theory

So Simple

~ MKW Publishing ~ 1 Comment

It’s not hard to convince people of how you want them to see something, or how easy it is to lose the truth, as we have seen of late. But what of the ones who don’t forget, or blindly believe and follow the official narrative? I have been hearing some very compelling theories about history, and what has been done to erase and rewrite large parts of it already. I am not here to say whether it is true or not as I like the rest of you, don’t know, but only to speculate on how one might achieve that collective loss of knowledge and gain control of our social consciousness.

If you aren’t familiar with some of the alternative ideas, check out Mud flood theory, the crater theory, and Tartarian history. They all tie in to me and form a bigger picture that even I hadn’t considered in all my wonderings.

If you want to get rid of what came before and erase it, you would need to take steps to ensure that knowledge wasn’t able to be passed down, that it was smashed and overwritten, language and meanings changed so that confusion takes over. Wars and immigration seem to do that well and you don’t have to look too far back in our recent history (and currently) to see we displaced thousands of children and adults by sending them to ‘colonies’. But what of those people who got given new lives, histories and futures. Many lied to and told their parents had died, and they were treated awfully once there.

That paves the way for a very controllable society. Formed from people who were robbed of security and roots, and were taken to this new world. Not forgetting a systematic breakdown on the local inhabitants to achieve the same. Displace and disrupt the flow of self and sense of community. Seems to be part of their MO. This appears to have happened time and again.

It may sound wild on the face of it, but having thought it through it actually seems quite logical and an easy way to disrupt things. It all seems to tie back to and start around the 1850s. The industrial revolution seems to be part of it, and marks the real start of their drive for changing everything. Another reset if you will. Whatever the cause for this reset (some speculate there was a catastrophe around a mudflood and nefarious people’s seized control), it changed everything. But there is so much I didn’t know and things that I did I hadn’t questioned, just accepted. So now I question it all and wonder what other purpose the actions and events may have had, if thought of from a new perspective.

I’ll mention the mud flood here with more details as it’s a starting point. No date for it or full details, but the evidence they say remains. And the multitude of buildings we have that appear to be submerged by at least a floor underground are there. Everywhere in fact, but only ones of a certain age, pre-1850. Seems odd to build houses that far unground with windows, because that’s the giveaway, the tops of the windows show still. There are an awful lot of buildings that seem to have been founded, rather than have a built date as well. So, make of that what you will. And when you start looking at The Old World and buildings, you start to see a big difference. It seems ‘neoclassical’ was the go-to style for every country in the world, large spectacular buildings some of which we still have and are in use today. Unfortunately, a huge amount of them have been demolished and destroyed in the last 150 years. By way of wars, development and colonisation.

So, you rob a country of its heritage, steal its wealth, replace its children, change signage and names. Replace the language. How would you ever know what it was within 50 years? A good film for a view of how quickly we can forget is Book of Eli. A good watch.

It seems around the Time of Change as I will call it, we had things in the US called orphan trains. To remove children from the cities and distribute them around the country. What an easy way to move children, and possibly lose some too. Trafficking is big business. We also sent loads from the UK to Australia as well, and Denmark took them from Greenland to move them. There’s been a lot of people moving. It also strikes me as an easy way to literally replace people, if you say had an amount of people you wanted to insert into a population unnoticed. Another good cover for that I realised would be the world’s fairs. Now there is a subject worth attention. Until watching information on the above, I will admit, I had never heard of a world’s fair happening. It was never mentioned in history lessons and doesn’t seem to have popped up at all, until now. And when I saw the splendour and grandness of them, I was instantly confused as to what the hell happened! They make no sense at all, costing vast sums (at a time when apparently we had wars and hardships), made losses, they built all the incredible buildings in record time over huge areas, only to demolish nearly all of them straight away. More mysteriously being lost to fire soon after if not destroyed.

Also, around the 1850s came the drive to suddenly ‘build’ a mental asylum in every town in England, usually a massive Victorian style spectacular building. And schools, a huge number of similar buildings became schools, despite literacy not really becoming a big thing until 1900. Why did they need to suddenly lock away lots of people, or label them mental? Were they remnants of the old time who needed removing? Quietly. Then the need to educate everyone and get them in line for the weird society based around industry and profit. Not for our benefit or profit mind you, for the powers that be.

It may not be as above, and there may be nothing to see if you look closer, but most official narratives are lies, covering the real purpose, so why would we assume anything different for the past. As they say ‘whoever controls the past, controls the future’…

(c) K Wicks

Content Donation/Tip for Kat at MKW Publishing – Minimum £1.50

Do We All Have It In Us?

~ MKW Publishing ~ 5 Comments

This is a question of psychopathy. When asked why do I think some people can’t see through the charade and seem unable to unravel what is right before them. My answer was that ‘we the unconvinced’ are all potential psychopaths who have the capacity to be but chose not to use it. And the others are gullible and too trusting. That’s the short answer, and now for the slightly longer analysis of it.

The definition of the term first – “Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder marked by deficient emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavioural controls, commonly resulting in persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behaviour”.

Sounds scarily like our ‘rulers’ at the moment doesn’t it, although there are many disorders running alongside each other there, and would take more than one post to pick that apart!

But the definition is the starting point, or for how most people see or believe psychopaths are rooted out and identified. I do not entirely agree as it is too broad and the meaning has changed over the decades – so I will do my best to explain what I think about it.

The above definition is an odd one because often when people who are deemed psychopaths, like serial killers for example (the obvious go to), most people didn’t know, or had no idea until they were caught. So were they just faking required emotional responses? Masking if you will, as many people do in society or through life, to ‘fit in’. Is that any different? Showing a lack of empathy towards others – definitely not isolated to psychopaths, but what is the scale we are using to decide? Interestingly, it’s a person who decided the criteria, so what if they themselves were a psychopath who wanted to single out people who they might have deemed unfit – you know, in a eugenicist kind of way. The people who struggle with emotional responses, or who can’t show their empathy, and who might lash out when society gets too much? That doesn’t sound psychopathic after all does it. The original term translated to ‘suffering soul’, and I can’t help but suspect that with many a term for the workings of the mind, they have been changed and repurposed since their conception.

But let’s consider someone who knows what emotional responses they should be deploying, and has a distinct lack of empathy but manages to hide that too behind a facade of concern and outrage. And they have a very tight grip on their behaviour controls, meaning they don’t get caught, and knowing exactly what to do to keep people running in circles around them. Are we to give them the same label? Surely, they are more psychopathic than the first? So maybe I am wrong to even use that term for what is going on now, or for what dwells deep inside most of us, if not all, it just manifests in different ways given different environments and stimuli. And the ones who get caught and defined under societal law, are just the ones who spiralled off into oblivion, and separated themselves from the collective mantra of suppress and deny? We also have a tendency as a species to want to survive and protect ourselves, so maybe the ones who don’t spiral off into what they call anti-social behaviour, are just the ones who realise their ride through society can be an easy one, as long as they ‘play the game’. Having your cake and eating it might be the applicable saying for that.

Bringing me back to the theory that we have it in us, all have the potential you might say. But it is not until given the correct incentive, environment or opportunity does it rear its head or flourish unfettered. And just maybe some people didn’t know it was in them, and never learnt to manage, understand, question or control it and it comes through in different forms. Could be that being a little bit psychopathic helps people survive, and is indeed an evolutionary response as some have theorised? Maybe we will see…

(c) K Wicks

Content Donation/Tip for Kat at MKW Publishing – Minimum £1.50