Invicta: MA Counseling and Narcissist Support Groups

[Bresias]

Why am I not surprised? That Rick Ross is an EVIL man, responsible for the deaths of the Branch Davidians at Waco - at least partly responsible. Yeah, they were a cult - a Christian cult - but they were harmless until Ross and Reno started persecuting them.

I only know of Rick Ross as the name of his forum, but nothing about "the other side". Do you have any links, I'd be very interested to read more about this :)

 

[Guardian]

I only know of Rick Ross as the name of his forum, but nothing about "the other side". Do you have any links, I'd be very interested to read more about this :)

This is a link to his website,
_www.rickross.com
BUT I would not recommend visiting the site directly, he's running so much Malware that it won't even open for me.

Instead I'm using the google "site" call, and then reading the pages in google's cache
site:http://www.rickross.com

 

[Bresias]

I checked out Ross's site way back when I first "discovered" psychopathogy. In fact, his site WAS my introduction.

Eww, I can't access the site either.

 

[Guardian]

What's even more surprising is that it looks like "Invicta" MIGHT have actually been Barbara?

I do NOT have proof positive yet, still a ton of dumps to look through...but so far everything matches her pattern.

Same "Shalom" graphic:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040112033230/http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/copyrightsilly.msnw

Promoting the same Jewish authors:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030422152012/http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/booksspiritual1.msnw

Same statements about "FemFree" that she posted to our forum, and the whole "plagiarism" scam Camwell used with Womansavers, Lisa Scott's blog, etc.

 

[Bresias]

What's even more surprising is that it looks like "Invicta" MIGHT have actually been Barbara?

I do NOT have proof positive yet, still a ton of dumps to look through...but so far everything matches her pattern.

Same "Shalom" graphic:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040112033230/http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/copyrightsilly.msnw

Promoting the same Jewish authors:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030422152012/http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/booksspiritual1.msnw

Same statements about "FemFree" that she posted to our forum, and the whole "plagiarism" scam Camwell used with Womansavers, Lisa Scott's blog, etc.

It's possible. My sense that Invicta is NOT Barbara Camwell Ness is Invicta's articles, written herself. Camwell Ness does not write articles or essays. What she does write lacks the prose and organization of what Invicta has written. She has written commentary on EOPC, and I'm very familiar with her "style" when she posts on forums. For such a prolific "blogger" (number of blogs), she puts very, very little of her OWN original thoughts out there. Sanctuary for the Abused is a blog she updates daily with articles written by other people. So is EOPC, for the most part.

Her clip-art and Jewish spirituality emphasis is a dead give-away, I agree. Perhaps she took over Invicta's blog at some point?

The article below is one of my favorites, written by "Invicta". I have no idea if Invicta recycled someone else's material for this article, but I've seen it quoted and linked to it when I was a member of the Vain Forum (Lisa E. Scott). As a member of the DV community, the "Myth of No Contact" is a bit on the revolutionary side, and considering what I've experienced of Barbara Camwell's actual sentiment, this article is WAY too flexible and insightful to have come from Camwell.
http://narcissism-support.blogspot.com/2009/01/loving-narcissists-and-myth-of-no.html

The below article is an invitation for Invicta's readers to opine about support forums they've been involved in.
http://narcissism-support.blogspot.com/2009/01/sites-to-avoid.html

The comment section is where the real action is. There are obvious contributions made by Mary McGrannahan that she made after she was banned (for the final time) from The Next Right Choice and Our Place (two DV support communities). Later on, there is a "plug" made by Barbara for "one2one4victims.com", where Barbara conducted her "mentoring" scam. Heck even I'm on there as Bink_Think lol.

As is typical for McGrannahan, who pretends to be different "contributors" (as she does on her own blogs in the comment sections), there are several comments I'm sure are her. Same for Barbara Camwell, but without them taking responsibility by putting their real names on the posts, I have to go by how familiar their rhetoric and writing style is to me.

It's conceivable that Camwell Ness at some point "took over" Invicta's blog and added her own book list and clip art. But Camwell Ness cannot "write". Her original writing is prosaic and repetitive. There is very little "there", in her original writing, which is why she fills her blogs with the writing of better writers and thinkers.

 

[Laura]

I agree, Invicta's writings sound like someone who really has been targeted by a pathological individual.

The problem is, very often, when a person escapes such a situation, they learn about THAT particular psychopath, narcissist, whatever, and THAT particular TYPE of predation, but they are unable to convert the learning into general principles and apply them in other, novel, situations. The get a label for something, and it is either under that label or not.

Barbara Oakley, for example, who wrote "Evil Genes". She can't see that her hero, Donald Rumsfeld is simply another kind of pathological individual.

I remember back when I was reading lovefraud.com and still thinking that maybe Leedom was sincere, how they all went on the attack, labeling some politician as a psychopath, because his wife came out and denounced him. Can't remember his name. Anyway, I read the articles and all I could see was that this could very well be a case of a good guy in politics being set up to be taken down by the overall corrupt political system.

But of course, the folks at lovefraud and Barbara Oakley, were not really prepared to take the concept up to that level. They all still had to hang on to their illusions about our "noble leaders" and they bought into the propaganda about Saddam Hussein, 19 arab terrorists and 9-11, and so on.

Because, of course, those things were totally off-limits as "conspiracy theory." The idea that the labels "conspiracy theory" and "cult" had been created by pathologicals in power in the same way that psychopaths in relationships use labels to defame and smear their victims who try to get away, was just beyond them.

By the same token, many people get the picture about mainstream media and history and education and all that, and THEN think that just because it is "alternative media" or "alternative history" or "alternative explanations", that it must be good and right. They don't get it that pathological types can and WILL infiltrate those kinds of movements at the very beginning, and slowly (or not so slowly!) turn them around until they are totally evil inside, while still carrying the label of something that is supposed to be positive.

More than that, a person who starts out with a good and noble idea can individually be corrupted and people don't realize it because they are hung up on the ideals, the person they once knew, and refuse to read the signs for what they are.

Yes, there can be good guys being defamed by bad guys, but the solution to that is always and ever to just get out there and tell what really happened and let people decide. You can't expect the truth to take care of itself... it never has; "the truth will out" is a lie propagated by psychopaths to deceive normals into not standing up for truth.

I've read two books by psychological experts in the past couple of weeks, and both of them make reference to cult leaders and people interested in esotericism as being pathological. I wrote to one of them, George K. Simon, to ask him about his remark and what his experience was in that regard. He wrote back:

Yes, I do have some personal experience with a relatively low-grade cult-like guru, but I also took into account not only the research on this topic but also my retrospective analyses of some higher profile examples of such wolves in sheep's clothing when I wrote that section.

In short, he was probably using the "People's Temple", the Waco peeps, Heaven's Gate and the Solar Temple examples. He diddn't even bother to look into those things deeply and understand that each of them bear all the signs of being CIA psyops - in other words, set up by pathologicals in power to experiment on people, get rid of people, or set up a convenient smear label for any potential detractors. All he would have to do is read Fletcher Prouty's book "The Secret Team" and some serious journalistic investigations into the anomalies surrounding those cases and the political benefits that accrued to those in a position to set them up.

Same with Meloy, Sheridan and Hoffmann's book "Stalking, Threatening and Attacking Public Figures." They toss in the "cult" word too, and use Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley, Mark Chapman, as case studies without every making reference to CIA "Manchurian Candidate" programs. That is just lousy science because it formulates theories without really going deeply into the real DATA. They believe the government stories, and do science based on lies.

Well, in my view, each and every case has to be taken on its own, all the facts that are truly FACTS, collected, the motivations of those giving evidence considered, comparisons made to other similar cases, and so forth, before you can make a call about public figures. Of course, when you don't have access to private data, you can speculate based on what is reported and, certainly, how the individual responds. It's easy enough to say "I didn't do that," but what is the history of the person and what DO they acknowledge?

It can get pretty tricky, of course, especially when you deal with individuals who live their lives behind a mask of sanity. But I thought I would bring these problems up, having been on the receiving end of some of this stuff.

 

[Guardian]

Her clip-art and Jewish spirituality emphasis is a dead give-away, I agree. Perhaps she took over Invicta's blog at some point?writing of better writers and thinkers.

That's entirely possible too, she does love impersonating people, and I'm pnly back to 2009 on INvicta's blogs/
This sure sounds like Barbara describing herself. The "psycho" was Yid with Lid," Barbara claimed to be divorcing Andrew Ness, she converted to Judaism, supposedly went out of the country, and was in therapy for "infertility. "Invicta" is certainly describing Barbara's fantasy life for some reason?

It looks to me like she's still lifting material from other authors when she's not ranting too....probably from the professionals she's slamming at the time.

_http://narcissism-support.blogspot.com/

Along with dealing with a psychopath, I was going through heavy life changes like divorce and conversion to another religion, and leaving all I know and madly love and moving to another country. On the psychological stress scale, it was off the charts. And yet here I stand, unbowed. I learned. And learned. And learned a lot.

What helped me most is knowing that it was not my fault. In separating my general psychological issues that everyone possesses, from the abuse and mindfuck that is the narcissist's/psychopath's trademark. In knowing that they cannily target the brightest and best out of primitive, barbaric need; a wimp would not do. In knowing I was dealing with something that was not normal, and in retrospect, subhuman, in my opinion a genetic mutant. You don't need to stick an evil label on them to realise that sucking the life out of you is their mode of operation and the thing you need to avoid with all your might.

For different reasons, 6 years later I entered deep psychotherapy. I can see where some personal issues intersected with psychoguy's ability to target my vulnerabilities. But that is all. Those without empathy have the knack of targetting a person's soft spots; it's not really that special. What makes it special is the kind of people they target, for their qualities, strengths and virtues.

_http://thestumblingblock.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/he-said/

IrishLassie Says:
April 3, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Barbara, you say this guy knew you. He certainly didn’t know you very well at all. You were in and out of the hospital most of the Spring & Summer of 2004. You have 2 children and are a single parent. You run around with your kids and for your kids. That’s all you do! You are either not well enough or have no time. You and I went out of the country in Fall 2004 for a couple weeks. You were out of the country this Fall too and that doesn’t count the trips to D.C. and to see your family

"Invicta" is also attacking professionals exactly as Barbara does:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100912114619/http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/narcissism_caution_internet.html

Not Recommended

Echo No Longer; The Recovery Process of the Partner of the Person Suffering from a Narcissistically Impaired Personality. Mary Ann Borg Cunen, M.A.

Unprofessional and unethical use of subjects who were not consulted regarding permission to use said quotes for research. Lack of ethics includes the people who supplied/agreed to using the quotes for submission to a conference and later to dissemination of paper on the Internet. Unscientific; "echo" is conceptualised as a predisposition to pathological dependency, exemplified by the term, "Echo Dependent Personality"; finds the victim of narcissistic abuse as defective and blameworthy.

_http://www.angelfire.com/ego/narcissism/easy.html

This is a site that purports to make narcissism/Narcissistic Personality Disorder easy to understand. Lack of cohesion, cobbled together from largely speculative and unreliable and untraceable sources it seems. Narcissism is not easy to understand, and this confuses and misleads further. The more pages are added, the more it becomes clear that this "Traci Spencer, MMFT, CACII" has never written an academic paper in her life, nor is willing to fully make an accounting of both, seemingly spurious sources, and some possibly legitimate resources- this, amidst material recycled once again from a single predominant "authority" who already saturates the Internet.

_http://www.joy2meu.com/index.html

I have read a lot of this site. Who is this Robert Burney? No credentials, only a lot of psychobabble on "co-dependency". IMO, there is not a single line of writing that I would take seriously. The purported "book" is self-published. What's worse, though, is that it is promoted on some support sites without question.

_http://groups.msn.com/NARCISSISTICPERSONALITYDISORDER

_http://groups.msn.com/PSYCHOPATH

(Update 2009: MSN groups has closed, but the NPD and Psychopath groups, respectively, live on on Yahoo and other bulletin boards, run by femfree and saturated with S. Vaknin spam/misinformation. More to follow.)

Exemplify the quote above by 'Anonymous'. Though there are some good links, and some supportive people, it's the gateway to misinformation. The links are rife with trivialities, so that one has to wade through a morass of irrelevancy. Anyone can use a search engine and the managers surely have, uncritically. There is also significant crossover and cross-posting to both sites [and now, to another site that has been co-opted]and blurring of distinctions between narcissism, NPD, sociopathy, psychopathy. Also, these sites promote the work of a self-described NPD everywhere and especially on their sites as well as the work of authors cited above. The groups and, many of their links, tend to implicitly pathologize the victims/survivors of narcissistic abuse. To reiterate, they exemplify the quote above, and trivialise all aspects of mental health and mental disorder- that is, both the pathological narcissist/psychopath and survivors of their abuse, alike. These groups are managed by 'femfree', who deletes any challenges to the party line. (Addendum: still quoted is: The Psychopathic Style" A Documentary by Marion Trent and John McCormick ~Funnily, this "documentary" has never seen the light of day).

_http://groups.msn.com/TheEmptiedSoulPsychopathychatsite {note: It appears Barbara was a Mod/Admin in this group}

Once run by the steady hand of a knowledgeable person, has recently been co-opted by femfree and the other managers of the aforementioned MSN groups. Now merely a mirror site of the above, the original theses and information on which the site was based having been removed, and replaced with advertising for the usual support sites, and promoting SV's works [more Spam]. It definitely has been emptied of all "soul".

Currently, a portal to the main site, and little more. It's deader than Kenny.

PSYCHOPATH LEARN
NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER - PRIVATE FORUM

More of the same, by the same above. "N-Partners", another MSN group is slowly morphing into more of the same above.

www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/npd">

Group discussion about Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One of multitudinous sites on the Internet belonging to Sam Vaknin. He is a self-proclaimed "malignant narcissist". Though his writings purport to be the inner life of one disordered individual, unfortunately they distort too much about NPD to be credible. This is a recent quote: "NPD is the epidemic of our time - stealthy, pernicious, ubiquitous, unrecognized." [Unrecognized? How convenient for such an assertion with nothing to back it up except one self-described NPDer's opinion].
(Update 2009: Groups have closed on Suite 101 but Vaknin's spam continues.)

Moreover, Mr. Vaknin's Ph.D. is not in psychology; and, in fact, it is from a diploma mill. His certification in counseling is from an online "school". [3].There is nothing in Mr Vaknin's CV that suggests a BA or MA in anything, never mind psychology. Mr Vaknin's emphasis in his CV seems to be/have been on economics. This is what he has to say about his "credentials": I am not a mental health professional, as I state very prominently on my Web site. The content of this Web site [SV's] is based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (narcissists) and with thousands of their family members, friends, therapists, and colleagues.[That does not make this scientific research- it merely consists of anecdotal evidence, which has no authority in the scientific community. See: Narcissism and Grandiosity]

I passed a "Counselling Techniques" exam, provided online by Brainbench.
Here are the results:

Results Without A Name or Description
Take care there. Sam

[Counselling techniques without practice? Huh? I spent many many many hours with clients and with supervisors to assess my techniques and skills and abilities. And doesn't Brainbench use "open book" exams? This is so basic, to ask such questions.]

Also the pathological narcissist's worldview is aligned with his disorder. IMO, SV pathologises the target/victim/survivor as may his followers by proxy ("followers by proxy" are defined as those who maintain BBs and Support Groups whose posted quotes by SV dominate their sites and other sites where they post). IMO, zero credibility, even if they know the difference between bipolar and major depression.

www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/9128

S Vaknin has recently moved on to become editor of emotional/verbal abuse topics on Suite 101. I find this to be the ultimate irony. That the abuser gets to tell us, the survivors of abuse what we are about. And what we go through. The man is self-described disordered. Can anyone doubt his lack of empathy and inability to understand the point of view of the victim? And he is writing about the trauma that we suffer from narcissistic abuse? He is now writing a book using posts by abuse survivors on the Internet, that is, from anecdotal evidence, where anyone can make up anything, and without prior consent.

When announced that he was becoming editor, this is what his ardent follower, femfree, wrote: This is wonderful news!! Congratulations. Your unparalleled resources, assistance and knowledge to survivors is exemplary. This is an exciting and innovative resource that will be most highly recommended everywhere!![It's called 'Spam' ~I]

NO. His advice to survivors and anyone else, imo, is far less than exemplary. And so is his continuing manipulation of the Internet and the discussion group [4]

Pathologizing the Victim by SV (2004)[sic]

This essay is a example of dangerous distortion, not a point of view one may see in a thoughtful, responsible essay on therapy and therapists- this essay in effect says to trust no one, and pathologises therapists, portraying many as potentially abusive. The writer has no idea of what is best for the abused, no idea of the dynamics of a therapeutic relationship. And the advice given in the final paragraph, is so harmful, and so out-to-lunch, that it can seriously damage a survivor's desire/efforts to find help by instilling doubt,lack of confidence or belief and trust in the helping professions. The writer asserts:

Thus, an abuse victim who declines to have any further contact with her batterer - is bound to be chastised by her therapist for obstinately refusing to constructively communicate with her violent spouse.

Better to play ball and adopt the sleek mannerisms of your abuser. Sadly, sometimes the only way to convince your therapist that it is not all in your head and that you are a victim - is by being insincere and by staging a well-calibrated performance, replete with the correct vocabulary. Therapists have Pavlovian reactions to certain phrases and theories and to certain "presenting signs and symptoms" (behaviors during the first few sessions). Learn these - and use them to your advantage. It is your only chance.

Not only is there a narcissist or psychopath under every bush and beside every 'couch', but there are also inferior robotic 'Pavlovian' types in the helping professions, and the world is hostile and unkind- a breeding bed of paranoia and persecution. The author has no understanding whatsoever of the dynamics of abuse. Just a glib surface rendering. Such advice is unconscionable, to suggest manipulating the therapist just like a psychopath might- to hold therapists in contempt, just like a psychopath would- to assert that therapists are prone to a conditioned response, reducing their responses to the likes of rats and pigeons and all other animals. Yet this too is supported by the groups mentioned above. And on the internet, neither he nor they will be held to account. All he has to do is say "he is not a mental health professional" [but I play one on the Internet]. Caveat emptor! Consider the source. This is all opinion, and a misuse of psychology as we know it.

The Cyber Narcissist, by SV
_http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-1-2003-42410.asp

...."' ever the intimidating bully" - is not accustomed to such resistance'" [by others on the net, in groups, I presume]. This rather sounds like you can show no opposition , must play "nice", or be labelled a narcissist. The author also suggests that therapeutic dyamics are at play in groups where cyberpaths play, which in my view is just plain silly, not to mention a distortion of the concept and actuality of therapy. With the really disordered in the mix, the environment becomes toxic and illusory.

Compare the above with Wendy Koeningsmann's brilliant analysis of Psychopathic Types At Play on the Internet (reflects my experience to an uncanny degree); and The FBI Profile Of the Mental Rapist

Both these assessments do not profile a cyber narcissist as essentially an argumentative, belligerent, obnoxious bully. No, these types are far subtler than that and that is why people can be manipulated and fooled. And to make psychopathic play in groups akin to therapy is to distort the meaning of true therapy. Again, it seems that the author has little conception of what really happens in groups where cyber narcissists play. Or perhaps he is trying to deflect from the true psychopathic types/narcissists that do populate the internet (but hey, I guess that would place me then, in the paranoid category! :)) - the ones that on the surface display true narcissism in action, as Dr. Bruce Gregory so nicely articulates:

When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness.

For stories, hear one side- the story of a survivor, me, who not only had an encounter with my own personal sociopath, but a guru wannabe, Sam Vaknin, and his followers. An excerpt:

"The book was never intended to help anyone. Above all, it was meant to attract attention and adulation (narcissistic supply) to its author, myself. Being in a guru-like status is the ultimate narcissistic experience."

 

[Laura]

Well, that's telling. Maybe you are right and Invicta and BCN are one and the same?

 

[Guardian]

Well, that's telling. Maybe you are right and Invicta and BCN are one and the same?

Or Briseis has the right idea and Barbara took over for Invicta at some time prior to 2009? Either Barbara was "Invicta", or Invicta was Barbara's Renfield before Mary took over the job? I don't know yet, but I have a TON more data to consume.

 

[Guardian]

Just for giggles, I jumped back to 2004, and this still looks like Barbara. While she's lifted the majority of her material from other authors, the comments she makes look 100% Barbara...especially how she has a tendency to hyphenate words that don't need hyphens. When she gets on a roll, she gets seriously dash happy.

I think she did all this to attack Darla Boughton (Femfree) Sam Vaknin's Admin. Evidently there was only room for one star psycho on that list :P


_http://web.archive.org/web/20040308115935/http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/profileofsociopathleaderwannabe.msnw

 

[Bresias]

Has Invicta had an internet presence in this arena, recently? I don't see anything past January of 2009, in her blogs or activity identified as "Invicta" or "nickyskye" since then. I know y'all have been keeping tabs for years, and I've only been on the scene since 2007. Not keeping tabs since then, but benefiting from what's been shared on the internet. I'll try not to rehash stuff that's already been gone over.

This evening, I saw stuff from as far back as 2004 where Nickyskye (Invicta) has been challenging Femfree (Darla Boughton). Accusing her of trying to "take over" and bully those who question her or Sam Vaknin, using other people's original writings without giving credit to them, and mostly for being Sam Vaknin's BFF.

I have yet to see actual evidence of Femfree DOING any of these things, but I'm still a'lookin'. Just because I haven't laid eyeballs on it doesn't mean it's not there. Such a ruckus raised by so many about Femfree is bound to have some truth in it, somewhere.

I was a member of the MSN group Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the first few months after I realized what had happened in my marriage. I participated for a few months, but quit because the membership of NPD victims appeared to stay "stuck" in endless rumination/obsession ABOUT the "narcissist", why he did what he did, why he thinks what he thinks, what he did last week and what I think he's thinking about what I think I admit I was fascinated with this at first, but it felt like a place to move past, not set up permanent camp in. I also saw the drive-by link dropping "Dr" Vaknin, and a lot of fawning and overly-grateful thanks for the specious little he did respond. Ewww. I see I've got some reading material to read about SV in this forum, a very long thread I'm looking forward to!

Femfree's been a target of challenges for quite a few years, now. Invicta or Nickyskye was one of them, and so was Barbara Camwell Ness. Invicta was (as I'm piecing it together) a renowned blogger in the early and mid-Oughts, and you are absolutely right, Guardian, Invicta's sentiment AGAINST Vaknin and Femfree appear identical to BCN's sentiments.

Though I can't reconcile Invicta's writing skill with Barb Camwell's tabloid-style as coming from the same person . . . I think we're onto something by putting Invicta and Camwell together in the same pot and see what boils to the top :D Keep the room well ventilated, I'd hate to have anyone knocked out by the fumes :D

 

[Bresias]

Just for giggles, I jumped back to 2004, and this still looks like Barbara. While she's lifted the majority of her material from other authors, the comments she makes look 100% Barbara...especially how she has a tendency to hyphenate words that don't need hyphens. When she gets on a roll, she gets seriously dash happy.

I think she did all this to attack Darla Boughton (Femfree) Sam Vaknin's Admin. Evidently there was only room for one star psycho on that list :P


_http://web.archive.org/web/20040308115935/http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/profileofsociopathleaderwannabe.msnw

I can't get this link to work :(

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi Briseis,

Try this link and see if it works. It works for me.

 

[Bresias]

Thank you, Vulcan. That link worked :)

@ Guardian: I read further on the site you linked to, and get the impression Invicta was banned or angrily left FemFree/Vaknin's MSN group. Is this what you've concluded, too?

I wonder if Barbara "styled" herself after Invicta? Someone had to inspire Barbara. Her cyber-affair with Jeff Dunetz ended in 2004 or so, when Invicta and Femfree were most active.

The following is my interpretation of "dynamics". The victims of psychopaths/characteropaths are divided into two camps (very loosely, many of course don't plug themselves into one side or another). Both "camps" are extremes, and lose some credibility because of their extremity (IMO).

One camp, exemplified by Femfree, teaches that victims of psychopaths enter these relationships because of pre-existing personal issues that make them vulnerable. Trauma, family-of-origin issues, mental instabilities, or even personality disorders (dependent personality disorder, and her own construct, "Echo" personality disorder) predispose victims to be . . . well, victimized. The neediness, loneliness, or "innocence" of the victim allows the psychopath entry. People who don't recognize a psychopath were either raised by one (and thus inured to the energy) or have such low self-esteem that getting scraps of attention amidst the abuse feels OK. In this "camp", in the very least, you are codependent.

The other camp, exemplified by Invicta (and later, Barbara Camwell Ness), teaches that victims of psychopaths can be ANYONE, with or without pre-existing "issues". Psychopaths are just so cunning and powerful, all "normals" are at risk for predation. Everyone is vulnerable. Depression, suicidality, PTSD and Complex PTSD are RESULTS of the predation. Pathologicals especially seek out "strong", beautiful, creative, wealthy and successful people to be their victims. The "best of the best" are targeted by the psychopath because these qualities are envied (thus, consumed).

Femfree (and Sam Vaknin) suggest pre-existing psychological problems lead to embroilment with pathologicals; Invicta and BCN suggest "normal" entry, embroilment because of the powerful influence of psychopathy, then resultant psychological problems.

I've seen my community divided strongly for and against codependency. Discussions on this topic get heated. The angriest are the folks from the Invicta/BCN style "camp", who feel insulted by the very idea that something about them could have set them up or made them more vulnerable than others. That there was something WRONG with them is equivalent to "blaming the victim". Then there are folks who don't mind acknowledging there was something "wrong" with them to begin with, that resulted in falling prey to a psychopath.

I'm talking about intimate relationships, here, and these two camps, I believe, are specific to INTIMATE relationships with pathological types. We don't choose to work with pathological types or for them, or choose to be born into a family populated by them. "Unchosen" relationships seem to have different rules of engagement. Again, I am writing out what I see, through my personal filters. I rarely doubt myself, but am frequently wrong :D

Here's a link to the Dating Psychos that Mary McGrannahan put up for me way back in March of '10 :
_http://www.datingpsychos.com/psycho/Kimberly%20-Stewart/4749

Mary is both "Exposer" and "BibleBeliever", and "they" (LOL!!) are reading along on this here thread. One of them says that Invicta was Sandra Brown MA. That is was obvious.

Guardian, do you think this has any merit? Even considering the source (rotfl).

 

[Guardian]

Thank you, Vulcan. That link worked :)

@ Guardian: I read further on the site you linked to, and get the impression Invicta was banned or angrily left FemFree/Vaknin's MSN group. Is this what you've concluded, too?

Yup, I think she shifted focus from the "I have every disease that doesn't have a definitive test" spiel to the Narcissistic/Path groups around 2004 when she found out she wasn't Yid with Lid's one and only cybersex partner. Gave her something new to harp on, and hell hath no fury like a psycho cybersex partner scorned

I wonder if Barbara "styled" herself after Invicta? Someone had to inspire Barbara.

I think "Invicta" is Barbara and she was inspired by FemFree and Vaknin ....and "Invicta" appears to have a different writing style than Barbara because Barbara was lifting the material off other peoples sites?