Circe #1 - Social Psychology & the Cabal - Part IV
It's not racism, it's speciesism
Since this one is quite dark, I thought it best to start proceedings with another exposed agent from the Yasenevo Dossier. This one is former CIA Director Richard Helms, captured on camera shortly after destroying most of the MK-Ultra files (allegedly).
“Good is what God does. “Be ye holy for I am holy” God says in the book of Leviticus. The author of 1 Peter echoes him: “Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.” For many American Christians, as recent polls show, this model of perfection includes torture, as long as it is committed by and for God’s chosen.
Religious believers often claim that without a god everything is permissible. I tend to think that the opposite is true. Without gods we are guided, however imperfectly, by empathy, fairness and truth-seeking—impulses that are built into us by our evolution as social information specialists. These impulses are enforced by moral emotions like shame and guilt and by moral reasoning capabilities that emerge during childhood. Humanity’s shared moral core can be glimpsed in every one of our wisdom traditions, religious or secular. It is the reason our wisdom traditions tend to converge in the Golden Rule. Do unto others doesn’t offer a neat answer in every situation, but it does offer a coherent objective.
By contrast, religious morality, dictated from on high, can be as contradictory or cruel as the god doing the dictation, or the culture that created that god. When god is the supernatural version of an Iron Age warlord, everything becomes possible—including torture.”
When I was young, I can’t remember how young, I was taken to a place called the London Dungeon, which is a kind of museum (in London, obviously). I don’t know if you’ve visited that place, or indeed what it’s like today (actually I just looked it up and it seems like they’ve turned it into a kind of theme-ride park – how sick is that?!), but when I went I found myself feeling increasingly nauseous, to such an extent that I was forced to sit myself down somewhere and use whatever meagre psychic willpower I had left just to stop myself from fainting. I’m not sure, I mean I can’t remember, if I did faint or not, but I am fairly certain that I had to leave and wait outside.
It was like being led on a tour through hell.
If you want an idea of the table of contents, this link should give you a case of the triggers. Don’t fret, it’s tame compared to the graphic imagery I saw (while we’re on the subject of the Saw Franchise, clearly that’s where they got their ideas from). The only objection I would have to this little list is the comment ‘torture has always existed’ – no, it hasn’t. Because normal human beings don’t do it, as we shall shortly discover. If you want to read about the earliest incidents of torture, try the Old Testament (the opening quotation comes from the end of that article, by the way, which is well worth a read).
Of course, that all makes perfect sense when you experience the revelation that this ‘god’ is nothing of the sort, but only a demon pretending to be a god. That kind of ideology bears all the hallmarks of a Satanic cult.
What the London Dungeon was like then should’ve been given a fucking adult ‘R’ rating. It was essentially an incessant tour of medieval torture porn. It included not just – presumably reproductions (I fucking hope so anyway) – of a wide variety of torture (and execution/murder) devices, but a series of graphic images, many of them from the time. One such stuck with me. It depicted a naked man strung upside down from his ankles, which were tied, apart, to two posts. There were two people holding one of those big two-man saws you would expect to see on a logging site, and they were clearly about to saw the unfortunate victim in half, starting from the genital area and working their way downwards – almost certainly slowly and careful to avoid hitting any major arteries, thus prolonging the agony for as long as possible. With the head downwards, of course, gravity would heighten the pain perception.
This was the kind of thing you would only expect to see in a depiction of hell, I would say. But this was our real world. These horrors actually happened.
It should also be noted at this juncture that this was an example, or revelation, even, of the method used to terrorise a population into subjugation. It was carried out by the Normans, a different racial group to the native population, the Anglo-Saxons. Of course this kind of terrorist tactics are still in evidence today in Britannia by the occupying Establishment, but does ‘racism’ alone explain it? I seriously do not think so. It seems more like speciesism to me.
It's certainly barbarism. Although even that doesn’t go far enough, perhaps.
I’m sure you can understand how difficult it is to comprehend how people can even consider doing these things to other people. As a rational person, I couldn’t really comprehend it because rationality implies some kind of ‘reason’ or ‘purpose’, which appeared to be absent in these depictions. Just gratuitous, that’s to say. When one considers psychology, however, and neuroscience, one can attempt to rationalise it in the sense of discovering some ‘reason’ or ‘purpose’ to the depravity. Specifically, the purpose is some kind of perverse self-gratification on the part of the torturer. If, after all, the ‘purpose’ was to instil terror in a population in order to subjugate them, then one would not need to go that far, or you could perhaps fake it, and simply propagate stories and rumours about it.
But then again, what kind of monster would subjugate a population with terror in the first place?
Another consideration is what makes a person develop the kind of inhuman personality profile capable of such acts of depravity? Personally, I do not believe that we can cite ‘dysfunctional nurture’ to explain it. We would have to be talking the most extreme form of dysfunctional nurture here. Do we see evidence of that in the people who carried out these acts? Perhaps for a minority, but certainly not all of them. In that sense, we do need to consider the possibility of dysfunctional nature. And it is, indeed, so dysfunctional that I would strongly argue we really are dealing with a separate species here.
Psychology, after all, does have objective laws to it. It is logical. The reason it is logical is because the human brain has a distinctive general pattern and functioning to it, in the way that it processes incoming information. Yes, there is something called ‘neuroplasticity’, which is the brain’s (epigenetic) capacity to ‘re-wire’ itself, but there are limits, and to rewire that brain you still need to work with the existing brain areas, each of which is indeed distinct and carries out distinct and discernible functions.
One such is what I would call ‘aversion’. I would also suggest this to be a kind of pre-emptive conscience. If you asked yourself, honestly, whether you could even imagine yourself carrying out those kinds of horrors then (I would hope) you would immediately say no, you couldn’t. In fact you would not even be able to watch it being carried out, and were you to hear about it you would begin to feel sick. That’s because you are a normal human being. The aversion function of your brain is kicking in to action in order to protect you from feeling pain. Every lifeform, naturally, has an aversion to pain, because pain is the body’s way of signalling impending danger and damage. It’s why you can’t help but suddenly draw your hand away from a fire. You cannot stop those reflex actions, not really. Well, the brain is exactly the same. It has pathologies, for good or ill. Most of the time, you don’t notice, because the aversion centre functions prior to conscious awareness (let’s call that the pre-frontal cortex). If some notion arises deep inside your head it has to pass through several processing areas before it even reaches your consciousness.
One such area is the amygdala, which is split into right and left. Right processes positive emotions, left processes negative emotions. So I am suggesting that a part of the function of the left amygdala is to act as a pre-emptive block.
Perhaps, then, it’s not empathy, which is lacking in the psychopath, or the monster, but a pre-emptive conscience. Likewise, if we are considering self-gratification, then clearly for these monsters the reward centre of the brain is activated on seeing pain and fear in another person. This, clearly, is the precise opposite of the way it is for a normal human being, for whom sickness and nausea would be the instinctive response.
In order to rewire these functions in a normal human being you would need to carry out very extensive and very systematic programming. That requires a lot of effort and a lot of skill, aside from a monstrous derangement syndrome, of course. That, naturally, is where we enter MK-Ultra territory, and as I said I don’t want to go there just yet. Only to note that turning people into monsters can’t really be done on a generalised level, it needs to be individually focused. That’s why I say it’s not really a case of social conditioning or engineering on a larger scale, and therefore not explainable by reference to mere dysfunctional nurture.
Talking about MK-Ultra, here’s another one from the Dossier. This one should hopefully help to calm you down a little and ease your learned helplessness. This is an exceedingly rare photo of the infamous Dr. Green, from when he was just a wee toddler.
One consideration which is true, however, is that the cabal have come to understand that the most effective way to subjugate a population is to inflict trauma on them. Perhaps better put, it is what we should call chronic psychological stress. Human beings are not wired for chronic stress. Instead, they are wired for short bursts of a fight or flight response, as would be necessary ‘out in the wild’ so to speak. Perhaps up to no more than fifteen minutes at a time. We know this to be true through simple analysis of the human nervous system and its adrenaline-response. This is a very simple, easy-to-understand mechanism which serves the obvious purpose of self-protection from any natural danger which arises. Once the danger has passed, adrenaline dies down and there is no stress anymore.
Further added bonuses for the cabal of inflicting permanent stress on people is that the release of stress hormones shuts down higher brain functioning (to provide more energy to the fight or flight response). So you are effectively dumbing people down here. You are causing irreparable brain damage. Likewise, under stress, people begin to think of their own personal survival, as an individual, separated from the group – so you are also ripping apart the social order. You prevent solidarity.
Permanent stress, then, is clearly not something for which humanity is adapted. This tells you a lot, actually, about the ‘innate moral goodness’ of human beings. If humanity had evolved within a climate of constant stress then their nervous systems would look very different. A constant flow of adrenaline (or some other catalysing biochemical) would not pose a danger to the body or the brain, which would be adapted to that constant flow. So, if we’re talking Immanis here, are we perhaps suggesting that one aspect of who or what they are is, indeed, an adaptation to permanent paranoia? What would such a creature look like and how would it behave? Do we see evidence of this in the behaviour of the cabal?
I would suggest that, as it happens, yes, to a certain extent we do. It might not be permanently high levels of adrenaline such as you see when a human activates the fight or flight response, but some constant, moderate level. You can understand that this would have a definite epigenetic effect on the brain’s wiring, for sure. It would, I hypothesise, include a fundamental rewiring of the addiction processes in the brain.
Ironic, then, how that scion of the British Rothschild family, Nathaniel, has an MSc in Addiction Studies. Just saying, you know. Intriguingly he doesn’t have any children either (at least that we know of). Being gay wouldn’t be relevant – given the importance of preserving the heritage in these families, that strikes me as a highly interesting curiosity.
Anyhow, if a state of permanent unease, shall we say, is one characteristic of these creatures, then one may well be justified in suggesting that a kind of bitterness and envy of human beings is responsible for the malicious, spiteful need to project that chronic stress onto humanity. Like ‘I’m suffering, so I don’t see why others shouldn’t suffer too’. I’d imagine that certainly applied to Thatcher in her pathological war on children and childhood throughout her adult life.
Time for another exposed spy. This photo from one of our moles cunningly captured another CIA Director in action. This one is George Tenet, caught lurking around Langley on the morning of 9-11.
If we examine these methods of inflicting cruelty and subjugation and suchlike on the people – in practically every country I can think of, I should add – then we can begin to perceive the utter inhumanity of these monsters. It’s the fact that it’s insidious and almost ‘played down’ that likewise provokes – or should provoke – a gasp of horror in the conscientious observer.
Take what is happening in Gaza right now. Yes, it is a genocide, of course, but the important psychological point is that it is being allowed to be broadcast effectively continuously and in real time across the entirety of social media. This is designed to make people feel utterly sick, of course, but the real cruelty comes from preventing people from being able to stop it. It is about instilling ‘learned helplessness’ in people, along with a kind of abdication of responsibility to those in authority and the continued submissive habit of almost pleading with them to make it stop. But they will not make it stop, will they? You know that, and I know that.
No wonder, then, that the children of Gaza are being subjected to unending trauma. It’s not just the murder, of course. It’s the being held hostage, the ten thousand of them held in Israeli concentration camps where they are raped, tortured, beaten and starved to death.
The same level of cruelty, you may not have noticed, is being applied in my home country, Britain, right now by the new Government. Some 800,000 rapes happen in Britain every year, for example (conviction rate? Don’t even bother asking) – not that you would know that if you only get your information from the mainstream media. I’ll just leave that statistic up there and you can contemplate the rest yourself.
But then take child poverty. Something like 1 in 3 children (and therefore their families) are living in poverty right now. That word ‘poverty’ seems somewhat abstract, doesn’t it, so let’s replace it with the word ‘abuse’. Let’s also add words like ‘permanent trauma’ and ‘chronic psychological stress’ and bring in some stuff like ‘inadequate nutrition for healthy brain development’. If you want to add to that, go ahead. But we are, in effect, talking systematic and horrific child abuse here. So what do this new Government do? Well, first they add to the cruelty with the old ‘there’s no money left’ canard, then they say ‘no, we have no plans to stop abusing 1 out of every 3 children in the country we told you we are here to serve’. Then they say ‘oh, well, maybe in 2-3 years, if you’re lucky, and our austerity plans have put the economy back on track, we may consider throwing you a few breadcrumbs’. Thus, of course, prolonging the agony. Even then, do you think they have any plans to actually eliminate poverty/abuse completely? Of course not. Maybe they intend to reduce it from 1 in 3 to 1 in 4, then callously call that a successful policy.
This is, I say, even worse conscious cruelty than the Tories. With the Tories, you kind of know where you are because they only bother with half-arsed attempts to look like they care, but Starmer et al., no, they are worse, because they pretend to care. Unlike the Tories they offer people lifelines, then snatch them up slightly and dangle them just out of reach. Starmer, I say, is even more evil and child abusing than the fucking Tories. And that’s saying something.
As I said, those terrorist tactics are still in evidence today in my country. The Normans, I say, never went away.
And believe me, dearest reader, these monsters do this deliberately.
Back to the Yasenevo Dossier. For our final two, I thought I’d reassure you that there are, indeed, still good guys in this world. On our side, obviously.
This one, however, is absolutely not our Katrina in one of her disguises. Honestly.
It should make one wake up and ask this fundamental and all-important question – why do they hate human children so much?
See, it’s not just some visceral and burning hatred of the human species as a whole, it is especially directed towards children. And I am suggesting there must be some innate pathology at work there. And if so, it would appear somewhat vital that we try to understand why this is so.
Dysfunctional nurture, I say, is not a sufficient explanation. It may partly contribute, but it’s not the whole story.
Furthermore, I am going to suggest that what we are seeing here can only be explained not by a form of racism or ‘other-ism’, but by speciesism.
This is where I return to social psychology. Whilst it is true that human beings – Sapiens, that is – do have a clearly limited social cognition number (around 150), it is also true that they possess an innate taboo – or pre-emptive block – on ‘killing another member of your own species’ (unless in unavoidable self-defence, perhaps – which naturally would have very rarely occurred in prehistory). If this was not true, by the way, then we would see abundant archaeological and other evidence for it from prehistory – which we assuredly do not. In fact, a species with that innate behaviour would go extinct. If you are wondering how Immanis survived, in that respect, then simply consider that they developed parasitism as the adapted mechanism of choice.
If you think about it, every social animal possesses this pre-emptive block. ‘Thou shalt not kill one of your own’ is hard-wired, in other words. Also known as The Golden Rule – do as you would be done by. Sure, members of the same species may get into little spats and disputes, perhaps for accidental violations of perceived territory, or unwanted sexual advances, but you never see anything like the kind of gratuitous depravity and senseless torture we have witnessed being perpetrated by these monsters. Apply this insight to yourself and your own personality, and you will, I am sure, agree with me. Would you want to be tortured or abused? I don’t think so.
This, of course, is why the propaganda required to motivate people to war involves a necessary dehumanisation of the ‘enemy’ (along with the ‘it’s self-defence, not attack’ deception).
But that’s not how it is for the monsters. They do not, after all, lack the intellectual capacity to understand that the best adaptation for keeping yourselves safe is to be friendly to Homo Sapiens, because they also know that everything I say about the innate moral goodness and civility of humanity is true. Humans only ‘threaten’ if they feel threatened against. And even then, they do not manufacture an atrocity exhibition.
So here is another suggestive consideration. What is the social cognition number of Immanis? It is likely not the same as Sapiens. If it is much lower, for example, then this may well go some way towards explaining their constant paranoia, because their brains simply lack the mental capacity to comprehend complex social behaviour, shall we say. Human behaviour must seem both alien and threatening to them.
But that’s not a comprehensive explanation. How about this – what if the social cognition number for the monsters is precisely one?
And that this ‘one’ is simply the species itself. The species archetype, we might say. The hive mind. If we are considering a species in which the individual is of zero value, and only the survival of the species itself, the group soul, is of any value, then there really would be zero conscience. Some other individual dies, there is zero emotional reaction. Some other individual suffers, likewise, zero emotional reaction.
Because as I say, how did this species survive? By becoming a parasite. That’s how.
And this is why their primary method is slavery. Or perhaps, may we say, Feudalism, would be a better word.
But this is a parasite species with an intellectual self-awareness. But no morality. Morality, after all, is a direct natural adaptive consequence of sociability. All social animals possess it. But not them, clearly. They have no conscience, or pity, or remorse. And on the fortieth anniversary of the release of the original Terminator movie, perhaps I should add that they can’t be reasoned with, or bargained with, and they absolutely will not stop. Ever.
But, being parasites, they cannot survive on their own. They need a host. And therein lies both the explanation for their programme of subjugation, maintained through the continuous inflicting of trauma and chronic psychological stress and cruelty, but also the hope. Because if they can’t live without us, then they cannot kill us. Because to do that, would be to kill themselves.
Depopulation to shorten the odds, sure. But they have to be careful with that one. Anything beyond a certain level becomes obviously apparent, thus provoking the self-defensive revolution. Perhaps one percent per year for the rest of the century might do it. One can be certain they’ve had a lot of meetings about that agenda.
Then again, there is also another, far more sinister possibility for what their agenda truly is. In view of the chronic psychological stress and the continuous trauma, perhaps they are using evolutionary adaptation against humanity, by creating the very environmental conditions in which they themselves evolved. It might take ten thousand years, but it would happen eventually. The human brain would adapt itself, change, and become just like them. When that happens, Sapiens would truly be a minority.
Perhaps that possibility doesn’t even bear thinking about. But I wouldn’t discount it, for sure.
And perhaps this survival agenda is the thing we should be focusing on, ultimately. In that respect, notice how they spend a great deal of energy misdirecting the attention of the so-called truth movement into other topics.
So, in the interests of pragmatism, perhaps one of the most important questions we need to ask is really very simple – what’s the actual population size of Immanis? How many of them are there?
We know what they are, after all. We know how they behave. We know what their agenda is. What their ultimate objective is. None of that is difficult to comprehend in the slightest.
But without knowing the scale of the enemy, we are at a clear disadvantage.
So that’s where we need to go next with this offbeat dissertation. I am not entirely certain how to solve that question right now. I’m not even certain there will be a part five. But if there is, then I think that’s what it should address.
I think it needs to end on an upbeat note, so let us be done with all this darkness.
Maybe we can win with the help of this girl – one of the most famous and effective field agents you never heard of – whose mugshot they slipped into the Yasenevo dossier. If we can find her, and if we can afford her, then maybe we could hire…
Sleep well, oh my sleepers, and see you next time…
"If you are wondering how Immanis survived, in that respect, then simply consider that they developed parasitism as the adapted mechanism of choice."
You nailed it right on the head with your Circe #1 exposee. If one starts to look at this "species" from the perspective you describe, then everything in this world makes sense. The horror perpetrated by this strain of "humanity" fits the description of the Homo Immanis perfectly well. It does not suffice to call the globalists just parasites, but one has to look at them in evolutionary context and understand that this species is not what most human beings are. Just like the orangutang is not a human being. It may look somewhat like a human being, but it is not. And so is the Homo Immanis NOT a human being, although it looks pretty much the same.
Out of a lack for better, I refer to these "fellow humans" as parasites, or psychopaths myself, but it does not cover it. Even a psychopath is to some extent capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong, and what his actions are causing another person. As we know, some psychopaths will actually confess, in courts and such, that what they did was wrong. But Homo Immanis does not have such feedback system. You may well be right about the amygdala; it certainly warrants investigation.
As for your reference to the London Dungeon, it is a good and vivid example of the horror Homo Immanis is capable of, and which capability still existst in their brain, as we are witnessing in other forms of horror nowadays throughout the world.
If it were possible to eradicate Homo Immanis, the world would be a manageable environment; manageable to the extent that living is truly a pleasant experience - unique and shortlived. Homo Immanis is the evolutionary parasitic force that destroys the natural strain, that we call the Homo Sapiens, the majority of human creatures that populates the world. However, HS is not capable of fighting off HI. That's another discussion, the why not, and equally important to your thesis (if you have not already covered it, I still need to read part 2 and 3!)
Thanks for taking your time to explain all this, it is long overdue. Humanity needs to be realistic about the life forms that it is intermingled with. What an eye opener it will be....
Why not continue this series? You've made a great start into the subject and all is set for a deep dive into cabal's mentality. The question of their overall number is definitely an interesting one, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's put us in position of a huge disadvantage.
Why? Let me begin by saying that although numbers are from the domain of precision and exactness, we can definitely deduct that the overall number of cabal is minuscule. Just by following the money and looking at the most wealthy we arrive at the estimate of about 1% of the whole population size. But not all wealthy people are cabal's members, so we might cut that down to 0,5%. Out of those half percent we should also exclude complete and obvious peons, such as Musk or Bezos or Branson et al., who are merely acting as fronts for the cabal's families as true owners of the business corporations. These puppets are not the ones calling any shots, they don't decide pretty much about anything except for maybe what's on their breakfast menu and what shoes are they'll be wearing today. So we can again heavily cut that number down to, say, 0.1% of the entire world's population.
Then we should also estimate what's the size of the entire human population so we could extrapolate the size of the Immanis. I'd posit that there are definitely not 8 billion people inhabiting Gaia at this moment. As much as I've traveled around and had an opportunity to observe the globe from high up while flying around, we live in a huge world that's very sparsely populated. Some cities may actually concentrate the population at one place, but that's not near the average per square km. My educated guess would be that the number of Sapiens at this point is 2 billion at the most. Which in turn gives us the estimate of about 2 million of Immanis that actually count.
Out of these 2 million, we should focus on those who are occupying their highest ranks in planning department and societal order in general - I'm pretty sure only small percentage from their own ranks are dealing with surviving strategies of parasitism and speciesism, while the majority of the spoiled brats are too busy reinventing the definition of hedonism on weekly basis. So I would hypothesize that we're looking at maybe a few thousand of Immanis generals and planners - those who are definitely and restlessly working against Sapiens'.
I still believe that the most important issue is about naming these rare beasts and finding out where they live / hide. Even if I told you that the exact number of cabal is 1.574.631 individuals, this doesn't represent any real solution to the problem. If the main goal is to remove them as parasites and regain the control of our societies, then I'd focus on investigating who they are so I could unmistakably identify them when the opportunity arises. The side effect of creating such a list would be, of course, counting their number as we'd been writing them down. Both issues solved by doing one task. I'd call that extremely pragmatic and efficient.