Leif Erlingsson wrote:

It's not the facts, it's the psychological mind-games...

Well, YOU, contrary to us,  do not provide any facts to back up what you are claiming. Should I consider your post as a psychological mind-game? If so, what rewards do you expect by starting your mind-game here?

Since I and Leif are the only two Swedish bloggers that mention Laura and Lobaczewski I have had some email conversations with Leif. It made sense to keep in touch, or so I thought. But recently, after I told him that he had some big issues with self-importance, I received the following email. I have directly translated it from Swedish, keeping it as close as possible to the original with regard to style and wording, and so the grammar may be a little off. I think you will find it interesting. Here goes:

<my name>,

Your letter says a lot.

And you make a mistake which is in my karma to get back - I have done the same mistake myself once upon a time. Interpreting others based on ones own experiences.

It is also interesting to study how you on the one hand say that I should not consider myself important as a person and how you on the other promote literature which exactly deals with a person who takes himself and his interactions with the universe very seriously.

An interesting paradox.

Furthermore it is of course pure idiocy, possibly disinformation, that one should not consider oneself as important in ones own life, since all people obviously are the main characters in their own lives. It is so to speak the cosmic/divine/call-it-what-you-want plan.

As you can understand from the above I am not "co-linear", or "has the spirit" as mormons say or "clear" in Scientology or "objective" from Objectivism, etc., with you. So I understand that you now will hit the big button labelled "THOUGHTSTOP"!

I have of course LOTS of feed-back. But can you receive? That's the question....

Best regards,

// Leif Erlingsson.      Are you asleep? Wake up with http://blog(dot)lege.net/



(Ascii Art - keep the newlinews, or this will be junk)

<huge ascii art saying "MORE" in Swedish>

I don't think you will see this, but felt that the right thing to do is to give you feedback on what it is that you are actually projecting and writing.

Clues:

I have deep experience with having been manipulated and having myself, due to lack of insight, manipulated. The structures for this in the Mormon church are described in general terms at http://exmormon(dot)org/ - in particular the very interesting book about "The Pattern of the Double-Bind in Mormonism" by Marion Stricke, which contains VERY DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHTS ABOUT MANIPULATION, CONTROL, ETC which can be applied to all of society: http://exmormon(dot)org/pattern/ (It's available on-line at this link, but can also be ordered from for example Amazon.com.)

From the mentioned book one should spend some time philosophising over the matrix "MASTER CHART: Description of Stages in the Pattern" at the end of this webpage: http://exmormon(dot)org/pattern/nature.htm I found a several year old printout of this matrix among my papers when I tidied them up a couple of days ago, that's how I remembered. And I understood MUCH more now, than the first time I saw it. It meant a lot more to me now. When I myself still were very much under the influence of these processes, in spite of my trying to get free, it was not as crystal clear as it is today.

I have therefore, from my own - not other's - studies come to the conclusion that what you and your friends are doing is something very manipulative. I didn't know earlier if it was just you, or if it was the entire QFS that was at fault. Now I have found my answers. What you are doing will eventually lead to a paralyzing paranoia. What you are doing can potentially destroy all resistance against the new world order. Fortunately you are not doing so well. It is then not really much wrong with many of the facts you are spreading, that is not the origin of the attack. Therefore I will in the future continue to link to (with a disclaimer) Signs of the Times, etc, as it is important to study everything, when one wants to retain the gold nuggets.

But your total fokus on broken people - psychopaths - makes it appear as though you are dividing people into "us and them", in spite of all the nice words to the contrary. I know those nice words, I have believed many of them for 15 years as a devoted mormon. This focus - rather than focusing on sick systems - is dangerous. I agree completely with regard to the sick systems, and agree with Dr Lobaczewski in this regard. But some of the footnotes of the book, by Henri Sy and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, suggest that something is not right. They are footnotes which enforce the differences between different "kinds" of people. Actually contrary to one of Dr Lobaczewskis figures on one of the pages in the book.

I wrote at the beginning "Your letter says a lot". I could have added: as does also your blogging. It is in fact to a large extent psychologically colorless. That's how I would characterize it. Compare with what Andrew M. Lobaczewski writes in "Political Ponerology: The Scientific Study of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes" regarding this. The clues are there.

Excerpt from my personal history, this part authored 2004-07-25:
... I was already thoroughly indoctrinated into something that with noted psychologist R D Laing's theory of "social phantasy systems" could be described as exactly such a system:  ``In Self and Others, however, Laing described normality as a state of unwitting immersion in what he termed "social phantasy systems" - deeply shared assumptions about reality that define the perspective of a particular group, but are not necessarily shared by outsiders, and may not tally with the facts.'' [ Online introduction to R D Laing's Self and Others (1961), http://laingsociety(dot)org/biblio/sando.htm ]
---

Later in the same text I quote a mormon which correctly had noticed that I was not what QFS would call "co-linear" with her:
"Your letters have been filled with ill intent and I have felt it to the core of my soul from the first.'' (Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:56:15)"
I continue:
She then contacted her friends (= "emotional-support network"), and they assured her that I was in the wrong, that I was arrogant and that my pride prevented me from seeing this, and that I should apologize.

What I did not understand, and what I stubbornly refused to accept, was the fact that my missionary and her friends were trapped inside a social phantasy system that made it clinically impossible for her and them to consider critically anything outside her/their particular framework.  Conversely, from my outside perspective, their attitudes looked insane, and I felt unable to apologize for "trying to wake them up".
In an article in Asia Times July 8, 2004 Canadian psychologist Dr Daniel Burston explains that the social phantasy system becomes a source of solace and security for a person who are part of it, forming an emotional-support network providing its individual members with a mistaken sense of legitimacy.  Even though the system, humanly speaking, is "fundamentally at odds with our basic existential and human needs".  Even though the system, humanly speaking, SHOULD generate internal conflict.  But it does not.
Instead the members of the system share in the rationalization and thus make it appear to be 'realistic' to the members of such a group.  And, forming the emotional-support network already mentioned. [ Source: "U.S.: Patriotic Pride and Fear", Ritt Goldstein, Asia Times, Tue July 8, 2004, http://truthout(dot)org/docs_04/071504I.shtml ]

I have now analyzed our interaction.  What my missionary did when I initially warned her was:

1.  She felt that what I was communicating was at odds with the framework she was operating from within -- at odds with the social phantasy system she belonged to, that is.

2.  She contacted her "emotional-support network".  And one member of her "emotional-support network", being well indoctrinated in the mother-lode of the American conservative social phantasy systems through various super-conservative web sites, provided the other members of the network with the assurance they needed that they were right and that I was wrong.

3.  My missionary felt vindicated in her initial feeling of cognitive dissonance that she attributed to ``Your letters have been filled with ill intent and I have felt it to the core of my soul from the first.'' (Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:56:15)

4.  She told me so, after in the same letter having informed me that ``the thoughts, ideas and information you have spewed out in volumes are confused, misinformed, highly insulting.  You got called on it and that; I can understand it hard to face.''

Here I end the example on failed communication with my missionary and her "emotional-support network", resulting in failed friendship.  But it is only one example of many of failed communication.  I have routinely been compared to the Devil, for my efforts.  I suppose that I offer the "forbidden fruit of knowledge"....  How else could I be compared to the Devil?    Or perhaps it's because of my dedication.  When I was misunderstood I used to assume that my communication skills were inadequate, and try another way.

End quote.

I have now followed some of the threads on the Signs of the Times Forum, and have studied the same patterns there. What is so fascinating is that they make the same mistake they talk about avoiding. Tragicomical. See for example "Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes" by Andrew M. Lobaczewski, page 110, after the wavy line. The footnotes in the book, by Henri Sy and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, suggested to me that the process was already in progress. Which a deeper analysis of the Signs of the Times forum hence confirmed for me.

You <my name> project for example that it is me who is in error and that I should "network" - a term I now understand to mean to communicate in the open on the Signs of the Times forum or within the QFS. To me, who have studied the dynamic of how new sectvictims are manipulated to stop trusting their own judgment, and transfer the power of decision making to someone else, this is very obvious. But I have not been certain whether it is only you who have these problems, or if this is a diseasesymptom for QFS. My studies the past few days suggest the latter. Which is a tragical paradox.

What you do is extremely excluding. Which, considering the deep esoteric insights and knowledge that you have attained, as I said is deeply tragical. I cannot but wonder if this can be a sign of the "self-destruct-programming" Laura supposedly was a victim of. What you do is hence the very OPPOSITE of networking. I network. You don't. You repel. You divide. You go deeper and deeper into paranoia. All attempts to get to you, will eventually be interpreted as attacks - if this is not happening already. I can only hope that you will find you way out of the labyrinth, some time.

I therefore realize that what I write for you sounds like craziness, backwards, Down the Rabbit-Hole. I have myself "been there, done that".

You should see how I reacted to a similar communication 1992-08-22, when it reached me. I put the letter in a folder, and didn't return to it until 2002-03-04, when I had concluded myself that what was in that letter was completely right. But I couldn't believe it in the meantime. And the same way it is with you. You will not be able to understand what I write. And yet it was YOU who first contacted ME. So in some esoterical sense you have still, at some level, asked. I'm not doing anything wrong to write this, but it doesn't change anything for you.

For myself I intend to network. And not how you think of it, but with the intent to include people, to do the opposite of being paranoid.

And should you one day start thinking along the lines I have outlined above, you are always welcome to ask me for support. I already run a supportnetwork for "Post Mormons", see "Post-Mormon network" at http://xmo(dot)lege.net/postmormon/

Take care.

PS. The discussions at http://exmormon(dot)org remind me a lot about those at <GLP/Vinnie thread reference>

The dynamics is the same; to smash holy cows and selfinflated "truthsayers".

Last edited by foofighter (Yesterday 18:35:00)

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

The discussions at http://exmormon(dot)org remind me a lot about those at <GLP/Vinnie thread reference>

The dynamics is the same; to smash holy cows and selfinflated "truthsayers".

In other words, what he seems to be saying is that he runs a "support network" for "post-mormons" that reminds him of the Vincent Bridges filth and invective - lies and defamation - at godlikeproductions???

Why am I not surprised.  I knew there was a psychopath in the woodpile! 

In short, he went from the mormon cult to the Vincent Bridges psychopathy-Babel cult.  And he thinks he is free??!!

Not a surprise.  With that enormous ego - forget networking, trust only your own thinking, never mind that your own thinking is damaged and is what was shaped by the mormon cult - there is no possibility of this guy getting anything.

Funny that he refers to Lobaczewski with such deference.  Does he realize that we didn't just publish Lobaczewski's book, we communicate with him directly and regularly and discuss people such as Vincent Bridges with him and he has confirmed and augmented our assessments of that gang.

You know, my first thought after reading his 'disclaimer' was "this guy's shaping himself up to be a recovering 'Cass-cult member' "

To accept the macrosocial arguments of Political Ponerology but deny the person-to-person pathodynamics is like accepting evolution as valid but suggesting genetics is flawed!