I talked a little bit about gaslighting the other day, simply because Nicole brought it up as though people are doing it to her.
Somebody pointed out to me in the midst of all the hoopla about this incident yesterday that this is a good example, and that person was right. It’s awesome, beautiful and perfect.
We have here Nicole’s little synopsis which she placed on her Blessed Little Homestead page. I’m not sure why she did this. The original video was posted on her other page with fewer people involved. She decided to open it up to the big guns.
Let’s go back over the details.
Nicole, for some reason, came up with some crap about how there was a “rumor” that she was tying dogs outside the shop. So she posts a short video of the neighbor’s shop.
Nobody has ever seen or heard such a rumor, but Nicole says that there was one.
When pressured about this, she makes the following very bizarre comment.
There are a few problems with all this right from the beginning.
First, with her video, she says:
The rumors about dogs being tied up outside my shop is bullshit. That is not my dog and that is not my business.
But that doesn’t stop people from trying to spread lies to damage my reputation and destroy my business.
Notice how she makes it clear that tying a dog up outside a business, if true, would “damage” the owner’s “reputation” and “destroy” the “business.” Why? I can see that if you left a dog tied up like that for endless hours daily, well, maybe that wouldn’t be such a great idea, but why would anyone think Nicole ties dogs up outside her shop? Her shop is set up to accommodate dogs on the inside.
However, her commentary, her words, on the post carry blame. “It wasn’t me doing this terrible thing. It was that business over there.”
Furthermore, she says quite clearly:
The people who need to know, know. And no not everything has to happen on Facebook.
So the rumor, she implies, wasn’t on Facebook. And it’s a secret rumor (to quote a friend of mine).
If that’s the case, why post the video to Facebook at all? Furthermore, what does the video prove? It doesn’t prove that she isn’t tying dogs outside her shop. It simply shows that a neighbor did do that for six seconds.
Let’s assume that there is a rumor going around my neighborhood that my cow got out and ate a neighbor’s corn. Almost none of my neighbors are on Facebook. And let’s further suppose that I have a video that shows my cow happily grazing in her pasture.
That video would not prove that Frances didn’t eat the neighbor’s corn.
But let’s suppose that I had a video that clearly shows another neighbor’s steer in the cornfield, eating away. And this proves that the damage to the cornfield was caused by that steer, not by Frances.
What good would it do for me to post that video to my Facebook page? The more reasonable thing for me to do would be to take the video to the neighbor who owns the field and show it to him, or show it to other neighbors so everyone would know that Frances didn’t do it.
None of this makes any sense to me.
But regardless, that’s what she did. She took video of the neighbor’s shop and then posted it to Facebook, to refute a rumor that wasn’t on Facebook.
And then an evil troll shared the video with the shop owner.
The shop owner, who was sitting in her shop minding her own business, was quite naturally a bit offended by this. It’s not just that the video was made and posted. It’s the whole implication:
But that doesn’t stop people from trying to spread lies to damage my reputation and destroy my business.
The implication made was bad. If Nicole doesn’t see that, it’s indicative of her inability to see anything from anyone else’s point of view.
The shop owner then followed the link over to Nicole’s page and objected.
At this point, Nicole could have diffused the entire thing.
At this point, she could have said, “I’m sorry. I was trying to correct a rumor and so I made the video. I didn’t mean to offend you. I will remove the video right now.”
But no. Of course she didn’t. She still hasn’t. The video remains.
She proceeded to argue with the woman, explaining how the woman was wrong and bad and awful.
And at some point, she marched over to the woman’s shop.
It turned into a verbal of the altercation when I went to clear things up. . .
She means “verbal altercation,” which is #unschooling for you, but no matter. What Nicole doesn’t bother explaining is that Joe went over there too and went off on the woman. Nicole makes it sound like the verbal altercation just happened right out of the blue. “It turned,” she says. Well, who turned it?
The woman appears to have been a bit hostile, but I don’t blame her. Nicole can’t see it, apparently, but that video and the accompanying verbiage was derogatory and insulting to the shop owner.
And Joe called the woman a “cunt” and who knows what else.
I have seen Joe and Nicole in action via videos they took and posted online. When I just did a brief search, she appears to have scrubbed them except for one here.
This is a very edited audio of their encounter with Sheriff Pate when the children were removed. Naturally, she is upset. Anyone who listens to it would be quite tempted to give her the benefit of the doubt because, hell, her children were being taken away.
But in the other videos, no children were being taken away. In one, she and Joe were stopped by a police officer because they didn’t have seat-belts on the kids. In another, she recorded the aftermath of the Blessed Little Vehicular Assault (the fender bender that bent no fenders). And there was yet another where she got into it with a landlord.
In all these vids, she is aggressive and screechy just like she is in the Pate audio. She gets really manic when she’s upset, and starts talking loudly and rapidly. Her voice, already shrill, gets more so.
I have met Joe in person when he was riled. He does much the same thing. He, of course, isn’t shrill like Nicole, but he talks rapidly when he’s all upset and becomes argumentative in the extreme. Beer calms him down.
Nothing seems to calm Nicole down.
At any rate, I have a pretty good idea of what it was like when Joe and Nicole went over to that woman’s shop and confronted her. They will tell it that they simply wanted to explain, but that’s not what they do.
So anyway, the woman reacted negatively and Joe got hostile as hell, and the woman called the police. Joe and Nicole went back to their little hidey-hole and that was that.
Except then the woman’s significant other came on the scene, and he was not happy when he found out what Joe had said to her. Apparently he marched over to their place and raised holy hell. He demanded Joe apologize. Joe appears to have declined to do so. The guy then told Joe that if he didn’t, Joe would find himself in the parking lot bleeding. (That is the supposed “death threat.” Nicole always minimizes anything that makes her look bad and exaggerates anything anyone else does.)
This time Joe and Nicole called the police. The officer came, listened to their recording (they record everything), and decided that it wasn’t a death threat, even though Nicole was in the background telling the officer that it was “terroristic threats” or at least “menacing” and demanding that he arrest the man immediately. Here’s the link, although I have no idea how long it will remain.
This is an example of Joe and Nicole but much more calm than they generally are. Toward the end, when the policeman obviously is not doing what Nicole wants him to do, she gets a bit more agitated.
But notice this recap. The rumors were started on Facebook this time, and with her property manager. She can’t get this straight.
And notice that she never mentions what Joe said to the woman.
So this is part of her conversation with the shop owner on the BLH page, where the story migrated. I cannot post the whole thing because I don’t have it all. She has deleted most of it. There is enough here, though, to get the idea.
I did nothing to you.
But yes, Nicole did do something to the woman. The woman was just running her business without any idea who Nicole even was. That video did not record and post itself.
Please consider what Nicole would have done had anyone made such a video of her business and posted it anywhere. She would have had a complete shit fit.
She has hysterics over this.
This is a single still photo taken of the neighbor’s property looking down (up?) the dirt road toward the Shithole. The Blessed Garden Shed is in the distance under the red arrow. I didn’t take the photo. Nicole has absolute hysterics over stuff like this.
Yet she insists that she did “nothing” to that woman.
So you admitted you had no problems with me at all ever, then this page shared my video to your page and all of a sudden we have an issue.
Nicole likes to do this. It’s very typical gaslighting stuff. She uses the word “admitted.” She says it like she’s in a court room and her victim is trying to weasel out of something, hide the truth, and Nicole as Perry Mason is putting a laser on the Real Truth. “You admitted. . . ”
And of course the woman had no problem with Nicole before. She barely knew Nicole was there.
But then Nicole made the god-damned video. This isn’t about Cosmic sharing the post. This is about Nicole, who made the video in the first place.
A hallmark of gaslighting, the very definition of the term, is that the abuser tries to alter the reality of what actually happened. It’s not about just outright lying. It’s about trying to convince this victim that what she experienced is not what she experienced. It’s about using language (“you admitted”) that puts blame on the victim for what occurred, or (“the page shared the video”) language that puts blame on some outsider.
I didn’t say anything about you in my video.
And no she didn’t. But she implied that the victim had done something wrong.
. . . lies to damage my reputation and destroy my business.
If the “lie” that Nicole tied a dog outside her shop would “damage her reputation and destroy her business” is true of Nicole, why would it not be seen as bad for the victim to do the exact same thing? And I know that the victim doesn’t run a dog-grooming business, but it’s clear that Nicole is saying “It’s not me who did this wicked thing. It’s her.”
And she continues with the stuff about how she was being so reasonable and the victim was just so unreasonable, without addressing the Big Issue, which is Joe calling the victim every horrible name you can conceive of (apparently “cunt” was just part of it).
I think I need to ban you from my page.
The victim made a huge mistake, of course, by going to Nicole’s page. She gave Nicole control. Nicole then bans her. By doing so, all of the victim’s arguments disappear and the only thing remaining is Nicole’s twist on the story.
I make nasty witches disappear.
This is a stab at the victim’s business (which is a sort of Wiccan shop, I think). But the heart of it is the “nasty” thing. Nicole is powerful and can make bad people go away with a simple click.
Except here. She can’t do that here.
And here’s an account of what happened written by the victim.
Throughout the entire exchange(s), Nicole never acknowledged (“admitted”) that Joe actually said this stuff, yet it is entirely in character for him to have done so. The victim didn’t know Joe. She didn’t make this up.
Nicole is doing here what she’s done to me repeatedly.
. . . considering we’ve never had any words.
She says that she’s never met the victim, doesn’t know her, so why is the victim all pissed off? She totally glosses over the thing that pissed off the victim in the first place: the video and the implication in the video that the victim had done something that was somehow wrong.
She also recounts the event and apparently does so by inventing details, including words that were never spoken. This is not unusual for Nicole. Just look back at her various accounts of the Great Nonexistent Rumor. Look back and see where she repeatedly says that I rode to Breck County for the sole purpose of taking photos of her shithole property when I did not do either thing. This has become her narrative and sometimes I wonder if she has convinced herself that it’s true.
To gaslight, you just repeat the false statement over and over and over again. Even if the victim knows it’s not true, s/he can get worn down by the endless repetition and the knowledge that other people believe it.
See the gaslighting? Nicole didn’t do anything at all. The victim is the one doing the harassing. Nicole is the victim. The victim is the aggressor.
This occurred entirely because for once, Nicole and Joe ran into two people who simply weren’t going to put up with their bullying bullshit quietly. But of course, the locals just love her. Everyone who meets Joe loves him. Right?
In addition, during these arguments with the victim, Nicole totally lies.
And before Nicole can claim that Joe never, ever uses the word “cunt”:
I am really sorry that the victim got dragged into this. She was entirely innocent. She was a victim of Joe and Nicole’s bullying from start to finish. The result seems to have been four visits from the police in two days,
some sort of bullshit the following morning after police visit #3 and some sort of detente after police visit #4. I bet the Radcliff police department just loves the name Naugler.
Oh, we are so happy that you’re feeling better and we can hardly wait for the “update.”