Quote of the day from Andrew J. Galambos Posted 8/18/2023:
(Note from Spaceland Publications: Even today there are so-called students of Galambos who are guilty of the things the professor talks about in the quotes below from his psychology course and who even look forward to putting out their own “superior, condensed” versions of his work.)
Example of a Primary Murderer

The kind of person I can’t take at all is the one that says, “That was a great course he gave except that it took you too long and I could have given it in one-third the time.” Now, that is a person that is an absolute de-incentive to accomplishment and if I believed in capital punishment, that’s the person should get it. [Audience laughter.] However, rest assured, I do not think that’s the solution. I just said that—that’s primary murder, by the way. It’s Olympianism to the maximum extent. I’ve had that type of comment hurled at me any number of times. If you feel guilty—squirm. [Audience chuckling.] If you knew how to give what I’m giving, then why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy enough to sit on Mount Olympus and judge someone else.
PBVS-273: Session 18, Part B-Vol. IV, p. 195

It’s Not Galambos’ Fault If His Lecture’s are Too Long for Some Students

Then people say my lectures are long. At least I say something. [Audience chuckling.] Sure, my lectures are long if you mean a certain number of hours elapse, and your fannies get hard. Or rather, the chairs get hard for your fannies. [More chuckling in audience.] I recognize that. I’m sympathetic to your plight, so don’t bother me with the criticism, I already heard it. You see, I already knew all that. [Audience laughter.] There is no criticism you can give me about this that I haven’t heard at least a thousand times a year. The chairs are hard. The air conditioning wasn’t—it was either too hot or too cold, and so on and so forth. Not here, I presume, but also, the room was too dark. You better not tell me that here, I will really get upset about it. [Audience chuckling.] I can still say it. I don’t know if it’s totally satisfying, I’d still like to have a little more illumination, but this was my first opportunity. Then there was the energy crisis I had to worry about, you know, it’d be terrible to have all these lights on. But these are things that people will say as an excuse because they aren’t getting what they should be getting so they find excuses. Anytime somebody tells me my lectures are too long, all that means is you didn’t get anything out of it. The question is, whose fault is it? Was there something to get out of the lecture, or were you not understanding it? Who has failed in the communication, me or you? Now, you say, if nobody can ever learn anything from it, then that proves that it’s the transmitter. Even that doesn’t, by the way.

PBVS-273: Session 21, Part B-Vol. V, pp. 56-7


Repetition for Comprehension Is Not Understood by the USA (Universal Smart Aleck) Type

This isn’t my first discussion of it here, in psychology, and it better be said again. And you may say I’m repeating myself. There are two kinds of repetition. I’ve already said that in other classes, not this one, I don’t believe it was this one. One kind of repetition is not a repetition, it’s a mistake on the part of the one who thinks it’s a repetition. When you hear the same words or the same concepts but you’re getting new meaning to what’s being said. And if you lose that, you will become the USA type of impatient jerk who will say, “Well, I didn’t hear anything new!” As a matter of fact, some people look upon my courses as though they have been cheated if they didn’t get a new cosmological innovation at least four times in every half session. [Audience laughter.] How many cosmological innovations have you done in a lifetime? [The audience laughs louder.] How many do you expect anyone to come up with, for heaven sakes? Do you think they grow on trees and you pick them off like ripe plums? They emerge and evolve, and they evolve out of thinking of the same things that you already know and extend it to areas you haven’t applied it to. If the standard USA studied physics, he’d be turned off by plus and minus. “Well, I hear that over and over again. Energy. Don’t you have anything to talk about but energy?” I get that, too, except in my subject of volition, it’s property. “Don’t you have anything other to talk about than property?” I’ve heard that. As a matter of fact, it’s gotten to the point where it’s so nauseating that now it’s a standard in-house joke. Snelson always greets me, “Don’t you have anything to talk about except property?” [Audience laughs.] From him, I take it, because I know who he is and what he is doing and I know the vein in which he’s saying it. That’s our bitter humor we have to suffer. It’s a form of bitter humor, gallows humor. [Some chuckles from a few people in the audience and AJG takes a drink.] What I gave you about the alphabet and the numerals, thirty-six symbols plus punctuation marks. So, probably fewer than fifty symbols account for almost all the principal things you have in English. “Well, there’s nothing new in here.” That really shows you it’s preposterous because they’re made up in new combinations and they convey new information each time you read it. Well, it’s in this vein that I brought up the whole discussion that took me out as far as USAs, and some of my own experiences in school where education and not credit was the goal.
PBVS-273: Session 16, Part A-Vol. IV, p. 15

Quote of the day from Andrew J. Galambos Posted  6/19/2023:

A lunatic went into the Vatican and destroyed a statue by Michelangelo, the Pieta…they quote, repaired it, unquote, but it will never be the same again. For one thing, Michelangelo isn’t around to do the repair. And everybody else is less than Michelangelo. And secondly, even with the repair, it won’t be quite the same…That’s a supreme crime.

You know, I consider that a greater crime than murder. Do you know why? Because it is murder. But it is murder of a superior person. It’s murder of somebody who’s been dead for hundreds of years. So how can you kill a man who’s been dead for hundreds of years? If he has been a great achiever of culture, then you can murder him more than a living person, because if Michelangelo were alive, he could spend another year, or two, or three sculpting another statue instead of this. But he’s not alive and that can never be replaced. And that man is a unique human being, the likes of whom there haven’t been many, and exactly like him there hasn’t been one before or since. And you cannot replace that. That is unreplaceable. There is nothing like that. And therefore to destroy that part of his life during which he made that, that is murder of a man whose significance is greater than the vast majority of people who have ever lived. And I consider that a bigger crime than murder of an average person, especially so because, as I say, it is totally unreplaceable.

You may say all human life is unreplaceable. Yes, but not all human life is equally important. All human life is equally valid but not equally important. Postulate number two of volitional science says: all concepts of happiness pursued through moral action are equally valid. And that places upon all human beings an equal validity to the right to life and to enjoy it any way they wish as long as it’s not coercive. It doesn’t say they are equally important.

                                                                                                                    Sic Itur Ad Astra, V-201: Session 40, Vol. VI, pp. 386-87

Ladies and gentlemen, everything Galambos says above applies to what is happening to him at the hands of his so-called “trustees.” They have refused to publish his magnum opus, Sic Itur Ad Astra and we have strong evidence that the tapes to  a majority of his other hundred and fifteen courses have been destroyed. Isn’t enough enough? Isn’t it time to hand over what still exists to the people who know what to do and are willing to do it. Isn’t it time to stop the murder of a great man who has been dead for a quarter of a century?

      

Posted  5/29/2023:  

All of my courses are previews of books. Naturally! Remember what my father taught me: “Words fly away, writing remains” [in Latin, ‘Verba Volant, Scripta Manent’].                                                       STIP 17: Session 1, Part B, 1982, July 11 

 Reading the above quote does anyone still agree with Peter Giansante’s preposterous lie that Professor Galambos did not really intend to publish his work, in writing???  At Spaceland Publications we know and have the proof from the professor himself that he did desire to publish and we are carrying out his instructions. If you agree and wish to join us in building freedom feel free to contact us.                                                                                           

Posted  5/19/2023:  

When Newton published, not only was the idea secured forever…what’s more, his credit for it was assured….Publication is the strongest form of protection for an idea, as long as it’s a cosmological concept.  There’s no real basic hazard in that.  You don”t even need my theory to protect the idea’s authorship on that basis, as long as the book exists.                                                                              Andrew J. Galambos, Sic Itur Ad Astra, V-201:  Session 32, Part B, Vol. V, pp. 296-97       

.Originally posted on May 13, 2023:

“The disclosure barrier must come off. Who’s going to do it? If it isn’t the people who’ve taken my courses, nobody. Unless it’s those who read my book. But there will be no book until it is written. In the meantime, the courses have to be continued to get, not just the time, but also the market for the book. It ultimately will come from the book. That’s where the real hot end will be developed. From the readers of the book. That takes more effort to read a book and you’ll get it more deeply and it will be more durably, but it takes a while to put such a thing out.” Andrew J. Galambos PBVS-274 Session 40, Part B

Ladies and Gentlemen, the book, Sic Itur Ad Astra, has been finished for twenty years now! Don’t you think it’s time for it to be published? Spaceland Publications say yes and those were the explicit instructions of professor Galambos. Click on “The Real Sic Itur Ad Astra above.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Quote of the day from Andrew J. Galambos Posted  8/18/2023:

(Note from Spaceland Publications: Even today there are so-called students of Galambos who are guilty of the things the professor talks about in the quotes below from his psychology course and who even look forward to putting out their own “superior, condensed” versions of his work.)

Example of a Primary Murderer

The kind of person I can’t take at all is the one that says, “That was a great course he gave except that it took you too long and I could have given it in one-third the time.” Now, that is a person that is an absolute de-incentive to accomplishment and if I believed in capital punishment, that’s the person should get it. [Audience laughter.] However, rest assured, I do not think that’s the solution. I just said that—that’s primary murder, by the way. It’s Olympianism to the maximum extent. I’ve had that type of comment hurled at me any number of times. If you feel guilty—squirm. [Audience chuckling.] If you knew how to give what I’m giving, then why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy enough to sit on Mount Olympus and judge someone else.
PBVS-273: Session 18, Part B-Vol. IV, p. 195

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          It’s Not Galambos’ Fault If His Lecture’s are Too Long for Some Students 

Then people say my lectures are long. At least I say something. [Audience chuckling.] Sure, my lectures are long if you mean a certain number of hours elapse, and your fannies get hard. Or rather, the chairs get hard for your fannies. [More chuckling in audience.] I recognize that. I’m sympathetic to your plight, so don’t bother me with the criticism, I already heard it. You see, I already knew all that. [Audience laughter.] There is no criticism you can give me about this that I haven’t heard at least a thousand times a year. The chairs are hard. The air conditioning wasn’t—it was either too hot or too cold, and so on and so forth. Not here, I presume, but also, the room was too dark. You better not tell me that here, I will really get upset about it. [Audience chuckling.] I can still say it. I don’t know if it’s totally satisfying, I’d still like to have a little more illumination, but this was my first opportunity. Then there was the energy crisis I had to worry about, you know, it’d be terrible to have all these lights on. But these are things that people will say as an excuse because they aren’t getting what they should be getting so they find excuses. Anytime somebody tells me my lectures are too long, all that means is you didn’t get anything out of it. The question is, whose fault is it? Was there something to get out of the lecture, or were you not understanding it? Who has failed in the communication, me or you? Now, you say, if nobody can ever learn anything from it, then that proves that it’s the transmitter. Even that doesn’t, by the way. 
 
PBVS-273: Session 21, Part B-Vol. V, pp. 56-7
 
 
Repetition for Comprehension Is Not Understood by the USA (Universal Smart Aleck) Type
 
This isn’t my first discussion of it here, in psychology, and it better be said again. And you may say I’m repeating myself. There are two kinds of repetition. I’ve already said that in other classes, not this one, I don’t believe it was this one. One kind of repetition is not a repetition, it’s a mistake on the part of the one who thinks it’s a repetition. When you hear the same words or the same concepts but you’re getting new meaning to what’s being said. And if you lose that, you will become the USA type of impatient jerk who will say, “Well, I didn’t hear anything new!” As a matter of fact, some people look upon my courses as though they have been cheated if they didn’t get a new cosmological innovation at least four times in every half session. [Audience laughter.] How many cosmological innovations have you done in a lifetime? [The audience laughs louder.] How many do you expect anyone to come up with, for heaven sakes? Do you think they grow on trees and you pick them off like ripe plums? They emerge and evolve, and they evolve out of thinking of the same things that you already know and extend it to areas you haven’t applied it to. If the standard USA studied physics, he’d be turned off by plus and minus. “Well, I hear that over and over again. Energy. Don’t you have anything to talk about but energy?” I get that, too, except in my subject of volition, it’s property. “Don’t you have anything other to talk about than property?” I’ve heard that. As a matter of fact, it’s gotten to the point where it’s so nauseating that now it’s a standard in-house joke. Snelson always greets me, “Don’t you have anything to talk about except property?” [Audience laughs.] From him, I take it, because I know who he is and what he is doing and I know the vein in which he’s saying it. That’s our bitter humor we have to suffer. It’s a form of bitter humor, gallows humor. [Some chuckles from a few people in the audience and AJG takes a drink.] What I gave you about the alphabet and the numerals, thirty-six symbols plus punctuation marks. So, probably fewer than fifty symbols account for almost all the principal things you have in English. “Well, there’s nothing new in here.” That really shows you it’s preposterous because they’re made up in new combinations and they convey new information each time you read it. Well, it’s in this vein that I brought up the whole discussion that took me out as far as USAs, and some of my own experiences in school where education and not credit was the goal.
PBVS-273: Session 16, Part A-Vol. IV, p. 15