Dragana's Poison

  posted by Ian Myon-Wright, Tuesday, July 15, 2003

June 10, 2003 was not a good day for me. After not having seen each other for 6 months I arranged to have lunch with a friend that I've known for almost a decade. As Juan Malsamico and I lived on different continents and only got together about twice a year, I was looking forward to seeing him again. We met in an upmarket shopping complex and secured a table at a trendy lunch spot.

Juan was introverted at the best of times, but on that Tuesday he seemed particularly uncomfortable. It was a fine, sunny day, I was glad to be home, and decided to get the conversation going with a general ice-breaker.

"So...how's it going Juan"?
"Problems".
"Oh? What's up"?
"Dragana".
"What's happening"?
"She doesn't like you".
"Huh...she doesn't know me! Only met once a year and a half ago"!
"I've told her everything - thinks you're a bad influence - has told me to choose between her and you".
"He-he....sounds like most of my friend's wives and their mothers"!
"We fight badly every time you come back...tough decision...she does not want me to see you again".
"But I don't understand. I live on a different continent and only see you every 6 - 9 - 12 months. We communicate by e-mail - what influence can I have on you"?!
"She thinks you have the potential to influence me - does not want me to communicate with you. She knows everything we've done in the past... difficult decision".
{pregnant pause�uncomfortable silence}
"OK - I'll fuck off and leave you alone then"!
"OK - thanks".

Never in my life had I been involved in such a bizarre interaction with someone I had regarded as a close friend. I was shattered, and the rest of the lunch was a strange, uncomfortable ballet of pleasantries and small talk. I really didn't want to be there but resolved to stick it out�and to pick up the tab!

Juan and I had met via the internet in the mid-90's, sharing a common interest in dual-sport motorcycles. Over the eight years online we had got to know each other well. We regularly met "IRL" (in real life) and had ridden through eight countries together. We had done a lot of the usual "male bonding" stuff, and had shared a whole lot of fun experiences. However, between the confrontation and the pleasantries of our lunch, I used the opportunity to correct some of the misconceptions that his fiancé, Dragana Agnos Netter, may have developed about me or inaccuracies that may have been communicated to her about me:

• Not being able to tolerate cigarettes, I have had limited experience with psychotropic weeds. In fact I had never shared a joint with anyone on the continent�until Juan visited a couple of years ago, smuggling drugs into the country inside a bottle of liquor, much to my surprise. We were staying with an old friend of mine that night and all became so obnoxious that (three years later) I have yet to be invited back by my friend and his wife.
• Apparently Juan had visited a "house of ill repute" before he came over to my country on holiday a few years ago. However the first time in my life I ever went into one when we decided to pay a visit to the cat house close to where I stay. But I had less guts that he did - while he was busy with an accommodating young babe in a private suite, I watched a movie in the cinema downstairs!

• Believe in God (or "Christian values"), reincarnation, alien abductions, possession by entities, inner children, Primal Pains, directing your "Chi" through energy "Chakras", channelling, quantum connections to hyperspace, miracles, or any other metaphysical, religious or pseudoscientific notion.
• Engage in vegetarianism/veganism, total disclosure of one's past, denial of history, sexual repression, pacifism, coffee abstinence, alcohol avoidance, changing one's appearance or strenuous physical exercise.

In Juan's words on June 10, I found a common thread back to NAT's:

• One common thread in all NAT's is the belief that a person having problems is not likely to be responsible for those problems. Gee - I was clearly the source of all Juan's "problems"!
• Another thread is the belief that the cause of a problem is some traumatic or illicit past event, such as being seriously assaulted in a previous lifetime, having previously engaged in "forbidden" sexual escapades, or being sexually abused as a child (the latter being the repressed memory therapists' "one-size-fits-all" explanation of every emotional disorder). Both illicit sex and childhood sexual abuse is not only the cause of most problems, according to these therapists, it is the cause around which their lives revolve! "Yes! Myon-Wright dragged you kicking and screaming into a brothel and forced you to debase yourself! Oh the guilt, the guilt...SHAME...you poor bunny"! The more I think about it, the more I realise that NAT's are more cults than science. This makes me even sadder as Juan is a B.Sc graduate who should not be falling for such quackery. But Dragana probably has him (sexually) wrapped around her little finger and, in those circumstances, it's amazing how rational though gets thrown out with the bath water!
• A third common thread in all NAT's is the belief that the afflicted person must discover the cause of his problem to be helped. This "insight" approach to psychotherapy and counselling is very old, but has never been scientifically tested or validated. Nor does there seem to be any clear idea as to what it really means to be "helped" by psychotherapy. The only common thread regarding cure seems to be that the patient believes he knows what caused her problems...believing you know who or what harmed you in the past is the cure! The quality of the patient's life, the interaction of the patient in significant social settings (such as with his or her family, friends, and co-workers) is irrelevant. Having the patient trust the therapist or counsellor is all-important. To gain this trust one of the common tactics of the therapists is to turn the patient against the patient's family and/or friends. This is done by leading the patient to believe that the cause of the patient's problems is a family member(s) or close friend(s). The family or friend cannot help the patient because the family/friend is the cause of the patient's problems. One or more family members or friends "abused" the afflicted person and is now either a liar or in denial. The other family members or friends are deluded or in conspiracy to protect the "evil" family member or friend. Of course, this demand that the therapist be trusted by the patient has its corollary: the patient puts all her faith in the therapist in return. The patient has been persecuted; the therapist is his saviour (Carroll, R.T., "The Skeptics Dictionary", 2002). Carroll certainly hit the nail on the head here...Dragana clearly pinned all Juan's "problems" on one Ian Myon-Wright! "It's either HIM or it's ME"!!
• The most appalling thread holding these therapies together is the profound lack of interest in truth or accuracy. Neither the afflicted person nor the therapist or counsellor is to be concerned with facts or tangible evidence that the "believed cause" actually happened. To quote Carroll once again: "In fact, whether the 'believed cause' is the real cause is irrelevant to the therapy. The patient creates truth and it is as real to the patient as facts are to the sceptic. That's all that matters". Agreed, and I refer to the two misconceptions that I tried to clarify with Juan during our peculiar lunch. What also astounded me was Dragana's total lack of interest in corroborating "evidence", her lack of concern for the friendships she was trying to poison and the impact on others involved. Quite frankly, the lunch incident ruined the rest of my holiday and is still worrying me a month later. That's why I wrote this piece.

According to the website, Dick Management is a "new way of looking at the New Age and spiritual proposition that your genitals are connected to the life force energy of the soul and that sexual activity consumes some of this energy". Apparently redirecting sexual energy to "discover your more spiritually enlightened, evolved self puts the philosophy of the past 2,500 years and the more recent discoveries of modern psychology into an entirely new context". It claims to tap into the ethical and spiritual wisdom of Aristotle and Plato and eastern wisdom and to put them into the context of modern physics but, quite frankly, it is just a syncretic blend of new-age psycho-babble peppered with ancient-age Judeo-Christian dogma. Dragana got Juan onto this trip about a year ago, and he had been sprouting this evangelical mumbo-jumbo the last time we had met for lunch..."You must read it". Sad.

So, Juan and Dragana are basing their lives and relationships on a conservative, moralistic diatribe, mixed with some new age vernacular, delivered in a profoundly arrogant and absolutist style. The book's "facts" and "philosophies" are a scattered, incoherent grab-bag of a little Freud, a little Aristotle, a little Chi, a little Tao. It implies that male sexuality is evil while female sexuality is all good and noble - oh, give me a break! It also condemns virtually the entire field of psychology as an evil force because it has not unified behind O'Reilly's moral principles. The book concludes that masturbation is bad, and that lusting after beautiful women makes you the moral equivalent of Hannibal Lecter. I agree with one reader who said: "I make NO apologies for having a penis and make NO apologies for enjoying having it. I do not exploit, manipulate, or coerce ANYONE - in this process"...yeah, even Juan! O'Reilly is superstitious, morally pretentious and considers masturbation wrong and sex bad-bad-bad... unless, of course, it's with your wife! This places him in the same leagues as the sexually repressed notions that were debunked 40 years ago.

I can not believe that educated people can swallow this brazen, Christian-tainted, moralising unless, of course, they are hugely insecure, feel threatened by people and situations and/or have no value system of their own. I know that this is not true of my friend, and I can only assume that Dragana has projected her own inadequacies and made them Juan's too.

So. Dragana doesn't know me, but she hates me. I guess because she feels I exude negative FIKI (Fuck-It Kill-It) energy...another of those cool DICK Management buzz-words. She doesn't want Juan to see me. OK, so I'm removed myself from his world, but I wonder if the calculating woman realises that:

• I bought the motorcycle jacket that she sees Juan wearing every day. I got it abroad and back to his country when I visited about four years ago.
• The Swarovsky crystal heart that Juan lovingly presented to her last Christmas was bought in Europe by yours truly. I handed it over to him on my visit in December.
• Most of the software running on her computer was probably bought by myself in the software markets of the east and passed on to Juan.
• The Russian dolls that Juan gave her for Christmas were bought by my wife and I and carefully transported back home for him.
• The framed motorcycle poster on the wall of their flat was a gift from my wife and I, carried back to him following our visit to the BMW museum about 5 years ago.
• The bottles of Polish vodka in their liquor cabinet were bought by my wife and I on trips to the country of origin.
• The radio-controlled aircraft that Juan bought (and is probably still in their flat) was bought from a dealer in SA that I introduced him to.

IAN MYON-WRIGHT
July 15, 2003