Vincent Bridges, Jay Weidner and Gang - Web Pathology

[brainwave]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

Andy, Anders whatever is totally shameless. Most people would be embarrassed to stoop to the lows that he has.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

At the moment, I'll post the comments where hkoehli left off because the comments are increasing fast. I am posting them as in order they were posted on Amazon:

Anders says:

_http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?page=105&messageid=115499&showdate=10/26/07&mpage=1

I have a copy of a legal document in front of me, prepared by [names and address deleted due privacy]

YOU CAN SEE IT FOR YOURSELF HERE:

[link to appraiser.pascogov.com]

_http://appraiser.pascogov.com/search/offline.asp?Sec=04&Twn=26&Rng=16&Sbb=0030&Blk=11700&Lot=0070

AND HERE

[link to appraiser.pascogov.com]

It is the sale document, the plot no-09-26-16-0030-11700-0070. It describes the sale by Laura and Ark of the house that was supposed to have been give away in a raffle 5 days after the raffle draw date of 16th January 2003.

The document lists Laura´s address in France, and Laura and Ark signed the sale deed via a French Notary - with a French Notary´s official stamp.

An August 22nd 2003 sale (7 months, 28 weeks LATE - 28 weeks AFTER the house title deed should have been signed over for ZERO DOLLARS!) of an alleged $200,000 property as per Laura´s raffle blurb.

see here [link to web.archive.org]

This scam generated a heady and greedy $300k.

(Anders - and to my interpretation of the relevant NON-PROFIT AND CHARITY laws, totally illegal...)

So the house was sold for a measly, MEASLY $95,100!!!!!

LMAO! If it wasn´t such a rip-off!

That is $105,000 LESS than Laura said the house was worth to all the conned raffle ticket buyers!

´One lucky ticket holder will win the approximately 3,000 sq. ft, 6-bedroom, 2-bath, 2 living room, double lot (100X 150 feet) home located in the quiet, picturesque, small town of New Port Richey, Florida. The home´s market value is $200,000. You may obtain more than one ticket, however, a limit of 6,000 are available.´

THERE WAS NO RAFFLE.

IT WAS ***SOLD*** BY LAURA AND ARK TO THE SWANSON FAMILY!!!

YES, YOU HEARD IT - SOLD FOR $95,100

$104,900 BELOW LAURA´S FICTIONAL MARKET PRICE!

WHEN ACCORDING TO LAURA AND ARK THEY HAVE SAID FOR YEARS THAT THEY ***GAVE*** THE PROPERTY AWAY IN A HOUSE RAFFLE!!!

SO WHERE IS THE WINNER LAURA AND ARK???

IS IT THE SWANSONS???

DO ´WINNERS´ OF RAFFLES NORMALLY PAY $95,100 FOR THEIR PRIZE???

--

I. Paz says:

Wow, people! I just had to response after reading all those posts. I came here while looking for some interesting book as a gift for my girlfriend and found best entertainment ever!

Hey, Jay dude, you are really delusional, man! I have to admit that those guys you call "cult followers" have more brain power then you can ever imagine having in your wildest dreams. No wonder you are so warmed up after reading Laura...something review. You are jealous! Believe me, I know your type. If you were really good, your work would speak for itself. Besides, it is idiotic to accuse someone of doing something and do it yourself - like bringing "Anders" to help you with saving Amazon shoppers (like me) from evil cult members, that according to my checking live in different corners of the world.

Wow, this Laura woman must be some super guru, to brainwash all those people. Ha, ha, what a laugh!!
Thank you for the great evening. Shalom!

--

Harrison Koehli says:

I again applaud you on your tenacity, Anders. Good form. However, you have still not given any EVIDENCE for a) fraud b) the amount of money received from ticket sales. No one is disputing that the raffle happened, you just seem to have a fantastical vision of what you imagine to have been the results of the raffle. Please, reread the topic I have posted previously. I will say it again, not for you Anders, as you have demonstrated your complete contempt for the concepts of truthfulness and honesty, but for others, who know the difference between a lie and the truth: no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it does not become the truth.

--

Anders says:

The evidence is on this whole amazon thread. It is on the godlike thread in far more detail. Go to the pasco county web site and you can easily find the date of the house sale to the Swanson family, and the notarised sale document (incidentally witnesses by one of the biggest CassKult dupes imaginable, Johnno from Australia (who was roped in to be part of the scam (knowingly or not I'll leave that up to Johnno's conscience, whilst he was vacationing in France)) -

All these documents are public record and I and several other interested parties have hardcopies too.

So you see Harrison, I don't care how brainwashed and how much of a 'true believer' you are - I was watching on the sidelines this train wreck of a Kult develop since the start of the new millennium and it has all been documented on the godlike thread.

I watched in realtime the house raffle felonies, as did thousands of others who were cheated out of their hard earned money, well over a hundred thousand dollars.

You don't know what the word tenacity means my friend.

--

Anders says:

Shalom! Congratulations - you are probably the most clueless internet individual I have come across in the last year or so. Keep up the reviews, they are wonderful!

--

Harrison Koehli says:

Did you not read the link I posted earlier, Anders? Because this, quoted from said link, provides a much more coherent explanation for the data you have presented. To me, it looks like you have been hopelessly misguided in this matter. Perhaps when more evidence comes to light, this issue can be put to rest. Because as it is now, you have nothing but paranoid conjecture. You have started with a conclusion, and interpreted the data you have found to fit that conclusion. Not exactly good science.

{begin quote}
Well, I made a big mistake at that point. Since we were in a hurry to leave (for obvious reasons) and we needed to sell our house as fast as possible, we decided to raffle it off rather than risk taking 6 months or a year to sell it. The raffle was a huge failure since we didn't even get half of the money to pay off the mortgage (it wasn't a very big one either!) So, we borrowed on our credit cards to make up the difference, our readers and discussion group members pooled enough cash to help us move, we picked a winner, left the checks and power of attorney with a local attorney and our neighbor to handle the transfer of the house (that was the mistake part) and left.

Serious barriers seemed to have been put in the way of the winner taking possession of the house. There were taxes that had to be paid based on the value of the house and instead of helping this person to take care of that, (which could have been done), our representatives apparently made it an insuperable obstacle and that meant that the winner had to be disqualified. Then the situation seems to have been a battle between the atty and the neighbor for possession of the house. Keep in mind that both of them had our contact details but neither of them contacted us about this asking what should they do and they, themselves, did nothing except try to outwait the other so that the house would go into foreclosure and one of them could pick it up at auction for 10 cents on the dollar.

We were, by this time, settling in France and thinking that everything was all sorted out. By the time we learned what was going on, it was already a disaster and we could do absolutely nothing about it. We had already had to pay double to get our household goods delivered after they were held-hostage by a Jewish moving company so we were broke.

In the middle of all this, a woman called me from Florida one night and said she wanted the house and even needed it badly. I told her the situation and explained that if she wanted it she would have to get an attorney and fight for it, that whatever she proposed I would agree to.

So, she put her attorney on the problem, came up with a plan and went in, made an offer with her attorney behind her, and the crooked jerk we left with our POA had no choice but to transfer the house to her because I was agreeing to everything she wanted - including a price that was half the value of the house. At this point, it was necessary because the checks we had left to pay off the note were now no longer valid since it was past 90 days.

So, basically, we lost our shirts in more ways than one, and between the people we left to handle this simple transaction and the movers who held up all our goods for two months, we ended up looking like we had deliberately pulled a "fast one" when nothing could have been further from the truth. I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person can see why I simply chose not to discuss it any further because, by this time, there were innocent people involved (the people who got the house) as well as not-so-innocent people that I could do nothing about whatsoever. They covered their tracks well. {/end quote}

--

Laura Knight-Jadczyk says:

Mr. Rowland, you - and the rest of your pals - don't seem to be able to read very well.

I invite the reader to read this post:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=673.msg3456#msg3456
... part of which is quoted by Mr. Koehli above, and also part of which is quoted by you, leaving out the most important part which says:

"The raffle was a huge failure since we didn't even get half of the money to
pay off the mortgage (it wasn't a very big one either!) So, we borrowed on
our credit cards to make up the difference, our readers and discussion group
members pooled enough cash to help us move, we picked a winner, left the
checks and power of attorney with a local attorney and our neighbor to
handle the transfer of the house (that was the mistake part) and left."

Now, since you have perused the public records, you must have noted that the mortgage on the house was only 70 K. The raffle plainly stated that tickets were a gift in exchange for a DONATION - and that is an important legal distinction. Our attorney was careful to point out to us that we very well might not make enough money on the raffle to pay off the house and insisted on that wording. And, he was right. The raffle brought in less than 30 K, that is, less than half of what was required to pay off the mortgage. That is why we borrowed on our credit cards to make up the difference and needed help from our friends and group members to move. And that was because we wished to fulfill the offer of the raffle.

Here are some additional facts for you to consider:

The raffle tickets were a FREE gift. We were required by law to give them away to anyone who either made a donation or simply requested one and fulfilled simple requirements, i.e. sending in a request by mail. What this means is that MOST of the tickets given away were given to people who sent in mail requests for them, i.e., they were free and no donation whatsoever was received. Some people sent up to 50 such mail requests.

Due to this problem, we found it necessary to increase the number of tickets that would be issued twice since nearly all the designated tickets were given away and no donations received.

Nearly all of the donations came from friends, discussion group members, and regular readers of the site. There were very few donations from non-group members. As noted, most tickets went to people who simply mailed in a request for them.

All requests were recorded with ticket number and how the ticket was obtained, i.e., whether a donation was made or whether it was by mail request. All records are still in our keeping, right down to every single envelope and mail request received.

Our records are complete, both financial and legal - that includes all bank records, paypal records, and legal documentation. Your twisting and distortion of the facts and your accusations of illegal activity are illegal in themselves in the U.S.

As for your "Sophie," I have several records of faked letters and emails you and your friends (Vincent and Jay) have published in an effort to defame me which can be proven as fraudulent in a court of law because certain details are so false as to be laughable.

Since you are in UK, you know that you can get away with libelous accusations against people in the U.S. I suspect that is why Mr. Weidner sent you in to say all the things he knew he could not legally get away with saying because they are libelous (that is, LIES and legally actionable as such.) Just keep in mind that you are not as legally immune as you think.

In the UK, the following applies:

(begin quote)
Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet as well as radio and television broadcasts - so even drama and fiction can be defamatory if they damage someone's reputation. You can only publish defamatory material if it comes within one of the recognised legal defences. If it doesn't, the publication will amount to libel and you may have to pay substantial damages.

Internet sites are not exempt from any libel laws. If you are publishing on the internet you are bound by the same libel laws as print publishers.

In the UK, internet service providers are coming under increasing pressure to close sites containing defamatory allegations. You also have to be careful about the comments others post on your site. There have been cases where individuals have sued online publishers for libel over customer book reviews published on their sites.

Libel law protects individuals or organisations from unwarranted, mistaken or untruthful attacks on their reputation. A person is libelled if a publication:

* Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt

* Causes them to be shunned or avoided

* Discredits them in their trade, business or profession

* Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society

The most important point is to make absolutely sure that what you are printing or writing is true. Do not make claims or accusations that you cannot prove. Even if you think you can do this, be cautious. Proving things in court can be very difficult.

And the test of what the words mean is what a reasonable reader is likely to take as their natural and ordinary meaning, in their full context - what you intended as the author or publisher is irrelevant.

If you write something that cannot be substantiated the credibility of your site, organisation or cause may be questioned. It can also land you with an expensive lawsuit and there is no legal aid for libel cases.

The burden of proof lies with the defendant
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you've targeted does not have to prove that you're wrong.

It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it's true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding `allegedly' is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties.

If you publish defamatory remarks about people or organisations made by other people you will be just as liable to be sued as they are. So if you can't prove the truth of their statements, don't repeat them.

It is a common mistake to draw unverifiable conclusions from the basic facts. For example, if Mr Brown is seen going into a hotel room with a call-girl, this does not necessarily mean he enjoyed a `night of passion', and will certainly not prove that he did.

The UK is notorious as a claimant-friendly jurisdiction for bringing libel proceedings. In other words, you should be careful what you write (or allow others to write) on your website.

The law of defamation is all about reputation, and the protection of reputation. Slander is concerned with the spoken word, libel with the written word. Note that the law of defamation protects both individuals and companies.

A related cause of action, malicious falsehood, protects individuals and companies against false, malicious statements which cause them loss.

Any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or "published," may well be a defamatory statement and can give rise to an action for either libel or slander in English law.

Under English law, the remedies are different for libel and slander. In the case of libel (the recorded statement), the victim can win damages even if he has not suffered financial loss as a result of the statement.
(end quotes)

These lies and attacks against innocent people have gone far enough.

--

Storm Bear Williams says:

Jay, stop whining. I am frankly amazed you actually used the term co-authored. That must have brought a tear to your eye.

--

P. M. Hoang says:

I just came across this while looking for a good fourth-way book and I must say this is one of the best demonstration of internet trolls in action.

I have seen many times on various forums how a small number of individuals dominate a thread with their lies, omission of facts, misrepresentations of what others say, para-logics, personal attacks, intimidation and a host of other easily recognizable tactics. They are the internet trolls, who are mostly people with serious delusions or other psychological deviations. And here, guess what, I find all of the troll's characteristics in the posts of Jay Weidner and "Anders". Unfortunately for them, and unlike what usually happen on other forums, the other people here are not so easily intimidated.

Get a life, Jay and "Anders". I know this will most probably fall on deaf ears because you cannot see past your own delusional grandeur but I'm saying it anyway. Get a life because you will get nothing out of attacking other people on the internet. Unless, of course, you are paid to do so, which is another real possibility.

--

Andres P. says:
Why does Amazon allow this Anders person to spam about that delusional and/or disinfo site, godlikeproductions? I thought that spamming was not allowed. He's really annoying (and so is that site, by the way!). And really rude as well. What's his problem, anyway?

--

Anders says:

Another minion.

Availability: Currently unavailable
2 used & new from $34.95

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Knowledge of evil and how to prevent it, June 23, 2007
It is said that men are born with a good nature. So why is it that there is so much destruction and suffering throughout the human history? Is evil real? How to stop it? This book has the answers to those questions. It is a summary of the first scientific study of what is called macro-social evil and the process by which it spreads in the society.

In the early parts of the book, the author gives an overview on the root cause of macro-social evil: the small percentage of psycho-pathological deviants who nevertheless have a disproportionally large influence on the minds of normal humans. Due to the lack of psychological knowledge among normal humans, these deviants easily infiltrate social groups, movements, etc.. When the society is in a sufficiently hysterical state, the psychological deviants that are always present can transform the entire society into its worst form: a pathocracy. The most notable examples of that are the Roman empire and the Nazi Germany.

The latter parts are devoted to examining the life cycle of a pathocracy: how it forms, evolves and self-destructs. The good news is that a pathocracy self-destructs relatively quickly, just like a particularly dangerous virus quickly killing sick body. The bad news is that even in its short life cycle, a pathocracy can inflict unmeasurable damage to the lives of normal humans living under its rule and those living close to it.

Although it is not a light reading due to the need to compress so much knowledge into a reasonable-sized book, this book is a must read for every human beings with a conscience. It is particularly relevant today as the U.S. is well on the way to become a full-fledged pathocracy. To stop evil, we must first understand evil.
Comment | Permalink

--

Anders says:

Anothet Kult minion:

The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive
by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Edition: Paperback
Availability: Currently unavailable
3 used & new from $39.95

12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
The whole thing into a new perspective, February 2, 2006
This is one of those books that reminds us how little we really know about history and, well, anything, by presenting and making sense of so many clues that contradict so many official stories.

If you follow the author's Sherlock-esque approach and are capable of doing a little reading between the lines, the implications are enormous!!

And to think that lots of folks found the Da Vinci Code so interesting. Really, what does Dan Brown know?

I've read SHOTW once; I think'll read it again.

--

Anders says:

2 more sycophantic reviews by this Uber Kasskult ingrate Andres Perezetc....

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
The real nature of UFOs, February 10, 2005
From all the different hypotheses I've read about UFOs, this one is, in my opinion, the one that puts all the pieces together in the most accurate and convincing way. The author approaches the issue from different angles: esoterism, science and even personal experiences.

Very interesting ideas come up, like for example, the possibility of higher dimensions or aliens in a state of semi-physical existence.

It may be scary to consider all the implications of the evidence presented, but I think we better know about them! The book certainly explains A LOT about the current state of the world!
Comment | Permalink

The Wave Vol 1 - The Red Book (The Wave, Volume 1)
Availability: Currently unavailable


8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
Original and intelligent, February 10, 2005
This book absolutely changed the way I understand reality by making me consider possibilites that are "out of the box" of religion and mainstream science. It has a healthy balance between scepticism and open-mindeness with surprising results. Also, a balance between mysticism and science - quite unusual!

Even if you don't believe or don't agree with what you read (and I don't think that the author encourages blind belief), you will no doubt see life from a completely different perspective!
Comment | Permalink

--

Anders says:

So sue me.

I think the authorities in the EU AND the USA will take a great interest when I provide proof of how you scammed all those unfortunates who bought your fake raffle tickets.

The FBI and FL Police are already fully appraised of the situation - I wonder if Laura is on the 750,000 list just published? I wonder if Laura can set foot again in FL without being arrested?

--

Anders says:

The raffle brought in less than 30 K, that is, less than half of what was required to pay off the mortgage. That is why we borrowed on our credit cards to make up the difference and needed help from our friends and group members to move.

Did you RETURN the $30,000? Because I bought 3 tickets, and I never got a cent back.

Neither did all the folks that bought raffle tickets in this SCAM.

An STO person/couple would by now have paid back all those raffle-ticket holders - perhaps from the profits made by Red Pill Press.

An STS mindset would do EXACTLY as Laura and Ark have done, and just blow it all off.

An STS couple also have no difficulty in internet bullying.

So WHERE IS THE $30,000, PLUS 5 YEARS' INTEREST?

--

Laura Knight-Jadczyk says:

Mr. Rowland, perhaps you missed this part in the previous comment:

<<< The raffle plainly stated that tickets were a gift in exchange for a DONATION - and that is an important legal distinction. [...]

Here are some additional facts for you to consider:

The raffle tickets were a FREE gift. We were required by law to give them away to anyone who either made a donation or simply requested one and fulfilled simple requirements, i.e. sending in a request by mail. What this means is that MOST of the tickets given away were given to people who sent in mail requests for them, i.e., they were free and no donation whatsoever was received. Some people sent up to 50 such mail requests.

Due to this problem, we found it necessary to increase the number of tickets that would be issued twice since nearly all the designated tickets were given away and no donations received.

Nearly all of the donations came from friends, discussion group members, and regular readers of the site. There were very few donations from non-group members. As noted, most tickets went to people who simply mailed in a request for them.

All requests were recorded with ticket number and how the ticket was obtained, i.e., whether a donation was made or whether it was by mail request. All records are still in our keeping, right down to every single envelope and mail request received.

Our records are complete, both financial and legal - that includes all bank records, paypal records, and legal documentation. Your twisting and distortion of the facts and your accusations of illegal activity are illegal in themselves in the U.S.>>>

You write: "The FBI and FL Police are already fully appraised of the situation"...

They are, indeed. We sent a full report with documentation when Bridges and Weidner began their defamation campaign assisted by their able fiction writer, you. How much of all that fictional nonsense they publish on their website did you pen?

--

Laura Knight-Jadczyk says:

<<<Andrew Rowland wrote: Did you RETURN the $30,000? Because I bought 3 tickets, and I never got a cent back.>>>

You didn't BUY any tickets. They were not for sale. They were given away free.

The less than 30 K donations did not belong to me, it belonged to the foundation and was put together with 40K borrowed on our credit cards which we lent to the foundation to pay off the mortgage. Unfortunately, that is not how our legal rep utilized the funds. By the time they were finished, we owed them more money for legal fees. When I say we nearly lost our shirts (and certainly lost our house), I wasn't joking. I should add that, to take that kind of a hit and then, on top of it, be accused of getting gobs of money and living like a king or whatever is just TOO much. If it didn't hurt so bad to have been so taken to the cleaners, it would be funny.

Bottom line is, Andy, you are barking up the wrong tree. There's never been a "crime," a "scam" or a fraud at all except in your imagination. Everything was aboveboard and legal right down the line and only your ignorant assumptions have caused you to make such a fool of yourself.

--

Anders says:
Laura Knight-Jadczyk says:
<<<Andrew Rowland wrote: Did you RETURN the $30,000? Because I bought 3 tickets, and I never got a cent back.>>>

You didn't BUY any tickets. They were not for sale. They were given away free.

OH! Oh my aching ribs! You should do stand-up comedy!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Tell it to the Judge my dear.

--

Anders says:

Laura Knight-Jadczyk says:
Mr. Rowland, perhaps you missed this part in the previous comment:

<<< The raffle plainly stated that tickets were a gift in exchange for a DONATION - and that is an important legal distinction. [...]

Our attorney was careful to point out to us that we very well might not make enough money on the raffle to pay off the house and insisted on that wording.

Translation (and you said so yourself) - You got a weaselly lawyer to cover you.

The question remains:

What happened to the $30,000 (plus interest), and why have you not returned any of it to all the raffle ticket holders?

Just keep yapping here and on your blog. You have dug yourself so far into the hole that any court of law in any jurisdiction would convict you of fraud in a heartbeat.

Ever heard of double-dipping?

Not only do you steal $30,000 + 5 years' interest (as you have admitted), you then go ahead and sell your house and pocket the proceeds too.

How very STO of you and Ark.

One day Laura this will catch up with you, probably when you try and come back to America, if not sooner.

You can then tell your pack of evasions and lies to the DBI, FL District Attorney, and Judge.

--

Laura Knight-Jadczyk says:
<<<Andrew Rowland wrote: The question remains:

What happened to the $30,000 (plus interest), and why have you not returned any of it to all the raffle ticket holders? >>>

Why do I keep getting the feeling you don't read very well. Let me repeat what I wrote above:

"The less than 30 K donations did not belong to me, it belonged to the foundation and was put together with 40K borrowed on our credit cards which we lent to the foundation to pay off the mortgage. Unfortunately, that is not how our legal rep utilized the funds. By the time they were finished, we owed them more money for legal fees. When I say we nearly lost our shirts (and certainly lost our house), I wasn't joking. I should add that, to take that kind of a hit and then, on top of it, be accused of getting gobs of money and living like a king or whatever is just TOO much. If it didn't hurt so bad to have been so taken to the cleaners, it would be funny."

<<<Andrew Rowland wrote: Just keep yapping here and on your blog. You have dug yourself so far into the hole that any court of law in any jurisdiction would convict you of fraud in a heartbeat.>>>

Bottom line is, Andy, you are barking up the wrong tree. There's never been a "crime," a "scam" or a fraud at all except in your imagination. Everything was aboveboard and legal right down the line and only your ignorant assumptions have caused you to make such a fool of yourself.

--

Anders says:
------- Forwarded message follows -------

Date sent: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:54:35 -0800 (PST)
From: rdsmith
Subject: Re: [cass] Google again
To: lark1@o...

--- Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:

On 8 Nov 2002 at 20:31, rdsmith wrote:

Not everybody is willing to try and tempt the law by raffeling away their house. They need to make money somehow to pay for all of those indexing services that you take for granted

Hi,

For this insinuating, personal, unacceptable remark, I am removing you from the group.

Wish you luck on your path.

ark

Fine, all is well.

However, you have become so caught up in it all that you have lost all possible perspective seeing conspiracy in every direction.

Frankly, I see conspiracy too, and it relates to attempting to "move to France" using Other People´s Money.

It is sounding less and less like an exploration of the greater unseen universe and more like a retirement plan.

France is a convienent place to consider. It is western in mentality and so provides the amenities one might be used to, and access to an infinite array of culture.

It is also sufficiently difficult to get to that those who contribute to the cause are statistically unlikely to actually be dropping by to collect on the "foundation resources". Plus they have great wine.

I am tremendously dissapointed, and angry with myself for getting sucked into it all.

As always, I have learned a lot about the world, people and myself, but at some cost. The analysis of the unseen provided by the material on the cassiopaea site is stunning. The rationale for why the world seems to operate the way it does and why there is always so much pain and suffering is the clearest explanation I have encountered.

But it all is subverted because of the strong appearance of impropriety over this raffle issue. You were insulted by my remark? *I* was insulted by the whole house raffle idea.

Where the heck do you get off trying to sucker people into providing you retirement to France?

Much of what brought me to the cassiopaea site is gone, having been replaced with a daily diatribe about the conditions of the world, constant Bush and Republican bashing, and seeing conspiracy at every corner.

Somehow the conspiracies are all directed at you which is why I should donate money using PayPal and buy a raffle ticket for a house in Florida that I have no use for.

And yes, I get these constant reminders about these things. The Cassiopaea site has seemingly become a job and means of income instead of information sharing and education.

Don´t get me wrong, its not that I am blind and delusional. For the first time in a long time I voted an almost exclusively Democratic ticket in this past election cycle (even though for most races it simply did not matter). I am increasingly dissapointed in our Fearless Leader and am afraid we are being sucked into a vortex of war and collapse. But I do not need you to tell me that This Is Not Good.

But the long vituperative diatribes against specific people is insulting in itself.

You are not contributing to the solution except for your own solution to move to France.

What are you suggesting to people that is realistically actionable? What are practical steps that people can take to fight the STS
forces?

Oh, and isn´t a place in France leaning to STS itself?

But I digress.

Of all the things that the Cs have said, why do you cling to that particular one so dearly except that it sounds Really Nice to retire to the south of France?

Repeatedly in the transcripts the Cassiopaeans suggest that there is not much to DO except sit back, observe and learn.

It is yourself that are so hell bent on making your mark and rattling cages.

I have a prediction to make. Based on the actions that some of the more dedicated members of the group will likely take, the visibility of the house raffle will be raised to "the authorities" and you are likely to face legal repercussions over it.

These will increase the more involved in the raffle you become and the larger the actual dollar amounts become.

Your response will be to rail on about how the "authorities" are responding to the forces of darkness and trying to crush the truth and how the control system is responding.

Next you will set up a Perseus legal defense fund, and attempt to extract even more money.

I suggest that in the end, you will have even less money than you have today and you will not be living in France.

The world will go to hell in a bucket and you will be completely tied up in a futile exercise for this raffle.

However, perhaps the real issue is that you should have taken the C´s admonition to "enjoy the ride" just a bit more seriously and not become quite so engaged in your own self importance.

Do you really really think that your blog on current events, despite the hit count, will really cause the entire world to rise up?

How many of the readers do so for the simple amusement it might give them?

I wish you luck mostly because you are really going to need it.

As for myself, all is lessons, and I intend to just sit back and "enjoy the ride", after all, learning is fun.

And with this experience I have learned even more.

But I have also learned that you cannot take the heat.

--

Anders says:

Under Florida law, real property items involved in raffles and give-a-aways, of all types, must be held in escrow. The L'arks never did that because they would have had to pay off their mortgage to do so. They needed the money they were geeting from their minions for the escape to France, so officially, there was no house to give away, as there was nothing held in escrow. Also, to avoid being taxed on the money received in the raffle, they had to be a non-profit organization authorized by the IRS to collect donations. The Perseus Foundation, while registered in Florida, never received a federal tax ID number or status as a 501-c-3 non-profit. so the whole raffle was illegal.

They raised money by means of an illegal raffle, then never announced a winner and fled to France on the proceeds. They used the internet and the US mail to pull off this scam, which adds to the seriousness of the crime. To this day, while LKJ has admitted the "problems" with the scam, there has never been any information of a substantial nature released by the Cassiopaeanists.

If the House Raffle had been on the level, it would be the easiest thing in the world to shut us all up by posting the following:

1) A copy of the letter of authorization from the IRS making Perseus Foundation a legitimate 501-c-3 entitled to raise funds and solicit donations.

2) The name and contact information of the winner.

3) the name and contact information on the Notary who signed off on the drawing.

4) The escrow account information, including the appraised value of the house.

5) A complete accounting of the money raised, how it was spent and how much went to the raffle itself.

6) An explanation for how the house could have been sold to a third party for near the amount of the mortagage outstanding on it, if it had been given away previously.

Tell it to the Judge.

--

J.A.R. says:

Number of posts by Anders after saying "Nuff said"

34 and counting...........

Also to save Anders some time, I have about 11 reviews.

--

C. MacCallum says:

LOL J.A.R.!

It occurs that maybe Anders would not be fussing a bit if it had been his ticket drawn?

BTW does anyone remember that this thread was meant for reviews of a book written by Fulcanelli? Anders has not had one intelligible (or even unintelligible) word to say about Le Mystere des Cathedrals. One might suspect he has not even read it . . . . .

--

Anders says:

I make it precisely six, JARhead - keep on counting because I have infinite patience my friend. I'm glad that all you KassKult attack minions get a chance to find out the truth about your masters.

'Nuff said!

--

Anders says:

C. MacCallum says:
LOL J.A.R.!

It occurs that maybe Anders would not be fussing a bit if it had been his ticket drawn?

I would have had to pay tax to FL, something that was not pointed out in the raffle prospectus. I would have taken posession of the property and sold it. However, it was all a huge scam so that was never to be for the hundreds of folks, like myself, conned out of thousands and thousands of dollars.

I am impressed at your willingness to laugh at others' misfortune.

How very STO of you!

Incidentally, I'm sure the IRS would be interested to know why those who held an illegal raffle and absconded abroad with the proceeds did not in fact pay a penny to said organisation!

Anyone know the number of the IRS hotline?

BTW does anyone remember that this thread was meant for reviews of a book written by Fulcanelli?

Yes indeed, and Laura has spammed her own tome on the subject on the vary last line of her review.

I think this has backfired somewhat!

Anders has not had one intelligible (or even unintelligible) word to say about Le Mystere des Cathedrals. One might suspect he has not even read it . . . . .

Indeed I have read some experts on Fulcanelli et al, and my research does NOT include the second and third-hand vanity press dribblings of LKJ.

--

Nola says:
Hello Ms. Knight-Jadczyk,

The NYC Expo was held last weekend. I saw your book for sale there and have a copy. The book written by this Weidner fellow was not. And believe me, I looked at a lot of books! Came here to post a liitle review and stumbled into this ... well, describing this nutzoid in public is not my style. Lets just say that after reading the illogical posts, seeing his mispellings and malignant use of the english language, I will not be buying his book. it's nice when they go off in public for all to see, yes? Makes the choice of where to put your money so much easier. Thank you for a great book.
Warm regards, Nola

--

Lynne Anderson says:
Well, gee Anders, thanks for the attaboy there.

But since you seem to think that the number of reviews is so darn important, why didn't you mention the fact that I have 23 reviews here at Amazon. Not an enormous amount I know, but I do my best. And, yes, some of them are for Ms. Knight-Jadczyk's books.

But wait, I have reviewed a lot of other books and some CD's as well. But then I guess that they don't count as you are only trying to smear Ms. Knight-Jadczyk.

I have read and reviewed books by Stout, Hare, Gurdjeiff, Hort, Ouspensky, Kharitidi, Mack and on and on. You don't mention those. You make it sound like Ms. Knight-Jadczyk's books are the only ones I have read and commented on. An innuendo that is false.

Let's see, you have reviewed ONE book, since you like to keep count. And the book was written by you. So what's up with that? How do you get off criticizing anyone else for the number of reviews they have done when you yourself have done only one. There is definitely something wrong here.

And I have to say that as much effort that you and Weidner are putting into this attack, because that's what it is, makes me think that Ms. Knight-Jadczyk must be on to something here.

Very interesting.

--

Anders says:
Hi Lynne - I am just pointing out the obvious - that almost EVERY person on this thread has posted multiple reviews of Laura's vanity press tomes, and ditto nearly every person on this thread is part of the various CassChat and/or SOTT forums.

You fall into this category, end of story.

You are all like a pack of hyenas, the Borg, all intent on drowning out any dissent.

Laura is seething because the genie has been let out of the bottle. All you minions now know about the multi-year long 143 page dissection of the Laura and ark Kult at Godlike forums.

_http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=115499&mpage=&showdate=

It has 4300 replies, many from ex KassKult members who have wised up and seen the real Laura unmasked.

This is a GOOD thing.

Laura is seething because she cannot cut me or any other truthseekers off on this thread. Were I to raise any of these questions on her heavily jackboot-patrolled and modified forums I would be booted immediately.

As I said, the genie is out - I'm sure word will now get around amongst you Kassy dupes and you might get a clue and wise up and read the whole 143 page Godlike thread.

Or you might not - your choice, free will and all that.

Toodle-pip!

 

[Laura]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

Andy, Anders whatever is totally shameless. Most people would be embarrassed to stoop to the lows that he has.

Pathological deviants are not capable of feeling shame.

What this incident has revealed, I think, is that the 140 some pages of GLP rants that he tootles are pretty much written by him with his 50 or so alternate personalities (both inside his head and on the board.) There is not, and never has been, any "group of ex-cass cult followers" saying or doing all the nonsense he claims - it's just Andrew Rowland and Vincent Bridges. Bridges was removed for lying and manipulating and Andy was removed from the group for rudeness to the group members. He also had a serious drug and alcohol problem. We were willing to work with the latter issues if he had made sincere efforts, but the fact is, his brain was so fried that he simply couldn't.

Andy, with his incredible hyperactivity on display here reminds me of one of the pathologies described by Lobaczewski:

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features.

If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances generally just consider them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society on a wide scale and for a long time. [...]

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should consider seriously based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake.

The oversimplified pattern of ideas, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, tends to exert an intense attracting influence on individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies of their own. Such writings are particularly attractive to a hystericized society. Others who may read such writings will be immediately provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, though they also they fail to grasp the essential cause of the error: that it emerges from a biologically deviant mind.

Societal interpretation of such writings and doctrinaire declarations breaks down into main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict. The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. These reactions contain the component of a moralistic interpretation of pathological phenomena.

The second and third branches relate to two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.

The critically-corrective approach is taken by people whose feel for psychological reality is normal and they tend to incorporate the more valuable elements of the work. They then trivialize the obvious errors and fill in the missing elements of the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is cannot be completely free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with psychological deficiencies of their own: diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. Pathological acceptance of schizoidal writings or declarations by other deviants often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and promotes ideas of force and revolutionary means.

The passage of time and bitter experience has unfortunately not prevented this characteristic misunderstanding born of schizoid nineteenth-century creativity, with Marx’s works at the fore, from affecting people and depriving them of their common sense.

Of course, it is helpful to go back to the initial description of the schizoidal psychopath:

Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this traditional relationship.
Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others.

They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses.

Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions.

They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others.

Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, especially when the schizoids embitter other people’s lives.

When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

We certainly witnessed this a time or two while Andy was a member of the cass group.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand.

Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. [...]

A schizoid’s ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children.

I believe that Andy mentioned having a number of troubles in his life and the last we heard, he was still living with his mother, causing her some grief.

Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are really like. Ignorant of the true condition of the author, such uninformed readers thed to interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation due to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view.

At the same time, many other readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause.

It's really amazing when we see, time and time again, how accurate these descriptions are. When you encounter an individual like Andy, and you have read the following and it FITS...

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features.

... you know you have a handy tool for assessing individuals on the internet via their activities. You can then begin to more accurately asses their writings.

 

[Renaissance]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

What this incident has revealed, I think, is that the 140 some pages of GLP rants that he tootles are pretty much written by him with his 50 or so alternate personalities (both inside his head and on the board.) There is not, and never has been, any "group of ex-cass cult followers" saying or doing all the nonsense he claims - it's just Andrew Rowland and Vincent Bridges. Bridges was removed for lying and manipulating and Andy was removed from the group for rudeness to the group members. He also had a serious drug and alcohol problem. We were willing to work with the latter issues if he had made sincere efforts, but the fact is, his brain was so fried that he simply couldn't.

Andy, with his incredible hyperactivity on display here reminds me of one of the pathologies described by Lobaczewski:

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features.[...]

Perhaps Andy's drug and alcohol addiction as well as his hyperactivity can also be explained by what Dabrowski describes as negative developmental potential.

Negative developmental potential.

In a significant number of cases of isolated forms of sensual or psychomotor overexcitability (i.e. when there is no admixture of other forms of overexcitability), in cases when the nuclei of the inner psychic milieu, wider interests and abilities, and sharp awareness of one's own developmental path are lacking, we are dealing with a negative potential which is not helped by the influence of the environment, but on the contrary, is harmed by it.

It is difficult to speak of a negative psychoneurotic potential because a negative developmental potential covers the borderline of psychoneurotic nuclei, psychopathy, psychosis and even mental retardation. When enhanced psychomotor and sensual overexcitability is combined with strong ambitions, tendencies to showing off and lying, it constitutes a nucleus of psychopathy with some neuropathic components. This is a potential for the development of characteropathy, or, better, of hysterical psychopathy.

 

[seek10]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

Amazon seems to have removed the laura's review to the book and all 10 pages of the comments

 

[Laura]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

Amazon seems to have removed the laura's review to the book and all 10 pages of the comments

No doubt. Amazon doesn't want to get caught in a legal issue.

Poor Andy, he was so ecstatic to have what he thought was a receptive audience. He probably is so out of touch with reality that he can't acknowledge that probably almost no one even read his ridiculous rants. Not that many people are even interested in a book by Fulcanelli. It's a very limited market.

His rants just give emphasis to what Lobaczewski wrote about the schizoidal psychopath:

Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions.

His poor sense of psychological situation and reality was evident all over the place. He simply couldn't grok the fact that he (and Jay, too) just came off looking ridiculous. (I had to laugh at StormBear's comment to Jay. Even if he is hooked up with that slimy Vincent Bridges, sometimes ya just gotta love StormBear! He makes me laugh out loud!)

Not only could Andy not even formulate a remotely accurate theory for the few facts he did have, he has no clue about what I may think or feel about what he (or the rest of them) say or do. A really, REALLY poor sense of psychological situation and reality indeed!

As an example of him superimposing an erroneous, pejorative interpretation, there was his certainty that I was "seething."

Yes, SEETHING!!!

Well, there ARE some things that can make me seethe, but among them are not situations where people who are pathologically disturbed can't discern reality from their own wild and sick imaginings and produce truly bizarre and crazy theories about what I have or have not done or why.

I know that Andy can't understand it but I just didn't manage to seethe, nor did I even take offense at his behavior. Thankfully, I long ago got over being disturbed by such behavior because I took the time to do the research and to learn that people such as he is cannot help seeing the world through so distorted a lens - it's part of what Lobaczewski calls the "instinctive substratum". Not only can he not help it, he cannot even see that his reality is distorted.

We certainly had an inkling of it when we removed him from the cass list for failing to be able to follow the very simple rule of controlling his use of foul language and insulting remarks. Time and again we had forgiven him, but the time just comes when either a person gets a grip on themselves, or they don't. He just couldn't. I think that the same thing is true about his thinking and his perceptions of the world around him. He cannot see it because he is inside it, he lives it and breathes it. It's like a fish that adapts to polluted water; it becomes deformed in adapting to its poisonous environment and it doesn't even know that the water is polluted. It has never experienced clean, fresh water.

Is it because he was born that way, or was it because of his years of using drugs and alcohol?

I dunno. I do know that, in his own mind, Andy means well but, as Lobaczewski points out:

They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. ... Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results.

It is this "doctrinaire and simplistic" world view that traps sad creatures like Andy in a cycle of damaging himself and others and he can't even step outside of it to see it. Instead of understanding that reality is often very complex and there are no simple answers or solutions, and things are not black and white, he seeks in a frenzied, hyperactive way to impose his own conceptual world and perceptions on other people. This is because he needs so desperately to feel "right," to feel "okay" and accepted. And then, he really cannot understand why others do not accept his version of things and because they do not, he is the one who begins to "seethe." It's very typical for such individuals to project onto others their own inner experience and believe that everyone either does, or ought to, see things and feel the same way they are feeling.

Like I said, the real clue to this pathology is the hyperactivity, the frenzied insistence on the rightness of his views no matter what, the ignoring of what others think, feel, say, and so on. As Lobaczewski points out, individuals born "different" in such ways, feel that difference keenly from early childhood and are always trying to "normalize" their state, to achieve some feeling of "balance" in the world. And they can't because they know that others do not see them as quite normal. But, they HAVE to be normal and the only way they can do that is to twist everyone else and everything else to their way of seeing and thinking and that's a lot of work! So, they become hyperactive. Lobaczewski says:

... using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature.

In a way, such people are kind of like toxic weeds in the garden of life. Because they don't utilize their life force in the ways of healthy, human interactions (which would be the equivalent of producing flowers, fruit or vegetables in the plant kingdom), all that energy is there for rapid, random growth, choking other plants around them.

It's really sad to see someone so locked inside what van Vogt called the "Right Man Syndrome". Colin Wilson writes about this (http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/forsakenchild/rightyo.html)

In 1954, the science fiction writer A. E. Van Vogt had encountered a curious anomaly whe he was studying male authoritarian behavior for a novel called The Violent Man. He was intrigued by the number of divorce cases in which habitually unfaithful husbands had expected total fidelity from their wives; such a husband might flaunt his own infidelities, while erupting into murderous violence if his wife so much as smiled at another man. Such men obviously regarded women with deep hostility, as if they expected to be deceived or betrayed-- this is why they chose to marry gentle and unaggressive women. Their "conquests" were another form of aggression, the aim being to prove that they were masterful seducers who could have any woman they liked. Their whole unstable structure of self esteem was founded upon this notion that women found them irresistible; so it was essential for the wife to behave like a slave in a harem. This also explained another characteristic of such men: that they could not bear to be contradicted or shown to be in the wrong; this also threatened their image of themselves as a kind of god or superman. If confronted with proof of their own fallibility, they would explode into violence rather than acknowledge that they had made a mistake. For this reason, Van Vogt labeled this type "the Right Man" or "the Violent Man." To his colleagues at work, he might appear perfectly normal and balanced; but his family knew him as a kind of paranoid dictator.

Only one thing could undermine this structure of self-dillusion. If his wife walked out on him, she had demonstrated beyond all doubt that she rejected him; his tower of self dillusion was undermined, and often the result was mental breakdown, or suicide.....

Well, I wasn't Andy's wife, but he was removed from the group which was kind of similar in dynamics. Wilson (maybe following Van Vogt) suggests that it is a problem of lack of self-esteem. It certainly could be that, but it can also be genetic.

It is obvious that the Right Man syndrome is a compensatory mechanism for profound self-doubt, and that its essence lies in convincing others of something he feels to be untrue; in other words, it is a form of confidence-trickery. it is, that is to say, a typically criminal form of "shortcut," like cheating in an exam, or stealing something instead of saving money to buy it.

Now, the basic characteristic of the criminal, and also of the Right Man, is a certain lack of self-control. Van Vogt writes that the right man "makes the decision to be out of control"- that is, makes the decision to lose control at a certain point, exploding into violence rather than calling upon a more mature level of his personality. But he is adept at making excuses that place the blame for this lack of self-control on other people for provoking him. One British sex killer, Patrick Byrne, explained that he decided to terrorize women "to get my own back on them for causing my nervous tension through sex."

But the lack of self-control brings its own problems. Every time it happens, he is, in effect, lowering his own bursting point.

This was the main problem we had with Andy in the cass discussion group: lack of self-control. Of course, at the time, I didn't realize that it was a clue to a definite pathology, I only knew "Three times and yer out!" Andy actually had a lot more than three chances.

Another site talks about this:

See: http://www.rightmansyndrome.com/

Right Man Syndrome – Depressive Thinking Patterns

These patterns serve to shield The Right Man from the effects of his own behavioural patterns. He tends to negate feedback from other people in relation to his own behaviours. The relationship that this establishes is as follows:

“I get to behave however I want to – with impunity – you are the one that has to make the adjustment and just accept me for what I am.”

And the blaming position of...

“My anger/depression is a direct response of your behaviours; whilst your behaviours are nothing to do with me.”

The effect upon the third party often takes the form of exasperation, hopelessness, helplessness and depression. The Right Man often manages to leave a trail of anxiety, despair, self-doubt and depression everywhere he goes.

Pattern #1 – “There Are No Shades of Grey” - Black and White Thinking.

With this pattern we see that moderation and mediation are not permissible. Everything is either one thing or another, anything in between is simply not allowed.

Thus The Right Man will often be an alcoholic or will abstain completely. He either loves someone totally or hates them emphatically; you are either completely on his side or you are against him totally, and so on. Yet oddly in spite of all the obvious behaviours to the contrary, he will often claim to not have a view on the matter at all.

Nearly everything in The Right Man’s world is an extreme position and his communication with other people tends to force them to choose such a position also. Failure to conform to this way of thinking is usually interpreted - and thus exploited - as a weakness.

For example, when asked to moderate his aggressive tone, one such Right Man replied aggressively, “Fine! Then I will stop speaking to you altogether.”

This pattern is both a spontaneous thinking pattern and can utilised effectively as a mechanism to control other people.

To The Right Man mentioned above, the author simply replied, “thank you.”

Pattern #2 – “You Have Ruined Your Life” – The Rule of Permanency.

In The Right Man’s world, nothing is transitional or temporary. Nothing is permitted to be a flux, a developmental stage or process that people work through. In The Right Man’s world everything becomes permanent. One first hand example witnessed by the author was that of one such Right Man informing his 40-year-old son that he ruined his life the day he failed his O-Level exams – at age 15. The fact that this 40-year-old was happily married, had two children, a holiday home in Spain, a successful and fulfilling career, and a fairly decent social life were all ignored by his Right Man father. The Right Man knew better because he knew the “right” way his son really wanted to be living, i.e. according to the rules and wishes of the father that were projected out to be the desired rules and wishes of the son.

In the eyes of his wife, friends and colleagues, the son was happy, successful and lucky. But in the eyes of his father, he was a still a failure.

Another example witnessed by the author was of one Right Man describing the real character and personality of his son (aged 38 and also with a high life-success index). Two examples cited were from infancy, and the third “proof” that was cited was from an event that occurred on the son’s 5th birthday party.

The Right Man’s slogan here is, “A leopard never changes his spots.”

Similar to the “No shades of Grey” pattern, following a minor disagreement with a relative, one Right Man declared, “That man is never welcome in my house again. Ever!” Twenty years onward, his position still had not changed.

“That man” happened to be his brother.

Pattern #3. “You Have Ruined Your Life” – Catastrophisation.

In NLP terms, this is an extreme form of “chunking up”. For example, a small event is blown out of all proportion to become a catastrophe. For example, one 8-year-old daughter of a Right Man did badly on her Monday morning spelling test at school – this was met with the declaration from the father that, “You will fail everything if you can’t even pass a single bloody spelling test.”

Another scenario involved someone known to myself declaring that his adult son had “ruined his life” for getting a tattoo.

Catastrophisation doesn’t require a verbal depiction of the catastrophe – a “silent” catastrophic emotional reaction over a relatively minor event can be sufficient to fulfil the pattern when placed in context of all the other Right Man patterns.

Pattern #4. “I Know You Better Than You Know Yourself” – Superior Knowledge.

In her excellent interpretation of Gregory Bateson’s double bind model, Patrice Guillame offers the following example of “superior knowledge”:

The child protests, “But I get on with everyone.”

The mother responds, “With everyone, Cathy?” as though she has superior knowledge.

With The Right Man, he knows the truth - i.e. the “real” character of a person - the character that the person manages to hide from everyone else, including themselves!

One of the popular games of The Right Man is to “put people in their place” – this “place” is decided by The Right Man himself. He does this frequently should anyone attempt to “rise above their station” or to manoeuvre themselves around in the social hierarchy so well dominated by The Right Man.

Thus, someone can actually be quite successful and happy, but if The Right Man has decided otherwise, he will always regard this person as an unhappy failure and there is nothing that person can do to change their position with The Right Man. The Right Man always knows him better than he knows himself.


Pattern #5. “I’m Only Doing This For Your Benefit” – Acts of Selfless Duty.

The pattern triggers the secondary event of “guilting.” It usually occurs as a result of Pattern #4 (“Superior Knowledge”) where The Right Man claims to be doing an action for the sake of another person. The action may be unnecessary or undesired, it may even annoy the person for whom the action is being done, but the recipient must be display an overt sign of gratitude to avoid punishment with guilt, depression, or aggression.

One example that springs to mind is of the wife who was saving to buy herself a car – she wished to gain her own means of transport and independence. The second hand car she wanted was an estate car that meant that she could take the children and friends out and about.

Just before she bought the car, she arrived home to find a brand new, small, bright green “city” car sat on the drive. Knowing of her intentions, the husband has bought it for her. It stood out, was smaller than she wanted and was more expensive than she and her husband could actually afford.

In short he bought her a bright green emotionally charged white elephant.

This kind of scenario does tend to happen in the best of relationships and here is only significant when placed into the contact of the other Right Man patterns.

In this case, the wife’s choice was to reject the car and thus face the trauma of a full-blown Right-Man-in-indignation attack, or drive around conspicuously in the white elephant.

He only bought it for her benefit.

Pattern #6. “Just Deserts. Trapped By Your Own Words” – Linguistic Wizardry.

The Right Man is adept at tracking another speaker’s words and will look for the slightest contradiction and then exploit it. The Rule of Permanency is also invoked, so any contradiction expressed over time is also exploited. So something expressed last year that is contradicted today will quickly be jumped upon. Thus, the other speaker cannot have a change of mind, opinion, or desire where The Right Man is concerned, unless of course The Right Man grants his permission.
All this of course comes as quite a surprise to the attackee who had long since given up the notion of trying to get The Right Man to actually act as though he were indeed listening to a word that the attackee actually said.

Pattern #7. “The End of The Matter” – Finalisation.

This is easily identified in The Right Man by a number of catchphrases that all exhibit the same characteristic.

Essentially the catchphrases dictate that, “I have the final word here and you and the subject at hand are therefore dismissed.” If challenged, The Right Man simply repeats the catchphrase with greater emphasis. If challenged further, an escalation will ensue invariably leading to aggression with indicators of threats of violence (see Pattern #9.)

Common catchphrases that shut down communication and ensure that the last word is maintained take the form of:

“...full stop!”
“…period!”
“…and that is the end of the matter!”
“…end of story!”
“…there is no further discussion!”
“…that’s it!”
“…I have spoken!”

These phrases are often accompanied with a fist banging down and/or a sideways slicing motion with the palm of the hand downwards.


Pattern #9. “I’m Warning You!” Indicators of Violent Threats.

Gregory Bateson gives a great analogy when referring to dogs at play and adult dogs cautioning pups: “The playful nip denotes the bite, but it does not denote what would be denoted by the bite.” You might need to read that a few times before it makes sense.

The Right Man rarely gives violent threats, but will often to be seen giving an indicator of a violent threat. For example, rather than waving his fist in the face of another person whilst shouting, “Shut up or I will thump you!” he is more likely to be seen in normal conversation utilising dominant body posture and tonality and adopting the pointed finger. The whole demeanour is characterised as, “I am dominant and will not be crossed by you.”

To paraphrase Bateson, “The pointed finger denotes a fist, but does not denote that which is denoted by a fist.”

This position enables The Right Man to deny ever being aggressive and enables him to experience other people’s fear or submission as a weakness emanating from them, rather than as feedback to his own demeanour.

Pretty accurate, eh? Just another way of describing the schizoidal psychopath.

If one accepts a falsehood or a lie as the truth, they will never be receptive to the truth. The longer this person holds this lie to be true, the greater his investment in being right becomes. Perhaps this is why Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light you try to shine in, the tighter the pupil will close.” [...]

What is the “Right Man” syndrome? As once stated to me, “The right man is the person who decides to attack something that is obviously good, workable and effective. He always says the same thing---that the thing attacked is bad, unworkable and ineffective. Whether it is or not, is of no concern to this person whether or not he knows it. It is simply against what he has come to believe is the truth and nothing or no one can change his mind.

Trying to change the mind of this person is impossible, for if they had to change their mind they would surely die, or even worse, they would be wrong.

These people will almost always move to a position of authority and find themselves in the position for rendering authoritative opinions based on the fact that they are in a position to do so. [...]

Remember, “Right Man” never looks behind himself or takes a moment to reflect and should he perhaps glance to his rear and see nothing but carnage, wreak and ruin, it could never be caused by Mr. Right because he is always right!!!!!!! (http://www.geocities.com/hartwigequinevom/VOM_PerformanceIssues4.html)

 

[Laura]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

I found another interesting bit about the "Right Man Syndrome" which seems to also suggest that it could be a variation of the schizoidal psychopath. It's from Robert Anton Wilson's "The New Inquisition" and was transcribed by Michael Prescott on his blog: http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/10/raw_genius.html

Mr. Robert Schaeffer of CSICOP has recently written a book called The UFO Verdict. I have not yet read it and therefore do not presume to criticize it, but I cannot help noticing the classic Fundamentalism of the title. A muddle-head like myself cannot even put together a plausible UFO theory yet (not even to my own satisfaction) but Mr. Schaeffer has a verdict.

No. He is even more wonderful than that. He hasn't merely got himself a verdict; he has the verdict.

As the reader knows by now, I am a simple, ignorant man (with a gaudy vocabulary). You would want me on a jury, I think, if you were charged with a major felony. I don't think you would really want Mr. Schaefer on the jury if you were even charged with a misdemeanor traffic violation. His Verdict would be quick and certain.

For some reason at this point I think of what has been called the Right Man syndrome.

This is not a concept from clinical or experimental psychology. It is a mere empirical generalization by the writer A.E. Van Vogt, in a pamphlet Report on the Violent Male, cited by [Colin] Wilson in [The Criminal History of Mankind] p. 64-71. ... The Violent Male -- and almost all violence is committed by males -- seems to be a man who literally cannot, ever, admit he might be wrong. He knows he is right; he is the total psychological opposite of the agnostic, in claiming absolute gnosis, total certitude, about all things. Van Vogt found that an astonishing amount of violence is committed by these males, and he calls the type The Right Man, because this man always insists he is Right. ...

In some respects, the Right Man seems to me like a chronic case of what clinical psychologists call the Authoritarian Personality and Freudians call the anal retentive. In these milder versions of the syndrome the same dogmatism appears but not the close link to violent behavior. Still, the Authoritarian Personality is Always Right and tends to seek positions of power. [Such men] are obsessed with facts and figures, frequently, and are rather "cold" toward human beings... They also have a statistical inclination toward being unwilling to experiment with "foreign" or "exotic" foods, and they regard philosophical speculation with extreme hostility. I think it was men of this type who killed Socrates, and I suspect they filled the top offices in the Old Inquisition.

Thank God there are none of them around today. ... [pp. 139-140]

If, as Colin Wilson says, most of history has been the history of crime, this is because humans have the ability to retreat from existential reality into that peculiar construct which they call The "Real" Universe and I have been calling hypnosis. Any Platonic "Real" Universe is a model, an abstraction, which is comforting when we do not know what to do about the muddle of existential reality or ordinary experience. In this hypnosis, which is learned from others but then becomes self-induced, The "Real" Universe overwhelms us and large parts of existential, sensory-sensual experience are easily ignored, forgotten or repressed. The more totally we are hypnotized by The "Real" Universe, the more of existential experience we then edit out or block out or blur into conformity with The "Real" Universe.

Concretely, the Violent Male -- the extreme form of the Right Man -- edits out the suffering and pain he causes to others. That is only appearance and can be ignored. In The "Real" Universe, the victim is only one of Them -- one of all the rotten bastards who have frustrated and mistreated the Right Man all his life. In existential reality, a large brutal male is beating a child; in The "Real" Universe of self-hypnosis, the Right Man is getting his just revenge on the oppressors who have abused him. ...

The ghastly acceleration of violent, inexplicable and seemingly "pointless" crimes by Right Men in this century -- and their hideous magnification into mass murders and war crimes by Right Men in governments -- indicate the prevalence of this type of self-hypnosis and what Van Vogt calls "the inner horror" that accompanies it. This "inner horror" is a sense of total helplessness combined with the certainty of always being Right. It seems paradoxical, but the more totally Right a man becomes, the more helpless he also becomes. This is because being Right means "knowing" (gnosis) and "knowing" is understanding The "Real" Universe. Since The "Real" Universe is, by definition, "objective" and "outside us" and "not our creation," we are made puny by it. We cannot act but only re-act -- as The "Real" Universe pushes us, we push back. But it is bigger, so we will lose eventually. Our only defense is in being Right and fighting as dirty as possible. ...

Man as a re-active mechanism -- the Materialist metaphor -- is Man with a grudge. ... And so we stumble on toward a bigger Holocaust than the Nazis could imagine, complaining bitterly that it is "inevitable." The "Real" Universe will not give us a chance.

When I speak of The "Real" Universe being created by self-hypnosis, I do not intend anything else but psychological literalness. In the hypnotized state, the existential "reality" around us is edited out and we go away to a kind of "Real" Universe created by the hypnotist. The reason that it is usually easy to induce hypnosis in humans is that we have a kind of "consciousness" that easily drifts away into such "Real" Universes rather than deal with existential muddle and doubt. ...

Since the criminal mentality derives from such hypnosis by a "Real" Universe and the helplessness and rage induced by such metaphors, the criminal becomes, more and more, the typical person of our age. When the "Real" Universe becomes politicized -- when the hypnotic model is based on "Us"-versus-"Them" Aristotelian logic -- the criminal graduates into the Terrorist, another increasingly typical product of the materialist era.

Against all this mechanized barbarism, existentialist psychology and humanist psychology -- aided, perhaps not coincidentally, by the metaphors of quantum physics -- suggests that other models of human existence are possible and thinkable and desirable. ...

[In such models] consciousness ... is not a passive receptor but an active creator, busy every nanosecond in projecting the art work that is an individualized reality-tunnel and is usually hypnotically dreamed of as The "Real" Universe. This trance, in most cases, appears as deep as that of anybody professionally hypnotized to repress pain during surgery. The criminal ... repressed sympathy and charity just as "miraculously" as the patient repressed pain in the above example. We are not the victims of The "Real" Universe; we have created the particular "Real" Universe that we happen to dwell in. ...

If we recognize some validity in these observations and try to "wake" ourselves from the hypnotic trance of modeltheism [i.e. seeing the world in monodimensional absolutist terms] -- if we try to recall, moment by moment, in an ordinary day that The "Real" Universe is only a model we have created and that existential living cannot be compressed into any model -- we enter a new kind of consciousness. ... We consciously seek to edit less and tune in more, and we look especially for events that do not neatly fit our model, since they will teach us to make a better model tomorrow, and an even better one the day after. ...

I walk down the street and, observing my state of consciousness, I see that I am in contact with experienced reality part of the time only. Some trees are quite beautiful, but then I realize that I have passed other trees without noticing them. I have drifted off into The "Real" Universe again and edited out a large beautiful hunk of the experienced world. The trees did not cease to exist; they were simply not-tuned-in.

One who remains alive and alert to the experienced world knows where he is, what he's doing and what is going on around him. It is truly startling, at first, to practice neurological self-criticism and notice how often one has lost track of such a simple matters as that. It is even more startling to notice that one is walking among hypnotized subjects who, most of the time, have completely lost track of such matters and are telling themselves story about The "Real" Universe while editing out vast amounts of the experienced world. [pp. 225-235]

Of course, the various types of psychopathy explain these types of people much better.

 

[dant]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

Off Topic? Not sure.

One of the things after reading snippets of the "Right Man Syndrome" (fascinating, by the way!),
is the case of the persistent attacker of verbal and/or physical actions. For example, when does
one or the other party know when to stop in an argument that becomes senseless, circular,
or chained from the original argument into something completely different? It is almost as if it
becomes hyptonic! What if both parties are locked into the "you are wrong and I am right"
syndrome and never 'lets go'? So, how to break the cycle? Can one caught this way walk away
from an argument like this so easily?

The closest analogy that I can describe this like a 'police dog biting on a leg and never lets it
go, ever.' You try to shake the dog off your leg and may succeed for a time but there it is,
back on your leg again! Being a police dog, physical violence to the dog will result charges
added and jail time.

Anyway, violence does not necessarily mean it has to be physical, it can most definitely be
verbal and it can be much worst than physical violence?

I did not find such as case identified above in the ' Right Man Syndrome' or by 'Lobaczewski',
nor was I able to find 'solutions' to such behavior when trying to protect yourself from such
situations? I guess, the devil is in the details: how much/long one is willing to put up with the
abuse before reaching the breaking point. This is interesting because as you described the
situation with Andy, clearly it was not a hard-fast rule (three strikes and yer out), but one with
non-linear dynamics at play, and your ability to act on your "upper limit" and know at some point
when enough is enough?

Of course, being on a forum insulates one from physical contact and is easy to ban someone
off of the forum, but were it a physical situation, it could get very ugly, indeed.

OSIT.

 

[Laura]

Jay Weidner - Plagiarist

I did not find such as case identified above in the ' Right Man Syndrome' or by 'Lobaczewski',
nor was I able to find 'solutions' to such behavior when trying to protect yourself from such
situations?

Well, that's one of the symptoms of psychopathy - the relentless pursuit just for the sake of revenge for some real or imagined slight.

It's only in retrospect that I understood that Vinnie and Jay and Andy, and others, are actually pathological, that is, not normal, but not certifiable either. You know, the old "Mask of Sanity" thing.

Personality abnormalities vary considerably in severity of symptoms and degree of maladjustment to society. But as Bromberg (1948) pointed out, "The group that supplies the most comprehensive and unmistakable illustrations of maladjustment to social life comprises those persons referred to as psychopathic personalities" (p. 54).

Of all the recognized psychiatric syndromes, that of the antisocial personality, or psychopath, presents perhaps the greatest number of unsolved questions. .... true psychopaths, with their consistently antisocial behavior, present the average observer with a phenomenon so spectacularly alien that it seems almost incredible that such people can exist. And granted that psychopaths do indeed exist, it is perplexing how they can manage to appear superficially sane, how they are able to wear, as one observer put it, the "mask of sanity."

The true psychopath compels the psychiatric observer to ask the perplexing and largely unanswered question: "Why doesn't that person have the common decency to go crazy?" (The Language of the Psychopath, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994)

Reiber is another who classifies psychopaths according to type and includes a description of the schizoidal psychopath:

Schizoid Psychopath. The schizoid personality encompasses many levels of psychopathology, varying from complete psychosis to attitudes of aloofness and introversion. Although the characteristics of schizophrenic psychosis are present, these individuals generally remain in contact with reality. They are the type of individuals who run away from situations, the shut-ins and the day-dreamers. Contrary to what might be a natural conclusion, schizoid personalities do commit aggressive crimes. In contradistinction to other types of psychopathic offenders, schizoid personalities who commit crimes are likely to be more seriously affected in terms of intellectual and emotional disintegration. (ibid.)

His description of the Paranoid Psychopath is also interesting:

Paranoid Psychopath. These individuals are characterized by the persistent feeling of being constantly discriminated against by everyone. They are tense in their manner and continually on the alert for adverse reaction toward themselves, and much of their energy is aimed at righting fancied wrongs or improving the unhappy situation in which they constantly imagine themselves. A distinction must be made between the psychotic individual whose judgment is so distorted by delusions of persecution as to being mentally ill and the psychopath whose feelings of being prevailed upon do not pass beyond a paranoid attitude. In both cases the criminal acts in which such individuals become involved are usually of an assaultive nature. However, the paranoid psychopath in whom persecutory attitudes are not channeled into delusions often becomes involved in crimes such as blackmail and extortion which entail verbal rather than physical aggression. The psychology of the paranoid individual is marked primarily by a feeling of grandiosity and second by a tendency to react aggressively toward others.

Then, there is his cited list of characteristics which is similar to Cleckley's and Hare's:

On the whole, the psychopath is very likable on first acquaintance.

Although seemingly intelligent, these persons lack the depth, sincerity and wisdom present in the truly intelligent person. Such individuals are often found living in a series of present moments without real consideration for past or future and with a callous disregard for the happiness of others. Coleman (1956) summarized the wide range of symptoms of this individual and it may be helpful to list them here.

Inability to understand and accept ethical values, except on a verbal level, or to pursue socially accepted goals.

Marked discrepancy between level of intelligence and conscience development.

Egocentric impulsiveness, irresponsibility, lack of restraint, and poor judgment.

Prone to thrill-seeking, deviant sexual patterns, and other unconventional behavior.

Inability to profit from mistakes and ordinary life experiences except by learning to exploit people and to escape punishment.

Inability to forego immediate pleasures for future gains and long-range goals. Hedonistic, lives in the present without consideration of past or future. Unable to withstand tedium and prone to nomad-like activities and frequent changing of jobs. External realities used for immediate personal gratification.

Ability to put up a good front to impress and exploit others. [/ b]Often a charming, likeable personality with a disarming manner and ability to win the liking and friendship of others. Often good sense of humor and generally optimistic outlook. Prone to social climbing.

Defective interpersonal and general social relationships. Individual usually cynical, unsympathetic, ungrateful, and remorseless in his dealings with others. Usually shows a history of difficulties with educational and/or law-enforcement authorities. No close friends.

Rejection of constituted authority and discipline. Individual behaves as if social regulations did not apply to him and refuses except on a verbal level, to take any responsibility for his actions. Often shows considerable repressed hostility toward constituted authority or society in general, which may manifest itself in impulsive, hostile criminal acts. Many times drifts into criminal activities but is not typically a calculating professional criminal.

Quick ability to rationalize and project the blame for his socially disapproved behavior. Lack of insight into his own behavior. Lies readily even though he knows he may eventually be found out by friends and acquaintances.

Irritating, disappointing, and distressing to others. Is frequently a great burden upon family and friends and creates a great deal of unhappiness for others. Often promises to change but rarely does so permanently - incorrigible (p. 338).

Anyway, getting back to your question, what does one do when pursued by an unstoppable psychopath?

Well, when I figure it out, I'll let you know. I've only noted one thing that really seems to work: a bigger and badder psychopath.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

COINTELPRO History - Jay Weidner + Vincent Bridges do Nostradamus

Don't know if anybody watched the much ballyhooed special about the Lost Book of Nostradamus on the Psychopath, er, History Channel (they've been advertising it for a week) last night:

http://tinyurl. com/2ht4qr

I only caught the last 45 minutes after I got home, it sure did seem like Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner had a lot of face time, along with that Elle Crystal with the New Agey website. I was also surprised at how old Jay looked, had the impression he'd be younger.

I thought it was funny that this book just "suddenly" was found after being in that library all this time, you didn't hear anything about it in the news. Loved the image of Osama everytime they'd mention the antiChrist also.

Pure COINTELPRO.

Shar

 

[Zadius Sky]

COINTELPRO History - Jay Weidner + Vincent Bridges do Nostradamus

You know, I have seen these shows on History Channel before because I was reading about Nostradamus and his prophecies. But, I have never thought about the certain people were being selected to be on the shows such as History Channel and neglected the honest and knowledgeable individuals who knows the real facts. This was before I knew of C's.

And, now looking at the shows again, it's now interesting that Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner were on there. When I read Laura's articles about Vincent Bridges, I thought I knew the name somewhere and now I know where I heard it from.

Quite interesting.

 

[Kesdjan]

COINTELPRO History - Jay Weidner + Vincent Bridges do Nostradamus

Yeah, I did a thread on it here. Its obviously very poorly constructed COINTELPRO. The "antichrist" in Nostradamas is "Mabus", which he says is a portamenteau word for 'Osama' and 'Bush'. Bridges adds, of course, "apparently [Nostradamus] didn't quite know who the bad guy was". I didn't notice Wiedner last time, but if this is what his book contains, no wonder those French guys laughed at it.

 

[Laura]

COINTELPRO History - Jay Weidner + Vincent Bridges do Nostradamus

Who can dig up some facts about this alleged "lost book" of Nostradamus?

 

[Adaryn]

COINTELPRO History - Jay Weidner + Vincent Bridges do Nostradamus

Who can dig up some facts about this alleged "lost book" of Nostradamus?

On Cassiopedia :

The Vaticinia Michaelis Nostradami de Futuri Christi Vicarii ad Cesarem Filium (prophecies of Michel Nostradamus on the Future Vicars of Christ (Popes) to Cesar his son), in short, Vaticinia Nostradami, (Prophesies of Nostradamus) is a collection of eighty watercolor images compiled as an illustrated codex. It was discovered in 1982 by the Italian journalists Enza Massa and Roberto Pinotti [1]in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma (Central National Library) in Rome, Italy. The document can be found in the library under the title, "Fondo Vittorio Emanuele 307".

http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Vaticinia_Nostradami

On the disinfo site of this "Ellie" (_http://www.crystalinks.com/manuscripts1007.html), it says it was discovered in 1994 :

On October 28, 2007 the History Channel presented a new two-hour special "The Lost Book of Nostradamus" in which I was one of the guest speakers, deciphering the codes in this lost manuscript, whose secrets are meant to be revealed at this time.

In 1994, Italian journalist Enza Massa was at the Italian National Library in Rome when she stumbled upon an unusual find. It was a manuscript dating to 1629, titled: Nostradamus Vatinicia Code. Michel de Notredame, the author's name, was on the inside in indelible ink. The book contains cryptic and bizarre images along with over eighty watercolor paintings by the master visionary himself. Follow the investigative trail of how the manuscript was found in the archives and exactly how it got there. New insight is given into the life of Nostradamus and his relationship with Pope Urban VIII, who knew about this manuscript and in whose possession it was for many years.

 

[Johnno]

COINTELPRO History - Jay Weidner + Vincent Bridges do Nostradamus

Review at Variety....

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935208.html?categoryid=1264&cs=1

All right, let's take it as a given that the History Channel wants to shed its stodgy old image, but even so, it's hard to justify overblown nonsense like this thumbsucker, devoting two hours to a book of dubious provenance that might be linked to the 16th century alleged prophet. Filled with extremely earnest "experts" of peculiar pedigree (including a psychic and the Nostradamus Society of America's president), this sort of portentous baloney suggests the television apocalypse can't come soon enough.

Born in 1503, Nostradamus has long held fascination for those drawn to such blather by his seemingly prescient writings about events that occurred hundreds of years after his death. This latest spec focuses on a picture book that, if you look really hard, predicts towers on fire (the World Trade Center!), the Pope fighting a bear (the Cold War!) and -- get ready for it -- the precise window when the World Will End, give or take five years. (Here's a hint: If you have an IRA that matures in 2013, you might consider cashing it in right now and heading to Aruba.)

"Lost Book of Nostradamus" would be bad enough if it just gave a platform to psychic Ellie Crystal or Nostradamus enthusiasts Victor Baines and Jay Weidner, who approach the topic with straight-faced zeal. Worse, though, the narration perpetuates the idiocy, with narrator James Lurie at one point saying, "It does appear that the bad news is coming more rapidly, more intently, than ever before." Oh really? This would come as news to the millions who died during WWII, who, admittedly, didn't have three 24-hour cable news channels (or for that matter, the History Channel) capturing each moment with "news alert" urgency.

So is the antichrist among us? Are the hands of the apocalypse clock winding down? Will anybody stay with this spaced-out production against Sunday football and "Desperate Housewives," even if it is a couple of nights before Halloween?

Unsettled times are often bountiful to peddlers of such material, preying on the most gullible among us, desperate for answers to the big mysteries. Yet while I wouldn't pretend to possess a crystal ball, gazing into the near future emboldens me to prophesize that anybody who isn't a Nostradamus nut going in should be irritated or bored out of his mind by "Lost Book of Nostradamus."