Dark Legends: “Satanic Illuminati Mind Control in Hollywood” (Psychological Operatives in Hollywood # 3)

As an example of a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between perspectives, let’s look at the popular conspiracy theory about “Satanic mind control in Hollywood.” Besides a seemingly endless stream of YouTube videos and Reddit threads, there are a few popular books that cover the subject matter, for example, Esoteric Hollywood by Jay Dyer, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon by Dave McGowan (about the music industry in the 1960s), and The Illuminati in Hollywood: Celebrities, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies in Pop Culture and the Entertainment Industry, by Mark Dice. There are also first-hand survivor testimonies such as Brice Taylor’s unfortunately titled Thanks for the Memories: The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s Mind-Controlled Slave.

If we extend the scope a bit further, there is “Pizzagate,” the widespread conspiracy theory about an occultist child sex ring operating through and underneath Comet Ping Pong, a high-power pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C, with links to the Clinton Foundation and beyond. The broad stroke of all of these theories is that, beneath and within the social hierarchies of the celebrity entertainment industry, there exists a hidden (occult) system of rituals and initiations that involves mind control, drugs, child sex trafficking, and blood sacrifice, often (though not always) in the context of Satanic belief, imagery, and worship.

Articles and accounts relating to this subject matter tend to be lurid and sensationalistic; often they seem improbable to the point of absurdity, sometimes almost deliberately so. And yet . . . dismissing them out of hand is a lot harder than many people might wish. The reason it’s not so easy to dismiss these theories is twofold: first of all, they are often sourced in actual claims by victims, so to dismiss them without investigation risks cruelty, even complicity with the crimes described. Secondly, wild and fragmented as these accounts may be, they do refer at least some of the time, as we shall see, to provable facts.

An Ideological Informational Divide

“Being confident that there is ground beneath one’s feet when one needs to plant them firmly is an enabling condition of making a sober judgment. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates makes a similar point about the political role of orators (read ‘masters of spin’) who boasted that they had great power because they could manipulate people to believe whatever they wanted them to believe.” —Raimond Gaita, “Even Socrates drew the line at spin”

Before we get to those facts, let’s start at the lurid and seemingly absurd end of the spectrum, namely, the current widespread belief in (and equally widespread ridicule of) The Illuminati. Even here, there is a solid historical basis to the belief (18th century Bavaria, Adam Weishaupt, etc.). Curiously enough, there is also an openly fictional basis to it (Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, The Illuminatus Trilogy, 1970s, USA). And then there’s the current manifestation, in which it is seemingly impossible to distinguish one from the other, to separate overt fiction from covert disinformation from reality, myth from history from prank.

In a recent online UK article (The Week), for example, David Bramwell, who claims to have dedicated himself to documenting the origins of the Illuminati myth, told the BBC that “the modern-day Illuminati legend was influenced not by Weishaupt but rather by LSD, the 1960s counter-culture, and specifically a text called Principia Discordia.”

The book extolled an alternative belief system—Discordianism—which preached a form of anarchism and gave birth to the Discordian movement which ultimately wished to cause civil disobedience through practical jokes and hoaxes. One of the main proponents of this new ideology was a writer called Robert Anton Wilson who wanted to bring chaos back into society by “disseminating misinformation through all portals—through counter culture, through the mainstream media,” claims Bramwell. He did this by sending fake letters to the men’s magazine Playboy, where he worked, attributing cover-ups and conspiracy theories, such as the JFK assassination, to a secret elite organization called the Illuminati. 

Wilson went on to write The Illuminatus Trilogy with Robert Shea, a massive (“surprise”) cult success that was eventually made into a stage play in Liverpool (it was British actor Bill Nighy’s stage debut).

The Week continues:

Despite its relative popularity . . . the idea of a powerful modern Illuminati conspiring to rule the world remained a niche belief upheld by a handful of cranks until the 1990s. The spread of the internet changed all that, giving conspiracy theorists a global platform to expound their beliefs and present their evidence to a massive audience.

The article cites—dismissively—alleged former MI6 agent John Coleman’s claim that “the Beatles’ overwhelming transatlantic success was engineered by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, a London-based social research group—or, as theorists would have it, a nefarious organization dedicated to eroding the bedrock of US society.” It also mentions that, while Katy Perry makes fun of the idea she belongs to the Illuminati, Madonna “might just be a believer. . . . Speaking to Rolling Stone, she hinted that she had secret knowledge of the group. The claim is not so shocking given that she released a single titled ‘Illuminati.’ She said: ‘People often accuse me of being a member of the Illuminati, but the thing is, I know who the real Illuminati are.’”

How many levels of deception are we looking at here? Did Madonna really say this? Did she really mean it if she did? Did she really know what she was talking about if she said it and meant it? If she said it and meant it and knew what she was talking about, was she deliberately spreading disinfo, being tricked, trying to be a whistleblower, all three, or none of the above? And so on. We might raise similar questions about the recent Kevin Spacey video in which he pretends to be pretending to be Frank Underwood, the character he played in House of Cards before he was erased from the show for allegedly committing sexual abuse crimes. In the video (which no one seems to know the exact purpose or meaning of), Spacey seems to be addressing the real-life sexual abuse charges as if they were part of a fictional scenario—which for all we know for sure, they could be. Accordingly, the strange artifact seems to have divided audiences down the middle. Mirrors within mirrors.

Returning to the Illuminati, in February 2018, Simon Parkes, a former Labor London borough councilor and town councilor for Whitby, in North Yorkshire (a town I visited often as a child), made some equally outré claims about the Illuminati being “a satanic sect that is seeking to return Satan to Earth.” He claimed to have “led a group that stopped the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) opening a portal to another dimension that would have destroyed mankind through ‘meditation.’” That same month, a similar article, “Former Canadian Defense Minister claims the Illuminati is REAL,” recounted how Paul Hellyer stated the Illuminati “has the technology to reverse the effects of climate change, but is holding back from the public.” The article adds that “Hellyer is known for making some rather outrageous claims—in the past, he’s said the United States intervened to take over an alien crash site in the Canadian province of Manitoba. These aliens are the source of the anti-climate change technology.”

Some of these claims are gaining traction—though also deplorability—via their association with “pro-Trump online conspiracy-theory group,” QAnon. QAnon’s claims have even been debunked—weakly—by the Washington Post, despite one of them—Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s infiltration of US mainstream media in the 1970s—first having been exposed by one of the WaPo’s two most famous reporters, Carl Bernstein. The WaPo’s recent “debunking” of this “theory” takes up three short paragraphs and is borderline incoherent. Weak News vs. Fake News?

The Illuminati meanwhile now has an official website, verified Twitter account, and Facebook page. There is an option to apply for membership at the site, though nothing about what’s required for acceptance. The site states: “The Illuminati is an elite organization of world leaders, business authorities, innovators, artists, and other influential members of this planet. To apply for membership, complete the form on this page” (name and email address). Silly as all this starts to seem, it becomes essential to note that, most probably, this is precisely the point, to make something that is deadly serious (at least to some) seem like an absurd little trifle.

In passing, it’s worth noting that District Attorney Jim Garrison believed (or claimed to) that Robert Anton Wilson and the Discordian society was a CIA front organization involved in the JFK assassination.

Fake News—or Real Disinformation?

“Simple awareness of how indoctrination systems work is a big step towards undermining their effectiveness. As [MKULTRA] psychiatry professor Louis Jolyon West noted in a report on training Air Force flight crews to resist brainwashing as prisoners of war, ‘A realistic, undistorted, truthful account of what a man can expect constitutes a major protection for him.’” —Jeff Schmidt, Disciplined Minds

In recent years (2017 and 2018), online articles have appeared claiming—unconvincingly—to be inside scoops on Hollywood depravity. In June 2017, the notorious “fake news” site Neon Nettle ran “Brad Pitt: ‘Elite Hollywood Pedophiles Control America’ Movie star speaks out against pedophilia rings.” The article claimed that Pitt had “revealed the true depths of Hollywood pedophilia in a shocking exposé,” talking about “a culture of grooming children for child trafficking networks that reach across the United States and beyond, into the upper echelons of the political spectrum and societal hierarchy.” The virtual Pitt named secret societies, politicians, bankers and media running pedophile rings—“backroom deals with kids as bargaining chips”—claiming “it all goes back to Hollywood.” “The media will never expose the truth as they’re part of it,” the presumably fake Pitt added: “It’s the independent media that will expose this.” The article also cites Pitt’s “rocky past with secret societies, after a leaked video of his ex-wife Angelina Jolie, in which she discussed Hollywood Illuminati rituals, went viral.”

The article was not picked up by any other news media and was later taken down by Neon Nettle. The Angelina Jolie video mentioned does exist; at the time of writing (December 2018), it was still viewable online. It is a peculiar artifact that does require some explanation beyond “kooky prank.” Assuming it is actually Jolie talking (which perhaps we shouldn’t—but that’s another neon kettle), she is describing participation in a number of sex and blood activities with an unnamed group for unknown purposes. The setting is informal and doesn’t appear obviously staged. Whether Jolie is talking about S & M sex parties or occult initiation rituals—or both—is a matter for pure speculation. Once again, the various levels of potential deception make analyzing the artifact about as appetizing as eating a raw onion.

A few months later, in November 2017, an even more lurid “Fake News” article appeared: “Keanu Reeves warns that the elite of Hollywood drinks blood from babies.” The man-who-would-be-Reeves claimed the “Hollywood elite uses baby blood to get high,” and that “the more innocent the child and the more he suffered before he died, the higher they reach.” Reeves was allegedly in Milan, Italy, at the time, presenting three motorcycles he had designed for a company he founded in 2007. The “practice seems to be becoming more open to these circles in recent years” the article claimed. “These people are sociopaths, clean and simple.” The article wasn’t picked up by other media outlets, but it remains online. The part about unveiling motorcycles in Milan (and the timing) is accurate enough, giving the piece a modicum of verisimilitude over the Pitt one.

So what about first-hand testimonies? Brice Taylor afore-cited book, with its terrible packaging and presentation, seems almost proudly indifferent to establishing any kind of academic credibility. At the same time, the book has a forward by Walter Bowart, founder and editor of the first underground newspaper in New York City, the East Village Other, and author of the book Operation Mind Control. By his own account, Bowart cannot vouch for the accuracy of Taylor’s accounts, but he does vouch for her sincerity, meaning that (Bowart believes) either the things she describes in the book really happened to Taylor, or something caused her to believe they did.

As an example of Taylor’s many claims, she writes that “Barbra Streisand was used in the same way as other Hollywood celebrities before and after her [and was] pre-programmed to deliver messages” unconsciously to millions of people. She recounts that Streisand’s songs included carefully selected, pre-chosen words designed to trigger other mind control victims, and that her own programming, “was laced with many [Streisand] songs,” the lyrics of which were used to “tie into subconscious memory of past traumatic experiences.”

Barbra had to be kept together because she had been used to make the connections to some very important people, and especially to the masses. . . . Unlike a “normal” person, she could never talk about what she saw and remembered in private (during sleep or upon awakening) without being monitored. Whatever it took or cost was worth it to her controllers because they built her up to a certain targeted audience so completely that her controllers paid exorbitant amounts of money to keep her together, and her fans would pay any amount to see her. Many may themselves be under mind control.

Taylor claims the Streisand song “My Pa” was used on her to create “a feeling of love and safety with my father, when in fact he was torturing me endlessly, nearly every day”; “Send in the Clowns,” she writes, was used to remind survivors of “the abuse they endured as children in circus or amusement park settings where clowns were used as perpetrators.” If we find such accounts incredible, it is worth thinking about why that’s so. One reason—or rather a whole cluster of them—can be traced to the entertainment industry itself: all of this sounds too damn much like a movie! What a grim irony that would turn out to be, if Taylor’s accounts turn out to be true.

How seriously we take any of this depends, among other factors, on how seriously we take the fact that a lot of people take it very seriously. This presents a similar conundrum to that faced by the liberal progressives who are in such horror of Donald Trump that they are willing to abolish the democratic process to prevent “populism” from taking over their world. Those who wish to frame accounts of Satanic mind control in Hollywood as further evidence of the gullibility and reactionaryism of millions of uneducated deplorables are in danger of winding up inside a circle as elitist and closed as their own argumentation. The witnesses are not credible, this line of reasoning goes, because their stories are unbelievable, and vice versa.

Yet at the same time, the historical and political context for these sorts of accounts is becoming increasingly more compatible with, and even amenable to, them. In October 2018, for example, the Australian Prime Minster Scott Morrison made a national apology to “Australian survivors and victims of child sexual abuse” that referred to “17,000 survivors coming forward.” As well as using the term “survivor” (which is generally used in reference to trauma-based mind control), it included this passage:

The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happened in schools, churches, youth groups, scout troops, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, group homes, charities, and in family homes as well. It happened anywhere a predator thought they could get away with it, and the systems within these organisations allowed it to happen and turned a blind eye. It happened day after day, week after week, month after month, and decade after decade. Unrelenting torment. When a child spoke up, they weren’t believed and the crimes continued with impunity. One survivor told me that when he told a teacher of his abuse, that teacher then became his next abuser. Trust broken. Innocence betrayed. Power and position exploited for evil dark crimes.

It’s an understatement, then, to say that there are people who are sincerely—and often credibly—making claims about the ritual torture, rape, and even the murder of children and infants. Whether their claims are taken seriously depends on who hears them or the context they are made in. None of this is meant to conflate first-person victim testimonials with yellow journalism, but only to juxtapose them. In either case, this material has to be taken seriously because, if it is not referring to actual crimes, it constitutes a different kind of crime, one that goes well beyond yellow journalism—in consequences if not intention—into malicious disinformation.

One of the ways schismogenesis works is by triggering the desire in us to take a stronger position than we might normally take in reaction against the perceived belief of others. No one wants to be a sucker, and in the case of “wild” conspiracy theories, where we place ourselves on the cognitive spectrum is determined by whether we consider belief or disbelief the more gullible position. Yet ironically, both sides consider the other to be naïve.

Managing Information: National Enquirer & the CIA

One thing they can both agree about is that there are vested interests in managing the flow of information, and that this relates to the drive for a more tightly controlled internet. Since Donald Trump became POTUS (Trump had a soft alliance with arch-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who in September of 2018 was roundly banned from his primary social media platforms), Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Apple, and now Patreon have become more proactive in advancing a new “politically correct” cyber-sphere. And since there are, equally certainly, vested interests in discrediting or censoring stories of systematized, high-level child sexual abuse—specifically ones less lurid and more fact-based—then it’s fair to point out that inundating the web with fake news stories might be—or is demonstrably—an effective means of doing so.

News stories as lurid and unsubstantiated as the ones cited previously—whether true or not—can be easily dismissed—but should they be? At the very least, they represent the smoke of hysteria-rumor that’s sourced in a very real fire. They also tend to serve potentially to muddy a swamp of organized crime and its ties to the entertainment industry, in such a way as to intensify a growing divide in public perception that’s becoming increasingly associated with an ideological affiliation.

The blurry zone between intelligence maneuvers, celebrity secrets, yellow journalism, and manipulation of public perception regarding what’s true or false obviously predates the internet and the current furor over “Fake News” by several decades. The publisher of the notorious but still massively popular National Enquirer, Gene Pope Jr., for example, “worked briefly on the CIA’s Italy desk in the early 1950s and maintained close ties with the Agency thereafter.” (See “The CIA and the Media: 50 Historical Facts the World Needs to Know.” )

In The Deeds of My Fathers: How My Grandfather and Father Built New York and Created the Tabloid World of Today, Paul David Pope describes how the Enquirer refrained from publishing dozens of stories with “details of CIA kidnappings and murders, enough stuff for a year’s worth of headlines” in order to “collect chits, IOUs [that] would come in handy when he got to 20 million circulation. When that happened, he’d have the voice to be almost his own branch of government and would need the cover.” Other potential stories drew on documents proving the CIA financed Howard Hughes “to secretly fund, with campaign donations, twenty-seven congressmen and senators who sat on sub-committees critical to the agency,” “fifty-three international companies named and sourced as CIA fronts,” as well as a list of reporters for mainstream media organizations who were playing ball with the agency.”

Regarding the CIA and National Enquirer’s relationship to Hollywood, in “The Secret History of the National Enquirer”  DuJour reported that

Over the years, scores of celebrities and politicians were rumored to be making deals with the National Enquirer to conceal all manner of indiscretions, be it a DWI or other arrest on a minor charge, an intimate photo or video, an affair (particularly worrisome if it involved the spouse of another star), a gay or lesbian encounter or an out-of-wedlock child. In exchange for information on someone else or agreeing to an exclusive interview, stars were able to keep their secrets out of the spotlight. Confidential sources confirmed to DuJour that celebrities were essentially blackmailed to work with the Enquirer or else risk their improprieties appearing on the front page. It is alleged that Sylvester Stallone was told to cooperate or have a nasty exposé published. As agreed, such a story was not written, but a National Enquirer reporter gave the incriminating details to Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano for one of his clients to use as leverage against Stallone. (Pellicano is currently serving 15 years in federal prison for numerous RICO violations, including illegally wiretapping his clients.) Other prominent figures who reportedly cooperated under duress were Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds and Bill Cosby.

Like the alleged “Fake News” articles about Hollywood blood-drinking Illuminati, the National Enquirer would seem to have both a primary or overt target audience and a secondary one. First up there is the gullible, scandal-hungry masses who lap it up with nary a thought for veracity or confirmability. Then there is the discerning intelligentsia who, while they consider it beneath their interest, at the same time regard it as further proof of the common folk’s salacious lack of discernment. Neither demographic (one supposes) is aware of being hoodwinked in a more or less similar fashion.

In the same way, while the mainstream reaction to much of the material cited in this present essay is one of derision, still many people now unquestioningly believe in the reality of claims around organized, ritualized child abuse and mind control within the entertainment industry, to the extent that they may not care if the accounts are fictional or not, since they believe them to be true in “essence.” In these people’s minds, it could even be a way for movie stars to go on record without having to suffer the consequences, since afterwards they can say the articles are pure fiction! This could even be true—how would we know it if it were?!

In a similar way, some stars now seem to be playing into the growing belief that they are mind-controlled mouth-pieces for the Illuminati. Or, like Kevin Spacey, are happy to blur the line in the public mind between the sinister characters they play in TV melodramas and the abusive behaviors being attributed to them in the news.

Of course, this doesn’t count as evidence for either possibility, it only proves that, fact or fiction, dark legends sell. And at a certain point, people may cease to care which it is, especially when real-life moral outrage is becoming a form of entertainment that’s quite complementary with the ironic detachment of make-believe fantasies.

Hollywood Conspiracy: Just the Facts

“Movies as PSYOP tools are most effective during consolidation, FID [foreign internal defense], and UW [unconventional warfare] operations. Movies combine many aspects of television and face-to-face communication by creating a visual and aural impact on the target audience. Most children and a high percentage of adults accept, without question, the presumably factual information presented in films.” —Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures”:

Now we have covered the disinformation angle, let’s look at what’s more less provable, or at least generally uncontested—if mostly ignored—in mainstream reporting. There is considerable factual evidence for the following:

• A noted pioneer of American radio and television, David Sarnoff, later became a Reserve Brigadier General and was known as “the General.” Sarnoff was one of the first to see the potential of radio for not just point-to-point but point-to-mass transmission (i.e., one person speaking to many). He was put in charge of radio broadcasting at RCA. He also was one of the first credited with recognizing the potential for the combination of motion pictures with electronic transmission, and pioneered the television medium in 1928. “Sarnoff’s law” states that the value of a broadcast network is proportional to the number of viewers. Another pioneer in the field was William Paley, who started the first American TV channel Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), which had its origins in a collection of 16 radio stations purchased by Paley, also in 1928. During World War II, Paley served as director of radio operations of the Psychological Warfare branch in London, where he held the rank of colonel. It was there that Paley befriended Edward R. Murrow, CBS’s head of European news.

• Involvement of the CIA, MI5, US military, and other intelligence agencies in the entertainment industry (BBC, Hollywood) throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Here’s an example from a non-classified 1994 Field Manual 33-1-1 released by the US military, Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures”:

Motion pictures have the advantage of bypassing audience illiteracy. Movies also have an inherent quality of drama and the ability to elicit a high degree of recall. They may include cartoons or special effects. They may gain added credibility by including news events and local settings familiar to the target audience. A producer may rehearse scenes before filming and make the final performance seem highly realistic. In many cultures, the actor in a movie is considered to be like the part he has played. An actor can be useful because of the credibility he has gained. Movies may present a larger-than-life situation, which has great popular appeal. Background music can add to the emotional impact. The theater presentation can create group cohesiveness and can be enhanced by discussions with the audience afterward. Many people accept as factual the information presented in films. . . Movies . . . are ordinarily shown to groups and, therefore, have the power to arouse crowd reactions and to stimulate discussion. They lend themselves almost exclusively to friendly PSYOP.

• Popular entertainment industry figures with confirmed intelligence-affiliations include actors Frank Sinatra, Cary Grant, Greta Garbo, Sterling Hayden, and Christopher Lee; writers Noel Coward, Ian Fleming, and Roald Dahl; director John Ford; and producers Walt Disney and Arnon Milchan. According to John Rizzo, the former acting CIA general counsel and author of the (CIA-authorized) book Company Man: Thirty Years of Crisis and Controversy in the CIA, the CIA has long had a “special relationship” with the entertainment industry. Rizzo’s book does not name any Hollywood players, however, because these names are classified.

• Celebrities have exhibited symptoms of mind control (Anna Nicole), made claims of dark conspiracies operating in Hollywood (Randy Quaid, Crispin Glover, Corey Feldman), and/or had affiliations with cult organizations (River and Joaquin Phoenix, Rose McGowan, the Children of God; Tom Cruise and John Travolta, the Church of Scientology). Quaid has gone on record about how early sexual abuse led to his becoming an actor, and that he is one among many: Many actors have experienced severe emotional . . . trauma in their lives to one degree or another. For us, acting is more than just a career, it’s a way of coping, a welcomed survival. . . . I was left feeling vulnerable, and the vulnerability in turn manifests itself in personality and behavior, which does not go unnoticed by vicious Hollywood predators where I continue to be taken advantage of by these monsters.”

• Many celebrities—previously and now—have shown a serious interest in and involvement with occultism; for example, credibly alleged members of the O.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis), past and present, include David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Jay-Z, Russell Brand, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison, Timothy Leary, and James Franco. Confirmed (or self-professed) celebrity members are few, however, and may be restricted to Marilyn Manson, Kanye West, and the late Peaches Geldof.

• Occultist imagery and symbolism can frequently be seen in celebrity events, Hollywood movies, and mainstream TV shows, seemingly beyond what’s appropriate to the subject matter. In 2013, comedienne Roseanne Barr told a cable news interviewer: “MKULTRA mind control rules in Hollywood.” She expanded on her statement to Esquire magazine: “A lot of people who are actors and artists who work in Hollywood come from a background of abuse, and you can make abused people very fearful and they’ll do what they’re told. Hollywood definitely has a point of view that it sells.”

• Hollywood has had intimate connections to organized crime from its inception onwards. “From the days when Lucky Luciano and Al Capone battled over Hollywood turf, to Chicago mob associate, lawyer and legendary fixer Sidney Korshak pulling strings so that MGM would let Al Pacino play Michael Corleone in The Godfather, show business and the mob have fit together like a brass-knuckled hand in a silk opera glove. The relationship goes back at least to the 1920s, when the Chicago ‘outfit’—which controlled the labor unions—arrived in Los Angeles to help studio executives ride herd on their crews. As Gus Russo, who wrote about Korshak in his book Supermob, told me, Hollywood ‘was a mob town’ for decades, possibly into the 1980s.” That last may be no more than a diplomatic evasion. If Hollywood has been mobbed up since the 1920s, there’s no good reason to suppose it isn’t today.

• Organized, high-level pedophilia exists within the UK entertainment industry. In the UK, TV DJ and children’s entertainer Jimmy Savile was sexually abusing people of all ages for five whole decades, sometimes quite openly, with the full protection not only of the BBC where he worked, but with at least partial knowledge of UK’s MI5, the police force, high-level government figures, and possibly even the Royal family. In a 2015 report from the UK National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) regarding Operation Hydrant, 1,433 suspects of child sexual abuse were identified though not publicly named; 261 were classified as people of public prominence, with 135 coming from TV, film or radio, 76 politicians, 43 from the music industry, and seven from the world of sport.

• Ditto in the US: on a 2011 episode of Nightline, child actor Corey Feldman stated, “The No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. . . . That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. . . It’s the big secret.” In 2016, Elijah Wood told The Sunday Times that “many of his young peers had been ‘preyed upon’ by child molesters. Feldman corroborated Wood’s accusation, saying, ‘Ask anybody in our group of kids at that time: They were passing us back and forth to each other.’” The 2015 documentary An Open Secret, from director Amy Berg, included testimonies of several ex-child actors who claimed that abusers regularly get away with abuses. “This film could be the start to show people there’s a problem in Hollywood,” said one ex-child actor interviewed in the film, who claimed to have been abused by his ex-manager Marty Weiss for six years. The film has so far been unable to find a distributor.

• In the corporate world (to which Hollywood belongs), committing criminal acts—especially of the sexual variety—have been described as a means of “binding men [and women] together through the power of taboo and mutual self-exposure, or at least the pretense of it. . . . In part, the power of the experience comes from the mutual pleasure of shared transgression, the feeling of a shared secret. . . . As one saying that went rapidly around the Chinese Internet in 2011 put it, ‘It’s better to do one bad thing with your boss than a hundred good things for your boss.’ Over time, this can extend to an actual exchange of what criminologist Diego Gambetta in his pioneering Codes of the Underworld calls ‘hostage-information,’ mutual knowledge of each party’s sins that acts as a powerful guarantee neither will break their agreements. [V]ice serves as a kind of screen, weeding out the rare few who might have moral qualms about future dealings. It tells both sides that they’re playing by the same rules. . . . Refusing to play the game, on the other hand, comes at a sharp cost.”

• Organized sexual abuse that targets children sometimes includes occult and even “satanic” elements. While supposedly “discredited” as a case of “mass hysteria” or “psychic contagion,” in fact many of the claims made by children and adults during the infamous period in the US (the 1980s) were fully substantiated (see Ross Cheit’s The Witch-Hunt Narrative, Oxford University Press, and Dave McGowan’s Programmed to Kill, IUniverse). This is to say nothing of countless other claims throughout the world over the last fifty years or more. I have addressed this subject elsewhere.

• There are known first-person testimonies of celebrity involvement in both sexual abuse and mind control, as both victims and perpetrators of it; for example: Bryce Taylor’s writing about Barbra Streisand, Elvis, Bob Hope, Neil Diamond, and Michael Jackson (Thanks for the Memories), or Anne Diamond’s memories and speculations about Leonard Cohen. Within the “survivor” community in general—including among professional therapists such as Alison Miller—the “Hollywood connection” is taken seriously. I have spoken with Diamond, Miller, and Wendy Hoffman, and find them credible as witnesses. At the very least, they appear to sincerely believe these things have happened, based on first- or second-hand experience of something.

The broad-stroke description of a “Satanic Hollywood mind control and ritual sacrifice conspiracy” may seem absurd, when stated baldly and uncoupled from the necessary deep cultural and sociopolitical background. And yet, as the above list shows, much (though not all) of the data being presented within this “absurd” (limited) context is verifiable, to a degree at least. So clearly, the subject requires further investigation before being dismissed. So how is it that it’s either viewed as too lurid and improbable a subject to take seriously, or as already proven beyond doubt?

And how is it that our point of view seems to depend on which side of an ever-growing ideological divide we happen to find ourselves on? The answer seems to be that, as with the case of belief in the existence of the Keyser Soze, we are perceptually compromised by an unthinking reliance on the most unreliable of narrators.

I will be further discussing this subject matter live on Google Hangouts/YouTube tomorrow at 11 am PST: Liminalist Live Meet # 7: Seeking Keyser Soze (More Hollywood Psyops)

Of further interest:

20 thoughts on “Dark Legends: “Satanic Illuminati Mind Control in Hollywood” (Psychological Operatives in Hollywood # 3)”

  1. The royal commission in Australia had its terms of reference deliberately restricted to focus mainly on religious institutions, purposely shielding political and law enforcement institutions from scrutiny.
    Senator Bill Heffernan used parliamentary privelege to put the frighteners on some 28 high profile people including an ex Prime Minister.

    Bill Heffernan ex PM alleged Pedophile 21/10/15

    A lady called Fiona Barnett has popped up alleging she was a victim of an MK Ultra peddo ring headed by Nicole Kidmans dad who recently committed suicide. Hard to say if she is just muddying the waters.

    Media Watch Debunking Fiona Barnett 9/11/15

    I like these guys who trawl through Pop culture looking for MK Uktra Satanic references.

    Great write, thanks

  2. Fiona Barnett is adamant the OTO is virulently active in Australia


    Meanwhile Detective Peter Fox blew the whistle on senior Police trying to shut down his enquiries into Catholic pedophilia in the Maitland diocese.

    ABC Article Detective Peter Fox on Corrupt Pedo Police 6/5/13

    The Royal Commission wound up identifying seventeen thousand victims , but you would have to say this could only be the tip of the iceberg. By any measure, one has to assume the warm and fuzzy land down under is an absolute pedophile paradise.

  3. I sense as of late that the “revelation of the revelation” is compulsive. There’s a loss of the power of their method so there is a desperate need show how powerful “they” are. In fact lately it all seems so suffocating as the facade cracks and the true nature of our “culture” oozes out. Some days I can barely handle it especially when I’m around those who are unable to see it due to the blinders they willingly put on. It will get harder for them and that’s who we should be afraid of because they will run to their masters to”save” them from them.

    The current astrology is quite accurate with Pluto and Saturn in Capricorn. Next year Jupiter joins the party making it bigger. A disintegration of our belief in government and institutions. An exposure that makes the status quo hard to maintain. The Piscean age which we are gradually leaving is unhinging the power to control – hence all the attempt to homogenize us so it can continue. If I have any faith at all it is that our creator wants us to evolve and like a blade of grass pushing through concrete to greet the sun we can’t be stopped. I believe once Pluto moves into Aquarius in 2024 we will look back and wonder how we were all so deceived. It might be gradual but with Pluto likely not.

    I also want you to know how throughly I am enjoying your content. Your writing is wonderful and I look forward to seeing what you have to say in 2019. Happy New Year!

  4. I find the word “Satanic” interesting as the usual defining word in your title. I only recently (thanks to one of your conversations) discovered that Satan’s only real crime was wanting equal status to God. In the holy book, it is stated that man was created in gods (plural) image so there are more gods in the picture if one cares to look.

    In the holy book, God has no gender – we only know Jesus is the SON of God. Now as Ariana Grande sings – “God Is A Woman” and I believe her. Also, most likely Satan is a woman, too. The old testament clearly depicts god as a jealous woman.

    Hollywood is full of actors last time I checked. And politicians are honest? “We are perceptually compromised by an unthinking reliance on the most unreliable of narrators.” Check.

  5. Hi Lucy , you might like to check out Charles Uptons “The System of AnticChrist” if you are lookng to Grok the metaphysics of God vs Satan , i can assure you it goes way beyond pop identity politics, although you will find Satan having coffee there regularly.
    Happy New Year !

  6. I wonder if maybe it’s not so much that the Dark Forces totally invent all our cultural artifacts whole cloth, but that they seize upon things that resonate with the masses, create a counterfeit and propagate it until something else catches on.
    I’ve played in rock n roll bands & written a lot of music. I’ve played in front of dozens of people and got positive feedback, at times bordering on adulation (that’s a bit unsettling).
    No one from any agency fed me any ideas. I just invent melodies in my head and channel them onto electric guitar.
    So if one takes someone like a Miles Mathis seriously, the entirety of reality as most of us experience it daily is a hermetically sealed counterfeit crafted by…something that cannot possibly be human. Hardt & Negri’s “Empire” breaks this down for an audience presumably of Marxist-oriented intellectuals. Basically, the control system will seize upon anything that it might be threatened by and turns it into a tool of control.
    Your latest vid- chat group thing features some resonating commentary about these issues. (the message always seems to be ‘give up- you fight the law and the law wins”
    Maybe what seems to be system of total control is really that a set of actual control freaks noticed during the world wars that you can own society’s head space if you control the important pressure points of cultural reproduction. So the rock band who are actual working class lads that begins to catch on with an audience in a genuine way gets given access to channels of distribution previously unavailable if they prove corruptible. Look at Black Sabbath. Did someone say, “These guys are a bunch of drunks with a cartoon idea of occultism borrowed from Hammer Horror films- but people dig it. It can lead young audiences to take a lot of reds and drink a lot of cheap wine and generally waste their intellectual energy with something that is as magickally threatening to actual power as HP Lovecraft’s pulp stories.- so let’s get them into the studio and give them a recording deal.”

  7. So far the article is quite interesting. Very complex analysis, because, of course, reality is itself very complex!

    A very interesting book that looks into the origins of the phenomena of how all this stuff began would be Brian Hayden’s “The Power of Ritual in Prehistory: Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity”, Cambridge, 2018. The book definitely figures out something important about human beings by focusing its lens on the phenomena of a) being hungry for power, and b) the practice of lying. By combining these very obvious human behaviors, Hayden looks at the ethnographic evidences from North America, Oceania, and Africa, and finds plenty of instances of what he calls “transegalitarian secret societies”, which, more or less, are a form of secret organization which enhances the networking power of ‘aggrandizers’ who seek to add to their own individual power. These bodies combined ecstatic shamanism, a belief in spirits who demand human sacrifice, and devious conversation that ultimately resulted in a coordinated manipulation of their individual societies and, if it ever happen to arose, to come to one another’s aid to help deal with intransigents who challenged the constructed order.

    Overtime, these bodies and their chosen sites of ritual evolved into ‘super-secret society structures’, producing sites like Stonehenge, Chauvin de Huantar, Jerf el Ahmar, and Gobekli tepe. Some of these ‘superstructures’ would later evolve into official cult centers – such as Eridu in Sumeria, which later became involved in the organization of a larger economy. Hayden mentions the temples of Melqart as an example of a secret society/mafia type structure which operated during the heyday of the Phoenecian state.

    So yes, humans are complex! It takes a lot of thinking and reasoning and speculating to arrive at a position that feels ‘balanced’; you can’t be too paranoid, otherwise you’re letting the dynamics of trauma control you; yet you can’t be too willing to believe simple stories, otherwise the converse effects of trauma – the need to relax the stresses moving through you as a function of affect regulation/homeostasis dynamics – will put you offset with what is probably the truth.

    So its a constant, non-stop internally navigated Hegelian dialectic between various speculations that arise from certain inferences (cued by certain affective reactions) that are repeatedly subjected to a “what is the probability of this being true” sorts of questions.

    This article nicely attempts to sift through the mind games that human beings are perfectly capable of – and sophisticated enough – to create for other human beings. Its Pan’s Labryinth indeed!

    • Excellent commentary, and very interesting book recommendation. I’m on it. I hope you’ll continue to provide feedback as the series proceeds.

      • So I’m reading your latest book – and I wanted to comment on what you’ve written on page 141 as to Richard Dawkins and child abuse. The entire issue is contained here: the simplistic, unscientific, unsystematic position taken to the organism by Dawkins is ENTIRELY in the service of the UNRESOLVED SHAME of having been sexually abused.

        Dawkins is such a shameful egotist that he imagines that no one can figure out the logic of his various positions: selfish gene – the denial of cybernetics, systems biology, epigenetics etc; where does this pseudo-scientific nonsense come from but from a mind that deeply believes itself to be “selected” by the universe?

        Consider the real scientific ontology vis-à-vis the organism. The material world is generated by symmetry dynamics – from quarks on up. As the material order organizes itself, some parts – the living organism – parallel the universal order by seeking to maintain its symmetrical ordering by “capturing” – or being captured – by other symmetry dynamics within the material order.

        If you follow this line of inquiry as many modern day mind scientists are doing – both for memory and cognition (Leyton) and linguistics and semantics (Castillo), it is not surprising that the entirety of developmental psychology also parallels these fields, but with MOTIVATION and COGNITIVE CAPACITY being that which determines symmetry dynamics between human beings in interaction.

        Undoubtedly – only a perverse mind would look at a child and fail to represent their feeble representational capacities – nor fail to recognize that in the absence of puberty, sexual arousal/motivation is inchoate and undeveloped, and if it is ever to be expressed, its only proper and legitimate expression is with people of the same age – and certainly not between adults and children.

        The issue is objectification, and how ‘being objectified’ is a function of one party projecting its motivational needs on another party, without correctly attuning to the motivational and developmental capacities of the other party – to come to an attuned/objective representation of what a normally developing child should feel and desire.

        The pedophile is entrapped in a system of confusion and therefore tension. When the object that they once were appears before them – the child, sexual arousal can arise purely as a function of implicit memory; but as per all experiences of being victimized, the whole persecutor-victim dynamic inverts itself, with the once-victim becoming persecutor, and the victim they are desiring to act their motivations upon becomes “other”. Their needs and their states fail to update the attentional awareness of the pedophile because the pedophile is being overwhelmed by their own desire: the other cannot find a place in a mind this obsessively entrained to an object that they find themselves spellbound by. What’s moronic and intellectually pathetic is how little knowledge/awareness they take to why they feel they feel – which, because of their intense egotism (supercharged sense of agency/entitlement) they just imagine that its normal – again, to protect themselves from the shame affects. Thus, the normalization of child-molestation is completely about disowning the shame and/or guilt (if you have become a perpetrator) that stresses your self-experience.

        As to what you’ve written about how the priest being a positive object at the same tiem as being an object of abuse – that’s a very accurate understanding: indeed, the perception the girl has of the protestant girl is again an example of internalizing the persecutor priest and taking on HIS object-relations: The unconscious/dissociated shame of being molested by the priest is actually the dynamical basis of the supercharged persecutory attitude towards the protestant whose going to hell. Is this response not a function of a ‘summation’ of past self-states, converging on a ‘coherent’ position vis-à-vis the known-unknown information that has built up the self-system? Yes. But dummies who subscribe to pedophilia are more or les subject to a diseased understanding of their own self vis-à-vis the things they do to others. They are wantonly unaware of what kind of suffering they will perforce need to go through to bring themselves – their witnessing consciousness – back to a state of symmetry with others. They are truly, in my view, delusional maniacs who believe what they do purely as a function of the echo-chamber effect of repeating the same narratives with others who subscribe to the same narratives.

        You got a great deal of self-awareness Jasun. To not give in to the social symmetry-dynamics – to mindlessly converge as a function of social pressure on the narratives of others – makes you a very coherent voice for making these painful realities more known.

        Also, I very much enjoy the maturity of your understanding in describing others. Evil – as a true state – is simply what happens when symmetry systems i.e. our brain-world relations, becomes so distorted such that the objects (humans/elites/Satanists etc) who become this way merely add to their entropy/dysfunction by positing stories that work to protect themselves from the injustice they cultivate/indulge in.

        My sense is, the self is a global, human phenomenon. No individual self exists – or rather, to treat your individual self as more than your body is the acme of delusion. Hence, to reason in ways that ‘the end justifies the means’ is an idiocy that is driven by a tendentious mind seeking to distance itself from whatever unresolved trauma motivates this very incorrect relationship to its own self-experience.

        Trauma is only resolved when the observing self develops a compassionate relationship with the traumatized self. Such a compassionate orientation is itself dependent on ‘being known’ in such a way by an other. But what happens – as therapists well know – if sociopathy (an geometrodynamical state, not an ontologically intrinsic state of being – as these people sadly believe) sets up the delusion of being ‘invulnerable’? This is basically what the problem is. Sociopaths continue to posit myths/narratives as a way to defend themselves.

    • More from Hayden:

      Dr. Hayden proposes that aggrandizers have been the major change agent for humanity since complex human organizations arose.

      Dr. Brian Hayden has proposed the concept of an aggrandizer as a personality type in his article “Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities” in Foundation of Social Inequality edited by T. D. Price and G. Feinman.

      “Anthropological theories of elites (leaders) in traditional societies tend to focus on how elites can be viewed as helping the community at large. The origin of elites is cast in functionalist or communitarian terms (viewing societies as adaptive systems). A minority opinion argues that elites were not established by communities for the community benefit, but emerged as a result of manipulative strategies used by ambitious, exploitative individuals (aggrandizers). While the communitarian perspective may be appropriate for understanding simple hunter/gatherer communities, I argue that elites in complex hunter/gatherer communities and horticultural communities operate much more in accordance with aggrandizer principles, and that it is their pursuit of aggrandizer self-interests that really explains the initial emergence of elites. This occurs preferentially under conditions of resource abundance and involves a variety of strategies used to manipulate community opinions, values, surplus production, and surplus use.” 1

      Brian Hayden; “Big Man, Big Heart? The Political Role of Aggrandizers in Egalitarian and Transegalitarian Societies”; from For the Greater Good of All: Perspectives on Individualism, Society, and Leadership Edited by Forsyth, Donelson R. and Hoyt, Crystal L. 2010. Pg. 101.

      The aggrandizer will pursue wealth and power no matter the consequences to the environment. He or she will colonize including slaughtering of locals for access to resource. The aggrandizer will take advantage of the weak (elderly or disabled) no matter the results. The extreme aggrandizer will do what he or she feels needs to be done for their own benefit.

      In a global population of seven billion, there are simply countless niches for the practice of accumulation of power via manipulation. The formation of aggrandizers resists modification or constraint. The global economics and the global political interplays dictate consumption and consumerism to maintain the power of the elite. This promotes a world of mini-aggrandizers or mimickers.

      We face the convergence of serious factors, perhaps the result of a long history of aggrandizers at every level and their wannabes. Climate change, population overshoot, energy, acidification of the oceans, species extinction, droughts, floods, massive storms, global environmental degradation, resource wars – each of these alone has societal challenging implications much less as an interlinked set. The aggrandizers from the peak of the power pyramid and lower, if unconstrained, become a deterrent to change in times of societal crisis.

      Childrearing styles may reinforce the genetics of the aggrandizer personality type. If so there are two possible parental behaviors. There is the coddle, “you are special” path that is really the child taking care of the parent’s needs. The child gets a message “don’t grow up, don’t individuate.” When the child attempts separation and nascent personhood, the parent withdraws connection creating a sense of abandonment. So the child, growing into adult, vacillates between the anger of enmeshment and the fear of abandonment.

      The second parental behavior is the harsh, critical, authoritarian approach that narrowly defines the permissible behavior for being acceptable. This form is often found among fundamentalist (no matter the persuasion). It is mirrored in Alice Miller’s For Your Own Good (Farrar Straus Giroux. 1983.) about the childrearing experience of Adolf Hitler.

      The Aggrandizer Personality Type may arise genetically. In addition it may also be fostered by childrearing techniques. The two origins may reinforce each other. In simple hunter/gatherer groups the uniformity of culture and child rearing plus familiarity of behaviors inhibits the rise of the aggrandizer. As group populations increase and resources become more abundant, a diversity of identity and belonging opens the door for the aggrandizer to arise through genetics and as well as via childhood experience. SunWeb: The Aggrandizer Personality – Nature and Nurture

      • There’s good reason to question the whole concept of ‘genetics’. In reality, there are multiple ontological scales that feed into one another at different temporal scales. The organism-environment is thus subject to a fundamental symmetry system – which I conceptualize as based in a tensional integrity (tensegrity) system. So, if social stresses become great, homeostasis functioning (interoception) becomes strained, which affects the affective system – i.e. how the affective/experiencing self represents itself i.e. in cuing, which in turn affects narrative formation. This is what we mean by ‘environmental influences’. There is thus a complex multidimensional relational field that ‘feeds’ down onto gene-cell dynamics, which in turn feed back upward in interoceptive states i.e. affecting how we feel in our bodies. We are thus compressed between a bottom-up vector which regulates our window of affective tolerance in relation to cognitive objects, and a top-down relational system from the environment which activates/triggers are threat-safety dynamics.

        Biologists are really beginning to wonder – given how much molecular continuity exists between the DNA in the nucleus and extra-nuclear processes in the cell and beyond the cell – whether the gene is a real thing, or just an abstraction for what in reality is a ‘long term’ aperiodic crystal that stores the memory of what works in relation to the environment. Directionality is thus both ways, meaning that external situations control/shape genetic activity – as all the evidence from molecular biology, developmental biology, developmental psychology and paleontology (theory of punctuated equilibrium) shows.

        It’s been an extremely powerful propaganda that almost everyone implicitly references when they think about sexuality/identity/feelings/values. No one is ‘born’ any way – yet this is the leitmotif operating in the background of contemporary culture.

  8. I just discovered your fascinating, thoughtful website via Kunstler’s reprint and plug. I particularly appreciate your non-dismissive view in this article because over a two-year period my wife (now deceased) had memories surface of childhood sexual, ritual, and CIA-experiment abuse. Day after day, she would tell me the memories that surfaced that are similar to the goriest and most depraved accounts of others (which she knew nothing of at the time). She was able to confirm details (and her sanity) via communication with a step sister who shared many of the memories. All I can say is that taking the basic claims about this seriously is warranted—and I am impressed that you are doing so!

    • Thanks for sharing that; quite surprising to discover that sort of intersect with JHK’s audience. If you didnt see it yet, here’s my piece on ritual abuse: https://auticulture.com/blog/2018/10/22/what-you-should-know-about-organized-satanic-ritual-abuse/

      also Vice of Kings covers this subject much more extensively within the context of our larger cultural matrix: http://www.aeonbooks.co.uk/product/the-vice-of-kings-how-socialism-occultism-and-the-sexual-revolution-engineered-a-culture-of-abuse/40232/

      • Thank you for your response and the links; I read your post and look forward to your book. Another aspect I didn’t mention is the Jekyll and Hyde world that existed in the small upstate NY town where she partly grew up with her doctor-uncle. By day all was “normal,” but at night (at least some nights), these same “ordinary” people participated in truly gruesome activities of child ritual abuse and sacrifice, burning a black man alive; warehousing infants for abuse, etc. I met her father only once; he seemed a delightful, creative, person—yet he was a cult member who abused his psychically-gifted daughter from infancy. Her uncle was a wonderful, caring doctor, apparently less-willingly involved—yet he took her to NYC for her to be experimentally drugged by the CIA. When she later confronted him, his response was “don’t go there!” I think you are right that its extreme nature and hence “unbelievability” is a significant reason why it can continue unacknowledged and unchallenged.

        • that’s chilling and fascinating in equal parts; do you mean that you interacted with these people after you knew the truth about them?

  9. Here’s another book recommendation (although you may have read this).

    It’s a trilogy of works by Michel Serres called the ‘book of foundations’. Part 1 is called Rome, part 2 is called Statues, and part 3 is called geometry.

    I think Serres was more or less exposing this cult without being too explicit about it – likely reflecting his own trauma’s as to the age/longevity of the ‘imperial’ system. It is nevertheless full of interesting insight which, if you understand the object he’s referring to (which he never makes very clear – consistent with the continental style of writing) actually says a lot about the system is fundamentally rooted in.

    I also like to think of the emergence of narratives to be a function of symmetry dynamics between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. The larger scale social-symmetry between classes emerges as the material culture ‘entrenches’ material, social and epistemological asymmetries. By the time Rome comes along, there is now an established narrative that says, or rationalizes along the lines of “the world will no longer exist unless evil is inserted into it”. This interpretation seems like what the traumatized mindbrain drums up as a function of living in intense tension/awareness of the root/basis of being, yet embodied in its neurological structure the opposite semiotic processes. The fear of the ‘ground of being’, as Voegelin has written, is what maintains philosophies/theologies (mythologies) that assume a-priori to know what would happen if natural processes were integrated into the human mind-brain. The narrative appears to be: “if we change, the world we and all other humans so love would be gone”. You can see a bit of the language of Christianity hidden within this narrative i.e. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son”, where the global self i.e. God (which is not really God, since the self is always embodied/embedded in a local part of the emergent environment, and hence can never know absolutely – especially from the vantage point of its embodied social asymmetry) sacrifices its experiential self (“his son” or ego) for the sake of what the self “loves about the world”.

    Part II, Statues more or less describes the inner-rigidity that this cultic-system creates in the self; and Geometry is the system – likely formalized in Babylonia, and transferred to Greece – of the logic of manipulation that underlies the ‘intellectual’ relation with the natural world.

    All in all, the world will not end, but it can very feel so to a profoundly polarized self that is continuously tormented by the tension between consciousness of the ultimate truth (love) and consciousness of the world, embodied in its neurological structuring, and thus, expresses the difference between the real (traumatized) and the ideal. In short, time seems unreal/meaningless to them precisely because they fail to align themselves with the purpose/meaning embodied in its patterns – which is the patterns of how our brainmind represents the world. Ergo, if you live in opposition to the expressed/emergent dynamics, you are made to feel that the ‘end of the world’ is around the corner. A delusion – and hence, their beliefs about the ‘end’ are what pokes them into maintaining a way-of-being that maintains the present order (isn’t this how our attachments always affect us? They are, in effect, the meta-objects/value we are dynamically regulated by]

  10. I’m very impressed by the quality of your insights in part II of your book.

    On pg. 158, “moral outrage obliterates all nuance” should be expanded, really, into “hyper-aroused emotionality in a context of conflict leads to pre-mature selection of narrative/theory coherency”.

    When you’re morally outraged – any of the time, in any situation – you fail to take into account the most basic of facts: we are globally determined by the fact that past brain structure inheres within our every experience – meaning everything we do is being probabilistically canalized by the way meanings are encoded in the synapses/neurons/glia of our brain-body-world relation. It makes absolutely no sense to get aroused i.e. to express a condemnatory anger, while triggering in the person you’re speaking with an experience of shame which they defend against with an anger/outrage/resentment that comes from being represented as evil to yourself.

    Since this enforces a feedback loop between your self and the other, with each party dissociatively related to the circular dynamic that’s controlling them, it makes no sense to take an acrimonious hateful view – i.e., it requires a high level of patience, so that you can reflect and then come to understand – and then accept – that logical facts of causation are what underlie the phenomena i.e. pedophilia, which can only be helped/improved by treating the perpetrator as once a victim, who is now dissociatively ‘triumphant’ as the persecutor overcoming the powerlessness of the victim – both external and internal.

    This calls for a view of the self that is much bigger than your body, and hence, it disturbs the ground of your present identity structure. To know how this world works entails knowing how you work – how you’re habits of being/clichés/stereotyped ways of responding are really ‘self-objects’ which prevent you – and implicate you as well – from acknowledging the real evil that exists in this world.

    • On pg. 158, “moral outrage obliterates all nuance” should be expanded, really, into “hyper-aroused emotionality in a context of conflict leads to pre-mature selection of narrative/theory coherency”.

      this made me smile because one of the things I work towards as a writer and speaker is keeping my use of language as simple and accessible as possible (without sacrificing nuance), and because your recent comments have tested me to my limits in terms of keeping up with all the complex terminology you employ. Don’t get me wrong, if your comments seem to require multiple readings to grok, they also would seem to merit them, and I am definitely grateful to have such erudition expressed at this blog. Someone already suggested talking with you on a podcast, to which my first proviso would be, if you talk like you write, I probably wouldn’t be able to keep up! I might even be the Dave Oshana to your Jasun! 😉

      BTW, I am not familiar with symmetry dynamics at all; can you cite some introductory sources?

Leave a Comment