sense and in the end stifle the process of implementing a solution.

A solution that will help us all is based on the recognition, as I said above, that we are all in the same boat, hence all have to take part in this solution to be brought about equally. To scratch the word ‘co-opted’ and maintain an inclusive approach,  without anyone having to subscribe to emotional involvement such as aggression or anger –  it simply means each person has a voice to contribute… and that translates to democratic means: “one man, one vote”.

I am one vote for an Equal Money System!

Get your facts straight and be part of the solution – stop wasting precious time and bring about a peaceful change –

Joins us!


Filed under Equal Money

How will pollution and protection of the environment work in the Equal Money System?

Many aspects of pollution in the environment are known facts, there is no mystery that basic pollution hinges on how we conduct ourselves within the economic system, what we create and maintain through our participation. With known factual information on the one hand, we notice that on the other hand that we have lost our common sense.  Thus, the guidelines that common sense offers, in how to practically live in this world, have been overridden because we abide by consumerism and profit-driven behaviours. To illustrate this point we only have to go to some of the most banal aspects of our material world, such as the dimension of packaging. It is a ‘dimension’ because there are multiple perspectives that can be taken when looking at how we deal with packaging and why.

From a common sense point of view packaging should only be done when necessary, when the circumstances are such that a practical solution will necessitate the packaging of an item. However we are so challenged through our habits within a capitalistic system that we can no longer decipher when something really needs to be packaged and when not. Through habitual acceptances we no longer question the incentive and no longer use common sense.

Extensive packaging is done on all levels of consumption. The multidimensionality of this challenge is easily seen all around us, and the types of manifestations of this phenomenon range far and deep. I will illustrate this with two examples which pinpoint a mixture of careless action in handling procedures and seductive selling techniques. Clearly this is just one aspect under the topic of pollution and protection that would change in the approach to what is best for all in the Equal Money System.

Observation for the packaging phenomenon in our societies can be readily collected when entering a grocery store. I often see William’s Christ pears wrapped in plastic bras to keep them from getting bruised. I ask myself how would this piece of fruit need to be packaged if the transport was not about getting these fruits rapidly from A to B? Because the paying customer at location B is eager to have these pears and will go to the competition if they do not get here on time. What if there could be an improvement in the method of getting these pears to the consumer a tad slower but with less packaging because the people in the middle will not have to rush so much? That way they can conduct their actions with a little more care of the content rather than wrapping the content into ‘bullet proof’ packaging so that they can throw it around.

Similarly, when I walk by the displays of plastic wrapped apples in packs of four, I ask myself whether this heavy shrink wrap is necessary because the population is unable to count to four, and therefore cannot be trusted in picking out four apples from a heap of apples, or is that the seller wants to be sure that all apples find a shopping baskets so that they can avoid being left with unwanted and damaged apples for which they incur the cost?  Then what about those new age products where sage leaves are wrapped more elaborately and costly than the monetary value of the sage leave itself? Where the content matters so little because the seduction of the packaging is what sells in an ever growing and competing market.

This small window into a sliver of our packaging dimension paints a grim picture. We don’t care that plastic is polluting the oceans and killing sealife, we have entire plastic islands floating around in the Pacific Ocean that are a result of our lost common sense.  The bottom line is that we have accepted something so absolutely stupid that we rather insist on our limitations instead of changing our approach; or else why wouldn’t we just collectively stand up and say ‘stop’ by voting for an Equal Money System where such stupidity is cured forever.

Let me now explore this topic from the perspective of the Equal Money System. The first rule in the Equal Money System is that we do what is best for all. We know that the Equal Money System spells the end of behaviour for profit. In other words we do not need 100 consumer products, or materials as building blocks for products, that are identical in what they do but are produced with varying overhead costs, which supposedly regulate price, planned obsolescence and general effectiveness for a larger margin of profit. None of that.

We further know that in an Equal Money System, we make the best possible products and materials because they will last a life time and therefore we do not need new versions or better design. Right from the start this will reduce much pollution, waste, and energy use because what happens in our capitalistic system is that the multiplications of consumer products with different, ever cheaper production methods and materials causes much waste, pollution and use of energy.

We are also not in a rush in an Equal Money System, because we no longer need to compete, which means we can investigate the best production methods with the least waste production, or we can make sure that the waste we produce can be easily integrated into existing eco systems as food for living organisms. Only after all this has been established then the consumer product, or material for the creation of a product, enters into circulation. Even before this cycle of investigation has begun which entails all steps from creation to decomposition or deterioration of the product, investigations will be conducted that evaluate if the product is even necessary at all.

Protection of the environment will be a build-in mechanism in the sense that we do not create products for consumption that then require us to protect the environment. By having the starting point of what is best for all before we begin with a production cycle or even with the selection process of putting a product or material into circulation, we know that it is necessary and we know that the ingredients have gone through rigorous testing on interactions with the environment.

Many solutions we have in our high-tech world are quite low tech. Let me whip out my latest example that left me flabbergasted standing in our kitchen next to the washing machine. We were trying to hook up a washing machine, and as we already had many problems with water and plumbing we were careful to conduct research to be sure we were not jeopardising a successful connection. However, one little glitch happened anyway, so that we ended up needing a plumber to come and fix it. To connect a washing machine one may not solely rely on the DIY products that are being sold to tighten the connection between the tubes of the water system with those of the washing machine. Professional plumbers use strings of hemp – yes, basic hemp that has been around for hundreds of years to make the connection so tight that no water escapes. It was a remarkable sight to see the tubes of one of our modern machines wrapped in stringy, hairy, brown hemp threads.

To summarise, three main guidelines can be put forth that will make pollution a non-issue in the Equal Money System:

Simplicity – we do not reinvent the wheel. We can use ingredients from nature that do the job and have done the job for centuries. My example here was hemp used in tightening water connections because the hemp swells up from the humidity and creates a water proof connection. There are plenty of other examples of this nature. The waste is minimal because the hemp is a perfectly integrated bio-organism that will deteriorate as food for living organisms in existing eco systems.

Need – money in the Equal Money System is not an issue. When the need for a product or material has been identified and approved as what is best for all, it will be created. It will be created from the best and most efficient production methods that integrate in the environment without polluting it.

Research – extensive testing from the creation cycle and the deterioration cycle of a particular product before it goes into circulation. As it is the only product of it’s kind because we no longer have product multiplication, how the product unfolds in use by the community can easily be monitored and any effects can be recorded and immediately be dealt with. Though this is not to say that there should be any effects at all because the more care has gone into researching the above mentioned cycles the less it is necessary to monitor the product. Monitoring will be done by those who use the product, a form of feedback in what they experience, which puts this responsibility of ongoing care for what we have created into the hands of the individual.

Finally, with these guidelines the protection of the environment from the point of pollution is not necessary because – in common sense- it is taken as a precaution that we do not pollute the environment in the first place by having procedures and mechanisms in place before we create anything that can pollute our world.

For additional information on the topic of Equal Money and much more, visit http://www.equalmoney.org and http://wiki.destonians.com/Equal_Money_System


Filed under Equal Money

A threesome: Equal Money is the only solution!

In this post I am discussing three viewpoints of the Equal Money System in relation to anarchism, resource-based economy and gold standard.

Equal Money System is not Anarchism.
The word “anarchism” is an umbrella term which groups political and religious thought (such as Christian anarchism) in a number of traditions. These are underpinned by the basic idea that societal structuring of individual and collective human relations can function in the absence of a centralised authority.

In the last two hundred years, the various movements of social or collective anarchism have, in their essence, dealt with the distribution of labour and the role of property. This does not compare to an Equal Money System because the main focus here is neither material nor economical. Both of those aspects are merely necessary within the practical concerns of life. Equal Money’s main focus is on living beings with the central idea to uphold, support and assist all that is living, in equal ways through taking measures in the physical world that are born from self-responsibility.  Thus, how aspects such as labour, ownership, and property are dealt with from the social and collective stance is determined through the application of the principle of equality, to achieve the common goal in establishing what is best for all.

Historically, individual anarchism has strongly supported ego-based human relations (see Max Stirner). Here, individuals are encouraged to will themselves through their ego to form and cultivate a union in the interaction with others while freely following one’s desires. Supporters of this approach are convinced that conflicts and suffering can be tackled and resolved if this union is maintained. From the perspective of an Equal Money System, the human ego is not a viable path to be trusted in creating a better world that includes everyone. The reason being that the human ego operates on the basis of thoughts and the mind in general. Desteni research clearly shows that the mind works in ways that keeps people separated from each other through mechanisms of deception and abuse. This is done through feelings and emotions which trigger manipulation and sabotage of Self and others, always promoting only one thing: the perceived benefit through self-interest.

When tracing various developments of anarchistic thought and action, it becomes evident that these movements have acted through opposing established systems. As part of a reactive manner, the movements have utilised abuse, such as violent acts against those who do not support their ideas, and other ‘anti’ stance  activities such as general strikes.  In an Equal Money System, abuse, of which violence is one form, is eradicated through the elimination of ego-based interactions between people, animals and the environment. Abuse has no place in the principle of equality and the achievement of a society in which everyone acts in the best interest of all. This is accomplished through new forms of education and a life-coaching process that Destonians have taken on in self-responsibility to purify themselves from the ego-based mind. The DesteniIProcess forms the basis of this process through the practice of self-forgiveness.

Some traditions of social anarchism will form their ideas incorporating concepts of mutuality, reciprocity, and voluntary action, yet the basic notion of “earning a living” still holds true even in the face of proposed currency reforms. In an Equal Money system, money is not regarded to be on equal footing with life, it is purely seen as an organisational tool which cannot be used or abused to equate a person’s ability and capacity to perform work with their living requirements.  Thus, an Equal Money System spells the end of poverty because everyone is equal taken care of on the basis that they are a living being.

The Equal Money System is not a resource-based economy.

The concept of a resource-based economy is a recent development which looks at possibilities of getting around the use of money through declaring all resources of the planet as common heritage for all. Proponents of this approach are found in the Zeitgeist movement. Supporters state that besides money, credit, barter and any other system of debt or servitude would not exist in a resource-based economy. On the level of human relations this is achieved, according to Zeitgeist supporters, through more meaningful ways of relating to other people. From the Zeitgeist perspective this will emerge from the fact that the individual will no longer have to worry about keeping a job which greatly reduces mental and physical stress.

Several questions are prompted from this context. How will humans suddenly start to relate to and with each other in more meaningful ways when human nature has a track record that lays down centuries of abuse and self-interest, regardless of which economic system governs human relations? Without rigorous self-investigation and practise of self-honesty, how will those who form the government in a resource-based economy remain free from corruption? How will it be ensured that resources as common heritage stay common and are fairly distributed?

The resource-based economy, as proposed by Zeitgeist supporters, is strongly hinged on cutting-edge technologies produced in new and innovative ways. The idea is that through modern technology the environment can be better protected, the cities re-designed for improved living, and more effective transportation systems and industry plants can be build. However, technology is advocated without looking at the root of the current ways we apply and implement technology and what that means in the face of a new type of economy. It is unlikely that newly designed cities will get rid of abuse, that by living in these cities we suddenly know how to decide and act from the starting point of what is best for everyone.

Changing the way we interact in the world is not a material procedure, the process for a better world does not start with creating a better exterior but rather starts with us, and who we are as people, what we have allowed and accepted to exist in the world – it has to start with the realisation that we are all responsible, and that only if we take responsibility we can make changes. This is why the Equal Money System begins with the human and the process needed to transform human nature so that we can implement a system that supports everyone equally. All exterior and operational aspects are emergent from this process of transformation which is based on understanding how to decide and act from the starting point of what is best for all.

Why the gold standard will not work.
When humanity used gold as a standard for exchange of goods and services, as early as 600 B. C., the economic difference between people existed just the same as it does today. Poverty and fear of survival have underpinned our societies with or without gold standard. The change to gold standard from fiat currency does not change the fact that we put a price on life. It will not end abuse, nor will it stop corruption. Again, this is yet another approach where we look at the problem in separation of ourselves. The collective problem that we are faced with is not one that can be solved by making minor changes to the system we have created, which is what the return to a gold standard implies. To create a world where everyone is taken care of equally which is what Destonians are here to bring about, we must understand that the change begins with us, individually and collectively.

For additional information on the topic of Equal Money and much more, visit our store: http://store.desteni.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Equal Money

How those who hate what I do are helping me close doors

It’s an interesting experience when one can look back on oneself and see how the practice of Self-Forgiveness has taken effect and as a result definite changes in one’s behaviour are apparent.  When such change occurs in my life, most likely I don’t perceive it in detail, I may notice an aspect suddenly, out of the blue, that strikes me because I no longer RE-act in a familiar way to a familiar situation. Those are the moments I realise that I am here, and that this change is a manifestation of me in ‘hereness’. Moreover, it is clearly showing me that change is possible through forgiving oneself in what I have accepted and allowed to be in this world, who I have become through accepting and allowing myself to function from a place of ego.

Like I said, this is a momentarily occurrence, when I make myself “aware” that I am not reacting from emotion, I am not experiencing anger or guilt, and similarly I am not experiencing the ‘high’ of something beneficial that happened to me. I am just stable, here. Recently though, I saw a concrete development of a self-change. A situation where I was previously experiencing strong emotions, which changed over time and I began to see how the emotional charge was waning away enabling me to settle into stability.

In particular, this change was prompted by responding to those who hate what I do. I am talking about those, who go out of their way to attack Destonians by posting belligerent YouTube videos with fictitious content that in no way reflects what Desteni is about, or by leaving defaming and offensive comments on videos made by Destonians, which are videos where we document our process for the world to see.

In an attempt to clarify our position, Destonians have started to respond to these ‘hater’ videos by addressing the content directly. We do that by explaining and straightening out the misrepresentation of what we do, and who we are. When I first started to make these ‘response’ videos, I felt much resistance because I had previously conditioned myself to avoid conflict or disagreement with others. I considered it bad and exhausting, and when I was faced with a situation where conflict was brewing, I would simply walk away or pay no attention. Only if I had no other choice I would stand up to someone but under duress and much emotional charge inside of me. This charge I would try to contain with all my might. Well, who would want ‘to lose it’, if one could help it! With these ‘hater’ videos, I had to respond to statements that were made about my activities with Desteni, which were not only untrue but often quite difficult to decipher, because the ‘hater’ had little clarity why he or she was engaging in the act of making these types of videos in the first place. In some ways it was as if the person was dumping their emotional debris on us through the making of these videos.

Not only was I experiencing resistance to the task of making a video, but I was also experiencing anger, rage and backchat. This was in the beginning of this video-making journey. As I got into the making of these videos and used Self-forgiveness in the process, my emotional states ebbed away, and with each new ‘response’ video I made, I saw less resistance within myself and a calmer demeanor. I could suddenly hear the ‘hater’s’ fears, or their anger, their insecurity and confusion. Increasingly I saw them as who they were, the self-programmed being that was so layered by their accepted and allowed beliefs that they had no access to their ‘real’ self. It gave me the ability to see more clearly that I am one of the self-programmed beings because the statements that were being made were in essence all similar, maybe with varying emphases but made from the same belief components. I realised that it is through my interaction with the world around me I could understand my opportunities for self-change as all is one.

Over the course of several weeks, I came to enjoy producing these ‘response’ videos because now I was making them from a point of stability and support. When I had no emotional charge and reaction towards the process of video-making, the ‘hater’s’ words where simply outlining to me the world I exist in, and the world I have accepted and allowed to exist within me. Through my gained clarity I could see beyond the veil of emotions, I could see how I was blinded by them, and how emotions and feelings paralised me. I could see what had obviously been right in front of me all along – but I was unable to see because of memories, emotions and feelings. I could see because I had changed a world within me.

The other day I met a colleague, who I perceived as quite argumentative and competitive. He often invites me to come along but I mostly decline because I have labelled my interactions with him as ‘hard work’. I only realised this recently because I am now looking to understand my protective stance of my ‘alone’ space. Though this is another issue beyond the point that I am making here. What is relevant to the point I am making here is that when I met this colleague recently for a little walk he had invited me to, I accepted without a second thought. During this walk we came to a moment where I stated that he was limiting himself on a particular issue, which, as expected, set him off to a heated and accelerated manner of speaking. He did not only cut me off in mid-sentence but also was visibly angry. As I see it, there are two perspectives here that have been the result of the support I gave myself through the making of the ‘response’ videos I described above.

The first one is that I spoke about what I saw in his statements, meaning his self-imposed limitations. I do recall a time when these types of observations would have had to stay in my mind, because I was too afraid of making the person angry and being rejected. In those days, I would gently knot my head, and let the person continue talking, merely listening without honest participation. What I was really observing would be kept locked away in my secret mind. Now this was different, I gave him my perspective of what I perceived as fearful and self-limiting behaviour. Furthermore, while he was shouting and cutting me off, I remained relatively calm. There were some moments where I was making my point stronger than in other moments, but it was not from a place of angry or fearful behaviour. I could also see that I could actually listen to his words and respond, where I would previously just turn off. I mean ‘shut down’, wrapped up in my emotions with an unresponsive, blank mind. That was the past now. I was able to continuously point out to him the dimensions of the point I was making, illustrating it clearly and directly to him.

When I went home that day, I realised that I had created a sliver of heaven on earth for myself, because I always wanted to be able to be fearless in the face of conflict, and concentrate on the issue at hand. In the situation I had experienced I spoke and conducted myself from a place of certainty, a place of shared existence because all the way through the conversation, I did not see him as an antagonist in separation of me. No, I merely saw his ego, as I can sometimes see my own ego, and that was all. Beyond that, I knew and experienced us as one. I could walk through the points he was making, stating what I saw, the fears and conditionings, yet I was stable inside. Eventually our conversation calmed down because we changed subjects, and I had truly changed something within myself. Thank you, to all those who hate what I do because it allowed me to close this door and keep it shut.

1 Comment

Filed under self-forgiveness