Open Letter to John Kaminski & Related Commentary
September, 2003
I have recently written two commentaries in which I offer my opinions on the writings and political ideologies expressed by John Kaminski.
These critiques, denouncing Kaminski's political ideologies and expressing my dissenting viewpoint, have been interpreted by certain RMN agents and readers as personal "attacks" or "smear" tactics.
People are certainly free to interpret my commentaries any way they choose. As far as I am concerned, those of the "herd mentality" who consider that voicing an opinion on a man's politics is tantamount to a venomous personal attack, only show their own cognitive and intellectual limitations (and in some cases blatant stupidity); and their comments do not reflect on me in the slightest.
As response to these commentaries several RMN agents posted their own comments, most notably billym [Billy Morgan], who wrote an article entitled, Methinks Ms. Hartwell Thou Dost Protest Too Much.
In his commentary, billym uses tactics which can best be described as "attacking the messenger".
In other words: Don't focus on the ACTUAL ISSUES outlined in my original articles.
Ignore the specifics; ignore the statements of fact; ignore the clearly expressed arguments and viewpoints themselves.
Instead, launch an offensive against the PERSON (Barbara Hartwell) who wrote a critical analysis of an author's (John Kaminski) work.
Make one PRIMARY false and unsubstantiated allegation --in this case, that Barbara Hartwell is trying to "silence" John Kaminski.
[Methinks she doth protest too much, as if she were on a mission to silence John or something.]
He then proceeds to repeat that allegation throughout the piece, to keep hammering on that one point, while now adding his own spin as to my purportedly nefarious motives for trying to "silence" Kaminski:
[What does Ms. Hartwell have against the coming to light of the truth about 911?]
Another tactic used in the 'attack the messenger' ploy is to browbeat a person by aggressive and intrusive interrogation. He fires one question after another, trying to put me on the defensive, as if it were my obligation to answer to him.
AS IF, just because HE (or, for that matter, the whole herd of outraged Kaminski followers) does not understand or agree with the points I have made, I am required to defend or justify my viewpoints and give him and the readers a spoon-fed explanation, which it is implied that they, as a committee, will then pass judgment on.
A sort of inquisition: As if I am on trial for my beliefs or the stand I have taken.
I answer to no one for what I believe and what I stand for, except to God. I am nobody's good soldier. I am not a member of any "team" or committee.
As for those who choose to attack me:
If they do not UNDERSTAND my position, it is not my problem. If they do not AGREE with my position, that is their prerogative.
Then, billym has the effrontery to admonish me about what I "should" be doing:
[From the way Ms. Hartwell writes about "rights" and "freedom" one would think she would be right there at the forefront, on the battlefield, with John, demanding a full impartial investigation, and based on the information already there in great measure on the Internet, yes, the arrest of the President and his cronies.]
AS IF John Kaminski is the yardstick by which all 9-11 investigations are to be measured; and AS IF, by not snapping to!...to jump on the bandwagon with the rest of the herd following the "brave" Kaminski, I am somehow falling short of my patriotic duty.
I have been "on the battlefield" for my entire life. Anyone who knows me would find these comments ludicrous, if not pathetic. I choose my battles carefully; I fight where I believe I can win. And just because I'm a lone gun and not a "joiner" does not mean I can't be effective in my own way.
In using these tactics, billym displays the behavior of a provocateur. Since it's abundantly clear he's a rank amateur, I would surmise that he is being used, though he probably doesn't realize it, as are most of the other Kaminski advocates.
In fact, it is standard operating procedure in these COINTELPRO-style ops to exploit as many amateurs as possible; if nothing else, it's cost-effective. Why pay a professional when you've got amateurs, by the truckload, all clamoring to get into the spotlight.
As Jimmy Durante so aptly put it:
"Everybody wants to get into the act!"
Well, I have some news for billym: Next time, if you want to play this game, don't try to take on a professional. I've been up against some of the best professionals the intelligence agencies have to offer. Some of them actually trained me in psychological operations. I know how they work and I know how to fight back.
These tactics don't work on me and never will.
In short, billym and the rest of the Kaminski herd are wasting their time. But I have no intention of allowing them to provoke me into wasting any more of mine.
Another RMN agent who has repeatedly posted Kaminski's articles and who has done quite a bit of advertising for his radio appearances is White Raven.
White Raven claims that I made a "TOTALLY UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION" when I included her in a list of RMN agents that are Kaminski advocates.
But it is not a "totally unwarranted assumption" that a RMN agent who repeatedly posts articles by a particular author is expressing some degree of advocacy for the political views and ideology expressed by that author. Why keep posting that author's work otherwise? Why advertise for him?
In any case, White Raven revealed her true position --as well as her amateurism--when she posted John Kaminski's comments about Barbara Hartwell and shortly thereafter, made another post gloating and bragging about how many "hits" Kaminski's article, "Arrest the President Now!" got --as opposed, of course-- to the paltry hit count of Barbara Hartwell's post.
As if a popularity contest were being held. As if the validity and veracity of a person's work were measured by "hit counts". Maybe that is White Raven's method of evaluation. It certainly would seem so, based on the sensationalistic headlines she uses in many of her posts, most of which are not even written by her.
And if she has something she would like to say about me, it would behoove her to express her opinion honestly, openly and directly; rather than using the passive-aggressive approach. That doesn't fly --not with me-- and does nothing to enhance her credibility.
Now, on to Mr. Kaminski himself and his comments which two RMN agents, Tylersword (Michael St. Clair) and White Raven posted on the Forum.
John Kaminski writes:
[Thanks. This was fun to read, I think.
Here's what I'd like to say to the group of Rumor Millers who have put in so much time and effort analyzing my "neo-Bolshevik" pronouncements.
Thanks to all those who think it important enough to post my pieces on Rumor Mill News. Barbara Hartwell is a small-minded, pre-programmed intellectual whore who obviously endorses savage American soldiers putting bullets in the heads of innocent Iraqi children and the U.S. government spreading fatal depleted uranium poison even among its own troops. Her nebulous style of dissembling kind of reminds me of Newt Gingrich, the Rockefeller-trained liberal who posed as a conservative ikon for the purpose of muddling all debates with meaningless rhetoric to advance the cause of "deregulation," which is in all cases a codeword for corporate theft and public irresponsibility. Hartwell's limited comprehension of the English language causes her to misinterpret humane arguments that are clear to other less-rattled people, as the RMN string sent to me clearly indicates.
It's a pity she didn't hear a thing I said because she was too busy calculating how she could convince RMN readers that she actually had something relevant to say, when it's pretty clear she didn't. My purpose in writing is simply to report on the atrocities being perpetrated in our names by a government clearly not interested in the welfare of the American people. I'm not aware that I have a particular political philosophy, but if I sound like a liberal Democrat, it's probably because I used to be one, but have long since dropped that tendency ever since I learned of the Gatekeeper syndrome http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html - that infects most of the left with CIA money. My friends in the Patriot movement would probably regard Hartwell as a mainstream Republican Zionist demagogue on the order to Tom Delay who would not speak the unvarnished truth about her country even if she were able to perceive it, which she clearly does not.
Somebody should tell Barbara Hartwell that the Constitution has already been destroyed by people, both Republicans and Democrats, who all sound just like her. I advise all RMN readers to scrutinize her rhetorical jingoism and buzzwords and then observe how little relevant information she brings to the debate.
How's that?
jk]
Here's my reply to John Kaminski:
Dear Mr. Kaminski,
Thank you for your directness in telling the public what you think of me.
One thing I do appreciate is the blunt and direct approach, no matter what someone has to say.
As to the epithets you've chosen for me, "small-minded, pre-programmed intellectual whore" and "mainstream Republican Zionist demagogue", not to worry that you've hurt my feelings, believe me, I've been called worse. And coming from you, I take them as a compliment.
You know, I actually laughed when I first read your comments, preposterous as they are. I do have a sense of humor, even when it's at my own expense.
But I did also feel saddened, because it appears that you truly believe that I would "endorse savage American soldiers putting bullets in the heads of innocent Iraqi children and the U.S. government spreading fatal depleted uranium poison even among its own troops."
I have no idea WHY you would believe this; nor who/what your "intelligence" sources are. I have never made any statement, publicly, nor privately, that could possibly lead anyone to form such a conclusion.
But I will share with you something I DID write, taken from the archives of my website. It is a short preface to an article by Carl F. Worden, relating to what I would call the "actions other than war" in Iraq.
[Note from Babs:
When I think of the fifty (50) Marine casualties Carl mentions here, what comes to my mind is 50 soldiers, 50 INDIVIDUAL human beings whose families and loved ones will never see them again. Not in this material world, anyway. How many more of our troops will have to die before this is over?
Can the deaths of these good men and women possibly be justified, in any way shape or form?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
At least that's the answer any spirit-filled person (no matter what their religion or lack thereof) knows to be true. I, like many others, am sick at heart at the senseless slaughter of innocents, both our own soldiers and the Iraqi civilians (many of whom, it must be remembered, are children.)
I am disgusted, beyond any disgust I have ever felt before, that these warmongers and traitors who are running this unconstitutional, illegal, inexcusable, insufferable action are receiving ANY support whatsoever from the flag-waving masses of asses that claim to be 'patriots'. It boggles my mind. It's enough to make the angels weep. I can hear them. Can you?]
So, Mr. Kaminski, I am hard pressed to understand how you arrived at the "obvious" conclusion that I would "endorse" such war crimes.
Since I don't have a lot of time today (one of my cats is having his birthday) just a few more comments I'd like to make.
First, I do not as a rule, engage in "debates". I am journalist who writes articles, which are based on my own experience, research and certain areas of professional expertise. People are free to make of them what they will.
I am not looking for followers; not looking to be a rabble rouser; nor attempting to win a popularity contest. I realize that many of my views are wildly unpopular, among various and sundry political factions --but they are nonetheless my own, and not a result of any "programming".
One of the ways that CIA and their minions have tried to discredit me, over the past ten years, since I broke out of their operations, is by claiming that I am "programmed" so nothing I say has merit.....no, it is all a result of "programming".
But programming can be undone. It can, and in my case it has, a long time ago. Through the grace of God, not by any "deprogramming" method.
Neither do I endorse or embrace any political or religious orthodoxy. Many people assume that I am a Radical Right Wing, Christian Fundamentalist Religious Zealot, not based on anything I actually SAY, but seemingly on their own preconceptions.
Simply put, I know God and I defend the Constitution, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, natural rights as bestowed by God.
I don't need to be "told" that the Constitution has been "destroyed". Yes, some people believe it has.
Henry Hyde has said that the Constitution is no longer "relevant".
Well, it's VERY relevant from where I'm standing. I will defend my constitutional rights until the day I die, even if that means voting with the cartridge box, instead of the ballot box.
That is, if these bastards come to MY door, they'll be in for a hell of a fight.
Based on what you have written, I do think you are a communist and yes, neo-Bolshevik is the most precise way I can describe your political ideology. I hate, absolutely LOATHE, communism and all that it stands for.
But I don't hate you, Mr. Kaminski.
I don't hate people for their political views. I don't even hate the Bush Crime Family, and believe me, if you knew my family history, you would know that I have as much reason to hate them as anyone, for what they did to me personally and to my loved ones.
Let me leave you with these thoughts:
I have been to your website and read ALL the articles, though some people have assumed otherwise. You are a very talented writer. Not only that, but you seem to me to be sincere in your beliefs.
But from reading the parts of your articles which relate to your personal feelings, it seems to me you are missing the one thing in your life that could remedy the sense of hopelessness and despair that I think you often feel : GOD
I will not insult you by presuming that you don't already know God. It is not my place to decide that.
But I am praying for you, Mr. Kaminski. It is my sincere wish for you that God (whatever that may mean to you) be made REAL in your life. Not "God" as determined by any religion or its idea of God....just God, the Infinite Source of Intelligence and Love that created and sustains this universe.
In the Spirit of Liberty,
Barbara Hartwell
September, 2003
I have recently written two commentaries in which I offer my opinions on the writings and political ideologies expressed by John Kaminski.
These critiques, denouncing Kaminski's political ideologies and expressing my dissenting viewpoint, have been interpreted by certain RMN agents and readers as personal "attacks" or "smear" tactics.
People are certainly free to interpret my commentaries any way they choose. As far as I am concerned, those of the "herd mentality" who consider that voicing an opinion on a man's politics is tantamount to a venomous personal attack, only show their own cognitive and intellectual limitations (and in some cases blatant stupidity); and their comments do not reflect on me in the slightest.
As response to these commentaries several RMN agents posted their own comments, most notably billym [Billy Morgan], who wrote an article entitled, Methinks Ms. Hartwell Thou Dost Protest Too Much.
In his commentary, billym uses tactics which can best be described as "attacking the messenger".
In other words: Don't focus on the ACTUAL ISSUES outlined in my original articles.
Ignore the specifics; ignore the statements of fact; ignore the clearly expressed arguments and viewpoints themselves.
Instead, launch an offensive against the PERSON (Barbara Hartwell) who wrote a critical analysis of an author's (John Kaminski) work.
Make one PRIMARY false and unsubstantiated allegation --in this case, that Barbara Hartwell is trying to "silence" John Kaminski.
[Methinks she doth protest too much, as if she were on a mission to silence John or something.]
He then proceeds to repeat that allegation throughout the piece, to keep hammering on that one point, while now adding his own spin as to my purportedly nefarious motives for trying to "silence" Kaminski:
[What does Ms. Hartwell have against the coming to light of the truth about 911?]
Another tactic used in the 'attack the messenger' ploy is to browbeat a person by aggressive and intrusive interrogation. He fires one question after another, trying to put me on the defensive, as if it were my obligation to answer to him.
AS IF, just because HE (or, for that matter, the whole herd of outraged Kaminski followers) does not understand or agree with the points I have made, I am required to defend or justify my viewpoints and give him and the readers a spoon-fed explanation, which it is implied that they, as a committee, will then pass judgment on.
A sort of inquisition: As if I am on trial for my beliefs or the stand I have taken.
I answer to no one for what I believe and what I stand for, except to God. I am nobody's good soldier. I am not a member of any "team" or committee.
As for those who choose to attack me:
If they do not UNDERSTAND my position, it is not my problem. If they do not AGREE with my position, that is their prerogative.
Then, billym has the effrontery to admonish me about what I "should" be doing:
[From the way Ms. Hartwell writes about "rights" and "freedom" one would think she would be right there at the forefront, on the battlefield, with John, demanding a full impartial investigation, and based on the information already there in great measure on the Internet, yes, the arrest of the President and his cronies.]
AS IF John Kaminski is the yardstick by which all 9-11 investigations are to be measured; and AS IF, by not snapping to!...to jump on the bandwagon with the rest of the herd following the "brave" Kaminski, I am somehow falling short of my patriotic duty.
I have been "on the battlefield" for my entire life. Anyone who knows me would find these comments ludicrous, if not pathetic. I choose my battles carefully; I fight where I believe I can win. And just because I'm a lone gun and not a "joiner" does not mean I can't be effective in my own way.
In using these tactics, billym displays the behavior of a provocateur. Since it's abundantly clear he's a rank amateur, I would surmise that he is being used, though he probably doesn't realize it, as are most of the other Kaminski advocates.
In fact, it is standard operating procedure in these COINTELPRO-style ops to exploit as many amateurs as possible; if nothing else, it's cost-effective. Why pay a professional when you've got amateurs, by the truckload, all clamoring to get into the spotlight.
As Jimmy Durante so aptly put it:
"Everybody wants to get into the act!"
Well, I have some news for billym: Next time, if you want to play this game, don't try to take on a professional. I've been up against some of the best professionals the intelligence agencies have to offer. Some of them actually trained me in psychological operations. I know how they work and I know how to fight back.
These tactics don't work on me and never will.
In short, billym and the rest of the Kaminski herd are wasting their time. But I have no intention of allowing them to provoke me into wasting any more of mine.
Another RMN agent who has repeatedly posted Kaminski's articles and who has done quite a bit of advertising for his radio appearances is White Raven.
White Raven claims that I made a "TOTALLY UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION" when I included her in a list of RMN agents that are Kaminski advocates.
But it is not a "totally unwarranted assumption" that a RMN agent who repeatedly posts articles by a particular author is expressing some degree of advocacy for the political views and ideology expressed by that author. Why keep posting that author's work otherwise? Why advertise for him?
In any case, White Raven revealed her true position --as well as her amateurism--when she posted John Kaminski's comments about Barbara Hartwell and shortly thereafter, made another post gloating and bragging about how many "hits" Kaminski's article, "Arrest the President Now!" got --as opposed, of course-- to the paltry hit count of Barbara Hartwell's post.
As if a popularity contest were being held. As if the validity and veracity of a person's work were measured by "hit counts". Maybe that is White Raven's method of evaluation. It certainly would seem so, based on the sensationalistic headlines she uses in many of her posts, most of which are not even written by her.
And if she has something she would like to say about me, it would behoove her to express her opinion honestly, openly and directly; rather than using the passive-aggressive approach. That doesn't fly --not with me-- and does nothing to enhance her credibility.
Now, on to Mr. Kaminski himself and his comments which two RMN agents, Tylersword (Michael St. Clair) and White Raven posted on the Forum.
John Kaminski writes:
[Thanks. This was fun to read, I think.
Here's what I'd like to say to the group of Rumor Millers who have put in so much time and effort analyzing my "neo-Bolshevik" pronouncements.
Thanks to all those who think it important enough to post my pieces on Rumor Mill News. Barbara Hartwell is a small-minded, pre-programmed intellectual whore who obviously endorses savage American soldiers putting bullets in the heads of innocent Iraqi children and the U.S. government spreading fatal depleted uranium poison even among its own troops. Her nebulous style of dissembling kind of reminds me of Newt Gingrich, the Rockefeller-trained liberal who posed as a conservative ikon for the purpose of muddling all debates with meaningless rhetoric to advance the cause of "deregulation," which is in all cases a codeword for corporate theft and public irresponsibility. Hartwell's limited comprehension of the English language causes her to misinterpret humane arguments that are clear to other less-rattled people, as the RMN string sent to me clearly indicates.
It's a pity she didn't hear a thing I said because she was too busy calculating how she could convince RMN readers that she actually had something relevant to say, when it's pretty clear she didn't. My purpose in writing is simply to report on the atrocities being perpetrated in our names by a government clearly not interested in the welfare of the American people. I'm not aware that I have a particular political philosophy, but if I sound like a liberal Democrat, it's probably because I used to be one, but have long since dropped that tendency ever since I learned of the Gatekeeper syndrome http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html - that infects most of the left with CIA money. My friends in the Patriot movement would probably regard Hartwell as a mainstream Republican Zionist demagogue on the order to Tom Delay who would not speak the unvarnished truth about her country even if she were able to perceive it, which she clearly does not.
Somebody should tell Barbara Hartwell that the Constitution has already been destroyed by people, both Republicans and Democrats, who all sound just like her. I advise all RMN readers to scrutinize her rhetorical jingoism and buzzwords and then observe how little relevant information she brings to the debate.
How's that?
jk]
Here's my reply to John Kaminski:
Dear Mr. Kaminski,
Thank you for your directness in telling the public what you think of me.
One thing I do appreciate is the blunt and direct approach, no matter what someone has to say.
As to the epithets you've chosen for me, "small-minded, pre-programmed intellectual whore" and "mainstream Republican Zionist demagogue", not to worry that you've hurt my feelings, believe me, I've been called worse. And coming from you, I take them as a compliment.
You know, I actually laughed when I first read your comments, preposterous as they are. I do have a sense of humor, even when it's at my own expense.
But I did also feel saddened, because it appears that you truly believe that I would "endorse savage American soldiers putting bullets in the heads of innocent Iraqi children and the U.S. government spreading fatal depleted uranium poison even among its own troops."
I have no idea WHY you would believe this; nor who/what your "intelligence" sources are. I have never made any statement, publicly, nor privately, that could possibly lead anyone to form such a conclusion.
But I will share with you something I DID write, taken from the archives of my website. It is a short preface to an article by Carl F. Worden, relating to what I would call the "actions other than war" in Iraq.
[Note from Babs:
When I think of the fifty (50) Marine casualties Carl mentions here, what comes to my mind is 50 soldiers, 50 INDIVIDUAL human beings whose families and loved ones will never see them again. Not in this material world, anyway. How many more of our troops will have to die before this is over?
Can the deaths of these good men and women possibly be justified, in any way shape or form?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
At least that's the answer any spirit-filled person (no matter what their religion or lack thereof) knows to be true. I, like many others, am sick at heart at the senseless slaughter of innocents, both our own soldiers and the Iraqi civilians (many of whom, it must be remembered, are children.)
I am disgusted, beyond any disgust I have ever felt before, that these warmongers and traitors who are running this unconstitutional, illegal, inexcusable, insufferable action are receiving ANY support whatsoever from the flag-waving masses of asses that claim to be 'patriots'. It boggles my mind. It's enough to make the angels weep. I can hear them. Can you?]
So, Mr. Kaminski, I am hard pressed to understand how you arrived at the "obvious" conclusion that I would "endorse" such war crimes.
Since I don't have a lot of time today (one of my cats is having his birthday) just a few more comments I'd like to make.
First, I do not as a rule, engage in "debates". I am journalist who writes articles, which are based on my own experience, research and certain areas of professional expertise. People are free to make of them what they will.
I am not looking for followers; not looking to be a rabble rouser; nor attempting to win a popularity contest. I realize that many of my views are wildly unpopular, among various and sundry political factions --but they are nonetheless my own, and not a result of any "programming".
One of the ways that CIA and their minions have tried to discredit me, over the past ten years, since I broke out of their operations, is by claiming that I am "programmed" so nothing I say has merit.....no, it is all a result of "programming".
But programming can be undone. It can, and in my case it has, a long time ago. Through the grace of God, not by any "deprogramming" method.
Neither do I endorse or embrace any political or religious orthodoxy. Many people assume that I am a Radical Right Wing, Christian Fundamentalist Religious Zealot, not based on anything I actually SAY, but seemingly on their own preconceptions.
Simply put, I know God and I defend the Constitution, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, natural rights as bestowed by God.
I don't need to be "told" that the Constitution has been "destroyed". Yes, some people believe it has.
Henry Hyde has said that the Constitution is no longer "relevant".
Well, it's VERY relevant from where I'm standing. I will defend my constitutional rights until the day I die, even if that means voting with the cartridge box, instead of the ballot box.
That is, if these bastards come to MY door, they'll be in for a hell of a fight.
Based on what you have written, I do think you are a communist and yes, neo-Bolshevik is the most precise way I can describe your political ideology. I hate, absolutely LOATHE, communism and all that it stands for.
But I don't hate you, Mr. Kaminski.
I don't hate people for their political views. I don't even hate the Bush Crime Family, and believe me, if you knew my family history, you would know that I have as much reason to hate them as anyone, for what they did to me personally and to my loved ones.
Let me leave you with these thoughts:
I have been to your website and read ALL the articles, though some people have assumed otherwise. You are a very talented writer. Not only that, but you seem to me to be sincere in your beliefs.
But from reading the parts of your articles which relate to your personal feelings, it seems to me you are missing the one thing in your life that could remedy the sense of hopelessness and despair that I think you often feel : GOD
I will not insult you by presuming that you don't already know God. It is not my place to decide that.
But I am praying for you, Mr. Kaminski. It is my sincere wish for you that God (whatever that may mean to you) be made REAL in your life. Not "God" as determined by any religion or its idea of God....just God, the Infinite Source of Intelligence and Love that created and sustains this universe.
In the Spirit of Liberty,
Barbara Hartwell
September, 2003
posted by Curriculum Vitae at
Thursday, December 14, 2006
<< Home