John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

[JudeA]

<<You sure didn't have any problem getting into the He Said/She said stuff with Marsha Mcclelland in a public forum gossiping about me, and you sure didn't have any problem getting into the same sort of stuff when you were kssing up to exposed con-man and psycho Jack Blood, on the radio, Judy.
We should stop pointing out the people doing wrong within this movement and just all "get along", right?
You did write the article about backstabbing in the alternative media, didn't you?
We should just overlook wrongdoing and not expose the bad guys.
Is this your sense of right and wrong, Judy?
Is this your "conscience" speaking?
Stop telling lies. If you had any strong sense of right and wrong, you would listen to your conscience and act accordingly. The hell with publicity. It's always to look a certain way in the eye of the beholder.

These people here may not know of you or realize the kinds of games you play, but there is at least ONE person here who does. And that person is ME.>>

Lisa, I have been on Jack's show, Dave's show, Jeff's show, Rick Adams, Hesham Tillawi, Ingri Cassell and on and on. I am always friendly....why wouldn't I be?

I was always friendly to you....but you cut me off. I sent a copy of one of my emails to you.... to Henry ...because he's the only one whose email I have and can do a "forward". I want to prove that you are not telling the truth.

<<You took no stance on the Alex Jones-Jeff Rense censorship issue either.
You take no "stance" except that which will advance you in some way in the eyes of people you want to impress or those from whom you seek attention.
You've taken no public "stance" in the whole Bollyn incident (apart from the feeble post you made on another thread in this forum just recently).>>

Here you are totally off course because I sent you a letter and it was not blocked. (just like the one that I will forward to anyone who needs proof)

The crux of the matter is ...you wanted me to fight with you against GCN and I would not do it.
It is not my style and it never will be. If you are interested in divide and conquer, well we are two different species. I am not going to apologize for being a peacemaker. Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger.

You may resent my being on this forum and out of deference to you, I will leave. But your stories about me are not true and you know that very well.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

If you are interested in divide and conquer, well we are two different species. I am not going to apologize for being a peacemaker. Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger.

There may be no cookbook, no recipe on how to build a solution to any problem. There is no particular technique that will work on anything all of the time. Sometimes "peacemaking", or may I call it "mediating", is appropriate. For example, when 2 parties with similar and sincere intentions get into a disagreement that becomes emotionally obscured, then mediation can be very helpful. If one of the parties is consciously lying, or heavily invested in some fantasy version of reality, then mediation favors the lies if it is seeking the average, or compromise, between the 2 views. You could be sometimes mistaking an attempt to give the truth to the lie, so to speak, as "hatred and anger".

 

[Pierre]

I am not going to apologize for being a peacemaker. Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger.

I guess that though it's not easy it is possible to stance for your opinion, to defend you point of view without falling into hatred or anger.

Discussions, conflicts can be managed this way.

I am not sure that agreeing with anyone, particularly psychos or warmongers can bring peace. On the contrary it allows them to go on freely with their destructive behaviours.

It might be a difficult step, but as discussed in other threads, it's only when an individual is able to say (and do) consistent "nos" and consistents "yes" that he starts to really be able to fully exercice his free will.

Like anything else it has a price, those "nos" can lead to opposition, exarcebated negative reactions from the other one and ultimately separation.

That is a very high price for someone who overvalues some emotional quest like entertaining the illusion of being loved by agreeing to whatever the other one does.

 

[Beau]

The crux of the matter is ...you wanted me to fight with you against GCN and I would not do it.
It is not my style and it never will be. If you are interested in divide and conquer, well we are two different species. I am not going to apologize for being a peacemaker. Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger.

I don't understand. If we are pointing out the lies of people like Jones, Rense, Icke, etc. how is that in any way "playing divide and conquer" or "attacking"? I think you've got the situation a little backwards. If you have knowledge that someone a liar, is it not right to tell others of this knowledge? Maybe Lisa wanted you to be aware of this for your benefit? And somehow you turn that into spreading hatred and anger?

And you even cast yourself into the light of being a peacemaker. Making peace with psychopaths(or perhaps a heavily ponerized individual) is NOT something I would recommend. That "be nice" program can really turn the screws on us JudeA. Sometimes, you need to act in favor of YOUR destiny :)

 

[herondancer]

The crux of the matter is ...you wanted me to fight with you against GCN and I would not do it. It is not my style and it never will be. If you are interested in divide and conquer, well we are two different species. I am not going to apologize for being a peacemaker. Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger.

JudeA,

Please go back and read the posts about our "make nice" programs. They make us play right into the hands of psychopaths. You seem unable to distinguish (at least for now) the difference between sharing crucial information about the real nature of these people and "fighting against them". Pointing out the facts is **not** an attack. It is contributing to the objective perception of the world. Laura has done such a service for you by helping you to see the subjective nature of your perceptions about John and Jeff. You claim to have come to a more accurate picture of the situation. But you don't seem willing to put yourself out there to perform the same service for others. If you want to be a REAL "peacemaker", I think this is the place start.

Just an observation

Herondancer

 

[Laura]

The crux of the matter is ...you wanted me to fight with you against GCN and I would not do it.
It is not my style and it never will be. If you are interested in divide and conquer, well we are two different species. I am not going to apologize for being a peacemaker. Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger.

As others have already pointed out, peacemaking with psychopaths and other deviants is nothing more than giving them a license to hurt others.

In fact, there is a "style" of politics called "appeasement" that was practiced with Hitler. Here's a bit about the problem from a recent editorial we published. (It might help you get some fire in your belly to read the SOTT page daily):

Definitions of Appeasement on the Web:

Policy adopted by major Western political powers towards Adolf Hitler's ambitions in the Munich Agreement of 1938. Leaders, famously including Britain's Neville Chamberlain, agreed to allow Hitler portions of land in Eastern Europe in order to avoid war.

Making of concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid war.

Wikipedia tells us: Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.

In short, Appeasement can be defined as 'giving a bully what he wants'.

Let's look at how appeasement worked with Adolf Hitler and the Nazification of Germany.

After coming to power in 1933, Hitler immediately began to re-arm Germany which was a breach of the Treaty of Versailles.. After 1936, he reintroduced conscription, and by 1939 Germany had 95 warships, 8,250 airplanes and an army of 1million. Britain, France and the U.S. turned a blind eye; Britain even made a naval agreement with Germany, accepting Germany's right to have a navy that equalled 35% of the British navy. This was appeasement.

In 1936, Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland. France did nothing to stop this open breach of the Treaty of Versailles. Again, this was appeasement.

In March 1938 Hitler invaded Austria and declared Anschluss in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Again, France and Britain did nothing - even though the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg asked Britain and France to help. This (and the West's ignoring of human rights violations such as Kristallnacht, 1938) were also acts of appeasement.

The fact is, many people in France and Britain were not just appeasing Hitler; many of the French and English actively sympathised with Hitler's aims; so their inaction was purposive.

It is the crisis of 1938 that is usually marked as the major act of appeasement. Local German officials asserted that the Sudeten people had been discriminated against by the Czech government. On 15 September, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Hitler threatened war, but promised that this was the 'last problem to be solved'. Chamberlain apparently believed that Hitler was 'a man who can be relied upon', and persuaded the Czechs to hand over the Sudetenland. But when he met Hitler again, at Bad Godesberg on 22 September, there were more demands which Chamberlain refused. War seemed near, and Chamberlain was not sure Czechoslovakia was a 'great issue' which needed war. Instead, he decided that it was 'a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing' and, at Munich (29 September), Britain and France gave the Sudetenland to Germany. This was appeasement.

In March 1939, Hitler invaded the remains of Czechoslovakia without resistance from the French or the British. It was this event that finally convinced France and Great Britain that the Fuhrer would not stop his multi-lateral aggressions without forcible intervention. Soviet leaders saw the weakness of France and Britatin, and signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler that divided Poland into German and Soviet territories.

On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, with the firm belief that Britain and France would not object. Ironically, in March, 1939, a British-French alliance pledged to aide Poland with all available power "...in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces," (Neville Chamberlain, Great Britain, House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 3e45, March 31, 1939). On September 3, 1939, Great Britain and France finally declared war against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

However, a major War and the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent human beings could have been avoided by effective, early action. In his 1956 book "The Controversy of Zion", former Times of London chief correspondent, Douglas Reed, states:

"From the start of Hitler's regime (on that night) all professional observers in Berlin, diplomats and journalists, knew that it meant a new war unless this were prevented. Prevention at that time was relatively simple; Mr. Winston Churchill in his memoirs rightly called the Second War "the unnecessary war". It could have been prevented by firm Western opposition to Hitler's preliminary warlike forays (into the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia) at any time up to 1938 when (as Mr. Churchill also confirms) the German generals, about to overthrow Hitler, were themselves undone by the Western capitulation to him at Munich.

The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he would make war if allowed and so advised their governmental or editorial superiors in London. The Chief Correspondent of The Times in Berlin, Mr. Norman Ebbutt (I was the second correspondent) reported early in 1933 that war must be expected in about five years unless it were forethwarted, and this particular report was printed. He, I and many other reporters during the following years grew alarmed and perplexed by the suppression, "burking" and ignoring of dispatches, and by the depiction of Hitler, in Parliament and the newspapers, as an inherently good man who would remain peaceable if his just grievances were met (at others' expense).

This period has become known as that of "the policy of appeasement" but encouragement is the truer word, and the policy changed the probability of war into certainty. The strain brought Mr. Ebbutt to physical collapse. From 1935 on I was Chief Correspondent in Vienna, which was then but another vantage-point for surveying the German scene. From there, late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin "by the autumn of 1939"; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor. I was in Vienna during Hitler's invasion and then, after brief arrest by Storm Troops on the way out, transferred to Budapest, where I was when the supreme capitulation of Munich followed in September 1938. Realizing then that a faithful reporter could do nothing against "the policy of appeasement", and that his task was meaningless, I resigned by expostulant letter, and still have the editor's discursive acknowledgement.

Fourteen years later, The Times publicly confessed error, in respect of its "policy of appeasement", in that curiously candid Official History of 1952. This contains a grudging reference to me: "There were resignations from junior members of the staff" (I was forty-three in 1938, was Chief Correspondent for Central Europe and the Balkans, had worked for The Times for seventeen years, and I believe I was the only correspondent to resign). In this volume The Times also undertook never so to err again: "it is not rash to say that aggression will never again be met at Printing House Square in terms of mere 'Munich'." The editorial articles and reports of The Times about such later events as the bisection of Europe in 1945, the Communization of China, the Zionization of Palestine and the Korean war seem to me to show that its policies did not change at all." [Douglas Reed, Controversy of Zion]

Official history, written as always by the victors, records WWII as a classic battle of good verus evil, yet as Reed points out, Hitler's reign could have been cut-short not long after the 'false-flag' burning of the Reichstag in 1933, if there had been more moral rectitude and less appeasment on the part of British, French and American political leaders of the day. As Reed also points out, many laypeople at the time (including Reed) saw the handwriting on the wall and attempted to expose it, but to no avail. By 1938, when Chamberlain was still greeting Hitler in London as the 'German gentleman' par excellance, Hitler had already invaded Czechoslovakia and his policies of oppression and murder of minorities and political oponents were already well advanced.

As late as November 1938, less than a year before the Nazi invasion of Poland that was the final straw for the British and French, Hitler was appearing in issues of magazines such as the British 'Homes and Gardens' where he was portrayed relaxing at his mountain retreat and described as a "droll ranconteur and art lover". Within a few short years thereafter, the self-deluded policies pursued by Chamberlain, Churchill, Roosevelt and later the French Vichy government towards Nazi fascism had contributed directly to the final World War II death toll of 65 million, mostly innocent, people.

But what of today? Has the lesson been learned? If the modern world were faced with a belligerant and extremist force that appeared bent on the creation of yet another, and perhaps decisive, world-wide conflagration, would the same powers that appeased Hitler continue to "appease" such a force? Sadly, the answer appears to be an unequivocal "Yes."

Now, I hope that you can draw the inferences from the above remarks about the appeasement policy toward Hitler and your own appeasement policies towards individuals who have shown evidence on numerous occasions of not having the best interests of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or the Alt Media public, at heart.

You say that Lisa "wanted" you to fight with her against GCN... but it is not your "style". You see it as "divide and conquer." I think that those who appeased Hitler thought the same thing.

You also say: "Your strategy of attacking everyone is not the way I choose to live. I feel that the planet has enough hatred and anger."

I think that those who appeased Hitler propagated the same ideals. In fact, those are the very ideals propagated by psychopaths as empty paramoralisms that serve to keep them hidden in our society, and in control . And, like I said, there is a difference between ad hominem attacks and bringing up facts and data that support the hypothesis that an individual is not what they claim to be, nor are their intentions what they claim they are.

Finally, you say: "well we are two different species".

On that, you may be right. You might enjoy reading two of the esoteric pieces on our site that deal with these subjects:

The first is: Organic Portals: The Other Race

And the second is:

Darkness Over Tibet

In the book from which this article takes its title, T.S. Illion describes a "morality play" he attended in Tibet:

The play glorified renunciation and nonresistance to evil. Again and again it stressed the prospect of getting happiness as a reward for renunciation.

The hero of the play (I use the word in a technical sense, for a pitiful hero he was for that matter) was out to discard his personality in order to get happiness.

Why do people seek an unselfish conception of life?

Is it because we have so much love and sympathy with the troubles of others that we begin to be ashamed of our selfishness which causes so much suffering?

Or is it because we want happiness in exchange for a non-egocentrical conception of life?

In the play performed in the monastery the motive of the hero was the latter and not the former. He wanted bliss as a reward for discarding his personality.

The play started with an exceedingly long monologue on the evils of existence. [...] "Everything is unreal. Annihilation is the goal."

I compared the poor hero in the Tibetan play with the glorious figure of Hamlet, who intensely feels the dreadful tragedy of being only a small man and nothing but man. Being a genius and capable of the most intense feelings, Hamlet suffers infinitely more than the Tibetan hero, but nevertheless he has the courage and nobility of character to face his troubles as a creature without any thought of escape or salvation.

The hero was married and had children. He worked to feed his family.

He was attacked by a swarm of mosquitoes. [...] The hero gave his lifeblood to the mosquitoes! "The dear little ones," he said, "let them have a good meal. I have to feed my family, but the family and the mosquitoes are the same thing!"

Having fed so many mosquitoes, the hero was taken ill and the play went on describing his sufferings and the sufferings of his family brought about by his inability to work.

Just when their food supply was running out, rats put in an appearance in their house. The hero said:

"Eat, little rats, eat, eat, eat. Feed your little bodies, grey brothers. Eat, grey brothers, eat, eat, eat. Our food is yours, grey brothers. Eat, little rats, eat, eat, eat."

The rats ate the food of the semi-starved family and became more and more numerous.

A scene came in now in which the hero exalted the happiness of giving away everything. "If the rats eat the first half of my meal, I give them the second half," he exclaimed, in what a heretical spectator might have called a fit of religious hysteria.

He did not seem to consider what his own children thought of it, but this seemed to be of less importance to him than the well-being of the rats.

All the above had lasted more than two hours, but the play went on uninterruptedly - the Tibetan crowd following it with breathless suspense. Some people had their mouths wide open, while others shed tears, and not a whisper could be heard.

In the next scene, all the rats had become fourfold in number. All the food was eaten. The hero and his children were seated in the centre and a few dozen rats walked round them in circles which were becoming smaller and smaller.

"Round, round. We are hungry. round, round, round. There is nothing to eat, round, round, round," came the chorus of the rats.

The hero started a long monologue full of pity for the rats. The religious gentleman seemed to have forgotten all about the hunger of his own children.

Suddenly the rats seized one of the children and carried the little one outside in order to devour it. The hero was unperturbed. He started a lofty monologue about the joy of sacrificing one's own children and the glory of union of all creatures. [...] He envied his child, he declared, because it had for a short while at least made its escape from this world of suffering.

Finally a lama appeared in the show. [...] Everything the lama said in the play seemed to be intended to strengthen the authority of the priests. The lama did not give many explanations to the devout and respectful hero, but insisted on blind belief.

The hero explained to the lama that he had sacrificed everything in order to attain the joys of Nirvana. He enumerated his merits in a fashion none too modest. He had even given his own children to feed those poor darling rats.

[...]

There is no country in the world where people are more interested in religious matters than they are in Tibet. Religion plays a very important part in everyday conversation, although few people are interested in really deep religious problems, talks of sorcery, divination, and alleged miracles being much more frequent than theological discussions. [...] Dolma asked me whether I considered the attitude of the hero in the play a proper one for a really religious person.

"No," I answered.

"Shall man be selfish, then? Is it wrong to try to be good?"

"No, but it is wrong to try to be like God."

"But God is good. Trying to be like God leads to goodness."

"The creature must not overstep its limits by trying to be like God. If he does so, he acts like the angels who revolted against the Creator. There are two different types of impersonality - name, Be-ing and Be- ness. The former is an attribute of the Creature, the latter an attribute of the Creator.

"Be-ness is absolute impersonality where all division between the "I" and the "non-I" ceases. It is beyond the reach of the creature.

"What happens to a man who wants to attain this state?" asked Dolma.

"He commits the greatest and most deadly sin against the Creator."

At some point in the book, Illion describes the essence of the psychopath perfectly in a quote from Faust:

"Contempt your capacity to think,
Which is man's greatest power;
Welcome misty things and sorcery
And the spirit of illusion,
Then I shall get you surely enough."

It really sounds like you have been "gotten." You welcome "misty things and sorcery" and "the spirit of illusion," and simply do not think.

Great fires, like other turmoils in life, may destroy the weak, but they purify the strong and make him still stronger. More and more I began to be aware of the fact that life, including life on spiritual planes, was not an affair of peaceful contemplation and quiet worship, but a dreadful turmoil, a grim fight, and a bitter struggle. [...]

Life is a struggle. In this struggle, a just and equitable balance CAN be kept between man and animals of the non-parasitic type, but the animals belonging to the descending branch of life ... must be FOUGHT.

What you actually achieve in your striving for "peace" is not what you think. This "peace making" and "love and light" attitude is generally promulgated (by psychopaths, I should add) as the seeking for a "non-egocentrical conception of life."
And what is the motive?

Happiness! The search for happiness!

Such an approach says nothing about the intense suffering of a man or woman who feels one with all the joys and sorrows of the world. This approach appeals to our desire for "personal happiness", viz. the very height of selfishness.

I realized how dreadfully clever and adaptable the Evil One is, and in how many different and cleverly disguised ways he carries on his soul-snatching activities. There is the appeal of weath and power and the snare of excessive care for the needs of the body. Many people sell their souls to get them. Then there is the appeal of spiritual distinctions and paradises. ... And for people who cannot be caught by either of the two, there are subtle philosophical systems. Decidedly the devil's shop is a well-stocked on; he caters for all possible tastes, and his snares are everywhere.

Once upon a time there were clever philosophers. They did not believe in the Creator.

"We follow our own light, " they said. And in all matters they only relied on the light of introspection. Then they came across the Devil.

"What a monster!" said one of them. "What a comfort to know that nothing is real and everything is a mere reflection of ourselves!"

"You are right," put in a second philosopher. "Everything is subjective; nothing is objective."

Then the Devil opened his mouth and swallowed them.

When they arrived inside the Devil's body the clever philosophers said with a superior smile: "Is it not obvious that we were right? The monster has disappeared."

You have been swallowed, it seems.

 

[name]

some numbers, at risk of being too forward:

this thread 27 pages of comments
bollyn thread 46 pg


by, for and of psykopaths 5 pg
'jews down the well' 9 pg
STO vs STS 4 pg
OPs 29 pg
Controversy of Zion 11 pg

the difference, IMO, is that in first group participants sapping energy from the environment are being entertained, in second group of threads, 'substantial' as i'd call them, such participants apparently are not tolerated by the moderators (?) what has the effect that information can be exchanged in an efficient way.

keywords: research (?), friction, S/N ratio

 

[Laura]

the difference, IMO, is that in first group participants sapping energy from the environment are being entertained, in second group of threads, 'substantial' as i'd call them, such participants apparently are not tolerated by the moderators (?) what has the effect that information can be exchanged in an efficient way.

I would say that the difference is that in the second group, the theories are discussed amongst the researchers and interruptions are less tolerated. In the first group, however, the subject is being studied "hands on," so to say ... growing the culture in the laboratory; experiments made to confirm or falsify the theories... gathering data, and giving students a chance to witness the phenomenon first hand. There are several other threads that are equally as instructive.

 

[Lisa Guliani]

I have received NO email from Judy Andreas. I blocked Judy a long time ago.
Incidentally, she is also blocked on my hotmail account and on Thorn's account.
We don't want anything to do with you, Judy.
I've told you this before MANY times, because I have been put into the position to do so.
You would not stop emailing me.
I still have the email in which I asked you if you're dense, because you wouldn't quit sending me email.
You replied "YUP".
In one email, you even told me I'd have to block you.
And so I did.
You are and have been BLOCKED for months now.


Nobody ever asked you to 'fight" anyone. Noone should have HAD to ask you to take a stance.
It should have come naturally for you to do so, with such an "empathic" person as you. ( deliberate sarcasm)

Standing up for what is right doesn't have to involve fighting, necessarily.
Sometimes it does.
And let me just say this, to you:
I have known these SOTT people for a fraction of the time I have "known" you.
You, who have repeatedly proclaimed to be a friend of mine.
And guess what?
The SOTT people have been the ONLY ones to support me, to stand by me, and to speak out on my behalf.
Where was my 'good friend" Judy, who cared so much for me?
Hmm...gee, can't answer that one.
Maybe she was so busy focusing on only what is "relevant to her" and "in her own best interests" - that she did what she typically does: discards or ignores the rest.
You remained totally silent on the attacks being made against me.
SOTT has spoken out and stood by me through it all, while you cozied up to psychopaths and turned a blind eye.

What does that tell me about your version of "friendship" and "taking a stance", Judy?
What does that show about your conscience?
If you can't even take a stance on something so basic, how then do you think you can stand up to any bigger enemy, common or otherwise?
Kaminski is no prize, and that is established. Well, you are also no bargain, nor are you blameless.
You are not a victim, but keep telling yourself and these people that and keep this charade going.

It is your contention that I should not expose the wrongdoers in the alternative media and 9-11/patriot "movement". It is your contention that I shut up when i see people lying, see people censoring, see people fearmongering, see people exploiting the public, manipulating, steering away from the truth, suppressing research, and profiting off of public fear and paranoia.
I should just shut my damn mouth, right?
Just like YOU.
I told you long ago, I'm not doing what I do to win any popularity contest.
You told ME that if you spoke out you'd lose your Rense column - and you selected your priorities accordingly.
Well, looks like we've both made our choices.
You and I are diametrically opposed, not on 'the same side".
I do not embrace evil.
I do not embrace psychopaths, nor lie down with them.
And I sure as hell don't play stupid little headgames while monkeyclimbing from one unsuspecting person to another, for popularity, for dates, for attention and flattery.
I am one of the most hated people in this whole "alternative media" on the internet, and it's a badge of honor considering what's "out there".

I can live with that reality and with myself.
I stand for something.

 

[JudeA]

Please send me a letter and I will forward mail that I sent to Lisa.
Two people have already gotten it.
Yes...Victor does have me blocked. I do not want to get into this BS with you Lisa.
Do you want me to forward the mail to you. I sent you another one today and it went through. Victor's does not go through and I get the following message from Victor's account

<<Sisyphus1285 - This member is currently not accepting e-mail from your account.

Your mail has not been sent. Please correct the problems listed and try again.>>

However, yours goes through.

 

[JudeA]

<<You told ME that if you spoke out you'd lose your Rense column >>

I NEVER said that. I do not stay quiet because of my Rense column. Lisa, I hate to say it, but you have lied about a lot of things.....even going so far as to say you met me through Chuck. I introduced Chuck to Rense's site and I brought Chuck to your website and even convinced him to keep coming after he was furious because Victor has said that if we left Iraq, China would take over the oil. I told Chuck "you cannot agree with people on everything"
Then Chuck left again after the Jeff barbie doll thing that you did. I told him to watch your show when you talked about John Lennon. (he adores Lennon) As a matter of fact, I sent many people to your site.


I have enjoyed much of what I have read on this board and Laura has been an education for me. However, this dialogue is becoming too reminiscent of the kids that I taught in Jr. High.

Lisa, you denied that we had a friendship though I spoke really highly of you everywhere. Chuck is another one that would testify to that. You and I spent many hours laughing on the phone and in emails. Sometimes we would email late into the night and chat in the morning. We used to do our Fintan immitation. I thought you were a cool woman. I never changed.......but I cannot go along with your agenda and it really upsets me when you lie. Things took a turn for the worst with the Rense barbie doll and then the attacks continued into other peoples closets. Sure, they started censoring you because you were doing a number on them. I still did not turn on you but you wanted me to join you in your approach. I told you (tho' you deny getting my mail) that that is not my style.

I did not have to prove that I cared for you by attacking Jack, Dave and Alex.

My focus, at this point, is on the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians.

 

[Lisa Guliani]

We met you through Chuck Zlatkin, who you ditched for Kaminski.
re: email - I do believe that you will not necessarily be notified if your mail does not go through with respect to aol and yahoo. Thorn and I use different email programs.
There is no reason for me to lie about this and my inclination is not to lie.
You are blocked from sending me mail and Laura has been sent a screenshot of this because for some reason you want to believe I never did it.
On the Yahoo Mail Options page regarding blocked email addresses, it specifically states the following:

------Incoming mail from addresses on the list will be deleted automatically.-------

I will repeat to you for the umpteenth time:
Don't EMAIL me.
You really need to get over this "fixation" you have with people who want nothing to do with you anymore.
Jeez, how long are you going to obsess like this? It's gotta be about a year now.
It's a little...weird.

I'm sure the Palestinians will be very appreciative of your tremendous spinal effort on their behalf...
Hopefully, you'll stand a little taller for them than you do for the embattled truthtellers within your own circles.

You don't need to "prove" you cared for me or anyone else.
Do me a favor and "care" for someone else, please.

You STILL do not get it.
Exposing wrongdoing is not "attacking", Judy.
What has been done to me by the Reveres, by Rense, and by Bollyn, Hufschmid & Smith constitutes "attacks".
What has been done to Laura & Ark for YEARS via your psycho buddy Rense and his psycho pals Weidner and Bridges, constitutes "attacks".
Kaminski's hitpiece on WING TV was an "attack".
What Kaminski did to Laura was an "attack".
What YOU did to Laura was an "attack".
You still lack the ability or the willingness (or both) to distinguish between the two.
They are very different things.
You befriend the psychos, Judy.
I expose them.
I don't emotionally and publicly invest myself in people who befriend and defend psychopaths.
You do.
And this is where YOU took the "wrong turn".
I think this exercise in futility is now over.

Go back to your friends.

 

[the rabbit]

Well its very early morning here im about to have a cup of tea and go to bed. I just wanted to write that after some thought and reflection on how this thread has been going for the last wee while i personally feel sickened and saddened by it all..

JudeA obviously no one can force you to take sides and say things that you do not want to say.Heck i know people from my past who are not able to see the obviouse truth of things as they stand in the world today.They of course do not write essays/articles on the internet though in the name of information thankfully.

My avatar on the left is a van gogh painting with home made chemtrails on it.Poorly done but the idea behind it is if he would have been around today he probably would not have left them out of his paintings just because they where ugly.And thats what truth is,heck i wish what is true wasnt for obviouse reasons. It disturbs my comfort,heck i havent felt comfortable for many years going back to my teens and even earlier.

I have lost friends through choosing the path of searching for truth along the way,the truth has made me weep,feel dispondent,lonely,depressed and so on.Some people are born with the essence of the red pill allready flowing through their veins from birth,some acquire it along the way,some maybe never do in a lifetime.Who knows why we are born with the minds we are born with.

People argue and say "Well thats your truth" or "Their truth" The truth is, there is only the "truth" take it or leave it,its still the truth.

Now Laura has posted a lot of information for you to read,and yeps its a hell of a lot to read.I hope that you will read some of it without skipping over it. I would advise ,not command you, to take some time out,a day or so to read over some of the material and pointers given to you.

I would like to suggest "Ouspensky, Gurdjieff and Mouravieff On Lying" also which can be found here;
http://quantumfuture.net/qfs/qfs_on_lying.htm

I really have nothing more to add to what i have written before.I could have done it in a seemingly more friendlier manner and i did not.The truth is i would like this thread to get back to something that resembles how we would like adults to communicate.

If we can not agree then we just go our seperate ways,there is no cult that surrounds truth , it is the majority of our fellow human beings who are asleep because they accept truth from places where truth will hardly ever be found,and these lies/untruths that they receive keep them enslaved.This is a true cult.

My cup of tea is finished.

 

[ark]

Then where did you publish this piece?>>. Ark

After I read it, I sent my response to at least 10 people. [...]
Perhaps I am too green for this forum.

Perhaps you are too yellow? :)

Judy, what was your basis for using the term "channeling fraud?" I mean "factual basis", not "emotional basis" or "manipulative basis".

 

[Laura]

Please send me a letter and I will forward mail that I sent to Lisa.
Two people have already gotten it.
Yes...Victor does have me blocked. I do not want to get into this BS with you Lisa.
Do you want me to forward the mail to you. I sent you another one today and it went through. Victor's does not go through and I get the following message from Victor's account

Two points: 1) I am really baffled as to why you continue to attempt to send emails to people who have declared they do not wish to receive them.

2) When a person puts a block on an email, it doesn't mean that a message will be sent to the person informing them that the email has been blocked. It also will not bounce. SOME email programs will send the sender a message, but generally, they do not; that is the standard. Otherwise, the net would be flooded with little messages going back to senders.