Leif Erlingsson wrote:

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

Very intelligent people have been trying to understand "sick systems" for millennia. They have proposed a multitude of supposedly 'healthy' systems as replacements. Some of those systems have actually been attempted. None of them have worked. Why? Because they become ponerized, because the 'sick' individuals, about whom no one was talking, moved into the social movements working to establish these systems and corrupted them, as Lobaczewski so carefully documents in his book.

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

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

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

I doubt they have ever studied psychopathy.

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

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

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

But your total fokus on broken people - psychopaths - makes it appear as though you are dividing people into "us and them", in spite of all the nice words to the contrary.

"Total focus"? "Makes it appear"?  This is a guy who has read a couple of threads in the forum and less than 1/20th of the material on the website and he has decided that our focus is "totally" on psychopaths.  Then, he decides that this is "dividing people into 'us and them.'"

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

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

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

...which says in part:

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

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

What’s In The Workshop? 

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

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

* 8 categories of dangerous men

* Help them understand WHY her red flags are important

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

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

* Knowledge about signs and symptoms of dangerousness

* Which men CAN’T change and why

She also has a website for her first book: How to Spot a Dangerous Man:
http://www.howtospotadangerousman.com/

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

She explained to me part of what she tells women in her workshops:

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

I teach more than just about the psychopath, although he is a large focus, but I explain what Axis II diagnosis mean because so many of the women are with these kinds of Axis II guys waiting for them to change-- where by the nature of what is wrong with them, they can change very little. I spend a lot of time discussing 'hard-wiring' in Axis II.
   
The psychopath and other Axis II remain hidden because we don't believe in permanent mental disorders.
What ever he is doing is a 'mood' or a 'current unhappiness.' We can't spot what we don't even know.

So we try to explain away every behavior and of course the psychopath lives in dichotomies--so one day he is
loving and the next he is hateful -- it keeps the head swimming to where one is not even thinking about his inconsistency or his dichotomies  - they are trying to emotionally survive and figure out if this is her problem and not his (as he suggests). He is smoke and mirrors---deflecting all pathology onto her and hiding behind the smoke.
   
We spend too much time studying the criminal psychopath who makes up such a small overall portion of the psychopath community. Hare's book 'Snakes In Suits' was a great insight into the corporate psychopath. Just the title reminds the world that it's not just the Ted Bundy's of the world we have to look out for.

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, in addition to Hare and Babiak, and ourselves, there is another person who sees that what is needed is a vast, public educational campaign.  It is absolutely shocking to realize that it is not just 80% of women who don't know what to look for or how to deal with it, but that it is 80% of all people.  The problem is truly an epidemic.  So, what kind of service to others would we be doing if, having been gifted with the lesson of psychopathy via Vincent Bridges, including the fact that it is incurable and untreatable, we decided NOT to share what we have learned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reality is, our culture is very psychopathic and if a woman dates, she needs to know what they look like because her chances of encountering one are fairly decent odds. Even though he may not kill you, you will NEVER be the same from having encountered a psychopath that dismantles YOUR psyche.

Now, Sandra is focusing on women and intimate relationships, but the facts apply to everyone: PSYCHOPATHS ARE NOT THAT UNCOMMON and OUR CULTURE IS VERY PSYCHOPATHIC because it is dominated and run by psychopaths and EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT THEY "LOOK" LIKE.

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

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

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

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

...whenever some unidentified psychopathological factor comes into play, the natural human world view ceases to be applicable.

He then points out how this "natural world view" can have a pernicious effect on normal people:

Moving further, we often meet with sensible people endowed with a well-developed natural world view as regards psychological, societal, and moral aspects, frequently refined via literary influences, religious deliberations, and philosophical reflections. Such persons have a pronounced tendency to overrate the values of their world view, behaving as though it were an objective basis for judging other people. They do not take into account the fact that such a system of apprehending human matters can also be erroneous, since it is insufficiently objective. Let us call such an attitude the “egotism of the natural world view� .

He points out that, up to the time that he was writing, the above egotism was not so pernicious, and was merely and "overestimation of that method of comprehension containing the eternal values of human experience."  This seems to be somewhat along the line of what is bugging Leif.  What Lobaczewski then says puts a period to the idea that such "egotistical assessments" have any value:

Today, however, the world is being jeopardized by a phenomenon which cannot be understood nor described by means of such a natural conceptual language; this kind of egotism thus becomes a dangerous factor stifling the possibility of objective counteractive measures.

Lobaczewski then points out that working to make the knowledge of psychopathy and other deviants known - to popularize the knowledge among all people - is crucial to saving us from this growing evil:

Developing and popularizing the objective psychological world view could thus significantly expand the scope of dealing with evil, via sensible action and pinpointed countermeasures.

But it has to be developed and popularized and that requires a campaign such as we have undertaken.

Lobaczewski wrote to me privately:

Where to go from here?

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

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

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

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

It seems that, in the natural order of things, that those persons who have suffered the most from psychopaths or bearers of other mental anomalies, will be those called to do this work, to accept the burden.  If you do, accept also, ladies and gentlemen, your fate with an open heart and humility, and always with a sense of humor.  Cherish assistance from the Universal Mind and know that Great Values often grow from Great Suffering.

Yes, we suffer each time we see a single individual who has been overtaken by the ponerological element in society - an element represented by Vincent Bridges and his kind though, in truth, they are very small potatoes.  Still, he has been useful as a specimen, as a case study, and continues to be.  We are also strengthened each time someone comes along and who, due to their experiences and their intellect combined with heart, see immediately the value of this work, and join with us in our labors in the field. 

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

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

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

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

If one has a look at the material gathered by the SOTT people about psychopathy and psychopaths : books, links, blogs, threads, podcasts, editorials,...  one can easily realize that the shared knowledge about pyschopathy and psychopaths is unfortunately not only based on assumptions.

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Thanks for the interesting insight in the mind of 'foofighter'....

Actually it was Foofighter who offered us an interesting insight into the mind of Leif Erlingsson. Not even an appropriate twist.

Irini wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Thanks for the interesting insight in the mind of 'foofighter'....

Actually it was Foofighter who offered us an interesting insight into the mind of Leif Erlingsson. Not even an appropriate twist.

Well, to tell the truth, when I was 10 years old, I was shooting sparrows with a slingshot. I didn't know better, I didn't realize what I was doing, I didn't THINK. I simply wanted to be the best shooter.

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

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

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