Part 5 of Susana Palmer's series of articles is titled ”#SheToo: 5. The Paradox of Polyamory” 🔗.
This theme is surprising and at the same time not really surprising. It is surprising because it deviates from the narrative so far,
which can be described in the style of “MISA, the school of the righteous and angels who live in endless love, pure eros and
in faithful polar couples”. At the same time, this image of the “world of angels” is unbelievable, especially in the context of
the decades of scandals that have accompanied MISA and, in order to give an appearance of objectivity and make the lie easier
to swallow, something slightly spicy had to be added, but light enough not to trigger revulsion. Moreover, polyamory covers
group sex, by creating confusion: the idea is intended to induce that at MISA there is actually no group sex, I mean a man with
several women at the same time and place, but that a person at MISA course has several lovers of the opposite gender in parallel!
It could be said that, since Polyamory at MISA was sporadically admitted publicly, by publishing announcements on the school's
pages, there was no need to hide it. 🔗
The impression that is intended to be created is that the "scholar" did his job, researched and found this information, which she
published "by virtue of the objectivity that characterizes a true scientist". But the evidence about the consumption of partners' urine
during lovemaking is also accessible on the MISA pages 🔗, but madam Palmer does not write anything about this. One could say
that she only follows the "official" MISA page and does not take into account other pages that have links to MISA, although they
take over the official announcements and positions of the movement. But if she bases her studies only on what MISA officially says
and does not look into other sources, this means that she is repeating MISA's opinions and only these, so she is propagandizing
the organization, which disqualifies her from the position of a scientific researcher!
There is another reason why this topic was "leaked": polyamory is actually widely practiced in today's society, many people have
parallel relationships. So, in this context, "MISA is just falling within normality, but they have a higher vision".
As usual, the article begins with a fundamental lie, which gives the direction that the narrative will follow:
quote: MISA women talk about experiments with multiple-partner relationships and what they believe they had to do with spirituality.
While MISA students are not obliged or pressured (and certainly not “forced”) to form polyamorous relationships, Bivolaru defends
and endorses polyamory in his writings.
Bivolaru supported polyamory from the first moments when he could freely express himself, not only through writing but primarily
through his behavior when, in the first months of 1990, like his main disciples, he appeared with several female lovers, who were
constantly changed, which gave rise to a similar behavior among the first students. Bivolaru had great interest in promoting polyamory.
But what did you think he would say: ”stay in a couple forever, until death do you part, like ordinary people with bigoted views?
And in that case, where did he find thousands of female lovers, whom he could change like socks, like a sexual obsessive?
Obviously, he promoted polyamory loudly, first of all to justify his own behavior, then to have a basis for selection and not to
encounter resistance from the myrrh-bearers, who needed to be indoctrinated to do it anytime, with anyone, without limits and
without prejudice! The "theorization" of this attitude came much later, after 25 years, because that's how it is at MISA: first it is practiced
and, when everyone is already bored, the esoteric justification appears, which however changes the way of proceeding, so that it can
be said that these are revelations in planetary premiere! In this context, the question arises: what value does the practice carried out
until then have, if the "new revelations" say something else?
Of course, MISA students are not physically forced to practice polyamory, but they are told that "normal" love is insufficient
and that it keeps them in a state of mediocrity, that jealousy is a poison that slowly penetrates the "closed couple", the only
chance for evolution being the approach of "special secret techniques" 🔗.
At the same time, they are also told that family relationships are "aberrant chains" 🔗 and that parallel love relationships are divine,
I quote from Bivolaru, "Answer to a question about homosexuality" – 2015:
We have all heard of either the god Indra, or the god Krishna, or the god Shiva. These gods are and remain for all of us formidable
models of multiple, parallel love relationships. The number of female lovers of Shiva is immense. The number of female lovers of
Krishna is also immense. In one of the ancient treatises describing the life of Krishna, it is mentioned that in his harem there were
over ten thousand female lovers, who were also his wives.
If you remain like the average person in a faithful couple, you are mediocre and you lose the chance of spiritual evolution; if you
engage in as many parallel love relationships as possible (open couple, polyamory), you become like gods! MISA followers are shown
both the good cop and the bad cop simultaneously. Isn't this a form of manipulation? Isn't inducing and maintaining the fear of spiritual
failure a form of subtle but very perverse psychological pressure?
Moreover, in order to instill in followers the idea that polyamory is something special, only for the "chosen ones", the special hearings
are secret and the selection is made by drawing lots. 🔗: "God decides who is the chosen one, who deserves such a special initiation!"
Initiations are also offered within special camps, such as "Shakti in Ecstasy", I quote from the program 🔗:
"The extraordinary grace of Maha Shakti manifested through two women united in mutual love and the powerfully transforming occult
effect of multiplicity in a polyamorous Tantric threesome relationship"
Therefore there is great pressure on the students, because no one wants to be left out of Heaven and be eternally damned!
quote from article: Most of my informants had experienced “threesome” relationships that included another woman brought into
the conjugal relationship; a situation, in most cases, initiated by their husbands or male lovers. Several women had been involved
with two lovers during the same time period, and one young woman was in a polyamorous relationship for years with her five male
lovers who agreed amicably to share her.
"They amicably agreed to share her", as a tool used in common!
Although it is said that polyamory or open couple means complete freedom, things are not as everyone wants!
It is strongly recommended to maintain relationships with lovers of the opposite sex from ALL 12 zodiac signs, so the relationships
in three or six that are mentioned in the article are only a quarter, respectively half of what is minimally recommended!
Here it is necessary to emphasize another reason why Bivolaru gave the green light to the open couple: especially in courses in
small towns, where the proportion of students by gender is unbalanced, the closed (faithful) couple would leave some people out
and these people, feeling marginalized and frustrated, could abandon the yoga classes!
quote from article: Many of the women who experimented with polyamory spoke of struggling with jealousy; of how they learned
to control negative feelings, and claimed they were rewarded by reaching even higher spiritual states of ecstasy than is possible with
one lover. Some said they felt a deep love for the woman they had initially regarded as a rival.
N. spoke of her battle to conquer jealousy: “And you need to have a spiritual nature to overcome the jealousy, and to overcome with
this kind of resentment and anger. I think this is a very… sneaky problem, because it depends very much on your self-trust, your maturity.
First of all, jealousy comes from the fear of losing a source of satisfaction and reveals possessiveness, so the lover is not seen as
a human being who is loved for what he is, but is seen as an instrument that provides satisfaction, so in that couple there is actually
no spiritual love, but only sexual attraction. In this case, it is not about a spiritual transcendence of jealousy, but about the fact
that jealousy is overcome by the perspective of greater satisfaction: "if he has more relationships, then I will do the same!"
On the other hand, the need to complete the relationship with someone else shows that there is no fulfilling love there, but only
unfulfilled sexual need. If love were endless then it would be fulfilling and there would be no need to "supplement" the relationship!
It turns out that both the rigid couple eroded by jealousy and the open couple struggling with jealousy represent two sides of
a single reality: the lack of love! The open couple is claimed to overcome jealousy, but at the same time, it does not achieve love!
Always running after new relationships shows that the love that completely fulfills has not yet been found!
Polyamory is a psychological trick that avoids blockage, but it also avoids fulfillment!
This about “reaching even greater states of ecstasy than is possible with a single lover” is self-deception!
In fact, it is about psychic liberation from the blockage generated by a relationship in which there is no fulfillment.
Obviously, a more varied gastronomic menu generates much greater satisfaction than the permanent consumption
of a single dish, but this has nothing spiritual, it is just about sensations and the mind's tendency to seek variation
and diversity. It is just a horizontal extension.
A person who has reached the stages of ecstasy, has gone far beyond erotic pleasures, no longer feels attracted by them and
can love anyone, because he is beyond attraction and repulsion! It is the same eternal deception from MISA, where sexual
pleasure is confused with love. Pure love has nothing to do with the physical, it is pure precisely because it is beyond the body
and sensuality! Maybe you didn't know, but polyamory also has protocols!
quote: M. described a negative experience with a lover who did not follow the protocols of polyamory:
“My lover at that time was [very insistent] about having other lovers and I couldn’t integrate such a perspective.
He just took the decision by himself that he wants to open up towards another woman, and then I was told that he had
already started another relationship. Later, I learned that this thing should not be done like this, I mean he should have
discussed it with me beforehand.”
MISA followers constantly violate the 10 fundamental rules of the Moral Code; expecting them to respect some poor rules
of polyamory, invented by a nobody like Bivolaru, is naivety!
quote: The same woman turned to Grieg for paranormal help in dealing with her emotional trauma after this experience:
“I noticed afterwards that I started having a blockage in my affectivity, so I went to speak with my spiritual guide, Grieg.
He was asking me if I thought that a person could love more beings, not only one. I said that as a concept, yes, I can
understand this thing, but in my heart, I felt unhappy about doing it. But then I received paranormal help.
While speaking with Grieg I felt the energies in my being becoming fluid. They started lifting upwards, and afterwards I could
open up in love and affection towards another man without having any trauma remaining from my previous love relationship.”
About the Great Paranormal Scanner Bivolaru, who claims to see into the human soul like an X-ray, it is said that he noticed and
eliminated the blockage in the soul of that traumatized female student, but he was not able to see the disgust and trauma in the
souls of some of the women brought to him for "sexual initiation", who felt abused and then put the police on his trail!
How he sees a lot of things, but only what is necessary, he does not see?
Continuing the article, a new surprise appears: a student leaks a story from which it results that it is about group love!
quote: Another woman (T.) tried polyamory only once, but she claimed it propelled her into a higher spiritual state.
“My third relationship was with a man 15 years older than me, and he was a yoga teacher. At the beginning of the relationship,
when we were just trying to discover each other, he told me that he also had another lover, and they had been together for a while.
I was in love with him, and he introduced me to his lover. They were living together at the time, but he was very mature.
He knew how to treat the relationship with such harmony and equilibrium that I did not feel any discomfort.
I was not open towards women, so it was just one time, a very well-integrated spiritual moment in our lives.
He asked me if I wanted to be together with them, and I didn’t have anything against the idea, so just did it once.
I was used to having a man during a lovemaking [but now] it was also [with] a woman, and this enriched the amorous interaction.
I felt during that amorous game that I was in a spiritually integrated context.
It is worth noting the attitude of the instructor, whom the inexperienced female student - as she describes herself! -
perceives as mature and balanced. In fact, he had been indoctrinated and practicing polyamory for a long time, which is
why he didn't even blink, as did his experienced lover who was willing to have a "threesome". They had long passed the limit
that the novice female student was encountering at that moment.
But this is not just about polyamory, but also about group love, and it is not clear that the author understood this.
The female student declares:
"I wasn't open to women, so it was just one time", a phrase that only makes sense if it is about love with another woman.
What other meaning can this phrase have? That she is a woman, but rejects simple interaction with other women?
If, by reduction to the absurd, this passage refers to the general attitude towards women in situations that do not involve intimate
physical contact, what would be the point of the phrase "it was just one time"?
If it were just about polyamory - relationships in parallel, not in the same place and time - the story would be more natural like this:
"I was not open to a relationship that also involved another woman".
Then she also states, I quote:
"I was used to having a man during a lovemaking [but now] it was also [with] a woman... I felt during that amorous game".
Does the "scholar" not understand the meaning of the expressions used at MISA, what exactly does "love game" mean?
What kind of research is she doing at MISA, if she has not even learned the basic language?
Does she not even understand "lovemaking", which in English means neither more nor less than "making love"?
However, the scholar is in total confusion, because she writes. without quoting the interlocutor but in her own words,
"she tried polyamory once". One could say that stupid Canada is confusing group sex with polyamory and that would be the reason
why she doesn't talk about group sex at MISA, but then she's also confusing the practice of drinking your partner's urine?
T.'s statement ends as follows: I felt during that amorous game that I was in a spiritually integrated context.
I was not considering him or her as individuals, but I felt an expansion of the consciousness. My approach was
from a universal angle, beyond the individual limit.”
A vague statement, as is the custom at MISA, which means anything and nothing. Whenever a limit, a taboo, is crossed, a kind of
psychic release occurs! The taboo is an imposed limit and creates a psychic tension, because one does not know what can happen
by violating it. But when the taboo is broken and the predicted negative consequence is not felt, the release of that tension occurs:
"See, nothing bad happened, it was just an unfounded threat!" The problem is that that release is felt as something euphoric, it is
an energy that escapes from its chains, like an explosion, and the immature associate it with something beneficial. This is also
the case with extreme sports or illegal actions, which are clearly not beneficial actions.
Another statement, I quote:
One woman rationalized an eight-year, long-distant polyamorous relationship with her lover:
“He has a lover there. And it’s normal for me to have a lover here. He cannot be jealous and ask me to not have anyone.
It’s normal. It’s common sense.”
This is how jealousy is overcome in MISA: through reciprocity!
"If he has another woman, it's normal for me to have another man, it's common sense."
This is how common sense is understood in MISA: "If he's a whore, then I am too. Only he has the right?"
In MISA, jealousy is not overcome or transcended, its roots are not pulled out, but are covered with dust!
But jealousy remains there: if there can be no reciprocity, if there can't be a response in the same way, then scandal, suffering
and trauma arise! Polyamory is the veil under which jealousy in MISA is hidden! And what follows reinforces this conclusion:
quote: S. spoke of guidelines needed to maintain a harmonious “threesome”:
“In threesomes, it’s very good for the women to know each other beforehand, to become friends. Otherwise, it doesn’t work.
And when we start a threesome, it’s very important to be in harmony and to practice yoga and sublimation a lot, because
the energies are very high. If the energy falls, it can give like possessiveness, jealousy, fights. Yes, that’s why I pay attention
to practice yoga and sublimate my energies before and after this kind of lovemaking, because it involves a huge quantity of energy.”
Here is another statement that proves that group sex is practiced inside MISA, right under the nose of Susan Palmer who either
doesn't understand or is being stupid! The crucial phrase is "before and after this kind of love", which only makes sense if it is
a shorter love encounter (a session) and would not make sense if it were referring to a long-term polyamorous relationship.
Then, there is talk of huge energies. In the case of polyamory, which consists of multiple parallel relationships in which love
encounters take place one after the other, only as a couple, the energies are about the same: instead of having 10 love fusions
with a single lover of the opposite gender, you have 5 fusions with two lovers of the opposite gender.
Perhaps the energies are higher in the case of polyamory, just like the sensations are higher in the case of a more varied meal!
But huge energies, amplified by the action of the Multiplication Principle, occur in the case of group sex, so a man with several
women AT THE SAME TIME, as Bivolaru said with his big mouth, as a synthesis and a crowning of what was said here (audio 🔗):
Tantric treatises mention that all these sexual positions are performed by human beings of the opposite sex and,
under certain conditions, two or even more women can unite intimately, lovingly, erotically with another man,
they can even make love to each other in different sexual positions that are classic, but those who have knowledge of
the mysterious Principle of Multiplication, know very well why this is done, what its meaning is and what immense,
rapid, mysterious effects it triggers within certain practices of the ancient Tantra system.
another quote:
M. spoke of her inner spiritual struggle in coming to terms with polyamory:
“I can tell you how I got away from jealousy, because I felt jealous, very jealous. I did long meditations, I made a retreat,
[Our threesome] lasted three years. He broke up with her last year, and I suffered a lot when she left because I really liked her.
She was bringing a lot of joy and happiness in my life, and it was hard for me when she left, because I got used to her,
and it was much easier… I’ll just say, when you are in a relationship with a man, but at the same time you have a very
complex life, you cannot offer him all that he wants. But if you do give him what he wants, you don’t give yourself time for
your independent life, your personal life. So, when another person comes along and is giving him exactly what you
cannot give, that can be very helpful… You feel you have more time for yourself. All 39 women I interviewed claimed
that the AEC techniques, acquired in MISA classes, helped maintain sexual attraction or “polarity” between them and their
lovers. Most were living in (or had lived in) marriages and/or intimate relationships that lasted between ten to twenty years.
People are very limited, they cannot fulfill themselves through a relationship with a single person of the opposite sex and then they
need diverse relationships with several people. Through polyamory you are happier just as, after a meal with several types of food,
you are more satisfied. But just as a very varied meal does not make you more spiritual, but only more satisfied in terms of taste
and you assimilate more nutritional elements, so polyamory does not make you more spiritual, but only more satisfied in terms of
sexual pleasure. By occupying themselves all the time with pleasures, MISA followers forget that they are as limited as before,
and if they also confuse orgasm with divine ecstasy, then there is no hope, because the dog does not leave the butcher shop!
This is the paradox of polyamory, which is talked about in the title: it is suggested that multiple ephemeral relationships would be
“more fulfilling” than a single stable relationship, as the “closed society” believes.
Another observation about a subtle manipulation: it is emphasized that ALL the 39 women interviewed are delighted with the continence
at MISA, so it is suggested that the 7 who filed complaints against Bivolaru and his acolytes are liars! And why are the media and
the police interfering in the happiness of MISA students? Leave them alone, to practice polyamory as and when they want!
Finally, as this 5th part began with a lie, it was natural that it would also end with a lie:
quote: As for motherhood, most women said they had decided early on not to have children; and that this reflected a general trend
among the youth of Romania’s post-Communist period. Gregorian Bivolaru himself has no children and was never married, but he
does not condemn marriage. Although Bivolaru is a staunch proponent of semen retention, he does not ban procreation. In fact,
I was told that Bivolaru has accepted several requests by MISA couples to be their baby’s godfather, and that he graced several
christening ceremonies held in the Orthodox Church.
"I was told": here is the proof that the "researcher" works only with the information provided by MISA!
A real researcher would have said: "I researched and discovered that..."
"She was told that Bivolaru is a great godfather", but she was not told about another speech by Bivolaru, which was presented
in part 3 of the comments to these articles:
Ejaculation is permissible in such situations only once, only when the couple really wants to conceive a child. Even then, however,
both the man and the woman practicing yoga must know that such desires have nothing spiritual in them and such actions suspend
the continuity and cumulative effects of the constant, progressive and uninterrupted austerity that the two yogis should perform
without any interruption. In many cases, the satisfaction of such lower desires to have children causes the subsequent deviation
from the spiritual path of either one or both of them. In such situations, they play the treacherous game of the ego which pushes them
to act in this way. If they were to act wisely, they could adopt an orphan or an abandoned child who has no mother, no father, and
in this way they would be doing an extraordinarily good deed before God. (audio 🔗):
Bivolaru does not prohibit, but he does not promote, as is claimed. In reality, he discourages and blames the conception of children:
"You can conceive children by eliminating seminal fluid, but know that if you do this, the continuity of continence is over and you
will lose your spiritual achievements, throwing everything you have accumulated out the window".
Does this sound like encouragement, acceptance or blame?
This statement by Bivolaru and others like it are the reason why the women of MISA decided from the beginning not to have children,
and not at all the general trend in Romania and the West! The "birth rate" at MISA is much lower than the national one!
This article is about the benefits of polyamory. Is this an encouragement or a discouragement of marriage?
Bivolaru does not necessarily condemn the formal act of marriage, but he certainly does not look favorably on family
relationships, I remind you: ”Through lucid analysis we will become liberated from all the aberrant family chains which have
limited us in the form of silly prejudices in our amorous past.” 🔗
In conclusion, a new manipulative article. It is suggested that:
- MISA members have multiple relationships, but that's the modern way in the West
- MISA members only have heterosexual love, love between women is actually polyamory
- MISA members don't have group sex either, it's still polyamory, in fact
- MISA members don't get married much and don't have many children, but that's the trend throughout the West
- MISA members are excited about polyamory and continence, so the accusations against them are false
(to be continued)
Alternative Link:
ReplyDelete#ShitToo: The Paradox of Polyamory (5)
alternative articles links
ExMISA channel