Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
ark said:
I think he will be keep the link.
Actually that image was a temporary thing, it will be replaced with a different page in Swedish when I get around to it. That page will however keep a link to said screenshot. So your link will remain valid. I never remove pages.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Leif Erlingsson said:
ark said:
I think he will be keep the link.
Actually that image was a temporary thing, it will be replaced with a different page in Swedish when I get around to it. That page will however keep a link to said screenshot. So your link will remain valid. I never remove pages.
Leif, you have said, "The discussions at [your forum] remind [you] a lot about those [with Vincent Bridges]." Does it mean anything to you that even Lobaczewski sees that Bridges is a "paranoid psychopath"? What does that say about YOUR discussion group?

What similarity, exactly, do you see between the two discussions? Is it simply the fact that both purport to expose cults?
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
hkoehli said:
What similarity, exactly, do you see between the two discussions? Is it simply the fact that both purport to expose cults?
I don't think Leif is particularly "evil". He is simply sometimes misguided.

He wrote: "I never remove pages. " And yet this is not true. He has removed a page from his life: LDS. And that was good. But it took for him a while. Similarly, it may take for him a while to see his error now.

In 1990 Leif wrote

jpr...@jove.cs.pdx.edu (James Price) writes:
> The Urantia Book is a unique book in the history of our planet. This
>book is a book of divine revelation, sent to us to aid in relieving the
>incredible confusion regarding diety on Earth...

Reminds me of the story behind the books "A Course in Miracles".
These books, this course, was also dictated from someome not physically
here. It also mentions Jesus a whole lot. It also has a whole lot of
truth in it.

But regardless of the fact that these books, The Urantia Book and
A Course in Miracles both contain truth not found in, say the Bible,
I have a strong feeling that they are given us to confuse us.
That Satan has more than a finger into this.

Most of what you related seems perfectly believable from my religious
perspective ("Mormonism"), but one detail rings false:

> ... This incarnation was a culmulation of a series
>of seven incarnations ...

But I will not say that I know it to be false. It could also be that my
knowledge is incomplete in this matter. But I would be very cautious when
reading The Urantia Book. I have myself A Course in Miracles at home, and
I feel the same way about it: tread carefully!

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we are taught that Satan
will give us 20 truths if he can sell 1 lie that way. The above may be a
case of 200 truths and less than 10 lies. So read it if you feel like it,
but don't accept it just because most of it sounds true!
which is a mixture of a good and rational thinking and a totally misguided thinking ("my religious perspective").

Leif even seems to have a sense of humor of his own: See =Gospel Doctrine Class a' la' Leif Erlingsson
:)

Another point: while reading about mormonism, I have found this:

The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was born in Vermont in 1805. As a youth Smith is described by Mormons as "honest and sincere, devout and intelligent...humbly seeking the truth."3 According to other sources, however, he was "a poorly educated, superstitious youth" who "made extensive use of divining rods and peek stones" as he accompanied his father on expeditions in search of buried treasure.4 As a young man he was much involved in various psychic and occult activities. Objective investigators have concluded that he was probably a teenage psychopath:

"In his self-hypnosis, ideas from the subconscious replaced critical thinking. His abnormal temperament revealed itself in a capacity for clairvoyance. Repeated experiments in this pressed clear, conscious thinking more and more into the background, and the dividing line between the real world of the senses and the world of dreams disappeared almost completely."5
I wonder what kind of people are being attracted by a psychopath? Probably all kinds. But why?
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
It is weird that he praises Lobachewsky's book yet critisizes Laura and Ark's take on his concepts. Of all people, they have studied the issue in depth and have communicated with the author -- you'd think they would be in a good position to understand it.

How people have said in the past, 'the C's are great and full of wisdom, but Laura doesn't get it'? Come to think of it, VB was doing the same thing in the beginning of his harassment of Laura and Ark -- clearly to draw that type of person in hi orbit. I remember that he grabbed C's transcripts and posted them on his site, pointing out the 'discrepancies' and 'editing' by Laura -- as if those actually existed, and as if it was his business to begin with.

There is a certain subset of people, who think of themselves as critical and cautious, yet are prone to accepting 'abstract' printed word without questioning, and failing to connect it with somebody's personal research, opinion and prospective. Any strong individuated personality is simply theatening to such people, perhaps because they have been burned before by charismatic cult leaders or suchlike . This is Leif's issue, I believe.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If so, then this is the same phenomenon as in the one in the quoted passage about Smith:

"In his self-hypnosis, ideas from the subconscious replaced critical thinking. His abnormal temperament revealed itself in a capacity for clairvoyance. Repeated experiments in this pressed clear, conscious thinking more and more into the background, and the dividing line between the real world of the senses and the world of dreams disappeared almost completely.
Fear of critical thinking. What C's or Lobaczewski said is something to "believe", but to discuss it critically, research it, to draw conclusions, to develop it or to abandon it, when new data come and necessitate corrections, to take it is a starting point for further research rather than as a definite answer, to allow doubt, to admit that we all may know next to nothing - is a "no-no" for this kind of people. The best word to describe this particular thread of a character is perhaps: self-importance. Of course the next question is: where it comes from? Is it inborn? Or is it learned? Or both: there is an inborn tendency that (bu pure chance or not) meets with a particular environment?
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Here's an exchange that took place between Leif and me, after I discovered yesterday, in my spam box, a mail he sent me apparently more than a week ago - but which I hadn't noticed, as it direclty went into my spam box. I noticed it while clearing my box yesterday night.

De : Prayers for rain <p_for_rain@......>
Date : 25 janvier 2007 10:21:05 HNEC
À : Leif Erlingsson <leif@lege.com>
Objet : Rép : Dear "Prayers for rain"

Le 16 janv. 07 � 23:49, Leif Erlingsson a écrit :

(pfr)Hello Leif,

Curiously, I only noticed your message yesterday evening (24/01/07). I was cleaning my spam box and I recognized your name in the mail - since I read your messages on the blogger blog section of the forum SotT. Your mail had gone directly into my spam box when I received it (and which is dated on the 16th January) and I hadn't paid attention to it.

The message reads as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Leif)Dear "Prayers for rain", I read your post in the thread discussing EsoQuest. I just started to read posts on the forum the other day, and noticed these profound posts by "Guest" "EsoQuest". I have been hesitant to start posting because some questionable vibes I have been getting, both from the Ponerology book and also from a QFS member I am in email contact with. I have read the Ponerology book, and many of the other books, including Adventure and so far on book II in The Wave (and book I of The Ra material and parts of book II and III). I found all this less than a year ago, my first intro to esoterica. ;)

Anyway, I immediately noticed this odd thing about "EsoQuest", and searched until I found the thread dealing with that. Having been a member of a controlling "cult" - Mormonism - who vilify important members who are percieved as a threat to leadership, and reject them, I refuse to hear this from one side only. I will of course study many other things here before I decide if I will network here, but for now I'd really want to hear EsoQuest's side of it.
---
(pfr)Since you've read the thread about the eviction of EsoQuest, you'll have certainly noticed that he was asked to provide answers to certain questions regarding his email private correspondances with members of the Qfs and the forum, as well as his views and his purpose here on the forum, and that he never answered these questions addressed to him. He just seemed to vanish (though nowadays, given the several mentions of him on the forum, I'm not so sure that he completely vanished...)
---
(leif)Do you have his email? Mine is leif@lege.com.
---
(pfr)Even if I still had it, I wouldn't give you his email address. Yeah his posts seem "profound", but Esoquest has very subtly taken in several members of the forum, and he has manipulated *subtly* to destroy the QFS group from within, trying to implant his thoughts and his views which appear to be contradictory to the aim of the Qfs and this forum, or at least questionable.

I have taken the liberty to transmit this email to the persons responsible for the forum. I'm sure you won't mind, if your intention is honesty and sharing, and seeking truth. Given the attacks these persons have consistently undergone, Esoquest case included, I think you won't mind my warning us about your enquiry about Esoquest. I have nothing against you, but one of the aim of this forum is complete transparency. That's why if you wish to inquire further about the aim of the forum and take part in it, you should tell the most honestly possible what is your purpose and why you inquired about this particular member, whereas many other members on the forum contribute with interesting posts.

Best regards.

---------------------
Your post:

2006-07-19 11:09:40

(pfr)Hi the Gardener,

I also had private correspondance with EQ, where it's me first who asked for help and he answered like he did with you : he took the time and provided help. The reason why I wrote him privately is that I always appreciated his posts, and he was the only one to answer a post I had sent about a friend of mine's experience. So I thought he could help.
I never got any problem with him, he never wrote me such things as he wrote to the young women in QFS (but I'm not that young).
I also had a problem with the duality body/mind and his vision reconciled me with this duality. Which causes me a problem because the C's said that the body doesn't count and that only the soul matters. I talked to him about it - I wasn't at ease bringing it on the forum - he tried to explain and I agreed with his view. I never saw what he wrote as something satanist/new age crap. So it means that either I'm completely naive and have been fooled, or I'm like him : an agent, a psychopath (if he is one), or have psychopathic tendencies, or have a strong STS tendency... that is, someone too individualistic to work along with a group. The thing is EQ told me he was a gemini - I'm a gemini as well. If we look at what the C's said, they said that genetics marry to soul if present, or something along the line. Maybe astrology does the same. I don't know.
Now I can't make up my mind about all is said here and about myself as well.
I brought this question up because I wondered why EQ didn't take part in the forum anymore, and I saw he was with the banned members - it worried me.

I think it'll be more suited for me to leave the forum, as I don't feel I'm "clean" with this issue, there are big grey areas and it's difficult to fathom it all, and I can see I can't be colinear - though I tried, there are things I can't agree 100% with you, no matter hard I try, it keeps coming back. So I'd better ponder about iy.

Thank you all
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ark said:
The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was born in Vermont in 1805. As a youth Smith is described by Mormons as "honest and sincere, devout and intelligent...humbly seeking the truth."3 According to other sources, however, he was "a poorly educated, superstitious youth" who "made extensive use of divining rods and peek stones" as he accompanied his father on expeditions in search of buried treasure.4 As a young man he was much involved in various psychic and occult activities. Objective investigators have concluded that he was probably a teenage psychopath:

"In his self-hypnosis, ideas from the subconscious replaced critical thinking. His abnormal temperament revealed itself in a capacity for clairvoyance. Repeated experiments in this pressed clear, conscious thinking more and more into the background, and the dividing line between the real world of the senses and the world of dreams disappeared almost completely."5
I wonder what kind of people are being attracted by a psychopath? Probably all kinds. But why?
What I find disturbing about the above quote is the automatic assumption that a capacity for clairvoyance is "abnormal", that experimenting with divining rods and "peek stones" and "various occult activities" is a sign of being "poorly educated and superstitious."

Indeed, such experiments WITHOUT the application of critical thinking is ignorant and even dangerous. We sure see enough of it going around nowadays. But the same, exact terms could be used to describe anyone who is involved in ANY of the standard religions.

I could easily write about anyone who engages in any belief system whatsoever in the following way:

He (or she) was "a poorly educated, superstitious youth" who was a fervent ____________ (Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist, whatever) who accompanied his father as the two of them joined in prayer to their god for good fortune and more cargo. As a young man he was much involved in fasting and praying and self flagellation. Objective investigators have concluded that he was probably a teenage psychopath.

In his religious meditation, ideas from the subconscious replaced critical thinking. His abnormal temperament revealed itself in a capacity for hearing god (or angels or saints) speak to him. Repeated experiences of this type pressed clear, conscious thinking more and more into the background, and the dividing line between the real world of the senses and the world of fantastic illusions disappeared almost completely.
What I always found to be shocking was the fact that the DSM IV classed all "psychic" experiences as pathological EXCEPT when they occur "in a religious context."

If you communicate with, say, the spirit of Socrates, you are sick; but if Jesus talks to you, it's okay.

Say what?

But that doesn't mean that Smith wasn't a psychopath. I don't think we have enough objective evidence to say one way or another. Plus, we don't know who is making that assessment and what their agenda might be.

I mean, it's pretty easy to make an assessment about Vincent Bridges because we have hard data and witnesses and all that material is posted on the website and here in the forum. Plus, we know why he decided to attack us: because we rejected his control. That, in itself, is pathological. Any outsider who truly wishes to get to the bottom of that situation can go right back to the beginning and see the sequence of events: 1) Vincent Bridges tries to create a cult but the material he produces is not particularly interesting and it goes nowhere. 2) He finds someone (by a series of interesting events/coincidences/maneuvers) who IS doing interesting work and he formulates the idea that he can take this person over and use what she is doing for his own purposes. 3) The target figures out what he is doing early in the game and terminates any connections. 4) He goes on the attack because, if he can't own it, he will destroy it.

Now, that is pathology.
 

Deckard

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
what I found curious is how this "new member" went str8 to Esoquest incident,

I have been on this forum for almost 6 months, and almost every day before I found out about this incident,


And why would anyone want to contact Prayersfor Rain to discuss this further, or even obtain EQ's email?!

Is this a bit strange, or am I strange eh? :shock:
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
pfr said:
I think EsoQuest is mentionned a bit too much these days to be merely coincidential. Maybe he's just there lurking in the background, trying to influence the course of the forum thanks to his "magickal skills". We've gotta be careful and watch out.
But according to Mr. Leif Erlingsson, this is "paranoia."

One of the most important things to learn about psychopathy and the psychopathic system that runs our world is how it has turned everything that is normal and natural to normal human beings, upside down and has made it pathological.

As Lobaczewski points out, it is important to a pathocracy to establish control over the science of psychology very early on in the game; to be the one that defines what is or is not pathological, and to have the "final say," so to speak. Robert Hare has hinted very strongly at his struggles against this very problem in several articles that expose the "politicking" that goes on behind the scenes in the publishing of the DSM.

As Lobaczewski says, proper knowledge of what is and what is not pathological according to a baseline of NORMAL humanity (i.e., the majority) would very quickly reveal the true nature of psychopathy and psychopathic systems.

In the meantime, of course, psychopaths at the top are constantly alert to any ideational variance that might threaten their control. Anything that emerges as a threat is "dealt with." As Lobaczewski points out, "a purposeful and conscious system of control, terror, and diversion is thus set to work." This system operates not only in academia - as several psychologists of my acquaintance inform me - but also in the public sphere. We might even suspect that it operates very much like COINTEL with people like Vincent Bridges and gang being actually sent out to go after any group that is seeking to navigate its way through the shoals of a pathological reality.

The fact that psychopaths and their congeners are generally in charge of psychology means that it is a tool in the hands of the pathocracy and psychology and psychiatry are often abused in order to control people. An example is exactly what this guy Leif is doing: labeling the people who are seeking to learn about this pathology, understand it, and share that understanding with others.

As Lobaczewski points out, it is useful to see what areas are "discouraged" or "forbidden" in order to know where the crux of the matter actually lies.

From our experience - and the experience of others working in the field directly - what is most suppressed is the genetic nature of the psychopath as well as accurate descriptions of psychopathies as being something that is similar to a completely different species of human being; what Robert Hare calls "an intraspecies predator".

Lobaczewski said:
The essence of psychopathy may not, of course, be researched or elucidated. Darkness is cast upon this matter by means of an intentionally devised definition of psychopathy which includes various kinds of character disorders, together with those caused by completely different and known causes. ...

It is also worth pointing out here that the chief doctrine of said system reads “Existence defines consciousness� . As such, it belongs to psychology rather than to any political doctrine. This doctrine actually contradicts a good deal of empirical data indicating the role of hereditary factors in the development of man’s personality and fate.
This is one of the hackneyed ideas that Vincent Bridges and his gang wave around like it's some kind of banner: that our focus on psychopathy is "divisive" that it promotes an "us against them" or "paranoid" way of thinking.

Well, duuuuuh! Look around, turkey! Do you think what you see in the world around you is normal and good? Do you think humanity is on a good way? If not, what do you think is the cause??? You think that maybe doing some more spells, or talking to the Ophanim is gonna fix it? How about just loving all the psychopaths???

I mean, get REAL!

We are all taught in our religious instruction that everyone has a soul and even if we grow out of the religion, the early conditioning to believe that everyone has a soul, that everyone can be "saved," even if only by a last-ditch holy miracle or whatever, stays with us in a powerful way. I know this all too well. I lived that kind of belief most of my life. It is one of the first cunning lies that is used to entrap and render humanity helpless against the intraspecies predator.

When the overwhelming evidence - based on years of study and a mass of evidence that was incontrovertible - brought me face to face with that question: does everyone have a soul? Is everyone really "created" equal? it was devastating. That issue brought into question everything I had ever believed about human beings' essential
natures. When I was presented with the mass of information about psychopathy, I was, in fact, presented with a creature that looked and acted in so many ways like everyone else except that he/she lacks a certain something that is so essential to being human that you can literally call him/her pseudo-human or non-human or anthropoid or whatever, and the description will fit.

What is so unsettling is to observe them mimic the qualities that we consider to be the essence of conscience and to see how easily they take in people who are totally unaware of the fact that we do, as Hare said, have an
intraspecies predator.

Getting back to the abuse of psychiatry and its use by COINTEL: Lobaczewski points out that we must understand the nature of the controversy between a pathological system and those areas of science which describe psychological and psychopathological phenomena in order to understand how they twist and use stuff to drive people nuts.

Lobaczewski said:
A normal person’s actions and reactions, his ideas and moral criteria, all too often strike abnormal individuals as abnormal. For if a person with some psychological deviations considers himself normal, which is of course significantly easier if he possesses authority, then he would consider a normal person different and therefore abnormal, whether in reality or as a result of conversive thinking. That explains why [a pathocracy] shall always have the tendency to treat any dissidents as “mentally abnormal� .

Operations such as driving a normal person into psychological illness and the use of psychiatric institutions for this purpose take place in many countries in which such institutions exist....

Such defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are themselves not entirely normal, whose behavior has driven someone to a nervous breakdown or to violent protest. Among hysterics, such behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one’s own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a psychopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him “crazy� is not all that far away. ...

What happens as a rule is that the idea of driving someone into mental illness issues from minds with various aberrations and psychological defects. Only rarely does the component of pathological factors take part in the ponerogenesis of such behavior from outside its agents. Well thought out and carefully framed legislation should therefore require testing of individuals whose suggestions that someone else is psychologically abnormal are too insistent or too doubtfully founded. ...

Any person rebelling internally against a governmental system, which shall always strike him as foreign and difficult to understand, and who is unable to hide this well enough, shall thus easily be designated by the representatives of said government as “mentally abnormal� , someone who should submit to psychiatric treatment. A scientifically and morally degenerate psychiatrist becomes a tool easily used for this purpose. ...

The abuse of psychiatry for purposes we already know thus derives from the very nature of pathocracy as a macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon. After all, that very area of knowledge and treatment must first be degraded to prevent it from jeopardizing the system itself...

After all, not only can these sciences knock the weapon of psychological conquest right out of its hands; they can even strike at its very nature, and from inside the empire, at that.

A specific perception of these matters therefore bids the pathocracy to be “ideationally alert� in this area. This also explains why anyone who is both too knowledgeable in this area and too far outside the immediate reach of such authorities should be accused of anything that can be trumped up, including psychological abnormality.
I am actually convinced that it is our work in the area of psychology that is at the root of why Vincent Bridges and gang have been employed for the past 6 years to libel and defame us, and why our efforts to obtain legal relief while still in the U.S. were ignored. As I have reported, we were told "If you don't like what he is doing, stop what you are doing." That was, basically, a pat on Vinnie's back for doing a good job for the FBI, CIA or whoever it is that backs him and his pals. That's why he knows he can say and do all kinds of illegal things and get away with it. Fortunately, his extensive efforts in that area have had an effect that his handlers didn't anticipate. As it happens, anybody with two firing neurons can see that if there is so much defamatory attention devoted to such a small group as we are, there MUST be a reason! Literally hundreds of people have come to us and said: "I knew you were onto something good because otherwise, there would not be so much hate being spewed about you."

Now, that is someone who has learned to think out of the box and see the picture within the picture.
 
A

Art

Guest
Last January the 16th, I received the next e-mail (bold text is mine):
Leif Erlingsson said:
Dear Art, I read your post as "The Gardener" 2006-07-18 22:17:20 on
EsoQuest. I just started to read posts on the forum the other day, and
noticed these profound posts by "Guest" "EsoQuest". I have been hesitant
to start posting because some questionable vibes I have been getting,
both from the Ponerology book and also from a QFS member I am in email
contact with.
I have read the Ponerology book, and many of the other
books, including Adventure and so far on book II in The Wave (and book I
of The Ra material and parts of book II and III). I found all this
less than a year ago, my first intro to esoterica. ;)

Anyway, I immediately noticed this odd thing about "EsoQuest", and
searched until I found the thread dealing with that. Having been a member
of a controlling "cult" - Mormonism - who vilify important members who
are percieved as a threat to leadership, and reject them, I refuse to
hear this from one side only. I will of course study many other things
here before I decide if I will network here, but for now I'd really
want to hear EsoQuest's side of it.

Do you have his email? Mine is leif@lege.com. And please, please,
please don't report this request to the moderators. ;)

This is your post I read: (And yes, I read the last part also. But
the C's say again and again to crossreference. I am.)

I want to express my self.
I am one of to those who addmire and respect EQ.
A few months ago, he and I have also got a interaction due to a
problematic dream i got. I called on him. He answered me. He listened to me.
He guided me with a great objectivity and the most delicate respect. I
got benefits from this interaction that I will never forget. I feel in
debit with him. He dennies I am in debit with him. He was open,
intelligent, approachable, truthful and sincere with me.
Deeply sincere.
EQ was always honest and clean towards me. As I said, respectful and
sincere, which I appreciated a lot due to the delicate nature of the
personal problem I presented on him. He was always of a noble character to
me. He always came through me in a honorable manner. I never even
suspected anything: I never got elements to that. This is my straight,
direct experience. He showed to me what you all saw on him too: A tremendous
insight.
HOW DO YOU FAKE THAT?
HOW?!?
It is very difficult for me to belive and digest what has been
expressed about him.
I started to read this thread this morning. During the whole day I have
been worried, shocked and in a great disbelief for what has transpired.
I cannot belive it: There most be some misunderstanding. He is
different. He has another set of ideas, that can be strange for many. They were
to me, yes. But I never felt offended, disturbed or pressed to
anything. Never!
Since then, I have not got contact with him. This is how I wanted it:
Our interaction entered in a 'pause' (I understood what he was saying to
me so I took my self and went to work on my self, which was what I
needed to do, so I went to do the things I needed to do -and you know what?
It worked), and he never insisted on our private interchanges. On the
contrary, my free will was not even a point!
Besides this shock, it saddens me that some new memebers (I have been
posting, that is, interacting here, since January, so I am relativelly
new too: Laura, Anne, Beau, moderators or any other older than me, how
do you find my participation so far? Do you think I am lying or faking
anything?) have expressed their selfs about EQ as they had. Those of us
who have been reading him since months ago find it trully shocking to
have come to know about this situation. Or that is my feeling.
Have you (anyone) got benefits on networking with EQ? Forget his
personal life. We all have personal lifes, don't we? And this women who were
interacting with him, were they pushed to? I mean, they wanted to
interact with EQ? Was EQ harrasing them, perhaps? This I would NEVER belive
it from EQ.
Perhaps they found too much?
Please, evaluate my participation here with you all. As you all know, I
was Cricket and I changed my nick. So I have not started to post as The
Gardener. Then tell me if I am lying.
Beyond this intimate feeling I have (that only I feel), I do not have
any other debits or tyes with EQ. As I said, since our interaction
'paused', I have not got contact with him, so there is nothing behind this
my post beyond what I am expressing.
What lyes beyond of what I am expressing, is what has taken me here to
interact sicne ever: My conscience.

Note:
Monday, August the 7th, 2006.
When I wrote the former set of ideas, I was impressed by the
revelations regarding this "subject" we knew as EQ, and I was impressed because,
as has been expressed on the #63 podcast, I was not able to conceive he
would be able to do what he did, since it was something I my self would
not do.
So, my mind was used against my self: This has been a tremendous
lession for me, from the which it has taken me a bit of time to obtain a
balance that allows me to continue my participation on this forum. As you
can read on my post above, the which I leave intact on the hope for
others to learn from it, I was accusing cult-like feelings: Worship for the
leader, disbelief for the evidence presented, and guilt.
This last one was peculiar: It was complex, quite in the fashion of
EQ's writting style, convoluted and non-sensical. This is the component of
EQ's "revolutionary" and "transpersonal" energy: A frecuence of
nothing. A interference. Noise.
There is only one line I would repeat today: I got benefits from this
interaction what I will never forget.
All throughout the forum there are instances of exemplar individuals
who have come to demonstrate some of the key ideas that gathers all of us
here, and we have learned lots from them. Well, to have been touched by
one of those individuals, this one particulary "professional", takes
the "learn" notion out from the theory, and right into the... Garden.
Laura, Anne, Beau, j0da, and all the rest: Your guidance and
comprehension, your support, your objectivity and your sincere interest for the
true, has been for me THE BEST LESSION OF ALL.
My gratitude and appreciation goes out for you all.
Thank You.

Last edited by The Gardener (2006-08-07 23:46:58)
0.003 seconds after reading this text, I decided to ignore it because I received "questionable vibes" from it. Specially when asks me not to "report" this request to moderators.
I have been absent for some time. I check the forum often. And today I found this thread, and went to rescue the quoted email.
Greetings to all.
Arturo.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Leif said:
And please, please, please don't report this request to the moderators.
That is how evil spreads... by spreading darkness, by hiding, by slinking around in the shadows. And that is why we have a policy of absolute sincerity and transparency to the extent possible at every level of our work.

The psychopath likes to act as an "éminence grise" - influencing things from the shadows. The intent is to convince selected members of the group that somehow, the group is not quite "doing its job" or that there is something "wrong" with the way it is being done. This amounts to a "moral warping of the group’s ideational content". That is what Vincent Bridges first sought to do, followed by numerous others who were unmasked thanks to our policy of total sincerity and transparency. EQ was only the latest in a long string of similar deviants.

Lobaczewski tells us how to recognize this kind of warping and contamination: it is always an "infiltration of foreign, simplistic, and doctrinaire contents, thereby depriving [the group] of any healthy support for, and trust in, the necessity of understanding of human nature. This opens the way for invasion by pathological factors and the ponerogenic role of their carriers."

Notice this in particular: the contamination consists, primarily, of a set of solutions to problems that are "foreign, simplistic and doctrinaire" and which GO AGAINST the necessity of UNDERSTANDING HUMAN NATURE. And we know what Lobaczewski considers "understanding human nature": a broad and deep knowledge of not only normal human psychology but of deviants, psychopaths in particular. For Lobaczewski, that is the first work of ANY group.

Any group that ignores the true nature of human beings in all shapes and sizes, including taking into account the existence and activity of pathological deviants, is doomed to be destroyed. Gaining adequate and accurate psychological knowledge is crucial in literally every area of life. Any group that does not make that its first order of business will not survive, period. As Lobaczewski says:

...detecting and describing these aspects of the ponerization process of human groups, which could not be understood until recently, we shall be able to counteract such processes earlier and more effectively. Again, depth and breadth of knowledge of human psychological variations is crucial.
But, of course, this is labeled as "paranoid" by Mr. Leif Erlingsson. He suggests that a selection process that is a natural result of normal human beings rejecting pathological human beings is "divisive" and sets up an "us against them" mentality. Let me point out that assuming that everyone has a soul and has the ability to figure things out for themselves, and that "Love conquers all" is just such a simplistic and doctrinaire contamination that inevitably, throughout history, has led to the failure of every group that has ever formed to accomplish any given goal. As Lobaczewski points out:

Thus, whenever we observe some group member being treated with no critical distance, although he betrays one of the psychological anomalies familiar to us, and his opinions being treated as at least equal to those of normal people, although they are based on a characteristically different view of human matters, we must derive the conclusion that this human group is affected by a ponerogenic process and if measures are not taken the process shall continue to its logical conclusion. We shall treat this in accordance with the above described first criterion of ponerology, which retains its validity regardless of the qualitative and quantitative features of such a union: the atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the association in concern as ponerogenic.
In short, if we had not recognized Vincent Bridges for what he is, if we had not recognized EQ for what he is, if we had treated their pathological ideas and opinions as normal, if we had not reacted with criticism and distancing ourselves, we would have been, by definition, ponerized.

Lobaczewski said:
Once a group has inhaled a sufficient dose of pathological material to give birth to the conviction that these not-quite-normal people are unique geniuses, it starts subjecting its more normal members to pressure characterized by corresponding paralogical and paramoral elements.
Lobaczewski then describes what happens to a group of normal people taken over by deviants:

For many people, such pressure of collective opinion takes on attributes of a moral criterion; for others, it represents a kind of psychological terror ever more difficult to endure. The phenomenon of counter-selection thus occurs in this phase of ponerization: individuals with a more normal sense of psychological reality leave after entering into conflict with the newly modified group; simultaneously, individuals with various psychological anomalies join the group and easily find a way of life there. The former feel “pushed into counter-revolutionary positions� , and the latter can afford to remove their masks of sanity ever more often.

People who have been thus thrown out of a ponerogenic association because they were too normal suffer bitterly; they are unable to understand their specific state. Their ideal, the reason they joined the group, which constituted a part of the meaning of life for them, has now been degraded, although they cannot find a rational basis for this fact. They feel wronged; they “fight against demons� they are not in a position to identify. The fact is their personalities have already been modified to a certain extent due to saturation by abnormal psychological material, especially psychopathic material. They easily fall into the opposite extreme in such cases, because unhealthy emotions rule their decisions. What they need is good psychological information in order to find the path of reason and measure. Based on a ponerologic understanding of their condition, psychotherapy could provide rapid positive results. However, if the union they left is succumbing to deep ponerization, a threat looms over them: they may become the objects of revenge, since they have “betrayed� a magnificent ideology.
And it is here most important to remember that the same process occurs when a psychological deviant is thrown out of a group of normal people. The way to tell the difference is that a normal group ejecting a deviant will not seek to exact revenge on the ejected member, while the deviant will seek revenge on the group he has been ejected from.

And that is how we can measure Vincent Bridges' pathology: He has spent six years seeking revenge; a very deep pathology indeed.

I should also note that, despite Mr. Leif Erlingsson's complaints, many of the footnotes in Ponerology are there because certain points needed clarification and we asked Lobaczewski by phone or email for that clarification and it was inserted as a footnote. Sorry, Leif, to disabuse you of your favored notion that the footnotes are evidence of my, or Henry's, "pathology."

Leif said:
And please, please, please don't report this request to the moderators.
Interesting too, is the fact that Leif is so interested in EQ. That certainly connects him to the Vincent Bridges, Golden Dawn Ophanic Magic crowd. All these people want are short-cuts to some kind of power over others. And that's what this "please, please, please..." is all about: gaining power over others.

Talk about your cult mind-set.

Sheesh.
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Prayers for rain said:
I think EsoQuest is mentionned a bit too much these days to be merely coincidential. Maybe he's just there lurking in the background, trying to influence the course of the forum thanks to his "magickal skills". We've gotta be careful and watch out.
I have to admit, Prayers for Rain, at first glance your response sounded as too paranoiac to me ;)
But after reading the same letter that was sent to Art, I get the feeling that EQ is indeed lurking in the shadows, even if those shadows just (but maybe not just) people like Leif or eightfold. I smell probing of the defenses ;)
 

vinny

The Living Force
i agree. either eq is back, or someone else in a similar capacity. by their fruits we shall know them!
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
I should also note that, despite Mr. Leif Erlingsson's complaints, many of the footnotes in Ponerology are there because certain points needed clarification and we asked Lobaczewski by phone or email for that clarification and it was inserted as a footnot. Sorry, Leif, to disabuse you of your favored notion that the footnotes are evidence of my, or Henry's, "pathology."
In fact. I would add, the only difference of opinions with Andrew Lobaczewski we have is about how "bad" is G. W. Bush. In fact, I was discussing this issue with him on the phone yesterday, and the explanation of this only difference is that Andrew, due to his age, does not have access to all the relevant and available data that other independent researchers have.

To end on a lighter note, I recommend reading this piece "George Bush: Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: PSYCHOPATH" :)
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
sv said:
i agree. either eq is back, or someone else in a similar capacity. by their fruits we shall know them!
I don't think it's EQ. He was hired specifically to do a job, he failed, and was reassigned. If anything at all mysterious is going on it is that Leif Erlingsson has become part of the Vincent Bridges cult (whether he realizes it or not), and Vincent has "bid" him to hook up with EQ because Vinnie thinks that EQ really knows something. He doesn't know who EQ really is (we do) and that EQ wouldn't soil his reputation by hanging out with such as Vinnie. EQ wasn't writing or doing anything out of any sincere belief in a single word he was saying: it was all just a job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom