I am very pleased you liked it. Thank you! It’s about time I did posts like this for some of my subscribers who might not be into some of the other stuff I do. My fault for being so eclectic of course! Part 2 will be later today/this evening (it’s pretty much a straight continuation - one reason I split them up is to give people some time to digest the ideas).
I think you are probably correct about both being the case with regards to power corrupting. It is certainly true that for those with a weak will and, well, weakly-held principles, shall we say, they can be corrupted. So we could extend the sentence with that caveat, to something like ‘power corrupts… those able to be corrupted… and absolute power corrupts the absolutely corruptible’. So yeah, I think it’s a combination of both, and unfortunately there simply aren’t enough incorruptible people out there who seek power for purely good reasons.
That’s what we really need - those who are prepared to be utterly ruthless in the pursuit of goodness and the defeat of evil - this ruthlessness, after all, is one of the advantages evil possesses over good - good people are far more reluctant to be ruthless, and too easily given to pity and remorse and compassion. This, I would say, is one of the reasons why evil pretends to be good - if the monster can make itself look human, and get other humans to believe that illusion, then the human’s natural compassion comes out, and provides a shield for the monster. Reveal the monster as a monster, however, and then, and only then, does the human become ruthless (self-defence).
And this, likewise, is why the demon pretends to be god…
One could reasonably argue that Ruthlessness is an aspect of the demon. By behaving ruthlessly, we grow that demon. By the time we have ruthlessly "removed" the cabal, we have effectively made ourselves a member of the next generation of the cabal.
Marxist 'Will To Power' almost inevitably means the successful 'revolutionary leaders' will emulate the very same structure they were supposed to overthrow. The Revolution revolves around back to where it started from...
Nietzsche hinted a similar sentiment of course with his ‘when fighting monsters we must wary of becoming monsters ourselves’.
I think there is a deeper, insidious aspect to this on the part of the cabal - by forcing people to act in monstrous ways, under the guise of self-defence, they are ‘replicating the virus’ so to speak. Likewise, they have created a society in which sociopathy is a better survival adaptation. Compared to a ‘natural’ human environment in which the brain evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, in which ‘being excellent to each other’ is a better survival adaptation (hence, with the brain’s evolution, ‘innate’ morality).
I think the cabal are very conscious of this and if they do have an evil very long-term strategy then it is to fundamentally alter the human brain so it becomes more ‘normally’ sociopathic - and I do mean this in an evolutionary way. Might take tens of thousands of years (maybe less), but it could definitely happen.
I would say that most humans, perhaps not quite all, are already potential, if not full sociopaths.
It must be understood that "Sociopathy" is not a universal hatred of life, it is a hatred of the 'Othered'. While nature may well have promoted empathic, cooperative behaviour towards those 'in the group', those outside the group can be treated with extraordinary brutality.
Especially if they are seen to be threatening the in-groups privileges.
Human beings are omnivores, we may treat our food animals well, or we may treat them horrendously. The same psychological processes are at work when we view our fellow humans.
Many American settlers liked the American Indians, and wanted to treat them well. Many other settlers regarded them as an impediment to their visions of land, wealth and power.
Sadly, if most people were offered a billion dollars to 'justify' or even organise what is happening in Gaza, a distressingly large number would accept. Many who are completely normal people.
A sociopath should be regarded as a subjective prescription - "They are sociopaths to US". They may be loving parents, as many German Nazis were (Within that age's parental norms).
I do not see these people as 'outside of the norm' - rather, it is the small minority who are appalled by violence, and can see themselves as part of the human family, or indeed ALL life.
Humans are actually not very 'evolved' in that respect, although more could be with the right social mores and educations.
This is the comment that I left till last to reply to, because the only way I can really do a reply justice is with a very, very long answer which would dive into a whole range of stuff, all of which are major features of this thesis (if I can call it a thesis).
Just briefly, though, I do not agree about the ‘othering’ aspect. That’s to say I do not accept that it’s normal, or natural, or of any evolutionary benefit. Specifically, we’re talking ‘suspicion of the other’ and ‘competitiveness’. Self-defence, for sure, but self-defence only kicks in after a threat, not before. It’s similar to this silly ‘dark forest’ idea about extraterrestrials. It would assume that there is some universal memo, or in-built program that says ‘if encounter other group, must be suspicious, hate them, attack them, and so on’. That’s just silly, and personally I think it’s one more of those myths which have their origins in the Victorian era, and have been used to self-justify imperialist and neoliberal ideologies, by trying to make people think that conflict and antagonism are natural.
Notice it also implies ‘scarcity of resources’ leading to ‘competition’. Given how few humans there always were until recently, there was never any scarcity. Again, this is another self-justification for ‘neoliberalism’ which, as a system of social control, relies on restricting the availability of resources, turning necessities into luxuries.
Anyway - as I say these are central issues, so I really need to resume this series when I have time. You are definitely hitting on all the right points, though!
On one level I agree with you - that is the Universalist element. The dominant species can afford that luxury, especially a vermin-based creature like humans, that can eat virtually everything.
However Nature, looking at Nature, scarcity is a method by which she weeds out the otherwise inevitable overpopulation. The World is not limitless.
ALL other species - incl plants (Not sure about fungi, who seem to be on a completely different cooperative vibe), seek to expand, to ensure their genetic lineage. A pride of lions will fight another encroaching on their territory, or fight to encroach on another's territory. So will hedgehogs.
Scarcity is a fact in Nature. And because of that, 'othering' as we call it can also be seen as natural. "They are not of us!".
Now, we ARE a dominant species, and I agree we COULD evolve past that Nature-imposed restriction; we seem to have done so while repopulating the Earth after the Lesser Dryas impact, where the Mother Religion was all but global, and there is no archaeological evidence for warfare of any kind. (10,000-6,000 years ago, give or take).
I would certainly like if we did move past that point to a universalist position (I'd also like rights for the other species on the planet too).
That doesn't mean I disagree that ARTIFICIAL scarcity, for all the purposes you outline, doesn't happen. It most certainly does. Not only do certain 'ruling classes' like taking more than their fair share, they actively try to restrict access to resources to those they consider 'inferior' - even when there is a surplus!
The Victorian era was horrorifying. (Spelling deliberate)
Nonetheless, just as with the 'elite' schooling, it is based on Nature's own dilemmas. I suspect this is why it has lasted so long, despite the 10-15% of the population who always saw through it and wanted to change it. Often brutally murdered for that 'sin'.
Nature is not soft hearted, nor soft-headed. She gives the curse of Life, and the blessing of Death. Quite what the goal is, is anyone's guess, at the risk of adding teleology to the mix.
And we are part of that Magrathean* program.
*Hitchhikers...Galaxy ref.
People no longer come to me for intellectual comfort, lol. I used to be such a pollyanna! ^_^
Terrific piece again! There's so much to talk about, but I'll touch on Marx for now until I get some other thoughts worth your time.
It's been a long time since I first noticed there's something wrong with Marx and his thesis of so-called Marxism. Considering that I have a first-hand experience with Commies (who were always drooling upon The Communist Manifesto yet always managed to turn it into a Cult of Personality suppressing people's human rights ), being born and growing up in ex Yugoslavia, let me tell you that the communist system itself is as good/bad as the capitalist one. Practically and pragmatically, they both disregard an individual and make one conform to the rules for the greater good of society and its alleged progress. The only real difference being in approaching the individuals and the methods used to make them abide by the rules.
About Marx himself - firstly, I believe you're familiar with Mathis' expose where he showed Marx is a member of the cabal (aka Phoenicians as Mathis calls them), therefore being in the top 0,01% (that's 1/100 of your estimate, which is imo a better estimate). Yet he wrote about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and expanding on class wars of commoners/proletariat against bourgeoisie - these two points in particular still make me cringe - there's not one sane person who'd want any kind of dictatorship as the ruling caste leading their country and there's no mention of the top members of the society. The bourgeoisie are not the real "enemy" of the people, the cabal is! And that was Marx's purpose - distraction from the real stooges. Also, promotion of his work that made him famous and his books turned into literal communist religion, were planned operation of the cabal - creation of the false dichotomy (communism vs capitalism) to choose from, where none of the two are the proper choice.
There was so much violence and horror inflicted by the rule of Commies, that you can't even imagine if you haven't lived through it. I wrote about it, trying to expand on my own theory about why only certain nations/countries "received" communist rule. It is still "work in progress", but I hypothesized that it must've been a consequence of those nations/countries' population catching up with cabal's lies/machinations in the near past and expelling them from their environment. For that, the cabal retaliated as soon as there was a proper chance - that's roughly my hypothesis I'm still working on.
Although it doesn't directly concern Marx, this same notion may be applied to WWI and WWII - where the biggest sacrifices were made by the population of European Christians, warring against each other with no particular reason and achieving nothing worth mentioning, except for the total destruction of both old-world society and its majestic environment. All planned and put in motion - by the very same cabal. So maybe you may want to expand your list with i.e. Winston Churchill, Roosevelt and similar stooges. Just a humble suggestion...
Anyway, I need to stop with my rambling for now :)
Excellent comments as usual! Thanks! And I am very glad (and relieved!) that you liked my article. Part 2 will probably come tomorrow, as it is already written.
You're correct about Churchill et al. Although that was beyond the scope of the article of course (I didn't want to digress too much!). But yeah, Churchill in particular I have nothing but indescribable hatred for. One of the worst and most shameful aspects of my country of origin (Britain) is that in a popular public poll conducted for the BBC about 20 or so years ago to find 'the greatest Briton of all time' the people chose Churchill! The fucking worst Briton of all time! (Closely followed by Thatcher). In fact, a great irony being he was hardly even British! The greatest Briton of all time, Boudicca, only came 37th - I'm surprised she even made it on the list, such is the propaganda swallowed up by the people. They simply do not know their own history, and it's an utter tragedy (and explains the horrorshow the country has become). Maybe this could be a way in to an article about the horrors of Churchill and British propaganda. It would be an interesting angle, actually.
I'll deal with the Marx thing in a separate reply.
Interesting comment, I agree it would make an excellent topic for a longish article about it.
On a side note - I wonder if you have any explanation for the name Boudicca? Since I understand English I can find no meaning in her name, while in my own language her name has a huge one-> that of the top of a dagger or a spear, maybe even a thorn, which can stab. In translation, her name would stand for "the one who can stab (you)". Now, that may be the reason why Britons are not taught about her - she was most probably a real thorn in cabal's heel sometime in the past. The real heroine and leader of her people. An absolute no-no for cabal's existence and a great reminder of their vulnerability. We all desperately lack and need real heroes and heroines, leading the way around and above the cabal, don't we?
From what I understand the etymology of the name Boudicca comes from Brythonic (i.e. British Celtic) and simply means ‘Victory’ (with the suffix -ka meaning female/woman).
I like your take on it though, even if the etymology is (obviously) different.
Her story is of course interesting from the point of view of let’s call it ‘the resistance’. I was also thinking about your citation of the numbers, where you suggested the cabal are not 1% but 0.01% - if so that would definitely support my psychological hypothesis about their primary motivation being fear of the majority/humans, given how outnumbered they must feel.
One of the reasons why I cite Boudicca as the greatest Briton of all time, possibly even the greatest female leader of all time, is because her resistance taught the Romans a lesson. They had been effectively committing genocide up to that point, destroying entire cultural identities in the process (like the French - the French aren’t really French, they are a dialect of Roman) - after this, they turned to what we’d call the protection racket. So in exchange for a garrison and taxes etc. the local chieftain retains control, and thus the cultural identity survives - and survival of cultural identity is far more important than purely physical survival. So Boudicca didn’t just save the British (identity) she indirectly saved all those other European cultural identities.
So yeah, when we talk of the resistance we have to understand this as meaning the cabal do not have total control, and part of their recent activities, let’s say since 1914, has been a series of wars and attacks designed solely to destroy the resistance, one by one (starting with Germany - a home of the true Enlightenment which was the enemy of the cabal of course). The Versailles treaty wasn’t enough for that destruction so they had to do it again.
I would also agree with your point about attacking the resistance with ‘communism/Marxism’ - especially the Russian people - I think the cabal possibly hate the Russian (or Slavic) people more than any other, if we look honestly at the utter barbarity, terror and genocide inflicted on them (not just from 1917, but also from 1991 - estimated excess deaths during the neoliberal Yeltsin period - 30 million!). Ironically, they clearly also hate the Germans (Germania), if we consider what they inflicted on them between 1944-48 (terror bombing, Morgenthau plan etc.). That’s one of the reasons I have suspicions about Miles, by the way - he almost wilfully ignores that genocide and assumes it was all fake theatre. No, it wasn’t a fake war, it was a war against the resistance. So either Miles is ignorant of this, or he is shilling (or it’s the Committee that wrote that stuff, in order to effectively perpetuate the official narrative). That’s for another essay, of course. Although one has to be careful talking about that sort of thing here in western Europe!
Yeah, Marx. I have read Miles' paper on Marx and it certainly confirmed what I already instinctively knew. I'd sort of known it philosophically I suppose, and by having a proper understanding of socialism and history.
You are quite right about Marx causing the 'working class' to attack the 'middle class' (bourgeoisie), instead of what they should be doing which is joining together, in a mutual recognition of their symbiotic relationship, and taking their country back from the 'ruling class' (which Marx represented as a spy/subversive). What Marx really did though was appropriate the word 'socialism' (and 'communism' for that matter) and twist it into a wholly different meaning. At the same time he viciously attacked genuine socialists like Proudhon. So today, as a result of this re-definition, most people have a completely false view of what socialism actually is, because they associate it with totalitarian regimes like the Stalinist Soviet Union. Marxism has never been socialism - it is essentially feudalism (or fascism, even) dressed up to look like socialism, or at least using the language of socialism to deceive people. In a similar way in which Judaeo-Christianity is simply fascism dressed up in religious language. It's actually an anti-religion (as Nietzsche would've surely understood).
If we look at the progress of social history, especially in the wake of the Enlightenment, it's clear to see that if nothing was done by the cabal, then human nature being what it is, loving liberty and security and prosperity and such like, then the burgeoning genuine socialist movement of the early 19th century would've won the day, probably by the end of that century. So the cabal had to stop it. Thus, 'if Marx had not existed it would've been necessary for the cabal to have invented him'. In the same way, they had to attack and destroy the Enlightenment - I often, for example, think of groups like the Illuminati as the 'anti-Enlightenment movement'. They certainly infiltrated the likes of philosophy, and various other academic disciplines, in order to prevent enlightenment and progress.
A similar understanding explains WW1. After 1871, when peace broke out in Europe, there was unprecedented progress both socially and scientifically, and again if left unchecked it would've seen the triumph of popular movements like genuine socialism. So the cabal had to stop it - hence, WW1. Which, as you point out, did not benefit the people at all, but only the cabal. Since then, they have done nothing but prevent this progress (and relentlessly attack the 'resistance', destroying them one by one). American foreign policy, for example, is nothing but the attack on socialism, because they know it's a better system which would prove itself to be so if allowed to happen, and be seen as such by people in other countries, who would then initiate the domino effect.
Bear in mind that I have an 'original' view of socialism, which is nothing like what most people think of as 'socialism'. It's more 'liberal', it's more 'localist', in the sense of small communities being genuinely autonomous and free from state interference. (see Proudhon for this actually; and Bakunin perhaps - it has similarities with true anarchism - an-arche meaning lack of rulers). So it's 'self-government' in that sense. This is the purpose behind my liberal socialism section - an attempt to reclaim the word socialism and give it back its original definition. I have a massive amount of work to do there, of course! But I am determined to do it, because it must be done.
Although I don't hold out much hope of enough people listening or understanding - given the propaganda to which they have been subjected and have absorbed into themselves. But it must be done and it must survive so people of the future have at least a fighting chance of remembering the truth. I simply can't abide the thought of everyone in the future believing a false and manufactured version of history.
Oh, you've opened another can of worms I reckon - the stolen and redefined words. I couldn't agree more with you with socialism being a great example. To all you wrote, I'll add in short, that this was another goal of Marx's subversive ideology - taking away the natural option of societal order, which was quite possibly present in societies all around the world before the cabal took over (and rearranged everything by means of wars, violence and early imperialism). What socialism should have represented is the rule by the society for the general good of that society - since Gaia is abundant with resources, as you've written in your piece, everybody should be entitled to occupy a (small) piece of land and be able to live with decency, ruled by morals and ethics only. Since Gaia is giving away everything for free in abundance, it seems natural and reasonable we should have access to everything - for free. But no, some have made the resources private, invented the State as the owner of everything else that's not already privatized, and denied access to the resources for free. They took the land by brute force, invented feudalism and private ownership, colonialism and have feasted upon "The Wealth of Nations" for unknown amount of time (maybe Adam Smith should be on that list, too). To cut the long story short - there's nothing inherently wrong with socialism as it is a natural companion of the society - it was Marx and propaganda that have raped the meaning of it, as you've already expanded on.
Btw, it just occurred to me that Marx was most likely not the only author of Manifesto, if at all (nor was he in need of Engels' dough, coming from the wealthiest cabal caste and being married to a Phillips - another wealthy bitch, errr....sorry, Dirne) - since all written in your article and here in the comments clearly points to this subject as a most crucial one, or even of existential meaning for the Cabal - they must have engaged with it using all their brain power conjointly to produce something of that importance. I'd be willing to bet my few cents that Marx served only as a front, a book cover if you will, so we may be looking at the first committee ever assembled to devise a wolf-in-a-sheep's-clothing kind of masterplan how to deceive people and lead us down the false path into our own demise (instead of theirs). I'd say brilliant if it wasn't despiteful.
Another can of worms is about the suggestion of anarchy and anacrhism taking over int the absence of government. Yet another mind-trap for the people, being propagandized to believe we need some sort of governmental apparatus in place or else we're heading into chaos and doom. Again, brilliant if not despiteful.
Adam Smith was mainly on the side of the angels. HIS 'Capitalism' would have lead to worker-owned cooperatives. He never quite got there himself - being steeped in British Elitism, where the majority were kept illiterate deliberately - but all of his theories and models pointed in that direction.
For Smith, Capitalism was where you "Owned yourself". You HAD to be paid a wage for your labour if you were employed (Compare that to Feudalism, or Slavery systems), and you had the RIGHT to form your own company in his new Liberal system.
Sadly, the existing landowner class and financial interests had less than no interest in experiencing genuine economic democracy.
In the end, only Denmark followed his advice, and became one of the wealthiest and best countries to live in by doing so.
I've generally felt the same about Adam Smith. The worker-owned co-ops being a central aspect of true (pre-Marx) socialism (cf. Proudhon especially).
I believe Smith also suggested that with improvements in technology and so on not only would workers' lives improve, but their workload would reduce, meaning human beings have more time to spend on the higher aspects of living, not just culture but self-improvement - which relates very much to the higher levels on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
The cabal hate those higher aspects and spend a vast amount of energy preventing access to them (or corrupting spirituality). Because for them a human's only value is a unit of productivity, the idea of allowing them more free time to pursue cultural and artistic and aesthetic and philosophical endeavours is anathema - this would lead to a free-thinking people who couldn't be enslaved.
And we are seeing this today with all this talk of 'useless eaters' and the seriously abusive and harsh unemployment policies, forcing people to work. For the cabal, of course, they ignore the idea of 'useful spenders', because they have a supply-directed economy. Liberal Socialism is a demand-directed system. Smith I think would instantly understand and agree with this.
I feel so too. I suspect he would have been pleasantly astonished to discover that education and literacy can be universal; and would have greatly enjoyed seeing the post-war cooperatives, and even union-organising.
I remember a few years back posting various Marx and Smith quotes to a Smith-hating Marxist (He went on and on and on about "Invisible hands" - without ever once looking up the full quote, naturally).
He was absolutely astonished how many quotes he thought were pure Marx were actually from Smith.
Hopefully it was worth the time and effort I put in (He was a online stranger, natch).
Very few actually READ any of Smith's words, the elites were told about the 'Invisible hands', and that's as far as any of them got (Too busy learning Latin or Old French, probably).
You seem to reject that dark triad personalities exist at all, because there is no evolutionary reason why they should in smaller tribal groups. Yet recognise in modern society there is an evolutionary advantage to these traits. Do I have your position correct?
You have previously asserted dark triad personalities are just a label, invented by the cabal as a cover to explain thier inate evil nature.
Maybe, at it's core, it's a Nature Vs Nurture argument.
I still maintain narcissism is a result of disfunctional nurture, a psychological survival mechanism resulting from a complete lack of unconditional love. I think the 'cabal' try to instil these traits in their offspring, ostensibly by sending them to private prep schools, private boarding schools, and/or employing nannies and nurse maids from very early age, often from birth. Purposely to instill a lack of empathy into their offspiring in order they can carry on the family tradition of accumilation of wealth and control at the expense of all others.
This is next to impossible in smaller tribal groups, where childcare is a shared responsibility, hence why we have seen a rise in the proportion of narcissistic personalities in modern times, where childcare has been largely take over by the state/private institutions.
For your position to be valid, you would have to assert the cabals children are born evil, as if it's possible to have evil genetics. Where's the evolutionary advantage to that?
Everything you have said is a totally valid point, and perhaps you have sort of pre-empted where I was heading with all this.
With regards to your dysfunctional nurture - this is absolutely true and I can verify that from personal experience, from having been sent off to one of these private institutions (there is more to my own psychology than this but that's a big part of it). So I have not only seen these monsters eye to eye so to speak but I have seen precisely the kind of conditioning you are suggesting. It is one of the reasons why one of the top policies in my political manifesto would be to completely outlaw these institutions - these are the recruiting grounds, so to speak - so if you want to defeat your enemy then cutting off their access to resources (i.e. new recruits in this case) would be a primary strategy. So it is certainly true that these private 'schools' are not about 'education' at all (in the sense of learning) but are in fact conditioning centres, which use trauma at the base of the conditioning. I am probably one of those rare minority who survived such a place without developing the cabal's desired traits. I have learned to take heart in that and be somewhat proud of myself. Of course I am covered in internal scars (the causes of which have amnesia walls around them mostly), but it's given me just the insight I need to understand these monsters.
As you say, dysfunctional nurture (I really like that term, by the way - can I appropriate it from you?) is simply not possible (at least for any sustainable/effective period of time) in a small community/tribal group, so indeed we are left with the issue of evolutionary benefit. This is where I'll be going mainly in part 3.
As a kind of, I don't know, preview, I would mention that there are 'aberrations' in nature. We wouldn't necessarily say 'born evil' but it's certainly a 'born something' feature. In those prehistoric groups those are the ones who would've been detected at an early age when their dysfunctional nature manifests, and if they couldn't be cured then they'd be ostracised (or, possibly, 'exposed' - as in put out to die in nature - depends how old they are at the time I suppose). After the neolithic/agricultural revolution with increased population sizes some of these aberrations don't get detected. Given enough time, let's say a few thousand years or so, if these aberrations form a group of their own for mutual survival, and they learn to 'mimic' normal people, then they have developed a survival mechanism. So in that sense, those 'dark triad' traits - for them - are indeed a survival benefit.
So it's not that I essentially deny that dark triad, I am saying it is an 'aberration' which perhaps lay dormant for a very long time because it wasn't adapted for survival, until we have larger population sizes.
Having said that, I have also come to believe that these 'aberrations' are sufficiently different, and sufficiently uniform over generations, as to constitute a different humanoid species. That's where we get into the realm of speculation, of course, but it is definitely worthy of such speculation. And yes, in order to further that species, and propagate it, they would indeed develop methods of dysfunctional nurture (and the ideologies to go with it). So in this sense, it is a mix of nature and nurture.
One curious factoid I was struck with recently was that Nat Rothschild 1/ studied addiction studies at Masters level (a lot of neuroscience in that), and 2/ doesn't have any children. This definitely deserves speculation.
Thank you for your comments though because I was hoping you would stimulate my thoughts about all this, especially by not simply agreeing with me (and sorry it took me so long to get around to all this). So I shall absorb them and do some more proper contemplation. Possibly even enough to have an extra part, so it'd be 4 parts not 3.
Hmmm. I would advise a look at the negative aspects of solar signs, perhaps such as this hideously amusing source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0491033095
In short, every potential 'good' quality has an equal 'negative' quality associated.
Tiphereth, the egoless, can be horribly egoful.
Cancer, the empathic, can be horribly self-serving.
Virgo, the self-critic, can be horribly manipulative and down-putting of others.
Aries, the amazing, heroic foreward-moving, can be thoughtless of others in the extreme.
There is no need to see the Cabal as "Othered". Simply a meat-eating species that came to realise that an organised minority can control a larger disorganised bunch. And then laid down plans to perpetuate this system, and sacrificed the happiness of their children to achieve that.
Positing they are a different species risks falling into the trap that "Once they are gone", we wouldn't have to be concerned about the same pattern repeating itself.
But it will, without proper precautions.
Some Plains Indians would choose the wealthiest family to 'lead', but by the end of their term, they were expected to have given away so much they become one of the poorest families.
Be quite a different World if the West operated on such lines.
I know a fair bit about astrology so I can concur with you there. I'm an Aquarius with Sagittarius ascendent, so I am well aware that I can sometimes come across as arrogant and disdainful of others who appear less intelligent than I am. Almost like I am preaching some of the time.
With regards to the separate species idea, it is very true that 'without proper precautions' it can repeat itself - which is where education comes in of course, and a more systematic policy of early detection followed by ostracism. Obviously in a small group of 150 individuals displaying aberrant behaviour would be detected and ostracised before they can do any harm. In larger social groups they can avoid detection - which is where the limitations of the social cognition number come in.
I would say part of my thesis here is about the evolution of the human brain, in terms of adaptation and neuroplasticity. So whilst I am not denying that this group is at least vaguely human, or once was human, over a certain period of time their 'adaptation' - i.e. evolution - has pushed them down a different path such that today their brains are sufficiently different to be accurately categorised as a distinct species. So part of the thesis is about proposing a sort of new anthropological taxonomy.
Perhaps the important aspect is the evolutionary one. It's important to understand 'how' they came to 'favour' their sort of behaviour, given that under normal or natural circumstances such behaviour is demonstrably not beneficial or conducive to survival. They have of course created a society in which their behaviour is beneficial (to them). So it's about an understanding of deep time, in a sense.
I'm not an expert on the native Americans, although I do have a better than average working knowledge, so to speak, and I have heard of the gift-giving customs, and indeed that it sometimes leads to a sort of competition about who can give away the most - which is where it gets a little counter-productive. But I do agree there is a lot that western society can learn from them. A little altruism not only goes a long way with one's immediate social group, but it also effects a profound inner change in a person. In a spiritual sense. And it is certainly true that the cabal have - over millennia - systematically targeted and attacked humanity's innate spirituality.
I would greatly recommend Braeber's 'Dawn of Everything', you would absolutely LOVE it. Hands down. In fact you'll probably like everything he wrote, if you haven't encountered him yet. His 'History of Debt' is also an essential read, but not quite in the same league as the DoE magnus opus.
He's also the guy who wrote that famous essay on "Bullshit Jobs", which you may have encountered.
I genuinely don't think they are a "Separate species", the normal human race is quite sufficient to behave with callous immorality and brutality. Any psychological or physiological changes will be due to the tremendous abuse they have suffered during this life - after all, their parents and siblings, and friends, would also have gone through a similar process, reinforcing it.
When the shit hits the fan, there are only a few people I would trust behind me with a weapon. (Considerably more animals, tbh).
To understand them, one has only to see the social mechanisms and structures that lead to them. They have great privilege, and wish to keep it. To keep the privileges, they have to ensure the majority do not become wise to this, and force their kids through an abusive socialisation process so they feel 'special' - and will also maintain the current system.
The truth is most humans will fall into line in such a system, always have, always will. Most animals would too. Bear in mind that very few in the British Empire cared about the poor Brown victims of the Empire being killed by British soldiers far away - by some estimates, just under 200,000,000 souls, which puts the German Nazis in their respective frames.
Even good and decent people simply didn't care, or at most tutted about some particularly egregious massacre/famine.
There were no vast marches demanding that food stopped flowing from starving Ireland, let alone caring about the Benghalis that Churchill deliberately starved in the millions.
"Evil is banal".
Unlike in Hollywood, the bad guys don't all cackle (Unless they are Clinton), nor do they think they are on the wrong side of history. As far as they are concerned, they are just doing what most people if put into their situation would do. And sadly, I don't think they are wrong on that.
A culture needs to imbue ubuntu deliberately, kids may role-play naturally, but by adulthood, they forget it was role-play.
Btw I'm Aries with the inner planets being 2 Aries, 3 Gemini, and 2 Capricorn, unknown rising sadly.
Apparently I was always going to be fucked up, lollollol.
Too strong emotions mixed with emotionlessness, headstrong yet a fantasist, intelligent but physical, looking for someone exactly like myself romantically. I found a handful... over half were lesbians, rofl.
Bloody lucky not to have been crucified, although elements of the State would definitely like to.
I have encountered Graeber actually. I only have a moderate knowledge of him and haven't completely read any of his books, although I am fairly familiar with his basic thesis/theses, and would largely agree with him I think, with a few reservations perhaps.
I totally agree with you about the Empire's crimes. I one of the biggest haters of Churchill in the business.
And that is a good point about the lack of rebellion, shall we call it. That is a fundamental issue - and one which, I believe will continue to doom humanity to a very, very long period of dystopia. Even if it proceeds in cycles, it will continue.
From my exo-philosophy perspective it is also the fundamental reason why humanity, as it is at the moment, will not be allowed out of this solar system. This might sound like a silly frivolous and irrelevant sci-fi-esque statement (see my SF sections) but actually it's one of the most important insights there are, when we realise that the cabal are aware of this quarantine. Remember for them ever-expanding empire is an addictive necessity, so when they encounter a limit, and one enforced by a higher power, when there are no new worlds to conquer, so to speak, then they are going to implode.
It would also explain why they appear to have increased their viciousness and overt displays, in the sense of not caring if people know about them so much. After all, what are people going to do? Rebel? Clearly not!
Have you ever read 'Godmakers' by Frank Herbert (My favourite author of all time)? He lays out just how strict an interstellar civ MUST be when encountering an industrialised intelligent species. (I think all species are intelligent, for their own niche. Industrialism is the threat for interstellar conflict.)
We would fail at the first hurdle. Before you could blink it would be 'Avatar'.
With regards to the cycle of abuse thing, this is definitely a significant aspect of the the child abuse network. When you get to part 4 of this series you'll sort of see where I'm coming from with the separate species idea, as it was in consideration of some of the quite frankly inhuman things these monsters do that I came to the conclusion/hypothesis that they really are a different species.
My main point being there is a qualitative difference between 'dysfunctional nurture' and pure evil. Calling it 'dysfunctional nurture' is, ultimately, to do evil a favour because it acts as a sort of concealment or disguise.
There is so much depth to all this stuff that it will really take an entire book to bring out the thesis and do it justice. Far too much for a comment/reply!
I don't believe "evil" exists, objectively. (With the proviso that those who believe in it will often consciously act upon it).
The concept was dreamed up by the arsehole Zoroaster, c700bce. Within two years, it was used by his followers - with his conscious connivance - to hunt down and annihilate the Persian pagans, priestesses, and followers. Because they "Worshipped evil and Nature", obviously.
Mass murder and the imposition of a Patriarchal absolutist theocracy was the first act of the evil-believers. Tell me that isn't evil personified?
And then, 2000 years later, the self-same slaughter of Europe's surviving Pagans, in the so-called "Witch trials", all using the same justification.
But consider trying to explain "Evil" to an animal? Now BAD - as in good v bad as the basis for morality - animals get that immediately. It's subjective. But some nebulous force that animates certain individuals so NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO it is inevitably "Evil"... no, that doesn't make any sense.
It is a tool of mental control, and a very effective one. It's one of the reasons we are so fucked up globally today, and why aliens wouldn't get in touch. Needless to say, they would be "Evil" as soon as they said we couldn't mine their precious Unobtanium.
"Evil" is Othering, the "Evil" have no rights, and can be tortured and murdered with impunity. Those who believe in evil enact evil.
You are the first person I come across who proposes this. I've often wondered about it. I do not subscribe to the "reptilians" b.s. either, for reasons you state, nor do I care to muddy the matter with references to Synagogue of Satan, and the "chosen people" and Annunaki etc, whatever people come up with for explanations. It's purely physiological. But this phenomenon is definitely something that needs to be studied - i.e. what causes the insatiable gluttony for child abuse amongst the human males. If nature has intended for this, there has to be a damn good reason why Homo Immanis evolved. And what is that reason? As you state, it's not just the child abuse, but also the unbridled lust for genocide and murder, without remorse, without any moral compass. Homo Immanis must have a completely different wiring, and it goes even beyond the cruddy wiring of the psychopath. A psychopath still has some sense of what is wrong, but wilfully ignores it. The Homo Immanis has no sense whatsoever; there appears to be no feedback system at all between their drive for self-satisfaction and the damage they inflict on another person. There is an enormous defect in the way their brain is structured, and how they perceive the world; their processing of the natural input is completely different, or even non-existent to a large extent, due to their faulty wiring. But why and how, and how does this species persist over time? Their survival appears to be due to the predatory nature of this human strain, else they would have already been deselected. The faulty genotype reflects in the weird structure of their face, where several of the tactile senses are located - i.e. the input mechanisms by which we perceive and interact with the world around us. Another good example of the Homo Immanis is Epstein - he too has this contorted facial structure that is totally foreign to any human 'race'. And George Soros. Lastly, it seems Homo Immanis attracts an enormous following of Homo Sapiens psychopaths, which is not hard to understand, but which causes tremendous problems in the world. I am convinced Homo Immanis is a separate species and it needs to be studied.
You asked the question as to why they exist and how and so on. It goes without saying how important these questions are. I've sort of explored that a little in this series, but it remains an open question. In particular, I've been trying not to resort to 'mystical' or similar explanations. Although one could say that this is nature's way of creating a sort of vaccine against evil. If 'normal' people look at this small minority group behaving in a pure evil way, then their natural aversion to it strengthens their immunity, if you see what I mean. Especially if they can 'study' it - by learning about it they learn how to detect it. Once detected, ostracism (or extermination, as with a pathogen) naturally follows. So from that point of view it's an important part of humanity's 'spiritual' evolution.
One speculation I had which I touch upon in the series is to do with the invention of fire-making. Once you know how to make fire you are no longer living in permanent chronic stress (fear of predators etc.). Stress releases lots of chemicals into the brain, which, if they persist, causes irreparable damage (or 're-wiring' as you put it). Insidiously, this creation of chronic stress is one of the main things the cabal do - perhaps they have the ultimate intention of rewiring human brains to make them more like them. Thus evening out the balance of numbers.
So one of my hypotheses is that this group sort of 'parasited' on homo sapiens for a long time, in the sense that sapiens learned to control fire and not be scared anymore, but immanis did not. But during that time, with humans living in such small groups, they would've largely gone unnoticed. From time to time, any psychopath would simply have been detected early by virtue of their behaviour and ejected from the group. Once humans started living in larger communities, the monsters can conceal themselves better. Eventually they group together themselves and that's when the grand conspiracy begins.
Then again, perhaps 'fear' doesn't necessarily explain all their behaviour. It explains their need for control, but not the depravity.
So these are all really tricky anthropological questions. And without extensive neuroscientific study (fMRI scans etc.), it's difficult to come up with definite answers, other than some logical hypotheses. But at the very least, it is important to think about it in this way. Only by accepting the fact that we really are dealing with a separate species can humanity actually do something about it...
This is really interesting. For one thing I totally agree with the 'mystical' explanations that I stay away from because they are not necessary and have no added value. I have a lot more to share with you, was talking in my head to you. :-) Need to run, but I will get back to you later.
Your points of view are so interesting... I also believe that the Homo Immanis want humanity to be like them. I jokingly wrote about this a few years ago when the mRNA vax first came out. But I dont think it is a joke. It is obvious to me that the idea behind the experiment is to harness the working of the pineal gland and all the processes it is involved in. Including the processing of the life force. It's not about killing, but about modifying and controlling. Homo Immanis is not creative, but soulless. It requires followers to execute its programs and we see this before our own eyes. What you write is true: once we accept the fact that there is an entirely different strain of humans, we can do something about it. But without referring to all these useless dogma's of satan and fallen angels and whatnot that do not provide adequate proof of the actual existence of a different species. I need to finish reading your series. :-)
Yes - if I am correct and we are simply dealing with a different humanoid species that has managed to conceal its true nature, then this demystifies the whole thing. It provides a rational, scientific explanation which is psychologically easy for anyone to deal with and accept. This is precisely why you get all these cognitive infiltration agents talking ad nauseam about annunaki and fallen angels and all the rest of it - that kind of thing is designed to turn people off. And of course to present the cabal as more powerful than they actually are. They are certainly not the master race, but they need to convince people they are, because it makes them easier to control.
Looking forward to what you think of the rest of the series.
Yeah, I have a twitter that's never used. Was an early politics forumer - same gnuneo handle - and then addicted to FB for several years (I looked you up on both when we first met, stalker central lollol :'D). Migrated from FB last year, got tired of the same debates with the same people, and even worse all the adverts that were cropping up despite every adblocker around installed.
I can PM you my FB page if you want to see what I looked like 20 years ago, lollol.
But if you don't recognise 'Gnuneo', then we astonishingly haven't met online before!
I like that despite agreeing on ~97% of everything (And THAT'S a first in my life!!), we immediately found something we disagreed over to talk about, but without any egotism about it either.
If I can find any (Most were just posted on FB and then lost to time), I could also post some of my (bad) poetry too, if you'd like. :)
I am very pleased you liked it. Thank you! It’s about time I did posts like this for some of my subscribers who might not be into some of the other stuff I do. My fault for being so eclectic of course! Part 2 will be later today/this evening (it’s pretty much a straight continuation - one reason I split them up is to give people some time to digest the ideas).
I think you are probably correct about both being the case with regards to power corrupting. It is certainly true that for those with a weak will and, well, weakly-held principles, shall we say, they can be corrupted. So we could extend the sentence with that caveat, to something like ‘power corrupts… those able to be corrupted… and absolute power corrupts the absolutely corruptible’. So yeah, I think it’s a combination of both, and unfortunately there simply aren’t enough incorruptible people out there who seek power for purely good reasons.
That’s what we really need - those who are prepared to be utterly ruthless in the pursuit of goodness and the defeat of evil - this ruthlessness, after all, is one of the advantages evil possesses over good - good people are far more reluctant to be ruthless, and too easily given to pity and remorse and compassion. This, I would say, is one of the reasons why evil pretends to be good - if the monster can make itself look human, and get other humans to believe that illusion, then the human’s natural compassion comes out, and provides a shield for the monster. Reveal the monster as a monster, however, and then, and only then, does the human become ruthless (self-defence).
And this, likewise, is why the demon pretends to be god…
One could reasonably argue that Ruthlessness is an aspect of the demon. By behaving ruthlessly, we grow that demon. By the time we have ruthlessly "removed" the cabal, we have effectively made ourselves a member of the next generation of the cabal.
Marxist 'Will To Power' almost inevitably means the successful 'revolutionary leaders' will emulate the very same structure they were supposed to overthrow. The Revolution revolves around back to where it started from...
Nietzsche hinted a similar sentiment of course with his ‘when fighting monsters we must wary of becoming monsters ourselves’.
I think there is a deeper, insidious aspect to this on the part of the cabal - by forcing people to act in monstrous ways, under the guise of self-defence, they are ‘replicating the virus’ so to speak. Likewise, they have created a society in which sociopathy is a better survival adaptation. Compared to a ‘natural’ human environment in which the brain evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, in which ‘being excellent to each other’ is a better survival adaptation (hence, with the brain’s evolution, ‘innate’ morality).
I think the cabal are very conscious of this and if they do have an evil very long-term strategy then it is to fundamentally alter the human brain so it becomes more ‘normally’ sociopathic - and I do mean this in an evolutionary way. Might take tens of thousands of years (maybe less), but it could definitely happen.
I would say that most humans, perhaps not quite all, are already potential, if not full sociopaths.
It must be understood that "Sociopathy" is not a universal hatred of life, it is a hatred of the 'Othered'. While nature may well have promoted empathic, cooperative behaviour towards those 'in the group', those outside the group can be treated with extraordinary brutality.
Especially if they are seen to be threatening the in-groups privileges.
Human beings are omnivores, we may treat our food animals well, or we may treat them horrendously. The same psychological processes are at work when we view our fellow humans.
Many American settlers liked the American Indians, and wanted to treat them well. Many other settlers regarded them as an impediment to their visions of land, wealth and power.
Sadly, if most people were offered a billion dollars to 'justify' or even organise what is happening in Gaza, a distressingly large number would accept. Many who are completely normal people.
A sociopath should be regarded as a subjective prescription - "They are sociopaths to US". They may be loving parents, as many German Nazis were (Within that age's parental norms).
I do not see these people as 'outside of the norm' - rather, it is the small minority who are appalled by violence, and can see themselves as part of the human family, or indeed ALL life.
Humans are actually not very 'evolved' in that respect, although more could be with the right social mores and educations.
This is the comment that I left till last to reply to, because the only way I can really do a reply justice is with a very, very long answer which would dive into a whole range of stuff, all of which are major features of this thesis (if I can call it a thesis).
Just briefly, though, I do not agree about the ‘othering’ aspect. That’s to say I do not accept that it’s normal, or natural, or of any evolutionary benefit. Specifically, we’re talking ‘suspicion of the other’ and ‘competitiveness’. Self-defence, for sure, but self-defence only kicks in after a threat, not before. It’s similar to this silly ‘dark forest’ idea about extraterrestrials. It would assume that there is some universal memo, or in-built program that says ‘if encounter other group, must be suspicious, hate them, attack them, and so on’. That’s just silly, and personally I think it’s one more of those myths which have their origins in the Victorian era, and have been used to self-justify imperialist and neoliberal ideologies, by trying to make people think that conflict and antagonism are natural.
Notice it also implies ‘scarcity of resources’ leading to ‘competition’. Given how few humans there always were until recently, there was never any scarcity. Again, this is another self-justification for ‘neoliberalism’ which, as a system of social control, relies on restricting the availability of resources, turning necessities into luxuries.
Anyway - as I say these are central issues, so I really need to resume this series when I have time. You are definitely hitting on all the right points, though!
On one level I agree with you - that is the Universalist element. The dominant species can afford that luxury, especially a vermin-based creature like humans, that can eat virtually everything.
However Nature, looking at Nature, scarcity is a method by which she weeds out the otherwise inevitable overpopulation. The World is not limitless.
ALL other species - incl plants (Not sure about fungi, who seem to be on a completely different cooperative vibe), seek to expand, to ensure their genetic lineage. A pride of lions will fight another encroaching on their territory, or fight to encroach on another's territory. So will hedgehogs.
Scarcity is a fact in Nature. And because of that, 'othering' as we call it can also be seen as natural. "They are not of us!".
Now, we ARE a dominant species, and I agree we COULD evolve past that Nature-imposed restriction; we seem to have done so while repopulating the Earth after the Lesser Dryas impact, where the Mother Religion was all but global, and there is no archaeological evidence for warfare of any kind. (10,000-6,000 years ago, give or take).
I would certainly like if we did move past that point to a universalist position (I'd also like rights for the other species on the planet too).
That doesn't mean I disagree that ARTIFICIAL scarcity, for all the purposes you outline, doesn't happen. It most certainly does. Not only do certain 'ruling classes' like taking more than their fair share, they actively try to restrict access to resources to those they consider 'inferior' - even when there is a surplus!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyLnbjtBLX4
The Victorian era was horrorifying. (Spelling deliberate)
Nonetheless, just as with the 'elite' schooling, it is based on Nature's own dilemmas. I suspect this is why it has lasted so long, despite the 10-15% of the population who always saw through it and wanted to change it. Often brutally murdered for that 'sin'.
Nature is not soft hearted, nor soft-headed. She gives the curse of Life, and the blessing of Death. Quite what the goal is, is anyone's guess, at the risk of adding teleology to the mix.
And we are part of that Magrathean* program.
*Hitchhikers...Galaxy ref.
People no longer come to me for intellectual comfort, lol. I used to be such a pollyanna! ^_^
Terrific piece again! There's so much to talk about, but I'll touch on Marx for now until I get some other thoughts worth your time.
It's been a long time since I first noticed there's something wrong with Marx and his thesis of so-called Marxism. Considering that I have a first-hand experience with Commies (who were always drooling upon The Communist Manifesto yet always managed to turn it into a Cult of Personality suppressing people's human rights ), being born and growing up in ex Yugoslavia, let me tell you that the communist system itself is as good/bad as the capitalist one. Practically and pragmatically, they both disregard an individual and make one conform to the rules for the greater good of society and its alleged progress. The only real difference being in approaching the individuals and the methods used to make them abide by the rules.
About Marx himself - firstly, I believe you're familiar with Mathis' expose where he showed Marx is a member of the cabal (aka Phoenicians as Mathis calls them), therefore being in the top 0,01% (that's 1/100 of your estimate, which is imo a better estimate). Yet he wrote about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and expanding on class wars of commoners/proletariat against bourgeoisie - these two points in particular still make me cringe - there's not one sane person who'd want any kind of dictatorship as the ruling caste leading their country and there's no mention of the top members of the society. The bourgeoisie are not the real "enemy" of the people, the cabal is! And that was Marx's purpose - distraction from the real stooges. Also, promotion of his work that made him famous and his books turned into literal communist religion, were planned operation of the cabal - creation of the false dichotomy (communism vs capitalism) to choose from, where none of the two are the proper choice.
There was so much violence and horror inflicted by the rule of Commies, that you can't even imagine if you haven't lived through it. I wrote about it, trying to expand on my own theory about why only certain nations/countries "received" communist rule. It is still "work in progress", but I hypothesized that it must've been a consequence of those nations/countries' population catching up with cabal's lies/machinations in the near past and expelling them from their environment. For that, the cabal retaliated as soon as there was a proper chance - that's roughly my hypothesis I'm still working on.
Although it doesn't directly concern Marx, this same notion may be applied to WWI and WWII - where the biggest sacrifices were made by the population of European Christians, warring against each other with no particular reason and achieving nothing worth mentioning, except for the total destruction of both old-world society and its majestic environment. All planned and put in motion - by the very same cabal. So maybe you may want to expand your list with i.e. Winston Churchill, Roosevelt and similar stooges. Just a humble suggestion...
Anyway, I need to stop with my rambling for now :)
Excellent comments as usual! Thanks! And I am very glad (and relieved!) that you liked my article. Part 2 will probably come tomorrow, as it is already written.
You're correct about Churchill et al. Although that was beyond the scope of the article of course (I didn't want to digress too much!). But yeah, Churchill in particular I have nothing but indescribable hatred for. One of the worst and most shameful aspects of my country of origin (Britain) is that in a popular public poll conducted for the BBC about 20 or so years ago to find 'the greatest Briton of all time' the people chose Churchill! The fucking worst Briton of all time! (Closely followed by Thatcher). In fact, a great irony being he was hardly even British! The greatest Briton of all time, Boudicca, only came 37th - I'm surprised she even made it on the list, such is the propaganda swallowed up by the people. They simply do not know their own history, and it's an utter tragedy (and explains the horrorshow the country has become). Maybe this could be a way in to an article about the horrors of Churchill and British propaganda. It would be an interesting angle, actually.
I'll deal with the Marx thing in a separate reply.
Interesting comment, I agree it would make an excellent topic for a longish article about it.
On a side note - I wonder if you have any explanation for the name Boudicca? Since I understand English I can find no meaning in her name, while in my own language her name has a huge one-> that of the top of a dagger or a spear, maybe even a thorn, which can stab. In translation, her name would stand for "the one who can stab (you)". Now, that may be the reason why Britons are not taught about her - she was most probably a real thorn in cabal's heel sometime in the past. The real heroine and leader of her people. An absolute no-no for cabal's existence and a great reminder of their vulnerability. We all desperately lack and need real heroes and heroines, leading the way around and above the cabal, don't we?
From what I understand the etymology of the name Boudicca comes from Brythonic (i.e. British Celtic) and simply means ‘Victory’ (with the suffix -ka meaning female/woman).
I like your take on it though, even if the etymology is (obviously) different.
Her story is of course interesting from the point of view of let’s call it ‘the resistance’. I was also thinking about your citation of the numbers, where you suggested the cabal are not 1% but 0.01% - if so that would definitely support my psychological hypothesis about their primary motivation being fear of the majority/humans, given how outnumbered they must feel.
One of the reasons why I cite Boudicca as the greatest Briton of all time, possibly even the greatest female leader of all time, is because her resistance taught the Romans a lesson. They had been effectively committing genocide up to that point, destroying entire cultural identities in the process (like the French - the French aren’t really French, they are a dialect of Roman) - after this, they turned to what we’d call the protection racket. So in exchange for a garrison and taxes etc. the local chieftain retains control, and thus the cultural identity survives - and survival of cultural identity is far more important than purely physical survival. So Boudicca didn’t just save the British (identity) she indirectly saved all those other European cultural identities.
So yeah, when we talk of the resistance we have to understand this as meaning the cabal do not have total control, and part of their recent activities, let’s say since 1914, has been a series of wars and attacks designed solely to destroy the resistance, one by one (starting with Germany - a home of the true Enlightenment which was the enemy of the cabal of course). The Versailles treaty wasn’t enough for that destruction so they had to do it again.
I would also agree with your point about attacking the resistance with ‘communism/Marxism’ - especially the Russian people - I think the cabal possibly hate the Russian (or Slavic) people more than any other, if we look honestly at the utter barbarity, terror and genocide inflicted on them (not just from 1917, but also from 1991 - estimated excess deaths during the neoliberal Yeltsin period - 30 million!). Ironically, they clearly also hate the Germans (Germania), if we consider what they inflicted on them between 1944-48 (terror bombing, Morgenthau plan etc.). That’s one of the reasons I have suspicions about Miles, by the way - he almost wilfully ignores that genocide and assumes it was all fake theatre. No, it wasn’t a fake war, it was a war against the resistance. So either Miles is ignorant of this, or he is shilling (or it’s the Committee that wrote that stuff, in order to effectively perpetuate the official narrative). That’s for another essay, of course. Although one has to be careful talking about that sort of thing here in western Europe!
Yeah, Marx. I have read Miles' paper on Marx and it certainly confirmed what I already instinctively knew. I'd sort of known it philosophically I suppose, and by having a proper understanding of socialism and history.
You are quite right about Marx causing the 'working class' to attack the 'middle class' (bourgeoisie), instead of what they should be doing which is joining together, in a mutual recognition of their symbiotic relationship, and taking their country back from the 'ruling class' (which Marx represented as a spy/subversive). What Marx really did though was appropriate the word 'socialism' (and 'communism' for that matter) and twist it into a wholly different meaning. At the same time he viciously attacked genuine socialists like Proudhon. So today, as a result of this re-definition, most people have a completely false view of what socialism actually is, because they associate it with totalitarian regimes like the Stalinist Soviet Union. Marxism has never been socialism - it is essentially feudalism (or fascism, even) dressed up to look like socialism, or at least using the language of socialism to deceive people. In a similar way in which Judaeo-Christianity is simply fascism dressed up in religious language. It's actually an anti-religion (as Nietzsche would've surely understood).
If we look at the progress of social history, especially in the wake of the Enlightenment, it's clear to see that if nothing was done by the cabal, then human nature being what it is, loving liberty and security and prosperity and such like, then the burgeoning genuine socialist movement of the early 19th century would've won the day, probably by the end of that century. So the cabal had to stop it. Thus, 'if Marx had not existed it would've been necessary for the cabal to have invented him'. In the same way, they had to attack and destroy the Enlightenment - I often, for example, think of groups like the Illuminati as the 'anti-Enlightenment movement'. They certainly infiltrated the likes of philosophy, and various other academic disciplines, in order to prevent enlightenment and progress.
A similar understanding explains WW1. After 1871, when peace broke out in Europe, there was unprecedented progress both socially and scientifically, and again if left unchecked it would've seen the triumph of popular movements like genuine socialism. So the cabal had to stop it - hence, WW1. Which, as you point out, did not benefit the people at all, but only the cabal. Since then, they have done nothing but prevent this progress (and relentlessly attack the 'resistance', destroying them one by one). American foreign policy, for example, is nothing but the attack on socialism, because they know it's a better system which would prove itself to be so if allowed to happen, and be seen as such by people in other countries, who would then initiate the domino effect.
Bear in mind that I have an 'original' view of socialism, which is nothing like what most people think of as 'socialism'. It's more 'liberal', it's more 'localist', in the sense of small communities being genuinely autonomous and free from state interference. (see Proudhon for this actually; and Bakunin perhaps - it has similarities with true anarchism - an-arche meaning lack of rulers). So it's 'self-government' in that sense. This is the purpose behind my liberal socialism section - an attempt to reclaim the word socialism and give it back its original definition. I have a massive amount of work to do there, of course! But I am determined to do it, because it must be done.
Although I don't hold out much hope of enough people listening or understanding - given the propaganda to which they have been subjected and have absorbed into themselves. But it must be done and it must survive so people of the future have at least a fighting chance of remembering the truth. I simply can't abide the thought of everyone in the future believing a false and manufactured version of history.
Oh, you've opened another can of worms I reckon - the stolen and redefined words. I couldn't agree more with you with socialism being a great example. To all you wrote, I'll add in short, that this was another goal of Marx's subversive ideology - taking away the natural option of societal order, which was quite possibly present in societies all around the world before the cabal took over (and rearranged everything by means of wars, violence and early imperialism). What socialism should have represented is the rule by the society for the general good of that society - since Gaia is abundant with resources, as you've written in your piece, everybody should be entitled to occupy a (small) piece of land and be able to live with decency, ruled by morals and ethics only. Since Gaia is giving away everything for free in abundance, it seems natural and reasonable we should have access to everything - for free. But no, some have made the resources private, invented the State as the owner of everything else that's not already privatized, and denied access to the resources for free. They took the land by brute force, invented feudalism and private ownership, colonialism and have feasted upon "The Wealth of Nations" for unknown amount of time (maybe Adam Smith should be on that list, too). To cut the long story short - there's nothing inherently wrong with socialism as it is a natural companion of the society - it was Marx and propaganda that have raped the meaning of it, as you've already expanded on.
Btw, it just occurred to me that Marx was most likely not the only author of Manifesto, if at all (nor was he in need of Engels' dough, coming from the wealthiest cabal caste and being married to a Phillips - another wealthy bitch, errr....sorry, Dirne) - since all written in your article and here in the comments clearly points to this subject as a most crucial one, or even of existential meaning for the Cabal - they must have engaged with it using all their brain power conjointly to produce something of that importance. I'd be willing to bet my few cents that Marx served only as a front, a book cover if you will, so we may be looking at the first committee ever assembled to devise a wolf-in-a-sheep's-clothing kind of masterplan how to deceive people and lead us down the false path into our own demise (instead of theirs). I'd say brilliant if it wasn't despiteful.
Another can of worms is about the suggestion of anarchy and anacrhism taking over int the absence of government. Yet another mind-trap for the people, being propagandized to believe we need some sort of governmental apparatus in place or else we're heading into chaos and doom. Again, brilliant if not despiteful.
Adam Smith was mainly on the side of the angels. HIS 'Capitalism' would have lead to worker-owned cooperatives. He never quite got there himself - being steeped in British Elitism, where the majority were kept illiterate deliberately - but all of his theories and models pointed in that direction.
For Smith, Capitalism was where you "Owned yourself". You HAD to be paid a wage for your labour if you were employed (Compare that to Feudalism, or Slavery systems), and you had the RIGHT to form your own company in his new Liberal system.
Sadly, the existing landowner class and financial interests had less than no interest in experiencing genuine economic democracy.
In the end, only Denmark followed his advice, and became one of the wealthiest and best countries to live in by doing so.
I've generally felt the same about Adam Smith. The worker-owned co-ops being a central aspect of true (pre-Marx) socialism (cf. Proudhon especially).
I believe Smith also suggested that with improvements in technology and so on not only would workers' lives improve, but their workload would reduce, meaning human beings have more time to spend on the higher aspects of living, not just culture but self-improvement - which relates very much to the higher levels on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
The cabal hate those higher aspects and spend a vast amount of energy preventing access to them (or corrupting spirituality). Because for them a human's only value is a unit of productivity, the idea of allowing them more free time to pursue cultural and artistic and aesthetic and philosophical endeavours is anathema - this would lead to a free-thinking people who couldn't be enslaved.
And we are seeing this today with all this talk of 'useless eaters' and the seriously abusive and harsh unemployment policies, forcing people to work. For the cabal, of course, they ignore the idea of 'useful spenders', because they have a supply-directed economy. Liberal Socialism is a demand-directed system. Smith I think would instantly understand and agree with this.
I feel so too. I suspect he would have been pleasantly astonished to discover that education and literacy can be universal; and would have greatly enjoyed seeing the post-war cooperatives, and even union-organising.
I remember a few years back posting various Marx and Smith quotes to a Smith-hating Marxist (He went on and on and on about "Invisible hands" - without ever once looking up the full quote, naturally).
He was absolutely astonished how many quotes he thought were pure Marx were actually from Smith.
Hopefully it was worth the time and effort I put in (He was a online stranger, natch).
Very few actually READ any of Smith's words, the elites were told about the 'Invisible hands', and that's as far as any of them got (Too busy learning Latin or Old French, probably).
You seem to reject that dark triad personalities exist at all, because there is no evolutionary reason why they should in smaller tribal groups. Yet recognise in modern society there is an evolutionary advantage to these traits. Do I have your position correct?
You have previously asserted dark triad personalities are just a label, invented by the cabal as a cover to explain thier inate evil nature.
Maybe, at it's core, it's a Nature Vs Nurture argument.
I still maintain narcissism is a result of disfunctional nurture, a psychological survival mechanism resulting from a complete lack of unconditional love. I think the 'cabal' try to instil these traits in their offspring, ostensibly by sending them to private prep schools, private boarding schools, and/or employing nannies and nurse maids from very early age, often from birth. Purposely to instill a lack of empathy into their offspiring in order they can carry on the family tradition of accumilation of wealth and control at the expense of all others.
This is next to impossible in smaller tribal groups, where childcare is a shared responsibility, hence why we have seen a rise in the proportion of narcissistic personalities in modern times, where childcare has been largely take over by the state/private institutions.
For your position to be valid, you would have to assert the cabals children are born evil, as if it's possible to have evil genetics. Where's the evolutionary advantage to that?
Everything you have said is a totally valid point, and perhaps you have sort of pre-empted where I was heading with all this.
With regards to your dysfunctional nurture - this is absolutely true and I can verify that from personal experience, from having been sent off to one of these private institutions (there is more to my own psychology than this but that's a big part of it). So I have not only seen these monsters eye to eye so to speak but I have seen precisely the kind of conditioning you are suggesting. It is one of the reasons why one of the top policies in my political manifesto would be to completely outlaw these institutions - these are the recruiting grounds, so to speak - so if you want to defeat your enemy then cutting off their access to resources (i.e. new recruits in this case) would be a primary strategy. So it is certainly true that these private 'schools' are not about 'education' at all (in the sense of learning) but are in fact conditioning centres, which use trauma at the base of the conditioning. I am probably one of those rare minority who survived such a place without developing the cabal's desired traits. I have learned to take heart in that and be somewhat proud of myself. Of course I am covered in internal scars (the causes of which have amnesia walls around them mostly), but it's given me just the insight I need to understand these monsters.
As you say, dysfunctional nurture (I really like that term, by the way - can I appropriate it from you?) is simply not possible (at least for any sustainable/effective period of time) in a small community/tribal group, so indeed we are left with the issue of evolutionary benefit. This is where I'll be going mainly in part 3.
As a kind of, I don't know, preview, I would mention that there are 'aberrations' in nature. We wouldn't necessarily say 'born evil' but it's certainly a 'born something' feature. In those prehistoric groups those are the ones who would've been detected at an early age when their dysfunctional nature manifests, and if they couldn't be cured then they'd be ostracised (or, possibly, 'exposed' - as in put out to die in nature - depends how old they are at the time I suppose). After the neolithic/agricultural revolution with increased population sizes some of these aberrations don't get detected. Given enough time, let's say a few thousand years or so, if these aberrations form a group of their own for mutual survival, and they learn to 'mimic' normal people, then they have developed a survival mechanism. So in that sense, those 'dark triad' traits - for them - are indeed a survival benefit.
So it's not that I essentially deny that dark triad, I am saying it is an 'aberration' which perhaps lay dormant for a very long time because it wasn't adapted for survival, until we have larger population sizes.
Having said that, I have also come to believe that these 'aberrations' are sufficiently different, and sufficiently uniform over generations, as to constitute a different humanoid species. That's where we get into the realm of speculation, of course, but it is definitely worthy of such speculation. And yes, in order to further that species, and propagate it, they would indeed develop methods of dysfunctional nurture (and the ideologies to go with it). So in this sense, it is a mix of nature and nurture.
One curious factoid I was struck with recently was that Nat Rothschild 1/ studied addiction studies at Masters level (a lot of neuroscience in that), and 2/ doesn't have any children. This definitely deserves speculation.
Thank you for your comments though because I was hoping you would stimulate my thoughts about all this, especially by not simply agreeing with me (and sorry it took me so long to get around to all this). So I shall absorb them and do some more proper contemplation. Possibly even enough to have an extra part, so it'd be 4 parts not 3.
Hmmm. I would advise a look at the negative aspects of solar signs, perhaps such as this hideously amusing source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0491033095
In short, every potential 'good' quality has an equal 'negative' quality associated.
Tiphereth, the egoless, can be horribly egoful.
Cancer, the empathic, can be horribly self-serving.
Virgo, the self-critic, can be horribly manipulative and down-putting of others.
Aries, the amazing, heroic foreward-moving, can be thoughtless of others in the extreme.
There is no need to see the Cabal as "Othered". Simply a meat-eating species that came to realise that an organised minority can control a larger disorganised bunch. And then laid down plans to perpetuate this system, and sacrificed the happiness of their children to achieve that.
Positing they are a different species risks falling into the trap that "Once they are gone", we wouldn't have to be concerned about the same pattern repeating itself.
But it will, without proper precautions.
Some Plains Indians would choose the wealthiest family to 'lead', but by the end of their term, they were expected to have given away so much they become one of the poorest families.
Be quite a different World if the West operated on such lines.
I know a fair bit about astrology so I can concur with you there. I'm an Aquarius with Sagittarius ascendent, so I am well aware that I can sometimes come across as arrogant and disdainful of others who appear less intelligent than I am. Almost like I am preaching some of the time.
With regards to the separate species idea, it is very true that 'without proper precautions' it can repeat itself - which is where education comes in of course, and a more systematic policy of early detection followed by ostracism. Obviously in a small group of 150 individuals displaying aberrant behaviour would be detected and ostracised before they can do any harm. In larger social groups they can avoid detection - which is where the limitations of the social cognition number come in.
I would say part of my thesis here is about the evolution of the human brain, in terms of adaptation and neuroplasticity. So whilst I am not denying that this group is at least vaguely human, or once was human, over a certain period of time their 'adaptation' - i.e. evolution - has pushed them down a different path such that today their brains are sufficiently different to be accurately categorised as a distinct species. So part of the thesis is about proposing a sort of new anthropological taxonomy.
Perhaps the important aspect is the evolutionary one. It's important to understand 'how' they came to 'favour' their sort of behaviour, given that under normal or natural circumstances such behaviour is demonstrably not beneficial or conducive to survival. They have of course created a society in which their behaviour is beneficial (to them). So it's about an understanding of deep time, in a sense.
I'm not an expert on the native Americans, although I do have a better than average working knowledge, so to speak, and I have heard of the gift-giving customs, and indeed that it sometimes leads to a sort of competition about who can give away the most - which is where it gets a little counter-productive. But I do agree there is a lot that western society can learn from them. A little altruism not only goes a long way with one's immediate social group, but it also effects a profound inner change in a person. In a spiritual sense. And it is certainly true that the cabal have - over millennia - systematically targeted and attacked humanity's innate spirituality.
I would greatly recommend Braeber's 'Dawn of Everything', you would absolutely LOVE it. Hands down. In fact you'll probably like everything he wrote, if you haven't encountered him yet. His 'History of Debt' is also an essential read, but not quite in the same league as the DoE magnus opus.
He's also the guy who wrote that famous essay on "Bullshit Jobs", which you may have encountered.
I genuinely don't think they are a "Separate species", the normal human race is quite sufficient to behave with callous immorality and brutality. Any psychological or physiological changes will be due to the tremendous abuse they have suffered during this life - after all, their parents and siblings, and friends, would also have gone through a similar process, reinforcing it.
When the shit hits the fan, there are only a few people I would trust behind me with a weapon. (Considerably more animals, tbh).
To understand them, one has only to see the social mechanisms and structures that lead to them. They have great privilege, and wish to keep it. To keep the privileges, they have to ensure the majority do not become wise to this, and force their kids through an abusive socialisation process so they feel 'special' - and will also maintain the current system.
The truth is most humans will fall into line in such a system, always have, always will. Most animals would too. Bear in mind that very few in the British Empire cared about the poor Brown victims of the Empire being killed by British soldiers far away - by some estimates, just under 200,000,000 souls, which puts the German Nazis in their respective frames.
Even good and decent people simply didn't care, or at most tutted about some particularly egregious massacre/famine.
There were no vast marches demanding that food stopped flowing from starving Ireland, let alone caring about the Benghalis that Churchill deliberately starved in the millions.
"Evil is banal".
Unlike in Hollywood, the bad guys don't all cackle (Unless they are Clinton), nor do they think they are on the wrong side of history. As far as they are concerned, they are just doing what most people if put into their situation would do. And sadly, I don't think they are wrong on that.
A culture needs to imbue ubuntu deliberately, kids may role-play naturally, but by adulthood, they forget it was role-play.
A sad state of affairs.
Btw I'm Aries with the inner planets being 2 Aries, 3 Gemini, and 2 Capricorn, unknown rising sadly.
Apparently I was always going to be fucked up, lollollol.
Too strong emotions mixed with emotionlessness, headstrong yet a fantasist, intelligent but physical, looking for someone exactly like myself romantically. I found a handful... over half were lesbians, rofl.
Bloody lucky not to have been crucified, although elements of the State would definitely like to.
I have encountered Graeber actually. I only have a moderate knowledge of him and haven't completely read any of his books, although I am fairly familiar with his basic thesis/theses, and would largely agree with him I think, with a few reservations perhaps.
I totally agree with you about the Empire's crimes. I one of the biggest haters of Churchill in the business.
And that is a good point about the lack of rebellion, shall we call it. That is a fundamental issue - and one which, I believe will continue to doom humanity to a very, very long period of dystopia. Even if it proceeds in cycles, it will continue.
From my exo-philosophy perspective it is also the fundamental reason why humanity, as it is at the moment, will not be allowed out of this solar system. This might sound like a silly frivolous and irrelevant sci-fi-esque statement (see my SF sections) but actually it's one of the most important insights there are, when we realise that the cabal are aware of this quarantine. Remember for them ever-expanding empire is an addictive necessity, so when they encounter a limit, and one enforced by a higher power, when there are no new worlds to conquer, so to speak, then they are going to implode.
It would also explain why they appear to have increased their viciousness and overt displays, in the sense of not caring if people know about them so much. After all, what are people going to do? Rebel? Clearly not!
Too sadly, all true.
Incl I suspect the reason for 'Fermi's Paradox'.
Have you ever read 'Godmakers' by Frank Herbert (My favourite author of all time)? He lays out just how strict an interstellar civ MUST be when encountering an industrialised intelligent species. (I think all species are intelligent, for their own niche. Industrialism is the threat for interstellar conflict.)
We would fail at the first hurdle. Before you could blink it would be 'Avatar'.
With regards to the cycle of abuse thing, this is definitely a significant aspect of the the child abuse network. When you get to part 4 of this series you'll sort of see where I'm coming from with the separate species idea, as it was in consideration of some of the quite frankly inhuman things these monsters do that I came to the conclusion/hypothesis that they really are a different species.
My main point being there is a qualitative difference between 'dysfunctional nurture' and pure evil. Calling it 'dysfunctional nurture' is, ultimately, to do evil a favour because it acts as a sort of concealment or disguise.
There is so much depth to all this stuff that it will really take an entire book to bring out the thesis and do it justice. Far too much for a comment/reply!
I don't believe "evil" exists, objectively. (With the proviso that those who believe in it will often consciously act upon it).
The concept was dreamed up by the arsehole Zoroaster, c700bce. Within two years, it was used by his followers - with his conscious connivance - to hunt down and annihilate the Persian pagans, priestesses, and followers. Because they "Worshipped evil and Nature", obviously.
Mass murder and the imposition of a Patriarchal absolutist theocracy was the first act of the evil-believers. Tell me that isn't evil personified?
And then, 2000 years later, the self-same slaughter of Europe's surviving Pagans, in the so-called "Witch trials", all using the same justification.
But consider trying to explain "Evil" to an animal? Now BAD - as in good v bad as the basis for morality - animals get that immediately. It's subjective. But some nebulous force that animates certain individuals so NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO it is inevitably "Evil"... no, that doesn't make any sense.
It is a tool of mental control, and a very effective one. It's one of the reasons we are so fucked up globally today, and why aliens wouldn't get in touch. Needless to say, they would be "Evil" as soon as they said we couldn't mine their precious Unobtanium.
"Evil" is Othering, the "Evil" have no rights, and can be tortured and murdered with impunity. Those who believe in evil enact evil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_nc1IVoMxc
You are the first person I come across who proposes this. I've often wondered about it. I do not subscribe to the "reptilians" b.s. either, for reasons you state, nor do I care to muddy the matter with references to Synagogue of Satan, and the "chosen people" and Annunaki etc, whatever people come up with for explanations. It's purely physiological. But this phenomenon is definitely something that needs to be studied - i.e. what causes the insatiable gluttony for child abuse amongst the human males. If nature has intended for this, there has to be a damn good reason why Homo Immanis evolved. And what is that reason? As you state, it's not just the child abuse, but also the unbridled lust for genocide and murder, without remorse, without any moral compass. Homo Immanis must have a completely different wiring, and it goes even beyond the cruddy wiring of the psychopath. A psychopath still has some sense of what is wrong, but wilfully ignores it. The Homo Immanis has no sense whatsoever; there appears to be no feedback system at all between their drive for self-satisfaction and the damage they inflict on another person. There is an enormous defect in the way their brain is structured, and how they perceive the world; their processing of the natural input is completely different, or even non-existent to a large extent, due to their faulty wiring. But why and how, and how does this species persist over time? Their survival appears to be due to the predatory nature of this human strain, else they would have already been deselected. The faulty genotype reflects in the weird structure of their face, where several of the tactile senses are located - i.e. the input mechanisms by which we perceive and interact with the world around us. Another good example of the Homo Immanis is Epstein - he too has this contorted facial structure that is totally foreign to any human 'race'. And George Soros. Lastly, it seems Homo Immanis attracts an enormous following of Homo Sapiens psychopaths, which is not hard to understand, but which causes tremendous problems in the world. I am convinced Homo Immanis is a separate species and it needs to be studied.
I agree with every word you said! Thank you!
You asked the question as to why they exist and how and so on. It goes without saying how important these questions are. I've sort of explored that a little in this series, but it remains an open question. In particular, I've been trying not to resort to 'mystical' or similar explanations. Although one could say that this is nature's way of creating a sort of vaccine against evil. If 'normal' people look at this small minority group behaving in a pure evil way, then their natural aversion to it strengthens their immunity, if you see what I mean. Especially if they can 'study' it - by learning about it they learn how to detect it. Once detected, ostracism (or extermination, as with a pathogen) naturally follows. So from that point of view it's an important part of humanity's 'spiritual' evolution.
One speculation I had which I touch upon in the series is to do with the invention of fire-making. Once you know how to make fire you are no longer living in permanent chronic stress (fear of predators etc.). Stress releases lots of chemicals into the brain, which, if they persist, causes irreparable damage (or 're-wiring' as you put it). Insidiously, this creation of chronic stress is one of the main things the cabal do - perhaps they have the ultimate intention of rewiring human brains to make them more like them. Thus evening out the balance of numbers.
So one of my hypotheses is that this group sort of 'parasited' on homo sapiens for a long time, in the sense that sapiens learned to control fire and not be scared anymore, but immanis did not. But during that time, with humans living in such small groups, they would've largely gone unnoticed. From time to time, any psychopath would simply have been detected early by virtue of their behaviour and ejected from the group. Once humans started living in larger communities, the monsters can conceal themselves better. Eventually they group together themselves and that's when the grand conspiracy begins.
Then again, perhaps 'fear' doesn't necessarily explain all their behaviour. It explains their need for control, but not the depravity.
So these are all really tricky anthropological questions. And without extensive neuroscientific study (fMRI scans etc.), it's difficult to come up with definite answers, other than some logical hypotheses. But at the very least, it is important to think about it in this way. Only by accepting the fact that we really are dealing with a separate species can humanity actually do something about it...
This is really interesting. For one thing I totally agree with the 'mystical' explanations that I stay away from because they are not necessary and have no added value. I have a lot more to share with you, was talking in my head to you. :-) Need to run, but I will get back to you later.
Your points of view are so interesting... I also believe that the Homo Immanis want humanity to be like them. I jokingly wrote about this a few years ago when the mRNA vax first came out. But I dont think it is a joke. It is obvious to me that the idea behind the experiment is to harness the working of the pineal gland and all the processes it is involved in. Including the processing of the life force. It's not about killing, but about modifying and controlling. Homo Immanis is not creative, but soulless. It requires followers to execute its programs and we see this before our own eyes. What you write is true: once we accept the fact that there is an entirely different strain of humans, we can do something about it. But without referring to all these useless dogma's of satan and fallen angels and whatnot that do not provide adequate proof of the actual existence of a different species. I need to finish reading your series. :-)
Yes - if I am correct and we are simply dealing with a different humanoid species that has managed to conceal its true nature, then this demystifies the whole thing. It provides a rational, scientific explanation which is psychologically easy for anyone to deal with and accept. This is precisely why you get all these cognitive infiltration agents talking ad nauseam about annunaki and fallen angels and all the rest of it - that kind of thing is designed to turn people off. And of course to present the cabal as more powerful than they actually are. They are certainly not the master race, but they need to convince people they are, because it makes them easier to control.
Looking forward to what you think of the rest of the series.
Not a different species. Simply emotionally damaged individuals.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/08/public-schoolboys-boris-johnson-sad-little-boys-richard-beard
Ironically that Guardian article was already in my archived favourites...
We agree on so much, it is astounding to me that we don't seem to have had a connection before, under online pseudonyms.
It's literally like meeting a twin!
I wonder if we are related, lol. :)
I like intellectual twins, for sure!
We probably haven’t met as I haven’t really been much on social media and don’t have a range of pseudonyms. Mind you if you had some, it’s possible.
I was on twitter for a bit but unenthusiastically…
Yeah, I have a twitter that's never used. Was an early politics forumer - same gnuneo handle - and then addicted to FB for several years (I looked you up on both when we first met, stalker central lollol :'D). Migrated from FB last year, got tired of the same debates with the same people, and even worse all the adverts that were cropping up despite every adblocker around installed.
I can PM you my FB page if you want to see what I looked like 20 years ago, lollol.
But if you don't recognise 'Gnuneo', then we astonishingly haven't met online before!
I like that despite agreeing on ~97% of everything (And THAT'S a first in my life!!), we immediately found something we disagreed over to talk about, but without any egotism about it either.
If I can find any (Most were just posted on FB and then lost to time), I could also post some of my (bad) poetry too, if you'd like. :)