# Trauma and Technology



## dreamtime (May 11, 2022)

I am interested in understanding human nature and psyche, especially the collective history of childhood and how human interactions changed throughout history.

Large-scale catastrophic events should leave their marks in the human psyche, one way or another. They would create a downward-spiral if it’s accompanied by a loss in knowledge and awareness, because human behavior is passed on to the next generations when it's automated. And shock and trauma always lead to robotic, automatic - that is unconscious, behavior.

As Lloyd deMause wrote:



> The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. It is our task here to see how much of this childhood history can be recaptured from the evidence that remains to us.


​While he speculates that the history of childhood becomes darker the further we go into the past, he also implicates that fpr the time before the 18th Century we don’t have a lot reliable data:



> What is certain is that when our material becomes far fuller, by the eighteenth century, there is no question that there was high incidence of infanticide in every country in Europe.* As more foundling homes were opened in each country, babies poured in from all over, and the homes quickly ran out of room. Even though Thomas Coram opened his Foundling Hospital in 1741 because he couldn’t bear to see the dying babies lying in the gutters and rotting on the dung-heaps of London, by the 1890s dead babies were still a common sight in London streets.*



Before that time, his evidence is mostly anecdotal stories and literature.

So I thought this fits very well with the timeline of the recent full-blown reset. Such a reset would have led to desastrous conditions, especially for the poorest. This is the age that also sees the rise of Insane Asylums, places to control humans who can't function (and those who resist the new order).

While human suffering isn't new, the concept of mental trauma is pretty new.

In the following article I discovered a plausible reason for this collective change in the concept of trauma:

Hard to See — Real Life

The word for trauma comes from the ancient Greek term for “wound” (τραυμα, traûma). In English, we can trace it back as far as 1656, when an entry in the _Oxford English Dictionary_ described it as “belonging to wounds or the cure of wounds.” For most of the term’s history, it strictly referred to physical wounds, a legacy preserved in medical phrases like “blunt force trauma.” The mental dimension wouldn’t open up until the mid 19th century, with the introduction of railways, or more specifically, railway accidents. Railway travel birthed a new world, giving us everything from synchronized time and Einstein’s relativity thought-experiment to the unprecedented devastation of the First World War. It also, as Will Self writes, gave rise to the modern conception of trauma. Hurtled across space at unprecedented speeds and confronted with a technological apparatus over which they had no control, passengers were beginning to confront the sort of unease and powerlessness that would come to mark much of our modern relationship to technology. Large-scale “accidents” became possible, the “wholesale collapse of a functioning system,” as Self puts it — collapse, shock, rupture, the paradigmatic elements of what is now considered traumatic.​​In 1866, British physician John Erichsen published “On Railway and Other Injuries of the Nervous System.” In it, he observed that people were getting into train accidents and emerging seemingly physically unscathed, only to succumb to a host of physical and psychic problems afterwards. Most histories of trauma trace its contemporary lineage to this text, in which he attributed these ailments to an unobservable shock to the spine, comparing the accident to a blow to a magnet which disrupts its magnetic force without appearing to physically damage it. Just like a magnet, he writes, “if the spine is badly jarred, shaken, or concussed by a blow, we find that the nervous force is to a certain extent shaken out of the man.” Though this description of “railway spine” was still rooted in the nervous system — as were contemporary theories like those of neurologist Paul Oppenheim, who ascribed what he called “traumatic neurosis” to undetectable changes in the brain — it laid the groundwork for thinking of the phenomenon in terms of latent psychological effects.​
Nowadays the topic is starting to receive more attention, because self-perceived trauma seems to be so pervasive nowadays, even hearing opinions you don't like is by some considered a brutal trauma that lasts a life-time. Most of the article seems to be convoluted rambling without getting to the point, but the above quote stands out.

So it wasn't until the invention of railways that the concept of chronic trauma was put into a concept.

What does the railway signify? I think it's the loss of control over ones life. This is what trauma essentially means - an organism becomes immobilized, and the energy can't leave the system. In nature, animals heal from trauma easily, because there's no prefrontal cortex that prevents the healing reaction, which liberates the frozen energy from the nervous system and thus liberates the nervous system.

So this could explain why perceived trauma increases with each generation, the more we become dependent on technology that takes away control from our lifes, which is against our biology and human nature, against the way our nervous system naturally works.

So I think the invention of the railway and the entire industrial revolution was probably the point where humans start to lose their sense of control over their lifes, and this is actually what made it possible for trauma to become a widespread phenomenon. It's basically a state of helplesness because you feel like you can't do anything.

The question is, why didn't feel people traumatized when falling from a horse, for example? It's probably related to the fact that you can still react when you are on a horse, so your nervous system _perceives_ that it's in control. For the nervous system, it's all about perception, The objective result doesn't matter.

So for the last 200 years, with each generation, we have started to build a world that is not suited to our nervous systems. Not only in regards to technology, also in regards to being thrown into large organizations (corporations, nations) that do not resemble natural human communities. In the end, the sense of self-direction and control is reduced, and as a whole humans become more and more part of a machine that's not human and greater than what they can comprehend.

“In response to threat and injury, animals, including humans, execute biologically based, non-conscious action patterns that prepare them to meet the threat and defend themselves. The very structure of trauma, including activation, dissociation and freezing are based on the evolution of survival behaviors. When threatened or injured, all animals draw from a "library" of possible responses. We orient, dodge, duck, stiffen, brace, retract, fight, flee, freeze, collapse, etc. All of these coordinated responses are somatically based- they are things that the body does to protect and defend itself. It is when these orienting and defending responses are overwhelmed that we see trauma. (...) When we are unable to complete the appropriate actions, we fail to discharge the tremendous energy generated by our survival preparations. This energy becomes fixed in specific patterns of neuromuscular readiness. The person then stays in a state of acute and then chronic arousal and dysfunction in the central nervous system. Traumatized people are not suffering from a disease in the normal sense of the word- they have become stuck in an aroused state. It is difficult if not impossible to function normally under these circumstances.” - PeterA. Levine​​The collective implications are that large parts of the society are stuck in this state, which means energy is blocked and can't flow. Which of course makes it easier to control people.


----------



## CatELyst (May 12, 2022)

THIS is well written.  And I'd like to add that specific members of our humanity (i.e. the elites) discovered this, they used mass dysfunction and abuse of children while telling the children that this was normal, to create hyper traumatized individuals entering adulthood that would easily be prone to drug use, as well as mass manipulation in order to control large sectors of society all over the world.

You are on to something.


----------



## Prolix (May 12, 2022)

With your example of traumatisation when falling from a horse, it’s quite possible you _would_ feel traumatised as a result, especially if this happened during a formative period; Mark Phillips has such an example in _Trance Formation of America_, where this happened to him (he fell off and his mother was trampled).

I expect this is drifting from what you had in mind, but Jay Dyer’s take on MK Ultra – and I’m sure he isn’t alone in this – is that its principle purpose “_really about mass mind control rather than programmed assassins_”, to create traumatisation in society as a whole. Thus, _A Clockwork Orange_ is “_the truest, fullest and most dangerous aspect_” of the same: “_the masses are actually a kind of Alex deLarge writ large_”. Dyer also points to William Peter Blatty, author of _The Exorcist_, as having worked as chief of the policy branch of the Psychological Warfare Division in the US Air Force in the 1950s.

It would follow, then, that whatever the incremental degradations of technological advance – urban suffocation, disassociation with nature, bombardment with harmful EM frequencies, the rise in allopathic medicine – have on the psyche, they’re insufficient on their own to achieve goals of mass-inflicted trauma. Of course, technology – in terms of access to mass media, not least the bombardment of the 24-hour news cycle – is vital to this end.

In _Programmed to Kill_, Dave McGowan suggests the entire serial-killer phenomenon – and by extension mass shootings – is engineered explicitly to fulfil this purpose (there’s a killer in every street, maybe in your own home; in the case of _The Exorcist_, your mind/soul isn’t safe, you could be possessed). He quotes Mae Brussell suggesting, back in 1974, that this was effectively the importation of psychological warfare programme Operation Phoenix to the US.


----------



## dreamtime (May 12, 2022)

Prolix said:


> With your example of traumatisation when falling from a horse, it’s quite possible you _would_ feel traumatised as a result, especially if this happened during a formative period



I think this is not a black-and-white thing. When looking at individuals, you can try to understand whether something is traumatizing for them or not. Especially if you ask that individual, since trauma is all about perception, not what happens on the outside.

When looking at socieities over the span of history, the only thing we can do is find tendencies.

For example, maybe 500 years ago the human communities were so nourishing and protecting for a human that a human by default felt pretty save. Shocking events probably happened throughout history in every epoch ever since humans were living in the material form (if there was some kind of Golden Ethereal Age at one point).

But the question is how individuals tended to cope with shocking events that were beyond the normal day to day activities. Events that changed the status quo abruptly, which always requires adaption and change from an organism. Without metabolic energy and flexibility, the organism dies or goes into chronic freezing.

The question to me is, which factors let to the widespread destruction of human community and family bonds? I think healthy, small communities are the foundation for resilience.

And we see in recent history the phenomenon that at exactly the point where our historic documentation becomes reasonable, we see the natural communities (small villages, families) disrupted - Insane Asylums, Orphan Houses, land flight, mass schooling.

But the data doesn't really allow for an understanding what led to this disrupted state. There are some hints, but nothing convincing.

Human suffering and trauma is definitely nothing exclusively connected to technology. Children were treated badly long before the industrial revolution.

Alice Miller, in "For Your Own Good", writes:

Two passages from Dr. Schreber’s advice to parents, written in 1858, will illustrate the method of raising children prevalent at the time:​​_"The little ones’ displays of temper as indicated by screaming or crying without cause should be regarded as the first test of your spiritual and pedagogical principles … . Once you have established that nothing is really wrong, that the child is not ill, distressed, or in pain, then you can rest assured that the screaming is nothing more than an outburst of temper, a whim, the first appearance of willfulness. Now you should no longer simply wait for it to pass as you did in the beginning but should proceed in a somewhat more positive way: by quickly diverting its attention, by stern words, threatening gestures, rapping on the bed … or if none of this helps, by appropriately mild corporal admonitions repeated persistently at brief intervals until the child quiets down or falls asleep … ._​_This procedure will be necessary only once or at most twice, and then you will be master of the child forever. From now on, a glance, a word, a single threatening gesture will be sufficient to control the child. Remember that this will be of the greatest benefit to your child since it will spare him many hours of agitation inimicable to his successful growth, freeing him from all those inner torments that can, moreover, very easily lead to a proliferation of pernicious character traits that will become increasingly difficult to conquer." - _[Quoted in Morton Schatzman, Soul Murder]​​Dr. Schreber doesn’t realize that what he is in fact attempting to curb in children are his own impulses, and there is no doubt in his mind that he is recommending the exercise of power purely for the child’s own good:​​_If parents are consistent in this, they will soon be rewarded by the emergence of that desirable situation in which the child will be controlled almost entirely by a parental glance alone. Children raised in this way frequently do not notice, even at an advanced age, when someone is taking advantage of them as long as the person uses a “friendly” tone of voice._​​(...)​
Those concerned with raising children have always had great trouble dealing with “obstinacy,” willfulness, defiance, and the exuberant character of children’s emotions. They are repeatedly reminded that they cannot begin to teach obedience too soon. The following passage by J. Sulzer, written in 1748, will serve as an illustration of this:​​​_Just as soon as children develop awareness, it is essential to demonstrate to them by word and deed that they must submit to the will of their parents. Obedience requires children to (I) willingly do as they are told, (2) willingly refrain from doing what is forbidden, and (3) accept the rules made for their sake."_​​- [J. Sulzer, Versuch von der Erziehung und Unterweisung der Kinder (An Essay on the Education and Instruction of Children), 1748, quoted in Rutschky]​
​It is astonishing that this pedagogue had so much psychological insight over two hundred years ago. It is in fact true that over the years children forget everything that happened to them in early childhood; “they will never remember afterwards that they had a will”—to be sure. But, unfortunately, the rest of the sentence, “the severity that is required will not have any serious consequences,” is not true.​​The opposite is the case: throughout their professional lives, lawyers, politicians, psychiatrists, physicians, and prison guards must deal with these serious consequences, usually without knowing their cause. The psychotherapeutic process may take years to work its cautious way back to the roots of the trouble, but when successful, it does in fact bring release from symptoms.​
I think when looking at the history of child abuse and collective trauma, wee are also looking at a perversion of true/original Christianity, and the historic contamination of Christian values with highly distorted ideologies in the name of Christianity:
​_"Even truly Christian pedagogy, which takes a person as he is, not as he should be, cannot in principle renounce every form of corporal chastisement, for it is exactly the proper punishment for certain kinds of delinquency: it humiliates and upsets the child, affirms the necessity of bowing to a higher order and at the same time reveals paternal love in all its vigor … . We would be in complete sympathy if a conscientious teacher declared: I would rather not be a teacher at all than have to relinquish my prerogative of reaching for the ultima ratio of the stick when necessary._​​_… “The father strikes his child and himself feels the smart,/ Severity is a merit if you have a gentle heart,” writes the poet Rückert. If the teacher is a true representative of the father, then he also knows how to display—with the stick when necessary—a love that is often purer and deeper than that of many a natural father. And although we call the child’s heart a sinful one, we believe we may still say: The childish heart as a rule understands this love, even if not always at the moment."_​
- [Enzyklopädie … quoted in Rutschky]​


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 12, 2022)

> Infanticide
> 
> The notion that infanticide was "rampant" in the Middle Ages has been used to bolster the equally erroneous concept that medieval families had no affection for their children. A dark and dreadful picture has been painted of thousands of unwanted babies suffering horrible fates at the hands of remorseless and cold-hearted parents.
> 
> ...


_Source_


This topic has a certain 'chicken and egg' element to it. Were the asylums and hospitals created to alleviate a problem or to take advantage of one? It almost seems like a justification or normalisation of today's mental health and childcare organisations which are so much better than those of our predecessors. But so much better at what exactly? Sir Jimmy Saville comes to mind.

Then there's this:

Should your kid be taken away if they don't like fish-balls? Norway says so


----------



## InchoateTulpa (May 12, 2022)

Prolix said:


> With your example of traumatisation when falling from a horse, it’s quite possible you _would_ feel traumatised as a result, especially if this happened during a formative period; Mark Phillips has such an example in _Trance Formation of America_, where this happened to him (he fell off and his mother was trampled).
> 
> I expect this is drifting from what you had in mind, but Jay Dyer’s take on MK Ultra – and I’m sure he isn’t alone in this – is that its principle purpose “_really about mass mind control rather than programmed assassins_”, to create traumatisation in society as a whole. Thus, _A Clockwork Orange_ is “_the truest, fullest and most dangerous aspect_” of the same: “_the masses are actually a kind of Alex deLarge writ large_”. Dyer also points to William Peter Blatty, author of _The Exorcist_, as having worked as chief of the policy branch of the Psychological Warfare Division in the US Air Force in the 1950s.
> 
> ...


It's been suggested by some (Miles Mathis) that serial killers are a creation of intelligence; that they don't really exist or at the very least, they're not nearly as prevalent as the media would have us think.  I believe there's something to that notion, having dissected a number of serial killer narratives which IMO don't withstand logical analysis.  

The idea of serial killers is as potent as real serial killers for inducing mild paranoia resulting in fear and distrust of strangers.  Throw in non-stop reporting of violent crime on the nightly news and trauma becomes embedded in the psyche of society at large.


----------



## Whitewave (May 12, 2022)

"The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. It is our task here to see how much of this childhood history can be recaptured from the evidence that remains to us."

I don't think you have to go all the way back to the 1800's to find evidence of this. When I was around 2 years old my grandfather was carrying me up the stairs in one arm and a bag of groceries in the other. I squirmed or wiggled or something and he dropped me down the stairs; my arm broke in the fall. When grandma asked him why he didn't drop the groceries instead he replied, "groceries are harder to come by than kids".
Via television shows, books and other art forms we're to believe that prior to Roe vs. Wade people longed for and craved the blessing of children. I think our history paints an entirely different picture.


----------



## esotericNepalese (May 12, 2022)

This is for sure an interesting topic, I second that. After spending a bit of time here learning about topics such as the resets, orphanages, the prominence of mental asylums.. I couldn't help but wonder about the extent of humanity's trauma. Just how much pain are we holding today that we're not even conscious of? How badly did it hurt to have a perfect, beautiful, paradisiacal realm violently taken away from us? If one subscribes to the idea that we used to be giants, then how did it feel to be stunted down to our current size? As was discussed in the original post, is it possible to trace our collective pain directly back to the resets, if we look backwards one generation at a time? These seem like natural questions to me.

The collective pain of humanity is not something most people ever think about, because everything seems normal and fine in our world. We have brand new, shiny cities that shelter us, we have electricity, we have the Internet, we have food.. So how could we possibly claim that we're suffering, right? We have settled for a "collective contentedness." The problem is, we simply don't know any better. Most people have nothing to compare their current lives to. Other than the information we share in this community, we have no recollection of what life must've been like in the old world, before paradise was lost. We have no idea what perfection would've felt like. And due to this amnesia, we're not able to comprehend the idea that we might be suffering greatly due to being deprived of paradise.

One thing I want to note is that we probably shouldn't be downplaying anyone's adverse experiences. I do agree with the example given: having a conversation with someone who has a differing opinion than you is probably not traumatic, I can agree with that.. But my point is, you don't necessarily have to be homeless or in an orphanage to have suffered in this life, as terrible as those things are. There are more subtle ways to suffer, which often get overlooked and are not as flashy or romanticized. As an example, consider how depressing it can be to be a part of modern society, to go to work each day and have no real, meaningful connection with the world around you - perhaps that's not traumatic, but is it not a big reason why a lot of us are here in this community? I kept listening to people who thought I wasn't suffering enough, so I ended up making myself suffer pretty badly (which is something I shared on this forum before), and now I'm paying for it with the detriment on my mental wellbeing. I just wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else.

I can't spend too much time on this forum researching this stuff, and part of the reason is because I'm dealing with my own mental issues right now, which makes focusing pretty tricky. It's easy to overload and overheat my brain these days. I just can't make this research my priority. I still enjoy thinking about the old world though, and I'll always love the wonderful architecture. I still have a deep curiosity for what happened to all that architecture, what happened to us, what our realm looked like once upon a time. Even if I can't be doing deep research on these things, I still very much have an interest in the subject.

My thoughts on childhood in the modern day: My view is not one that most people would agree with, but I believe that many of us have not had our emotional needs fully met, and many of us were neglected - often in subtle ways. We're a lot more comfortable in this day and age, and technology is certainly nice.. But ultimately, I don't think technology and financial stability are replacements for our emotional needs. I don't think those things guarantee our happiness and wellbeing. Many of us have childhoods where we're content, but not happy. Most of us aren't even aware of our crappy childhood experiences, because we're forced to gloss over our own childhoods and just move on and fit in and go to work.

There's a YouTuber I watch, unrelated to our research, who talks about how most peoples' childhoods are rather disappointing, even in modern times. He's a big nature lover, and he talks about how we're becoming more and more disconnected from nature. As someone who loves nature but grew up around people who couldn't care less about it, I can relate to that. He also talks about how us human beings have so much intellectual and creative potential, and how parents and society fail to nurture that potential. I agree with him, and I think that's where his work overlaps with the content discussed in this forum. In both spheres, we are concerned with humanity's true gift and potential - although here in this sphere, we approach the subject from a very different angle. This YouTuber is completely unaware of the things we discuss here, as his focus is on childhood and the unhealthy dynamics of families- whereas our focus here is on the bigger picture of this realm. I can't help but think, "as above, so below."


----------



## InchoateTulpa (May 13, 2022)

Whitewave said:


> "The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. It is our task here to see how much of this childhood history can be recaptured from the evidence that remains to us."
> 
> I don't think you have to go all the way back to the 1800's to find evidence of this. When I was around 2 years old my grandfather was carrying me up the stairs in one arm and a bag of groceries in the other. I squirmed or wiggled or something and he dropped me down the stairs; my arm broke in the fall. When grandma asked him why he didn't drop the groceries instead he replied, "groceries are harder to come by than kids".
> Via television shows, books and other art forms we're to believe that prior to Roe vs. Wade people longed for and craved the blessing of children. I think our history paints an entirely different picture.


"groceries are harder to come by than kids"

Lol, he had a point, especially now that inflation has reared its ugly head.  

People naturally gravitate towards sex. Before birth control I imagine the relationship between husband and wife was like an alcoholic and booze.  You really want it (sex/booze) but the next day (9 months later) you might regret it.


----------



## solarbard (May 13, 2022)

InchoateTulpa said:


> "groceries are harder to come by than kids"
> 
> Lol, he had a point, especially now that inflation has reared its ugly head.
> 
> People naturally gravitate towards sex. Before birth control I imagine the relationship between husband and wife was like an alcoholic and booze.  You really want it (sex/booze) but the next day (9 months later) you might regret it.


That's why God invented hands and mouths.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 14, 2022)

> *"*Even though Thomas Coram opened his Foundling Hospital in 1741 because he couldn’t bear to see the *dying babies lying in the gutters and rotting on the dung-heaps of London, by the 1890s dead babies were still a common sight in London streets."*



Being a Londoner, this statement affected me a great deal. I went searching for the source of this information, which is given as '_C. H. Rolph, “A Backward Glance at the Age of ‘Obscenity,’ ”_ Encounter, 32 (June, 1969)'. This source is not contemporary and the book title has either been changed or doesn't exist. However, the author was an ex-City of London policeman thanks to his father, who was the chief inspector. He preferred journalism and later turned author, publishing no fewer than twenty-eight books. These included; _Women of the Streets_ (1955), _Hanged By The Neck_ (1961), _The Trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover_ (1961),_ Lady Chatterley's Trial, The Trial of Lady Chatterly- Regina v. Penguin Books Limited_, _Does Pornography Matter?_ That there was a definite theme, I think is obvious and it at least shows his penchant for sensationalism.



> The Habsburg-German legislation of 1532 ordained to torture any woman who had concealed pregnancy and birth and claimed the infant was stillborn. Legislation developed similarly in other countries, albeit at a different speed. French (1556) and *British (1623) legislation reversed the burden of proof and dmanded the death penalty for concealing pregnancy and birth when a dead infant was found. *


_Source_

In the light of this I find it highly doubtful that the supposedly common, not to mention callous and haphazard, disposal of dead babies rotting in gutters and on dung-heaps, has any basis in reality. Why would such highly visible locations be chosen by those at risk of execution? This falls in line with a common 'meme' about Victorian London, which is always portrayed as a foggy, violent, filthy and highly dangerous place with Jack the Ripper lurking around every corner. I'm not claiming it was some kind of utopia by any means, but let's leave the sensationalism and horror stories for the TV writers.


----------



## dreamtime (May 14, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Being a Londoner, this statement affected me a great deal. I went searching for the source of this information, which is given as '_C. H. Rolph, “A Backward Glance at the Age of ‘Obscenity,’ ”_ Encounter, 32 (June, 1969)'. This source is not contemporary and the book title has either been changed or doesn't exist. However, the author was an ex-City of London policeman thanks to his father, who was the chief inspector. He preferred journalism and later turned author, publishing no fewer than twenty-eight books. These included; _Women of the Streets_ (1955), _Hanged By The Neck_ (1961), _The Trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover_ (1961),_ Lady Chatterley's Trial, The Trial of Lady Chatterly- Regina v. Penguin Books Limited_, _Does Pornography Matter?_ That there was a definite theme, I think is obvious and it at least shows his penchant for sensationalism.



Interesting, the author (Lloyd deMause) never really appeared to me as neutral and objective, so that's good to know. Generally, all the psychoanalysists seem to prefer creating a theory and then only looking for evidence that supports their claim and ignoring everything else.

There are probably some interestings aspects to be found there, but it's hard to trust their general caims when they are so selective.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 14, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> Generally, all the psychoanalysists seem to prefer creating a theory and then only looking for evidence that supports their claim and ignoring everything else.



I think we all may be guilty of that on occasions.


----------



## dreamtime (May 16, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Being a Londoner, this statement affected me a great deal. I went searching for the source of this information, which is given as '_C. H. Rolph, “A Backward Glance at the Age of ‘Obscenity,’ ”_ Encounter, 32 (June, 1969)'



Looking into the book, this is the source given by deMause:

But even in the nineteenth century it was still "not an uncommon spectacle to see the corpses of infants lying in the streets or on the dunghills of London and other large cities. 128​

128.* Daniel Beekman, The Mechanical Baby: A Popular History of the Theory and Practice of Child Raising*. Westport: Lawrence Hill, 1977, p. 47.

Did you look into the book to come up with the C. H. Rolph source or where did you get that from? The book by Beekman does look credible to me at first glance.

Other than that, this topic seems to be interesting in relation to London and child neglect in the 19th century: Bastardy and Baby Farming in Victorian England, _by Dorothy L. Haller)_


----------



## Mosaic (May 16, 2022)

Another source from his book:
​Free medical care for children was refused...'No, thank you, he is in two burial clubs' was a frequent reply to offers of medical assistance for a sick child. Arsenic was a favorite poison..."129​
129. George K. Behlmer, Child Abuse and Moral Reform in England, 1870-1908. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982, p. 131; Joseph C. Rheingold, The Fear of Being a Woman, p. 72.

Child Abuse and Moral Reform in England | Department of History | University of Washington


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 16, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> Did you look into the book to come up with the C. H. Rolph source or where did you get that from? The book by Beekman does look credible to me at first glance.



From the link at the top of your OP:

"...Hospital in 1741 because he couldn’t bear to see the dying babies lying in
the gutters and rotting on the dung-heaps of London, by the 1890s dead
babies were still a common sight in London streets.*141* Late in the nineteenth
century Louis Adamic described being brought up in an Eastern European
village of “killing nurses...”

*141* C. H. Rolph, “A Backward Glance at the Age of ‘Obscenity,’ ” Encounter, 32 (June, 1969), 23

*128* is a different quote*,* not the one in the OP, but it is almost identical which is weird. Even archive.org only allows a limited preview of that book which doesn't get to page 47.

I'm sure there were all manner of hideous things going on with regards to child abuse, abduction, medical experimentation, illegal adoption, cadavers for medical schools, even satanic rituals then as now, but the idea of London, or anywhere else, awash with baby's corpses just doesn't seem plausible when the penalty for infanticide was death. Prostitutes would have aborted unwanted pregnancies early on, rather than give birth on the streets, for example. Anyone else would be far safer burying the bodies rather than risk being caught throwing a corpse in the gutter and then hanged by the neck.


----------



## dreamtime (May 16, 2022)

Ah correct, two different quotes.

Indeed it seems this point is an exaggeration, but also not needed for the central argument about the treatment of children in a postulated "post-reset" era after 1700 or so.





Mortality in the past – around half died as children​
All the data points to the time between 1700 and 1900 as the worst time in documented history for the treatment of children. The problem is that all the data from before is way too unreliable, but that's exactly what we can expect with a reset - the destruction of historical continuity.

Beginning in around 1850, the problems started to get recognized and solutions were put in place to improve the conditions of children.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 17, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> Ah correct, two different quotes.



It makes you wonder if deMause quoted Beekman who was quoting Rolph and extending it to include 'other cities'?

I'm sure you won't be surprised to read that I can't share your conclusions regarding evidence of a recent 'reset' - presumably following some kind of worldwide cataclysm. For me, the absence of 'reliable data' does not prove a 'reset', it just proves there is no data.

The period you refer to as being "the worst time in documented history for the treatment of children" again suffers from a lack of comparative data, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. 1700 - 1900 marks a period of social upheaval due to the changeover from an agrarian to an industrial society, not to mention numerous wars and various colonial expansions. In the previous agrarian society children were highly valued within any family unit (if we're speaking in the purely practical sense.) The males would work the land and the females would attend livestock and run the home. Many children were left fatherless by press-gangs who would kidnap as many able-bodied men as possible to fight in armies and navies.

The advent of mechanisation and industrialisation decimated rural family life and forced families into the towns and cities in order to survive. Children worked in factories - which was just as much slave labour as was their previous life, but it was a far more dangerous and unhealthy environment. They were no longer supervised by their parents, but by strangers to whom they were merely slaves, not family. It's no wonder that many died and that's not to mention those who's families could not find any work at all.

If you build a mental asylum or a hospital or an orphanage, then you will fill it with mental patients, invalids or orphans. You will find them, somehow. When the workhouses became fit to burst during the industrial revolution, many who would not fit inside were sent to such institutions. God save us all from institutions.

I don't know if all of this is what constitutes a 'reset', but it's certainly a traumatic event on a very large scale - if you are on the wrong side of it, of course. There have been many more though. The infiltration and domination of the organised Abrahamic religions was a massive traumatic event. The introduction of the feudal system which followed was also hugely traumatic - when everyone and everything became owned, became someone's property. It was at this point that society began to degenerate and divide - inhumanity breeds inhumanity.

Rebellion became a weapon of controlled opposition with various organised 'revolutions' all leading up to the Russian Revolution wrapped in the Great War and injected into civilisation at the same time that the other poisin - the Spanish Flu - was being injected into soldiers.

Were these all 'resets' that followed cataclysms? There's no doubt they were traumas and all cataclysmic in their effects - just like the one we are experiencing now.


----------



## dreamtime (May 17, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Why would such highly visible locations be chosen by those at risk of execution?



Regarding the consequences of infanticide, this is relevant:

Infanticide carried with it a sentence of execution in the nineteenth century, however, it was widely accepted that a woman who committed acts of infanticide did so because she had been driven to insanity. Consequently, judges avoided sentencing such women to death by charging them with concealment of birth rather than infanticide which carried a prison sentence rather than execution; not reporting the birth of a child would be considered concealment of birth.​
The new-found perception of puerperal mania as a mental illness fashioned the way in which women were treated in infanticide trials with an increasingly sympathetic response from both judge and jury. The social constructs of femininity by Victorian definition, similar to those of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries contained women to the domestic sphere and defined women as being, ‘virginal, passive and obedient".​
http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BadOrMadInfanticide.pdf

So while we have laws against it, the laws were likely more some kind of desperate attempt to limit the problem - thus the law actually shows us how prevalent the problems were, otherwise there would be no necessity to curb the problem with a new law.



Will Scarlet said:


> It makes you wonder if deMause quoted Beekman who was quoting Rolph and extending it to include 'other cities'?



That's why I thought.



Will Scarlet said:


> I'm sure you won't be surprised to read that I can't share your conclusions regarding evidence of a recent 'reset' - presumably following some kind of worldwide cataclysm. For me, the absence of 'reliable data' does not prove a 'reset', it just proves there is no data.



Looking at the upheavals between 1700 and 1900, the only question that remains is how to define a reset - a cultural reset certainly happened on a massive scale, even if you don't consider a cataclysm as a possibility. If you blame the Industrial Revolution and ignore everything else, you still have to answer the question what triggered this revolution, a singular event in human history with no comparison.

If there is no data, it means either


no one has collected data
the data is lost

Due to the well-documented rewriting of history by the Church and humanists in the 15th-18th century (see Kammeier and others), it's pretty clear to me that there was data, but it was lost and censored/manipulated. This indicates a Coup d'état in Europe, which I think followed a cataclysmic event which created a power vacuum.

There are many different examples of how our ancestors collected data. Throughout history, people have documented things in libraries, monasteries, etc. The written history, according to mainstream history, goes back pretty far, so it's not that there is no data - but there is no reliable data to paint a meaningful picture of our past.

I think the data that we have from 1700-1900, while also heavily tainted, gives enough indirect evidence of the conditions.

The collective uprooting and traumatization seems to correlate with the industrial revolution:

Infant mortality in England and Wales reached an enormous peak in the 1890s, with about 150 deaths per 1000 births. These statistics show that the world was a dangerous place for both the adults and children that family historians study!​
Life & Death in the 19th Century | Geoff's Genealogy

The infant mortality rate in Canada for children under five in 1830 was 333 deaths per thousand births. This means that one-third of all children born in 1830 did not live to see their fifth birthday. Infant mortality remained above 25% for the rest of the nineteenth century before declining much faster in the 1900s. By 2020, the infant mortality rate in Canada is projected to be only five deaths per thousand births.​
Canada: child mortality rate 1830-2020 | Statista

Regristration series show that the levels of infant mortality in  the late nineteenth century were still extremely high and could vary quite markedly from one country to another, ranging from about 100 per 1,000 live births in Norway and Sweden to 200 or even 250 per 1,000 in countries such as Germany, Austria and Russia. At the turn of the century, however, infant mortality began to fall almost right across the continent. By the 1950s, when national rates of infant mortality ranged between 20 and 50 per 1,000, the process of convergence was nearly completed.​
The Decline of Infant Mortality in Europe, 1800-1950: Four national case studies

One thing that stands out for me is that humans always try to improve their quality of life and look for solutions. If we say that the peak of the crisis happened somewhere around 1800-1900, it only took around 100 years for society to react and solve the problems - by 1950 the situation was under control more or less. That's a pretty reasonable time of a couple generations. It is very implausible to me that the conditions of life that existed in the 19th century were similar in the centuries before - people can't live in such conditions for a long time without degenerating fully. That's why I think the time between 1700 and 1850 is a special and unique time in human history and is a sign for a large, worldwide catastrophic event. Even though at this point it's not clear to me what event we are looking at exactly. I think a climatic event is very likely, related to the Little Ice Age and Year without a summer. Let's forget dates for a moment, and we can consider that the 30-years war (to me this is a symbolic and metaphorical event ingrained in the human collective psyche) and other conflicts followed such a cataclysm. Insane Asylums, orphans, etc. were a consequence of this cataclysm.


----------



## CatELyst (May 17, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> _Source_
> 
> 
> This topic has a certain 'chicken and egg' element to it. Were the asylums and hospitals created to alleviate a problem or to take advantage of one? It almost seems like a justification or normalisation of today's mental health and childcare organisations which are so much better than those of our predecessors. But so much better at what exactly? Sir Jimmy Saville comes to mind.
> ...



The more I read up on the asylums and orphanages, the more it seems to have happened in a specific time period and not wide spread.  Meaning they were the result of some specific event...such as a Plandemic that wiped out most of the adults, and the asylums were "re-education camps" for the adults that survived to erase their memories of the past, and the orphanages were used to gather all of the remaining children, indoctrinate them with the "new" narrative, sort them out and place them where the elites saw fit in order to create/support their "new" narrative.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 17, 2022)

CatELyst said:


> The more I read up on the asylums and orphanages



Do you have links or references to what you have read up on?



dreamtime said:


> If there is no data, it means either
> 
> 1) no one has collected data
> 2) the data is lost



or also that there was no data to record surely?


----------



## CatELyst (May 17, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Do you have links or references to what you have read up on?
> or also that there was no data to record surely?



I put this quick timeline together with data from only five articles.  There are more, and I will continue to add to the main compilation over time as I continue researching this.  With just this little bit of data, I am already seeing patterns that this was a PLANNED situation meant to education the children with a specific narrative/fake history, then indoctrinate them into specific roles for society.  Many of the organizations that created the orphanages were church affiliated, which I find a bit bothersome as well.

Again this is just a compilation.  I did not take the time to organize the thoughts in each paragraph from each source (though the information is very telling when divided by the sources, to be honest.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
*History of Orphanages*​

The Orphanages:

1727 Ursuline Convent New Orleans, Louisiana (5)
1729 Ursuline nuns orphanage Natchez Mississippi (3)
1734 Ursuline nuns orphanage New Orleans Louisiana (4)
1739 Bethesda Orphanage Savannah Georgia (1, 5)
1790 Charleston Orphan House, Charleston South Carolina (5)
1797 Society for the Relief of Poor Widows & Small Children, New York City, NY (5)
1798 St. Joseph's Femal Orphan Asylum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania(5)
1799 St. Paul's Orphanage, Baltimore Maryland (5)
1800 Boston Female Orphan Asylum, Boston Massachusetts (5)
1801 Hebrew Orphan Asylum, Charleston South Carolina (5)
1830 German Missionary Orphanage Bethesda Georgia
1850s Philadelphia House of Refuge Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (3)
1850s Charleston (3)
1850s New York House of Refuge New York (3)
1850s New York's Hebrew Jewish Orphanage New York (3)
1900 Hephzibah Orphanage Macon Georgia (1)


The Reasons:

"Ursuline nuns founded the first orphan asylum in North America in 1729, after Indians massacred adult settlers at Natchez, Miss. But most 18th-century orphans went to country neighbors or city almshouses. Orphanages hardly existed until urbanization and immigration intensified in the 1830s and 23 private orphan asylums opened. By 1850, New York state alone had 27 orphanages, both public and private -- and yet New York City was still overrun with some 10,000 ""street Arabs,'' many of them the children of Irish immigrants." (3)

"The first orphanage in all of the territory that would eventually become the United States was the Ursuline convent founded in New Orleans in 1727 by the French for children orphaned in an Indian raid." (5)

"In 1734, the Ursuline sisters transformed their New Orleans school into an orphanage in response to a need to care for displaced children as a result of an Indian massacre. Three years later, a German missionary opened an orphanage in Bethesda, Georgia. By 1830, orphanages were more prevalent, with more than two dozen orphanages built in larger American cities." (4)

"In 1739 George Whitefield (1714–1770), the charismatic leader of the transatlantic religious revival known as the Great Awakening (late 1730s and early 1740s), traveled to America to care for orphaned children. Inspired by the asylum of the German Pietist August Hermann Francke in Halle, Germany, Whitefield founded Bethesda Orphanage, known as the House of Mercy, in 1740. Located near Savannah, Georgia, it was the first orphanage in the British American colonies." (5)

"For orphanages in America, the period from roughly 1754 to 1829 was a formative one. During the antebellum era, public officials and moral reformers investigated almshouses, a popular method of caring for children. They revealed mismanaged and overcrowded institutions where living conditions were squalid. As a result, they urged that "scientifically" administered orphanages replace almshouses. In the following decades, orphanages would mushroom, numbering nearly two hundred on the eve of the Civil War."(5)

"In 1790 the only publicly funded orphanage in the United States during the eighteenth century was founded by the city of Charleston, South Carolina, when it opened the doors of the Charleston Orphan House for 115 destitute children. Thereafter, private associations began to appear in northern urban areas. In 1797 one association founded the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows and Small Children in New York City to care for orphans; the following year a Roman Catholic priest established St. Joseph's Female Orphan Asylum in Philadelphia to care for girls orphaned by yellow fever. In 1799 St. Paul's Orphanage was founded in Baltimore for impoverished girls and, a year later, an association of women incorporated the Boston Female Orphan Asylum. In 1801 the Hebrew Orphan Asylum was established to care for poor children in Charleston."(5)

"Then came the Civil War -- which increased the number of poorhouse orphans by 300 percent -- and another wave of immigration. ""A certain panic set in about how to control these kids,'' says Columbia University historian David Rothman. ""The orphanage movement begins at just the same time we begin building prisons and state hospitals for the insane. They're all part of the same phenomenon.''(3)

"The need for larger institutions to take on parent-less children continued to grow with the Industrial Revolution.  As industry expanded rapidly and immigration increased, more children lost one or both parents to accidents, illness and despair,” according to the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. “Jewish orphanages and fraternal orphanages were established, as well as county orphanages financed by local governments.” (1)

"The earliest forms of orphanages in the US were created in the early 1700s and became more organized establishments in the 1800s. They were established to care not only for children whose parents were killed in Indian raids or died in epidemics but also children from families who were unable to care for them due to poverty or addiction." (2)

"Prior to the American Industrial period, displaced children were placed with foster families and earned their keep as indentured servants. By the middle of the 19th century, women who typically cared for orphaned children were driven to provide education to them, usually in the institution of an orphanage in rural areas outside of cities. The number of orphanages grew quickly to accommodate the growing number of orphaned children, and by 1860, nearly all states in the Union had orphanages." (4)

"Orphanages began to proliferate in America after 1801. By 1830 there were more than thirty orphan asylums in the United States, most located in northeastern urban areas, twenty-one under the auspices of Protestant churches, and ten established by Catholic churches. Elite and middle-class white women provided the leadership and organizational skills for these early orphanages. The Second Great Awakening (1790s–1830s) spurred them to social activism in this area and in many other public spheres of moral reform. These included interdenominational campaigns to curb drinking, end slavery, and improve the condition of the poor and insane." (5)


The Conditions:

"In the 1850s, the Philadelphia House of Refuge crowded 100 children into five dormitories with evenly spaced beds; in Charleston, 200 children slept in 10 rooms. In the New York House of Refuge, bathtubs held 15 or 20 boys at a time. New York's Hebrew Jewish Orphanage fed its charges so meagerly that one observer remarked ""the weirdly short stature of the boys who left . . . at the legal age of 14 years.'' Such institutions kept kids in line with military-style discipline: they drilled and paraded and marched to meals and classes; in chapel they knelt at the sound of a whistle. New York's Strong Commission found some children ""forced to do drudgery, working eight or nine hours a day, with only one hour for schooling, and that often at night.'' (3)

"They often admitted as many as from ninety to one hundred children, boys under the age of six and girls under the age eight. All made efforts to educate their young charges. They were instructed in religion, reading, writing, and arithmetic, yet also earned their own keep by knitting stockings sold to benefit the institution. Most boys and girls left the asylum at approximately age twelve (though some left as early as ages nine or ten), when they were placed under indenture. Most of the girls were bound out as domestic servants; the boys were bound out as agricultural laborers to farmers or apprenticed to trades such as cabinetmaking, shoemaking, and tailoring." (5)


Why aren't there Orphanages today:

"...Orphanages, as they were known, fell out of favor in America in the early 1900s. Growing concerns about the emotional and cognitive development of children institutionalized in orphanages prompted studies that showed all children, but especially babies, often did not receive enough “eye contact, physical contact and stimulation to promote proper physical, social or cognitive development,” according to a Unicef report titled “Caring for Orphaned, Abandoned and Maltreated Children.”
After institutional care for children fell into disfavor, the shift was for children to receive more direct support and services for families with adoption becoming the goal. Orphanages began closing in the 1920s, with many charities creating instead foster care agencies."(1)

"But by the 1890s, progressive administrators had begun organizing orphan asylums along more familial lines: smaller dwelling units supervised by ""cottage parents'' and wards partitioned into bedrooms. ""The progressives imported family ideals into the orphanages,'' says Rothman, ""but they also began to devise real alternatives -- adoption, foster care and "widow's pensions,' which meant giving money to mothers to keep kids at home. This was the beginning of welfare.'' The most romantic alternative was called the ""orphan train.'' In the years before 1930, such trains shipped some 200,000 children from Eastern cities for adoption -- and, not incidentally, for farm labor -- in the rural West." (3)

"Around the 1900s, the progressive movement began to have a big influence on social thought in America. As a result, reformers started rethinking the orphanage system and created the earliest form of the child welfare system. President Theodore Roosevelt championed the change by forming a conference of leading experts of the day in the field of child care at the Conference on the Care of Dependent Children. Largely due to their vision for child welfare in the US, the reformers moved for Congress to form the United States Children’s Bureau. There was also economic growth that enabled parents to care for their own children and to foster other children. As a result, fewer children were placed in orphanages and remained in a family environment.  Traditional orphanages in the United States began closing following World War II, as public social services were on the rise. US adoption policy and procedures, as well as child protection laws, began to take shape, leading to the demise of traditional American orphanages, which were replaced with individual and small group foster homes." (2)

"After the Civil War, people built more orphanages to accommodate children who lost their families in the war. There were public and private institutions, and by the end of the 19th century, orphanages were in high demand for the care of children who were without parents. Advocates strongly fought against child labor of orphaned children.  Also in the late 19th century, there were people who opposed grouping orphans in a home together, as they felt it stunted their growth and ability to function in society. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that it was better for children to live in foster homes than in orphanages, and many orphanages began to close down starting in the 1920’s." (4)


*Sources*:

1  The History of Orphanages  by Lloyd Nelson, FAFS Digital Media Coordinator.
2  Do Orphanages Still Exist in America?  Do Orphanages Still Exist, Virginia Spence, June 30, 2018
3  History Of The Orphanage  History of the Orphanage, NewsWeek, by David Gates, December 11, 1994.
4  What Is the History of Orphanages in America? What Is The History of Ophanages in America? Reference.Com by Staff WriterLast Updated April 03, 2020
5  Orphans and Orphanages | Encyclopedia.com Orphans And Orphanages, Encyclopedia.Com; from Porter, Susan L. "A Good Home: Indenture and Adoption in Nineteenth-Century Orphanages." In Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives. Edited by E. Wayne Carp. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002.


----------



## Safranek (May 17, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> What does the railway signify? I think it's the loss of control over ones life. This is what trauma essentially means - an organism becomes immobilized, and the energy can't leave the system. In nature, animals heal from trauma easily, because there's no prefrontal cortex that prevents the healing reaction, which liberates the frozen energy from the nervous system and thus liberates the nervous system.
> 
> So this could explain why perceived trauma increases with each generation, the more we become dependent on technology that takes away control from our lifes, which is against our biology and human nature, against the way our nervous system naturally works.


The railway may have initiated the drastic change in lifestyles, but you hit the nail on the head when you tied it to control. Once you take control away from an individual or a populace, they become stressed, feel trapped and lose their purpose and reason to live. At that point they become less easy to control.

For the rulers, the biggest technological gift to achieve reversing this undesirable trend is the television, and now we can also add social media.

Reading these two paragraphs immediately brought videos to mind by Jason Christoff. I watched them years ago but came to remember them immediately. This one describes the psychological aspect of how sports are used to 'replace' the loss of the sense of control within an individual.

*How The Elite Use Sports to Rule the Masses*


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1FMhYr05zo_


... while this one describes how Trauma Based Mind Control is utilized to get people to accept mass vaccination. It may also be a candidate for the vaccine-related threads but the overall emphasis here is the TBMC aspect of the doctors and patients.

How Mind Control Impacts Vaccination Decisions​
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8pQFfhGMD4_


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 18, 2022)

CatELyst said:


> I am already seeing patterns that this was a PLANNED situation meant to education the children with a specific narrative/fake history, then indoctrinate them into specific roles for society.



Obviously religious institutions would indoctrinate anyone and everyone they could get their hands on, but where is the evidence in anything you have posted above showing that Orphanages were deliberately  "PLANNED" and set up to indoctrinate children with a fake historical narrative - unless you mean the Biblical / historical narrative? Of course these orphans would be used to perform specific tasks, to be servants and to be used by paedophiles or as fodder for ritual sacrifices - which gave them a high market value...

"Signed statement by survivor witness followed by copy of letter already given to the Queen in January, 2008 by residential school survivors in Canada.​* Statement of William Arnold Combes*

_I am an Interior Salish spirit dancer and am 58 years old. I live in Vancouver, Canada.

I am a survivor of the Kamloops and Mission Indian residential schools, both run by the Roman Catholic church. I suffered terrible tortures there at the hands especially of Brother Murphy, who killed at least two children. I witnessed him throw a child off a three story balcony to her death. He put me on a rack and broke some of my bones, in the Kamloops school basement, after I tried running away.

I also saw him and another priest burying a child in the school orchard one night..."_ _Source_

The Queen and Prince Phillip were accused of being responsible for the disapperance of 10 children from that particular institution in 1964. (Debunked everywhere of course.)


----------



## Akanah (May 18, 2022)

Since there is a lot of talk about children here, I would like to ask if all wars in the world are not ultimately wars against children, because according to the Bible, only children should inherit the kingdom of God. 
A quote from Jesus: "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them! For to people like them belongs the kingdom of God. Amen, I say to you: Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a child does, will not enter it."
Perhaps adults wage wars against children and also against their own childishness because they are envious of children. But Jesus also pointed out that what matters is not whether you are still a child, but whether you still see and experience the world like a child.


----------



## CatELyst (May 18, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Obviously religious institutions would indoctrinate anyone and everyone they could get their hands on, but where is the evidence in anything you have posted above showing that Orphanages were deliberately  "PLANNED" and set up to indoctrinate children with a fake historical narrative - unless you mean the Biblical / historical narrative? Of course these orphans would be used to perform specific tasks, to be servants and to be used by paedophiles or as fodder for ritual sacrifices - which gave them a high market value...
> 
> "Signed statement by survivor witness followed by copy of letter already given to the Queen in January, 2008 by residential school survivors in Canada.​* Statement of William Arnold Combes*
> 
> ...



The royals of Europe are long reputed for their "dabbling" in the occult with a propensity for sacrificing children.  Even today there is an activity among the ultra elites to "farm" the blood of very young children for injections to retain their own health, and for the drug called Adrenochrome.  Adrenochrome is created from the traumatised blood of infants.  Yes, you read that right.  It is the adrenaline in the infant blood created by the body's flight-or-fight response that flushes the blood with adrenaline....and then is quickly harvested, reduced to a powder and sold on the black market.  It is said to have anti-aging properties, a better high that cocaine, meth, etc.,....and has some nasty side affects for long term users.

    “We suspected it might be an hallucinogen because pink or deteriorated adrenaline was, and it resembled the few known hallucinogens      like d-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)” wrote Abram Hoffer, one of the original adrenochrome researchers in a 1990 article called “The        Adrenochrome Hypothesis and Psychiatry,” adding that “schizophrenia arose in an individual when too much adrenochrome was                  formed, [therefore] adrenochrome then interfered with brain function as would LSD, and that created the essential stage for the                  formation of schizophrenia.”

And now we know why the ultra elites are bat-shit crazy.

And before you throw this out as a conspiracy theory, please understand that I am speaking from the side of the children.  I have personally experienced and assisted in the rescue of children from certain state agencies that were trafficking the children for sex at the early ages of 8 to 12 years old.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 19, 2022)

CatELyst said:


> And before you throw this out as a conspiracy theory...



I take it you think you are telling people something new, well that's not the case as a quick search on the forum would confirm. You seem to be avoiding the question that I put to you. 

I'll ask again - where is the evidence in anything you have posted above showing that Orphanages were deliberately "PLANNED" and set up to indoctrinate children with a fake historical narrative? With your experience in rescuing children from abusive institutions, can you confirm that they are also being indoctrinated with a fake historical narrative?


----------



## CatELyst (May 19, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> I take it you think you are telling people something new, well that's not the case as a quick search on the forum would confirm. You seem to be avoiding the question that I put to you.
> 
> I'll ask again - where is the evidence in anything you have posted above showing that Orphanages were deliberately "PLANNED" and set up to indoctrinate children with a fake historical narrative? With your experience in rescuing children from abusive institutions, can you confirm that they are also being indoctrinated with a fake historical narrative?


Hm.  Wouldn't it be fantastic if they WERE stupid enough to leave evidence laying about for us to find?

I said I see patterns, themes that run through the vast amounts of data that is available, including the negative or false data they force on us as "truth".  For in every lie is a grain of truth.  

Did someone write an affidavit in support of this theory?  No.  That is why it is called a theory.


----------



## dreamtime (May 19, 2022)

Instead of stressing over "objective evidence", it would probably be good to take a step back and acknowledge that the concepts we are talking about can not simply be proven by a list of facts. If we acknowledge that, we can start comparing our perspectives and views and see whether we can learn from each other.

We are talking about assumptions, hypothesises, and new perspectives to understand the common historical facts. It is valid to share perspectives, and it is important we respect that we have different perspectives on the same facts.

Whether someone sees in the orphanages a hidden history, or just an emergence of institutions in a historical vacuum (beyond the industrial revolution) is in the end a question of interpretation.

Simply discarding all the possibilities because there's no history book that admits it ouright would be contrary to a better understanding ouf our history. At the same time, it would be good to collect more hints and evidence that connect the Insane Asylums and orphanages to a hidden agenda in a more direct and obvious way.

Just like no history book will openly talk about a hidden agenda, simply listing the history of well-known orphanages and expecting others to see this as evidence for hidden history in itself won't improve our understanding of the past - although data and facts are certainly a necessary foundation to work out a meaningful hypothesis.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 19, 2022)

And some people see exactly what they want to see, that's 'evident'...



CatELyst said:


> The more I read up on the asylums and orphanages, the more it seems to have happened in a specific time period and not wide spread. *Meaning they were the result of some specific event...such as a Plandemic that wiped out most of the adults, and the asylums were "re-education camps" for the adults that survived to erase their memories of the past, and the orphanages were used to gather all of the remaining children, indoctrinate them with the "new" narrative, sort them out and place them where the elites saw fit in order to create/support their "new" narrative.*



I'm all for speculation and theories, but why state something as a fact and then, when challenged, start talking about something completely different or try to lecture me on the nature of a theory as if I'm the stupid one? If you're seeing patterns and themes in vast amounts of data then why won't you share them? Why can't you present the pieces of the jigsaw you have constructed to reach your conclusions instead of being facetious?


----------



## Neverendingthoughts (May 19, 2022)

I think its interesting that some of the literature that supposedly was either written or takes place in the late 19th century is full of orphans that get adopted by a family, or have special characteristics that give them the ability to overcome the odds. When considering the timing of some sort of “event” that required this type of stuff to be written it seems like it wasn’t too long ago. Especially if these books came out starting in the late 1800’s and were written for children around 10 years old. Maybe whatever trauma they acquired from becoming and orphan was able to be given a band-aid through these stories?

Little Orphan Annie (poem written 1885 originally titled The Elf Child)

From Wikipedia:


> When reprinted in _The Orphant Annie Book_ in 1908, the poem was given an additional, introductory verse ("Little Orphant Annie she knows riddles, rhymes and things! ...").[7]
> During the 1910s and 1920s, the title became the inspiration for the names of Little Orphan Annie and the Raggedy Ann doll, created by fellow Indiananative Johnny Gruelle.[8][9] The rhyme's popularity led its to being reprinted many times. It was later compiled with a number of other children's poems in an illustrated book and sold.[10]
> The verses of the poem detail the scary stories told by Annie when her housework was done, repeating the phrase "An' the Gobble-uns 'at gits you ef you don't watch out!" [_sic_] It was popular among children, and many of the letters Whitcomb received from children commented on the poem. It remains a favorite among children in Indiana and is often associated with Halloween celebrations.[11]



Other familiar literature:

Adventures of Tom Sawyer (written 1876)
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (written 1884)
Anne of Green Gables (written 1908)
Pollyanna (written 1912-13)

Random note:
I think its interesting that both Tom and Pollyanna are orphans who live with their aunt who name is the same - Polly.


----------



## Shadow11 (May 19, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> I am interested in understanding human nature and psyche, especially the collective history of childhood and how human interactions changed throughout history.
> 
> Large-scale catastrophic events should leave their marks in the human psyche, one way or another. They would create a downward-spiral if it’s accompanied by a loss in knowledge and awareness, because human behavior is passed on to the next generations when it's automated. And shock and trauma always lead to robotic, automatic - that is unconscious, behavior.
> 
> ...


I also want to add that the idea of collective unconscious. I got my degree in psychology I just want to mention where I read this information. We basically learn all theories from past psychologists and not all are set in stone you use methods from some and some from another. But there was a guy who presented the collective unconscious and I remember thinking wow cool ive always felt like a reincarnation connection or an ancestral one. Only to find out that the society basically shuns this theory. I found it odd because even some of Freud is accepted but this theory is completely pushed away. 

Also as for trauma one thing I found interesting is that some are more susceptible than others and past experiences play a part. So let's say the spartan children who grew up basically in war training. In theory they could handle smaller traumas like seeing blood or death while a kid today may be completely traumatized by the sight. So conditioning and how the experience played out. Another example is when there is trauma to immediately distract so the experience isn't overwhelmed on the bad experiences. Like a doctor visit with shots. Many kids are afraid but the parent can condition the fear out by creating the experience to focus on positive parts. The opposite would be like the study of little Albert and the white rat. You reinforce trauma by adding even more stimuli to the bad experience.


----------



## dreamtime (May 19, 2022)

CatELyst said:


> Did someone write an affidavit in support of this theory? No. That is why it is called a theory.



Strictly speaking, it's mostly a hypothesis for now, as a theory would require some direct evidence.

_Hypothesis_: Orphanages were created to cement a new historical narrative by indoctrinating young people, and make people forget their past.

But I think a lot here also depends on the question whether we are talking about explicit or implicit indoctrination.

We can analyze historical documents to find proof that support this hypothesis that it was explicit indocrination. Beyond some circumstantial evidence that comes from the entire historical context of the time in which this took place, no direct evidence has been provided to support this idea. That doesn't mean the hypothesis isn't true, of course.

If this kind of brainwashing wasn't a primary incentive of the asylums and orphanages, then it's possible that no one has written this down anywhere. Maybe it just happened alongside of the main goal - repopulating certain areas of the world after a reset, having a cheap and traumatized workforce, etc.

I think we will find more evidence in the documents about asylums compared to orphanages, as asylums seems to be better researched in academia.

Usually, the process of re-education happens through schools, not primarily through asylums or orphanages, but both will be indirectly connected to the topic, so they have some relevance here.

Schools are already sufficient to brainwash a generation, and shining light on the history and development of public and mandatory schooling would be very important. Maybe we could even find patterns that connect schools with the church, orphanages and the asylums (which housed both the "insane" and the politically persecuted, which already tells us pretty clearly that the asylums were used as re-education camps to a certain extent). Seeing public schooling, orphanages and asylums as some kind of interconnected system to control, brainwash and organize a post-reset society isn't a too far-fetched context.

Due to the nature of the untertaking, spanning many generations, and the subtlety of the mechanisms, it would be very hard to find direct proof for this. It's not like someone would have written it down in plain english. For example, how would you prove that public schooling and modern psychiatry is a tool for the PTB to stay in power and continually brainwash the population and keep them dumb? These things have been proven by several authors, but it's not self-evident. All of the institutions we live under today that keep us down were founded and developed in the time of the 17-19th centuries. The more we go back in history, the more difficult it is to find reliable data. It shouldn't be forgotten that 200-250 years ago, many things that happened were never documented at all, and at one point the generations who were affected simply died out.

I don't think it's necessary to look for a smoking gun with orphanages and asylums. Imho, it would be better to analyze both in the context of public schooling and the religious and political power structures and interpret all of these institutions in context with each other. That's probably the closest we can get to show that the orphanages and asylums were used to re-educate the masses.

The nature of orphanages and asylums already proves that they were used for indirect re-education - because those institutions are tools of control, which can be defined as brainwashing. Wether these institutions were explicitly and primarily created to re-educate after a reset is a different question. To answer this question we need to start with schools, because re-education starts there.

I think it probably looked something like this:


*Public Schools* - Re-education and brainwashing of children, creating an obedient workforce, foundation for the new industrial lifestyle and scientific nihilist worldview
*Asylums* - Imprisoning those who couldn't function after the reset and had memories of the old times they couldn't let go ("mentally ill") and those who resisted (political prisoners), both of this is more or less documented
*Orphaganes* - creating slaves for church members, re-populating certain areas of the new world, obedient workforce. Also they probably had to do _something_ with the children that turned up everywhere due to the destruction of traditional families after the reset, so creating orphanages was a natural solution for the PTB to gain advantage over the situation
*Organized Religion (Church)* - controlling the population with fear-based incentives. Interestingly, it seems the same people who controlled the church initiated the scientific era of the enlightenment, so church and materialism/nihilism developed in tandem.


----------



## CatELyst (May 20, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> Instead of stressing over "objective evidence", it would probably be good to take a step back and acknowledge that the concepts we are talking about can not simply be proven by a list of facts. If we acknowledge that, we can start comparing our perspectives and views and see whether we can learn from each other.
> 
> We are talking about assumptions, hypothesises, and new perspectives to understand the common historical facts. It is valid to share perspectives, and it is important we respect that we have different perspectives on the same facts.


THIS is why I am here.    I've been researching for well over thirty years beginning with genealogy and found oddities that caused me to pause.  So I keep researching, and not just lineages, but other topics as well...I'm a bit of data junkie.  Granted I'm not anyone official or important.  Frankly I like it way.



dreamtime said:


> Whether someone sees in the orphanages a hidden history, or just an emergence of institutions in a historical vacuum (beyond the industrial revolution) is in the end a question of interpretation.
> 
> Simply discarding all the possibilities because there's no history book that admits it ouright would be contrary to a better understanding ouf our history. At the same time, it would be good to collect more hints and evidence that connect the Insane Asylums and orphanages to a hidden agenda in a more direct and obvious way.
> 
> Just like no history book will openly talk about a hidden agenda, simply listing the history of well-known orphanages and expecting others to see this as evidence for hidden history in itself won't improve our understanding of the past - although data and facts are certainly a necessary foundation to work out a meaningful hypothesis.



I hear you.  I will keep reading the data provided in the archives, and adding to the tiny bit I threw together to create a more succinct thought process.  It took me a few years to understand how genealogical research needed to be presented in order to validate individuals within a family tree.  I also understand about having multiple sources that are verifiable, as well as accounting for negative data (information that is missing for information was assumed, yet now not proven).

I will say that I am rather surprised by the aggressive negativity of some people on this forum.  Agreeing with dreamtime, I thought we were all here to share these perspectives, get more data, work toward common goals and even cooperative to prove or disprove a theory, train of thought, or avenue of research.  I am choosing to not take it personal, though I appreciate that dreamtime noticed it too, so I don't feel like I misinterpreted the content of Mr. Scarlet's responses.  Perhaps it is the "textual" nature of this forum that causes some to forget the basic rules of civility and proper discourse in conversation.


Will Scarlet said:


> And some people see exactly what they want to see, that's 'evident'...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for speculation and theories, but why state something as a fact and then, when challenged, start talking about something completely different or try to lecture me on the nature of a theory as if I'm the stupid one? If you're seeing patterns and themes in vast amounts of data then why won't you share them? Why can't you present the pieces of the jigsaw you have constructed to reach your conclusions instead of being facetious?



I think you missed the words "it seemed to have happened..."   I wasn't stating a fact, I was stating my opinion of the data I was encountering.  As far as lecturing "you" specifically....well, no.  Not even remotely.  I was making a thread for anyone to comment to, add more data, etc.  Sounds like your ego tripped you up, because the truth be told, I don't know you at all.

I detect instead a bit of projecting on your part.  You seem to ((NOTE: this is my opinion, not a fact with validated evidence or multiple sources)) have taken my statements, queries, questions, and theories rather personal, though NOTHING that I wrote had your name on it.  AND I wasn't being facetious....again, your assumption.

Mayhaps I need to spell it out for you to understand better:    I started a thread regarding the orphanages and asylums in order to put in one place the data I had thus far found AND to allow others to contribute what they may have discover IN RELATION to this particular vein of thought.  Dear Mr. Scarlet...I cannot in any way, shape or form figure out how you thought this was about you.  ((Wait...isn't that a song?))


Neverendingthoughts said:


> I think its interesting that some of the literature that supposedly was either written or takes place in the late 19th century is full of orphans that get adopted by a family, or have special characteristics that give them the ability to overcome the odds. When considering the timing of some sort of “event” that required this type of stuff to be written it seems like it wasn’t too long ago. Especially if these books came out starting in the late 1800’s and were written for children around 10 years old. Maybe whatever trauma they acquired from becoming and orphan was able to be given a band-aid through these stories?
> 
> Little Orphan Annie (poem written 1885 originally titled The Elf Child)


Interesting!  My first thought here is that these poems were meant to reinforce the trauma.  Have you read Mother Goose?  This source states that the original compilation of these poems for children was put together in 1697 by a man named Charles Perault.

"Charles Perrault was the first to actually publish a Mother Goose collection of rhymes and other folk tales in 1697, essentially initiating the fairy tale genre. With the subtitle _Les Contes de ma Mère l'Oie_ (Tales of my Mother Goose), the collection quickly gained popularity all over France. By 1729, Perrault’s collection had been translated into English, in the form of Robert Samber’s _Histories or Tales of Past Times, Told by Mother Goose_.  Samber’s volume was eventually republished in 1786 and brought to the U.S.​​English publisher of children’s literature John Newbery later focused on the nursery rhymes, publishing _Mother Goose's Melody, or, Sonnets for the Cradle, _which helped Mother Goose become further associated with children’s poetry."  (Source:​Charles Perrault was the first to actually publish a Mother Goose collection of rhymes and other folk tales in 1697, essentially initiating the fairy tale genre. With the subtitle _Les Contes de ma Mère l'Oie_ (Tales of my Mother Goose), the collection quickly gained popularity all over France. By 1729, Perrault’s collection had been translated into English, in the form of Robert Samber’s _Histories or Tales of Past Times, Told by Mother Goose_.  Samber’s volume was eventually republished in 1786 and brought to the U.S.​​English publisher of children’s literature John Newbery later focused on the nursery rhymes, publishing _Mother Goose's Melody, or, Sonnets for the Cradle, _which helped Mother Goose become further associated with children’s poetry. "​(Source: Mother Goose | Poetry Foundation)​
Again...that time period: 1700s and 1800s.


dreamtime said:


> Strictly speaking, it's mostly a hypothesis for now, as a theory would require some direct evidence.
> 
> _Hypothesis_: Orphanages were created to cement a new historical narrative by indoctrinating young people, and make people forget their past.
> 
> ...



THIS!!!   You wrote my thinking very well!   Thank you for this.  I appreciate that bit of dabbled data was understood.

And I agree with you.  It is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Oh, and I just realized that all of this was written in your thread regarding Trauma and Technology.  I had begun a thread called "Orphans re-educated and "sorted" to form nations.  Perhaps our comments on this issue would be more appropriate in that thread instead of here?

Orphans re-educated and "sorted" to form nations?


----------



## BernaysSauce (Jun 14, 2022)

I'd be interested to know if any rainbow club symbology was used during this time, by these institutions


----------



## CatELyst (Nov 19, 2022)

Prolix said:


> It would follow, then, that whatever the incremental degradations of technological advance – urban suffocation, disassociation with nature, bombardment with harmful EM frequencies, the rise in allopathic medicine – have on the psyche, they’re insufficient on their own to achieve goals of mass-inflicted trauma. Of course, technology – in terms of access to mass media, not least the bombardment of the 24-hour news cycle – is vital to this end.
> 
> In _Programmed to Kill_, Dave McGowan suggests the entire serial-killer phenomenon – and by extension mass shootings – is engineered explicitly to fulfil this purpose (there’s a killer in every street, maybe in your own home; in the case of _The Exorcist_, your mind/soul isn’t safe, you could be possessed). He quotes Mae Brussell suggesting, back in 1974, that this was effectively the importation of psychological warfare programme Operation Phoenix to the US.



This feels more true today than ever.  Not only do we have the 24 hour news cycle, 100s of cable channels, radio stations, and such, but now we add 100s of different social media networks on 24/7 on our phones which we carry with us all the time.  

What is funny:  *they* are still not able to complete control human free thinkers.


----------



## AxenLab (Dec 23, 2022)

Nature of psyche very much hijacked - Technology is a problem with how humans behave. With Synchronicity directed by artificial intelligence interfacing with our minds at heart of the cosmiculture deficit - brain cells in general connected to a negative transduction system that is sucking the life out of them.


----------

