Overview/Contents
Save - The - World Concept
 Home
Sept./97 to Jan./2000.
Save-The-World Kids/Factor Index Page
Comments to:
pierre@youth-suicide.com
youth-suicide
Search
for

Get a Search Engine For Your Web Site

Search This Site Via Google:

This free script provided by JavaScript Kit

MHN Badge

 
A Factor In Suicide And Related Problems

Save-The-World Factor: Part 1

Notes 1-26 & Notes 27- 45
 

"X", a young adult male, committed suicide in the spring of 1994, and left an explanation because he did not want others to blame themselves for his decision. This was the result of a value system dominating his mind: he was not to hurt or harm anyone. The suicide note came to my attention in late August 1996, and produced a range of emotions. The note (located at the end of the text) should be read before reading the following discourse. Would you understand such an individual and therefore have been able to help if he had confided in you? Would you have harmed him instead of helping him? Given that "X" killed himself, no one in his immediate environment understood the situation so that helping him was possible. (Suggestions, Related Information, and a Request.)

"X" was 21-years-old when he died after having spent years in a world of psychological change (possibly a development or an evolution occurring since childhood) which left him only with one option or choice: having to kill himself. Three years ago, I began to intensely address the results of a remarkably similar situation and had two therapists helping me until recently; three more were involved at the beginning. Other individuals were also confided in (with resulting and varied degrees of understanding): two suicide researchers, an expert in youth problem prevention, two individuals associated with an Anglican gay group, Richard with whom I shared my life for 12 years, a Latino male, and others. An upwardly mobile gay psychiatrist, without recognizing it, revealed that he would have harmed me if I had been his client; this was a possibility when I first sought help. He inflicts an ethnocentric "socially appropriate" ideology on clients, causing at least one of them to attempt suicide.

Telltale signs related to my problem were noticeable by 1969-72 (Note 1), became very evident in the late 1970s, and especially by 1980 when I terminated my teaching career. This happened for a number of reasons (Note 2), including the fact that an "ethical" development made it impossible to continue teaching in either Catholic or public schools. School systems were inherently harming students, especially homosexually oriented children and youth, and a group of highly gifted students such as I and "X" had been (Note 3). Schools have been highly abusive of the ones in the first category, and more lethal in the latter case. My teaching career also ended because, as a gay male, I was to be dishonest with students and others, thus placing my integrity in question. Furthermore, I could not have had an openly loving relationship with a male, which is still not possible for most North American gay teachers. Such a relationship was desired as a natural follow-up to my first "love" experience with a male; the event occurred in 1972 and it placed me on a very important understanding journey (Note 4).

When I began seeking help in 1993, there was little hope that mental health professionals could understand what was being experienced, given my knowledge of traditional beliefs dominating in mental health fields. I was also failing at this task in spite of probably having more knowledge about the phenomenon than anyone. Nonetheless, understanding what had been happening to me began and, within a month, I was seeing four therapists (one psychologist, one psychiatrist, and two counselors), but only one counselor knew of my problem because many highly distressed youth (seen in the past 10 years) were manifesting a similar problem. Only one of these professionals - working in the substance abuse field - is still working with me. As a rule, however, these professionals only had run-of-the-mill advice to give which would supposedly benefit me. They all suggested that I do something "for me" which, for an altruistic individual with related major problems, was most distressing because they were repeatedly revealing their ignorance of "the problem" being presented.

The expectations were therefore minimal that mental health professionals could help, and I began speaking about my problem to varied individuals, the hope being that someone may have something positive to contribute. One Native male youth recognized the severity of the situation when told of an acquired mandate. Human groups had a morbid history of abusing and destroying other groups (and individuals) simply because they were "different," which is part of Native American history and the history of other peoples. Most often, however, the historically abused also had a history of becoming abusers: doing to others (including to their own members who were "different") what had been done to them. Gay and lesbian adolescents were also growing up in a society historically acting in accordance with the learned belief that "Gays should not exist!" or that "Gays deserve to die!" I was being mandated to address this never-ending Nazi-like ideology (often reported to be more strongly manifested in traditionally hated and abused "minority" groups), with a focus on helping gay and lesbian youth of all colours, but more than this was involved.

In 1985, AIDS was well established in North American gay communities, and commonly reported/observed responses to gay males dying from the disease caused me to snap - as in having had enough! By then I had learned much about the rampant abuses of average gay-identified males growing up in our society, which produced increasing disgust for my society with a history of compulsory heterosexuality (heterosexism), homo-lethality, and being homo-punitive in many often interrelated ways. The males most likely to have experienced a world of suicide-inducing hatred while growing up - and many had also been sexually abused as I later learned - were dying from a dreadful disease and they were feeling more hated than ever before. This socially inflicted abuse was beyond cruelty, and I had to act. Understanding was needed and a knowledge assimilating process began, given its requirement for understanding to occur. The task, however, had begun long ago, as reflected by seven years of university education in several disciplines. I now have the equivalent of at least 15 years of university education, and a major part of my education has been "Feminism," "Heterostudies" and then "Homostudies" (Note 5) which most universities continue to neglect. My geology education, resulting in another career as a senior exploration geologist, most protected me from socially induced self-destruction on the journey undertaken.

From 1985 to 1992, I bought about 1400 books and read three-quarters of them; the remainder was shelved for the study of related realities - such as infant psychology - to be tackled in the future. Numerous research papers were also photocopied and read. Additional knowledge was acquired from a many individuals I met, their perceived/apparent sexual desires ranging from heterosexual to homosexual (Note 6). This direct assimilation of knowledge ("from the streets" as I label it, and knowledge directly experienced by myself and others) was often more valuable than what was available from books and research papers. Some criterion for "what is knowledge" also existed: it is "knowledge" that many people believe in a "God," but the existence of a "God" or "gods" is not knowledge. The beliefs of mental health professionals (including suicidologists) is knowledge, but their beliefs may not be knowledge (Note 7). The problem with suicidologists was addressed in the 1995 paper The homosexuality factor in the youth suicide problem presented at a Suicide Prevention Conference in Banff, Alberta, and also in The suicidal problems of Homosexual and Bisexual Males by Bagley and Tremblay (Crisis, 18-1, 1997, 24-34).

Between the ages of 8 and 12 (1958 to 1962) I had become an expert in male homosexuality, experiencing, knowing and understanding that such interactions between males were perfectly natural, normal and wonderful (Note 8); I did not know at the time that mental health professionals had been waging a war against homosexuality, especially male homosexuals. They were defined to be "mentally disordered" in a society which also deemed all males having same-gender sexual encounters to be "criminals." To the age of 19 (1969) I was therefore a criminal, without knowing it; this situation still applies in almost half of American states [this situation ending around 2004], and in many countries. Others, however, knew this, or discovered this social created/inflicted reality when they were imprisoned for having sexual encounters with same-sex individuals. With respect to socially defined "unacceptable people," WE were doing to homosexuals what the USSR and the Nazis were being demonized for doing to targeted individuals, or groups they hated. Homosexuals were also included in their list of hated unacceptable people, and this phenomenon continues to be a very common social reality (Note 9).

In 1935, the German anti-homosexual law - Paragraph 175 - was changed by the Nazis because they probably wanted to more closely resemble US; eugenics was a North American ideal, also implemented in Alberta. The changes in the German anti-homosexual law (from essentially having only anal sex criminalized to making all male-male sexual activities into criminal acts) duplicated the same highly abusive laws Britain enacted in 1885, followed by Canada in 1892, these laws existing until the 1960s in both countries. When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated, one human group was given special treatment by the Allies. Instead of being liberated, homosexuals were placed in prisons by people failing to recognize their resemblance to the ones they had hated, demonized, and sought to destroy. What would it mean about US if the Allies had done the same thing to Jews? The verdict, however, applies for what was done to homosexuals, even if WE may attempt to lessen our negative status by saying: "Homosexuality is learned. It's not the same!" Being Jewish is also learned, much like myself having been made (socially constructed) into a Roman Catholic French Canadian was learned.

By 1985, I was in trouble, mostly because I had learned about the human history of believing LIES (or gross reality distortions such as the sun revolving around the earth ), and WE have not changed much in this respect (although WE appear have been improving). The serious problems related to believing harmful LIES existed in the behavioral sciences, particularly in psychology and psychiatry. These professionals had only recently ended their deadly overt anti-homosexual war (1973-74) using the hatred-based scientifically fabricated "mental disorder" label. They had therefore exacerbated the wholesale abuse of the ones - the lesser of the lesser ones - WE had traditionally degraded, hated, imprisoned, and even murdered simply because they were "different," and their murders continue throughout the world (Note 9). For this reason and others, I was living in a knowledge distorted and deprived, perhaps sick and even mentally disordered world. Nothing special: history was repeating itself and the era of killing the Socrates' of the world had not ended, much like the age of learned racism, sexism, ageism, ethnocentricism, homohatred, etc., have also not ended.

By the age of 21, Socrates had become a hero; his discovery was also responded to with familiarity, feeling that I knew him before I learned of his existence and life. He is famous for his integrity-related suicide and the concept: "Know thyself," rendered somewhat differently in my native language: "Connais-toi, toi-meme: Know thyself, thyself." The French equivalent suggests that two psychological entities are involved in the process. There is an "I" doing the "knowing" and "understanding" work related to the one we have been made into, as clones of our culture, and this entity must be Socratically evaluated and deconstructed, thus metaphorically becoming "like a child." Cultural origins are always recognized by people familiar with our culture, thus making us clones, and all cultural attributes (includes religious beliefs and identities) are 100% learned. This does not mean, however, that these entities can be unlearned. My French Canadian identity - intimately connected to my French Canadian language and also interwoven with a Roman Catholic identity - cannot be unlearned, no matter how much I would try. I have been French Canadian ever since I can remember, and only amendments and additions to such (often psychologically crippling) identities are possible.

My development was occurring so rapidly that, by 1974, my understanding of some major human realities totally differed from what professionals in many fields believed. Much of the understanding work was "internal" (with great external implication) because "I" - located at the center of the universe being studied (which is a 4-dimensional time/space-related observer/learner reality) - was the first entity to be tackled. This is the Socratic process and a variation of it was made mandatory by Freud for those venturing into psychoanalysing (seeking to understand) others, but psychoanalysis does not focus on the Socratic deconstruction of Self: becoming "like a child," the state before socialization process is inflicted on individuals. You are also the one having the most information (knowledge) about yourself and, because having knowledge is imperative to understanding anything, we are the ones best positioned (able) to understand ourselves. Given the amount of information each one of us has about ourselves - compared to the much lesser amount of information we could ever expect to have about anyone else - we should therefore not expect the understanding of others if we have failed to understand ourselves.

This rule, however, is only partly true. Human intelligence is fascinating and some people will understand a phenomenon well before others will, often with much less knowledge most people would need. As sometimes experienced in understanding quests, my socially inflicted (learned) beliefs interfered with the process, occasionally delaying it well beyond the time when understanding should have occurred. An overabundance of knowledge was then needed to understand and I then felt like kicking myself for the delay. For some people, it is very difficult (even impossible) to discover/accept (much less understand) major realities, especially when they are at odds with socially and/or religiously inflicted beliefs (Note 10).

By 1980, major problems were developing, mostly because I lived in a world where it was becoming increasingly impossible to talk about my studies (what I was thinking) with others, except for Richard with whom a 12-year relationships had begun (Note 11). At the time, the major realities to be understood were based on having understood other problems reasonably well, and these understandings were at odds with contemporary beliefs, including those held by professionals. At best, revealing what I was thinking (as sometimes done) caused others to think I was different, or worse: that I was a threat. After seven years of formal university education, I knew the required understanding work could not be done in a university environment (as it continues to be the case), and Richard also understood this. My university colleagues would have sought to destroy me if my beliefs, or what I "understood," had been known. Such abuse was to be avoided given that my quest was already in the near-impossible category.

I was acquiring concepts which would not be appreciated because, as done in the second edition of The Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Factor in the Youth Suicide Problem (an ICON problem, given that the socially imposed deaths of adolescents and young adults are being addressed), mainstream suicidologists were deemed to be about 90% ignorant of what they claimed expertise in (the youth suicide problem), and also causal in the problem (Note 12). Presenting such concepts is not the way to make friends, but I was lucky. Three suicidologists listened and were supportive. A fourth, however, wrote me a letter which may have caused any other person (doing similar work) to commit suicide, but luck was on my side. Two therapists agreed, and I responded to his letter professionally and in no uncertain terms, producing a more decent relationship with this person. Other suicidologists, especially the ones more inclined to believe in "biological causes" for suicide and mental disorders, generally ignored my work.

At the beginning, my therapists were advised about my problem: the effects of knowledge and understanding on the human brain (Note 13) considered to be the most wonderful evolving structure in Earth" s biological system. I had long ago passed a certain point in the process, and could never return to a status embodied in the expression "Ignorance [resulting from faulty education] is bliss," but also deadly as revealed by our history. It was a point of no return, with dangers to my life increasing with time. By 1993, the fatal ending was nearing, and Richard best understood the situation. A desire to self-destruct had manifested itself and, after an emergency operation, when the surgeon had used a hairline distance between his index finger and thumb to indicate what had been my near-death status, the thought was: "Why didn't you let me go?"

I could not, however, reveal my thoughts. The doctor and the nurses were doing nice things for me and the predominating concern was to not hurt their feelings at a time when death was desired (Note 14). The dishonesty, more than anything else, was pushing me over the edge, nearing something like "a breakdown." Unfortunately, I may be protected from having the "mental disorder" alternative-to-suicide escape mechanism available to me (Note 15). Richard understood the problem, but he was not in a position to help. He had inadvertently been brought into my world of major realities often being the opposite of what almost everyone believed, and more was being asked from him than could have been expected from most people. Furthermore, I had been realizing that my existence may have also been placing his life in jeopardy and I was feeling very guilty about this and worried about his welfare, more so during the first year of the therapeutic endeavor (Note 16).

I knew about the dangers related to seeking understanding because, while I was teaching from 1975 to 1980, I realized that my exceptional teaching abilities were having major effects on students. I was essentially increasing the probability that, eventually, some of them would commit suicide, for the same reasons I was beginning to recognize for myself. This "teaching" effectiveness - producing immediate and measurable positive results (Note 17) - created ethical dilemmas, but I could not discuss these issues with anyone. The probability that some of these kids would eventually seek self-understanding was an education ideal (only paid lip-service to at any point in history) but, on the basis of what I was increasingly understanding, their risk for suicide was also being increased. At the time, however, I had not perceived myself to be at high risk, but the situation was to change. By the early 1980s I was telling Richard: "I don't know what the understanding will look like, but I must seek it, not knowing if or when this event(s) would happen. Without it nothing will change. If it becomes unbearable, I'll do what Socrates did." Increasingly, my life was being placed on the line.

Four months after the 1993 hospitalization event therapeutic help was sought, partly in response to an intervention by Richard, and much crying; both of us never had "macho" hang-ups in this respect. This last-ditch effort was based on the hope maybe, somewhere, help was available. Again I was lucky. As previously noted, I was profiling my problem to a Native youth who identified the save the world factor and recognized it to be very dangerous; he knew the attribute was probably not survivable, as based on his own "distress" history, including serious suicide attempts, having been sexually abused, and having been gay in a noticeable way at a young age. He recommended a middle-aged Native (Metis) counsellor, Darlene Walker, who was familiar with the problem (Note 19).

We met about two weeks later and she noted that the "save the world problem," as she labeled it, was a significant determinant of distress in Native male youth who generally had a history of child sexual abuse in the enjoyed category (Note 20). As a rule, they had attempted suicide (often a number of times), and were the greatest users/abusers of drugs and alcohol, the latter being a problem which had also developed for me. Alcohol permitted me to readily access the one within who has been, as some therapists would say, "sabotaging my life" since I came out of university in 1974. This entity, however, harboured the nicest part of me, and may be called "the inner child." According to Walker, the attribute was to be destroyed if afflicted highly distressed Native youth were ever to survive, but it could not be destroyed in me, as I had also realized. I had gone too far, knew too much, and was at a stage where destroying what I had become, if it had been possible, would have certainly caused my death. Darlene was then warned that anyone helping me would be in great danger. Devastation resulted when, within a week of having begun to receive help, her position was eliminated. We nonetheless continued to share information and discuss many issues after this, and continue to do so. (Note 21)

I was greatly troubled by her interventions with "distressed" youth (destroying, neutralizing, or repressing the save the world attribute) because our planet desperately needs these wonderful individuals. Finally, I understood the problem on the basis of increasing self-understanding. If the attribute was not destroyed, it would be the client's death sentence. If an individual was empowered to accept the inner mandate, the same outcome was almost inevitable. Repeatedly, since my (yet unknown and largely unwritten about) probably unprecedented therapeutic work began, I would say: "I hate this! It's impossible to live always between DEATH (if I don't do what is mandated) and DEATH (if I live up to it)." The experience was in the "beyond distress" category, often expressed with: "This is a thousand times, a million-times worse than death."

I explained the situation to my therapists and others, hoping they would understand. I emphasized that, to help me, their acquired mental health education and training did not apply; it would, in fact, be a major problem. I was in serious trouble, and more so because what had brought me to the brink was also to be increased 100 folds, if I was to survive. Initially, this did not make sense, because mental health professionals would strongly recommend ridding oneself - or neutralizing - whatever is distressing or killing the client (Note 22). Fortunately, I could access the world within - as in making the generally unconscious information and especially the related emotions very conscious - and both therapists could observe the devastation existing in a kid who could see what most people avoid seeing - much less explore and feel, because it would probably kill them (Note 23).

I articulated my problem (even in writing, amounting to about 30 pages) by often referring to "IT", the nice one in me, who was dictating what I must do. "IT" was not a distinct entity, did not have a voice (is non-verbal), and it continues to have increasing power over my psychological system. "IT" is also dominated by an altruistic principle most activated when encountering distressed individuals (Note 24). As a rule, their problems were socially inflicted and compounded by socially induced self-hatred, or "self-loathing" as "X" described it. With gay and lesbian youth, an imperative to help always manifested itself (Note 25) I had also passed the stage when I could have absolved myself of the responsibility by saying "It's impossible!" I knew that understanding everything in the universe was possible because, on the basis of the History of Science, it may be concluded that limits do not exist with respect to the human brain's understanding abilities. The acquired knowledge also precluded using the common "It's impossible!" belief to justify (rationalize) not doing anything about a problem. A war was on, however, and I was verbalizing it in therapy.

I would revolt against "IT", often stating that I could not live up to the demands. "The mandate," as I would say, "is not fuckin' survivable!" To ever 'survive', I would have to kill "IT". The threat was often made but emotional devastation always resulted. "IT" was the most wonderful part of me (and had been there since early childhood), but destroying "IT" meant destroying 'ME'. I had therefore lost the "FREE WILL" once believed in, but the concept was not new. "Free will," in the social sense, did not exist in the world of understanding ventured into, especially because I would/could not settle for less. By the mid-1970s, a yet unknown universal law or attribute related to understanding had made itself known.

If I wanted to send someone - a friend - to the moon, the only freedom I have is to be very humble, thus seeking to understand everything to be known if I did not want my friend to die as the result of mistakes made, defined as "arrogantly behaving in violation of What Is." Everything in the universe can be studied and understood, and all arrogance - as in assuming the freedom to believe and do what we want - may be deadly, either on this planet or beyond it, although we continue to do this. Slowly, WE have nonetheless been force learning that WE don't have the right to do what we want in our natural environments, if WE have the least bit of morality. WE could severely damage our biological system, as WE have been doing, thus eventually causing the extinction of numerous (most?) life forms. WE may therefore eventually end up having children only to see increasing numbers born dead, or dying before they reach adolescence or adulthood.

I had been acquiring knowledge and understanding significantly different from what the experts were articulating (Note 26), and another serious problem presented itself. Imagine yourself studying breast cancer and fully understanding the disease. You now know that, if the world had this understanding, related deaths would be not occur. How would you then feel seeing your mother, your sister, and others dying from breast cancer; from now on simply because you have not made the acquired knowledge available to others? The emotional turmoil would be incredible because you would then become responsible for these deaths. For me, the guilt would be enormous, given my wonderful (but emotionally deadly) altruistic nature. It would also be of magnitude sufficient to place my self-worth in serious jeopardy, to the point that my death may then be warranted.

The "breast cancer" situation is often experienced, and understanding has influenced - enhanced - the altruistic nature existing since early childhood. The acquired knowledge and understanding was to be used only to help people, not to hurt or harm anyone. It may be used, however, to stop people from harming others, even if they could claim harm. Hitler and his like-minded friends would have surely felt I was harming him by setting up situations interfering with his desire to exterminate others. White North Americans would have made the same claim (given their distress) if I had explained that residential schools for Native children were the product of a lethal highly perverted form of altruism. WE were doing to others what would have destroyed US if we had been subjected to the same thing (Note 27). Hatred was therefore masquerading as love. WE loved the sinner (Natives) and hated the sin: being Native! French Canadians would know the meaning of English Canadians saying: We love the sinner (French Canadians) but hate the sin (being French Canadian). What does it therefore mean when we hear the righteous and good say: "We love the sinner (gay people) but hate the sin (being gay)?"

I cannot claim that the journey undertaken has been (is) pleasurable (except intrinsically, which is an innate response produced when the brain understands), although it would be enjoyable (but probably not needed) if I had not been born in a rotten world of deception where abuse (such as what men have traditionally done to women, what WE did to Native people and others, etc.) has often been attributed to love as it did apply during the Inquisition (Note 27). I am now precluded from accepting LIES as truths (or knowledge) in a world where, traditional human cultures have indoctrinated their members, from birth on, to believe a general body of LIES: untruths related to almost everything in the universe. Historically, most major religions have been lethal institutions (implicated in most wars and other human/animal abuses), thus revealing that whenever a human brain (especially a group of them) has accepted a LIE to be a truth, an often pathologically murderous state results, as our ethnocentric histories reveal. It could therefore be said - as "X" emphasized by placing the statement at the end of his suicide note, and also by centering it - that more people have been killed as a result of human groups having received a faulty education than by any other phenomenon.

As a social construction, gay communities have also been lethal, sometimes more than their creator: the greater society they reflect. It is tragic that many GLB people of colour report that racism is more pronounced in North American (white dominated) gay communities because it is then realized that the ones who grew up hated "just for being different" did not learn anything from their experiences because they have also been harming others "just for being different." Native youth also report a similar phenomenon manifested on reservations, sometimes after noting that they hear their own people often complain about being (having been) harmed by white people simply because they are "different." In Alberta, young Native males were described to be about 10-times more homophobic and heterosexist than are white males, meaning that they have learned little from being hated/abused by others, and a similar situation is reported to exist in the United States. Yet, gender nonconformable (gay) males - especially noted for their altruism - were once highly respected in many Native cultures (Note 28). It is very depressing and distressing to see the abused become the abusers. If they have learned nothing from being abused, we certainly can't expect the abusers to change, can we? A similar depressing message is also given by the ones who say: "I sexually abused children because I was sexually abused," and by the ones who believe this (Note 29).

"X" represents the kids I often talked about in therapy: the ones who will not survive what is being done to them. He also represents my first "study" encounter with such a person, the devastation being his death at a time when I could have been available to help him, but wasn't. By then, I had accepted my likely prototype status, as often noted in therapy, and it was also a predictable event in the human history of knowledge and understanding. It is a history of abuse, death, and murder, as in seeing the Vatican burning Giordano Bruno in 1600 because he was unrepentant and would have arrogantly continued to teach that the earth revolved around the sun. About 30 years later, fearing the wrath of socio-religious authorities, Galileo repented (recanted what he knew to be a truth) and was only placed under house arrest: a broken man. Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer (plus others) regretted having given this rotten world advanced knowledge used to mass-murder people (mostly women and children), only to then see themselves treated as enemies of the United States because they did not want nuclear knowledge used in such murderous ways.

Unfortunately, WE have also failed to understand our well documented lethal nature with respect to all children. A few of them, however, will begin undoing the great damage done to their psychological system by the still highly valued "traditional" socialization (indoctrination) process. They will therefore be seeking major understandings beyond that recognized by the experts in all fields of study, and a value system (of unknown origins) will likely make its presence felt. This seems to have happened to "X" who had "a rigid code of ethics" demanding that he help people, with proscriptions against harming or hurting anyone. This most wonderful development happening in a human being - given our hate-ridden morbid history - could be called "sainthood", or something like what a God is to be, and the attribute manifested is altruism: "Fung (1988) JAMA, Vol. 260, No. 17, p. 2509 describes altruism as caring for no obvious reward other than the belief that someone else will benefit or avoid harm." (Gormley KJ. (1996) Altruism: a framework for caring and providing care. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33, 581.) Unfortunately, "X" was still informed by his socially created "I", a major factor in my problems, and believed that the "rigid code of ethics" reflected "an egocentric person; I was so full of it ..." This phenomenon was presented to therapists in the following way.

A distressed very angry 18-year-old boy presents himself for therapy. His feelings make him want to kill his father, mother, and other people; he would also want to blow up the planet, if possible. Generally, therapists will accept these feelings and listen, but how would they respond to another boy highly distressed because he must somehow "save the world" as opposed to wanting to destroy it? He sees no way to live up to the mandate, but he also cannot free himself from the demands originating from within - for reasons which remain generally unknown, but have been metaphorically reported in some religious writings. He also feels that, if he cannot live up to the demands, he must therefore die, for the pain resulting from noncompliance is many times worst than death. If he strives to live up to the mandate, on the other hand, given what his society (and its professionals) will do to him, the probability of surviving will be minimal. How would you counsel such a kid?

The individual will probably be deemed a basket case. "Saw a client today who feels he must save the world. Just what we need! Another Jesus Christ! Is he ever screwed up. A candidate for the asylum, for sure. No doubt about it: Delusions of grandeur! Grandiosity! Narcissism! Is he ever depressed, because he doesn't know how he can save the world. Says he is being forced to do this by something inside him, but that it's too much to ask from anyone. That he's only a kid and can't do this. He really believes the world must be saved and that he must do it. He's very suicidal. Attempted suicide many times but no one found out about it. There are manic depression indicators, and maybe schizophrenia is setting in. He even claims he has abilities the world is not yet ready for. See what I mean? I'll refer him to a psychiatrist who can prescribe drugs for his depression, and maybe anti-psychotic drugs. If that doesn't work, there's always electroconvulsive therapy. There's surely a way to make him normal again."

Wrong! For a person like "X" and myself, such an intervention would have certainly caused our deaths, as I know about myself, and as "X" also emphasized. He was not normal and knew it (judged on the basis of his knowledge of "others" on this planet), just like I has recognized this fact about myself long ago. Like "X", I also often wished to be normal as opposed to being something like a prodigy in the most deadly area of human endeavors: the one which caused Socrates to end his life, as imposed by his society. Once an individual passes the point of no return, however, it is a one way trip which may not be survived. Often, I asked: "Why the hell did I do it? I knew it was fuckin' dangerous and deadly." "A choice," however, was probably not involved. Furthermore, when considering the results, I never wanted a return to past states, when I knew and understood less than I now do. This highly positive outcome - stemming from what "X" deemed to be a "wrong decision" - was the phenomenon he also believed to be "a trap," not quite understanding that it was the "wrong" label given to the decision which was incorrect.

The "understanding" journey is extremely difficult, never knowing what the understanding sought will look like, nor what effect it will have once we understand more about ourselves and the world: the universe, the planet, the evolving biological system, and the society, all involved in making us into what we are. Although it has been joyful to understand (related to "the kid within" who has not changed since the age of 4 or 5, except for becoming much more educated and knowledgeable), the implications are often devastating, especially when the understanding is about ourselves as socially constructed highly damaged, deceitful, harmful, and even lethal beings. As a rule, we have only known and manifested "conditional" love, but this is not love. WE also appear to have been - and continue to be - the hypocrites an individual named "Jesus" disliked so much.

Reading the suicide note was devastating because it activated elements making me act immediately, sometimes well before acquiring the resources needed to ward off related dangers. The knowledge and understanding had told me that individuals such as "X" existed, and they were probably dying before having any understanding what was happening within and what the outcome may/could/would be. The death of "X" was a verification of a theoretical prediction and I felt responsible for the outcome; the acquired knowledge could have made a difference. Now, I must "out" myself no matter what the price (Note 30); the hope is that a better understanding will result so that, someday, the world's most wonderful kids will no more be set up to self-destruct - simply because who WE have been made into, and have always been, precludes their survival. This reality may have been recognized years ago, as suggested by the inherently self-revealing/condemning old expression: "Only the good die young."

I have supplied the above brief explanation of myself and related events because I had no choice, for offering an explanation of what was happening within "X" would not be possible unless I "outed" myself as somehow having retained (having been retrieving) what all of us may have had as a child. This sainthood attribute, possibly linked to "bio-altruism," is somewhat like the attribute described in Jean-Paul Sartre's book, Saint Genet, although the relationship may not be immediately apparent. Jean Genet grew up on the streets and in reform schools, prison being his predominant home as an adult, and this gay individual who became a French (gay) literary icon - should be studied to better understand the sainthood being addressed, and the same applies for the American artist, David Wojnarowicz who identified with Genet (Note 31). Most saints in our society may be juvenile delinquents, the ones who have been revolting against society, often not knowing why; the great majority in the sainthood category may also have been sexually involved with men (in unwanted and/or wanted ways) before the age of 17 (Note 32).

Different pathways are likely in the retrieval of our socially subverted/usurped sainthood status, and the same applies for the predictable outcomes such as the one "X" succumbed to. According to a recent major Calgary study of young adult males, there is a near-90% probability that male youth suicide attempters were either sexually abused and/or homosexually oriented. Not all adolescent and young adult males in these categories, however, attempt or commit suicide, and another factor (or factors) could be implicated. The save the world attribute may have been a frequently occurring - but generally unrecognized and/or often misunderstood - attribute associated with serious suicidal problems in the male youth population. Their serious suicide attempts and suicides, however, would be attributed to the individual presumably having one or more mental disorders: a likely fate for save the world individuals.

"X" died and his suicide note affected me (someone unknown to him) in a way he probably never imagined. At the time of his death, I was also addressing a similar problem, not knowing if I was (had) to die or not, which still applies. Given what he knew about his lethal condition, and what he had learned about the ones who knew him, he also had little hope anyone would understand.

"However; the big question that everyone will probably want answered is the "why?" question. Which is why I'm writing this - I finally have an answer that I think I can put down on paper so that possibly, though I don't have real high hopes, you'll understand. About all I can really hope for is that this short explanation will keep anyone from thinking they had anything to do with causing this decision." (Spelling mistakes in the note are corrected in citations.)

His concern for the ones left behind is remarkable, because he suspects that someone will be hurt by his choice, especially if they assume some responsibility for his death. This may be the only reason why he wrote the note, which is related to an acquired value system.

"At some point; I'm not quite sure when though; I noticed something. Through all of my introspection, I had managed to develop a rigid code of ethics to live and act by. I think it may have come out of pride; if I were the best then I should be able to find solutions to manipulation that were undetectable to others. And then that didn't harm others; and finally; that helped others. And then, only those who wanted to be helped. An egocentric person; I was so full of myself I felt I should be able to achieve results without hurting people; or affecting those who didn't want to be. Tall orders. A challenge of the highest degree. The ego went for it again."

"X" did not know exactly when the rigid code of conduct became apparent, which means it gradually emerged from within, and he was left with the "WHY?" problem. Emphasized is the mandate that he was "to help" others, and not to harm or hurt anyone. However, he does not mention the value system establishing that others needed help, including the ones who did not want to be helped. This is the save the world attribute he probably did not want others to know about, thus explaining why he sought to make the interventions or manipulations "undetectable to others." If noticeable, which probably happened, targeted individuals would have thought or said: "Who the fuck do you think you are?" Not having achieved the understanding of what was happening within, especially with respect to having come under the sainthood/altruistic value system (Note 33), he responded in accordance with his social indoctrination, or as others would have responded if told about this aspect of Self. "I was so full of myself" is the same as saying "Who the fuck did I think I was?" The Ego, as a negatively perceived attribute, is being blamed when "ego" has nothing to do with it, although most people would believe this. As the mandate and the value system becomes more dominant, the Ego - the social "I" or the "normal" self - becomes increasingly irrelevant. "Sainthood" (and the related altruism) has nothing to do with "Ego." It is the Ego's antithesis. It is the emerging protagonist, slowly taking over (in interesting ways) the primary status the Ego believed it had as the result of the traditionally harmful (and sometimes lethal) socialization process.

Lacking this understanding permitted "X" to blame everything on himself, as I also did and as others would do. I had ventured into the world of wanting to "really" understand, knew it was dangerous but continued, thus making all the negative results my fault. This is not quite true. Since my earliest memories, I was fascinating by everything in the world, and had read an encyclopedia by the age of 11. Great knowledge was also being obtained from my immediate world. My "learning" playgrounds were rich and varied environments: the woods, the fields, the river and bay, whatever was humanly constructed, and the docks which supplied me with individuals from numerous countries. I discovered sex at least by the age of 5 (Note 34), and studied that too, with resulting additional pleasurable rewards. I was fascinating by everything in the world, and sex was just another fascinating reality to be explored and understood in a society determined to keep children as dangerously ignorant as possible of socially constructed human sexual realities. For a number of reasons, including the sexual knowledge being acquired, I was very young when I realized that everyone's beliefs about certain individuals, or a group of them, were often the opposites of reality.

Therefore, as with "X", there was something to understand and, as children do, they ask why, followed by more whys, this being the childlike aspect of Self which had not vanished. As I often noted about the school system, individuals enter its doors at the age of 6 full of fascination about the world and, 12 years later, the attribute has been destroyed in most of them. It is then rare to find someone, even in universities, who is learning simply for the joy of it (Note 35). As a rule, students assimilate what they are told and are tested accordingly. The message is: accept this or you will not pass these courses and never have a job or a career (Note 36). Later a career may be ruined because an individual proposed socially and professionally unacceptable ideas or concepts.

Few ask, however, how a highly intelligent individual knowing what we now know, would have felt under such tyranny in a university 500 years ago or even 100 years ago? Or how someone living 500 years in the future (if they could return to our time) would feel about what he/she is being taught in public schools and universities today? Would they not be subjected to high levels of ignorance, arrogance, and a tyranny against the human "understanding" spirit? A telltale sign that "X" was very bright in what I long ago labeled "operational intelligence" (Note 3) compared to innate intelligence measured by tests like "IQ" (which establishes only a part of one's potential), was his response when he ventured into university.

"For a while I tried to be a [normal] person again - one with odd habits and knowledge - but I stopped trying to improve myself. I went to university; and I started to make a go at it. And met with apathy on all sides. I started to wonder why I even bothered; and then I got back to the suicide issue again."

University was therefore exceptionally boring for him, which is predictable. It was also equated with "being normal," a psychological status associated with his first manifested wish for death.

"...I wanted to be a 'normal person'. And for a week of August 1991, I was. I have no idea how it occurred; or how it ended. But it happened. For a whole week; everything I knew about psychology vanished. It was like walking around blind. Before I could see someone and almost know what they were thinking. I'd be able to see how to say the right things; and know how to achieve any of my desires without effort. And be smug about it because my ethics wouldn't let me test anything; so I couldn't see the failures. Everything I allowed myself to do showed success. But during this week everything was a mystery. I was normal. And hated every minute of it. This was the point I started to seriously contemplate suicide."

For "X", "being normal" was more like death, and I often experienced such "time-out" periods. Fortunately, they were not as severe as the one he experienced, except maybe in two cases (Note 37). There were periods, however, when "IT" was not activated and interfering, the greatest unspoken fear being that "IT" would maybe abandon me, for a number of reasons (Note 38). This event, supposedly restoring "X" to normality, was traumatic because an important part of Self - the part which informed him and was needed for advanced understanding - was gone, leaving only the social "I" - the normal one - which has little substance or value. "X" also had another "I" who knew an important part of Self was missing; the existence of such an "I" (at least in some people) is suggested by the phenomenon of lucid dreaming and hypnosis. This "I" cannot be hypnotized, nor does it sleep, "damn it!" as I would tell my therapists. How the hell would you like waking up in the morning to join up with the other "you" which has been busy throughout the night. This "I" does not get intoxicated when alcohol is consumed, or high when certain drugs are taken, and is an observer (as opposed to being a participant) when sexual activity is endeavored into. It was therefore labeled "my observer personality" which is somewhat equivalent to the not well understood "observing ego" in psychoanalysis.

This "I" is more like an observer/manager of the psychological system and it may be intimately linked to a very important part of Self most of us discover to exist at a young age. When we could not understand something, such as a math problem, my mother would suggest walking away from it and doing something else. Soon after, an interjection occurred into whatever I was doing. "The answer," often referred to as the "ah-ha!" experience in psychology, would become conscious. Most often, these experiences are taken for granted. Yet, we were not 'consciously' thinking of the problem at the time; from somewhere the understanding (or answer) was transferred to consciousness. Generally, we fail to recognize that something or someone within is a problem solver, also working via dreams, and that WE do not consciously control this entity. It was long ago realized that I do not decide whether or not understanding of a phenomenon will happen. At best knowledge is acquired, never knowing how much will be needed, where it will be found, or when the understanding will occur. In this respect, I have become very humble. I also know that whatever is making understanding possible, it certainly has the ability to understand everything in the universe.

The fact that "X" was suicidal when he became "normal" for a week must be evaluated in the light that his return to being "the Self" he had become (the result of a "mistake" made, as he believed: the mistake of having unavoidably become "curious about how my mind worked," - as I also unavoidably did) had the same result. Becoming "normal" had made "X" realize that "normality" meant death, but he nonetheless wanted to have "free will," the one thing he "held most dear," which only "normality" apparently permitted. As best he could, he described the situation.

"While physically I'm not restrained; mentally I no longer have free will; and this binds me as much as chains and bars would ... [BUT] I can't fix the problem; because even though I could get rid of all this decision making machinery of mind with the help of a good psychologist; there's one further problem. I have become the machinery. To destroy it would be to destroy me. It'd take me back to that week in August; the one week of hell that I hate even more than what I am now. So come right down to it; I'd rather die than be fixed. And I can't live while I'm broken."

Believing he "was broken," because he had supposedly "lost his free will," was a serious problem compounded by the fact that no one was available who could have positively validated - and explained - his loss of "free will." He could not yet do this given that his social created "I" believed the socially indoctrinated "free will" deception. I still have difficulty with this issue but I knew, even at the beginning of my therapeutic work, what needed to be done, as it was also increasingly confirmed by the therapeutic accessing of my devastatingly emotional inner Self . "IT" ruled, and my social "I" hated this fact. The therapeutic objective was therefore to have this so-called inner "saboteur" take over, as opposed to neutralizing or negating it, as contemporary therapists would advocate so that a client may survive socially. It was telling "IT": "OK! You win. If you want to rule (as you do anyway), so be it!" What was there to lose? "IT" was the most wonderful part of me, except that being "wonderful" in the world humans had fabricated was producing problems in the non-survivable category. To survive, which meant living up to the mandate, I now had to do a hundred times everything which had brought me past the brink, thus making possible this explanation of what happened to "X", me, and others.

"X" had to die, not because there was anything wrong with him, but because our lethal social indoctrination produced this "set up" or "trap" situation. Also implicated is what he was learning from psychology books, which may be even more deadly. As I realized long ago, if society fails to 'kill' these individuals through suicide, they will then be living in a society doing its best (often with the help of its mental health professionals who have become something like a priesthood) to destroy them, as I have regularly experienced. This is not a paranoid delusion; it is simply a fact experienced numerous times in the last three years with my frontline work on the youth suicide problem. More deadly responses have also been experienced as other social realities - such as the ones used to continue producing deadly 'clones' of our traditional selves - are addressed and exposed for what they do to the most wonderful kids in the world, "X" being only one of the victims.

The concept of predestination was very problematic for "X":

"While physically I'm not restrained; mentally I no longer have free will; and this binds me as much as chains and bars would. Everything I try to do automatically gets analyzed over and over by what my past has dictated is the best way. Every decision I make I know why I made it - even ones made in reaction to something back when I don't have time to think up front. Even the wrong decisions I know why I made them. And I know why my mind is set up to make those decisions. And the worst part about it is that the whole mess is a trap. Each 'wrong' decision is 'right' by some reason; and I am forced to accept that. I can't even fix the problem..."

In the physical universe, whatever is or happens, IS. If we had all the knowledge related to an event, the outcomes would be predictable as chemistry students soon discover. In a chemistry lab, mini-systems are studied under controlled conditions and predictability exists. The same applies in larger four-dimensional systems as Einstein revealed when, after having understood reasonably well certain basic realities, he knew that light would bend when passing near the sun, or any gravitational body. He also knew this before an experiment was carried out to verify the conclusion (Note 39). Therefore, if a human brain has the required knowledge and understanding, everything in the universe, including US, becomes predictable; the great assault to the "free will" myth is the suspicion or conclusion that predestination exists.

As it happened to "X", I long ago recognized that all my decisions and reactions are (or were) predictable if I have (had had) all the knowledge related to these decisions and reactions. Even when I change my mind, which is often believed to reflect "free will," the same applies. All decision changes were predictable given the knowledge brought to bear on the ongoing decision making process. Even "wrong" decisions - labeled as such by "X" - were also predictable and 'right'; the problem for "X" was labeling these decisions "wrong" when there is nothing inherently "wrong" happening in the universe (Note 40). To "X", however, given the emerging value system, "wrong" meant harming or hurting someone. He had made "mistakes," but "X" never describes them, nor the harm done, except for "the mistake" of having sought to understand how his mind worked. The resulting harm, however, was not harm, but he could not avoid reaching this conclusion given his imminent death. His problems were the result of the highly lethal social indoctrination he had been subjected to since early childhood: he had been set up to kill himself.

"X" was always troubled about mistakes:

"Plus I always had some old mistakes that I had made that I wanted solutions for; in case similar situations came up again." "I felt I should be able to achieve results [helping people] without hurting people; or affecting those who didn't want to be." He nonetheless hurt some people, and such potential results were so devastating that he had to somehow avoid seeing the failures, or mistakes: "..and [I] knew how to achieve any of my desires without effort and be smug about it because my ethics wouldn't let me test anything; so I couldn't see my failures."

These "failures" were related to "manipulating others" and were occurring during the transition between the dominance of the socially constructed "I" who often uses knowledge and understanding for selfish reasons as "normal" (socially constructed, traditionally ethnocentric) people do, but doing this was a violation of the inner evolving altruism-based mandate emerging within "X". The increasing dominance of the mandate-related value system was therefore causing super-human ethical problems, and "X" apparently did not have anyone to talk with about these issues because most people - or the "normal" ones he equated to being dead - cannot even begin conceiving such problems, much less helping someone address related issues. They may well have been (are) the ones so often noted to be "asleep" in religious writings, or something like "the living dead" who have been in need of being "born again" - as Socrates may have advocated as a metaphor for the Socratic process.

His "rigid code of ethics" nonetheless applied to the end, thus making his suicide note necessary. Something had happened to him and he had to die, not knowing why and having little hope that anyone reading his suicide note - all the ones he had spoken with in the past - would understand. The reasons for his suicide were also articulated in a way that, as he felt mandated to do, no one would be harmed or hurt by his decision. He was taking full responsibility, explaining (as best as he could on the line as opposed to "between the lines") what happened to him, while indicating that much more could have been written, at least to some individuals he had known.

"While I'd like to write several hundred pages outlining my thoughts and 'last words' to each person I know and knew; I haven't the time; nor the ability to do it right. So I won't." "Many of you know my history; from various perspectives depending on when I told you; and how in depth I went. So I'm not going to hash it out again in any detail."

"X" had been talking to a number of individuals (probably to be understood and even validated), and more about him could therefore be written. Such an investigative endeavor would likely shed more light on who he was, and why. "Personal" issues, such as close friendships, love and/or sexual relationships, etc., are conspicuously absent in his suicide note. He had also been different; in elementary school he had lived in an isolated world, almost oblivious to others; he was not happy.

"Time past though; and I made progress. I started to notice people around me; and how they behaved; and noticed how with very little effort I could cause things to happen. Nothing significant mind you; but with a few words I could cause someone to open up to me; or I could just as well shut them down. Nothing perfect; nothing refined; but it improved my life a bit at the time. I really don't think I had any real understanding of what I was doing [because he was so young]. Just knew I was somewhat happier."

He had been unhappy, but the reason(s) for his great unhappiness as a child is not given. The most devastating event in his life is noted, but not explained.

"And I made another mistake. Nothing serious to anyone else; but it hit me hard. I had tried to change something; and expected the results; and this time they didn't come. It hurt. It had been a long time since I had hurt as much as I did then. I really didn't know what to do. If I hadn't been so mentally scattered I might have tried suicide then. And I was hurt enough to have taken a serious crack at it."

What had he "tried to change" and failed to do, which was so devastating? A possible answer supplied in the next paragraph outlining the result of his devastating failure.

"But instead, I made my second mistake. I became obsessive about myself - I started to understand what I was doing; and I didn't like how things turned out. Rather than trying to find other; better solutions, I decided that I needed not to become better at what I had been doing; but the best. If I knew more about how my mind worked; I could change it to whatever I wanted; and then through that be whoever I wanted."

What then was in his mind that required changing? What was the new "who" he wanted to be? What was the "who" he wanted to change so much at such a young age that he was placed on an accelerated "understanding" journey leading to his problems? Leading to the potentially 'deadly' but wonderful altruism-related value system he acquired? All related developments postdated the "something within" he had wanted to change, and someone may know what this was. It is an identity issue, and it could be the one often manifested by gay boys who discover the unwanted to exist (sometimes being first manifested by having a special attraction for an older brother), work hard to not be homosexual and fail, the result being: devastation.

(I do not have the information needed to be reasonably sure that "homosexuality" had been, or was, a major issue in his mind. The devastating event could be related to losing an important friend, wanting the love of a special person, or something else. An in-depth investigation is needed to begin knowing and understanding how "personal and interpersonal" issues factored into his distress. I am sure, however, that love was a monumental issue for him. Given the mandate and value system acquired, it could not be otherwise. Interestingly, the suicide note is devoid of manifested emotional attachments to anyone. He does not, as sometimes seen in suicide notes, say something like "I love you." to anyone, possibly because he wanted to minimize the emotional harm resulting from his death. The gifted youth quoted in the "Addendum" had this concern. In his journal, he reports withdrawing from those he loved most, the hope being that his death would therefore not hurt them as much if they were made to feel he did not love them.

On his journey, "X" was having predictable feelings and dilemmas:

"By this time I was almost in a self-loathing state. On one side the ego was high and mighty with what I could do; and to bolster that; the opinion that I shouldn't use my abilities because 'the world isn't ready' - on the other side the desire to be rid of it all; because I didn't like the responsibility I was forcing on myself. I wanted to be a 'normal person'."

I believe he is being accurate about his abilities and he possibly did have exceptional abilities probably revealed only to one or a few individuals, as I also did. The idea that "the world was not ready" for him is messiah-like and could lead some mental health professionals to assume he was delusional. His claim, however, is credible because of the intimate association of his abilities with a highly positive "code of ethics," the great "responsibility" being imposed on him, and the fact that he does not want any of this. As I have often said: "What happened to me is not something anyone would wish on their worst enemy." Sainthood is not something anyone would welcome, much less boast about, especially because the socially set up "having to die" feeling not only precludes happiness, but it may not yet be survivable. Furthermore, if mental health professionals ever become involved in such situations, the deadly results could be accelerated because their social role remains much as it was when "being homosexual" was deemed to be pathological.

I have often wished I was normal, that I didn't have these abilities, and that I did not have the understandings acquired. It was even suspected that my presence on this planet at this time was a mistake. Just a fluke! (Note 41) That maybe I should go because my survival will only become more impossible if I continue understanding (and seeking to understand) whatever presents itself. There was the possibility, however, that the universe had an unknown something to offer, possibly precluding the (well analysed and experienced) inevitable DEATH outcome. All is nonetheless predestined and my presence here, as is the case for "X" and his death, was therefore predictable. On the basis of contextual self-understanding, I knew that kids like "X" existed and that their survival was near-impossible. I often told my therapists: "I am a prototype and, if I don't make it, not one of these kids will. Not yet. Not on this planet. Our socio-religiously constructed collective mandate has been to kill save the world children, as the only one given this status was also killed." By 1975, I had begun to study the best known save the world kid (Note 42).

Jesus knew what he had to do, and the great one of the universe (the one within?) was dictating what must be done as he so often stated. Jesus nonetheless emphasized that he would rather not do it, but that he would obey because he essentially did not have free will. What he did, in the final analysis, was suicidal. He set himself up, fully knowing that "the socio-religious system" would act in a way that his death - his murder - would be inevitable. He had been so dangerous to socio-religious authorities - the frauds or hypocrites, as he often labeled them - that, when his possible existence was recognized as a child, it was apparently acceptable to murder all children of the age he may have been, just to make sure this highly dangerous save the world kid would be destroyed (Note 43). Jesus also emphasized that it was imperative to become "like a child" if a great positive outcome (devoid of material rewards) was to be experienced. We were also warned about the deceivers wearing sheep's clothing: the socially acceptable ones. These individuals have not only killed their enemies, but they have also hated "the different ones" within their own groups, including their offspring for whom only conditional love was offered.

"X", like myself, knew who he was, and evaluated all options to see if there was a possibility, even a slim one, that he could be happy, as opposed to being very unhappy. His unhappiness, and projected unhappiness, however, is a product the social world in which, as I have often jokingly said, "we were dumped, possibly as a cruel joke by gods with a morbid sense of humour." "X" did not survive, and I am still living, sometimes with short reprieves, but most often not knowing if the departure time will be tonight, tomorrow, or next week; the result being much like battle fatigue and post-traumatic stress. The recurring feeling has been: "Death is far better than this." The recurring thought has been: "How many lives do I have? Can I go now?"

It is very difficult to muster the energy required to do anything when the only reward will likely be death. In this respect, my social "I" still revolts. The social "I", the observer "I", and "IT" are not fully integrated, nor do I know what the integration will be like, or if it will occur, and to what degree. The social "I" wants social rewards so that, at least, if these things must be done, life would be more bearable. It would be wonderful having enough money to buy a coffee, or to pay for a bus fare whenever needed, without always knowing that paying for these luxuries will mean doing without other things. "IT" does not consider "material" things to be important, which has also been the attribute of most mystics throughout history.

As "X" realized, the price to be paid for our obsession is high, but it's not obsession. Something special happened to us, and the prognosis is DEATH. When it has been suggested that I should take a break, I have emphasized that I do: when I crash, feeling that I simply can't go on, which is not a break. When I'm not in a "crashed" state, the same advice is like telling someone on a rock face, holding on with the tip of his fingers, knowing that letting go would mean death: "You are doing too much. Why don't you take a break? Are you ever obsessive!" This was probably the advice "X" was often given by those who accused him of being obsessive, or maybe having an "obsessive compulsive" personality. This was not "the problem!"

By the time "X" went to university, he was still seeking to understand what had happened to him even though he had been brought "to the suicide issue again."

"At that point I wasn't thinking about committing suicide; I was more examining what I was achieving in my head - what were my wants and decisions; why did I act the way I did. And most importantly; why did I think the way I did." His analysis of possible life outcomes is correct and a "discovered" suicide attempt follows. "That attempt changed my views on things fairly drastically. While it didn't change my views on myself; or on the feelings/opinions of those around me...."

He would have been realizing that people around him (society) were in many ways causal in his distress. His reference to "those around him" is not positive, and his value system probably led him to think "our world" and "society" (his killer) was disgusting. WE have always been involved in harming others; especially "the different ones," as "X" certainly was being harmed. He does not, however, elaborate on his feelings, for doing this would harm the ones who had harmed him: all or most of the survivors. He would commit suicide and the message would be: "Death was better than what was offered me!" This generally unspoken message certainly applies to gay and lesbian youth who commit suicide, as detailed in The Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Factor in the Youth Suicide Problem. Infinitely more lethal abuses, however, are inflicted on save the world kids, suicide being a cruel death sentence.

Some people, especially in the mental health field, would affix a "mental disorder" label on "X" and me, but I have been demonstrating that mental health professionals in the field of suicide (and in other fields) have essentially been lethal; understanding has not been their forte when the focus was on socially threatening - often hated - people. A depressive crash for the save the world kids, as in not anymore having whatever it takes to continue, is predictable; much like the fatigue of the one on the cliff, holding on by his fingertips, may cause him to lose all energy, let go and die. This outcome, however, would not be the product of a physical or mental disorder. Living and never knowing when the predictable death day will be, or deciding when the death day will be, is not conducive to "happiness."

There were days when "X" probably thought he did not have to die, as analytically indicated; that there was maybe light at the end of the proverbial "tunnel." Some observers may label this euphoric feeling "a hypomanic phase," something like that burst of superhuman energy which saved the one on the cliff. If, however, scientists had studied the situation, they would have concluded that letting go and falling to one's death was certain. The possibility that death is not inevitable, in spite of the analysis indicating otherwise, is great fuel for me; as is the fuel originating from the probability that, maybe, if I hang on for a little longer; maybe, just maybe, something will happen and no more; no more, damn it, will these kids (and me) have to die - as in being murdered by all of US. Fuck! WE lost such a nice kid! Even in death his major concern was that no one should be hurt by what he did. If this is not sainthood, the concept may not exist.

I wrote this analysis, not so much because I wanted to, but because I had to. It is very important that his parents know just how wonderful their son was and that no one should ever minimize his death - thus destroying what is to be learned from it - by attributing it to a supposedly "biologically-based mental disorder." If this happens, the death becomes inevitable (given the current psychiatric beliefs), with no one being RESPONSIBLE, and no one will learn anything from what happened. To explain the death of "X", the "outing" of myself as a saint was required, but doing this terrified me. Life is difficult enough given the responses to what I do. Most people also do not know why "I Am" and only can supply the most thoughtless, harmful, and destructive reasons to explain what they see or think they see (Note 44). "IT" nonetheless won out, as "IT" always does. I had to do it, no matter what abuses result.

It would also have been unethical for me to withhold the knowledge I had acquired about kids like "X", but the month which led to this decision was hell. I could avoid venturing into publicly addressing this reality for as long as I only theoretically knew that such kids existed, myself being the only one known to be in this category. I then envied "X" for dying, almost as if he was the wisest, and that maybe I was crazy to still be here. His death nonetheless confirmed what was analytically predictable, with devastating results. Having this knowledge means that the blame for these deaths will now be on my shoulders; I am highly intelligent, understand this reality to a reasonable degree, and should therefore be able to put an end to these murders. "Tall order!" Many will think "I am so full of it!" They may even think I was wrong, wishing that I had implemented the (socially engineered) "terminator" solution long ago. I cannot die as "X" did, however, because the stage has been reached where even my death must yield an altruistic objective.

Death is often considered, the offsetting thought being: Maybe there's another way. A mistake would be unforgivable, even in death. It's not a "fun" life. Most (probably all) have not made it this far, and I may not make it to wherever this leads (which does fascinate me). What I have written is therefore my suicide note which should have been written long ago, just in case, and "X" made that possible. It was the time, not so much to die, but to write about what had been killing me and others like "X". As for the death day: maybe tomorrow, the next day, or later. As Richard so often noted about me: "I do not suffer fools gladly." Suffering abusers and murderers, however, takes a much greater toll on all that I am.

The most dreaded experience, should death become the inevitable outcome, will be the devastating feeling at the moment the decision is made, to the end. If I can't make it, they will surely not make it, given my likely prototype status and the highly anomalous factors which have made my survival possible. If I must die, all of them are still dying, and I wanted to believe this is not true. The responsibility is enormous, and the experience may not be survivable. This is also the price being paid for just being a nice kid in a world which has never been a nice place to be, for US, or even - increasingly - for all life forms because of our self-serving socially programmed traditionally arrogant ignorance.

WE have not been humble and, as gods (?), we have not yet accepted the responsibility for what WE have become capable of doing on this planet and beyond. The first and most important step, however, must be taken: WE must begin understanding how WE have always killed kids like "X". This will require implementing the dreaded Know Thyself, Thyself Socratic process, which is a "Catch-22" situation. WE are damned (in a positive but death-risking way) if WE do, and damned (in a negative way, by continuing to be highly destructive and lethal) if WE don't. Any suggestions? The solution is obvious, is it not?

I have noted sexual orientation and sexual abuse (especially the positively responded to equivalent) is linked to some individuals having a save the world attribute, and suggested a link to bio-altruism probably associated with our primary "inner child" personality. This aspect of Self is related to "the Id" but, if it had been correctly translated from the German, the entity would be "the It." This information was acquired only after I began using the best word available - "IT" - to best describe the one having such a monumental effect on me, thus causing an even greater appreciation of Freud. He brought truth (mostly near-truths) to the world until the collective (his lethal mental health colleagues) began punishing him for this. To survive professionally and socially, he compromised some truths in major ways, but only to a certain degree. On the other hand, some feminists who have been condemning him will eventually be found guilty of far more serious crimes. (For information related to Freud's problems with fellow professionals, see Assault on truth by Jeffrey Mouspieff Masson, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, Inc, NY, 1984)

In my book, information is given to better understand why the Native population would have an over representation of youth with save the world attributes. Why the experience of sexual abuse (especially the positively responded to equivalent) would be linked to the retention of this attribute is most interesting, and will shatter some myths - of the "forbidden knowledge" kind - related to child sexual abuse. The most important implication will be the confirmation of society's use of sexuality to greatly damage its members: making clones of children born in various cultures. Freud recognized sexuality to be fundamental in the socialization process, but he did not understand "IT" well. Venturing into the psyche, he only saw the second personality produced by the socialization process, believed it to be primary, and demonized it for good reasons. It is a very negative personality, but it is not primary. The more recent positive "inner child" - such as the one John Bradshaw addressed in his PBS program (and defined to be very dangerous to the society which makes us all dysfunctional) - is our primary wonderfully positive nature. Accessing it, however, also accesses the evil one, the one Freud was thankful to socialization (or civilization) for repressing, never realizing it had been socially created. The social construction of male heterosexualities, historically involving socially defined superior beings (men) relating with inferior beings (women), is intimately linked to this personality.

Eventually, it will be discovered that Freud did reach the door of the knowledge needed to understand how WE become the morbid beings WE have always been socially programmed to be. The great damage is done during toilet training; this is the concept Freud has been most associated with, and the ones harbouring this association have been revealing something very important about themselves, but what could it be? Understanding this will also produce the understanding of why men have demonized women throughout history; they believed women to be both madonnas and evil, bad, and very dangerous sexually craved creatures who lure (seduce) men to their deaths. This is related to another phenomenon perplexing Freud: "infantile amnesia." He emphasized that the eventual understanding of this reality will produce the understanding of the most significant factor he believed to be implicated in mental disorders. Its understanding will also revise (revolutionize) not only our understanding of "mental disorders" and psychology, but all beliefs about ourselves. The knowledge of individuals with Multiple Personalities, which mostly results from "child sexual abuse" occurring before the age of 6, will then cause many to say something like: "Hell! We already had the knowledge needed to understand the possible experience-induced cause (even producing biological signatures) of mental disorders, but we were unable to see it as the result of our faulty education.

Freud's supposedly disproved "bisexuality theory" will be confirmed on the basis of well known biological facts, with an "understanding" surprise occurring when human intelligence and the ability to understand are factored in. This knowledge (I acquired in childhood) will also reveal that the understanding of ourselves essentially regressed throughout this century, concurrent with another major regression. WE may think our traditionally morbid nature has lessened but the opposite may apply. The "residential school" reality - going from shooting Natives (and killing them in other ways) because we hated them, to developing residential schools so that they would shoot themselves (because WE had supposedly become more caring) and loving - reveals how WE may become more morbid by becoming more pathologically delusional and dishonest. At the beginning of the century, about 90% of war casualties ("MURDERS") were men who waged wars, as they still do. Women and children then increasingly became the MURDERED ones in wars, now reaching the 90% level. What does this mean about the development of our value system during this century? Maybe, our morality has regressed. What does OUR increasing devastation of the biological world reveal about the direction OUR morality has taken?

Entering into my "thinking world" is not what most people would want. The threat is that almost everything WE still believe about ourselves is a LIE, thus revealing our generally unchanged "traditional" nature. WE have learned little from history (and understood less), which will continue for as long as Knowing Thyself is generally precluded by the socialization process. What, however, will be our response when WE are pronounced guilty of always having murdered the nicest kids in the world? This will surely be a significant "within us" event, maybe something resembling a "Resurrection Of The Dead" and even a "Final Judgment" linked to what WE were made to lose as a child, and then failed to retrieve: the child within. The age of "Forgive them for they know not what they do" may also be replaced by a concept now part of a self-discovery course: "What is it you are pretending not to know?" The effects of knowledge and understanding on the human brain could be having unimaginably monumental consequences.

The Twentieth Century was unprecedented with respect to cumulating knowledge and understanding about the universe, which includes US as part of an evolving life form system. Some radical individuals, such as John Bradshaw, have been asserting that our primary socializing units - families - have always been dysfunctional, and Socrates would have agreed. What, however, is the evolving value system now making these insights possible? Is it the same one "X" was acquiring (but remained silent about) which caused him to know everyone needed help? "A challenge of the highest degree," but others have also been speaking to US. A volunteer worker reported her experiences with street youth (Note 45). "Working with them is to go from one major crisis to the next. They know they can get off the streets, and how this is done: the counselling, the steps, etc., but they hate society," which therefore places them in the Wojnarowicz category.

These youth need help, but not of the kind many of US would give when their message is received: "Who the fuck do you think you are??? Look at yourself! You have nothing! You are nothing! Too fuckin' good for US, are you? Grow up! Get a life!" Such blatant abuse, including the more insidiously subtle equivalents, must end. Soon, WE may be able to venture within and discover the wonderful part of Self these youth could not betray. They could not "become one of US" and some opted for death instead of accepting what was offered. The ones killing themselves have been telling US: "Death was better than being one of YOU." Before they leave us in one way or another, however, they had been detectable.

"...[D]istressed youth who received the intervention [a lengthy safer sex education program] said that they would engage in unsafe sex when they felt particularly distressed because they thought it was hopeless for them to protect themselves from becoming HIV positive. In addition, youths who were overwhelmed by emotional distress would bring to the group problems regarding their latest crisis, for example, being involved with a partner who was suicidal or who was being threatened by a previous partner; for these youth these problems took precedence over making behavior changes toward less unprotected sex." (Predicting patterns of sexual acts among homosexual and bisexual youths by M.J. Rotheram-Borus et al., American Journal of Psychiatry, 152(4), 1995, p. 593.) Even when greatly distressed (with their lives being at stake), these youth still act according to altruistic principles. This is an indication of sainthood; for them it would be unthinkable to place their own welfare ahead of others. Tragically, their likely sainthood status is probably never recognized (and related behaviors may be criticized) by professionals working with these youth. The same also applies for researchers studying them so that papers will be written on various youth problems, except for the most important ones. Professionals generally fail to see, and they especially fail to recognize the role they have been playing in not helping (and maybe harming) these youth. Maybe, someday, the situation will change, and a quick change is in order.

No one in particular is responsible for the death of "X" because WE are all responsible, myself more than anyone. The same applies for others who have died (and will die) for the "X" reason, before they could have understood what happened to them. I still hate what knowledge and understanding imposes on me: the mandate, the responsibility, the guilt, the ethical problems resulting from Catch-22 situations, and the impossibility of saying "I can't do this!" Survival may not be possible and the solitude has been deadly, even if I have had an almost unbelievable support system. Someday, I may meet someone who survived the impossible, the future then being open to possibilities. A relationship with such an individual would be unique, as based on an intuition/knowledge informed theory being developed when Richard and I met.

Pierre J. Tremblay
 
 

Addendum:

In the summer of 1995, I met a gay male "A" who had been in a relationship with "B" described as "The ex from hell!" The initial objective was to help "A" cope with the situation, thus requiring hours of data intake about "B" from "A". It was learned that "B" had been adopted (with related rejection issues), was sexually abused by his uncle, had a history of many suicide attempts (with repeated failures of mental health interventions), and he had a history of always dressing in black (as a reflection of his mental health status) - until he met "A".

The data intake (using methods to eliminate bias) was done at different times over a three week period, one conclusion being that "B" was highly intelligent (gifted), as opposed to maybe being delusional in this respect. He did process information at a high level, and he had often manifested distress (great annoyance) about the world because of the low intelligence level at which most people functioned. He also had life-desires reflecting an altruistic nature with related depression-inducing frustrations. As a result of this evaluation, "A" acquired a good understanding of his former partner; this had been impossible because the consequences of his "gifted" nature had not been factored in. His anger, frustration, and "losing it" responses also dissipated, which was followed by a great desire to have someone help "B", but I could not do this for a number of reasons.

When "A" learned about the psychologist I was working with (the practicing mental health professional in Calgary who best understood the phenomenon, and others may not exist), "A" contacted him after I had profiled "B" to the psychologist and asked if he would maybe work with "B". "A" then spoke to "B" in such a way that "B" was elated and amazed, not only by what "A" now understood about him, but by the possibility that someone in the world of mental health could maybe understand and help him. "B" then contacted the psychologist who worked in a Calgary hospital, but he was told that a psychiatric assessment was needed before help could be made available. He was somewhat angry about this turn of events.

I had also been subjected to the "assessment" process and had been very honest about the factors implicated in my distressing struggle to survive . The Chief Psychiatrist - who had been behind the mirror - was not kind. He responded in a way that, if the client had been anyone else, a suicide may have resulted. I responded in writing about the abuse and the resulting distress manifested as anger/rage; this response was rooted in my altruistic-based protective nature. I had not been ready for the assessment to include the devastating realization - in an experienced way - that destroying "the nicest kids in the world" begins at the psychiatric assessment level in Calgary, and probably everywhere else. Although their response was predictable, it was nonetheless difficult to believe that the ones entrusted to help people would be harming them: a psychiatric tradition.

Hope had been instilled in "B" who went for a psychiatric assessment. However, these professionals failed "B" when, after be requested the specified psychologist (his only perceived hope for help at the time), no assurance was given in this respect. The net results were very negative, including a suicide attempt, but this was predictable given that mental health professionals have been clueless about the deadly factor affecting the "B", "X", or "me" individuals. The results were reported to my psychologist who eventually became so disgusted with the Calgary "mental health" situation that he has left the city. This outcome was detrimental to me, and no one is now available to whom "X" types of individuals could be referred. Before doing this, I must have a reasonable degree of confidence that the individual will be helped; he/she must not be harmed.

While working on this analysis of the "X" factor in suicide, an interest in the "gifted" factor in suicide had led Dick Ramsay (Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary) to seek out related information which included the Spring, 1996 "suicide" issue of The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, Vol 7(3). Four papers were published on the subject, with an unconvincing and minor mention made of the "homosexuality" as a factor in youth suicide. An unwise procedure was also advocated to determine homosexual orientation issues when doing a psychological autopsy. As expected, the "X" factor described above was not noted, but evidence of the factor was present.

In Psychological autopsies of three academically talented adolescents who committed suicide by T. Cross, R. Cook, and D. Dixon, the results of the psychological autopsies are given. One of the three male victims was noted to have been "possibly confused about his sexual identity," but this factor was not explored. The authors manifested a great lack of understanding and insight about the issues underlying these suicides in their summary description of the three victims:

"Excessive introspection and obsessive thinking are evident. The journals served as ways to avoid interaction with others, and as a result, irrational thinking fed on itself rather than being disconfirmed by others."

Social norms abound in this very insulting description which would also apply to "X"; the ideas expressed would themselves be causal in the suicide of these youth. Fortunately, a part of one victim's journal - the only information produced by any of the victims to be made available in the paper - was cited:

"I look at life as an undesirable game. I don't want to play anymore. This leads me to the decision that the only way I can exist without being untrue, is to die. Suicide is the only option I can accept for this reason .... The only other alternative is to make me ignorant again. There is no way I am going to allow someone to strip my knowledge (insight) away."

This basic duplication of what "X" rendered in his suicide note reveals that the "X" factor is not rare. It may, in fact, be very common, but would be rarely written about by the victims. In these cases, insightful and lengthy data intake methods (akin to the "grounded theory" approach in research: Note 30a, but much more demanding) would be needed, as it was done to establish the gifted nature of "B" and his problems also affecting "A". Unfortunately, investigating professionals probably lack the skills needed to do such work, and their socialization may preclude the production of "understanding" results indicting society as the killers of our most "gifted" youth.

To produce such an insightful treatise, researchers would need to venture into the world of apparently "excessive introspection and obsessive thinking," and also "avoid interaction with others," especially professionals; their mandate has been to "disconfirm" such "irrational thinking feeding on itself." Their socially constructed mandate has been to destroy save the world kids and, once killed, to make sure no one will have the knowledge needed to understand the role professionals played in these deaths. Could these professionals be "the great deceivers" we were warned about long ago?
 
 

Suggestions, Related Information, and a Request:

A very rewarding experience resulted from the work done on the "X" suicide note; it was the only information available at the time about the author, and the note is therefore a window into his mind and the situation resulting in his death. If you like a challenge (problem solving), working on the suicide note is recommended before reading my analysis which could ruin the joy of discovery or realization you otherwise could have experienced. Doing your own "understanding" work will also best establish - for yourself - if you could have helped "X", the alternatives being "no effect" (his death occurring as it did), or accelerating the time of his death. It is also possible for you to produce a "suicide" explanation different (to various degrees) than the one given. The suicide note was obtained from Richard Ramsay (Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary) who recognized that I had been articulating a somewhat similar problem, but he was not sure. His intuitive conclusion was correct, as was his hunch that I may be able to see what others could not. He was the one I spoke with the most often during the initial understanding endeavor.

- Reading all the notes (located on two web pages and accessible via links) may interfere with the flow of information presented. It is therefore recommended that they not be accessed during the first reading, unless you feel the related information is needed to better understand what is written. Many of the notes were added to answer questions the reader may have, or to supply related information, the objective being to treat you as I would like to have be treated in the same understanding seeking situation. You will nonetheless handle the situation as you wish. The original document was written with fewer notes and without references; they were added so that interested inquisitive readers would have relevant information, or be able to more quickly access relevant information.

- A part of the presentation - highlighted in the title - is still responded to with some embarrassment. The "save the world" label is used because it was the name given to the attribute being described by the individual who first recognized the factor's association with highly distressed youth. The attribute, however, is generally restricted to Jesus (and God) in western countries (and in Christians groups found throughout the world) where it is believed that only one individual has had this status. Therefore, anyone claiming to have a "save the world" attribute will likely be ridiculed, ignored, and/or stigmatized, or worse. In the mental health world, anyone manifesting (or acknowledging) this attribute will likely be diagnosed to have a "grandiosity" problem often intimately associated with three diagnoses: narcissism, manic depression (bipolar disorder), and schizophrenia. Afflicted individuals may therefore avoid revealing such a inner (dawning) reality - and the related problems - to anyone, but they may reveal parts of what exists, the hope being that someone will understand them. The attribute may also be revealed in jest, the recipients of the information most often responding in kind. I have known of two such cases: a 17-year-old Calgary male who did this (as reported to me by his mother) killed himself in 1995; the other individual does not yet know if the same outcome will result, or if his brain will short.

- My personal experiences (including a special therapeutic experience) are supplied at the beginning because it is thanks to these life events that I could formulate an explanation for the suicide being addressed. My current "living" status has been against the odds and there are others "out there" in a situation similar to the one which killed "X". Making contact with such individuals would be greatly appreciated, and the same applies for anyone who knows such an individual. Related problems will likely not be understood, nor would most people know what to do to help these individuals. Harming them is likely.

Great courage is needed to reveal that one has a save the world attribute, and even more courage is needed to place relevant information on the Internet - for anyone to criticize. If, however, only one of these individuals is helped (or is at least not harmed) because the information needed to better understand the phenomenon was made available, the negative outcomes I may experience will be amply compensated for. If you are such an individual, or know of someone possibly in this category (and wish to help), I will appreciate receiving relevant information. At this point in the concept's development, acquiring histories is an important part of the understanding process, and the Internet makes this possible in an unprecedented way. I thank you for the time taken to read what I have written and wish you well.
(Return to text.)

 

Suicide Note by "X":

Unless I miss my guess; this suicide note will probably be found rather quickly. It's the only one; so don't bother sorting through all the papers scattered around - nothing of import is in them.

Well; this is it I suppose - I can write this now; figured out what to say just a moment ago. I should be dead by the end of the week; not quite sure when I'll have finished everything on my schedule. Have a few things yet to do

Anyway; l promised myself I wouldn't drag this out - while I'd like to write several hundred pages outlining my thoughts and "last words" to each person I know and knew; I haven't the time; nor the ability to do it right. So I won't.

However; the big question that everyone will probably want answered is the "Why?" question. Which is why I'm writing this - I finally have an answer that I think I can put down on paper so that possibly, though I don't have real high hopes, you'll understand. About all I can really hope for is that this short explaination will keep anyone from thinking that they had anything to do with causing this decision. Trust me; I've thought this out. 2 years; 9 month of thought if you want to quibble. Specific thoughts to this suicide began in early January this year. The final decision was arrived at in mid March, with an initial go date set for late April; which got put off until now because I don't like leaving things unfinished. I've got as much wrapped up as I'll ever have now; anything further past this week is really just procrastination. So here goes:

Many of you know my history; from various perspectives depending on when I told you; and how in depth I went. So I'm not going to hash it out again here in any detail. Suffice it to say that many years ago I made a mistake. No your normal "stub toe" mistake - this was much more long-term. I got curoius about how my mind worked; and wanted to know more about it. In short; I decided to learn how to think better.

Tall order for a child still in elementary school. Having a childs normal attention span I didn't really do anything serious at the time some of you know how obsessive I can be these days; back then I wasn't. Or at least not as much.

Time past though; and I made progress. I started to notice people around me; and how they behaved; and noticed how with very little effort I could cause things to happen, Nothing significant mind you; but with a few words I could cause someone to open up to me; or I could just as easily shut them down. Nothing perfect; nothing refined; but it improved my life a bit at the time. I really don't think I had any real understanding of what I was doing. Just knew I was somewhat happier.

And then I started to put faith in my talent. And I learned about obsession. And I made another mistake.

Nothing serious to anyone else; but it hit me hard. I had tried to change something; and expected the results; and this time they didn't come. It hurt. It had been a long time since I had hurt as much as I did then. I really didn't know what to do. If I hadn't been so mentally scattered I might have tried suicide then. And I was hurt enough to have taken a serious crack at it.

But instead; I made my second mistake. I became obsessive about myself. I started to understand what I was doing; and I didn't like how things turned out. Rather than trying to find other; better solutions, I decided that I needed not to become better at what I had been doing; but the best. If I knew more about how my mind worked; I could change it to whatever I wanted; and through that be whoever I wanted.

I continued my introspection but now at a much higher level of intensity. By the time I had gotten to high school I was spending an average of 2 hours each day analysing myself - usually looking at what the day had brought; and what I had done; and how I could do it differently, better. Plus I always had some old mistakes that I had made that I wanted to find solutions for; in case similar situations came up again.

At some point; I'm not quite sure when though; I noticed something. Through all of my introspection I had managed to develop a ridgid code of ethics to live and act by. I think it may have come out of pride; if I were the best then I should be able to find solutions to manipulation that were undetectable to others. And then that didn't harm others; and finally; that helped others; and even then; only those who wanted to be helped. An ego-centered person; I was so full of myself that I felt I should be able to achieve results without hurting people; or affecting those who didn't want to be. Tall orders. A challenge of the highest degree. The ego went for it once again.

All this did not develop at once of course; but it did cause me to look at how I was affecting those around me; and start to aquire A distaste for *any* result that did not meet my standards.

Then came August of 1991

By this time I was almost in a self-loathing state. On one side the ego was high and mighty with what I could do; and to bolster that; the opinion that I shouldn't use my abilities because "the world wasn't ready" - on the other side the disire to be rid of it all; because I didn't like the responsibility I was forcing on myself. I wanted to be a "normal person"

And for a week of August 1991, 1 was.

I have no idea how it occurred; or how it ended. But it happened. For a whole week; everything I knew about psychology vanished. It was like walking around blind. Before I could see someone and almost know what they were thinking. I'd be able to see how to say the right things; and know how to achieve any of my desires without effort. And be smug about it because my ethics wouldn't let me test anything; so I couldn't see the failures. Everything I allowed myself to do showed success. But during this week everything was a mystery.

I was normal. And I hated every minute of it. This was the point I started to seriously contemplate suicide.

While I'd had a few attempts prior to that date; half dozen maybe; none of them had be significant at all; more hopes at an easy out that any serious attempt. But that week changed everything.

When I came out of that week my plans to die fell by the wayside somewhat. But while I wasn't actively considering death; I was taking a harder look at what I'd become. For awhile I tried to become a person again - one with odd habits and knowledge - but I stopped trying to improve myself. I went to university; and started to make a go at it. And met apathy on all sides. I started to wonder why I even bothered; and then got back to the suicide issue again.

At that point I wasn't thinking about committing suicide; 1, was more examining what I was achieving in my head - what were my wants and desires; why did I act the way I did. And most importantly; why did I think the way I did.

I muddled though the next 6 months grappling with these questions; and kept coming back to the same answers. Things just weren't right. So I made preparations once again to die; this time with serious intent behind my efforts. I made several attempts at various times; but all I managed to accomplish was proving to myself that I am a real pain to kill. I've since come across some information that states that at least one of my attempts should have resulted in death; by a longshot.

Anyway; time passed; and I kept at my self examination. By now I knew things were seriously wrong; and could start to put pieces together on potentials. It became almost like a table of possibilities - I'd throw together some assumptions; use my knowledge of myself to extrapolate based on them; and record the results. Then start all over again. The picture didn't come up looking very good. In a large majority of the answers things were such that a continued unhappiness was projected. In my mind an unhappy life is not better than death (which is why I believe in doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill; if the patient desires it) so those results had obvious conclusions. In the other results the answers were on the whole much bleaker. While I would occasionally get lucky and come up with a "positive" result; these generally were not reated as likely in any sense of the word; and were generally fairly improbably. The rest of the results projected out to a loss of mental stability - a result which was *not* acceptable. These; while not likely; were more probably than the positive results; and this; coupled with the fact that a high percentage of the results were just basically unhappy; was enough to make me decide; once again; to initiate plans for suicide.

Which lead to my only actually discovered suicide attempt; about a year and a half ago.

That attempt changed my views on things fairly drastically. While it didn't change my views on myself; or on the feelings/opinions of those around me; it did give me a larger appreciation about both how strong my will to live was, and just what the strenth of my mind was. While I gave myself 6 months minimum to think about things before doing anything again. I'm fairly sure at the time I even mentioned that the events had no bearing on my potential for suicide; just that they would at least delay them.

It wasn't until December, 1993 that I finally felt that I had a reasonable handle on things again and about all the incident did for long run counting was increase my resolve. I gave things in general a couple more months mulling over before in March I gave myself the last go to start serious considerations again. Which brings us up to date.

So what was the point of all that? Mostly delaying the final explaination; but also so that you've some concept of the background of the decision; and information to signify that this wasn't a casual decision; but one long in the making.

Anyway; what I realized tonight; which prompted me to write this (before then I had still been debating if I should leave anything; knowing that it'd likely be debated over what the "real meaning" behind it was.) was that what everything I've thought about boils down to is that I've taken away from myself the one thing I hold most dear.

My freedom.

While physically I'm not restrained; mentally I no longer have free will; and this binds me as much as chains and bars would. Everything I try to do automatically gets analysed over and over by what my past has dictated is the best way. Every decision I make I know why I made it even ones made in reaction to something back when I don't have time to think up front. Even the wrong decisions I know why I made them. And I know why my mind is set up to make those decisions. And the worst part about it is that the whole mess is a trap. Each "wrong" decision is "right" by some reason; and I am forced to accept that. I can't even fix the problem; because even though I could get rid of all this decision making machinery of mind with the help of a good psychologist; there's one further problem.

I've become the machinery. To destroy it would be to destroy me. It'd take me back to that week in August; the one week of hell that I hate even more than what I am now. So coming right down to it; I'd rather die than be fixed. And I can't live while I'm broken. I believe everyone has the right to live. I also believe that everyone has the right to die. This is part of having freedom of choice. I consider forcing those people with terminal diseases who are in great pain to live a form of torture.

Anyway; that's it. Fini. Go ahead and read between the lines; but anything you find is of your own devising.


Related:

Cross T, Gust-Brey K, Ball, P (2002). A psychological autopsy of the suicide of an academically gifted student: Researchers' and Parents' Perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(4). Full Text.


"More people are killed by a lack of proper
education than any other phenomena in the world."
"X"
1994

Email:   Pierre Tremblay: ----- pierre@youth-suicide.com ----- (403) 245-8827

Home Page
GLBT Education Index
Top Of Page
Visitor Numbers