Corboy: there's this idea that I've been toying with lately in my mind, a hypothesis which I want to bring to this message board in order to discuss it with others, in order to develop it more fully. Here it is:

My hypothesis it that certain types of serial murderers, and certain types of "cult leaders" have exactly the same psychology and are exhibiting the same pathology which is expressing itself in two different ways. It's all about manipulation, domination and control often with an element of sexual sadism (or else some other sexualized element) mixed in.

Dahmer and the Zodiac were (in their minds) collecting slaves for their afterlives. Charles Manson collected living and willing "slaves" to do his bidding in this life.

Sometimes they kill in order to form a cult of sorts, and sometimes they form a cult in order to kill. Shoko Asahara. Jim Jones.

In other words: Ted Bundy is not really that different from, say, Keith Raniere, see? What do you think, corboy? Is my idea out in left field, or what?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2023 04:38AM by XKRISHNA.

Most likely the malignant, traumatizing narcissists exist on a continuum with the Jim Jones, Charles Mansons, etc., at the extreme end and say, a narcissistic spouse at the low end. In the middle would be the ISKCONS and TMs and the Keith Ranieres between the TMs and the Jim Jones.

Would Dahmer really fit anywhere on this continuum? I get what you're saying about manipulation, domination and control (with or without sexual sadism) but isn't murder a rather extreme way for the malignant narcissist to discard their supply? (Unless they go, too, like Jim Jones.) It seems to me that when you're discarded they still like to keep you on the shelf, just in case... Isn't a serial killer more of a psychopath than a narcissist?

You might like what Prof. Sam Vaknin on YouTube says about narcissism and psychopathy.

Just thinking out loud...

Dahmer was trying to form a sort of "cult" of his own, in terms of his attempted collection of slaves for his earthly life (and for his imagined afterlife). Much like the Zodiac,

Yes. I am familiar with Dr. Vaknin and his thought.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2024 02:29AM by XKRISHNA.

XKRISHNA Wrote:
> It's all about manipulation, domination and control

That's an interesting choice of words. It's almost exactly the same as the words Derek Prince uses to characterize witchcraft:

"The three key words are manipulate, intimidate and dominate. Now the end purpose is dominate, control people, make them do what you want." -- Derek Prince

The implication of "witchcraft" or "sorcery" is that the operator is using covert means of control -- means neither perceived nor understood by the general public.

It's from John Douglas, that phrase. "Manipulation, domination, and control."

There's nothing scientific about choosing words to describe something, but when two authors independently choose the same words, it strengthens the conviction that they're on to something.

If you have a spare half-hour, you might be interested in the video "The Dark Side of Hypnosis (History of Hypnosis Documentary Series - Episode 04) With Dan Jones." It explains how con artists and cult leaders use hypnotic techniques. The bit to watch is part four of the video, subtitled "Con-Artists and Cult Manipulation," which is between time stamps 1:03:27 and 01:32:39.

Quote:

"Many cults and groups have ways of influencing people to join and become devout followers. This has happened with many religious groups, new age groups, and self-improvement groups. Not only do they often work at becoming the sole source of meeting a person's innate emotional needs, but they also use many hypnotic techniques."

Some of them do, but not all of them use such techniques. I am familiar with all this, sure, neuro-linguistic programming and such.

Because I don't believe in promoting a victim narrative when it comes to involvement with such groups, I don't believe that people who have become part of some group or other were "hypnotized" into doing so. In other words: I don't believe that everybody who thinks and believes differently than myself, in somehow a "victim" of whoever influenced them to think and behave as they (we) do.

I don't believe that a man can covertly hypnotize the majority of people the whole country into voting for him to be President of the United States, for example. They voted for him because they WANTED TO, not because they THOUGHT that they wanted to, or were tricked into thinking that they wanted to.

To assert otherwise is patronizing as hell, in my book: "You poor guy. You have a different opinion than the one I hold." You know?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2024 04:28AM by XKRISHNA.

XKrishna,

Be very careful in your discussion about victims.

Trance induction through meditation can be a tool used by predators to lower the defenses of targeted victims, making them more vulnerable and suggestible through such things as "guided meditation."

Many cults have historically used such techniques to prey upon people.

Also, let's not get into politics at this message board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2024 04:28AM by rrmoderator.

Yes sir. I understand and will comply.

Of course victims are real, and I don't mean to imply otherwise. It's just that I don't believe in what some people today call the "victim economy" or the "victim hierarchy." That's all I am trying to say.

There are professional victims, and there are professional victim-hunters. Steve Hassan is a professional victim, and a professional hunter of victims, in my eyes. Nancy Grace is another one.

This is probably the funniest SNL sketch I ever remember seeing, Rick. That's because Nancy Grace just INSISTS that the Black Professor MUST be a victim of Michael Richards SOMEHOW, even though the Professor himself insists that he's not! That white lady is just patronizing as hell! This SO reminds me of Hassan.

[www.nbc.com]

Here's how I see it, friends: if I get in a car with somebody behind the wheel who I know is drunk, and we get into an accident and I am severely injured, then am I the "victim" of a drunk driver, my own bad judgement, or both? And if I tell somebody "Well, you knew he was drunk. Why the hell did you get in the car?!" am I then engaging in "victim-blaming"? You know? Where does a given person's individual, personal responsibility over the outcome of a situation end and "victimization" begin? I don't know the answer to that and I don't claim to, but I think about these principles almost constantly. What do you think, friends?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2024 12:44AM by XKRISHNA.