Up until late September, I had a fairly regular "dialogue" with John. I don't think it is yet at the point where I must publish ALL of this exchange in its entirety in order to show the progressive decline of his thinking not to mention the influences behind it. That is still in the realm of his personal life and unless he behaves in such a way that requires airing this out, I will keep it private.Ruth said:I was curious if you'd asked Kaminski for an explanation on his attitude towards the ponorology book. I'm assuming he's read it (?). If he has, what are his 'issues' with it, and what are his 'issues' with you? Maybe if he could speak for himself it would provide further insight into what's really provoking his words.
There are a couple, however, that are not personal and simply discuss issues that I will paste in here as well as my responses to show what kind of data I was trying to share with him.
To which I gave several responses:From: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Controversy of Zion
Date sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:18:00 -0400
To: "Laura Knight-Jadczyk"
There was one of those big white Florida pickups following me tonight
that had "Licensed to Kill" emblazoned across the top of its
windshield. He parked in the driveway across the street for awhile, but
I ignored him. I drove to Indiana recently (a quick up-and-back) to
pick up 34 books (like Henry Ford's "The International Jew") and many
file folders. The person I visited, [redacted for privacy], has since been
watched by men with binoculars. His two sons, both [redacted for privacy],
were approached by ADL men posing as FBI agents, who
threatened to ruin their careers over the pronouncements of their
anti-Semitic father. They showed them ****'s testimonial in the front
of a copy of "The Perfect Enemy."
[Above note that Kaminski refers to "ADL posing as FBI" which has a strange resonance with Bollyn's rant about the police officers who attacked him being "ADL trained." One almost wonders if they have the same - or related - handlers feeding the same lines to them.]
I'd be willing to make a small bet that if Jewish influence were
neutralized, there would not be a gravitation to the predatory social
slot they have occupied. The spotlight is on the dogma. You can win
with it in a court of law. The more light, the more the roaches scurry.
Too bad they have such big guns. One European country needs to overturn
that law.
Meanwhile, I have achieved such an awesome status. I have alienated
absolutely everyone (which in my more sophomoric journalist days I
absolutely aspired to) across the spectrum. I don't know one friend
(well, a few like Randy Atkins and Curtis Maynard linger faithfully)
who dares to defend my position, even when it's so obviously correct.
You only have to look at the Congress, and correlate them with the 18
Jewish ministers of George V who concocted the killing of the czar. It
is not a mystery.
Those who hide behind the split that Zionism is not Judaism are merely
the latest wave of popular dissemblers who obscure the obvious with
misleading labels. Henry Makow is the champion of this.
When you track the bloodlines of European royalty to Caesar's advisers,
can anyone have any doubt that the genetic predisposition is not
perfectly manifested in every generation by this same group. What
worries me about using a psychological basis for identification is that
psychology is a Jewish science. Are the questions it pretends to answer
properly presented, or are they somehow skewed to achieve the desired,
and advantageous, result?
Who is it that defines what is "normal"? That's what worries me most
about Lobaczewski.
jk
PS - Surely you know that Hufschmid is right about AFP. But that
doesn't mean I don't love Victor and Lisa.
My point was that Lobaczewski had carefully defined "normal," had gone to extreme lengths to do so, and yet John either missed that part or didn't understand it.From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Controversy of Zion
Date sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:08:41 +0200
On 28 Aug 2006, at 21:18, John Kaminski wrote:
> Who is it that defines what is "normal"? That's what worries me most
> about Lobaczewski.
Did you read the entire book CAREFULLY?
L
Next response:
I then sent him an excerpt:From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Controversy of Zion
Date sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:14:00 +0200
On 28 Aug 2006, at 21:18, John Kaminski wrote:
> Who is it that defines what is "normal"? That's what worries me most
> about Lobaczewski.
Did you read the entire book CAREFULLY?
If you did, you would surely have read the chapter about how psychology has
been co-opted and how the term "normal" has been used to describe the
deviants and the REAL "normal" people have been defined as whackos. His
term "normal" has a specific meaning that is defined in the book.
I think you need to read it slowly and carefully and understand that it is a
broad painting of the general principles and that he repeatedly says that
more specific work needs to be done.
I believe you also have the unedited version which is much more difficult to
read.
You also need to carefully read his description of how any group, ANY
ideology can be ponerized and utilized. This is very important.
L
And some more quotes:From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Controversy of Zion
Date sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:24:28 +0200
Lobaczewski wrote:
PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY UNDER PATHOCRATIC RULE
...
When I came to the West, I met people with leftist views who ... kept
asking: What can politics have to do with psychiatry?
My attempts to explain what that other reality [a world ruled by
psychopaths] looks like met with the difficulties we are already familiar
with, although some people had previously heard about the abuse of
psychiatry. However, such "whys" kept cropping up in conversation, and
remained unanswered.
The situation in these scientific areas, of social and curative
activities, and of the people occupied in these matters, can only be
comprehended once we have perceived the true nature of pathocracy in the
light of the ponerological approach.
Let us thus imagine something which is only possible in theory, namely,
that a country under pathocratic rule is inadvertently allowed to freely
develop these sciences, enabling a normal influx of scientific literature
and contacts with scientists in other countries. Psychology,
psychopathology, and psychiatry would flourish abundantly and produce
outstanding representatives.
What would the result be?
This accumulation of proper knowledge would, within a very short time,
enable the undertaking of investigations whose meaning we already
understand. Missing elements and insufficiently investigated questions would
be complemented and deepened by means of the appropriate detailed research.
The diagnosis of the pathocratic state of affairs would then be
elaborated within the first dozen or so years of the formation of the
pathocracy, especially if the latter is imposed. The basis of the deductive
rationale would be significantly wider than anything the author can present
here, and would be illustrated by means of a rich body of analytical and
statistical material.
Once transmitted to world opinion, such a diagnosis would quickly become
incorporated into it that opinion, forcing naive political and propaganda
doctrines out of societal consciousness. It would reach the nations that
were the objects of the pathocratic empire's expansionist intentions. This
would render the usefulness of any such propagandized ideology as a
pathocratic Trojan horse doubtful at best.
In spite of differences among them, other countries with normal human
systems would be united by characteristic solidarity in the defense of an
understood danger, similar to the solidarity linking normal people living
under pathocratic rule.
This consciousness, popularized in the countries affected by this
phenomenon, would simultaneously reinforce psychological resistance on the
part of normal human societies and furnish them with new measures of self
defense.
Can any pathocratic empire risk permitting such a possibility?
In times when the above-mentioned disciplines are developing swiftly in
many countries, the problem of preventing such a psychiatric threat becomes
a matter of "to be or not to be" for pathocracy. Any possibility of such a
situation emerging must thus be staved off prophylactically and skillfully,
both within and without the empire. At the same time, the empire is able to
find effective preventive measures thanks to its consciousness of being
different as well as that specific psychological knowledge of psychopaths
with which we are already familiar, partially reinforced by academic
knowledge.
Both inside and outside the boundaries of countries affected by the
above-mentioned phenomenon, a purposeful and conscious system of control,
terror, and diversion is thus set to work.
Any scientific papers published under such governments or imported from
abroad must be monitored to ascertain that they do not contain any data
which could be harmful to the pathocracy. Specialists with superior talent
become the objects of blackmail and malicious control. This of course causes
the results to become inferior with reference to these areas of science.
The entire operation must of course be managed in such a way as to avoid
attracting the attention of public opinion in countries with normal human
structures. The effects of such a "bad break" could be too far-reaching.
This explains why people caught doing investigative work in this area are
destroyed without a sound and suspicious persons are forced abroad to become
the objects of appropriately organized harassment campaigns there.
Battles are thus being fought on secret fronts which may be reminiscent
of the Second World War. The soldiers and leaders fighting in various
theaters were not aware that their fate depended on the outcome of that
other war, waged by scientists and other soldiers, whose goal was preventing
the Germans from producing the atom bomb. The Allies won that battle, and
the United States became the first to possess this lethal weapon. For the
present, however, the West keeps losing scientific and political battles on
this new secret front. Lone fighters are looked upon as odd, denied
assistance, or forced to work hard for their bread. Meanwhile, the
ideological Trojan horse keeps invading new countries.
An examination of the methodology of such battles, both on the internal
and the external fronts, points to that specific pathocratic knowledge so
difficult to comprehend in the light of the natural language of concepts. In
order to be able to control people and those relatively non-popularized
areas of science, one must know, or be able to sense, what is going on and
which fragments of psychopathology are most dangerous. The examiner of this
methodology thus also becomes aware of the boundaries and imperfections of
this self-knowledge and practice, i.e. the other side's weaknesses, errors,
and gaffes, and may manage to take advantage of them.
In nations with pathocratic systems, supervision over scientific and
cultural organizations is assigned to a special department of especially
trusted people, a "Nameless Office" composed almost entirely of relatively
intelligent persons who betray characteristic psychopathic traits. These
people must be capable of completing their academic studies, albeit
sometimes by forcing examiners to issue generous evaluations. Their talents
are usually inferior to those of average students, especially regarding
psychological science. In spite of that, they are rewarded for their
services by obtaining academic degrees and positions and are allowed to
represent their country's scientific community abroad.
As especially trusted individuals, they are allowed to not participate
in local meetings of the party, and even to avoid joining it entirely. In
case of need, they might then pass for non-party. In spite of that, these
scientific and cultural superintendents are well known to the society of
normal people, who learn the art of differentiation rather quickly. They are
not always properly distinguished from agents of the political police;
although they consider themselves to be in a better class than the latter,
they must nevertheless cooperate with them.
We often meet with such people abroad, in the countries of normal
people, where various foundations and institutes give them scientific grants
with the conviction that they are thereby assisting the development of
proper knowledge in countries under "communist" governments. These
benefactors do not realize that they are rendering a disservice to such
science and to real scientists by allowing the supervisors to attain a
certain semi-authentic authority, and by allowing them to become more
familiar with whatever they shall later deem to be dangerous.
After all, those people shall later have the power to permit someone to
take a doctorate, embark upon a scientific career, achieve academic tenure,
and become promoted. Very mediocre scientists themselves, they attempt to
knock down more talented persons, governed both by self-interest and that
typical jealousy which characterizes a pathocrat's attitude toward normal
people. They will be the ones monitoring scientific papers for their "proper
ideology" and attempting to ensure that a good specialist will be denied the
scientific literature he needs.
Controls are exceptionally malicious and treacherous in the
psychological sciences in particular, for reasons now understandable to us.
Written and unwritten lists are compiled for subjects that may not be
taught, and corresponding directives are issued to appropriately distort
other subjects. This list is so vast in the area of psychology that nothing
remains of this science except a skeleton picked bare of anything that might
be subtle or penetrating.
A psychiatrist's required curriculum contains neither the minimal
knowledge from the areas of general, developmental, and clinical psychology,
nor the basic skills in psychotherapy. Due to such a state of affairs, the
most mediocre or privileged of physicians become a psychiatrist after a
course of study lasting only weeks. This opens the door of psychiatric
careers to individuals who are by nature inclined to serving the pathocratic
authority, and it has fateful repercussions upon the level of the treatment.
It later permits psychiatry to be abused for purposes for which it should
never be used.
Since they are undereducated, these psychologists then prove helpless in
the face of many human problems, especially in cases where detailed
knowledge is needed. Such knowledge must then be acquired on one's own, a
feat not everyone is able to manage.
Such behavior carries in its wake a good deal of damage and human
injustice in areas of life which have nothing whatsoever to do with
politics. Unfortunately, however, such behavior is necessary from the
pathocrat's point of view in order to prevent these dangerous sciences from
jeopardizing the existence of a system they consider the best of all
possible worlds.
Specialists in the areas of psychology and psychopathology would find an
analysis of this system of prohibitions and recommendations to be highly
interesting. This makes it possible to realize that this may be one of the
roads via which we can reach the crux of the matter or the nature of this
macrosocial phenomenon. The prohibitions engulf depth psychology, the
analysis of the human instinctive substratum, together with analysis of
dreams.
As already pointed out in the chapter introducing some indispensable
concepts, an understanding of human instinct is a key to understanding man;
however, a knowledge of said instinct's anomalies also represents a key to
understanding pathocracy.
Although used ever more rarely in psychological practice, dream analysis
shall always remain the best school of psychological thought; that makes it
dangerous by nature. Consequently, even research on the psychology of mate
selection is frowned upon, at best.
The essence of psychopathy may not, of course, be researched or
elucidated. Darkness is cast upon this matter by means of an intentionally
devised definition of psychopathy which includes various kinds of character
disorders, together with those caused by completely different and known
causes. This definition must be memorized not only by every lecturer in
psychopathology, psychiatrist, and psychologist, but also by some political
functionaries with no education in that area.
This definition must be used in all public appearances whenever it is
for some reason impossible to avoid the subject. However, it is preferable
for a lecturer in such areas to be someone who always believes whatever is
most convenient in his situation, and whose intelligence does not predestine
him to delve into subtle differentiations of a psychological nature.
It is also worth pointing out here that the chief doctrine of said
system reads "Existence defines consciousness". As such, it belongs to
psychology rather than to any political doctrine. This doctrine actually
contradicts a good deal of empirical data indicating the role of hereditary
factors in the development of man's personality and fate. Lecturers may
refer to research on identical twins, but only in a brief, cautious, and
formal fashion. Considerations on this subject may, however, not be
published in print.
We return once more to this system's peculiar psychological "genius" and
its self-knowledge. One might admire how the above mentioned definitions of
psychopathy effectively blocks the ability to comprehend phenomena covered
therein. We may investigate the relationships between these prohibitions and
the essence of the macrosocial phenomenon they in fact mirror. We may also
observe the limits of these skills and the errors committed by those who
execute this strategy. These shortcomings are skillfully taken advantage of
for purposes of smuggling through some proper knowledge on the part of the
more talented specialists, or by elderly people no longer fearful for their
careers or even their lives.
The "ideological" battle is thus being waged on territory completely
unperceived by scientists living under governments of normal human
structures and attempting to imagine that other reality. This applies to all
people denouncing "Communism", as well as those for whom this ideology has
become their faith.
...
In that other reality, the battlefront crosses every study of psychology
and psychiatry, every psychiatric hospital, every mental health consultation
center, and the personality of everyone working in these areas. What takes
place there: hidden thrust-and-parry duels, a smuggling through of true
scientific information and accomplishments, and harassment.
Some people become morally derailed under these conditions, whereas
others create a solid foundation for their convictions and are prepared to
undertake difficulty and risk in order to obtain honest knowledge so as to
serve the sick and needy. The initial motivation of this latter group is
thus not political in character, since it derives from their good will and
professional decency. Their consciousness of the political causes of the
limitations and the political meaning of this battle is raised later, in
conjunction with experience and professional maturity, especially if their
experience and skills must be used in order to save persecuted people.
In the meantime, however, the necessary scientific data and papers must
be obtained somehow, taking difficulties and other people's lack of
understanding into account. Students and beginning specialists not yet aware
of what was removed from the educational curricula attempt to gain access to
the scientific data stolen from them. Science starts to be degraded at a
worrisome rate once such awareness is missing.
~~~
We need to understand the nature of the macrosocial phenomenon as well
as that basic relationship and controversy between the pathological system
and those areas of science which describe psychological and
psychopathological phenomena. Otherwise, we cannot become fully conscious of
the reasons for such a government's behavior.
A normal person's actions and reactions, his ideas and moral criteria,
all too often strike abnormal individuals as abnormal. For if a person with
some psychological deviations considers himself normal, which is of course
significantly easier if he possesses authority, then he would consider a
normal person different and therefore abnormal, whether in reality or as a
result of conversive thinking. That explains why such people's government
shall always have the tendency to treat any dissidents as "mentally
abnormal".
Operations such as driving a normal person into psychological illness
and the use of psychiatric institutions for this purpose take place in many
countries in which such institutions exist. Contemporary legislation binding
upon normal man's countries is not based upon an adequate understanding of
the psychology of such behavior, and thus does not constitute a sufficient
preventive measure against it.
Within the categories of a normal psychological world view, the
motivations for such behavior were variously understood and described:
personal and family accounts, property matters, intent to discredit a
witness' testimony, and even political motivations. Such defamatory
suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are themselves
not entirely normal, whose behavior has driven someone to a nervous
breakdown or to violent protest. Among hysterics, such behavior tends to be
a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A
normal person strikes a psychopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in
barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not all that far
away.
Therefore, when we set up a sufficient number of examples of this kind
or collect sufficient experience in this area, another more essential
motivational level for such behavior becomes apparent. What happens as a
rule is that the idea of driving someone into mental illness issues from
minds with various aberrations and psychological defects. Only rarely does
the component of pathological factors take part in the ponerogenesis of such
behavior from outside its agents. Well thought out and carefully framed
legislation should therefore require testing of individuals whose
suggestions that someone else is psychologically abnormal are too insistent
or too doubtfully founded.
On the other hand, any system in which the abuse of psychiatry for
allegedly political reasons has become a common phenomenon should be
examined in the light of similar psychological criteria extrapolated onto
the macrosocial scale. Any person rebelling internally against a
governmental system, which shall always strike him as foreign and difficult
to understand, and who is unable to hide this well enough, shall thus easily
be designated by the representatives of said government as "mentally
abnormal", someone who should submit to psychiatric treatment. A
scientifically and morally degenerate psychiatrist becomes a tool easily
used for this purpose. Thus is born the sole method of terror and human
torture unfamiliar even to the secret police of Czar Alexander II.
The abuse of psychiatry for purposes we already know thus derives from
the very nature of pathocracy as a macrosocial psychopathological
phenomenon. After all, that very area of knowledge and treatment must first
be degraded to prevent it from jeopardizing the system itself by pronouncing
a dramatic diagnosis, and must then be used as an expedient tool in the
hands of the authorities.
In every country, however, one meets with people who notice this and act
astutely against it.
The pathocracy feels increasingly threatened by this area whenever the
medical and psychological sciences make progress. After all, not only can
these sciences knock the weapon of psychological conquest right out of its
hands; they can even strike at its very nature, and from inside the empire,
at that.
A specific perception of these matters therefore bids the pathocracy to
be "ideationally alert" in this area. This also explains why anyone who is
both too knowledgeable in this area and too far outside the immediate reach
of such authorities should be accused of anything that can be trumped up,
including psychological abnormality.
Then I wrote this response:From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Controversy of Zion
Date sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:26:50 +0200
Lobaczewski wrote:
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.
And...
psychologist George Simon wrote:
...[W]e've been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit problem
behaviors when they're "troubled" inside or anxious about something. We've
also been taught that people aggress only when they're attacked in some way.
So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and for no good
reason, we don't readily accept the notion. We usually start to wonder
what's bothering the person so badly "underneath it all" that's making them
act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may have said or
done that "threatened" them. We almost never think that they might be
fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper hand.
So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as primarily
hurting in some way.
Not only do we often have trouble recognizing the ways people aggress
us, but we also have difficulty discerning the distinctly aggressive
character of some personalities. The legacy of Sigmund Freud's work has a
lot to do with this. Freud's theories (and the theories of others who built
upon his work) heavily influenced the psychology of personality for a long
time. Elements of the classical theories of personality found their way into
many disciplines other than psychology as well as into many of our social
institutions and enterprises. The basic tenets of these theories and their
hallmark construct, neurosis, have become fairly well etched in the public consciousness.
Psychodynamic theories of personality tend to view everyone, at least to
some degree, as neurotic. Neurotic individuals are overly inhibited people
who suffer unreasonable fear (anxiety), guilt and shame when it comes to
securing their basic wants and needs. The malignant impact of
overgeneralizing Freud's observations about a small group of overly
inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.[...]
Therapists whose training overly indoctrinated them in the theory of
neurosis, may "frame" problems presented them incorrectly. They may, for
example, assume that a person, who all their life has aggressively pursued
independence and demonstrated little affinity for others, must necessarily
be "compensating" for a "fear" of intimacy. In other words, they will view a
hardened fighter as a terrified runner, thus misperceiving the core reality of the situation.[...]
We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly
understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as
opposed to those who cower or "run" too much.
Exchange continued next post.From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
To: John Kaminski
Subject: Re: Controversy of Zion
Date sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:22:49 +0200
On 28 Aug 2006, at 21:18, John Kaminski wrote:
> I'd be willing to make a small bet that if Jewish influence were
> neutralized, there would not be a gravitation to the predatory social
> slot they have occupied.
You would lose because the "predatory social slot" they occupy is that of
psychopathy. The entire Levitical thang is nothing more or less than an
expression of the psychopathic worldview written down in terms of
paramoralisms, conversive thinking, and paralogistics.
If you would take the time to absorb the literature on the subject, you
would understand exactly what I mean. But you have to read cases and more
cases and realize that the GOOD ones NEVER become cases, only the ones that
make mistakes. So you have to extrapolate.
>The spotlight is on the dogma. You can win
> with it in a court of law.
Sure. And it's pathological material and our society has been fed on it for
a VERY long time. almost 2 K years.
>The more light, the more the roaches scurry. Too
> bad they have such big guns.
No, they don't really scurry. You aren't even shining light on them from
their point of view. Remember, NOTHING frightens them. You NEED to read
cases and study this thing. You can NEVER do anything significant if you do
not KNOW YOUR ENEMY better than yourself. You are just behaving according
to the category and paramoralistic description they have created for you.
Don't you think they have a complete profile of you and know exactly how to
push your buttons?
>One European country needs to overturn that law.
It will only happen if the matter is handled strategically.
>
> Meanwhile, I have achieved such an awesome status. I have alienated
> absolutely everyone (which in my more sophomoric journalist days I
> absolutely aspired to) across the spectrum. I don't know one friend
> (well, a few like Randy Atkins and Curtis Maynard linger faithfully)
> who dares to defend my position, even when it's so obviously correct.
It's not awesome, THEY planned for you to do exactly that. You have been
castrated and don't even realize it. You are now completely impotent to
help anyone, even yourself.
Believe me, it was planned that way and it was that which I wanted to
forestall. There was so much you could have done... and now, it's all gone,
finished. You walked right into the trap.
> You only have to look at the Congress, and correlate them with the 18
> Jewish ministers of George V who concocted the killing of the czar. It
> is not a mystery.
So what? What good does knowing that do if there is no possibility of
convincing anyone of it because they have been fed on pathological material
for so long that all they can see are the categories of lunatics that will
come and try to change their minds from the "truth" that is a lie?
Again, you can know all the secrets of the universe, but if you don't have a
proper language to transmit them in - that is, a language that masses of
people can understand - which means, of course, that the words must fly to
them under the radar, penetrate the smokescreen - then what good does it do
anyone else for you to see something?
>
> Those who hide behind the split that Zionism is not Judaism are merely
> the latest wave of popular dissemblers who obscure the obvious with
> misleading labels. Henry Makow is the champion of this.
There is truth in this but again, what good does it do the masses of people?
You know, you, yourself, are the prime example of exactly what I am talking
about here.
My whole argument is: let's act strategically. That means we must take into
account the psychology of human beings, the masses of the public, whose
support we need if we expect to change anything.
And changing it IS the goal, isn't it?
We know we are all gonna die if we don't, right?
So we have to figure out HOW.
Well, the masses of people are like any individual. They have all kinds of
programs, emotional likes and dislikes, beliefs, etc. We have to learn how
to work around those things. We have to learn how the PTB have manipulated
them into certain beliefs and mindsets, and help them to work their way out.
The best way to do that is NOT to step on their sore toes!
Just about everybody has a sore toe about Israel and Jews because they have
been PROGRAMMED to have one. They can't help that. Yeah, it's a condition
of denial. People want to hang on to beliefs that they think their peers
believe because it is safer. And the consensus reality has been
artificially created so that people think that the world of the psychopath
is the real and "good" one when it is all a lie.
I know it, you know it, some few others know it.
But the reality also is that they have the power and control and they also
have NO conscience.
More than that, when a person has been brought up on pathological material
and induced to believe something no amount of pointing out the obvious will
change their mind because they HAVE to be right because being RIGHT relates
to survival instincts. What is more, the MORE you tell
that person the TRUTH, that is in opposition to what they have chosen to
believe, the more the person will defend what they have decided is RIGHT
even if being right means shooting themselves in the foot.
The question is: where did you come to the idea that you have to be RIGHT
and you do not have to consider the psychology of other human beings in
trying to help them? Where did you get the idea that RIGHT makes might?
Could it be that you, yourself, are infected at some level with the same
pathological material that emerges from that psychopathic worldview, ideas
that are designed to limit your ability to do anything positive?
So, if we think about the public believing in the pathological material they
have been fed on since infancy - the Jewish schtick, so to say - and then
John Kaminksi defending and being attached to his need to be right, dammit,
and if other people can't see it then, too bad for them! we can see a
perfect example of how things really are.
We then have to realize that the only thing that will wake them up is
EXPERIENCE.
At the same time they are getting this experience, if we do NOT attack their
"sore toe," but rather go about it in a more indirect way, like talking
about psychopathy and how psychology has been twisted and distorted, and
what psychopaths are really like, what they do, what the symptoms are,
eventually, the person begins to think "gee, that sounds just like the
Jews."
Keep in mind they have been inculcated with this pathological material since
birth and they have to be led out of the darkness very carefully. In a way,
it's like taking a horse out of a burning barn. You have to cover their
eyes so they can't see the flames... only after they are out can they turn
and see the fire and not be frightened.
But that is, again, if your REAL goal is to HELP OTHERS and not just to feed
your ego with "I'm right, dammit, and if others don't see it, then they are
garbage and too bad for them."
In short, if we talk constantly about psychopaths, the characteristics, the
symptoms, the maneuvers, the government systems, the GENETICS, and all the
ponerology stuff, and do NOT make any direct mention of Jews...
Not only is it the backdoor inside the system, it is NOT threatening to the
public because, thus far, the PTB have not seen any way they can close off
this gap. It IS a gap, an unprotected flank. Sure, they tried to cover it
with fake psychology, Freud and all that nonsense, but there are enough
psychologists who have smelled that rat and enough good material to use as
back up to be able to get into that gap.
AND, at the same time, continue to "logically" hammer Israel for its
genocide of the Palestinians and Lebanese, and basically everything they do
without directly calling it a "Jewish problem," people will be more inclined
to begin to make the connections themselves.
It's like not talking bad about your daughter's sleazy boyfriend. She'll
figure it out a lot faster if she knows what a good relationship is in
general, and is able to compare things in her own mind without having to
defend her "beliefs."
In another sense, it's like fishing for crabs... leave the bait in place, be
still and wait, and when they take the bait, and won't let go, then you
bring the net down on them.
Or so it seems to me.
Anyway, that is our general strategy.
Geeze, so often I agree with you but I KNOW that the way you are saying it
is nothing but a turn-off to the masses of people we NEED to do anything!!!
What's more, I've said this to you more than once. But saying it seems to
just make you more stubborn and more determined to prove you are right no
matter how much damage you do to yourself and how little you help others and
how FEW others you help.
Geeze, it sounds just like trying to convince the masses that Judism is
evil, eh? Trying to convince you that you are tilting at windmills, or at
the very least, going after the straw man they have set up.
Read Controversy of Zion CAREFULLY. Read Ponerology CAREFULLY. Grok the
words, get the deep import... and then THINK about what you want to
accomplish and how you can do that strategically.
In the end, people will turn to those people who are speaking calmly and
with rational care, people they feel they can trust not to go into a spittle
spewing rant; someone they feel they can trust to watch their back in the
middle of a battle.
I just keep thinking about something Lobaczewski says about how to tell if
someone has been "ponerized"... they lose their ability to think, to
perceive, to grok stuff. It's like they are in a bubble and can't really
hear or see what other people are saying to them.
The way Lobaczewski puts it is:
"One phenomenon all ponerogenic groups and associations have in common is
the fact that their members lose (or have already lost) the capacity to
perceive pathological individuals as such, interpreting their behavior in a
fascinated, heroic, or melodramatic ways. The opinions, ideas, and judgments
of people carrying various psychological deficits are endowed with an
importance at least equal to that of outstanding individuals among normal
people.
"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 association in concern as ponerogenic. Let us
call this the first criterion of ponerogenesis.
"Another phenomenon all ponerogenic associations have in common is their
statistically high concentration of individuals with various psychological
anomalies. Their qualitative composition is crucially important in the
formation of the entire union's character, activities, development, or
extinction. "
Then later, he says:
"Observing the appropriate state corresponding to the first ponerological
criterion - the atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to
pathological individuals - requires skillful psychology and specific factual
knowledge; the second, more stable phase can be perceived both by a person
of average reason and by public opinion in most societies. The
interpretation imposed, however, is unilaterally moralistic or sociological,
simultaneously undergoing the characteristic feeling of deficiency as
regards the possibility of both understanding the phenomenon and
counteracting the spread of said evil. "
So, the atrophy of natural critical faculties seems to spread in their
brains so that they simply become unable to see the CRUX of a matter.
Who, or what, in your life is doing this to you?
>
> When you track the bloodlines of European royalty to Caesar's advisers, can
> anyone have any doubt that the genetic predisposition is not perfectly
> manifested in every generation by this same group.
And where did you find said genealogy? I'm curious since genealogy is my
hobby...
>What worries me about
> using a psychological basis for identification is that psychology is a Jewish
> science. Are the questions it pretends to answer properly presented, or are
> they somehow skewed to achieve the desired, and advantageous, result?
See above. Lobaczewski well knows the tactics of the "bearded schizoidal
fanatics" as he calls them. Did you notice his reference in Ponerology to
the "Protocols" ?
Did you also notice his commentary about how people who can see develop a
"special language," a way of talking about things that prevents their
destruction so that they can continue to do good work for others???
Somehow, I get the feeling that you didn't read the book to the end, or very
thoroughly.
And, like I said, it must be because you had the early, unedited version
which was very difficult to read.
If you want to read the edited and annotated version, let me know.
L
