Thursday, February 23, 2012

Psionic Terrorism

Psionic Terrorism


by Charles Cosimano

2005

from Gocs1 Website

recovered through WayBackMachine Website

additional notes and images from Scribd Website

PREFACE


Once upon a time, Field Marshall Montgomery was driving along and he came upon a young boy on his way to school. Monty offered the boy a lift, which he accepted and the two drove along.


While they were riding, Monty asked the boy,

“Do you know who I am?”
“No, Sir,” replied the boy with a politeness of a bygone era.

Monty beamed and answered in his high voice,

“I’m a Field Marshall!”

The boy as somewhat impressed and said,

“My father works in the fields too, sir. What do you do?”
“I KILL people!”

At this the child was somewhat taken aback and asked,

“Have you killed many people, sir?”

And you have to imagine Montgomery’s voice at this point as he answered,

“Oh THOUSANDS!”
“May I be getting out now, sir?”

You have to love a man who loves his work.



One night I was at a local club and someone asked me what psionics did. I was in a rather testy mood and I responded with a bit of a growl, “It kills people.”

And that is what this book is going to teach you to do, kill people.

There will be none of the usual sweetness and light, no healing, no niceness. Just good old-fashioned slaughter, the sort of thing that makes getting up in the morning worthwhile. And, by the time you are finished with the material in this book, you will be able to kill folks both individually and in large numbers, in fact you will learn that large numbers are actually easier to kill.


I did not get into psionics to heal people. I got into it to use it as a weapon against the rest of the world, not so much against personal enemies, of which I had few and they were of no consequence, but against the enemies of my country. Now this may seem rather strange, but you must understand that when I built my first radionic box back in 1977, Jimmy “the weasel” Carter was President and Coward-In-Chief. Things were bad and in a couple of years they got worse.

Something had to be done and those of you familiar with me and my work know that I’m not one to sit and complain. I get off my butt and do something about it! And radionics seemed the perfect tool for doing just that. After all, consider the possibilities. You can sit in the comfort of your home and set some dials on a box and let nature take its course.

No running for public office with all the attendant difficulties that course has. No joining the military and having to put up with orders, uniforms, bad food, sergeants and other nuisances. And, best of all, no accountability, none! No one can call you to answer for anything you do with psionics because if it works, they won’t live long enough.


Let’s be honest. This stuff is the bad guys’ dream. And as I played with it and discovered more and more things it could do, I realized that there was more to being the bad guy than just getting all the good lines and tying up the pretty girls. And out of that came Psionic Terrorism.


Some years ago I had my first website courtesy of Amargi Hillier and I found myself in a debate on a psionics mailing with some hopeless do-gooders. Well, it reached the point where I could not stand it any more and I wrote a short piece for that website titled “Psionic Terrorism.”


It was a fun little piece, with a few nasty things that could be done right now with proven techniques, such as dowsing, agricultural radionics and micro-psychokinesis. The last I used to demonstrate how to screw with nuclear reactors, which is something I just love to end books with now because it gets people so delightfully upset! Anyway, it succeeded in getting some stupid German bureaucrat upset and he wrote me a rather nasty e-mail demanding that I take the article down. That is not a smart thing to do to a radical libertarian free-speech nut!

But I was nice. I did not kill him. I did something worse. I wrote him back, one word: “Nuts!”

Now you have to understand that when an American says that to a German it has all sorts of meanings going back to the Second World War when the 101st Airborn was surrounded in Bastogne and the Germans demanded they surrender. General McAuliffe gave that classic response and now whenever you tell that to a German they know it is your way of saying, “Stuff it up your ass, kraut-face!” I never heard another word.

In fact in the years that Psionic Terrorism has been available for free on the net I have never heard anything from any other government agency even though I know they have all read it. (One of the funny things about the CIA is that they do such a good job of erasing where they surf that it is obvious that they have and for some reason it gets a lot of hits from naval sites, even though I don’t have a single word about boats in it!)


I think it comes down to this. Either psionics works or it does not. If it does not, then we are just harmless crackpots running around thinking we are doing things when we really are just looking at a series of interesting coincidences. In that case, taking action against us would only make a law-enforcement agency look extremely stupid and be a total waste of time and resources.

On the other hand, if it does, such action could very well be a means of suicide! And assassination is not the answer either because, as you will find out from a little favorite story of mine, killing us may only make us mad, to say nothing of the vengeance that other operators may take on our behalf.


It has been some years now since I wrote Psionic Terrorism and the world has changed somewhat, making a few things in that work out of date and, of course, as time has gone on I’ve added some tricks to the repertoire.

So here it is, the new, improved version with a fun new title


INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

This is a book that scares even me. I would sit down to write a section, finish the section, look at what I had written and shake my head in horror. Were these the words of the kind, gentle man who feeds the birds and bunnies all through the eternal Midwestern winter?

And the answer is yes, they were.

Because they are also the words of a man who loves freedom and wants everyone to share it and sees that personal freedom can only be guaranteed by personal power, a power that Psionics alone can give.

When I wrote my first book on Psionics years ago, I said that it's purpose was to bring about the end of a monopoly. That was interpreted by nearly all who read it (who knew about the subject already) to mean that I was going to break the monopoly on Radionics held by a few organizations and instrument makers. Well, that was part of it. But I had another monopoly in mind.

The sociologist Max Weber defined the state as having "the legitimate monopoly on the use of force." I have learned that Psionics breaks that monopoly and this book may prove to be the most dangerous thing I have ever written. It is not merely a handbook of gadgets and techniques. It is also a work of political theory and that is an area few people in this field get into, yet as I have done my work and research for the last twenty years I have become more and more convinced that the political and social ramifications of Psionics are overwhelming.

They may very well lead someday to the total elimination of the state as the arbiter of interpersonal disputes.

In the 1970s a new form of conflict reappeared on the international scene. It was called "sub national conflict" otherwise and popularly known as terrorism. So let me define for you what terrorism is. Terrorism is the means by which relatively small, usually non-governmental agencies or organizations commit violent acts for the purpose of influencing governmental policy or ultimately removing a government altogether.

This is done by various acts of violence aimed at usually innocent people, by which I mean people who are not actively involved in the business of government, law enforcement or military. The Olympic Park bombing in the summer of 1996 is a perfect example of a terrorist act, being aimed at folks who had no reason to be targets other than the fact that they were in the vicinity of the bomb.

What made that action different from what is normally considered terrorism is that no organization came forward to claim responsibility, which meant it's purpose was purely disruptive and in no way intended to call attention to an organized group.

If that had been the case there would have been some sort of announcement to the effect that,

"This bombing has been brought to you by Al Fazool, the official Terrorist Organization of the 1996 Olympics."

Or something along that line.

The Olympic Park bombing was, in many ways, an excellent terrorist act. It disrupted the Olympics and removed the sense of security that Atlanta officials had worked so hard to create.

It put the FBI in the position of appearing to be publicity seeking bumblers (which is actually all that they really are) in their unfortunate hounding of an innocent man so that they could appear to have solved the matter quickly and thus destroyed that agency's credibility with a large portion of the American public. And, as of this writing, remains unsolved. (By the way, I was in Franklin Park, IL that night and I could prove it, just in case you're wondering).

In short, by all the definitions of a terrorist act, it was a resounding success.

That was actually a rare success for conventional terrorism, however, because it usually fails. Libya's campaign of terrorism against the United States only succeeded in getting Tripoli bombed and decades of Palestinian terrorism has brought little result other than a meaningless scrap of paper and many more dead Palestinians than Jews. The usual end is only a hardening of the position of the attacked government. And there is a reason for this. The terrorists are acting on a basically erroneous premise.

Terrorism proceeds from the assumption that a people will want safety and security above all other things and if a government is proven to be unable to provide that the people will change either the government or its policies. But people do not react that way. Instead of getting angry at the government they become very mad at the terrorists and this mystifies the poor terrorists to no end. The truth is terrorists generally turn out to be gangs that can't shoot straight and as a result almost never achieve their ends.

Consider the practice of hostage taking. It doesn't work.

No government is going to change a policy for the sake of a relative handful of people. The idea that it would is ludicrous. Governments take whole populations hostage, they are not going to worry about a few diplomats. The fact is that a hostage in a terrorist situation is more valuable dead than alive. Alive he's a nuisance with an obnoxious family that everyone wants killed, but dead he becomes a martyr in the cause against terrorism. A dead hostage can be the impetus for a war if played right.

The fact is that terrorism, as it has been practiced to this date, has been a dramatic and noisy failure as a strategy. It has proven to be a failure time and again. Its successes are very rare and usually only after a very long time and the intervention of other factors. In and of itself it cannot succeed.

The reason for this is very simple. Conventional terrorism can only hit targets that are not well protected. But the reason they are not well protected is either because they are not considered important to the totality of the nation or because they have to be open in order to work. For example, a bomb in a crowded store is going to kill a number of people and not do a lot of good to the store's business, but in the great scheme of things is not going to matter very much. People still have to shop and all they will do is get very mad at whoever planted the bomb.

The government, on the other hand, will chortle with hidden glee at the thought of all the new police powers it can try to get by using the public upsetness at the bombing and view the store as no great loss anyway. Given that fact, one often wonders if terrorists are not, in fact, working for police departments, as they seem to be the principal beneficiaries of these things. One has nasty visions of Scotland Yard having a direct line to the IRA.

The truth is that up to now terrorists have not had the wherewithal to do the kind of massive destruction that would influence a government. In the 1980s there was a lot of talk about terrorists building their own nuclear device, but anyone who knows anything about such things knows that an atomic bomb cannot be constructed from scratch in a basement.

Even working with the radioactive materials would kill them before they could finish the device, assuming they could get their hands on those materials. And radioactive material cannot be hidden without very heavy shielding. It sets off Geiger counters a long way away. The threat of nuclear terrorism has never been credible to anyone but a few idiot journalists who see terrorists under their beds. Poison gas is not much better. It has a rapid dissipation rate and unless released in a very confined area will generally have little impact. Witness the incredibly low rate of lethality on the gas attack on the Japanese subway.

A conventional bomb would have been much more effective.

Psionics changes this. It gives the means of mass destruction to everyone who is willing to take the time to use it. It may even mean that for the first time in history the balance of power between the individual and society may shift to the individual.

So now comes the personal question. If I know this stuff, why am I going to write this down and tell everyone in the world how to do it? Would it not be better that I keep it quiet and hope that no one finds out?

Remember what I said about ending a monopoly?

The psionic cat has been out of the bag for a long time now. Everyone who works with this stuff knows what can be done and no doubt somebody has done it. And research continues. It is only a matter of a short time before a working psionic death ray is developed that will kill as quickly and efficiently as a bullet. It is inevitable and nothing can stop it or change it. No law, no government, no social system can prevent what is coming. And that will be the ending of an eon.

So keeping quiet is not going to make any difference. Someone will do this and somebody probably has done most of the things I will write about already. That is a fact people will just have to live with.

And, there is a more personal reason for making this information public. I protect myself.

People who make breakthroughs in Psionics have a bad habit of dying. Just why this is a bit of a mystery but it makes enough folks nervous that they don't even want to talk about it. That is why I have a policy of making everything I design as public as possible as quickly as possible. A secret once published is no longer a secret and thus doing me in accomplishes nothing but make it more popular. For example, it has long been a popular rumor in psychotronic circles that I was in some way involved with the Chernobyl explosion. And I've had a bit of fun with that over the years because it helps sell books.

But what will happen the next time a reactor goes boom?

By telling people the means that such a thing can be caused (and it really can) that means that I'm not the only person who knows how to do it. It can be anyone!

The more people who have this information, the safer I am from those who do not like the idea of it being out at all.

So I'm not going to hide behind the usual platitudes that accompany this kind of work. I'm not putting it out so society can better protect itself. I do not think society can ever protect itself from this and frankly, like my old, childhood hero, Captain Nemo, I do not give a damn about society or the social order. The material in this book is unethical by most standards and probably illegal in much of the world. But I think ethics are for wimps and I have no respect for the laws of Singapore.

This work is for the real world and the only rule in that world is that there are no rules. It is only the results that matter.

In this work, I am unleashing the dragons.

SOCIAL DISRUPTION

I've touched on this earlier, but you have to understand that terrorism has at its base the disruption of entire societies. You are going to be in the business of creating instability and unease and by doing so bring about your desired ends, be those ends the defeat of a political candidate or just the sheer joy that can only come from making life difficult for people.

That being the case, you have to consider what your ends are. In a very controlled society, such as Singapore, an individual act of terrorism will have a much greater social impact than a similar act would have in a looser society, such as the United States.

The looser the social fabric, the more limited must be your goals. You are not going overturn the American government by causing an occasional disaster, no matter how great that disaster may be, because most people will not be affected by it and won't care. Oh, some may watch the news and get a little upset, but the bulk of the population will pretty much ignore it or view it as a local nuisance and go on with their lives as they always do. Consider the fact that a massive flood can destroy billions of dollars worth of property and screw up the businesses of several states and the rest of the country will not even notice the impact.

The point I am trying to make is not to get too grandiose in your schemes if you are dealing with a society that has a large tolerance for social and economic chaos. That type of society is very difficult to influence because while it is possible to get a bunch of politicians to pay lip service to anything for a brief period of time, when their constituents who matter, in other words those who donate, feel their vital interests threatened, the politicians will shut up very quickly.

But those whose livelihood is politically controlled can get very nervous and virtually paralyzed because they do not understand the fickleness of the public and thus tend to view each event as earth-moving in and of itself. Combine that with the percentage of crazy people that every society has and you can develop a situation where no one is willing to do anything for fear that any action may set off something even worse. This is known as deterrence.

That being the case, how does one use the nature of a society to one's advantage?

Let's go back to Singapore. No, not literally. The only way I want to see Singapore is through a bombsight.

Singapore is basically a dinky little city in the Malaysian peninsula surrounded by a bunch of islands. It has a booming economy in spite of the fact that it has no resources other than labor and it is a dictatorship with laws that are so ridiculous and tyrannical that the city of Oak Park, Illinois regularly sends a delegation there to learn from them. Singapore has been justly called the world's weirdest police state. So it is fair game.

The trick to disrupting such a society is to make the people discontented to the point where they will begin to not only break the stupid laws, but also the heads of anyone who tries to enforce them. Now discontent can come from many directions. It can be a significantly large social minority that feels for some reason that it is entitled to better treatment.

It can be a frustrated middle class that wants freedom as well as money (the usual cause of revolutions, the lunatic ravings of Marxists notwithstanding). It can be something as simple as a crazy religion or the mere unreasoning fear of an increase in crime in a society that prides itself on not having any. The key is to study the society and find its weaknesses.

In the case of Singapore, a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crime would be a good starting point.

The government would, of course, respond by extremely repressive measures, always entertaining in and of themselves (I always thought that hanging was too good for people who keep library books overdue myself) but once those fail, the public of that city will lose faith in its tyranny and take matters into their own hands. This will cause a breakdown in the tight social fabric of an Asiatic society and the result will ultimately be a social chaos that such societies cannot deal with. Singapore would not survive a good crime wave of the sort we seen in Russia these days so that is the way to go in dealing with it.

You see the problem Singapore would have is that its system is based on the ability to control the populace. But a major crime wave, with the police becoming more often the hunted than the hunters, would make such a society untenable. You have to remember that all police officers, no matter what society they are in, are congenital cowards and bullies.

They are perfectly willing to attack the common citizen and occasional criminal gang because they can bring overwhelming force to bear, but if they face a situation where they are going to be wiped out themselves they will simply hide. The creation of a criminal organization in Singapore that can wipe out its entire police force in the space of less than a day would result in the total collapse of that society.

Another method for dealing with an authoritarian structure is to remove the aura of authority. That is usually done by the simple process of making that wielders of authority look either ridiculous or criminal in the eyes of the public. This has been done so successfully in the United States that no political or religious figure is going to be taken seriously no matter what they say.

We have created the first truly anti-authoritarian society in history, with the result that the concept itself is considered evil and automatically rejected by anyone who encounters it with the exception of the occasional mentally retarded person teaching college in Stuebenville, Ohio.

This is, of course, to the good, but it creates an interesting problem. As attacks on authority structures have no impact on American society, what can work? My feeling is that in general nothing can in the short run, short of massive destruction of infrastructure, like the banking system, or the power system, or the air traffic control system. If those things go down on a regular basis the public will get very pissed and throw people out of office. Would it make any cultural change, not likely.

American culture is internally resistant to dramatic change unless that change makes people happy like the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Anything that negatively impacts the inherent American belief that anyone can do whatever he damned well pleases will be met with a wall of resistance that no agency can breach. Remember what happened with Prohibition.

But what can be accomplished is the paralysis of the governmental structures, particularly law enforcement.

Remember what I said about all police being cowards at heart. The one thing that absolutely terrifies them is politicians, because they control the hiring and firing. If the politicians know that enforcement of a law will mean the end of their careers, if not their very lives, they will reign in the law enforcement apparatus.

And the career of a politician depends on people liking him. If the constituents develop an unreasoning hatred for a political figure, he might as well look for an honest job and psionics can create that hatred with no trouble at all. If the national computer networks start going down the politicians are going to be very worried indeed.

Now, you will notice that I have not yet spoken of direct attacks on law enforcement agencies and personnel. Well, we will get to that later, for they are truly fair game for any terrorist. This is just social theory here.

Back to the different types of society.

What I have been trying to point out is that the nature of the broader society determines the level of impact a given attack will have. An attack that would not even raise an eyebrow in Singapore might totally annoy the United States if the press gets a hold of it. On the other hand, that which would obliterate the entire structure of Singapore society would not even be noticed in the United States. The degree of damage is much different. It is one thing to be mildly upset by a news story that will be forgotten if a few months, if not hours, and quite another to have the entire society collapse around your ears.

In the final analysis, the difference between Singapore and the United States is that Singapore can cease to physically exist if the United States decides to get rid of it, but Singapore cannot do the same to the United States. The psionic terrorist has to plan his campaign accordingly.

Let me give you an example of how you might use a psionic terrorism campaign in the US. The media has certain people that it really likes and gives a lot of air-time to, even though they really count for very little in the great scheme of things. Witness, for example, the nonsense a couple of years back about the supposed arson campaign against black churches which turned out to be purest hokum (there had actually been more fires in white churches during the same period and the bulk of the fires were accidental, most of the arsons being by people wanting to collect insurance).

So let me give you an idea of a good target that would get the media in an uproar and give you a few good belly-laughs in the process.

Hit a women's' shelter. Now first and foremost you have to find one. This is rather easily accomplished by map dowsing and once you have done that get in your car and drive by it and take a photograph of the place. When you get the picture developed, put it in your transmitter and create a thought-form over it that will bring a mass murderer into the place. Get that though-form good and charged and in a reasonably short time you should hear on the news that someone went into the place with an automatic weapon and killed a bunch of the inmates.

Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would cause. The media darlings would shed enough crocodile tears to fill the Amazon river and poor, vapid, Bill Moyers would be just speechless for the first time in his life.

That is how you pick a target. You choose a site that will get the maximum attention with the least work and risk to yourself. Then you let the news media do the rest of the heavy lifting. There is no need to destroy lots of buildings, fun though that may be, in order to get the type of attention you want. The disruption of the social order will just naturally occur because people will want it to for their own peculiar reasons.

But let us say you want to totally destabilize a country, like Iran. You have to first immerse yourself in a thorough study of the target country in order to find its weaknesses. Now Iran's greatest weakness lies in its class structure.

This may come as a surprise to those who have not studied it, but the strength of the Islamic fundamentalists comes from the lower and working classes, those scum of the earth whose presence is unavoidable in all countries and who in all cases are the greatest enemies of human freedom. The middle and upper classes are much more secular in outlook and are not at all happy with the Islamic state. So what you need is to parlay that disaffection into action.

Easy to say, but how does one do it?

Well, where does the military in any society draw its officer class from? From the middle and upper classes because they have the education going in. Now, take a look at Turkey. The reason Turkey stays secular even though it has an Islamist for a Prime Minister (at the time of this writing) is because it has an active, secularist military that is not above rolling a few tanks into the government office buildings and using Islamist politicians for target practice.

How does this apply to Iran? Very simply.

One uses a thought-form to amplify discontent in the officer class to the point where one day the Iranian military rolls into Qum, aims its guns at the mullahs and blows them all to whichever hell is waiting for them. It takes time, but it will inevitably work. Never forget that republics of virtue inevitably end with the virtuous on the guillotine.

Historic example time.

In 1492, the year the Universe really did change, the Medici, in a rare fit of total insanity, invited the preacher Savonarola to Florence to preach what could only be called a revival. And he was very good at it. He preached and preached and pretty soon the good people of Florence had a huge bonfire in which they burned books, and art, and cosmetics and all kinds of good things that xtians despise. Well, this went on for a while until the good people of Florence and the Medici decided that enough was enough and then they had another bonfire.

They burned Savonarola.

What you have to do is learn the basic discontents of a society and then amplify them until the society just sort of self-destructs and the more rigid the culture, the easier it is to do that. It's the old pressure-cooker analogy. Now, for those of you who don't know, pressure cookers were big pots that people cooked things in. A little water was heated to steam and then the steam pressure did the cooking. They had a gauge and valve to let out steam when it got too powerful, but occasionally the valve would fail and the kitchen would explode.

People actually got killed by the damned things and they went rapidly out of fashion. Besides, the food they produced had no flavor and no one wanted to eat it anyway except for assorted working class types to whom the gods had been merciful and who were thus born without taste buds.

Rigid social structures act like pressure cookers, particularly in our world where everyone wants to be like free Americans and thus feels frustration at every turn. It is a relatively simple matter to find the weak points in such societies and then apply psychic pressure to them.

PREPARING YOURSELF As in all my other works, I will begin by having you work on yourself. You have to understand that by choosing to become a psionic terrorist, you are making a very big, important decision, one which will change your life forever. Things will never be the same for you. Once you have done this thing, you will have burned all your bridges behind you.

There is no going back.

That being said, I want you take a good, long look at your life. Are you happy with it? Are you happy with your world? If that is the case, then perhaps you have no need of this activity. If you are already content with things as they are then you should enjoy them to the fullest and not bother about trying to influence the world. It is a lot of work and you really don't need to do it.

But, if you are like me, you are driven by discontent. You put on the news and see a congressman from the other side of the country get up and wreck the country and you wish you could vote him out of office, but the nation is stuck with him because his constituents like him. You see the Loons of Singapore have hanged another innocent foreign worker and you wish that someone would drop a few bombs on them, or import a million masochists with spray paint cans into their silly little city and really make their lives fun.

Watching the news is a cause of nothing but frustration to the masses because they see so much that they cannot change.

Psionics gives you the capacity to inflict change.

It gives you the ability to project power in the same way that a great nation does, not with aircraft carriers in this case, but with thought bombs that can be even more devastating in the long run. And you can do it with total impunity. No law can touch you because no one will know that you are doing it. The forces you will use can reach out and kill thousands on the other side of the world and no one will have any idea that you were the one who put the forces of their deaths into motion.

You can topple dictators, assassinate heads of state, ruin political careers, drive corporations into bankruptcy, all by simply using your mind, the mind of one determined individual who has chosen to focus his energy on a given target and hound it to the depths of hell. You can cause natural and man-made catastrophes, environmental nightmares, crop failures and famines, all from the ease and comfort of your home. In fact, one of things about this that most appeals to me is the image of the world being driven mad by someone in a Lazy Boy recliner with a bowl of popcorn next to him.

Is it any wonder that psionics is so frightening to so many?

Those of you who have had the great good fortune to have read my other works and ask about them) know I like to tell my little stories, so I have one for you now. It is a bit apocryphal in some ways, but the gist of it is basically true.

In the 1970's a common method of testing for psychokinesis was the use of the random number generator. This was, by our standards, a very primitive computer that simply had a number of lights, usually between seven and ten, light up in a pattern selected by a randomizer in the instrument processor. There was a counter under each light and the test was conducted by having the subject try to make one light go on more often than the others. And it was pretty conclusively proven that people could do that.

The numbers tended to go far over the chance score.

Then one day some bright person in one of the government agencies that was looking at the data, either the CIA or the defense department, realized something. He realized that if a person could do that with a random number generator, he could probably do the same thing to any computer and thus every computer in the world was vulnerable to psychic attack.

In the early 1970s the implications of this were scary enough. Think what they mean now when everything is computerized. An angry psychic can wreak utter havoc!

One bureaucrat looking at the data said,

"If someone could do this, we would have to kill him, but if he can do this, killing might not stop him."

Think about that! An enemy that killing cannot stop!

There are a lot of white knuckles in the world over that prospect. Especially when you realize that every country in the world that has a literate population, two cents to rub together, and not actively engaged in a civil war is working on this stuff, which means the entire world with the exception of Central Africa and Bangladesh. The concept of a psychic world war is interesting to say the least.

But back to talking about doing nasty things from beyond the grave.

Now I get to tell you a really good, scary ghost story. My mother hated her sister-in-law, Aunt Fran with a passion that defies human description. It was the result of a silly misunderstanding about a funny get-well card sent to my father that arrived on the wrong day, but mother never forgave her and probably nothing disturbed my mother more about dying than the thought that Aunt Fran should outlive her.

Well, three months after mother died, I was awakened by her voice in my ear saying "I got her!" I shook my head a few times and figured that I was having an auditory illusion as part of a waking dream, the sort of thing that happens to people after the death of a loved one, took a few good, deep breaths and then proceeded to go back to sleep.

I totally forgot the matter until a few days later when my Uncle Dayton (yes, that is his real name, the city in Ohio is named after him) called to tell me that Aunt Fran was dead and had died the night of my visitation of a very bizarre heart attack. Well, it was more than just an attack. Her heart literally exploded! My mother had killed Aunt Fran from beyond the grave.

I come from a nice family. Now you know why Uncle Chuckie is so weird.

So you see killing people doesn't necessarily stop them. That is one reason why we can get away with this stuff. I mean, think about it. What prosecutor in his right mind is going to take a case where the defendant can kill him even if he is dead and assassination may prove very counter-productive. But I digress. Back to you.

You have to be certain of your motivations. Remember that the powers you will unleash are so potentially destructive that you cannot have any qualms of conscience about using them. You cannot have any subconscious censor telling you that if you do something unpleasant to another person, something unpleasant will happen to you. If you have that floating around, you had damned well better get rid of it fast or it will do you in.

So the first thing you have to work on is getting rid of your conscience. Now I will admit that I was lucky. I never seem to have developed one, at least in the conventional sense of the word. I mean, there are things I will not do because they leave a bad taste in my mouth even to think of them and that is, of course, a conditioned emotional response, but the response is there and I have learned to live with it and avoid those things. And as they are things I have no desire to do in the first place it's pretty easy. I'm not into selling drugs or sexually abusing children, so them things just aren't going to happen, at least not with me at the controls.

But one thing I have never had a problem with is the taking of human life, as long as it is not done in such a way as to leave a mess in the living room. One should be neat in one's murders. (giggle) But seriously, the idea of an enemy dying has never been a problem for me. It is, rather, something to be hoped for and encouraged. For some reason, this is an aspect of my character that people find disturbing but I cannot imagine why. I did my first known psychic killing when I was twelve and maybe I even did one when I was nine, but I don't remember the details on that.

I would expect that you do not have that advantage going in. Do not feel bad, most people do not. The social conditioning against killing people is still very strong, but fortunately is starting to wane just a little and one sees hopeful signs in the number of murders committed by ten year olds.

Ok, so I'm engaging in a bit of the deliberate nastiness that Uncle Chuckie is notorious for, but like the anthropologist Ashley Montague, I believe that,

"If humanity is to survive we have to get rid of the ridiculous notion that there is something sacred about human life."

And if you are going to become a psionic terrorist you cannot be squeamish about killing!

So you have to get to work to get rid of that conscience, at least as far as doing in strangers and enemies is concerned. You have to become a strict pragmatist.

What does that mean?

Oh damn, that means I have to do my anti-ethical thing here. Ok, it works like this. When people get the idea into their heads that they have to be "moral" they find themselves going through all manner of mental gymnastics to find a justification for something they have to do but their principles tell them that they should not do. The pragmatic test is much more simple. If it works, it's right.

When faced with a decision about a course of action I have three criterion.

  • First, do I desire to perform the action? If I have no desire to do something then is there a compelling reason to do it? In other words, I don't want to use drugs, so I have no need of considering how to get away with using them. On the other hand, I may not want to take out the garbage because it is raining, but I don't want the house to stink.

  • Second, am I able to perform the action? I may want to levitate the house next door, but I don't have that ability.

  • Third, can I get away with it? Will the action bring the desired result?

If a given course of action has an affirmative answer to all three, then I will take that course of action without regard to whether or not anyone else thinks it fits into their ethical or moral system. Especially if the other person happens to be short, bald and obnoxious and don't ask me why I said that, it's a very long story.

Neither I, nor you, are in any way morally obligated to follow the ethics of another person. One may bow to brute force, but one does not have to accede to the principle behind the force. If I am determined to do something, those who object had best have the force to stop me because moral suasion will not.

This is the sort of determination you will need because if you think psionic combat is frowned upon, this material will cause people to go into epileptic seizures. You have to become totally ruthless in the pursuit of your goals. In other words, the removal of a dictator may involve the death of tens of thousands of innocent children in that country. Are you willing to cause that? I am. And you have to be as well if you are going to accomplish that particular end. That is what I mean about not being squeamish.

Fortunately, modern technology has given you the means to get over some of the emotional difficulties you may have in dealing with the results of your actions.

Consider again the news on television, with its reports of war, famine and plague. The normal reaction, the expected reaction to such things is unease or horror. That is why the stories are put on in the first place. But suppose you change your reaction to laughter? The emotional control that such stories is intended to impose is lost and you free yourself from the tyranny of your conscience.

"Wonderful!" you shout, jumping up from the commode and dancing around the bathroom. "But how do I do this?"

I'm glad you asked.

You are, of course, familiar with the principle of the laugh track. Television producers, faced with the fact that their comedies really are not very funny, put recorded laughter in to encourage the audience to laugh along. At one point they were even having the laugh track go off when certain characters would just walk on, the idea being to condition the audience to automatically think that person funny. You can use the same method to cure you of the whining of the television journalist.

Make your own laugh track. Take a tape recorder and keep it with you. Next time someone starts laughing, make a tape of it and keep that tape ready for play when you watch the news. Then, when they put on stories that are supposed to be really heart-wrenching, play the tape and laugh along with it. Keep this up until you can see the disasters in the other parts of the world as the entertainment that they are.

I have been doing this for years. In fact one time when I was really laughing at something in the back room my mother asked, in all seriousness, who died. And a few months prior to this writing I was sitting my rocking chair watching the news while rocking and as I was rocking back the chair died of old age and I kept going until I found myself upended in, what is for a man, a ridiculous posture normally associated with women about to give birth, and realizing that I was not hurt, laughing my head off.

My house-mate, in the living room, assumed that something truly terrible had happened and I was laughing at the news, not realizing that I was laughing at myself.

But there is another benefit from watching the news, besides knowing when your operation has succeeded. You can gauge the potential effect of your workings by the type of stories that are covered and the ones that are ignored. If you are working on something in this country, the importance of the target is directly related to the amount of coverage the target will get. A target that gets no coverage is probably not going to be worth going after unless it is a very local matter, like getting rid of an obnoxious congressman of Eastern European descent. Any foreign target, will, by definition, be subject to news coverage or you would not have heard about it in the first place.

So get to work and start laughing at the tears of others. It will make things a lot easier for you as you go along.

Another thing you really have to disabuse yourself of, if you have not already, is the ridiculous notion of karma. The idea that if you do something nasty, nasty things will happen to you if not in this life then in the next has got to go if you are going to accomplish anything.

Now, if you have been doing anything involving psychic stuff up to now, you have probably had the karma crap shoved into you to the point where it is coming out of your ears and that looks pretty silly. (It is starting to mess up your shirt collar.)

You have to understand that karma is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race since the religious obsession began to infect people back in the caves. (We can now be pretty sure that all religious experience is the result of a malfunction of the temporal lobes.)

But it is just like the Christian hell. There is no such animal. It was just an idea invented for the purpose of keeping people under control.

You see societies need to control people or they develop problems. And primitive societies need a lot of control because the battle for survival is paramount. So you get monstrosities like the Mosaic Law which made sense for a band of desert nomads but were utterly ridiculous for a civilized people I mean, if you don't covet your neighbor's oxen you won't want to go out and buy one for yourself and there goes the whole economy.

Karma is one of those disasters. It was created for the sole purpose of keeping the Brahman caste in control in the face of the Warrior caste, which by all rights really should have been running things. And that is all that it is. So when someone starts babbling to you about the terrible karma you will get from destroying central Africa just let them babble and ignore them. If they want to believe in that sort of nonsense let them, they only weaken themselves.

Now you may well wonder at this point why societies go through so much bother. After all, they have police (often secret) and armies and torture and all kinds of other fun things to keep people in line with. Well, it doesn't quite work that way.

You see, there are never enough police in any society to control everyone for any length of time. Oh, they may be able to do it for a decade or two, like the Soviet Union under Stalin, but then something will crack, like Stalin's doctors deciding he had lived too long followed by the meeting of the Presidium when his putative successor, Beria, sat down and the man across from him opened his briefcase, pulled out his pistol and shot Beria dead. It just can't be maintained. And police are corrupt by definition. Public relations aside, it is the honest cop who is the rarity. A system of bribery develops and pretty soon things are back to where they should be.

I happen to think that people doing what they please is a good thing. I want everyone to feel that way. And I'm willing to put up with a bit of social dislocation for the freedom of having fun. But most societies like to keep a tight control over people or next thing you know everyone is having sex and no one knows whose child is whose and who is inheriting what. In our society this isn't very important.

Oh, some folks get excited over the number of unwed pregnancies, but that is really more of an economic problem easily solved by mass sterilization of the under-classes. But we really don't worry too much about inheritance and family grouping. It is not very important to us because it in no way relates to survival. In modern America one may live very happily and well without any family at all. In fact one may be happier.

Traditional societies are not like that and remember, all of the moral and ethical bullshit we are stuck with comes from a bunch of desert nomads and ancient urban homosexuals. As control of personal behavior is important in primitive cultures, they develop a bunch of rules th

No comments:

Post a Comment