John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

JudeA said:
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.
I wouldn't either since the DSM is, in these particular areas, extremely misleading. I think that is for a reason, too. As Cleckley, Hare, Babiak, Stout, and many others note, the professions of psychology/medicine/psychiatry are VERY attractive to psychopaths whose innate, instinctive urging is for "power and control over others." Of course, there is a vast keyboard of expressions of this urge from the abusive husband/lover to such as Hitler.

John, of course, declared that our researches in this field were "scary" because, to him, psychology and psychiatry (and probably even medicine) were "Jewish sciences." That is, to some extent, true, but that doesn't mean that it is bad science. Sure, SOME of it is bad science - even a LOT of it - but that has more to do with psychological deviance than it has to do with being or not being Jewish. (I highly reccommend that you read Lobaczewski and if you wish to review it, I can see that you get a copy for reviewing.)

Now, there are a couple of threads on the forum here that you might find very interesting along that line. Too bad Kaminski never read them...

First, this one, which is short:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2821.msg17248#msg17248

Then this one which is only 4 pages:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2313&p=1

This one, which is basically an examination of a particular case, that of Christopher Bollyn:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2313&p=1

and finally, this one, very recent, wherein some startling theoretical work by individuals in the profession is included:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3558&p=1

As you will see, the subject is incredibly important and useful to absolutely everyone, and most particularly now, in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement and Alternative Media.

The stakes right now are way too high as I explained in my article "94%"
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/94percent.htm
for us to not have the knowledge we need to do what needs to be done. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with segregating people by race, religion, color, or whatnot. It does have everything to do with identifying the deviants in our midst who appear in every race, every color, and generally use religion to conceal their evil. In fact, the term race is rather misused: there is the human race, and then there are those that are "almost human."

These kinds of beings are incapable of any true emotion; the only thing they feel is hunger for power, control, and those things that help them "feel" this power and control: sex, money, material goods. They are incredible mimics and can "act" emotional to such an extent that even the most discerning observer can be fooled; but even if they "act passionate," they are not. They never "feel heat"; their pretend emotions are, in fact pure cold, calculating inventions.

And thus, all the more evil. It is evil for the sake of evil; evil that cannot be explained by childhood trauma or by a belief in some misleading ideology. They just simply are: like weather and earthquakes, a fact of nature.

But this is something that the DSM (whatever number is up these days) simply does not address. Hare has written on this extensively, and has exposed the fact that, even though studies were done that SHOULD have modified some of the classifications, this was not done because it was not expedient for doctors and psychiatrists who rely on payment from insurance companies and the classifications of mental illness for which such companies will pay benefits. Apparently, psychopathy - in the well established Cleckley sense - or "Radical Evil", do not fall under such classifications.

And so, as a society, we are deprived of that knowledge, that awareness, which could truly help us now in our hour of dire need. Knowledge of our true state (under the rule of conscienceless deviants) and their plans for us (annihilation of most normal human beings), and how to recognize them and exclude them from our society so as to create networks of mutual support, is the most important thing any of us can learn right now.

The first job is to learn, then to apply the knowledge. And the first place that this knowledge should be applied is to the so-called 9/11 Truth movement and Alternative Media. Agents and disinformationalists and doctrinaire provocateurs, and sly, subtle "twisters" and mis-directors need to be identified and that identification made widely known. And all this needs to be done based on a well-established clinical standard that already exists.

Poor John, he could have done so much for the cause he claims to espouse: helping humanity to survive. Instead, he has only managed, in more ways than one, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is it due to pathology, or nature? Only time will tell.
 
Judy Andreas said:
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've been following this thread lazily. that quote above made 'ping' for me.

i doubt that any amount of quotes, explanations, citations, information, books for review ... provided by laura will do much to bring the gist of what it is all about to ms. andreas. my impression is that the following of this thread is an excercise in sapping energy from the other people on the forum on her part, by way of involving people in futile and fruitless discussions.

it was just a 'ping' after 12 pages of thread. it's just a feeling at this time and i may be wrong. but the 'ping' was there for me.
 
I think you are wrong on this, Name. If that were the case then Laura wouldn't have been inspired to write some of the best summaries of her knowledge to date in response to Judy. I

t has a completely different feel to me than those kinds of threads where things go around in circles and get nowhere except exhaustion.

name said:
it was just a 'ping' after 12 pages of thread. it's just a feeling at this time and i may be wrong. but the 'ping' was there for me.
 
i doubt that any amount of quotes, explanations, citations, information, books for review ... provided by laura will do much to bring the gist of what it is all about to ms. andreas. my impression is that the following of this thread is an excercise in sapping energy from the other people on the forum on her part, by way of involving people in futile and fruitless discussions.>>

I have no idea why you feel this way. I can only say that you are wrong. I am extremely interested in what Laura has been writing, and I am certain that everyone who is reading it is gaining in knowledge.
Judy

PS unless you need documentation about my cataract surgery.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
I think you are wrong on this, Name. If that were the case then Laura wouldn't have been inspired to write some of the best summaries of her knowledge to date in response to Judy.
Why not? Maybe exactly the opposite. I also have this funny feeling that JudeA is being "too friendly", no "shocks" or struggle with this new information. It'a flows too smoothly, IMHO.
But maybe it's a wrong assumption. cause this assumption/feeling is based on a limited data.

It has a completely different feel to me than those kinds of threads where things go around in circles and get nowhere except exhaustion.
Cause she masterly avoids "sharp angels" (or this is how I perceive it).
And it does goes somewhere, see your own remark about best summaries of Laura's knowledge. All of us can benefit from it. The question is - does JudeA benefit from it in the same way.
 
JudeA said:
I have no idea why you feel this way. I can only say that you are wrong. I am extremely interested in what Laura has been writing, and I am certain that everyone who is reading it is gaining in knowledge.
Judy

PS unless you need documentation about my cataract surgery.
1) Not everybody reading it is gaining knowledge. There are people that are unable to gain knowledge. Probably you know it. But you are not thinking. Capacity to think is essential - otherwise you can read all kind of clever books, and you will learn NOTHING. You will repeat the same old things again and again, and ignore all what you read or what is being said to you.

2) You are consistently ignoring most of what is being written here. In other words: you are NOT learning.

3) It has nothing to do with surgery. It has to do with your attitude.

Whether you will change your attitude or not - depends entirely on you. Some people chose one way, some choose another way, some do not choose at all, as they are incapable of choosing - they go when the wind is taking them.
 
I agree that this thread presents some of the best summarys of the issues we all face anywhere and i suspect it is because Laura is trying to condense years of work for Judy. I notice Laura doing that for many people on the forum, And she is alway patient and kind about it. I also notice that the threads where Laura participates are a kind of school and always have high numbers of readers. This one is approaching 5000! You can read it over and over again and each time, get a new insight. I, for one, am thankful to Judy for giving Laura this opportunity to teach everyone who reads!
 
Hi Judy,
I'm not trying to be harsh here, but it seems like everytime someone gives you a link, or provides you with data, you blow it off with an excuse that you will "look at it later".

And then "later", something else will come up to distract you.

The data provided is IMPORTANT. We don't do this to hear ourselves talk. It's there so you can PROTECT yourself from falling prey to the psychopaths.

Eventually, "later" will become "too late".

Don
 
@DJHunt ...

it is exactly what DHess31 sez, those muted features of passive-agressive behavior which shine thru what looks like mimicry to me. Ark and Keit also seem to be seeing the same as I do.

as said, it was a 'ping' and i may still be wrong ...

in diplomatic school here, BTW, they teach people to qualify topics too hot or too controversial for whatever is at hand as 'interesting' or 'very interesting' and then to 'speak them into pieces' (in german 'etwas zerreden'). it is a classic technique of destructive rhetorics.
 
Well, it could also be cross-cultural misunderstandings, if you are German. Ark is Polish and Keit is Russian/Israeli and those nationalities have vastly different "default rhetorics" in my experience.

What you are describing as destructive is in the United States considered good manners. Especially when there isn't the "speak them to pieces" part which I am not seeing here. I see Judy slowly moving forward not stubbornly staying on the same piece of ground.

For goodness sake, she has only been here a few days and is now being inundated with huge reading lists, many new disturbing concepts, etc.

Have a little patience and see how things develop.

name said:
@DJHunt ...

it is exactly what DHess31 sez, those muted features of passive-agressive behavior which shine thru what looks like mimicry to me. Ark and Keit also seem to be seeing the same as I do.

as said, it was a 'ping' and i may still be wrong ...

in diplomatic school here, BTW, they teach people to qualify topics too hot or too controversial for whatever is at hand as 'interesting' or 'very interesting' and then to 'speak them into pieces' (in german 'etwas zerreden'). it is a classic technique of destructive rhetorics.
 
Let me explain the cross-cultural thing a little better. I will use a U.S. example. U.S. Midwesterners tend to have a positive, friendly, affable exterior. Northeasterners don't. If a Midwesterner moves to the Northeast, they are often perceived as being phony. Northeasterners hate friendly, positive talk with strangers. They think you are trying to fool them or exploit them or something.

Conversely, if a Northeasterner moves to the Midwest, they are often perceived as rude and unfriendly. But they are just acting the way they learned growing up.

Similar misunderstandings can occur between central and eastern Europeans and United Statesians in my experience. "Mitteleuropa" types can be very blunt and reserved while Americans tend to be open and try to phrase things positively and politely. Generalizations, of course.

So saying, "hmm, that's interesting" when confronted with a new idea or point of view may only mean that you are saying, "I'll give that some thought, I hadn't thought of that." instead of immediately reacting to it.

So time will tell about Judy. But it is not realistic to bombard a person with new perspectives and expect them to alter a lifetime of habits and programming in one week. So you look for signs of openmindedness and progress.

DonaldJHunt said:
Well, it could also be cross-cultural misunderstandings, if you are German. Ark is Polish and Keit is Russian/Israeli and those nationalities have vastly different "default rhetorics" in my experience.

What you are describing as destructive is in the United States considered good manners. Especially when there isn't the "speak them to pieces" part which I am not seeing here. I see Judy slowly moving forward not stubbornly staying on the same piece of ground.

For goodness sake, she has only been here a few days and is now being inundated with huge reading lists, many new disturbing concepts, etc.

Have a little patience and see how things develop.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
Well, it could also be cross-cultural misunderstandings, if you are German. Ark is Polish and Keit is Russian/Israeli and those nationalities have vastly different "default rhetorics" in my experience.
The way I see it is different. I am certainly not a "typical Pole". My "rhetorics", as you call it, is not coming from my nationality, but from my "role" here. Whatever I do or I write, has a certain purpose. This purpose tells me which "tools" to use. It is normal with students that each of them needs a different approach. Some need - provided they sincerely want to learn - more encouragments and less scolding, some need just scolding at them - they simply "ask for it". Here, on this Forum, we are not dealing with "students". So, another approach is needed. But, again, it needs to be diversified. Judy, for instance, takes scolding quite well. Certain faults in her reasoning are repetitive, and so she needs to be repetitively reminded. That is her only way to learn something new - assuming that she wants to learn something new. But, perhaps, she does not want - hard to tell. Yet I will continue, remembering that this a lesson for us all, as we all are watching how this "experiment" will develope.. For me it is a lesson too :)

It has nothing to do with me being Polish (or "Russian at heart" - as C's said). It has to do with my 30 years of experience with teaching students - future teachers and future scientists - and getting awards from students organizations for the quality of my teaching and for my attitude towards them. Even if I needed to flunk a student, he/she would come later and thank for flunking. But usually I was giving my flunking students more chances than the regulations would allow. And I would give them all my time that they were asking for.

P.S. Writing the above I had to take into account the fact that it will be read by benevolent readers as well as by malevolent people.
 
Why does John Kaminski have ancient praise from Jeff Rense? It seems a bit ironic considering they do not speak to one another. Check out this antique:

<<John Kaminski continues his fearless voyage into areas of thought and inquiry where most journalists fear to tread. The truth has never been less accessible - or pleasant - and John pulls no punches in telling the story exactly like he sees it. His writing is passionate, intense, loaded with hard data - and is often downright unforgettable. John is
succeeding marvelously in journalism's highest calling: to encourage people to think.
- Jeff Rense, The Rense Program
www(dot)Rense.com>>
 
JudeA said:
Why does John Kaminski have ancient praise from Jeff Rense?
Why does Jeff Rense have praise from JudeA?

http:(2slash)www(dot)rense(dot)com/Datapages/judyandata.htm
 
What I am referring to is John K's website. He uses praise from Rense but busily knocks Rense. His blurbs are anachronistic. Maybe his handler could write something for his site.

I have never played games with Jeff Rense, so why wouldn't he praise me.
 
Back
Top Bottom