By Amos A. 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.
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, meanspirited, 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.
- Make pronouncements without substantiation. These pronouncements are to be accepted as defining what reality is . . moment by moment.
- Ignore requests to provide the basis for their pronouncements.
- Sneer at the human valuing of facts, honesty, decency, fair play.
- Applaud the use of lies, deceit, etc.
- Whine they are being "attacked" whenever they are questioned. Give no explanation of what the "attack" is or of what is being attacked.
- Do not FEEL feelings.
- View the world as their private holodeck.
- Apply themselves to keeping humans in their place — namely, insignificance.
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.
of psychotherapists in New York City since 1950.
He is a founder of the School for Quality Being.
This article originally appeared in Volume 2, Issue 5, of PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL.
Comment by Peter Meyer, 2006-07-24:
Here is a short list of the most obvious humanoids:
| George W. Bush | Donald Rumsfeld | |||
| Richard Cheney | Tony Blair | |||
| Condoleezza Rice | John Bolton | |||
| Ehud Olmert | Tzipi Livni |
Consider John ('Mad Dog') Bolton. On 2006-07-23 he was interviewed on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" and was asked to reply to the statement by Louise Arbour (U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights) that the leaders of the Israeli government, by bombing and destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon and thereby killing hundreds of civilians (many of them children) and creating half a million civilian refugees, were possibly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity and might later face criminal prosecution. In his reply Bolton totally ignored both the fact of Israel's devastation of Lebanon's infrastructure and the suggestion that the Israelis were committing crimes of any kind (according to his perverse logic they could not be doing this because the U.S. supports Israel and the U.S. does not — in his "reality" — condone crimes against humanity) and instead huffed about whether Arbour was acting improperly by (as he said) "threatening criminal charges based on press accounts." Bolton is insane, appointed (despite congressional objections) as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. by a U.S. President who is also insane.
Psychopaths, not merely among us, but in positions of power where they exercise huge influence and by their actions can cause the deaths of millions of people.
But that appears to be exactly their intention: to exterminate (or enslave) all humans — their "final solution". The question is: Will the humans, like the European Jews in the 1940s, put up little resistance, and allow themselves to be slaughtered? There is now a major difference: We now know what they intend for us, so if they succeed we have only ourselves to blame. We would do well to heed the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller.
on the subject of psychopaths in positions of power
(especially the Lobaczewski article).
No comments:
Post a Comment