Fintan Dunne & Dan Butler - Interview: psychopathy

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
Hey, a couple of weeks ago I noticed a link to www.ronpaulonline.com. The link brought me to a page with a downloadable mp3 audio interview titled: "Audio: "Psychopaths Run Our Lives". The interview is conducted by fintan dunne and he interviews this guy Ormond (aka Dan Butler) who talks about pathocracy and what not.

Where can I find the article that this link was posted in or where is the forum thread in which the link is posted? I'm not getting anywhere with the search in the main SOTT page or the forum search. Thanks in advance for the help....
 

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
yoyos said:
Hey, a couple of weeks ago I noticed a link to www.ronpaulonline.com. The link brought me to a page with a downloadable mp3 audio interview titled: "Audio: "Psychopaths Run Our Lives". The interview is conducted by fintan dunne and he interviews this guy Ormond (aka Dan Butler) who talks about pathocracy and what not.

Where can I find the article that this link was posted in or where is the forum thread in which the link is posted? I'm not getting anywhere with the search in the main SOTT page or the forum search. Thanks in advance for the help....
Okay, thanks to everyone who tried to find it....but I found it now:

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-online-audio-psychopaths-run.html

It was on the ponerology blog.


Well, anyway. I have a question now.

1st, I'll quote the blog entry:

Ron Paul Online - Audio: Psychopaths Run Our Lives: "Ron Paul Online - Audio: Psychopaths Run Our Lives"

It is good to see that the folks around Ron Paul are picking up on the ideas of Political Ponerology. Fintan Dunne, too, who does this interview. It is important that this information gets out.
When I found this blog entry, a couple of weeks ago, I was very interested in listening to the audio and finding out all that I could. So, I clicked on the link that the ponerology blog provided and I was taken to this webpage: http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/95/197/

[I'm trying to re-create my moves that I did to get me where I am now, but...i'll explain in a little bit that i can't do that anymore]

So, when I came to the ronpaulonline page, I decided NOT to listen to the audio from that webpage since it wasn't the source for the interview. I wanted to see what the source of the interview was all about. Therefore, I clicked on the link that sent me over to www.breakfornews.com (BFN), which was, in fact, the original source for the interview. However, now that I am trying to re-create my moves from a couple of weeks ago...i find that i can't do it. There is no link on http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/95/197/ anymore. There isn't even any audio to listen to, never mind the link.

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?

Secondly, after downloading the interview (available in mp3 format on the BFN webpage) I listened to it (albeit, ears straining because of the low quality) and then proceeded to investigate what BFN was all about. To make a long story short, a thread was initiated by a forum member by the name of obeylittle. Here it is: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0



So what’s the deal? I haven’t been doing this for the past 5 or 10 years, so I’m kinda new to this whole COINTELPRO thing (you can see my comments in that thread if your interested enough).

How am I supposed to interpret that blog entry in the ponerology blog? The way I did interpret it, when I first came across it, was that fintan dunne would be rightly served by the information presented in PP. uh, well…that interpretation MUST be incorrect, because he doesn’t seem to like you guys very much here at SOTT (…just read the thread and you’ll know what I’m talking about).

So, can anyone clarify the purpose of that blog entry? And why is it still there? And why hasn’t someone noticed that you’ve already outed Fintan Dunne way before july 5, 2007 (a simple 1 line comment linking me to the thread http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/07/v-is-for-vendetta.html would have saved me some research time)??

The BFN thread I linked is pretty fascinating, imho:
What’s up with Election Science Institute (ESI)?

What’s up with www.ronpaulonline.com?

What’s up with www.breakfornews.com?

What’s up with political ponerology material being discussed by people who are supposedly cointelpro/disinfo? (This doesn’t exactly make it easy for someone like me who is trying to figure out if ponerology is disinfo in the 1st place[no offense intended, but for me, the whole 'sending it off to the Vatican' is a little bit too much for me. I mean claiming something as grandiose as that, without having any evidence, is like not claiming that at all - except that you did indeed claim it].)

What's up with the importance of political ponerology information 'getting out', when the only people who it "gets out" to are cointelpro/disinformationists?



My main question from all of this is: How am I supposed to interpret that blog entry in the ponerology blog?

As far as my other questions/comments are concerned; please let me know what anyone has to say about the commentary in that BFN thread. I am very interested in knowing what everyone here has to say about the comments posted there.



Thanks in advance for the help!
 

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
okay, here is my ignorant side:

how did the title of my thread change?

I believe it was "i have trouble finding something"

Did a moderator change this to make a better title?

thanks for the fyi...
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
yoyos said:
Did a moderator change this to make a better title?
Yes, a more accurate one to be precise, for the benefit of other forumites

Joe
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
yoyos said:
There isn't even any audio to listen to, never mind the link.

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?
Yeah, there was something of a falling out between Dunne and the interviewee. That's the reason the link is gone.

yoyos said:
How am I supposed to interpret that blog entry in the ponerology blog? The way I did interpret it, when I first came across it, was that fintan dunne would be rightly served by the information presented in PP. uh, well…that interpretation MUST be incorrect, because he doesn’t seem to like you guys very much here at SOTT (…just read the thread and you’ll know what I’m talking about).
The comment stands. It is important that the info gets out. Doesn't matter if the children want to fight with each other.

yoyos said:
So, can anyone clarify the purpose of that blog entry? And why is it still there? And why hasn’t someone noticed that you’ve already outed Fintan Dunne way before july 5, 2007
Well we didn't "out" Dunne. We just reported the information that we had from other parties at the time and also our own observations that Dunne had drawn up a list of "Cointelrpro" agents that included just about every "alt news" site/writer with the exception of Kurt Nimmo.

yoyos said:
(a simple 1 line comment linking me to the thread http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/07/v-is-for-vendetta.html would have saved me some research time)??
Sure, but aren't you glad you did the research yourself. You learn so much more that way than getting it spoon fed.

yoyos said:
What’s up with political ponerology material being discussed by people who are supposedly cointelpro/disinfo?
It's the message that counts. If they want to talk about it all the better for the message.

yoyos said:
(This doesn’t exactly make it easy for someone like me who is trying to figure out if ponerology is disinfo in the 1st place[no offense intended, but for me, the whole 'sending it off to the Vatican' is a little bit too much for me. I mean claiming something as grandiose as that, without having any evidence, is like not claiming that at all - except that you did indeed claim it].
Grandiose? I sent a letter to the Vatican last year. Never heard anything back either. Seems they do that a lot.

yoyos said:
What's up with the importance of political ponerology information 'getting out', when the only people who it "gets out" to are cointelpro/disinformationists?
"Only people"? Maybe a little more research is needed on your part?

yoyos said:
My main question from all of this is: How am I supposed to interpret that blog entry in the ponerology blog?
Just take it on face value. It is important that the information gets out.

yoyos said:
As far as my other questions/comments are concerned; please let me know what anyone has to say about the commentary in that BFN thread. I am very interested in knowing what everyone here has to say about the comments posted there.
Which comments in particular? In general it can be summed up by saying that the people on BFN are just in it for the fun. So anyone and everyone is fair game. It's so nice to see the kiddies playing in the sand box.

Joe
 

henry

The Living Force
Yeah, the audio was removed from the Ron Paul site but not because they disagree with the ideas. In fact, they will be running more articles on ponerology in the future.

As for Fintan Dunne, we have had some differences of opinion, shall we say, with Fintan over the years. However, after I listened to the ponerology interview, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the discussion. So I went to the Break for News forum and posted a message thanking them for the podcast. There is no reason to be sectarian. It was a good show.

Fintan asked if I would be willing to do an interview on the subject, to which I gladly agreed. I thought that whatever our past differences, if he had really understood the importance of the issue of psychopathy and ponerology, it was worth seeing what could be done in working together.

Well, time went by and I never heard anything back from Fintan. So I wrote him a long email discussing our past differences, thinking that maybe that was the cause of the break in communication. I suggested that considering the importance of the issue of psychopathy, that it should be possible to work together without agreeing on all the secondary issues. I discussed some of the differences we had had and opened the door to continuing the discussion.

A few days later I got a short reply from Fintan saying that he was extremely busy at his day job and that he would get back to me. That was four weeks ago, and I am still waiting.

I also participated in one of the threads on the B4N forum for a few days -- a thread on subjectivity/objectivity. Let's just say that I was not on the same wavelength as the other forum participants who had bought the New Age, truth is relative/subjective argument lock, stock, and barrel. I don't know if those interventions had anything to do with the lack of response from Fintan.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
As you might guess, trying to figure out who is on first in this global game of information control is tricky at best, stupendously confusing at worst.

It's rather like how Ark described the superluminal communication problem:

Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a "bad choice" or "calamity" for one, could be seen to be a "good event" or "benefit" to someone else!

So, the next step would be that "hackers" would begin to break into the systems and send false communications into the past to deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to produce benefits for themselves or others.

Then, the first individual would see that false information has been sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an "imposter" and how to tell that it was false.

Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to send false information (that was really true) that false information (that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the issue.

This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal cancelling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly the same as if there were NO communication into the past!

There is, also, the very interesting possiblity that the above scenario IS exactly what is taking place in our world.

It is also possible that, whenever a civilization comes to the point that it can manipulate the past and thereby change the present, it would most probably destroy itself, and probably its "branch" of the universe, unless there comes a cataclysmic event before this happens which would act as a kind of "control system" or way of reducing the technological possibilities to zero again, thus obviating the potentials of universal chaos.

In this way, cataclysmic events could be a sort of preventive or pre-emptive strike against such manipulations, and may, in fact, be the result of engineered actions of benevolent selves in the future who see the dangers of communicating with ourselves in the past!

So, the probability is this: if there IS communication from the future, it MAY, in fact, be constantly received by each and every one of us as an ongoing barrage of lies mixed with truth.

Thus, the problem becomes more than just "tuning" to a narrow band signal, because clearly the hackers can imitate the signal and have become VERY clever in delivering their lies disguised as "warm and fuzzy" truths; the problem becomes an altogether different proposition of believing nothing and ACTING as though EVERYTHING is misleading, gathering data from all quarters, and then making the most INFORMED choice possible with full realization that it may be in error!

What is important here is this: we can't prevent hackers from hacking. But, what we can do is make every effort to prevent them from hacking into OUR systems by erecting barriers of knowledge and awareness. Hackers are always looking for an "easy hack," (except for those few who really LIKE a challenge), and will back away as you make your system more and more secure.

How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?

It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken, and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers - system disruption, loss of "memory," or energy, damaged files, things that don't "fit," that are "out of context," - we can reduce the possiblity of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are AWARE of hackers; if we KNOW that they will attempt to break into our system in the guise of a "normal" file, or even an operating system or program that promises to "organize" our data for greater efficiency and ease of function or "user friendliness," while at the same time, acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources - RAM and hard drive.

As a humorous sidenote: we could think of Windows Operating system as the "ultimate hacker from the future" who, disguised as a sheep, is a wolf devouring our hard disk and RAM, and sending our files to God only knows where every time we connect via the internet!

And of course, there are viruses. Whenever we insert a floppy disk or CD into our computer, we risk infection by virii which can, slowly or rapidly, distort or destroy ALL the information on our computer, prevent ANY peripheral functions, and even "wipe" the hard disk of all files to replace them with endless replications of the viral nonsense.

The human analogy to this is the many religions and "belief" systems that have been "programmed" into our cultures, and our very lives, via endless "Prophet/God" programs, replacing, bit by bit, our own thinking with the "dogma and doctrines of the faith."

Enough of the computer analogies. I think that the reader can imagine any number of variations on the theme and come to an understanding of how vulnerable we are to "disinformation" in the guise of truth from either the future, the past, or the present.
Now, WE know who and what we are. WE know how hard we work and how careful we are (and still make mistakes that we freely admit).

The problem is, the only way we have to communicate this to others is via words.

But in the end, it is all still just words.

And others have words too. And very often, in this world, words are used to hide the truth.

So, when a person comes up against this problem, things can get really iffy.

How do you tell?

After all, the best liars are often believed over those telling the truth and that's a historical fact.

That's when you have to start getting your hands dirty in research, collecting facts and hard data. And that isn't always easy. It's not only difficult, it can be time consuming and most people don't have that kind of time to devote to trying to figure out who is telling the truth or not.

Then, there is the additional problem of people who tell lies and don't know that they are repeating lies; they believe sincerely in what they are saying for one reason or another.

At this moment, I'm not too sure about Fintan Dunne. Because I once caught him defaming people I KNEW to be sincere and NOT agents, as he accused them of being.

Kurt Nimmo said:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=425

Am I a Member of the “Crypto-Jew” Criminal Network?
Wednesday June 21st 2006, 9:05 pm

In April, Daryl Bradford Smith, former GCN radio talk show host, tossed this blogger’s name in his paranoid stew, a dizzy fermentation he calls the “criminal network.” Now, when I post videos to YouTube, people ask if I am a Jew, or as Daryl would call me, a crypto-Jew, whatever that is exactly.

According to Smith and his sidekick, Eric Hufschmid, the entire “911 Truth Movement” needs to be investigated, in order to out the Zionists, crypto-Jews, shills, scammers, and criminals.

“Many businesses do background checks on prospective employees,” writes Hufschmid. “The managers of some apartment buildings do a ‘background check’ on a person before they allow that person to rent an apartment…. Some jobs require a security clearance from the government, and those people are given a much more thorough investigation…. Since background checks are considered acceptable for businesses, why are we not allowed to investigate people in the 9/11 movement?”

Of course, this would be a large and expensive undertaking because there are thousands of people in the “911 Truth Movement,” and no doubt Mr. Hufschmid and his mentor, the expatriate “patriot” Smith, who lives in France, or so we are led to believe, where he has vowed to protect the Constitution long distance, would be hard pressed to come up with the cash to hire private investigators, run credit checks, spend countless hours performing Google searches, and visiting city halls and sifting through public records.

Even so, in any such investigative role, Laura Knight Jadczyk’s moniker, Agent Smith, would fit Bradford Smith like a well-worn shoe (see Knight Jadczyk’s How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents).
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents.html

“We especially need to keep our eye on the following people because are almost certain to be part of the criminal network,” writes Agent Smith (actually Hufschmid, as it appears Smith has problems writing, as his specialty is verbally weaving conspiracy theories over the “air,” or rather over podcast). “Phil Berg, Mike Berger (and everybody else in 911truth.org), Bob Bowman, Gabriel Day, Professor James Fetzer and other founding members of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Jim Hoffman and his girlfriend Victoria Ashley, Gerard Holmgren, Phil Jayhan, Alex Jones, Jeff King (aka plaguepuppy), Nicholas Levis, Wayne Madsen, Scott Makufka (aka Victor Thorn), Kurt Nimmo, Jenna Orkin, Lisa Pease, Eric John Phelps, Jeff Rense, Mike Ruppert, Karl Schwarz, Rick Siegel (911eyewitness.com), Greg Szymanski, Webster Tarpley, Frank Whalen (RBN radio host).”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines “network” as follows: “A complex, interconnected group or system: an espionage network” and “An extended group of people with similar interests or concerns who interact and remain in informal contact for mutual assistance or support.”

Although I have no idea if the folks listed above comprise an “interconnected group or system,” people who “interact and remain in informal contact for mutual assistance or support,” I can say with absolute certainty I am not part of their network, if indeed they have one, and thus I am dumbfounded by Smith’s assertion.

Maybe Smith regards the fact Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website, edited by Paul Joseph Watson, regularly posts my blog entries as evidence I am part of the “criminal network,” or that on rare occasion Jeff Rense’s site does the same. I do not submit articles to sites on the web, and haven’t since I wrote for Counterpunch nearly two years ago.

It is interesting to note Smith’s claim is similar to one made by certain neocon crackpots, one who writes for David Horowitz’s Frontpage Magazine, that I am the “spokesman” for the Italian antiwar site Uruknet, and I support the “terrorists” and Saddam Hussein. As well, I have never submitted an article to Uruknet—they simply harvest articles they agree with from this blog.

I don’t encourage or discourage this behavior.

Prior to Smith’s baseless (and slanderous) accusation that I am part and parcel of a “crypto-Jew” criminal network, Irish podcaster Fintan Dunne accused me of working for the CIA, an accusation so absurd and off-the-wall I really didn’t bother to respond. Like Smith, Dunne did not bother to provide evidence, he simply went off the deep end, casting wildly about, probably in an effort to drive traffic to his site. I “retaliated” by removing his link from my blogroll.

As for Smith, I never added him to my blogroll, as our “relationship” (he called me twice from “France,” or maybe Des Moines) was extremely short lived—he wasted precious time accusing me of criminal behavior, taking issue with a blog entry or two posted here (thus his “evidence” of my complicity in the “crypto-Jew criminal network”).

I didn’t jump on Smith’s Vast Jewish Conspiracy bandwagon—going back several thousand years—and pay homage to his wisdom, or rather simplistic crackpot theories, and thus I became a suspect, a member of the criminal network.[...]

Indeed, they can investigate me, but they are not going to find much of anything except a guy with a high school education, who was active in the 1960s antiwar movement, who worked in a factory for twenty years, wrote an unpublished novel and dozens of short stories, was married twice and divorced once, and who now works in yet another low-paying “professional” job, lives in the desert with his second wife and three cats, and writes a daily blog on politics.

For Smith-Hufschmid, it is apparently a crime to not buy into their reductionist, crackpot theory about conniving Jews reaching back into antiquity, fomenting a long-term conspiracy to reduce us all to exploitable cattle over the span of many thousands of years. Rabbi Mendel Schneerson, one of the Lubavitchers that gets Smith worked up into a lather, may believe the Jews are a Master Race, and Yeshiva students in Israel may chant “death to Arabs,” but it does not mean they have the power and resources to reduce goyim to slaves.

Hitler tried this with non-Aryans and got his ass kicked.

I’m more worried about the New World Order, what I prefer to call the Neoliberal Order, rabid and predatory mercantilism, a global “Washington Consensus” as practiced by the WTO, the United Nations, and the World Bank. I am more worried about traditional neoliberals masquerading under the so-called “Third Way,” a term first popularized by Benito Mussolini in the 1920s to describe fascism. Smith complains when people talk about the “New World Order” because the term is so general and amorphous and he believes the perpetrators remain nameless.

I got some names for you, Daryl.

John Rockefeller, George Bush, Alan Greenspan, all the neocons, Gerhard Schröder, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, everybody who attends the Bilderberger meetings, including Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Henry Kissinger, Lord Browne of Madingley, Jürgen E. Schrempp, Denis Healey, Lord Black of Crossharbour, all of the European Union Commissioners, Bill Clinton and his wife, John Kerry and his wife, Natan Sharansky, everybody at the Council on Foreign Relations, everybody at the Brookings Institution, everybody at the Rand Corporation, everybody at the Trilateral Commission, especially Zbigniew Brzezinski and Bush Senior, Frank Carlucci and all the criminals at the Carlyle Group, Dick Cheney (especially Dick Cheney, and his wife too), Dianne Feinstein, Hank Greenberg (and everybody in the upper echelon of the American International Group), Paul Volcker, Jeb Bush and the September criminals, etc. In fact, it’s a good idea to raid Wall Street, sweep out all the financiers, and put all the owners and upper management in a line-up. And while we’re at it, clean up the corporate media, especially Fox News.

I missed a few hundred, but you get the picture.

Start with them. Otherwise, with all this nebulous Lubavitcher nonsense, people are going to think you’re taking people down the wrong road.

Or they will write you off as an antisemitic crank.

In fact, many of them already have.
But Fintan could be just an emotion driven sincere guy who is easily manipulated. Do yourself a favor and watch "Arlington Road" to see how really good handlers "handle" their "useful idiots" and induce them to "take the bomb into the building" and be the patsy.

So, is Fintan a patsy? A "useful idiot"?

Am I?

It's really hard to know because of what we are up against. Anything is possible in a world run by psychopaths. You see, they don't have emotions and even if they are not as creative and smart as "normies," they have a huge advantage over us: they can think and act without the interference of emotion.

Anyway, when we observed that Fintan was aware enough to see that Ponerology was a serious piece of the puzzle, we figured that perhaps he was just a really sincere guy whose emotions call the shots. That's a flaw, yes, but one that can be cured with the right kind of inner work.

And so, we decided to extend the hand of friendship, talk about differences, try to share data, and work together for the higher goal of helping humanity to wake up to the clear and present danger we are all in; the fact that this ship of fools is taking on water a lot faster than we can bail.

But either Fintan is so controlled by his emotions that he can't get over himself, or he really IS COINTELPRO and he has no intention of trying. Hard to tell at this point. He's certainly done some good work. But then, so did Christopher Bollyn. But if you really examine the Bollyn case, it is pretty clear that he was an agent planted in the 911 Truth movement even before 911. (Search the forum for the thread on Bollyn and read every page.)

I don't know what to tell you about how to "find the truth." I can only point to the fact that, long before I was a "player" on this little internet stage, I was just an ordinary housewife with a consuming curiosity about life and some interesting activities. At that stage - a complete nobody - a mainstream journalist decided to follow me and my interests/activities. He did so for over five years. During that period of time, a lot of things changed in my life and he was witness to all of it as it developed, and he wrote about it.
http://sptimes.com/News/webspecials/exorcist/index.html

I am not that ignorant, naive housewife anymore, but I still have the same values and I still work as hard now as I did then.

What's more, everything about my life has been played out on this little internet stage - written about, revealed, discussed, nothing hidden - from the day that the St. Pete Times published Tom French's article about me. So, it's not very likely that I'm any kind of "agent."

Oh, sure, the COINTELPRO grifters were set on me like harpies almost from the beginning with their lies and defamation. That's been a powerful learning experience too. And I wrote about it - from the heart.

So, I have the testimony of witnesses, and a body of work to speak for me on one side; liars with nothing but claims, defamation by fiat, and no hard evidence on the other side.

Maybe that's what you should look for: hard evidence vs. claims.

That's all I can suggest. Hope it helps.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
A few things to add:

Apparently, this podcast is what crumbled Fintan's cookies:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=6371.msg43743#msg43743

Here is the pertinent section that begins with me reading a quote from an email from John Kaminski:

John Kaminski said:
"Daryl is telling us that he is he has commandeered the 9-11 sceptic movement. On the phone he said it was my movement. I have to say he's wigging out. Now with his public dissing of me it seems it has reversed his field twice in the same week. I guess I should be flattered that people are saying all these things about me when I'm not even writing much at the moment. But really, I don't pay any attention to it at all after having been through this same thing before with Victor Thorn and Fintan Dunne. Conclusion: radio guys are irrelevant to practically everything."
And the unfortunate thing is is that John Kaminski was set up to have this attitude towards Victor Thorn and possibly Fintan Dunne. I don't know much about Fintan Dunne, you guys know anything about him?

H: Yeah. Fintan Dunne is the one who says that if you say that it's Israel and if you try say that it's anything more than an internal US thing then you're COINTELPRO.

L: So that means he is definitely COINTELPRO. Alright, so much for Fintan Dunne.

J: He's just a bit of a flake you know. He's...

L: Aside from the very cheesiness of his website.

J: He does a lot of radio interviews as well. He's into kind of, a lot of cheesy stuff and you know...

H: He came out last year with a list of disinfo sites and it was all based on, essentially, how they approached(?) the question of Israel and 9-11.

L: So he was kind of backing up this oil empire thing.

J: I don't know if he goes into that or not but he's kind of irrelevant.

L: Yeah well, so the whole thing is, the bottom line of this little recitation about this interaction with John Kaminski - and you know there are other things that have gone on with John - but the one thing I can say is that John Kaminski is a sincere passionate human being. He has certainly been operated on shall we say by operators but his heart is in the right place and I am confident of that.

J: I think that he's probably profiled in terms of his strong emotional writings.

L: Yeah, that's how they get to him. They use his emotions to manipulate him and jerk him around like a puppet, so you know I hope John, if you're listening to this, that you understand that, you know, we still know and understand who you are and what you are and that you mean well.

H: And what's been done to you.
In another forum post, here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2887.msg22897#msg22897

I wrote the following based on intell gathered from other sources:

Here's a little run-down that I think we can use as a guide (subject to additions/subtractions and modification, of course) Some names appear more than once.

The ones that appeal to the less intelligent, least common denominator groups
Example: Jayhan/LetsRoll911, Alex Jones, Power Hour, Rense

The ones that appeal to the "christian/patriots"
Example: Stadtmiller, Alex Jones

The ones that appeal to the teen/20-30-something crowd
Example: Jack Blood, Dylan Avery

The ones that appeal to the slacker generation (overlaps with the above)
Example: Revere Radio, Loose Change crew, Abrahamson, now RBN

The ones that appeal to the alleged intellectuals:
Example: Fintan Dunne, Scholars for 9-11 Truth

The ones that pretend to be "honest" former govt. employees/law enforcement:
Example: Devvy Kidd, looks like Morgan Reynolds too, Mike Ruppert

The ones that present as 9-11 truth "outcasts":
Example: Nico Haupt, Webfairy, Holmgren (soon to be Christopher Bollyn?)

The ones that present as the "politically correct", "official", "legitimate", 9-11 truth groups:
Example: 911truth.org and sister groups

The ones that go for or may be perceived to be going for the anti-semitic percentage:
Example: Smith, Hufschmid, Kaminski, Glenn, Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened, Rense

The ones with a Jesuit/Vatican bent:
Example: Szymanski, Vyzygoth, Tim White

Democrat agenda:
Example: 911truth.org, Scholars for 911truth, Citizens for Legitimate Govt., Truthout

Anti-war Dems
Example: Cindy Sheehan, Answer, CLG, 911truth.org

Other Tabloid-style
Example: Rense, Coast to Coast

The "Reformed Fake Anti-Zionist Jew"
Example: Judy Andreas

Thug/fake media forums:
Example: Conspiracy Central, Conspiracy Research, Deadline Live forum, Revere Radio
Another post here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3398.msg21769#msg21769

Ryan said:
http(doubledot)//www(dot)breakfornews(dot)com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

Hmmm..... he certainly seems to have the hots for the CIA. Maybe he "doth protest too much"?
Lisa Guliani posted here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3398.msg21790#msg21790

Yes, Fintan Dunne has accused us, and virtually everybody but himself of being a CIA agent.
Then, we find this:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1132.msg5901#msg5901

A Fractured Conservative Movement
_http://batr.org/autonomy/042006.html

Sartre said:
There is nothing new about rugged individualists disagreeing. In some respects such divergence is quite normal and appropriate. Whether there is anything that can be remotely labeled a patriot movement, to begin with is certainly a valid area of discussion. But what happens when supposed like- minded world views clash to the extent that eating one's own becomes an obsession?

By consistently targeting many of the named anti-establishment publishers for ridicule and savage attacks, the Victor-Lisa show resembles a Saturday Night skit more than serious journalism. Earning an honorable mention in their list of the unfaithful does not slant this assessment. Sure paranoid sites like Fintan Dunne's "The CIA Internet Fakes" lumps BATR with WING-TV as government disinformation projects. A careful inspection of this list indicated that BATR is included with some good company. If the Dunne goal is to damage the credibility of such sites, why does WING-TV resort to the same kind of tactics - guilt by association?

Attacking Jeff Rense and Alex Jones because both refuse to deal with WING-TV is hardly a persuasive argument. The claims and charges of censorship have been a long standing disagreement with Ms. Guliani. What she sees as an obligation to have her viewpoint echoed on other sites, we view as a privilege to earn the trust of another publisher. What WING-TV has done by their consistent and comprehensive smear vendetta is to destroy it's own credibility as a truth teller. Such devices of desperation are reflected without the trace of rational self-control or cogent wisdom. Read closely Mr. Thorns angry outburst and judge for yourselves:

Message to a Eunuch (Sartre: BATR) by Victor Thorn

'For once in your lives, stand up and do something. If you're men, start acting like it. Your feeble articles are not only boring beyond words (i.e. Sartre), but they're weak in spirit, weak in delivery, with an emotional void that leaves the reader so filled with ennui that it's no wonder our country is in the mess it's in. If you were around during the American Revolution, our nation would have lost miserably because each and every one of you would have turned coat and ran back to England to suck on the King's tit.'
This example typifies the conduct used against anyone who takes issue with the purity of vision that only exists in the mind of a self-proclaimed soaring eagle of the alternative media. BATR does not play this name game or sink to the level of crass verbiage. The publisher calls the shots and any editor worthy of the name is well within their right to exclude the rants of disinformation specialists. Likewise the reader is the sole arbitrator of who is worthy of their trust. Who is telling the absolute and definitive truth requires the honesty of the divine and surely none of us aspire to such lofty heights.

For this reason BREAKING ALL THE RULES has severed all relations with WING-TV. Regretfully this decision is based not only upon significant differences in strategy and tactics but mainly upon a profound loss of respect. It is the task of each individual to find the value in the work of any journalist or columnists. We urge you to recognize some of the factual contributions that have been published on WING-TV. However, Thoreau was right: 'If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.'
Finally, there is this:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1093.msg5698#msg5698

EsoQuest said:
Amazing how events converge when the ball gets rolling. This time it seems CoIntelPro started the ball, with a lot of coincident forms of information control centered on 9/11, and probably deeply related to certain directions feeling unease at the Pentagon Strike issue, and all one after the other.

The link http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/censorshipaltmedia.html is especially worth looking into. It shows where not only other members of the alternative media stand in relation to Rense and Jones, (which for some reason Dimitris mentioned together in one of his posts before all this hit the fan), but also the views of many "common" folk.

I think this is a great opportunity to observe non-linearity in action. CoIntelPro tried to control people's awareness, and generated a strong reaction instead that will build through the alternative media. Even if there are those who want to simply remove Rense and Jones from their perch, even if CoIntelPro will condinue trying to manipulate the situation, even if some will be afraid to question, and others will try to profit from the situation, something has changed, IMO.

What has changed is that this is not simply chaotic infighting in the "truth movement". These are not slanderous accusations, but legitimate questions shared by at least some of the public. In other words, people are getting a grip in objective observation and learning HOW to question. In doing so they are discovering an Ariadne's thread that can begin to lead them out of the labyrinth of CoIntelPro confusion. They are learning how to erect truth filters in their perception.

This may sound optimistic, but in this forum at least, we have been following the CoIntelPro trail of events to a bifurcation point where the issue of how to choose what to believe is coming into enough clarity that at least we know that making such choices and not being fooled is becoming more and more probable.

Did Rense and Jones slip up in their acts of censorship? Is it another move to muddy the waters of the alternative media? Are these people simply arrogant or do they plan to place a spin on all of this? In this tangled web of intrigue anything can happen. However, one thing is different. Some people at least are rubbing the dust of unquestioning loyalty out of their eyes, recognizing that before there can be a "movement", before there can be solidarity, there must first be a standard of truth and honesty to support these.

Some have attempted to define a truth movement, while most were still reeling in confusion regarding the very meaning of the word. Banners were raised and goals proclaimed with the still confused majority just tagging along, not being given any insight as to how, or even the chance to think for themselves under the barrage of conflicting opinions.

The thing about truth, however, is that it stands the test of time and the test of constant scrutiny. The truth has a solid foundation, while lies are a house of cards. Eventually a wind will blow and topple them. And eventually the liar in all his/her fancy maneuvering will end up check-mating themselves. The more they try to complicate things the more flimsey their presentation becomes. And this continues until cracks begin to show. And even if these cracks are more maneuvers and chess moves, they are still cracks that reveal a method and this method is anything but a search for truth. And the important thing is that people are learning to recognize the method behind the moves.

Here are some interesting quotes from the follow-up forum of the site mentioned above:

Bill Brumbaugh - Host said:
...But in reviewing the long history of Jeff Rense, once a well respected (and still is by many) and very outspoken proponent of truth, to bend and rend this type of agenda, decries to me that some leverage has been used against him and he has bowed to that leverage. It is very disappointing, and I pray that Jeff Rense will repent from that weakness.
Sam & Trish Britton - Hosts said:
At one time, we used to listen to Alex Jones, but, with all the censoring, you have to question the accuracy of anything on the broadcast. As far as our response to the audio clip of Alex at the end of the Monday Night, (04-10-06,) "WING TV" broadcast, it almost seems that he is afraid of something being revealed. None of the callers were hateful to Alex when they called in regarding the research on the "WING TV" website, yet he was so quick to get rid of them.
Michael Langston - Author said:
I spoke out against this sort of thing myself in a number of articles I wrote last year. I specifically criticized Alex Jones for refusing to discuss the important 9-11 book by Victor Thorn, 9-11 on Trial, on his program, a book that he himself had actually praised in a call to another radio talk show. I also criticized Jeff Rense for publishing anonymous articles on his website containing preposterous and unfounded assertions that Thorn and Guliani are government agents. I know these two individuals personally, and I know for a fact that this is a lie! This is something that I would stake my life on!

What was especially troubling about these libelous, cowardly, anonymous, hit-piece articles published by Jeff Rense was that Rense steadfastly refused to post any sort of rebuttal. This, to me, also reeked of blatant censorship.
Kurt Nimmo - Website said:
In short, I am more worried about death threats and character assassination than somebody like Alex Jones removing a sentence or two from an article. You guys should do a show about people in the truth movement (or whatever you want to call it) receiving death threats and other degrading attacks from neocons and mental patients with Second Amendment rights. I believe this is more serious than censorship. I'm not worried about an excised sentence shoving a gun in my face. Just my two cents.
Vyzygoth - Host said:
And these radio titans have stuck more than one fork in the aforementioned virtues. After that gas bag of balderdash, Lush Rimbaugh, blathered about having spent time with "his good friend Jeff Rense" during one of Cigar Aficionado's gala events, I turned off Jeff Rense.

After tiring of Jones' narcissism, his rudeness toward interviewees, his incessant the-world-will-end-tomorrow pap, I turned him off.

It's been nearly two years now. And I'm still a healthy Rense- and Jones-free survivor. Remember, sports fans, the greatest tool in combating the likes of Rense and Jones is to exercise your right to gatekeep, that is, just click that switch and make them go away.
Erskine - Host said:
I'd rather not be a part of this debate as I have great respect for all of the parties involved...I can't speak for others or their motivations. It could be their webmasters, but I'd go directly and ask Jeff & Alex what they have to say. I've found them to be very reasonable, passionate, seekers of truth. Both have put it on the line, with great courage, as have you, in your efforts to present the facts of 911.
Mark Glenn - Author said:
Unbelieveable ... actually excising information out of a text that is vital to telling the truth about such an important subject. I mean, I can understand someone wanting to delete a person's name if there were personal issues involved, but deleting information that is vital to slaying this beast? Don't they realize how serious all this business is, or is it all just a game to them?

I wish that I could say that I am surprised, but the truth is that I am not. It is obvious by now (with all the deflectionary pieces concerning UFO's, Bigfoot and all the other foolish items that are designed to distract people from knowing what is really going on) that these guys are not on the up-and-up.
John Kaminski - Author said:
I was extremely disappointed about Rense. It almost seems like he contrived to get rid of me. A lot of people, including you, told me about him. That he wasn't to be trusted. That he slanted the news in a particular way. He certainly never had anything good to say about you. A lot of this radio infighting I simply ascribed to the genre. Fintan Dunne did the same thing to me. Later, Daryl Bradford Smith, and his objection was about Rense and the UFOs. Then Rense did it. At the same time, many websites stopped running my stuff when I turned up the volume about Jewish influence.
Everyone here has their view and their angle of approach. And many reveal alot about themselves by their comments. The fact remains that all these comments are triggered by specific acts by Rense and Jones, that you cannot easily sweep under the rug.

Finally:

One other point must be addressed: as was pointed-out in our introduction to this article, we did try to "solicit a response" from Jeff Rense and Alex Jones, but they refuse to answer for their actions. So, not only do they mirror Big Brother via their blatant censorship, but then they use the federal government's tactics by REFUSING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. What does that tell you?
The point of all this IMO is not so much to celebrate because the bad boys Rense & Jones have been uncovered and defrocked, because they could easily have realized that they were already losing credibility and are simply paving the way for new "freedom fighters" to take their place among the crowd of the "outraged and righteous".

The point is to watch the signs, keep your eye on the tumbling snowball, and learn to recognize the Machiavellian patterns that cannot help but repeat themselves. Fool me once shame on you...you know the rest. ;)
It's worth noting that EsoQuest turned out to be an agent himself - or at least to effectively act like one. Who knows? The whole damn thing is like a can of worms!
 

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
Hi Joe,

Joe said:
yoyos said:
(a simple 1 line comment linking me to the thread http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.co … detta.html would have saved me some research time)??
Sure, but aren't you glad you did the research yourself. You learn so much more that way than getting it spoon fed.
=) Dam you! Okay, I admit, you’re right…it was best that I went through all this crap myself…


Joe said:
yoyos said:
(This doesn’t exactly make it easy for someone like me who is trying to figure out if ponerology is disinfo in the 1st place[no offense intended, but for me, the whole 'sending it off to the Vatican' is a little bit too much for me. I mean claiming something as grandiose as that, without having any evidence, is like not claiming that at all - except that you did indeed claim it].
Grandiose? I sent a letter to the Vatican last year. Never heard anything back either. Seems they do that a lot.
Well, sending something over to the Vatican isn’t very grandiose at all…on the other hand, sending PP over to the Vatican seems not only a little grandiose, but a little naïve, too. I’m mean come on; I haven’t trusted the Catholic church ever since I learned about it’s shady history (you know, when they tell you in school about the gold coffers and how the priests would pilfer from the coffers)…and you expect me to believe (just like that, with no evidence) that an empathetic intelligent human being would send their life’s work to the Vatican!? I mean I can believe that pink elephants are roaming around the African savannah too, but I highly doubt it to be true.

REGARDLESS, if you guys need to hype the book somehow for market appeal, then it’s all good, do what you need to do, I bought it anyway. I’m just stating that I’m not ‘buying into’ the whole Vatican thing….and actually, a clear explanation of that would be welcomed.


Joe said:
yoyos said:
What's up with the importance of political ponerology information 'getting out', when the only people who it "gets out" to are cointelpro/disinformationists?
"Only people"? Maybe a little more research is needed on your part?
True, I apologize. I take my comment back.


Joe said:
yoyos said:
My main question from all of this is: How am I supposed to interpret that blog entry in the ponerology blog?
Just take it on face value. It is important that the information gets out.
Okay, Joe, thanks so much for answering my questions and helping me out here. I pretty much presumed that this was the case, but I just needed one of you guys to confirm it for me, so that I could be 100% comfortable with my presumption. Again, thank you!


Joe said:
yoyos said:
As far as my other questions/comments are concerned; please let me know what anyone has to say about the commentary in that BFN thread. I am very interested in knowing what everyone here has to say about the comments posted there.
Which comments in particular? In general it can be summed up by saying that the people on BFN are just in it for the fun. So anyone and everyone is fair game. It's so nice to see the kiddies playing in the sand box.
No worries Joe, those comments don’t hold any significance any longer (for me at least). I pretty much agree with your general summery. I’ll consider my BFN experience as a nice little personal experiment. I got out of BFN what I needed in order to continue with what I was originally doing anyway. So it’s all good! =)



*************
Hi Henry,

Henry said:
Yeah, the audio was removed from the Ron Paul site but not because they disagree with the ideas. In fact, they will be running more articles on ponerology in the future.
Joe said:
yoyos said:
As far as my other questions/comments are concerned; please let me know what anyone has to say about the commentary in that BFN thread. I am very interested in knowing what everyone here has to say about the comments posted there.
Which comments in particular?
Okay, sorry Joe, but Henry’s statement here forces the question.

So, on that BFN thread I linked there is big controversy going on. Henry, you say that the Ron Paul site will be “running more articles on ponerology in the future.” If that’s the case, I am curious to know what you or anyone else thinks of that Ron Paul site? If it is indeed a fact that the founder of Election Science Institute, Steven Hertzberg, is also the creator of www.ronpaulonline.com, then wouldn’t you guys be worried that your material is going to be used against you or ponerized, if I may use that phrase?

And if the answer is going to be,
Joe said:
Just take it on face value. It is important that the information gets out
, then I will understand that. Although, I’m still curious as to what your folks fears are about PP getting tainted. No fears? ::shrugs:: let me know yo…



*************
Hi Laura,

Laura said:
But if you really examine the Bollyn case, it is pretty clear that he was an agent planted in the 911 Truth movement even before 911. (Search the forum for the thread on Bollyn and read every page.)
Laura said:
Maybe that's what you should look for: hard evidence vs. claims.

That's all I can suggest. Hope it helps.
Laura, I am not ready to reply to you yet. For now, thank you very much for your sincerity and helpful words. I will reply after a bit of research, reading, and contemplating…
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
yoyos said:
Well, sending something over to the Vatican isn’t very grandiose at all…on the other hand, sending PP over to the Vatican seems not only a little grandiose, but a little naïve, too. I’m mean come on; I haven’t trusted the Catholic church ever since I learned about it’s shady history (you know, when they tell you in school about the gold coffers and how the priests would pilfer from the coffers)…and you expect me to believe (just like that, with no evidence) that an empathetic intelligent human being would send their life’s work to the Vatican!? I mean I can believe that pink elephants are roaming around the African savannah too, but I highly doubt it to be true.

REGARDLESS, if you guys need to hype the book somehow for market appeal, then it’s all good, do what you need to do, I bought it anyway. I’m just stating that I’m not ‘buying into’ the whole Vatican thing….and actually, a clear explanation of that would be welcomed.
Just a quick observation/question. Why would you think that your perception of the Vatican or the Catholic Church would be the same as the perception of someone else? Living under communist rule in Poland had the effect of turning anyone/any organization that is not Communist Russia into a 'good guy'. To many people in Poland at the time, the Vatican and the U.S. were both considered to be as far from Communist Russia as one could get - via the mindset of , 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

It is my understanding that the author is the source of information about the attempts to get the manuscript to the Vatican - it was not the publisher or 'you guys promoting the book'. I'm sure I'll be corrected if my understanding is mistaken. Perhaps a bit of understanding of the time and the social environment at the time might be helpful - not everyone sees the world the way you do - especially so many years ago when Lobaczewski made the decision to get the information to what he considered at the time, erroneously or not, to be a 'safe haven'.
 

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
anart said:
Why would you think that your perception of the Vatican or the Catholic Church would be the same as the perception of someone else?
I'm trying to answer that question and I'm having a hard time.


anart said:
Perhaps a bit of understanding of the time and the social environment at the time might be helpful - not everyone sees the world the way you do - especially so many years ago when Lobaczewski made the decision to get the information to what he considered at the time, erroneously or not, to be a 'safe haven'.
I agree, no doubting that. However, isn't there more to it than that?


anart said:
It is my understanding that the author is the source of information about the attempts to get the manuscript to the Vatican - it was not the publisher or 'you guys promoting the book'. I'm sure I'll be corrected if my understanding is mistaken.
Good observation. How come I didn't understand that as clearly as you?

As I'm thinking about it now, I would propose the following:

Firstly, I would say that everything i come across is seen through eyes that have been subject to lies throughout my youth (thanks step-dad). That being said, I'm paranoid/skeptical about pretty much everything. I have trouble trusting anything anymore (especially now that I am aware of cointelpro and all that baggage --> I think I would classify myself in the "worst" category:
Laura said:
stupendously confusing at worst
). Now, maybe that right there explains it.

Maybe, I'm so confused right now about everything, that I don't even know how to believe something to be true anymore. Maybe it's my struggle with respects to what rule #2 on the forum talks about, that I briefly mentioned in one of my first posts. I don't know. Anart, I think you pose a question that is difficult to answer.

The issue might not exactly be my perception being the "same as the perception of someone else". I would say that my friends often tell me to shut up because i ask too many questions. I can see why you guys might get annoyed. I apologize for this. But what am I supposed to do here? Just take it on faith? I mean....that's what I'm talking about. I don't understand. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill or are questions/concerns about claims people make not valid? Isn't that how 'you guys'/SOTT figured out everything about maynard most?


anart said:
Living under communist rule in Poland had the effect of turning anyone/any organization that is not Communist Russia into a 'good guy'. To many people in Poland at the time, the Vatican and the U.S. were both considered to be as far from Communist Russia as one could get - via the mindset of , 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
I can't argue with that. But how am I supposed to truly believe the event (sending PP to the Vatican) actually occurred? I can see how one can imagine such an event occurring, but how am i supposed to know with unwavering certainty that this claim is in fact the objective reality? Perhaps, that's the catch. In objective reality - there is no 100% certainty.

Laura said:
It's rather like how Ark described the superluminal communication problem:

How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?

It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken, and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers - system disruption, loss of "memory," or energy, damaged files, things that don't "fit," that are "out of context," - we can reduce the possibility of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are AWARE of hackers; if we KNOW that they will attempt to break into our system in the guise of a "normal" file, or even an operating system or program that promises to "organize" our data for greater efficiency and ease of function or "user friendliness," while at the same time, acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources - RAM and hard drive.
Should I learn to trust my inner spiritual being and develop that sense of feeling? Maybe, the inner feeling one feels that could be described as the gut feeling is something that actually originates from the heart?

If the reality of the situation is actually as Ark describes above...perhaps the heart does indeed play a role in being "AWARE of hackers" and distinguishing between hackers and "a "normal" file".

Well, fwiw, my mind has remained skeptical, but my heart has never suggested any ill will at all from your part. Actually, my heart suggests only the purest kind of sincerity from you folks. I hope it is actually worth something, because i'd feel pretty stupid right now if it didn't.

Anyway, I'm not sure If I was able to help you out, anart, in you question...but let me know if you so choose.
 

Peto

Jedi
yoyos said:
But how am I supposed to truly believe the event (sending PP to the Vatican) actually occurred? I can see how one can imagine such an event occurring, but how am i supposed to know with unwavering certainty that this claim is in fact the objective reality? Perhaps, that's the catch. In objective reality - there is no 100% certainty.
Hi yoyos,

Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether the accuracy of the claim on that event would in any way affect the value of the book. As I see it, it would not.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Regarding the sending of the MS to the Vatican, that is what Andrzej Lobaczewski told us about the history of the work. Having had him here in my house for a period of time, I don't doubt that this is what he did. I also think it was a naive thing to do. But I understand why he thought it was an option - even if a desperate and ill-founded idea.

I don't know if you have ever sat across the table from an 85 year old man who you know has been tortured more than once, who you know has had everything he ever loved destroyed, including his family (as in killed), and who still is gentle and full of childlike hope and naivete. It produces in you very strange feelings.

One thing is certain, Lobaczewski is not the originator of many of the ideas in Ponerology; he has never claimed to be. He simply was the one who worked with some of them and was charged with assembling the material and trying to get it out there.

In Poland, during all those years of Communist rule, one of the main things that enabled people to hold on to some hope, was the church. It wasn't much, but it was all they had since the West had abandoned them to a terrible fate. It was kind of like playing "good cop/bad cop," with the communists being the bad cop which made the good cop. the church, look all that much better.

Keep in mind, also, that my husband grew up under this communist regime and he - and his family - suffered enormously also, and there are stories he can tell about how things were there that would curl your hair. Most of us can't even imagine having to get up at 3 a.m. to go and get in a line to get food or other essential things. We can't imagine being interrogated by the secret police just because you attend a scientific conference; we can't imagine being blacklisted so that you cannot leave the country at all... or being unable to return once you have because martial law has been declared and you are on a list of "dissidents."

So, having a perspective on what life was like "behind the iron curtain" in Poland for all of those years is very important to understanding why it is that we know Lobaczewski is telling the truth when he says that he desperately sent a copy of this book to the Vatican in hopes that someone there would read it, "get it," and do something about it. From his point of view, that was the only possible thing to do.

If you would like to read a short history of Poland that might give you a bit of perspective, try here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/coming.htm

If you want to check out links to much of our body of work, try here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

A well-informed perspective can change your whole view of the world.
 

henry

The Living Force
yoyos said:
Hi Henry,

Henry said:
Yeah, the audio was removed from the Ron Paul site but not because they disagree with the ideas. In fact, they will be running more articles on ponerology in the future.
Joe said:
yoyos said:
As far as my other questions/comments are concerned; please let me know what anyone has to say about the commentary in that BFN thread. I am very interested in knowing what everyone here has to say about the comments posted there.
Which comments in particular?
Okay, sorry Joe, but Henry’s statement here forces the question.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about it forcing the question. Can you explain it more?

yoyos said:
So, on that BFN thread I linked there is big controversy going on. Henry, you say that the Ron Paul site will be “running more articles on ponerology in the future.” If that’s the case, I am curious to know what you or anyone else thinks of that Ron Paul site? If it is indeed a fact that the founder of Election Science Institute, Steven Hertzberg, is also the creator of www.ronpaulonline.com, then wouldn’t you guys be worried that your material is going to be used against you or ponerized, if I may use that phrase?
Well, we'll see what happens. However, as they have asked me to write the articles, there are certain safeguards in place. :-)

What are your concerns about the Election Science Institute?

yoyos said:
And if the answer is going to be,
Joe said:
Just take it on face value. It is important that the information gets out
, then I will understand that. Although, I’m still curious as to what your folks fears are about PP getting tainted. No fears? ::shrugs:: let me know yo…
The question of ponerology and control of society by deviants is the fundamental question we are facing. We have been offered a platform from which to put forward the concepts to reach a new audience, so we are going to use it. As Joe said, it is important the information gets out there. We have seen others try and twist the ideas in the past, particularly one individual who was associated with Barnes Review. He tried to portray himself an as expert but included in his arsenal of expert ideas was the one where Hitler was just a poor, misunderstood do-gooder.

In this case, Steven approached me and asked if I would write for the ronpaulonline site. He is not portraying himself as an expert in the subject. That doesn't mean I agree with Steven across the board, nor him with me, but on this topic, there is a possibility to work together. Time will tell how fruitful it will be.
 

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
Hi hoangmphung,

hoangmphung said:
yoyos said:
But how am I supposed to truly believe the event (sending PP to the Vatican) actually occurred? I can see how one can imagine such an event occurring, but how am i supposed to know with unwavering certainty that this claim is in fact the objective reality? Perhaps, that's the catch. In objective reality - there is no 100% certainty.
Hi yoyos,

Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether the accuracy of the claim on that event would in any way affect the value of the book. As I see it, it would not.
And I pretty much agree with what you say. I tried to convey that message the best I could with what I said about better developing my sense of feeling for where my heart is guiding me.


*************

Hi Laura,

Laura said:
Regarding the sending of the MS to the Vatican, that is what Andrzej Lobaczewski told us about the history of the work. Having had him here in my house for a period of time, I don't doubt that this is what he did. I also think it was a naive thing to do. But I understand why he thought it was an option - even if a desperate and ill-founded idea.
Well, fwiw, your POV does make me feel better. I’m not sure that’s worth much, but anyway, I’m coming to understand my issue with the Vatican part of PPs history as making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not that I shouldn’t be questioning, but that the questioning has helped me come to this realization (and I shouldn’t forget to mention the help from each reply as well =)). To have a major issue with something as important as PP over something as insignificant as a single claim from the entire body of work is quite telling to me. I obviously can’t get over something and am letting it bother me too much. If it was a red herring/red flag, that would be one thing, but the innocent enough tid-bit about the Vatican should not by any means make me think that PP is therefore null & void. What kind of paranoid freak would that make me? So, thanks for the insight Laura (and everyone else, too)…it is much appreciated!


Laura said:
I don't know if you have ever sat across the table from an 85 year old man who you know has been tortured more than once, who you know has had everything he ever loved destroyed, including his family (as in killed), and who still is gentle and full of childlike hope and naivete. It produces in you very strange feelings.
Wow, what a way to give me a perspective slap in the face. I needed that! Thanks yo. That MUST have been a special experience sitting there in that moment and listening to that 85 year old man say what he had to say. I can see how the strange feeling can occur in such a situation. I would have been humbled all the way down to my bare bones. Again, Laura, your POV is worth tonnes over here on my side of the monitor…



*************

Hi Henry,

henry said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean about it forcing the question. Can you explain it more?
Sure, no problem.

From the BFN thread I linked, Joe asked me to point out the “comments in particular” that I was “very interested in knowing what everyone here” thought of. After Joe replied with that question, I didn’t feel it necessary to go into all the stuff that was going on over at BFN. However, you mentioned that the Ron Paul website will be running more articles on Ponerology. The “stuff that was going on over at BFN” directly relates to the Ron Paul website…therefore, I was “forced” to ask my question.

Did that help clarify things?


henry said:
What are your concerns about the Election Science Institute?
Okay, here comes the juicy stuff. I should also disclaimer all of this with the fact that all of this information came out of BFN and things that have occurred over there.

If you go ahead and do a google search for “election science institute” you’ll find a link to a pdf file. Here it is: http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/ESI/ESI-hypothesis-illogical.pdf The title of the pdf reads: “Mathematical Proof that
Election Sciences Institute's Test to Rule Out Vote Fraud Is Logically Incorrect

Even If Logically Corrected, ESI's Test Would Require More Data and Have Many Pitfalls”

After skimming the paper, it didn’t take me long to realize I would have needed to take a few extra math courses (or paid attention more to the ones I did take) to understand the proof they present. So, I DO NOT know who is in the right, ESI or ElectionArchive.org (that’s the organization name printed on the lower left of each page of the pdf). I DO KNOW that there is a controversy…and it seems pretty important, too.

So, since there is a controversy…I thought it worthwhile to take note.

And this is right about where “the plot thickens”:

Okay, so we have a controversy over ESI’s scientific method. If it is indeed a fact, let’s presume for right now, that ESI’s report was deliberately skewed…then, to me, that poses a problem. Especially since the same guy who founded an organization that is supposedly trying to work against voter fraud…is committing fraud himself. And I’m not sure now, but I think that after the Election Archive pdf came out, ESI came out publicly and modified their original report.

Also, I’ve notice that the home page of ESI has changed since I first visited it a couple of weeks ago when all hell broke loose over at BFN. The home page of ESI used to treat the newcomer with a nice little hello from Steven Hertzberg. I wonder why that isn’t there anymore?

Another thing. As I’m looking at the site now, would you trust anyone that says the following?

ESI Memorandum to Ohio Election Officials
State: OH County: Cuyahoga
Author(s): Steven Hertzberg Date: 08-22-2006

Summary: n April 2006, prior to the May 2 primary, the Cuyahoga County Commission contracted with the Election Science Institute (ESI) to conduct a comprehensive review of how their new voting system actually worked on an election day. ESI’s report, including the performance of the Diebold Accuvote TSX voting system, was released by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. Since then, Diebold circulated a response to the report, to which ESI has responded (see attached). ESI understands that Ohio’s election officials have been under intense scrutiny and that the challenges of implementing both HAVA and House Bill No. 3 are enormous. ESI had the privilege of working with several Ohio county election officials on this report. We were impressed by their professionalism and commitment to the integrity of the elections process. For this reason, we are concerned that the findings of this report have been misinterpreted and misreported. First and foremost, the ESI report is not an attack on the Diebold Accuvote TSX system. Indeed, the report findings include very positive reviews of the system from voters and booth workers.
Last time I checked Diebold was pretty shady. So what’s the deal (and I didn’t exactly check very hard, so…I’m open to answers)?

Additionally, if Steven Hertzberg is working so hard to defend voter fraud (as in allowing it to happen), then what the hell is he doing working with the Ron Paul campaign?!

That’s a red flag for me, I’m sorry. Can’t get any redder or flaggy than that!

So, those are my concerns.

Hope it helped.


Actually, one more thing I think is worth mentioning. When Steven Hertzberg’s cover was blown at BFN (his forum alias was “navari”), a lot of shady deletions and history erasures occurred over the WWW. If you guys are interested, I highly suggest going through that thread and seeing what happened. But for the lazier, I’ll give you an example:

Fintan Dunne has a youtube page. And when Steven Hertzberg’s cover was blown at BFN, someone noticed that the only subscriber to Fintan’s youtube page was Steven Hertzberg himself! Additionally, Steven Hertzberg also had his own youtube page with PLENTY of videos and subscribers. So, what happens to all this when a BFN forum member notices the youtube connection and makes a post about it? Yup, you guessed it, Fintan no longer had his single subscriber and “This account is closed” (referring to Steven Hertzberg’s youtube account). I wonder what all those subscribers to Steven's youtube page must be thinking about that?

So I don’t know. Seems pretty ill-intentioned to me; not very STO and quite possibly very pathocratic. Why don’t you tell me what you think of all this. Isn’t it shady to you?
 
Top Bottom