Compartmentalization as a Psyop

Who is responsible for killing the natural world?

You must have asked yourself several time in the last few years: who is doing all these terrible things to people all over the world?¹ This time, I’ll elaborate on that; not that I haven’t done it before, but it usually happened as digressions in articles on a different topics.

Weaponization is based on compartmentalization

Last October, I wrote about the weaponization of hope:

About a year ago, I added the idea of exercise:

This time, I am expanding on the ways compartmentalization works against the people who, in the meanwhile, tend to celebrate its sources as fountains of knowledge and wisdom, that is, “the truth.” I first talked about this, when only two weeks after starting my stack, I pointed out that in “Medicine,” knowledge is intentionally fragmented and the modules are forced on medical students, doctors, and patients alike, which resulted in the prevalent forms of “medical” gaslighting (later, I added a few details to the article):

Gaslighting can increase cognitive security!

Gaslighting others can be unintentional, when people who don’t know much about a topic, indulge others with simple answers to complex questions. After all, it’s great to feel being in control which, without an exception, is always delusional.

As Occam’s Razor observes, simpler explanation of a phenomenon passes for refutation of popular views and trends.

So, who are the criminals?

Obviously, there is coordination among the globalists. Their propagandists as well as their “legislative” and their executive branches (the global investment firms and the central banks through which the bankers who control the money supply) can be identified. Still, a common denominator is needed for vectoring out the prominent interest group, which has not happened due to lack of information. Moreover, the globalists’ operations in the last fours years or more seem to have been AI-assisted, coordinated, and directed.

All the public groups are there for a shop-window; rubber bones for the plebs to chew on.

Using logic might be too much to ask for

Using logic should suffice. Knowledge is always partial.

Only because, for instance, Zionism exhibits some of the same characteristics as the current globalist path to Agenda 2030, it’s not logical to assume that most, if not all, Zionist are not simply used as a bunch of useful idiots and patsies. Most groups that have been assumed to be in the lead work well for the roles, because they have done, and possibly do or would do exactly what the NWO is doing. However, they wouldn’t be willing to unite with the rest or cooperate with outsiders even on a temporary basis.

What kind of groups are singled out? Jesuits, for one. The order was indeed infiltrated by the eugenicists (who are always rationalists, too, so the job was relatively easy) in some places as early as the second half of the 19th century. Singling out a group or two is an easy way to get around the fact that the perps are most likely would like to remain unknown, so they are the ones who initiate scapegoating and turning some groups into a bunch of patsies.

Obviously, the latest Pope’s activities demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church has fallen, at least for the time being.

The Black Nobility’s presumed culpability is mostly based on ruling strategies (that have always been the same, due to human nature) and the use of ancient symbols, but by the same logic, Hitler was a descendant of ancient Roman nobility or some ancient tradition from India, where the swastika was in use) is just as shaky as the “Khazars” and the “Zionists,” albeit all these satisfy romantic imagination. The Black Nobility is supposed to have preserved an ancient bloodline, but bloodlines do NOT survive civilizational collapses, and there have been a few in the past few thousand years. Even if a bloodline survived, the documentation to prove it didn’t, and if it did, it wouldn’t be available for the public. Let me use the Inquisition as an analogy. How many deaths do you think it caused? Whatever you think, there are about 50 documented cases of the Inquisition handing over heretics to the secular powers that burnt them at the stakes, mostly in order to confiscate their assets, although there were persecutions of heretic groups that gained clandestine popularity among the poor, too, which is not much different from today’s idea of censoring views that oppose the official narrative.

In history, the same symbols have been reused several times in several places, which is why the myths of the “lizard people,” the “insect people,” the ET parasites living in human blood, hiding or mingling extraterrestrials, and anything similar can catch on for the convenience of a malleable audience.

As for human nature, it has always generated the same social layers, irrespective of the complexity of a cultural setup:

As a result, ruling classes usually defaulted to the same strategies of handling their subjects. Blaming human nature for the cruelty of the rulers is fair enough, but assuming they are people from the same bloodline cannot be proven. Of course, there was no pandemic, and the Rockefellows have been playing a central role of the realization of the NWO, and have been openly admitting their democidal and eugenicist inclinations for several decades.

The prominent elements behind the facades cannot be identified. Ancient symbols and universal ruling strategies do NOT substantiate the identifiability of a specific group. The Khazars or the Black nobility belong in the same category as the lizard people and the aliens. After civilizations a collapse, there is no “continuity of bloodlines,” albeit the idea definitely enriches the imagination and replaces the norm of cognitive uncertainty with a single-step of all-encompassing faith in something even simple minds can grasp.

The point is that nobody can just walk up to the eugenicist technocrats and tell them, “Gotcha!” Some of their errand boys and girls (e.g. Gates and Schwab et al.) can be positively IDd, but even they probably cannot be located. Beyond that, good luck to finding a Rockefeller and make him responsible.

The compartmentalization of cognitive security

People tend to feel uncomfortable about admitting that human knowledge is always fragmented, and knowledge based on empirical sources and logic will always remain so². Consequently, they strive for cognitive security. If I add that a person can usually judge with 7 plus/minus two elements in their working memory (the number of elements one can keep in mind and think about them), it’s easy to realize that even complex problems require simple solutions in order to provide the illusion of certainty. However, induction and deduction can be employed in congruence, offering a way to tackle the conundrum. Even after the concurrent use of both, a few elements usually remain amiss, despite the fact that a simple solution DOES exist:

Those who fail to compile an open cognitive frame that is capable of admitting and processing new information default to fragmented decisions, which makes them easy targets to compartmentalized arguments.

1. I would like to give Credit to Proton Magic, whose recent article that inspired me to write the current one (which doesn’t mean he and I agree on everything):

https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/migration-my-ass

2.