Beyond Insanity

Seems that this guy is getting a lot of flak from the psychological community for calling a spade a spade.

BEYOND INSANITY

Amos M. Gunsberg

We used to call them psychopaths --- these creatures that appear on our planet physically in human form, but are not human beings.

We noted they are amoral. That should have given us a clue.

We noted they do not FEEL feelings. That should have instructed us.

We noted they are heartless. That should have set off the alarm.

These creatures lack elements which distinguish the human being. They exhibit no connection with, no understanding of what we call "morality," "honesty," "decency," "fair play," etc. They lack the faculty we call empathy. They lack the faculty we call introspection.

Mankind has spent centuries trying to make sense of these creatures as some form of human being. All in vain. Not only in vain, but at enormous on-going cost to our civilization. These creatures are not human beings gone wrong. They are a different species . . . dedicated to the murder of human values . . . as a prelude to the murder of human beings . . . e.g., the tactics used by Nazis, past and present.

They laugh at us. They say: "No one understands us. People can't put themselves in the minds of men who act without a conscience. They try to understand, but they can't."

These creatures do not THINK human. They do not SPEAK human. They do not know what it is to BE human.

We classify them as "humanoid."

Yes, they have human form. If we manage to resist their onslaught long enough, we will eventually develop technical scanning equipment which will measure how different they are from human beings, despite their similarity of form.

In the meantime, the quality of our lives . . . and often our very lives . . . depends on our recognizing these creatures for what they are, and taking steps to neutralize their attempts to destroy us.
EVIDENCE OF HUMANOID BEHAVIOR

They make pronouncements without substantiation. To them, these pronouncements represent what reality is . . . pronouncement by pronouncement. The present pronouncement may contradict what they said a moment ago. This means nothing to them. They make no attempt to deal with the contradiction.

They demonstrate a total lack of understanding what we mean by a "fact." In their writings and in their speech, they do not use that word.

We humans find this hard to believe. The use of facts is such a basic part of our lives. We base our conclusions and our actions on them. We go on from there to test things and establish more facts. When we debate, we present facts, and show how we derive our observations and our positions from them.

Without facts, all we have is what we call "fantasy."

Since these creatures have a human appearance, we assume they must think like us . . . be aware of what we are aware. We think they MUST know what facts are. When they don't address the facts, we say they are playing a game. We think they do know what the facts are, but don't want to admit it.

Not so! They DON'T know what a fact is. When we speak of facts and ask them to address the facts, they look at us with vacant eyes. They don't know what we're talking about.

They study us because their strategy is to pass as human. They hear us use the words -- facts, evidence, substantiation. They lack the human capacity to understand what we mean. What they do is ignore our reference to facts, ignore our requests for them to supply facts, and hope we won't notice it's due to their lack of comprehension.

Let's look at examples of what THEY use for what WE mean by "facts."

The Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy (AAGT) held an open conference at which three "master" therapists worked with three volunteers. Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler published a critique entitled "BAD THERAPY" in which he cited examples not only of bad therapy, but also of systematic abuse of a volunteer by the "master" therapist. (The Interpsych Newsletter, Vol 2, Issue 9, Nov 95.) On their official Internet mail list (aagt@netride.com), members of the Association launched an attack on Dr. Schaler, culminating in their adoption of the slogan: "Saving Gestalt Therapy from Jeff Schaler," used as the subject line in a discussion thread. Under this heading they "SAVED" Gestalt therapy by sending in e-mails labeling Jeff Schaler as "arrogant, snide, hair-splitting, nit-picking, disturbed, mean- spirited, ranting, self-serving," etc.

When asked how this labeling "SAVED" Gestalt therapy, they ignored the question. When asked in what way Gestalt therapy was endangered by Jeff Schaler, they ignored the question.

It became clear they thoroughly believed their pronouncements erased not only the evidence presented but also erased Jeff Schaler himself. They "pronounced" him to be no longer in existence. For them, whatever they "declare" is what's real. What WE call reality is not real to them. THEY "pronounce" what is to be considered real.

Here's another example. I asked a psychotherapy client to look at a chair which was situated about six feet away near a wall. I then asked her to describe the chair. She did, in rather complete detail, except for the legs. THE CHAIR SHE DESCRIBED HAD NO LEGS!

I pointed this out, and asked how the chair could be suspended in air, with no legs to support it. She said: "I put it there." I asked: "If you look away, will it fall to the floor?" She said: "No. If I look away, the chair is no longer there." I asked: "If you look away . . . and it turns out the chair is still there?" She ignored the question.

Here's another example. During a discussion on CD@maelstrom.stjohns.edu earlier this year, the statement was made: "If enough people believe something to be true, then what they believe is what reality IS."

A question was then asked: "There was a time when everyone, as far as we know, believed the sun revolved around the earth. Are you saying at that time the sun did, in fact, revolve around the earth . . . and it was only in obedience to a change in what people believed that the earth came to revolve around the sun?"

The question was ignored.

You might think their refusals to answer constitute an admission . . . an admission what they are saying is totally outlandish and indefensible. Experience has shown you would be wrong. Experience has shown they go right on making the same statements, even after evidence is produced to the contrary.

You see how different these creatures are? You see how far off their thinking and behavior are from human thinking and behavior?

Nothing of what WE call reality is real to THEM.

I repeat.

Nothing of what we call reality is REAL to them.

When a human being mentions a chair, the reference is to a chair that sits there on its own legs. It's there whether anyone sees it or not, whether anyone mentions it or not, whether anyone "declares" it to be there or not. It's there ON ITS OWN.

A basic element in the profile of humanoids is their lack of comprehension that anything exists on its own, separate from their say-so. They don't SEE it. The only objects humanoids see are the ones they "declare" . . . the ones they imagine.

We use the phrase "my perception" to mean an appraisal, a measurement of something separate from ourselves. We don't announce it as "fact." We are open to consider other views if given facts to consider.

Humanoids use the phrase "my perception" as a buzz word. They imagine what they choose, and tell us it is their "perception" . . . which, in their minds, ESTABLISHES reality. What we call "facts" do not exist for them. That's why they whine and claim they are being attacked whenever substantiation is requested.

Humanoids claim their statements are valid simply because they make them!!! They elaborate on this: "I honor integrity in this regard. As an egoist, I make statements which are valid to me. Validity to my 'self' comes first. I grant other people this same respect assuming they say things valid to themselves."

Among human beings, for something to be deemed valid it has to be substantiated with facts. Nothing is valid simply because someone says it.

When humanoids are asked how they determine what someone says is valid to that person, and not something made up or imagined, they ignore the question.

Note the strange use of the word "integrity." Humans define integrity as uprightness of character; probity; honesty. We refer to sticking to the facts, sticking to the truth, not selling out. Humanoids use "integrity" to mean insisting what they imagine is what's real. No measurement. No evaluation.

When the demand is made for their pronouncements to be evaluated, they claim the confronter is the one who has no integrity . . . meaning the confronter is not upholding THEIR position: what THEY imagine is what's real.

On what basis do they claim this? Humanoids treat the world as if it were their own private holodeck. They "declare" things into being. Everything is a hologram. They program the holograms. They interact with them in any way they choose. They have them under total control. When they decide to cancel a hologram, it vanishes.

A hologram is a hologram is a hologram. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to think for itself. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to measure, evaluate, appraise, etc. Most importantly, a hologram is not supposed to be able to break out of its holographic state and critique its master.

When this does happen, they first chastise it to bring it back into line. If that doesn't work, they "vanish" it. When that fails, they run for cover by abandoning the program and calling up another one.

Experience has shown no matter what we say, no matter what we point out, no matter how much evidence is given, it has no meaning for these creatures. They have one goal: to fool us into classifying them as human so they can concentrate on murdering our human values. Without human values, the next step is murdering human beings.

In the film "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," aliens are shown to be taking over by occupying the bodies of human beings. The aliens take over not only the physical body but also the mind, memories, abilities, etc. In every way the people seem to be the same as always, except for one thing. They mention events, but with no feeling of them or about them. THEY DO NOT FEEL FEELINGS.

We see a child struggling to get away from what appears to be its mother. The next day they walk hand-in-hand. The child has been taken over.

The lovers in the film try to stay awake so they won't be taken over. She succumbs . . . and "she," now a creature, tries to fool him. When she doesn't fool him, she tries to betray him.

These creatures do not FEEL alive. They do not FEEL feelings. In order to pass as humans, they know they have to give the appearance of knowing they are alive. Their only recourse is to DECLARE they are alive.

The declaration does not produce the quality of FEELING alive. They still don't FEEL feelings. The only thing they have to go on, to refer to, is their own declaration. If "declaring" is shown to be insufficient . . . if they are called upon to discuss feelings, give evidence of feelings, distinguish between feelings, etc., they are lost. Their inner emptiness is apparent. Their un-human status is exposed.

Here's a final example. In the course of a discussion on psych-ci@maelstrom.stjohns.edu some time ago, a humanoid said: "You hurt my feelings." The humanoid was asked to identify the exact statements, and explain in what way these statements caused hurt to what particular feelings. Answer: (Whining) "I've said you hurt my feelings. I don't know what else to say. ... You are attacking."

Question: "In what way do you a consider a request for substantiation and clarification to be an attack?"

No answer.
AN OVERVIEW

Humanoids -

1. Make pronouncements without substantiation. These pronouncements are to be accepted as defining what reality is . . moment by moment.
2. Ignore requests to provide the basis for their pronouncements.
3. Sneer at the human valuing of facts, honesty, decency, fair play.
4. Applaud the use of lies, deceit, etc.
5. Whine they are being "attacked" whenever they are questioned. Give no explanation of what the "attack" is or of what is being attacked.
6. Do not FEEL feelings.
7. View the world as their private holodeck.
8. Apply themselves to keeping humans in their place --- namely, insignificance.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Humanoids do not understand the distinction we humans make between good and evil. When they harm us, they do not understand why we call them evil. They do not understand why we have laws against murder. Their approach is to boast, even moralize over their victims.

Since they do not understand the reason for such laws, they argue they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Not so. While they take the position the law does not apply to them, they do know the law was enacted to apply to everyone. Furthermore, if they try to claim they didn't know there was such a law, we respond with a firmly established principle: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

When they use those arguments, they make it clear they will continue to operate in accordance with their structure. We may look for remorse (a human capacity). We find none. They do not think of themselves as promulgating evil. They are simply doing what it is in their structure to do. The rattlesnake does not think of itself as evil when it injects poison. It is simply doing what it is in its structure to do.

Experience has shown humanoids continue to behave in the ways of their species . . murdering human values as a prelude to murdering human beings. Nazis demonstrate this graphically.

The issue as to whether to hold them "accountable," in our human sense of the word, has to be divided into two parts. We do not hold them accountable for BEING what they are. We do hold them accountable for the damage they DO.

When a dog gets rabies, we don't hold the dog accountable for becoming rabid. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is put the dog down BEFORE it bites us, BEFORE it infects us.

We do not hold the rattlesnake accountable for HAVING poison fangs. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is kill the rattlesnake BEFORE it kills us.

So with the humanoid. We need to be on our guard at the first sign of a murder of human values.



Amos M. Gunsberg is a psychotherapist and trainer of psychotherapists in New York City since 1950. He is a founder of the School for Quality Being. His address is 61 West 74th St., New York, N.Y. 10023-2433 USA. E-mail: clubking@ix.netcom.com

This article first appeared in PsychNews International, Volume 2, Issue 5. Reprinted with permission.
To subscribe to PsychNews, send the following command to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU in the BODY of e-mail:
SUBSCRIBE Psychnews yourfirstname yourlastname
The PsychNews International is currently available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.cmhc.com/pni/

So, humanoids should be completely prived from one feature humans have and appreciate - the sence of humour!
I meant humour not in sence of laughter, satire, or being "comic" but as a combination of sneer and sympathy, external comical treatment and internal participation to that is represented externally as ridiculous. It's like humour gives us the essence of some person or any subject being discussed. Humanoids may be well not catching that essence.

wow - some of the examples in here bend my poor little mind - ouch. How could anyone not realize that something could exist on its own. I thought they were just compulsive liars ... sheesh.

highmystica said:

wow - some of the examples in here bend my poor little mind - ouch. How could anyone not realize that something could exist on its own. I thought they were just compulsive liars ... sheesh.

Click to expand...

Well, this guy has a pretty blunt way of describing the problem but I know exactly what he is talking about. But, like you, I just figured it was lying at a level that was incomprehensible to me. I DID explain it to myself that they just told such good lies that they actually believed them. He seems to be coming at the problem from the other direction.

It's really kind of chilling, though, isn't it?

I don't know if chilling is the right word - it's too bizarre to be chilled by it. I don't even have much of an emotional reaction to it ... oh god no - it's catchy. Seriously though I was starting to think that if there is a genetic factor to psychopathy then how could they even have survived. And then my mind started to fill with just silly scenarios about it - the stoneage psychopath that "declares" to the saber-tooth tiger that is persuing him that the tiger doesn't exist ...
yeah, I'm a dork ...

When reading sott posts, I wondered many times of why so much emphasis is given to psychopaths, their psychological and social profiling; word psychopath like "transpired" forum in my perseption. I was asking myself why Esoquest, Craig, Anart are continuously refering to psychopaths, and not NWO. NWO - are predating psychopaths organised in sociofobic antiempatic hierarhy, yes?

Laura said:

Here's a final example. In the course of a discussion on psych-ci@maelstrom.stjohns.edu some time ago, a humanoid said: "You hurt my feelings." The humanoid was asked to identify the exact statements, and explain in what way these statements caused hurt to what particular feelings. Answer: (Whining) "I've said you hurt my feelings. I don't know what else to say. ... You are attacking."

Click to expand...

This reminded me of a funny incident at my workplace. A child could be heard screaming to his sister, "Oww!! Oww!!! You're hurting my feelings!" I thought it was pretty funny, but this just makes it scary...

CarpeDiem said:

When reading sott posts, I wondered many times of why so much emphasis is given to psychopaths, their psychological and social profiling; word psychopath like "transpired" forum in my perseption. I was asking myself why Esoquest, Craig, Anart are continuously refering to psychopaths, and not NWO. NWO - are predating psychopaths organised in sociofobic antiempatic hierarhy, yes?

Click to expand...

CarpeDiem, check out Laura's latest: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060530_MakingSenseofPoliticalComplexity.php

CarpeDiem said:

When reading sott posts, I wondered many times of why so much emphasis is given to psychopaths, their psychological and social profiling; word psychopath like "transpired" forum in my perseption. I was asking myself why Esoquest, Craig, Anart are continuously refering to psychopaths, and not NWO. NWO - are predating psychopaths organised in sociofobic antiempatic hierarhy, yes?

Click to expand...

A "psychopath" is a scientific term that describes a certain condition. NWO is a hypothesis that we do not have enough data about. We can rather easily spot psychopaths through their actions. We can only make hypotheses (some more probable, some less) about NWO. Existence of psychopaths is the condition sine qua non of existings such things as NWO. But if NWO did not exist, then psychpaths would create something else that would ensure them to be the masters.

Psychopathy and pathocracy are the forces that are shaping many organizations on our planet,
like gravity and friction are the forces that are highly responsible for the shape of our planet and the landscapes on our planet. It is necessary to understand gravity and friction and take them into account if you want to understand the old shapes and to contemplate possible new shapes. Similarily with psychopathy and pathocracy. (But do not take this analogy too far: gravity is the binding force, friction is the force that is opposing progress. Bot psychopathy and pathocracy are
are STS kind forces).

Of course there are forces and reasons behind and beyond psychopathy. We are discussing these forces and reasons as well.

Amos Gunsburg said:

If we manage to resist their onslaught long enough, we will eventually develop technical scanning equipment which will measure how different they are from human beings, despite their similarity of form

Click to expand...

This is an interesting hypothesis. I'll bet the technology already exists. For example, a standardized set of questions, photos, videos, etc. could be created to draw out emotional responses such as empathy, shame, fear, and guilt and the study subjects hooked up to an MRI and their brain scanned while they are exposed to the test inputs. There's a good chance that the psychopaths would clearly and easily stand out with this simple technique, perhaps.

Once enough data could be gathered, the initial screen test could be reduced to a single input and a "walk thru" MRI scan, and those that test positive could be subjected to further testing.

Of course, the moral and ethical implications for this type of test are huge. What would society do with these "humanoids"? Imagine, being a non-psychopath (identified in error) placed in "coventry" or an isolated colony that is populated only with psychopaths.

On another tack, I think Gunsburg could be describing the "failed" psychopaths. Though they may operate as he describes, I think the good ones are much more skilled at hiding themselves than he seems to indicate.

It certainly gives me another way of understanding the "neocons." According to Gunsburg, they actually "believe" that what they are saying and doing is "right." I thought they were just hypocritical liars--I couldn't understand that they really believed that they were actually helping the country and world and not destroying it. But, I guess the bottom line for them is that when they've sucessfully eradicated 94% of the world's population, they will have "helped."

Yossarian said:

This is an interesting hypothesis. I'll bet the technology already exists. For example, a standardized set of questions, photos, videos, etc. could be created to draw out emotional responses such as empathy, shame, fear, and guilt and the study subjects hooked up to an MRI and their brain scanned while they are exposed to the test inputs. There's a good chance that the psychopaths would clearly and easily stand out with this simple technique, perhaps.

Once enough data could be gathered, the initial screen test could be reduced to a single input and a "walk thru" MRI scan, and those that test positive could be subjected to further testing.

Of course, the moral and ethical implications for this type of test are huge. What would society do with these "humanoids"? Imagine, being a non-psychopath (identified in error) placed in "coventry" or an isolated colony that is populated only with psychopaths.

Click to expand...

Problem is, I DO think they are working on this kind of thing, like you suggested, only they are using it to screen out "normal" people and select FOR psychopaths. I think that WW II was something of this sort and that even the "Jewish" question was predicated on the survival of the psychopathic Jews and the extermination of the normal, human ones, capable of empathy. Now, there is a population of Zionists at the top in Israel that are probably close to 100 % psychopathic, and they are sitting there like spiders calling the rest of the Jews "home" from all over the world. Kinda scary when you think about it.

Laura said:

Seems that this guy is getting a lot of flak from the psychological community for calling a spade a spade.

Click to expand...

It shows who's who in the psychological community. What the hell isn't ponerized these days (or at any time for that matter)?

highmystica said:

I don't know if chilling is the right word - it's too bizarre to be chilled by it. I don't even have much of an emotional reaction to it ... oh god no - it's catchy.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is catchy. Psychopaths are motivated to propogate their condition in others. They seek to spread the message that their way is the way of survival in the world, and attempt to generate conditions to force others to adapt in their terms. It can be seen as an invasion of sorts of one subspecies upon another.

Mostly, the ones that can be converted, IMO, are OP's. Since psychopaths of a predominant variety of these humanoids can be understood as failed OP's, part of their objective is to fail OP's. They are, however, relentless in their attacks upon those where they sense individuation potential, and hence developed empathy. Empathy is so alien to them that they react to it as a threat to their existence.

highmystica said:

Seriously though I was starting to think that if there is a genetic factor to psychopathy then how could they even have survived. And then my mind started to fill with just silly scenarios about it - the stoneage psychopath that "declares" to the saber-tooth tiger that is persuing him that the tiger doesn't exist ...
yeah, I'm a dork ...

Click to expand...

I think the prehistoric psychopath would declare to the tribe that there are no tigers, when tigers were approaching, and then go off in the opposite direction. Then when the tribe was eaten the psychopath would return, and proclaim how stupid everyone else was.

Psychopaths are not random liars, and the article implies this. They design their holodeck without second thought in a calculating manner. And it is designed to affirm their supremacy uber alles. So if a tiger is actually chasing them, they will call for help in the hope that some fool human will get eaten instead. Then they will tell others how they fought with the tiger, and play the role of hero.

If psychopaths were simply psychotic, they would not have survived so long. These people choose to see what they want to see in a very deliberate fashion. Humans feel this is wrong. In a human there is an internal dissonance when a lie is confronted. For the psychopath the lie is just another means to an end. There is no dissonance. The only dissonance a psychopath experiences is when their ends are blocked.

That's why I find it interesting that anyone who systematically promotes the understanding of psychopathy comes under some kind of attack. Who would benefit from attacking an understanding that does not define specific groups of people based on external appearance, ethnic origin, culture, religion or any of the other variables targeted by true prejudice? Only the psychopath, because this subspecies is well aware of what it is, and well aware that it is different from feeling humanity. And of course, it is in its best interest that feeling humanity is not aware of it.

Yossarian said:

This is an interesting hypothesis. I'll bet the technology already exists. For example, a standardized set of questions, photos, videos, etc. could be created to draw out emotional responses such as empathy, shame, fear, and guilt and the study subjects hooked up to an MRI and their brain scanned while they are exposed to the test inputs. There's a good chance that the psychopaths would clearly and easily stand out with this simple technique, perhaps.

Click to expand...

You can also bet that psychopaths (filling every social institution to the seams, and holding many high positions therein) will go a long way to ponerize any and all methods that threaten their existence.

There is one thing they cannot understand, and cannot emulate, and which threatens them the most, and that is human FEELING, and the sense of rightness, and valueing of truth that comes from it. The one thing that threatens them is a human instrument of detection, of humans learning to identify them, just as the first thing they seem to learn is how to identify humans.

Yossarian said:

It certainly gives me another way of understanding the "neocons." According to Gunsburg, they actually "believe" that what they are saying and doing is "right." I thought they were just hypocritical liars--I couldn't understand that they really believed that they were actually helping the country and world and not destroying it. But, I guess the bottom line for them is that when they've sucessfully eradicated 94% of the world's population, they will have "helped."

Click to expand...

I think they do not understand the word "Belief" in the same way a feeling human does, just as their meaning of the word "truth" and "what is" is altogether different from that of a feeling human. I think they literally live in a different perceptual frame than feeling humans at a fundamental level. This would make sense if you consider that their brains are wired differently. Reality to a feeling human is something alien for a psychopath, and vice versa.

We are speaking of something unique in the terrestrial biosphere because the differences are based on organic differences of an organ uniquely developed in the human species (humans and humanoids included). So you can see two animals, for example, with marked differences in physical characteristics and easily identify them as belonging to separate sub species.

The differences between humans and humanoids, however, remain at the level of internal organic structures invisible to the naked eye. Eons ago many sub species of humanity walked this Earth. These had marked differences in physical characteristics. Eventually only one remained.

Now a subspecies has evolved that cannot be identified externally. And it is seeking to supplant our own.

I think it is safe to say that psychopaths feel threatened in the presence of a feeling human. Deep down, they realize they are at a disadvantage, because their strategies are adaptations to an inherent handicap with respect to feeling humans. They cannot feel. They lack something, and have developed compensatory survival mechanisms to adapt to that lack.

We often take for granted the blessing of having the capacity to feel. Without this capacity, the concept of soul would not even exist, and nothing we consider human would exist (as Gunsburg's article points out). The whole concept of soul and lack thereof is distinctly tied to the differences between humans and humanoids (much more profoundly so than between individuated humans and OP humans, where soul is still present at varying levels of focus).

When a psychopath, and correspondingly a pathocrat encounters a human being, they encounter the enemy, the "other" that threatens their very survival, on their terms, by its very existence. That, IMO, is the deeper dynamic behind the desire to eradicate most of humanity.

The "neocons", for example, are neither hypocritical liars nor do they believe that they are helping anyone. Psychopaths experience feeling only in one way, IMO: as a powerful existential dissonance when faced with even the idea of humans of feeling existing freely (especially when these humans are becoming increasingly aware of the existence of psychopathic humanoids).

The large population of feeling humans is a constant thorn in their side. And the complexity of society and human interactions ever increases the probability that feeling humans will "wake up" to the fact that they share the planet with another sub species. A sub species that is instinctively aware of its own nature, in the same manner that feeling humans sense that they have "souls" whether individualized or not.

No matter how much they oppress that population, therefore, the fundamental difference between themselves and feeling humans will never stop staring them in the face. And with that difference increased social complexity threatens to reveal the role their "race" has playing in history in all its glory. So, personally, I am beginning to reconsider defining psychopaths as deviants in strict biological terms. I would rather call them a species mutation, and one seeking to come into global dominance in every way.

That is why I think Machiavelli, and even the Protocols, are only a rationalization, behind which lies something even more primal. Many Pathocrats have long ago attained the power Machiavelli considers the fulfillment of his philosophy: to rule unhindered. A group of people does in fact do so, for all practical purposes. Yet, that is not enough, because "unhindered" to them includes being able to annihilate or at least premanently hobble the competition, and until they do no power will be enough. Their very hardwiring dictates it.

And we notice that there are those who seem rational regarding pointing out specific pathocratic groups as elements of a whole spectrum of homogenous humanity. And that these people go haywire when it is pointed out that the spectrum of humanity is not homogenous, and that these groups are part of a greater sub species called psychopaths. They go ballistic because their hardwired survival mechanisms acutely respond to being identified as a subspecies, even if they claim to be opposed to pathocratic groups.

The issue apparently goes far deeper than any historical or cultural effect, straight at the biological roots of what does and does not constitute humanity on this planet. The aliens have been here for a long time, and they have always called themselves human.

When I read the first half part of this last night, the thing that passed my mind was WOW this is some GEM! By the second part the gem becomes a little prickly and has, to my feel at least, a (hyperbole) sting at the very end ...

Amos M. Gunsberg said:

When a dog gets rabies, we don't hold the dog accountable for becoming rabid. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is put the dog down BEFORE it bites us, BEFORE it infects us.

We do not hold the rattlesnake accountable for HAVING poison fangs. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is kill the rattlesnake BEFORE it kills us.

Click to expand...

Of course, as long as there isn't a fast cure for rabies, I think that is exactly the right thing to do. About the rattlesnake, I am less sure, as I don't have any experience. I can imagine that in certain regions they ought to be protected and maybe just removed far enough from any human residences.

But as to ...

Amos M. Gunsberg said:

So with the humanoid. We need to be on our guard at the first sign of a murder of human values.

Click to expand...

Pooff. Unclarity. And as I interpreted it when reading, I saw an exaggerated comparison. Does he allude to killing as with the dog and the rattlesnake? After writing such a splendid and clear analysis, it is understandable though still unfortunate that he ends it that way. It gives the impression that now that we know a big chunk of how our social landscape is shaped, the solution is suddenly near. Like he wanted to brush away the matter in one fell swoop, and this just at a point where the actual hard work ... is just beginning!
Because how are we going to deal with it, by killing? What exactly does he imply with the expression "we ought to be on our guard"? And what exactly are human values? Are they like easy to write down rules that apply for each person and within any situation or context? Is it something that could be written down in laws? Well, (grin) maybe this institute (AAGT) is just going to pass an internal law that will forbid our gestalt therapist from further practice. And what is a "first sign" of a murder of human values?

There's signs all over. What are we waiting for...

Errr, well, it's not that easy actually.

Here are some further thoughts and associations ...

I have had discussions in the past with friends and colleagues around an issue that was closely related to the example that Amos Gunsberg has given about the chair that is there, in 'reality', because it was 'declared' to be there by one of his clients. And from these discussions I have come to learn that there is some meme going around, some sort of fashionable worldvision, that says (err declares perhaps?) that every one has his own truth. Very post-modernistic. But what after that? I say I see a cow while you say you see a horse ? And after that we go merrily back home? Not very productive me thinks. When I give the example for instance of a tree that has fallen down in some forest the answer is often that this tree is not down as long as there is no human around to actually see that the tree has fallen down, and that even than, this tree is only down for this one person.
It is as if they have taken the "cat of shrodinger" out of it's "box" to make things "collapse" in the macroscopic world. I am not saying that such is entirely impossible (the wave?), but as to that tree it would be feasible to approximate the time that this tree has fallen down. And than I will know that the tree has been laying on the soil for approximately three months for instance, and I will see it that way, in retrospective. I will adapt my perception, so as to get a closer, a more encompassing look at reality, truth.

Instead of accepting that there is a reality, and truth, that is separate from the individual and of which the individual is only able to catch one particular perception, they state, no my perception IS truth. And your perception is YOUR truth. And that is that. It is as if they have a problem to accept that there is a reality out there that stretches beyond their own small vision of a mere mortal. Very solipsistic actually.

In a sense, I can almost understand why they do it, and why such "meme" is successful. It is so easy. I has become so much "bon ton" that I don't think that it can be used as a universal tool to separate the wheat from the chaff so to say. To use it as a sharp discriminatory knife to spot humanoids. But here I am talking about a declared worldvision, while the setting with the therapist and his client was quite different, so much so, that it was like I was staring at an open wound.



I have had some affinity and experience with gestalt therapy.
It is sad to hear that an official institute whose function is to represent and gear the "good practice" of Gestalt therapy is "assassinating" one of it's members.

It is just another example. The humanoids have taken over. They rule within all official (or mainstream) domains of human endeavour. They even make the laws. Who is waiting for the first sign?

Charles said:

Instead of accepting that there is a reality, and truth, that is separate from the individual and of which the individual is only able to catch one particular perception, they state, no my perception IS truth. And your perception is YOUR truth. And that is that. It is as if they have a problem to accept that there is a reality out there that stretches beyond their own small vision of a mere mortal. Very solipsistic actually.

Click to expand...

If you think about it, the distinction between MY truth and YOUR truth is only a first step of a grander manipulation where YOUR truth is swallowed whole by the psychopathic holodeck. For them the territorial dominance prevalent in biological species (including ours) has taken on the form of perceptual dominance and territoriality.

Psychopaths are predators of objective perception, consuming it and converting it into their own VISION. To be able to do so unhindered and taken to the extreme, for the psychopath this amounts to god-hood. A goal of the Pathocracy, these days, to be sure.

Regarding the comment on the rabid dog, I think it pays to observe that psychopaths are a parasitic sub species, that define their reality by preying on feeling humans. They have no reference of meaning to their existence save having it affirmed by others. That's why the PTB want to keep a herd of humans at their disposal, and under rigid control. Their very sense of reality depends on that herd.

So the feeling human can consider that one need not shoot rabid dogs here, and that psychopaths will shoot themselves if feeling humanity learns to separate from them. I scarcely think feeling humans can imagine what it is like to have no feelings, not internal confirmation that you are alive save from parasitically induced feedback, and making those who have feelings submit to your whims. And what would life be like for the psychopath if no one submitted, and if the one with no feelings had no feedback.

That's why I think psychopaths are the mutation, and not the other way around. The parasite usually evolves with respect to the host, the latter being pre-existent (as opposed to symbiosis where evolution is usally parallel). So it is another thing to consider about psychopaths, although they hate and ultimately fear feeling humans at a deep level, they also cannot exist without them. I think if they could, their final solution would have been implemented already.

Yes of course, you only take it to a logical conclusion, and one step further. Am I beginning to think like a psychopath here :)

EsoQuest said:

That's why I think psychopaths are the mutation, and not the other way around. The parasite usually evolves with respect to the host, the latter being pre-existent (as opposed to symbiosis where evolution is usally parallel). So it is another thing to consider about psychopaths, although they hate and ultimately fear feeling humans at a deep level, they also cannot exist without them. I think if they could, their final solution would have been implemented already.

Click to expand...

A farmer can't live without his livestock. If he kills it off all at once without having any prodigy, he's hanging himself. There is no final solution for a farmer, it's his living.

A parasite can be said to evolve with 'respect' to the host. But I think it is closer to the truth to state that it simply becomes entirely dependant on the host, as the host over the course of the parasite's evolution takes over a lot of the parasites functions. The host, when parasitized loses during this process, but it doesn't lose functions along the course of it's evolution as the parasite does.

I see an exception though, and that is when there is a form of inheritance that is not entirely materially coded as in genetic, but also epigenetically, like certain forms of genetic imprinting that can be hypothesized, or simply culturally encoded. This seems to be exactly like the situation we are in, when we consider psychopaths and the influence they have had on our cultural inheritance, or on other "energetic imprints" that are only talked about in esoteric or otherwise spiritual circles.

In symbiosis the whole gains while the contributing factors of that whole lose functions as each chooses its own specialty along the course of evolution of such symbiosis.

Back to our very own human predicament. A predator is quite different as a parasite, and I don't know yet whether we are dealing with a parasite or with a true predator for which a parasite is just a handy thing to have in its feeding behavior.

I also tend to see the "humanoid", or the psychopath as the mutation. And not vice versa, as the psychophages will try to sell to the public with weird interpretations of survival of the fittest theories, copy paste behaviour of the animal world and the implementation of strategies within our social tissues that almost force normal human beings to adopt psychopathic behavior. I think that such mutations would have been eliminated time and again as long as humanity was treading a nomadic existence. But as soon as humanity became sedentary, each person with its own parcel of land and "power" to "trade" with, things changed completely for such mutations. They thrived. They jumped for this kind of power (which is nothing but a make believe "power over"). And that has been the way for a very very long time.

But it "seemed" to work. They had their power and normal people were bamboozled. It only "seemed" to work, as it has become all to clear by now that this is no form of civilization. This so-called civilization is in the process of burning down its own house, and cutting in its own flesh, like sucking normal (or adamic?) people empty till there's simply no creativity left. That would be a disastrous process for earth if it can not be reversed somehow.

I also suspect that normal people are beginning to realize this process (sadly in a very lethargic way) and that the psychophages are beginning to realize this too. It is not only the process of self-destruction that is seen more and more clearly, but also the fact that normal people start to see the psychopaths AND their actions, and that the psychopaths see that they are seen. Is it possible that the increased speed towards total world control, through MASSIVE implementation of certain technological advances (not only technical) not only reflects their inner drive for control and manipulation as it has always been, but also the fact that they realize that they are realized, like in "with their backs firmly up against the wall"?

It shows that there is a certain "finality" to what is going on. The limits of our 3D earth are being realized, and at least from what we can perceive, "they" are going for global control. But this will be suicide for them as they will choke any real creative process.

Charles said:

Of course, as long as there isn't a fast cure for rabies, I think that is exactly the right thing to do. About the rattlesnake, I am less sure, as I don't have any experience. I can imagine that in certain regions they ought to be protected and maybe just removed far enough from any human residences.

Click to expand...

I'm just going to comment on rattlesnakes as it's late and I'm about to turn into a pumpkin.

I grew up in rattlesnake and water moccasin and alligator land... I still haven't figured out one single good reason for any of those three critters to continue to exist. (And you can add mosquitoes to that list.)

I had friends who were bitten and lost parts of their bodies, or the use of them. I was almost bitten myself twice. So close that it gives me the shivers to remember it. Generally, an adult human will not die from rattlesnake bite even without treatment if the bite is on a lower extremity away from a major vein, but they will sure wish they were dead. We lost several fine dogs to the damn things and I was brought up to never let one get away alive. I've shot them, killed them with shovels, hoes and even with a tire iron. I saw one once that was over 6.5 feet long and probably 8 or 9 inches through the middle. That one got away because my mother was so scared she wouldn't even drive close to it. It was stretched across the road and so long she couldn't drive around it. My grandfather would skin the ones he killed and cure the skins and hang them on the wall. They were creepy even when dead.

We considered other types of snakes to be useful for killing rats and controlling other varmints and we protected them, but rattlesnakes were just too dangerous to leave hanging around. They stink, too. If one takes up residence under your house, the whole house smells bad and you are scared to go outside because you never know when it is going to decide to crawl out and warm itself on your front stoop. And you sure can't let your kids outside to play.

Nope, just don't see any reason for them. They are like smallpox: need to eradicate them.