September 11, 2001: Attack on America. I am sure that it is not lost on the reader that it was exactly 24 years to the day, on 9/11/77, that Holly Maddux was brutally murdered. Ira Einhorn was tried in absentia, all the evidence was presented, and a jury of his peers decided that Ira did it. It seems clear from the medical examiner’s report that Ira must have been in such a frenzy that, even though the first one or two blows probably killed her, he continued slamming her delicate skull over and over again until there was nothing left recognizable of her former beauty or identity as a human being.
Forensic psychologists tell us that when a person is murdered by repeated bashing of the head, it is invariably done by someone who knows them and is enraged with them, who seeks to destroy the source of their thinking and words which the killer cannot tolerate. As the Cassiopaeans said: “Maybe [Einhorn] did what he did, and then convinced himself that he did not, a la O.J. Simpson.”
In short, Holly Maddux was sacrificed on the altar of Ira Einhorn’s ego. He had lost control of Holly, and Ira Einhorn was all about control — control of others.
Many of the principals involved in the case are also now dead. Holly’s father, unable to come to terms with the brutal death of his beloved little girl, committed suicide in 1988. Her mother died two years later of emphysema — no longer able to breathe the air of a world in which something so horrible could occur without any hope of justice. R. J. Pearce, the former FBI agent turned private-detective who doggedly pursued the “Unicorn,” has also passed on, along with Ira’s buddy from his heydays, Jerry Rubin.
Right up to the present moment, Ira Einhorn insists that he did not murder Holly Maddux, that he was “framed” by shadowy organizations because of his “studies” and associations with those doing experiments in psychotronics (see “Einhorn” section of bibliography). Andrija Puharich is also dead, and most interestingly, before he died he had come to some very different ideas about the entire situation: He scoffed at the idea that studies and information about psychotronics could ever lead to a plot to frame Ira for Holly’s death. It is remarkable that so conspiracy-minded an individual as Puharich eventually evaluated what Ira was doing as not sufficiently important to attract attention from any intelligence agency, whether CIA, KGB or some other nefarious strike force. And, of all people, Puharich was most familiar with the nature of the information Einhorn was dealing with since, for the most part, it came from Puharich himself. This also suggests a significant change in Puharich’s mind about what he himself was doing, that he might now believe that the information about “psychic warfare” was false, or that it was disinformation.
In the months following his arrest, Ira Einhorn looked many people straight in the eye and said “I did not kill Holly.” The famous intensity of his gaze engaged the doubter and, for the moment he was focused on them, their doubts were cast aside.
Do you know me as a violent person?
Why would I kill Holly Maddux, a woman I loved?
Even if I did kill her — and I didn’t — would I really be so stupid as to leave the body in the trunk in my apartment for so long?
For many of Ira’s friends, this last point was compelling evidence that he was framed. Somebody who would keep a corpse in his closet, just a few feet from his bed, was not the Ira they knew, who was clear-thinking and practical. Ira pushed the point by reminding everyone that all during the time that Holly’s body was “supposedly” stuffed in his closet, he was entertaining friends, women, and so forth. If he really had a body in the closet, would he be so stupid?
His friends kept saying: This is not “classic Ira.”
Ira would go through the list of contradictions between the actual situation and what other people knew about him based on his “public persona”; and the way he presented those “facts,” it always seemed weighted in his favor. He was so cunning that, in his presence, listening to him talk, the majority of people would come away believing he was innocent.
There were a couple of people who had seen Holly with bruises that she admitted were a result of fights with Ira. But Arlen Specter argued that no one had witnessed Ira striking Holly, so the testimony that Ira had ever previously struck Holly was “hearsay.” The judge did not agree.
Jerry Rubin told Ira that he could do a great deed for the world by admitting he had killed Holly, and then proclaim himself an example of an overdose of male domination, one of the problems in our world. Then, after paying his debt to society, Rubin went on, Ira could found an institute to study the problem of male violence.
Ira said it was an “interesting idea but irrelevant,” since he didn’t kill Holly.
Arlen Specter thought that Ira’s best hope was in an insanity defense. But Ira flatly refused. There was nothing wrong with his mind, and there was no way he was going to go along with any such idea. To him, claiming insanity was as much a disaster as admitting killing Holly — both actions would “discredit his lifetime work.” His credibility would be in ashes, and nobody would believe that his ideas were legitimate ever again. The psychopath knows that admitting a lie is the end. Once they have done so, they have lost the one power over others on which they depend: The ability to lie with such flair that gullible, well-meaning people can always be found to believe them.
As the weeks went by, Arlen Specter realized the negative political implications of being associated with Einhorn, and turned the defense over to Norris Gelman. Ira kept boasting that he was going to expose the frame-up. His attorneys certainly hoped he had something along that line to produce, but apparently he didn’t. “You think the Russians came… and threw a beam on him?” Gelman, who was privy to Ira’s best information, mocked in derision of the very idea.
Gelman didn’t urge Ira to cop insanity. “The most brilliant defendant that ever hit City Hall, and I’m going to claim he was insane? No way!” Instead, Gelman’s hopes were pinned on just a careful refuting of the evidence, point by point, and minimizing what could be minimized in that which was out-and-out damning. If he could just establish a “reasonable doubt,” that was the best that could be expected.
Needless to say, Ira wasn’t happy with that plan.
Ma Bell dropped Ira like a hot potato. Many of Ira’s friends (see bibliography), as they learned more about the case, began to drop him and withdraw. One friend who did maintain ties walked down the street with him one day, and Ira noticed that people no longer came up to him to hug him, happy to be seen in his presence. Instead, they avoided eye contact, or even crossed the street to avoid him. “I’m not going to be able to be Ira Einhorn now”, he complained. “And I realized he was a selfish, arrogant bastard,” the friend reported.
Ira decided that hanging out in Pennsylvania while waiting for his trial was a bummer, so he went to California. He met a friend there and spent some time on her houseboat in Sausalito. Then he wandered to Esalen, where he had spent so much time in the sixties. He met psychic Jenny O’Connor there, a woman who channels “The Nine.” Nothing significant came up.
He also met a young woman while there who, while high on MDA, claims that she looked into his soul and knew that “this was an extraordinary being, scandalously charged with a crime he did not commit.” So much for MDA insights. He had lunch with Jacques Vallee, a conference with Mike Rossman, and then went on to visit physicist Jack Sarfatti. Over and over again he was telling his story and finding sympathetic listeners. Sarfatti even organized a public meeting for Ira. Sarfatti marveled at how calm and “together” Ira was. Saul-Paul Sirag, another physicist, agrees. “The thing that impressed me was his incredible nonchalance, considering the enormity of what he’d been charged with… he seemed to be in great spirits.”
Jack Sarfatti and Saul-Paul Sirag were unknowing witnesses to the amazing lack of conscience of the psychopath.
However, an odd event occurred that confused Sirag: “I had gone to the meeting with my girlfriend at the time… and we walked off in one direction and he went in another. I guess Barbara and I were arguing mildly, and Ira turned back and heard us bickering, and he said — as if this were a joke, but it was still weird — ‘Beat her up.’”
Ira returned to Philadelphia fully charged from all his energy gathering in California. He had hoped that his lawyer’s motion to declare the search warrant invalid would succeed and he would be able to retrieve his journals. The judge ruled that it was valid. Michael Chitwood had made sure of that. But, when the trial was postponed for other reasons, Ira went traveling again. Ira was spreading his “rap” everywhere he went.
According to Ira, he was doing stuff that ‘They’ didn’t want done. They — the CIA — didn’t want Ira to connect together Tesla, psychic discoveries behind the Iron Curtain, and remote viewing.
Even though his passport had been taken when the things in his apartment had been confiscated, Ira managed to get another and flew to England to drum up support there. But the folks in England were already having doubts due to press coverage. Playwright Heathcote Huffer asked Ira if he did it. “He looked me straight in the eye and said no.” Yet again, people were troubled by Einhorn’s confidence and nonchalance. “I got the feeling that the whole thing was an inconvenience to him. That the work was important and this was kind of a nuisance.”
After his return to Philadelphia, Einhorn took a new approach. He backed away from his hammering of the KGB-CIA theory and began to suggest that there was some sort of headquarters of the Nazi party in Tyler, Texas and that Holly’s father was involved in the frame-up!
Oh, yes indeedy! Blame the victim! Classic psychopath.
The means of setting this idea in motion included asking his friend, George Andrews, to check out the possibility that Frank Maddux was a high officer in the American Nazi Party, and that the Nazis were somehow involved in planting Holly’s body in his closet. Andrews was understandably shocked at Ira’s implication, but he dutifully set about checking it out. He was unable to establish any validity to such ideas.
As time passed, the “blame game” became more and more vague. After awhile, he just would refuse to address the issue or answer any penetrating questions at all, saying only that he knew who the guilty parties were, and would reveal them at the proper time.
In November 1979, the FBI lab report on the floorboards from Ira’s closet were disclosed. The tests showed no blood and/or human protein. Ira crowed that this proved that Holly’s body had not been in his closet since September of 1977. He began to declaim loudly and vociferously that he was now vindicated!
In an interview with Claude Lewis of the Bulletin, Ira said:
There’s no blood in the apartment, they found no blood in the entire apartment! How can you fracture somebody’s skull twelve, thirteen times, and no have any blood? It’s crazy.… The skull was supposedly fractured, six to twelve — multiple times. You can’t tell me blood didn’t squirt all over the place. And no matter how careful you are, you wouldn’t be able to get it all up! […] With this new data, the ball is in my court. […] What this has given me is a new lease on life. I feel totally free. I feel like a citizen of the world. I can go settle anyplace. Because I’m going to do a book on all this.” (Levy, 1988)
Yes, indeedy. Ira was gonna write a book. His book proposal said: “I intend to write a book directed to a mass audience, for it is obvious that my case has enormous mass appeal. […] An inside view of someone who lives on the edge of thought, but I will never become overly abstract or philosophical.”
The proposal was rejected because Ira made it clear that, even though he would talk about the murder, he would not speculate on who actually did kill Holly. “This ambiguity will not detract from the value of the book, for so much of the public interest in this case hangs upon the ambiguity of my present public persona.”
In short, the book was going to be all about Ira, and how Ira so heroically dealt with a nasty murder charge. Holly’s life and experiences, who may have killed Holly and why, was not important. The only thing that was important was “the public interest… [which]… hangs upon … my public persona.”
Ira wasted no time sending the FBI results around to everyone in his network. He wrote:
It took a court order to [get it]. You may draw your own conclusions from this behavior. It is what I have struggled against during the last 8 and 1/2 months of difficult uphill battle.
I was conspired against in the most hellish way; so many of my friends could not grasp the conspiracy for it is beyond normal ken. [Read: Of course I understood, but that is because I am so speshul!] For this there can be no blame or recriminations as the press played right into the hands of those who wished to silence me. [Read: All of you who doubted me, I forgive you, I will let you kiss my foot if you ask nicely!] This is not the time to name them who are guilty of murder — that will come.
And so on. It was basically an appeal for money to pay his lawyers to defend him against the “hellish conspiracy” that was now an established fact, in his mind, because he had the evidence of the FBI report. Ira promoted this item as “pivotal,” and continues to do so to this very day. What he doesn’t talk about — because psychopaths never address the things that cannot be addressed without exposing them for what they are — is the fact that a negative result on the floorboards and plaster did not preclude the possibility that blood or human protein might have been in the materials at an earlier point, having dissipated in the 18-month interval between the murder and the discovery of the body.
Ira also continues to avoid the fact that a second test, using newer and more comprehensive methods, later showed that there was human protein in the floorboards and plaster! Those who knew Ira said that he took this information very hard and that this was what prompted him to flee. He knew he was nailed.
As of April 17, 2000, Ira posted a statement that somehow managed to mention the two FBI chemical analyses as though they both said that there was no evidence of blood or human protein:
After almost two years of pre-trial manoeuvring, which included much judicial misconduct: Foreshortening of Xeroxed pages so that the damaging pages of a now unnumbered report could be removed from the information due to us; information that included a public sighting of my former girl friend by three bank employees six months after I am supposed to have killed her; and most significantly, a failure to accept two lab reports, issued by the FBI and a nationally known laboratory, National Medical Services, which did all the work on the O.J. Simpson case; reports made at the instigation of the prosecution, which indicated that there was no blood or human protein in the supposed leakage from the body and that material found outside the trunk did not correspond to material found inside the trunk. This was a stiff blow to the prosecution’s contention about the murder; the response: The most prestigious local magazine published an article with blood on every page. Such behavior was repeated no matter where I turned, and fearing the death penalty, I left Philadelphia for a life underground.
Oddly, in the above remarks, a single person, a bank employee, who thought she saw Holly in the bank (identified by a photo) after the time the murder was supposed to have been committed, has now become three people. This identification has always been regarded as mistaken because, in fact, there is no record of any bank transaction by Holly after September 11, 1977. Why would she be in the bank if she did no banking while there?
Einhorn also quotes, as proof that he knew of a building threat, a letter from Stafford Beer, about which Ira tells us, “This conversation quoted verbatim from Stafford’s letter took place in the summer of 1977 about two months before the murdered woman, Holly Maddux, disappeared.”
One day I looked up from my desk and saw that someone was approaching down the path. This was most unusual, because hardly anyone knew yet of my whereabouts, which I was keeping virtually secret, and the place is eight miles from the nearest village. I could hardly believe my eyes: it was Ira. But yes — he would have been one of the very few who would know my new address, because I wanted to keep up the flow of packages from Bell.
Ira and I became locked in a fascinating discussion of very sensitive matters. They concerned monumentally important scientific discoveries, and their possible impact on human life and society. I have not to this day disclosed what Ira told me, and I do not know whether what he told me can be substantiated. I am sure that Ira believed what he said, and I could without difficulty accept that it might be the case (that is, “no alien life forms”). What followed is indelibly fixed in my mind, and I shall get as near as I can to the ipsissima verba:
Ira: “I am making a special visit to you, and to a few other friends who have the knowledge to understand what I have found out, because my situation is dangerous.”
Stafford: ‘I can believe it. Are you worried about your own government or ‘the competition’?”
Ira: “Your call.”
Stafford: “Well, are you saying that you think you might be bumped off?”
Ira : “The trouble is, that wouldn’t do. It would provoke a whole lot of investigation, and the truth might get out. No, I think that I have to be in some way discredited.”
Stafford: “Aren’t you in some way discredited already? Plenty of people think you are a nut case. And plenty think you are immoral — a bad influence. That lot got Socrates after all.”
Ira: “And the ideas survived. Just my point. No, it has to be a lot stronger to count.”
Stafford: “Any Ideas?”
Ira: “None. I don’t know what I need to protect myself against.”
I can swear to this testimony. That’s exactly what happened. It made me apprehensive for my friend. (Levy, 1988)
Aside from the fact that Stafford Beer is interesting in his own right, the fact is, Holly Maddux left Ira Einhorn in Europe in the midsummer of 1977. When she left, it was already clear that Holly would be moving into her own place. In other words, at that point in time, Ira already knew that Holly had rejected him, and at that point in time, he began to plan her demise. At that point in time, he began to plant the seeds of his “frame-up theory” and his first “target” of this campaign was Stafford Beers.
His later “morphing of the story” was more elaborate, but again, casts the blame on Holly for engineering her own death. This variation was given to journalist Russ Baker, who chronicles his experience with Einhorn in Esquire (see bibliography).After much back-and-forth maneuvering, Einhorn finally lays out the new theory as follows:
It is a tale that begins in the mid-1970s, with Ira penetrating deeper and deeper into an understanding of the evil work of his government, chiefly regarding psychic warfare and UFOs, and continues with Ira’s growing determination to expose the truth as he saw it.
This tale involves a former CIA man, a current CIA man, a prominent ufologist, shadowy figures, and psychic, Uri Geller. This tale involves the scurrilous rumor that the former CIA official, who at the time was head of the Weird Desk at the CIA, had an affair with Holly Maddux. It is Ira who calls this rumor scurrilous, but he brings it up repeatedly, and this rumored affair is clearly the basis of Ira’s theory of the crime.
[According to Ira], [T]here was a great, roiling debate within the secret agency, it seems, that centered on Ira. One faction favored the release of top-secret data on the UFOs, the other did not. Ira was the loose cannon who was going to blow the lid off the story. The CIA had to frame Ira for Holly’s murder, and to facilitate this, one of its men arranged an amorous liaison with her. And Ira says that the former official’s successor at the agency is in “constant e-mail contact” with him, confirming parts of this story.…
“They’re using my case to fight over the CIA stuff. I’m convenient.”
Ira is the teller of the story, and Ira is the wronged hero of it, too. It is a story that takes you on a tour of the interior of Ira’s head. [According to Ira], [T]his story is the defense that Ira might have offered at trial had he been there. It is impossible to tell whether he has actually brought himself to believe it. (Russ Baker, “A Touch of Eden,” Esquire, December 1999, Contributors Page)
Russ Baker was aware that Ira was “different” when he went to interview him. However, what Russ didn’t realize, and what so many, many people do not understand, is the power of the psychopath. Russ comments on this in some amazement:
I could not have imagined this a couple days ago, but after almost thirty hours of Ira, I have to get away from him. Although I’m constantly aware, on some level, of his manipulation, I also know that he is exceptionally good at it. I suppose that I was not entirely prepared for this, at least not to this extent. This is humbling. I do not know what a clinical diagnosis of him would be, but he is masterful at manipulation. He is a professional. There’s a reason that he succeeded so spectacularly on the lam for so long. I realize that I’m fighting to maintain perspective. (Baker, 1999; this author’s emphases)
It is, indeed, humbling, to realize that with all our powers of observation, all our intellect, all our knowledge and awareness, we can still be captured and manipulated. Any of us who think that we have a real handle on it, that we cannot be fooled, or we assume that we are not being deceived by a psychopath, better think again, apply some tests, and watch closely.
In the end, the safest thing to do once one has the suspicion or feeling that something is not quite right, that something is confusing, that something just doesn’t mesh, is to just get away! There is no way you can interact with or converse with or debate with a psychopath without getting slimed. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
From our perspective, there is no doubt that Ira Einhorn killed Holly Maddux, but that then leads us back to the problem of why, for a full year and a half, did he make no effort to dispose of her body and the other evidence that would ultimately indict him? This, of course, is a clue to the deep nature of the psychopath as a truly predatory being, whose behavior can only be understood in terms of comparison to the hunting behavior of beasts.
We believe that Einhorn’s dissembling after the murder, his cruel cunning employed in hiding his crime, demonstrates a specific type of cold-blooded, conscious thinking consistent with the psychopath, and that it also suggests that Ira was planning for months in advance to murder Holly Maddux. During these months, he carefully and cunningly prepared the ground of the minds of his followers and associates, planted clues about conspiracies, shopped for a trunk with the express intention of using it to store Holly’s remains, for the same reason that a predator in the wild keeps the carcass of his kill nearby — in order to savor the kill again and again.
At the same time, there are very deep implications here in terms of the Theological Reality. Ira Einhorn was closely identified with helping establish what has become known as the New Age Movement. With the benefits of education and a brilliant mind, he had created a sphere of influence among people who stand above the common man. His world was a reality of scientists, educators, intellectuals, occultists, and some folks with seriously big bucks. He brought them all together and almost single handedly, through the cognitive dissonance resulting from the murder of Holly Maddux, created a mythos that still grips the minds of modern day researchers in those fields.
Am I suggesting that there is no conspiracy? Well, the readers know me better than that! Indeed, we cannot but notice the terrible significance of the dates: September 11, and the fact that the brutal barrage of blows to Holly Maddux’s beautiful head occurred precisely 24 years before the brutal barrage of blows to the beautiful World Trade Center towers, the “head” of the illusory American way of life and sovereignty. Both cases signaled a significant change in the perceptions of the American people. In both cases, huge disinformation projects were launched as a result of the events, and both cases, the events are what the CIA and other intelligence agencies term a “sideshow.” They create a distraction away from what is really going on. The ideas born from these sideshows are being vigorously promoted right up to the present day. Tom Bearden, in a recitation of the various persecutions suffered by “truth tellers” of his acquaintance, wrote that:
Ira was suddenly confronted with a decomposed body in a trunk in his apartment. He is now awaiting trial, charged with the alleged murder. And that is so totally incredible, so out of character with the high consciousness and attunement of my friend, that I for one don’t believe it for an instant. Particularly since he was working on Tesla material, directly in contact with the Yugoslavian government, and trying to get information out to the public on Tesla-weapon effects. At any rate, it appears suspiciously as if the psychotronics investigators/researchers are slowly being eliminated or nullified. (Levy, 1988)
Bearden then went on to claim that a whole series of “unusual deaths” were related to this particular cause: psychotronics and remote viewing, etc. He listed the arson of Puharich’s house; the plane-crash death of Itzhak Bentov, author of Stalking the Wild Pendulum (also a crony of Einhorn); and the fatal-stroke death of Wilbur Franklin, an Ohio scientist studying Uri Geller. At the present time, the list is expanded by “theatrical physicist” Jack Sarfatti:
Was Jan Brewer telling the truth about the Fourth Reich using Arica to influence the New Age? Brewer was part of the original Esalen group of forty that went to Chile for the first Arica training with Oscar Ichazo. Arica was big at Esalen at the same time that the Soviets were soaking in the hot tubs. Was I pulled out of the operation by George Koopman because in his opinion I was unpredictable and uncontrollable? Or is the truth still even stranger than even I can imagine? Was Michael Murphy a brilliant Puppet Master or merely a lucky charming “useful idiot,” a Forrest Gump character like me? Was Ira Einhorn framed? Was Jean Nadal murdered? Was Francois Trauffaut murdered? Was Harold Chipman murdered? Was George Koopman murdered? Is this all my paranoid exaggeration? What do you think?
Please note that the one person who seems to have stood by Ira Einhorn all the way down the line is Tom Bearden, who shared many of the Unicorn’s conspiracy theories regarding the use of psychotronics to monitor and control human behavior and modify weather patterns. This, along with the fact that Tom Bearden is closely connected to Richard Hoagland and the Stargate Conspiracy, ought to give us pause.
It’s all a sideshow. People are really being killed in this theater of the macabre. As we have seen in our discussion of the deaths of Morris K. Jessup, Phil Schneider, and Stefan Marinov (discussed in Book Six, Facing the Unknown), such events are engineered to create these sideshows, and generally the ideas and beliefs that emerge from them are disinformation. Just as Marinov may have been programmed to jump off the fire escape of the library at the University at Graz, so it is likely that Ira Einhorn was “programmed” to kill Holly Maddux, so that in the ensuing media circus, certain disinformation or “memes” could be promulgated.
One crucial difference to consider is the fact that many of those who are dead were either murdered or driven to take their own lives. Einhorn, on the other hand, brutally took the life of another. That point is significant. It seems that programming can only be done within the parameters of the basic consciousness frequency resonance. That is to say: The innate tendencies of the individual can be amplified. A positive person may not be programmable to harm another, but they can certainly be programmed to self-destruct. No, indeed! A very special kind of person is needed to do what Ira was “assigned” to do, whether he was conscious of the assignment or not.
More importantly, it doesn’t even have to be in the context of some super-duper-secret government laboratory where white-coated Fourth Reich scientists wearing coke-bottle glasses gleefully hook electrodes to their helplessly drugged subjects, and then giggle fiendishly while they pull levers and turn dials to send torturous electrical currents into brains and genitals. No, indeed, it can be done far more globally and subtly than that, as we have already noted. We have already noticed the curious thread of connections that, when we begin to tug on them, lead us back to Princeton; and we are going to find that Ira Einhorn is also connected, even if indirectly. What do we think these connections indicate? Well, certainly not that which has been widely promulgated in the “Sideshow of the New Age,” led by such ringmasters as Tom Bearden, et al.
Dick Farley, whom we have met before, writes:
By its nature and by design of those on Earth who have been and still are involved in these murky areas of “almost science,” the applications of “Anomalous Phenomena” for political, psychosexual and biowar non-lethal spacewarfare paranoia-seeding counterintelligence for global fascism, a battle for the minds (some say the “souls”) of humanity and our future on our home planet (if it really IS our home planet is underway. Billy Graham, a friend of Mr. Rockefeller’s, who has funded much of what is described in [The Stargate Conspiracy], is “in the loop.” Likewise some former presidents, world leaders and “who knows who” now.
What is going on is a battle for “control of the bridge of Spaceship Earth.” At the level where this stuff may be or may not be “real,” as we objectively may define reality, it’s all just an academic exercise. But beliefs kill, as events of September 11 have shown us.
Reliance on yet another set of “revealed truths” from “hidden sky gods” is unlikely to advance humanity’s collective intelligence sufficiently or in time for us to avoid, or resist, the planned depopulation and global takeover the oligarchs who have funded this clearly have planned for “the rest of us.”
Mr. Rockefeller is said to believe (because one of the channelers of the Nine told him so) that he has been born again on Earth, reincarnated into his position of wealth and global influence, because he was once a Pharaoh, and before that a ruler of Atlantis. The “search” underway for artifacts of ancient Egypt, which these people believe is descended from the Lost Continent of Atlantis, which reputedly had contacts with ETs and in some fashion may have been caught up in a “War in the Heavens,” as Billy Graham and others have called it (in print, variously), is the oligarchs’ quest for “legitimacy.” They believe they were sent “back down here” to help Earth correct and avoid the mistakes of the long distant past, revealed to us now only in the fogs of myth and legends. Shamanically, using hallucinogens secreted from Nazi Germany before the end of the Second World War, these men (mostly men, at the beginning) believed that Hitler was on the right path, but his own megalomania corrupted and sunk him in his efforts to impose a Teutonic resurgence to world rule. This is what THEY believe!
To them, having stumbled into their “nest” and subsequently researched their own literature, doctrine and in literally thousands of hours of research and conversation with them, I have said. “Your plan will not work. You will have to ‘show your talons’ in order to impose your rule over humanity, because of core traits in human character. We love freedom; without it we die. But not all of us. You will never conquer us all.”
And to them, and to you, I add this: “The degree of tyranny necessary to govern Earth in the future is inversely proportional to how effective we (and “They”) can be as teachers.” By their fruits, shall ye know them. Let’s be careful “Out There.”
As we have noted again and again, this is precisely the conspiracy that the Cassiopaeans have repeatedly pointed out. We can certainly surmise that The Nine have an agenda, and that this whole gang of Big Bucks Oligarchs are just the tools of the Hyperdimensional Control System, who have been pumped up to think that they are doing some grand and glorious and heroic work to “correct” something. But we notice the big differences in this perspective and the Cassiopaeans’ perspective; they have made it pretty clear that the present situation is a replay of the Atlantean deal. The Atlanteans tried to take over the world and were defeated by the “Athenians.” We see from Farley’s astute analysis that these people are trying to “correct and avoid the mistakes of the long distant past.” That is to say, they want to set things up so that the Atlanteans will win, and rule the world.
We also notice the use of drugs and hallucinogens as a characteristic of the negative agenda. As the Cassiopaeans have repeatedly suggested, and even said outright:
Accessing the higher levels of psychical awareness through such processes [as mescaline, peyote, LSD, etc.] is harmful to the balance levels of the prime chakra. This is because it alters the natural rhythms of psychic development by causing reliance on the part of the subject, thus subjugating the learning process. It is a form of self-imposed abridging of free will. […] The other substances mentioned are, at least in part, synthetic, with the exception of peyote. But even that is not a natural ingredient of the human physiological being.
Of course, Farley also points out that these folks are really “looking for something.” This something is supposed to be able to tip the balance in their favor, help them “correct the mistake” of the past, when they lost the war and lost control of the Earth.
So, how does Ira Einhorn fit in here? The “medium is the message,” as Einhorn himself proclaimed, and Ira Einhorn was the medium and the message. In an attempt to come to some understanding of what that message was, what Einhorn was promoting, what changes occurred in our society as a result of his presence and his “spider web of contacts,” again we have to look behind the veil to the man behind the curtain, pulling the levers and creating the entire sideshow of smoke and mirrors.
How did Ira Einhorn become such a truly efficient alien reaction machine?
Ira: “My mother lavished a tremendous amount of attention on me before I started school. She fed my curiosity and was teaching me at the third-grade level before I went to kindergarten at five. Aside from giving me a strong ego, this tutoring just made me a freak in my milieu when I entered school.”
Bea Einhorn: “He read incessantly. He’d come to dinner, a book would be in his hand. He’d go on his vacation, he’d take so many books, you wouldn’t know what would be up. I don’t think he slept more than three, four hours a night, ever. Five would be the top. I would get up in the morning to call him, and he would be reading.”
Because he was intellectually advanced, Ira was bored in school. Going to school was so repellent to him that he threw up every morning before starting off to his classes. Once he was in class, he was disruptive, yelling out in a rude and taunting way and refusing to stay in his seat. He made good grades academically, but had consistently poor marks for conduct.
After transferring to another school where he was told that he would not get good marks in his class work if he did not also get good grades for conduct, he apparently modified his behavior. His mother notes, however, that the new school made an effort to keep him busy. “They realized what they had in his mentality,” she says proudly. One of his friends remembers him, at the age of 13, playing with rhymes and strange words. “What are you doing?” Ira would answer, “I’m practicing.” The friend remarked: “His flow of language was exquisite. He could mesmerize people through language. He had the most incredible vocabulary that ever came down the pike. Ira could talk constantly, without hesitation, without pause.”
Because Ira made top grades in junior high school and had high scores in the standardized intelligence tests, he was admitted to a prestigious college prep high school. His IQ, according to Ira, was “upwards of 140.”
He was said to be an independent thinker by the time he got to high school, having so strong an ego that he dared to violate the standard dress of his peers, wearing shorts when no one else did. He also continued his disruptive behavior. He was reported to have repeatedly challenged his instructors, breaking up assemblies with loud behavior and indulging in general-nuisance activity. But, because he continued to get good grades, this behavior was tolerated.
Regarding his personal relations at this time, one of his friends from high school reported: “Ira was really a force to be reckoned with. He would attempt to be dominant in conversations, yet when he was in the presence of somebody whom he knew to have more knowledge than he, he would listen intently and respectfully, and find out where it was they got that information.” He would then seek it out on his own. Ira apparently fantasized about himself as a member of the European, intellectual, philosophic elite, and not just a suburban Jewish kid in America.
Steven Levy, author of The Unicorn’s Secret, reports a curious item: One of Ira’s high school friends said that quite often when he would visit Ira at home, Ira’s mother would direct him to the bathroom, where he would find Ira ensconced in the bathtub with an open book in front of him. The friend thought this was extremely odd, but Ira was oblivious to the discomfort of his visitor. He would basically “hold court” in the bathtub, discoursing on whatever he was reading at the time. The reason I find this interesting is the fact that Ira claimed to have been in the bathtub when Holly Maddux supposedly left his apartment for the last time, never to be seen again. Because there has been some conjecture that Ira may have drained Holly’s body of blood and fluids for several days after changing his mind about disposing of it, I cannot help but wonder if his story may hold a partial truth: that he was in the bathtub when “Holly left,” in the sense that the image of Ira bathing in Holly’s blood flashed unbidden into my mind. Such an act, as the reader will see, would be entirely in keeping with the psychopathic personality.
But, back to Little Ira. He was a larcenous lad, no doubt. His friend reported that he would repeatedly send away for batches of books given away in book-club advertisements in magazines. When asked how he was going to pay for them, or the required subsequent orders, Ira would reply: “Don’t worry! They’re not going to get me — I’m a minor. If they’re dumb enough to send it to me, they’re not going to prosecute me.” His friend noted wryly that Ira saw himself as a sort of Robin Hood, robbing the world to give to a good cause — Ira.
At one point in his high school career, Ira spent the summer lifting weights and doing push-ups to bulk up his body. He became, in the words of his friends, a “hulk,” with an accompanying macho attitude. Unfortunately, he was never able to do anything about his spindly legs, and he was plagued by acne.
One very curious item is the fact that Ira boasted to his friends that he didn’t feel pain. He demanded that they test him by stubbing a cigarette out on his hand and, sure enough, Ira held his hand steady and never flinched.
Ira started smoking marijuana in 1956, when it was still quite rare in American high schools. He graduated in 1957 with a scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania. Interestingly, he refused to let his picture be included in the yearbook, didn’t want a high-school ring, and attended the prom in jeans. This was so shocking that the high school threatened not to graduate him, but a sympathetic English teacher intervened saying, “I ought to wring that boy’s neck, but I cannot deny the world Ira.”
In college, Ira was contemptuous of the idea that one could learn by attending classes. He did, of course, continue to read, but generally, he refused to fulfill the requirements of his classes. Again, his behavior was tolerated because of his evident intellect. Also, Ira’s professors probably passed him just to get rid of him, because he would intimidate and challenge them by citing obscure works that contradicted their own opinions.
So far, in general, we have described a very bright, very precocious, very independent kid. Except for vaguely troubling items that could be insignificant, we are not alarmed. I bet that most of the readers can identify with Ira, most especially his insistence on his own way of being, his resistance to authority.
I can identify with Ira myself. I was reading when I was three; I was often, though not always, bored in school; and in later years I was somewhat resistant to authority that I perceived as unfair or unreasonable, most particularly my mother. I also resisted the authority at school a few times. I remember one occasion when I deliberately baited a teacher who I had seen use her authority cruelly on another student. I reduced her to tears in front of the class. At my 30-year class reunion, I was reminded of that incident, much to my embarrassment. What was a surprise to me was that it was seen as sort of heroic. At the time, and in my own recollection, I was just simply being obnoxious like any other kid who is too full of themselves. I deeply regretted having made another person cry. Even if some still perceive it as justified, I don’t. I don’t excuse her behavior, and I don’t excuse my own.
I am certain that many readers also remember little “tests of courage” or games of “chicken” played with other children. (The only one I ever remember playing was one in which the object was not to blink, or some such thing.)
I was similarly not interested in the minutiae of classwork. However, unlike Ira, I often made poor overall grades because, even though I scored very high on all the tests, I rarely turned in the daily homework because I was too busy reading. In fact, I generally was hiding the book I was reading inside the textbook so that I could read undisturbed through classes. I thought that was a much better use of my time than listening to some dry old lecture about something that I already had learned through my reading. I also was generally too involved in my reading to “act up” in classes. I was called down for talking to the pupils on either side of me — whispering and not paying attention — and was even once sent out to stand in the hall by the classroom door for this. Heck, if I’m going to confess, yes, I smoked in the bathroom, and once instigated a conspiracy to shoot jelly beans at the Spanish instructor while the classroom was in darkness during one of her endless slide presentations of her summer vacations. She flipped the light switch on and glared at all of us — and informed us that the slide presentation would not continue until the guilty parties confessed. With a sigh of relief, the entire class became amnesiac.
Yes, I read under the covers with a flashlight because I was required to turn off the light in my room at a certain hour. I would often read all night and feel like death warmed over when I had to get up and go to school. But, except for the fact that I was something of a social semi-geek, I didn’t mind going to school until about 11th grade. At that point, I was just simply tired of it. It was boring.
The point is: Regarding Ira as a child, we haven’t really seen anything in the record assembled by Steven Levy from his interviews with all the principals of Ira’s early life, that would indicate anything truly abnormal, except perhaps, his conscious, premeditated larceny, his lack of consideration for the feelings of others, and maybe the “I feel no pain” episode.
But now we come to that most interesting of times in Ira’s life, when new players enter the stage. One of these was Morse Peckham, “the prize and pariah of Penn’s English department.” Morse Peckham was a “Renaissance Man.” He was a polymath whose depth of knowledge was matched by its breadth.
For Peckham, the life of the mind was the only life. This had been the case since childhood. He has described his parents as imbued in nineteenth-century culture; his mother read Tennyson to him before his naps. At ten, he was using chess pieces to emulate the stage movements of Shakespeare’s characters. He was the first University of Rochester student to take graduate English work at Princeton, where he earned a doctorate, but not before serving in World War II, where he spent his European tour writing the official history of the Ninth Bomber Command. […] [He was a] large man, more than six feet tall, with fine features and a beard. […]
A lifelong bachelor, Peckham dressed elegantly, and smoked cigarettes in a long white holder. […] The thrust of his work was transdisciplinary scholarship. […] He saw the culmination of [the romantic era] in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and his book on romanticism, Beyond the Tragic Vision, would be hailed in academic circles as a masterpiece. By the early sixties, Peckham was starting a more ambitious project that would use his cultural knowledge to go beyond criticism of art, music, and literature and probe the essence of humanity itself. […]
At the time Ira Einhorn found his way into one of Morse Peckham’s classes, Peckham was working in virtual isolation, living alone, sharing his intellectual theories and discoveries on a daily basis with no one. […] [T]here was some heavy intellectual bonding between Ira Einhorn and Professor Peckham. While most of the students were gasping for breath at Peckham’s hairpin intellectual turns, Ira would ostentatiously be keeping pace with the master, providing verbal footnotes or suggesting esoteric comparisons to the point under discussion. It was no secret that this mental jam session continued outside of class as well. […] Inevitably, some of Ira’s peers wondered how close the relationship really was. […] There is no reason to surmise that the speculation of homosexuality was in any way founded. […]
[Peckham] considered his mental life intense and thrilling, but it precluded any emotional life outside of the pursuit of ideas. “In Ira,” he says, “I found someone whom I could try these ideas on. Because I didn’t have anybody else.” (Levy, 1988; this author’s emphasis)
What were Peckham’s “ideas”? Some of his early work includes a study of various editions of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. As already noted, he was interested in romanticism. In 1951 he published Towards a Theory of Romanticism, in which he wrote:
Shift away from thinking of the universe as a static mechanism, like a clock, to thinking of it as a dynamic organism, like a growing tree. […] For those who make the shift, the values of static mechanism — reason, order, permanence, and the like — are replaced by their counterparts in an organic universe — instinct or intuition, freedom, and change.
Romantic thought is relativistic and pluralistic; it rejects absolute values, formal classifications, and exclusive judgments; it welcomes novelty, originality, and variety. It is less interested in distinctions than in relationships, particularly in the organic relationship which it posits between man and nature, or the universe, and (less often) between the individual and society. The great chain of being is replaced by an indefinitely extended and complicated live network of connecting filaments, as in the vascular system of a plant or in a mass of animal nerve tissue, by which every phenomenon is tied by countless direct and indirect contacts to every other.
When a new fact appears, it is not just another link in the chain or cog in the machine; it is an evidence of organic growth and development, and its emergence changes every previously existing aspect of the universe. A new characteristic is evidence of a totally new and different world. Therefore a romantic artist will strive, not to imitate an ideal perfection of form which has always existed, but to originate a form which has never existed before and which will uniquely express what he alone feels and knows. To do so, he will rely more on imagination than on logic, more on symbols than on signs or allegories, more on unconscious than on conscious powers. He will believe that he is creating a genuinely new thing and thereby changing and renewing the whole of his organic universe. (Peckham, 1951)
He also wrote Explanation and Power: The Control of Human Behaviour in 1986, wherein his Darwinistic approach to cultural development is made clear:
For human beings, the world consists of signs, and it is impossible for human beings to consider the world, or themselves, from a meta-semiotic point of view or position. The world is an immense tapestry of innumerable threads, emerging and disappearing in the presentation and evanishment of indefinably innumerable designs, and human beings themselves form some of those same threads and patterns. We are figures in the tapestry we observe, and respond to, and manipulate. The old notion that the world is an illusion is sound, for no sign (configuration) dictates our responses. But it is sound only up to a point, because the physical character of the world limits the range of our responses. We can do lots of things with water, but as yet we have no way to build a skyscraper out of it, though the possibility has its charms; nor can we walk on it without doing something either to ourselves or to the water. Or to use another notion, the world is Idea, our Idea, but it is also Reality, Actuality, Factuality. The mind transcends the world, but then it does not transcend the world. Plato’s demiourgos did not create the reality he set about ordering; he set about ordering a chaos, a recognition that human behavior works on material that is really there. Or, to put it in somewhat newer terms, the world is object, and man is subject, and the subject is different from the object but, nevertheless, somehow the same. (Peckham, 1986; this author’s emphasis)
Morse Peckham theorized that it was only through “cultural vandalism” — the aggressive undermining of established values through random, mindless acts of destruction — that social innovation was stimulated. He theorized that humans needed to push themselves to such disruptive extremes; otherwise there was no hope of matching the insects’ astonishing ability to adaptively alter their physiology and behavior in a relatively brief time. Peckham theorized that our mammalian talents for memory and self-reflection serve largely to oppress us with the dead weight of the past. Unburdened by mammalian scruples, insects effortlessly practice the Nietzschean virtue of active forgetting: The adult fly doesn’t remember anything the maggot once knew.
In short, Peckham was glorifying psychopathy, and in Ira Einhorn we see Peckham’s glorified psychopath in action. About Ira Einhorn, Morse Peckham said: “Ira stood out because of his really wide reading and his ability to understand what he read.”
However, after spending some time out of Ira’s direct presence, Peckham began to realize that something was wrong in the interaction. He had the odd feeling that Ira was parroting his own words back at him. “I was still very interested in him and very friendly with him, but I began to feel that talking to him was like being in an echo chamber, just my own ideas being fed back to me without any modification or any thought on his part.”
Just like Ross Baker, Morse Peckham had fallen under the sway of the psychopath. But he had also analyzed the problem, and in his analysis he put his finger on one of the clues to identifying the psychopath. They are parrots, apes, echo chambers. But, as Baker pointed out, it was humbling to realize that, after a period in Einhorn’s presence, he was having difficulty with his mental clarity. Morse Peckham, as brilliant as he was, took some time to come to this realization because he was, indeed, dealing with a brilliant psychopath.
As sympathetic as we may be for Morse Peckham and the fact that Einhorn duped him, there is something else crucially interesting about Morse. Let’s go back to that most interesting remark about Morse Peckham: He did his Ph.D. where? At Princeton. When? Oh, in the same general time period as when Nash was there. Peckham was, as some have described him, an “intellectual raider.” He advocated that in order to be a “cultural historian,” one had to “know everything.” He would read so extensively in a field that he soon could think in the way the professionals in that discipline thought. From looking at his work, we suspect that Morse Peckham was powerfully influenced by Game Theory.
What do we conclude? That Morse was part of a conspiracy? That he consciously was interacting with Ira, preparing him for his future role? Or do we think that Morse was just simply who he was, and Ira was who he was, and maybe there was some “tinkering” with the Matrix to ensure that the two of them would come together so as to pump all those theoretical ideas into Einhorn’s head, with the surety that he would put his own spin on them?
There is nothing simple about any of this. When you start pulling on these threads, you just never know what is going to spring out of the closet. What we discovered is a connection linking Peckham to the telephone company which later “utilized” Ira Einhorn as described by the Bell executive at Einhorn’s bail hearing. “AT&T’s Experiment In Humanistic Education, 1953-1960,” by Mark D. Bowles (The Historian, vol. 61) suggests that Ira’s “network,” was designed to counteract a previous experiment in social engineering that hadn’t turned out quite the way the experimenters wanted it:
The unexpected Soviet detonation of an atomic bomb in 1949 triggered a wave of paranoia and anxiety in the United States. As historian Vincent LaFeber wrote, “Few American officials had expected the Soviet test this early.” The result was a new era of “nuclear fear” that spread throughout the culture.…
One of the central reasons for instituting liberal arts training was to preserve the American way during the Cold War, yet the Viteles data indicate that the participants became more tolerant of non-capitalistic political ideologies. After training, the number of participants who believed that liberty and justice were possible in socialist countries nearly tripled (Question 1), and significantly fewer participants believed that democracy was dependent upon free business enterprise (Question 3). Clearly, this represented a threat to AT&T’s corporate leaders; no longer could they continue to support a training program that might undermine America’s own economic system…. English professor Morse Peckham designed the program. (Bowles, 1998)
Again, economics rears its ugly head. The one thing this report tells us is this: Those guys in charge of all this aren’t omniscient. But it was clear that, at the point in time when Ira Einhorn was in close association with Morse Peckham, the program that Peckham had designed, obviously with a particular agenda that supported the economic theories that were being developed around the work of John von Neumann and John Nash, was now known to be a failure. Plan B was obviously going into effect, and Ira Einhorn was central to this plan: Restore paranoia! Restore belief in Russian superiority or Russian evil experiments on mankind!
So we wonder just what kinds of cerebral jamming Ira was doing with Morse Peckham?
In the fall of 1959, when Ira was a junior, he met Michael Hoffman. Hoffman was just entering grad school in English and the two soon became close friends. Hoffman soon married and had a child, and Ira regularly urged him to toss the “normal life,” to ditch his wife and child and really “live.” This gives us some clue to the effect Morse was having on Ira.
Ira had already decided that earning a living was not for him, so when Morse Peckham urged him to attend grad school, even offering to pay his tuition (!) he thought that was as good a way to develop an occupation for himself that was more to his liking. However, since he had been the resident “Falstaffian figure” at Penn, and had spent most of his time in reading, talking, sex, and doing drugs, as well as traveling extensively, he had to really scramble to convince his professors to accept his final papers as proof that he had successfully mastered his courses. Most of them did, but one gave him a failing grade, which meant that Ira would have to repeat the course. He refused.
Ira’s friends and family campaigned vigorously to get him to change his mind. His mother went to talk to the professor, who said, “Look, Mrs. Einhorn, I don’t even know what your son looks like — how can I pass him?”
Levy says that Ira finally changed his mind, suggesting that Ira could see that his own well-being was enough reason to bend to the dominance of the institution. He fulfilled his obligation under duress and with many complaints, and received his degree in 1961. However, considering the influence of Morse Peckham, we wonder about this uncharacteristic change of mind.
In 1962, Morse Peckham was in Europe traveling, and Ira’s friend Michael Hoffman took a teaching job in Maryland. Ira wrote to him regularly, so there is something of a record of his thinking through this period. He also was writing in his journals. On December 14, 1999, 2:53 p.m., Ira Einhorn wrote in an email about these journals:
On the morning of March 28, 1979 … a slew of Philadelphia police armed with a search warrant entered my small apartment. When they left, they carried away evidence, a partially decayed body, that effectively ended my life, as a social activist. They also carried away, for no apparent reason, all of my papers, including 63 volumes of personal journals and all the information that I had been collecting and distributing for years on my international information network.
I have never seen any of this material again. I probably never will. The private diaries were later turned over, as mentioned above, to a journalist who quoted from them extensively and often out of context in a book that painted me in totally black terms as a murderer. This use of my private work is of course illegal, but my situation does not allow me to do anything about it. It is part of the pattern that has characterized all official action in my case. Action that continues to this day.
When reading the above remarks, I was so astonished I practically choked. Notice that, the finding of the “partially decayed body” of Holly Maddux, the woman he was supposed to have loved dearly, was described by Ira as having inconvenienced him, as she “effectively ended my life as a social activist”!! Not one thought for the fact that the “partially decayed body” was once a living, breathing woman whose life as anything at all was effectively ended in a way that Ira simply does not grasp. No pity for Holly, nothing but self-pity for Ira.
He then goes on to feel sorry for the loss of his diaries. Oh, lord! How sad it is! “For no apparent reason,” too! Never mind that the dead body of a woman he claimed to love was found in his house, there was “no reason” to take Ira’s journals away from him. Poor widdle Ira. He’s gonna cry now! More so, because of what was in those journals, which he complains are illegal to use because he is just so innocent and pathetic and abused and mistreated by those nasty people who think that it’s not nice to bash people’s heads in!
Levy quotes from these journals and from letters Ira wrote extensively. The reader may wish to obtain the book The Unicorn’s Secret and read it a time or two to get the full impact of Ira Einhorn in all his psychopathic glory. But the book is far more than just the story about Einhorn, it’s a history of the politics and pop-culture of the 1960s and 1970s, the platform on which the New Age was constructed. There is no way to understand what is going on now without understanding what preceded it, and the part Ira Einhorn has played in creating the great “Sideshow of the New Age” — to distract attention away from the real Stargate Conspiracy.
Getting back to Ira and psychopaths, and Ira whining about how the police (for just no reason!) stole his journals and how Levy was “plagiarizing” them to write about him; he has given us some interesting clues to the perceptions of the psychopath:
Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1970) and Konrad Lorenz (1966) proposed mechanisms that limit aggression in social animals. They noted that in animals such as dogs, who bare their throats when attacked by a stronger opponent, this display of submission results in a termination of the attack. James Blair, in 1995, proposed a model of psychopathy based on this idea: that there is a functionally analogous mechanism in humans: a violence inhibition mechanism (VIM) that is activated by nonverbal communications of distress — emotions, for example, or expressions of pain or suffering. Blair suggests that having a violence inhibition mechanism is a prerequisite for the development of three aspects of morality:
1. the moral emotions (such as sympathy, guilt, remorse and empathy),
2. the inhibition of violent action, and
3. the moral/conventional distinction.
Blair proposes that psychopaths lack a functional VIM and this is why they are not affected by distress cues from others. Blair made some predictions based on his model:
(1) that psychopaths will not make a distinction between moral and conventional rules;
(2) that psychopaths will treat moral rules as if they were conventional; that is, under permission conditions, the psychopaths will say that moral as well as conventional transgressions are OK to do;
(3) that psychopaths will be less likely to make references to the pain or discomfort of victims than the non-psychopath controls. [Blair & Morton, 1995, p. 13]
Using subjects identified by Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Blair’s research demonstrated that:
…while the non-psychopaths made the moral/conventional distinction, the psychopaths did not; secondly, and in contrast with predictions, that psychopaths treated conventional transgressions like moral transgressions rather than treating moral transgressions like conventional transgressions; and thirdly, and in line with predictions, that psychopaths were much less likely to justify their items with reference to victim’s welfare.
(Pitchford, 2001; this author’s emphases)
Now, this little discovery of Blair’s may be very significant: Psychopaths treat conventional transgressions like moral transgressions. In short, what this may reveal is that the psychopath perceives something that another person does to them that they don’t like as a “moral transgression.” They may even see a disagreement with another person as a “moral” reason to cause them harm. This then leads to the idea that the psychopath perceives their own wants and desires as being “godlike,” so to say. Anything done to the psychopath — for whatever conventional reason — any disagreement with the psychopath, is a “sin,” so to say, and their responses to that “sin,” are to complain about it as though something terribly and immorally wrong has been done to them. This gives us a clue that the psychopath will seek to justify their truly immoral behavior as “moral,” or on “moral grounds, all the while unable to see any moral justification of the other at all, in any way, shape, form or fashion.
This then leads us to the issue of ego. As Steven Levy wrote, Ira Einhorn had the Gibraltar of self images. The root of this ego is easy to trace: his mother. She had instilled a tremendously strong self-image in her son by her pride, her boasting of his mental prowess, her constant attention to developing his “superior” mentality, and her protecting him from consequences of his behavior because of his “genius.”
So, as a genius, as a “mythic, godlike being,” Ira Einhorn could do no wrong in his own eyes. And so, he is not even embarrassed at what his journals reveal about him, even though it makes a lie of everything he ever claimed to stand for in his carefully nurtured public image. As long as Ira himself never admits a lie, he can continue to maintain his image, completely unaware of the effect of utter amazement he is having on those who know he is lying! The psychopathic liar also knows that there are plenty of people who will believe lies over truth, even against the evidence; and he will cling, to the very end, to that group, that source of “food,” knowing instinctively that if he ever admits a lie, he has lost his position as the “alpha male,” that he believes himself to be. Loss of that position represents annihilation. And, as we have already seen, playing “semantic games” is the psychopath’s solution to answering direct questions.
So, what was in the journals?
The years in question are described by Ira as simply “two years of continuous reading.” This was his version of what was going on in the strange writings of that period. He also said that he was taking a bath when Holly Maddux left, never to be seen again.
Steven Levy, the journalist Einhorn described above as having “quoted from [my journals] extensively and often out of context in a book that painted me in totally black terms as a murderer,” didn’t just quote from the journals. He talked to the people described in the journals. So, in addition to letters to Hoffman, the journal entries, there is actual witness (or should I say “victim”?) testimony. Ira doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He’s a liar, pure and simple. But like all psychopaths, he is not embarrassed to lie. He is not embarrassed by the facts that prove he is lying. He continues to lie out of an ego the size of Gibraltar, and simply does not feel the shock and horror of those who know that he is lying and who would, themselves, be mortified to be caught in such lies, and because they are capable of embarrassment and mortification, have a conscience, and therefore do not lie!
So, on to 1962: Ira was doing a lot of traveling. He went to Ohio, Chicago, New York, and goodness knows where else. He also spent time in Bennington, Vermont, with a girlfriend he’d met while an undergrad. Around this time he wrote to Hoffman:
I’m trying to resolve my future, but at present all I see is chaos — boy do I love it. […] At present I can’t even dream of teaching before thirty. The more I read about the background of great scholars in various fields the more I realize the great importance of long years of careful preparation.… I must learn to wait and be patient — the moment will arrive and then I will be able to bring to bear all I have read on the problem that confronts me. Americans just don’t know how to ripen — they all want to produce, produce, etc. We must learn to wait and be silent. (Levy, 1988)
Then he wrote the exact opposite to the above ambitions to be silent: “I’ve talked a blue streak of late. All have listened — few understand.” He then told Hoffman a story about a woman who was so shaken by what he had to say that she returned to her dormitory “hysterical and on the verge of a breakdown.”
The question is, was the above an “Ira version” of something quite different? Is this similar to his story: “I was taking a bath when Holly left, and she never came back?” Or “I spent two years reading”?
This brings us to something of the crux of the matter. Ira Einhorn was at the center of promoting ideas of personal freedom, resistance to repressive government, ecological action, and bringing attention to the paranormal and UFOs.
Many have suggested that a giant ego ought not to reflect badly on the message. Just because the guy is a psychopath, can’t he still do good — even if by accident? Didn’t Ira do a lot of good? The only problem is, as Ira so repeatedly promoted from the works of Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.”
William Irwin Thompson said: “There are some people whose auras I don’t like, and I didn’t like to be around him.” Another critic called Ira a “social psychopath… I think the definition of that is someone who believes that he can make up his own rules. His idea about society was that he had a special role to play. He probably would manipulate anyone for anything. He just happened to find the right niche at the right time.”
There were always a few people like Thompson who saw through Ira and considered him to be just a left-wing con man. The important thing that a lot of people miss is the fact that, even though he rose to prominence on the platform of the antiestablishment counterculture, his main accomplishment was to promote the very paranoia that is counterproductive to a movement for peace. If we consider the fact that the ultimate message that Ira Einhorn was promoting was to pit one group of humans against another, and to suggest that some alien gods — i.e. “The Nine” — were the only ones who could come in and straighten out the mess we are in (by their manipulations, I might add), then we need to look at his message in a different light.
In short, “the medium is the message” says more than we might suspect. Since Ira was the medium, to know Ira is to know the forces inside and behind him.
The cognitive dissonance produced by Ira’s “predicament” over the murder of Holly Maddux was related to not only his private life, which obviously was a complete contradiction of his public persona, but also the earthquake it produced in a general sense: The visual shock of seeing someone who was a representative of the idealistic “make love, not war” shtick being exposed as a complete phony. Ira was a visual image of a fraud, mouthing the platitudes of the sixties while secretly flouting every single ideal of that generation. It was almost as shocking as the realization that a sitting president could be assassinated in broad daylight in front of his people, and nobody could stop it or do a damn thing about it. It produced a feeling of helplessness, the loss of the father, so to say.
Ira’s murder of Holly Maddux produced similar sensations of helplessness. Who can you trust? You can’t even trust people who claim to be dedicated to love and ecology? After all, in a world where our Big Brother Ira Einhorn murdered Holly, and Elvis Presley died of drug use, what was the counterculture really about? The parade of activism was stampeded over a cliff into irrational paranoia, and in reaction, the era of the 1980s — the mature stage of the post-WWII baby boom — withdrew into a cocoon to metamorphose. As noted, many of them produced babies that were conceived as a result of the “free love” ideas of the times; and that is certainly a condition in which those who are the most aggressively sexual and rampantly promiscuous will spread their genes like wildfire — psychopaths, in fact.
In 1964 Ira was described as a “collector of books and women, somewhat more a connoisseur in the first instance… [he] professes to believe that it is normal for boys of his age to have slept with 200 or 300 different women.” The interviewer commented: “Whether this is rationalization for a compulsive Casanova syndrome, whether he is trying to prove something to himself, I cannot say, but I am certain [he is] not average. He is exceptional both in intellectual capacity and the capacity for what I would be tempted to term sexual excesses.”
For Ira Einhorn, it was one woman after another. He participated in “gang bangs” though his tastes did not run in that direction. Too much dividing of attention, no doubt. Even though Ira gave lip service to having outgrown his exploitation of women, his descriptions of his “techniques” and methods of seduction give evidence of actions that don’t match the words. He remarks, at one point, “Because of our heritage of a two-faced attitude towards sex, very few people are capable of healthy promiscuity, enjoying sex as you would a good meal and then forgetting about it.” This is classic psychopathy; it implies, of course, that Ira is among those elevated few who can enjoy “healthy promiscuity.”
Reading Levy’s book, recounting Ira’s own words and actions, paints a portrait of not merely a raging sexist, but a sexual predator of the worst kind. How can it be that always being on the prowl for quick and anonymous sex, “enjoying sex as you would a good meal, and then forgetting it,” is an “unselfish” act?
Though some of Ira’s partners in these types of relationships claim that they were satisfied, many of the hundreds of women which he claimed he had conquered and satisfied, gave quite a different version of the story. According to them, Ira’s style was perfunctory and disappointing. “To hear Ira talk about sex, he’s made their elbows have orgasms. When it came right down to it, the four or five women I knew [who had slept with him] didn’t think so. You didn’t really get the feeling that a sexual experience was taking place. It was like there was nobody home there. It was something like territory conquered and then done with.”
One supporter of Ira’s reputation, having heard these stories being circulated, decided to set up a test. The test was that he called on a very attractive woman who “agreed to meet Ira for the experiment.” Here’s the clincher: The friend was in the bedroom as an observer and reported that Ira performed “royally.”
Well, you idiot! What did you think? The psychopath is a performer. You didn’t think he was going to show his true self to an audience, did you?
One of the clues by which one can identify a psychopath is revealed by a woman who knew Ira for years. When they first met, she had an affair with him.
He wanted to know me, and he wanted to know how I felt about everything, but I never remember him ever talking about his own feelings. He’s an extremely controlled person, everything he did was thought out and calculated. He liked having the upper hand and doing something for others, and not feeling like he was dependent on anybody. I thought that got to be weird. I even said, Don’t you ever get angry, or sad, or express any kind of emotions? Don’t you really have feelings for things you do and for people? He didn’t even want to talk about that. He was very, very closed. (Levy, 1988; this author’s emphasis)
The fact is, Ira did have four “intense relationships” that amounted to more than idle dalliance or one-on-one anthropological interviews. In each of these four relationships, Ira fancied himself “in love.” The truth is, except for having a woman to serve him, his only interest in them seemed to occur when he became obsessively fixated on a woman who would not submit her will to him, and who eventually rejected him. For Ira, “love” was “lust for power over another.” In three of those instances, when Ira did not achieve mental and emotional submission from his “objects,” Ira responded to this rejection with violence. One of those women was Holly Maddux. In his journals, Ira Einhorn is exposed for the stalking beast of prey that he is.
Ira Einhorn met “Rita Siegal” in early 1962. Their relationship was more a function of what he imagined it to be than what it actually was.
Rita was a Bennington girl from Long Island, smart and direct in her speech. She was a dancer.… At the time she met Ira… she was having trouble with her self-esteem.… “If anyone would pay me a good word, or pat me on the head, I would just lap it up,” she recalls now, with the perspective of a quarter-century of reflection. “So I was real needy. So that’s where the relationship came from, he patted me on the head and showed me some interest. And then I respected his intelligence, he seemed very intelligent to me.” But never, according to Rita Siegal, did she consider it a towering relationship, the key union in her life. This contrasts to Ira Einhorn’s perception at the time:
“I hope that the beauty of Rita’s love will be able to sustain me in all the agonies of those restless days ahead. When I’m with her, all disappears — and no matter how she acts the calm of ‘knowing’ descends upon me — all becomes joy and light. Long live love!” (Levy, 1988)
Apparently, Rita didn’t feel the same. Ira was doing what the psychopath does so well: viewing his reality as some fictional construct, projecting himself onto the others. His literary-inspired romantic ideas were imposed on Rita, and he thought he could control the entire drama the way a writer controls the development of a novel. Rita explained: “Eventually he got into all these fantasies. But I never really took it very personally somehow, because he was so far removed from reality. The, quote, great romance of the century, was what was in his head and he was fantasizing, but that wasn’t what was happening at all. I never got the feeling that this was a love relationship. I got the feeling it was a sick relationship.”
In short, the words didn’t match the action — the clue to the psychopathic personality. Like the rest of us might be, Rita was probably reluctant to end the relationship because she was afraid she would “hurt” Ira’s feelings. After all, when somebody declares that the Sun and Moon rise and set in your eyes, you sort of think that they have real emotions, right? With all his reading, Ira undoubtedly had some really good lines!
Rita allowed the relationship to continue through the spring and into the summer. She took a summer job in Hanover, New Hampshire, and even though she already had the idea that Ira was a really strange person, she allowed him to move in with her.
Ira’s lack of direct contact with Peckham or Hoffman seems to have released him from any restraints that might have modified his behavior, and his reading was gradually taking over his entire reality. He was reading Nietzsche, Lawrence, Henry Miller, Marquis de Sade — and some of his ideas frightened Rita. She said: “It was as if somebody were talking about something, and dreaming about something, and fantasizing about something, and all of a sudden he would become the thing itself. And he would start glaring at you, and leering at you.”
Rita reports that at such times she felt that Ira would actually do harm to her if she didn’t get away from him. “I could see when he’d be clicking into crazy, and I’d just run, physically get out of there. I was fast… he couldn’t catch me. Who knows what he would have done if he’d caught me. It was like that.”
As the days passed, Ira continued poring over texts, and Rita became more and more uncomfortable with his presence, though she was also afraid to leave. At the point he began to experiment with torturing cats, she realized that he was really quite capable of terrible things.
Yes indeed, our esteemed guru of “make love, not war,” our guide to “save the planet,” the guy who keeps saying “I did not kill Holly,” was torturing helpless animals. Here we have found the last piece of the psychopathic puzzle. Of course, Ira is outraged that his journals were handed over to Levy, because what Ira was writing in his journals in late June of 1962 happens to correspond to Rita’s descriptions of her experiences, with the added factor that we begin to see just how sick this turkey really is:
Sadism — sounds nice — run it over your tongue — contemplate with joy the pains of others as you expire with an excruciating satisfaction. Project outward the vision of inward darkness. Let no cesspool of inner meaning be concealed. Reveal the filth that you are. Know the animal is always there.… Beauty and innocence must be violated for they can’t be possessed. The sacred mystery of another must be preserved — only death can do that. (Quoted in Levy, 1988; this author’s emphasis)
Whoa! You don’t have to be Siggy Freud to figure that one out! But what is crucial is that Ira has told us here why he kept Holly’s body in a trunk. That was who he really was. The attempt to dispose of it was merely a thin veneer of humanness that was quickly overridden with the small frustration of failure. What is more, Ira has told us more than we wanted to know about what went on at, or after, the time Holly was beaten to death. I’m not sure if people who get their cookies from hurting other people are also likely to be necrophiliacs, but I’ve read a few cases that would turn your stomach. I keep hearing Ira say: “I was in the bathtub when Holly left,” and the image that brings is a nightmare. Not only that, but the date of the last newspaper in the trunk where Holly’s body was found was four days after the murder. What was Ira doing with Holly for four days?
Back to 1962: Rita figured that her summer job would soon be over and she would return to school. She hoped that this would create the opportunity to extricate herself from Ira’s clutches gracefully. She had tried to be honest and deal with him like a normal human being. She made it clear that when September came, she did not wish to continue the relationship. What is interesting is that her expression of her wish to break up took on the form of a “moral failure” in Ira’s mind. He, of course, was perfect and long-suffering. On July 28, he wrote in his journal:
Rita and I have come to an impasse — I can no longer tolerate either her selfishness or lack of faith. To give and give some more is my desire, but not to one so unthinking as her. My dreams are realizable and will not be snuffed out by the fear of anyone — I too have a right to a life of my own and to that I will dedicate myself. She lacks faith and the ability to respect another: Without these qualities, no matter what she is, she is as nothing. Come September and all is over. The pieces will be picked up and all started anew. The progress of my soul must not be crushed by the failings of a selfish young woman. So good-bye my love and good luck to my replacement — may he be more willing to be taken advantage of. (quoted in Levy, 1988)
In the above remarks, what catches my eye is Ira’s remark, “my dreams are realizable and will not be snuffed out by the fear of anyone.” Just exactly what “dreams” did he wish to realize that Rita was afraid of? Why did he later relate this to the “progress of my soul” that was “crushed by the failings of a selfish” woman? What, exactly, did he want to do that she refused to participate in? What “progress” of soul was he thinking about since he was also writing, “let no cesspool of inner meaning be concealed. Reveal the filth that you are. Know that the animal is always there.…”?
On July 30 Ira had just read Venus in Furs, a sadomasochistic classic. As soon as he finished the book, he wrote in his journal:
We so carefully hide the blackness of our soul from all those around us (even ourselves) we forget so easily the impulses of power which unconsciously control so many of our actions! A book like Venus in Furs reminds us of what we are — blackness and light. To beat a woman — what joy — to bite her breasts and ass — how delightful — to have her return the favor in our sensitive areas. How is life to be lived? That is what the book asks unknowingly. Should we subjugate or be subjugated. Realize our darkness or at least become aware of it. Can I love Rita as she is or must I break her spirit. Does she provide me with what I want. Often I think not. Investigate — plunge deeply — leave no stone unturned. You are one of the rare free spirits do not be saddled by one who isn’t. Life to be lived at its full must be lived freely. Let nothing stand in your way to getting what you can — not even the illusion of love which you know to be so transitory. (quoted in Levy, 1988)
Were there marks on Holly’s body that Ira knew could identify him? Is that a reason he decided it was too risky to just dispose of it?
Rita had returned to Bennington at this point. Ira went after her and found her in her dormitory room, and she made it clear that he ought to leave, that she did not want him there. Here we find what may have been the model of the story about the girl who fled to her dormitory in terror of what Ira had said to her:
“I probably said, ‘We need to end this thing.’” she says. It was then that she perceived that silent click that told her that Ira had shifted into a darkly determined being. The shift was difficult to explain. It wasn’t like he lost his reality,” she says. “He totally knew what he was doing. He just went over and locked the door. It was quiet, premeditated. It wasn’t a rational buildup of temper at all. It was almost like, you watch one of those supernatural movies on television, and eyes change. Like a werewolf. It was like that truly. And so I knew then when that happened I was in the room with a madman.”
The room was not large, and there was only one door. “I could have gotten out if I had been a more assertive person,” says Rita, thinking back to when she was nineteen years old and young Ira Einhorn was approaching her with madness in his eyes. “I could have screamed. But I didn’t. I suppose I could have jumped out the window, but I was afraid of getting cut. The man was strong.”
Ira Einhorn moved steadily toward her. He did not rush his movements. For a brief while, Rita Siegal tried to fight him off, but then she let go. Ira Einhorn’s hands were around her neck, choking her. And then she passed out.
On July 31, 1962, Ira Einhorn wrote: “To kill what you love when you can’t have it seems so natural that strangling Rita last night seemed so right.” (Levy, 1988)
Apparently, Ira shared the incident with his friend, Michael Hoffman. “He talked about how, watching the color of her face change, something clicked at the last minute and he looked up, he let go.”
Ira later tried to convince Rita that he made sure she was still alive. She awoke to find his finger-marks still visible on her throat and spent the night at the school infirmary. She did not press charges against Ira, but she did talk with school authorities, who banned Ira from the campus.
Steven Levy comments about Ira’s “strange” reaction to the incident. After all, this event could have ended his career before it even started. He suggests that Ira “tried to will it to insignificance.” But we know better by now. The psychopath does not have to “will” anything to insignificance. Everything but their own will is insignificant. His reaction to it also reminds us of Nash and his arrest in California for trying to come on to a cop in a public restroom. Sylvia Nasar was similarly puzzled by Nash’s “non-reaction.”
Others may have sought help after almost killing a woman, but Ira seemed to regard it as a step in a struggle for self-realization. He did not even seem to think that it need affect his relationship with Rita, and a full month after the incident he wrote that “I want to love Rita (my entire being cries and needs the love we could have) but it is so difficult to anticipate the shifting of her unstable sands. Afraid, trapped, unsure, insecure… but beautiful in the desire which entirely grips her (even though she can’t admit it to herself) to realize what she has.…” (Levy, 1988)
Say what? The woman told him to get lost. He tried to kill her. Now he is saying that her fear of him is the “shifting of her unstable sands”?! She is gripped by desire for Ira, only she just doesn’t know it?
In your dreams, buddy!
What really bugs me is the fact that Ira’s friend, Michael Hoffman, knew about this for years.
Ira later said, “I think people should be able to hit each other occasionally within the context of a structured situation where the violence is understood and accepted.”
The end of Ira’s one-sided relationship with Rita was a thorn in his flesh. He wrote to Michael Hoffman: “The melancholy that had plagued me like a silent specter ever since Rita left for good… I still love Rita but my spirit does not brood over lost glory or rage about with a fine frenzy; it has learned to sit and wait — to care and not to care and to be assured of others who will pursue the mystic union of flesh with the same ardor as the one I lost.”
Is the reader thoroughly sick of this guy yet? Is your stomach churning? Do you feel like you don’t want to eat anything at the thought of somebody like that being out there in New Age Land, pretending to be an all-wise, all-knowing, caring and huggy-bear type of guru?
Remember what Gurdjieff said about the activities of these “automatons,” and our reactions to them; also, what Reich said about the intolerance and cruelty with which irrationality and illusion are expressed and our relationship with cosmic energy.
This brings us back to Alternative 3, of which one of the main premises is the “joint US/USSR space program that is concealed by political posturing and maneuvers.” Keeping in mind that disinformation is generally composed of truth wrapping a lie, we can suppose that there is, indeed, a “One World Government” at some level, where the US and Russia are unified in some effort. But it seems sort of transparently obvious that the statement is promoting the idea that it is a human government. The statement seems designed to distract our attention from the extremely advanced technological capabilities of hyperdimensional existence and focus it on a somewhat advanced human technology.
We have asked the question: What kinds of minds develop and operate within these “rules.” We have looked at John Nash and Ira Einhorn.
Game Theory is all about gaining control of the free will of others. In Game Theory, the best way to know what knowledge or beliefs the players have is most easily controlled by creating the beliefs that assist in the covering up of the information that would assist the player in formulating a winning strategy.
Are you offended by reading about Ira Einhorn? Do you feel that it doesn’t belong on a site that deals with the development of knowledge and skills designed to set man free?
Please allow me to remind you that, based on the research I have read, the importance of psychopathy in the present day cannot be overstated. Simply put, it is a growing phenomenon and it is going to impact every single one of us individually and collectively in the not-too-distant future. It is also extremely important to understand psychopathy in order to fully understand Game Theory, and how it is the underlying dynamic being used at the present time to move all the pieces into place for the Secret Games of the Gods. As the Cassiopaeans say, “knowledge protects,” and the knowledge of the functional modes of the psychopath could save your life.
In order to understand why it is necessary to learn these things about our reality — unpleasant though they be — consider the fact that a physician must study diseases in order to be able to heal them. In this way, Ira Einhorn is a gift. Indeed, it is true that many, if not most, psychopaths never commit heinous murders. But Ira Einhorn did, and the fact that he did, all the while presenting a carefully nurtured public image as a teacher of “spiritual principles” is a goldmine of knowledge. Because Ira also kept journals, which have given us a rare look inside the mind of the psychopath.
As we have noted, psychopaths have a more detrimental effect on our society than all other psychiatric disorders combined. So few people are even aware of this fact. They may know all about schizophrenia, or bipolar disorders, or ADHD, or whatever, because all of those things can be medicated and controlled to one extent or another. Also, they are disabling to the individual. Conversely, the chief thing about psychopathy is that it is not disabling to the individual unless certain other factors are present. In general, psychopaths always manage to do very well for themselves. People ask, “Isn’t psychopathy maladaptive?” The terrifying answer is: It may be maladaptive for society, but it is adaptive for the psychopaths themselves.
Why does it seem that we have a veritable epidemic of psychopaths? Sociobiologists are suggesting that increasing psychopathy is an expression of a particular genetically based reproductive strategy. Simply put, most people have a couple of children and devote a lot of time and effort to their care. Psychopaths systematically mate with and abandon large numbers of women. They waste little of their energy raising children, and in this way, psychopathic genes are being propagated like wildfire. The sociobiologists aren’t saying that the sexual behavior of people is consciously directed, only that “nature” has made them a certain way so that it will happen effectively.
We have come full circle. Over and over again we come up against that little problem: religion and belief systems that have to be defended against objective evidence or the beliefs of others. We have to ask ourselves, “Where did these belief systems come from that so evidentially are catastrophic?” Then, we have to think about the fact that now, in the present day, when many of these systems are breaking down and being replaced by others that similarly divert our attention away from what is, it becomes necessary to “enforce” a certain mode of thinking. That is what psychopaths do best.
Psychopaths dominate and set the standard for behavior in our society. We live in a world based on a psychopathic, energy-stealing food chain, because that’s just the way things are. Most people are so damaged they no longer have the capacity to even imagine a different system based on a symbiotic network.
With the brief review we have examined, we are acutely aware that this is not a phenomenon confined to our present “time.” It is a trans-millennial program that, step by step, has brought us to our present position. What emerges in the present day is just Machiavellian diversion that focuses the attention of those who are easily deceived. This is reinforced by the “clappers” in the audience, and there seems to be an entire army of psychopaths among us whose job it is to act as vectors of attention and direction.
“Contemporary culture requires automatons. … One thing alone is certain, that man’s slavery grows and increases. Man is becoming a willing slave. He no longer needs chains. He begins to grow fond of his slavery, to be proud of it. And this is the most terrible thing that can happen to a man.” (Ouspensky, 1949)
Intolerance and cruelty are needed to guarantee the “cover-up.” A certain kind of “human being” acts on behalf of this cover-up. In this sense, psychopaths, as alien reaction machines, are the playing pieces in the Secret Games of the Gods.