Nothing Significant Happened Today

                                                                                                                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTHING SIGNIFICANT HAPPENED TODAY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Pattern recognition according to IQ test designers is a key determinant of a person’s potential to think logically, verbally, numerically, and spatially. Compared to all mental abilities, pattern recognition is said to have the highest correlation with the so-called general intelligence factor (Kurzweil, 2012).’

                 

– Robert C. Barkman PhD, “See The World Through Patterns,” Psychology Today, 2018

                                                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

WHAT do you think is dictating the greater part of contemporary thought? The truth? Or popular consensuses? If speaking the truth has robbed people of popularity for 6,000 years, why are so many people still so quick to believe that popular people speak the truth? If people everywhere started complaining about fires popping up all over the West and it turned out that, despite the fact that every man, woman, and child had the ability to start fires, only some of them were made to look suspicious while the popular people in your local community were made to look innocent, how would a psychologically well-adjusted person evaluate the situation? And what do you think most people would do if the most popular trend to follow in this scenario was to blame the apparently suspicious and not scrutinize the apparently popular? Do you think most people wouldn’t follow this trend in a world that values popularity far more than the truth? Or do you believe that in the hearts of most people the truth is more important than popularity?

     Can you imagine the power you could have over large populations of people if you pretended to be an activist or a whistleblower or a Christian today? Can you imagine the innocence that the mere Christian label would afford you given the fact that Christianity has become a popular means of effecting social change despite the curious irony of its core message being unpopular for 6,000 years? Can you think of anyone more trusted in the modern West than someone who works for a charity, stands up for freedom or family values, or who always seems to be the first to criticize the government or the local council for some errant policy or red tape? Is there anyone on earth who can garner as much praise, popularity, and respect as the anti-state champion or Christian patriot or corruption watchdog? Is there anyone who could better convince you that we didn’t start the fire, as it were?

     I propose that an army of actors are infinitely more powerful than an army of activists, whistleblowers, and Christians combined. Because the latter group can be killed, taking their thoughts, opinions, and perceptions with them. An army of actors, on the other hand, not only have the ability to make a single thought, opinion, or perception seem like the most popular one to have on any given subject if mass numbers of them pretended to hold or embrace it, but the agency to steer them towards specific social and political goals while keeping the appearance that such goals were attained through a popular consensus. And since popular consensuses are not viewed with nearly as much scrutiny or suspicion as what popular activists, whistleblowers, and Christians tell us is suspicious, who’s to say the world isn’t run by millions of narcissistic actors involved in fake consensuses?

     I won’t speculate about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, though I must state for the record that any praise or promotion I’ve given him or his works in the past was misguided on my part. To put it simply, he was a bible teacher who believed unbiblical teachings, such as a denial of the sinlessness of Christ's human nature and doubting that of His earthly behaviour [Christ the Center, 1960, pp. 108-109 and p. 113] – as per David Cloud’s 2011 article wayoflife.org/reports/dietrich_bonhoeffer.php adapted in part from a paper by Don Jasmin [Fundamentalist Digest], and additionally found or repeated on the webpages southheightsbaptist.com/newsletter/reminder_082111.pdf and 2020scripturalvision.com/post/do-you-embrace-apostates-like-dietrich-bonhoeffer (which list several other scriptural errors on Bonhoeffer’s part).

     Since his death, Bonhoeffer has become one of the most popular and widely studied figures in modern history, with numerous historical and ongoing speeches, lectures, and seminars given on his life and person, as well as extensive academic and theological studies dedicated to his works and writings. There has been at least one church named after him in London, with several memorials built in his honour, including a sculpture at the St. Petri’s church in Hamburg, Germany [1979], a well-sculpted French Richemont limestone likeness of him added to the ten modern martyrs above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey in London [1998], and a monument erected in Wroclaw, Poland [1999].

     Although there are also many statues of Christ, Peter, Paul, and the other apostles throughout the world, the mere fact that there are so many remains curious to me. Christians have never been popular because Christ’s teachings are inherently unpopular in this world – the world even put Christ, as well as many of His followers, to death as a testimony to this fact. If God says the world will never change its antagonistic view of Christians, is there nothing strange about the fact that many of them, both the living and the dead, seem to be so popular today, even in your local community?

     I don’t know who or what Bonhoeffer represented. I can only say what the bible says in 2 Timothy 3:12: ‘Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.’ Christians suffering persecution for speaking and living the truth demonstrates their unpopularity – something that doesn’t seem to be a very common thing in what the modern West commonly describes as Christian nations (although it can certainly be faked if enough people pretended to persecute you). I’d also argue that most people in modern history were and are a people who value popularity far more than the truth, including most self-described Christians. And while I’m not suggesting that Bonhoeffer was a narcissist, I know that narcissists desire superiority to people above all else; which obviously includes popularity.

     For this reason, I’ve often wondered if some of the anti-Nazi sentiments among the popular ecumenical movement of Bonhoeffer’s day were driven by actors or state actors (foreign or domestic) playing the ‘voice of the people’ or the ‘voice of Christians’ on the world stage while covertly seeking to replace the Nazi control apparatus with that of their own. Do you think this is possible? Because if they were successful, they could potentially make it appear to the outside world like an organic regime change had taken place – and that their own control apparatus, however oppressive it became, was obtained solely through a popular anti-Nazi consensus on the part of an oppressed and persecuted people as opposed to narcissistic actors.

     For those who are unfamiliar with the term, ecumenical means ‘representing a number of different Christian Churches,’ or ‘promoting or relating to unity among the world's Christian Churches’ as per Google’s English dictionary [2025]. While a Christian should want unity with bible-based evangelical Christians, churches, and ministries – even where they may not share all the same nonessential doctrines – they should also want to reject, as a false unity, ecumenism or unity in any form with non-evangelical versions of Christianity, those having a different doctrine of salvation, and those with a basis of doctrinal authority other than the bible.

     This means that a Christian who believes and follows scriptural teachings should not have anything to do with Catholic teachings, for example, since they go against essential doctrines, such as having an extrabiblical doctrinal authority (seven additional books besides the bible); and to not partner or unify with such teachers in spiritual or business enterprises. The bible says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.’ As per a 2015 article published by the National Catholic Reporter [NCR – ncronline.org]:

‘In 1942, Clements notes, Bonhoeffer returned to Rome, and it was evidence "of a most remarkable feature of his life while a resister: a growing engagement with Roman Catholic life and thought, more serious and profound than ever before in his career."’

The same article states that: ‘Bonhoeffer later said he thought more than once about becoming Catholic, but he remained true to his Lutheran heritage.’

     According to a 2024 article on the ebsco.com website:

‘In 1910, the World Missionary Conference was held in Edinburgh, Scotland. The gathering

was attended primarily by representatives of Anglican and Protestant churches based in the United Kingdom and the United States and is widely cited as the birthplace of the ecumenical movement. In general terms, ecumenism sought to unify the increasingly diverse and divergent branches of Christianity to expand the faith’s influence and global reach.’

     As cited verbatim from a 2015 article on the website astudyofdenominations.com:

‘The founding members of ecumenism include many Wesleyan churches, primarily Methodists, along with Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), historic Calvinist churches (United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church, Reformed churches), many Anabaptist groups, Pietists, some Quaker groups, and The Salvation Army represent Protestant groups also allied with the ecumenical movement.

     While the Roman Catholic Church was leery of the movement from 1919 through 1949, the church reversed itself, and beginning in 1961 fully participated in ecumenism. Eastern Orthodoxy and many of the first millennium splinter groups (Church of the East, Syrian Orthodox Church, Coptic church) have also participated in the movement.

     Many groups aligned with the Evangelical movement (Baptists, some Holiness groups, and many Pentecostal groups) are suspicious of the liberal Protestant-based ecumenical movement and have little to do with the World Council of Churches and its attendant ecumenical dialogues. Such churches, however, practice their own brand of ecumenism among themselves, as discussed within Evangelicalism.’

     It is said that in response to the Nazi-era’s heretical and racist German Christian movement seeking to align Nazi racial ideology with church doctrine, approximately 3,000 pastors set up the Confessing Church movement as an institutional resistance. Around this time, one ecumenical movement that at least four members of the Confessing Church movement participated in was the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship Through the Churches, which appointed Bonhoeffer as their youth secretary in 1931. Established in 1914, this organization would later become the World Council of Churches in 1948. Today, the organization has churches, denominations, and fellowships in more than 120 countries, over 350 member churches, and ‘is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is Christian unity’ according to the WCC’s website oikoumene.org as of 2025.

     Another article on the WCC website from 2020, which describes Bonhoeffer’s position on ecumenicalism, states that:

‘The ecumenical movement and the Confessing Church, he said, needed one another. In this paper, he forged an understanding of ecumenism as churches and Christians in the oikoumene engaging in a common witness to the truth of Christ, in which their interdependence is crucial, summed up in one glorious sentence: “It [the ecumenical movement] is not an ideal that has been set up but a commandment and a promise – it is not high-minded implementation of one's own goals that is required but obedience.”’

     The word oikoumene literally translates to ‘the inhabited [earth].’ Otherwise, ecumenism or ecumenicalism aims to have a more inclusive Church as opposed to the true, exclusive Christianity which it ironically claims to represent. Where Christ promised His followers who lived a godly life a narrow walk through life marked by persecution, loneliness, and alienation from most people [including the ones they ostensibly represent or fight for] the ecumenical movement involves a broad number of churches, denominations, and participants. This is not just a play on words – in Australia alone, 43% of people identify as Christians as per the 2021 census according to a 2022 media release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. Does that sound like a lonely number of people to you?

     Today, we are to understand that the role of activists, whistleblowers, and Christians in Nazi Germany was largely one of benevolence and virtue and revulsion towards an oppressive, murderous, and racist regime. But could there have been other machinations going on that we just don’t know about? Could there have been a secret agenda among the ecumenical movement during this time in history to replace the Nazi control apparatus with a narcissistic ‘Christian’ one? And could this better explain their popularity given the fact that superiority, not godliness, is the primary goal of narcissists?

     Let me preface the multitude of additional questions I have written herein with the obvious assertion that this book is largely a book of questions, not definitive answers. Furthermore, I started writing this book on the nineteenth of April, 2025. That means that if any of the dates, definitions, opinions, citations, quotations, articles, websites, webpages, and circumstances mentioned herein have changed, been revised, removed, or updated, it is through no fault of mine. At the same time, though I did my best to compile the true and correct information with respect to all of the topics mentioned, I apologize in advance if there are any historical or other inaccuracies on my part. With that in mind, let me also state for the record that if a simple person like me can discern the difference between speculation and fact, surely any smart persons, academics, or intellectuals looking over this book, its contents, and implications can do likewise. This book is about exploring all possible answers to life’s questions. Not just the ones that a popular consensus would have us explore.

    

     Today is the nineteenth of April, 2025. As of today, Google’s English dictionary, which is provided by Oxford Languages, defines narcissism as: ‘excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance,’ ‘selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type,’ and ‘self-centredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.’ But couldn’t the definition simply be: ‘the belief that one is superior to another – which must be maintained by the belief adherent treating others as inferior to them while denying such a motive lest their duplicity be exposed to the world and their perceived superiority diminished.’? Is this not the truest definition of narcissism? Is it unkind? Is it inaccurate?

     Narcissism is actually a form of satanism. Why do I say that? Because it’s Satan who convinces man that he’s a god. And what do you think gods desire? Could it be admiration? Could it be fame? Could it be followers? Could it be to oppress their children, family, spouses, friends, and strangers while pretending to care about them to retain them as a means of narcissistic supply or godhood reinforcement? Could it be a position of perceived righteousness coupled with authority such as that of a pastor in your local church from which to do likewise?

     It was Satan who tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden [Genesis 3:1-5] by deceiving her into believing that she could ‘be like God’ if she just ate the forbidden fruit. And Eve, in turn, ate the fruit. Not so much because she couldn’t recognize a serpent when she saw one, but because the serpent simply knew that man could be tempted with the prospect of godhood. Satan even tempted Jesus. In Matthew 4:8-10 we read: ‘Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” Satan is called the ‘tempter’ [1 Thessalonians 3:5] the ‘deceiver’ [Revelation 12:9] and the ‘father of lies’ [John 8:44] because he is the source and origin of all lies and deceit. And since he’s been practicing lies and deceit for about 6,000 years now, do you think it’s safe to say that he knows what he’s doing in his dealings with man?

     As to the one deceived, it is a self-evident truth that duplicity, hypocrisy, and greed are the key attributes of a narcissistic ‘god.’ The Pharisees, who were the religious leaders in Jesus’s day, were duplicitous in their interactions with Jesus in that their criticisms and ultimate murder of Him were motivated not by a concern for their spiritual laws being broken as they continually affirmed, but by a fear of their popularity being diminished. They were hypocritical in that their religion was based not on a sincere love of God or a love for other people, but on a prideful heart. And they were greedy in that they had a lust for power and a love of money.

     Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:7-9: ‘Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” Jesus also said in Matthew 6:5: ‘“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.”’

     Therefore, what a narcissist shows and what they say rarely reflect their internal desire for superiority to you. In this manner, they usually have a good reason for the bad things they do to you to cover up their true reason. Therefore, this covering up is called disinformation, because if their desire for superiority was revealed or exposed to the world, their superiority would obviously be diminished – which obviously means you’ll likely never know the true reason why they do bad things to you, will you? Therefore, bullying and disinformation often go hand in hand – because apart from desiring a good [popular] reputation in what many people describe as ‘Christian nations,’ having good reasons for doing bad things will also confuse the object of one’s narcissistic supply and potentially retain them as a means of achieving it on a permanent or ongoing basis. For this reason, a single narcissist can not only cause an immense amount of hurt and confusion, but a confusion as to where the hurt and confusion is coming from – which only compounds the hurt and confusion experienced by their victims. And if this is what just one narcissist can accomplish, can you imagine what you could do with two?

     At this point, I wish to pose another question: do you think the world might look radically different than it does today if the precise definition of narcissism was changed to reflect the practitioners’ stubborn, singular, and genuine belief that they are superior to you and that they must treat you as inferior in order to maintain this belief – in addition to hiding this motive lest its exposure result in the loss of their sense of superiority? Think about it. It might only cause a radical shift of thinking in the minds of their victims who often grow up believing that they are lost without their parents’ or loved ones’ narcissistic abuse and are made to feel ashamed of themselves for going no-contact with them. It might only lead to a massive worldwide upsurge in healing and promote psychological restoration without benefit of overpriced therapy and psychiatric drugs, would it not?

     It might even cause more people to look out for one another and for churches everywhere to start narcissistic abuse ministries in which victims are supported while they wade through that psychological swamp stage, as I call it, of anxiety, fear, doubt, shame, guilt, and confusion that place upon abandoning narcissistic loved ones and can take up to a year to subside before the victims stop believing that their abusers’ version of love and kindness was the true version, despite their many enablers who so often had no idea that such abuse was taking place. I’d also add that some Christians support the idea of having safe spaces in society – regardless of anyone wanting to conflate the term with some leftist ideology – for both people (of all ages) fleeing abuse and for those who are in desperate need of healing from narcissistic abuse. Especially the kind of places that are open door, don’t require phone appointments, have long-term availability, and are ones in which victims won’t be subjected to intrusive and unnecessary personal questions, scrutiny, delays, and ID checks.

     All things considered, has the world since Adam ever existed without a control apparatus in place at any one time that used popularity, superiority, or godhood as its chief incentive, organizing principle, or motivation for bullying and disinformation? Is it possible that much of the world today is being controlled from the ground up primarily through man’s temptation to godhood? Has modern man been offered a new kind of fruit that gives him or her the ultimate sense of superiority to others but is being kept hidden from the world lest the duplicity of mass numbers of people be exposed to the world and their collective sense of superiority or ‘godhood’ diminished? Are people being rewarded with such fruit for bullying and disinforming in mass numbers? And could pervasive narcissism in the West today largely be the communal aftereffects of a modern-day appetite generated by ordinary everyday citizens having access to much more forbidden fruit than you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OBSERVATIONS

 

 

 

WHY do so many Australians call themselves Christians? Why do so many people in the West call themselves Christians? Why do so many people describe Australia as a Christian nation? Why do so many people claim to love God but have no real love for other people whom God created? Moreover, do you think if you asked all the people in your local community in Australia if they’re Christians that most of them would say no? Conversely, do you think if you counted all the ones who said yes all throughout this country that you might come up with a higher number than the 43% quoted by the ABS or any other statistics website?

     1 John 2:3-4 says: ‘Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him” and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in Him.’ And what are His commandments? The answer is in Matthew 22:37-40: ‘Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”’ In 1 John 4:20-21 we read: ‘If someone says “I love God” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.’

     I don’t want to come across as elitist or to make Christians out to be something they’re not. Christians are far from perfect. King David was a true Christian and yet he committed adultery, murder, and conspiracy to murder. But true Christians are distinct in that, when they sin, they either feel an internal conviction over their sin or, if it becomes blatantly egregious and ongoing, God may correct them in some form – as He did David – since He is the Father of true Christians. True Christians thus feel shame over and usually repent of their sins, have a frequent desire to do good to others without wanting anything in return, and are typically marked by a steadily increasing hatred of sin in themselves since sin is no longer a lifestyle but a temptation.

     True Christians therefore usually desire to please God and therefore usually suffer persecution. Which brings us to 1 Corinthians 4:13: ‘Being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.’ Is that how you would describe the average self-described Christian in the West today? The offscouring of all things or the popular fixture in your local community?

     Consider 1 John 2:15-16 which says: ‘Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.’ And in Matthew 6:19-21 we read: ‘Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.’ Do you think the average Christian is seeking rewards in heaven or nice things on earth?

     Many Christians also like to film and photograph their charitable deeds and then upload them to social media – including those who work for charitable organizations. Are so many doing so because they want to be charitable or because so many secretly want to be admired for their charitable deeds while disinforming you that the ‘real’ reason for it is to promote altruism or to publicize their charity in any given area for those who might have need of it? And could some of them simply be using a charitable occupation to conceal another ill motive or an activity that will culminate in their narcissistic supply? The bible says in Matthew 6:1-4: ‘Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.’

     Have you also noticed any Christians condemning or ‘harmlessly ridiculing’ people outside the Church for sinful views or behaviours while defending people inside the Church who engage in or entertain the same views or behaviours? Have you noticed any Christians defending or being silent about evil going on within the Church while speaking loudly and liberally about all the evils of the world without? Have you noticed any Christians declaring that when a natural disaster strikes and people get killed or lose their homes it’s because God is judging the practice of homosexuality or some other sin? And if so, have you ever heard such people make such a ‘divine’ connection to any sin happening within the Church? Do they take at all seriously Jesus’s words in Luke 13:1-5 where He states that the victims of tragedies are not uniquely wicked when we’re all sinners?

     Do the same people take at all seriously Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 in which he says: ‘I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside [the Church]? Do you not judge those who are inside [the Church]?’

     At the same time, 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 says: ‘Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?’ The yoke was a wooden beam used to join two animals together of equal strength like oxen, for the purpose of pulling loads or plowing a field with increased pulling power. Obviously, it would be unwise to yoke an ox with a donkey because they are of unequal size, strength, and walking pace, and they’d be pulling apart from each other instead of pulling together. Therefore, a Christian forming intimate relationships such as marriages and business partnerships with unbelievers and false teachers is just as foolish, if not dubious.

     In 1 Peter 3:19-20 it says: ‘By whom He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah while the Ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.’ Eight out of… how many people were in the world at the time of the Great Flood? It also says in Luke 13:23-27: ‘Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying “Lord, Lord, open for us,” and He will answer and say to you, “I do not know you, where you are from,” then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.” But He will say, “I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.”’

     Jesus also said in Matthew 7:13-14: ‘“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”’ Few. Not many. So, how many popular Christians are there in your local community compared to those who are unpopular? Few or many? And what would make a person popular if not a well concealed love for popularity and a lack of interest in the truth?

     It’s no secret that speaking the truth makes one unpopular in this world. But speaking and living the Christian truth typically invites stark division and animosity. So why are so many Christians and apparently truthful people so popular in their local communities? Consider Jesus’s words in Matthew 10:35-39: “‘For I have come to “set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"; and “a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.’”

     Jesus also said in John 15:18-20: ‘“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.”’ We see hatred again in 1 John 3:13-15: ‘Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.’

     Can you count the number of Christians in your local community who don’t speak or live truthfully and therefore never seem to have any genuine enemies? Can you count how many of them are instead popular and well-liked and never seem to be ignored or excluded or have any animosity or ridicule voiced or directed towards them? On that note, do you think one of the best ways to manufacture your credibility as a Christian or even as a truthful person would be to have someone, or a group of people, pretend to persecute you for your apparent ‘Christian’ beliefs or truthful conduct? And could this account for the trust you have in a popular Christian or anyone else in your life?

     Finally, some Christians seem to like to tell other Christians that it’s wrong to not attend a physical church when the Church is the body of Christ or the body of believers in the world. Why don’t more Christians specify that when the bible mentions the Church it is largely (if not wholly) referring to the body of believers and not a physical building? Is it because some Christians don’t understand the bible or because some don’t want to?

     In Matthew 7:15-19 we read: ‘“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”’ And 1 John 3:10-12 says: ‘In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.’

     True Christians are not superheroes who don’t make mistakes or struggle with sin or fall into sinful patterns of behaviour. But at some point, you have to ask yourself why there’s so many unloving, unrighteous, and untruthful Christians in the West with a preoccupation with popularity, wealth, respect, and materialism who are advertising their charitable deeds while saying nothing about the level of narcissistic abuse in this world, judging and ridiculing people outside the Church for certain behaviours while ardently defending or being silent about those inside, marrying and forming business partnerships with unbelievers and false teachers, and insisting that Christians attend physical buildings. Is it because mass numbers of people get swept up in mistakes, bad habits, or behaviours like David? Is it because mass numbers of people change over time? Or could it be that there are mass numbers of people in this world who never were what we thought they were to begin with?

 

     According to the webpage britannica.com/science/narcissism, narcissism, first defined as a mental illness in 1898 by British essayist and physician Havelock Ellis, is a condition of having an ‘inflated self-image,’ an ‘addiction to fantasy,’ an ‘unusual coolness and composure shaken only when the narcissistic confidence is threatened,’ and ‘a tendency to take others for granted or to exploit them.’ But how often do people speculate as to what this fantasy might be? Could this fantasy be related to cooperation epidemics of actors? Could it be being generated by mass numbers of such actors? Could it be being facilitated in a technological capacity?

     In 1921, Swiss psychiatrist and psychologist Carl Jung introduced the terms introvert and extravert [which would later become extrovert] to describe people based on their personalities. But aren’t the traits of extroverts more consistent with the traits of narcissists? Why would any Christian feel refreshed and recharged by being around other people when most people live for the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life and don’t understand a Christian’s aversion to these things coupled with their internal desire for personal holiness? And doesn’t having such a desire largely alienate one from society anyway?

     Could one of the reasons that extroverts by and large not enjoy being alone be because they don’t have an audience? Could it be because there’s nobody around to admire them? Could it be because there’s nobody around to oppress and control for narcissistic supply? Didn’t Jesus promise His true followers that if they lived a godly life that such a life would be marked by persecution and exclusion? Since when does persecution and exclusion make one bubblier and more outgoing and more naturally drawn to other people? And if ‘introverts’ become drained around other people, couldn’t this be due to the abundance of narcissism hiding behind all the fake-nice social minutiae and beneath the veneer of politeness in contemporary society that separates people from the truth about how many of them really feel about each other? Couldn’t ‘introversion’ also be due to ongoing narcissistic persecution; being continually oppressed by narcissists for ‘good’ reasons in the workplace, for example?

     Why don’t more Australian schools teach classes on narcissism? Why isn’t it one of our country’s core academic subjects? Instead of giving so-called sexual education lessons to students which are essentially softcore pornography, why aren’t teachers educating students on how to recognize narcissists with a curriculum involving effective word-and-tone combinations designed to control and manipulate other people – such as by loved ones saying in a very concerned tone of voice that ‘you’re being very mysterious today.’? Why isn’t this specific word-and-tone combination being taught as an effective means for a narcissist to extract information from someone who trusts them while disguising such a motive?

     Why isn’t it being taught that one of the best ways for a narcissist to make someone feel foolish or imbalanced for asking them if they’re someone who can be trusted is to declare that they’ve asked them a strange question in a particularly concerned tone of voice? Why isn’t it being taught that this word-and-tone combination is also an effective way for a narcissist to evade questions regarding their personal integrity?

     Why isn’t it being taught that one of the best ways for a narcissistic loved one to control you is to act afraid, not because they’re genuinely afraid, but because there’s a chance that acting afraid might make you afraid ‘with them’ and thus better steer you ‘both’ towards a solution of their choosing? Why isn’t it being taught that the apparently mutual fear shared by a narcissist and their victim acts as the emotional pretext to an outcome they want to maintain control over? Why isn’t it being taught that a common way for a narcissist to try making you to feel afraid is to tell you in an anxious or concerned tone of voice that ‘you don’t want to [insert worst case scenario here.]’?

     Why isn’t it being taught that one of the best ways for a cold, calculating narcissist to pretend to be a dull, clueless, and inconsequential individual not worth scrutinizing is by coupling an excited tone of voice with a boring personal anecdote and/or by describing such an anecdote as a ‘wild story you need to hear’?

     Why isn’t it being taught that one of the best ways to engineer your trust in a narcissist is by having one of them bully or act suspicious of you while another one pretends to defend you and/or later warns you about this other individual? Why isn’t it being taught that this is an effective way to infiltrate the life of someone for informational purposes and narcissistic supply?

     Why isn’t it being taught that narcissists will sometimes pretend to not understand the ideas or the thinking of their family, spouses, children, friends, colleagues, and strangers so that they can hijack or steal such ideas or thinking for themselves? Why isn’t it being taught that they often ‘correct’ people over what they secretly view as interesting or clever ideas, traits, or abilities which they perceive as threatening to their sense of superiority?

     As it pertains to bullying in schools, why do some parents like to tell their children that a student of the opposite sex who is bullying or harassing them ‘probably just likes’ them? Could it be to normalize narcissistic abuse in interpersonal relationships? Could it also be to protect narcissistic practitioners from further scrutiny?

     Why do some people attest that when they’re in a relationship with someone they experience ongoing feelings of love while others talk about falling out of love? And is it possible that there’s far more narcissists in the world than you think as evidenced by the fact that the use of the term ‘honeymoon phase’ in contemporary society and couples therapy has grown in popularity? And isn’t couples therapy a highly lucrative career? And if it is, could its growth be at least partly attributable to more pervasive narcissism in the West than contemporary thought dictates?

     Why do some employers claim that people love talking about themselves when only narcissists love talking about themselves? Why do some employers insist that prospective employees sit in a circle and take turns introducing themselves and talking about themselves? Why do so many people claim that they don’t enjoy this procedure when they clearly do enjoy this procedure?

     Most narcissists tend to form groups. Not because they love one another, but because they want superiority more. And often at the expense of those who are outside these groups [bullying]. In addition to this, it bears repeating that they usually have a good reason [disinformation] for the bad things they do to you to cover up their true reason: a desire for superiority to you. This is why one cannot form a successful relationship with a narcissist. Because for as long as you’re in a relationship with them, you’ll be disinforming yourself as to who they really are – and thus you’ll be the one finding good reasons for the bad things they do, not just to you but to other people as well. And if the narcissist’s disinformation doesn’t involve blaming you for their bullying, it will often involve blaming someone or something else for it. In this manner, you’ll be hurt and confused by a narcissist’s bullying but even more hurt and confused by their disinformation – and yet even more hurt and confused when multiple narcissists are involved in the bullying since this will enhance the disinformation aspect considerably.

     A good example is a superior in a hospitality environment who will, in some form, benefit narcissistically from not having a certain subordinate working for them anymore. In an attempt to cause the subordinate to quit their job, while at the same time preserving their own reputation as a fair and honest superior [popularity], the superior will make a habit of waiting until the busiest time of the day or night to make aggressive and burdensome demands of this one subordinate for ‘good’ reasons. And although the subordinate may begin to suspect that certain things the superior wants, says, how they say them, and at what time they choose to say them are more than just a coincidence, the superior not only denies the wrongdoing or blames someone or something else for it, but they usually have at least one other individual in the workplace who, in the interest of aiding the superior to obtain their own narcissistic supply, will deflect, deny, or downplay any bullying on the part of the superior and thus increase the strength of or compound the disinforming effect on the victim (which some call gaslighting).

     This may involve questioning the subordinate’s memory, perception, or mental faculties in a concerned tone of voice, giving high praise to the superior or a somewhat sorrowful rendition of their unpleasant life or circumstances, or even showing an expressive outrage towards the subordinate for daring to even question the superior’s integrity. And since we’ve all made the mistake of defending people with little to no scruples, it can be impossible to discern who has your best interests at heart and who doesn’t. But this makes the second narcissist another disinformation agent nonetheless – and whose contribution to the disinformation campaign may be even more instrumental to the subordinate’s quitting their job than anything else. Perhaps more relevantly, the subordinate may never know the true reason behind the good reason for their being bullied. Otherwise, if such a psychological operation could be carried out with just two narcissists, can you imagine what you could do with three?

 

     When you befriend a narcissist, they typically want to make you feel admired, important, or exalted around them in order to establish trust (which some call love-bombing). This may involve laughing the loudest at your jokes, giving you high fives for trivial accomplishments, giving you high praise for simply doing the right thing, speaking highly of you when they’re on the phone and you’re within earshot, and anything else that could be construed as admiration. But if you don’t in turn make them feel admired, important, or exalted, or if you don’t do this willingly and consistently, they will figure out a way to extract it from you to assert their superiority to you – which is how they truly felt towards you from the very beginning. It’s worth adding that true Christians, though far from perfect, usually make you feel sober and edified when you’re around them – they don’t want to make you feel admired, important, or exalted around them at all, and they usually don’t want the same treatment from you because they exalt Jesus Christ.

     Furthermore, if you ever suspect that a friend or a loved one is simply using you for narcissistic supply, a common answer to the question of any wrongdoing, offence, or crime on their part is: ‘What?’ and/or ‘why would I do a thing like that?’ And this – similar to describing someone’s questions as strange – is usually spoken with such apparent depth of concern that it makes the questioner feel ridiculous or [preferably] imbalanced for even asking the question. As such, this answer helps the narcissist evade questions altogether. Because when most questioners feel imbalanced, they don’t feel confident asking questions, such as: is the world being controlled by hundreds of millions of narcissists disinforming in tandem? For this reason, the first piece of advice I’d give to anyone who receives such an answer is to simply state that you didn’t ask them why they’d do such a thing, but if they did it. Because a decent person, particularly someone who loves you, would usually just say no if the specified wrongdoing, offence, or crime wasn’t true. Wouldn’t they?

     The second piece of advice I’d give is that it might be worth studying to find out if there are other specific word-and-tone combinations that can also achieve multiple objectives for a narcissist or those objectives that could have a direct influence upon or feed into their primary objective. Which you should hopefully know by now. In addition to this, until you decide that the entire lives of most narcissists are simply well-trained façades concealing internal machines that are calculated purely towards superiority to you and finally go no contact them – which may take many years of you going in and out of relationships with them due to alternating guilt and anger and an immense confusion as to who they really are inside – your interactions with them will be purely to benefit them narcissistically and will only continue to cause you hurt and confusion.

     As to ending a relationship with a narcissist, this can be difficult to do, especially when two other narcissists in their circle – whom you don’t know are narcissists – seem to understand just how much time and money this person has invested in you or how many problems of yours they’ve solved singlehandedly. Equally difficult is leaving someone who may have not only engineered your reliance on them for money, assistance, and resources in all its forms by making you feel systematically afraid of living in this world without their help, but has called you out numerous times throughout your life, including in front of other people, for either taking advantage of them or for being ungrateful for their helping you out of so many apparently fearful life situations – which they may have even helped engineer in secret while acting outwardly afraid of to steer you towards a solution that benefited them narcissistically. Otherwise, if you could retain someone for narcissistic supply in this manner over a long period of time with just three narcissists doing the bullying and disinforming, can you imagine what you could do with four?

     As to a common question you’ll hear from a narcissist – and quite possibly the most common – this is not a question that is commonly plain, open, direct, or clear, but one that is asked from behind a well-trained façade of fear or concern. At the risk of being repetitious, the question, though seldom verbatim, is: ‘Why aren’t you afraid?’ If a desire for superiority engenders a narcissistic control apparatus, and manipulation through sexual or intimate relationships is one effective means of control thereby, then fear is another. But please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that evildoing is in any way justified through a professed fear of consequences. I’m also not saying that it’s unforgivable or inhuman to succumb to the temptation to fear when we’re all tempted to be afraid of something and are all imperfect human beings.

     What I do mean to say is that the people whom narcissists want to control who do not succumb to a desire for superiority or yield through sexual or intimate relationships are often made to feel afraid. So be wary of any alleged Christian who, with a kind tone of voice, very subtlely comes across as wanting to instil fear in you since God tells us that there is literally no reason for fear (except control) [Proverbs 29:25, 2 Timothy 1:7, Philippians 4:6-7, Matthew 10:28, 1 John 4:18]. Again, we all get tempted to fear, but narcissists exploit this human weakness as often as they feel the need to oppress and control other people for narcissistic supply. The frequency of which you should hopefully know by now.

     It’s also important to understand that when God commands Christians to love other people it doesn’t mean to feel a certain way for them – or to even talk to them if you don’t want to. It simply means having good will towards others; whereas narcissistic fake Christians always want something in return for their ‘good will’ – such as being talked to. I’d also argue that some narcissists will even push a false narrative that those who don’t talk to them, or even talk much at all, are suffering from a mental illness that they’re apparently very concerned about. If you’re a Christian, loving other people also doesn’t mean to disregard God’s first commandment to love Him supremely, so be equally wary of anyone who makes you feel guilty for not doing something for them ‘out of love’ if that something is against God, for example. Narcissistic fake Christians will often use the ‘love is the golden rule’ line when it’s convenient but will conveniently leave out the fact that loving each other is the second commandment and not the first.

     Can you count the number of people in your family, neighborhood, social circle, or those in your local church who come across as afraid of certain thoughts, opinions, or perceptions on your part? Can you count how many people in your day-to-day life who tell you to be afraid without plain, open, direct, or clear language? Do they ask you why you aren’t afraid without asking you? Do they make you feel alienated, strange, suspicious, ridiculous, or imbalanced for not being afraid of a certain thought, opinion, or perception that you hold? And do you think that a narcissist, who inherently trades in lies and deception, would have any reason to try to covertly discourage, dissuade, or intimidate someone – without plain, open, direct, or clear language – who naturally asks a lot of questions about the world around them, including whether people have bad motives hiding behind all the ‘real’ ones that they often like to share?

     And do you think the children of narcissists would be best controlled if narcissists lived close to one another? Do you think that the abused children would best learn helplessness or learn it more effectively if they grew up with multiple neighbours telling them without words that there’s nothing wrong with their parents’ behaviour – be it emotional, physical, or sexual abuse – or who act fearful, suspicious, or strangely out of touch regarding any narcissistic abuse on the parents’ part when in fact they might benefit from children growing up believing that goodness, hope, and justice are fool’s errands? And do you think this abuse enabling would be best accomplished if it was performed without plain, open, direct, or clear language but with friendly suggestions of mental illness on the victim’s part, strange looks of fear or suspicion, or harsh accusations of wrongdoing towards them? And do you think all of which would constitute a conspiracy?

     Do you know anyone in your local community who talks or acts as if your behaviour or presence is suspicious or that you’re hiding something? And why is that? Is it because you are suspicious or hiding something or because your presence makes them uncomfortable because they’re hiding something? Is it also possible that one of the reasons they may talk or act like you are suspicious is to simply reinforce their own sense of superiority to you? How many apparently suspicious people are in your neighbourhood right now? How many of them are religious, middle-class, charitable, or are known for their charitable deeds in the neighbourhood? And do you think there’s anything strange or suspicious about them?

     One of the best ways to recognize a narcissist is to listen to how they talk about their apparent loved ones – friends, family, or relatives. And not during times of stress, conflict, or frustration, but when they are seemingly in a good mood. Are they somewhat dismissive of them? Do they suggest that they might have acceptable problems or tolerable mental health issues or that they themselves love people on the spectrum? Do they compliment and degrade them in the same sentence? Do they use a kind voice to paint them in a negative light? Are they outwardly abusive or do they employ a more subtle means of getting you to think that these others might hold thoughts, opinions, or perceptions that are generated by a lack of medication, faulty thinking, or bad influences, apparent or otherwise?

     One of the most influential and deceptive statements from a narcissist is:

‘Oh, I love [insert name here]. She’s just so gentle and down-to-Earth. She’s the kind of person that you want to have around you when you’re feeling down because she always has such a kind heart and a bright, uplifting energy. I should know! She made me a cake when my husband left me! She’s the best. It’s just that when she’s off medication she can be a bit loopy.’

     What this statement does is: it assures you that the narcissist harbours no ill feelings towards the specified person as evidenced by the length of its complimentary tone in comparison to its short, derogatory end, it dissuades you from thinking that they might be using or oppressing them to reinforce their sense of superiority to them, and it very subtlely suggests that anything this person says or believes – including that which could be detrimental to the narcissist’s popularity and/or perceived superiority if it were to be believed – comes from a place of unconventionality, erratic thinking, emotional impropriety, or a chemical imbalance. Therefore, do you think it’s worth studying to find out if there are other sentences and word-and-tone combinations that could also convince you of someone’s ‘good will’ towards others? And if disinformation is occurring nearly as often – or perhaps even more often – than bullying itself in the world, while causing a degree of hurt and confusion that can take a lifetime to heal from, isn’t it in our best interests to discover the best ways to disinform other people?

     Finally, perhaps the most important thing to understand about a narcissist is that they are very much like a windsock; someone who blows with the prevailing wind. Whatever thoughts, opinions, and perceptions are the most popular ones to have, you can be sure that those are the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions that they have. And have always had. Even if you thought you knew better. For this reason, they often begin sentences with ‘I’m probably going to cop a lot of flak for this but [insert apparently controversial thought here]’ or ‘I know this is an unpopular opinion but [insert apparently unpopular opinion here]’ or ‘This is probably a crazy way to see things but [insert apparently crazy perception here].’ In addition to this, they will also falsely claim that hate is being levelled against them for apparently holding or expressing such ‘unpopular’ thoughts, opinions, or perceptions – which likely originated from a single person who wasn’t interested in popularity but the truth. And since narcissists desire superiority above all else, those truths which they cannot destroy they tend to want control over. All things considered, this makes a narcissist an excellent actor. And they will do anything to stay on the stage.

 

 

SUGGESTIONS

 

 

 

IF there were 100 doors that led to 100 different suggestions as to who controls this world and how, but all the popular people in your local community were telling you that only 99 of the doors led to reasonable suggestions while the 100^th door was explored only by the mentally ill, how would a mentally well person evaluate the situation? If I said that unicorns were controlling everything from behind the curtains of life, do you think I’d run into as much opposition as I would if I suggested that the controllers were in fact mass numbers of cooperation epidemics of narcissistic actors in your local community with an unprecedented technological aptitude and latitude for controlling and oppressing other people?

     Google’s English dictionary defines humbug as: ‘deceptive or false talk or behaviour,’ ‘a hypocrite,’ to ‘deceive; trick,’ and to ‘act like a fraud.’ [2025]. Naturally, I didn’t include the British definition of a boiled, flavoured sweet. For those who didn’t see Barnum's Big Top, a 1992 PBS documentary directed by Rocky Collins for The American Experience, circus showman P.T Barnum enjoyed putting a variety of curiosities and attractions on display for his customers.

     Barnum’s longest-running attraction was said to be Zip the Pinhead, an African American named William Henry Johnson who had been born with a small, conical-shaped head – whom Barnum claimed was a member of a previously undiscovered African tribe and promoted him as such; in addition to clothing him with a fur-covered ape suit. Although there are positive stories and quotes attributed to Johnson, I can’t say whether Johnson actually enjoyed being an attraction since the information surrounding people who were or are known for generating large sums of money for their managers or owners is typically laden with obfuscations, mysteries, and contradictions. Otherwise, Barnum was known as the Prince of Humbugs by virtue of his partiality to entertaining hoaxes. A quote often attributed to him is: ‘The public appears disposed to be amused even when they are conscious of being deceived.’ One such hoax was said to be a way to usher lingering spectators out of his museum. A sign reading This Way To The Egress was posted, which indicated a passageway that was followed by customers. Believing that it led to another attraction or exhibit, the customers soon found themselves outside and having to pay a re-entry fee.

     As per Barnum’s Big Top, a large portion of circus profits generated by the smaller travelling shows before 1900 was said to have come from grift or cheating, as well as that obtained from pickpockets who were permitted to target the customers. Shills were also employed to stand in line with the regular patrons waiting to get into the circus and push to increase the excitement, and lithographic posters were set up weeks before the circus came to town, advertising hyped and exaggerated attractions of the coming show in order to slowly but steadily raise the anticipation of the locals.

     While I certainly don’t wish to disrespect the memory of social psychologist Stanley Milgram, it would be interesting to know if the Milgram experiment, which examined how many people would obey authority figures, even to the point of inflicting harm on others, constituted one of the most widely advertised subject matter in internet history. But whether Milgram’s findings were valid or not, one thing I’ve never seen advertised is what the bible says in Proverbs 28:21 which is: ‘To show partiality is not good, because for a piece of bread a man will transgress.’ What the latter asserts is that, for even a trivial reward, someone will act wickedly without benefit of obedience to any authority figures whatsoever.

     How many Christians have you ever heard preach Proverbs 28:21 just once in any local church in Australia or anywhere else in the West? How many psychologists have conducted social experiments to demonstrate the lengths that ordinary everyday people will go to for even a trivial reward and then advertise the findings thereof to the world? Because to my knowledge the potentially earth-shattering idea that a man will completely and utterly abandon his or her own integrity and even hurt other people simply to gain popularity ironically doesn’t seem to be as popular today as attributing wicked acts to blind obedience to authority figures. Good thing that’s not by design.

     In the meantime, do you think there might be other possible contributors to the Left vs Right, Woke vs Pilled, Men vs Women, People vs State sociopolitical advertising we now call reality? Because it sure seems like a lot of people are more apt to go down rabbit holes than they are to explore the idea of a simple locust bed of ordinary everyday citizens using mass bullying and mass disinformation to control the flow of information.

     It may be that indulging this conspiracy theory could land you in a psyche ward. But if it did, you may then have to float the idea that it may in fact be the mental health community, for one, who are dictating what’s dangerous and what’s not dangerous in this world as opposed to the hyped and ever-advertised omnium gatherum of anthropogenic climatoecological singularities and hawkish interventionism and identity politics and dystopian rainbow capitalism and radical leftist co-opting and reactionary corporate cronyism and elitist nepotism and manospheric neologisms and all the other clever words that don’t really answer any of the more significant life questions. Like this one: how often are people subject to a mental health intervention for blaming the world's problems on everything but their apolitical next-door neighbour?

     As to some of the popular advertising today, as a simple person, and one who hasn’t studied much about climate change or environmental sustainability, I can’t really speak to any facts, figures, or arguments for or against any position thereof. What I can do is tell you to be wary any person who begins a serious scientific debate, discussion, or lecture with: ‘There is a growing consensus that [insert scientific subject here],’ and to be equally wary of anyone who tries to make you feel imbalanced or immoral for not being swayed by a popular consensus. The mere fact that a lot of people can seem friendly enough but then become semi hysterical when you’re not being afraid of something apparently feared by a majority should be cause for head scratching, if not scrutiny.

     Another thing I can do is ask questions which, though repeated here and there, seem to take a backseat precisely when we are presented with facts, figures, and arguments. For example, it’s probably not unheard of for a lot of people today to ask why every year, or ten years, there is something new for us to be concerned about, if not terrified of. But what isn’t being asked much today is whether mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens in their local communities are simply pretending to be terrified of that something – as well as pretending to change their minds about it later.

     We all know that astroturfing is a deceptive practice wherein a public relations or marketing campaign is presented in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the general public, and that it is used to make it seem like genuine public thoughts, opinions, and perceptions support a particular cause, movement, brand, policy, or viewpoint when in fact it’s being manipulated, such as deceptive letters of endorsement or opposition. But what about when it’s your neighbour who seems to be for or against something – such as when that something has a direct influence on local policymaking? For the record, I don’t intend to address any arguments for or against climate change per se. For the most part, I’m simply asking if fake consensuses and consensus-building is both far more pervasive and far more effective than contemporary thought dictates. Otherwise, as per a 2003 lecture at Caltech titled Aliens Cause Global Warming, the late doctor, author, and filmmaker, Michael Crichton, had this to say:

‘Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’

     This quote, along with several other interesting questions with respect to global warming can be found at stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf. As per another interesting quote from Crichton on the same webpage:

‘In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second-hand smoke as a Group-A Carcinogen.

     This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that “Second-hand smoke is the nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death.” The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

     In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun,” and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.”’

Crichton also adds that:

‘A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second-hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.’

According to a 1998 article put out by cato.org titled The Second-Hand Smoke Charade:

‘Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had “cherry picked” its data and had grossly manipulated “scientific procedure and scientific norms” in order to rationalize the agency’s own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency’s authority for disseminating its “de facto regulatory scheme” that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.

     As a result of the EPA report, many bans on smoking in public places have been introduced. One would think that any such ban would be based solidly on scientific studies of ETS exposure in public places. In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA’s analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.’ [Environmental Tobacco Smoke].

     In addition to this, a 2013 article put out by Forbes.com titled Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer states that:

‘A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement. The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers. The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance." Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes "there's no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It's either significant or it's not," and the reported hazard ratio was not.’

     Is it plausible that an army of actors were hired to fraudulently conflate their real-life adverse physiological symptoms, illnesses, and diseases with exposure to second-hand smoke? Is it possible that a fake consensus against smoking in and near most public places and venues was built simply because a ‘good’ reason was needed for it? Is it possible that the true reason for it is because spying is far more pervasive and far more common among ordinary everyday citizens than contemporary thought dictates? Could it be that cigarette light impairs the visibility of various light-sensitive image capturing devices while smoke inhibits the functionality of electronic eavesdropping components and various other audiovisual equipment? Could it be that biometric function creep, exogenous CCTV monitoring, invasive commercial and industrial headhunting, economic espionage, trade secret acquisitions, unlawful corporate surveillance, prohibited work cover insurance fraud investigations, illegal contact tracing, undercover bullying, covert harassment, and intimate partner stalking on the part of cooperation epidemics of narcissistic actors are ordinary everyday occurrences but are being covered up with mass disinformation?

     Two groups that have been possibly over-advertised in the last 10 years are feminist women and toxic men. Although I am not denying that there are many feminist women and toxic men in the world who can be bullies to people of the opposite sex, it would seem the world would have you believe that there is a dangerous polarization taking place between such men and women; threatening to crack open the very ground beneath your feet unless you patch things up between the two. But is it possible that many people in the West are simply pretending to hate the opposite sex? Is it also possible that many other people are simply pretending to be concerned about an alleged hatred of the opposite sex? And wouldn’t mass numbers of people acting hateful towards the opposite sex while other mass numbers act concerned about such an alleged hatred create the strongest illusion of a mass polarization taking place between men and women?

     Wouldn’t the illusion of a polarization between men and women distract people from narcissism in general? Wouldn’t it cause more people to be less suspicious of narcissists and more suspicious of each other? Wouldn’t it cause a lot of people to label narcissistic women as mere angry feminists or to label narcissistic men as mere toxic incels or chauvinists from the manosphere? And haven’t we seen enough dislabelling in the world whereby the real culprits are invariably obscured behind derogatory names, strawman arguments, and sociopolitical branding? And have you asked any supposed feminist women or toxic men if they’re just actors or disinformation agents acting intentionally ridiculous, inflammatory, defamatory, derogatory, sexist, or hateful in order for others to fraudulently – and innocently – conflate their bad actions and attitudes with the groups or labels they allegedly use, belong, or subscribe to? And wouldn’t doing so be one of the best ways to misrepresent or disinform on a specific group of people?

     You will likewise observe a pattern today whereby a suspicious number of Karens are getting caught on camera getting into various heated arguments and confrontations with men, the general public, and members of law enforcement. But what you won’t find in abundance are people asking if any of the women in these videos are just pretending to be vile, contentious, or combative. Wouldn’t the collective actions of women engaging in simulated confrontations make for another effective distraction from narcissists? Wouldn’t it help perpetuate the narrative that entitled and wealthy women are sometimes randomly vile, contentious, and combative as opposed to mere participants in a narcissism-related fantasy? Wouldn’t the term Karen also become one of the greatest dislabels in the world and one of the best ways to obscure the real culprits – alongside feminist – if it were hyped on a massive scale?

     Consider the effectiveness of hype. Do you remember when #BoycottTarget was popularized from 2015 onwards when Target announced a transgender inclusive policy for its bathrooms and changerooms as well as launching a #TakePride clothing range catering to LGBTQ identifying persons? At one point, it was alleged that Target was selling ‘tuck-friendly’ swimsuits to kids – which caused more than a little social media outrage despite not being true, according to a fact-checking 2023 article from the Associated Press. Couldn’t this potentially mean that mass numbers of people in the West if not the world are simply interested in hyping issues to shape thoughts, opinions, and perceptions that result in divisions, distractions, or policymaking?

     Can you imagine what you could do if you filmed yourself supposedly getting attacked by a group of people who hold an opposing or antagonistic social or political view? Can you imagine the support you could whip up that could lead to policymaking in your favour, as well as popularity, if both you and your ‘attackers’ were just actors involved in a well-played simulation? Can you imagine the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions you could shape if you used such a ‘confrontation’ as a sociopolitical platform from which to speak out about and fraudulently conflate your ‘attackers’ with the belief systems they supposedly hold? Or have such activities simply never taken place in the world?

     What about a leftist just pretending to be aggressive, naïve, or clueless about matters of history and about life in general? Do you think that mass numbers of supposed leftists in the world could just be actors incentivized to participate in various forms of street theatre that cause divisions, distractions, and eventuate in policymaking? Do you think that others are simply used to cast a certain demographic of people in a negative light or to cast the ones who speak out about them in a positive light? I don’t fault people for not wanting to get involved in the sociopolitical sphere, but for those who believe that people are more inclined to be driven by a sociopolitical ideology than by popularity or monetary rewards, have you ever asked any leftists – or rightists – if they’re just pretending to hold social, political, or ideological beliefs? Or have such actors never existed in the world?

     Let’s look at Antifa for a moment because we’ve all been shown the lengths that Antifa will go to ostensibly in the name of a political ideology. Is it possible that some of these mask-wearing individuals are just actors with specific roles to play on the world stage? I seem to recall Antifa going from being something of an obscure left-wing organization to an apparently all-pervasive threat to the freedom-loving people of the West post 2016. As per a 2017 article on the progressive.org website:

‘Antifa is an abbreviation for anti-fascist or anti-fascism. It’s is a movement that goes back a hundred years, but when we talk about antifa today, we are talking about modern militant anti-fascism which predominantly grew out of movements in, especially, Great Britain and Germany in the 1970s and 1980s of leftist immigrants and punks and all sorts of people who were targeted by a neo-Nazi backlash, a xenophobic wave that spread over these countries and others. It is essentially a pan-socialist radical politics of collective self-defense against the far right.’

     Since 2016, this movement has been pointed at, ridiculed, and scrutinized around the clock by various online pundits, commentators, newspeople, comedians, and activists. Their antics have occupied swathes of airtime, with its members facing staunch opposition from officials, authorities, right-wing vigilantes, and armed militia groups. According to a 2020 news article from the BBC: ‘the National Guard - the US reserve military force for domestic emergencies - had been deployed in 15 states to help police forces deal with the unrest.’ [Caused by Antifa]. According to a 2020 Fox Business news article: ‘Little is known about who funds antifa activists, or how the groups get their resources. Antifa is not a single organization, and therefore, financial details, if any exist, are murky.’

     You might now be saying that Antifa is more of a movement than an organization and that their financial details being murky is nothing new, staggering, or even vaguely suspicious and you may be right. But it still begs the question, who exactly are these people who have caused all this apparent disturbance in the world? Since white supremacists were posing as Antifa online while calling for violence according to a 2020 CNN article, how many of these would-be or literal terrorists have been unmasked, as it were, to determine just how many of them are a true self-defense against the far right as opposed to just opportunists, hirelings, or actors?

     As to popular feminist movements, while I do believe that there is an obscene amount of sexism and sexual harassment and sexual exploitation of women (and children) in the West that we don’t know about, I also find value in scrutinizing popular movements to see whether they could qualify as hype that divides, distracts, or results in policymaking. This is not to say that anyone who participates in a popular movement has a hidden agenda, or that any ensuing policy or policymaking that cites or references such a movement is fraudulent. But is such a question not worth asking? I also recognize the fact that if you keep on hyping the fact that women are being sexually harassed and exploited by men in the workplace nonstop, it has the potential to deflect from the scrutiny of people as a whole, especially as it pertains to the lengths that arguably most people will go to for the sake of superiority, never mind any other rewards that appeal to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

     But as we’ve already established, most narcissists will never let you know that their superiority to you is their number one desire in life because, if the world knows this, their perceived superiority will obviously be diminished. How then can one say with any certainty that superiority is not the most desired thing in the West, if not the world [since it’s rarely disclosed]? And if it is the most desired thing, how can one say with any certainty that the driving force behind most popular movements, hashtags, groups, or voices on the world stage is one of virtue and not a well-concealed desire to establish or maintain some kind of overt or covert narcissistic control apparatus in the world, local or otherwise?

     How can one say that most of the men who kill their wives and children before killing themselves after they lose their jobs do so out of despair as opposed to simply wishing to preserve their perceived superiority to those who could potentially generate more wealth or income than themselves? And wouldn’t the latter position require regular disinformation if it happened to be a common motive? Wouldn’t it require regular downplaying and denying and laughing out loud if such motives were far more common in our supposed Christian nations than you might think? Wouldn’t such motives behind such actions need regular covering up if it turned out that superiority was in fact the number one thing that [secretly] unites most men and women in our society? And wouldn’t the mass prevalence of such secret motives benefit from popular dislabels like ‘Karen’ and ‘incel’ to steer scrutiny away from narcissists? Or are most of the popular trends, terms, and terminologies all around you just arbitrary sociopolitical minutiae and random gender-specific labels?

     Furthermore, if superiority is in fact the number one desire in the West, couldn’t this mean that there are far more people than you think who are prostituting themselves in exchange for something that results in their perceived superiority, like a job promotion? And if this is in fact happening in mass numbers today, are we to understand that there’s no such thing as a man or a woman who makes a living from brokering sexual transactions between men and women in the workplace for the sake of mutual superiority?

     At the same time, if superiority is the ultimate goal of a narcissist, and there are far more narcissists in the West than contemporary thought dictates, and such narcissists are in fact dictating contemporary thought in the West through fake consensuses, and prostitution is the most common means of gaining perceived superiority in the West, wouldn’t that make prostitution the ultimate activity needing to be covered up with the ultimate disinformation campaign on the part of a popular consensus for as long as it’s seen as taboo in ‘Christian’ nations? This is not to say that prostitution is the same as bullying, but wouldn’t the mass prevalence of prostitution require mass disinformation as well? Wouldn’t its exposure result in the diminishing of the perceived superiority of mass numbers of people if their means of attaining perceived superiority in a ‘Christian’ nation was revealed to the public?

     I don’t particularly care how women (or men) choose to live their lives but wouldn’t one of the best ways to disinform on mass prostitution be on the street level? Wouldn’t the disinformation be best accomplished by having the most popular people in their local communities keep the prostitution narrative mostly revolving around brothels, parlours, agencies, online shows, phone services, and streets while downplaying the idea of mass populations of attractive, well-dressed, and well-spoken women of the middle class selling their bodies in secret too simply because they love money, popularity, or having multiple sexual partners?

     Couldn’t mass numbers of ordinary everyday women (and men) be engaging in prostitution while using spurious prostitution claims, myths, facts, and anecdotes, as well as gender-specific dislabelling, sociopolitical hype, feminist rhetoric, pithy expressions, misandry, man-hating, anti-sexist sentiments, fake outrage over sexual exploitation and sex-for-rent arrangements, Christian façades, women’s charities, and anti-prostitution advocacy as a means of covering up what might be a far more common means of exchange than contemporary thought dictates? Otherwise, who do you think is dictating the contemporary thought surrounding prostitution in the West if not narcissists?

     I don’t bring up prostitution to pick on women (or men) who engage in prostitution. I’m also not saying that prostitutes should be treated as inferior people, or that a true Christian has never and will never engage in prostitution. For the most part, I bring it up to suggest that if mass prostitution is just part and parcel of a narcissistic 21^st Century West but is being routinely denied, downplayed, or covered up with mass disinformation by narcissists working in tandem, maybe mass disinformation is also being used to cover up various other secret and clandestine activities taking place among mass numbers of narcissists in the West right now.

     On a related note, it would seem that for many people mass prostitution is a thing confined to the past with the mass Babylonians and the mass Hittites and the mass Phoenicians and the mass Greeks and the mass Romans and the mass prostitutes of the Middle Ages and the Victorian Era, and that it simply doesn’t exist on such a massive scale anymore in our ‘Christian nations’ because we have such mass populations of Christians; something that does more to stoke one’s curiosity than deter it since, again, true Christians are relatively few in this world. But since we live in a society where there is pervasive hypocrisy, pervasive narcissism, rising infidelity rates, rising STD rates, rising needs for more luxurious lifestyles, and the internet… do you think it’s possible that the world’s oldest profession might in fact be its most common?

     Again, consider the effectiveness of hype. Today, we are to understand that male landlords who offer sex-for-rent arrangements are ‘vile’ and ‘nasty’ and ‘degenerate’ human beings engaging in sexual exploitation as per the constant news descriptions. And while I do believe that sex-for-rent arrangements are immoral, is there nothing strange about the hype that surrounds it? If a people were ever trying to distance themselves as much as possible from the unpopularity-causing profession of prostitution, I suppose one way would be to scold and smear husbands on a massive scale for pimping out their wives and girlfriends while hyping the idea that most every woman involved in this activity is trafficked or at least not a willing participant. Another way would be to hype sex workers as being mostly associated with brothels, parlours, agencies, online shows, phone services, and streets. And yet another way would be to create as much moral outrage as humanly possible around sex-for-rent arrangements.

     The advertising today seems to say: ‘Most women involved in sex-for-rent arrangements are vulnerable victims of sexual exploitation who are being forced into these situations because no one will rescue them.’ So, my question then becomes: how many people are attempting to rescue these women? Are the people who continue to describe male sex-for-rent landlords as vile, nasty, and degenerate human beings doing anything for these vulnerable victims that they ostensibly care so much for? Are they posting their own houses online as safe spaces for these victims? Are they fundraising for the victims’ accommodation status or starting charities or going door-to-door asking for donations to get these women off the streets immediately and into safe housing where they won’t be sexually exploited?

     Here’s another question: have the people in the world who have stated that they’ve been sexually exploited by spycops and undercover agents who infiltrated their political movements received nearly as much scrutiny or coverage from the Mainstream Media or anyone else? Have these victims been hyped or advertised to the same extent or degree as sex-for-rent victims? Have these victims been compensated for being lied to on a [sometimes] long-term basis by people who pretended to love them? Have they been offered any kind of housing or support or comfort or advertising from the Christian communities of the West? Who weeps for these women (and presumably men)? And if it does become popular to do so, will it be to steer the anti-spycop narrative in a specific direction or towards specific goals or towards specific actors like all bad men or all bad women or all bad leftists or all bad rightists or all bad people with specific beliefs or ideologies as opposed to just narcissists who did it for sport and to help control the flow of information? Will it be to give specific activists, whistleblowers, or Christians credit for dealing with these problems so they can be hyped as more people we can trust?

     Unless the webpage has disappeared (as webpages sometimes do), as per a 2010 news article found here upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/18/Two-charged-with-sex-for-rent-extortion/72321282182590/: ‘FAIRFAX, Va., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- Two women face charges after allegedly trying to extort money from a landlord by blackmailing him in a sex-for-rent scheme, Fairfax County, Va., police said.’

     If you’re going to speak out for women because it hurts you seeing women being abused and sexually exploited, then surely you can be just as hurt when all women experience abuse and sexual exploitation. But if you’re going to perpetuate the narrative that only the most sexually deviant males are offering sex-for-rent arrangements and that there’s no such thing as a woman who does the same thing willingly and eagerly or that any woman who agrees to such an arrangement does so against her will or imply that they need rescuing, then surely you can advertise some rescuing solutions as often as you advertise your moral outrage.

     As to all these news articles we read online about husbands pimping out their own wives and girlfriends, of which some are described as sex trafficking, how often do the couples involved in this activity take responsibility for it simultaneously? Conversely, how often is one gender or the other blamed for it instead of both of them at the same time? How often is it blamed on the toxic man or the feminist woman? Or are there simply fewer cases of both partners driven by a mutual desire for fornication, money, or an avenue that might result in their shared sense of superiority [like a job promotion]? I’m not saying that women are never forced into prostitution by their husbands or boyfriends. But it would seem that a lot of couples are doing this willingly and eagerly, and that when the money dries up or things turn sour or one person falls for someone outside of the relationship, suddenly one gender or the other was responsible for spousal pimping instead of both of them at the same time.

     Are mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens controlling the flow of information through mass bullying and mass disinformation? Are mass numbers of people using dislabelling, fake consensuses, and sociopolitical hype to shape thoughts, opinions, and perceptions in the West while pretending to hold thoughts, opinions, and perceptions themselves to effect social trends, narratives, divisions, distractions, and policymaking? And are mass numbers of people attempting to distract us from mass cruelty on the part of narcissists in general? Because if the answer is a huge, resounding, and definitive no, then you still have to agree: it does seem to be working. Doesn’t it?

 

     One of the best pieces of advice for new Christians is to understand just how much this world really understands about sexual temptation. A lot of people may act naïve and out of touch, but don’t be deceived. Everyone understands its power to control. Proverbs 5:3-6 says: ‘For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death, her steps lay hold of hell. Lest you ponder her path of life—her ways are unstable; you do not know them.’

     According to the [2025] Wikipedia page on honey trapping:

‘Honey trapping is a practice involving the use of romantic or sexual relationships for interpersonal, political (including state espionage), or monetary purpose. The honey pot or trap involves making contact with an individual who has information or resources required by a group or individual; the trapper will then seek to entice the target into a false relationship (which may or may not include actual physical involvement) in which they can glean information or influence over the target.’

     One notable honey trap in the bible with considerable influence over her target was Delilah, a woman who was bribed by the Philistines to learn the secret of Samson’s great strength. And Samson, the womanizer, was not only smitten with Delilah but eventually caved to her ongoing pressure instead of removing himself from her. Ultimately, this led to his death.

     Also cited verbatim from the same Wikipedia page is:

‘During the Cold War, female agents called "Mozhno girls" or "Mozhnos" were used by the KGB of the USSR to spy on foreign officials by seducing them. The name Mozhno comes from the Russian word “mozhno” (Russian: можно), meaning "it is permitted", as these agents were allowed to breach regulations restricting Russian contact with foreigners.

     In 2009, the British MI5 distributed a 14-page document to hundreds of British banks, businesses, and financial institutions, titled "The Threat from Chinese Espionage". It described a wide-ranging Chinese effort to blackmail Western business people over sexual relationships. The document explicitly warns that Chinese intelligence services are trying to cultivate "long-term relationships" and have been known to "exploit vulnerabilities such as sexual relationships ... to pressurise individuals to co-operate with them."’

     But how common are honey trapping operations in general? How many of them are not connected to a specific agency, country, or government? How many examples will you find in Google’s News section of victims being lured into vulnerable situations by honey traps for the purposes of information, debt collection, theft, murder, or extortion – and not on the part of official spies acting in any official capacity whatsoever? And how many honey trapping operations do you think you won’t find in any news article, online or otherwise?

     Given the fact that many people are narcissists, and the fact that narcissists desire to oppress and control other people for the sake of narcissistic supply, and the fact that prostitution may be far more common than you think, is it also possible that mass numbers of narcissistic men and women of all races and religions in the West, both married and single, are part of a covert social network of individuals who are seeking to befriend, honey trap, or establish long-term and intimate relationships with other people, especially Christians, in order to oppress and control them for narcissistic supply? Is it possible that many people even pretend to be Christians who are interested in other Christians when in fact they are simply interested in controlling them through bullying or disinformation to shape their thoughts, opinions, and perceptions? And is it possible that this is happening on a massive scale in the West to shape people’s thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality or the world at large?

     Isn’t manipulation through sexual or intimate relationships a powerful means of control? Wouldn’t one of the best ways to take over the world and control the flow of information be to disinform human beings on the street level through personal relationships? Wouldn’t one of the best ways to influence and control the public’s thinking be by enticing its people into relationships, intimate or otherwise, with narcissists who, though presenting as the perfect spouses or even the perfect Christians, are highly skilled at manipulative thought-opinion-perception shaping? Because if the answer is a huge, resounding, and definitive no, then you still have to agree: there sure are mass numbers of divorced and single people wondering how on earth their ex could have changed so suddenly. Isn’t there?

     And what about the many children of narcissistic parents? Since disinformation is far more influential, effective, and destructive when there are multiple people doing the disinforming, have you considered that another way to take over the world would be for mass numbers of people to have children whose thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality they could shape themselves? Have you considered that if you made your child believe, for example, that abandoning their narcissistic parents was unthinkably evil, that they would grow up having trouble abandoning narcissists in general – such as honey traps they fall in love with – and thus have trouble abandoning lies and manipulation in general? Because if the answer is a huge, resounding, and definitive no, then you still have to agree: there sure are mass numbers of confused and broken people in this world. Aren’t there?

     Another thing that is being routinely advertised to us is that women have more to fear from strangers than the men with whom so many of them curiously end up in intimate relationships with. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that every time someone starts ranting and raving on a train or takes to the street with a knife or an axe or goes on a shooting rampage or commits any act of terror it’s either solely or collectively the result of a mental illness, drug use, an antagonistic worldview, a certain sociopolitical or religious belief, inadequate police initiative, or inadequate policymaking. Some of the more prominent advertising comes in the form of distressing phone footage of such people – captured by those who happened to have been nearby at the time and to have hit the record button during some of the most pivotal moments in history.

     For the record, I’m not saying that all such incidents are staged or fake. What I am saying is that whether they’re staged or not, the curious thing is that if you dare even ask if they could be staged or whether anyone involved was in fact a crisis actor involved in a staged event, you are immediately relegated to the label of conspiracy nut or someone who is disrespectful to any and every potential victim involved or their families, though often not on the part of the victims’ families themselves. One interesting question that might be worth pondering is: what would happen if just one person, who was a friend or a relative of a genuine mass shooting victim or terrorism casualty, not only believed that crisis actors were real and operative, but wasn’t afraid to express this belief openly? What kind of labels (or dislabels) would a popular consensus use to advertise such a person if it wasn’t popular to believe what they believe?

     One thing that hasn’t been advertised much in 2025 is the possibility that some women’s fear of strangers is driven by a fear of revenge or retaliation from a supposed friend, relative, or current or former spouse or their new lover whom they had either threatened, abused, stole from, extorted, honey trapped, or tried to kill. When you consider all the women who are murdered in the West, not counting females on active duty or those killed during violent confrontations while serving in law enforcement or in correctional facilities, most victims seem to be killed by an intimate partner or a close relative – and that’s without taking into account the number of acquaintances who may sometimes be counted as strangers, the strangers who are in fact hired to kill people’s current or former lovers, the fact that strangers can use housefires to conceal evidence of a contract killing, or the possibility that strangers have the ability to organize well-orchestrated road accidents, deaths by misadventure, and workplace fatalities that are excluded from the category of homicide.

     According to a CNN article titled Lovers top contract hit list - Feb. 5, 2004:

‘A study of contract killings in Australia has found most are not ordered by criminals, but by angry spouses and jilted lovers. But professional criminals order the most successful "hits." The Australian Institute of Criminology and South Australia's major crime investigation branch studied 163 attempted and actual killings between 1989 and 2002. "The most common motive or reason for hiring the services of a hit man was in relation to the dissolution of an intimate relationship," Toni Makkai, acting director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, said in a statement received on Wednesday. Makkai said the most common motives ranged from preventing a person from pursing another relationship, revenge for having an affair, eliminating a partner in order to be with a lover or to gain custody of children.

     Other motives were money, silencing a witness, general revenge, drugs and organized crime rivalry. The average payment received by a "hitman" for a contract was $12,700, the lowest $380 and the highest $76,000. The most common weapon used in "hits" was a gun. In fact guns were five times more likely to be used in contract killings than in general murders. "If you want the job done you are going to use the most deadly weapon available," Makkai said. Contract killings in Australia make up only a small percentage of all murders. During the four-year study period "hits" accounted for only two percent of murders. But the number of "hits" is slowly rising with an average now of seven attempted and five completed each year.’

     Another article from 2004 found on theage.com.au states that:

‘Contrary to Hollywood images of drug barons hiring killers to wipe out rivals, the typical Aussie contract murder involves a disaffected spouse paying someone to eliminate a former partner, a new study reveals. And they aren't very good at it. Out of 28 intended victims during 1989-2002, just three ended up dead, the study found. But when it comes to hits associated with organised crime, it's a different story. Out of 15 cases, there were 15 deaths, with just two offenders arrested. The study released today by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) said contract killings made up just two per cent of all homicides over the past 13 years, but they produced immense public fascination and misconceptions.’

     Is there a more nefarious reason for these misconceptions? Could they also be being generated by popular disinformation agents on the street level? Could contract killings also just be part and parcel of a narcissistic 21^st Century West (and among regular families) but are being routinely denied, downplayed, or covered up with mass disinformation by ordinary everyday citizens, such as by their acting shocked at these occurrences or by drawing your attention to another contract killer documentary being advertised to us and away from themselves as potential culprits or accomplices? And do you think a good way to disinform on pervasive murder would be for mass numbers of people to continually attempt to draw you into distracting rabbit-holes of hyped serial killer interviews, gangland figures, and historical murderers every time people started asking questions on a massive scale as to the true murder rate in Australia and the West in general? On that note, have you considered the possibility that popular rabbit-holes become even more popular when more people start asking better life questions than the people around you who seem to spend more time answering them?

     As per a 2013 story titled Murder-for-Hire on the FBI news webpage:

‘Murder-for-hire with an interstate nexus became a federal crime in 1958, but our involvement in these cases goes back at least to the 1930s and the days of the notorious Mafia hit squad Murder, Inc.And—according to Special Agent Janelle Miller, head of our Violent Crimes Unit—they’re more common than you might think, “We do a lot of them,” she said; 140 cases not tied to organized crime are currently pending, many of which involve inmates.’

According to Australia’s ABS, there were 183,131 deaths in Australia in 2023, a 4.1% decline from 2022, over half (55.5%) of all deaths were of people aged 80 years and older, and that 1,290 deaths were attributed to motor vehicle accidents in 2023 (964 males and 326 females) compared to 1,278 deaths from motor vehicle accidents in 2022 (967 males and 311 females).

     Since road accident statistics in Australia historically focuses on the casualty rate, it’s difficult to determine the total number of car accidents there are per year. However, Australia’s [current] National Road Safety Strategy [NRSS – roadsafety.gov.au] has stated that: ‘Around 1,200 people are killed each year on Australia’s roads and about 40,000 are seriously injured.’ Again, this obviously doesn’t include the total number of car accidents that occur without injuries or resulting deaths. But since we have much stricter gun control measures in Australia compared to the US, is there a possibility that there are more narcissists in this country than contemporary thought dictates who are trying to kill each other on the road? And can contract killers be equally skilled at orchestrating fatal road accidents in tandem as they are in the use of firearms? Because if the answer is a huge, resounding, and definitive no, then you still have to agree: a road accident in Australia would sure make for a great way to disguise a murder. Would it not?

     According to a 2024 press release from VPC.org or Washington DC’s Violence Policy Center:

‘Nationwide, 2,410 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents in 2022, at a rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Of the 2,331 homicides where the race of the victim was identified, 1,453 were white, 763 were Black, 66 were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 49 were American Indian or Alaskan Native.’

The same press release also states that:

‘Nearly nine out of 10 victims (87.5 percent) knew their offenders. Of the victims who knew their offenders, 58.1 percent were wives or other intimate acquaintances of their killers. Seven times as many females were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by male strangers.’

     As per the statistical report Homicide in Australia 2023–24 produced by the Australian Institute of Criminology [AIC]:

‘One-third of homicide incidents in Australia in 2023–24 were domestic homicides (34%, n=88; see Table 5). One quarter of incidents were acquaintance homicides (26%, n=69), and 15 percent (n=40) were stranger homicides. The relationship between the primary victim and offender was not stated in 12 percent of incidents (n=32) and the remaining 13 percent of incidents (n=33) were not cleared. Domestic and acquaintance homicides have each comprised around four in 10 homicide incidents each year since 1989–90. Overall, 39 percent (n=3,753) of homicide incidents recorded in Australia between 1989–90 and 2023–24 were domestic homicides (range: 33‒53%) and 36 percent (n=3,424) were acquaintance homicides (range: 26‒44%; see Table A4). Stranger homicide is much less common, at 12 percent (n=1,192) of all homicide incidents (range: 6‒19%).’

     As per a 2025 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] webpage:

‘Females are disproportionately the victims of intimate partner and domestic homicide around the world. A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) report on homicide estimated that globally, while 81% of all homicide victims were male, 82% of intimate partner homicide victims were female and 64% of intimate partner/family-related homicide victims were female in 2017 (UNODC 2019). A UNODC report on femicides estimated that 3 in 5 (60% or 51,100) women and girls who were intentionally killed worldwide in 2023 were killed by an intimate partner or other family member (UNODC and UN Women 2024). For Oceania (which includes Australia), the intimate partner/family-related homicide rate for females was 1.5 victims per 100,000 females in the population. Across global regions, the intimate partner/family-related homicide rate ranged from 0.6 victims per 100,000 females in Europe to 2.9 victims per 100,000 females in Africa (UNODC and UN Women 2024).’

Finally, here are some quick facts from ourwatch.org.au updated in 2025:

·         Two in 5 women (39%) have experienced violence since the age of 15.

·         Men are more commonly the perpetrators of physical violence, sexual harassment and sexual violence.

·         Women are more likely to experience violence from someone they know than by a stranger (35% vs 11%).

·         On average, one woman is killed every 9 days by a current or former partner.

·         In the year 2021/22, 4,620 women aged 15 years and over (average of 13 women/day) were hospitalised due to family and domestic violence.

·         One in 4 women (27%) has experienced violence, emotional abuse, or economic abuse by a cohabitating partner since the age of 15.

·         One in 3 women (31%) has experienced physical violence since the age of 15.

·         One in 5 women (22%) has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15.

·         One in 2 women (53%) has experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. In most incidents of workplace sexual harassment, the harasser was male.

·         Research shows that around one in 4 men in Australia aged 18 to 45 say they have used physical and/or sexual violence against an intimate partner.

·         Men aged 18-30 who identify with rigid stereotypes of masculinity are 17 times more likely to say they have hit a partner. These stereotypes include that men should be tough, aggressive and in control.

     Do you think the world would have more of its truth uncovered if narcissism was blamed for some of its problems instead of all the advertising that distracts us from it? Do you think if you peeled back all the grey layers in this world that you would find mostly complicated, grey reasons for why people do what they do, or is life more black-and-white than numerous narcissists would have you believe? In 1 John 3:12 we read of the first murder in history committed by Abel’s brother, Cain, who killed Abel simply because ‘his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.’ Can the prevalence of murder and violence and intimate partner violence and coercive control (as well as the abuse of children) in the West be largely attributable to mass numbers of people simply having superiority on the brain? Could it be due to people having grown accustomed to obtaining superiority through bullying and disinforming in mass numbers? Because if the answer is a huge, resounding, and definitive no, then you still have to agree: a lot of ordinary everyday citizens sure seem confident that it works. Don’t they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MASS CRUELTY

 

 

 

WHAT is mass cruelty? Mass cruelty is mass bullying and mass disinformation. But overall, mass cruelty is simply cruelty going on en masse, and more so if it’s being covered up with mass bullying and mass disinformation. After all, isn’t the act of covering up mass cruelty just as cruel if those who would help are prevented from doing so due to potentially massive-scale cover-ups?

     The Assyrians were notorious for their cruelty. And they didn’t want it covered up. They rather advertised it because they wanted it feared. As such, instead of killing their prisoners or killing them outright, they would often cut off limbs, gouge out eyes, flay their skin, and remove other bodily parts to instil fear in their enemies. They also invaded and destroyed numerous cities, deported mass populations of conquered peoples, and made examples of anyone who resisted them to assert their narcissistic superiority in the ancient Near East. Therefore, we as the contemporary society are allowed to believe that the Assyrians committed mass cruelty in tandem. Just not ordinary everyday citizens in contemporary society.

     But to be hypothetical for a moment, suppose the Assyrians weren’t as cruel as the historical accounts describe but they wanted their cruelty advertised anyway. Imagine having four narcissistic Assyrians pretending to be non-Assyrian civilians who had escaped Assyrian cruelty and sought refuge in four separate, faraway countries where people were largely either unaware of Assyrian cruelty or perhaps had trouble believing that the Assyrian people could be so cruel en masse. All you’d have to do is have the four alleged escapees recount gory, hyped, and in-depth horror stories of torture and mass executions, and this could not only terrify potential adversaries into staying as far away as possible but preserve a fearsome reputation for the Assyrian people. And if this is what you could do with just four narcissists, can you imagine what you could do with five?

     The Romans had a near-similar reputation for barbarism, if perhaps less advertised than that of the Assyrians. They branded their slaves and subjected them to harsh conditions, including physical abuse, and permitted patria potestas – which meant that the male head of every Roman family had extensive power and control over his children, including the right to kill them. This is to say nothing of the forms of capital punishment for condemned criminals, including ‘Damnatio ad bestias’ or Condemnation to beasts which meant being killed by wild animals, ‘Damnatio ad ludum gladiatorium’ or Condemnation to the gladiatorial games, and death by crucifixion, which was what Jesus was sentenced to by Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, at the behest of the Jewish leaders and Pharisees. Concerning condemnation to the gladiatorial games, this not only provided entertainment to an evidently mass number of cruel Roman citizens (imagine that) but would also serve as a perpetual and solemn reminder of both the power and narcissistic superiority of the Roman state.

     As to Jesus being sentenced to crucifixion, this not only shows just how much hatred the Pharisees had for Jesus and His teachings threatening their perceived superiority, but it also demonstrates the lengths that ordinary everyday people will go to simply to preserve their sense of superiority. This narcissistic hatred of Jesus is further illustrated when, during the Passover, whereby it was custom for the presiding Roman governor to release one prisoner to the public, the Pharisees, along with an angry Jewish mob, pressed and demanded the governor release to them a notorious convict by the name of Barabbas instead of Jesus – with the former responsible for committing murder during a violent insurrection against the Roman state.

     Therefore, we as the contemporary society are allowed to believe that the Romans committed mass cruelty in tandem. Just not ordinary everyday citizens in contemporary society. Otherwise, the Romans would have likely employed numerous narcissists for psychological warfare, including those family heads who supported patria potestas, for exploits ranging from manipulating their enemies to controlling the masses through the trepidation and entertainment that revolved around the gladiatorial games.

     But it was their use of spies and espionage that is perhaps one of the most underreported components of the Roman Empire’s military and political strategy. Among those employed in such a capacity were the Speculatores and the Frumentarii. Where the Speculatores appear to have largely been a body of scouts and reconnaissance agents, the Frumentarii acted as secret police, intelligence-gatherers, and assassins. As to the latter, imagine having just five narcissistic members of the Frumentarii – who were renowned for making false and arbitrary arrests – come to your door and accuse you of being an enemy of the state and thus an enemy of the Emperor. You are a commoner (or a plebian) in ancient Rome, you are innocent, and you are suddenly approached by five men whose organization, often beyond accountability, had the capacity to imprison, torture, and execute people on a whim. Three of the men are tall, muscular, fearsome, and angry. A fourth, the one standing at the front, is the one who greets you and initially comes across as sympathetic and diplomatic while a fifth is making aggressive accusations that you have been conspiring against the Emperor.

     The aggressor pushes you, shouting false accusations at you and doesn’t stop until you are noticeably upset, even pausing to hear your answers, which he then claims are suspicious, and then pushes you even more. He pauses again and continues with the same tactic; not stopping until the satisfied level of emotion on your part is reached – even if this requires threatening your family with torture if you do not answer satisfactorily. At a certain point, the supposed diplomat at the front kindly reassures you that your family will be given leniency if you just admit to the charge or charges against you. You then pour your emotions into this one man, pleading for your life and the lives of your family, because he is presumably the only one who might believe that you are innocent.

     Therefore, the three large men have succeeded in convincing you of the gravity of your situation without saying a word, thus dispensing any potential levity on your part. The pseudo-diplomat has provided false compassion to give agency to your pleas against the charge or charges against you lest you become consumed with suspicion and end up saying nothing; while noting any exasperated and incorrect words you may use in such an emotional state (which he may later use against you). As for the aggressor, he may have not only convinced you that he is the one using your words against you when he’s just playing the role of the aggressive accuser, but may have also succeeded in putting you in the emotional state required for such exasperated and incorrect words to come out. This is obviously another hypothetical situation. But if this is what you could do with just five narcissists, can you imagine what you could do with six?

 

     The mass cruelty of the medieval Inquisition needs no embellishing. Before the first episcopal Inquisition was established in 1184 by Pope Lucius III, Christianity is said to have been legalized by Roman Emperor Constantine in 313 with the Edict of Milan. At the time, Christianity had already spread across the Empire, with various sects, schisms, and religious movements having appeared alongside other doctrines that taught contrary to scripture.

     In 325, Constantine summoned the First Council of Nicaea, which is said to have been the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Their initial purpose, however, was to ‘deal with’ the Arianism controversy that came as a result of its founder, Arius of Alexandria, having popularized the belief, however false, that Christ was merely a created being and not of the same divine nature as God the Father. Having refused to sign a statement reflecting Christ as of equal divinity and nature as God, Arius was subsequently condemned as a heretic and exiled by Constantine. This is despite the fact that Christ, Constantine’s supposed Lord, would have utterly condemned such an action as unloving towards man and certainly unloving towards the God who created him – and thus profoundly disobedient to God’s commandments to love Him supremely and to love one’s neighbour as oneself [Matthew 22:37-40].

     Since narcissists desire superiority above all else, the popular Arius was plausibly seen as a threat to the Council’s own narcissistic control apparatus – and quite possibly an instrument of the devil being that he could potentially divert a great amount of attention away from themselves as respectable [popular] men of God. As such, their disinformation campaign likely involved excessive displays of apparent devotion to Christ and passionate claims that they were simply upholding biblical truths and promoting Christian unity. Otherwise, as cited verbatim from the [2025] Wikipedia page on the Medieval Inquisition:

‘The Edict of Thessalonica issued on 27 February 380 by Emperor Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the state church of the Roman Empire. It condemned other Christian creeds as heresies of "foolish madmen" and approved their punishment. In 438, under Emperor Theodosius II, the Codex Theodosianus (Theodosian Code), a compilation of laws of the Roman Empire, already provided for the confiscation of property and the death penalty for heretics. After the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there followed almost seven centuries in which persecutions for heresy became very rare. Some of the old heresies survived, but in a weakened state, and they tended not to operate openly. No new schisms appeared to emerge during this period.’

     This punishing of heretics should serve as a timeless testimony of comparable heresy on the part of fake Christians, since true Christians are instructed by God to endure hardships, to love their enemies, to pray for those who persecute them, to bless those who persecute them and not to curse them, to repay no one evil for evil, to not avenge themselves but to leave vengeance to God, and to overcome evil with good [2 Timothy 2:3, Mathew 5:43-44, Romans 12:14-21]. As to any supposed allegiance to Jesus Christ on the part of the practitioners of this newly legalized ‘Christianity,’ Jesus said in Luke 6:46: ‘But why do you call Me “Lord, Lord” and not do the things which I say?’

     Furthermore, the world demonstrated once again that most of its people value popularity far more than they value the truth. Is this not made abundantly clear by the fact that, once true Christianity had spread and was rapidly growing in popularity, people had simultaneously created and popularized their own fake Christian sects, schisms, and religious movements – which was likely one of Satan’s initial ways of confusing the gospel and muddying its message into oblivion – while Christianity was concurrently legalized and latched onto and channelled through certain men who claimed to represent Christ when really they were agents of Satan because they desired to hold the monopoly over Christian truths while condemning thought dissenting heretics and approving of their punishment for the sake of superiority? Here’s a definitive answer you can write on the tablet of your heart because it bears repeating, however obvious the assertion: if something influential cannot be destroyed by a narcissistic control apparatus, it must be controlled at all costs, and vice versa. Control or destroy. For what reason? Superiority.

     Also cited verbatim from the same Wikipedia page is the following:

‘Torture

Like the inquisitorial process itself, torture was an ancient Roman legal practice commonly used in secular courts. On May 15, 1252, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad extirpanda, which authorized the limited use of torture by inquisitors. Much of the brutality commonly associated with the Inquisition was actually previously common in secular courts, but prohibited under the Inquisition, including torture methods that resulted in bloodshed, miscarriages, mutilation or death. Also, torture could be performed only once, and for a limited duration.

     In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. According to the governor general of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, recent studies "seem to indicate" that "torture and the death penalty were not applied with the pitiless rigor" often ascribed to the Inquisition. Other methods such as threats and imprisonment seem to have proven more effective.

     Punishment

A council in Tours in 1164, presided over by Pope Alexander III, ordered the confiscation of a heretic's goods. Of 5,400 people interrogated in Toulouse between 1245 and 1246, 184 received penitential yellow crosses (used to mark repentant Cathars), 23 were imprisoned for life, and none were sent to the stake.

     The most extreme penalty available in antiheretical proceedings was reserved for relapsed or stubborn heretics. The unrepentant and apostates could be "relaxed" to secular authority, however, opening the convicted to the possibility of various corporal punishments, up to and including being burned at the stake. Execution was neither performed by the Church, nor was it a sentence available to the officials involved in the inquisition, who, as clerics, were forbidden to kill. The accused also faced the possibility that his or her property might be confiscated. In some cases, accusers may have been motivated by a desire to take the property of the accused, though this is a difficult assertion to prove in the majority of areas where the inquisition was active, as the inquisition had several layers of oversight built into its framework in a specific attempt to limit prosecutorial misconduct.

     The inquisitors generally preferred not to hand over heretics to the secular arm for execution if they could persuade the heretic to repent: Ecclesia non novit sanguinem (The Church knows not Blood). For example, of the 900 guilty verdicts levied against 636 individuals by the Dominican friar and inquisitor Bernard Gui, no more than 45 resulted in execution.’

     2 Corinthians 4:3-4 states: ‘But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.’ The god of this age is Satan. God Himself is in complete control of the world down to the miniscule details, but Satan is its immediate master in that he holds sway over the minds of all those who do not belong to Jesus Christ; which is most people – regardless of any brand of ‘Christianity’ they subscribe to.

     1 John 5:18-19 says: ‘We know that whoever is born of God does not sin [is enslaved to and thus practices sin habitually]; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.’ Very simply, this means that there is no such thing as a Christian nation. There are no true Christian nations on earth, despite the many Christians who seem to want to continually describe their nations as such and/or push for such a description because, again, the minds of most people belong to Satan, not to Christ and His unpopular teachings. Furthermore, torture and corporal punishment for heresy still remains unsupported by scripture and completely condemned by Christ, whether it’s performed by secular authorities or approved by the ‘ecclesiastic’ ones.

     One might make the argument that it was in fact the general public who, during this time in history, desired even harsher punishments for heretics (imagine that) and largely felt that the clergy were being too lenient towards them – and that some of them even lynched heretics in public; ostensibly due to not wanting heretical views gaining in popularity. But as we’ve hopefully established by now, most people prefer popularity to the truth, regardless of any benevolent or egalitarian belief system they outwardly hold or identify with. So, if ‘heretical views’ is the lynchpin of anyone’s case for public execution by hanging, what pray tell were the precise views that would warrant a rope around the neck? Was it murder? Was it unbiblical torture? Or was it simply disagreeing with popular thinking?

     Another argument for an Inquisition might be that harsh consequences and capital punishment for idolatry and evildoing is supported by scripture. In Deuteronomy 17:2-7 we read: ‘If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.’

     It’s important to understand that Deuteronomy was written within the framework of the Mosaic Law – God’s moral, social, and ceremonial laws given only to the Israelites. The Law specifically refers to the first five books of the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Although Christians are edified by their scriptural context and meaning, we understand that today we are not under law but under grace as stated in Romans 6:14. The Ten Commandments of Old Testament Law, for example, were given by God through Moses to the Israelites under the Old Covenant. Today, we are living under the New Covenant through Jesus Christ and thus have only two commandments: love God supremely and love our neighbour as ourselves [Matthew 22:37-40], which usually includes not stoning or torturing them. We can neither obtain salvation through observing Old Testament laws or customs [Ephesians 2:8-9] nor please God by fulfilling old laws [Romans 13:8-10].

     As far as disciplinary measures in the true Church goes, this was and is to be applied to people within the Church who practise and/or condone sin and heresy, not without. Hence the name Church; the body of Christ. Not the body of the world which is nobody’s business but God’s despite the Inquisitions of the past seeking to make it their business – and for hundreds of years at that! As to the ‘sentences’ for wilful practice of sin and heresy, true Church discipline includes correcting, admonishing [warning or reprimanding], rebuking in the presence of all, and expulsion from the Church to promote change and repentance in the heart of the wilful sinner. Hardly torture, except perhaps for narcissists who, in the words of Paul concerning the popularity-seeking Diotrephes in 3 John 9: ‘loves to have the pre-eminence among them.’

     To conclude the subject of discipline on the part of the true Church, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 says: ‘And if anyone does not obey [make a habit of obeying] our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.’ Doesn’t sound overly harsh, does it? To repeat 1 Corinthians 5:9-12: ‘I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of the world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner – not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside [the Church]? Do you not judge those who are inside [the Church]?’

     How many Christians have you come across who judge, condemn, or ridicule people outside the Church? Many or few? How many Christians have you met who stick up for their alleged Christian brothers or sisters when it comes to bad behaviour but condemn or ridicule other people for the same exact behaviour? How many ‘Christians’ do you suppose might even secretly support the idea of a present-day Inquisition for the ‘good’ purpose of rooting out false religions from our ‘Christian nations’ when doing so may simply give agency to their narcissistic delusions of godhood and control over prevailing Christian thoughts, opinions, and perceptions? And how many people in general do you think would even pose as a Christian if it meant seeing an Inquisition return and this level of cruelty being legalized once again for any ‘good’ reason? A mass number, perhaps?

     Imagine having six narcissists pretending to be enemies for the sake of wanting to hold the monopoly over biblical truth in the world. All you’d have to do is have five of the narcissists pretend to hold five apparently separate and radical beliefs, such as an adherence to white supremacism, while each person claims to speak for Jesus Christ; with the sixth narcissist holding an apparently biblical position but coupled with the unbiblical position of wanting to ‘correct’ these others with a ‘Christian’ form of torture. In this manner, the sixth ‘Christian’ could speak out about and condemn these others as heretics and thus whip up support for an Inquisition to ‘root out heresy’ from our ‘Christian nations’ – which the five could pretend to be afraid of, capitulate to, or be ‘corrected’ by. And if Proverbs 28:21 says that a man will transgress for a piece of bread, how many people do you suppose would support the legalization of an Inquisition if the sixth narcissist rewarded them with superiority, popularity, wealth, or anything else that’s more desirable than a piece of bread in a narcissistic world? And if all of this could be accomplished with just six narcissists, can you imagine what you could do with seven?

 

     Have you heard of Galileo Galilei? I suppose asking any demographic of astronomers this question would be like asking any Disney fans if Quasimodo rings any bells. But for those who are even less familiar with Galileo, he was an Italian astronomer, physicist, and engineer who helped contribute to the heliocentric theory – a then unproven model of the Sun being at the center of the Universe and/or the Solar System instead of the Earth, and the Earth orbiting it – for which he was prosecuted by the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

     It’s worth noting that while Nicolaus Copernicus had published his heliocentric theory in 1543, heliocentrism was actually first proposed by Aristarchus around 270 BC, though it was Galileo who made arguably the most significant discoveries supporting heliocentrism around 1610 with the use of his newly improved telescope by observing the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter. But since Isaac Newton is said to have derived the mathematical proof for the heliocentric model using Kepler’s laws in 1687, that means that for nearly 2,000 years people were plausibly berated, humiliated, prosecuted by an Inquisition, and possibly even tortured at the hands of numerous self-described Christians for simply believing that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around.

     Thankfully, the Catholic Church would at least acknowledge their error in condemning Galileo in 1992, though this was more than 350 years after Galileo’s trial in 1633. As to the philosophers of Galileo’s day, some of them refused to even look through his telescope to support his discoveries. According to the [2025] Wikipedia page on the Galileo affair, in a letter to the German astronomer, Johannes Kepler, Galileo had this to say:

‘My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.’

     It’s interesting to note that the Pharisees had also stopped their ears on at least one occasion in the bible, right after Stephen had shined a light on a certain a truth. Although visions are not God’s way of communicating with His people today since we have His written word, the bible, having looked into heaven Stephen declared that he saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God – at which point the Pharisees not only stopped their ears but stoned him to death in Acts 7:55-60.

     Before his trial and condemnation by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633, Galileo had published his initial telescopic observations in his book Sidereus Nuncius (starry messenger) in 1610, promoted Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, and had his position of heliocentrism officially opposed in 1616, with the Inquisition formally declaring heliocentrism to be heretical. In the same year, he is said to have proposed a theory of tides and proposed a theory of comets in 1619. But it was in 1632 that the Inquisition plausibly had their perceived superiority threatened by the appearance of Galileo’s new book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems which, aside from further supporting heliocentrism, would be well received by the public.

     Having reviewed his popular new book, the Inquisition found Galileo vehemently suspect of heresy for holding that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe and that the Earth is not at its centre and moves. According to the Galileo Project, Galileo had also received a formal threat of torture during his trial in 1633 before being sentenced to formal imprisonment [galileo.library.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html]. On the following day, this sentence was commuted to house arrest, and his book, the Dialogue, was officially banned, with any future publication thereof forbidden. But the legend I enjoy hearing about the most is a phrase rumoured to have been spoken by Galileo under his breath during or after his being forced to recant his position on heliocentrism. Although there appears to be no direct evidence of this, Galileo is said to have muttered in rebellion ‘Eppur si muove.’ Or, in Italian, ‘And yet it moves.’

     Do you think it’s possible that the Inquisition of Galileo’s day might have already made Galileo’s discoveries for themselves but benefitted narcissistically from keeping them hidden from the world? Do you think it’s plausible that the good reason for their opposing heliocentrism [heresy] was merely given to conceal this (proposed) true reason? And do you think there might be other things that move in this world – not counting UFOs or aliens – that we don’t yet know about? And if so, do you think that the reason we don’t yet know about them might be because they’re being intentionally hidden from us to narcissistically benefit those who do the hiding?

     And if so, is it not worth asking if we live a world where some information is accepted and other information is funnelled into a bottomless rabbit-hole using hype, advertising, distraction issues, fake consensuses, false stories, dead ends, conflicting information, confusing conclusions, scary suggestions, and fearful expectations with the help or support of a mass locust bed of ordinary everyday citizens, including fake Christians, who not only know that the world hides far more than they profess to believe but help cover it up with mass disinformation?

     One thing I’ve found in the comments sections of various YouTube videos about past and present instances of mass cruelty are remarks that I’ve heard repeated throughout my own life and maybe you have too. They seem to say things like: ‘It’s difficult to comprehend how people can perpetrate such acts of evil on a massive scale.’ They seem to continually express shock, disbelief, and confusion as to the mentality behind mass cruelty. While I don’t fault people for holding or expressing such views, I do wonder if one of the best and most effective ways to disinform on present-day mass cruelty and thereby paint mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens as having nothing cruel to hide would be for such numbers to express continual, ongoing, and passionate claims, both online and in person, that they simply don’t understand how people can commit cruelty en masse. Do you think this is possible?

     Before I conclude this chapter, consider the cruelty of the Nazis. One of the groups in Adolf Hitler’s Germany were the SA or Sturmabteilung [STOORM–UB–TAYE–LOONG] or Storm Division or Storm Troopers, a violent paramilitary organization formed in 1921 and known colloquially as brownshirts because of the colour of their uniforms’ shirts. As per the 2021 article historyhit.com/hitlers-bullyboys-the-role-of-the-sa-in-nazi-germany: ‘According to the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, the SA was “a group composed in large part of ruffians and bullies.”’ Although clearly operating outside the law, their job was to protect Nazi party gatherings, disrupt the meetings of opposing parties, fight opposing parties’ paramilitary units, such as the communist KPD, and intimidate the Romani people, the trade unionists, and of course, the Jews.

     By the early 1930s, the SA’s numbers are thought to have reached at least two million; much greater than that of the German army which, pursuant to Article 160 of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, was to be limited to 100,000 soldiers – though the Treaty was violated by, among other things, Hitler’s reintroduction of conscription in 1935 and announcement of the army’s expansion to more than 500,000 men. In 1933, the Gestapo or Geheime Staatspolizei [GA–HIME–AH–STUHTS–POL–EETS–AYE] or Secret State Police is said to have formed, and Hitler, having purged much of the SA in 1934 in what became known as the Night of the Long Knives, used the remaining SA, together with the SS or Schutzstaffel [SHOOTZ–SHTAF–FEHL] or Protection Squadron, to ramp up their persecution of the Jews considerably.

     In 1938, with the assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by teenager and Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan, the SS and the remaining SA, together with some of the Hitler Youth, are said to have responded with violent demonstrations, including destroying thousands of Jewish stores and businesses, ransacking Jewish homes throughout all of Germany, damaging and destroying numerous Jewish synagogues, assaulting and even killing some Jews, and imprisoning thousands more in concentration camps – where many were beaten, whipped, tortured, and killed.

     But the most important thing to understand, however underreported around the world, is that the principal driving force behind all this murder, death, and cruelty on the part of the Nazis was not the influence of the Führer or of blind obedience to authority figures but the influence of a desire for superiority – wherein those deemed unfit for the Nazi’s narcissistic vision of a racially pure and homogenous Aryan society were persecuted, oppressed, cast out and/or killed. This included Jews, communists, homosexuals, as well as Belarusians, Russians, Serbians, and Aryans with congenital diseases and various disabilities.

     The Nazis therefore had their sense of godhood enhanced and affirmed under the pretense of pushing for a utopian society founded on pseudoscientific and racist doctrines that aimed for ‘racial hygiene.’ In other words, they committed mass bullying [persecuting, oppressing, and killing] for ‘good’ reasons [eugenics program and purity of their race] – also known as mass disinformation – to disguise their true reason: superiority. Ultimately, this mass narcissism on the part of the Nazis is what led to the Holocaust – and the murder of about 6 million Jews according to both the 2025 Britannica webpage britannica.com/event/Holocaust and the 2023 article encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution.

     Therefore, if you can deceive millions of people into believing that they are gods or superior human beings, these millions can easily kill and oppress millions of others independently of a compulsion to follow orders. With that in mind, since this excuse for wrongdoing and criminal behaviour has often been expressed verbally, including on the part of Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg trials, could it in fact be the most persuasive form of disinformation on the part of narcissists? And is it possible that all the Milgram experiment really proved is that there’s more people in this world than contemporary thought dictates who are eager to be cruel to others simply for their own amusement while using disinformation to cover up such a motive? On that note, who do you think is now dictating the contemporary thought as to why most bullies are cruel to others?

     Otherwise, once again, we as the contemporary society are allowed to believe that the Nazis committed mass cruelty in tandem. Just not ordinary everyday citizens in contemporary society. Yet if the oppressing and killing of some 6 million Jews could be accomplished with at least 10 million narcissists, can you imagine what you could do with twice as many or more today? Perhaps the more relevant question is: can you imagine how easy it would be for millions of cooperating narcissistic actors to cover it up with disinformation if they didn’t want their new means of gaining perceived superiority exposed to the world?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJUSTMENT SOCIETY

 

 

 

IF you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. But hasn’t a pattern of human behaviour spanning 6,000 years demonstrated by now that most people prefer popularity to the truth? And do narcissists not desire superiority above all else? Who therefore controls the flow of information if doing so thus shapes society’s most popular thoughts, opinions, and perceptions? Who therefore benefits the most from the prevailing thoughts, opinions, and perceptions in any local community on earth if they result in the popularity of those who hold them? Who therefore truly decides what’s true and what’s not true for most people in a narcissistic 21^st Century West? Because on the off chance that the answer is cooperation epidemics of narcissistic actors working in tandem to create [and benefiting from] fake consensuses, how then can one say with any certainty that most of the prevailing thoughts, opinions, and perceptions in your local community are in fact the truth when historical behavioural patterns suggest otherwise?

     Whenever you’re stuck wondering if something is true or not, perhaps a good place to start would be to ask yourself whether it contradicts 6,000 years of the same behavioural patterns. For example, nowadays there appears to be many popular, well-connected, and extroverted Christians throughout Australia’s local communities (and maybe in those of your country too). This implied reality may therefore provoke three questions: why hasn’t 6,000 years of history ostensibly not yet taught humanity that true Christians will never be popular, well-connected, or extroverted in this world because of the beliefs they hold? Is it possible that there is a more nefarious reason for this implied reality? And could this implied reality simply be mass disinformation? In other words, could mass numbers of narcissistic actors simply be pretending to be Christians when they don’t actually have the spiritual capacity to love the truth more than they love popularity as true Christians do?

     Are mass numbers of people today perpetuating the validity of some information while covering up, denying, or downplaying other information with disinformation in order to control the flow of information? Are mass numbers of people on the street level pushing, supporting, and propagating some information while funnelling other information into a bottomless rabbit-hole using a variety of hype, advertising, distraction issues, fake consensuses, false stories, dead ends, conflicting information, confusing conclusions, scary suggestions, fearful expectations, and other unexplained avenues of thought ostensibly not worth pursuing and examining? Are mass numbers of people ready and waiting to bully and disinform on any sporadic social trendsetting that threatens their collective dictating of and thus benefitting from popular thinking? Are mass numbers of people ready and waiting to hijack any social trends that become unstoppable or undefeatable as they did in the past with the unstoppable trend of Christianity?

     Could mass numbers of people be maintaining their control of the flow of information not just through social media accounts but through real-world thought hyping, real-world trend hijacking, mass distractions, street theatre, theatrical performances, fake grassroots movements, artificial credence, manufactured sentiments, simulated protests, phoney demonstrations, crisis acting, publicity stunts, mock events, staged conversations, fraudulent church sermons, secret languages, code words, veiled threats, covert harassment, organized bullying, honey-trapping, fake relationships, and false friendships? And if so, is it possible that mass numbers are doing this via smart mobs as mentioned in Howard Rheingold’s 2002 book Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution wherein people are ‘able to act in concert even if they don’t know each other’…‘because they carry devices that possess both communication and computing capabilities.’?

     And could all of this be being done by ordinary everyday citizens in exchange for popularity, intimate or sexual relationships, wealth, favours, promotions, information, or anything else that compounds or results in their perceived superiority to the unawakened masses who are largely ignorant of such a massive-scale would-be Adjustment Society wherein people themselves are the news – based not just on the prevailing thoughts, opinions, and perceptions they both shape and claim to hold on any given issue or subject but on how they respond to the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of others whom they feel threaten their control of the flow of information and thus their shared sense of superiority? Incidentally, let me state for the record that any additional references made in this book to the 2011 George Nolfi film The Adjustment Bureau are intentional and are used for explanatory purposes only.

     For now, if such a scenario did exist, wouldn’t this explain why so many people seem to have an immediate or adamant answer for every question you have, sociopolitical or otherwise, with little to no desire to explore the answer further? Wouldn’t this explain why so many people seem to have an immediate or adamant reason to suspect that you’re wrong or offtrack or badly influenced or perhaps mentally imbalanced, whether they say this with their words or with their facial expressions, for holding any given thought, opinion, or perception of reality or of current events, local or otherwise, that they outwardly seem to confidently disagree with? What if their confident disagreeing with you was simply based on their being knowingly in unison with a massive fake consensus against your thought, opinion, or perception and hence their benefitting from being against it narcissistically? Wouldn’t this explain why some of your thoughts, opinions, and perceptions ostensibly rub many people the wrong way?

     Lastly, how would you go about proving that mass numbers of covert information controllers even exist if their secrecy is paramount to their narcissistic supply? Wouldn’t their exposure result in the exposed duplicity of mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens? Wouldn’t such an exposure result in their collective perception of their superiority being diminished if their means of attaining it was revealed to the public? And since superiority is all most narcissists want from life, and that many of them will do absolutely anything to defend it, do you think that your civilized society would remain civilized if it was suspected that mass numbers of people knew better? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. And if you are rewarded for doing so with much more than a piece of bread, how many narcissists may therefore be dictating contemporary thought right now? How many narcissists may therefore be deciding what news is real and what news is fake in the West? Few? Or many?

 

     In 2006, The Economist put out an article titled Who Killed The Newspaper? As per two excerpts from the article:

‘“A GOOD newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself,” mused Arthur Miller in 1961. A decade later, two reporters from the Washington Post wrote a series of articles that brought down President Nixon and the status of print journalism soared. At their best, newspapers hold governments and companies to account. They usually set the news agenda for the rest of the media. But in the rich world newspapers are now an endangered species. The business of selling words to readers and selling readers to advertisers, which has sustained their role in society, is falling apart (see article).’

     ‘The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account—trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper. News-aggregation sites such as Google News draw together sources from around the world. The website of Britain's Guardian now has nearly half as many readers in America as it does at home.

     In addition, a new force of “citizen” journalists and bloggers is itching to hold politicians to account. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings—of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable-TV repairmen asleep on the sofa. Each blogger is capable of bias and slander, but, taken as a group, bloggers offer the searcher after truth boundless material to chew over. Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; but so has much of the press.’

     The late American journalist and UNC professor, Philip Meyer, was the first person to popularize the use and concept of Precision Journalism by applying scientific methods in seeking meaningful patterns in the facts, and authored a book of the same title in 1973. Coined by journalism educator, Everette Dennis, Meyer went on to pioneer precision journalism in that he used computer-assisted social science methods in his reporting – an approach that led to the Detroit Free Press winning the Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the 1967 Detroit riot. On temporary assignment with the newspaper, Meyer used quantitative survey research to reveal that, contrary to popular thinking, college-educated people were just as likely as high school dropouts to have participated in the riot.

     While I don’t want to misrepresent an honoured veteran journalist, I like to think that Philip Meyer, a proponent of pattern seeking, would have commended the reiteration that ‘pattern recognition according to IQ test designers is a key determinant of a person’s potential to think logically, verbally, numerically, and spatially. Compared to all mental abilities, pattern recognition is said to have the highest correlation with the so-called general intelligence factor (Kurzweil, 2012)’ as per Robert C. Barkman PhD’s Psychology Today article: “See The World Through Patterns.” Otherwise, in the updated second edition of his book The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age [2004], Meyer used two graphs based on trend data to show a steady decline of daily newspaper consumption and confidence in the press, respectively, and suggested that this might ultimately see the end of newsprint by 2044.

     As to the Mainstream Media in general, there are probably various factors that contributed to their overall decline in popularity, not least of which the advent of the internet and social media. But consider for a moment the overturning of the fairness doctrine by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] in 1987. Established in 1949, the fairness doctrine required broadcast licensees both to present issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that presented differing viewpoints; giving sufficient airtime to contrasting views and opinions. According to the [2025] webpage reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine, the FCC released a report in 1985 stating that ‘the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.’

     According to the [2025] Wikipedia page on the Fairness doctrine:

‘In an August 2008 telephone poll, released by Rasmussen Reports, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary. 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet websites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71–20%, the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today's media", including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio, but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the fairness doctrine closely. The margin of error was 3%, with a 95% confidence interval.’

     How often do narcissists take responsibility for their own actions? How often do narcissists engage in bullying while using disinformation to cover it up? How often do alcoholics blame the alcohol for their beating up on their partners? How often do corrupt bosses lay the blame for their shady activities on corrupt bosses higher up the ladder than they are? How often do rival companies talk about integrity while contracting people to covertly spy on and steal each other’s trade secrets or business models? How often do call centre employees lie to their customers and blame company policy if they’re ever called out for it? How often do ordinary everyday citizens commit some form of digital theft while working for a trusted software, IT, or cybersecurity company? How often are ordinary everyday people arrested for fraud while fundraising for a charity, or caught siphoning money from a church while acting as one of its staff members? How often have people in your local community told you or other people to be safe or to watch out for any given questionable behaviour on the part of someone else while they themselves engage in similar or worse behaviour?

     How often do men complain about aggressive women while being aggressive themselves? How often do women complain about the sexist or chauvinistic attitudes of men except when they appear in their marriage partners or those in their circles of friends? How often are the Chinese or the FBI or the CIA or corporate espionage participants blamed for all manner of present-day spying when any suburban neighbourhood can form a circle of spies? How often are honey traps associated with bad actors or agencies when any man or woman can seduce someone for money or information or anything else that will culminate in his or her immediate or eventual narcissistic supply?

     How often do Christians confront or call out Christians of some denominations but not others? How often do activists complain about bad behaviour on the part of some ideological or sociopolitical groups but not their own? How often do contemporary citizens insist that you treat other people as your equals while they give excessive flattery or deference to the popular people in their local communities?

     As to the internet and social media masses, including the collective masses of commenters in all their respective comments sections, while I don’t want to ascribe ill motives to millions of people I don’t know, I nevertheless call this group the New Media. I call it the New Media because, despite what any demographic of netizens may affirm regarding the Mainstream Media and fake news and what to watch out for and who or what is influencing your life and personal choices the most in this world, they are the ones who seem to be holding a large share of influence in the West. Don’t they?

     One particularly hyped advertisement of yesteryear that might have contributed to the New Media’s popularity was the Y2K Millenium Bug. Something that crawled its way out of just about every pre-2000 television screen and resulted in an estimated expenditure of $A12 billion dollars and at least $300 billion worldwide in Y2K remediation efforts. One thing they didn’t feel it necessary to teach us in Sunday school was that the best way to terrify someone is not to tell them that something terrifying is about to happen, but to tell them that it could be about to happen since our brains have a way of filling in the blanks with worst case scenarios when we’re on the fence over critical issues – which can be far more unsettling than any natural disaster. The Mainstream Media couldn’t have known this, of course. Although many journalists did seem convinced that the best way to investigate a potential disruption to computer systems, power grids, and critical infrastructure most everywhere on the planet was not to explore the extent of mass hype like they would in the event of crazy people saying they don’t need covid injections to live, but to create one of the biggest could bes in modern history.

     In fact, could could have even been the most popular word to use at the time, after caution, contingency, hope, prepared, and ready – and not just on the part of the Mainstream Media. Ordinary everyday citizens who happened to bump into a news camera crew while out stocking up on food and supplies seemed just as intent on treating the coming Y2K event with as much light-hearted skepticism as something that could rival a natural disaster; in sometimes strikingly equal parts. When you look at old footage of the big could be, it seemed as if there was a growing consensus that the best response to the coming Y2K event was to ponder worst-case scenarios… but affirm they might never happen. To be prepared for the unknown… but not go crazy in the process. To get ready… for something that could just be a lot of hype. Be terrified… but relaxed at the same time. Panic… but do it quietly. Don’t wake up Grandma in the process. After all, why worry about something that could turn out to be nothing?

     Experts and officials themselves seemed equally confident that they weren’t sure if absolutely nothing was going to happen. Though I think some of them did say they’d be there if it did. Meanwhile, various churchgoers said they were praying – and not because there was anything to worry about, of course, but because praying about an event that’s definitely not cause for concern necessitates the production of news articles and footage of said people devoting themselves to prayer in accordance with a defining spirit of mutual ambivalence.

     As to the Mainstream Media’s coverage of the big could be, it goes without saying that if there was ever a more compelling case for fair and even-handed journalism, the could be of 2000 certainly delivered on that premise. Today, the Y2K Bug is doing the rounds again through various mediums, forums, and online platforms and it appears that the Mainstream Media’s official retroactive position thereof is that there was definitely some degree of panic about the Y2K Bug because a lot of ordinary everyday citizens simply didn’t know for sure what was going to happen. I’m beginning to agree. Coming up after the break we’ll also let you know how your mobile phone battery could be giving you a rare form of cancer. Don’t go anywhere.

     But while many people online continue to give the same answers regarding the Y2K hype, some questions that few seem interested in asking are: were there far more men and women involved in far more con operations during this time in history than ever before? And what were some of the cons? Were sketchy Christian salespeople selling counterfeit bulk food items which they claimed were a third of their usual price because God had blessed a wholesaler with a great inheritance? Were fake computer geniuses showing up to people’s doors in pairs and offering discount Y2K-compliance upgrades before deciding to skip town? Were elderly women carrying out any form of confidence grift on the street to pool money into a doomsday cult? Were trusted neighbours hyping the Y2K Bug while simultaneously advertising various must-have Y2K specialty items that didn’t sell at their last garage sale? Here’s one more for good measure: are cons and con games and con artists just part and parcel of a narcissistic 21^st (and 20^th) Century West but are being routinely denied, downplayed, or covered up with mass disinformation on the part of narcissistic cooperation epidemics?

     In any event, aside from a few minor power station glitches in Japan and various other global nonissues, all was relatively quiet on New Year’s Day with perhaps the exception of those who had already suggested that the Y2K saga was an overhyped nothing, if not a worldwide con foisted upon us. Otherwise, when the Y2K dust that apparently few people in the West had intentionally whipped up would finally settle, numerous people all over the world would come to understand that padding a bunker full of food and toilet paper could have been a waste of money. Except for maybe the vast number of companies that somehow came into an unimaginable fortune selling not just food items and toilet paper but bottled water, batteries, flashlights, over-the-counter medicine, and various other supplies conducive to the surviving what could have been the apocalypse.

     But arguably the biggest winner of the Y2K lottery was anyone looking to profit from the Mainstream Media’s apparent unreliability post 2000, at least as it pertained to covering what could be the end of the world. The next two and a half decades were, after all, going to see significant leaps in digital technology, internet speeds, and data storage, as well as the birth of Facebook [2004], YouTube [2005], Twitter [2006], improved smartphones [2007], the end of the world [2012], rising citizen journalism [2015], Brexit [2016], taking the red pill [2016], going down the rabbit-hole [2017], the MeToo Movement [2018], murder hornets [2019], the Black Summer [2019], and a global pandemic with a subsequent rollout of vaccines [2020] – all culminating in online platforms surpassing TV channels for the first time as the most popular sources for news among adult consumers in the UK at 71% [theguardian.com/media/article/2024/sep/10/internet-tv-uk-most-popular-news-source-first-time – 2024], 58% of Americans saying they prefer to get their news from a digital device [pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet – 2024], and one quarter of Australians relying on social media as their main source of news [Digital News Report: Australia – 2024], with Facebook [1], YouTube [2], Instagram [3], WhatsApp [4], and TikTok [5] so ranked as the five most popular social media platforms [backlinko.com/social-media-platforms – 2025], and of course, the 77^th anniversary of Shirley Jackson’s 1948 book The Lottery about the potential dangers of blindly following popular trends [2025].

     If one can say with any amount of definitiveness that the world since Adam has probably never existed without a control apparatus in place at any one time that used popularity, superiority, or godhood as its chief incentive, organizing principle, or motivation for bullying and disinformation, does this mean that, if in fact it does turn out that the New Media users shape more of the prevailing thoughts, opinions, and perceptions in the West than the relatively few Mainstream Media news outlets in the world, that its millions of users and sum total of those in their multiform comments sections could potentially be another effective narcissistic control apparatus? Good thing so many of them seem to have differing opinions.

     But is there something amiss here? Google’s English dictionary [2025] defines zeitgeist as: ‘the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.’ The zeitgeist post 2016 seemed to have been that citizen journalists need to be awake and aware and to take to social media to take a stand against evil and that we are all free to express ourselves and to shape the real news with our own meagre opinions since some of the Mainstream Media’s apparent fake news and could bes supposedly inspired widespread solidarity and camaraderie around basic truths and fallacies alike. But like many people, I’ve wondered if only some information is allowed in the New Media and other information is not. I’ve wondered if cooperation epidemics of narcissistic actors take place on social media as often as they do in real life. I’ve wondered at the level of disinformation today and the use of shills and astroturfers in a wide range of goals and agendas that appeal to a younger demographic and an increasing number of people vastly more interested in popularity than the truth and hence more easily swayed by apparently ‘popular’ thoughts, opinions, and perceptions online. I’ve also wondered why some YouTubers don’t post videos anymore while many others seem to retain a perpetual seat of influence.

     Nowadays, it appears that the thing to do on YouTube is to study our implied reality in depth and to be critical and to speak out and to expose wrongdoing. But nobody seems to be asking if just anyone can do these things. Can just anyone ask questions about the implied reality around us? Can just anyone criticize the Mainstream Media? Can just anyone criticize the government? Can just anyone audit the police? Can just anyone criticize other YouTubers? Can just anyone be an open-air preacher? Can just any domestic violence victim be interviewed? Can just any ex-prostitute answer questions in a public setting regarding their former profession?

     Can just anyone record a public council meeting or confront a council member on the street with a camera? Can just anyone be invited to debate sociopolitical topics in a public forum? Can just any activist seek to create social change online? Can just any whistleblower appear on a podcast? Can just anyone be a citizen journalist seeking to report the truth online? Can just anyone draw attention to the fact that whistleblowers, activists, and Christians are being reproached, persecuted, prosecuted, censored, or killed? On that note, can some alleged activists, whistleblowers, and Christians even fake their own deaths to make it seem like the killing of activists, whistleblowers, and Christians occurs far more frequently and in far worse ways than we think? Can others fake their deaths in order for others to fraudulently – and innocently – attribute their deaths to the actions of specific sociopolitical or religious groups, foment distraction issues, or to help usher in policymaking?

     Some additional questions that might be worth pondering are: can just anyone criticize the New Media? And will the next popular thing to do be to call the New Media fake news or to criticize it as a mere popularity-seeking medium that seeks to dominate and control your thinking so that other people can show up at another pivotal moment in history to make sure that doesn’t happen by taking control of it themselves through repressive regulation and policymaking? Will there be a hidden agenda to control or destroy the New Media by creating a ‘good’ reason to control or destroy it? Will one of those reasons be a growing consensus that many people suddenly care about how informed or disinformed you are while the few decent citizen journalists in the world become skilfully conflated with the popularity-seekers or with fake news producers?

     I think it’s self-evident that decent people have always faced innumerable strawman and ad hominem attacks, backlash, criticism, opposition, oppression, persecution and, above all else, unpopularity for simply being a decent person, telling the truth, and opposing wrongdoing, even in their local communities. Yet strangely, everyone is the decent person nowadays. Can you believe that? Everyone is facing strawman and ad hominem attacks, backlash, criticism, opposition, oppression, and persecution. Everyone is the activist and the whistleblower and the Christian and the underdog and the social outcast and the crusader for free speech and the champion of people’s rights and something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Whether we all sometimes do the wrong thing or not, we can’t all want to do the right thing, can we? Because if we did, the world would look infinitely better than it does today. And the people who made it so wouldn’t be so advertised by this world, would they?

     Is it therefore not worth asking if some activists, whistleblowers, and Christians in the West are facing much greater consequences and censorship than the ones being constantly advertised as facing great consequences and censorship for being decent people and for speaking out about all these apparent threats to democracy and freedom and free speech and whatever else that’s being hyped as something we all need to stand against and speak out about as one big unified family?

     One of the most prominent hypocrites in the bible was Judas Iscariot, a man who was chosen by Jesus to be one of his twelve Apostles and would later betray Him as prophesied [Psalm 41:9]. In the meantime, his disinformative role in the group would be treasurer; overseeing and managing their finances – from which he had a habit of stealing – while complaining about wasteful expenditures [John 12:4-6]. All things considered, don’t hypocrites better operate when there are more people in on the hypocrisy who can thus cover for each other by calling you crazy for questioning their motives and call you even more crazy for questioning mass numbers of motives? Has the internet not become prime real estate for shills and astroturfers?

     As it pertains to the latter, all you’d have to do is pay thousands of narcissists or, in case the world runs out of them, simply reward thousands of ordinary everyday citizens with more than a piece of bread and you’ve got your own personal online army who can sway public opinion in your favour; whether to promote your own brand, business, cause, movement, policy, viewpoint, or simply your own public profile. And if someone would commit an act of wickedness in exchange for a piece of bread, would you really have trouble believing that numerous others wouldn’t offer unsolicited advice or fake opinions, however convincing their claims to the contrary, from behind a computer screen in exchange for something better suited to their tastes in order to shape thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality? As I mentioned earlier, one implied reality being repeatedly advertised in the New Media seems to be that many people can’t understand how people can commit acts of cruelty on a massive scale. Is it therefore not worth asking if this apparent position is disingenuous or is being astroturfed to paint mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens today as having nothing cruel to hide?

     Furthermore, if people have used astroturfing numerous times in the past to attempt to shape thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of any given person, group, business, idea, subject, or issue, is it not possible that there are mass numbers of such people on the street and in your local community covertly carrying out such operations in their normal day to day lives as well to shape society’s thoughts, opinions, and perceptions at large? Is it not possible that mass numbers of people are part of a news simulation that popularizes and depopularizes thoughts, opinions, and perceptions in tandem and at any one time?

     Do you know anyone who talks about some people in your local community as if they were VIPs or the dominant force therein, or who could be described as giving excessive flattery or deference to such people? Do you know anyone whose status and position could be described as of great importance to them? Do you know the extreme lengths that they would go to in order to maintain this status or position? Do you know if they would adopt a false view of someone or something or join in a fake consensus or follow a popular trend just to fit in, even if it was detrimental to a minority? And is it therefore not possible that such people can be radicalized into covert movements that help control the flow of information to shape the real news in the West in exchange for popularity?

     Can people be walking billboards without the billboard? And if you don’t believe so, have you ever asked anyone who regularly advertises their apparent fears about contemporary issues or events if they’re just helping to shape thoughts, opinions, and perceptions around them as part of a wider cooperation to control the flow of information? Have you ever asked anyone who likes to advertise their fear of strangers if they’re just participating in a real-world disinformation campaign to perpetuate the narrative that strangers are the ones to watch out for? Have you ever asked any ranting and raving people on public transport if they’re just pushing the same stranger danger narrative into a wider flow of information while pretending to be affected by drugs or alcohol?

     And if you’ve ever witnessed firsthand any customer service people being provoked, harassed, or abused by random patrons or customers in public settings, have you ever wondered what would happen if you asked any of the parties involved if they’re just participating in a staged event? Have you ever wondered if some of these events could be engineered simply to gauge and market your reaction to them to prospective employers who might benefit from having an unsympathetic employee who is largely unmoved by other people’s suffering, third party duress, or public disturbances? Have you considered the possibility that while you were using the internet to look for a new job, employers were using smart mobs to orchestrate public incidents to look for you? Or would all of these proposed activities contradict 6,000 years of behavioural patterns?

 

     For those who haven’t heard much about spies in relation to corporate or industrial espionage, a simple Google search should provide you with an adequate description as well as plenty of examples. In short, corporate espionage is the theft of proprietary information, trade secrets, or intellectual property from a business, usually with the intent to gain a competitive advantage. Also known as industrial espionage, it differs from political espionage in that it is obviously directed at companies and corporations on the part of other companies and corporations as opposed to international targets or those orchestrated by governments. One of the earliest cases of corporate espionage in the modern era was said to have been in 1712, whereby a Jesuit priest named Francois Xavier d’Entrecolles, having visited Jingdezhen in China to learn their secret porcelain manufacturing methods, wrote letters to his superiors in France revealing as much.

     Although you will find various present-day examples online, spying today, or at least that produced with a Google search, seems mostly limited to actors representing governments or corporations or organizations ostensibly just after information, intellectual property, manufacturing methods, and various trade secrets. What you won’t find in abundance are those cases that relate to regular people being spied on and harassed by ordinary everyday citizens for the purposes of control, oppression, revenge, retaliation, harassment, silencing, popularity, and superiority. Are most cases of contemporary spying carried out purely for informational purposes? Could some be being carried out for fun? Could others be being carried out to control the flow of information? Has 6,000 years of mass bullying come to an abrupt halt or are there simply more cases of local community spying being covered up with local disinformation since bullying and disinformation often go hand?

     Is it possible that mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens controlling the flow of information are in fact civilian spies? Is it possible that mass numbers of men and women in the West are leading two lives; one involved with a regular occupation while another is used for covert purposes relating to the news? And is it possible that these civilian spies are highly skilled at making it seem like other people are in fact responsible for spying operations by creating fake consensuses around who is suspicious and who is not?

     What if these civilian spies in fact carried out numerous covert operations involving distraction issues, street narratives, thought-opinion-perception shaping, honey trapping, and oppression, in addition to various other social, political, economic, and business agendas, local or otherwise? What if the collective actions and operations of civilian spies constituted the single most effective means of control in history? What if they constituted the premier narcissistic control apparatus in the West today and thus the most effective means of shaping thoughts, opinions, and perceptions at large? And if it was, couldn’t this mean that all who participated in such psychological operations were further incentivized or rewarded with sexual or intimate relationships, wealth, favours, promotions, information, or anything else that would compound their sense of superiority? Couldn’t it mean that another incentive was having access to or benefit of the latest spyware and technology that was years ahead of anything on the current market? Couldn’t it mean that once you joined this world of spies, you were suddenly plugged into a vast and sophisticated network whereby you were presented with a wide range of largely undetectable communication apps, games, and technological monitoring programs?

     What if some of the things this network provided was: abundant selective geospatial data of any given area with Virtual Reality [VR], Augmented Reality [AR], and Mixed Reality [MR] that allowed you to see through walls, participate in an unseen many-to-many audiovisual entertainment medium, learn how other people feel about you and gauge their interest in you physically and emotionally based on their biological functions, determine who was nearby and whether they were plugged into this network, send you something of an intradigital prompt or a covert instant message when you were being looked at by someone in the vicinity of the opposite sex, digitally assist people looking for open or exclusive relationships, and reveal to you the true number of people in the world who were interested in such things both at home and abroad?

     What if participating in this network gave you the ability to covertly send and receive thoughts, images, code words, phrases, and gestures to be used to communicate wants, needs, desires, ideas, news, and reports that were imperceptible to anyone in the vicinity who wasn’t plugged into this network? What if it meant you could read people’s decision trees and what they’ll likely do that day, month, or year, discover whose decision tree in the vicinity is currently being ‘adjusted’ by way of psychological persecution or manipulation and what phrases, actions, or events one must use or participate in to assist in the adjustment in order to gain a reward like an encounter with an upscale prostitute? What if this unseen digital world showed you who you could potentially sell the ‘girlfriend experience’ or ‘boyfriend experience’ to indefinitely and whose thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of reality could be more easily controlled and manipulated? What if long-term honey trapping and prostitution in this world gave you even greater rewards and was therefore much more pervasive than contemporary thought dictates?

     And could some of these proposals account for the high levels of international travel, cheating, marital infidelity, competition, conflict, and backstabbing going on in the world right now? Could they explain why some Christians seem to become markedly looser in their morals overnight? Could they explain why some Christian ex-partners and Christian divorcees become suddenly interested in serial monogamy?

     What if one such operation on the part of civilian spies was the ongoing manipulation of activists, whistleblowers, and Christians in the West? What if some spies were even posing as activists, whistleblowers, and Christians themselves? What if the fundamental prerequisite to participating in this network, as well as obtaining the information, entertainment, and rewards thereof, was in fact the manipulation and psychological oppression of activists, whistleblowers, and Christians through relationships, honey trapping, and persecution?

     What if the persecution aspect manifested itself in various forms of harassment largely undetectable to onlookers, bystanders, and other third parties, such as through ‘random’ acts of vandalism, missing or moved household belongings, car trouble, neighbourly criticisms, directed conversations about the victim’s personal life disguised as regular conversations among strangers, gossiping, bullying, harassment from coworkers, abuse from overbearing bosses, gaslighting from friends, alienation in local communities, church rebukes, veiled threats, and veiled accusations?

     What if the second life of many if not most narcissists in the West was dedicated to harassing people for sport, particularly activists, whistleblowers, and Christians, while covering for each other; consistently maintaining and preserving one another’s innocence for the sake of mutual superiority? And if it did turn out that mass disinformation was needed to grey out mass prostitution in ‘Christian nations’ to deflect from the scrutiny thereof, wouldn’t this mean that there’d be an equal if not an even greater need to disinform on the idea of mass populations of ordinary everyday citizens also controlling the flow of information through the manipulation and covert harassment of activists, whistleblowers, and Christians? Wouldn’t each of its participants need to consistently disinform on harassment campaigns by always being ready to paint someone or something else as being responsible for them?

     What if one method of disinformation regarding this covert harassment was convincing the public that the people responsible for persecuting activists, whistleblowers, and Christians were more official-looking spies in sunglasses or authority figures or shadowy-looking men in fedoras and trench coats or esoteric cultists to deflect from the possibility of well-dressed, well-spoken, religious, white collar, and middle-class spies leading two lives as well?

     According to Google’s English dictionary [2025], mental illness is defined as: ‘a condition which causes serious disorder in a person’s behaviour or thinking.’ According to a 2022 webpage from the World Health Organization [WHO], mental health is defined as: ‘a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn well and work well.’ So, in an effort to learn well about pervasive narcissism in the West, is it not worth asking if mass numbers of people have been given a supreme means of societal manipulation and control of the flow of information? Is it not worth asking if mass narcissism stems from mass numbers of people being rewarded for such exploits with an unprecedented level of technology, information, and entertainment, as well as a host of anticipatory and consummatory rewards derived from the various machinations of a civilian spy?

     Some people may scoff at the mere suggestion of such a wide-ranging presence in the world and demand proof of its existence. Is that because most people are by and large passionate and dedicated truth-seekers who usually demand proof that things exist or because most people can’t provide proof that millions of people wouldn’t do a thing like this when Proverbs 28:21 clearly says that millions of people would do a thing like this? And is their reasoning based on the premise that mass cruelty, for the first time in 6,000 years, simply doesn’t exist anymore or doesn’t exist in the West to the same extent, degree, or intensity as that of the past? Is it based on the idea that such actions are now mostly confined to some countries but not others? And if these are the popular positions to take, are they largely taken because they can be proven through the application of legitimate social science methods or because they’re simply the most popular positions to take on contemporary mass cruelty?

 

     One conspiracy theory that might be worth exploring is the idea that most of the world has already been taken over, and that most of its people simply don’t want you knowing this fact. But what if, to deter your curiosity and questions, most of the seemingly random events around you in your day-to-day life were simply manufactured to help feed a simulation to conceal a world where prostitution is rampant and overflowing into brothels, parlours, agencies, online shows, phone services, and streets as opposed to mostly stemming from them, spying and intellectual theft and neurosurveillance is commonplace while antivirus software and cybersecurity systems are falsely hyped and advertised, decision trees are being constantly ‘adjusted’ for both recreational purposes and to maintain control of the flow of information, and where various world narratives are maintained on the street level?

     What if one such narrative being perpetuated at all times by narcissistic civilian spies was that you need to be afraid of something in order for them to control you? Is it the Mainstream Media doing all the fearmongering or is it one of your popular neighbours who seems to have a curious authority in your local community (for a ‘good’ reason) when it comes to what its members need to be afraid of and what its members need to dismiss as mere fearmongering from the Mainstream Media? And is it one neighbour or is it hundreds of millions of neighbours dictating what news is fearful and what news is fearmongering?

     What if, since narcissists have a habit of asking you why you’re not afraid without asking you, a whole world of them were committed to looking for new ways to make you afraid to keep you from doing brave things and to elevate themselves or other people to the position of perceived saviour of these seemingly fearful situations? And wouldn’t this have the effect of keeping at least some people psychologically reliant on them, like their children?

     What if their apparent ‘fearlessness’ was largely based on their knowing perfectly well that most of the seemingly frightening things all around them were in fact fake while at the same time knowing which activities, events, and issues were real? Wouldn’t this explain why so many people seem unphased about a lot of things and even brag [or ‘casually mention’] to you how they deal with a lot of so-called ‘frightening’ or ‘confronting’ situations at work or in public? Wouldn’t this explain why so many apparently fearless people seem like the confident, go-to persons for their friends struggling to cope with the trials and difficulties of life?

     What if another contributor to their apparent fearlessness was the fact that all civilian spies have each other’s backs and cover for each other no matter what, albeit for selfish reasons, such as by giving new jobs to people who get fired for taking their narcissistic bullying too far in the workplace, for example? Wouldn’t this explain the supposedly carefree attitudes you observe among so many people today?

     At the same time, since many people are more prone to be afraid when their loved ones are afraid, what if one of the latter’s best ways to make you afraid ‘with them’ was through staged and scripted conflicts, both brief and ongoing, that they had among friends, family, strangers, or in their workplaces to make the world out to be a much more volatile place than it really is to steer you ‘both’ towards thoughts, opinions, and perceptions that benefitted themselves or other people narcissistically? And what if the topic of civilian spies seemed to make them particularly afraid to cause you to feel an equal amount of fear and aversion to the topic yourself? What if their supposed fear regarding civilian spies, no matter how convincing it was, was in fact disinformation in step with a massive fake consensus to help cover up the true extent of this world?

     What if one of the reasons so many men and women seem outwardly excited about the mundane and stimulated by fake or superficial conversations in cafés, restaurants, and other public settings is because they’re engaging in illicit activities, sharing more accurate or current news stories from around the world, as well as buying and selling sexual or intimate relationships with secret technology, code words, phrases, and gestures without openly giving away such transactions? What if sex-for-rent and sex-for-promotions were standard practice and prostitution was in fact the premier currency of this covert spy network and could buy you all sorts of things, as well as give you various additional rewards without anyone ever knowing or [openly] acknowledging their price? What if disclosing or even openly pondering the true extent of prostitution resulted in not getting rewards whereas covering it up with disinformation in fact gave additional rewards? And wouldn’t this explain why prostitution is such a heavily disputed topic online?

     What if another reason for these superficial conversations was to issue veiled threats to real activists, whistleblowers, and Christians in the vicinity for entertainment, narcissistic supply, and to ‘remind’ the ones who know about this world to keep quiet about it? What if mass superficiality could in fact be traced to various covert harassment, hidden activities, and secret transactions taking place in broad daylight right now that you’re just not aware of? Are people really interested in mundane things and superficial conversations as ‘extroverts’ apparently often are or are they simply engaging in conversations that you’re just not privy to?

     And what if their preferred method of keeping this world hidden was by kindly suggesting that you might have a mental illness for even suggesting that this world might exist? What if another effective means of keeping this world hidden was a systematic approach to making it seem like the persecuted people thereof were paranoid or dangerous? What if, in an attempt to make people terrified of this persecution or too terrified to look into it themselves, mass numbers of civilian spies likewise pretended to be victims of it themselves while acting particularly terrified of it or by attributing their persecution to someone or something else like UFOs or aliens or some other fake threat with the aid of sophisticated technology? What if other spies posed as activists, whistleblowers, and Christians with an apparent concern for its victims in an attempt to steer the narrative thereof, popularize thoughts, opinions, and perceptions that obscured the true extent of this world, or conflate this world with popularized social trends that eventually did the same?

     What if whenever real news or reports surfaced that threatened to expose this world, they were accompanied by covert warning systems that issued emergency alerts in broad daylight, as well as a massive wave of astroturfers and shills and disinformation agents and a digital tsunami of distraction issues and movements and hashtags and attention-grabbing headlines such as What They’re Not Telling You and Secrets Exposed and You’ll Hate Me For This and Why Is No One Talking About This? and numerous people hyping a new terrorist group (or an old terrorist group) or a new threat to democracy or a new technology or a new illicit drug on the streets or a new neologism or a new controversy or a new thought, opinion, or perception that suddenly becomes very popular among various other people conflating this proposed simulated reality of civilian spies with a vast array of alleged revelations, stories, and conspiracy theories of an implied reality designed to draw you into another distracting rabbit-hole instead of a simple locust bed of ordinary everyday citizens?

    What if another means of keeping this world hidden was by having many of its men and women pretending to hate each other? At the same time, what if they were ‘permitted’ to be cruel and disrespectful – for ‘good’ reasons – towards people of the opposite sex who were not plugged in to this world? Wouldn’t this have the effect of shaping the thoughts, opinions, and perceptions of unplugged men and women, if you will, into ‘seeing’ that there were simply mass numbers of angry, feminist women in our society as well as mass numbers of chauvinistic, sexist, and toxic men? What if some of the other plugged in men and women were pretending to be victims of feminist bullies or victims of toxic men in order to conceal and disguise this permission? And above all, wouldn’t a manufactured polarization between men and women make it exceedingly difficult to prove mass cooperation among mass numbers of narcissistic male and female stage actors?

    What if mass populations of people were simply wearing kind and caring masks to conceal their true indifference towards you? What if they were highly skilled at pretended to care about you when really all they cared about was their own popularity and superiority to you? What if one of their masks was a ‘Christian’ identity or dramatic displays of ‘Christian’ selflessness or vocations of ‘Christian’ service? What if men and women of all ages were inviting you to Christian events, outings, and bible studies simply to test your moral waters by digitally gauging your reaction to any crude or sexual jokes they make, your perceived interest in questionable activities, or your willingness to correct clear distortions of scripture such as those that support the killing of people of a different race or religion?

     What if once you were identified as a true Christian or someone with a high moral or ethical code, you were placed on a grid of individuals to be avoided or ignored or badly treated for ‘good’ reasons by those who were uncomfortable in your presence, such as female coworkers pretending to be Christians who like to travel and upload their adventures to Facebook while secretly engaging in transnational sugar dating and prostitution – while downplaying or hyping this lifestyle as a mere preoccupation of more glamourous-looking models, influencers, or socialites? What if this grid of individuals could also be accessed by prospective employers who only wanted cold and ruthless individuals with excellent rapport-building skills and knew precisely whose job applications to reject? And what if, once the rest of the world knew that you were awake and aware of this simple locust bed of spies, they started treating you a lot differently than that of the ‘Christian nation’ you might have known before?

     As a kid, I remember a scene from the 1993 Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton film Super Mario Bros. in which Mario and Luigi, having entered something of a parallel universe where humans have evolved from dinosaurs, notice that its people seem pushier and more aggressive and inhabit a world where violence and mishaps seem to be an ordinary everyday occurrence. Looking at the chaos all around them and wondering where they are, Luigi then says to Mario: ‘Maybe we got knocked unconscious for a hundred years and we woke up in Manhattan of the future.’ In response to this, Mario suggests: ‘Maybe the Bronx of today.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MANHATTAN OR THE BRONX?

 

 

 

IN the pre-Civil War South between 1740 and 1834, it became illegal in seven states to teach slaves how to read and write. In his 1845 memoir Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Douglass recounts:

‘Very soon after I went to live with Mr. and Mrs. Auld, she very kindly commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning to spell words of three or four letters. Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read.’

I’ve decided not to include a section of this paragraph due to its dehumanizing and derogatory nature. Otherwise, to end with a quote from Mr Auld regarding, to his mind, the outcome of literacy lessons being given to a slave:

‘“He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.”’

     As to the cruel and unusual treatment of black slaves in American history alone [1619-1865], I could write a whole separate book about one of the greatest illustrations in modern history of man’s desire for superiority spilling over into his being given a legal channel through which to assert it with little to no consequences. Otherwise, slave life on the various farms and plantations was said to include relentless and hard physical labour, poor nutrition, and unsanitary conditions in crude living quarters – which many times included minimal bedding and exposure to bad weather. The heat and humidity of the South was also a factor, and on various rice plantations, where malaria was rampant and child mortality was said to be high, slaves who fell ill were often forced to work anyway. Treated as mere property, threats of being sold and of sexual exploitation were also not uncommon, and punishments from slave masters and drivers included whippings, torture, mutilation, imprisonment, and sometimes even murder.

     After the freeing of over 4 million enslaved African Americans with the ratifying of the 13^th Amendment in 1865, the US government began systematically dismantling the various narcissistic control apparati surrounding slavery and granting citizenship rights to black Americans in what became known as the Reconstruction period [1865-1877]. At the end of which, however, federal troops overseeing the rebuilding of the South and protecting the rights of newly freed slaves withdrew, upon which the Southern states began enacting, conceivably for ‘good’ reasons, racial segregation practices to limit the rights of African Americans.

     For nearly three quarters of a century beginning in the 1890s, the term Jim Crow, having been popularized in the late 1830s and based on a racist theatre persona developed by entertainer Thomas Dartmouth Rice, was now used as a kind of shorthand to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs that dominated the American South after Reconstruction. Almost every aspect of daily life was affected by codified racial segregation, including schools, parks, drinking fountains, hotels, theatres, restaurants, restrooms, buses, and trains – enforced by the presence of Whites Only and Colored signs. Perhaps more relevantly, the Jim Crow practices were also reinforced by vigilantes with the lynching, among other things, of African Americans; many times with the tacit approval of local law enforcement.

     According to a 2024 article on the ebsco.com website: ‘Few individuals who participated in lynchings were ever prosecuted. Coroners’ juries repeatedly concluded that the death had come “at the hands of parties unknown.”’ Eventually, having analyzed the sociology of lynching, one Ida B. Wells, then investigative journalist and sociologist, argued that white people were using lynching simply ‘to terrorize African Americans in the South because they represented economic and political competition—and thus a threat of loss of power—for whites.’ [As per the 2025 Wikipedia page on Ida B. Wells].

     At the time, many lynchings were conducted by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), but thousands of ordinary everyday citizens were also willing participants who cheered, smiled, and posed for photographs around and made postcards featuring victims. They also collected lynching ‘souvenirs,’ such as pieces of the lynch rope that was used; reminiscent of the Roman soldiers who, having crucified Jesus, divided His garments among them as prophesied in Psalm 22:18 – possibly as a way for narcissists to express or assert their superiority to a deceased person whom they once felt were threatening it. Otherwise, a six-year study published in 2017 by the Equal Justice Initiative put the total number of African Americans lynched in twelve Southern states between 1877 and 1950 to 4,084 [lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report].

 

     During the Civil Rights movement [1954-1968], in which many African Americans pushed for equal rights and to end racial discrimination and segregation practices, a growing number of peaceful protesters and activists were facing hostile opposition from both authority figures and those who were opposed to equality for African Americans. This included, but was not limited to, mob violence faced by black and white Freedom Riders who rode busses interstate to challenge local segregation rules as they pertained to bus seating, the bombing of various black homes and churches, and the harassment, beatings, arrests, and jailing of protesters and activists.

     Following the Rosa Parks incident of 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, in which Rosa Parks, a black woman, refused to give her bus seat to a white passenger and was subsequently arrested for violating the city’s segregation law, activists formed the Montgomery Improvement Association and elected one pastor Martin Luther King as their leader.

     Enter the FBI’s COINTELPRO [Counter Intelligence Program] on the world stage in 1956 and you’ve got a good example of psychological oppression that came in the form of surveillance, infiltration, discrediting, and the disruption of various political organizations deemed a threat to the national security of the United States. These were comprised of participants in the Civil Rights movement, Black power movements like the Black Panthers, feminists, communists, socialists, environmentalists, animal rights groups, anti-Vietnam War organizers, the American Indian Movement (AIM), Chicano and Mexican-American groups such as the Brown Berets and United Farm Workers, the Ku Klux Klan, and other white supremacist groups. COINTELPRO disruption tactics included threats, harassment, provocations, smear campaigns, the sowing of dissension and distrust among groups, character assassinations, public humiliation, false charges, and wrongful imprisonment.

     It’s important to understand that it wasn’t one persecutory attack or another per se, but the combination of all of them carried out by large numbers of actors working in tandem that would create a temptation to demoralization and group disassembly; especially if such actors were working towards it on a consistent and covert basis. Once the group became conscious of an ongoing, and seemingly unending disruption campaign against them, it would also tempt them towards a heightened anxiety as to which persecutory attack would come next, in what form, and how best to deal with each situation ahead of time.

     Meanwhile, having led his first successful boycott that saw Montgomery’s busses desegregated, Martin Luther King then formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference [SCLC] in 1957, which gave him a wider audience in the South and afforded him a national platform from which to speak out. Having moved to Atlanta, he soon take part in a sit-in protesting segregation at the lunch counter of an Atlanta department store [for which he was arrested]. After his release, King would go on to become one of the key figures of the Civil Rights movement post 1960, leading the historic March on Washington in 1963 where he delivered his famous I Have A Dream speech near the Lincoln Memorial, winning the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1964, and participating in a peaceful march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965 [which led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965]. Ultimately, King would be shot and killed in April of 1968 outside his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee.

     According to the [2025] Wikipedia page on COINTELPRO, King was also a target of the program, and although the program officially ceased in 1971, domestic espionage in the US is said to have continued; with a documented planting of over 500 bugs without a warrant and the opening of over 2,000 pieces of personal mail on the part of the FBI between 1972 and 1974 alone, as per the same webpage.

     While I’m not denying that King was targeted by the FBI’s COINTELPRO, like many people I also can’t help but do a double take. Although King seemed to have largely spoken the truth with respect to racism and segregation practices in America, one of the biggest things that negates his professed Christian faith is found in his 1950 paper The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus in which he says, as per a 2025 article from gurumag.com/dr-king-rejected-christianity:

‘The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possibly have...” So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.’

      As to the resurrection of Christ [kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/what-experiences-christians-living-early-christian-century-led-christian – 2025] King wrote:

‘The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?’

     Some people may feel that whenever faith in traditions, symbols, and various icons is challenged that it stems from a place of wanting to hold the monopoly over the prevailing thoughts, opinions, and perceptions on any given subject. I don’t fault people for thinking this way – on the contrary, I encourage people to be wary of unseen motives hiding behind the right set of words. After all, isn’t that how the forerunners to the Inquisition got started? State leaders responding to a wide assortment of established traditions, symbols, and icons by establishing more ‘unified’ or ‘ecumenical’ thought systems while condemning those outside of them as thought dissenting heretics and approving of their punishment? Like Bonhoeffer, I won’t speculate about King. For the most part, I simply find value in scrutinizing popular movements. With that in mind, in a sermon given at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Christmas day, King is said to have made the following statement as per a 2015 article titled Martin Luther King’s Last Christmas Sermon found here onbeing.org/blog/martin-luther-kings-last-christmas-sermon:

‘If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.’

     Peace on earth may sound like a noble goal but it contradicts Jesus Christ Himself saying that He did not come to bring peace on earth but a sword [Matthew 10:34] and that we will continue to have trouble until He returns [John 16:33]. Otherwise, I’m not saying that King was a narcissist. But since narcissists desire superiority above all else, is it not worth asking if, despite the racial tensions of the 1950s and 60s and a growing need for advocacy, the popularity of some of the activists, whistleblowers, and professing Christians in the Civil Rights movement could be attributed to their steering the anti-segregation and anti-racism narrative in a specific direction or towards specific goals? Is it not worth asking if anyone in the ecumenical movement of King’s day could have been mere actors or state actors posing as activists, whistleblowers, or Christians while covertly seeking to establish some kind of narcissistic control apparatus of their own through a popular anti-racism consensus?

     And if this wasn’t the case, are there any popular activists, whistleblowers, or professing Christians in the past or present who may be popular merely for this or a similar reason? And have you ever asked any popular activists, whistleblowers, or Christians if they’re just actors playing a part in a wider, unseen operation or helping to steer a narrative in a specific direction or towards specific goals? Because as it pertains to the unpopular activists, whistleblowers, and Christians in the West today, many of them seem to be reporting a problem that the popular ones don’t seem to be reporting at all.

 

     After World War II, the Allied powers in Germany (United States, Britain, and France) would eventually merge their occupation zones; which led to the formation of West Germany [Federal Republic of Germany – FRG] in 1949. Later that year, the Soviet Union, having occupied the eastern zone, oversaw the creation of East Germany [German Democratic Republic – GDR]. The City of Berlin, situated 200 miles inside East Germany, was also divided, with half the city – West Berlin – belonging to West Germany. Not wanting to live in a rigidly controlled communist country, many East Germans fled into to West Germany and beyond via Berlin since its sector borders remained open; whereas the rest of East Germany’s border with West Germany had already been closed off in 1952. By 1961, at least four million East Germans (about a sixth of its population) had abandoned the state; posing an economic threat to East Germany since it had already lost many of its skilled workers.

     In August of 1961, armed East German troops constructed a dividing line consisting of concrete and barbed wire to stop people freely passing between the two sections of Berlin – which became the focal point of the burgeoning Cold War – and the newly created Berlin Wall would later form part of the Iron Curtain that came to represent the tense ideological, political, and economic divide between Europe’s communist East and its capitalist West. As to those hoping to escape East Germany post construction, armed soldiers at the Wall had the order to shoot, as it became known, and at least 140 people were killed at the wall, with 91 said to have been shot while attempting to flee East Germany between 1961 and 1989.

     During the first decade of the GDR’s existence, it was governed by the SED or Socialist Unity Party of Germany, who initially consolidated their rule by primarily combating political opponents through the judiciary system by accusing them of incitement to war or of calls of boycott. By the end of the 1960s, the judicial repression is said to have been largely abandoned with the GDR’s desire for international recognition and cordial relations with West Germany. With the signing of the Basic Treaty of 1972 with West Germany, the GDR essentially announced its intention to respect human rights, and would later sign the Helsinki accords in 1975. The SED, in consequence, outwardly reduced its political prisoners; though it now had a different means of dissident repression.

     Enter the SED’s Stasi security apparatus and you have Zersetzung, which roughly translates to decomposition – a largely covert means of psychological oppression and persecution that came in the form of wiretapping, bugging, intimidation, disruption of one’s social life, smear campaigns, property damage, car sabotage, work interference, and sleep deprivation, among other things, to be carried out indefinitely. The Stasi is said to have targeted government critics, religious opposition, and anyone else they sought to monitor and control. Like the FBI’s COINTELPRO, the Zersetzung of groups or organizations typically involved infiltration by undercover agents. On top of all this, they also put in place seduction operations by honey traps for the purpose of provoking conflicts and extramarital relations.

‘Decomposition was designed to unglue a dissident’s psyche, to chip away at his sanity,’ said US academic Professor Dominic Tierney according to a 2021 article on the Daily Mail: ‘The effects were powerful. Some victims killed themselves, others suffered insomnia, panic attacks and nervous breakdowns. One target called what happened to him 'an assault on the human soul.’ The article continues with:

‘A promotion at work would be denied for no good reason. Medical notes were interfered with and they were diagnosed for treatment they did not need. On whispered Stasi instructions, staff in bars and shops would refuse to serve them, leaving them feeling isolated, unwanted, outsiders. The continual sense of being followed and checked on, that no one around you could be trusted, was inevitably damaging — as at least one woman would later discover from her Stasi file, the person who had informed on her for years was her own husband, the father of her sons.’

     As to the Zersetzung of groups, the article states that:

‘An agent would infiltrate a group and then surreptitiously disrupt what they were doing by, for example, agreeing to tasks but not getting round to them, losing equipment and sabotaging the production of dissident material.’

     But perhaps the most relevant section of this article is that:

‘This is the sentiment echoed in The Grey Men. The book, by former FBI agent Ralph Hope, whose beat included Eastern Europe, tries to track the progress of those thousands of Stasi secret policemen who never faced punishment for what they had done but simply disappeared into the reunited Germany, reinventing themselves as businessmen, academics and politicians.’

     I’m glad Zersetzung is being talked about today. But I can’t be the only person in the world wondering why it took so long. Were the covert machinations of East Germany not felt elsewhere? Did our supposed Christian nations not already know about them? And if they did, were the Christians therein telling themselves amid some 20 years of East Germans complaining about severe and ongoing psychological torture and harassment from large numbers of people working in tandem that it was difficult to understand how mass numbers of people could do such things to others instead of speaking out for them? And if there were as many benevolent activists and Christians involved in the movement to bring down the Berlin Wall as is advertised, why wasn’t the word Zersetzung advertised with it? Was it a taboo word to say out loud? Did saying it make one unpopular? And are more Christians in Australia now going to talk about Zersetzung in churches or include it in the curriculum of our Christian schools? Because to my knowledge, not a lot of millennials in this country ever heard this word growing up.

     Still and all, if the world since Adam has in fact produced a model of human behaviour involving the inextricability of cruelty from narcissism and/or the perceived superiority of one man affirmed by maintaining the perceived inferiority of another, does such a model now act as a valid predictor for a widespread, modern-day COINTELPRO or Zersetzung? Since mass numbers of people enjoy bullying to feel superior to the ones bullied, does 6,000 years of mass bullying suddenly cease being a pattern or does this pattern merely continue in ‘Christian nations’ and ‘civilized societies’ under a more efficient means of disinformation? If a modern version of this harassment program was still being carried out today but by mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens in the West, would such an activity constitute a significant fire in the world today? And if such a fire was secretly blazing right now, do you believe that most people would seek to stamp it out if it could instead be maintained in secret for the sake of the superiority and entertainment of many without being seen, heard, or felt by anyone but a few?

 

     In 2020, Forbes.com put out an article titled Neuroscientists Discover Each Of Us Has A Distinct Brain Signature: Could It Be Used To Predict Your Job Potential? As per two excerpts from the article:

‘Did you know that groundbreaking research reports that neuroscientists can identify each of us by our unique brain signature much like a neural thumbprint? They have discovered that you and I display our own distinct brain signature when we’re processing information similar to our unique fingerprints that distinguish us from everyone else on the planet. At one time, neuroscientists thought brain activity was pretty much the same from one person to another. But in a landmark development, Yale University researchers found that your brain activity is different from anyone else’s, much like your thumbprint. This unique fingerprint reflects innate properties of how your brain is wired.’

    ‘The science is also a significant advance on biomarking that can help researchers develop new therapies for people with mood disorders such as anxiety or depression that can improve workplace performance. What other secrets can the brain signature procedure unearth about our inner workings? Will it eventually find a place in today’s work cultures, identifying the best qualified candidates for certain positions based on their unique signatures? Or even predict the way in which promotions are rewarded or teams are formed? Or to reduce absenteeism and help employees heal quicker from mental and physical health issues so they can enjoy longer, healthier and more productive career trajectories? Stay tuned.’

     Now consider the following excerpts from the MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter The Checkup, as cited on a 2023 article found here technologyreview.com/2023/03/17/1069897/tech-read-your-mind-probe-your-memories:

‘In recent years, we’ve seen neurotechnologies move from research labs to real-world use. Schools have used some devices to monitor the brain activity of children to tell when they are paying attention. Police forces are using others to work out whether someone is guilty of a crime. And employers use them to keep workers awake and productive.

     These technologies hold the remarkable promise of giving us all-new insight into our own minds. But our brain data is precious, and letting it fall into the wrong hands could be dangerous, Farahany argues in her new book, The Battle for Your Brain. I chatted with her about some of her concerns.’

     ‘When I talk about brain data, I’m referring to the use of EEG, fNIRS [functional near-infrared spectroscopy], fMRI [functional magnetic resonance imaging], EMG and other modalities that collect biological, electrophysiological, and other functions from the human brain. These devices tend to collect data from across the brain, and you can then use software to try to pick out a particular signal.

     Brain data is not thought. But you can use it to make inferences about what’s happening in a person’s mind. There are brain states you can decode: tired, paying attention, mind-wandering, engagement, boredom, interest, happy, sad. You could work out how they are thinking or feeling, whether they are hungry, whether they are a Democrat or Republican.’

     ‘I feel like we’re at an inflection point. [A lot of] consumer devices are hitting the market this year, and in the next two years. There have been huge advances in AI that allows us to decode brain activity, and in the miniaturization of electrodes, which [allows manufacturers] to put them into earbuds and headphones. And there has been significant investment from big tech companies. It is, I believe, about to become ubiquitous.

     The only person who has access to your brain data right now is you, and it is only analyzed in the internal software of your mind. But once you put a device on your head … you’re immediately sharing that data with whoever the device manufacturer is, and whoever is offering the platform. It could also be shared with any government or employer that might have given you the device.’

     ‘The collection or creation of the data isn’t what’s problematic—it’s when the data is used in ways that are harmful to individuals, collectives, or groups. And the problem is that that can happen very quickly.

     An authoritarian government having access to it could use it to try to identify people who don’t show political adherence, for example. That’s a pretty quick and serious misuse of the data. Or trying to identify people who are neuroatypical, and discriminate against or segregate them. In a workplace, it could be used for dehumanization of individuals by subjecting them to neurosurveillance. All of that simultaneously becomes possible.’

     In 2022, the NBC reported that the Chinese were offering rewards of up to $15,000 for tip-offs on foreign spies and other potential threats to national security. According to a 2023 WION [The World Is One News] report on YouTube titled Gravitas: China pushes civilians to become spies, China began offering rewards and protection to civilians who report espionage to the Ministry of State Security [MSS] through their newly created public account on the social media platform WeChat. At one point in the video, the presenter says: ‘Why would a friend want to see their friend in constant suspicion? Well, rewards and protection. Those two are the most sought after in China.’ But aren’t rewards and protection the two most sought-after things in Australia as well? Aren’t the people of Christian nations or the implied reality thereof also capable of being civilians and spies at the same time? Are they not also capable of valuing rewards more than they value human beings? Or are such motives confined to Chinese spies? Otherwise, in March of 2022, the US Department of Justice issued a press release titled Five Individuals Charged Variously with Stalking, Harassing and Spying on U.S. Residents on Behalf of the PRC Secret Police in which:

‘Defendants Participated in Transnational Repression Schemes to Silence Critics of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Residing in the United States and Abroad – Including by Attempting to Disrupt the Campaign of a U.S. Military Veteran and Candidate for U.S. Congress in Brooklyn Who Expressed Views Critical of the PRC and by Scheming to Destroy a PRC Dissident’s Artwork Criticizing the PRC Government.’

     The article goes on to state that:

‘According to court documents, all the defendants allegedly perpetrated transnational repression schemes to target U.S. residents whose political views and actions are disfavored by the PRC government, such as advocating for democracy in the PRC. In one of these schemes, the co-conspirators sought to interfere with federal elections by allegedly orchestrating a campaign to undermine the U.S. congressional candidacy of a U.S. military veteran who was a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing, PRC. In another of these schemes, three defendants planned to destroy the artwork of a PRC national residing in Los Angeles that was critical of the PRC government, and planted surveillance equipment in the artist’s workplace and car to spy on him from the PRC.’

Said U.S. Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York:

‘The complaints unsealed today reveal the outrageous and dangerous lengths to which the PRC government’s secret police and these defendants have gone to attack the rule of law and freedom in New York City and elsewhere in the United States. As alleged, all three cases involve campaigns to silence, harass, discredit and spy on U.S. residents for simply exercising their freedom of speech. The United States will not tolerate blatantly illegal actions that target U.S. residents, on U.S. soil, and undermine our treasured American values and rights.’

     The charges among the five individuals were as follows:

·         Conspiracy to commit interstate harassment

·         Attempting to use a means of identification in connection with the interstate harassment conspiracy

·         Acting as an agent of the PRC government

·         Making materially false statements in connection with participation in a transnational repression scheme orchestrated by the MSS

·         Conspiring to bribe a federal official in connection with a scheme to obtain the tax returns of a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States

     In two other press releases issued by the US Department of Justice in January of 2024 and July of 2024 titled eBay Inc. to Pay $3 Million in Connection with Corporate Cyberstalking Campaign Targeting Massachusetts Couple and Final Defendant in eBay Cyberstalking Case Sentenced, respectively, we read of seven eBay employees who carried out a threatening harassment campaign against a couple from Natick, Massachusetts ‘in retaliation for their publication of an industry newsletter that eBay executives viewed as critical of the company.’

     The couple is said to have faced a range of threats and harassment including: numerous threatening messages on Twitter / X, a pig mask delivered to their home, separate deliveries of live cockroaches, live spiders, a book about coping with the loss of a spouse, a funeral wreath, pornography sent to a neighbour’s address but with the husband’s name appearing on it, physical stalking, and the couple’s home listed as the site of yard sales and sex parties on social media.

     Eventually, the eBay employees faced criminal charges. Among them were:

·         Two counts of stalking through interstate travel

·         Two counts of stalking through electronic communications services

·         One count of witness tampering

·         One count of obstruction of justice

     The now former eBay employees are said to have faced separate felony convictions, with eBay forced to pay a $3 million penalty for both the harassment campaign and the obstruction of the investigation that followed. Once again, though not indicative of malice or ill intent, the sentiments found among the New Media regarding the eBay harassment case seem to be of shock and confusion as to how people can perpetrate this level of mass cruelty.

     But another sentiment being repeated today is a confusion as to why neither the PRC nor the eBay case was defined in legal terms as a simple case of gang stalking since both cases did in fact involve gangs of people who were engaged in stalking. The term gang stalking has been around since at least the early 2000s, according to the [2025] Wikipedia page on Gang stalking, with numerous people describing similar experiences in which they are surveilled, stalked, followed, and harassed indefinitely by large numbers of people working in tandem using a wide range of intimidation tactics mostly under the radar – such as directed conversations from strangers in which the alleged stalkers move within earshot of the victim and use key words or phrases that only the victim would understand since they accurately describe or reflect a significant past or present experience on the victim’s part that ostensibly took place in private, such as a recent conversation they had in their house with a family member.

‘Enter “smart mobs”—an utterly unprecedented phenomenon where groups of people cluster temporarily around information and goals of mutual interest. According to author and techno-visionary Howard Rheingold, people are using smart “mobs” (rhymes with “robes”) to become smart “mobs” (rhymes with “robs”)—where sophisticated mobile Internet access is allowing people who don’t know each other to act in concert. In his new book Smart Mobs, Rheingold (author of The Virtual Community) describes how cell phones, pagers, and PDAs are shaping modern culture. He traveled around the world and interviewed dozens of people who work and play with these mobile-networked technologies to see how a new revolution is manifesting, and his findings are stirring.’

     ‘In one amusing example, he tells of upscale prostitutes who can enter their services and prices into their mobile phones, allowing customers to discreetly determine if anyone nearby is selling what they want to buy (a Japanese company, Lovegety, has already adapted this idea to dating). This study of the potential of mobile, always-on, fast Internet access nicely serves as a travelogue to the future, showing the possibilities and dangers of communications innovation.’ [Excerpts from the second issue of 2004 magazine Shift: At The Frontiers Of Consciousness pp. 31-32].

As cited verbatim from Howard Rheingold’s 2002 book Smart Mobs: The Next Social

Revolution:

‘Netwar—Dark and Light

On January 20, 2001, President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines became the first head of state in history to lose power to a smart mob. More than 1 million Manila residents, mobilized and coordinated by waves of text messages, assembled at the site of the 1986 “People Power” peaceful demonstrations that had toppled the Marcos regime. Tens of thousands of Fil- ipinos converged on Epifanio de los Santas Avenue, known as “Edsa,” within an hour of the first text message volleys: “Go 2EDSA, Wear blck.” Over four days, more than a million citizens showed up, mostly dressed in black. Estrada fell. The legend of “Generation Txt” was born.

     Bringing down a government without firing a shot was a momentous early eruption of smart mob behaviour. It wasn’t, however, the only one.

·         On November 30, 1999, autonomous but internetworked squads of demonstrators protesting the meeting of the World Trade Organization used “swarming” tactics, mobile phones, Web sites, laptops, and handheld computers to win the “Battle of Seattle.”

·         In September 2000, thousands of citizens in Britain, outraged by a sudden rise in gasoline prices, used mobile phones, SMS, email from laptop PCs, and CB radios in taxicabs to coordinate dispersed groups that blocked fuel delivery at selected service stations in a wildcat political protest.

·         A violent political demonstration in Toronto in the spring of 2000 was chronicled by a group of roving journalist-researchers who webcast digital video of everything they saw.

·         Since 1992, thousands of bicycle activists have assembled monthly for “Critical Mass” moving demonstrations, weaving through San Francisco streets en masse. Critical Mass operates through loosely linked networks, alerted by mobile phone and email trees, and breaks up into smaller, tele-coordinated groups when appropriate.’

     Also cited verbatim from Howard Rheingold’s 2002 book is the following:

‘The Battle of Seattle saw a more deliberate and tactically focused use of wireless communications and mobile social networks in urban political conflict, more than a year before texting mobs assembled in Manila. A broad coalition of demonstrators who represented different interests but were united in opposition to the views of the World Trade Organization planned to disrupt the WTO’s 1999 meeting in Seattle. The demonstrators included a wide range of different “affinity groups” who loosely coordinated their actions around their shared objective. The Direct Action Network enabled autonomous groups to choose which levels of action to participate in, from nonviolent support to civil disobedience to joining mass arrests—a kind of dynamic ad hoc alliance that wouldn’t have been possible without a mobile, many-to-many, real-time communication network. According to a report dramatically titled, “Black Flag Over Seattle,” by Paul de Armond:

     The cohesion of the Direct Action Network was partly due to their improvised communications network assembled out of cell phones, radios, police scanners and portable computers. Protesters in the street with wireless Palm Pilots were able to link into continuously updated web pages giving reports from the streets. Police scanners monitored transmissions and provided some warning of changing police tactics. Cell phones were widely used.’

     Now consider the following three excerpts from the same book:

‘From Seattle to Manila, the first “netwars” have already broken out. The term ‘netwar’ was coined by John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, two analysts for the RAND corporation (birthplace of game theory and experimental economics), who noticed that the same combination of social networks, sophisticated communication technologies, and decentralised organisational structure was surfacing as an effective force in very different kinds of political conflict: Netwar is an emerging mode of conflict in which the protagonists—ranging from terrorist and criminal organisations on the dark side, to militant social activists on the bright side—use network forms of organisation, doctrine, strategy, and technology attuned to the information age. The practice of net-war is well ahead of theory, as both civil and uncivil society actors are increasingly engaging in this new way of fighting.

     From the Battle of Seattle to the “attack on America,” these networks are proving very hard to deal with; some are winning. What all have in common is that they operate in small, dispersed units that can deploy nimbly—anywhere, anytime. All feature network forms of organization, doctrine, strategy, and technology attuned to the information age. They know how to swarm and disperse, penetrate and disrupt, as well as elude and evade. The tactics they use range from battles of ideas to acts of sabotage—and many tactics involve the Internet.

     The “swarming” strategies noted by Arquilla and Ronfeldt rely on many small units like the affinity groups in the Battle of Seattle. Individual members of each group remained dispersed until mobile communications drew them to converge on a specific location from all directions simultaneously, in coordination with other groups. Manila, Seattle, San Francisco, Senegal, and Britain were sites of nonviolent political swarming. Arquilla and Ron-feldt cited the nongovernmental organizations associated with the Zapatista movement in Mexico, which mobilized world opinion in support of Indian peasants, and the Nobel Prizewinning effort to enact an anti-landmine treaty as examples of nonviolent netwar actions. Armed and violent swarms are another matter. The Chechen rebels in Russia, soccer hooligans in Britain, and the FARC guerrillas in Colombia also have used netwar strategy and swarming tactics. The U.S. military is in the forefront of smart mob technology development.’

     ‘Examples later in this chapter demonstrate that smart mobs engaging in either violent or nonviolent netwar represent only a few of the many possible varieties of smart mob. Netwars do share similar technical infrastructure with other smart mobs. More importantly, however, they are both animated by a new form of social organization, the network. Networks include nodes and links, use many possible paths to distribute information from any link to any other, and are self-regulated through flat governance hierarchies and distributed power. Arquilla and Ronfeldt are among many who believe networks constitute the newest major social organizational form, after tribes, hierarchies, and markets.

     Although network-structured communications hold real potential for enabling democratic forms of decision-making and beneficial instances of collective action, that doesn’t mean that the transition to networked forms of social organization will be a pleasant one with uniformly benevolent outcomes. Arquilla and Ronfeldt note the potential for cooperation in examples like the nongovernmental organizations that use netwar tactics for public benefit, but they also articulated a strong caution, worth keeping in mind when contemplating the future of smart mobs:

     Most people might hope for the emergence of a new form of organization to be led by “good guys” who do “the right thing” and grow stronger because of it. But history does not support this contention. The cutting edge in the early rise of a new form may be found equally among malcontents, ne’er-do-wells, and clever opportunists eager to take advantage of new ways to maneuver, exploit, and dominate. Many centuries ago, for example, the rise of hierarchical forms of organization, which displaced traditional, consultative, tribal forms, was initially attended, in parts of the world, by the appearance of ferocious chieftains bent on military conquest and of violent secret societies run according to rank—long before the hierarchical form matured through the institutionalization of states, empires, and professional administrative and bureaucratic systems. In like manner, the early spread of the market form, only a few centuries ago, was accompanied by a spawn of usurers, pirates, smugglers, and monopolists, all seeking to elude state controls over their earnings and enterprises.

     In light of the military applications of netwar tactics, it would be foolish to presume that only benign outcomes should be expected from smart mobs. But any observer who focuses exclusively on the potential for violence would miss evidence of perhaps an even more profoundly disruptive potential—for beneficial as well as malign purposes—of smart mob technologies and techniques. Could cooperation epidemics break out if smart mob media spread beyond warriors—to citizens, journalists, scientists, people looking for fun, friends, mates, customers, or trading partners?’

     ‘Consider a few experiments on the fringes of mobile communications that might point toward a wide variety of nonviolent smart mobs in the future:

·         “Interpersonal awareness devices” have been evolving for several years. Since 1998, hundreds of thousands of Japanese have used Lovegety keychain devices, which signal when another Lovegety owner of the opposite sex and a compatible profile is within fifteen feet. In 2000, a similar technology for same-sex seekers, the “Gaydar” device, was marketed in North America. Hong Kong’s “Mobile Cupid service” (www.sunday.com) sends a text description of potential matches who are nearby at the moment.

·         ImaHima (“are you free now?”) enables hundreds of thousands of Tokyo i-mode users to alert buddies who are in their vicinity at the moment.

·         Upoc (“universal point of contact”) in Manhattan sponsors mobile communities of interest; any member of “manhattan celebrity watch,” “nyc terrorism alert,” “prayer of the day,” or “The Resistance,” for example, can broadcast text messages to and receive messages from all the other members.

·         Phones that make it easy to send digital video directly to the Web make it possible for “peer-to-peer journalism” networks to emerge; Steve Mann’s students in Toronto have chronicled newsworthy events by webcasting everything their wearable cameras and microphones capture.

·         Researchers in Oregon have constructed “social middleware,” which enables wearable computer users to form ad-hoc communities, using distributed reputation systems, privacy and knowledge-sharing agents, and wireless networks.’

     Enter gang stalking and you have what many people in the West are currently describing as something that has forever turned their lives upside down ever since they did one of the following: blew the whistle on a company or an organization, exposed wrongdoing, reported a crime, became an activist, got into an argument, insulted someone well-connected, rejected the romantic or sexual advances of someone with a similar description, were suspected of or blamed for having an affair with a married person, or declined an invitation to join a harassment group or campaign.

     These all, many of whom are self-described activists, whistleblowers, and Christians, maintain that they are being constantly surveilled, stalked, and harassed wherever they go in the West, including Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, and various other Nato-friendly countries, that it continues across these international borders, and that their lives are being frequently disrupted by mass numbers of regular people working in tandem. They also maintain that their disruption is never-ending, with some claiming decades of disruption and others more frequent disruption when they attempt to speak out about it and/or report it to the authorities, and further claim that their disruption is being carried out by men, women, and children of all ages, races, and religions (including Christians and Christian churchgoers), sometimes alone and sometimes as groups and families, as well as people of all professions and from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

     According to gang stalking victims, their disruption consists of frequent occurrences of: people exiting public doorways just as they try to enter them, pedestrians walking closely behind them on footpaths and sidewalks or walking momentarily into their lane from the opposite direction, strangers invading their personal spaces in public places like shopping centres and supermarkets, people coughing as they walk past, dropping things, making hand gestures, or performing various street theatre such as verbally or physically mirroring specific scenes from a recently watched video, movie, or tv show on the part of the victim, people ‘brighting’ or flashing them with torches at night or doing drive-bys with their high beams on, veiled threats, veiled insults, and directed conversations from strangers, as well as harassment, stonewalling, and gaslighting on the part of all known public venue staff and customer service people, including restaurant and hotel employees, check-out assistants, retailers, shop owners, receptionists, salespeople, and those of entertainment complexes.

     Other forms of disruption are said to include: cars more frequently cutting them off on the road, stopping or slowing suddenly in front of them, tailgating, as well as engaging in various near misses, internet connections being disrupted as well as hacked computers, phones, and other devices, prank calls, spam calls, harassment on social media, rerouted mail, household belongings moved or tampered with, furniture rearranged, clothing items torn or damaged, car sabotage, frequent noise campaigns such as fire, ambulance, and police sirens more frequently used in their vicinity late at night, cars doing regular burnouts, and people making various and regular noises outside their homes at all hours of the night and early morning, a more recurrent appearance of people who ostensibly believe them and then end up participating in their gang stalking, and indifferent, dismissive, or harassing behaviour on the part of law enforcement.

     They also report frequent disruption in the form of electronic harassment, including: anomalous insertions of bad dreams in their sleep, strange bodily sensations like jabs, shocks, static disturbances, muscle spasms, twitches, itching, genital manipulation, pulmonary irritation, sleep deprivation, nausea, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, buzzing or ringing in their ears, and induced sounds attributed to V2K or Voice-To-Skull harassment whereby sound is transmitted to or into their heads by way of the microwave auditory effect or Frey effect caused by pulsed or modulated radio frequencies and/or sound relayed from a distance by devices that supposedly transform voices into high frequency directional ultrasounds that can be pointed at people like a torch and heard as secondary vibrations in the air.

     Gang stalking victims or Targeted Individuals [TIs] as they are sometimes called, also report continual, never-ending, and ongoing honey traps being deployed against them; often attractive, well-presented, and well-spoken men and women of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds. At a certain point, however, the victims claim that, should they ever enter into a romantic relationship with one of them, the honey traps then begin participating in various disruption campaigns against them as well, such as engaging in covert harassment and gaslighting them about their gang stalking experiences.

     Many self-described gang stalking victims also claim that most of the people in their local communities and social circles, including friends, family, and neighbours, have since turned against them, despite many of them claiming to still want a relationship, describing them as now wanting to engage in psychological games, give backhanded compliments, laugh at their pain, and use words or phrases in conversations with them that describe a recent gang stalking or electronic harassment experience, with former allies now mocking or making fun of them, and friends they had formerly described as selfless and caring individuals now finding pleasure in their mistakes, misfortunes, and illnesses.

     In addition to this, they have also reported the presence of fake TIs; people pretending to report gang stalking being perpetrated against themselves for the purpose of sowing fear and distrust by constantly accusing other people of being fake TIs and by feigning continual distrust, suspicion, paranoia, and infighting among the gang stalking community as whole.

     Finally, many self-described gang stalking victims have stated that they have faced one or all of the following: being told that they have a mental illness by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health experts, placed involuntarily into mental health facilities, and forced to take antipsychotic medication.

 

     If you were to look up gang stalking in the New Media right now, including YouTube, Reddit, Twitter / X, Facebook, podcast websites, comment sections, blogs, groups, and pages, you would find an abundance of terrifying words, subjects, imagery, survival guides, anecdotes, and implications. In fact, some of the more repeated phrases online with respect to gang stalking seem to be: ‘it’s terrifying,’ ‘this is terrifying,’ ‘I’m terrified,’ ‘terrifying phenomenon,’ and ‘gang stalking is terrifying.’

     In this thought camp, which appears to mostly consist of self-described TIs or gang stalking victims, sympathizers, activists, advocates, whistleblowers, researchers, and Christians, it would seem that there is an ongoing pattern of hype; repeatedly using words like terrifying and nightmare as well as posting grim and bizarre imagery and anecdotes (which you can look up and form your own subjective descriptions of). Besides all this, five groups seem to be routinely described as the culprits of gang stalking, including governments, the FBI, the CIA, the freemasons, and a supposed shadow government.

     At the same time, in another, presumably opposed online thought camp with respect to gang stalking are people who seem adamant that all gang stalking victims are suffering from a paranoid mental health disorder and/or a shared delusion of largely governmental persecution, if I’m not mistaken. I am not disputing the morality or the integrity of any individual, online or in person, who holds the belief that all gang stalking victims are paranoid or mentally ill. Nor am I implying that anyone who does hold such a belief is an actor, shill, or that they have a hidden astroturfing agenda. But among what appears to be a fair amount of ridicule, ad hominem, and even strawman arguments against the mental health of those who are currently identifying as TIs or gang stalking victims online, the latter camp seems largely wanting in more moderate, open-minded comments, accounts, claims, and positions that take into account the anonymity, for one thing, that one can clearly maintain in the New Media and the possibility of internet astroturfers creating just as many false narratives around gang stalking as they have other social and political issues in order to paint the gang stalking community as a purely paranoid or mentally ill people not worth listening to.

     It’s also worth noting that instead of the police leading investigations into and drawing more publicized conclusions about current gang stalking complaints, this task seems to have been largely taken up by the mental health communities in the West, despite the fact that they are not a governing body, and whose various online papers, studies, and analyses on gang stalking don’t seem to feature or even acknowledge historical concrete examples of multiple perpetrators stalking in tandem like the eBay case or the PRC repression scheme. Why aren’t the executive branches of governments carrying out robust criminal investigations into gang stalking that could potentially lead to more arrests, fines, and convictions? And if they are, why are such investigations not often publicized or included in the news?

     Unless the webpage has been revised or updated, consider the following excerpts from the current [2025] Wikipedia page on Gang stalking. In the opening paragraph, we read:

‘Gang stalking or group-stalking is a set of persecutory beliefs in which those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people. The term is associated with the virtual community formed by people who consider themselves "targeted individuals" ("T.I."), claiming their lives are disrupted from being stalked by organized groups intent on causing them harm.’

     For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a persecutory belief is another term for a persecutory delusion which, if we’re going by Wikipedia’s [2025] definition is: ‘A type of delusional condition in which the affected person believes that harm is going to occur to oneself by a persecutor, despite a clear lack of evidence. The person may believe that they are being targeted by an individual or a group of people.’ But what’s interesting about Wikipedia’s [current] opening paragraph on gang stalking is not so much the assertion that those who claim to be gang stalking victims are suffering mere persecutory beliefs, but the ostensible presumption that all those affected are claiming that these groups of people stalking them are intent on causing them harm.

     Is it not possible that some targeted individuals are conscious of being harassed merely for sport by large numbers of people using swarming tactics? If mass numbers of protesters can orchestrate, swarm, and converge in tandem on the streets with basic communication devices, can mass numbers not converge on people? Can mass numbers not converge on individuals to covertly advertise job opportunities, hookups, or love interests by synchronizing their daily routes with well-timed product placements, third party street theatre, apparent chance meetings, or staged conversations? And if they can, can they not also carry out a weaponized form of such a convergence for entertainment purposes? Or would such an activity be another exploit that contradicts 6,000 years of behavioural patterns? Otherwise, as per the second excerpt from the same Wikipedia page:

‘Those who believe they are victims report that they believe the motivation for the gang stalking is to disrupt every part of their lives. The activities involved are described as including electronic harassment, the use of "psychotronic weapons", directed-energy weapons, cyberstalking, hypnotic suggestion transmitted through remotely-accessed electronic devices, and other alleged mind control techniques. These have been reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems as opposed to reports of objective phenomena. Among the community of targeted individuals, gang stalking is described as a shared experience where the gang stalkers all coordinate to harass individuals, and the individuals share their victim experiences with each other.’

Finally, at the bottom of the page is found:

‘While a great majority of those who claim to be targeted individuals do not pose danger to others, one report found that some have acted out with violence, sometimes extreme. In 2022, a reported believer in gang stalking was accused of killing four people in Ohio; he uploaded a video before the shooting in which he said that he wanted to "help other targeted individuals", and that he will conduct "the first counterattack against mind control in history". A manifesto was found on his computer, in which he wrote that his neighbors were mind-controlling terrorists.’

     Let me state for the record that I am not against bringing up or including shooting or mass shooting incidents in relation to gang stalking. My only position on the matter is that if mainstream webpages, sources, and authorities can cite, include, infer, or speculate on the motives of mass shooters then everyone online should be afforded the same privilege without being accused of being disrespectful to mass shooting victims or their families. Otherwise, it would appear from the outset that Wikipedia currently falls into the thought camp of gang stalking being purely delusional in nature and/or stemming from a mental illness. You can look at the rest of the page and draw your own conclusions.

     As to a directed-energy weapon, these are currently defined as: ‘a ranged weapon that damages its target with highly focused energy without a solid projectile, including lasers, microwaves, particle beams, and sound beams. Potential applications of this technology include weapons that target personnel, missiles, vehicles, and optical devices.’ [Wikipedia – 2025]. While I don’t know how many directed-energy weapons or DEWs exist in the world today or how difficult it would be to make or obtain one, it is said that two CIA agents were possibly attacked by a microwave weapon while visiting Australia in 2019. As per a 2020 ABC News article:

‘The CIA officials reported hearing ringing in their ears and feeling nauseous and dizzy, symptoms consistent with "Havana syndrome", first suffered by American diplomats serving in Cuba. According to a report in America's GQ magazine, mobile phone data revealed agents from Moscow's Federal Security Service (FSB) were in the vicinity of their hotel room at the time the visitors fell ill. "While in their hotel rooms in Australia, both of the Americans felt it: the strange sound, the pressure in their heads, the ringing in their ears," GQ reported.

     Does this mean that two CIA officials were plausibly attacked by a DEW in Australia? And if they were, are we to understand that every single person on the planet who can construct a DEW at least has the moral decency to only attack CIA officials? For those who haven’t heard the term before, Havana Syndrome, also called Anomalous Health Incidents [AHIs] encompasses a variety of symptoms, including dizziness, nausea, headaches, pain, visual disturbances, localized sounds such as screeching noises, poor concentration, and cognitive problems – which first appeared in 2016 with both US and Canadian diplomats in Cuba describing sensations of pressure, vibration, and strange grating noises. As per a 2024 article from the US Foreign Policy Research Institute [FPRI]:

‘Possibly up to 1,500 American officials at home and abroad have suffered brain and other injuries in recent years from a mysterious malady that is reported to have begun in Havana in 2016 and has since been known as Havana Syndrome.’

     At present, several explanations have been given as to the cause of Havana Syndrome / AHIs, including the suspected use of a DEW [fpri.org/article/2024/04/havana-syndrome-the-history-behind-the-mystery/] – which may have been what impelled or contributed to the five-year investigation into Havana Syndrome / AHIs on the part of 60 Minutes. But amid suspected links to Russia, suggestions of foreign adversaries, and various other conjectures, the collective intelligence of the West has yet to link a single foreign actor to any specific Havana Syndrome / AHI incident post 2016 (at the time of writing this book).

     As to the presence of other speculated gang stalking-related DEWs like functional high-tech neural-based weaponry or neuroweapons, while there remains little to no evidence of their existence, and that in the hands of ordinary everyday citizens, there also remains, as reiterated online, a longstanding pattern of little research and scientific study being carried out into the topic and phenomenology of gang stalking.

     You will likewise observe a pattern of officials, journalists, sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts in the West not publicly commenting on the fact that many self-described gang stalking victims are allegedly being placed into mental health facilities and being forced to take antipsychotic medication at the direction or suggestion of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts despite a professed lack of research and scientific study into gang stalking. If some people can state without hesitation that all gang stalking victims are paranoid or delusional, why can’t others remark on the unscientific nature of conclusions being made without extensive research and scientific study to back them up? And if we suppose for a moment that most psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health experts in the modern West are largely of the belief that all gang stalking victims are paranoid or delusional, is a mental health intervention warranted for everyone who reports stalking, harassment, and electronic harassment from multiple people working in tandem or just some of them?

     Were the Massachusetts couple stalked and harassed by the eBay employees subject to mental health interventions? Were any members of the FBI uncovering the MSS repression scheme in danger of being placed in a mental health facility at any time during their investigation into multiple stalkers working in tandem? Were some of the estimated 1500 US officials initially placed into psychiatric care for extensive observation and forced to take antipsychotic medication for suggesting that they might have been attacked by some kind of weapon not currently being researched or studied or receiving a tenth of the scrutiny being dedicated to nuclear weaponry in the New Media? Because at the time of writing this book, I couldn’t find any cases thereof.

     Otherwise, is this lack of research and study even remotely negligent in light of what could be 25 years’ worth of regular people who aren’t officials allegedly being forced to take medication for reporting gang stalking and electronic harassment being perpetrated against themselves? Is it noteworthy to any psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health experts in the world that many of the people who seem to be reporting gang stalking have stated that it only started happening to them after a specific event, such as reporting a crime? Is it noteworthy that many alleged victims claim to be activists, whistleblowers, and Christians, or that the popular activists, whistleblowers, and Christians in the West don’t seem to be reporting gang stalking being perpetrated against themselves?

     And don’t we have a history of events that were initially and vehemently denied or covered up only to be revealed as certain truth further down the track? Don’t we have a history of institutional sexual abuse covered up before more investigative journalists took it upon themselves to uncover it? Don’t we have the rampant disinformation campaign that surrounded the Chernobyl disaster before foreign news outlets pushed to unveil the true extent of the catastrophe? Don’t we have the Tuskegee Experiment of 1932 wherein 399 black men with syphilis were lured into a study to observe the effects of the disease when left untreated which is said to have resulted in 28 syphilis deaths, 100 syphilis-related deaths, 40 patients’ wives infected, and 19 children born with congenital syphilis before it was finally revealed to the public in 1972? So why aren’t more authorities in the West doing anything about gang stalking? Is it because most of them want solid proof that gang stalking exists or because most of them don’t want to look for it?

     And while I don’t particularly care what the New Media does or doesn’t do, as millions of people across every and all known social media platform speak out about corruption and evil and leftists and rightists and wokists and conspiracies and rabbit holes and fake news, is it strange that relatively few of them want to give an opinion about gang stalking, or that those who do so seem largely preoccupied with either hyping it in a similar way to a 19^th Century circus lithograph or by continuing to state that most gang stalking claims stem from a mental illness?

     Nowadays, the thing to do online seems to be to make light of the fact that whistleblowers are being reprimanded, marginalized, prosecuted, and killed in a humorous and sardonic way, ostensibly to garner sympathy for such people; sometimes with clever renditions and illustrations of historic reprisals, previous or pending whistleblower cases, and potential consequences for anyone who reports corruption or discloses various other information in the public interest. And though it comes across as bold and fearless, the one thing these people don’t seem to have the ability to do is to publicly explore or even comment on the possibility of whistleblowers facing gang stalking from ordinary everyday citizens.

     As to the Christian communities of Australia, it seems most of them have more or less decided that the best policy is to say and do nothing about gang stalking, even as individuals, both here and abroad, continue to report that they are being frequently and indefinitely subjected to organized and sophisticated harassment techniques from mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens working in tandem. Yet despite their ongoing complaints, there still doesn’t appear to have been any significant calls for a public inquiry or a royal commission into gang stalking in Australia, nor anyone among Australia’s Christian demographic – which is apparently more than one third our total population – requesting criminal investigations be carried out on the part of the Australian government’s executive branch like the FBI did for the victims of the eBay employees and the targets of the MSS.

     Will more activists, whistleblowers, and Christians start speaking out about gang stalking? Will Australia’s ecumenical Christians do likewise? Will gang stalking become a human rights violation worthy of the attention of the Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] or the United Nations or Amnesty International or 60 Minutes or the Mainstream Media in general? Will the historic organized stalking from the East German Stasi ever receive as much scrutiny as that being directed at the Chinese? Will the popular and prevailing thoughts, opinions, and perceptions about gang stalking be attributing it only to the Stasi or a preoccupation of the mentally ill or internet shills and astroturfers or the work of governments or leftists or rightists or specific social groups like the sovereign citizens of Australia that are currently being advertised to us, or the adherents of a certain sociopolitical or religious ideology, or will people simply call for an investigation into the perpetrators thereof? And will only some voices be allowed to speak out about gang stalking on the world stage while other voices are drowned out or disappear entirely?

     Finally, you would think that our psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health experts all over the world would be especially willing to carry out all manner of investigations into gang stalking if in fact they are the ones who are now charged, as opposed to law enforcement agencies, with determining what crimes among us are based in reality and what crimes are purely fictitious and require forced psychiatric treatment. Would you agree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL QUESTIONS

 

 

 

THEY say facts don’t care about your feelings. Evidently, neither does a popular consensus. If restaurants, offices, and airports can ban smoking simply because mass numbers of people agree that second-hand smoke has a carcinogenic effect, what else can mass numbers of people do? Do you think you could better achieve your life goals if you had mass numbers of people surreptitiously working towards your achieving them? Do you think employers could better find suitable candidates for jobs if they had smart mobs engaging in various sociopsychological simulations in public settings that gauged potential candidates’ reactions to them? Do you think potential candidates could likewise better persuade prospective employers to hire them if they had smart mobs helping to engineer a connection between the two of them in near-similar ways?

     Do you think as many people could also better convince a potential spouse that their pursuer is in fact the one that they’ve been waiting for? Are we to understand that amid 6,000 years of history there have been relatively few cases where an employee was, in a highly organized operation, harassed by a group of workmates on behalf of a higher-up secretly looking to ingratiate themselves with that individual by rebuking their harassers or letting them go? Has there likewise been relatively few incidents wherein a group of strangers was hired to harass or even assault a woman in order to engineer her trust in a potential husband who ‘happened’ to be in the area at the time because God had apparently told him that ‘someone special needs rescuing’? Another question that might be worth asking is: do you think if you took a closer look at the hustle and bustle and mundane activities and apparent complexities and social minutiae all around you that you would discover far more deception, playacting, artificiality, and insincerity than contemporary thought dictates? On that note, what do you think will end up dictating the contemporary thought surrounding smart mobs? Facts? Or a popular consensus?

     A common term before 1900 among traveling circus folk to describe any local person who was easily swindled was rube [Barnum’s Big Top]. Hey, Rube! would also become something of a cry for help among circus and traveling carnival workers when fights broke out; since fights between the show people and the rubes were said to be an almost daily occurrence. Whether this was more often on account of rubes being grifted or of rubes being rowdy at carnivals and circuses, I can’t say. Otherwise, an 1882 report in the Chicago Tribune explained that:

‘a canvasman watching a tent is just like a man watching his home. He'll fight in a minute if the outsider cuts the canvas [to sneak in], and if a crowd comes to quarrel—he will yell, ‘Hey, Rube!' That's the circus rallying cry, and look out for war when you hear it.’

     Are mass numbers of people involved in shows that make up one big show? Are only some people allowed to be in the big show? Are the decent people who want to influence this world for good allowed to be as popular as the show people, even in their local communities? Are they allowed to be as influential when decency isn’t conducive to show profits? Are those who create their own shows in life and garner noticeable popularity muscled out of show business by people across all social strata and from all assumed faiths and socioeconomic backgrounds? Are their shows coopted by and diverted into the big show? Are such people replaced by show people who first come alongside them pretending to be friends, admirers, or lovers with the same thoughts, opinions, and perceptions, and then hijack and steer their influence in specific directions or towards specific goals in their own favour while the original influencer fades into obscurity, is buried in reproach, or suffers other consequences? Are narcissistic actors playing on and dominating every stage show on every platform and in every local community in the West?

     Hey, Rube! Why would we do a thing like that? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. But why would only some people be allowed to be influential in their local communities? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world. But why would anyone in your local community take part in gang stalking while constantly advertising their fear of strangers or pretending to be harassed or attacked by strangers in public? Because if you can control the flow of information, you can control the world.

     But why would activists, whistleblowers, Christians, and other decent people face gang stalking from mass numbers of regular people? Why would honey trapping be an ordinary everyday occurrence for mass numbers of men and women in the West? Why would mass numbers of people be pretending to love their partners and children right now? Why would mass numbers of men and women be pretending to hate each other while other mass numbers pretend to be concerned about such a hatred? Why would prostitution be the most common profession in the West but be firewalled by a wide-ranging, 24/7 disinformation campaign? Why would cruelty in the West now be largely relegated to the misdeeds of strangers, drug users, the mentally ill, toxic men, feminist women, leftists, rightists, protesters, authorities, officials, mobsters, fraudsters, and influencers instead of mass numbers of narcissistic actors working in tandem to control the flow of information?

 

     In the 13 years leading up to Havelock Ellis defining narcissism as a mental illness in 1898, there had already appeared on the world stage the Motor Car [1885], the Motorcycle [1885], Coca-Cola [1886], the Gramophone [1887], the Jukebox [1889], Cordite [1889], the Electric Kettle [1891], the Escalator [1891], the Tesla Coil [1891], the Vacuum Flask [1892], the Radio [1896], and the Oscilloscope [1897]. The Theory of Accelerating Change holds that the rate of technological and societal advancement is increasing exponentially. In other words, such advancements are not just accelerating in pace, but the speed at which they occur is also accelerating. This means more profound technological and societal changes in shorter periods of time.

     A quote often attributed to Science Fiction author William Gibson is: ‘The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.’ Could the most profound technological and societal changes in modern history have already taken place and we just don’t know about them? Could some of these proposed changes account for the exponential growth of narcissism in the West if such changes were secretly linked to the exploitation of people on a massive scale to elevate the exploiters? Could today’s technological innovations just be a distraction from what was secretly commonplace yesterday? I think anyone could be forgiven for believing that the future has been around a lot longer than contemporary thought dictates.

     And what about the contemporary thought surrounding harassment and murder? Has it ever bothered you how the bad guys have been clinically defined in so many movies? I turned 39 in the course of writing this book. For almost as many years, I’ve seen the good guys describe the bad guys as purely animalistic individuals whose minds and motives are beyond human comprehension and cannot be understood. At the same time, I’ve seen many real-life harassment and murder cases in the news reportedly stemming from a mental illness, drug use, sociopolitical ideology, anti-government sentiments, and religious beliefs. Meanwhile, Cain killed his brother Abel simply because Abel’s motives were mostly good while his own were mostly bad. Herodias, King Herod’s wife, used her own daughter to incite lust in her husband and thus coerce him into having John the Baptist beheaded simply because he dared call their marriage unlawful. Vlad the Impaler had people impaled on spikes simply to intimidate his enemies and deter would-be invaders. I wouldn’t describe people themselves as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ since we’re all sinners in the eyes of God, but I also wouldn’t describe bad motives as this giant onion of complicated, grey layers as narcissists often do.

     Life is just so complicated, isn’t it? So why would you dare think that the simplest answers are even remotely viable when your boss already told you the real reason why they wanted you to come in to work early, your parents already told you the real reason for their criticisms, and your ex already told you the real reason why they think you should both go your own separate ways? Here’s another question: who decided that you might have a mental illness for not giving most men and women in the West the ‘benefit of the doubt’? Was it you? Or is it someone close to you? And do they say it with plain, open, direct, and clear language or do they choose other ways of drawing attention to how foolish or imbalanced you must be for thinking that mass numbers of ordinary everyday citizens have bad motives hiding behind all the ‘real’ ones that they like to advertise?

     We have 6,000 years of harassment and murder stemming from people’s pride – and many times on the part of multiple, well-connected, well-spoken, status-seeking, self-righteous, and extroverted men and women of all ages who had the social, political, economic, or psychological means to harass and murder to assert their superiority. Can you tell me how many of those people have been arrested in your neighbourhood for harassment, murder, or conspiracy to murder? Can you tell me how many strangers, outcasts, and lone actors are instead hyped by your multiple, well-connected, well-spoken, status-seeking, self-righteous, and extroverted friends, family, roommates, workmates, colleagues, contemporaries, or neighbours as the ones who could be the real perpetrators of harassment, murder, and various other crimes? And do you understand now the power of popular consensus? Do you understand now who could be lighting fires in your neighbourhood today?

     All things considered, is it not possible that life is little more than a competition for mass numbers of ordinary everyday men and women? Is it not reasonable to suggest that a desire for superiority is the sole driving force behind so many smiling faces in the West today, or that so many are achieving their sense of superiority through (and finding pleasure in) the covert harassment of activists, whistleblowers, Christians, and various other people with high moral codes? Is it too radical to suggest that mass numbers of people don’t have consciences anymore and that they are perfectly happy, even eager, to follow depraved and dehumanizing social trends as long as such trends are kept hidden from the public and don’t invite criticism, judgment, or criminal liability, or is that just what mass numbers of people are working tirelessly to disinform you on with the real reasons for some of their questionable behaviour? And could the true reason why Shirley Jackson’s book The Lottery caused so much outrage and controversy be because it was in fact a perfectly accurate depiction of the contemporary human race and some contemporary humans simply preferred such depictions not be advertised at the time – much less grafted into contemporary thought?

     Where Barnum is rumoured to have mused that ‘there’s a sucker born every minute,’ Bonhoeffer seemed to have contended that stupidity is more dangerous than malice; claiming that stupid people are capable of any evil and simultaneously incapable of seeing their evil actions as evil [Theory of Stupidity, 1942]. But whether Bonhoeffer meant well or not, since we already know that narcissists inherently don’t take responsibility for their evil actions, couldn’t the latter’s way of thinking be just another potential avenue for narcissistic blame shifting? Would it not make for another convincing argument alongside just following orders if it were hyped by a popular consensus as a legitimate excuse for mass bullying? Would it not make for another distraction from Proverbs 28:21 if enough people pretended to embrace and give artificial credence to such a belief? And is it therefore not possible that the West is now run by hundreds of millions of narcissistic actors involved in fake consensuses that determine the implied reality thereof since most people prefer popularity to the truth?

     Is there a case today for the existence of a new kind of radical ecumenical astroturfing and smart mobbing society who have secretly made the transition to a covert, networked form of social organization and now work in tandem to help steer the wider world narrative and control the flow of information through hype and advertising and various other means of perpetuating the prescribed news while disinforming on the real? Are mass numbers of people involved in a modern-day Inquisition of ordinary everyday citizens, from hardened street thugs to innocent-looking elderly women in churches, who try the truly innocent people in a covert court of public opinion and subject them to covert harassment all over the West – and perhaps the entire world – with a technological latitude that you’re not allowed to know exists? And could mass numbers of people be refusing to look through the telescope, as it were, to discover what gang stalking really is simply because they are in fact taking part in it and are using false fear and various other forms of mass disinformation to cover up the extent of their involvement in mass bullying?

     If the God of the bible says that we are all tempted towards pride or perceived superiority by Satan, has modern man decided to leverage this weakness by doing something similar to what Satan did at man’s beginning by rewarding his acts of cruelty with forbidden fruit that gives him quasi god-like technological abilities in order to oppress and control the world around him? You would think that 6,000 years of cruelty perpetrated at the hands of narcissists purely to assert their perceived superiority would have convinced the world by now that the human race wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to be cruel to others with impunity or a lack of consequences – especially if they were rewarded for it. But can you count how many people in your local community have concluded as much? Can you count how many of them instead find mass cruelty shocking or difficult to understand? And will mass numbers of people continue to have difficulty understanding themselves in the days that follow tomorrow? Because if the answer is a huge, resounding, and definitive no, then you still have to agree…