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.
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.