Conspiracy Fact & Conspiracy Theory: Micro and macro investigations into social engineering and perception management (1 of 4)


I: Bonds of Hatred

I’ve spent more than half my life investigating these mysteries and writing about paranoid awareness but it’s only recently that it’s become personal. My view has always been that any attempt to understand or map the conspiratorial aspects of human society is a bit of a red herring, except as a way to better understand our own psychic conditions and predicament. I still feel that way, but now the line, once reasonably clear, between world and psyche, object and mirror, is no longer visible. If trying to understand my own family background leads me into Fabian conspiracies and geopolitical espionage, at what point do I pull back and say “Enough is enough”?

Simply put, while the desire to understand the true nature of the world may be futile, a “displacement activity”  that could potentially keep us distracted from what is moving in the inner realms, the desire to understand ourselves is as deep-seated a drive as there is. It may even be the only goal worth pursuing. So when is attempting to understand the world a way to understand ourselves, and when is it taking us further away from ourselves?

Potentially, now that I have found concrete evidence for a conspiratorial element in my own family history, I am much better equipped to look at the larger picture—as above, so below. I’m no longer relying to the same degree on hearsay, conjecture, or 2nd-, 3rd, 4th-hand information. I can test every theory by comparing it to my own experience. On the other hand, there’s an even greater chance I will be skewing the evidence because I am zeroing in on my own personal cover-up. The chances of self-subterfuge and self-sabotage increase the closer we get to self-exposure.

To bring it down to very simple terms, and to what I know for sure: the conspiratorial legacy I have inherited is that my father hated his father and was never able, or willing, to tell us why. He died still hating him, perhaps partially because he could never talk about the reasons why. My brother also hated his father, and likewise he died with (into?) that hatred. I am staring at a powerful ancestral bond that, seen up-close, looks like something out of Macbeth, and that goes back countless generations. To begin to understand how and why this hatred bond was created is to start to dissolve the hatred with understanding, which is the first stirring of love. But it also means looking more closely at the reasons for that hatred, and so finding the source of it. And the closest, most immediate source is within myself.


I’ve become aware that, as much as I want to keep this to the “ground” of my own family history, the pull of the conspiratorial and political memes out there is too strong to ignore and invariably distorts whatever picture I am trying to paint, not only in expressing it but even in my own “mind’s eye.” I think the basic problem is that it’s nigh-impossible for us to view anything except in terms of good vs. evil, i.e., within socially-conditioned moral parameters. Even though I may know intellectually that those moral parameters have been at least partially laid down by the groups, individuals, and agendas I am examining, and that they are inseparable from the values being traced back to the same groups, etc., I still end up referring to them in my attempts to understand. This is similar to trying to use the conscious mind to explore the unconscious psyche: it just doesn’t go there. The part of me that hates cannot ever comprehend the reasons for that hatred, because hatred prevents seeing from happening.

The desire to uncover conspiracy, as far as I can see, is inseparable from the need to assign blame. This prevents a clear seeing of what is being done to us, because, as soon as we begin to see it, we react and try to judge it, oppose it, or denounce it (in other words, we hate). We take a position. And the problem, from what I can see, begins with taking a position. Every position is a defensive position.

This is why the seeming “good guys” are mixed up with the seeming “bad guys” in any halfway accurate history of conspiracy (i.e., of the world). It is why so many researchers wind up taking an “absolutist” point of view and saying “It’s all a conspiracy” (i.e., all bad), and why others end up seeing two conspiracies working at odds, good vs., evil, mind contraction vs. mind expansion, freedom vs. slavery, love vs. hatred, and so on.

As I see it, the “badness” begins with any attempt to control and direct others, whether it is towards mind expansion/social-sexual liberation/spiritual realization/love or away from it, into slavery, ignorance, addiction and denial, hatred, or whatever. The end never justifies the means, and in fact any attempt to bring about any end, by any means—at least when it is without the conscious participation of all involved—must be sourced in delusion. Delusion is self-deception, and the fruit of that is, invariably, the deception of others.

In this sense I am beginning to see that: a) it is all a conspiracy; and b) it is all “bad.” Or maybe I am just beginning to admit that’s my own slant on things, the way I have always seen it because it’s the only way I can see it? Hatred wounds us and the wounded hate.

There is, I know, a very strong pattern in me which refuses to allow that a positive view of the world and of people could be sourced in anything but ignorance and denial. As a teenager, maybe even younger, I felt very strongly that happiness was a sign of stupidity. The deeper I go into these areas of research, the more that pattern comes into my conscious awareness and the more angry and hostile (the more hatred) I feel towards people in general. This is based on the assumption (usually correct, I think) that they won’t know/believe any of this or want to hear about it. But this is probably due to a childhood experience of being vulnerable to such realities and not being heard or believed when I tried to speak about them, or perhaps not even daring to speak about them at all.

At a deep level, I think that the trauma I suffered, and which maybe we all suffer, is betrayal trauma. Betrayal trauma happened when someone I believed and needed to be good turned out not to be so. When I asked for bread and instead received a snake and a stone, hatred in place of love. After that formative experience, it doesn’t feel safe for me to believe that goodness can exist anywhere. And in an ironic, tragicomic way, it’s true, there is no “goodness” that isn’t mixed up with “evil” in this world (no love without hatred) because this world is a divided sphere—“knowledge of good & evil” means the psyche is divided against itself. Yet the psyche itself, the soul, being sourced in the eternal, is not divided, and so it is absolutely good. The psyche cannot hate (only the ego can). The spiritual quest (individuation) is to find that source of goodness within and become it. That means total, unconditional acceptance of all evil “out there,” and this is a literally unimaginable leap of trust, love, and surrender.

Who among us can see the full depth and scope of the “conspiracy”—and the horrendous harm which it has done to the human soul—and not turn away from it, hate it, or condemn it? Who among us can put down the stone and look unflinchingly at the wolf within?



Implicit in the whole framing of conspiratorial information is a value-judgment: “Look at those dastardly Fabians, wolves pretending to be sheep!” Or: “Look at my grandfather, an elitist pretending to be a socialist, no wonder I am so fucked up!” It’s unavoidable, but it’s also untenable. It doesn’t add up and is actually at odds with the real purpose of these discoveries, which is to see that “good and evil”—whether agendas, groups, or individuals—can’t be separated, and that the idea they can is an intrinsic element of the dastardly “divide & conquer” plot (damn them to Hell!). The split occurs early on in the psyche, as a result of these local and global acts of betrayal and abuse; and yet, all of this is the result of a wound in the collective psyche, because only those who are wounded seek to wound.

The wish to separate is also a healthy and necessary desire, however: it is called discrimination, and no individuation occurs without it. We have to sort the seeds of the influences on our psychic development to isolate the “alien implants” of social conditioning/engineering that have estranged body from soul, awareness from essence, and that prevent us from experiencing ourselves, and reality, as we are and it is. This isn’t about separating good from evil in the ordinary sense, but discriminating inner from outer. Our true nature is innate; it is sourced deep within. Our false nature is conditioned into us, though it is also an internal defense against outer conditioning. This is how conditioning works, diabolically enough: it replaces inner reality with an externally-provoked imitation of, and defense against, outer reality. In psychology, this is known as the Guardian. (See diagram here.)

To use an obvious (profane) example of this confusion: recently, by looking at how the Fabian society may have used progressive and libertarian ideas to further a geopolitical agenda, I risked becoming associated with (and relying on) more “right-wing” sources of information, and even unwittingly spouting a “reactionary” point of view. By suggesting that the loosening of moral values, sexual permissiveness, immigration, or whatever, may have been deliberately intended for seemingly “negative” consequences, I can easily end up appearing to denounce these things as “bad,” or worse, seeing them that way. This is a bit of an ironic quandary for a researcher to fall into, since one of the first conclusions that has to be reached, when taking a parapolitical view of history, is that the left wing works together with the right. All externally found values are equally false. Yet the power of conditioning is so strong that it’s virtually impossible for us not to choose some sort of allegiance, even when it flies in the face of logic and prevents any kind of coherent understanding from happening.

No doubt that, too, is part of the Plot.

(End of Part 1)

7 thoughts on “Conspiracy Fact & Conspiracy Theory: Micro and macro investigations into social engineering and perception management (1 of 4)

  1. Jasun – Thanks for sharing this.
    While reading I couldn’t help but think about Taoist ways.
    The return to the uncarved block through non action (Wu Wei)

    Can we individualize in modern times by not giving power to notions of dualistic be-ing?

  2. I only skimmed this but will read it all tomorrow. It looks really interesting. I sometimes try to let my subconscious randomly locate on a certain section or sentence while skimming articles. I got to this, read it, and got an ear tone in the right ear:

    “Our false nature is conditioned into us, though it is also an internal defense against outer conditioning. This is how conditioning works, diabolically enough: it replaces inner reality with an externally-provoked imitation of, and defense against, outer reality. In psychology, this is known as the Guardian. ”

    The right has had a strong, positive, inspirational correlation with whatever thought is occurring at the time of it. I have a few theories for ear ringings — could be electronic mind-control with the trigger being the thought you just had, could be your psychic ‘spidey-sense’, could be an alert to danger, maybe related to implants, or an alert to something good…either way, it’s some force inside or outside of you saying pay attention, because there are patterns to them…

    • Can we individualize in modern times by not giving power to notions of dualistic be-ing?

      I wish I had the answer because then it (I) would be Yes.

      Maybe the lure of all compelling narratives is that they intensify our experience of existing through opposition to something or someone – all tales are tales of good & evil.

      Is there a self that doesn’t exist in opposition to the body in some way? If the body is the only self we can identify, what’s it in opposition to? If the soul/psyche is the true self, how can we know it except by opposing it? (Diable = double. Knowledge is synonymous with evil, goodness with a knowledge-free – empty/pure/wu – state?)

      Can there be an answer without a question? If so, what is it?

  3. I say, Don’t “not give power”. Give power by way of Mother-Energy. It’s a sorrowful, repenting, gracious energy at its best. Giving power to the space of suffering by way of Mother-Energy collapses everything but the uncollapsable “Thing” that will “individualize” oneself, will slow cook one at just the right temperature.

  4. “If the soul/psyche is the true self, how can we know it except by opposing it?”

    Yikes, that’s a mouth full.

    The fact of the matter, to my understanding, is that you can’t. All the universe is opposition, all is conflict. There is no resting place that we call the “true self”. Just like there is no “here and now”. The great conspiracy is to suggest that such things exist. Punt the gurus and gods down the road. This is an experiential universe. Opposition and conflict give birth to experience. That’s all you need to know. The rest is absurda.

    At least, so muttered Beckett between drinks. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s