JudeA said:
Laura, I have really tried to avoid the "he said / she said" stuff on the Net. Only when I found myself in the middle of it, did I jump in, for it was then that I did not have to guess about the veracity of what people were saying.
Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? I realized quite early on, that having someone defame you - just telling out and out lies about you - is difficult to combat. Especially when it is a psychopath doing it: someone who tells lies with such assurance and seeming certitude, that even if the truth is supported by witnesses and evidence, people will still believe the psychopath.
That's why I wrote the
"Plausible Lie."
I mean, there you are, and you KNOW the truth, you KNOW lies are being told - or, at the very least, things are being horribly twisted and misrepresented - but NO ONE believes you; instead they believe someone you KNOW is lying and, more than that, you know that he/she KNOWS they are lying; and you just can't grok it. You can't comprehend how or why anyone would lie that way, causing so much hurt and damage to other people, for basically no reason at all. Sure, they make up reasons, but those are lies too.
That's what got me started on this whole "researching psychopathy" project. I needed, more than anything, to understand what could make people act that way.
Well, here we are, years down the road, and I sure do understand. I'm not angry anymore, in fact, I don't expect any of them to act differently than they do; that is what they are. But I know a whole lot more about how these things work and how they operate on other people. And that is how I could recognize what was being done to Lisa. I also remembered how it felt when it was first done to me and I knew that there was no way I was going to stand around and let those creeps do that without saying something.
You see, there is a certain flavor to that sort of thing that isn't present when a person is simply pointing out facts and omissions like those of Rense, Bridges, Weidner, Williams, Alex Jones, and others. I generally try to stick to facts and observations, even if those observations are from other people. We HAVE to get observations from other people, only we have to be careful of what other people we get those observations from.
I have learned from this situation a bit of a refinement of the problem, and that is that I, too, have tended to take the "critically corrective" interpretation of things said or written by Kaminski.
This is something we all need to think about.
JudeA said:
Bridges and Weidner are two people I do not know. (though I know John K was in touch with them)
I find it truly ironic that he claims he was "scared" of channeling, and got his info from a couple of guys that are into Black Magic.
JudeA said:
Lisa Guiliani and I took a wrong turn, and I am still not clear as to why. I suspect it was that I stayed on Rense's site and did not speak out. Perhaps there was more to it.....provided by John Kaminksi and his distortions. He KNEW how much I liked Lisa. He saw me sitting on his porch speaking and laughing with Lisa during my first visit to Florida.
Well, you may be quite right about that. It comes back to what I just said: when YOU know someone is lying about you, or doing things to hurt you, and even when you present evidence and facts to prove it, and others still won't believe it, and choose, instead, to be loyal to the liar, what else can you think except that the one who is loyal to a liar is, themselves, of that same ilk?
This actually makes me think of how the same tactic is used in the 9/11 discourse. I wrote about this strange phenomenon on
my blog once:
What I noticed about the reactions to the Pentagon Strike that we have received via email is that they are overwhelmingly positive. Sensible people who can see through Bush and the Neocons have no problem seeing that there was no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. The negative reactions are also interesting; they fall into two categories: 1) honest, sincere people who have been influenced by the cointelpro/psy-ops who then, without even being aware, become de facto cointelpro agents; 2) the REAL cointelpro/psy-ops agents.
To give an example of what I think is the former type: not too long ago, Jeff Wells, on his Rigorous Intuition blog made the astonishing remark that:
Jeff Wells said:
"I've posted a number of times on the blog about the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO."
First of all notice that, like a robot, he is repeating "no plane," as though that is what is being said. It is not. What is being said is that it was NOT a Boeing 757. But this is the first clue that Jeff Wells is mechanically repeating something that has impressed itself on his mind in some way.
The second thing to note is this astonishing phrase:
The "sand of physical evidence" ??? !!!!
Now, let me say right up front here that being accused of being cointelpro ourselves is truly bizarre, but not unexpected; after all, that's what cointelpro does: muddy the waters, create foodfights, and generally make it impossible for people to get together and actually make a difference.
The very fact that Jeff Wells can say that (and I think he's a sincere guy) just proves my point about psy-ops and how it affects the mind. It demands of us the question:
how someone can be so mentally divided that, on the one hand, they can question why the majority of Americans cannot see through Bush and the Neocons as an evil Fascist system, and on the other hand, turn around and do just what those people who support Bush are doing: believe that "witness testimony" is more reliable than physical evidence! Isn't that something of a contradiction?
That's the same kind of general hystericization that has taken over the minds of Americans and makes it almost impossible to show them facts about Bush and Gang and to get them to see the reality. That's the same kind of mindset that allows Americans to sit by complacently while Bush and the Neocons wage pre-emptive war, torture, divest Americans of their rights, engage in illegal spying, vote fraud, destroy the economy of America, and the whole host of criminal activities going on in this country.
And if anybody thinks that this gang of criminal psychopaths can't run psy-ops to produce "innocent" witnesses to say anything they want them to say, or to even buy witnesses, think again! And if you still think you can vote the bastards out of office, you had better wake up before it is too late.
So, when somebody says: "the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence" what he is really saying is that he MUST acknowledge that the physical evidence (or lack thereof) is compelling, but still - because COINTELPRO has been run so effectively on the 911 truth movement - OR because most of the 911 Truth Movement IS COINTELPRO - he just has to go with the "witnesses." And many people will do that because the alternative is far too horrible to contemplate.
And that is the big problem with the whole 911 truth movement. COINTELPRO that produces such muddled thinking as is evidenced in Jeff Wells, a guy I used to read faithfully and really admired. In the case of Jeff Wells and most of the 911 researchers, I am reminded of the Protocols above, where it says:
Protocols said:
When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
That is exactly what is being done with the 911 movement.
But psychopaths somehow manage to both create false evidence or to lie against the evidence and their lies carry and the evidence is ignored. Well, ordinary liars can do it too, but nobody does it as good as a psychopath!!
So, what it amounts to is basically what Martin Niemoller said:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
It's interesting to note that Niemoller was an early supporter of Hitler, but when he realized who and what Hitler was, he changed his mind and was later imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau.
This little poem is basically about the tendency of human beings to "not get involved" in anything that is "messy" or "argumentative" or "he said/she said" distasteful. And until we realize that this tendency of human beings has been deliberately created and manipulated by psychopaths in order to help conceal their nefarious manipulations and protect themselves, we will forever remain in their power.
To become free, we have to first begin to rid ourselves of the programs they have inculcated into us since childhood by means of religions, social mores, familial demands and expectations, and so on. And that is not an easy task. That means that we must effectively go against what we call our "hearts" since most of our "feelings" have nothing to do with our hearts and everything to do with our programs. For the most part, these are the same programs that cause women to be attracted over and over again to the same type of man who uses and abuses her (physically or emotionally).
I'll never forget the first time I really, REALLY, became aware of this problem. I was in my 20s, working as a social worker for the State of Florida, sitting there day after day interviewing welfare applicants and "certifying" their eligibility. A woman was sitting on the other side of my desk with a huge black eye, with bruises all over, and was appealing for help for the umpteenth time (she had a thick file). She had lost her eligibility some months previous when her abusive husband returned to the home and they effected a reconciliation. Prior to that, the previous case-worker had set her up in housing, to go to school, daycare for her three little children, food stamps, and so on. She could have finished the school and gone on to live her life free of this creep.
But what did she do? He begged and pleaded and told her he had reformed, and she threw it all away for his empty promises.
So, I went over the case and saw that this was not the FIRST time this had happened. It was a repeating pattern. So I asked her: "If he has done the same thing over and over again, and you KNOW he is almost 100% likely to be lying to you, why do you believe him?"
And she said to me: "Well, you know how it is... you can't live with them and can't live without them."
I was stunned. I mean, that's the best answer she could come up with?
Aside from the fact that I realized that the woman was emotionally crippled, I also realized how insidious those kinds of sayings really are. They are part of what helps to shape our beliefs, our culture, and how we react to the conditions of life.
The horrors of psychopathy operate in our world under cover of just such paramoralistic sayings and we don't even realize it. And with similar, chilling complacency, we consign others to their own hells because we do not learn what we need to learn and stand up for our own kind against individuals who are, clearly, not quite human.
JudeA said:
If my loyalty is misplaced I apologize to everyone who has been let down by me.
Apologies are all fine and good; have you learned anything? And if so, what are you going to do with it?
