Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
|
Chapter 34 The years in question are described by Ira as simply "two years of continuous reading." This was his version of what was going on in the strange writings of that period. He also said that he was taking a bath when Holly Maddux left, never to be seen again. Steven Levy, the journalist Einhorn described above as having "quoted from [my journals] extensively and often out of context in a book that painted me in totally black terms as a murderer," didn't just quote from the journals. He talked to the people described in the journals. So, in addition to letters to Hoffman, the journal entries, there is actual witness (or should I say "victim"?) testimony. Ira doesn't have a LEG to stand on. He's a liar, pure and simple. But like all psychopaths, he is not embarrassed to lie. He is not embarrassed by the facts that prove he is lying. He continues to lie out of an ego the size of Gibralter, and simply does not feel the shock and horror of those who KNOW that he is lying and who would, themselves, be mortified to be caught in such lies, and because they are capable of embarassment and mortification, have a conscience, and therefore do NOT lie! So, on to 1962. Ira was doing a lot of traveling. He went to Ohio, Chicago, New York, and goodness knows where else. He also spent time in Bennington, Vermont, with a girlfriend he'd met while an undergrad. Around this time he wrote to Hoffman:
Then he wrote the exact opposite the above ambitions to be silent:
He then told Hoffman a story about a woman who was so shaken by what he had to say that she returned to her dormitory "hysterical and on the verge of a breakdown." The question is, was the above an "Ira version" of something quite different? Is this similar to his story "I was taking a bath when Holly left, and she never came back?" Or "I spent two years reading"? This brings us to something of the crux of the matter. Ira Einhorn was at the center of promoting ideas of "personal freedom, resistance to repressive government, ecological action, and bringing attention to the paranormal and UFOs. Many have suggested that a giant ego ought not to reflect badly on the message. Just because the guy is a psychopath, can't he still do good - even if by accident? Didn't Ira do a lot of good? The only problem is, as Ira so repeatedly promoted from the works of Marshall McLuhan "the medium is the message."William Irwin Thompson said: "There are some people whose auras I don't like, and I didn't like to be around him. Another critic called Ira a "social psychopath... I think the definition of that is someone who believes that he can make up his own rules. His idea about society was that he had a special role to play. He probably would manipulate anyone for anything. He just happened to find the right niche at the right time." There were always a few people like Thompson who saw through Ira and considered him to be just a left-wing con man. The important thing that a lot of people miss is the fact that, even though he rose to prominence on the platform of the antiestablishment counterculture, his main accomplishment was to promote the very paranoia that is counterproductive to a movement for peace. If we consider the fact that the ultimate message that Ira Einhorn was promoting was to pit one group of humans against another, and to suggest that some alien gods - i.e. The Nine - were the only ones who could come in and straighten out the mess we are in (by their manipulations, I might add) then we need to look at his message in a different light. In short, "the medium IS the message" says more than we might suspect. Since Ira WAS the medium, to know Ira is to know the forces inside and behind him. The cognitive dissonance produced by Ira's "predicament" over the murder of Holly Maddux was related to not only his private life, which obviously was a complete contradiction of his public persona, but also the earthquake it produced in a general sense: the visual shock of seeing someone who was a representative of the idealistic "make love, not war" shtick being exposed as a complete phony. Ira was a visual image of a fraud, mouthing the platitudes of the sixties while secretly flouting every single ideal of that generation. It was almost as shocking as the realization that a sitting president could be assassinated in broad daylight in front of his people, and nobody could stop it or do a damn thing about it. It produced a feeling of helplessness, the loss of the father, so to say. Ira's murder of Holly Maddux produced similar sensations of helplessness. Who can you trust? You can't even trust people who claim to be dedicated to love and ecology? After all, in a world where our Big Brother Ira Einhorn murdered Holly, and Elvis Presley died of drug use, what was the counterculture really about? The parade of activism was stampeded over a cliff into irrational paranoia, and in reaction, the era of the 80's - the mature stage of the post WW II baby boom - withdrew into a cocoon to metamorphose. As noted, many of them produced babies that were conceived as a result of the "free love" ideas of the times - and that is certainly a condition in which those who are the most aggressively sexual and rampantly promiscuous will spread their genes like wildfire: psychopaths, in fact. In 1964, Ira was described as a "collector of books and women, somewhat more a connoisseur in the first instance... [he] professes to believe that it is normal for boys of his age to have slept with 200 or 300 different women." The interviewer commented: "Whether this is rationalization for a compulsive Casanova syndrome, whether he is trying to prove something to himself, I cannot say but I am certain [he is] not average. He is exceptional both in intellectual capacity and the capacity for what I would be tempted to term sexual excesses. [Cf. Levy] For Ira Einhorn, it was one woman after another. He participated in "gang bangs" though his tastes did not run in that direction. Too much dividing of attention, no doubt. Even though Ira gave lip service to having outgrown his exploitation of women, his descriptions of his "techniques" and methods of seduction give evidence of actions that don't match the words. He remarks, at one point, "Because of our heritage of a two-faced attitude towards sex, very few people are capable of healthy promiscuity enjoying sex as you would a good meal and then forgetting about it." This is classic psychopathy: it implies, of course, that Ira is among those elevated few who CAN enjoy "healthy promiscuity." Reading Levy's book, recounting Ira's own words and actions, paints a portrait of not merely a raging sexist, but a sexual predator of the worst kind. How can it be that always being on the prowl for quick and anonymous sex, "enjoying sex as you would a good meal, and then forgetting it," is an "unselfish" act? Though some of Ira's partners in these types of relationships claim that they were satisfied, many of the hundreds of women which he claimed he had conquered and satisfied, gave quite a different version of the story. According to them, Ira's style was perfunctory and disappointing.
One supporter of Ira's reputation, having heard these stories being circulated, decided to set up a test. The test was that he called on a very attractive woman who "agreed to meet Ira for the experiment." Here's the clincher: the friend was in the bedroom as an observer and reported that Ira performed "royally." Well, you idiot! What did you THINK? The psychopath IS a performer. You didn't think he was going to show his true self to an audience, did you? One of the clues by which one can identify a psychopath is revealed by a woman who knew Ira for years. When they first met, she had an affair with him.
The fact is, Ira DID have four "intense relationships" that amounted to more than idle dalliance or one-on-one anthropological interviews. In each of these four relationships, Ira fancied himself "in love." The truth is, except for having a woman to serve him, his only interest in them seemed to occur when he became obsessively fixated on a woman who did not submit her will to him, and who eventually rejected him. For Ira, Love was "Lust for power over another." And in three of those instances, when Ira did not achieve mental and emotional submission from his "objects," Ira responded to this rejection with violence. One of those women was Holly Maddux. In his journals Ira Einhorn is exposed for the stalking beast of prey that he is. Ira Einhorn met "Rita Siegal" in early 1962. Their relationship was more a function of what he imagined it to be than what it actually was.
Apparently, Rita didn't feel the same. Ira was doing what the psychopath does so well: viewing his reality as some fictional construct - projecting himself onto the others. His literary inspired romantic ideas were imposed on Rita, and he thought he could control the entire drama the way a writer controls the development of a novel. Rita explained:
In short, the words didn't match the action. The clue to the psychopathic personality. Like the rest of us might be, Rita was probably reluctant to end the relationship because she was afraid she would "hurt" Ira's feelings. After all, when somebody declares that the sun and moon rise and set in your eyes, you sort of think that they have real emotions, right? With all his reading, Ira undoubtedly had some really good lines! Rita allowed the relationship to continue through the spring and into the summer. She took a summer job in Hanover, New Hampshire, and even though she already had the idea that Ira was a really strange person, she allowed him to move in with her. Ira's lack of direct contact with Peckham or Hoffman seems to have released him from any restraints that might have modified his behavior, and his reading was gradually taking over his entire reality. He was reading Nietzsche, Lawrence, Henry Miller, Marquis de Sade - and some of his ideas frightened Rita. She said:
Rita reports that at such times she felt that Ira would actually do harm to her if she didn't get away from him.
As the days passed, Ira continued poring over texts, and Rita became more and more uncomfortable with his presence, though she was also afraid to leave. At the point he began to experiment with torturing cats, she realized that he was really quite capable of terrible things. Yes indeed, our esteemed guru of "make love, not war," our guide to "save the planet," the guy who keeps saying "I did not kill Holly," was torturing helpless animals. And here, we have found the last piece of the psychopathic puzzle. Of course, Ira is outraged that his journals were handed over to Levy because what Ira was writing in his journals in late June of 1962 happens to correspond to Rita's descriptions of her experiences, with the added factor that we begin to see just how sick this turkey really is:
Whoa! You don't have to be Siggy Freud to figure that one out! But what is crucial is that Ira has told us here why he kept Holly's body in a trunk. That was who he really was. The attempt to dispose of it was merely a thin veneer of humanness that was quickly overridden with the small frustration of failure. What is more, Ira has told us more than we wanted to know about what went on at, or after, the time Holly was beaten to death. I'm not sure if people who get their cookies from hurting other people are also likely to be necrophiliacs, but I've read a few cases that would turn your stomach. I keep hearing Ira say: "I was in the bathtub when Holly left," and the image that brings is a nightmare. Not only that, but the date of the last newspaper in the trunk where Holly's body was found was four days AFTER the murder. What was Ira doing with Holly for four days?
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours
a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our
existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek
to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable
or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if
not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures. Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
You are visitor number [an error occurred while processing this directive] .
|
