John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

Thank you..:-)
We're working on the problem.
It'll be back up soon.
You notice how they never confront directly?
They always take the way of a coward.

Is that fervor or is that fear?
 
Lisa, snakes and other lizzies of a kind are quiet lurkers in the shadows, light of truth blinds them instantly.
Sorry to hear about attempts to crack your site, hold on!
 
No kidding! Endless snakes in this bottomless barrel, or so it seems.
Thank you..:-)
Yes, they did a number on it this time, but we're NOT down for the count.
The more they come at us, the more determined we are....:-))))))))))))))))))
A battle of the wills...I'm game.
 
Speaking of going off the deep end, Kaminski's latest article is entitled "Further evidence of species suicide."

You can find it at this URL:

http://www.johnkaminski.com/furtherevidence.html

It contains the following gem:

* * * * *

The Holocaust. Why is it like 9/11?

1...Just like there was no evidence of planes at the WTC, there is no authentic evidence of gassings, or 6 million dead...

* * * * *

Another flippin' no planer at the WTC! (He doesn't specify which no plane theory.)

Argh!!!

Martin
 
Judy's mouth - where is it? Judy Andreas wrote - see
http://www.rense(dot)com/general60/relka.htm

[...]Most people have a hard time understanding the real meaning of the word "love" no less experiencing it. They confuse a state of being with the fleeting euphoria of romantic love and, ultimately, scratch the head of confusion as romantic love becomes bickering and separation. The definition of "Romantic Love" too often contains a hidden agenda "what's in it for me?" rather than "what's in it for you?" Authentic love builds bridges rather than bombs them.

Mr. and Mrs. Right is a sitcom whose time has passed. We are at a critical point in history and the window of opportunity is about to close on our pointing, accusing finger of blame.

Are we a doomed species or is there still hope? Is it possible for us to extend the boundaries of consciousness? Can we look at one another, despite differences in color, size, shape and age, and see only the sacred and the reverential. Is it possible for us to open our minds and hearts and souls to all sentient beings and accept our true relationship with everything and everyone on this planet? The choice is ours.
The choice is also yours, Judy. And what did you choose? You seem to have chosen gossip, irresponsibility, mischievousness. Why not put your money where your mouth it? It's never too late.
 
Like talking to a brick...not even a brick wall. Let's forget for a minute that her thoughts are entirely incoherrent, but what a blah hamfisted description of love. I have heard it a million times from a million people. It's like a slogan that everyone's using, just like how all of the software in the last few years was like "X" this or "X" that. Painter X, OS X.

She lacks any argument on the topic of love in general, here example is a materialistic cop out masquerading as a pseudo STO "it's not about me, it about you" faux-ism. JFK did something along the same lines, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. She betrays her limited understanding by basing love in a ridiculous light, the struggle between "me" and "you" without considering the internal nature of an individual. For instance, you may say, and even believe that what you do is for others, when really you are lying to yourself.

Furthermore, her argument is lacking any depth, and is entirely formulaic.

You pick a sensitive topic, tell everyone they are wrong + Make it critical + Tell everyone to open their hearts and minds.

I think Smash Mouth said it best:

So don't delay act now, supplies are running out
Allow if you're still alive, six to eight years to arrive
And if you follow there may, be a tomorrow
But if the offer's shunned, you might as well be walkin' on the sun
 
But she is young, and young people do not know a lot. On the other hand, they can learn a lot!
 
Admin Note:

Marsha McClelland's post deleted and moved to the moderator's forum. She apparently didn't read the rules:

One, don't maliciously harass people, or flame them, or really make them want to flame you. If the moderators detect malice or manipulativeness (and they ARE experienced), and invitations to overcome such issues does not result in resolution, you will be deleted.

Two, please don't post messages about your illegal pastimes and habits. Signs of the Times does not wish to appear to condone such practises, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if a little common sense is applied. If you do post such stuff, expect it to be deleted immediately.

Three, don't spam, just don't, it will be deleted almost immediately, so it's a waste of time. Spamming means sending multiple meaningless posts. If you don't have anything beneficial or informative to say, don't just join in for nothin'. Posts deemed by the moderators (who have experience with this, by the way) to be "noise" will be deleted. Related to this is the idea that if you join this forum, you will familiarize yourself with the discussions thorougly before you start posting stuff that's already been covered.

Four, We have ZERO tolerance for profanity. If you aren't intelligent enough to say what you think without using language that is objectionable to most civilized people, you're on the wrong board. If you think you can be clever and circumvent the board's auto-censor, go ahead and try it. When we catch you, you'll be gone.

Five,we the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.
 
This Marsha McClelland and Judy Andreas pair remind me a lot of a passage from Sebastian Haffner's book about the Nazi takeover in Germany. I'd like to share it for the truly unbelievable exchange between Haffner and his soon to be ex-friends who joined the Nazi party about the murder of the Social Democrats.

Sebastian Haffner said:
My attempt to seclude myself in a small, secure, private domain failed very quickly. The reason was that there was no such domain. Very soon the wind whistled into my private life from all sides and blew it apart. By the autumn there was nothing left of what I had considered my 'circle of friends'.

For instance, there was a small 'working group' of six young intellectuals, all of them Referendars approaching the Assessor examinations, all from the same social class. I was one of them. We prepared for the exams together, and that was the outward reason the group had been formed. But it had long since become something more than that and formed a small, intimate debating club.

We had very different political opinions, but would not have dreamed of hating each other for them. Indeed we were all on very good terms. The opinions were not diametrically opposed, rather - in a manner typical of the range of views held by young intellectual Germans in 1932 - they formed a circle. The extreme ends of the arc almost met.

The most 'left-wing' member was Hessel, a doctor's son with communist sympathies; the most 'right-wing' was Holz, an officer's son who held military, nationalistic views. Yet they often made a common front against the rest of us. They both came from the 'youth movement' and both thought in terms of leagues. They were both anti-bourgeois and anti-individualistic. Both had an ideal of 'community' and 'community spirit'. For both, jazz music, fashion magazines, the Kurfurstendamm, in other words the world of glamour and 'easy come, easy go', were a red rag. Both had a secret liking for terror, in a more humanistic garb for the one, more nationalistic for the other. As similar views make for similar faces, they both had a certain stiff, thin-lipped, humourless expression and, incidentally, the greatest respect for each other. Courtesy was anyway a matter of course between the members of the group.

Two other opponents who understood each other well - and often supported each other against their own confederates - were Brock and I. We were more difficult to locate on the political scale than Hessel and Holz. Brock's opinions were revolutionary and extremely nationalistic, mine rather conservative and extremely individualistic. From the ideas of the Right and the Left we had each picked the exact opposite. Yet there was something that united us: at heart we were both aesthetes, and we both worshipped unpolitical gods. Brock's god was adventure, collective adventure à la 1914-18 or 1923; my god was the god of Goethe and Mozart. Forgive me if I do not name him for the moment. So it was inevitable that we were opponents on every topic, but often opponents who gave each other a wink. We could also drink well together. Hessel was a teetotaller and opposed to alcohol on principle. Holz drank in such desperate moderation that it was a shame.

Then there were two natural mediators: Hirsch, the son of a Jewish university professor, and Von Hagen, the son of a very high civil servant. Von Hagen was the only one of us who belonged to a political organisation. He was a member of the Deutsche Demokratische Partei (German Democratic Party) and Also of the Reichsbanner. That did not prevent him from mediating. On the contrary, it predestined him for it. He tried to reconcile all opinions and had understanding for every point of view. Further, he was the embodiment of a good upbringing, tact personified and impeccable manners. It was impossible for a discussion to degenerate into altercation if he was present.

Hirsch was his second. His speciality was gentle scepticism and tentative anti-Semitism. Yes, he had a weakness for anti-Semites and always tried to give them a chance; I remember a discussion between us in which he seriously took the anti-Semitic part, and I to redress the balance took the anti-Teutonic part. Such was the chivalry of our debates. Besides, Hirsch and Von Hagen did their very best to bring an occasional tolerant smile to Holz's and Hessel's lips, and to induce Brock and me to make a serious 'avowal' now and then. They did their utmost to prevent Holz and me, or Hessel and Brock, destroying each other's holy of holies (that was only thinkable in these two combinations).

It was a nice group of hopeful young men; if you had seen them in 1932 sitting round a table, smoking and eagerly debating with each other, you could hardly have thought that its members would, within a year, figuratively speaking, be standing on opposing barricades ready to shoot each other. To cut a long story short, today Hirsch, Hessel and I are emigrants, Brock and Holz are high Nazi officials, and von Hagen is a lawyer in Berlin. He is a member of the National Socialist Association of Lawyers and of the National Socialist Drivers' Reserve, and possibly (with regret, but it is necessary) of the Party itself. You can see that he is still faithful to his role of mediator.

From the beginning of March 1933 the atmosphere in our group started to become poisonous. It was no longer as easy as before to hold courteous academic discussions about the Nazis. There was an embarrassing, tense meeting at Hirsch's home shortly before the 1st of April.

Brock made no secret of the fact that he greeted the coming events [the boycotting of all Jewish businesses] with a pleasantly warm feeling of amusement and he relished the superiority with which he could state that 'there is naturally a certain nervousness among my Jewish friends.'

In his view, expressed in the same mode, the organisation seemed to be pretty dreadful, but it was interesting to see how such a mass experiment would turn out. In any case it opened up the most exciting prospects.

Thus spoke Brock, and it was difficult to find anything for which he did not have an answer, given with the same brazen smile. Holz responded thoughtfully that there might well be regrettable incidents in such a summary and improvisatory process, but that anyway the Jews ... and so on.

Our host, Hirsch, finding himself thus relieved of the necessity of taking sides with the anti-Semites, sat silently by, biting his lips. Von Hagen pointed out tactfully that on the - other hand the Jews ... and so on. It was a beautiful discussion about the Jews, and it dragged on.

Hirsch continued to say nothing and occasionally passed round the cigarettes. Hessel tried to attack racism with scientific arguments. Holz defended it with scientific counter-arguments. It was all very pedantic and very sober. 'All right, Hessel,' he said, more or less, taking a slow puff on his cigarette, exhaling and watching the smoke coil upward, 'in a humane state, such as you are tacitly assuming, all these problems may not exist. But you have to admit that when a new form of state is being set up, as is the case at the moment, racial homogeneity ...

I began to feel nauseated, and decided to say something tactless.

'It seems to me,' I said, 'that the question here is not how a national state should be founded, but quite simply, the personal stance of each one of us. Isn't that so? Apart from that, there is nothing over which we have any power or influence. What I find interesting in your attitude, Mr Holz, is how you reconcile your opinions with your current status as a guest of this house.'

At that Hirsch cut me short and emphasised that he had never made his invitation dependent on any particular opinion, etc. 'Of course,' I replied, quite angry now, even with him, 'and it is not your stance that I am criticising, but that of Mr Holz. I would like to know what it feels like to be someone who accepts the invitation of a person whom he intends in principle to do away with, along with all his kind.'

'Who mentioned doing away with?' cried Holz, and every- body started to protest, except Brock who said that he personally saw no contradiction here. 'You may be aware,' he said, 'that in wartime officers are frequently guests in houses that they are going to blow up the next morning.'

Holz, on the other hand, soberly proved to me that one could not speak of 'doing away with', when Jewish shops were being boycotted in an orderly and disciplined manner'.

'Why is it not doing away with them?' I cried, outraged. 'If you systematically ruin somebody, and take any possibility of earning a living from them, they must surely finally starve. Is that not so? I call it doing away with someone when you deliberately allow them to starve, don't you?'

'Calm down,' said Holz, 'nobody starves in Germany. If a Jewish shopkeeper is really ruined, they will get social security payments.'

The terrible thing was that he said that quite seriously, without the slightest sneer. We parted in a hostile mood.

In the course of April, just before the lists were closed, Brock and Holz became members of the Nazi Party. It would be wrong to say they were jumping on a bandwagon. Both had undoubtedly shared some opinions with the Nazis all along. Up to now the Party had not been strong enough to persuade them to join. The little extra was supplied by the recruiting power of victory.

It became difficult to hold the group together. Von Hagen and Hirsch were kept very busy. Still, it managed to survive for another five or six weeks. Then, at the end of May, there was a meeting at which it broke apart.

It happened just after the mass murders in Copenick. Brock and Holz came to our meeting like murderers fresh from the deed. Not that they had taken part in the slaughter themselves, but it was obviously the topic of the day in their new circles. They had clearly convinced themselves that they were in some way accomplices. Into our civilised, middle-class atmosphere of cigarettes and coffee-cups the two of them brought a strange, blood-red cloud of sweaty death.

They started to speak of the matter immediately. It was from their graphic descriptions that we found out what had actually happened. The press had only contained hints and intimations.

'Fantastic, what happened in Copenick yesterday, eh?' began Brock, and that was the tone of his narrative. He went into detail, explained how the women and children had been sent into a neighbouring room before the men were shot point- blank with a revolver, bludgeoned with a truncheon, or stabbed with an SA dagger. Surprisingly, most of them had put up no resistance, and made sorry figures in their nightshirts. The bodies had been tipped into the river and many were still being washed ashore in the area today. His whole narrative was- delivered with that brazen smile on his face which had recently become a stereotypical feature. He made no attempt to defend the actions, and obviously did not see much need to. He regarded them primarily as sensational.

We found it all dreadful and shook our heads, which seemed to give him some satisfaction.

'And you see no difficulty with your new Party membership because of these things?' I remarked at last.

Immediately he became defensive and his face took on a bold Mussolini expression. 'No, not at all,' he declared. 'Do you feel pity for these people? The man who shot first the day before yesterday knew that it would cost him his life, of course. It would have been bad form not to hang him. Incidentally he has my respect. As for the others - shame on them. Why didn't they put up a fight? They were all long-time Social Democrats and members of the Eiserne Front. Why should they be lying in their beds in their nightshirts? They should have defended themselves and died decently. But they're a limp lot. I have no sympathy for them.'

'I don't know,' I said slowly, 'whether I feel much pity for them, but what I do feel is an indescribable sense of disgust at people who go around heavily armed and slaughter defenceless victims.'

'They should have defended themselves,' said Brock stubbornly. 'Then they wouldn't have been defenceless. That is a disgusting Marxist trick, being defenceless, when it gets serious.'


At this point Holz intervened. 'I consider the whole thing a regrettable revolutionary excess,' he said, 'and between you and me, I expect the responsible officer to be disciplined. But I also think that it should not be overlooked that it was a Social Democrat who shot first. It is understandable, and in a certain sense even justified, that under these circumstances the SA takes, er, very energetic counter-measures.'

It was curious. I could just about stand Brock, but Holz had become a red rag to me. I could not help myself. I felt compelled to insult him.

'It is most interesting for me to hear your new theory of justification,' I said. 'If I am not mistaken, you did once study law?'

He gave me a steely look and elaborately picked up the gauntlet. 'Yes, I have studied law,' he said slowly, 'and I remember that I heard something about state self-defence there. Perhaps you missed that lecture.'

'State self-defence,' I said, 'interesting. You consider that the state is under attack because a few hundred Social Democrat citizens put on nightshirts and go to bed?'

'Of course not,' he said. 'You keep forgetting it was a Social Democrat who first shot two SA men -'

' who had broken into his home.' [I said.]

'Who had entered his abode in the course of their official duty.' [Holz]

'And that allows the state the justification of self-defence against any other citizens? Against me and you?'

'Not against me,' he said, 'but perhaps against you.'
He was now looking at me with really steely eyes and I had a funny feeling in the back of my knees.

'You,' he said, 'are always niggling and wilfully ignoring the monumental developments in the resurgence of the German people that are taking place today.' (I can remember the very word 'resurgence' to this day!) 'You grasp at every little excess and split legal hairs to criticise and find fault. You seem to be unaware, I fear, that today people of your ilk represent a latent danger for the state, and that the state has the right and the duty to react accordingly - at the very least when one of you goes so far as to dare to offer open resistance.'

Those were his words, soberly and slowly spoken in the style of a commentary on the Civil Code. All the while he looked at me with those steely eyes.

'If we are dealing in threats,' I said, 'then why not openly? Do you intend to denounce me to the Gestapo?'

About here Von Hagen and Hirsch began to titter, attempting to turn it all into a joke. This time, however, Holz put a spanner in the works. Quietly and deliberately' (and it was only now that I realised, with a certain unexpected satisfaction, how deeply angered he was):

'I admit that for some time I have been wondering whether that is not my duty.'

'Oh' I said. I needed a few moments to taste all the different flavours on my tongue: a little surprise, a little admiration for how far he was prepared to go; a little sourness from the word 'duty', a little satisfaction at how far I had driven him, and a new cool insight: that is the way life is now, and that is how it has changed - and a little fear. Having made a quick assessment of what he might be able to say about me, if he went through with it, I said, 'I must say that it does not speak for the seriousness of your intentions that you have been thinking about it for some time, only to tell me the result of your thoughts.'

'Don't say that,' he said quietly.

Now all the trumps had been played and to raise the stakes further we would have had to become physical. It had all taken place sitting down, while we were smoking. Anyway, the others now intervened and reproachfully tried to calm us both down.

Oddly enough, the political debate continued quietly and bitterly for several hours; but in reality the group had broken up. We made no arrangements for further meetings. Hirsch took leave of me in September, to go to Paris. I had already lost sight of Brock and Holz. I only heard snippets of gossip about their careers in later years. Hessel left for America a year later. The group had been blown apart.

By the way, for a few days I was concerned that Holz really would set the Gestapo on to me. As time passed I realised that he had obviously not done so. It was decent of him really!
 
Here is a copy of an email I sent in response to one of Marsha's frequent, insistent communications to me.
She was trying to get us to stop exposing the scammers and posers in the alternative media, people she calls "patriots". It was getting very tiresome to respond to Marsha, who was constantly name-dropping MY name all over the internet, telling people (and me) that she wanted me to take over her "group" be the spokesperson for her "group", wherever her group is and whatever it does. I still don't know what marsha's group DOES, because Marsha would never tell me anything. She would allude to things, but never provide specifics when asked. This email below is before she began attacking me outright. Here, she just sort of "whines".
At the time of this email, I had never even heard of the SOTT group or of Ponerology or of Laura.

Lisa
______________________________________________________________________________________

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Lisa Guliani"
Subject: Letter to Marsha



>marsha: A little leary to even go here but have to because i care...last time i tried
>to give helpful critisism you came at me with all barrels...since then that
>approach with me did help in my character as i am much tougher but i am worried
>that you need think about this from all directions and from the eyes of
>others...Have been seeing soooo many people getting angry because they feel you guys
>are character assisins

Lisa: The only people angry with us are the duped and those who are doing wrong. We get much more positive feedback than negative feedback. At least, the majority of people out there are using their brains for something other than parroting the guru-hero blind worship line.
>
>Marsha: Your approach is applaudable for many of our great thinkers and patriots but
>at the same time, enememies are lining up

Lisa: Enemies are lining up..you mean company men. So what. We wouldn't be taking any heat if we weren't right over the target. You should think about THAT. I am not sorry for telling the truth.

>Marsha: I wanted to say somethinh before now but figured you knew best and it would
>work out

Lisa: You're right. We do know best about handling our own show and what we care to write about and talk about. Our strategy is to tell the truth and remain financially INDEPENDENT.
If anybody has a problem with that, that is not a concern to me.

>Marsha: It's getting much worse, of late...I didn't want to be a tattle tale (didn't
>think you'd appreciate that) but this conversation is everywhere at all the
>groups

Lisa: You don't want to be a tattletale? Then, what exactly is this you are doing? Why is it so important to silence me? Why is it so important that we not rock the boat with truth? Hmm?
We need hypocrites, cowards, sell-outs and fearmongers? Do we really?
You are deluding yourself. I don't need to be led around by any-damn-body and I don't need some coward hypcrite telling me what I should think. I can think for myself.


>Marsha: We need them all, Lisa...all the people possible...i'm terrified we won't be
>able as, We The People, to really put our differences aside enough to work
>together for change to begin

Lisa: We need them all? What are they doing??? You are deluding yourself. You want to align with sell-outs? You want to align with people who are sleeping with the enemy? Okay, fine. Go ahead. truth. Honesty. Integrity. How do these things fit in with your big plans - or do they? If you're willing to tolerate this b.s. in the prominent spokespeople of this "so-called truth movement", then that says more about you than it does about me. Don't you have a conscience? We know they don't. Passing around videos is NOT a movement, Marsha. You actually have to get off your *ss and MOVE to have a movement.

>Marsha: We need you so much, Lisa...you and Victor...Somehow, please make amends with
>these people...don't lose them

Lisa: Make amends? Lose them? Make amends for what? Asking questions? Telling the truth? Are you kidding me or what? Why don't you send one of your long, whiny emails to Jones and tell him to answer the questions...you aren't scared to email him, are you? Or do you only think you are obligated to email ME and lecture me about how "necessary" it is for me to be lining up with dishonest people who lack integrity and conscience?

>Marsha: Do it with truth but some how fix the approach or something...whatever you
>can do to get back in the good graces of the of the groups...

Lisa: I could care less about being in the "good graces" of armchair patriots. That is all these people are. Armchair patriots who think they are going to "fight the NWO" while hiding anonymously behind their computer screens. How are they fighting the NWO? With their mouse? What a total joke. If they (or you) won't stand up and defend truth on the internet, then how can they (or you) even think they will "fight" the NWO?
The reason the mainstream became the cesspool that it is now, is because people like YOU and the "armchair patriot" crowd turned their heads and did and said NOTHING when wrongdoing was going on over time. When good people do nothing, evil thrives. Of course, you seem to think that the solid majority is correct. WRONG, Marsha. It has been proven, time and time again, that the solid majority is ALWAYS WRONG.
And now you're telling me to do the same thing - to turn my head, soften my "approach", make "amends" for having the gall to tell the truth...Forget it.
I will NOT. I am NOT an armchair patriot. The people who have a problem with us, have a problem with the truth. Period. I do not fear them or anyone else. I will not be intimidated or silenced.
they're all freaking out because their gurus and heroes are crumbling before them.
Sorry, but I don't live with their illusions.
Apparently, you would like it if I did, but this is not going to happen, Marsha. You live with the illusions if you want to. I'm done with illusions - even the illusions of so-called "patriots".

Jesus even said that He came not to bring PEACE, but rather, to bring a SWORD. Perhaps this is the sword of DISCERNMENT. Try being a little more discerning, Marsha. You're way off-base.

>Marsha: Even me...as much as i look up to you, feel you go to extreems in the
>approach...someone new and not knowing you like i do may be put off by seeing
>something that's really not the case. You are my hero and the one i look up to the most...You, Alex and Rick...are my Three Patriot Heroes...But you are female and, yes, i'm like that...I play
>favorites and believe our roles are urgent in being in there with the men...i am predjdece against them for the most part...

Lisa: Let's get this straight: I do not want to be your "hero". Be your own hero. You're so busy trying to get people to "lead". WHY? I DON'T WANT TO BE LED AROUND BY ANYONE. I DON'T WANT TO "LEAD" anyone. All I am doing is telling the truth. If you or anybody else doesn't like it, that's too damn bad. I never said I was going to come out every day and tell people what they want to hear. I said I would tell the truth.
The truth causes division. Even JESUS said so.
Don't be such a coward. Have some spine.

You need to be a LOT more discerning, Marsha. It takes courage to stand up and tell the truth when the "majority" opposes the truth. I have spine. I can take the heat. I don't need a 'crowd" of "followers".
I don't need to be in anybody's "good graces". Why? Because I know I am doing the right thing.
Radical honesty, Marsha. That's what it is and that's not what people are used to or feel comfortable with. Tough. Good thing Joan of Arc didn't listen to people like you.

Telling the truth is a revolutionary act, Marsha. It forces people to make a stand, to choose.
That is not a BAD thing. It is a NECESSARY thing.
Stop looking for "heroes" on the horizon and in the crowd.
Be the hero.
I can't waste my time trying to "unite" with cowards, hypocrites, and fearmongers.
That would make me a sell-out and a hypocrite too.

I WILL NOT DO IT. I have a conscience.
TRUTH MATTERS.

Lisa Guliani
 
I received an email from Judy after she decided to stop participating in the forum. I am not going to publish the whole thing because it is more of the same kind of attacks and self-justification that we have seen here. Here is her remark about loyalty.

JudeA said:
I found the information [on the forum] to be extremely interesting, but there was constant pressure on me to attack Jeff Rense and Company. I would never do something like that and it is not, as Lisa Guiliani lied, because of my column. Jeff has been a good friend and loyalty is important to me. His battles with other people are none of my business.
It is curious that, for someone who dislikes confrontation and wants to "be nice", she is so quick to join the gutter attacks on Laura and Lisa. That speaks volumes.

But you won't find her saying a bad word about Rense because he is nice to her. She seems to be confusing "being friendly" with "being friends", that is, she can only see the surface of things. The underlying meaning of an act remains hidden to her. Although she was being met with constant questions etc here on this forum, the point was to help her see the contradictions in her way of viewing the world, to open her eyes. That is a true form of friendship, or at least in the beginning of one, the offering a hand to someone to pull them out of the mud.

Some people grasp it -- both the hand and the sense. Some don't.

Those who don't grasp it are caught in a mechanical morality, a series of recipes of right and wrong that are mechanically applied to every situation. "Jeff Rense is a good friend therefore I am loyal to him" is an example. It doesn't matter that he is a liar, etc. Mechanical loyalty wins out. As she says, "His battles with other people are none of my business". You could apply that rule to a friendship with a serial killer, a mafia hitman, or George Bush. It is agnostic, having no grounding in the real world and the actions of these people in the world.

As we are wont to say, there is good, evil and the specific context that determines which is which. Mechanical morality is incapable of determining between good and evil because it is incapable of analyzing specific contexts. People who remain at this level need the rules and recipes because they have nothing else.

Lisa posted a list of questions on page 31 of this thread that Judy never answered. It is so much easier to leave and then write hit pieces on how you were treated. The unfortunate thing is that these pieces will be lapped up by the uninformed out there who don't know better than to buy into the 'love and light' and 'let's all just be friends' nonsense that passes for strategy in the alternative movement. That these 'let's all be friends' people write the nastiest material possible about those who don't buy their goods doesn't seem to matter.

It seems Judy could never wrap her mind around the issue of conscience. It is the fundamental issue. For people of mechanical morality, many believe that we are in a fight against someone or something, and that as long as someone opposes what they oppose, they can be friends. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

For us, we are fighting against nothing; we are defending the truth, we are defending acts of conscience. In building a network of people who have that goal, you can't make alliances with liars, racists, white supremacists, idolaters of Hitler, or even people who want to think that Hitler just wasn't as bad as he is protrayed. Lies, racism, support of fascism, the mass killing of people, etc go against conscience. No alliance is possible with these people.

That the group Rense, Bollyn, Jack Blood, etc defend each other while using such degrading tactics doesn't bother Judy.

Lisa is exposing the conscienceless nature of the 9/11 truth [sic] movement. They can't stand it, so she is the butt of attacks from all quarters, the vilest, most filthy and abject assaults on her and her children.

Judy is now supporting Bollyn. Need I say more?
 
JudeA said:
I find ethnic slurs about any group of people a real turn off. It is divisive and counterproductive. I have dropped friends who have made slurs about Muslims. (and they were not Jewish people) Since I believe in "freedom of speech", I cannot impose my ethics but, instead, must be the one to remove myself from the ugliness.

As a woman of Jewish origin, baptized in 1991, I have spoken out on the issues and suffered the slings and arrows from all sides. My purpose for writing is always to unite NOT to divide.
People who name call and point fingers are playing right into the NWO's agenda....and that's a game I will not play.
This message was just sent to Israel Shamir's Togethernet list.

It is another good example of what I was talking about in my last post. Judy wants to unite, not divide, but the character of those she is uniting with doesn't matter. And she explains it away by saying that such division plays into the NWO's agenda.

On the contrary, it is the phoney uniting of the sincere with the insincere, the honestly outraged with the egotists and disinfo artists, that is the agenda. Mix truth and lies and you don't get truth. But that very obvious point is lost on Judy and others.
 
Judy Andreas said:
"Jeff Rense is a good friend therefore I am loyal to him".... "His battles with other people are none of my business".
"Adolf Hitler is a good friend therefore I am loyal to him".... "His battles with Jews and Poles are none of my business" ... said the inner circle of Adolf Hitler as his SS troops annihilated millions.

Judy Andreas said:
People who name call and point fingers are playing right into the NWO's agenda....and that's a game I will not play.
However we notice that Judy Andreas and her pal Marsha "Mothmars" McClelland do a lot of "name calling" and do not ever touch the real ISSUES.

Judy Andreas said:
I have dropped friends who have made slurs about Muslims. ... My purpose for writing is always to unite NOT to divide.
But Judy never dropped any friends who defamed innocent people such as myself, our researchers, our work, our children, friends, etc. In fact, she joined in the defamation and wrote viciously divisive filth about me, Lisa and others. Of course, she excused all this by saying she was "emotional." I guess Hitler was emotional too when he got hostile toward the Jews and we should all excuse him.


Judy Andreas said:
Ms. Jadczyk and her cult are really a dangerous group. They lie and
twist and try to ruin people. I fell into her grip for awhile. She had
written an article confusing me with a Gay Judy Andreas on the west
coast. (some channeler, eh?) When I got upset about it, she and her
lackeys turned on me and asked why I was putting down the gay Judy
Andreas. Nice word manipulation. ...... Keep in mind that Ms Jadczyk,
aside from being a very articulate woman, CHANNELS HERSELF IN THE FUTURE.

I notice that this group of Cassiopeans (sp) recently did a number on
John deNugent and the Barnes Review. He joins a rather lengthy,
prestigious list of people who have been crucified on a cross of lies
and twisted words.

I don't know what their game is, but you can rest assured that under the
flowery language lurks a demonic soul. (or an agent) Lisa Guiliani has
joined the fray and is busily engaged in the lies that have made her one
of the most unwelcome people on talkradio.
It is altogether possible that she actually thinks that she is consistent and simply cannot see the inconsistency between her words and her actions. But then, that is exactly the point: any kind of truth movement does NOT need people like this. It is the blind leading the blind. And there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
 
Judy Andreas said:
People who name call and point fingers are playing right into the NWO's agenda....and that's a game I will not play.
And that's the game you do play, Judy. Wanna proof? Just read what you wrote yourself, read what you will write next. Or was it written by some other Judy? When Judy gets emotional, THEN she allows herself to name call and point fingers, right? Then you allow yourself to serve NWO's agenda, right? So, the quote above is again perhaps not even half-truth. Whom it is supposed to serve? But these are rhetorical questions, as Judy avoids answering questions. She does not belong to this forum. This is not a love and light forum, not a gossip forum, neither it is a forum for split personalities. This forum is for Knowledge and Truth - based on Work and diligent Research, using networking of people colinear with each other and sharing the same basic principles.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom