Trauma-based Mind Control

Abstract

Increasing evidence has come to light of trauma-based mind control exercises performed on children in ritual abuse settings. Those exercises involve torture, near death experiences, and making victims feel responsible for the death of others. The traumatised child is made to feel completely powerless and dependent on the abuser for their survival. Highly disturbingly, similar techniques—involving psychological torture, intentional traumatization, and false rescue—were carried out against the public during “Covid-19.” Psychological torture techniques include the inculcation of chronic stress and the mandatory wearing of face masks (originally deployed against inmates at Guantánamo Bay). The public was traumatised by fear of death from the “virus” and was made to feel responsible for the deaths of others. A trauma bonding was instigated, intended to last decades and to bind an infantilised population in loyalty and obedience to its “omnipotent” masters. Predatory transnational power came to the false rescue in exchange for the surrendering of liberties.

Increasing evidence has come to light of trauma-based mind control exercises performed on children in ritual abuse settings. Those exercises involve torture, near death experiences, and making victims feel responsible for the death of others. The traumatised child is made to feel completely powerless and dependent on the abuser for their survival. Highly disturbingly, similar techniques—involving psychological torture, intentional traumatisation, and false rescue—were carried out against the public during “Covid-19.” Psychological torture techniques include the inculcation of chronic stress and the mandatory wearing of face masks (originally deployed against inmates at Guantánamo Bay). The public was traumatised by fear of death from the “virus” and was made to feel responsible for the deaths of others. A trauma bonding was instigated, intended to last decades and to bind an infantilised population in loyalty and obedience to its “omnipotent” masters. Predatory transnational power came to the false rescue in exchange for the surrendering of liberties.

The Franklin Scandal, Project Monarch, The Finders, and Satanic Ritual Abuse

The 1988 Franklin Scandal centred on a suspected child-trafficking ring in Omaha, Nebraska, which was accused of providing children to politicians in Washington, D.C. At the heart of the scandal was Lawrence E. King Jr., who appears to have had ties to the CIA through his arms and money transfers to Nicaragua during Iran-Contra (Vos, 2019). No one was prosecuted, however, apart from alleged victims. Alisha Owens, for example, was held in solitary confinement longer than any other person in Nebraskan history after telling her story. Paul Bonacci was prosecuted for perjury after claiming that King had sexually abused him as a minor, but in 1999 was awarded $1 million in damages.

In February 1993, Bonacci referenced Project Monarch in a video interview with Ted Gunderson, the former head of the Los Angeles FBI (Alexander, 1997). Project Monarch is an alleged spin-off from MKULTRA involving the torture, sexual abuse, and ritual murder of children for mind control purposes. When Anton Chaitkin asked former CIA Director William Colby in December 1993 “What about Monarch?” Colby is said to have replied angrily: “We stopped that between the late 1960s and the early 1970s” (cited in Alexander, 1997).

In no publicly available official document is there any mention of Project Monarch, meaning either that it never existed or that it is top secret. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on MKULTRA (1977), for example, which only came about thanks to the investigative work of John Marks in exposing the existence of MKULTRA, makes no mention of Project Monarch. For critics such as Barkun (2003, p. 76), this is evidence of “the extension of the mind-control literature into areas for which there is no substantiation,” giving rise to a genre of evidence-free “self-described victims,” from alleged Monarch victims to victims of UFO abductions (which also feature claims of sexual abuse). Thomas (2007, p. 22), on the other hand, claims that the Senate Committee “focused on only the tip of the iceberg and the victims have been intimidated into silence and still suffer in the shadows even today.” The CIA supposedly destroyed its files on MKULTRA and similar programmes following the Senate Committee report, yet it is widely suspected that these or similar classified programmes “continued on, quietly” (Phelan, 2020). This is probable given that the CIA has always operated beyond any meaningful scrutiny or oversight (Valentine, 2017). Thus, Monarch could have been a classified successor of MKULTRA, but the evidence is inconclusive.

The Finders is an organisation suspected of child sex trafficking, brainwashing, and blood rituals in Washington D.C., raising further suspicions of intelligence operations involving the sexual blackmail of politicians, as well as gruesome mind control experiments carried out on children (Broze, 2019; Vos, 2019, 2021). Gunderson (cited in Alexander, 1997) describes The Finders as a CIA front set up in the 1960s to kidnap and torture-programme young children through “satanic sex orgies and bloody rituals as well as the murders of other children and slaughter of animals.” The Finders’ leader, Marion Pettie, was obsessed with the CIA, for whom his wife worked between 1957 and 1961 (Broze, 2019).

In 1993, the FBI, having dropped an initial investigation in 1987, launched an investigation into allegations of CIA involvement in The Finders. No one was ever prosecuted, and nothing came of the 1993 investigation apart from 324 heavily redacted pages (FBI, n.d.) released a few months after Jeffrey Epstein’s death in October 2019, apparently intended to assuage public suspicion regarding intelligence agencies’ use of children in sexual blackmail operations.

Though the details are sketchy, the above evidence offers some reason to suspect that horrific crimes against children, including torture, rape, and murder, may have been committed for purposes of political blackmail and pushing the limits of mind control experiments. Linked to this possibility are widespread claims of satanic ritual abuse (SRA) arising from the 1980s on. Thomas (2007, p. 52) describes SRA victims as “victims of MKULTRA experiments in childhood,” noting that thousands of unrelated people from across the United States had all come forward with “essentially the same story […] that as very young children these people were forced to participate in SRA, including child rape and ritual sacrifice.” Lacter (2007) regretfully concludes, based on her professional experience of dealing with child abuse survivors, that “sophisticated abuser groups within the United States of America are using torture to install complex mind control programming in our children in order to further their own political or religious agendas.”

As evidence of ritual abuse began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s, those alleging it were fiercely closed down. For example, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, staffed with psychiatrists linked to CIA mind control projects, was created in 1992 “to deny the existence of cult mind control and child abuse” (Thomas, 2007, p. 52). The “satanic panic” was coined to make allegations of satanic ritual abuse appear attributable to mass hysteria on the part of evangelical Christians. The nonprofit Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was financially ruined by $5.2 million of lawsuits filed against it, and in 1996, “Scientology lawyers took possession of 20 years’ worth of CAN’s highly sensitive case files containing information on thousands of people who had turned to CAN for help in rescuing their friends and relatives”—Scientology being known for its litigious nature (Thomas, 2007, p. 51). The ferocity of the response to SRA claims only lends credence to them, however, ties between SRA and the CIA remain unexplored (Vos, 2021).

We should be cognisant of the “vast uptick in diagnoses” of Dissociative Identity Disorder (previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder) from 1980 on (Tracy, 2022). As per the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV (1994, p. 230), these involve “two or more distinct identities or personality states […] recurrently tak[ing] control of the person’s behavior”, involving an “inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness” or intoxication. According to one child psychiatrist,

These distinct personalities or “alters” can have different characteristics, ages, genders, and names. Often at least one of them tends to encourage the individual to do “bad things” to themselves or others. DID is generally thought to develop among people who have been exposed to high levels of trauma and abuse where the dissociation and formation of other personalities forms as a defense against experiences that are too emotionally volatile to process directly. Many individuals with DID are known to be fairly susceptible to being hypnotized. (Rettew, 2022)

This clinical description is consistent with the alleged effects of mind control experiments in which perpetrators “systematically torture their victims for the intended purpose of coercing their victims’ psyches into forming new dissociated self-states that they then work to exploit” via “hypnosis and behavioral conditioning” (Lacter, 2007). Did the sudden unexplained rise of DID create fertile ground for such claims, or were covert CIA “experiments,” conducted on a mass scale, in particular through cults, a driver of the disorder?

Though the evidence is tentative, understanding the potential involvement of the CIA in the Franklin Scandal, Project Monarch, The Finders, and SRA claims is important when it comes to making sense of some of the darkest aspects of the “Covid-19” operation, which have to do with perceived near death experiences, making people feel responsible for the death of others, and false rescue of an infantilised population by seemingly “omnipotent” authorities. Even if some of the above material is, by design, hard to prove, a plausible pattern of abuse emerges, and is disturbingly consistent with the abuse meted out against the populations of many countries since 2020.

Torture

Psychological Torture

The “Covid-19” operation was in part based on techniques learned through CIA experimentation in torture, though the link is “at first sight far from from self-evident” (van der Pijl, 2022, p. 27). This is because torture has, for most of human history, been associated with physical means of coercion, e.g. to make the victim divulge information, confess to a heresy or crime, recant one’s views, etc. Yet, as the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian understood, this form of torture proves remarkably ineffective for extracting reliable information: the strong will resist, while the weak will say anything to make it stop (McCoy, 2007, p. 207).

According to Kleinman (2006, p. 130), writing in a National Defence Intelligence College publication, “the scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information.” In the “War on Terror,” the purpose of physical torture seems, rather, to have been to extract unreliable information (Corbett, 2022). The footnotes to the 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, contain no fewer than 211 references to “interrogation of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed].”

CIA torture techniques codified in manuals used to train authoritarian regimes in “interrogation” techniques largely dispense with the need for physical/pharmacological methods and favour psychological means instead, not least because they leave no physical traces (CIA, 1983). Psychological torture, according to Meerloo (1956, p. 27), “can often be more painful and mentally more paralyzing than the rack,” even though it is deemed “more acceptable.”

“From Chile to China to Iraq,” writes Klein (2007, pp. 15–16), “torture has been a silent partner in the global free-market crusade. But torture is more than a tool used to enforce unwanted policies on rebellious peoples; it is also a metaphor of the shock doctrine’s underlying logic.” This is because the shock doctrine “attempt[s] to achieve on a mass scale what torture does one on one in the interrogation cell,” i.e. break victims’ will to resist. The shock doctrine can thus be understood as a form of psychological torture inflicted across entire societies.

Once it is understood that a psychological warfare operation was deployed in 2020 to shock the world’s population into submitting to tyrannical measures which it would otherwise not accept, drawing in the process on CIA torture techniques specifically developed to break the human will, and that “torture implies a systemic activity with a rational purpose” (Amnesty International, 1973, p. 30), the true horror of what has taken place begins to fall into sharper relief.

Chronic Stress

The 1973 Amnesty International report on torture identifies three types of stress induced by “successful” torture: acute, sub-acute, and chronic. Acute stress is characterised by “shock response, sudden reflex, fight or flight” and corresponds to “capture in war” (Amnesty International, 1973, p. 35). Acute stress is not necessarily a bad thing: it represents a short-term adaptive reaction to challenges and forms “part of the survival mechanism,” potentially enhancing the immune response (Rancourt et al., 2021, p. 133). In the “Covid-19” context, acute stress was triggered by the shock of the “lockdowns,” a form of capture that necessitated dramatic adaptations to most people’s way of life. It is revealing that Schwab and Malleret, writing in June 2020, refer to the “lockdowns” as “the period of acute stress” (2020, p. 159).

The sub-acute phase sets in when acute stress dies down and a new “medium term” phase begins, characterised by an “anxiety response while maintaining morale and personal integrity; a ‘fighting posture’ is retained” (Amnesty International, 1973, pp. 35–40). Ominously, however, “the aim of the torturer/interrogator” is to “erode that morale by destroying whatever props the individual has for his mental integrity.” The aim is to induce what Meerloo (1956, p. 75) calls “the moment of sudden surrender,” “when the victim, psychologically worn out, involuntarily surrenders to the captor: ‘All right, all right, you can have anything you want.’” Or to quote Huxley (1958, p. 59): “If the stress to which he is subjected is sufficiently intense or sufficiently prolonged, he will end by breaking down as abjectly and as completely as the weakest of his kind.”

Chronic or long-term stress is maladaptive and has detrimental effects on both physical and mental health; it “harms immune response” (Rancourt et al., 2021, p. 13). It can induce physical disease, from “illnesses like bronchopneumonia, to psychosomatic diseases such as duodenal ulcers, asthma and bronchitis, to coronary disease, T.B., and even to cancer” (Amnesty International, 1973, pp. 35–45). Psychologically, it can lead to a “continuous state of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, dissociation, derealization, and regression” and is ultimately what “the torturer seeks to orchestrate.” Taken too far, “thought processes, bodily desires and functions become retarded” and a “fugue” state can set in, whereby the prisoner “appears to ‘switch off’ all awareness, looks bland and untroubled, exhibits no response to pain.” This is consistent with the CIA “interrogation” manuals: “If the debility-dependency-dread state is unduly prolonged, the subject may sink into a defensive apathy from which it is hard to arouse him” (CIA, 1983, § K-3). The challenge, therefore, is to use chronic stress to induce states that allow for maximum psychological manipulation, but without going so far that the victim “switches off.”

Rancourt et al. (2021, pp. 134–137) find that all-cause mortality data from the United States for 2020/21 is inconsistent with a viral “pandemic” (because of jurisdictional heterogeneity; see Chap. 6), yet wholly consistent with the chronic stress generated by the enormous socio-economic disruptions brought about through Covid policy, which disproportionately impacted those at the bottom of the “societal dominance hierarchy” with the fewest means to adapt, suppressing their immune systems. In effect, the state had “recreated the conditions that produced the horrendous bacterial pneumonia epidemic of 1918”—in other words, wartime conditions: the scale of socio-economic disruption seen under “Covid-19” has only ever been witnessed in times of war. It was known before the “lockdowns” that quarantining individuals leads to “post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger” (Brooks et al., 2020), and so it proved with the catastrophic impact of the “lockdowns” on the public’s mental health (see Chap. 5).

Rancourt et al., (2021, pp. 121, 135–7) go further by claiming that there was, in fact, a bacterial pneumonia epidemic in the United States in 2020/21, as there was in 1918–1920, to which most “Covid-19” deaths were misattributed. They note that antibiotic prescriptions which might have treated bacterial pneumonia fell by half in March/April 2020. This is particularly suspicious given the remarkable “similarity in state-wise distributions of life expectancy at birth […] and antibiotic prescriptions” that would automatically point towards the wisdom of maintaining antibiotic availability, regardless of “Covid-19” (Rancourt et al., 2021, p. 131). Safe and effective therapeutic agents such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were deliberately suppressed, creating comparable conditions to 1918–20, when antibiotics had not yet been discovered (Rancourt et al., 2021, pp. 136–7).

These facts lead to troubling questions about intent and possible democide, and Rancourt et al. (2021, p. 132) are clear that “aggressive government and medical response to the WHO 11 March 2020 declaration of a pandemic”—and not the virus—was responsible for most of the deaths during the so-called “first wave.” Moreover, further unexpected upsurges in all-cause mortality in the United States—during the summer of 2020, winter 2020/21, and the summer of 2021—also reflect “deaths induced by the government measures, via the combined poverty, obesity and climatic factors, made potent by sustained chronic psychological stress” (Rancourt et al. 2021, p. 115).

On this evidence, chronic stress, a deliberate aim of psychological torture, was intentionally induced through “Covid-19” menticide, and large numbers of people have lost their lives or become seriously ill as a result.

Simple Techniques to Disturb Mental Equilibrium

In 1954, McGill’s Donald O. Hebb and Woodburn Heron paid male college students twice the daily average wage to lie on a soft bed in a sensory deprivation cubicle, with light diffused by translucent goggles, auditory stimulation limited by soundproofing, and tactical perception impeded by thick gloves and a U-shaped foam pillow. A Time article on the experiment notes of the participants: “little by little their brains go dead or slip out of control,” leading to intense hallucinations (“Science: Twilight of the Brain,” 1954) and, in Hebb’s words, “the breakdown of the organized activity of complex central processes” in the brain (cited in McCoy, 2007, p. 41). The experiment revealed “a human mental equilibrium so delicate that just a few simple tools—goggles, gloves, and a foam pillow—could induce a state akin to acute psychosis in many subjects within just forty-eight hours” (McCoy, 2007, p. 37).

Seizing on the McGill findings, Morse Allen, who headed the CIA’s Project ARTICHOKE, oversaw an experiment in March 1955, in which an army volunteer was put inside a sensory deprivation box. After 40 hours, the volunteer began “an hour of crying loudly and sobbing in a most heartrending fashion” in Allen’s words, before kicking his way out. When Allen told brain surgeon Maitland Baldwin about this, Baldwin was persuaded that “the isolation technique could break any man, no matter how intelligent” (cited in McCoy, 2007, p. 38). Harvard psychiatrists conducting similar experiments in 1957 using a water tank and a hood instead of a box concluded that “sensory deprivation can produce major mental and behavioral changes in man” (cited in McCoy, 2007, p. 40).

These experimental findings were appropriated by the CIA for “interrogation” purposes. The KUBARK Manual summarises them as follows:

(1) the deprivation of sensory stimuli induces stress; (2) the stress becomes unbearable for most subjects; (3) the subject has a growing need for physical and social stimuli; and (4) some subjects progressively lose touch with reality, focus inwardly, and produce delusions, hallucinations, and other pathological effects (CIA, 1963, p. 89).

A hand-edited version of this passage in the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, includes the line “Extreme deprivation of sensory stimuli induces unbearable stress and anxiety and is a form of torture” (CIA, 1983, § K-7).

In addition to sensory deprivation, self-inflicted pain proved crucial to CIA torture techniques. Self-inflicted pain “causes victims to feel responsible for their suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers” (McCoy, 2007, p. 8). Such techniques are evident in the infamous 2003 photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in which a hooded Iraqi on a box stands with arms outstretched, wires attached: lowering the arms results in electro-shock (self-inflicted pain) while the hood induces sensory deprivation (McCoy, 2007, p. 8). At the same prison, U.S. military police paraded Iraqi prisoners naked with plastic sandbags over their heads, thus “combining psychological humiliation with the pain of restricted breathing” (McCoy, 2007, p. 59)—two additional elements of effective torture.

In January 2002, images emerged from Guantánamo Bay of caged prisoners wearing blackout goggles, gloves, thick caps, and industrial earmuffs, kneeling with hands and feet bound, heads bowed in a stress position, facing outwards towards the edge of the cage (Dyer, 2002; cf. “Open letter from former Guantánamo prisoners,” 2013). As the Guardian notes, “Early photographs [from the McGill experiment] show volunteers, goggled and muffled, looking eerily similar to prisoners arriving at Guantánamo” (“Nobody is talking,” 2005). The goggles, gloves, caps, and earmuffs at Guantánamo Bay, a torture facility, were obviously intended as means of torture. Duncan Forrest of the International Committee of the Red Cross claimed that the sensory deprivation was “bordering on torture” and “could cause immediate and lasting psychological symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress disorder if it lasted more than about 20 hours” (cited in Dyer, 2002). Being made to kneel in a stress position also fits the CIA’s concept of “self-inflicted” pain: presumably, the inmates fear being beaten if they move.

Face Masks as Instruments of Psychological Torture

Extremely disturbing about the images from Guantánamo Bay, for our purposes, is that the inmates are all wearing blue surgical face masks. In one image from Amnesty International (2020), goggles, gloves, caps, and earmuffs are not being worn but face masks are. It seems difficult to escape the conclusion that the mandatory wearing of such masks has something to do with psychological torture. Certainly, face masks restrict breathing, and they are psychologically humiliating, insofar as they make the wearer look ridiculous/grotesque (Potts, 2020), serve no useful purpose (Jefferson et al., 2023; Children’s Health Defence, n.d.), resemble muzzles (Hitchens, 2020), and are associated with slavery (Stephens Nuwer, 2016, p. 145; Strongman, 2021), servitude (Greenwald, 2021), and sadomasochism (Needham, 2014). The face masks at Guantánamo Bay may also be another form of self-inflicted pain, with inmates too frightened to pull them down for fear of punishment.

According to the KUBARK Manual, “whereas pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, his resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself” (CIA, 1963, p. 94). For example, ordering a prisoner to stand to attention or sit on a stool for a prolonged period may be more effective than a beating, because if the prisoner complies with the order,

His conflict is then an internal struggle. As long as he maintains this position, he is attributing to the [captor] the ability to do something worse, but there is never a showdown where the [captor] demonstrates this ability. After a period of time, the subject may exhaust his internal motivational strength. (CIA, 1983, § K-10)

Wearing a face mask on command is a seemingly innocuous act, like being told to stand or sit for an extended period of time. Seldom does it come to a “showdown” where a person is physically compelled to wear a mask; most people consent to wearing one.

When worn for long periods of time in non-sterile conditions, however, face masks cause the wearer to re-inhale their own exhaled air, including bacteria that gather in the stale zone between the mouth and the mask. This can lead to “psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described [as] Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome” (Kisielinski et al., 2021). These include increase in breathing resistance, increase in blood carbon dioxide, decrease in blood oxygen saturation, increase in heart rate, increase in blood pressure, decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity, increase in respiratory rate, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing, headache, dizziness, feeling hot and clammy, decreased ability to concentrate, decreased ability to think, drowsiness, decrease in empathy perception, impaired skin barrier function with itching, acne, skin lesions and irritation, and general fatigue and exhaustion.

Mask wearers, therefore, face an internal struggle arising from their consent to an absurd, medically senseless practice (Jefferson et al., 2023) which they must instinctively know to be harmful. Mask wearing is a filthy habit (because of the recycled bacteria) and a form of self-harm (physically and psychologically). The sight of people with the mask below their nose or chin was all too common and is evidence that mask wearing is widely experienced as unpleasant and oppressive. Consenting to wearing a face mask under these circumstances is perverse and masochistic.

“It’s just a piece of cloth,” mask proponents claim, yet, “millions of people are considerably more tormented by facemasks than what we would expect is reasonable or even possible for something that is indeed merely an ‘inconvenience.’” Even so, Hertzberg (2021) continues, “few people are able to work out for themselves what about [face masks] is so abusive or terrible.” This is because of the hidden psychological warfare functions that face masks serve. In Johnson’s (2020, § 5.2) view, they constitute a “form of psychological torture—a form of domestic terrorism, as it has been carried out on the general population, not in a few isolated cases.” A diabolical poster by Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust shows a “kissing” couple, hooded and masked, with the strap line “We really need to see less of each other” (Rix, 2021), consistent with CIA methods. Face masks additionally serve to inculcate fear, train obedience, signal conformity, create an absurd/alien reality, dehumanise and deindividuate the wearer, and are a marker of cult allegiance (see Volume 2 of this book). Because they work on so many different levels at once, they represent an extremely potent, and evil, instrument of psychological warfare. The fact that virtually all states mandated their use for no sound scientific reason (Eugyppius, 2023) is one of numerous indicators that a transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022) is now at war with humanity.

Trauma

“Covid-19” as Mass Trauma Event

The “Covid-19 pandemic” was a mass trauma event. According to the British Psychological Society (2020), “There is global acknowledgment that society has suffered a collective trauma, experienced mass confusion, heightened anxiety, and increased depression both physical and financial.” NHS England’s clinical director for mental health told a Parliamentary committee in May 2020 that the “demand for mental healthcare would increase ‘significantly’ once the lockdown ended and would see people needing treatment for trauma for years to come” (cited in Schwab & Malleret, 2020, p. 92).

As with any traumatic event, a profound sense of unreality set in for many people after March 2020, expressible in the sentiment “this cannot be happening.” For example, Stephanie Seneff, co-author of an important peer-reviewed journal article warning of the potential dangers of the “Covid-19 vaccines” (Seneff & Nigh, 2021), opines: “I still feel like I’m in a surreal time. I just can’t quite understand that this is actually taking place. It doesn’t make sense to me” (Mercola & Seneff, 2021).

A key theme of ritual abuse is that the human mind is most susceptible to programming when traumatised by the fear of imminent death: “Torture involving states of extreme pain and terror, to the point of near-death, is required to install mind control programming” (Lacter, 2007). In the “Covid-19” context, military-grade propaganda about a “deadly virus” (see Chap. 4) was enough to make many people fear for their lives, with some believing they could die if they passed within six feet of another person.

For traumatised people, the world no longer feels like a safe place. In 2020, “very banal decisions,” such as whether to go out in public, became “tainted with a sense of dread” (Schwab & Malleret, 2020, p. 159). This was true, not only for those traumatised by the propaganda about death and disease, but also for nonconformists who risked encountering fear-driven hysteria on the part of mask wearers (see Chap. 6). Kidd and Ratcliffe (2020) observe that the world is “no longer homely in the way it once was” and is instead “suffused with an air of dread,” the physical public sphere becoming “a place where many fear to tread.”

Killing Granny

In ritual abuse, it is not only fear for one’s own life that is effective in inducing trauma, but also the victim’s conviction that they have harmed or killed someone else, especially a loved one: “States of despair, self-hatred, paranoia, and global distrust of humanity are also effective. These are induced through [inter alia] forcing the child to hurt or kill others” (Lacter, 2007). Victims may find that their memories return “in layers,” from being made to believe that they were guilty for a child’s punishment/suffering, to “seeing people hurt or even killed,” to “realizing that they [themselves] participated in the sacrifices” (Thomas, 2007, pp. 21, 50). Actual murder/sacrifice, however, is not necessarily required. In some instances, Lacter (2011) notes, “victims are tricked into believing that the murders are actual to terrorize them.”

As part of the “Covid-19” operation, Britons were traumatised into believing that they could be responsible for killing other people if they did not do as they were told. On March 22, 2020, for example, London mayor Sadiq Khan announced: “more will die unless people stay at home” (Williams, 2020). A terrifying propaganda campaign was launched. New Government/NHS “advertisements” appeared in the British media with messages such as “IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE” and “DON’T MEET UP WITH MATES. HANGING OUT IN PARKS COULD KILL.”

The “ANYONE CAN GET IT. ANYONE CAN SPREAD IT” posters from late March/early April 2020 utilise a range of different backgrounds and target young people in particular, e.g. young men socialising, or a girl hugging her grandmother. They all include an arrow pointing to one of the figures and the phrase “HAS MILD CORONAVIRUS. HASN’T NOTICED.” The implication is that a young person with no symptoms of disease might be responsible for killing their elderly relatives—an effective means of traumatising young people.

On May 5, 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care put out a short video showing four young people socialising. Sinister text and an arrow point to the person on the left: “HAS MILD CORONAVIRUS, HASN’T NOTICED.” The camera then pans to the next person and more sinister text appears: “LIVES WITH HIS LITTLE SISTER,” “PASSES IT TO HIS LITTLE SISTER,” “SISTER ENDS UP IN HOSPITAL.” The clip ends with a shot of the sister in hospital wearing an oxygen mask. The subtext is that absolute obedience to authority—to the point of renouncing one’s in-person friendships—is required to avoid the trauma of doing harm to children/relatives.

Health Secretary Hancock on September 8, 2020, told university students not to “kill your gran” by helping to spread coronavirus (Smyth & Bennett, 2020). On September 22, 2020, the Prime Minister told the nation in a televised address, “The tragic reality of having Covid is that your mild cough can be someone else’s death knell” (Prime Minister’s Office, 2020). On November 26, 2020, the Chief Medical Officer claimed: “Would I say people should hug and kiss their elderly relatives? No I would not. They want to survive to get hugged again” (cited in Davidson, 2020). Independent SAGE’s Gabriel Scally told Good Morning Britain on November 19, 2020, “There is no point in having a very merry Christmas and then burying friends and relations in January and February” (cited in Walker, 2020).

On December 15, 2020, BBC Newsbeat (aimed at young people) warned students not to return home for Christmas, reminding them, “Don’t hug your Nan at Christmas and then bury her in January” (Pandey, 2020). The same day, Margaret Greenwood, MP, wrote,

We cannot underestimate the profound psychological impact that it would have on a child to go to school, come home with Covid-19 and infect a family member and for that family member to then die. Loss in childhood is devastating; for a child to feel that it was their fault would be traumatic in the extreme. (Greenwood, 2020)

On New Year’s Eve, UCL Professor Hugh Montgomery, who directs two companies (Turbinate Technologies Ltd. and Panthair Ltd.) that supply PPE including face masks, told the BBC: “People who do not follow social distancing rules or wear masks […] have blood on their hands […] They are spreading this virus […] They won’t know they have killed people but they have” (“Covid rule-breakers ‘have blood on their hands,’” 2020).

In January 2021, the UK Government and NHS unleashed a new volley of sinister posters using the same reddish yellow filter as the ones from March 2020. They all made the demonstrably false (Fenton et al., 2021) claim that “around 1 in 3 people with coronavirus don’t have any symptoms.” Their headline claims were: “A STEP TOO CLOSE COULD BE A STEP TOO FAR,” “CORONAVIRUS TAKES THE TRAIN TOO,” “EXERCISE SAFELY DON’T RUN THE RISK,” “DON’T LET A COFFEE COST LIVES,” “DON’T HELP THE VIRUS SPREAD,” and “CATCH-UPS COST LIVES.” As with the March 2020 propaganda, the idea is that everyday activities such as going to the supermarket, travelling by train, exercising in the park, going to a coffee shop, and meeting up with friends can kill other people. A 30-second government radio advertisement from January 2021, contained the line “If you bend the rules, people will die.” The Cabinet Office agreed not to repeat that claim after being reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority (Rumsby, 2021), but the damage had already been done.

Trauma Bonding

Trauma bonding can arise in situations where victims come to identify viscerally with their abusers and will go to great lengths to defend them. “Bettelheim syndrome,” for instance, describes “those [Nazi] concentration camp inmates who coped psychologically with their traumatic environment by identifying with their guards in hopes of survival” (Mega et al., 2000, p. 262). Even under less extreme conditions, trauma bonding is a “recognised psychosocial process whereby forced isolation, anxiety, physical threat, and other forms of stressful conditions can lead to social bonding between jailers and prisoners or captors and hostages” (Adler, 2010, p. 227).

It is not difficult to recognise such conditions in the “Covid-19” operation (see Chaps. 2 and 4). The result has been trauma bonding on a society-wide scale, with many people refusing to countenance the idea that they are the victims of serious psychological abuse carried out by the very authorities who are meant to protect them.

There has been a tendency among commentators on “Covid-19” to defend governments, typically attributing the catastrophic harm caused by government policies to incompetence rather than malice (Hanlon’s razor). According to Ponsonby (2020), for instance, “The sheer number of U-turns of late suggest a government constantly at the mercy of events where changes take place because the initial stances have not been thought through.” According to Canadian pathologist Roger Hodkinson, “There’s no big conspiracy here; it’s like the Americans say: never let a good crisis go to waste”; “SARS-CoV-2” was probably released accidentally from the Wuhan lab, whereupon bad people tried to capitalise on the situation (in Allen, 2021). Alting von Geusau (2021) refers to “mostly well-meant yet often ill-advised government-imposed Corona measures.”

In reality, the “Covid-19” operation represents a premeditated, meticulously, and maliciously orchestrated attack on the minds and bodies of the public that was enacted in coordinated fashion by governments around the world. “Millions of lives have been lost,” Kingston (2022) notes, “not due to a virus, but due to COVID-19 government policies and medical countermeasures.” The diabolical actions taken were not mere accidents or mistakes. They were crimes, including preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental milestones, forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their families, and pushing millions of people into poverty and starvation (Gutentag, 2021). As Gerrish (2021) understands, nothing was accidental: “What we are facing is calculated, and it’s a mistake to call it ‘madness,’ because it’s very precise; it’s very calculated. We need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we’re facing.” Scott (2022) realises that “there are real perpetrators from within our own government and external parties wishing to do us harm.”

This is not merely a matter of opinion. On July 15, 2020, a 188-page report was published by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Office for National Statistics, the Government Actuary’s Department, and the Home Office (2020). “When morbidity is taken into account,” the report states on p. 2, “the estimates for the health impacts from a lockdown and lockdown induced recession are greater in terms of QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) than the direct COVID-19 deaths,” as is shown in Fig. 1 of the report. In other words, the UK Government knew that “lockdowns” would prove more harmful than “Covid-19,” yet it kept the population under near-continual “lockdown” until July 19, 2021.

The flimsy excuse given in the report is that, without mitigations, “up to 1.5 m direct COVID-19 deaths” would occur (p. 2). As evidence of this, the report cites the “‘Unmitigated RWC [reasonable worst case]’ (31st March) scenario,” described in its Annex G as “a scenario provided to SAGE,” however, no reference is provided. Documents for SAGE’s March 31, 2020, meeting include a “Reasonable worst-case planning scenario, 29 March 2020” (the “31st March” designation is inaccurate and sloppy). That document places the “number of direct Covid-19 deaths in a first wave” (March 30–September 2020) at 50,000, and the “number of cases requiring hospitalisation” at 260,000 (Cabinet Office, 2020, p. 2). This is for a six-month period, rather than the 12-month period used in the DHSC/ONS/GAD/HO report, whose Annex G shows 504,000 (not 1.5 million) deaths arising from the unmitigated “direct impact from Covid” and 1.1 million deaths attributable to “insufficient critical care beds.” The numbers in the two documents cannot be reconciled, meaning that the 1.5 million figure appears to have been plucked out of thin air. The 504,000 unmitigated direct “Covid-19” deaths figure, meanwhile, comes close to the widely ridiculed 510,000 deaths in Ferguson et al. (2020, p. 7), and the tactic of abusing modelling to create a hyperbolic threat to push through unjustifiable policies (see Chap. 4) is the same.

Doctors for COVID Ethics (2023, pp. 183–184) concludes with respect to the “vaccine” rollout:

It is no longer possible to construe the actions of the authorities as “honest mistakes.” [..,] The rushed approval without necessity, the outright threats and the coercion, the systematic censorship of honest science, and the suppression of the truth about the numerous killed or severely injured vaccine victims have all gone on for far too long to permit any doubts as to intent and purpose. Our governments and the national and international administrative bodies are waging an undeclared war on all of us.

This is in keeping with the Omniwar concept explicated in Chap. 1. Margaret Anna Alice’s “Anthem for Justice” (2023) makes crystal clear that “mistakes were not made.”

Perpetrators in Parliament

Not only governments, but legislatures, too, were responsible for implementing the attack on the general population. The UK Parliament, for instance, did nothing to hold the Government to account over its harmful and deadly “Covid-19” policies. It repeatedly voted—or did not even bother to vote (Steerpike, 2021)—in favour of renewing the Coronavirus Act, which enables “coercive power over citizens on a scale never previously attempted” (Sumption, 2020, p. 1). It voted in favour of “vaccine” mandates for care home workers in July 2021, when no impact assessment had been published and most of the public was against the mandate (Rennie, 2021). It voted in favour of “vaccine” mandates for NHS workers in December 2021 (Mitchell, 2021), even though a House of Lords committee two weeks earlier found that there was insufficient evidence to support such mandates (Kmietowicz, 2021). On the same day (December 14, 2021), it voted in favour of “vaccine passports” to enter nightclubs and other large venues (Stewart & Allegretti, 2021).

Petitions which attract over 100,000 signatures trigger a “debate” in Parliament. Such petitions to “Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination” (September 2020), “Repeal the Coronavirus Act 2020” (October 2020), “Ban the use of face masks in schools” (April 2021), “End all requirements to wear face coverings immediately” (May 2021), “Open a public inquiry into Covid-19 vaccine safety” (June 2022), “not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum” (April 2023), and “Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005” (July 2023) led nowhere. On each occasion, the Government simply reasserted its position, and a 1–2 hour charade involving half a dozen or so MPs took place (the “debate”).

In December 2022, when Andrew Bridgen MP told Prime Minister Sunak that the “Covid-19 vaccines” had caused more deaths and serious adverse reactions than all conventional vaccines worldwide in the past 50 years, Sunak replied “Let me first say that I believe that Covid vaccines are safe and effective,” and the House of Commons cheered (Allen, 2022). In March 2023, when Bridgen rose to address the House regarding the dubious efficacy of “booster shots,” MPs were seen talking to one another before scuttling out the chamber (Head, 2023). When Bridgen tabled an adjournment “debate” on excess deaths in the UK in October 2023, fewer than 20 of 650 MPs turned up, though the public gallery was packed (Harrity, 2023), and BBC coverage added a series of desperate overlays such as “Official NHS guidance states that government-administered vaccines are safe and often essential for public health” (Wilson, 2023). The Government has so far refused to order an inquiry into either excess deaths or “vaccine” damage, and the so-called “Covid-19 Inquiry” predictably turned out to be a whitewash aimed at covering up criminal malfeasance (Shaw, 2023).

This level of betrayal of the public arguably amounts to treason. At every stage, the entire political class (including Bridgen, who voted for the “measures” and was pushing “booster shots” as late as December 2021) has sold out the British people and helped to implement a systematic programme of abuse orchestrated by the transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022). “We’ve watched all our freedoms being whittled away and our money being squandered and our lives ruined and our country destroyed, to no obviously effective purpose,” Delingpole (2021) records, “and our MPs have largely surrendered to all this without a fight.” It is unclear in what measure MPs have been bribed, brainwashed, and bullied into submission, but it is hard to disagree with Davis’ (2021c) conclusion that they “are almost entirely complicit and have offered virtually no resistance to the removal of representative democracy.” It takes trauma-bonding not to see this.

Permanent Scars and Intergenerational Trauma

John Rawlings Rees oversaw a group of psychiatrists working for the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, affiliated with the OSS Special Operations Command. That group, which included U.S.-based Tavistock operatives Kurt Lewin, Rensis Likert, and Margaret Mead, was responsible for the Anglo-American plan to firebomb Dresden, a cultural landmark of little strategic value, in February 1945. The rationale was that the terror thereby inflicted on Germans—who were already facing certain defeat—would leave them “permanently psychologically scarred” by the realisation that “‘all that is German’ could be wiped out in an instant” by the United States and its allies (Digital Citizen, 2003).

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, for which there was no military necessity (Alperovitz, 1995, pp. 329–331), was intended to make what Secretary of State James Byrnes in May 1945 called “a profound psychological impression on as many inhabitants as possible,” preferably targeting “a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers’ houses” (cited in Kort, 2007, p. 184). The war crimes perpetrated against Germany and Japan within six months of one another, with both nations already effectively defeated, were shock and awe operations intended to traumatise entire populations, and particularly the working class, into submission in the postwar period, with the aftermath of World War I having already warned of the surge of labour unrest and revolutionary activity that would follow the war’s end (van der Pijl, 2022, p. 269).

The idea of lifelong scarring following a traumatic event is consistent with ritual abuse and trauma-based mind control, in which “abuser groups seek life-time control of their victims. Submission is not rewarded with freedom in a year or in a decade. To submit is to begin a life-sentence. The longer one submits, the longer one is abused” (Lacter, 2007). Typically, there is “no conscious awareness of the programming”; survivors only begin to recover memories of the abuse between the ages of 30 and 50, and it “generally takes many more years for the survivor to become aware of the mind control programming and its ongoing effects on her or him” (Lacter, 2007). Thus, given knowledge of the techniques for how to do so, trauma can be used to manipulate people unconsciously for most, if not all, of their lives.

WEF director Klaus Schwab seems obsessed with metaphors of cutting and scarring—of trauma injuries that never fully heal. There will be no going back to how things were before the “pandemic,” he claims, because “the cut which we have now is much too strong in order not to leave traces” (in Roscoe, 2022). “For many people,” Schwab and Malleret write, “traversing the COVID-19 pandemic will be defined as living a personal trauma. The scars inflicted may last for years” (2020, p. 91). And again: “The societal upheaval unleashed by COVID-19 will last for years, and possibly generations,” and “the longer lockdowns last, the greater the structural damage they inflict by leaving permanent scars in the economy […]” (2020, pp. 34, 24).

One of the ways in which trauma-based mind control works is by threatening or enacting a repeat of the original torture/trauma should the victim refuse to obey programmed commands (Lacter, 2007). In that respect, consider Bill Gates’ words from January 2021:

The world now understands how seriously we should take pandemics. No one needs to be convinced that an infectious disease could kill millions of people or shut down the global economy. The pain of this past year will be seared into people’s thinking for a generation. I am hopeful that we’ll see broad support for efforts that make sure we never have to experience this hardship again. (Gates & Gates, 2021)

Note the similarity here between “pain […] seared into people’s thinking for a generation” and Schwab and Malleret’s claim that “The scars inflicted may last for years,” “possibly generations” (2020, pp. 34, 24). Seen through the lens of trauma-based mind control, Gates’ words constitute a subliminal threat: unless popular support is secured for global technocratic agendas, the trauma of 2020 could be revisited, perhaps through what Gates (2020, 2021; Gates & Gates, 2021) has repeatedly referred to as “the next pandemic.”

False Rescue

Demonstrating “Omnipotence”

In a category called “Demonstrating ‘omnipotence,’” Biderman’s Chart of Coercion recommends getting the victim to believe in the absolute power of the abuser. This involves suggesting the futility of resistance/confrontation, pretending that cooperation is taken for granted, and claiming to have complete control over the victim’s fate (Amnesty International, 1973, p. 49). The CIA torture manuals operate on much the same principles: “Throughout his detention, subject must be convinced that his ‘questioner’ controls his ultimate destiny, and that his absolute cooperation is essential to survival” (CIA, 1983, § F-4).

Svali (2000, p. 2) notes that in certain cults, “the child will have seen people tortured or killed for disobedience, and so, literally, the perpetrator WILL have the perceived power of life and death over the child.” For victims of ritual abuse, as recounted by a survivor, “the only reality they know is the reality created by the abusers, by their violent, punitive training and by their lies […] They have no sense of sovereignty over their own existence” (cited in Lacter, 2011). Under these circumstances, loyalty and attachment to the perpetrator become a survival mechanism as the victim reaches out to “the only available hand for relief”—at which point the perpetrator “WILL rescue and stop the abuse […], but for a price: their unrelenting loyalty and obedience” (Svali, 2000, p. 2). Lacter (2011) corroborates this claim based on her professional experience of dealing with ritual abuse survivors: “The abusers often torture their victims to near-death and stage fake rescues, to make victims believe that the abusers or their deities have complete control of their life.” The victim typically does not realise that the abuser and the rescuer are one and the same: the tormentor is also the saviour.

Lacter (2011) adds an important caveat: “Memories of abusers’ actions must also be carefully scrutinised for possible deception, faked and staged acts, ‘smoke and mirrors,’ and use of film combined with drugged states to make victims believe that the events in the film actually occurred.” In other words, some of the abuse that the victim is forced to witness might be simulated. These words were published before the leaking of a GCHQ Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group presentation in 2014, which mentions both “false flag operation” and “false rescue operation” in a section titled “DISRUPTION” (“The Art of Deception,” 2014, Slide 47). False flag operations are staged attacks blamed on an official enemy (cf. Hughes, 2020, pp. 56–57), often involving terrorism, while “false rescue operations” sound continuous with Lacter’s (2011) “fake rescues.” Given that the provenance of many twenty-first-century terrorist attacks remains ambiguous (Hughes, 2022), and that evidence-based questions posed by independent researchers since 2013 raise the possibility that elements of certain terrorist attacks may have been simulated, there is reason to suspect that the “fake rescue” technique deployed against victims in ritual abuse settings may also have been deployed against the public in the context of false flag terrorism. If so, then, in both cases, victims are rescued from a simulated existential threat in return for their obedience.

Agamben (2021, p. 13) observed early in the “Covid-19” crisis: “Limitations on freedom are thus being willingly accepted, in a perverse and vicious cycle, in the name of a desire for security—a desire that has been generated by the same governments that are now intervening to satisfy it.” This tactic follows a playbook whereby dictators promise security in exchange for liberty (Zimbardo, 2007, pp. 274–5). Forgotten is Benjamin Franklin’s adage that “those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security” (cited in Underwood, 2007, p. 103).

The “lockdowns” served as a demonstration of “omnipotence” by “elites now capable of arrogating to themselves powers that might once have been considered the preserve of malevolent gods,” e.g. blocking out the sun, genetically modifying nature, and placing over half the world’s people under a form of house arrest (Broudy & Hoop, 2021, p. 375; Sumption, 2020, p. 1). As Curtin (2021) observes, “to lockdown hundreds of millions of healthy people, to insist they wear useless masks, to tell them to avoid human contacts, to destroy the economic lives of regular people […] have created vast suffering that was meant to teach people a lesson about who was in control […].” Broadberry (2022) reaches a similar conclusion: “They are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are without recourse, these events are beyond your control, as is your own destiny for that matter. Eventually a sense of apathy and abulia engulfs humanity,” demoralising the population.

During the “pandemic,” the same “global predators” (Breggin & Breggin, 2021) responsible for spreading existential fear stepped in with a raft of measures to keep the public “safe.” There is nothing new in this modus operandi: “From terrorism to WMD to Red Scares to COVID-19, a declared state of emergency serves to set the stage […] Whether the national security state, Big Tech or Big Pharma, it is predatory transnational power in a saviour’s disguise to the rescue, every time” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a). The only solution offered was the “vaccine” plus a range of authoritarian measures, and the public was expected to get behind the false benevolence of “trusted allies,” such as Big Pharma, the WHO (responsible for the “pandemic” declaration), Bill Gates, GAVI, government scientists, the Trusted News Initiative, and Big Tech. As artificially manufactured crises of varying kinds proliferate, global power elites “will protect the planet, defend the internet, restore goods and services, or fight pathogens, using (nano)technology, censorship, totalitarian control, and removal of citizens’ freedoms and rights, or what is left of them” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a).

Infantilisation

The flip side of demonstrating “omnipotence” is the infantilisation of the public, a known weapon of psychological warfare. Totalitarianism, Meerloo (1956, pp. 107, 36, 112) writes, “appeals to this confused infant in all of us,” who “long[s] for a way out of the responsibilities that democracy and maturity place on [citizens]” and instead finds refuge in “the ecstasy of being taken up and absorbed in wild, uncontrolled collective feelings, the safety of being anonymous, of being merely a cog in the wheel of the all-powerful state.”

Huxley (1958, p. 54) writes: “Children, as might be expected, are highly susceptible to propaganda. They are ignorant of the world and its ways, and therefore completely unsuspecting. Their critical faculties are undeveloped.” This describes most adults today, who are clueless about propaganda and psychological operations and are therefore easy to manipulate.

According to Minnicino (1974, p. 53), “infantilization—officially, the [Freudian] theory of anal sadism—is at the basis of the [Tavistock] psywar strategy.” Minnicino cites Henry V. Dicks’ “Anal Sadistic Basis of our Culture.” Dicks, a Tavistock man and a psychological profiler for the RAND Corporation, was part of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in postwar Germany. There, he was responsible for propaganda by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, which accompanied the deliberate starvation of Germans: “Your body is disappearing. It is turning into shit. You are turning into shit” (Minnicino, 1974, p. 54). The aim was to regress victims psychologically to an infantile, pre-toilet training stage.

According to the KUBARK Manual, “The interrogatee’s mature defenses crumble as he becomes more childlike” (CIA, 1963, p. 103). The aim is to drive the prisoner “deeper and deeper into himself, until he no longer is able to control his responses in an adult fashion” (CIA, 1983, § K-4). “A psychologically immature subject, or one who has been regressed” does not have to take responsibility for their actions and proves “incapable of resistance” (CIA, 1983, § K-13). At this point, the interrogator can assume the role of a “parental figure,” resulting in a “strengthening of the subject’s tendencies toward compliance” (CIA, 1963, p. 90).

In more recent times, the rise of applied behavioural psychology has seen the state assume an increasingly paternalistic role: “If we think the state is making decisions for us, we may absolve ourselves of the responsibility to take charge of our own behaviour” (Dolan et al., 2010, p. 70). The effect is to infantilise the population.

The media is also used to infantilise the population. In 2009, for instance, when six of the richest Americans (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, and Mark Zuckerberg) met behind closed doors for six hours in New York, potentially “raising the specter of eugenics” (Frank, 2009), ABC’s John Berman produced a report that presented them as cartoon superheroes: “the new supermen and wonder woman. The superrich friends. Not fighting bad guys, but fighting for good, nonetheless” (cited in J. Corbett, 2020). The Guardian ran a similar piece titled “They’re called the Good Club—and they want to save the world” (Harris, 2009).

During the “Covid-19 pandemic,” strenuous efforts were made to infantilise the population. For example, the media-driven panic buying of toilet roll in the spring of 2020 may have been aimed at regressing the population along Tavistock lines (Minnicino, 1974, pp. 53–54). As Kluger (2020) notes, “Toilet paper has primal—even infantile—associations, connected with what is arguably the body’s least agreeable function in a way we’ve been taught from toddlerhood.”

In Britain, the public was encouraged to draw rainbows and put them up in front windows as a supposed show of solidarity with NHS workers—a primary/elementary school-type activity. Governments began telling citizens exactly how to behave, like children: stay indoors, await permission to come out, stand two metres apart, wear face masks, etc. Anthony Fauci told an infantilised U.S. public in November 2020: “Do what you’re told” (cited in Farr, 2020). In the view of Royo-Bordonada et al. (2020), mask mandates represent “a paternalistic action by the authorities, which tend to treat citizens like children.” Schwab and Malleret (2020, p. 87) characteristically give the game away when claiming that, during a pandemic, “our sense of vulnerability and fragility increases, as does our dependence on those around us, as for a baby or a frail person.”

The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2022) used infantilising cartoon imagery to tell the public how to wear face masks. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Amy Eshleman dressed up in superhero costumes with masks on and a hand sanitiser billboard around their necks, calling themselves the “Rona Destroyers” (“Mayor Lightfoot, first lady Amy Eshleman don costumes,” 2020). The BBC repeatedly used cartoon imagery in its “Covid-19” messaging, presenting face masks and injections in cheerful, child-friendly terms rather than as potentially harmful. In August 2021, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio offered a bribe for getting injected, in the form of a limited-edition Marvel comic, urging “Fight back against evil. In this case, evil is Covid” (“Transcript: Mayor de Blasio holds Media Availability,” 2021).

For the most part, the infantilising propaganda was successful. Most grown adults behaved like children, doing whatever they were told without taking any personal responsibility for their actions, signalling their “virtue” while their behaviour fuelled the evil psychological operation. Those in the “Covidian cult,” Hopkins (2021) writes, “have been reduced to a state approaching infancy.” Their excessive trust in government and the mainstream media, Davis (2021b) notes, “means that they no longer recognise the need to think for themselves [as] they consider unquestioning obedience to authority to be the only rational position.” In their mindless repetition of thought-terminating clichés such as “Covidiot!” and “conspiracy theorist!” they resemble “school-aged children bullying each other with name-calling in a playground setting” (McClurg, 2022). Their naive belief in absurd official narratives is like children’s belief in fairy tales. While Omniwar is being waged against them, they believe that the government is there to protect them, that the media would never intentionally deceive them, and that the pharmaceutical industry, which profits from human sickness, wants to cure them. Davis (2021a) is correct: “We really must put aside this infantile notion that ‘the authorities’ care about us or our loved ones. We mean nothing to them.” Worse, the public is the undeclared enemy in the war for technocracy.

Evil Comes to Light

Ritual abuse claims are hard to substantiate, because abusers go to great lengths to cover their tracks. A sensationalist literature has arisen around those claims. The alleged crimes involving the torture, traumatisation, and terrorisation of children fall so far outside what ordinary people believe to be possible that cognitive dissonance may interfere with the ability to give such claims the attention they deserve. Moral repulsion at those sickening acts creates an additional barrier to looking into them. A population that is itself under the spell of trauma-based mind control will struggle to challenge the programming.

Nevertheless, despite the many obstacles to investigating claims of ritual abuse and trauma-based mind control, mounting evidence is coming to light which indicates not only that those phenomena are real, but that psychological warfare techniques developed from them have also been deployed against populations worldwide. For those paying attention, the Franklin Scandal, Project Monarch, The Finders, and SRA all have probable links to the CIA, apparently for the dual purpose of creating mind-controlled “slaves” (cf. my remarks on Project BLUEBIRD [renamed ARTICHOKE] and MKULTRA Subproject 136 in Hughes, 2022) and the sexual blackmail of politicians and other influential figures. The revelations around Jeffrey Epstein and the transnational “elite” paedophile network around him only scratch the surface of the longstanding nexus between Anglo-American and Israeli intelligence and organised crime (Webb, 2022a, 2022b). State-sponsored crime networks—and not democratically elected governments—have been running the show for a very long time, using psychological operations to control the public.

With the “Covid-19” operation, new levels of viciousness were unleashed against populations. Psychological torture techniques were deployed to create acute stress. Mandatory face masks, trialled on inmates at Guantánamo Bay, were rolled out on entire populations. Members of the public were traumatised by relentless propaganda about death and disease and by messaging that they themselves could be the cause of loved ones’ deaths. A trauma bonding was instigated, intended to last decades and to bind an infantilised population in loyalty and obedience to its “omnipotent” masters.

As populations come to understand the full extent of the abuse that has been perpetrated against them, resistance to the evil and psychopathic deep state that controls their governments seems certain to grow.