John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

Well, I have a theory about why Kaminski is suddenly against us; the same reason that Jim Condit has suddenly been activated along with a few other side "hot poppers" this weekend: either they have received "instructions" to begin the assault, or they are all hooked together via some kind of borg mind of deviance.

As for the Morgan Reynolds thing, I have the email where Lisa told me about this and her exact words were:

he was asking me why Morgan Reynolds is pushing
this no-plane garbage and then he rephrased his question saying,
"I guess what I really want to know
is why my biggest benefactor is doing this..."

He said this right around the time your group decided to cut off
sending him funds. I was surprised to hear that Reynolds has been
giving him money, apparently for a while.
I've never known Lisa to quote anyone inaccurately and this was a private exchange that neither one of us ever thought would NEED to be made public.

Kaminski, on the other hand, has regularly and repeatedly come across as almost totally dissociated over half the time. I don't think I've ever asked him a straight question that he has been able to answer. It's really sad, but I also understand that Kaminski has been a regular dope smoker for many years. It'll do that to ya.

But I also think that there IS something to his relationship with Barbra-renee Brighenti being toxic. Even he has said so to me on numerous occasions. Reminds me of a couple of things that Lobaczewski wrote:

The atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the [person as having been ponerized].
I think that what he says about groups can apply to individuals as well. Here's another clue:

Any human group affected by the process described herein is characterized by its increasing regression from natural common sense and the ability to perceive psychological reality. Someone considering this in terms of traditional categories might consider it an instance of "turning into half-wits" or the development of intellectual deficiencies and moral failings. A ponerological analysis of this process, however, indicates that pressure is being applied to the more normal part of the association by pathological factors present in certain individuals who have been allowed to participate in the group because the lack of good psychological knowledge has not madated their exclusion.
That suggests that, if it is not just John going down with Alzheimer's, then his association with someone close is the key. I suspect it is the latter.

That last bit from Kaminski is priceless: "not grounded in consensually accepted psychological theory". This from the guy who told me that his real objection was that psychology was a "Jewish science" and he didn't trust it. Now, he trusts the "Jewish science" and not the challenge to "Jewish science." How does he manage to talk out of both sides of his mouth at once?
 
As a matter of record, I do remember him stating the name of Morgan Reynolds and saying he was his biggest benefactor.
This was a recent phone conversation, within the last month or so.
He doesn't even consider the possibility that he could be the one remembering incorrectly, and he IS.
And on a stack of ( I was gonna say BIBLES, but scratch that....)

Well, presto magico, first he said it and now he didn't say it.
Okey doke, John-boy.
It's always the way....LOL.

Lisa
 
John Kaminski said:
Laura's inconsistent responses to me played a
big part in my decision not to go.
Just so all of ya'll will know about these so-called "inconsistent" responses, let me share them:

From: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Kaminski: 9/11 will never be solved
Date sent: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:42:54 -0400
To: "Laura Knight-Jadczyk"

If you don't think I didn't want to help others, you wouldn't be
talking to me ....

I was just amused by Daryl Bradford Smith's rundown of me still
containing the reason for blasting me, Judy Andreas, now running her as
a featured guest. Quite a twist that tells me a lot about him, not that
I didn't already know (but most don't).

The space between where the Andreas/Makow/Chomsky deception ends and
the crowd of gatekeeper-led American liberals follows ineffectively is
where we should be focusing, and includes the word "ALL." In your
heart, you know this.

Do you think Barbra-renee is a handler? Tell me.

Best wishes,
John K.
I responded

From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk <lark2@cassiopaea.com>
To: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kaminski: 9/11 will never be solved
Date sent: Fri, 26 May 2006 01:45:18 +0200



On 25 May 2006, at 16:42, John Kaminski wrote:
>
> I was just amused by Daryl Bradford Smith's rundown of me still
> containing the reason for blasting me, Judy Andreas, now running her as a
> featured guest. Quite a twist that tells me a lot about him, not that I
> didn't already know (but most don't).
>
> The space between where the Andreas/Makow/Chomsky deception ends and
> the crowd of gatekeeper-led American liberals follows ineffectively is where
> we should be focusing, and includes the word "ALL." In your heart, you know
> this.
>
> Do you think Barbra-renee is a handler? Tell me.

Dear John,

Forget about bloody Daryl Bradford bloody Smith and what he said or didn't
say. Forget about Judy Andreas. Forget about Henry Makow. Forget about Noam
Chomsky. And most of all, forget about what they think about you!

Do you want to get re-involved with Barbra Renee? If so, do it. If you have
to play games to do it, forget it. If you have ambiguity, it ain't right so
forget about her too and whether or not she is a handler or a fondler. If
you have to ask the question, it ain't right. Period.

All of those people, and most of the rest of the alternative news pundits,
are in it for fun and fame more than anything else. If the CIA came along
and offered any one of them $100k for their souls, they'd take it without a
second thought, which is exactly the reason that they will never be made
such an offer, because people with so little integrity and a real
understanding of and concern over the severity of the situation the world is
in are no threat to the powers that be.

The rest are just "useful idiots."

This isn't about who's saying what about who in the alt news community, it's
about the end of the god damn world as we know it.

It's about what a bunch of absolutely insane people in positions of absolute
power on the planet are 100% planning to do to the planet and the people on
it. They ain't all Jews but they ARE all psychopaths - Pathocrats. That's
what's important. They are convinced that non-psychopaths are a threat to
their survival, which they are.

It's about the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of
those of us with normal psychological substrata is thus a "biological"
necessity. Many means have been, are being, and will be utilized to serve
this end, including concentration camps and warfare with an obstinate, well-
armed foe who has been created for the express purpose of devastating and
destroying the human power thrown at it, namely the very people
jeopardizing the pathocrats rule. Once safely dead, the soldiers can then be
decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation
faithful to the pathocracy.

It's about what the "black mamba", Henry Makow, Noam Chomsky et al are too
afraid to even consider: the reality of manipulation from hyperdimensional
space via said Pathocrats.

It's about 6 billion people being frogmarched to their utter destruction
while watching re-runs of "Survivor" via TV screens attached to the front of
their heads.

It's about waking up and taking this very, very seriously, realizing that
there are no reinforcements coming, that the black shirts are banging on the
god-damned door RIGHT NOW and there are only a few dozen of us who can even
hear them.

It's about realising that if you continue on the way you are going you are
still going to be wondering what Daryl Bradford bloody Smith meant when he
said you were a CIA asset when the CIA arrive at your door to take you away
to pull your finger nails out and kick you out of a helicopter in your
underpants 3,000 feet over the Gulf of Mexico.

It's about becoming fully aware of the fact that if WE do not DO something
RIGHT NOW we are all going to DIE!"

L
Now notice, he apparently didn't get it. He wrote back the most asinine response I've ever read:

From: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Kaminski: 9/11 will never be solved
Date sent: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:18:03 -0400
To: "Laura Knight-Jadczyk"

Good points, observations we share.

But you've mentioned it twice, now. Who is my handler?

Best wishes,
John K.
And so, I tried to give him a more accurate answer:

From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Kaminski: 9/11 will never be solved
Date sent: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:33:37 +0200



On 26 May 206, a7:18,Kate > God pos, obioe.>
> But you've mentioned it twice, now. Who is my handler?


Hi,

Don't have enough data to say. Maybe you don't have one, though that is hardly likely. If you are a threat, you've got one, sometimes two and they play "good cop, bad cop". And as soon as you get rid of one, you generally get another.

We finally learned that when we figure out who is the "agent," we just play along because it's easier than having to figure out a whole new ballgame. I could tell you some really funny stories about various ones that have been assigned to us ... They've had to get REALLY slick because we have the C's and they spot 'em every time. The current one is really likeable, good education, has a lot of class and is VERY helpful. We'd like to keep him. He's a lot better than the last one who went down in flames one day after I accidentally exposed him.

In some cases, a real "agent" isn't even necessary because a person's unconscious programs do everything. They only have to do a little maneuvering to put people together with certain "profiles" and let nature do the rest.

Thing is, they've got the best shrinks and advertising and motivation masters that money can buy. They have an unlimited budget. They also have psycopaths who - as Lobaczewski points out - have a very special talent for manipulating people with a normal instinctive substratum. We don't have much of a chance against that kind of firepower unless we have a group and utilize brainstorming and 360 degree observation that comes with a finely tuned group of observers and researchers. Everybody has "blind spots" in the mind, but with a group, you can compensate.

Also, there are other things that are a bit more difficult to perceive and/or combat. Richard Dolan tells us:

Next to the bureau, the military intelligence services became the most important component of the domestic intelligence scene. Army intelligence had nearly unlimited funds, extensive manpower, specialized personnel, deep planning and training resources, and the most sophisticated communications and data processing capability. [...]

The army's intelligence surveillance did not focus on tactical and reconnaissance data, but on political and ideological intelligence within the United States. (This was wholly illegal.) [...]

Then there was the CIA. By the late 1960s, there were more spies than diplomats in the State Department, or employees in the Department of Labor. [...] When the Weather Underground, a radical splinter of the SDS, had an "acid test" to detect agent's provocateurs, they had no idea that the CIA had been tripping on LSD throughout the 1950s, creating a special caste of "enlightened agents" for precisely these occasions.

The agency continued its work on mind control. Following the work of Dr. Jose Delgado [experiments in] Electrical Stimulation of the Brain [were conducted.] This involves implanting electrodes into the brain and body, with the result that the subject's memory, impulses, and feelings could all be controlled. Moreover, ESB could evoke hallucinations, as well as fear and pleasure. "It could literally manipulate the human will at will," [said Dr. Robert Keefe, a neurosurgeon at Tulane University.]

In 1968, George Estabrooks, another spook scientist, spoke indiscreetly to a reporter for the Providence Evening Bulletin. "The key to creating an effective spy or assassin, rests in creating a multiple personality with the aid of hypnosis," a procedure which he described as "child's play."

By early 1969, teams within the CIA were running a number of bizarre experiments in mind control under the name Operation Often. In addition to the normal assortment of chemists, biologists, and conventional scientists, the operation employed psychics and experts in demonology.

Over at the NSA, all one can say with certainty is that its budget dwarfed all others within the intelligence community.

By the early 1970s, there were already means available to alter the moods of unsuspecting persons. A pocket-sized transmitter generating electromagnetic energy at less than 100 milliwatts could do the job. This is no pie-in-the- sky theory. In 1972, Dr. Gordon J.F. McDonald testified before the House Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment on the issue of electromagnetic weapons used for mind control and mental disruption. He stated:

[T]he basic notion was to create, between the electrically charged ionosphere in the higher part of the atmosphere and conducting layers of the surface of the Earth, this neutral cavity, to create waves, electrical waves that would be tuned to the brain waves. ...About ten cycles per second. ...You can produce changes in behavioral patterns or in responses.

The following year, Dr. Joseph C. Sharp, at Walter Reed Hospital, while in a soundproof room, was able to hear spoken words broadcast by 'pulsed microwave audiogram.' These words were broadcast to him without any implanted electronic translation device. Rather, they reached him by direct transmission to the brain.
With that kind of firepower, you can pretty well figure yourself screwed if you don't have a network and the knowledge and awareness.

Notice that research in Electrical Stimulation of the brain indicates that they can produce hallucinations. If you put hallucinations together with words, you can produce just about anything that you want in the way of "noise" to obscure the truth. You name it - they can produce it via voices in the head and hallucinations and transmissions of frequencies. In the same way, they can produce ecstatic states, falling in love, loneliness and/or depression to make a person vulnerable, illnesses, healings, or whatever. And so it is that COINTELPRO manages their "human resources."

People who are very emotional are most vulnerable. With some microwaves and/or ELF, anybody can be totally scrambled.

So, there's really no way to tell if you have one currently, if you had one, or if they just set you up to run like a pinball bouncing from bumper to bumber before falling into a slot.

Learning everything you can about it, and what are the possible "signs" is the first step in dealing with it. Second step is practicing dealing with it while being supported by the 360 vision of a group watching your back. Without spotters you can trust, you are dead in the water.

That's about all I can say in general and it actually covers the subject broadly.

Hope it helps.

L
And that was that.
 
<<From: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Kaminski: 9/11 will never be solved
Date sent: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:42:54 -0400
To: "Laura Knight-Jadczyk"

If you don't think I didn't want to help others, you wouldn't be
talking to me ....

I was just amused by Daryl Bradford Smith's rundown of me still
containing the reason for blasting me, Judy Andreas, now running her as
a featured guest. Quite a twist that tells me a lot about him, not that
I didn't already know (but most don't).>>

Is this Kaminski for real? I have NEVER been on Daryl's show. Once he ran one of my essays "Zionism is Nobody's Friend." He is no fan of mine and I would never go on his show. (not that I have been invited) He and gal pal Eric verge on the paranoid.

I am starting to truly wonder about Kaminski's ONCE fine mind. He is a mess of contradictions. When I knew him, he liked Freud and I was Jung at heart. (sorry....that was painful) However, John's favorite was Ernest Becker and the book The Denial of Death. He felt that Becker had had a great impact on his life and freed him from Barbara Hand Clow and the New Age philosophy. He also told me that Ms. Brighenti, whom he used to call "what's her name", was a bigot. Apparently, "what's her name" had said, regarding Becker, "How can you like that Jew?"

<<It's really sad, but I also understand that Kaminski has been a regular dope smoker for many years. It'll do that to ya.>

One toke over the line, sweet Jesus.
 
hkoehli wrote:

* * * * *

Re: NurgaBurd and Ryan

I think you guys are just not communicating very well. NurgaBurd's point: if the situation came that normal people DEMANDED brain scans, psychopaths would find a way to fake them (or pass them legitimately if, as Laura has stated, socially compensated psychos may not show the same stuff).

Ryan's point: psychopaths have a 'supernatural' ability to spot their own kind, thus they do not need the scans.

Or am I missing something?

* * * * *

No, you're not missing anything. Somehow, the thread that I had started about John deNugent devolved into a thread about me. Sheesh!

The purpose of my initial post was to solicit the opinions of members of this forum, who had already listened to -- or who were willing to listen to -- the Michael Collins Piper shows on RBN of October 18 and 19.

The impression that I formed of John deNugent is that he is a charming, chillingly skillful demagogue and manipulator. I was flabbergasted when, during the Thursday show, Piper stated that candidates for public office should be required to submit to brain scanning.

deNugent seemed to be saying that, for a society of normal people to survive, it had to be cleansed of psychopaths. We need to "filter out" psychopaths; psychopaths should be "isolated from society." (deNugent's exact words.)

Piper has always come off as a decent guy. He tends to be a little too loyal to old friends, as the recent Christopher Bollyn debacle demonstrated.

It appeared to me that deNugent had taken advantage of this loyalty and had manipulated Piper to the point that he (Piper) would make the brain scan suggestion.

I'd still like to know what reaction other members of this forum had to those two shows.

Martin
 
NugaBurd said:
Piper has always come off as a decent guy. He tends to be a little too loyal to old friends, as the recent Christopher Bollyn debacle demonstrated.

It appeared to me that deNugent had taken advantage of this loyalty and had manipulated Piper to the point that he (Piper) would make the brain scan suggestion.

I'd still like to know what reaction other members of this forum had to those two shows.

Martin
While you may be right about Bollyn-Piper show: brain scan suggestion was somewhat not well thought out - I'd like to stress that your comments on science were also not well thought out. We do make mistakes, once in a while. The main point is: to learn from our own mistakes, and from mistakes of others.
 
NugaBurd said:
The purpose of my initial post was to solicit the opinions of members of this forum, who had already listened to -- or who were willing to listen to -- the Michael Collins Piper shows on RBN of October 18 and 19.
I've listened to them, and overall I think the discussions were pretty ok. The subject is FINALLY up, and they didn't mess it up too much. Yes, the brain scan idea is not so well thought up, and it is indicative of a more general issue: to get someone else to fix our problems.

This same theme is something that we have had to deal with as well. Instead of relying on, for example, the C's to tell us what to do, who is what, etc. we have to instead learn to deal with our problems ourselves. Then we can do so even when there are no C's around, when noone else can do for us what we should do ourselves. Plus, we then have the opportunity to teach others how to deal with their problems, so that eventually everyone is more knowledgeable and self-sufficient. That is what we're striving for I think.

When it comes to psychopaths the first step, then, is to learn about it and UNDERSTAND it, to the point where you can apply it in our own life. I am, for example, "fortunate enough" (as Don Juan would have put it) to have a psycho in my own work environment, a petit tyrant, and it is extremely educating to try to deal with him using the things I've learnt here. When we all have learnt these lessons it may or may not be a good idea to use scans to simplify our lives, just as we use computers and not pens to write these days, but it may also be that such things are unnecessary for the simple reason that anyone will be able to See properly what is what anyway.

When dealing with this topic it is also important to consider the ponerogenic processes, whereby normal people, or traumatized people, can adopt the viewpoint of psychopaths. These people, while being temporarily mesmerized by the psychopathic point of view, can and should be treated. Normalcy is possible for them. When we get to these kinds of cases, where all is not black and white, I doubt that a brain scan is the way to go.

Having each person on this planet understand these issues is a better goal.

Or so I think.
 
It is absurd to think that the solution is as simple as a brain scan machine imho. If such a thing is to be made, one first has to learn to SEE and recognize them consciously. Because as things stand right now, psychopaths will be in charge of making this machine, in charge of putting it to use, in charge of financing it, and in charge of giving everyone else the results. This brain-scan machine is a shortcut that is devoid of consciousness - it's a machine, and as any machine, it can be tampered with at every level of its existance (its creation, its programming, its execution, its actual application, its results, and much more). But for example, our group here is such a machine. But it's a conscious machine, and while it CAN be tampered with in theory, that can only happen if the machine already became corrupted or ponerized. As long as we remain true to our goal and the methods used to achieve it, our group here cannot be corrupted. Only a conscious machine can be incorruptible due to free will, due to ability to recognize context and subtleties and adjust as needed, adjust our operation and perception etc. Because we have a conscious goal. Machine has no such thing, only a programmed goal.

And I think that this is true for any group that has the same goal and the same methods of achieving it and actively undergoes the process. I think that once humanity as a whole learns and understands Ponerology, no machine will be necessary at all. The only reason for a machine IS to prevent people from having to UNDERSTAND the phenomonon, all the subtleties of pathocracy, because they would rely on some machine to do the work for them - and that's precisely the point!! But this new Diebold (smirk) pathocracy-detection machine is no substitute for knowledge, and if the population remains largely ignorant and dependant on the machine, it will change absolutely nothing, osit. They made those voting machines with the same intention..

I agree that it's a lot more difficult for a normal person to recognize a psychopath than it is for a psychopath to recognize another psychopath. But that's because of mind programming/ponerization - because of how the psychopath (aka the magician) influenced the mind of the normal person by using our own mechanicalness against us. Once this nonsense is stripped away, once the workings/subleties of the pathocracy and the ponerized state of mind is understood, the distortions/illusions/wishful thinking/BS is wiped away, then psychopaths are no longer quite so hidden from view. They rely on these illusions and wishful thinking, rely on our ponerization, rely on our ignorance and naivete, rely on our empathy which leads to susceptibility to projection of our soul essence on the psychopath, rely on all these things to keep hidden. But when we understand all this, we can recognize a psychopath just as well, if not better than, another psychopath would, osit.

Knowledge protects. I think it may also be safe to say that it doesn't take a genetic psychopath to act like a psychopath. If you take a person with empathy and manipulate/confuse him and reverse his sense of right/wrong upside down, he can commit the most horrible atrocities and think he's doing good. So a politician who is not a psychopath is no guarantee of anything. This is also why a movie like "I, Robot" is silly because a robot without consciousness can never know right vs wrong. You cannot tell a robot to never kill someone and expect him to do so. All you have to do is to confuse him, to redefine what is "killing" in his robot mind, and he will start killing while thinking he's doing something else entirely, and never going against his initial programming of "do not kill" because he won't realialise that he already is. This is also true for a normal human to a large degree. And the only way to avoid such tampering is to have consciousness, which even people don't really have and so it must be developed with a lot of work. But while we are machines with consciousness potential, the diebold brainscan machines are not. To a large degree, psychopaths are also not. So in fact, it is my theory that once the world understands ponerology, psychopaths will prove to be idiots. They appear geniuses are manipulation etc, but it is only that way because we're so vulnerable to it. But they are not creative, and I am willing to bet that once humanity snaps out of this nonsense (IF it does), we will be laughing long and hard at how a bunch of certifiable idiots could outwit ALL of us for so long. But only because we are machines, and it takes only a little bit of wit to outsmart a machine. It's like, the psychopath, is by design, a machine that is created and exists for manipulating us (the other machine). So it has every advantage by default, they are designed as the predator, we as the prey. But when we redesign ourselves and begin to truly SEE, we will see them as nothing more than machines, and although they have pretty complex programming, it is still only programming which fundementally separates it from someone that has developed, through a lot of work, some sort of consciousness that can go beyond just mechanical existance.

I think it's kinda like us and animals. A human stands no chance at fighting a wolf on its own turf. So as long as a human acts like a rabbit, in a programmed fashion, then the wolf, who is a predator that is PROGRAMMED to eat rabbits, will always win! But a human, even if he was the size of a rabbit, can very easily overpower any wolf if it understands the wolf. It's nothing but a predatorial machine, and it only has power over the rabbit as long as a rabbit is doing what rabbits do because they are ignorant and mechanical themselves. But if the rabbit changed its programming, and eliminated a lot of it, it can surprise the wolf and trap it quite easily, like a human can with a little bit of creativity, and knowledge.

Sorry for the length of the post :\
 
An additional email to John Kaminski from Ark:

From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
To: John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>,
"Laura Knight-Jadczyk"
Lisa Guliani
Date sent: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:36:37 +0200
Subject: Re: DARPA etc
Copies to: sott
Priority: normal

Hi John,

This is your informant:

from email of Weidner to Laura - December 2001:

"Discretion is the most difficult of the qualities. That is why it is last. It
is where everyone gets burnt - from VB, to me, to you etc. That is why their is
a need for secret societies. Read Manley Hall's opening to Secret Teachings.
(he died trying to get to Zaca Lake.) He says it best. Pythagoras, Hypatia and
many others were killed by the insidious, nefarious 'mob'. They will come after
us also if we are not careful.

This is what I am creating at Zaca. A place where the secrets can be
discussed and spoken without the mob finding out. "

Jay Weidner - the "secret society" man. You can find more about Alvin Wiley (aka Jay
Weidner) here:

http://www.cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley.htm

and then, perhaps, though I am not holding my breath, you will understand what plot you
are in.

Kind regards,

ark
 
JudeA said:
I am starting to truly wonder about Kaminski's ONCE fine mind.
Was it EVER really "fine"? Or were we ALL deceived? It's beginning to look like Kaminski is at the center of the problem, and that it is HE who is playing quite a few women for sympathy, money, support, sex, and so on. I begin to wonder if we were to go back over all his essays to date, examine them with what we NOW know about him, if we would still get the impression that he had a fine mind? I am thinking about all that Lobaczewski has had to say about schizoida. Allow me to quote the passages. Read them and see if the shoe fits:

Lobaczewski said:
Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this traditional relationship.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species' common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd.

Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people's intentions.

They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others.

Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: "Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea." Let us call this typical expression the "schizoid declaration".

Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, especially when the schizoids embitter other people's lives. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid's failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand.

Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to "ordinary" people.

The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7 % of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary.

A schizoid's ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children.

Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider "proper" - i.e. "black or white" - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors' characters are really like. Ignorant of the true condition of the author, such uninformed readers tend to interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation due to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view.

At the same time, many other readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause.

An analysis of the role played by Karl Marx's works easily reveals all the above-mentioned types of apperception and the social reactions which engendered animosity between large groups of people.

When reading any of those disturbingly divisive works, we should examine them carefully for any of these characteristic deficits, or even an openly formulated schizoid declaration. Such a process will enable us to gain a proper critical distance from the contents and make it easier to dig the potentially valuable elements out of the doctrinaire material. If this is done by two or more people who represent greatly divergent interpretations, their methods of perception will come closer together, and the causes of dissent will dissipate. Such a project might be attempted as a psychological experiment and for purposes of proper mental hygiene.

[...]

Who plays the first crucial role in this process of the origin of pathocracy, schizoids or characteropaths? It appears to be the former; therefore, let us delineate their role first.

During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit dependent upon injustice to other individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix the world. Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world view, so that a schizoidally impoverished psychological world view does not stand out as odd during such times and is accepted as legal tender.

These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world view.
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual's personality, which causes the latter's behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features.

If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances generally just consider them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society on a wide scale and for a long time.

The conviction that Karl Marx is the best example of this is correct as he was the best-known figure of that kind. Frostig , a psychiatrist of the old school, included Engels and others into a category he called "bearded schizoidal fanatics". The famous writings attributed to "Zionist Wise Men" at the turn of the century begin with a typically schizoidal declaration. The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. After all we have to remember that 97 % of all Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations, albeit to a markedly lesser extent.

Our inheritance from this period includes world-images, scientific traditions, and legal concepts flavored with the shoddy ingredients of a schizoidal apprehension of reality.

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should consider seriously based on his convictions and his reason.

That is the first mistake.

The oversimplified pattern of ideas, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, tends to exert an intense attracting influence on individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies of their own.

Such writings are particularly attractive to a hystericized society. Others who may read such writings will be immediately provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, though they also they fail to grasp the essential cause of the error: that it emerges from a biologically deviant mind.

Societal interpretation of such writings and doctrinaire declarations breaks down into main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict.

The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. These reactions contain the component of a moralistic interpretation of pathological phenomena.

The second and third branches relate to two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.

The critically-corrective approach is taken by people whose feel for psychological reality is normal and they tend to incorporate the more valuable elements of the work. They then trivialize the obvious errors and fill in the missing elements of the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is cannot be completely free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with psychological deficiencies of their own: diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors.

Pathological acceptance of schizoidal writings or declarations by other deviants often brutalizes the authors' concepts and promotes ideas of force and revolutionary means.

The passage of time and bitter experience has unfortunately not prevented this characteristic misunderstanding born of schizoid nineteenth-century creativity, with Marx's works at the fore, from affecting people and depriving them of their common sense.

If only for purposes of the above-mentioned psychological experiment, it is good practice for developing awareness of this pathological factor by searching the works of K. Marx for several statements with these characteristic deficits. When such a study is conducted by several people with varied world views, the experiment will show how a clear picture of reality can be restored, and it becomes easier to find a common language.

Schizoidia has thus played an essential role as one of the factors in the genesis of the evil threatening our contemporary world. Practicing psychotherapy upon the world will therefore demand that the results of such evil be eliminated as skillfully as possible.
I think that most of us have taken the "critically corrective" approach and have thus failed to see that the core of the problem is John, himself.
 
foofighter said:
Having each person on this planet understand these issues is a better goal.
Having thought about this some more, I would like to formulate a different requirement for becoming a politician in high office: it should be required that any such person have read at least three books on psychopathology, one of which has to be Political Ponerology. Any conscious experience with psychopathic individuals is a bonus, and of course helps in the understanding of said material.

If all politicians did this, and we started with a non-pathocratic system, then this itself would hopefully immunize the system towards these kinds of diseases to a reasonably satisfactory degree.

The same goes, of course, for being a board member in any corporation, or any other leadership role in an organization.

This is along the idea of "fight for your own destiny" instead of "fight anyone opposing your destiny", i.e. it is a matter of self-defense and not offense, and as such is more in line with the principles of STO.
 
I found it rather interesting (for lack of a more descriptive word) that when one goes to Mr. Kaminski's site and clicks on "Parasite Alert", a whole rewritten essay comes up. He has removed the ZALMEN lie as well as the Rabbi one. Two lies down, several left to go.

Caught with his hand in the cookie jar??? (or perhaps, in John's case, someone else's wallet)

If he wanted to be entirely accurate.....Mr. K could have shortened the essay even further.

Parasite Alert By and about JOHN KAMINSKI
 
JudeA said:
Parasite Alert By and about JOHN KAMINSKI
That seems to be about the size of it; parasite on women. I actually pity Barbra-renee now.
 
<<That seems to be about the size of it; parasite on women. I actually pity Barbra-renee now.>>

Latest rumor is that they have broken up for the 137th time. (but, of course, that could have changed as I am writing this)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom