Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

Status
Not open for further replies.

henry

The Living Force
Leif Erlingsson said:
But your total fokus on broken people - psychopaths - makes it appear as though you are dividing people into "us and them", in spite of all the nice words to the contrary. I know those nice words, I have believed many of them for 15 years as a devoted mormon. This focus - rather than focusing on sick systems - is dangerous. I agree completely with regard to the sick systems, and agree with Dr Lobaczewski in this regard. But some of the footnotes of the book, by Henri Sy and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, suggest that something is not right. They are footnotes which enforce the differences between different "kinds" of people. Actually contrary to one of Dr Lobaczewskis figures on one of the pages in the book.
Very intelligent people have been trying to understand "sick systems" for millennia. They have proposed a multitude of supposedly 'healthy' systems as replacements. Some of those systems have actually been attempted. None of them have worked. Why? Because they become ponerized, because the 'sick' individuals, about whom no one was talking, moved into the social movements working to establish these systems and corrupted them, as Lobaczewski so carefully documents in his book.

Without identifying the pathological individuals, and their pathological ways of seeing the world, without a thorough understanding of how their experience of the world is at variance with the experience of those Lobaczewski calls "normal people", we'll never get out of this cycle of events.

That should be clear to anyone who studies the question. Lobaczewski spends a long part of his book explaining the different individual types of pathology before he goes on to show how they function together in a system. He names individuals as examples of the various types. In other words, he does not shy away from looking at broken people. So Mr Erlingsson is incorrect to imply that there is a difference in understanding between the text and the footnotes.

Given that the psychopaths have used every conceivable difference between normal people to promote hatred, setting us one against another in order to divide and rule, killing any and all, it can be considered a somewhat normal learned response to automatically decide that any division is wrong, that dividing people at all, based upon any criteria, is wrong. We have certainly seen this response over and over again among those who think that if we could just love one another, the world would be a beautiful place. But it is clear to me that people who react this way are reacting mechanically.

I doubt they have ever studied psychopathy.

Cleckley or Hare present such a wealth of information about the nature of the psychopath, about their shallow emotional life matched with the most profound indifference to the fate of others, that it is clear we are dealing with individuals who are, for all practical purposes, significantly different from normal people. We ignore that difference at great risk, as the history of our world shows time and again.

It is easy to react mechanically, in this case, to respond to centuries of division based upon trivial difference with a refusal to differentiate and distinguish at all. It is much harder to be objective and to rise above our mechanical natures, digging below the appearances to understand the true dynamics at play. Resisting and overcoming the mechanical urge is a question of the 'third force', a question of understanding that there is good, evil, and the concrete situation in which the dynamic between the two plays out that must be understood in order to know which is which. A correct understanding of psychopathy is absolutely necessary to be able to make such an analysis.
 

Ruth

The Living Force
Laura said:
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.
Weird, perhaps Leif has not yet managed to remove all his desires or programing to join a cult, and is subconsciously being drawn to groups who will be able to manipulate and control him - or whom he can 'rise up in the heirachy' and control and manipulate others.

This may not be an example of a psychopath, but a 'broken' person who is 'going the wrong way'. Leif may find that the solutions to his problems are in fact harder and more difficult to find and implement than he thinks. Isn't the first thing they 'teach' people in fundamentalist cults a sort of black or white mentality? Some people appear to really WANT this as a solution. Its not that simple.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Leif Erlingsson said:
But your total fokus on broken people - psychopaths - makes it appear as though you are dividing people into "us and them", in spite of all the nice words to the contrary.
"Total focus"? "Makes it appear"? This is a guy who has read a couple of threads in the forum and less than 1/20th of the material on the website and he has decided that our focus is "totally" on psychopaths. Then, he decides that this is "dividing people into 'us and them.'"

Well, indeed, we do have a significant focus on psychopathy, (but that is by no means ALL we are about!) and certainly there is a reason and a tremendous need for this. The only people we have ever found who object are psychopaths and those who are susceptible to them.

For example, Sandra Brown is a very interesting lady. See her website here:
http://www.saferelationships.com/

She does workshops, see here:
http://www.saferelationships.com/workshops.htm

...which says in part:

The Dangerous Man workshops has been all over the country for years now bringing the eye-opening and butt-kicking message of dangerous relationships to women everywhere.

This power-packed reality-jolting two hours will make any woman sit up and take notice! Over a thousand women have now heard The Dangerous Man Workshop.

What’s In The Workshop?

In Sandy’s butt-kicking but light hearted way she is able to come in the backdoor of women’s psyche and make them hear the hard truths about their choices.

An information-crammed two hours, Sandy is able to teach them:

* 8 categories of dangerous men

* Help them understand WHY her red flags are important

* Insight into why she has stopped listening to her red flags

* Information on how to develop her own DO NOT DATE LIST of characteristics take from her own personal dating history

* Knowledge about signs and symptoms of dangerousness

* Which men CAN’T change and why
She also has a website for her first book: How to Spot a Dangerous Man:
http://www.howtospotadangerousman.com/

The whole reason I wrote ‘How to Spot a Dangerous Man Before You Get Involved’ is because 80% of women DON’T know what they are looking at, what the signs and symptoms of permanently pathological men are, and how to break up safely.
She explained to me part of what she tells women in her workshops:

I do think the problem is the lack of public psychopathy education everywhere. That has been the goal of my institute since I wrote my book and started the website.

Additionally, because we are so poorly trained in the general public about any kind of chronic mental illness[, it stands to reason we know even less about the permanent disorders. Everytime I do my workshops I say, "We believe in medical medicine that there are some disorders that are permanent... we don't expect a mentally retarded person to someday not be retarded or for someone with cystic fibrosis to be cured of it. But by God, we don't believe it in psychology. Everything to us is fixable, give a pill, put them in therapy. Those of us who work with the incurables will tell you, that's not so! And I'm here to teach you about all the different disorders that are not curable and practically untreatable."

I teach more than just about the psychopath, although he is a large focus, but I explain what Axis II diagnosis mean because so many of the women are with these kinds of Axis II guys waiting for them to change-- where by the nature of what is wrong with them, they can change very little. I spend a lot of time discussing 'hard-wiring' in Axis II.

The psychopath and other Axis II remain hidden because we don't believe in permanent mental disorders.
What ever he is doing is a 'mood' or a 'current unhappiness.' We can't spot what we don't even know.

So we try to explain away every behavior and of course the psychopath lives in dichotomies--so one day he is
loving and the next he is hateful -- it keeps the head swimming to where one is not even thinking about his inconsistency or his dichotomies - they are trying to emotionally survive and figure out if this is her problem and not his (as he suggests). He is smoke and mirrors---deflecting all pathology onto her and hiding behind the smoke.

We spend too much time studying the criminal psychopath who makes up such a small overall portion of the psychopath community. Hare's book 'Snakes In Suits' was a great insight into the corporate psychopath. Just the title reminds the world that it's not just the Ted Bundy's of the world we have to look out for.

Serial killers are so small in number compared to the numbers of socialized psychopaths who are doing the same
thing on an emotional, financial, and spiritual level to women. Physical rape is not the only defining experience of having experienced the raping power of psychopath -- to the psyche, the soul, and the pocketbook!

Here in the states men are taking workshops on the weekends to learn how to use subtle hypnosis and neuro linguistic programming to get the women to sleep with them in one night. It's a challenge amongst themselves. While they have to go 'learn' the hypnotic inductions, the anchoring hand movements, the deepening techniques, the psychopath by his very nature, already knows how to do it. Some said to me, "I don't know how I know this stuff. I've been working women over since I was a child. I just know how to do it. I can't really explain it."

Women who have abuse histories are naturally 'trance-y' anyway due to PTSD and light dissociation. I think
it's pretty easy to draw them in to a light trance and then work his magic linguistically.

One of the criteria I use when determing a personality disorder is 'do they take responsibility for their actions.' If they don't, this is ALWAYS an indicator of pathology in some form.

For the Christian types, I tell my clients, prayer is not going to change his personality structure. He will TELL you it will, but it will not. Pray for him, if you want to, while in another healthier relationship!
In other words, in addition to Hare and Babiak, and ourselves, there is another person who sees that what is needed is a vast, public educational campaign. It is absolutely shocking to realize that it is not just 80% of women who don't know what to look for or how to deal with it, but that it is 80% of all people. The problem is truly an epidemic. So, what kind of service to others would we be doing if, having been gifted with the lesson of psychopathy via Vincent Bridges, including the fact that it is incurable and untreatable, we decided NOT to share what we have learned?

Notice in particular this last remark: "For the Christian types, I tell my clients, prayer is not going to change his personality structure. He will TELL you it will, but it will not. Pray for him, if you want to, while in another healthier relationship!"

That holds as true for the "New Age" types as it does for the Christians. Trying to hold hands and "heal the soul" isn't gonna work; psychopaths do not have souls.

Sandra Brown, like Robert Hare, Paul Babiak and Martha Stout, believe that the number of psychopaths in the population is somewhat higher - even shockingly so - than the estimates given by Lobaczewski and some of the old-school researchers. Elsewhere Sandra Brown writes:

‘what makes a man truly psychopathic and dangerous are things that actually can’t be treated or cured. What can make a woman safe is to know how to spot those traits early and how to detach and de-tangle if she is already in one.

CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEFS—psychopaths are not that uncommon. They aren’t necessarily low-life criminals—although they can be that too.

So many of them are successful business men—they can be anyone actually. And another myth is that psychopaths are only the rapists and serial killers. Actually, those are a very small percentage of the psychopaths.

The reality is, our culture is very psychopathic and if a woman dates, she needs to know what they look like because her chances of encountering one are fairly decent odds. Even though he may not kill you, you will NEVER be the same from having encountered a psychopath that dismantles YOUR psyche.
Now, Sandra is focusing on women and intimate relationships, but the facts apply to everyone: PSYCHOPATHS ARE NOT THAT UNCOMMON and OUR CULTURE IS VERY PSYCHOPATHIC because it is dominated and run by psychopaths and EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT THEY "LOOK" LIKE.

However, Leif Erlingsson has a problem with this. He considers it an "us and them" mentality; cult-like.

Well, yeah, that's the whole psychopathic attitude that has been foisted on normal human beings. In fact, a study of the history shows us that the very word "cult" has been specially engineered to produce a certain psychological reaction in people so that anything that threatens the status quo of the dominant psychopaths can be quickly and easily dismissed and marginalized by referring to it as a "cult." And Leif demonstrates that he is as easily controlled by this manipulation as the next person - or perhaps, even more easily controlled since he doesn't evidence any common sense. People who are susceptible to the paranoid psychopath generally don't have much in the way of common sense or culture, as Lobaczewski points out.

It should be pointed out that, in addition to discussing the various types of psychpathies, Lobaczewski also discusses the types of individuals that are susceptible to them. Chief among these are people who have been raised by psychopaths or characteropaths of various kinds; following this, are the people who are susceptible for various physiological reasons, including brain damage from various causes.

As Sandra Brown points out, (and this is also discussed by Hare and Babiak), we live in a psychopathic culture, so it is almost impossible for ANYONE to grow up nowadays without susceptibility to psychopathy. It manifests, most often, as a kind of narcissism of the "natural world view." He points out that:

...whenever some unidentified psychopathological factor comes into play, the natural human world view ceases to be applicable.
He then points out how this "natural world view" can have a pernicious effect on normal people:

Moving further, we often meet with sensible people endowed with a well-developed natural world view as regards psychological, societal, and moral aspects, frequently refined via literary influences, religious deliberations, and philosophical reflections. Such persons have a pronounced tendency to overrate the values of their world view, behaving as though it were an objective basis for judging other people. They do not take into account the fact that such a system of apprehending human matters can also be erroneous, since it is insufficiently objective. Let us call such an attitude the “egotism of the natural world view� .
He points out that, up to the time that he was writing, the above egotism was not so pernicious, and was merely and "overestimation of that method of comprehension containing the eternal values of human experience." This seems to be somewhat along the line of what is bugging Leif. What Lobaczewski then says puts a period to the idea that such "egotistical assessments" have any value:

Today, however, the world is being jeopardized by a phenomenon which cannot be understood nor described by means of such a natural conceptual language; this kind of egotism thus becomes a dangerous factor stifling the possibility of objective counteractive measures.
Lobaczewski then points out that working to make the knowledge of psychopathy and other deviants known - to popularize the knowledge among all people - is crucial to saving us from this growing evil:

Developing and popularizing the objective psychological world view could thus significantly expand the scope of dealing with evil, via sensible action and pinpointed countermeasures.
But it has to be developed and popularized and that requires a campaign such as we have undertaken.

Lobaczewski wrote to me privately:

Where to go from here?

The first thing that must be done is to reconstruct the whole science of psychology and to promote and fund research in all areas where psychology is applicable, which generally means all areas of life in society. Then, to promote the science and its usefulness to society at large. It should be taught in high schools, including the necessary data on pathologies, as well as an overview of the macro-social implications. The popularization of true psychology would improve the ability of people and communities to make better decisions in their lives and plans. A basic knowledge of the true nature of evil – that it can be scientifically elaborated – would make people more circumspect in their engagements with other people and life in general.

Such a popularized background is necessary for the development of the science and its variegated social applications. Communities that understand its values and ideas will support the implementation of those changes necessary to deal with social pathology. Such popularization may enable a development of what could be called “eugenic morality� which would inspire voluntary efforts to contribute to the reduction, from generation to generation, of the burden of genetically transmitted psychopathological anomalies. The naiveté of women due to the serious lack of accurate psychological knowledge is a major cause of the increasing numbers of genetic psychopaths being born in the present day and for the past 50 years or so.

What is of crucial importance is to fully grasp the importance of the science of Ponerology and how many applications it may have for a future of peace and a humane humanity. This science permits the human mind to understand things that have been, for millennia, unintelligible: the genesis of evil. This understanding could very well bring about a turning point in the history of civilization which, I should add, is presently on the point of self-destruction.

Therefore, my request to you is: Be not shocked with the immense size of the task! Take it as a work to be gradually performed and hope that many other people will come to help and thus progress will be assured.

It seems that, in the natural order of things, that those persons who have suffered the most from psychopaths or bearers of other mental anomalies, will be those called to do this work, to accept the burden. If you do, accept also, ladies and gentlemen, your fate with an open heart and humility, and always with a sense of humor. Cherish assistance from the Universal Mind and know that Great Values often grow from Great Suffering.
Yes, we suffer each time we see a single individual who has been overtaken by the ponerological element in society - an element represented by Vincent Bridges and his kind though, in truth, they are very small potatoes. Still, he has been useful as a specimen, as a case study, and continues to be. We are also strengthened each time someone comes along and who, due to their experiences and their intellect combined with heart, see immediately the value of this work, and join with us in our labors in the field.

Certainly, psychopaths will be shocked and horrified at what Lobaczewski has written above: "Such popularization may enable a development of what could be called “eugenic morality� which would inspire voluntary efforts to contribute to the reduction, from generation to generation, of the burden of genetically transmitted psychopathological anomalies" and will scream long and loud about "cult" and "us vs. them ideas" and so on, because, in truth, it IS US VERSUS THEM!!! And "THEY" are psychopaths! Intraspecies predators whose moral imperative is the destruction and enslavement of the majority of humankind: normal people with souls and conscience who feel a responsibility to each other to help each other and to warn each other about the predators in our midst.

If that offends Leif Erlingsson, then I can only suggest he must be one of them.
 

foofighter

Jedi Council Member
Leif has just sent me another email off-list, and it is again quite revealing of his attitude:
Hi. Could you possibly get me the ponerology book as a datafile? I have noted your extensive quotes from it, and suspect that you have it as a datafile, or that you can get it. I would not spread the file, if I got it, but simply want to easily search the text for things that I know I have read. The purpose is to write more about ponerology.

If I had had the e-mail address to Laura or Ark I would have written them directly instead. In some sense I think the risk of seeing this letter posted publically would be smaller then. ;)


Regarding the discussions about me on the Signs of the Times Forum:

I am not going to spend any more energy on the discussions conducted at Signs of the Times. I have now commented this on http://blog(dot)lege.net/content/signs_of_the_times.html and that is enough. That is where one comes if you click on A JUSTIFIED WARNING - links on my blog. The readers can see both perspectives, Signs of the Times too, through this page, and can then make up their own mind. The forum has, so to speak, worked on their interaction with myself, which was mainly provoked by your's and other's posting of private correspondence, and I have no intent to fertilize this process further.

With regards

// Leif Erlingsson. Are you asleep? Wake up with http://blog(dot)lege.net/
Many covert threats and proverbial slaps in the face. Interesting choice of word at the end: "fertilize" ("göda" in Swedish). There's that shit thing again...

Oh, and Ark, you won the bet re: the links ;-)
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Leif Erlingsson said:
Excerpt from my personal history, this part authored 2004-07-25:
... I was already thoroughly indoctrinated into something that with noted psychologist R D Laing's theory of "social phantasy systems" could be described as exactly such a system: ``In Self and Others, however, Laing described normality as a state of unwitting immersion in what he termed "social phantasy systems" - deeply shared assumptions about reality that define the perspective of a particular group, but are not necessarily shared by outsiders, and may not tally with the facts.'' Online introduction to R D Laing's Self and Others (1961),
If one has a look at the material gathered by the SOTT people about psychopathy and psychopaths : books, links, blogs, threads, podcasts, editorials,... one can easily realize that the shared knowledge about pyschopathy and psychopaths is unfortunately not only based on assumptions.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Actually 'göda' translates to 'feed', as in giving food, energy. At least in Skåne, where I am from. Perhaps it has other nuances in other parts. Thanks for the interesting insight in the mind of 'foofighter'....
 

Alana

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Leif Erlingsson said:
Thanks for the interesting insight in the mind of 'foofighter'....
Actually it was Foofighter who offered us an interesting insight into the mind of Leif Erlingsson. Not even an appropriate twist.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Axel Dunor said:
If one has a look at the material gathered by the SOTT people about psychopathy and psychopaths : books, links, blogs, threads, podcasts, editorials,... one can easily realize that the shared knowledge about pyschopathy and psychopaths is unfortunately not only based on assumptions.
But deviants are not into "facts" and data. They "create" their own reality! That's what Bush and the gang claim to be doing.

Well, let's look at something Leif wrote in the email he sent to Foofighter posted on page one of this thread. He writes:

To me, who have studied the dynamic of how new sect victims are manipulated to stop trusting their own judgment, and transfer the power of decision making to someone else, this is very obvious.
Here Leif has missed the entire concept of what we do, which is to ask for data, evidence, proof. Unfortunately, since Leif has read less than 1/10th of the material on the website and/or forum, he is unable to comprehend the basis - the very foundation - from which we operate. No one is EVER asked to "transfer the power of decision making to someone else. We do insist, however, on facts and data being the yardstick instead of assumptions, wishful thinking, opinions, and so on. Not much really matters in terms of a group's interaction other than facts and data that are accessible to all. Leif can say from now until the cows come home that his opinion is right about anything, but without providing hard data, facts, analysis, that is evident to anybody, even a child, then his opinion doesn't count for much.

Leif continues with his opinion:

Leif said:
But I have not been certain whether it is only you who have these problems, or if this is a disease symptom for QFS. My studies the past few days suggest the latter. Which is a tragical paradox.

What you do is extremely excluding.
Leif is expressing an opinion, not stating a fact here. He also does not provide any data. He has been asked for data more than once, but has failed to provide any.

Leif said:
Which, considering the deep esoteric insights and knowledge that you have attained, as I said is deeply tragical.
Again, no data, just opinion. Why does Leif think that Foofighter has "deep esoteric insights and knowledge? And if he does think so, and that is based on any facts, why does he not then consider that someone who may have deep esoteric insights and knowledge could, possibly, have something to teach HIM?

Leif said:
I cannot but wonder if this can be a sign of the "self-destruct-programming" Laura supposedly was a victim of.
Here, Leif reveals his ignorance of the material on the website. If he had continued to read through the entire Wave Series and into the Adventures Series he wouldn't have made such an embarrassing mistake of assumption.

Leif said:
What you do is hence the very OPPOSITE of networking. I network. You don't. You repel. You divide. You go deeper and deeper into paranoia. All attempts to get to you, will eventually be interpreted as attacks - if this is not happening already. I can only hope that you will find you way out of the labyrinth, some time.
Now, the above comment is particularly interesting in view of what Leif had just written earlier, to wit:

Leif said:
Here I end the example on failed communication with my missionary and her "emotional-support network", resulting in failed friendship. But it is only one example of many of failed communication. I have routinely been compared to the Devil, for my efforts. I suppose that I offer the "forbidden fruit of knowledge".... How else could I be compared to the Devil? Or perhaps it's because of my dedication. When I was misunderstood I used to assume that my communication skills were inadequate, and try another way.
So, out of one side of his mouth, Leif says "I network. You don't. You repel. You divide." and out of the other side of his mouth he says: "...it is only one example of many of failed communication. I have routinely been compared to the Devil, for my efforts."

Now, which is it, Leif?

Next item:

Leif said:
For myself I intend to network. And not how you think of it, but with the intent to include people, to do the opposite of being paranoid.
Which is then contradicted by:

Leif said:
I already run a supportnetwork for "Post Mormons"... The discussions ... remind me a lot about those at <GLP/Vinnie thread reference> The dynamics is the same; to smash holy cows and self inflated "truthsayers".
Now, he is intending to "include" people by "smashing holy cows and self-inflated truth-sayers.

Final item:

Leif said:
You go deeper and deeper into paranoia. All attempts to get to you, will eventually be interpreted as attacks - if this is not happening already.
I think that the problem is the other way around. It is Leif who is paranoid about us, and he has been made that way by Vincent Bridges and gang who he apparently admires. He is so paranoid that he considers it important to post warnings about us, to call us a cult, to creep about in the darkness whispering lies and innuendos about us.

Talk about paranoid!!!
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Irini said:
Leif Erlingsson said:
Thanks for the interesting insight in the mind of 'foofighter'....
Actually it was Foofighter who offered us an interesting insight into the mind of Leif Erlingsson. Not even an appropriate twist.
Well, to tell the truth, when I was 10 years old, I was shooting sparrows with a slingshot. I didn't know better, I didn't realize what I was doing, I didn't THINK. I simply wanted to be the best shooter.

Perhaps Leif has a similar aim as I used to have at age 10?

"[...]I'm not talking sexually, but seriously is there an age that a man thinks its time to grow up, you know start becoming responsible, reliable and not as disrespectful.[...]"

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts6314434.aspx
:)
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
As regards Leif's claim that Lobaczewski's work is being used by us to create an "us and them" confrontation or exclusionary stance; our position on this has been clearly outlined in the post-script to the latest edition of Political Ponerology, an excerpt from which I include here:

[...] The first class of response has been to claim that by dividing the population into "normal people and pathological deviants" Political Ponerology proposes a division that could be used to justify ‘pogroms’ and therefore promotes the very ideas that are condemned by Lobaczewski. This argument suggests that we shouldn't discuss these issues, even if they are true, because they can be grounds for the same kind of genocides that we have seen throughout human history.

The second type of attack saw the ideas of Political Ponerology taken up and lauded by the very people it is analyzing, that is, people without conscience, in a blatant attempt to stain the work through association.

If the fundamental difference between the pathological types described in this book and normal people comes down to the question of conscience, psychopaths being Without Conscience, as Robert Hare so rightly observed in the title of his study of psychopathy, the reactions to � obaczewski's work can help to further highlight that division within humanity.

Us and Them

Throughout history, the invisible enemy among us has used any and every sort of physical and material difference between people to divide them and keep them at each other's throats. Skin color, language, nationality, wealth and social position, religion; nothing is too small, large or supposedly sacrosanct that it cannot be used to stir hatred in the heart of man and set him against his neighbor. How many hundreds of millions of people have been brutally killed and how many others have had their lives destroyed in the name of such surface differences?

So clearly, differences can be used to the detriment of normal humanity.

Does that, however, mean that the notion of difference itself is to be rejected? Is it not possible to draw a distinction between forms of difference, the "difference that makes a difference" as Gregory Bateson put it?

The differences outlined above are material, quickly identifiable, and touch only on the surface of things. They lead to ‘top-down’ generalizations that ignore differences in individuals who are members of a given group. For example, fundamentalist Christians are generally believed to hold somewhat extreme views on religion, but it is not reasonable to assert that all fundamentalist Christians are therefore bad people.

Another problem is that such generalizations and labeling are always couched in moral terms: "our" group is better than "their" group and a list of reasons is given. The lists are often based upon nothing but hate and prejudice, amplified and repeated by the media.

What Andrew � obaczewski is proposing is fundamentally different. Rather than this ‘top-down’ approach, Lobaczewski approaches the matter from the ‘bottom-up’ where each pathological individual must be identified and understood as a separate case.

The salient feature of the distinction made by � obaczewski is that it is not immediately visible or apparent. There is no vast net that can be thrown over entire groups of people. It is a difference based upon behavior, on the agreement (or not) between an individual's words and their actions. It is a difference that demands that we study closely an individual and track, over a period of time, whether or not what he or she does matches what he or she says. It is not quickly apparent or readily discernable. It does not lend itself to quick and easy characterizations.

Even if pathocrats may occupy all the important positions of power, a broad net still cannot be thrown over them, either, because each must be diagnosed for particular pathologies.

The second aspect that separates this division from those used up until now is that, because we are dealing with a distinction based upon conscience, any proposed methods for identifying pathological types must be governed by conscience itself. If those who would propose to identify psychopaths and other Schizoidal types resort to methods that are cruel and inhuman, then it is an indication that they, themselves, may suffer from the same deviation. To employ vilification of psychological deviants rather than medical and psychological care and understanding of their pathologies is for the slave to take up the whip of his former master. One group of pathocrats cannot be substituted for another which would be the result in such a case.

When the pathologies of these types are understood as a form of disease, then they can be treated, not subjected to revenge or retribution. For those cases that are incurable, humane means of quarantine can be found to prevent them from attaining roles in public life where they can impose their pathological view of reality upon normal people. They have the right to existence; they just don't have the right to impose a minority worldview and set of standards on the majority. Six percent of any society's population does not have the right to dictate to the other 94%.

Moreover, with improved education on the existence and dangers of these pathologies and wide publicizing of the nature of the system of pathocracy and how it functions, as well as training in how to spot and respond to the manipulations they use, the normal members society can immunize themselves against it.

Our greatest weakness is ignorance. Today, not only are we helpless in the face of their manipulations, we are completely unaware of their existence as a separate class of people co-habiting and ruling our planet.

Lobaczewski writes at great length on the dangers of the moralizing stance. By shifting the terrain of understanding to diagnosis and cure, the moralizing urge can be eliminated, and in its place a diagnostic can be carried out by people of conscience.

One final word on the notion of "us and them".

It must be understood that the process of understanding both the pathocrats and their pathocracy as a platform from which the society of normal people might reassert their authority over their own lives, we are not engaged in a fight against something. Such a characterization is, once again, falling into the trap of moralizing behavior. We are not engaged in a fight, it is a defense, a defense of conscience. Because of this, the work to expose the pathocrats can only be done by those who speak in the name of conscience and whose actions are guided by conscience. We are not fighting a war where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Unity, must be unity around the core of conscience. [...]
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
And with that, this thread is closed. If anyone wishes to continue to discuss his views with Leif, please do so on his forum. We aren't into disputations with anyone who leaves us in peace. We don't go to their forums to castigate or defame them, however we WILL defend our right to pursue our work as we see fit in our own space.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
After closing the thread because it was obvious that Erlingsson was feeding on the attention and energy, it seems that he decided to get his "narcissistic supply" in other ways. A couple of days ago, I received an email from Foofighter who was, as you may recall, the initial contact with Mr. Erlingsson, which included the text of an email he had just received from Erlingsson which I reproduce here:

Leif Erlingsson said:
Date sent: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:32:42 +0100

Dear _____________

As you have...

* posted private and offlist correspondence in a forum I never
intended it to be posted

You have therefore

* implicitly accepted responsibility for any misunderstandings caused
by this action in said forum and elsewhere in the world,

and as...

* this have caused misunderstandings
in the forum and elsewhere in the world

and as...

* the responsibility to clear those misunderstandings up rests with
the person causing them,

and as...

* that person is you,

You are hereby

* requested to undo the damage you have caused.

I propose that you correspond privately with me, so that I can explain
the misunderstandings to you, and that you then explain to the people
affected by these misunderstandings what they were, preferably using
your own words, and at any rate not quoting verbatim.

The reason I will not engage in public discussion about matters I did
never post (until you did, after that I posted it on my own web-page)
on the forum in question is that I refuse to be manipulated into a
'dance' I never asked for. See my explanation at the bottom of
http:(2slash)blog.lege(dot).net/content/signs_of_the_times_5(dot)html

I have studied brainwashing, etc, quite a lot while deprogramming
myself from Mormonism, and refuse to participate in anything that
remotely smells of others coercing me according to THEIR ideas on how
things should be done.

As you have already by the act of your posting accepted the above
responsibility, I'll expect to hear from you PRIVATELY shortly, with
your word as a gentleman (you ARE a gentleman, I hope?), that you will
not continue to behave in the inappropriate manner you have started
out in.

Leif Erlingsson
My initial thought about this was that Foofighter ought to just leave the guy alone. He was obviously setting up the very thing he mentioned in his first post, "The Pattern," to wit:

The Pattern is a method used that subjugates and dehumanizes. It does this by creating a new fabricated world, the direct opposite of this real world. ...

The Pattern destroys the awareness of all the above necessary faculties for the realization of our own individual identity; the most essential parts of us as human beings are missing. Therefore, all that is human and intrinsic to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is invalidated. The Pattern destroys Identity, along with integrity of mind, and the ability to truly love.

IT DOES THIS BY TURNING THE REAL WORLD UPSIDE-DOWN
THROUGH FRAUD AND THEFT
So, ignoring Erlingsson seemed to be the best course of action. After all, he just seemed to be a poor, misguided, wounded chap. However, the next day, I received another email from a forum member who had received the exact same email saying the following:

Date sent: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:07:26 +0100

Laura & Ark,
...

I received a somewhat threatening mail by this person which frankly
put me off , and I don't know what to do about it : I don't want to
enter into an endless and tiring debate with this psycho, shall I
just ignore it and move on ? Or is it important that I expose the
thing?

Leif Erlingsson said:
From : "Leif Erlingsson"
Date : 27 janvier 2007 23:28:00 HNEC


Dear _________,


As you have...

* posted private and offlist correspondence in a forum I never
intended it to be posted

You have therefore

* implicitly accepted responsibility for any misunderstandings
caused by this action
in said forum and elsewhere in the world,

and as...

* this have caused misunderstandings
in the forum and elsewhere in the world

and as...

* the responsibility to clear those misunderstandings up rests
with the person causing them,

and as...

* that person is you,

You are hereby

* requested to undo the damage you have caused.

I propose that you correspond privately with me, so that I can
explain the misunderstandings to you, and that you then explain to
the people affected by these misunderstandings what they were,
preferably using your own words, and at any rate not quoting verbatim.

The reason I will not engage in public discussion about matters I
did never post (until you did, after that I posted it on my own web-
page) on the forum in question is that I refuse to be manipulated
into a 'dance' I never asked for. See my explanation at the bottom
of http:(2slash)blog.lege(dot)net/content/signs_of_the_times_5(dot)html

I have studied brainwashing, etc, quite a lot while deprogramming
myself from Mormonism, and refuse to participate in anything that
remotely smells of others coercing me according to THEIR ideas on
how things should be done.

As you have already by the act of your posting accepted the above
responsibility, I'll expect to hear from you PRIVATELY shortly,
with your word as a gentleman (you ARE a gentleman, I hope?), that
you will not continue to behave in the inappropriate manner you
have started out in.

Leif Erlingsson
Interestingly, both of these individuals, whom I know fairly well, felt THREATENED by these emails. Heck, any normal person would have felt threatened because they were, in fact, threatening and de-humanizing. I decided that this Erlingsson guy was not much a wounded innocent, but actually a stalking predator. His egotistical imperiousness was truly astonishing. After all, he came to this forum and started the thread, he made the defamatory remarks about the owners of the forum on THEIR space, he began the process of "fishing for followers" in the dark on someone else's forum, and now he has the nerve to say that it is the fault of his intended victims that he was exposed for the manipulator he is and it is their responsibility to "fix it" ??? !!! Say WHAT?!

We notice that it is his claim that having supporters is indicative of "cult status" and that he is not going to expose himself to any kind of open, public discussion of issues - at least not here. His ostensible reason is "I have studied brainwashing, etc, quite a lot while deprogramming myself from Mormonism, and refuse to participate in anything that remotely smells of others coercing me according to THEIR ideas on how things should be done."

Well, that sounds almost logical, doesn't it? Sure, until you read everything else he has written and observed his behavior.

Indeed, the "group think" process is widely used in cults - heck, it is used all over the net by hired guns that go around to message boards making sure that it appears that the majority of people support Zionism and Bush. The reason it is used is because it is NATURAL for normal people to be drawn together socially and to seek to exclude the deviants by banding together against them. However, this secret of human behavior is well-known by the deviants and they use it ruthlessly, creating planned and deceptive "social proof networks" that are designed to drive normal people into states of mind and trends of thought that are NOT normal. A prime example is the Kitty Genovese case where a group of people had been so pathogized by their local culture that they stood around and watched a young woman get murdered by a deviant and did nothing. Our entire culture is pretty much that way, and this forum is one place where NORMAL people have taken back their natural control in a natura way, and deviants will be exposed here for what they are in a natural way: by sharing information and networking.

We have discussed the methods of deviants and exposed them extensively here. For example, we have exposed the use of the techniques advocated in the Hasbara manual - a Zionist propaganda handbook for Jewish students - of which the following is a sample:

Hasbara Manual said:
Seven Basic Propaganda Devices

Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message. To effectively present Israel to the public, and to counter anti-Israel messages, it is necessary to understand propaganda devices.

This article applies a list of seven propaganda devices to the Israeli situation, and by doing so allows an understanding of some of the ways in which public opinion is fought for in the International arena.

The seven basic propaganda devices are:

NAME CALLING
GLITTERING GENERALITY
TRANSFER
TESTIMONIAL
PLAIN FOLKS
FEAR
BANDWAGON

Each of the seven is followed by several paragraphs of examples on how the technique is to be applied.

Name Calling

Through the careful choice of words, the name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea. The most obvious example is name calling -- "they are a neo-Nazi group" tends to sound pretty negative to most people. More subtly, name calling works by selecting words with subtle negative meanings for some listeners. For example, describing demonstrators as "youths" creates a different impression from calling them "children".

For the Israel activist, it is important to be aware of the subtly different meanings that well chosen words give. Call "demonstrations" "riots", many Palestinian political organizations "terror organizations", and so on.

Those opposed to Israel use name calling all the time. Consider the meaning of the word "settlement". When applied to Gilo, a suburb of Jerusalem over the disputed 1967 borders, the word "settlement" creates the unfortunate impression that Gilo is located in the middle of the West Bank, and occupied by religious and political extremists (the image many people have acquired of settlements). That's how the media and opponents of Israel use name-calling. Other examples include referring to the "war crimes" of Ariel Sharon, talking about the "invasion" of the West Bank when an army unit enters territory under PA sovereignty in order to find terrorists, and so on.

Name calling is hard to counter. Don't allow opponents the opportunity to engage in point scoring. Whenever "name calling" is used, think about referring to the same thing (e.g. Gilo), but with a more favorable description (e.g. "suburb" }. Consider calling settlements "communities" or "villages". Use the same names back; if somebody talks about Sharon's "war crimes", talk about Arafat's war crimes and involvement in terror.
Now, the Hasbara manual exposes how groups of deviants can impose a false reality on others by various techniques, not the least of which is "social proof," i.e. a group acts as a planned and deliberate "tag team" with the intention of manipulating a target into believing lies. This method is used very effectively by such people as Vincent Bridges and Storm Bear Williams though, as we have discovered, they have to pretend to be several different people with different internet identities in order to produce this effect and thus it is very time consuming for them.

Now, the people behind the Hasbara Manual call what they’re doing “Israel Advocacy“, but, as a.saccus points out, "“advocacy" in this context is a blatant misnomer: what they are doing is outright sophistry and rhetorical manipulation; to be used upon those (mainly young people) who believe they’re engaging in a genuine dialogue or debate, but are really being set up and led down the garden path."

In a forum of normal people (and here I use the term as Lobaczewski uses it to denote individuals with normal psychological substratum as opposed to those with pathological defects) who have already thrown off the yoke of brainwashing - which is what most of the members of this forum are - and who have learned the lessons of how manipulators work to induce people to believe lies, it is only natural that they will be very good at spotting deviants and that REAL SOCIAL PROOF will manifest. Since they ALL can see what is happening, because they have "been there, done that," its not difficult to imagine why they ALL just simply pour scorn on any new manipulator who comes down the pike, once he has been identified by certain criteria as a manipulator.

And of course, normal people banding together and calling a spade a spade, and seeing deviants for what they really are, is the LAST thing the deviants want, so they must brand any such group as a "cult." Isn't it funny that the most natural thing in the world about normal human beings - to assemble in groups around fact based philosophies - is labeled "cult" by psychopaths?

And so, when such a group forms, what is the deviant to do? Well, try to ponerize one or two members exactly as Leif has proposed above.

Leif Erlingsson said:
I propose that you correspond privately with me, so that I can explain
the misunderstandings to you, and that you then explain to the people
affected by these misunderstandings what they were, preferably using
your own words, and at any rate not quoting verbatim.
We know, from the Hasbara manual, that one of the main ways that effective brainwashing works if you can't lure the person into a set-up of fake "social proof", is in a "one on one" situation. This amounts to cutting someone out of the herd so as to prey upon them.

Clearly, when someone seeks to have a "private chat" and declares that the public forum of normal people who have deprogrammed themselves is, in fact, a "cult," then there is only one conclusion to be drawn: you are dealing with someone who is not seeking the Truth of the matter, nor will this person discuss the issues fairly with you. Such a person has an agenda to push.

The Hasbara manual calls this “Neutralizing Negativity" or “Pushing Positivity“ (see the Hasbara Handbook on PDF page 15); in other words, their goal is manipulation, not truth.

Such a person seeks to "set the agenda," (i.e. establish private communications since they know they cannot win on the issues).

Hasbara Handbook page 16 said:
The person who sets the agenda will usually win the debate.[…] activists get to determine what to talk about,[…] Being proactive keeps the right issues in the public eye, and in the way Israel activists want them to be seen. It is much easier to get Palestinian activists defending Arafat against charges of being a corrupt terrorist than it is to explain to disinterested students that Ariel Sharon didn’t kill anybody at Sabra and Chatilla(which of course he didn’t).
This same description applies exactly to Leif Erlingsson. He seeks to set the agenda so as to determine what to talk about, and the way it gets talked about. He also seeks to get others to defend this forum against the charges of being a cult rather than dealing with the real and serious issues of psychopathic programming and brainwashing.

Notice the turning of responsibility onto the recipient of the emails, the broad paramoralistic suggestions that the receiver was "bad" or "immoral" in some way, and that, as a consequence, evil has occurred, and if the recipient doesn't do something about it like RIGHT NOW, more evil will follow. Again, this is described in the Hasbara Manual:

Hasbara Handbook page 35 said:
When a speaker warns that the consequences of ignoring his message is likely to be war, conflict, personal suffering, and so forth, they are manipulating fear to advance their message. Listeners have deep-seated fears of violence and disorder, which can be tapped into by creating false dichotomies -- “either listen to me, or these terrible things will happen." Listeners are too preoccupied by the threat of terrible things to think critically about the speaker’s message.
Using fear to manipulate is a typical psychopathic ploy and Leif has used it exactly as a psychopath would. That is not to say he is a psychopath, but his thinking processes are certainly pathological as evidence by the above offlist emails.

For example, the claim that he is entitled to privacy of his email correspondence. The fact is, this is one of the maneuvers of the psychopath and our society has been so inculcated into this "honor" and "gentleman" thing, that the instant those words are used, with suggestions that the person has been "unethical," anybody can be induced to shut up and "keep secrets," most particularly the secrets of the psychopath. It's a not-so-subtle "name calling." However, from our point of view, and what we teach in QFS is: The instant that one discovers that one is being manipulated by a deviant, all "socially accepted rules" about "privacy" and so on are null and void. It is only between sincere, truth-seeking people that such rules can lead to Truth, and the honor and gentlemanly behavior of decent people is mercilessly manipulated by deviants to keep THEIR secrets!

Now, interestingly, to make this point, when I wrote back to the second recipient of the above email that she was not the only person who had received this arrogant, demanding email, she wrote back to me:

There i see how networking can be useful and beneficial. If I hadn't communicated Leif's stalking email to you, I wouldn't have known he had threatened other members, I'd have felt isolated and i'd have freaked out.
And that is exactly why psychopaths are the ones that demand secrecy, that demand "one on one" discussions and eschew a true, open network AMONG NORMAL PEOPLE where light is shined on all the dark doings of deviants.

Seeking these "secret discussions" is how deviants operate... and again, it is the same way predators operate in the wild; separate their victim from the herd.

We sure notice how THEY use "social proof" to push the psychopathic agenda, but they yell bloody murder when normal people figure out what they are up to and stop keeping their secrets and start banding together to shine the light on their dark deeds.
 

henry

The Living Force
Let's look at the rationale as well as the assumptions, stated and unstated, in the message Mr Erlingsson sent in private to at least two members of this forum. First we'll begin with the logic he uses to set up his attempt at manipulation:

Leif Erlingsson said:
Date sent: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:32:42 +0100

Dear _____________

As you have...

* posted private and offlist correspondence in a forum I never
intended it to be posted
As we point out over and again, the claim to "privacy" is often used to isolate people. It can be a ploy to manipulate. We have seen LE come to the forum and begin to contact people privately in order to sow dissension. To each of them, he says, "Keep this private. Don't tell anyone." Obviously, someone with the intention to manipulate will not want their actions shown to the light of day. They will "never intend" for their messages to be posted.

The point is that his "intention" is to manipulate.

Leif Erlingsson said:
You have therefore

* implicitly accepted responsibility for any misunderstandings caused
by this action in said forum and elsewhere in the world,
There is no misunderstanding. The posting of the messages helped to bring real understanding of what LE was up to. The first step of the guilt trip is planted: the claim that the recipient implicitly accepted responsibility for something.

Leif Erlingsson said:
and as...

* this have caused misunderstandings
in the forum and elsewhere in the world
What are the misunderstandings that LE claims have happened? He doesn't list them. He proposes below that the recipient enter into more private communications in order that LE can explain them. If there are misunderstandings, why does he need to act in private? What can't he simply post those misunderstandings here on the forum?

And the vague "elsewhere in the world". What misunderstandings?

Leif Erlingsson said:
and as...

* the responsibility to clear those misunderstandings up rests with
the person causing them,

and as...

* that person is you,

You are hereby

* requested to undo the damage you have caused.
The ploy is to make the recipient feel guilty for having caused misunderstandings "on the forum and elsewhere in the world". Where in the world? We don't know. There is no information or data in the message, only emotional manipulation. The data will only be given after the recipient buys into the guilt trip and engages in private correspondence.

The "request" is actually a demand. Wouldn't anyone -- at least any 'normal person' in Lobaczewski's sense -- want to undo damage they had caused? But the recipient is being manoeuvered into accepting responsibility before knowing what the damage was. Is that correct? Or is it a manipulation?

So what does LE propose?

Leif Erlingsson said:
I propose that you correspond privately with me, so that I can explain
the misunderstandings to you, and that you then explain to the people
affected by these misunderstandings what they were, preferably using
your own words, and at any rate not quoting verbatim.
LE doesn't want to take responsibility for anything. He will not intervene and will not allow his own words to be quoted. The recipient is told to use his own words, which gives LE the possibility later to come back and claim he was misquoted or misunderstood a second time.

The recipient is being set up to be played again and again.

Leif Erlingsson said:
The reason I will not engage in public discussion about matters I did
never post (until you did, after that I posted it on my own web-page)
on the forum in question is that I refuse to be manipulated into a
'dance' I never asked for. See my explanation at the bottom of
http:(2slash)blog.lege(dot).net/content/signs_of_the_times_5(dot)html
What is the exact nature of the "dance" he did not ask for? An open discussion where anyone could participate?

Leif Erlingsson said:
I have studied brainwashing, etc, quite a lot while deprogramming
myself from Mormonism, and refuse to participate in anything that
remotely smells of others coercing me according to THEIR ideas on how
things should be done.
And yet LE is using emotional blackmail to try and coerce the people who received his email into doing things according to HIS way of how they should be done. So, our way, the way he claims "remotely smells of coercion", is to have the discussion out in the open. His way is to keep it private, use a third person to promote his ideas, getting others to do his work for him, so that he can remain untouched hidden in the background.

Which of the two approaches is more likely to get at the truth of the matter?

Leif Erlingsson said:
As you have already by the act of your posting accepted the above
responsibility, I'll expect to hear from you PRIVATELY shortly, with
your word as a gentleman (you ARE a gentleman, I hope?), that you will
not continue to behave in the inappropriate manner you have started
out in.

Leif Erlingsson
More emotional blackmail. He is telling them they have accepted responsibility, "coercing" them into taking responsibility for the sharing of information that enabled us all to see the games LE was playing. He says that a "gentlemen" would do as he says, another manipulation.

LE offers no data on the exact nature of the damage done. The message is designed to play on feelings of guilt in order to emotionally coerce the recipient into doing things HIS way, in private, in such a way that LE is free of any responsibility.

The whole thing stinks to me.
 
A

Art

Guest
Just to report I received the same message from dude.
Boy... I still cannot stop laughing.
He of course skips the part where he in an implicit manner already accepted all my reactions and desition regarding his corresóndence by writting to me in the first place -and this fact overrides all his new demands, rendering them just plainly lunatic.

Adding to that:

1.- Out of the blue, dude writes to me, thinking there is no, and shall not be, any consecuence from that (except the ones dude can extract for his benefit, of course)
2.- Dude writes demanding for information.
3.- Dude orders to keep it all private.

hehe.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
henry said:
The whole thing stinks to me.
Stinks? It is a master manipulation from the textbook! As he himself does not sound as a bright person (how else his involvement into mormon's ideology can be accounted for?). the most probable working hypothesis is that there is someone or something behind the scenes pulling his strings. Much like it was with Eso. He has been banned from the forum, like Eso has been banned - for using the forum for privately harassing forum's members. Probably more members of this forum have been harassed this way. We could say: he is looking for his cult followers. But looking at all the data that we know now, there seems to be more going on behind the scenes.

He has provided another lesson - for all those readers who have ears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom