Signs of the Times Forum / Leif Erlingsson Leaves Early (was Leif Erlingsson has an Issue (was http://blog.lege.net/))

Joe · Yesterday 22:46:34

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

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

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

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

Us and Them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laura · Yesterday 23:00:45

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

Laura · 2007-01-29 04:18:46

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

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

Dear _____________

As you have...

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

You have therefore

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

and as...

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

and as...

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

and as...

* that person is you,

You are hereby

* requested to undo the damage you have caused.

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

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

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

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

Leif Erlingsson

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

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

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

IT DOES THIS BY TURNING THE REAL WORLD UPSIDE-DOWN
THROUGH FRAUD AND THEFT

So, ignoring Erlingsson seemed to be the best course of action. After all, he just seemed to be a poor, misguided, wounded chap. However, the next day, I received another email from a forum member who had received the exact same email saying the following:

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

Laura & Ark,
...

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

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

Dear _________,

As you have...

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

You have therefore

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

and as...

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

and as...

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

and as...

* that person is you,

You are hereby

* requested to undo the damage you have caused.

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

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

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

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

Leif Erlingsson

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

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

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

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

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

Hasbara Manual, page 32 wrote:
Seven Basic Propaganda Devices

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

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

The seven basic propaganda devices are:

NAME CALLING
GLITTERING GENERALITY
TRANSFER
TESTIMONIAL
PLAIN FOLKS
FEAR
BANDWAGON

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

Name Calling

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

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

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

Name calling is hard to counter. Don't allow opponents the opportunity to engage in point scoring. Whenever "name calling" is used, think about referring to the same thing (e.g. Gilo), but with a more favorable description (e.g. "suburb" }. Consider calling settlements "communities" or "villages". Use the same names back; if somebody talks about Sharon's "war crimes", talk about Arafat's war crimes and involvement in terror.

Now, the Hasbara manual exposes how groups of deviants can impose a false reality on others by various techniques, not the least of which is "social proof," i.e. a group acts as a planned and deliberate "tag team" with the intention of manipulating a target into believing lies. This method is used very effectively by such people as Vincent Bridges and Storm Bear Williams though, as we have discovered, they have to pretend to be several different people with different internet identities in order to produce this effect and thus it is very time consuming for them.

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

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

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

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

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

We know, from the Hasbara manual, that one of the main ways that effective brainwashing works if you can't lure the person into a set-up of fake "social proof", is in a "one on one" situation. This amounts to cutting someone out of the herd so as to prey upon them.

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

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

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

Hasbara Handbook page 16 wrote:
The person who sets the agenda will usually win the debate.[...] activists get to determine what to talk about,[...] Being proactive keeps the right issues in the public eye, and in the way Israel activists want them to be seen. It is much easier to get Palestinian activists defending Arafat against charges of being a corrupt terrorist than it is to explain to disinterested students that Ariel Sharon didn't kill anybody at Sabra and Chatilla(which of course he didn't).

This same description applies exactly to Leif Erlingsson. He seeks to set the agenda so as to determine what to talk about, and the way it gets talked about. He also seeks to get others to defend this forum against the charges of being a cult rather than dealing with the real and serious issues of psychopathic programming and brainwashing.

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

Hasbara Handbook page 35 wrote:
When a speaker warns that the consequences of ignoring his message is likely to be war, conflict, personal suffering, and so forth, they are manipulating fear to advance their message. Listeners have deep-seated fears of violence and disorder, which can be tapped into by creating false dichotomies -- "either listen to me, or these terrible things will happen." Listeners are too preoccupied by the threat of terrible things to think critically about the speaker's message.

Using fear to manipulate is a typical psychopathic ploy and Leif has used it exactly as a psychopath would. That is not to say he is a psychopath, but his thinking processes are certainly pathological as evidence by the above offlist emails.

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

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

There i see how networking can be useful and beneficial. If I hadn't communicated Leif's stalking email to you, I wouldn't have known he had threatened other members, I'd have felt isolated and i'd have freaked out.

And that is exactly why psychopaths are the ones that demand secrecy, that demand "one on one" discussions and eschew a true, open network AMONG NORMAL PEOPLE where light is shined on all the dark doings of deviants.

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

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

henry · 2007-01-29 10:23:07

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

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

Dear _____________

As you have...

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

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

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

Leif Erlingsson wrote:
You have therefore

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

There is no misunderstanding. The posting of the messages helped to bring real understanding of what LE was up to. The first step of the guilt trip is planted: the claim that the recipient implicitly accepted responsibility for something.

Leif Erlingsson wrote:
and as...

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

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

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

Leif Erlingsson wrote:
and as...

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

and as...

* that person is you,

You are hereby

* requested to undo the damage you have caused.

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

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

So what does LE propose?

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

LE doesn't want to take responsibility for anything. He will not intervene and will not allow his own words to be quoted. The recipient is told to use his own words, which gives LE the possibility later to come back and claim he was misquoted or misunderstood a second time.

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

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

What is the exact nature of the "dance" he did not ask for? An open discussion where anyone could participate?

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

And yet LE is using emotional blackmail to try and coerce the people who received his email into doing things according to HIS way of how they should be done. So, our way, the way he claims "remotely smells of coercion", is to have the discussion out in the open. His way is to keep it private, use a third person to promote his ideas, getting others to do his work for him, so that he can remain untouched hidden in the background.

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

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

Leif Erlingsson

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

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

The whole thing stinks to me.

Art · 2007-01-29 10:56:02

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

Adding to that:

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

hehe.

Last edited by Art (2007-01-29 11:06:49)

ark · 2007-01-29 10:58:27

henry wrote:
The whole thing stinks to me.

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

He has provided another lesson - for all those readers who have ears.

Prayers for rain · 2007-01-29 11:07:49

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

That's exactly the image that came to my mind while thinking about LE's 'tactic'. Try to spot the weak or damaged, or young/less experienced/less knowledgable, isolate him and attack. Just like in the wild. It's an invitation to observe Nature more

Last edited by Prayers for rain (2007-01-29 11:12:32)

cathryn · 2007-01-29 11:36:26

The wording LE has used seems vaguely 'legalistic' as if to convey some sort of authority. He is using dominance and authority in order to elicit compliance to his request. (Milgram anyone).
One wonders if LE has 'lifted' the wording from some communications he has either received from the cult he was in, or read whilst obsessing about cult recovery.
His MO is very similar to that used by paediophiles when coercing children to comply and not 'tell', to retain the secrecy of their dominance and abuse.
The type of transparency we have here is almost impossible to bear for this type of person, their manipulations simply will not work.
Also the 'secret' communication LE used is similar to the type of suggestion used in interrogation designed to elicit a confession, even a false one. This type of implanted suggestion of guilt is also responsible for the 'false memory syndrom'.

Yes it does stink henry, it stinks of a set-up.

Richard · 2007-01-29 12:47:10

A good way to discover whether someone is really a deviant and is attempting to subvert one's logical and realistic way of thinking is to compare what they 'say' to what they 'do'. A normal persons actions will match their words. The words of a deviant will NOT match their actions.

We see here how LE is using manipulation and coercion tactics in the attempt to subvert at least some of the members here in order to sow divisions and disturb the logical and realistic thought-patterns of these various individuals. As has been noted, most of us here have seen these things several times before. When one has encountered this same variety of word-twisting, avoidance of issues, baseless accusations backed with NO evidence whatsoever over and over, one becomes very adept at recognizing these people pretty quickly. Actually, that must really frost their cookies! And, thanks to all the manipulators we are all getting better at discerning these types of people.

It is also really laughable that he is appealing to our 'gentlemanly nature'. We here are not at all considering ourselves 'gentlemen' (or 'ladies'), but rather Truth-Seekers. That is an entirely different thing, and as Laura has mentioned previously, as soon as we discover we are dealing with someone who does not value Truth at all, every bet is off and we are not only 'free' to disregard those things considered 'polite' in societies, but duty bound to expose these predators for what they really are. Reading and participating in this Forum is beneficial in lots of ways. One of them is by observing how these people are 'outed' by the members, which helps those who do not yet have the capacity to see these people for who they truly are. After a while, people learn how to spot these types themselves. And, it really, really is an essential skill to have!

This is probably 'tough' on those who care nothing for Truth, but 'delicious' in the extreme for those who do.

Last edited by Richard (2007-01-29 12:50:24)

Lynne · 2007-01-29 13:17:14

This is very interesting to see how LE accuses others of doing exactly what, he himself, is doing.

As I read the 'secret' e-mails that were sent, I could not help but see the similarities of what I would expect to hear come out of the mouth of Adolph Hitler, of all things. You will obey! Geesh.

Cathryn wrote:
His MO is very similar to that used by paediophiles when coercing children to comply and not 'tell', to retain the secrecy of their dominance and abuse.

Yes, the manipulative manner in his e-mails actually made me feel sick to my stomach. And when I read Cathryn's post, this is exactly the taste of the feeling I was getting. Very accurate, Cathryn.

I think that during his 'deprogramming' from Mormannism, he took notes on how to program others to follow him. He seems to be craving followers of his own.

Sick!

#41 Yesterday 22:46:34

Re: Leif Erlingsson Leaves Early (was Leif Erlingsson has an Issue (was http://blog.lege.net/))

#42 Yesterday 23:00:45

Re: Leif Erlingsson Leaves Early (was Leif Erlingsson has an Issue (was http://blog.lege.net/))

Board footer

#43 2007-01-29 04:18:46

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Hasbara Manual, page 32 wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Hasbara Handbook page 16 wrote:

Hasbara Handbook page 35 wrote:

#44 2007-01-29 10:23:07

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

Leif Erlingsson wrote:

#45 2007-01-29 10:56:02

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

#46 2007-01-29 10:58:27

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

henry wrote:

#47 2007-01-29 11:07:49

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

Laura wrote:

#48 2007-01-29 11:36:26

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

#49 2007-01-29 12:47:10

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

#50 2007-01-29 13:17:14

Re: Leif Erlingsson's Post Mormon Cult

Cathryn wrote:

Board footer