Let’s now talk about Game Theory. I don’t profess to be an expert, and I have to admit some difficulty in dealing with the “jargon,” but after wading through a number of texts on the subject, I have enough of a grasp to realize just how these ideas are being used on every one of us here and now, on a global level.
Some of you have wondered why I have lingered so long over the subject of psychopaths. Well, there is a reason for it, and it isn’t just personal. You see, it has been through interactions with them, while being guided by the Cassiopaeans, that I have been able, step by step, to come to some understanding of psychopathy. The way the entire dynamic unfolded made it clear to me that there was a deep lesson here. Of course, I didn’t get it all at once. It was only when I was able to put the John Nash piece into the puzzle that I comprehended that this lesson is a microcosmic view of the entire STS reality.
It was with deep shock that I understood that the basic mode of the psychopath is that of Nash’s contribution to Game Theory, and that Game Theory is the means by which a trap is being closed on humanity. It was then that I came to the idea that if we can really get this one, if we can really wrap our minds around the psychopath, we can then use that knowledge to “see through” the games at the many different levels. I also came to the idea that, by understanding Game Theory, we could learn the strategies, and learn to avoid being entrapped.
Aside from the prosaic reason of wanting to avoid the pain and suffering that is the ultimate end of any relationship with a psychopath, there is also a deeper reason: conservation of energy for transition. See Appendix B for some excerpts from the Cassiopaeans that will make this objective clear.
There are a couple of remarks from the provided excerpts that particularly struck me. The first ones are the two remarks about dancing, which I would like to compare: “In fact, remember, it takes two to tango, and if you are both tangoing when the dance hall bursts into flames, you both get burned!!!” and “You are dancing on the 3rd density ballroom floor. Alice likes to go through the looking glass at the Crystal Palace. Atlantean reincarnation surge brings on the urge to have a repeat performance.”
The first remark was given in the context of what could be described as personal interactions or relations with psychopaths, or other 4th density STS “conduits of attack.” The second remark was made in reference to the global control grid, which suggests that our present state is a mirror image of the conditions that existed at the time of the destruction of Atlantis. In both cases, it is suggested that failure to identify and disengage from the dynamic is a de facto choice for the STS dynamic. And, as noted by the Cassiopaeans: When you play in the dirt, you get dirty.
On other occasions, the Cassiopaeans have mentioned that much of the “secret activity” — i.e. the “Alternative 3” ideas — that is really going on is related to the implementation of the Atlantean crystal principles — i.e. total control of humanity as we have described in Chapters 57 and 58. That it might be essential for certain “automatons” or “psychopaths” to be sprinkled liberally throughout the population in order to “play the game” is a logical conclusion.
Q: (L) You once said that HAARP was something that was to be used to “transfer perimeters.” I am assuming that this means to manipulate space, time and density.
Q: Is it possible that they are planning to use this to bring up the Atlantean crystals to utilize.
A: Not so much to “bring up,” as to utilize.
Q: (L) Once before you said that the HAARP assembly was a continuation of the Montauk project, and was being used to “transfer perimeters.” I guess this meant space/time travel, correct?
A: Yes. And resurrect Atlantean crystal principle.
Q: (L) Do they plan to actually attempt to bring up the Atlantean crystals?
Q: (L) Do they plan to use this for mind control?
A: And other uses.
In the very first session with the Cassiopaeans on July 16, 1994, the seriousness of our situation was described, and we were appalled. After all the many “love and light” messages of other sources, being told that we were in a real fix here was disconcerting, to say the least. I was horrified and asked:
Q: Why is this happening to us?
Q: (L) What kind of Karma could bring this?
A: Atlantis. […]
Q: (L) What can protect us?
Q: (L) How do we get this knowledge?
A: You are being given it now.
Q: (L) What knowledge do you mean?
A: You have it. […]
Q: (L) How do we get this knowledge?
A: Deep subconscious.
Q: (L) When did we get it?
A: Before birth.
Q: (L) Is there anything else we can do for protection?
A: Learn, meditate, read.
Q: (L) Are we doing what we need to be doing at the present?
A: So far. Need awaken.
The item about Atlantean karma being the dynamic that is being currently replayed in our time-loop existence has been discussed already to some extent. The factor that many people do not realize is that the United States is the “Reincarnation” of Atlantis. According to Edgar Cayce, Atlantis was destroyed in “three stages.” The Cassiopaeans have connected the Nazi agenda to some future event, and we can even suggest that WWI and WWII were the dynamic replays of the first two “stages” of the destruction of Atlantis. We are now approaching the third stage, and psychopaths are major players in the drama.
Q: (L) I read the new book [The Threat] by Dr. David Jacobs, professor of History at Temple University, concerning his extensive research into the alien abduction phenomenon. [Dr. Jacobs wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the history of the UFOs.] Dr. Jacobs says that now, after all of these years of somewhat rigorous research, that he knows what the aliens are here for and he is afraid. David Jacobs says that producing offspring is the primary objective behind the abduction phenomenon. Is this, in fact, the case?
A: Part, but not “the whole thing.”
Q: (L) Is there another dominant reason?
Q: (L) Replacement of what?
Q: (L) How do you mean? Creating a race to replace human beings, or abducting specific humans to replace them with a clone or whatever?
A: Mainly the former. You see, if one desires to create a new race, what better way than to mass hybridize, then mass reincarnate. Especially when the host species is so forever ignorant, controlled, and anthropocentric. What a lovely environment for total destruction and conquest and replacement… see?
Q: (L) Well, that answered my other question about the objective. Well, here in the book, Dr. Jacobs says that there is ongoing abductions through particular families. I quote: “Beyond protecting the fetus, there are other reasons for secrecy. If abductions are, as all the evidence clearly indicates, an intergenerational phenomenon in which the children of abductees are themselves abductees, then one of the aliens’ goals is the generation of more abductees. Are all children of abductees incorporated into the phenomenon? The evidence suggests that the answer is yes. If an abductee has children with a non-abductee, the chances are that all their descendants will be abductees. This means that through normal population increase, divorce, remarriage and so on, the abductee population will increase quickly throughout the generations. When those children grow and marry and have children of their own, all of their children, whether they marry an abductee or non-abductee, will be abductees. To protect the intergenerational nature of the breeding program, it must be kept secret from the abductees so that they will continue to have children. If the abductees knew that the program was intergenerational, they might elect not to have children. This would bring a critical part of the program to a halt, which the aliens cannot allow. The final reason for secrecy is to expand the breeding program, to integrate laterally in society, the aliens must make sure that abductees mate with non-abductees and produce abductee children.”
A: We have told you before: The Nazi experience was a “trial run,” and by now you see the similarities, do you not? […] Now, we have also told you that the experience of the “Native Americans” vis a vis the Europeans may be a precursor in microcosm. Also, what Earthian 3rd density does to Terran 2nd density should offer “food for thought.” In other words, thou are not so special, despiteth thy perspective, eh? And we have also warned that after conversion of Earth humans to 4th density, the Orion 4th density and their allies hope to control you “there.” Now put this all together and what have you? At least you should by now know that it is the soul that matters, not the body. Others have genetically, spiritually and psychically manipulated/engineered you to be bodycentric. Interesting, as despite all efforts by 4th through 6th density STO, this “veil remains unbroken.”
But back to the items that attracted my attention in the excerpts given above: The comments about dancing, given in terms of personal and global connections, suggest to us that “engagement” with those who are acting as STS conduits is designed to drain our energy. The Cassiopaeans clearly remarked to my brother that interaction with such persons drains one’s energy and prevents the accomplishment of what is important.
The next item was, of course, that which relates to Frequency Resonance Vibration (FRV). The Cassiopaeans said: “Frequency resonance vibration! Very important.” Putting this together with my questions about STO “ascension,” the Cassiopaeans said that “STO tends to do the process within the natural flow of things. STS seeks to alter creation processes to fit their ends.” Putting that together with the all-important clue…
Q: (A) Are there some particular DNA sequences that facilitate transmission between densities?
A: Addition of strands.
Q: (L) How do you get added strands?
A: You don’t get, you receive.
Q: (L) Where are they received from?
A: Interaction with upcoming wave, if vibration is aligned.
…we come to the realization that identifying and disconnecting from psychopaths and other conduits of attack is crucial to our Frequency Resonance Vibration. As Don Juan pointed out, we have to “grow” our awareness, and this is not an easy task. Discerning the predator’s mind in ourselves and others and refusing to be its food is the all-important task of work on the self. It is, in fact, the path to enlightenment. If we cannot accomplish this, we cannot achieve sufficient awareness to be able to even see the next step on the journey. Which reminds us of that curious series of remarks:
Q: Well, I am lost in a sea of puzzle pieces and I have not even begun to try to assemble them!
A: Step by step.
Q: We have the phoenix, cranes, herons, doves, ravens, and all are related somehow to speech or writing. Why are all these birds related this way?
A: Pass the test.
Q: What do you mean “pass the test”?
Q: Well, writing is related to the words for cutting and inscribing and even shearing and sharks. You called the Etruscans “Penitent Avian Lords,” who were also “Templar Carriers.” Is this related to these bird images? Then related to speech, writing and shearing?
A: Pass the test.
Q: So, if you are writing, and you pass the test, then you can be a phoenix, dove or whatever?
Those of you who are familiar with alchemical literature would have instantly understood the above reference to the Conference of the Birds by Farid Ud-Din Attar. At the time of the questions, I was not acquainted with this work. But I was familiar with a previous “test” that had been identified by the Cassiopaeans, though I was not yet fully aware of all the implications. As it happened, it was through the activity of “SV” that Frank first “revealed” himself, as I have already described in an earlier volume. When the time came to ask questions about this, the deeper clue about Frank himself just went right over my head:
A: SV is storehouse of vital information, clue for you was in name, but you failed to notice! […] This is why the frustration is for you; nothing of value comes without a price!!
Q: (L) Number one, SV has lied to us. Number two, it seems that she began to demonstrate emotional affect, after we had discussed the fact that there was a serious lack of emotional affect, after you had told us that these robot people are people who spend a lot of time alone and have.…
A: The price, my dear, continues.…
Q: (V) By continuing the relationship?
A: The Nordic Covenant was a duality.
The remark “the price, my dear, continues” puzzled the heck out of me, because I had pretty much made up my mind that I would terminate any relations with SV. The Cassiopaeans pulled me up short by saying:
A: All persons of Nordic heritage hold secret power centers, can be of darkness, or of light.… SV is of Teutonic bloodline leading directly to such super power source, such as Thule Society and others, and she is aware of her powers and mission. It is of positive orientation. However, you are being tested by 4th through 6th density forces to determine if you have the strength and wisdom for continuance! […]
Q: (L) Is there any significance to the fact that SV spent all of those years living with the Outlaws motorcycle gang and this covenant?
A: Yes, and that is what has led and is leading to the destruction of the “Outlaws,” a group associated directly with 4th density STS.
Q: (V) Her presence there caused them to break up? This was a good thing. Is this what is meant here? That her presence was uplifting to them? (L) Well, it’s not uplifting them, it’s breaking them; they are all going to jail!
A: Yes and because of circumstances planted by “Agent SV.” This is why the perceived lack of emotion connected with that whole situation. Vitale is the bravest human you have ever known! All evidence to the contrary is veil; part of the testing process.
Q: (L) If we’re being tested, why are you telling us? (V) So that you do not fail?
A: Yes. […] Vital that you do not fail.
Q: (V) Is there a pivotal word that might break this open to a clearer understanding?
The “test” in the above case was to determine if I was able to see “through” the words of the Cassiopaeans themselves and to realize that, in order to preserve free will, the choice had to be totally mine, based on my own examination of the data and my own conclusions about what that data implied. They couldn’t tell me directly, and so chose the opposite course of contradictory statements to challenge my awareness. For example, connecting SV to the Thule society, which the Cassiopaeans had already identified as part of the STS consortium, and then pronouncing it a “positive” mission, was so contradictory that I was being challenged to think about the whole thing very carefully. I came to the realization that this was what the Cassiopaeans were doing, telling me something deep and important in code:
Q: (L) Well, OK, I’m going to trust you guys, and I’m going to go with the flow, and I’m going to assume that you are right, and I’m going to assume that this is for the best and for the good, and I’m going to stop my knee-jerk reactions, and stop worrying about such things.
A: Suggest you look before you leap. All can be wrong in their quick judgments, whether the result be acceptance or rejection. All is not as it seems.… Remember, those that come into your group, or your circle of influence, can be different than you think. […]
Q: (L) You said we were being tested. Tested for what?
Q: (L) Continuance of what?
Q: (L) Continuance of all. OK, and we are being tested through SV?
Q: (L) Are you saying that what we have been considering attacks were just tests?
A: The ones associated with Vitale. And no, all with that name are not of this orientation, but this clue was installed for you.
Of course, the major attack that was “associated with Vitale” was the incident when Frank’s true nature was revealed, as described in a previous volume, but which I “shoved under the rug” in favor of my programming to “turn the other cheek.” It was after the termination of the session that the realization fully dawned on me about what I was supposed to be “getting.” I understood in a flash the “coded” nature of what the Cassiopaeans had been saying, and the resolve formed in my mind that I was not going to accept the identification of SV as a “positive” person, and that I was even being challenged to consider Frank as the individual who needed to be observed and learned about in order to “pass the test.” With this resolve in my mind, I asked for the Cassiopaeans to come back and comment on my “internal” questions and conclusions, though I didn’t want to voice them as they were formulated in my mind.
Q: Hello. Are you there? I am not comfortable with this information about SV. It seems to be contradictory to everything I can observe and feel.
A: Hiklu Cassiopaea. Worry not further! Discomfort is not necessarily danger, and is indicative of growth and learning. So, proceed and celebrate!!
So, apparently, I passed that test. But, of course, the Cassiopaeans did say that I was only “currently” being “tested” through SV. This meant that there were more such “tests” to come. Indeed, that is the case, and it is precisely the type of “testing” that ultimately leads us to the goal: The Conference of the Birds.
The Conference of the Birds is a philosophical-religious poem in prose written by a twelfth-century Persian poet and Sufi mystic. The story starts with all the birds of the world, known and unknown, assembled together and discussing the quest for a king. The Hoopoe addresses the gathering of birds, urging them to set out on the quest for the Lord of Creation, the Simurgh. The journey consists of many trials and tests. Of all the thousands of birds who start on the journey, only thirty make it to the end.
It was, of course, only after reading this wonderful little book that I understood the nature of the tests that the Cassiopaeans referred to. It is this that I am trying to convey, share and make available to those who “resonate.”
For the individual who wrote to complain that this subject is not going to bring “enlightenment,” think again. I hardly think that the Cassiopaeans would have so subtly guided me through these learning experiences, which are often protracted and painful, if it were not for a reason. If I have benefited from it — and I can assure you it has been remarkably freeing to come to this understanding — perhaps I can share it to the extent that when any of readers encounter it who haven’t already done so, you will be armed with the prior knowledge that will make the process “smoother,” as the Cassiopaeans say. Also, thanks to those who have written of similar successes in becoming free! Your stories are inspiring, and reassuring that our opinion of the importance of this subject is not overstated!
Now, back to games. Game Theory stands on two theorems: von Neumann’s “min-max theorem” of 1928, and Nash’s equilibrium theorem of 1950. Von Neumann’s ideas are the cornerstone of games of pure opposition, or “two-person zero-sum games” as they call them in mathematical terms. As it happens, two-person games have no real relevance in the real world. It wasn’t until Nash came along that the distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games was introduced.
Cooperative games are games in which players can make enforceable agreements with other players. That is to say, as a group they can fully commit themselves to specific strategies. Non-cooperative games posit that collective commitment is impossible. There are no enforceable agreements. By expanding the theory to include games that involve a mix of cooperation and competition, Nash opened the door to applications of Game Theory to economics, political science, sociology and even evolutionary biology. We have noted that Morse Peckham must have been seriously influenced by the ideas of games in his role as a “social historian.”
In general, the outcome of a game for any one of the players depends on what all the other players choose to do and vice versa. This means that such games are “interdependent.” Games like tic-tac-toe, hangman and chess involve one kind of interdependence, because each of the players moves in turn and has a chance to be aware of the moves of the other and to analyze them before making his or her own move. In such cases, each player will look ahead to possible moves and how they will affect him, he will try to assess the likelihood of these various moves by the other player, and will then reason “back” to his current situation and pick a move based on these analyses. In such games, the players have to anticipate and assume not only the strategy of the other player, but how that other player will respond to his next move, and so on. The player’s best strategy can be determined by looking ahead to every possible outcome. In chess, these calculations are too complex, so the players only look ahead a few moves at a time and constantly adjust their strategy based on their experience of the other player.
Games like poker, on the other hand, consist of simultaneous plays wherein the players are ignorant of the other player’s current state or possible actions. They are forced to think, “I think he thinks that I think that he thinks that I think…” and so on. Each must figuratively put himself in the place of the other player and try to calculate the outcome, including his own move.
Such games, where there is a lack of information which leads to a logical circle that just goes around and around, are what is dealt with by Nash’s concept of equilibrium wherein each player picks his best move based on the idea that each of the other players will also pick a “best move,” or will have a “best situation” from which to play.
The problem is: The way the theorem is described is very confusing because of the jargon. Nash defined equilibrium as “a situation in which no player could improve his or her position by choosing an alternative available strategy, without implying that each person’s privately held best choice will lead to a collectively optimal result.” But the bottom line is this: Nash’s equilibrium states that each player ought to assume that the other player is out to screw him royally and is probably in a position to do so, and therefore he must use the strategy that is optimal — which is either to submit completely, because he knows he doesn’t have a good position or a good move available and the other guy is going to decimate him, or — assuming his position is such that he just can’t lose — to screw the other player firstest and mostest.
Today, Nash’s concept of equilibrium from strategic games is one of the basic paradigms in social sciences and biology. He got a Nobel Prize for coming up with the idea.
Nash, Shapley, Shubic and McCarthy, along with another student at Princeton, invented a game involving coalitions and double-crosses. Nash called the game “Fuck You, Buddy.” It was later published under the name “So Long, Sucker.” Nash and the gang created a complicated set of rules designed to force players to join forces with one another to advance, but ultimately to double-cross each other in order to win. The point of the game was to produce psychological mayhem, and apparently, it worked. Sylvia Nasar records that McCarthy remembers losing his temper after Nash cold-bloodedly dumped him on the second-to-last round, and that Nash was absolutely astonished that McCarthy could get so emotional. “But I didn’t need you anymore,” Nash kept saying over and over again.
Keep this game in mind because it is the essence of Nash’s ideas: To force cooperation to advance, followed by a big double cross in which only one player is the winner.
Sounds a lot like the current-day craze of “survival” shows, yes? Which of course, leads us to wonder what kind of “programming” or “example” such things are setting up as models for human behavior. More importantly: Why?
Nash’s Game Theory was all the buzz at RAND even before he arrived there under contract. RAND had been, prior to Nash’s ideas, preoccupied with games of total conflict between two players, as defined by von Neumann, since that seemed to fit the problem of nuclear issues between two superpowers. However, as weapons got ever more destructive, the idea of all-out war was seen as a situation in which both players might have a common interest. Bombing the enemy back to the Stone Age no longer made any sense because it could lead to a war of complete extermination on both sides.
Von Neumann had long believed that RAND ought to focus on “cooperative games.” That is, games that ought to be played “sequentially.” Such games should involve “moves” based on information, such as in chess or tic-tac-toe. Players ought to communicate and discuss the situation and agree on rational, joint action. In such games, there is cooperation and collaboration, and an umpire around to enforce the agreement.
Economists, however, did not like Von Neumann’s ideas. They said that it was like saying that our only hope for preventing a dangerous and wasteful arms race lay in appointing a world government with the power to enforce simultaneous disarmament. As it happens, a “One World Government,” composed of member nations, was a very popular idea among mathematicians and scientists at the time.
But the social scientists —the economists —were doubtful of the idea that any nation, much less the Russians, would cede sovereignty to such an organization. In other words, in Cooperative Game Theory, who’s going to force the other side to cooperate?
But Nash came along and solved the problem. He demonstrated that non-cooperative games could have stable solutions. In short, one “player” could have a strategy in which they “force players to join forces with one another to advance, but ultimately to double-cross the other players in order to win.”
To put this in practical terms: A One World Government might be advocated by a major player, promoted, set up, and all the other players might follow the rules — but that one player has every intention of being the One World Government and overthrowing the powers of all the other players at the last instant.
Now, just what government in the world today seems to be playing Nash’s strategy? Take your time. There’s no hurry.
Nash’s theory inspired the most famous game of strategy of all social scientists, called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” which goes as follows: Imagine that the police arrest two suspects and interrogate them in separate rooms. Each one is given the choice of confessing, implicating the other, or keeping silent.
No matter what the other suspect does, each suspect’s outcome — considered alone — would be better if he confessed. If one suspect confesses, the other ought to do the same and thereby avoid the harsher penalty for holding out. If one of them remains silent, the other one can confess, cut a deal for turning state’s evidence, and the one who remains silent gets the whammy. Confession — or “cooperation” — is the “dominant strategy.” Since each is aware of the other’s incentive to confess, it is “rational” for both to confess.
Here we come to the realization of the power of the psychopath, and how Game Theory is being “used” against us. You see, the psychopath, having no conscience, does not have the ability to “imagine” the consequences of non-cooperation in terms of being able to “feel” it. Without this ability to imaginatively feel the consequences, he is virtually fearless, and can therefore direct his behavior according to his own fantasized outcome with no regard whatsoever to reality, remembered experiences, the imagined experiences of others and so forth. That is to say, for the psychopath, rationality is determined by virtue of the idea that it is self-serving to the max. “Rationality” is the assumption that everyone else is looking out for Number One, and to hell with everybody else.
Never confessing thus becomes the psychopath’s “dominant strategy.”
The reader will probably immediately see the dynamic of human relations involving a psychopathic personality and a “normal” human. Psychopaths, having no conscience, always play their dominant strategy, which is totally “rational” without the influence of emotions conjured up by imagination. They do not modify their behavior or choices based on emotion or consideration for the feelings or motivations of others. They will implicate the normal person in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and will refuse to confess their own guilt, because they simply have no ability to perceive hurting another as morally reprehensible. This is the psychopath’s “dominant strategy.” They will never, in such a situation, consider cooperation.
Normal people, on the other hand, having conscience and emotion, will make choices based on imagination reinforced by emotion. In some cases, in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, they will refuse to confess out of loyalty to the other, never realizing that the other might be a psychopath who has not only refused to confess his own guilt, but has undertaken to make a deal for himself by implicating the other. Some people may even confess in order to “save” the other person from suffering pain, never realizing that they have been manipulated into this role by a psychopath who is all the while saying, “Yes, he did it! I am innocent!,” and when, in fact, the truth is the exact opposite.
It’s easy to see that in any interaction between a psychopath and a normal person with full range of emotions, the psychopath will always “win.”
Two of the scientists at RAND set up some experiments using a couple of other scientist-contractors as “guinea pigs.” They wondered if real people playing the game would be mysteriously drawn into the “equilibrium strategy.” They ran the experiment 100 times. Nash’s theory predicted that both players would play their “self-serving” strategies, even though playing their “cooperative” strategies would have left both better off. As it turned out, the results of these trials did not turn out according to Nash’s theory. Why? Because the two scientists tended to choose cooperation more often than cheating. Once they had realized that players ought to cooperate to maximize their winnings, that is the strategy they chose.
When Nash learned of the experiment, he wrote: “The flaw in the experiment as a test of equilibrium point theory is that… there is too much interaction. […] One would have thought them more rational” (quoted by Nasar, 1998). In short, the players had consciences, and this contributed to their choice of maneuvers.
At RAND, Nash devised a model of negotiation between two parties whose interests neither coincide nor are exactly opposed. It is a classic example of what we see taking place in our world today:
Stage One: Each player chooses a threat and says “This is what I’ll be forced to do if our demands are incompatible and we can’t make a deal.”
Stage Two: The players inform each other of the threats.
Stage Three: Each player chooses a demand that he thinks is worth agreeing for. If the deal doesn’t guarantee him that, at least, no deal.
Stage Four: If the deal is made (under threat, mind you), both players get what they want. If not, the threats must be executed. This means, don’t threaten what you really can’t deliver, and always deliver what you threaten.
Nash showed that each player has an “optimal threat,” or the threat that ensures the deal no matter what the other player chooses. Again, do we see this style of play in operation today? Either in terms of politics, or in terms of the relations between government and the people?
Now, coming back to psychopaths: It is fairly easy to see that they often manipulate others to join forces with them in order to help them to advance, but ultimately, when they don’t “need them” anymore, they double-cross the others in order to win. The result is deliberate psychological mayhem.
In short, it isn’t even necessary for a grand and logistically complex government mind-control program to be in operation in order to produce the conditions necessary to ultimately enforce total controls on humanity. It is only necessary to have strategically placed psychopaths in the population, to train and influence selected ones in particular ways through what would be seen on the surface as “ordinary means,” and simply calculate the fact that they will always operate with their dominant strategy — serving self.
I expect that the reader is beginning to make all kinds of connections regarding how Game Theory may be being utilized to bring the world to heel.
In December 1994, Vice-President Al Gore announced the opening of the “greatest auction ever.” What was being auctioned was “thin air.” Billions of dollars were bid for licenses to broadcast airwaves for things that employ wireless communications. (Think about Ma Bell and her connection to Morse Pinkham, Ira Einhorn, Uri Geller and others.) When the auction finally closed in March 1995, the winning bids totaled more than seven-billion bucks, making it the biggest sale in American history. It was, in fact, the sale of public assets. By the late spring, another three-billion dollars had been raised in Washington in similar auctions. The press and the politicians were ecstatic. The corporate giants had been able to protect themselves from competition, and they all called it a “triumph for Game Theory.” Governments from Australia to Argentina have used Game Theory to sell scarce public reprocess to buyers “best able to develop them.”
Now, let’s come back to Ira Einhorn. As I noted in the previous chapter, we have a unique situation with Einhorn: a psychopath who kept a journal. As we have also previously quoted (but it bears repeating until we all really get it): “In spite of more than a century of clinical study and speculation and several decades of scientific research, the mystery of the psychopath still remains. Some recent developments have provided us with new insights into the nature of this disturbing disorder, and its borders are becoming more defined. But the fact is, compared with other major clinical disorders, little systematic research has been devoted to psychopathy, even though it is responsible for far more social distress and disruption than all other psychiatric disorders combined.” (Hare, 1999)
Everyone who has written to me about this subject has repeatedly confirmed that you just simply do not know that you are in the clutches of a psychopath until it is almost too late! The individual who wrote complaining that he was not being “enlightened” by studying psychopathy, mentioned that he had been “ripped off” for ten grand and he just “got over it and moved on.” So, naturally, he had decided that this was the correct approach. Don’t try to learn anything from the experience; don’t try to share it so as to help others to avoid future entrapments; just “get over it!”
Well, what if the “psychopath” is a gang of hyperdimensional beings trying to take over the world, rather than just a single guy getting ripped off to the tune of ten grand? What if the “payoff” that you must “get over” is the loss of your soul, or your opportunity to grow beyond the limitations and controls of this reality?
Learning to identify the psychopath by analysis, by finding clues that will aid our tracking, is most definitely an essential tool of enlightenment. As the Hoopoe was described in The Conference of the Birds: “On her breast was the ornament which symbolized that she had entered the way of spiritual knowledge; the crest on her head was as the crown of truth, and she had knowledge of both good and evil.”
What is even more significant is that the mystic writer of this famous series of clues to the achievement of the ultimate quest of the soul has told us that the first words out of the mouth of the Hoopoe are: “I am one who is engaged in divine warfare, and I am a messenger of the world invisible.”
That is, ultimately, the foundation principle of these volumes. We are talking about “Divine Warfare” in practical terms. We are talking about invisible worlds. That means that we must have knowledge of both good and evil. Based on the condition of the world, there is a serious lack of the latter. There is far too much of the “get over it and move on” syndrome, which allows the psychopaths to continue to operate undetected in our reality. We desperately need to find some series of definitive identifiers, some “mark” that we can “see” in the realm of the unseen that will serve as warning. We need to remember that “psychopathy is a personality disorder defined by a distinctive cluster of behaviors and inferred personality traits… [and] diagnosis is based on the accumulation of evidence that an individual satisfies at least the minimal criteria for the disorder.” More importantly, once we have some clue, or warning, we have to understand the strategy of the psychopath, and then we must find within the strength to act in favor of our own destiny, realizing full well that the psychopath, as one who seeks to force his delusions on others, will perceive the choice to “not associate” as being “attacked” in a “morally reprehensible” way, and will use every ploy in the book to reestablish his control by these means.
Since we know that the only things that science can tell us about the psychology of psychopaths are those things which are inferred from a “cluster of behaviors,” we realize that truly seeing inside the mind of a really good psychopath — as he sees himself and the world around him — is something that is hardly likely to happen.
However, with Ira Einhorn, that is exactly what we are presented with. A gift. A window into the soul of the psychopath.
“You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles,” said Sherlock Holmes in Conan Doyle’s The Boscombe Valley Mystery.
It made me almost physically sick to write about Ira Einhorn. It is making me sicker yet to observe the dynamics of the political/economic scene, and to realize fully what maneuvers have been set into motion and what the ultimate objective is. Game Theory reveals to us a scheme that has been mathematically defined, so that it can be utilized to set up the dominoes to fall into place for the purposes of instigating control over the entire world.
Psychopaths like John Nash, Ira Einhorn and others, give us insight into the inner workings of this scheme, without which we are helpless to defend ourselves or even — possibly — to stand firm as anchors of a different outcome. In short, the activities of psychopaths are the microcosm of the macrocosmic service-to-self reality and plan.
As we have noted, part of the disinformation campaign of Alternative 3 includes the idea that “There is a secret joint US/USSR space program that has gone far beyond what the public sees. Astronauts landed on Mars in 1962. It has been discovered that there is other intelligent life in the universe. The earth is dying. We have polluted it beyond repair. The increasing ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the polar ice caps and glaciers to melt and flood the Earth.” And so on.
All of these ideas — most of them emanating from movements of the 1960s and the spiritualist interests of Andrija Puharich and the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) — coalesce in Ira Einhorn’s “work.” These ideas, having been “adopted” by Einhorn to use in his psychopathic maneuvers, naturally became the keystone for his “I didn’t kill Holly” rant. We must suspect that these are precisely the concepts that were deliberately “planted” in his reality to be utilized in his psychopathic “dominant strategy” of fearless self-preservation. What is less obvious, is whether or not someone — or something — had the awareness that he would eventually commit murder?
The Tyler, Texas issue is going to become most interesting further along. As we have noted, Vincent Bridges has identified himself with Ira Einhorn — and his attempts to further the claims of Einhorn’s finger pointing at Tyler, Texas naturally suggests to us that he chooses to believe Ira’s rant that he did not kill Holly (see Appendix C).
Nevertheless, Einhorn did commit murder and this act could be seen as a “breakdown” in one sense, though this lapse in his camouflage was the natural outcome of his personality structure. Again, was that understood at some level? Was it part of a deliberate manipulation?
Ira Einhorn was a “sensation junkie” who thrived on chaos. He “came to his full powers” on the destruction of the old way of being. As the traditions of the establishment (which were certainly arbitrary and repressive) crumbled, Ira saw his advantage and seized the day. In summer 1964, Ira divided his time between Berkeley and Palo Alto, where he instantly recognized what was happening in the launching of the counterculture. At a party given by Ken Kesey, Ira dropped acid and wrote: “I was so high and the experience was so strange that I must have more distance.”
Obviously, that trip made him a bit nervous for some reason. He later claimed that he had first used LSD in 1959, and that he subsequently took “trips” about twice a month for over two years. He considered acid to be the key to self-exploration. As a side note, his acid use preceded his assault on Rita Siegal by two years. Could there be a connection?
In the fall of 1964, Ira, probably through the influence of Morse Peckham, was hired to teach a literature course at Temple University. He came to class in rumpled clothes and with his tie cut in half. He would have his class spend entire sessions pondering the difference between eroticism and sexuality. He utilized Morse Peckham’s technique in his discussions of poetry — the second line could not be discussed until the first was fully understood. He made it clear to his classes that his lifestyle was daring and different and free. Rumors flew that his apartment contained nothing but a bed and books. This was heady stuff to the kids of 1964.
Ira was interviewed at some point, telling a journalist that “I dress like the students. If they ask about marijuana and LSD I give them straight answers about the delights and the dangers. I make no bones about my contempt for the academic world. I’m very popular with the kids. I wouldn’t say I was with the administration.”
He constantly talked about being a writer, finishing his novel; but the fact is, he simply wasn’t a very good writer. His efforts in those directions were repeated failures. Bernie McCormick, writer for Philadelphia magazine, said that Ira “was a terrible writer. It was Ira’s frustration.”
However, in the true style of the psychopath, by virtue of the ignorance of his audience, he was able to engender an illusion of literary proficiency by his raiding of the writings of the best minds of civilization (see Appendix C). That personal charisma was the power that enabled him to mesmerize people and to climb to a sort of counterculture fame and glory. The word “love” became Ira’s instrument of aggression.
He began to assemble a small network of “revolutionary seers” and sharpened his vision of “dire apocalypse” and spiritual transformation. He got in touch with his “personal power,” and formed a public persona based on his personal charisma.
Just like Hitler, Ira believed that he was the supreme judge of what was good and what was not in just about every field of endeavor. And, like Hitler, he functioned as an “amplifier” of the secret desires, least permissible instincts, resentments over sufferings, personal revolts against pressures to behave responsibly, anger at the hard reality of work and misery, and repressed and suppressed shadow sides of young people in revolt against their parents and the demands placed upon them, giving it voice and permission to exist, as well as justification.
Just as Germany was “ripe” for Hitler, the young people in America were ready to be plucked by Ira Einhorn. The social, economic and political situation engendered by the Vietnam War was a bomb just waiting for a detonator, and Ira sought to provide it. Like all psychopaths, Ira had the ability to sense what people wanted him to give them — a reason to do and be — and he was then able to manipulate these themes so as to arouse their emotions of esteem and adoration for him. He flattered and cajoled, built up straw men and knocked them down, and he always managed to say what the majority of his audience was secretly thinking but could not verbalize — because they were dark, violent and unacceptable thoughts, thoughts and feelings born and reared in the chaos of the psychological traumas of their parents, most of whom had suffered through WWII.
Of course, Ira always presented his ideas in the guise of “daring to speak the truth and to defy the authorities and oppressors of the evolution of mankind, the oppressors of the human spirit!” Ira’s inducement to chaos appealed to the most primitive and basest instincts and inclinations, and cloaked them with the image of nobility and high ideals. He was thus able to justify all actions — no matter how revolting and antisocial — as the means to the attainment of these “high ideal goals.” Those who knew him said that he was a “goal justifies the means” kind of person.
We should note that psychopaths would not be successful in society if there were not conditions of oppression and inequality in that society to begin with. In this sense, we ought to remember that we are probably dealing with Game Theory applied to social engineering: Machiavellian ploys of producing a deplorable situation, raising up an “enemy” to blame for it, and then producing “saviors” who claim to be able to lead people to the “right solutions.”
What is even more important than just our own personal interactions with psychopaths (painful lessons though they may be) is the work of the psychopath in larger arenas — the sideshows of social, spiritual and political activities that grab and hold our attention, form our impressions, and generally mold our awareness into something that has little at all to do with what is really going on. There are, of course, very serious spiritual implications that we will address at some point. But for now, it is crucial to fully understand this dynamic. Because the fact is: There is no possibility of awakening without first becoming aware of what keeps us in sleep, and how it is done. And, of course, since we know from the partial information that has been obtained about psychopaths that one of the chief things about them is their ability to ape, to imitate, to camouflage their true nature, discovering the clues that will help us identify them is crucial.
Ira Einhorn is, in fact, a goldmine. We have before us a real live New Age-type guru who manipulated a lot of very smart people. Ira Einhorn was a symbol of nonviolence for over a decade. Even the people who were troubled a bit by his rough treatment of Holly overlooked his little “glitches.” Ira had created a carefully nurtured public profile that made it almost impossible for others to rationally assess the small clues. His supporters felt that he was an “extraordinary being scandalously charged with a crime he did not commit,” because their impressions had been so thoroughly “shaped” by the carefully nurtured public image. What is more significant is the fact that his careful image making extended even to his closest friends. Even they only had brief glimpses of his dark side, so be assured that uncovering a psychopath is an art of great subtlety, necessitating what Don Juan has called “systematic harassment” accompanied by close and careful observation of the “trifles” of the reactions of the individual. Do not think for a moment that they will reveal themselves easily! So, we are indeed handicapped, and all we really have to learn from is “failed” psychopaths. But that’s better than nothing.
It is truly difficult to appreciate just how different the functioning of the psychopaths is compared to that of normal people. After killing a waiter who had asked him to leave a restaurant, Jack Abbott denied any remorse because he “hadn’t done anything wrong”; because “there was no pain, it was a clean wound” and the victim was “not worth a dime” (Hare, 1999, 42-3). John Wayne Gacy murdered thirty-three young men and boys, but described himself as the victim because he had been “robbed of his childhood.” Kenneth Taylor battered his wife to death and then couldn’t understand why no one sympathized with him in the tragic loss of his wife! A female psychopath allowed her boyfriend to rape her five-year-old daughter when she was too tired for sex, and then was outraged that social services took the child away! Diane Downs shot her three children, then wounded herself to create “evidence” of an attack by a stranger; asked about her feelings regarding the loss of her children on The Oprah Winfrey Show (September 26, 1988), Downs replied, “I couldn’t tie my damned shoes for about two months… the scar is going to be there forever. […] I think my kids were lucky” (Hare, 1999). Hare remarks:
Another psychopath in our research said that he did not really understand what others meant by “fear.” However, “When I rob a bank,” he said, “I notice that the teller shakes or becomes tongue tied. One barfed all over the money. She must have been pretty messed up inside, but I don’t know why. If someone pointed a gun at me I guess I’d be afraid, but I wouldn’t throw up.” When asked to describe how he would feel in such a situation, his reply contained no reference to bodily sensations. He said things such as, “I’d give you the money;” “I’d think of ways to get the drop on you;” “I’d try and get my ass out of there.” When asked how he would feel, not what he would think or do, he seemed perplexed. Asked if he ever felt his heart pound or his stomach churn, he replied, “Of course! I’m not a robot. I really get pumped up when I have sex or when I get into a fight.” (Hare, 1999, 53-4)
One of the truly scary things about psychopaths is the fact that most psychotherapies actually seem to make psychopaths more likely to further violate the rights of others on even grander scales, probably because psychopaths use psychotherapy to hone their skills in psychological manipulation. In no case has it been confirmed that such therapies have ever helped a psychopath, even if they will use the fact that they have had therapy to con people, because inside the psychopath sees no need to change their admirable personalities.
One researcher, Linda Mealey, describes psychopaths in terms of “cheaters.” This suggests to us that our study of psychopaths might be helped along by considering them in terms of “card sharks”:
Human cheaters would not be detectable by instruments routinely available to his or her conspecifics… [and] should be very mobile during their lifetimes. The longer a cheater interacts with the same group of conspecifics the more likely they are to recognize the cheater’s strategy and to refuse to engage in interactions with him or her. There will be costs of mobility, since the mobile cheater will have to learn a new social environment after a move, and he or she will need to be skilled at it. A third prediction is that human cheaters would be especially facile with words, language, and interpersonal empathy… Human male and female cheaters should exhibit very different patterns of cheating, reflecting the obligate mammalian dimorphism in reproductive strategy and potential. A male cheater should be especially skillful at persuading females to copulate and at deceiving females about his control of resources and about the likelihood of his provisioning future offspring. Females, on the other hand, should feign lack of interest in copulation in order to deceive males about their paternity confidence. They should also exaggerate need and helplessness in order to induce males to provide them with more resources and support than they might otherwise provide. Finally, female cheaters might abandon offspring as soon as they perceived that the chance of offspring survival exceeded some critical value. (Harpending and Sobus, 1987)
Mealey distinguishes between congenital or primary sociopaths who are “born cheaters,” and secondary psychopaths who become cheaters, in order to enhance their “mating and acquisition” possibilities. Her model suggests that primary psychopaths can be recognized at an early age — as toddlers — and that secondary ones manifest their psychopathic nature somewhat later — possibly around the age of puberty. The primary psychopath seems to be more prevalent among well-to-do, well nourished and well nurtured classes, and the secondary psychopath tends to emerge from disadvantaged backgrounds.
In this sense, I think that the terms psychopath and sociopath might be useful to distinguish the two. Mealey’s “secondary psychopaths,” which we will refer to as sociopaths, are generally of low socioeconomic status; have low intelligence and poor social skills; experience parental neglect, abuse, inconsistent discipline, and punishment; and their antisocial behavior is a response to social pressures.
According to Mealey, primary sociopaths are “designed for the successful operation of social deception and… are the product of evolutionary pressures which… lead some individuals to pursue a life strategy of manipulative and predatory social interactions” (Mealey, 1995). In short, they are designed to be the vectors of our reality. Game Theory.
Not every indulged child becomes a psychopath. However, we have to wonder at the indulgent, hothouse-nurturing approach that is “prescribed” for the “special Indigo children,” which is precisely designed to do precisely that.
The many people interviewed by Steven Levy generally agree that Ira was able to manipulate the emotions of others in such a way as to numb their critical faculties to the point where they were willing to believe anything he said. He was able to manipulate them to believe that he was the noble David of the counterculture against the Goliath of “the establishment.” His listeners were ready to believe anything about him that he said, because they wanted to — even if the facts indicated the exact opposite. This emotional bond he created in his audience was not easily dissolved, and its chief effect was to rob people of their critical-thinking functions. They did not want to be confused with facts, they did not want to have to think, they only wanted Ira to give voice to their own feelings of anger and resistance.
With his enormous intellect, Ira was able to pull up facts and figures about just any topic you could name or mention, which gave an impression of infallibility. He had a talent for repeating things he had heard in such a way that the listener was led to believe that the ideas and insights were his own, that he was very clever — an intellectual, even a genius. He was a consummate “poseur.” His inability to produce or “give” anything truly creative in terms of writing, was evidence that his “powers” had to do strictly with interactions wherein subtle manipulation was geared toward eliciting emotional responses from his audience.
It is said that, in any room, Ira Einhorn commanded attention to himself. He would routinely unleash a dazzling fusillade of powerful or well-known names he was in contact with, inside information he had access to, and the elevated means of understanding that he had attained. He had an odd way of twisting his apocalyptic vision so that he could speak of the world’s inhabitants in the first-person plural, yet somehow be personally exempt from the category. Things are happening so fast that people don’t know how to deal with the situation, he’d declaim, with the implicit understanding that Ira Einhorn himself had no difficulty comprehending the disorienting complexity of the world around him.
The very unspokenness of this superiority could make it more infuriating, because you could not put your finger on it. Ira had a way of appropriating the high ground for his opinions and attitudes, simply because they were Ira’s, and by that measure correct. He would borrow your vacuum cleaner, and if you asked him, months after the loan had passed, if he might see fit to return the vacuum cleaner, he would casually reply that, oh, the vacuum cleaner was broken, and change the subject. If you persisted, tried to elicit at least some clarifying comment on the missing vacuum cleaner, he would regard you with some disappointment — you actually care about a vacuum cleaner? And you, bound in your material possessions, would shrink a little, thinking of course vacuum cleaners are but dust in the great mandala of existence. And if you resented the fact that you were out one vacuum cleaner, you kept it to yourself.
Ira Einhorn handled formal rejection in much the same spirit. It was seldom his failing, but the inadequate qualities of the rejecter that led to those problems. Once, writer William Irwin Thompson refused Einhorn permission to attend sessions at Thompson’s New Age conversation pit, Lindesfarne. In fact, as Thompson recalls, “I told him he was full of shit.” And what did Einhorn do? “His way was to become patronizing and condescending,” Thompson recalls. “To [imply] I was a benighted person with neurotic hang-ups, a gifted person with blocks, who would never amount to much because he had all these strange blockages to the evolutionary momentum of the human race. That I was beyond salvation.”
“Ira always lived as if the rules didn’t apply to him, and for an extraordinary amount of time he got away with that,” says Ira’s friend Mike Hoffman. “He got away with it because he convinced people of his very special quality. Which he had. The intensity he put into all the reading and thinking and the willingness to go out there farther than anyone else to follow some train of thought.” […] Ira really was [to himself] the center of the universe, says his friend Ralph Moore, who ran the Christian Association at Penn. “He would have an ‘ends justifies the means’ attitude that says, ‘My agenda is the legitimate one here.’”
“Ira psychologically had no superego,” says Stuart Samuels. “One of the reasons that his smell was so bad, despite people literally telling him about it, was that it didn’t matter, because as far as he was concerned, he was larger than the world. So it didn’t matter if he smelled. Ira was totally egocentric, so anything you said would always turn back on his knowledge of it, his point of view. It was always from his perspective.”
“What I saw Ira do most was take over, wherever he was,” says Jeff Berner, a [friend of] Ira’s. “Dominate every social scene, take over every room use, every environment, and every space fully as his own. He was one of the few people I’ve allowed to do that in my own home. And I didn’t mind because by the time he left, I was richer.” Thus friends and associates accepted Ira’s ego as part of a package which, on balance, was marvelously entertaining, intellectually provocative, and righteously motivated. Best of all, if you joked about it, Einhorn would be the first to laugh with you. […] He would rail about macrobiotics for half an hour, and you could, as one friend did, finally interrupt him by saying, “Great, Ira, now let’s go and get a hamburger,” and Ira would say, “Sure,” without missing a beat.” (Levy, 1988)
Einhorn assiduously promoted drug use and frequent, promiscuous sex among young people. He would call for “open forums where people will listen, instead of shoving drugs under the rug.” Ira passed out DMT and hash to students and friends, and taught classes entitled “Analogues to the LSD Experience.” This maneuver was designed to create even more controversy about himself. Even though LSD was being discussed by everyone in private, Ira was the first in Philadelphia who dared to publicly proclaim acid’s “virtues.” He encouraged and participated in “sexual encounters” (otherwise known as orgies) and his reputation as a “cocksman” was, as we have already noted, legendary, if somewhat misleading. Ira had quantity, not quality, it seems.
Keep in mind, he began his public “ascent” in 1964-66.
At the same time that Ira was creating his public role as a counterculture hero, freeing mankind from the oppression of the establishment which didn’t want to allow them unlimited drug-induced and sex-induced spiritual ascent, he met a student at Penn named Judy Lewis and became obsessed with her. Judy was seven years younger than Ira, and was, according to her own report, experiencing some emotional stress. Ira’s friend, Michael Hoffman, said: “Ira was so intense that when you got involved with him, he would get inside your head. You would have that kind of relationship — inside of one another’s heads. He was particularly that way with women because he needed to dominate. [With Judy], it was not a placid relationship, it was obviously a very passionate one, and at a certain point I think she wanted out. Because I think like a lot of other people, she finally felt mind-fucked by the guy.”
Said another observer of the relationship, a friend of Judy’s: “She was very interested in him, because of his mind, basically. And he got more and more possessive. […] She was not allowed to do anything except be with him, and I think that she wasn’t the kind of dependent female that he was used to or that he needed. I remember she used to talk about how he would insist on staying up all night long and talking, and if you wanted to go to sleep that was disloyal. She began to get a sense of his intensity, and his emotional violence. He was grasping and tenacious and nuts.”
Again, Ira had created a fantasy that he projected onto a woman. He completely ignored the fact that the longer the relationship continued, the less interested the other party was in continuing in it. Ira produced reams of writing about Judy’s beauty, her depth, and her selfish refusal to give everything to him: “Joy would erupt if Judy could only learn the simple acceptance of the magic which flows between us.”
Here we come to the crux of the matter. Ira wrote in his journals that Judy could, if she could be persuaded to be willing, provide Ira with the “absolute trust my mother’s strong relationship imposed on my psyche. Do I wish to master a woman sufficiently so that she will take care of me as my mother did?”
At this point in time, Ira was suffering from excruciating headaches (possibly symptomatic of dopamine deficiency). Something was definitely going on. Ira wrote: “I have a strange lightness about the head which is beginning to frighten me. There seems to be a strong possibility that I may eventually be permanently psychotic!”
Just as Rita Siegal had, Judy became terrified of Ira. She also discovered, as Rita had, that leaving Ira was not a simple matter. You didn’t just walk away from Ira. It was months before Ira finally “got it” that Judy wanted to end their relationship. He disregarded her words and constructed fantasies where her wishes to not see him were just “vacillation.” He would create scenarios in which he perceived her wishes as evidence that she really wanted to continue and expand the relationship. He also created scenarios of what would happen if that turned out to not be true. In November 1965 Ira wrote in his journals:
The violence that flowed through my being tonight… still awaits that further dark confirmation of its existence which could result in the murder of that which I seem to love so deeply. The repressed is returning to a form that is almost impossible to control.… There is a good chance that I will attempt to kill Judy tomorrow — the rational awareness of this fact brings stark terror into my heart but it must be faced if I wish to go on — I must not allow myself to deviate from the self-knowledge which is in the process of being uncovered! (Quoted by Levy, 1988)
There was no violence the following day, but a week later Judy again tried to become free of Ira. Ira seemed to know that he was “deviant.” He made a note in his journals to ask his mother about his behavior as an infant, with the comment: “So much of my deviancy could be explained in terms of an impotent, uncompleted rage.”
Meanwhile, of course, in public Ira was marching on to fame and glory as the manifestation of the benefits of drug and sex-expanded awareness and spiritual superiority. He wrote in his journal in March 1966:
I feel as if things are about to culminate in the creation of an involvement that will allow me to do the work that will enable me to become more of what I am or as a result of this partial madness I will bring my world crashing down about me.
The struggle to deal rationally with what he clearly understood was a “game plan” that was not to his advantage, does nothing to suggest that there was any real emotion involved. To Ira, it was simply “moves” in a game. He was essentially attempting to impose cerebral and strategic rationality on his fundamentally predatory nature. On March 14 he wrote:
How ridiculous the thought of killing Judy appears, yet I held it in my mind just four short hours ago — this particular ability of man is both his horror and his joy. Violence creeps over my body as I reach toward the destruction of Judy, a hopeless victim in this infernal entanglement which seems to be draining the life’s blood of both of us… the foolish ambivalence of our desires still tosses us beyond the recall of reason to a point of suspension on which we hang in perilous balance threatening to destroy or be destroyed in an instant or reckless action — we must come together or die.
To that I say: What do you mean we?
In any event, three days later Ira’s predatory nature overwhelmed his “rational” thinking and the “event” occurred that was recounted by Judy to Detective Michael Chitwood thirteen years later. The situation, as she described it, centered around the fact that Ira had insisted on a meeting. She agreed as long as he just came by for coffee and nothing else. Ira, of course, arrived full of confidence that he could mesmerize Judy with his ideas and words about why the relationship should go on. Their discussion was interrupted when Judy went out briefly to get milk for the coffee and donuts. Ira himself recorded the event in a poem entitled “An Act of Violence.” The poem describes Judy returning with the items and serving the coffee; and as she does so, Ira is mustering up the wherewithal to commit some, as yet, unnamed act. He discards the idea and writes that, as he is putting on his jacket to leave, “suddenly it happens.”
Judy’s back is turned and Ira moves toward her with a coke bottle in hand. “Bottle in hand I strike/ Away at the head….”
The bottle broke, however, and Judy began to bleed. Ira wrestled her down to the floor, holding her by the neck. She hit her head against the table as she fell, and Ira was strangling her. Like Rita Siegal before her, she went limp and lost consciousness. Ira wrote: “In such violence there may be freedom.”
Judy recounts that the neighbors had heard the uproar and had come into the room. She told them to call the campus police. By this time, of course, Ira had disappeared. He went home to write in his journal:
Where am I now after having hit Judy over the head with a coke bottle, blood on my jacket and pants — then making some feeble attempts to choke her. She wanted to live that has been established.… I’ll be able, if she does not have me arrested, to go back to living a normal life. Violence always marks the end of a relationship. It is the final barrier over or through which no communication is possible.
As was the case with Rita Siegal, and so many other women who seek only to forget such violence perpetrated against them, Judy did not press charges against Ira. Ira was, however, informed that if the assault were repeated, he would face serious legal action.
Ira admitted that his action was “ridiculous.” However, instead of a single instant of remorse, he seemed to think that his action was a “liberating response” to a woman who was “too selfish” to agree to indulge his perversions. He saw his violence as something that contributed to his growth, something that freed him from depression and moping about Judy’s wish to leave him. Effectively, the reality that he had again almost killed a woman who simply wished not to associate with him, was completely lost on Ira.
Ira’s friend, Michael Hoffman, was again in his confidence. By this time, however, he was appalled and tried to gain some understanding about it from his friend by questioning him at length about the event.
He would sort of disengage himself from himself when he talked about these things. He didn’t take responsibility. He didn’t have the same kind of guilt that you or I would have, in that he didn’t say “Jesus Christ, how could I have done that terrible thing?” He would talk about how it had grown out of the nature of the relationship. How it’s not really possible to have that kind of full, rich, sharing relationship that a man and a woman needed to have. And somehow that would be part of the explanation. He probably had the most elaborate defense structure I’ve ever seen in anybody. He would literally walk in after doing something like that and want to discuss the reasons for its having been done from a psychoanalytic point of view, a sociological point of view, its place in history… so that he immediately had a very elaborate structure to put it in. (Levy, 1988)
You see, Ira didn’t think that he needed help. He thought of his violence as evidence that he was some sort of romantic hero. He knew he was “deviant,” but he saw it as just who and what he was, and that his way was right. He wrote to Hoffman from California a few months later: “Rita and Judy practically destroyed, Peckham unable to go any farther! I need the confrontation of my monsters lodged in some external being — to meet and see what haunts me — to face it and fight it every day without it disappearing.… I live quietly and calmly with real joy on the edge of a volcano that might explode into nova-like being at any moment… when it happens, beware!”
Ira despaired of finding a woman who could satisfy his lusts in terms of the violence and pain he desired. He wrote:
I’m slowly beginning to realize the enormity of the problem which my development has created in respect to women. The interaction with Rita is just an example of how difficult, even at that age and with such a magnificent partner, any final linking is to be. Judy provided in her striking beauty a repository for always wandering projections, and the strength of our deathlike struggle is a good indication of how impossible my quest is to be. I refuse to admit the inevitable — that I can live without a woman (my mother). Until I accept this my productivity will be intense, like my countless infatuations, but sporadic. I’m faced with a hell that is somewhat relieved by my incredible energy which is so capable of constantly creating that joy which is deeper than sorrow. (quoted by Levy, 1988; this author’s emphasis)
What, exactly, did Ira mean by the above? What kind of “hell” was he living in? A “hell” that denied his impulses. What kind of joy was he desirous of “creating” by indulging those impulses? A joy that was “deeper than sorrow”? Take note of his reference to Rita and the fact that she was unable to complete the “final linking.” Earlier, about Rita and this desired “linking,” Ira had written:
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. […] 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. […] The progress of my soul must not be crushed by the failings of a selfish young woman. […]
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! […] 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? […] 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 by Levy, 1988)
I hope that the reader has noticed the references to his mother in Ira’s comments. This is, as noted, a clue — the crux of the matter — as we will eventually see when we examine more closely the Negative Macrocosmic Reality that seeks to overtake and dominate our own reality via the machinations of the psychopath. And, interestingly, it appears in the “breakdown” of John Nash, as we will cover in the next chapter.