Yeah, this one didn't go through either; I appreciate your making the attempt though! I don't know the exact score limits, but keep making good contributions and you'll clear them in no time.

Your title is "Video Entitled: Spotting the Manipulator's Playbook. Manipulators that use tactics like those described in the video can manifest in all kinds of areas of life. Knowing how to deal with manipulators may save your sanity and keep you from being their prey." The transcript is:

0:00 Have you ever had that unsettling 0:01 realization that someone you trusted was 0:04 actually monitoring your every word, 0:06 collecting information to use against 0:08 you later? Or perhaps you've caught 0:11 someone telling a small lie only to 0:13 extract your honest opinion on something 0:15 important to them. Trust me, I'm not a 0:19 paranoid person. In fact, I used to be 0:21 incredibly trusting, at times naive, 0:24 about the lengths people will go to 0:26 advance their agenda at my expense. 0:29 There are certainly degrees of these 0:31 behaviors. Some people are clever, 0:33 cunning, and even shrewd in how they 0:36 navigate complex social and professional 0:38 environments. But when does effective 0:41 maneuvering cross that invisible line 0:43 into 0:44 manipulation? And more importantly, how 0:47 can you protect yourself without 0:49 becoming cynical and closed off to 0:51 genuine connection? I believe that all 0:54 interactions involve transfers of energy 0:56 and energy always seeks balance. Master 0:59 manipulators essentially function as 1:01 energy vampires extracting more energy 1:04 than they contribute. They create 1:06 imbalanced exchanges where you're 1:09 constantly depleted while they're 1:11 energized by gaining power, control, or 1:13 resources. You have to learn to protect 1:15 your energy. Today, I'm going to share 1:17 insights on how to spot these master 1:20 manipulators, understand their tactics, 1:23 and develop strategies to protect 1:25 yourself while maintaining your 1:27 integrity. Whether you're dealing with 1:29 these individuals in your personal life 1:31 or professional settings, by the end of 1:34 this video, you'll have clear signs to 1:36 watch for and practical tools to manage 1:39 these challenging relationships. Hi, I'm 1:41 Jenny Clark, a conscious leadership 1:43 expert who spent two decades in 1:45 executive recruiting and talent 1:46 management. Having worked with giants 1:48 like Google and Spencer Stewart, I 1:50 discovered that the secret to 1:51 transformative leadership lies in the 1:53 five dimensions of conscious leadership. 1:56 And I'm here to help you unlock your 1:57 full potential. Join me on this channel 1:59 as we embark on an honest and vulnerable 2:01 journey together to become the kind of 2:03 leader that genuinely inspires 2:05 transformation in your organization. 2:08 I've got a little career boosting secret 2:10 for you. Do you want the inside scoop on 2:12 leadership, plus some juicy tips and hot 2:14 takes that you won't hear anywhere else? 2:16 I've got a newsletter that's basically 2:18 your personal career coach in your 2:20 inbox. Just click the link in the 2:23 description to join in. Oh, and if 2:25 you're loving this content, I know you 2:27 are. Check that subscribe button. It's 2:30 like giving me a virtual fist bump, 2:33 ensuring you won't miss out on any 2:35 future videos. I remember working with a 2:37 colleague who always seemed supportive 2:39 in our one-on-one conversations. She'd 2:42 ask thoughtful questions about my 2:43 projects, offer to help, and even defend 2:46 my ideas in team meetings. I considered 2:49 her an ally in a competitive workplace. 2:52 Then came the performance review season. 2:54 As I sat across from my manager, I was 2:56 shocked to hear concerns about my work 2:59 that seemed oddly specific. concerns 3:02 that mirrored exact conversations I'd 3:04 had privately with my supportive 3:06 colleague. Information I'd shared 3:09 incompetence about challenges I was 3:11 facing had been carefully curated and 3:14 presented out of context, making me 3:17 appear incompetent rather than proactive 3:20 about addressing problems. This wasn't 3:22 simple workplace competition. It was 3:25 calculated betrayal disguised as a 3:27 friendship. The worst part, when 3:30 confronted, she expertly reframed 3:33 everything. Oh, I was just concerned 3:35 about the project timelines. I thought I 3:37 was helping by bringing attention to the 3:39 issues. Her ability to twist reality 3:42 left me questioning my own perception of 3:44 events. That experience taught me that 3:48 manipulation isn't always obvious. The 3:51 most skilled manipulators wrap their 3:53 tactics in the appearance of care, 3:55 concerned, or even helpfulness. 3:59 A few lessons. Here's how we identify 4:01 those master manipulators and protect 4:03 ourselves from these tactics. Let's 4:06 break it down into three essential 4:07 areas. Recognize the signs. First, let's Recognize the Signs 4:10 talk about the warning signs that 4:12 someone may be manipulating rather than 4:14 simply being strategic or clever. 4:16 Information collection. Manipulators are 4:19 constantly gathering information. They 4:21 ask probing questions that seem friendly 4:24 but serve their purpose of building an 4:26 arsenal against 4:28 you. Notice if someone seems unusually 4:31 interested in your vulnerabilities or 4:33 mistakes, especially if they have no 4:36 direct need to know. 4:38 Inconsistency. Pay attention to people 4:40 whose behavior changes drastically 4:42 depending on who's in the room. The 4:45 colleague who praises you in private but 4:47 undermines you in meetings isn't just 4:50 politically savvy. They're playing a 4:52 dangerous game. Emotional 4:54 reactions. Master manipulators often use 4:57 emotional responses to deflect 4:59 accountability. If you confront them 5:01 about a behavior and suddenly find 5:03 yourself comforting them instead of 5:05 addressing the issue, you've likely 5:08 encountered what psychologists call 5:10 Darvo. 5:12 deny, attack, reverse victim, and 5:17 offender. Testing boundaries. They'll 5:20 often start with a small boundary 5:22 violation to see what you'll tolerate. 5:24 Maybe they forget commitments, share 5:27 something you told them in confidence, 5:29 or take credit for a small contribution 5:31 you made. How you respond to these tests 5:34 determines how far they'll go. According 5:37 to research from the University of 5:39 Georgia, manipulative individuals 5:41 typically display a pattern of behaviors 5:43 rather than isolated incidents. It's the 5:47 consistency and intentionality behind 5:49 their actions that reveals their true 5:51 nature. Understanding their tactics. Now Understanding Their Tactics 5:55 that we can recognize potential 5:56 manipulators, let's examine their 5:58 playbook. 6:00 Triangulation. This is when a 6:01 manipulator brings in a third party to 6:03 strengthen their position against you. 6:05 They might say things like, "Everyone in 6:07 the department feels this way." Or, 6:09 "Sarah mentioned she was concerned about 6:12 your approach, too." This isolates you 6:15 and makes you question your perception. 6:18 Gaslighting. This insidious tactic 6:20 involves making you question your own 6:23 reality. That's not what I said. You're 6:25 too sensitive or that never happened are 6:29 classic gaslighting phrases that erode 6:31 your confidence in your own perceptions. 6:34 Strategic 6:35 vulnerability. Some manipulators share 6:38 calculated personal information to make 6:40 you feel obligated to 6:42 reciprocate. But unlike genuine 6:45 vulnerability, theirs is carefully 6:47 curated to seem deep while actually 6:50 revealing little. The favor trap. 6:54 They'll offer help to do favors you 6:56 didn't ask for, creating a sense of 6:58 indebtedness that they can call upon 7:01 later. Remember, genuine help doesn't 7:04 come with invisible strings attached. 7:06 Social leverage. They build alliances 7:09 and create narratives about others, 7:11 positioning themselves as the helpful 7:13 source of insight or information. And 7:16 this gives them social capital that they 7:19 can spend to influence perceptions if 7:21 conflicts arise. A study published in 7:23 the journal of personality and social 7:25 psychology found that individuals who 7:28 score high on measures of 7:30 mchavellianism, a personality trait 7:32 characterized by manipulation and 7:34 exploitation of others are particularly 7:37 skilled at using these tactics while 7:39 maintaining a facade of 7:40 trustworthiness. Developing protection Developing Protection Strategies 7:43 strategies. Finally, let's discuss how 7:46 to protect yourself without becoming 7:48 paranoid or manipulative yourself. Trust 7:51 your 7:52 instincts. What uneasy feeling do you 7:55 get around certain people? Don't dismiss 7:58 it. Our intuition often picks up on 8:00 subtle inconsistencies before our 8:02 conscious mind can articulate what's 8:04 wrong. Document patterns. Keep track of 8:07 inconsistencies, promises made versus 8:10 kept, and situations where you felt 8:12 manipulated. This creates an objective 8:15 record that you can refer to when 8:16 self-doubt creeps in. Set firm 8:19 boundaries. Be clear about what 8:22 information you share, with whom, and 8:24 under what circumstances. Remember, not 8:27 everyone deserves the same level of 8:28 access to your thoughts, feelings, and 8:30 personal information. Build a trust 8:33 network. Cultivate relationships with 8:35 people who've demonstrated integrity 8:37 over time. These relationships provide 8:40 both emotional support and reality 8:43 checks when you need them. Control the 8:45 narrative. When dealing with known 8:47 manipulators, consider what information 8:49 you share more strategically. This isn't 8:52 about becoming manipulative yourself, 8:54 but rather protecting your interests in 8:56 environments where others don't play 8:58 fair. Direct communication. When 9:01 possible, address issues directly. 9:04 Phrases like, "I noticed that." Or, 9:07 "When you said X in the meeting, it 9:09 contradicted what we discussed 9:10 privately," can be powerful ways to 9:13 signal that you're aware of the 9:15 manipulation without escalating to 9:17 accusation. According to organizational 9:19 psychologist Adam Grant, the most 9:22 effective defense against manipulators 9:24 is a combination of boundary setting and 9:26 what he calls generous tit fortat. 9:30 giving people the benefit of the doubt 9:31 initially but responding protectively 9:33 when they demonstrate 9:35 untrustworthiness. So what can we take 9:37 away from this? Manipulation is real, 9:41 but it doesn't mean you need to approach 9:43 every relationship with suspicion. 9:45 Instead, focus on building your 9:47 awareness and response toolkit. When 9:50 something feels off, pause and question 9:52 what's really happening before 9:54 responding. Your boundaries reveal 9:56 people's true intentions. Those who 9:59 respect them are trustworthy. If someone 10:02 makes you doubt your reality, seek 10:04 perspective from someone you trust. And 10:07 remember to walk away from relationships 10:09 that diminish you. As Maya Angelou said, 10:13 "When someone shows you who they are, 10:16 believe them the first time." Remember, 10:19 the goal isn't to become cynical or 10:21 manipulative yourself. It's to develop 10:23 the discernment that allows you to 10:24 engage authentically with those who 10:27 deserve your trust while protecting 10:30 yourself from those who would exploit 10:32 it. I get it. Taking that first step can 10:36 feel daunting. I've been there, too. But 10:39 here's the thing. You've got strengths 10:41 you might not even realize yet. I've put 10:43 together a free career mapping framework 10:46 to help you uncover those hidden talents 10:48 and chart your own path forward. It's 10:50 not about changing everything overnight. 10:53 It's about starting to see your 10:54 potential clearly. Ready to explore the 10:59 frameworks waiting for you. Just click 11:00 the link in the description. Your future 11:03 self will thank you for taking this 11:05 small but powerful step today. 11:08 [Music]

[Continued.]

the process 8:55 of indoctrination

when you plant and 8:58 cultivate seeds in a garden they grow 8:59 into plants it's the same thing with the 9:02 process of indoctrination which relies 9:04 on the cult leader planting the seeds of 9:05 ideology into the minds of their 9:07 recruits they do so by using persuasive 9:10 speeches visions of grandeur and subtle 9:12 manipulative tactics that eventually 9:14 grow into plants of ideologies once the 9:17 seeds have grown followers start to 9:19 adopt the cult's ideas as their own 9:21 without even realizing how much their 9:23 beliefs have changed but the 9:24 indoctrination doesn't stop there 9:26 because as gardeners cult leaders need 9:29 to weed out unwanted plants followers 9:31 must abandon their ideologies and adhere 9:34 only to the group's beliefs their 9:35 personal opinions are regarded as weeds 9:37 that must be rooted out to ensure that 9:39 the cult has an ideal Garden of faithful 9:41 followers a member without any opposing 9:44 beliefs is easier to manipulate for 9:46 abusive cult leaders one good example of 9:48 this is Joseph de dambro the leader of 9:50 the solar Temple cult he utilized the 9:53 process of indoctrination by enforcing 9:55 his authority onto his members and 9:57 subjecting them to psychological manip 9:59 populations until they were loyal enough 10:01 to commit suicide and murders

10:03 exploitation of vulnerabilities

everyone 10:06 has a weakness or vulnerability that 10:08 people can exploit a vulnerable person 10:10 is like a house with a weaker lock or a 10:12 room with a busted door hinge a careful 10:15 and experienced burglar should be able 10:17 to find such vulnerabilities enter the 10:19 house and do whatever he wants that's 10:21 what happens when a cult leader exploits 10:23 a person's weaknesses weaknesses can be 10:26 anything from feelings of loneliness and 10:28 heartbreak or inse Securities but most 10:30 people lock their vulnerabilities inside 10:32 closed doors cult leaders however are 10:35 skilled enough to break these locks open 10:37 and use them to their advantage to gain 10:39 the trust of their followers when a cult 10:41 leader is inside they can rearrange the 10:43 person's beliefs and ideas just like a 10:45 burglar can rearrange the furniture in a 10:47 house he broke into before the person 10:49 realizes it the cult has already taken 10:51 advantage of their vulnerabilities to 10:53 force their ideals onto them Warren 10:55 Jeffs leader of the fundamental Church 10:57 of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10:59 claimed Divine Authority and manipulated 11:01 the religious beliefs of his followers 11:03 ultimately using their vulnerabilities 11:05 against them to control and coers them

11:08 US versus them mentality

Sun yyang Moon 11:10 the founder of the unification Church 11:12 taught his followers that they were the 11:14 chosen ones destined to unite the world 11:17 essentially making them think that it 11:18 was them against everyone else the US 11:21 versus them mentality is like a dividing 11:23 wall that keeps two opposing ideologies 11:26 on each side those on one end are the US 11:28 meaning meanwhile everyone who isn't on 11:30 that side is the them or the others what 11:33 cult leaders do is that they try to 11:35 distinguish their Cults as groups that 11:37 are in opposition to those who aren't 11:39 members of their order while making them 11:41 feel unique and Superior compared to 11:44 Outsiders because of this mindset 11:46 members of a cult believe that they know 11:48 better than anyone who isn't part of 11:49 their group and are in a better position 11:51 in terms of their beliefs and ideologies 11:53 the same mindset also allows them to 11:55 stick together believing that the only 11:57 ones who can understand them are their 11:59 fellow cult members this mentality can 12:01 be strong enough for members to actually 12:03 cut ties with family and friends who 12:05 don't belong to their Cults they see 12:07 themselves as the ones who are correct 12:09 and are willing to alienate or oppose 12:11 anyone who doesn't share the same 12:13 beliefs the worst part is that they're 12:15 only willing to accept information or 12:17 opinions from the inside instead of the 12:19 outside

identity Fusion

a bucket of 12:22 water has a unique identity from the 12:23 ocean but once you pour the entire 12:26 bucket into the ocean it ceases to be 12:28 unique because it loses its 12:30 distinctiveness when it merges with a 12:32 bigger body of water Cults work in the 12:34 same way by gradually fusing the 12:36 identities of their members with the 12:38 bigger identity of the entire group 12:40 forcing them to lose their 12:41 individualities shoko asahara of am 12:44 shrio used the same tactic by making his 12:47 followers believe they were all part of 12:49 the same Elite group destined to survive 12:51 a global apocalyptic event members of 12:53 that group lost their individuality and 12:55 were willing enough to commit acts of 12:57 Terror to bring about shoko's vision 12:59 people and Cults experience this when 13:01 they adopt the group's values and goals 13:03 as their own becoming Fanatics who take 13:05 on the cult's identity cult leaders are 13:07 to blame for this because they 13:09 manipulate their members by coercing or 13:11 feeding them information gradually and 13:13 subtly that convinces their followers 13:15 that there is only one universal truth 13:18 when members fuse their identities with 13:20 the entire cult they can no longer 13:21 differentiate between right and wrong 13:24 because the group's ideals dictate their 13:26 discernment this can force members to 13:28 commit illegal Acts acts all for the 13:30 sake of the cult

deception

deception is 13:33 arguably the most common denominator in 13:35 all cults because cult leaders need to 13:37 conceal the truth from their followers 13:39 to force them into blind submission for 13:42 example Keith rineer deceived women into 13:44 thinking that Nexium was a support group 13:46 but was instead an Avenue for him to 13:49 commit abuse it's similar to how a 13:51 magician hides the truth from the 13:53 audience using curtains audiences are 13:55 amazed at the seemingly Supernatural 13:57 Feats of a magician but are BL to the 13:59 fact that they are being tricked from 14:01 behind the curtain in the same way Cults 14:03 lure followers with grand promises such 14:06 as Eternal salvation and Enlightenment 14:08 but hide the fact that they have 14:09 ulterior motives that could take the 14:11 form of abuses or personal enrichment at 14:14 the expense of the followers the problem 14:16 is that cult leaders are so skilled at 14:18 hiding the truth that their followers 14:20 fall for their tricks for years or even 14:23 decades this can create an illusion that 14:25 could make it harder for cult followers 14:27 to distinguish reality from a false 14:29 image created by their leaders the 14:31 deception tactics can be subtle but can 14:33 also have powerful and lasting effects 14:35 that can trick followers into blind 14:40 [Music] 14:43 submission

Welcome to c/Conspiracies! I see from the public logs that you reposted the "14 Minute Video Exploring Cult Manipulation Techniques" from c/BewareTheirTactics and it was probably hidden here due to your account not having enough score yet. As a courtesy to readers, the video outline given is:

Every Psychology Behind Cults Explained in 14 Minutes 00:00 - Charismatic Leadership 1:13 - Groupthink and Conformity 2:07 - Psychological Manipulation Techniques 3:18 - The Role of Isolation 4:27 - The Appeal to Disenfranchised Individuals 5:28 - Identity Reconstruction 6:45 - The BITE Model 7:49 - Trauma Bonding 8:55 - The Process of Indoctrination 10:04 - Exploitation of Vulnerabilities 11:08 - Us vs. Them Mentality 12:20 - Identity Fusion 13:31 - Deception

I also like to copy out the transcript to make it easier for people to reference:

0:00 charismatic leadership

Jim Jones's 0:02 charismatic approach as a leader was one 0:04 of the reasons why he pulled a lot of 0:06 followers to the people's Temple 0:08 eventually leading to one of the biggest 0:09 Mass suicides in history killing over 0:12 900 people charismatic leadership in 0:14 Cults is like a magnet that pulls metal 0:16 shavings this process Taps into 0:19 cognitive dissonance and social identity 0:21 Theory making it difficult for followers 0:23 to question the leaders or leave the 0:24 cult due to their strong desire for 0:26 group consistency and identity instead 0:29 cult leaders use charm and persuasive 0:31 words to compel and Captivate followers 0:33 into believing their Vision this leads 0:35 to a devoted group of people dying for 0:37 their cause their words are so profound 0:40 that they can exert influence over the 0:42 lives of their supporters cult leaders 0:44 usually have magnetic personalities that 0:46 make them confident and Charming they 0:48 know how to Captivate followers using 0:50 tals that can Mesmerize their audiences 0:53 and keep them glued through the promise 0:55 of Eternal salvation and a sense of 0:57 belonging however behind that curtain of 0:59 charisma is a manipulative leader who 1:01 acts like a spider luring insects with a 1:04 Web of Lies that will eventually trap 1:06 them before they realize they're doomed 1:08 it's already too late for the followers 1:10 because their Leader's silver tongue 1:12 already traps them

group think and 1:15 Conformity

group think and Conformity 1:17 functions can be seen in how fashion 1:19 becomes a thing when you see everyone 1:21 wearing the same style of hat even if 1:22 you don't like the Hat you'll be 1:24 pressured to buy the Hat because you 1:26 want to conform to society and fit in 1:28 instead of standing out this pressure to 1:30 conform is similar to what happens in 1:32 Cults even if a particular Cults views 1:35 contradict your values you'll be 1:36 pressured to adopt the same beliefs and 1:38 behaviors you want to conform to the 1:41 same beliefs that people around you 1:42 follow because you want to conform to 1:44 the group's standards this is often 1:46 present in smaller isolated communities 1:49 even if you're not necessarily a devout 1:51 believer you want to feel accepted and 1:53 avoid conflict that's how group think 1:55 occurs people prioritize consensus and 1:58 Harmony instead of contradic the views 2:00 of certain members of the same group so 2:02 in a cult contradictions and doubts are 2:04 suppressed in favor of group think to 2:06 promote Unity

psychological manipulation 2:08 techniques

cult leaders use invisible 2:11 strings that come in the form of 2:12 psychological manipulation techniques 2:14 it's like their Master puppeteers who 2:16 make their followers dance at will and 2:18 make them do things they wouldn't 2:20 normally do had it not been for the cult 2:22 leaders manipulative tactics Charles 2:24 Manson used his psychological 2:25 manipulation techniques to gather 2:27 followers into his family he manipulated 2:30 vulnerabilities by promising them 2:31 salvation if they would trigger his 2:33 apocalyptic Visions which would Elevate 2:36 him to Messianic status other than that 2:38 cult leaders are also known for using 2:40 sneaky tactics including love bombing 2:43 where they make their followers feel 2:44 loved by giving them attention a love 2:46 bombed recruit will feel unique enough 2:48 to join the cult just like how a naive 2:51 teenager can fall for flowers and 2:53 chocolates some cult leaders use control 2:55 over basic needs to manipulate their 2:57 members psychologically others also use 2:59 use fear to their advantage it can come 3:02 in the form of punishments from the 3:03 leaders sometimes they convince their 3:05 followers of an impending doom causing 3:07 them to fall in line out of fear 3:09 psychological manipulation is the Forte 3:12 of an expert cult leader who knows the 3:14 specific techniques that can force his 3:15 followers to obey unquestionably

the 3:18 role of isolation

a cult leader 3:20 isolation tactics work like an island 3:22 that strands cult members in a secluded 3:24 and isolated area with nowhere else to 3:27 go they trap supporters in a proverbial 3:29 Fortress to Shield them from any 3:31 influences from the outside world making 3:33 it harder for them to see the opinions 3:35 of those who aren't part of their 3:36 organization when a member is physically 3:38 mentally and emotionally isolated within 3:41 a cult opposing opinions and differing 3:43 views regarding some issues will be 3:45 challenging to come by their only 3:47 opinions come from their leaders and 3:48 fellow members forcing them to have only 3:51 one world view so if the only 3:53 information that the members know about 3:54 a specific topic is the one that their 3:56 leaders feed them they are more likely 3:58 to stay loyal to the group believing 4:00 that the Cults ideology is the only 4:02 truth moreover isolation tactics also 4:05 give the members a sense of exclusivity 4:07 that makes them feel special it's like 4:09 the cult gives them the impression that 4:10 they are in an ivory Tower but are in 4:13 reality trapped in a jail cell of 4:15 manipulation Jim Jones famously employed 4:18 such tactics on his followers especially 4:20 after he moved them to his Jonestown 4:22 compound physically and mentally 4:24 isolating them from the rest of society

4:26 the appeal to disenfranchised 4:28 individuals

David Berg's children of God 4:31 grew because he targeted youth members 4:33 of countercultural movements during the 4:35 60s and 70s he appealed to their 4:37 disenfranchisement from society to 4:39 create a cult with loyal followers a 4:41 cult leader who tries to appeal to 4:43 disenfranchised individuals attacks 4:45 their feelings of loneliness and 4:46 helplessness they look for people who 4:48 have lost faith in society or have 4:50 become disenfranchised from the everyday 4:52 workings of the world it's like how 4:54 Rebel groups look for recruits with the 4:56 same hatred for the government from 4:58 there the cult leader gives the recruits 4:59 a place to feel like they belong they 5:01 make them feel understood and at home 5:04 making them feel that the cult is the 5:05 only place where they can be themselves 5:07 someone who has a sense of belonging is 5:09 more likely to stay loyal to the person 5:11 who gave it to them in this case it's 5:13 the cult leader in short Cults prey on 5:15 vulnerable people who are still 5:17 searching for meaning in their lives 5:18 Cults lure them with the promise of love 5:21 family and acceptance only for them to 5:23 end up getting manipulated into doing 5:25 all sorts of crazy things for the sake 5:27 of belonging

identity reconstruction 5:30

identity reconstruction was another 5:32 tactic that Charles Manson used to 5:33 create a cult of loyal followers willing 5:35 to kill for him he reshaped their sense 5:37 of self and instilled allegiance to his 5:40 Twisted beliefs when a cult leader uses 5:42 identity reconstruction they reshape and 5:44 twist the beliefs and sense of identity 5:46 of their recruits according to the Cults 5:48 beliefs and Norms it's like you're 5:50 playing with Lego bricks to create a 5:52 house but someone comes in and uses the 5:54 same bricks to rearrange them to create 5:56 an entirely different structure the new 5:58 structure is still made made out of the 6:00 same Lego bricks but is no longer 6:02 recognizable from the old one in the 6:04 same way cult leaders simply use a 6:06 person's values to reconstruct a new 6:08 person that adheres to their beliefs for 6:10 example if a person feels lost in 6:12 society because he has no place in the 6:14 modern world the cult leader uses that 6:16 vulnerability to reconstruct a new 6:18 identity that hates Society cult members 6:20 who have identities tied to the cult 6:22 itself are more likely to commit extreme 6:25 acts to protect their sense of identity 6:27 and beliefs the process can be subtle 6:29 yet coercive allowing leaders to use 6:31 different ways to break their members 6:33 personalities and sense of individuality 6:35 to force them to adhere to their beliefs 6:38 before a member knows it they have lost 6:40 touch with their former selves and have 6:42 become receptive to the group's ideology

6:44 the bite model

the bite model is used to 6:47 understand Cults and is divided into 6:49 four categories Behavior information 6:52 thought and emotional control it is a 6:54 cult leaders recipe book for a dish to 6:56 gain obedient and loyal followers 6:58 Behavior control is the instructions 7:00 given by a recipe Cults dictate what you 7:02 can and cannot do and when you can and 7:05 cannot do specific actions they regulate 7:08 your actions and limit the things that 7:09 you can do information control acts as 7:12 the ingredients you use in a recipe 7:13 Cults feed you information according to 7:15 their beliefs similar to how a recipe 7:18 excludes all other ingredients from a 7:19 dish thought control meanwhile acts as 7:22 the recipe's flavors in the sense that 7:24 Cults shape how people think through 7:26 rituals and messages they steadily 7:28 change people's Thinking by adding 7:30 subtle yet strong spices to change the 7:33 flavor of the recipe finally emotional 7:35 control is similar to how a recipe is 7:37 presented to a diner Cults use your 7:40 emotions to make you feel guilty about 7:41 leaving the group just like a master 7:43 chef uses a beautiful presentation to 7:46 make you feel guilty if you don't like 7:47 the flavors

trauma bonding

the old 7:50 saying goes misery finds company trauma 7:53 is a powerful tool that can help Bond 7:55 people like superglue whenever people 7:57 have gone through the same miserable and 7:58 rough experience expences in life they 8:00 tend to find company and people who have 8:02 also gone through the same experiences 8:04 Cults use trauma bonding to attract and 8:06 keep members of their organizations it's 8:08 like saying hey we know what we've been 8:10 through so we can help you these Cults 8:12 also create environments where members 8:14 depend on one another for their safety 8:16 and sense of belonging as the members 8:18 stay in the cult longer the leaders 8:20 psychologically emotionally and 8:22 physically abuse their members but 8:24 trauma bonding allows the members to 8:26 stay inside the cult in the hopes that 8:28 they can do better to gain their leader 8:30 approval and hopefully stop the abuse as 8:32 they've already grown too attached to 8:34 their abuser Keith reneer the founder of 8:36 Nexium abused the female members of his 8:38 cult but because of trauma bonding the 8:41 members stayed for years and even 8:43 recruited new members to please reneer 8:45 and pass the cycle of abuse onto the new 8:47 members it became a pyramid scheme where 8:49 the ones who Recruit new members get 8:51 better benefits prompting them to stay 8:53 instead of leaving the cult

[Continued.]

And now I've been permabanned from BewareTheirTactics for "Mod Discretion" (a new forum that I didn't know about until then). And the logs are not public.

SeekerOfTheWay there writes about me, "I'm sorry. There's a specific user (Swamp) that's been unhealthily fixated on me lately, and I'm trying to safeguard and give myself the ability to keep him at bay and head off any drama or grief he tries to give me."

This is really the height of rent-free earned media and I'm enjoying every minute. Oddly enough, via the Streisand Effect, he is creating more drama than if he had agreed to an interaction ban and stopped talking about me; he even has his first contributor expressing the thought that he, Seeker, would ban the asker for asking about inclusions. Some people are at places where they cannot be told.

Now I could short-circuit must of this presentation with a simple observation, and maybe it will spare the more detailed review:

If the ancients interpreted the stars as a divinity's narrative, that doesn't disprove any selected narrative as the film implies it should. Rather, if a pattern existed then it was placed there by the cosmos, and any narrative that matches the pattern has a claim on divinity, a claim that can be sufficiently proven or disproven by accord with facts. If one could narrate the alignment without it actually happening, that is disproof; if one could arrange the alignment to happen, that is not much proof; and if nobody arranged the alignment that contributes toward sufficient proof. By referring claims back to the stars rather than to paganism, the video gives the Cosmos (God) first rights over the meaning of the symbols.

That short-circuits research into whether any past claim was true, because even if the claims were totally true historically they don't prove any divine claimant copied from another (which would be used to invalidate a later claim), they prove that all claims have a common heavenly source. Usually it's claimed that Jesus copied from pagans and is invalidated, but when the film makes it that Jesus and pagans both copied from the stars it brings it back to what God put in place already.

If Sirius means east star and Light, if it aligns on December 24-25, if Orion means three kings, if Virgo means virgin mother and wheated (Bethlehem), if the solstice means Sunday worship and 3-day burial (22-24) and resurrection and Savior, if Crux means crucifixion (e.g. ankh), if the Zodiac means followers and 12, if sunrise means ascension to heaven and coming again in clouds and Son of God, if rays mean crown of thorns, if Taurus means rejection of the (golden) Bull ca. 2000, if Pisces means use of Fish symbol ca. 1, if Aquarius means the Passover waterbearing Man, then none of those (20) symbols are uniquely pagan or Christian, and every religion that incorporates those symbols is merely echoing an archetypal pattern already God-given. If narratives are invented or arranged to fit, there is no problem if deception isn't used; if historical facts align without direct human arrangement, it may be a valid divine communication based on a valid archetype. In the same way, all Biblical references to eras of Bull, Ram, Fish, and Man are not pagan or Christian in origin but are merely responsive to the spring sign of the age.

Well, that covers all the data up until the plagiarism charges start, out of the blue as it were. TLDR: The truth is, when one claims an aspect of one narrative aligns with astronomy, it does not prove or disprove that narrative one bit, nor prove or disprove any other related narrative. The ordinary, previous argument "the pagans had it first" is totally upended by the argument "the stars had it first". If for instance the pagans had created the ankh deliberately and only to symbolize some evil or demon or abusive power, that would be a bad thing to counterfeit, but if the ankh merely means the alignment of Sol and Crux then it is neutral and might well refer to something put there by the Christian God.

Thus even if Luxor 1500 BC depicts Horus as born of Virgo at the winter solstice and adored by the Three Kings of Orion, that being a literary narrative drawn from the stars doesn't mean that if it were to happen for real it would be pagan. It means that if God chooses to work this way it'd be consistent and the Egyptians would merely have been correctly anticipating; and if God never chooses to work this way it's only a literary device. (To the degree that the Egyptians claim Horus did those things historically when there was no evidence he did, that would be deception, but that is something added to the system rather than an attempt to discern from God's stars what God might do.)

The idea that Noah is plagiarized is taken from the idea that Gilgamesh is very old (2600 BC, but Sumerian dating before about 2000 is very sketchy) and Noah is very new (thanks 1800s higher critics, who yet in spite of themselves have demonstrated that covenant structure indicates Moses relied on earlier sources prior to 2000 himself). In reality, Noah has as good a claim as any on being closest to the original. I haven't looked into the parallels between Sargon and Moses, but I doubt I'll be surprised when I do; I recall the actual Sargon myth going quite differently. He also cites Manou, Minos, and Mises, and promotes their similarity, but a quick check shows that Mises is largely invented recently. It is said to come from Voltaire by "D. M. Murdock", but the name is not in his Philosophical Dictionary and "Murdock" doesn't give a further specification, so it appears a fresh fabrication (Google shows no results for the alleged Voltaire quote before 2012). The relationship to Manou and Minos is uncompelling; I think we can dismiss Manou as having nothing in common but lawgiver beginning with M, and Minos as later than known manuscripts of Moses.

The relationship between the (second table) Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead is well-known and played up in The Abolition of Man. The fact that Moses and the Egyptians came up with very similar laws (aka the laws of Noah) does not prove they are pagan, in fact it tends toward indicating they are moral absolutes. Similarly, Egypt allegedly had "baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth, death and resurrection, crucifixion, the Ark of the Covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover". Well, not really, but the general concept indicated by all these names was common to religious growth in all societies, and it would be natural for religions as developed as Egyptian and Christian to have comments on all these.

Justin rightly gets the last word. The fact that Jesus had attributes in common with mythological divinities does not disprove Jesus but rather proves that his attributes were common knowledge. What proves Jesus's divinity is the historical evidence that these things happened, which didn't happen historically to Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysius, Mithra, Jovians, or Perseus. None of those others was attested to be a historical person who had several named historical biographers in his own generation. All of those others are narratives only, never presented as more than a cinematic universe. And it's no wonder that enemies of truth would try to create narratives from the stars that anticipate what might happen historically.

Since 20 of the points of agreement are stated to be astronomical in origin, the short-circuit works to dispel the larger half of the claim. There are 19 points remaining of similarity between Jesus and other archetypes: Anointed, annunciation, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten. The very few similarities of Moses to Sargon also remain. ("Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal midwife.") However, given the film's apparent partnership with Murdock the Moses denier, it's likely these claims are also highly inflated. It's rather tiresome to research a huge number of claims of December 25 and the like to find that they are all false, but sometimes I exert myself. The one claim I selected to check here, "Mises of Egypt", seems to have been invented in 2012, so I have no fears about the remainder.

And now I've been permabanned from TheNarrowWay for "Mod discretion ". And the logs are not public. Well, I hope he liked my one upvote as I can't give him any more there.

Just to analyze the initial content more clearly:

Horus: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Isis), "Mary", east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Light, Anointed, Son of God, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (24 points). Added later: Annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef) (making 26 points).

Attis of Phrygia: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Nana), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (5 points).

Krishna: virgin (Devaki), east star, miracles, disciples, resurrected (5 points).

Dionysius: virgin, 25 Dec birth, traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine*, King of Kings*, Son of God, Only-Begotten*, Alpha and Omega*, resurrected (11 points, *4 added to Horus).

Mithra: virgin, 25 Dec birth, disciples, 12, miracles, buried 3 days, resurrected, Truth, Light, Sunday worship*, rejects Bull* (10 points, *2 added to Horus).

Jesus: Anointed, annunciation, virgin, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, 25 Dec birth, east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Son of God, Light, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected, rejects Bull (golden) (27 points); obviously unstated: water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten, Sunday worship (5 points). Significant adds (not present in previous): Bethlehem (House of Bread), Savior, ascension to heaven, coming again in clouds, crown of thorns, Fish symbol, Waterbearer at Passover (7 points, total 39).

I've been pinged so I will seek to report neutrally, and in compliance with the letter and spirit of the draft agreement I offered (even though the draft doesn't apply, as remaining unagreed, and I am not necessarily bound by it).

ExpressionOfTheSoul has deleted his content, has removed others' content from his forums, and has hidden logs.

Meanwhile, new user SeekerOfTheWay has created the new forum c/TheNarrowWay with very similar structure. I am specifically forbidden from that community as a "bad faith user", but Soul has indicated that I'm free to comment about such activity in outside threads, and I've allowed myself to do so in this thread in relation to the possibility that the draft agreement might be concluded.

I presume that Seeker is indicating sufficient experience with Scored as to be able to find this comment, since he is likely to search my profile to see if I have any response to his ping.

My first observations are that (1) the rule of permabans at mod discretion is extremist and tyrannical and indicates that one's purposes are not successfully achieved in a broad forum where people speak freely, which puts one's purposes in a poor light; (2) the position that Jesus did not come to promote belief in or worship of Christ but to teach people to become Christ appears to be a dogmatic, extreme "opinion" and "manmade doctrine", especially when sincere questions exploring the nuances of that declaration are flatly refused; (3) as I stated before, I absolutely affirm the statement "The journey of the disciple of Yeshua is one of absolute dedication to TheWay", while pointing out that this absolute dedication is contrary to the idea that others' views can be rejected subjectively instead of tested against the absoluteness of dedication to The Way.

So I continue to offer my sincere question to both Soul and Seeker: Is it objectively true (without dependence on subjective framing) that no statements are objectively true, or is it objectively true that one or more statements are in fact objectively true?

I reserve such rights as (1) to comment at a distance in response to contributions that involve me, (2) to interact with any comments in forums where both the commenter and myself are contributors with equal rights, (3) to invite others to interact with other accounts as fitting, and (4) to continue in my prayers for account holders here that they grow in absolute dedication to The Way.

This is very interesting and I didn't realize this much stuff was in Zeitgeist because I'd only read summaries. However, every specific time I look into history I find the covenant people had the tradition first and the claim that the covenant people were the counterfeiters was always projection. It is totally understandable that the devil is always counterfeiting, and that he then has verifiers that verify the counterfeit and hold the genuine to be faulty. The truth can always be discerned.

I may or may not take time to review specifics here, but my quick glances don't show anything troubling to the Christian revelation. I've recently pointed out that Jesus was not born on December 25, so the claims that various demigods were is rather comparing one lie with another. However, Jesus was conceived in winter, and my best guess is that it was recorded as being on December 25 Julian (now December 23 Gregorian proleptic), with indirect evidence from Simeon and direct evidence from a very strong chain of tradition to Hippolytus. This year I have found no evidence of December 25 being significant in itself for pagan reasons prior to its use among the covenant people, and when I've tried to find this in the past it's always been a late counterfeit, so I'll be happy to report what I have when I have it.

The Pentagon was not struck by a plane, that plane was ditched in the ocean. The Doomsday Plane (one of a specific class of government planes), which was admittedly seen immediately after the explosion, was also flying over the Pentagon prior and eyewitness testimonies were selected to make it look like the it was the passenger plane.

Pretty simple, any state (as secular or as religious as you like) has an interest in doing things that perpetuate it, and keeping the birth rate above replacement perpetuates the state. Therefore it's generally understood by most people in most cultures that those who choose not to participate in being fruitful and multiplying have some other duty to assist with those who do participate.

Since you have put forward no means by which the unmarried person should contribute to society, you are advocating for special rights for singles that, if adopted by everyone, would lead to extinction. If you were once to say that singles should do something for society more than just be proud of hoarding wealth for themselves, that would have been notable.

By your removing your comments from this post and rejecting my good-faith offer of voluntary interaction ban, you are indicating you wish the status quo to continue. If you are reading this, we can return to negotiation any time you desire.

He's now written:

I rescind any and all mediation agreements, and it's two-ways free range. Swamp's bans stand on the forums I mod. He can do what he wants in regards to me, say anything on here to me or about me, and I can respond however I want and vice versa.

I'd appreciate your suggesting to him one more time that he can have everything he asked for if he consents to the draft agreement at CommunitiesConflict. If he proceeds with rescission instead, then (not a threat but a discussion of likelihood) it is likely that I will consider myself free to repeat my core questions about truth to him as his contributions permit, that he is likely to be immediately confronted by the illogic of proposing a solution and having it accepted in essence and then not following through with the solution, and that we will continue to have direct interactive difficulty with each other's characterizations of matters.

Either outcome (voluntary interaction ban or two-way free-range relationship) is acceptable to me.

Add: He also indicates freedom to ping me, in accord with his new proposal. I'd still like his statement confirmed all the same.

I have posted the draft agreement, by which I still reserve the right to continue directly related discussion in this thread up until the draft is clearly agreed by Soul in its entirety as well. Will watch your accounts to see if any further action is needed. I note Soul's latest comment but have no reply to it.

Brilliant. 100%. This has some of the seeds that will sprout this year.

His next.

I'll give him credit for putting his rules in the report function and not the sidebar as counting as publication, but this does not make the rules public knowledge if nobody thinks to click the report function. So I'll withdraw a statement if it neglected that aspect that I was unaware of.

I posted FFRF content in a non-Christian forum because I believe it's a good voice for that forum and (if I were asked) I also believe that Christianity stands up well against that voice being the best representative of its enemies. The fact that I want to find ways to reach out to Soul, including posting content I disagree with but that I think is a voice that can be heard anyway, shouldn't be regarded as bad. Unless he can find a way to define "proselytization" fairly so that it applies to what I did and not to what he did.

Similarly, since "gnostic" is undefined by gnostics I can certainly claim to be a gnostic: I love gnosis and fight pseudognosis. u/Ranger164 appears to have spoken sincerely and with love of gnosis too. Another great thing about gnostics is no two prominent ones have ever gotten along historically; so it's natural that his gnosis doesn't agree with mine, or that of u/Ranger164 for that matter. I am indeed unaffiliated with "religion" as I am the most unbound any person can be, bound to only one eternally (nobody can be totally unbound because that would be to have bound oneself to unboundness, which is far less preferable). But I do make voluntary commitments, and I think Soul is okay with that idea, especially since by asking for mediation he is entering a voluntary commitment. I learned over 2019-2022 to be all things to all men, and to be sincere and respectful to all principles of men; but some people don't understand this yet and find my ability to reconcile diverse poles as if I'm contradictory without their ever hearing the reconciliation. But I think that's because people have not yet worked through what it really means to commit to noncontradiction (truth) alone.

I accept his amending clarification to Part 3 in his words "3. Each of us to not create [] call out posts and meta posts about one another." My previous concern there had been about his freedom to comment indirectly without right of reply. When I want to not interact with another person, I seek not to refer to that person even indirectly; but it appears he wants a different agreement, which is fine if bilateral and equal.

Since he is reading my comment and since he makes no reference to my suggestions about our right to contextualize comments by pinging third parties elsewhere, or our right to appeal to you about perceived violations, or further changes to OP, those matters can proceed to draft format. I made a mistake above that his side point rightly notes, that I should have said "comment" rather than "post" above, so I'll correct that. I'll post a draft in the welcome comment at CommunitiesConflict.

Add: I have the draft ready to post so I will await further instructions from either of you. Since he has now seen this comment he should be ready to act too, or perhaps ready not to act. He raises the quibble that, since everything I do is geared toward the one goal of helping truth go forward in the world, therefore everything I do can be regarded as proselytizing (that being the logical conclusion of his words). I've seen that charge before, which is why I try to preclude it by (1) insisting on definition, (2) applying it equally (such as to his "attempting to convert" you or me "from one" "opinion to another"), and (3) defining what kinds of human interactions are indeed acceptable as mutual pursuit of truth. His continuing to have difficulty to see the equivalence is what's holding him back. IMHO. But I'm confident we'll get to discuss it again sometime. For now the draft awaits.

I work very hard not to be a steam roller anymore

^ self-awareness at 100%, much love :)

In terms of the general spiritual picture, I understand if you want to throw around memetic symbols like "109" and "Remphan" and so on in the sense that they convey archetypes to you. My point is that the archetypes don't have their greatest success unless they are rooted in verifiable truths as opposed to just this week's batch of memes. So I'm not denying you your big picture, but I do challenge the use of it to make specific truth claims about events that we can have sufficient knowledge of. So I'll try to take it in that sense.

Obviously Greater Israel recalls Solomon's reign from Nile to Euphrates and greater things than that. As a Christian, I too aspire to rule the world, and I tell people I already do because Jesus shares his current throne with me now. So I don't quail about others' claims to the same, they will either be proven right in one kingdom or one claim will be defeated by another.

I have no problem with the idea that many Rothschild family members are satanists and look forward to reading your link in more detail. That's just one family (the link also mentions the Barings) and there are many satanic works, as I point out Jesus mentions seven in Revelation 2-3, not just one. But haven't I linked you my study on hexagrams? They have many meanings and their cooption by satanists doesn't serve to paganize everyone who uses them, as I just told someone else. Because you're going for archetypes I won't pester you with the individual quibbles as I did in the links. Yeah, so Israel claims to be run by the hexagram principle, just as "El Salvador" claims to be run by the Savior principle, etc. The only way to tell who's right is to keep testing one principle against another.

Your link makes brief reference to British Israelitism, but I don't think that's what you mean about the lost tribes. If you're just talking about an archetype in which Ezekiel's prophecy of two sticks means that satanist Rothschilds will become united with other satanists, well, no biggie for me, satan bows to me, i.e. to Jesus in me. But what else would the lost tribes mean other than new ground for the current Israel to claim original jurisdiction over?

I say "reported" because the Received Text is well-known and a fine basis for beginning historical study. If someone wants to prefer Thomas or Enoch, I respect that because it'll connect in time (I'm partial to Odes of Solomon myself). I've had great success for 5 years here piercing the veil of obfuscation about history and getting to reality. Of course being one with the principle of the universe (Jesus) doesn't hurt in that process.

The "offer" Jesus gives (using Ann Coulter's trope, "If you can find a better offer, take it!"), is eternal life and freedom from all evils. The cost is that I gave up my own soul in exchange for all things. Lots of people are selling their souls these days, but it only works if the one you sell to has covenanted with you to retain your ownership in him. All other soul-buyers are busy manipulating and milking you and forbidding your independent claims. So it's a good offer (not referring to the person, but to the words he spoke). If you have something better, share.

First of all he has to be understood, and IMO, very, very few people in this World are capable of that.

Because I have one commitment (Jesus as Truth), I make one request of those who propose something to be understood, namely that it submit to Truth. If it's flatly contradictory (not just paradoxical on a process toward greater harmony), then it's not true. I'll be happy to probe any paradox you propose and to seek to navigate it without contradiction. But I do insist on noncontradiction. You can start anytime you like.

Yeah, the Gospel of Thomas (a book) is a report. If you want to go with archetypes then the other Gospels will do fine too. Archetypally, the gospel receiver is deathless, the Master teaches and the student becomes Master-like, seeking and finding is eternal, etc. I have found, I find every day, and I am still finding, and that's the way it should be short of apotheosis. (If you're claiming apotheosis yourself, which I use very technically, it's likely that you don't mean what I do and that what you claim is already something I also have found.) Looking forward to what you're willing to share further.

Gilgul. Gnosis. Gehenna. I spent a year in hell so I can go in and out anytime I please now.

Thank you for your encouragement! I always look forward to your posts even when I disagree.

Well thanks GMAG! They said they wanted an elite research board so I signed up, but then I found I was repeating the same observations so often as to the same memes. There's not as much on GAW as there used to be. I guess I'll need to write a book someday.

Add: Best old answer for 666 that I've found is Teitan (Titan, including Emperor Titus) or Qaser Neron (Emperor Nero), runner-up Lateinos (Rome). I think there will be a new answer in time but there are too many oversimplified answers for it to get much traction at first.

That's why I framed the last two paragraphs in terms that apply even if he chooses to cease interacting. At a minimum I trust you to rule formally what you'd do as a mod disciplining me, and I trust you to reoffer mediation if he should complain that I've broken some term that he thinks we've agreed to.

u/Thisisnotanexit, since Soul is now formally requesting interaction ban, I'm in general agreement as long as specifics are clearly defined, and so I will not ping him and will address my comments to you.

1. If nobody initiates the convening of the Reputation Campaign, then task 3 can be closed out as unnecessary. I would presume that Soul not publicly regard the Reputation Campaign as defunct since that's a forum that I mod and comments about it would be considered comments that reflect on me and the other mods. So I'll cover that in the details below.

As I said, all my contribs to Soul's forums (including those to the forums of an earlier account of his) were presented in good faith and with consideration of the rules as then stated; for instance, the first questions I asked in his new forum came before his "no apologetics or proselytizing" rule was stated. Most people regard the sharing of sincere questions as a means of growth rather than "endless religious arguments", and Soul himself used the technique of sincere questions when I first contributed there.

I am ok if Christians use the forums in a respectful manner and engage in reciprocal dialogue. With the Bible Oddities forum, I thought it was clear enough that the forum was not geared towards Christians initiating posts. Swamp tested the boundaries and posted anti Christian content, so I clarified. The rule on there is for Christians not to initiate a post. They are welcome to comment on a post providing they follow the other rules.

When I commented on a BibleOddities post with only a positive link, I was banned at moderator discretion for "griefing" the mod, so that showed me that Soul was not really thinking through his claim that Christians are welcome to comment providing they follow other rules. Since mod discretion is a rule, I pointed out that effectively means there are no rules because any rationalization in the mod's mind is treated as a new rule. I'm hopeful Soul realizes this in time after being shown it a few different ways, as it helps the forward progress he seeks.

The issue is that Swamp violated the rules that were in place, and engaged in what I view as griefing and harassing behavior as a result of his inability to live with the consequences of his behavior.

Like the above, on this issue I am solely responding to his statements about me for context, as I've stated I reserve the right to do. If we bypass the question of judging his own forums and stick to judging this one, that can be handled in the details of the voluntary interaction ban.

I view him as attempting to slander me with this post he made, and having attempted to manipulate me as a kind of punishment for having and enforcing healthy boundaries.

2. That's part of your judgment (TINAE) on the two of us, so I'm happy to discuss anything about that if specifics are presented.

If you find the comments about Swamps actions under the Ranger164 account, Swamp admits to circumventing a past ban I placed on him in another forum I modded, with intent to do what I view as harass me. Back then, I felt that Swamp was targeting me for harassment and trying to manipulate me. I view his actions as violating the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform and would like it addressed and action taken about it if deemed he was in violation to the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform.

That's a question for admin so perhaps neither you nor I should be involved in Soul's prosecution of that question.

I had told Swamp to stay off of the forums I mod and that I was willing to converse with him when I deemed he is capable of having a conversation.

That's not in evidence; what he told me five times is that I was permabanned without clear reference to published rules other than his own rationalizations.

I want him to stop harassing me and attempting to character assassinate me in the manner of his post here. I want him to remove it.

3. The details of what should be removed or struck through are part of negotiation. If you'd like to propose changes to OP, feel free, even though your task may be complicated if he is not speaking to me directly. It occurs to me that I might agree to remove the post after a probation of a month or two to determine that Soul is able to keep some noninteraction commitment that he makes.

For resolution I want 1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other. 4. For each of us to refrain from jumping in and trying to start interaction when we are discussing the other with other users.

4. Parts 1-3 can be deemed to have begun already, with the detail noted that either of us pinging or replying to the other, or commenting or posting in the other's forums, or creating posts mentioning or clearly referring to the other or the other's forums, would indicate a truce, requiring a new interaction ban to be agreed afterward. I would presume that, just as I would not make a generic reference to forums about Bible discrepancies or the like as it could be regarded as being a post "about" Soul, Soul would also not make a generic reference to forums about Christianity or the like as it could be regarded as a post "about" me and other mods.

5. Part 4 is more problematic because I haven't seen voluntary interaction ban to work when users remain free to speak to third parties about the other (i.e. to gossip). If I were to agree to that, nothing would stop me from defaming Soul across the board in various comments and regarding even the slightest effort from him to allude to correcting the record as a violation of the agreed ban where my hypothetical gossip would not be a violation. So I continue to insist that this be better stated. His comment itself can be regarded as jumping in and trying to start interaction with you when I was discussing him with you, so clearly the concept needs a start time rather than just a generic statement. Similarly, if in the future he were to claim that Reputation Campaign is defunct because no member had chosen to act on his deadline, that would be untoward and would be gossip that is easily contextualized by this conversation. I had thought he'd answered my first question, but it appears I need to repeat it: "Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?" If he wants the freedom to talk about me without according me the freedom to contextualize what he says about me on the same platform, I find that a double standard. So I'd continue to suggest that part 4 should be something like "For each of us not to discuss the other recognizably with other users".

6. I don't see any spiritual benefit to anyone by any capitulation to his stated part 4, because it accords us both the right to unlimited gossip against each other. Perhaps though he merely means by "jumping in and trying to start interaction" that one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages. But if he means more than this the problem I mentioned remains.

7. Enforcement of the ban has not been stated. It would be very simple for either of us to perceive that the other had broken the terms and to justify any other breaking on that perception. Presumably we'd need a clause that you'd be available to hear claims of violation indefinitely or for a set term, and that a perception of violation would not permit further violation by the other without your express ruling and perhaps a reopening of mediation.

At this point I'm blocking Swamp.

Having recognized that he can do this, he appears to be declining in his interest to continue to prosecute his requests of you. So I'll come to a brief review that seems to cover his stated points.

(1) You issue a ruling as to what either of us have done against Conspiracies rules with your recommendations as to discipline, allowing us to decide whether to accept the discipline as binding since we can only discipline ourselves. (2) I review OP and make initial voluntary edits; you include any other recommended edits in your ruling; and if Soul finds the edits incomplete he continues to negotiate in that process. (3) We deem his first terms agreed "1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other." (4) For the moment, we deem my interpretation of his fourth point agreed (seeing as if he disagrees he can merely clarify in continuing negotation): "one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages." (5) If Soul finds those interpretations incomplete, he continues to negotiate in the above process. (6) Any claims of ban violation would need to be handled, such as by you using the method above; if Soul wishes to make other plans in advance of this possibility, he would need to negotiate that too.

If this is agreeable and he gives no action for a reasonable time after your ruling and my edits, or if he continues to seek mediation within boundaries we all agree on, then we should be able to implement it. I would likely post comment the agreed details in a forum like CommunitiesConflict and/or SwampRangers, without pinging him, as to make such a post comment would still be within the terms stated, and he would be free to post comment separately to CommunitiesConflict or his own forum as well.

Symbols are not corrupted if they are created purely and used purely. If it were possible for a minority to corrupt a word used by the majority by claiming it has a new offensive meaning, the minority would have undue power to modify language. The majority must simply maintain the purity of the original meaning and not abrogate it due to manipulative, invented claims.

God created cubes (e.g. plant cells) and they are not evil in themselves. God specifically ordered that Moses had the Holiest Place built as a cube shape.

The hexagram and hexagon first appear in 23rd-century BC Armenia as a generic geometric polygram device and are not evil in themselves.

The hexagram hexagon is not automatically a "cube of Saturn" because it has many other meanings.

You are correct that satanism is saturnism and titanism. However, related names like Titus (a Bible book) are not evil in themselves.

You are correct that Saturday is named after Saturn, as all days have been named after heavenly bodies in many languages. However, naming days of the week is not evil in itself, and using the English names is a subject on which different consciences rule differently. I generally, but not rigorously, use the 3-letter abbreviations for weekdays as a compromise.

Shabbath is not Saturday, it is the day from Fri sundown to Sat sundown, which is always distinguished. Shabbath is not evil in itself, and Charlie Kirk has recently championed the original Sabbath for Christians.

Since cubes are not evil in themselves, putting Scriptures in an ornamental cube to be worn is not evil in itself, and is a literalist reading of Moses, which is Christian Scripture. Jesus didn't say not to wear cubes, he specifically said not to make the cubes extra large, implying that he permitted the wearing of Scriptures if it wasn't for attention-getting purposes.

The cube of Mecca is based on earlier cubical Arabic shrines, which can be inferred to be copies of the cubes of Moses, Solomon, and Zerubbabel, so the shape as a sanctuary is not evil in itself.

The hexagram was never "the star of Remphan". I showed that the most likely original meaning of star of Remphan (Rephaim or Titans) was Nehushtan. Several symbols could be attested as being "a star of Remphan", such as the crucifix itself when misused, the rods of Aesclapius and Hermes, the dollar sign, the T-and-O symbol, the uroboros, some I forgot, and because of its recent association the hexagram (not by semiotic tradition but by reassignment).

Therefore satanism is only limited to knowing pagan use of a symbol that has known pagan connotations: it cannot be ascribed to unknowing use or unknown connotations.

Your first link is solely about, well, insignificant reflections on 67.

Your second link refreshes the above, while also adding the map of Saturn. The fact that a hexagonal field was recently discovered on Saturn, obviously created by God, does not mean that satan has any special rights in the hexagon.

Your third link illustrates cube and black-cube art as well as referring to rings of pilgrims in Mecca. I do not know the origins of the various sculptures so it is possible some of them are intended as satanic symbols. The tradition of encircling seven times comes from old Near East forms of covenant-making and indicates commitment. It comes from the threefold betrothal by the Lord in Hosea 2:19-20, which can be taken as seven clauses.

Your fourth link adds nothing new other than the note that the crucifix represents the New Israel.

OP is too lame to warrant separate analysis.

TLDR: Semiotics can be exacting. The fact that satanists can and do use certain symbols with pagan intent does not corrupt the symbols automatically in every use or permit sweeping generalizations. If a group of sincere people use a symbol purely and a subgroup adds secret impure meaning to the symbol in an attempt to subvert the sincere, that fails as soon as the truth and honesty is brought to light. Infiltration is always a threat (tares), and it will be rooted out when it is mature so as not to harm the immature. Jesus warns of seven lying works of satan in Revelation 2-3 and we should be alert to all of them.

Merry Christmas again! Happy St. Stephen's Day. (Fresh cascade for u/ExpressionOfTheSoul and u/Thisisnotanexit.)

I ask that since Swamp and I have all this stuff posted here, that if you could help mediate here please so that what Swamp and I have engaged in so far won't have to start again on the other community you proposed.

I agree with Soul on this and request this mediation hereby. Obviously "mediation" is defined as bilateral. Thank you both for your consideration. I see TINAE writing at the same time as me so will handle that separately.

Task 1:

When it comes to other users and their behavior, I have seen where you have called them out, told them the rules, and have tried to take action as a mod would without officially having the title. With you having done that to others, can you please engage in that stuff with Swamp on this post and the comments. Potentially reminding him of the rules and give the verdict and action you would take against him (if any) if you the official mod.

Task 2:

If you want to do that stuff to me as well I would appreciate it.

Restatement of Task 1 (it appears this applies to Conspiracies only and not any other forum):

The resolution I seek in my petition to you u/Thisisnotanexit is that you give a verdict regarding u/SwampRangers post, comments, and behavior towards me on and state whether or not it violates the rule and spirit of the forum, or is in line with them. If what he has done violates the rules and/or spirit of the forum, if you could please state your verdict and course of action you would recommend if you were in the position of mod of the forum.

Statement of purpose:

I want Swamp to remove his post here. In return, if he removes it, then I will remove the post I made about him with the screenshot of his post on the Bible Oddities forum.

My responsive statement of purpose: I would be willing to strike through and/or edit aspects of this OP that could be reasonably judged to violate the stated forum rules. I have no concern over whether Soul retains or deletes content so that's not a bargaining chip for me. I believe that further mediated discussion might reveal the specific objections Soul has to OP that would enable a more surgical solution that can be applied either by a content contributor, a mod, or an admin.

Task 3 (modified by subsequent statement):

I also petition you u/Thisisnotanexit that the c/ReputationCampaign committee convene and discuss whether or not to revoke or keep u/SwampRangers status as a member of the committee given the disreputation campaign he has initiated towards me. I also request that the committee vote whether or not to admit me as a member of it, or at least help facilitate my getting on the committee.

Based on the public stated positions of the Reputation Campaign (which I see you've now reviewed), (1) it could be convened, (2) it does have power to remove its own members by its own processes (from which questioned members would naturally be recused so that they may speak for themselves instead), (3) it focuses on disrepute to the Scored platform and not to disrepute of one contributor against another (but disrepute to Soul should be fully covered by Soul's request for mediation herein), (4) Soul does not currently meet the public standards originally used for committee membership, and (5) it does have power to consider modifying its membership standards and admitting new members accordingly. Also (6) the committee is free to take Soul's statement itself as a sufficient petition to initiate discussion without action by TINAE, while we are each free to interact with the process in any way.

Please provide a verdict regarding u/SwampRangers by 5 pm CST on December 29th, 2025. If you do not address the content and verdict by then, I will take that as an indication you are unable to deal with with my petition in a reasonable and efficient manner and timeline, and are unfit to be in consideration for a mod of the c/Conspiracies forum.

Assuming your willingness to present a formal verdict, TINAE, and assuming you do not have a rescheduling request responsive to this near deadline, that seems reasonable.

Please disregard my petition to have the committee convened to consider my admission to it.

I can respect this request for disregard, speaking for myself, while of course other committee members are free to reinitiate proceedings for this reason and I do not speak for them, and of course any member can initiate for any other reason.

Please help initiate a public and transparent convention of the committee to assess u/SwampRangers behavior and actions. If no action is undertaken to initiate a convention of the committee to address the concerns I am petitioning you by 5 pm CST January 1st, 2026, I will see that as an admission that your committee is effectively disbanded.

I don't have an immediately handy record on whether TINAE was offered or accepted membership in the Reputation Campaign, but she currently qualifies for membership as a mod of c/Gaming and c/Positive. That can be discussed.

In light of being unqualified to serve on the committee at the c/ReputationCampaign at this time, and their general inactivity for 2 years, it leaves me no choice, but to create another committee similar to the one at c/ReputationCampaign to help keep content, users, and forums of the site in line with the Scored content policy and other applicable rules/guidelines of Scored by petitioning the mods with concerns in a collective action of users invested in maintaining the integrity of the Scored platform.

Sounds legit.

I see this recess and inactivity for 2 years as indicating the committee at c/ReputationCampaign is effectively dissolved and no longer in function unless it is reconvened by the time frame given of 5 pm CST January 1st, 2026.

You are free to interpret what you like about others, but others are generally accorded the right to interpret themselves for themselves. Admin has generally been silent about the right for inactive users or forums to be reclaimed or dispositioned, including when inactivity has lasted more than 1 year; but it appears that in extreme cases, such as credibly reported death of a user or admin-judged platform maleficence, they have been willing to step in. So 2 years isn't regarded as a bar to one's account rights here. But that should be academic, since any member can convene the committee, and I am likely to do so after taking sufficient consideration.

America seized the power of the kaisers and immediately started appointing czars. That's a nominal hint. The Cold War indicates a global duopoly represented by the two feet of the Daniel 2 statue.

The enemy to come will certainly use his infiltrations in both America and Russia to consolidate power (I count the powers as Washington, London-Rome, Tokyo, BRICS, Mideast, and Africa). I'm not sure why this would trouble Orthodox eschatology.