John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

[Laura]

Alex Jones is a stranger. I do not know him personally. He has never done me wrong. I do not feel that I am in a position to judge him. And yet, I am not a Jones groupie. He is one of many that has some interesting info.

So, here's the problem that normal people with the ability to have a developed, objective conscience face: there ARE a statistically small percentage of deviants in ALL societies that have a statistically HUGE effect on those societies because of their extremely active and persistent natures. They have, in effect, shaped the norms of our society for about the past 2000 years (or more, perhaps back to the Bronze age and earlier). These individuals do their damage COVERTLY. And for that reason, there are certain "rules" or even "moral standards" that they have put in place as a "fence" around normal people. These "rules" work because they have been touted loudly and often and in "moral contexts". An example is: "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Using logic, we can clearly see that such rules only PROTECT the covert activities of those who do not have our best interests at heart.

So, that's one thing.

Next thing: Robert Hare points out that "The problem for the organization [group, society] is that only one or two of these people can do enormous damage, particularly if they get very high up in the organization."

And, since they have no conscience and are protected by the "rules" of society, that people do not share data with one another, they generally DO end up at the top. Time and time again.

Now, looking back at the case cited by Babiak, we note that "Dr. Babiak had been brought in to help a major corporation in Colorado. His job was to assess a management team that was underperforming. ... Morale was low, conflict high."

That pretty well describes the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, doesn't it? It is majorly underperforming, and morale is low and conflict is high. So we might guess that there are psychopaths or other deviants in the mix there. Logic compels us to this hypothesis.

We also notice, from the sample case (and, as Cleckley says, if you've seen one, you've seen them all), that "Babiak was charmed by the fast-talking guy at the center of the problem. He came across very sincere, and modest... "

Now, let's consider what Babiak did. He gave out a bunch of assessment forms to ALL people involved. The results were quite interesting because it was only when he was comparing opinions of different people that he realized that there MIGHT be a problem.

....I only came to realize there was something going on when I got the results of the assessments that were being done, and I found quite a discrepancy. A number of people really, really liked him, and that included some of the higher level people I must say. And a number of people really despised him, really thought he was evil. One person referred to him as a "snake."

Surprise! Surprise! There were people who REALLY liked the guy... and a number of people really despised him.

Well, gee, you could say that about anybody who is in any kind of leadership position. There sure are a few people who actively despise me and spend a LOT of time defaming me.

But Babiak had an additional tool: Hare's PCL-R checklist.

Bob had sent me the PCL-R, or the Psychopathy Checklist, which he had developed while studying psychopaths in prison samples.

He came out high on the conning and manipulation side of the PCL-R equation and middle-of-the-road on the anti-social behavior side. Thus he was able to hide his manipulations from view of those around him, yet he exerted undue influence, negative influence, on the group.

More than this, Babiak did some additional analysis:

When I sorted through the data I found that the supporters and the detractors could actually be broken down into four groups, based upon the amount of first-hand experience they had with Dave, and the amount of help they could be to his career. One group, I called them The Patrons, was made up of the President, the Vice-President and some Directors of the firm, effectively the higher levels of the organization. Now, this group of individuals had considerable formal power in the company but they actually knew very little about Dave. What limited interactions they had with Dave were positive but, I learned later, each had been carefully staged by Dave to get the effect he wanted. As a result, these executives protected and defended him from subsequent criticism.

Now, as I previously wrote, it's not hard to imagine large numbers of these types of people being attracted to professions where they can achieve great power, money, and other attributes of control over others. It's also not hard to imagine the very same types being drawn into the vacuum of Truth where 9-11 Researchers, Alternative Media Personalities, Historical Revisionists, find a venue to set up a "stock-market of information".

The problem here is the SERIOUSNESS of the situation. If we don't figure this one out, and FAST, it is a flat out certainty that we are all gonna die and our children too, and there is going to be NO FUTURE for humanity.

IT IS THAT SERIOUS.

And if you don't know that, then you are asleep.

So, it behooves us, as people of conscience and as parents, to really, really, do everything within our power to figure this out and FAST.

We have a situation that is exactly as Babiak described about a corporation above, only bigger and more complex. We also have a situation that is just RIPE for psychological deviants. We also have a situation where, if we have two neurons firing, we KNOW that just about anything and everything that gets any wide play is probably disinformation because we ARE dealing with CRIMINALS here who have committed horrendous, egregious crimes against individuals and humanity. You don't think they aren't going to be johnny-on-the-spot with the cover-up, do you? If you are that naive, then I give up. You are just chum for the sharks you are swimming with.

But, assuming that you do really care about your future, the future of your children, the future of humanity, then you will certainly WANT to contribute to the solution, and not the problem.

So, what to do? The question has emerged that what we then must deal with is how to deal with people like "Dave"? They are snakes that hide among us and do their damage so covertly that even the most clever and psychologically educated person, such as industrial psychologist, Babiak, was puzzled.

Well, he hooked up with Hare, the psychopath expert and they devised a plan: an 111-point questionnaire they call the 'Business Scan' or 'B-Scan'.

This is actually a formalized structure of the exact thing that we have been doing and teaching large numbers of people in our discussion groups, working groups, and now in public on this forum: a form of networking, sharing inside information not just about information and/or history, but about the PEOPLE disseminating that information.

The thing about the B-Scan is that it is not filled out by the individual in question: his claims or words are not even considered. Instead, it is a questionnaire that is completed by others above and below the 'problem employee' to pinpoint personality traits and behaviors which may be destructive. In short, they have developed a business specific questionnaire (which costs a lot of money, by the way) that imitates what we have long promoted: the idea of a network that honestly and openly shares information about their experiences with others, and does due diligence about those others the instant any questions arise, and shares that information.

Remember: nearly all of the "rules" that you claim to live by have been devised and set up by a psychopathic culture that thrives in the darkness that is created by people being afraid to discuss their observations about, and experiences with, others. Additionally, it has to be kept in mind that when you are dealing with psychopaths, about all you are going to get is impressions, opinions, and anecdotal experiences: they are generally that good and don't leave bodies around to be found.

So, here you are receiving the equivalent of the responses on Babiak and Hare's B-Scan about several individuals in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. There are several threads in this forum where many individuals have contributed masses of data and observations that effectively "out" both Rense and Jones (as well as some others) as "Snakes in Suits."

You, on the other hand, are rejecting this information and blathering paramoralistic platitudes about how nobody has done anything to you (never mind that there ARE people who are giving you clues aplenty) and you don't see anything unusual about Bluebeard's beard being Blue...

 

[name]

... You question 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 on the same level, right? Or, perhaps, you do not question everything to the same degree? Perhaps you question 2+2=5 less than you question2+2=4? ...

i thought that it was generally known that, for bigger values of 2, 2+2 tends towards 5

 

[Pierre]

The Administration (maybe not Bush himself) has the power. Alex Jones does not.

Everybody (including Jones) is unique and has a non linear impact on the whole thing. In any army, officers (Bush, Rumsfeld,...) need privates (Jones and like) and vice versa. Ultimately I think those people are in the same army because they serve the same god.

Jones and al. have a very important role since :
1/they address this small percentage of the masses who is not totally asleep i.e. the only real threat to the ponerized system
2/ They wear sheep clothes (carrying pseudo truths about 9/11 and related topics)

Because my tax dollars are going to kill innocent people

Well my tax dollars don't directly fund this fascist government though I definitely feel concerned about what they do. In a similar way, I didn't directly experience Hitler and his Nazi regime though I really feel concerned about what they did.

...in other words, we are a failed species.

That's a good description of the psychopaths specie.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Because my tax dollars are going to kill innocent people. The Administration (maybe not Bush himself) has the power. Alex Jones does not.

Take Alex Jones, take you 5th grade teacher that told you to be "seen but not heard", take your local church preacher, take Jeff Rense, take somebody's parents that tell their kids to support Bush and the war in Iraq, take the New Age crowd that teaches to do nothing but think happy thoughts all day, take the Hippie movement that was compromised and steered into mind-altering drugs and effectively neutralized, take revolutions throughout history that overthrew a government only to replace it with exactly the same government with a different mask on. Take the mainstream media!! Take all of the above people and organizations and much much more. What is the common thread? Think please!

Yes, I agree, our government has this power to kill. But how did they get this power? The answer is in the above paragraph. Bush does not go around brainwashing people. Yes, he lies, but the brainwashing that makes people susceptible to buy those lies is done everywhere else. He uses people like Alex Jones to do the job. People like your teacher in school. People like your church preacher. People like the mainstream media. People like the FDA. People like countless groups, movements, and organizations that start out with good intentions and are cunningly manipulated into being rendered useless by psychological deviants.

So why does the government have this power? Is it because Bush lies? Well, partly. But why does anybody believe the lies? Why are people unable to easily see through the lies? Why isn't it as obvious to everyone else as it is to us? The answer is, Alex Jones, and other people/groups that are used to hypnotize/deceive/manipulate our minds to make them soft like jello, gullible, naive. Yes, Jones encourages us to question the government WHILE hiding many other things. So if we throw out Bush cabinet, will this change the course of history? Will that fix our problems? Not a chance in hell, because Bush and his cabinet has never been the problem, just one head of the Lernaean Hydra. And it is the job of Jones to say "oh my god look at that head, chop it off quick!". And he makes damn sure that nobody sees the Hydra, and that as a result the head will grow right back.

Hercules could figure it out, and so can we.

 

[Laura]

...in other words, we are a failed species.

That's what psychopaths WANT normal humans to believe. That's part of the whole set-up and you just do not seem to be able to grok it. Again, let me urge you to read Douglas Reed's "Controversy of Zion. " You can download it for free here: http://www.kasjo.net/reeedcontrov.pdf

Yes, it is long, but each and every page is jam-packed with the data you say you want, the historical information you say you want, and I can guarantee that once you finish, IF you are not a deviant yourself, (which we don't know yet, though we are giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to help you understand the true terror of the situation we are all in), you will most certainly begin a campaign to get everyone you know and care about to read it as well.

Yet still I dare to dream the dream
Of how this world could be
and while I've breath, I will not cease
to fight for you and me

You aren't fighting for anybody, you are just sleeping and dreaming that you are fighting.

Speaking of dreams, let me give you a marvelous description of what is happening in the U.S. and what will proceed apace until exactly the conditions that prevailed in Nazi Germany are established as the New World Order.

The 1st of April 1933 had been the first climax of the Nazi Revolution. In the following weeks, events showed a tendency to revert to being merely matters for the press. Certainly the terror continued... but no longer in the tempo furioso of March.

Concentration camps had become an institution. One was advised to get used to that fact and mind one's tongue. The Gleichschaltung - placing Nazis in controlling positions of all ministries, local agencies, boards of large companies, committees of associations - continued, but it now took a pedantic orderly form with laws and regulations. ...The revolution became official. It became a fact, something that a German is used to accommodating and putting up with.

[Gleichschaltung: literally "synchronising"; is used in a political sense to describe the process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce. The term itself is a typical Nazi euphemism, a prime example of "double-talk." ]

It was again permissible to visit Jewish shops. One was still told not to do so, and permanent posters described one as a "traitor to the race" if one did, but it was permitted. There were no SA guards at the doors. Jewish civil servants, doctors, lawyers and journalists were still dismissed, but now it happened legally and in an orderly fashion, by paragraph such-and-such of the Civil Code... could one ask for more?

The courts, which had been suspended for a week, were allowed to resume their sessions and pass their verdicts. However, judges could now be removed, quite legally and according to law. The judges, who could now be ousted at a moment's notice, were told that their powers had been immeasurably increased. They had become "people's judges," "sovereign judges." They need no longer anxiously follow the letter of the law. Indeed, it was better if they did not. Understood?

[...]

It was not only the Kammergericht [the code of traditional law] that I had to bid adieu to in those days. "Adieu" had become the motto of the day - a radical leave-taking of everything, without exception. The world I had lived in dissolved and disappeared. Every day another piece vanished quietly, without ado. Every day one looked around and something else had gone and left no trace. I have never since had such a strange experience. It was as if the ground on which one stood was continually trickling away from under one's feet, or rather as if the air one breathed was steadily, inexorably being sucked away.

What was happening openly and clearly in public was almost the least of it. Yes, political parties disappeared or were dissolved; first those of the Left, then also those of the Right; I had not been a member of any of them. The men who had been the focus of attention, whose books one had read, whose speeches one had discussed, disappeared into exile or the concentration camps; occasionally one heard that one or other had "committed suicide while being arrested" or been "shot while attempting to escape". At some point in the summer the newspapers carried a list of thirty or forty names of famous scientists or writers; they had been proscribed, declared to be traitors to the people and deprived of their citizenship.

More unnerving was the disappearance of a number of quite harmless people, who had in one way or another been part of daily life. The radio announcer whose voice one had heard every day, who had almost become an old acquaintance, had been sent to a concentration camp, and woe betide you if you mentioned his name. The familiar actors and actresses who had been features of our lives disappeared from one day to the next. Charming Miss Carola Neher was suddenly a traitor to the people; brilliant young Hans Otto who had been the rising star of the previous season, lay crumpled in the yard of an SS barracks - yes, Hans Otto whose name had been on everyone's lips, who had been talked about at every evening party, had been hailed as the "new Matkowski" that the German stage had so long been waiting for. He had "thrown himself out of a fourth-floor window in a moment when the guards had been "distracted", they said. A famous cartoonist whose harmless drawings had brought laughter to the whole of Berlin every week, "committed suicide" as did the master of ceremonies of a well-known cabaret. Others just vanished. One did not know whether they were dead, incarcerated or had gone abroad - they were just missing.

The symbolic burning of the books in April had been an affair of the press, but the disappearance of books from the bookshops and libraries was uncanny. Contemporary German literature, whatever its merits, had simply been erased. Books of the last season that one had not bought by April became unobtainable. A few authors, tolerated for some unknown reason, remained like individual ninepins in the wreckage. Otherwise you could only get the classics - and a dreadful, embarrassingly bad, literature of blood and soil, which suddenly sprang up. Readers were deprived of their world overnight. ...

Many journals and newspapers disappeared from the kiosks - but what happened to those that continued in circulation was much more disturbing. You could not quite recognize them anymore. In a way, a newspaper is like an old acquaintance: you instinctively know how it will react to certain events, what it will say about them and how it will express its views. If it suddenly says the opposite of what it said yesterday, denies its own past, distorting its features, you cannot avoid feeling that you are in a madhouse. That happened. ... The editor-in-chief had gone too far. He lost his job and only just managed to save his neck (today [1939] he is allowed to write light novels). The rest of the editorial staff remained in post, but as a matter of course became Nazis without the least detriment to their elegant style and historical perspective - they had always been Nazis, naturally; indeed, better, more genuinely and more profoundly so than the Nazis themselves. It was wonderful to behold: the paper had the same typography, the same name- but without batting an eyelid id had become a thoroughgoing, smart Nazi organ.

I was nauseated and wearied, and contented myself with taking leave of one more newspaper.

The tendency to want to dream, to hide away from the harsh reality of what we face is also discussed by Haffner. You are able to do it - to some extent - at present, but as Haffner found, the day will come when it will no longer be possible.

In the event, these leave-takings were not the most painful - taking leave of all the manifestations and elements that make up the atmosphere of an era was harder. They are difficult to describe but should not be underestimated, as they can make life very somber. It is unpleasant enough when the air over a whole country loses all its freshness and perfume and becomes choking and poisonous. But to a certain extent one can exclude this outside air, shut one's windows tightly, and withdraw into the four walls of one's private life. One can seal oneself off, put flowers in one's room, and close one's eyes and hold one's nose when one goes out. The temptation to do this was great, even for me - and many others gave in to it. Thank God, my attempt to seal myself off failed from the outset. I could not shut the windows. There were leave-takings after leave-takings waiting for me in my most private life.

All the same, the temptation to seal oneself off was a sufficiently important aspect of the period for me to devote some space to it. It has its part to play in the psycho-pathological process that has unfolded in the cases of millions of Germans since 1933. After all, to a normal onlooker most Germans today exhibit the symptoms of lunacy or at the very least severe hysteria. If you want to understand how this came about, you have to take the trouble to place yourself in the peculiar position in which non-Nazi Germans - and that was still the majority - found themselves in 1933, and try to understand the bizarre, perverse conflicts they faced.

The plight of non-Nazi Germans in the summer of 1933 was certainly one of the most difficult a person can find himself in: a condition in which one is hopelessly, utterly overwhelmed, accompanied by the shock of having been caught completely off balance.

We were in the Nazis' hands for good or ill. All lines of defence had fallen, any collective resistance had become impossible. Individual resistance was only a form of suicide. We were pursued into the farthest corners of our private lives; in all areas of life there was rout, panic and flight. No one could tell where it would end. At the same time we were called upon, not to surrender, but to renege. Just a little pact with the devil - and you were no longer one of the captured quarry. Instead you were one of the victorious hunters.

That was the simplest and crudest temptation. Many succumbed to it. Later they often found that the price to be paid was higher than they had thought and that they were no match for the real Nazis. There are many thousands of them today in Germany, Nazis with a bad conscience. People who wear their Nazi badges like Macbeth wore his royal robes, who, in for a penny, in for a pound, now find their consciences shouldering one burden after another, who search in vain for a way out, drink and take sleeping pills, no longer dare to think, and do not know whether they should rather pray for the end of the Nazi era - their own era! - or dread it. When that end comes they will certainly not admit to having been the culprits.

In the meantime, however, they are the nightmare of the world. It is impossible to assess what these people might still be capable of in their moral and psychological derangement. Their history has yet to be written. [this was written in 1939]

Our predicament in 1933 held many other temptations apart from this, the crudest; each was a source of madness and mental sickness for those who yielded. The devil has many nets, crude ones for crude souls, finer ones for finer souls.

If you refused to become a Nazi you found yourself in a fiendish situation: it was one of complete and unalleviated hopelessness; you were daily subjected to insults and humiliations, forced to watch unendurable scenes, had nowhere to turn to mitigate your anguish.

Such a situation carries its own temptations: apparent remedies that hide the barb of the devil.

One temptation, often favoured by older people, was the withdrawal into an illusion: preferably the illusion of superiority. Those that surrendered to this, clung to the amateurish, dilettantish aspects that Nazi politics undoubtedly exhibited at first. Every day they tried to convince themselves and others that this could not continue for long, and maintained an attitude of amused criticism. They spared themselves the perception of the fiendishness of Nazism, by concentrating on its childishness, and misrepresented their position of complete, powerless subjugation as that of superior, unconcerned onlookers. They found it both comforting and reassuring to be able to quote a new joke or a new article about the Nazis from the London Times. They were people who predicted the imminent end of the regime, at first with calm certainty, later, as the months went by, with ever more desperate self-deception.

The worst came for them when the Nazi Party visibly consolidated itself and had its first successes: they had no weapons to cope with these.

In the years that followed, this group was the target of a psychologically clever bombardment with boastful statistics. They formed the majority of the late converts to Nazism in the years from 1935 to 1938. Once their strenuously maintained pose of superiority had been rendered untenable, great numbers of these people yielded. Once the successes they had always declared to be impossible became reality, they conceded defeat. 'But he has achieved what no one else achieved! "Yes that's just the trouble.' 'Oh, you just love paradoxes, don't you?' (A conversation from 1938.)

A few of them still hold the banner high. Even after all their defeats they still prophesy the inevitable collapse of the regime every month, or at least once a year. Their stand has a certain magnificence, you have to admit, but also a certain eccentricity. The funny thing is that one day, after they have stood fast through all their cruel disappointments, they will be proved right. I can already see them strutting around after the defeat of the Nazis and telling everybody that they had predicted it all along. By then, however, they will have become tragicomic figures. There is a way of being right that is shameful and lends its opponent undeserved glory. Think of Louis XVIII.

The second danger was embitterment - masochistically surrendering oneself to hate, suffering and unrelieved pessimism. This is perhaps the most natural reaction to defeat for the Germans. In their darkest hours (in private or in public life) every German has to fight against this temptation: to give up completely once and for all; to let the world go to the devil with a wan indifference bordering on compliance; to commit sullen, angry suicide.

Oh, I am growing tired of the sun and light, let creation crumble into empty night! It looks very heroic: all consolation is utterly rejected - but the sufferer fails to see that this is itself the most poisonous, dangerous, vicious form of consolation. The perverse indulgence in self-sacrifice, a Wagnerian lust for death and destruction - that is the most complete consolation for a defeated man who cannot find the strength and courage to face defeat and bear it. I make bold to prophesy that this will be the basic stance of Germany after it has lost the Nazi war - the wild, headstrong wailing of a child taking the loss of its doll for the end of the world. (There was already a lot of this in the German reaction to the defeat of 1918.)

In 1933, little of the inner feelings of the defeated majority was reflected in public attitudes because officially no one had been defeated. Officially there was only celebration, things getting better, 'liberation', 'deliverance', salvation, intoxicating unity. Suffering had to be kept quiet. Yet embitterment was a typical reaction of the defeated after 1933.

I encountered it so often myself that I am convinced that the number of those affected in this way must run into millions. It is difficult to assess the external consequences of such an internal attitude. Occasionally it leads to suicide. Much more commonly, however, people adapt to living with clenched teeth in a manner of speaking. Unfortunately, they form the majority of the representatives of a visible 'opposition' in Germany. So it is no wonder that the opposition has never developed any goals, methods, plans or expectations. Most of its members spend their time bemoaning the atrocities. The dreadful things that are happening have become essential to their spiritual well- being. Their only remaining dark pleasure is to luxuriate in the description of gruesome deeds, and it is impossible to have a conversation with them on any other topic. Indeed, it has gone so far that many of them would feel that something was missing if they did not have atrocities to talk about, and with some of them despair has almost become cosy.

Still, it is a way of 'living dangerously': it makes one bilious, and can lead to serious illness and even madness.

There is also a narrow side-alley that leads from here to Nazidom: if it makes no difference anyway and everything is lost, then why not be bitterly, angrily cynical and join the devils oneself? Why not take part, secretly cackling with scorn? That attitude is not unheard of.

There is a third temptation I need to mention. It is the one I had to fight against myself, and again I was certainly not the only one. Its starting point is the recognition of the danger of succumbing to the previous temptation. You do not want to let yourself be morally corrupted by hate and suffering, you want to remain good-natured, peaceful, amiable and 'nice'. But how to avoid hate and suffering if you are daily bombarded with things that cause them? You must ignore everything, look away, block your ears, seal yourself off. That leads to a hardening through softness and finally also to a form of madness: the loss of a sense of reality.

For simplicity's sake, let me talk about my own experiences, not forgetting that my case should be multiplied a hundred thousand or a million-fold.

I have no talent for hate. j have always been convinced that involving oneself too deeply in polemics and arguments with incorrigible opponents, hating the despicable too much, destroys something in oneself - something that is worth preserving and is difficult to rebuild. My natural gesture of rejection is to turn away, not to go on the attack.

I also have a strong sense of the honour one does an opponent by deigning to hate him, and I felt that the Nazis in particular were not worthy of this honour. I did not want to be on such close terms with them as to hate them. The worst affront I suffered from them was not their intrusive demands for me to join in - those were beneath thinking or getting upset about - but the fact that, by being impossible to ignore, they daily caused me to feel hate and disgust, feelings that are so much against my nature.

Could I not find an attitude that avoided being forced to feel anything, even hate or disgust?

Could I not develop a serene, imperturbable disdain, 'taking one look and then moving on'?

What if it cost me half, or if need be all, my external life?

At just this time I read a dangerous, alluringly ambiguous sentence of Stendhal's. He wrote it as a coda after the restoration of 1814, an event that he felt to be a 'descent into the quagmire' just as I viewed the events of 1933.

There was only one thing, he wrote, still worth the toil and trouble, namely 'to hold oneself holy and pure'.

Holy and pure! That meant not only steering clear of all participation, but also of all devastation through pain, and any distortion through hate - in short, from any reaction at all, even that caused by rejection. Turn away - retreat into the smallest corner if you have to, if you can only keep it free of the polluted air, so that you can save undamaged the only thing worth saving, namely (to use the good old theological word) your soul.

I still think that there is some justification for this attitude; and I do not repudiate it. However, simply ignoring everything and retreating into an ivory tower, the way I imagined it then, was not the right thing to do. I thank God that my attempt to do so failed quickly and thoroughly.

Some of my acquaintances' attempts did not fail so quickly, and they had to pay a high price to learn that one can sometimes only save the peace of one's soul by sacrificing and relinquishing it.

In contrast to the first two ways of evading the Nazis, this third way did find a kind of public expression in Germany in the following years. Literary idylls suddenly sprang up and flourished everywhere. In the outside world, even in literary circles, it has gone unnoticed that, as never before, so many recollections of childhood, family novels, books on the countryside, nature poems, so many delicate and tender little baubles were written in Germany in the years 1934-38. Apart from open Nazi propaganda literature, almost everything that was published in Germany belongs to this genre. In the last two years it has declined somewhat, apparently because the effort required to achieve the necessary harmlessness has become too great. Up until then it was uncanny. A whole literature of cow bells and daisies, full of children's summer-holiday happiness, first love and fairy tales, baked apples and Christmas trees, a literature of obtrusive intimacy and timelessness, manufactured as if by arrangement in the midst of marching, concentration camps, armaments factories, and the public displays of Der Sturmer. ( A viciously sadistic, pornographic, anti-Semitic propaganda paper, on display in bright red glass cases throughout Nazi Germany.)

If you had to read quantities of these books, as I did, you gradually felt that in all their quiet tenderness they were screaming at you, between the lines, 'Don't you see how timeless and intimate we are? Don't you see how nothing can disturb us? Don't you see how unaffected we are? See it please, please, we beg you.'

I knew some of the writers personally. For each of them, very nearly, the moment has since come when it became impossible to go on; some event that could not be blocked out by ear plugs; maybe the arrest of a close acquaintance or something like that. No childhood reminiscences can shield one from that. There were some serious breakdowns. ...

Those were the conflicts the Germans faced in the summer of 1933. They represented a choice between different forms of spiritual death.

People who have lived in normal times may well feel that they are being shown a madhouse, or perhaps a psycho-pathological laboratory. However, there is no avoiding the fact that that is the way it was, and I cannot change it. Incidentally, these were still relatively innocuous times. It gets much worse.

And it did get much worse then, and it will get much worse in the future. Those who are not prepared to truly discern, to find which side of the fence they truly are on, will find that the choice has been made for them already; their refusal to stand for what is right on behalf of others will mean that no one will stand up for them.

 

[GRiM]

I'vee just listen to Non-Random Thoughts 20061014 Kevin Barrent interviews John Kaminski and I think its the last interview with John in a while. Either they knew his stand and winded him up so he could rant and "say to much" or they didnt know and got a good slew of his antijew (not just sionism) rant.
Either way he got a bad publicity from this interview, you might want to listen to it If you got the chance :)
(I have learned my lesson and will not upload it to rapidshare ^_^)
I feel abit sorry for John that he's so stuck, I hope he sees the bigger picture soon.

 

[JudeA]

WOW...
there is a lot to answer here.
First let me talk with Laura. I have saved The Controversy of Zion and have every intention of reading it.
I am still recovering from my cataract surgery and the Net is a bit of a struggle. The other night I was on until 2:30 writing my Rachel Corrie essay and it was pure torture on my eyes. I may have to take the book in sections and print it out.
I know that you do not think I am a psychopath. You may see me as a bit gullible and a fence sitter, but I feel, from your investment in me so far, that you can tell where my heart is. I appreciate this, since I know that John K led you astray by confusing me with the gay wiccan Judy Andreas on the coast (and sundry other lies about me) . He knew damn well what he was doing, but I sure as hell do not.

I do not know if you have read any of my essays. My latest one http:(2slash)www.rense(dot)com/general73/name.htm might interest you. And so.....please do not think that I am ignoring your posts. I am just struggling with my vision at this point.


And now......to Scio...
<<So if we throw out Bush cabinet, will this change the course of history? Will that fix our problems? Not a chance in hell, because Bush and his cabinet has never been the problem, just one head of the Lernaean Hydra. And it is the job of Jones to say "oh my god look at that head, chop it off quick!". And he makes damn sure that nobody sees the Hydra, and that as a result the head will grow right back.>>

I know many people who do not involve themselves in politics because they see the futility of the "game". Is it a cop out to say that it is a matter of consciousness? I have enjoyed Michael Tsarion's work........dunno how you feel about him. I agree that ...until we can raise our consciousness, we will continue allowing evil people to rule. Their names are almost irrelevant.

I really want to read the book per Laura's suggestion. I am extremely anti Zionist, However, I have felt, for quite sometime, that if Israel and the Zionists were to disappear, the landscape would not change much. There are still too many people who are centered in the power chakra. These people have cremated their consciences.

 

[Renaissance]

I just know that, while I am alive, I will speak my truth. I do not give Alex the power that you feel he has.

Is it a concern of yours if 'your truth' is in line with THE TRUTH? As long as your efforts are focused inwardly you wont see that it is exactly this dynamic which is giving power to Alex Jones and his ilk - as Anart had mentioned earlier. These comments of yours are also contradictory. Why would you not want to give AJ power? You demonstrate that you hold him in high regard:

I get a lot of information from Alex Jones

I cannot say that Alex's purpose is to lead people astray. That is an assumption that I will never allow myself to make. I also do not feel that Alex is leading me anywhere. He has great guests and he puts doubt in the minds of those who would be lining up behind the administration's lies.

I do not see Alex as someone who is working hard to obfuscate the truth.

If someone provides a lot of information, who is not leading people astray or obfusicating truth, why would you not want to give such a person power?

But then you have left it 'open' in what may be either cleverly designed statements or eminations of a sleeping woman's dream which never addresses the truth of the substance that a person (i.e. Alex Jones) speaks of. You also have conveyed that you will not address a persons lies unless they are either about you are concerning your money. This kind of selfishness has allowed our world to thrive in evil.

I've read your article 'Her Name Was Rachel Corrie' and wanted to make a comment on what you wrote in the begining:

We are all born and someday we'll all die. Most likely to some degree alone. What if our aloneness isn't a tragedy? What if our aloneness is what allows us to speak the truth without being afraid? What if our aloneness is what allows us to adventure - to experience the world as a dynamic presence - as a changeable interactive theory?

I don't see that it was Rachel's aloneness that allowed her to pursue the truth or adventure. I think it was an opposite thing: conscience. This is what connects us to people through their happiness or suffering. It's what drives us to act for humanity.

It is interesting, however, that you see the situation in the way you've described.

 

[JudeA]

<<We are all born and someday we'll all die. Most likely to some degree alone. What if our aloneness isn't a tragedy? What if our aloneness is what allows us to speak the truth without being afraid? What if our aloneness is what allows us to adventure - to experience the world as a dynamic presence - as a changeable interactive theory?>>>

THOSE were Rachel's words....not mine, Shane. The quotes were not clear on Jeff's site.
Judy

 

[JudeA]

By the way, I listened to John K on Kevin Barrett and I must applaud Mr. Barrett. He is a unifier. John is way over the edge. He's a tragic figure.

 

[ark]

By the way, I listened to John K on Kevin Barrett and I must applaud Mr. Barrett. He is a unifier. John is way over the edge. He's a tragic figure.

Traguc, indeed. Because one should call lie a lie. You can't unify true and a false approach. This is exactly what disinformation is about. Are you aplauding disinformation? From what you write here. it seems you are.

 

[ark]

I have enjoyed Michael Tsarion's work........dunno how you feel about him. I agree that ...until we can raise our consciousness, we will continue allowing evil people to rule. Their names are almost irrelevant.

Hi Judy,

1) You know, there is a "Search" function on our Forum? You click on "Search", you type "Tsarion", and you will find how we feel about Tsarion. He was discussed in several threads, in particular on "COINTELPRO" thread.

2) If you rise your consciousness, it will do no nothing, absolutely nothing. The evil people will rule as they do now. They are also rising their consciousness, to be able to kill more efficiently. What is needed is not rising your consciousness, but gaining knowledge and APPLYING this knowledge, acting upon it. Beineg able to see ALL lies, craving for the truth. But you can't do that without knowledge. Gaining Knowledge seems to be what you avoid, postpone, dismiss as irrelevant.

You say that "names are irrelevant." They are relevant. Otherwise you will not be able distinguish a liar from one who tells the truth. You are making mistake after mistake after mistake. In fact, you are actively helping the lie.

 

[kenlee]

I do not see Alex as someone who is working hard to obfuscate the truth.

Can't you see that Alex Jones is simply the antithesis of Kaminski and yet they are really on the same team? The real truth lies within the realms of their inner motivations, both of which are the same for both Alex Jones ("it's no Jews") and Kaminski ("it's all Jews"). Kaminski now joined Alex's team, while appearing, to oppose him on the "Jewish question." Now the so called "movement" will become divided on the "Jewish question," a real division within an unreal movement creating a real dyadic force which will be used to serve the same single agenda when they clash. Welcome to "wonderland." The unreal becomes the real. Kaminski and AJ really have the same truth because their motivations are the same. Can't you see this? It's all a game to them, a,cosmic infomertial if you will, a world advertisement to sell the product of lies, hatred and bigotry. Any emotion expressed on one side is simply a personal inner hatred projected onto the the other side and they both can't see beyond the mirrors of their own self serving self reflections. Nothing is accomplished in these false oppositions and divisions within this non existant "truth movement" apart from their selling the very real products of canned hatred and bigotry which will be used to serve the same single agenda for a very real violent revolution. That's the "truth" that AJ and Kaminski are now serving in this imaginary big game they are playing...while real people continue to be slaughtered.

 

[Laura]

I know that you do not think I am a psychopath. You may see me as a bit gullible and a fence sitter, but I feel, from your investment in me so far, that you can tell where my heart is. I appreciate this, since I know that John K led you astray by confusing me with the gay wiccan Judy Andreas on the coast (and sundry other lies about me) . He knew damn well what he was doing, but I sure as hell do not.

I'm not quite decided about what I might think is wrong with John: whether he is truly consciously evil or whether he just does evil things because he has been twisted that way, or whether he is just simply a reaction machine having his buttons pushed. I know that he has said many things to many people about other people and then he wonders why no one wants to have anything to do with him. All the while he is doing that, his rant is becoming more and more rabid and even schizoidal. Interesting case. And certainly not the first time I have felt sorry for someone who appeared to be emotionally wounded, all the while they were using that seeming "emotionality" for their own manipulative agendas. For example, I notice that immediately following our decision to no longer fund Kaminski, he came out with his transparently ridiculous rant about you, and tacked me on for good measure.

So, of course, when one gets a glimpse of that kind of behavior, it is not unlikely that it is only the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot more pathology under the surface with John.

I have felt, for quite sometime, that if Israel and the Zionists were to disappear, the landscape would not change much. There are still too many people who are centered in the power chakra. These people have cremated their consciences.

Here is where you lack a whole LOT of knowledge, and this knowledge can be acquired and can save your life not too much further down the road.

Yes, we say repeatedly (and I've even written it to JK more than once: If, as he suggests, the Jews are the problem, does he think that if they disappeared that anything would change? Certainly it would not. More than that, a lot of innocent, decent people would be harmed.

The problem is, as psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski explicates, that there are a statistically small number of deviants - genetic deviants as well as those made deviant by various processes - in any population. It has nothing to do with being "centered in the power chakra" or having cremated their consciences; they were born without them. Their instinctive substratum is not like that of normal human beings, but rather more like animals - and, as psychologist Meloy has suggested - even reptilian in nature.

First of all, get it clear in your mind that, when discussing psychopaths, the ones that get caught are FAILED psychopaths. The really good ones NEVER get caught doing anything overtly illegal that can get them put in jail.

This is the troubling aspect of psychopathy. Because "play acting" is their forte, and they LOVE "putting one over" on other people, it seems that there are many of them that can get away with stuff for years and years and years. Martha Stout recounts a couple composite case studies that'll make your hair stand up!

If we think about everyone we have ever known over years of time, I think we can pick out a few that might very well be "socially compensated psychopaths." That is, they know how to play the game well enough to not get caught. But now and again, there is some item that emerges that indicates that there is something behind the mask. But it is quickly smoothed over, life goes on as normal, and the individual somehow manages to continue pulling the wool over the eyes of spouses, children, friends, etc.

For those who think that psychopaths ought to be easy to spot, keep in mind that, very often, these individuals begin relationships with a well-developed mask, and once they do, they begin to drain the energy from their victims, keep them in that state of "shock" that Lobaczewski described, so that they are effectively paralyzed and unable to think or see. The victim becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault, and they tend to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would do anything like that "on purpose." It's amazing how much psychopathic behavior normal people will tolerate while making excuses for the psychopath/covert aggressive person. Even if they do, occassionally, catch a glimpse, they, themselve, will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them.... if I don't love them, who will? I must love them and help them to see how they are damaging themselves by hurting others..." and so on and so forth.

However, when dealing with such psychological deviants, keep in mind that there ARE signs, and the psychopath behaves with relatively constant patterns. The problem is, in fact, on the side of the victims who are programmed by our psychopathically constructed society and culture to "put up with" behavior that is unacceptable.

But, even though, over a long period of time, there are consistent signs that can be read if the person isn't in denial, a person who is aware and alert cannot always rely on being able to spot them at first. In The Mask of Sanity, Cleckley tells a story about how his staff could always determine who were the psychopaths among new patients by whether or not they were able to initially "put one over on" Cleckley himself.

The bottom line is to remember: These people do not begin relationships without a mask, and once the victim is hooked emotionally, they are trapped.

It is also important to notice that networking and sharing data is crucial. Cleckley had access to a wealth of data from family members, friends, and other clinicians. If he did not KNOW, for a fact, that something one of these patients was telling him was a lie, he would have been just as vulnerable as the next person. His cases are compilations of a lot of evidence from many sources. How many of us have that kind of access to information about a person who is presenting themselves to us with a certain exhibited persona?

We don't.

So, in other words, it is very easy to say that you can see this or that about these patients because Cleckley has assembled the data for you. How easy would it be for you to see it in someone whose private life is closed
to you, and whose family hides what they know about him/her from shame? Without a network of data inputs, we CAN'T have the view of an individual that Cleckley has given us.

Meloy writes:

The psychopath is an imposter. Shorn of any deep and abiding identifications with others, much of his subsequent behavior as an adult involves the conscious imitation and simulation of other people's thoughts,
affects, and activities.

Unlike the person with narcissistic personality disorder who consciously feels, at times, a sense of being a fake, the psychpathic character has no awareness of this "false self" or the "as if" quality of his phenomenal experience. He does not merely play the role, observing the limits of his character, but lives the part. ... I am using the term imitation to describe the intentional, conscious, mimicking of another person's attitudes or behavior. ...

The psychopathic process may also be expressed by individuals whose simulations are so adept, whether they be cognitive, affective, or behavioral, that there is absolutely no suspicion whatsoever that pseudoidentifications may be occurring. This is especially difficult to assess in the socially engaging and intelligent psychopath. ... Any successful assessment of the nature and genuineness of identifications in these individuals must be largely dependent upon corroborative information from relatives, family, acquaintances, and other clinicians.

Case study:

T.D., a probationer, was a 16-year-old Caucasian male of superior intelligence. He was currently held in juvenile custody, but was allowed certain day trips with his probation officer to facilitate planning and placement upon his release. On one such day trip the probation officer was amazed and pleased to find out that T.D. shared with her an interest in metaphysics. In fact, he displayed a remarkable intellectual command of the writings of Alfred North Whitehead, one of her most favorite philosopher-theologians. They conversed for several hours while riding in her automobile, and subsequently the probation officer found herself much more closely identified with and sympathetic toward the plight of T.D. His intellect also became a personal strength that she noted with high regard in her written recommendation to the court.

Several weeks following these events, the probation officer learned from a colleague that T.D. had specifically inquired of others to find out her personal interests; and when he learned of her metaphysical avocation, he acquired numerous books which he read in preparation for his encounters with her. She later found out that he was asking questions about his new resident manager with ostensibly the same purpose in mind.

The probation officer consciously felt hurt and angry toward T.D., but also acknowledged to me her continuing admiration for his prowess and intellect!

T.D. imitated the probation officer's intellectual interests to pursue his own ends. There was no coincidental, reciprocal sense of emotional resonance and intelletual exchange between them. [He set the whole thing up to look coincidental.]

The well-honed, imitative, and mirroring aspects of T.D.'s behavior, in this case in the intellectual sphere, enhanced the probation officer's self-esteem. Her narcissistic admiration of her own metaphysical knowledge increased as she identified with, and consciously admired, the metaphysical understanding of T.D.

This case illustrates what I call malignant pseudoidentification. It is the process by which the psychopath consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the victim's identification with him/her, thus increasing the victim's vulnerability to exploitation. ... The psychopath simulates the more subtle narcissistic characteristics (self-concepts) of the victim at an earlier, and unconscious, developmental level.

Mental health and legal professionals are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification during work with a psychopath when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the psychopathic character is to increase the professional's general empathy for the psychopath's plight through pseudo-identification with the professional's narcissism. [self-concept]

The most common example of this is the psychopath who will complement the professional for his competency or knowledge. On a more subtle level, the psychopath will simulate affects and mannerisms of the victim, (mirroring and twinship). It is not unheard of for defense attorneys, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of intelligent psychopathic clients, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their defendants.

The victims "felt quality of perfection" [enhanced self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the psychopath through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts]

The victim will be deluded into thinking that the psychopath shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In a legal setting the adversarial roles that attorneys play will foster ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between attorney and psychopathic defendant may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the attorney-victim.

Individuals who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the psychopath.

Empathy is fostered in the victim through the expression of quite visible affects... The presenation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the "helper" a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the "helper's" narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The psychopathic expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deeply cathected emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the clinical observer who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the psychopath. As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The psychopath will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the clinical observer with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished.

The psychopath, in brief, has no capacity for empathy, but has an exquisite capacity for simulation and imitation of others self-concepts (narcissistic investments).

Now, regarding Meloy's description of the two events above, being cool and unaffected because you have a good idea that you are being "played," leading to the rapid recompensation, I experienced this in a rather dramatic way a few years ago. The woman in question was crying bitterly, self-blaming, stuttering out things like "I'm such a failure... I can't be happy and I don't know why... and I make everybody around me unhappy... and I guess I
should never have been born... I'm so miserable..." blah blah. You get the picture. It was the well-known psychopathic play for pity which they always use when called on something. (This is exactly what Kaminski did.)

I was quite aware that I was being played, at this point, and I simply responded: "That's BS." and a few other remarks that made it plain that crying wasn't cutting it with me, that the only thing I was interested in was finding a solution. The individual TURNED ON A DIME. Tears, sad face, misery, vanished in an INSTANT. I actually felt dizzily disoriented by it! I also have to say that, because I had been observing the individual for a period, as she played these games repeatedly with others, that while she was trying this maneuver on me, I felt only revulsion.

Now, certainly, anyone observing this interaction from the outside would have thought that I was being cold and cruel, but I bet that if they had been paying close attention, they would have been exactly as disoriented by the "turning off" of the tears and the ending of the drama as I was. After all, I was only operating with theoretical knowledege. At the moment, I didn't see any other options because all the attempts to cure the individual by sympathy and empathy had been tried by numerous other people, some of them putting YEARS of work into the project. So far, nobody had tried just calling her on it to her face. So, I did it.

Damnedest thing I ever saw.

But, returning to the ways and means that such individuals gain control of normal people so that even when they exhibit psychopathic behavior, the person does not want to believe it; this is a significant problem and relates to Lobaczewski's idea that, during "good times," human beings stop being able to accurately read the psychological reality.

I think that what happens to some of us is that we become inured in the matrix mentally, having been accustomed for so many years to make excuses for inexcusable behavior, that the only way our subconscious can signal danger to us is via physical symptoms.

Lobaczewski wrote about the actual physiological effect that the psychopath (even a pseudo psycho; so many people have the behaviors because we are born and raised in a psychopathic society) can have on a person:

"When the human mind comes into contact with this new reality so different from any experiences encountered by a person raised in a society dominated by normal people, it releases psychophysiological shock symptoms in the human brain with a higher tonus of cortex inhibition and a stifling of feelings, which then sometimes gush forth uncontrollably. Human minds work more slowly and less keenly, since the associative mechanisms have become inefficient. Especially when a person has direct contact with psychopathic representatives of the new rule, who use their specific experience so as to traumatize the minds of the "others" with their own personalities, his mind succumbs to a state of short-term catatonia. Their humiliating and arrogant techniques, brutal paramoralizations, deaden his thought processes and his self-defense capabilities, and their divergent experiential method anchors in his mind. ...

"Only after these unbelievably unpleasant psychological states have passed, thanks to rest in benevolent company, is it possible to reflect - always a difficult and painful process - or to become aware that one's mind and common senses have been fooled by something which cannot fit into the normal human imagination."

And then, there's what Meloy wrote about the physiological effects:

"The other clinical observation that supports the hypothesis of a reptilian state among certain primitive psychopathic characters is the absence of perceived emotion in their eyes. Althought this information is only intuitive and anecdotal, it is my experience in forensic treatment and custody settings to hear descriptions of certain patients' or inmates' eyes as cold, staring, harsh, empty, vacant, and absent of feeling. Reactions from staff to this percetion of the psychopath's eyes have included, "I was frightened... he's very eerie; I felt as if he was staring right through me; when he looked at me the hair stood up on my neck."

This last comment is particularly telling since it captures the primitive, autonomic, and fearful response to a predator.

"I have rarely heard such comments as these from the same experienced inpatient staff during highly arousing, threatening, and violent outbursts by other angyr, combative patients. It is as if they sense the absence of a capacity for emotional relatedness and empathy in the psychopathic individual, despite his lack of actual physical violence at the moment. ...

"I have found little in the research literature, either theoretical or empirical, that attempts to understand this act of visual predation in the psychopathic process. ... The fixated stare of the psychopath is a prelude to instinctual gratification rather than empathic caring. The interation is socially defined by parameters of power rather than attachment."

So it is very possible for an individual to detect the psychopath via this "primitive, autonomic, and fearful response" to predatory behavior.

I have even experienced it "by proxy." That is, there are emails that I have received that have produced the same effect in me.

And that is why this is so important. Only when you study psychopathy in "caricature," as in pure psychopathy, can you begin to see the connections. If you just read a psychology textbook, or "self-help" book, you get a whole lot of BS that is circuitous and doesn't really describe what is happening "out there." But once you have seen the caricature, you can never not recognize it again.

This is doubly true when dealing with people on the net. Only after you know what such people (and even normal people who have been "transpersonalized") can say and do, do you even begin to get inoculated against their power over you.

But, getting back to the value of being able to recognize predators, of practicing recognizing them until your psychopath-meter is well-tuned, Lobaczewski has this to say:

Some outstanding psychopathologists, convinced that developing a calm and sufficient view of human reality is impossible without psychopathological findings, are therefore unfortunately right, a conclusion difficult to accept by people who believe they attained a mature world-view without such burdensome studies. The defenders of the natural world-view have tradition, belles-lettres, even philosophy on their side. They do not realize that during present times, their manner of comprehending life's questions renders the battle with evil more problematic.

Exactly so. And things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. And many people are going to be needed to provide this knowledge and guidance to others in times that we are facing. Being able to "see the unseen" is going to be life-saving, as the C's once told me. I had no idea what they meant at the time, but it is very strange that the discussion was about Ted Bundy, famous psychopath.

I had NO idea what that was going to mean...

But we sure do have an idea now. And now, I am telling you the same thing: You gotta do the WORK or you will be helpless just as Lobaczewski described above.

If you, like me, can hardly stomach it, well, you will just have to think about it as conscious suffering because the day will come when you will be needed to provide this knowledge to others. So best be getting on with the program if you REALLY want to help people.

Count on it.

 

[JudeA]

No, I have not gone through this site the way I should have so I did not know that Tsarion was discussed. I look forward to my eye healing completely and hope that I can get back to more reading.

Laura states " I'm not quite decided about what I might think is wrong with John: whether he is truly consciously evil or whether he just does evil things because he has been twisted that way, or whether he is just simply a reaction machine having his buttons pushed. I know that he has said many things to many people about other people and then he wonders why no one wants to have anything to do with him. All the while he is doing that, his rant is becoming more and more rabid and even schizoidal. Interesting case. And certainly not the first time I have felt sorry for someone who appeared to be emotionally wounded, all the while they were using that seeming "emotionality" for their own manipulative agendas. For example, I notice that immediately following our decision to no longer fund Kaminski, he came out with his transparently ridiculous rant about you, and tacked me on for good measure.

So, of course, when one gets a glimpse of that kind of behavior, it is not unlikely that it is only the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot more pathology under the surface with John. "

OH MY. As I said, I could write volumes on John's erratic behavior. (having nothing to do with the Jews) I never knew when he would "go off". We would be having a lovely conversation when suddenly he would start yelling that I was interfering with the essays in his mind, and he would not be able to remember them. And yet, he was the one who had called me. It usually wound up with my getting hurt and his slamming down the phone.
The next day I would get a call "Pookie, I do not know why I do these things. You do not deserve it. I love you" I felt verbally abused and yet I stayed.

Laura said " For example, I notice that immediately following our decision to no longer fund Kaminski, he came out with his transparently ridiculous rant about you, and tacked me on for good measure. "
I am still totally baffled. John says things about me that he knows can be proven to be lies. (like the Wiccan lesbian....and stating the wrong maiden name for me) His "turning on you" was a total shock to me.

Laura writes
Yes, we say repeatedly (and I've even written it to JK more than once: If, as he suggests, the Jews are the problem, does he think that if they disappeared that anything would change? Certainly it would not. More than that, a lot of innocent, decent people would be harmed "

I have said nearly the same words to John. When he was in New York, he loved the friends of mine that he met. (some were Jewish and some were not) We did a lot of fun things. However, as I explained before, in abbreviated form, sometimes he would totally go off. We went to a lecture given by Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh. Cincy Sheehan was there too. John started "losing it" prior to the lecture. The problem was that his cell phone ring was different from the one he had programmed and he was struggling to fix it. I assured him that we would go to Sprint (?) in the morning. He was overly agitated. Thankfully, we finally were able to remedy the problem He would then say "I don't know why I get like this, Pookie".
It frightened me, Laura.
I have my degree in counseling and, as I have said, I've worked with the mentally ill. John is ill though I would never attempt to DSM him.