Conspiracy Facts & Conspiracy Theory (Part 3 of 4)

III: Spookland & the Dark Age of Secrets


How many people do you think are in the employ of intelligence agencies? Consider first of all the number of these agencies, worldwide, starting with the ones we know of and then positing how many others we haven’t ever heard about. Factor in the amount of money (including the unknowable “black budget”) that goes into these agencies and the sheer number of “ops” which they are collectively involved in, ops that span the various fields and disciplines of government, military, police, law, organized crime, science, religion, medicine, pharmaceuticals, big business, the entertainment and media, economics, illegal drug smuggling and distribution, charities, and fringe cultures such as UFOs, spiritual groups, and occult societies (to say nothing of the more long-established secret societies that lurk behind the intelligence agencies).

Keep in mind that, for every operative, there may be twice or five times as many “snitches” working for them. Now pick a number, or a percentage of the overall population of your country, town, or neighborhood. Compare that number to the number of people that you know personally, or have ever heard about, who are working or informing for said agencies. If, as in my own case, the second number is a big fat zero, try the experiment instead with the number of people you suspect might be operatives or informants. Now compare the two numbers. What? Same problem?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Where are all the spooks? Are they living in their own private cities somewhere, going about their business making the world safe for you and I? Nope. The people you are wondering about are are here among you, every day and everywhere you go. They cook your meals, they haul your trash, they connect your calls, they drive your ambulances. They  guard you while you sleep. This IS Spookland and you are a resident of it. If they haven’t recruited you yet, it’s because they haven’t found a use for you. Yet.


You’ve heard all about old boy networks, and about how only those who belong to the “club” (Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, whatever) get to advance within the extended club of society, in the various fields of the media, government, law, medicine, industry, entertainment, and so on. So how far does this old boys’ network extend? If we don’t belong to it and if we never get recruited by it, how would we ever know?

Suppose that every single establishment in the modern world, from government on down, was established by and for these old boy networks, to the same end? Would that mean that everyone who’s anyone would belong, essentially, to the same club, a club that only exists for those who know it does? What if everyone you have ever heard of (outside of your own private circle) is, by definition, an operative, because, hey, if they weren’t, you would never have heard of them! I’m not saying this is so. I’m just asking—what if? Is there a strong, clear, and logical argument why it could not be the case? Keep in mind I am only talking about the (potential) operatives you have heard of, and that most operatives work under the radar because a high public profile isn’t required, and may even be detrimental to their work.

What if everyone is now an operative or working for an operative except you? Most of them probably don’t know this, however, because there are so many agencies and ops currently working that there’s no way for the lower level operatives to have any real idea exactly who is on the agenda and who isn’t, or even what it is. And once every last person is recruited—what happens then? This is a joke (I think); presumably that can’t ever happen. It may be that the “chosen ones” are precisely those precious few who decline to be chosen. The conspiracy researcher Kris Millegan (whose father was an operative) wrote to me this succinct, and I think more accurate, picture of Spookland:

You have spooks and then you have the folks that spooks influence. Basically intel ops operate with deceit and subterfuge. Even if you’re a spook they lie and compartamentalize. You are only told what is needed. If you want someone to go from a to b, if you can get him to go there without even knowing you exist is great. If you have to tell them to go from a to b, you never tell them the right reasons.  So many that are involved are simply played, and are not under orders. Most that get involved do it for all the right reasons, god and country, but are used by higher-ups. I find the final agendas come from the secret societal system, beyond the nation states that they have captured.

The sci-fi scenario of They Live, The Matrix, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the modern paranoid folklore of David Icke, Whitley Strieber, et al, may be a metaphor not just for psychological and spiritual truth (or “truth”), but also for the parapolitical social reality. Isn’t conspiracy just another, juicier and flakier, word for espionage? Perhaps these exciting, sensationalized narratives are a way for the real situation to filter into our conscious awareness, the real situation being that we live in a world overrun by operatives (and their informants). These operatives have their magic Rayban glasses, they are unplugged, they exist in a very different world to the rest of us (or at least, to me). To them, we are the sleepers, the slaves, the goyim, at best useful idiots, at worst useless eaters.

I have a terror of being naïve. It is combined with a certainty that what’s occurring in the world is very different from what we have been led to believe is occurring or what appears to be the “general” view of events. This leads to an attempt, as above, to paint an alternative picture of truth, a counter-narrative whose purpose is less to describe the actual truth than it is to expose the untruth of the predominant narrative.

Finding the ground means first recognizing that, whatever we are standing on, it ain’t it.


I just read a book about the Kray twins by John Pearson (Profession of Violence). The Krays interest me because their activities seem to provide some important “connecting tissue,” both in my own secret family history and the larger history of 20th and 21st century social engineering. The Krays are connected, to varying degrees, to Jimmy Boyle and hence to my own family, to the Pheasantry and therefore (tenuously) to the counterculture, Whitley Strieber, and the Process Church, to Donald Cammell, Mick Jagger, and the entertainment industry, and most demonstrably of all to Lord Boothby and Tom Driberg (homosexual MPs), Jimmy Savile and the “Pink Ballets” (sex orgies of the 1960s), and to the now-infamous Haut de Garenne, the Jersey Island care home which allegedly hosted child sex parties for a very elite clientele.

After reading the book, however (which mentions almost none of the above), I came away with next to no clues as to what the notorious London gangsters were really involved in or how they made their fortune. There’s some mention of financial fraud and of protection rackets, and of the many clubs they owned (frequented by celebrities); but there’s nothing that gives any sense of a criminal enterprise and how or why exactly the Krays were as powerful, and seemingly untouchable, as they were during their heyday in the 1960s. There’s only one mention of Jersey Island, an innocuous mention at that, referring to Ronnie Kray taking his male lovers there because he didn’t feel safe in the UK. Admittedly, the truth about Haut de la Garenne only came out quite recently, but I found myself wondering: was this the reason why the description of the Krays’ empire of crime seemed so insubstantial? Had all of the primary elements been concealed or omitted? Judging by Pearson’s account, the Krays didn’t deal in drugs or in any other contraband, yet they were courted by an impressive stream of celebrities (from Muhammad Ali to Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra to Lee Marvin), and enjoyed the protection of members of parliament such as Boothby (eventually implicated in Haut de la Garenne), Tom Driberg, and by extension, the Labor PM at the time, Harold Wilson. So what was their attraction to these people, and what made them so invaluable?

What were they selling?

Driberg, whose biography I am currently reading, was notorious for sexual deviance. Winston Churchill, reputedly a closet homosexual (well-suppressed, if you can find a good solid online lead, let me know), said that Driberg “gave sodomy a bad name.” While the official account, to date, gives no suggestion that he was involved in the sexual exploitation of children, naturally I am unconvinced. My interest in Driberg is at least as keen as that in the Krays, because Driberg can be linked to my family by two, possibly even three, seemingly independent roots—via my grandfather (who knew several of Driberg’s associates, including Sir Richard Acland and J.B. Priestley, who were instrumental in Driberg winning his seat in Parliament in 1942), my brother (who belonged to Driberg’s drinking club the Colony Room, albeit during a different period), and my mother, who was friends with the family of Christopher Sykes (as I was in my teens), Sykes being Evlynn Waugh’s biographer and Driberg’s fellow Oxford alumni. My grandfather attended Oxford during the same period as Driberg, so they may have met then, and almost certainly did afterwards. All in all, the proximity of Driberg to my own family background is nothing short of striking.

Driberg was friends with Aleister Crowley, who thought so highly of Driberg that he nominated him as his successor as World Teacher (which never came to pass). According to Robin Bryans’ The Dust Has Never Settled, Driberg was a regular participant in Black Mass, as well as a frequent attendee at the Krays’ notorious “orgies.” He was also antagonistically associated with Anthony Blunt, the communist spy whose name appears on the list of VIP visitors to the now-infamous Elm Guest House “kinder-brothel,” located in Barnes, London. Driberg’s biographer, Francis Wheen, mentions the “rumor” that Driberg was recruited by MI5 agent Max Knight (on whom Ian Fleming based his character “M”) while still a schoolboy. Wheen dismisses the notion as absurd, but at this point I’m more inclined to dismiss Wheen as absurd (or a liar). Most damningly of all perhaps, Driberg worked closely in the 1940s with Lord Mountbatten, who has been linked to the Kincora child abuse ring and who introduced Driberg to Prince Philip; years later, Mountbatten also introduced Jimmy Savile to Philip—an inconclusive but for me highly suggestive detail. (In passing, my stepfather was a vocal admirer of Mountbatten, and may even have known him….)

The chances of Driberg somehow being innocent in all of this, of anything beyond a little consensual pederasty, seem slim, to put it mildly. And yet, at the same time, how far am I willing to take the logic of “guilt by association”? If I extend the guilt to my own family, as is an almost irresistible temptation, then aren’t I, by the same logic, also implicating myself—at least in the eyes of some future conspiratorial zealot like me?

Returning to the Krays: it seems impossible not to conclude, however tentatively, that the business they were in was not so much a profession of violence but one of sexual violence: catering to the aberrant appetites of the power elite, including (but presumably not limited to) the sexual abuse of children. There is plenty of suggestion (though how verifiable it is I don’t know) that the many “orgies” which occurred—such as at Haut de Garenne and Elm Guest House—also entailed the manufacturing of child pornography. It has recently come out that Jimmy Savile owned several film companies, though there’s no sign of what they actually produced. There’s also the suggestion, perhaps inevitably, that the orgies, and the films, included sexual violence, what has now entered the lexicon as “torture porn.” And why stop there—since victims are also witnesses, this alleged industry included snuff movies. Beyond the obvious market for such fare, these films, in the right hands, would also have been invaluable for exercising total control over the participants.


(One hour video interview about Elm Guest House with Chris Fay)

While I haven’t come across any concrete evidence for this—I’m not sure I’d want to see it if I did—I find it too logically consistent to seriously doubt. What increases coherence can only be presumed to be accurate. And while presumption is not fact, if the main facts can be confirmed, the other, more speculative ones that are found to fit the larger picture and which increase the coherence of it, I think can be tentatively accepted.

This level of human depravity is such (or so it seems to me) that even knowledge of it, combined with an association with its perpetrators, at least if it doesn’t lead to radical action (even if only getting as far away from the scene as possible), amounts to guilt. Of course, there must be plenty of people on the periphery (as at the BBC during Savile’s long and grisly reign) who don’t know about it but who only hear rumors. One way to avoid the moral conundrum of having to act against one’s self-interest in order to retain one’s self-respect is, simply not to believe the rumors.

So at what point can ignorance be regarded as complicity—and to what extent does that implicate us all?


There is currently a lot of shock and outrage in the UK as high-ranking members of British society are outed (many of them after they are dead and gone, but some of them still living) as child abusers. One of the sentiments commonly expressed within the mainstream is surprise that these offenders were given the highest peerages of British society, OBEs, Lordships, and the like. How is it that, “despite” their widely-rumored involvement in such illegal activities, they were still nominated for titles? The answer is probably that it’s not despite it but because of it.

The structures of power that are firmly in place in British society (and beyond, since the sun never sets on the Empire) are perhaps such that, not just complicity with but active participation in the systematized sexual abuse of children is a prerequisite for ascending the ranks.[1] I know this is all very David Icke, and I’m a bit surprised to have ended up blogging about a subject which I considered, just a year or two ago, to be passé: the nature of the beast, Earth society is a systemized Hell-zone, move on and get over it. I trust anyone who’s followed me this long already knows this, or at least knows it’s the way I see things and isn’t overly opposed to said view.

But there is a world of difference between a general, theoretical perspective and one that begins to crystalize into something directly and palpably experiential. It’s roughly the difference between reading David Icke/watching They Live (or writing Homo Serpiens) and bumping into Reptilians while they devour babies at the local Laundromat. Unexpected.

While this is still all speculative, it’s also based on and inspired by quite visceral, non-intellectualized, living insights into my own personal history and background. It may be a mistake to try and extend those insights outward to the level of society at large, or it may just be an inevitable part of the attempt to make sense out of experience by finding the larger context for it. Either way, I think it’s a reasonable speculation, based on the evidence, and the recent flurry of exposés in the UK would seem to confirm the links between organized crime,  police and intelligence agencies, the entertainment industry, high-ranking politicians, peerages, the sexual abuse of children, child pornography and worse, and a massive institutionalized cover-up. And there really is a difference between looking into conspiracy theories and staring at conspiracy facts: for me at least.

We don’t and can’t know the number of spooks, snitches, and shills among us. But if Lloyd de Mause’s statistical facts are accurate, then 50% of the adults we interact with on any given day and 50% of the children we encounter are victims of sexual abuse. (There is probably no way to calculate the numbers of adults involved in the sexual abuse of children, whether their own or other people’s, or both.) This idea is so incredible that it is somehow incomprehensible. It’s not so much the idea that it could be true that’s hard to comprehend, as the idea that it could be true and yet be so thoroughly and completely hidden from our view.

One oft-touted criticism of a conspiracy-based reading of history is “People just can’t keep a secret that well.” I think the truth is the opposite, and that keeping secrets is what we humans do best. I think we have been doing it for so long we have got it down to an art form. Jan Irvin’s vision of a grand conspiracy to bring about a new dark age seems to ignore the fact that a new dark age is unlikely to be anything like the previous one, and that the likeliest possibility of all, is that we are already in it.

no evil baby
[1] Famous OBEs implicated in sexual abuse of children include Jimmy Savile (DJ, TV presenter); Benjamin Britten (composer); Cyril Smith (MP); Jess Conrad (pop singer); Cliff Richard (pop singer); Rolf Harris (children’s entertainer); Jimmy Tarbuck (comedian); John Peel (DJ); Robert Boothby (politician). Some of the accused could be straw men, and since one way to protect the guilty is to serve up innocents in their stead and make it look like a “witch-hunt,” I certainly don’t want to add to that. But while it’s probably a mistake to think that just because all ravens are black everything that’s black is a raven (there are people implicated in child abuse who don’t have OBEs—hello, Freddy Starr—so it’s reasonable to suppose the reverse is also true), still and all, the PIE chart overlap is pretty striking, and I can’t help but wonder what’s being signaled by an OBE to those “in the know.”

21 thoughts on “Conspiracy Facts & Conspiracy Theory (Part 3 of 4)

  1. “keeping secrets is what we humans do best” – this brings to mind an idea in the Gurdjieff literature: the characteristic that distinguishes man from other animals is not his intellect, but his ability to lie.

  2. Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind has this for it premise:

    It was not, the authors argue, a biological leap that set humanity apart from other species, but a psychological one: namely, the uniquely human ability to deny reality in the face of inarguable evidence-including the willful ignorance of our own inevitable deaths. The awareness of our own mortality could have caused anxieties that resulted in our avoiding the risks of competing to procreate-an evolutionary dead-end. Humans therefore needed to evolve a mechanism for overcoming this hurdle: the denial of reality. As a consequence of this evolutionary quirk we now deny any aspects of reality that are not to our liking…

    The book is actually rather poor, so this is not a recommendation; but the premise is sound.

  3. Yea I don’t buy his whole evolutionary mechanism shtick, that whole thing stinks of trying to cram a square peg in a round hole if you ask me – it’s actually quite a nice illustration of the author’s own premise.

    My intuition is that this denial exists because we are not capable of existing in our current form and being exposed to the full force of reality. Denial is some sort of protective mechanism – meant to be 1/2 of a system that transforms human beings into something else – a transformation that can only take place within a protective cocoon that shields us from the full force of reality. Whatever that word may mean.

    But the other half of the transformation system appears to be missing, or broken, or perhaps dormant or intentionally suppressed. So we just sit in the cocoon as it decays.

    Then again maybe it’s just invisible, and the transformation is going along right on schedule.

    Personally, I can’t shake that feeling of monkeys in an abandoned construction site, looking at discarded pieces of machinery that at one time performed specific functions but now lie discarded and inert. But I’m the brooding type so that certainly might not be the case in truth.

  4. “Humans therefore needed to evolve a mechanism for overcoming this hurdle: the denial of reality.”

    Interesting, since now that also leaps over the denial of death.

  5. 9/11 was a wake up call for me. And it wasn’t even the event that woke me up – it was the American government’s reaction. In particular it was Bush’s statement that “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” that got me going. That’s not a statement I would make – it’s not even a statement an adult would make. Something, I figured, was being swept under the rug. So I studied, and studied some more. Eventually I came to ask just what kind of mindset must the perpetrators have. Damned if I didn’t have to look down that pedophilia road as you have. I didn’t want to, I wasn’t expecting it – it’s just in plain view for those who dare look.

    Good work as always.

    • maybe it’s just invisible, and the transformation is going along right on schedule.

      That seems likely. Perhaps part of the necessity of the denial mechanism is to prevent us from seeing what we are becoming in order not to interfere with the outcome?

      All this is largely speculative. I am wondering how it relates to the main content of the opening post, which is that “Spooks” operate undercover of our collective denial of their existence. Even though we all know they exist, we compartmentalize the knowledge so that it doesn’t apply directly to us. There are spooks, but obviously I don’t know any. The same applies to death (people die, but I won’t), and to pedophiles: there are pedophiles, and they act and appear like normal, respectable, pleasant people; yet none of the people I know are pedophiles. At least that’s how I observe my own mental process: I can’t believe that I wouldn’t somehow “know” when I was seeing something so basically threatening or “wrong.” Brad Pitt or George Clooney couldn’t possibly be involved with this sort of depravity – it would show in their faces somehow! But logic says that I don’t and it doesn’t. Just look at Cliff Richard – who can possibly believe, even now, that he’d be involved in the sort of nightmare activities going on at Elm Guest House?

      If, like death, both spooks and pedophiles are everywhere, logic also suggests that we would already be long normalized to their presence and not detect anything “strange” about them. They are closer to being the rule than the exception. But again, how to really live with that knowledge?

      Where does it leave us? With the option either of embarking on a witch-hint, or of simply looking at what is in plain view and so beginning to recognize the depth and breadth of our denial, which leads to an acknowledgment of our complicity/compliance with it (and with what is being denied). Compliance does seem to be a key. Denial is a form of compliance by which we enter into cahoots with that which is being denied.

      Maybe it is transformative, potentially, but I think that mostly it leads to putrefaction without transformation. A bit like being sexually abused as a child, or working as a spook, perhaps?

  6. – “”How do I know that “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is spoof on the heirs of the ’30s liberals , the Fabian Socialists in Britain?”

    “By the evidence that Orwell was ‘greening’ the Anglo establishment. In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” the establishment calls the state Oceania, a utopian name. They seek a tribal family identity and find it under Big Brother’s aegis. But it is the names of the ministries that are a dead giveaway to what Orwell meant: the Ministry of Peace…it wages war; the Ministry of Plenty…it breeds scarcities; the Ministry of
    Truth…it tells lies; and the Ministry of Love…it dispenses hate. Is not this what the ’30s liberals promised when they came to power: a government of Love and Truth and Peace and Plenty?
    So now we know what Orwell meant in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.””

    I read this and thought it touched upon some of the factual issues brought forward in this series -( rather than the psychological? I “hear” Jaysun when he discusses the reality “when you are falling down the rabbit hole there are no facts anymore, just assumptions” – if I paraphrase what he was writing correctly…)

    For me, I am in the “camp” of tentative certainty; it’s only tentative and not authoritative. My horizons are always shifting and there is always those many things beyond the horizon which are in shadow- unknown… I feel tentative certainty is balanced… No certainty about anything at all? To me, that is dishonest..And actually likely a form of internalized psychological warfare / Propaganda: “There is no truth. ” “You can never know anything” ” Nothing is real but how you see it” etc.

    Anyway, enough with epistemology.. According to the above cited article, Orwell was sending up the Fabians in “1984” I attended some lectures on Orwell by some scholars of him at the local bookstore.. And it turns out he ratted out his “liberal” “communist” friends to the State. Funny. In other words he, too, was a spy of some sort.


    I’ve thought a lot about the “denial” of information that is right in someone’s face..

    To be personal and psychological about it, I am scapegoated for realizing certain unwholesome facts about our present society / world.. All the the energy used to suppress the information I carry gets turned to a general feeling by other people in my community – who are in denial about the political reality – that I am not to be trusted and that I am dangerous in some non-specific way . It’s a very weird psychological phenomenon; of which I have just recently become aware.

    My intellectual speculation on the reasons for the widespread denial (as opposed to my explanations / assumptions based upon the likely emotions involved, of the people who deride and lambast me) ran recently something like this:

    Perception theory:
    If you are not looking for something, not only will you not see it when it is right in front of you, but if someone tells you it is there, you won’t know what they are talking about and won’t be paying attention, in any case.

    To find something you have to have an interest and actually be looking for it. Otherwise, you won’t see it.

    You can not prove anything to anyone;
    (but only to one’s self.. Everyone has to find out, for themselves only.)

    3 or 4 people may be able to influence one.. But if you are one against the mind set of the entire society / culture? No way. Gud Luk.

    Sublimation theory:
    Basically the person has made a decision; they don’t want to know… There is a lot of psychic/ psychological / mental energy put into making sure the information never comes to consciousness… That energy of repression, is what creates the extreme and inappropriate reaction against the messenger, when presented with the info. They externalize the repression by attacking the person of the messenger.

    Stockholm Syndrome Theory:
    People see others getting shat on for bringing up an “unpleasant” subject.. They see whistle-blowers killed, shamed or professionally ruined.. They just side with power since that is easier… [We all are just little people,. less than one horse power.. No one wants to endanger their own life or that of those they love by being a whistleblower on information no one wants to hear.. That decision is actually quite “rational,” especially if one chooses to believe the [IMO] Propaganda: “It was always this way. It will always be this way. There is nothing you can do about it” ]

  7. Yea it seems I went a bit off-topic.

    About your observation of these sinister elements of humanity existing undetected or not-consciously-acknowledged under our noses, it is one of the things that contributes to that feeling of humanity NOT transforming. Looking at humanity from a large perspective point of view it really does seem as though human beings are disintegrating rather than integrating.

    I had a friend who, when he was younger, did some pretty awful things to females though you would never know it by meeting him. He was imminently likeable, almost innocent even. I became friends with him, and over the years he acknowledged to me that he had become too self-aware to behave the way that he’d acted when he was younger. He was kind of lamenting the fact that he couldn’t be that way anymore. It seemed clear to me that he had been able to do what he did and still retain his “innocence” because his psyche had been less integrated, those separate parts had never interacted with one another. The left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing.

    It seems to me that this is the normal process of growing into an adult, integrating the separate parts of the psyche, which means one can no longer commit evil “with a straight face” because the other parts are now present and watching.

    The people around us look physically like adults, and through the process of association it seems we think they are adults internally as well – ie they are to some degree integrated and not completely disconnected like a child. When I was a child I remember being very sweet, but my brothers have some pretty vivid memories of me cutting their hands with scissors and sitting on their head in the swimming pool and pushing one of them off a slide. Looking back it seems I was quite disconnected or dissociated as a child, and in many adults today they appear to remain just as disconnected in adulthood.

    It seems this is the way someone can be totally depraved or evil, and yet not show it in any way. For a person of any sort of inner development, I think these acts of evil do actually take a physical toll and can be seen on the face like you mentioned.

    But then again I don’t know, it might not be getting worse – I’m aware that “everything’s getting worse” is the cultural zeitgeist and it’s probably just influencing me. It could be that what has always existed is just rising to our collective awareness and it is giving the impression of things getting worse. That seems to be the case much of the time.

    • It seemed clear to me that he had been able to do what he did and still retain his “innocence” because his psyche had been less integrated, those separate parts had never interacted with one another.

      I think this is sound but at the same time, I am not sure how to apply it to my own experience.

      When I think of the worst actions I have committed, it was invariably in a state of anger combined with a strange form of clarity that – in retrospect – was delusional. I watch myself behaving a certain way and I “know” it is ‘wrong” but at the same time, the part of me that is in control of my actions is providing a lucid and compelling rationale for it, one that even includes the awareness of doing something “bad,” “Yes this is a bad thing to do but it is necessary, both to punish the other person and to experience and express this part of myself.” It is definitely like being possessed by an aspect of my psyche that has been kept isolate, suppressed, locked up, and once released full of righteous rage.

      The common element of these incidents I think is that, by expressing anger in a destructive way, I feel powerful, and feeling powerful, I feel also justified, right. Anything that feels this good, must BE good.

      Life has shown me this is not the case, and in a sense, almost the opposite. If it feels that good, powerful, and certain, it’s probably not good at all.

      I think we do things to feel powerful, which is not a good idea ever, and also that when we do feel powerful, perhaps as the result of something good and true, we get hold of that power and almost immediately start to abuse it.

      Increased sensitivity seems to also increase “tentativity” – the more aware we get of our distortions, the less powerful we feel, which is perhaps what your friend was lamenting….

      • “When I think of the worst actions I have committed, it was invariably in a state of anger combined with a strange form of clarity that – in retrospect – was delusional.”

        Way to shoot down my elaborate theory with the facts (haha).

        You have a good point here – even though I have no memory of my childhood actions, the action later in my life that I feel most ashamed of was done in a state of awareness and “clarity” (because of the intensity of the emotions). In retrospect, these emotions were intense and repressed, because according to my personal/cultural programming it was not acceptable for me to express them. So at some point it ended up kind of “possessing” me and taking over my will.

        Isn’t that kind of the caricature of politicians and military people we think of as CIA spooks and participants in skull&bones-type secret societies? People who are emotionally suppressed to an absurd degree, and these emotions burst out in erratic and devious ways? Or perhaps even take on a tulpa-like life of their own?

        It seems the repression of emotions is definitely a player in this mystery.

  8. I left my last comment without reading the one by Jaysun right above it.

    Guilt: I’ve felt painful remorse. But being recently of Brooklyn, I know better than to air my faults in publc ; since they can and will be used against one…. I have found.

    Yes, we are all “just little” people and can bear only so much; some more than others . Being kind in little ways and compassionate , rather than disdainful or superior, is a newer conscious and deliberate practice for me.

    I have faith in the perfection of the whole And am looking for ways to enjoy the “little things” and gifts of life.. I recently was injured and almost became lame… And that gave me a taste of what many others must live through every day.

    When things first start to clean up – yep, violent / strong energies are released. I noticed that with meditation and with cleaning… When I first start cleaning , it seems everything is getting dirtier… When I first began meditating, I felt my mind was racing faster than it every had…

    It is truly amazing how the “perps” faces can look so “normal”
    I still wonder on it… The theory of lack of “integration” makes some sense…. thanx.
    I still almost cry – – It’s a difficult thing to carry and to know.
    Without the context to it, there’s no way to feel it. I don’t think.

    • A word of caution. A real problem is emerging in the general population—-victim mentality society. VM people confuse their own sense of smallness and lack of self value by perceiving healthier people as morally superior and unkind because their are not emphasizing the person as a victim but someone who is denying their own power. I am not a small person. I someone wants to see me that its for their comfort level. If the person wants to be perceived always as a hurt damaged victim….then yeah the person refusing to enter into the victim story is going to superior. It’s just psychology. As spirituality opens up into exploring parts of the non expressive psyche, a lot of people are investing in themselves to not feel small anymore but are then perceived as bullies by broken wounded people who don’t want to do any work because of deceptive spiritual practices that tell them they are already perfect or perfected. No one among them is criticizing the wound, they are only asking for it to be examined not propped up. They have the right not prop up dis-empowering, handicapping notions about others. It’s a moral imperative. The line then blurs between who is morally superior there. Language distortion is a big part of psychological manipulation. When did morally superior or just plain superior become a bad word? .As a moral goal what is more desirable: superior morality or mediocre morality. Do we want mediocre meals or superior ones? What is healthy goal to be superior or small? We dis empower ourselves in this way. If we all pursued a morally superior existence we’d have a morally superior society. Victim Mentality is what we see our government in the US doing. We the People are all potentially bullies now-terrorists –because we aren’t feeding their story. Or propping it up. Victim Mentality among the general population demoralizes society as much if not more because there’s more of us. When we hear these disturbing conspiracies …is up to us to choose between being a victim of those covert plots or just saying NO I will not be a victim of this.

      • Interesting, as the subject of victim mentality came up in the comments at part 4, also.

        You may be omitting to notice something here, however, which is that the role of the victim in a Christian paradigm is, paradoxically, the highest status role of all – Christ was a victim of persecution, and was “raised up” above the mass, literally, as a result. That’s part of the Piscean age, the glorification of the martyr, and it’s evident in the way that “playing the victim card” is as effective as it is for dominating a “conversation.” Think of Israel – and how bullies can also assume the role of victim to manipulate others to their desires. (Played out by the US with 9/11 – “the terrorists hate us because we are free”, etc).

        Real empowerment has nothing to do with what sort of role we choose (what “mentality”), but with how authentically we respond to and express our inner sense of what’s real.

  9. I “hear” Jaysun when he discusses the reality “when you are falling down the rabbit hole there are no facts anymore, just assumptions”

    Sounds like something I said, during a different stage of the journey. Epistemologically this is probably true, that “facts all come with points of view.” But I agree with you that this idea can be, and is, used to discredit and undermine people (or oneself) when we are getting to the ground of our own experience. Some things *are* facts: when and where I was born, who my parents were, and so on. That my brother kicked me in the stomach when I was a child is also a fact. It’s when I start putting facts together into a larger picture and interpret them that I get into the assumption area.

    I think it’s also a fact that sexual interaction of adults with children is endemic in our society and that much, even most, of the time, it is harmful to the child. In many cases, the negative effects have been proven – tho I can’t know that for sure, I can only compare it to my own experience and say yeah, in my case and those of people I have known, it, whatever “it” was (I still don’t know for myself), definitely had a negative impact. To say that all sexual interaction of adults with children is therefore wrong, harmful, bad, and should be punished, is not a fact, however. Its an assumption based on facts (maybe even a deduction), followed by a proscription, based entirely on assumptions. (There’s little evidence, I think, to show that condemning an act as wrong and punishing it reduces said action, i.e., has a trickle-down effect in society.)

    Really *seeing* a form of behavior as it is, and reaching some understanding of/around it, does seem to have such an effect, tho that’s also not a fact so much as a personal observation.

    To find something you have to have an interest and actually be looking for it. Otherwise, you won’t see it. You can not prove anything to anyone; (but only to one’s self.. Everyone has to find out, for themselves only.)

    This is a really essential point. It’s a theory, anyway, and it can be tested and corroborated. It’s also a compassionate approach to denial, and I think it’s a fact that compassion works better than condemnation when it comes to changing behaviors, whether one’s own or other people’s.

    All for now…. Thanks for posting.

  10. Nope, I am making the final revisions now. Timely question tho, as I was just thinking how closely the material does tie into the current investigation, even if I didnt notice at the time (see my comment at the previous thread).

  11. That’s it exactly very good point. Religions geared towards the veneration of martrydom, and self victimization. It’s covert psychological manipulation and its deeply imbedded in all three Abrahamic religions so rampant in the same societies Even in people who profess not to be religious. Christianity, Islam and Judaism–all came from the same source. . And now the New Age Religions which is really just re-upholstered Christianity. The emotional reaction towards critical examination of the idea or belief, keeps the programming hidden so it runs on and on. Looking forward to seeing your book.

  12. Yes, but the “New Ager” attitude denies suffering.. Whereas the “Christian” glorifies it.. It’s all about context.. The “victim” whining about their broken air conditioner. As opposed to the Veteran discarded by the society who dies on the street from cold when there are plenty of empty warehoused buildings in the city..

    The discrediting of the “victim” [“he was a loser anyway”] is part of the denial of the “strong”

    The glorifying of the “victim” : is also only for the strong… The strong decide who will be the glorified victim – usually after the death of the victim.. MLK Blvd. ./ Holiday. Malcolm X holiday / Blvd. / , JFK Airport.. ./ The victims are only cool after they are dead… including Socrates.. The public fakes a sentimentality of suffering – over the approved objects / cases. And are trained that way. Mae Brussell said it in a recent podcast of hers I listened too.. I will have to re-listen.. People really do not care.. she said. They don’t.. They only pretend to.. As they say in Missouri ,, “Show me” If they really care, show me it. Call it projection all you want to;.Freud also used psychology to discredit those who did not agree with him.

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