Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why they're so strange - pathological lying

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    Here s something else I wrote, which I may have never posted before, or if I did, it was awhile back. It fits in well with my previous post with the same
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's something else I wrote, which I may have never posted before, or if I did, it was awhile back. It fits in well with my previous post with the same title, so here goes:


      Pathological Lying



      I've come across some interesting information about cults that is so uncannily fitting to the Paul Twitchell story that I've decided to post it here. It is so descriptive of Twitchell that it almost seems as if the authors were speaking about him in particular, although he is not mentioned in the book. The title of book is "Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships," by Janja Lalich, PhD and Madeleine Tobias, MS, RN, C.S.

      One chapter of the book is all about the psychological profiles common to some cult leaders. According to the authors, "Researchers and clinicians who study and observe cult leaders describe them variously as egocentric, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, neurotic, psychotic, psychopathic, sociopathic, or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder." 15 traits are listed to help readers identify sociopathic leaders. Sociopathy is synonymous with Antisocial Personality Disorder, which some consider to be a subgroup of narcissistic personality.

      Here are a few excerpts from the book about one of the traits, pathological lying:

      "Sociopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious when they are being untruthful. It is often impossible for them to be consistently truthful about either a major of minor issue. They lie for no apparent reason, even when it would seem easier and safer to tell the truth. This is sometimes called 'crazy lying.' Confronting these lies may provoke an unpredictably intense rage or simply a Buddha like smile."

      Well, this caught my attention. Not only did Twitchell lie, but his successors and followers have carried on in his footsteps. Remind you of anyone? Maybe several among the Eckankar ranks? As nearly everyone recognizes, there is a lot of lying in Eckankar. It is Eckankar's hallmark feature. The excerpt continues:

      "Another form of lying common among cult leaders is known as pseudologica fantastica, which is an extension of pathological lying. Leaders tend to create a complex belief system, often about their own powers and abilities, in which they themselves sometimes get caught up. Psychiatrist Scott Snyder writes, 'It is often difficult to determine whether the lies are an actual delusional distortion of reality or are expressed with the conscious or unconscious intent to deceive.'"

      Woe. That hit's the nail on the head. I've often wondered if Paul Twitchell knew he was lying, or actually believed in his own megalomaniacal claims of being the world's "savior of the worlds of God," as he put it. He certainly did build a "complex belief system" around himself as the Godman. He clearly knew he plagiarized others' writings, claiming it as his own, which is definitely a form of deception and lying. Speaking of plagiary, let's go on to the next paragraph from the section:

      "These manipulators are rarely original thinkers. Plagiarists and thieves, they seldom credit the true originators of their ideas. They are extremely convincing, forceful in the expression of their views, and talented at passing lie detector tests. For them, objective truth does not exist—truth is whatever will help them reach their needs. This type of opportunism is the most difficult to understand for those who are not sociopaths. For this reason followers are likely to invent or go along with all kinds of explanations or rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior: 'I know my guru must have had good reason for doing this' or 'He did it because he loves me—even though it hurts.'"

      Now, doesn't that hit a bull's eye? "Plagiarists and thieves," indeed. And very fitting was the statement that "objective truth does not exist—truth is whatever will help them reach their needs." This statement is particularly descriptive of the apologists of Eckankar, such as Doug Marmon, who has openly questioned the value of objective facts when used to discredit Eckankar. And these apologists do "invent or go along with all kinds of explanations or rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior." It is as if the authors were thinking of some of the online Eckankar members who go to absurd lengths to absolve Eckankar from any and all criticisms, to the point of declaring plagiary to be acceptable form of behavior, and, lest I forget, going along with the ultimate rationalization—that Paul Twitchell got his plagiarized writing from an astral library!
    • David Osborn
      Tom,      I got wind of Twitchell s plagiarism quite early on - I believe I got my hands on a copy of Path of the Masters - and was shocked that so many
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 26, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom,
             I got wind of Twitchell's plagiarism quite early on - I believe I got my hands on a copy of Path of the Masters - and was shocked that so many passages in there matched, word for word, what I had read in Eckankar, Key to Secret Worlds. 
             But less fanciful and far fetched than the astral library as a rationalization for plagiarism is the line that the plagiarist uses, saying that he is just proclaiming universal truths; there were others before him, and there will be others after him to proclaim the same truths.  The exact words are not important, neither is the person saying or channeling them; what's important is the Truth itself that is being conveyed.  For a good long while, I bought into this explanation, or rationalization to deal with the plagiarism I saw. 
             You mention the HI Jerry's pedophilia, and other things like power trips and sexual exploitation, which are by no means unique to Eckankar.  Do you happen to know what Paul Twitchell's own personal pecadillos were? 
             Also, I finally got it about making someone a Mahdi or a higher initiate.  The higher initiates get together and have a meeting and ask each other if so-and-so would look good to other Eckists with a halo. 
                                                               David

        --- On Sun, 9/26/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:

        From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
        Subject: [eckankartruth] Why they're so strange - pathological lying
        To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 12:35 PM

        Here's something else I wrote, which I may have never posted before, or if I did, it was awhile back. It fits in well with my previous post with the same title, so here goes:


        Pathological Lying



        I've come across some interesting information about cults that is so uncannily fitting to the Paul Twitchell story that I've decided to post it here. It is so descriptive of Twitchell that it almost seems as if the authors were speaking about him in particular, although he is not mentioned in the book.  The title of book is "Take Back Your Life:  Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships," by Janja Lalich, PhD and Madeleine Tobias, MS, RN, C.S.

        One chapter of the book is all about the psychological profiles common to some cult leaders. According to the authors, "Researchers and clinicians who study and observe cult leaders describe them variously as egocentric, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, neurotic, psychotic, psychopathic, sociopathic, or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder."  15 traits are listed to help readers identify sociopathic leaders. Sociopathy is synonymous with Antisocial Personality Disorder, which some consider to be a subgroup of narcissistic personality.

        Here are a few excerpts from the book about one of the traits, pathological lying:

        "Sociopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious when they are being untruthful. It is often impossible for them to be consistently truthful about either a major of minor issue. They lie for no apparent reason, even when it would seem easier and safer to tell the truth. This is sometimes called 'crazy lying.' Confronting these lies may provoke an unpredictably intense rage or simply a Buddha like smile."

        Well, this caught my attention. Not only did Twitchell lie, but his successors and followers have carried on in his footsteps. Remind you of anyone? Maybe several among the Eckankar ranks? As nearly everyone recognizes, there is a lot of lying in Eckankar. It is Eckankar's hallmark feature. The excerpt continues:

        "Another form of lying common among cult leaders is known as pseudologica fantastica, which is an extension of pathological lying.  Leaders tend to create a complex belief system, often about their own powers and abilities, in which they themselves sometimes get caught up. Psychiatrist Scott Snyder writes, 'It is often difficult to determine whether the lies are an actual delusional distortion of reality or are expressed with the conscious or unconscious intent to deceive.'"

        Woe. That hit's the nail on the head. I've often wondered if Paul Twitchell knew he was lying, or actually believed in his own megalomaniacal claims of being the world's "savior of the worlds of God," as he put it. He certainly did build a "complex belief system" around himself as the Godman.  He clearly knew he plagiarized others' writings, claiming it as his own, which is definitely a form of deception and lying.  Speaking of plagiary, let's go on to the next paragraph from the section:

        "These manipulators are rarely original thinkers. Plagiarists and thieves, they seldom credit the true originators of their ideas.  They are extremely convincing, forceful in the expression of their views, and talented at passing lie detector tests.  For them, objective truth does not exist—truth is whatever will help them reach their needs.  This type of opportunism is the most difficult to understand for those who are not sociopaths.  For this reason followers are likely to invent or go along with all kinds of explanations or rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior: 'I know my guru must have had good reason for doing this' or 'He did it because he loves me—even though it hurts.'"

        Now, doesn't that hit a bull's eye?  "Plagiarists and thieves," indeed.  And very fitting was the statement that "objective truth does not exist—truth is whatever will help them reach their needs."  This statement is particularly descriptive of the apologists of Eckankar, such as Doug Marmon, who has openly questioned the value of objective facts when used to discredit Eckankar. And these apologists do "invent or go along with all kinds of explanations or rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior." It is as if the authors were thinking of some of the online Eckankar members who go to absurd lengths to absolve Eckankar from any and all criticisms, to the point of declaring plagiary to be acceptable form of behavior, and, lest I forget, going along with the ultimate rationalization—that Paul Twitchell got his plagiarized writing from an astral library!




        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
            eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
            eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      • jonathanjohns96
        David, I actually thought up the astral library theory myself (circa early 2000s) before anyone in Eckankar mentioned it to me. However, in my own defense, I
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 26, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          David,

          I actually thought up the astral library theory myself (circa early 2000s) before anyone in Eckankar mentioned it to me. However, in my own defense, I must add that I had no idea about the mountains of evidence against Twitchell. I had no idea that he had copied entire paragraphs almost word by word. Had I known about the mountains of evidence, the astral library theory would have never even come into my mind.

          The reason for my believing that the astral library theory could explain the plagiarism accusations against Twitchell is the following. In the 1980s I asked a higher initiate about David Lane's allegations of plagiarism. She told me that all religions have similarities. So she created a false impression of the amount of evidence against Paul. Her explanation made me think that the evidence against Paul was very weak and amounted to almost nothing. I made the classic mistake in Eckankar of relying on a higher initiate to provide truth to me instead of going out and researching it myself. But it was a very valuable lesson.

          And I'm not trying to make excuses for her, but she was probably just repeating what someone else had told her. There was a lot of that in Eckankar. We all wanted to believe.

          Many many years later (2008) when I asked the same person about Ford Johnson's book she forcefully told me that she had no intentions of reading that piece of trash! (She said something like that.) So she didn't want to know the truth. Yes, I know, not surprising.

          So she has spent most of her 34+ year membership in Eckankar giving the Eckie newbies "information" as to why David Lane's and Ford Johnson's accusations are false without ever having read a single word of their research. Again, not surprising to any former member who now knows the truth.

          Jonathan


          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
          >
          > Tom,
          >      I got wind of Twitchell's plagiarism quite early on - I believe I got my hands on a copy of Path of the Masters - and was shocked that so many passages in there matched, word for word, what I had read in Eckankar, Key to Secret Worlds. 
          >      But less fanciful and far fetched than the astral library as a rationalization for plagiarism is the line that the plagiarist uses, saying that he is just proclaiming universal truths; there were others before him, and there will be others after him to proclaim the same truths.  The exact words are not important, neither is the person saying or channeling them; what's important is the Truth itself that is being conveyed.  For a good long while, I bought into this explanation, or rationalization to deal with the plagiarism I saw. 
          >      You mention the HI Jerry's pedophilia, and other things like power trips and sexual exploitation, which are by no means unique to Eckankar.  Do you happen to know what Paul Twitchell's own personal pecadillos were? 
          >      Also, I finally got it about making someone a Mahdi or a higher initiate.  The higher initiates get together and have a meeting and ask each other if so-and-so would look good to other Eckists with a halo. 
          >                                                        David
          >
          > --- On Sun, 9/26/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
          > Subject: [eckankartruth] Why they're so strange - pathological lying
          > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 12:35 PM
          >
          > Here's something else I wrote, which I may have never posted before, or if I did, it was awhile back. It fits in well with my previous post with the same title, so here goes:
          >
          >
          > Pathological Lying
          >
          >
          >
          > I've come across some interesting information about cults that is so uncannily fitting to the Paul Twitchell story that I've decided to post it here. It is so descriptive of Twitchell that it almost seems as if the authors were speaking about him in particular, although he is not mentioned in the book.  The title of book is "Take Back Your Life:  Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships," by Janja Lalich, PhD and Madeleine Tobias, MS, RN, C.S.
          >
          > One chapter of the book is all about the psychological profiles common to some cult leaders. According to the authors, "Researchers and clinicians who study and observe cult leaders describe them variously as egocentric, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, neurotic, psychotic, psychopathic, sociopathic, or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder."  15 traits are listed to help readers identify sociopathic leaders. Sociopathy is synonymous with Antisocial Personality Disorder, which some consider to be a subgroup of narcissistic personality.
          >
          > Here are a few excerpts from the book about one of the traits, pathological lying:
          >
          > "Sociopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious when they are being untruthful. It is often impossible for them to be consistently truthful about either a major of minor issue. They lie for no apparent reason, even when it would seem easier and safer to tell the truth. This is sometimes called 'crazy lying.' Confronting these lies may provoke an unpredictably intense rage or simply a Buddha like smile."
          >
          > Well, this caught my attention. Not only did Twitchell lie, but his successors and followers have carried on in his footsteps. Remind you of anyone? Maybe several among the Eckankar ranks? As nearly everyone recognizes, there is a lot of lying in Eckankar. It is Eckankar's hallmark feature. The excerpt continues:
          >
          > "Another form of lying common among cult leaders is known as pseudologica fantastica, which is an extension of pathological lying.  Leaders tend to create a complex belief system, often about their own powers and abilities, in which they themselves sometimes get caught up. Psychiatrist Scott Snyder writes, 'It is often difficult to determine whether the lies are an actual delusional distortion of reality or are expressed with the conscious or unconscious intent to deceive.'"
          >
          > Woe. That hit's the nail on the head. I've often wondered if Paul Twitchell knew he was lying, or actually believed in his own megalomaniacal claims of being the world's "savior of the worlds of God," as he put it. He certainly did build a "complex belief system" around himself as the Godman.  He clearly knew he plagiarized others' writings, claiming it as his own, which is definitely a form of deception and lying.  Speaking of plagiary, let's go on to the next paragraph from the section:
          >
          > "These manipulators are rarely original thinkers. Plagiarists and thieves, they seldom credit the true originators of their ideas.  They are extremely convincing, forceful in the expression of their views, and talented at passing lie detector tests.  For them, objective truth does not existâ€"truth is whatever will help them reach their needs.  This type of opportunism is the most difficult to understand for those who are not sociopaths.  For this reason followers are likely to invent or go along with all kinds of explanations or rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior: 'I know my guru must have had good reason for doing this' or 'He did it because he loves meâ€"even though it hurts.'"
          >
          > Now, doesn't that hit a bull's eye?  "Plagiarists and thieves," indeed.  And very fitting was the statement that "objective truth does not existâ€"truth is whatever will help them reach their needs."  This statement is particularly descriptive of the apologists of Eckankar, such as Doug Marmon, who has openly questioned the value of objective facts when used to discredit Eckankar. And these apologists do "invent or go along with all kinds of explanations or rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior." It is as if the authors were thinking of some of the online Eckankar members who go to absurd lengths to absolve Eckankar from any and all criticisms, to the point of declaring plagiary to be acceptable form of behavior, and, lest I forget, going along with the ultimate rationalizationâ€"that Paul Twitchell got his plagiarized writing from an astral library!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.