John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

[JudeA]

BTW...what happened to THIS guy?


http:(2slsh)miscplanet.50megs.com/kaminski.j

 

[name]

BTW...what happened to THIS guy?

http:(2slsh)miscplanet.50megs.com/kaminski.jpg

hmmm .. interesting - a personal email to ingrid rimland of all people, and:

from http:_2slash_miscplanet.50megs_dot_com

"Oct 20, 2006 -- This personal web site belongs to Jeffrey..."

also, because of the few visitors, the page may have been set up on purpose to trap IPs of people visiting from here.

 

[JudeA]

also, because of the few visitors, the page may have been set up on purpose to trap IPs of people visiting from here.>>

HUH?
Want me to send you a copy of the letter. It just goes to show that JK goes anyway the wind blows.

 

[Laura]

Might want to read my article today, written for all those who fall into the same traps as Kaminski:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061020_TheMysticvsHitler.php

HUH?
Want me to send you a copy of the letter. It just goes to show that JK goes anyway the wind blows.

Might be helpful to be clear and explicit when posting. It's easy enough for misunderstandings to occur when people speak to each other; it's way more problematical when it is via the written word.

 

[JudeA]

Might want to read my article today, written for all those who fall into the same traps as Kaminski:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/edi ... Hitler.php

thank you, Laura. You are indeed an education for me. I have been struggling with this "issue" for quite sometime.

 

[NugaBurd]

Laura, in her above-linked-to editorial, quotes from Kaminski's "Parasite Alert!" as follows:

* * * * *

...K-J's encyclopedic and endlessly perfect papers about aspects of human behavior scare the shit out of me, because her new science of ponerology could serve perfectly as a new template for totalitarianism, to be imposed by the very people who get to fund spooky think tanks like these.

* * * * *

(BTW, if you visit Kaminiski's Web site and click on the link to that article, on "The Truth Seeker" Web site, you are greeted with the following:

* * * * *

The requested article is currently suspended.
Click here to return to the homepage

* * * * *

Kaminski got censored again.)

Although Kaminski is usually way over the top on everything, and the characterization of Laura is gratuitous, something happened this past week that lends credence to his fears.

On the Wednesday, October 18, RBN broadcast of Michael Collins Piper, the guest was John deNugent. After listening to the show, I felt like washing the slime from my computer speakers. His voice and his manner of speaking made my skin crawl.

The subject was psychopaths -- their characteristics, how to detect them and what to do about them. "Political Ponerology" was invoked.

Show a picture of a horrible auto accident to a person, and do a brain scan on him. With a normal person, one area of the brain lights up in the scan, showing activity in that section. With a psychopath, a different area lights up.

deNugent further stated that therapy won't work with psychopaths; they must be removed from society.

On the following day, deNugent was again Piper's guest. After engaging in some serious fear-mongering against psychopaths (they start wars, etc.) he called special attention to Genghis Kahn, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. You know -- if brain scan technology been around at the time, they could have been isolated and the horrors that they perpetrated could have been prevented.

At this point, Piper took a caller, a gentleman who expressed some concern about how to select people for scanning. After a few more words from deNugent, here is what Piper said:

* * * * *

I'd like to make a recommendation here. I'll be the diplomat and try to take a moderate stance on this. I think it could be a legitimate approach...anyone who files for public office should be required to undergo this kind of scanning.

* * * * *

(If anyone wants to check the accuracy of what I have written, you can visit Piper's archive page:

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper06.html

and either listen to a stream or download the files to play back later. The archive of the Thursday show is corrupted: Snippets of commercials are interspersed with the show segment, starting at about 25 minutes into the show.)

What a perfect recipe for tyranny! Psychopaths in the PTB would have the power to prevent any electoral challenge to them by prohibiting any person whom they found threatening from even appearing on a ballot. Fake the brain scan results, and voila.

Before anyone accuses me of paranoia, please remember that about three years ago, it was proved that the FBI crime lab had been faking evidence against defendants, and that people had been wrongfully convicted of crimes that they hadn't committed.

Piper got played, by a real master. Kaminiski is not that far off-base. A clever person CAN misapply the knowledge in "Political Ponerology" as a template for totalitarianism.

Martin

 

[Ryan]

What a perfect recipe for tyranny! Psychopaths in the PTB would have the power to prevent any electoral challenge to them by prohibiting any person whom they found threatening from even appearing on a ballot. Fake the brain scan results, and voila.

Have you read Political Ponerology? Lobaczewski states that psychopaths are able to recognise each other. They don't need brain scans. The pathocracy is already capable of "selecting" those people most suited to furthering it's aims. There is ample circumstantial evidence that this has already been happening for some time.

 

[NugaBurd]

Ryan wrote

* * * * *

...They don't need brain scans. The pathocracy is already capable of "selecting" those people most suited to furthering it's (sic) aims...

* * * * *

How could you so completely misinterpret my post?

What I meant is that a normal (non-psychopathic) person's brain scan result could be faked, to "diagnose" him as a psychopath. This would block his candidacy.

Likewise, a psychopath's scan results could be faked to scientifically "select" him to qualify him for the ballot.

It's all so scientific, you see. How could anyone in his right mind question it?

As the fields of science become more and more specialized, and as the scientists develop and utilize more and more esoteric equipment, the layman becomes helpless.

Science has become a religion, and its leading practitioners have become an infallible priesthood. The media, including much of the alternative media, refuses to give voice to "heretics."

Thus we get propagandized into believing in, for examples, peak oil, global warming and the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. The general public never hears that oil is not a fossil fuel, that the planet could be heading into a mini ice age by the middle of this century and that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the position that a virus called HIV causes the trashing of the immune system called AIDS.

If a (faked) scientific test reveals that you are a psychopath and thus unfit to run for public office, then good luck in fighting it.

And the whole time, the government would keep reassuring us that they were protecting us against bad people. Who knows? A future president might even declare a "War on Psychopathy." (Yes, that is deliberate hyperbole.)

Martin

 

[ark]

Piper got played, by a real master. Kaminiski is not that far off-base. A clever person CAN misapply the knowledge in "Political Ponerology" as a template for totalitarianism.

Martin

A "clever person" can missaply anything. In fact that is what "clever persons" do all the time. They missaply the truth. Doe that mean we should not search for the truth? Is that what you are saying? Then you are dead wrong.

You say "Science has become a religion, and its leading practitioners have become an infallible priesthood. "

While this is to some eztent indeed the case, it does not mean that science itself is bad or wrong. It means that the politicians are bad and wrong. And there is no better way to study what they do than by scientific methods. Of course science can be (and is) being abused. As everything else. But the abuse of science is best studied by scientific methods, not by ignorant methods. Lie should be called a lie, but to distinguish a clever lie from the truth, KNOWLEDGE is needed!

You say "The media, including much of the alternative media, refuses to give voice to "heretics.""

This is also to some extent true. But you forget that many of these "heretics" are talking just nonsense. And you will never be able to distinguish this nonsense from no-nonsense, unless you are a scientist, a real expert in the field.

In short, what you say is a typical missinformation. Half-truths that convey a false message.

 

[Ben]

How could you so completely misinterpret my post?

What I meant is that a normal (non-psychopathic) person's brain scan result could be faked, to "diagnose" him as a psychopath. This would block his candidacy.

Likewise, a psychopath's scan results could be faked to scientifically "select" him to qualify him for the ballot.

This reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of ponerology, if you have not read Lobaczewski I suggest you do so. Why would psychopaths who are interested in the formation of a ponerogenic union (each for their individual although mutual benefit) be interested in blocking the candidacy of psychopathic individuals? Their specific psychological knowledge which allows them to do this without brain scan technology is the driving force behind the process termed ponerogenesis.

The abuse of these methods and the science of ponerology, which Kaminski is so afraid of, seems like such a distinct possibility precisely because we have lived under pathocratic rule for our entire lives and it is basically all we know. The possible abuse of the system by psychopaths simply highlights how important it is that this phenomenon IS recognised and acted upon before humanity can 'progress' in any real capacity.

 

[Laura]

What I meant is that a normal (non-psychopathic) person's brain scan result could be faked, to "diagnose" him as a psychopath. This would block his candidacy.

Likewise, a psychopath's scan results could be faked to scientifically "select" him to qualify him for the ballot.

It's all so scientific, you see. How could anyone in his right mind question it?

Yes, I am aware of this concern. It seems to have been the main concern raised by people who have something to worry about in terms of brain scans showing their abnormality. So, of course, they immediately raised the hue and cry "Oh, this would be a tool for totalitarians."

Guess what?

Totalitarians and fascists don't need such a tool.

And if any group of normal people ever got into a position where they could mandate the use of such technology - the REAL thing - I expect that they would be aware of the potential for misuse and would take some care to set up a system where such a danger was minimized.

As Lobaczewski says, there are still many problems of Ponerology that need to be worked on and sorted out. I think John de Nugent was a bit enthusiastic about jumping the gun on the brain scan thing.

I just wrote to Piper:

While I appreciated John's efforts on behalf of the subject of psychopathy
and Ponerology, and the first show was good and well done, I think the call
for brain scans is a bit premature and serves only to scare people.

The FIRST thing to do is to simply educate people about the existence of
this type of individual and the ways and means of dealing with it in their
personal lives, and also to help them understand how these critters rise to
the top and to stop projecting their own moral values onto them.

Ponerology is just a beginning, a call to normal people to wake up and begin
to think about and discuss this business. Only together can we actually
formulate legitimate solutions. No one person has the right or the mandate
to decide how it should be handled. I think there is not enough work on the
brain scan issue yet to consider it a reliable method. For all we know, it
only works on criminal type psychopaths and the ones that we are really
interested in - snakes in suits - might not display the same anomalies.
Since we haven't been able to get any comparative scans on such, this has to
be relegated to the realm of "not enough research."

 

[Ryan]

Ryan wrote

* * * * *
...They don't need brain scans. The pathocracy is already capable of "selecting" those people most suited to furthering it's (sic) aims...
* * * * *

How could you so completely misinterpret my post?

The fact that you make that statement shows you did not understand what I meant. I suggest you read "Political Ponerology" ASAP.

What I meant is that a normal (non-psychopathic) person's brain scan result could be faked, to "diagnose" him as a psychopath. This would block his candidacy.

Likewise, a psychopath's scan results could be faked to scientifically "select" him to qualify him for the ballot.

Those are the points I was responding to. What you are describing is a situation where psychopaths are doing the "selecting" and they are quite capable of doing this already, without "brain scans". Moreso, keeping the knowledge of psychopathy itself hidden from the masses serves them far more than having scans which could "prove" who is or is not a psychopath. Merely having such scans is indicative of a situation where subcriminal psychopathy is widely acknowledged by the larger public - in such a situation they are already worse off than at present.

If a (faked) scientific test reveals that you are a psychopath and thus unfit to run for public office, then good luck in fighting it.

Kind of a defeatist attitude, isn't it? Framing others with falsified evidence has been perpetrated by psychopaths throughout history. You think just throwing your hands up and saying, "that would be too hard" is going to make it stop?

And the whole time, the government would keep reassuring us that they were protecting us against bad people. Who knows? A future president might even declare a "War on Psychopathy." (Yes, that is deliberate hyperbole.)

And you think this provides them a better reason to declare a fascist lockdown than the nebulous "terror" threat? You obviously haven't been paying attention to world events.

As for Kaminski... he has become like a paranoid version of "Old MacDonald" lately.... "here a Jew... there a Jew... everywhere a Jew-Jew". I used to find him credible; now he just seems like so much of the rest of the "Truth Movement".... too plain full 'o themselves to listen to anyone else. He won't make any real friends or allies that way.

Still, I suppose he will do what he will do.

 

[NugaBurd]

I did not attack science. What I attacked was the transformation of science from a method of inquiry into religious orthodoxy. Whenever I hear or read, "It is a scientific fact that..." my BS filter kicks in, because science is not a collection of facts.

Religion imposes answers, presented as permanent, not to be disputed or even doubted. Science, on the other hand, provides hypotheses, theories, models, presented as tentative and transitory, begging to be questioned.

That is, science is supposed to be that way. In today's world, though, it isn't. Toe the line, or you won't get the research grants, graduate students won't study under you, you won't be invited to attend scientific conferences. The media will act as though you don't even exist.

Take, for example, Kary Mullis. who, in 1993, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, for inventing the polymerase chain reaction method of amplifying DNA. A few years later, he disputed the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and he expressed doubt that human activity was responsible for global warming. Salon.com subsequently did a vicious hit piece on him. Although one can find information on him on the Internet, in scientific circles, he has become a veritable non-person.

Kary Mullis (just one example of many whom I could cite) is not "talking nonsense." The fact that some dissidents are kooks does not justify shutting out all dissidents.

None of the above qualifies as "typical missinformation. Half-truths that convey a false message."

Why are we even discussing this? I started by referring to the content of Michael Collins Piper's RBN broadcasts of October 18 and 19. On the Wednesday show, John deNugent stated that, because psychopaths cannot be successfully treated, they should be "filtered out," that they should be "isolated from society." He stopped just short of advocating universal brain scanning of the populace at large.

On Thursday, Piper offered the compromise that the only people for whom brain scanning should be compulsory should be candidates for public office.

You folks don't know me. Even if you did, I would not expect you to take my word for anything. That is why I posted the link to the shows, so that people could listen to them for themselves and form their own conclusions.

Agree with me, take me to task, rake me over the coals -- I don't care. Please, though, stay on topic.

Martin

 

[ark]

I did not attack science. What I attacked was the transformation of science from a method of inquiry into religious orthodoxy. Whenever I hear or read, "It is a scientific fact that..." my BS filter kicks in, because science is not a collection of facts.

This is not true. Science was not transformed into religious orthodoxy. Science is using scientific methods rather than just guessing or jumping to conclusions. Some politicians and the media are USING science for their purposes. Some scientists serve, for money or fame, for these politicians. But science itself has not been transformed. There are scientific methods and "no method at all". Nobody ever sais that science is a collection of data. Again you are wrong. Science is using the scientific method for gathering and for analyzing data. Of course quite often media are making BAD USE of science. You read "It is a scientific fact that..." - but then your BS filter should kick NOT because science did something wrong (to know whether it is wrong or not you better be a scientist yourself), but because the MEDIA did something wrong, or because some scientist did something wrong. Therefore it is necessary ALWAYS to do your own research, dig out what different scientists have to say, look for what the heretics say and what scientists say about heretics etc. etc. Nothing is easy. But it is possible - with some effort on your part.

Some years ago it was a scientific fact that the Earth is flat. Today it is a scientific fact that the Earth is somewhat less flat, perhaps even somewhat round? The fact that "scientific facts" change with time does not imply that the scientific method is wrong. In fact, there is nothing better that I know about!

 

[NugaBurd]

Ark, I don't disagree with you. What I should have said is that science, IN THE PUBLIC REALM, has been transformed into religion. The impression that the media give to the public is that scientific issues have already been settled -- that there is no dispute or disagreement.

Martin