starsailor wrote:

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

Well, it's a curious thing.  I notice that the people who go on and on about being "cult survivors" are one of two types: either they are really "cult susceptible," and have succumbed to the cult of the "cult survivor" or they are claiming to be a cult survivor in order to get a following of other cult survivors.  In either case, it's all about ego. 

I'm still rather taken aback that anybody who considers themselves at all educated and capable of logic would perceive  the out and out lies and filth of the Bridges gang on GLP as any kind of example of anything HUMAN.  I guess he didn't read the threads on this forum about Bridges and HIS background in trying to start a cult and how he tried to do it by taking over our discussion group, for which he was unceremoniously booted. 

And if this guy can't see the pathology of a couple of guys spending over 6 years creating websites for defamation, and taking different roles and identities and talking to each other on a discussion board for over 100 pages, the purpose of which is to defame another person with filth and lies, then there's not much hope for him anyway.

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

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.

Very interesting that Leif refers to the paranoid psychopathy and fails to notice the most characteristic symptom of that condition which is exemplified most particularly in his "mentor," Vincent Bridges, and that symptom is in bold in the following:

Paranoid character disorders: It is characteristic of paranoid behavior for people to be capable of relatively correct reasoning and discussion as long as the conversation involves minor differences of opinion. This stops abruptly when the partner’s arguments begin to undermine their overvalued ideas, crush their long-held stereotypes of reasoning, or forces them to accept a conclusion they had subconsciously rejected before. Such a stimulus unleashes upon the partner a torrent of pseudo-logical, largely paramoralistic, often insulting utterances which always contain some degree of suggestion.

Now, notice the next part that is most important:

Utterances like these inspire aversion among cultivated and logical people, who then tend to avoid the paranoid types.

Now, one might wonder what is so dramatic about the spewing of the paranoid type that it is repellent to cultivated people?

I had a suspicion, but just to confirm that suspicion, I asked Lobaczewski about it and I was right.  The paranoid psychopath is overly prone to using filthy language.  They simply can't help it.  When their button is pushed by anyone resisting their domination, they fall into filth, mostly words relating to excretory functions.  It is as though their emotions are stuck forever at the age of two or three, the approximate age when most children are potty trained.  The paranoid psychopath is subconsciously obsessed with excretion.

In other words, one of the characteristics of the paranoid psychopath is "Potty Mouth."

Now, who does that describe?

I have a folder full of that kind of stuff from Vincent Bridges and Storm Bear Williams and their gang.  This is the material that, for Lobaczewski, confirmed the diagnosis.

Getting back to Lobaczewski and his description of the type and how it applies to Leif:

However, the power of the paranoid lies in the fact that they easily enslave less critical minds, e.g. people with other kinds of psychological deficiencies, who have been victims of the egotistical influence of individuals with character disorders, and, in particular, a large segment of young people.

This describes Leif exactly: a less critical mind that has been seriously damaged by being victimized by character disordered cult leaders. 

A proletarian may perceive this power to enslave to be a kind of victory over higher-class people and thus take the paranoid person’s side. However, this is not the normal reaction among the common people, where perception of psychological reality occurs no less often than among intellectuals.

We have certainly observed quite a bit of this in Vincent Bridges' "Cult Survivors Cult." He attracts some of the most - well - it's hard to find the right word to describe the kind of ignorant and illiterate people he has as followers and sycophants.  I once described them as "trailer trash," and that will just have to do for now even if it is a term that may not be fully understood by the European mind.

In sum then, the response of accepting paranoid argumentation is qualitatively more frequent in reverse proportion to the civilization level of the community in question, although it never approaches the majority. Nevertheless, paranoid individuals become aware of their enslaving influence through experience and attempt to take advantage of it in a pathologically egotistic manner.

And we see that Leif has accepted the paranoid argumentation.  Because, remember, the chief thing about paranoid argumentation is that it is predicated on overvalued ideas, stereotypical reasoning, subconscious rejection and selection.  In other words, Vincent Bridges could never accept the fact that he had been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite because his self-image was that of a great channel of extraterrestrial intelligences - the Ophanim - and a great teacher, and, in fact, the one chose to "Initiate the Eschaton."  When he was told that this was all a load of hooey and bunk, that all the years he had spent on Black Magic and dancing around naked in the moonlight, and that nonsense, his "over-valued" ideas of himself were "bruised" and he let loose with a stream of filth and invective that has continued for the past 6 years unabated. 

Now THAT'S a Paranoid Psychopath!

ark wrote:

But again, this is only my working hypothesis. Perhaps more data will come, then I will revise my hypothesis.

I used to be Mormon.
Perhaps I can point you to some beginning references.

http(colon)(double slash)LDS(dot)org
http(colon)(double slash)MORMON(dot)org

Of course, these are official sites and may be full of propaganda.
Before I came across the Cs material (quite by accident), I believed that Mormonism was the closest to the truth.
As compared to the other psycho-babbling controllers using religion that is…
I was also raised a Southern Baptist.
Do I hear a Halleluiah and an Amen.!?.!?.!?
But seriously…
The Mormons teach worlds without end.
If righteous, I could become like god.
As a god, I would have little spirit children and populate my own 'earth'.
I would be a GOD…
Oh, yeah baby…
Let’s not forget our mother in heaven.
As on earth as in heaven, so I was told.
She was sealed to her husband for eternity in some other land, far, far away, and so long, long ago…
Why aren’t we taught about our heavenly mother?
Our heavenly father is blasphemed all the time, yes?
Well, heavenly father loves his wife so much, and to spare her the pain he has (with us), she is not spoken of here on this earthly plane.
I used to teach this schtuff…
I’ve been in positions of leadership, stewardship, and 'authority'.
I’ve been to the temples.
I’ve participated in the ‘secret' temple 'rituals'.
I call them rituals for that is what they are…
I even have the magical undergarments to protect me.
I’ve been sealed to my family for all eternity.
A big saying is 'Families are Forever'.
With no other knowledge, being with your family forever is an enticement.
So when I 'hear' someone flaming an organized religion, I get emotional.
Sheeple.
Hell, I quit and I need NO therapy.
The creator gave us a MIND/BRAIN to use.
USE IT PLEASE.
And of course, listen to the little voices within.
Learn to discern and make up your own mind.
I need more patience with whiners who can’t think independently.

The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Comparing the SOTT forum with mormon activities is laughable in a sad way. Leif, only the 'claim' article might make sense here: worship what you want to worship. Free will for everyone, at own risk.

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

ark wrote:

I think he will be keep the link.

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

Leif, you have said, "The discussions at [your forum] remind [you] a lot about those [with Vincent Bridges]." Does it mean anything to you that even Lobaczewski sees that Bridges is a "paranoid psychopath"? What does that say about YOUR discussion group?

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

Last edited by hkoehli (Today 03:52:10)

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

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

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