Traumagenesis (Conspiracy Facts & Conspiracy Theory, Part 4 of 4)

IV: Traumagenesis, or: In the Beginning Was the Wound

The idea that history is made by individuals—or even groups of them—is probably central to much of the confusion of conspiracy researchers. Then there is the possibility that groups of individuals would use this idea, and exploit our confusion, as a way to shape and direct history—confoundment upon confoundment! But somehow we continue to fall for it. Maybe it’s because we all need someone to blame. Maybe an identity forged in the fires of trauma depends on blame to keep itself alive.

Darkness defines the light. If we can only fully experience ourselves in contrast to what we are not, that is most palpably recognized as what we are opposed to. Strange, then, that one thing just about everyone can agree to be against is child abuse; and yet apparently just about everyone—from the top on down—is doing it.

I think there is a conspiracy spectrum. I think it relates to how aware we are, as individuals and as groups (and we all belong to one group or another, even if we don’t know the other members), of our complicity with the conscious, organized conspiracies at the far end of the spectrum. Everyone breathes together (con-spires), and no matter how far apart we are, we breathe the same air, just as we all look at the same sun and moon from different angles and at different times (and sometimes can’t see it at all). There are many conspiracies that can be arranged into two primary conspiracies, but which are really only one, which is really none at all—just the result of our having somehow tricked ourselves into thinking we exist as discreet entities who can gather together and conspire, at all.

I think what we are looking at when we enter all the way into paranoid awareness is the ways in which we are all the playthings of the unconscious. Certain groups have learned how to exploit this knowledge to gain relative power over others. A local (individual) conspiracy spreads out to a global, collective level. From this view, the “mass” that’s controlled is symbolic for the unconscious of the “elite” who want control, who wish to control that which cannot be controlled, namely, their own unconscious! Insofar as we are all seeking to have control over what cannot be controlled, and we are all driven by that same (unconscious) desire to try and control others, we are complicit with the system of control that cannot control anything but the bodies and minds of others.

The ultimate sort of control one individual can have over another is to sexually abuse, torture, and murder; and the easiest “other” to abuse in this way is children.



What I see when I start to map the conspiratorial nature of history is that, certain groups and individuals ascend within the social order by assuming a more conscious role within it, more openly (though still covertly) expressing the universal desire to control (victimizer). The majority, meanwhile, settles into the position of the unconscious that is controlled (victim). The social system that is thereby established has total control within the parameters it has established. No individuals, and most especially no group of individuals, will ever gain a significant degree of power or influence within that system without first being “recruited” by the system. To gain the world you must first give up your soul—abuse and be abused—these are the conditions of success. (This is an absolutist view, however, and therefore can only ever be relatively true.)

In this way, we can see that anyone who has become a person of social, cultural, religious, spiritual, or political influence in the world has only done so because they have been allowed to do so. They have been recognized as useful to the system which permits them to achieve power and influence within it. Any other arrangement is by definition impossible, akin to pigs growing wings to fly. Nature doesn’t work that way, and the world doesn’t allow “just anyone” to become president, poet laureate, rock icon, movie star, best-selling author, revolutionary showman, world reformer, or psychedelic pioneer of consciousness. The mere fact of an individual attaining any significant social influence automatically indicates that they have been recruited—whether or not they know it.



Nostalgia for Ancient Greece is quite common among many of the most noted poets, philosophers, and world reformers of recent history, and one of the notable characteristics of Ancient Greece was that sex between adults and children was socially acceptable. How many of the individuals (men and women, but mostly men) who can be identified as “players” at varying levels within the grand conspiratorial game of social engineering either betray such a predilection or have been victims of it? If we can believe the accounts at all, it’s a truly alarming number. I would hypothesize from this (at the risk of prematurely joining the dots) that the desire to have sex with children (and to do far worse things to them), and everything that entails, may be the unconscious (and in some cases conscious) drive behind all of the many, myriad master plans of the elite.

Bold a statement as this may be, it’s consistent with what we know about human individuals, which is that their sex drive is the strongest motivating factor of the psyche. It’s also consistent with the way the sexual element of criminal and conspiratorial networks, such as the Krays or Jimmy Savile, while being well concealed, eventually turns out to be the most remarkable thing about them. My suspicion is that there’s a narrowing of sexual (and therefore all other) interest as an individual ascends the social hierarchy and has his or her sexual neuroses inflamed and indulged, into a fine diamond point of pathology.

For me anyway, this seems like the best way to bring the octopus down to manageable proportions: to put it inside the parameters of a working hypothesis and contextualize the data, and thereby keep the tentacles from strangling me. It is at least a refreshingly and distressingly human context, one which I think many, even most people, have some direct experience of. It is also one which, conversely, almost no one wants to consider. Yet it is I think the most useful thread to follow. To know what a man or woman is made of, look into his or her sexual drives—because the drives that are the most carefully hidden, also run the deepest.

th (2)


This is my own particular bias, and the evidence I have cited for it is that sexual deviancy and social status seem to be inextricably intertwined in our present society, and to increase in tandem. The indication is that, even as worldly success augments and distorts libido, a distorted libido enhances worldly success.

This would have to do with how the drive for worldly power is sourced in formative infant experiences of powerlessness, particularly as relating to abuse and usually sexual in nature. Therefore, the more severely abused a person was (provided that other social and psychological elements are also in place), the fiercer their drive to achieve power and influence in the world will be. At the same time, there will be an equally powerful, unconscious need to reenact their early experiences of abuse, only now from the opposite end (that of abuser), as a way to feel powerful and offload psychic toxins of the past onto others. This is what Lloyd deMause calls “poison receptacles.”

Such a social system of abuse, while maintained by human beings, clearly isn’t set up to benefit humans, not even those who appear to be in control of it. But if the system’s nature is somehow inhuman and anti-human, then our chances of understanding it would be slim at best. It would lie beyond any human definitions of good and evil, malign or benign. We call a cancer malign because of what it does to our bodies, yet on its own terms it is merely growing and flourishing. Sexual abuse of children is also recognized widely as “wrong,” and yet the harm it does to children’s psyches—including the evidence that it turns them into abusive adults—is rarely addressed to the same degree as is the sheer “wrongness” of pedophilia—i.e., the moral question. This gives pedophilia advocates and apologists far too much wiggle room, since morality is a notoriously slippery, mutable concept (homosexuality was once considered morally wrong too). The Jewish religion practices child abuse ritually in a socially sanctioned act called “circumcision”—the slicing off of a newborn male baby’s foreskin, followed by metzitzah b’peh, when the Rabbi sucks the blood off the baby’s penis. Horrifying as this ritual seems to non-Jews (and, I am sure, to many Jews too), it slips under the general radar of collective outrage because it is hard to address it as a moral question, without giving rise to counterarguments about anti-Semitism and the like. If the question of the effects of such a ritual on the infant psyche were instead addressed, however, it would be a very different debate. There is very little wiggle room to question the barbaric and psychologically wounding nature of circumcision and metzitzah b’peh, at least without simply denying the sentience of newborn babies.


I can’t (much as I might like to) with any authority say (much as I might like to) that cancer is bad or wrong, and the same applies to metzitzah b’peh and any other form of child abuse. This isn’t because I am sitting on the fence about it, but because I have to admit that my own point of view is only locally true, and so I can’t make universal statements about right and wrong without revealing my own ignorance. What I can say is that cancer kills people and that child abuse potentially destroys the psychic health, not just of individuals but of whole nations. I watched my mother waste away from stomach cancer the same year my brother was killed by heroin. It’s my felt sense that both of them were victims of childhood trauma. I also have the scars on my own soul as evidence, and they are not pretty.

My primary aim is to heal, and embody, that soul. Since I currently self-identify as being a traumatized human, I think it’s best to approach the question of social engineering via systematized abuse/trauma as if we were talking about human beings working towards specific ends, and as if they were humans at least somewhat like ourselves, that is, with conscious desires underneath which unconscious drives are working. Wounded souls only know how to wound. The problem isn’t that rituals like metzitzah b’peh—or other forms of systematized child abuse such as those linked to the Krays, Savile, and the highest echelons of British society—are evil. It’s that they are an age-long, unconscious acting out of collective trauma disguised as a social and religious “form”—as something inherently necessary to the collective good.

It’s this unconscious woundedness, and the many layers of denial that keep it unconscious, that determine the outcome of every last agenda of the so-called “elite.” This is why it doesn’t matter what an individual or group’s professed (or even private) intentions are, but only the results. When talking about individuals and groups driven by an unconscious terror of powerlessness combined with severely wounded and overstimulated libidos, the goal is always the same—power. And the results equally predictable—abuse.

Hence it is that even those with the very best intentions become the social engineers of Hell.


18 thoughts on “Traumagenesis (Conspiracy Facts & Conspiracy Theory, Part 4 of 4)

  1. “Therefore, the more severely abused a person was (provided that other social and psychological elements are also in place), the fiercer their drive to achieve power and influence in the world will be. At the same time, there will be an equally powerful, unconscious need to reenact their early experiences of abuse, only now from the opposite end (that of abuser), as a way to feel powerful and offload psychic toxins of the past onto others. This is what Lloyd deMause calls “poison receptacles.”

    Very well said! This is my point of view as well, that ambition reflects a sort of acute psychological defect or ‘injury’ (a position I’ve arrived at from self-observation).

    Is it any wonder that the people who most desperately seek power and influence are generally the people who least deserve it? It brings to mind Plato’s Republic and the idea of assigning positions in society based upon objective tests and external qualifications, rather than an individual’s personal preference. I guess that idea isn’t popular in contemporary society, but it seems the people who might serve us best as “leaders” do not generally have a burning desire to occupy that position in society.

    Thus we have ambitious, deeply damaged people fiercely climbing their way up to the most powerful and influential positions in our society, and infecting the culture with their maladies. It reminds me of the saying that mankind’s original sin is not one of the ubiquitous “7 deadly sins”, but rather it is suggestibility.

    Perhaps it is all for the best, sometimes I wonder if these psycho-sexual maladies reflect an unseen (daimonic) element of reality that we cannot comprehend, and our function as humanity is to distribute this disease throughout humanity at large and purge it, like a global filtration system.

    Naive, maybe.

    • Is it any wonder that the people who most desperately seek power and influence are generally the people who least deserve it?

      Those who find it, but not necessarily those who seek it, who obviously come in greater numbers. I’d put myself in the latter category – which gives me inside knowledge, a lifetime of seeking and not finding. Slowly learning to receive validation and give it to the part of me that needs it, which gradually assuages that more wounded/pathological desire for power, influence, status.

      Ambition per se isn’t a bad thing – it depends what we are ambitious for .

  2. “I can’t (much as I might like to) with any authority say (much as I might like to) that cancer is bad or wrong, and the same applies to metzitzah b’peh and any other form of child abuse. ”

    If you can’t say with any authority that metzizah b’peh is wrong, then why would you (why do you) refer to it as child abuse? … unless you are implying that you can’t say that child abuse is morally wrong and/or you implying that, simply, “shit happens”. If that is what you are saying, then I could agree with you there, as much as it pains a part of me. But I would say that child abuse IS morally wrong when it is institutionalized in sanctioned religious rituals AND is legally protected by constitutional laws (by the people who uphold them). That is when shit stops happening and we spin off into the ugly part of the fractal.

    “The problem isn’t that rituals like metzitzah b’peh—or other forms of systematized child abuse such as those linked to the Krays, Savile, and the highest echelons of British society—are evil.”

    I would not compare metzitzah b’peh to “other forms of systemized child abuse” found within pedo-rape-rings, because it is not an “other form” in my opinion. I see that it is it’s own beast/form — not connected to any other forms — because it is now an out-in-the-open legally acceptable mouth-on-baby-genital act which leads to unnecessary and untold evil (unconscious acting-out of trauma) and will continue to do so, so long as it is performed outside the jewish nation-state, Israel. It is the ultimate crazy-making ritual, especially now that it is known about (and can be verified/seen) by the world of peoples outside of those sects who allow for it to happen. If and when legal acceptance of the rite is confined to Israel, the global pedo-rape-rings will shrivel up to nothing simultaneously, because at that point metztizah b’peh will no long be a part of the collective unconscious. Everyone will know about metzitzah b’peh just as everyone knows about circumcision now. I have no moral judgement against the ritual . It’s legal acceptance just doesn’t belong outside of a full blown jewish nation-state. I would personally fight the fucking U.N. “human rights” squads if they tried to go into Israel to make the mohels stop cutting and sucking baby boys’ penises. There is nothing wrong with it , so long as it is contained to very limited number of places that are specifically jewish nation-states (I’m not too bothered that basic circumcision is performed outside the borders of Israel). Is it any wonder that the most ardent groups to speak out against the existence of the nation of Israel are the very sects that perform metztizah b’peh?

    MBP would then become the same as “other forms of systematized child abuse” when the mohel is not protected under the law to perform the sucking act outside of a jewish nation-state, but does it outside of Israel anyway. Until then, it is not even close to the same as the hidden illegal covert pedo-rape-rings that Savile and many others have been a part of. I realize one has to pick one’s battles, and I prefer to focus less on circumcision itself and more on the man who puts his lips to a child’s genitals and who then makes excuses for it and then gets excused (oh, thank you “religious freedom”). In the end, though, talking about metzizah b’peh is a two-for-one deal because then we get to talk about a lot of things at once and hopefully work through it together.

  3. One of DeMeo’s main premises in his research was that the most violent and repressed cultures/societies in the world also practice some of the most extreme genital mutilation and/or sexual abuse on their children. I just noticed the parallel in what you were talking about there. The idea is not without good foundation. The full title of his book is “Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World”. You can see more about it at his website –

    Even though I may not always take a moment to say much, I’ve enjoyed all of these latest articles very much. All very thought-provoking. I’ve linked your blog here a couple of times at a Typhonian site. Not necessarily for these latest entries (more for the Strieber and UFO stuff) but I always hope that others will scroll around and look a little deeper at your own evolution of ideas because they do present quite a mirror.

  4. “to be psychopathic in form and vision is the highest goal of Normie society.” ( quote from a work-in-progess) Another name for this drive toward ‘becoming the god’ is Archetypy; for the Archetype is the central point in all Normalistic instinct, and the more archetypal on becomes, the more Socially dominant one is.

    The true yardstick of ‘Normal’ is not a nebulous figure, even if this is not (ancient) Greece, Rome, or ‘the land to the uttermost North’. All ‘Normal’ persons have that inward image found at the core of Normalistic instinct – and, should they first discern and the seize upon that image – and, in the process, Become that same image – then they will then become truly Normal, as society as a whole defines Normal.

    They will also become psychopathic; and thereby secure unto themselves the status of Deity, as is appropriate for such paragons of Normalcy; and, as psychopaths, having ‘the extreme Normal brain’, all other Normie’s will seek to imitate them.

    We lesser beings will become their initial sacrifices, faggots to be Burt upon their altars of impression-management-cum-vanity.

  5. Jasun: This is an incredible piece. Comprehensive and in depth. There are times I was afraid you were wrong and more times I was afraid you were right.

    I would love to hear more about your ideas about actually healing from all this trauma. You disuss identifying as a trauma victim. For me, I think there is conscious and unconscious fact in this, but I still don’t want to identify this way. I went to a workshop yesterday on “The wounded healer” – It was based on the Greek myth about Asclepius’s life. I’m not sure I want to identify this way either – His mother is murdered and so is he by Gods who sound much more like powerful abusers to me. But I still like the identifying as a wounded healer better than identifying as a victim better, and it makes more sense when I think about you also. Natasha

  6. Hi Natasha

    thanks for the comment. It’s odd that you say this “You disuss identifying as a trauma victim” because although this isn’t on the above post, I did do exactly that in an email correspondence recently, in response to someone who, with spiritual rationales, said that there are no victims (ie, we all choose at some level to undergo the experiences we undergo, and grow through them). This was my response:

    I don’t quite understand the “there are no victims” line. It seems like a way of skirting the issue – which isn’t (for me) about whether there is such a “thing” as a victim (just a word) but what the effects of abuse, intentional, unintentional, unconscious, or whatever else, are. In the present, generally speaking, I don’t feel like a victim. But that doesn’t mean I wasn’t a victim of abuse in the past . Sometimes the past comes into the present when I am triggered, and the “victim” mentality sneaks in. Identifying with being a victim may not be real, but having once been victimized is just a fact of (my) life. So separating the word “victim” from its context and then saying there are no victims seems like a dodge to me.

    Granted that identifying as victim makes no real sense because we are all victims of one sort or an other. But by the “I/we” I was referring to is the body/psyche, not the ego – tho the ego gets hold of any experience and uses it – that seems to be part of the defense strategy for abuse.

    (end quote)

    So identifying as a trauma victim I would agree, isn’t really necessary or correct; but identifying trauma of which one was a victim, is, or feels, necessary and right.

    The wounded healer is anyone who heals his or her own wound, which has repercussions for everyone else, the world being (at least somewhat) the externalization of the psyche – just as the psyche is internally formed (wounded) by the world.

    The question of how we choose to identify for me comes down to – must we identify at all? If so, can we at least be conscious of choosing to do so, which really means we aren’t identifying? Full identification is unconscious and pervasive, we think we are that, victim, healer, whatever. Conscious identification is like assuming a role in order to embody/enact certain experiences, try them on for size, see how well they fit. For me to identify as a trauma victim is a way to discover the extent of the trauma. It’s risky – an actor can always get lost in the role – but the possible payoff is equally great, making an unconscious process (identification as victim) conscious means that it (the mask-persona) can then be “dropped.”

    Funnily enough that was what the Greek myths were “all about” catharsis through enactment, using personas (masks) to make personal pain impersonal, and therefore bearable…? Like the adult psyche holding a (sacred/theatrical) space for the wounded fragment (child self) to be healed within…?

    Whether it’s a valid method or not I don’t know. I am trying to find out by practicing it (sort of, in my gonzo fashion); at the very least, one more theory gets “outed.”

  7. Aah – I misread “Since I currently self-identify as being a traumatized human”, as you identifying as a trauma victim – I guess that’s a good example of my unconscious mind at play! I like what I think you are saying: identify as a way to transcend identification. Makes sense. The workshops I go to are called, “Mimesis” – they are like psychodrama, except instead of role-playing actual family dynamics, we role play from myths, parables, folk tales instead. It is indeed cathartic and healing. The interplay of collective unconscious and conscious minds can be powerful. Consciously I have been fearful of my melanoma returning – and thought aloud that all the cancer in my family was probably trauma related. Unconsciously I chose to play a victim of Apollo, ironically, I figured out later, the Sun God. They said he was the Sun God in the workshop, but it wasn’t until the way home I made the connection to melanoma. I truly have been a victim of the Sun! I agree also, much better to call a spade, a spade: I’m not identifying as being a victim to say I have been a victim. The first is perception, the second is truth. Much better to face the truth head on if only as a way to protect ourselves, if possible, from being re-victimized. But ideally to find healing also. Last, but not least, I also agree with the idea about transcending all identification, even if that feels far away right now!

  8. “Allowed” by the POWERS to join the club, achieve/assume power is the way of it alright. Without that principle at work Barack Obama would be toiling in Chicago streets, small time.

  9. Another name for ‘joining the flu/ being accepted’ is INITIATION – as in one is recognized as ‘having the Power’. In *some* circles – the O.T.O. comes to mind- this is an obvious and conscious matter.

    It also means one is inhabited by (familiar) spirits – which means one is a real ‘magic(k)ian’, one to be reckoned with in terms of (ultimately) power and control.

    While few people belong to such organizations / cults / covens, there is the unconscious present in the vast majority of people; and the rules it runs by are similar to those found in systems of ceremonial magic(k). To whit:

    1) When the powerful speak upon a given matter, it become incontrovertible fact in the (unconscious) minds of most people. This happens automatically as a rule; the average Normie welcomes this behavior, as it a) feels pleasurable; b) it excites the alluring possibilities of increased social dominance along with the resulting rewards.

    The fact that ALL rewards are based upon social dominance (in the Normalistic world) is both understood implicitly and opaque to the conscious mind of the average Normie. This is why they are both utterly ignorant and so exquisit

  10. exquisitely cunning when and if out-group members should try to learn ‘the secret’ of being INSIDE.

    “Why should I tell you anything, you (expletive)! Go kill your own prey!”

    Where matters become more interesting is the corollaries that follow “the speech of the powerful.”

    b) reality changes such that Power’s speech is confirmed as the new (objective) reality. In short, if one ‘has the power’, one’s will can overwrite reality such that one creattes the reality of Others. ( not merely one’s own!)

    c) to actually test (so as to verify) the statements of the Powerful is sacrilege. Doing so demonstrates a lack of faith in their power.

    d) the purpose in following such ‘rules of Magick” is to become initiated into “the secret doctrines”, and thereby advance further in both rank and initation – to the ultimate status of Deity.

    Degrees and other forms of recognition testify to rank and initiation. Therefore proper ‘magical decorum’ demands that these titles be routinely use as forms of address – almost as if the speaker were invoking and especially powerful and malevolent spirit.

    (I hear Baron Samedi precedes well-aged rum and Cuban cigars…)

    Once chief reason autists are named as subhuman is that they(I include myself in this) either lack entirely all notion of an unconscious, OR have a fundamentally different instance of one – something radically simpler and drastically abbreviated compared to the usual issue. I have wondered for some time if I have such a thing. This wondering LED me to learn about Grandin’s infamous statement; I suspected the master PRIOR to reading about it.

    In short: ” autists don’t do magic; to Normie’s, EVERYTHING is magical

  11. Pingback: » Reacciones condicionadas al terrorismo mediático

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s