Serial killers and the psychology of fear

Fear is the ruling elite’s primary weapon utilized against the masses.

Fear not only fuels the engine of the ruling elite’s monopolized, global commercial system, but also serves as a psychological weapon, keeping the masses subservient to and dependent upon the corporately organized criminal protection and illicit taxation rackets popularly known as governments.

The concept of serial killers has not only been repeatedly flogged by the mainstream media, but has been immortalized in popular literature (Hannibal Lecter/Silence of the Lambs).

As with everything planned by the ruling elites and executed by their corporate minions, the concept of the serial killer was deliberately designed to inflict maximum terror upon the collective consciousness of the masses.

From a purely objective analysis, the conception of the serial killer keeps the masses divided, mistrustful, and psychologically dependent for protection from the very source of those perpetrating such egregious and deliberate manipulation.

Hypothetically speaking – would shock and awe result if the identity of one of the most notorious serial killers known to the past turned out to be a member of one of America’s most prominent families?

Read on to discover more!

With virtually limitless resources at their disposal, the thirteen ruling elite Jesuit families have developed and fully honed a comprehensive understanding of fear’s dark psychology. Over a period of decades, exhaustive behavioral studies performed by the ruling elite’s scientific minions at London’s Tavistock Institute of Human Relations have plumbed human psychological depths and laid bare the machinations of humankind’s primal fears.

Whether the masses realize it or not, the mainstream media complex is utilized much like a classic Skinner Box, and oftentimes, the programming content observed flashing from television sets and computer screens represent ongoing laboratory experiments, while the consumers of that content serve as unwitting laboratory subjects.

After all, by now folks, one can’t afford to ignore the obviously discernable reasons television content is labeled as “programming.”

While the ostensible purpose of media programming may solely appear to be for the presentation of entertainment, news, and information, the public remains largely oblivious as to how the programming content delivered through television and internet distribution is truly conceived, and for what true purpose. Although there exists a growing awareness of the machinations of media manipulation, many remain still yet unaware.

The self-appointed ruling elites, even before the dawn of the modern age of technology, television, and the internet, were well aware of just how those they considered their rightful subjects could be psychologically subjugated to their commanding will.

It is only until now in the 21st century and with the aid of digital technology, that the results of the formerly incremental methods the ruling elites have always utilized to manipulate the masses can be brought to bear with greater and exponential immediacy.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” 

Undoubtedly, the sixteenth century text of Niccolo Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince, written and published in 1513 only a few years before the publication of Martin Luther’s widely influential work entitled 95 Thesis, still exerts a catalyzing force over the thinking of latter day, political and social policy makers.

In summary, Machiavelli’s The Prince poses a fundamental and perhaps trenchant question to those harboring ambitions to govern over mass populations: is it better to be loved, or feared?

The answer, as provided by Machiavelli, who interestingly began his professional career as a Florentine militia commander before turning to the pursuits of philosophy and political scholasticism, seems to tend towards the latter. Although, depending on the specific circumstances, Machiavelli advises a judicious utilization of both concepts ultimately remains the wisest approach.

That Machiavelli’s seminal work has stood for over five centuries as the handbook of elite governance is a testament to the permanence of its scholarly influence and the all-encompassing scope of its overriding political theme.

Despite its lasting legacy, the more abstract philosophical musings that propelled The Prince into literary renown were not novel, for Machiavelli was a man of his time, influenced by the predominant scholarly reexamination of classical antiquity during the Renaissance of the 16th century.

What differentiated Machiavelli was the comprehensive nature of The Prince, which transformed philosophical abstractions into practical political theory. This rather original approach, observed throughout the text of The Prince, quickly set Machiavelli apart from his scholarly contemporaries. With the publication of The Prince, Machiavelli unprecedentedly demonstrated how political theory could best be put into feasible practice.

Perhaps the element that most distinguished Machiavelli’s work from others published by his contemporaries, and what most attracted the interest of his future benefactors, the powerful Medici family, was its rather cavalier unconcern for moral considerations when it came to the practical application of political theory. More significantly, Machiavelli allows a telltale glimpse into the sinfully crippled psyche of the ruling elite social and political classes, and perhaps even the working mentality of his benefactors, the Medici family, towards the lower peasant classes and that of the nobility:

“One can make this generalization about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit.”

Though those disposed towards a sunnier view of their fellow man may classify Machiavelli’s analysis as an overgeneralization regarding the nature of humanity, it is obvious this is nonetheless the operative philosophy abided by the ruling elites regarding the justification for their utilization of fear as a prevailing instrument of mass governance.

However, as Machiavelli astutely ponders in The Prince, because balancing on this political tightrope between love and fear must be tended with the utmost care to avoid the dangers of revolution, a wise leader will only concern himself with mitigating most of his people’s disdainful hatred, using the concept of love only as political insurance against the perils of popular upheaval:

“A Prince must only endeavor to escape being hated.”

Since it is illogical to assume it is within the power of any wise prince to get all of his people to completely love him, Machiavelli seems to claim, then it is logical to assume he can control to what extent the masses fear him.

Furthermore, it can be logically inferred, given this is still the prevailing attitude of the ruling elites towards those over which they claim the divinely granted right to rule, that the concept of love is only applied as a duplicitous counterbalance in mitigating mass revolt. In this way, Machiavelli lays bare the duplicitous nature of political governance, in that in order for sitting rulers to govern well, they must always skillfully conceal one face while revealing another. In terms of observing latter day politics, it becomes clear Machiavelli’s philosophy of mass governance still prevails. It is also clear, that the concept of democracy is anathema to the prevailing politics of dispensing fear.

And yet, perpetually dazzled with charismatic appearances, the majority of Americans still cleave to the false notion a democratic form of governance still persists. Perhaps this is why the concept of democracy is only harbored by those stubbornly refusing to jettison the purely naïve notions of politics and history with which American public schools have inculcated and programmed them.

While politicians and political candidates continue to superficially espouse the exaltation of higher ideals, the majority of Americans remain unaware they do so only to justify the brandishing of an iron hand firmly clenched within a velvet glove on behalf of their hidden, ruling elite masters.

From consideration of this prevailing, Machiavellian political dialectic, one question arises: was the concept of the serial killer designed and developed to be used as a fearful instrument to better facilitate the calm efficiency of mass governance?

Examination of the following empirical evidence may cause a unanimous affirmative response.

Of course, folks, there shall always exist flocks of shills and naysayers averse to what are pejoratively termed “conspiracy theories.”

But before examining the following, note yet another telltale quote from Machiavelli’s seminal 16th century text:

“…fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.”

Contemplating the significance of that last excerpt drawn from Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can only conclude this is why the ruling elites, who believe there exists no superior authority, fear no retribution or recrimination for the perpetration of their legal, but unlawful criminal activities. While the common masses, despite the constant presentation of empirical evidence to the contrary, and assiduously bombarded with systematic, psychological manipulation from public schools, religion, mainstream television programming and slews of social pressures from peers and co-workers, positively shrink in fear from imagining or even conceiving such a monstrously criminal mindset could exist among those that appear to have been appointed to rule over them.

Ted Bundy

During the wave of serial killings reported by corporate, mainstream news networks  during the 1970’s and 80’s, stories of the horrifically murderous exploits of one Theodore Robert Bundy sent Americans whirling into a fear driven frenzy. But even a cursory glance at Mister Bundy’s biographical accounts coaxes utter suspicions.

The birth date listed at Wikipedia for Theodore Robert Cowell (Robert=33/highest degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry/Cowell/el/Elohim/fallen biblical angels/W=M flipped in duality’s mirror/3/33) is November 24, 1946 (11/masonic master’s apprentice/24=6/33/1946=29/2 9’s/flipped in duality’s mirror=66/12/21/777/intelligence joker code).

Biographical accounts from mainstream sources claim Bundy confessed to 30 homicides in seven states (30/three/double E=33/seven/zayin Kabbalah mind weapon), and that he also decapitated 12 of his victims (12/21/777/intelligence joker code).

Bundy was executed at Florida State Prison on January 24, 1989 (7/zayin mind weapon/1989=36/666). Other biographical accounts dispute Bundy’s true paternity, but in each, and including Wikipedia, there is yet another military connection, this time with the Air Force and or the Merchant Marines. The latter military connection turns out to be a clue as to the identity of Bundy’s host actor (Merchant Marine/merchant banking?).

But, two other biographical details listed amid all the fabricated detritus on Bundy’s Wikipedia page give the entire game away, folks. The first, details that in 1950, Bundy’s mother, Louise, abruptly changed her surname from Cowell to Nelson. Then, investigating further, one observed that in August of 1968, Bundy attended the Republican National Convention in Miami as a Rockefeller delegate!

Could it be, another of Nelson Rockefeller’s children had been posed as a fabricated historical figure? (See: The mysterious man of many famous faces part I).

Steven Clark Rockefeller:

Ted Bundy:

The method of operation utilized to create these fabricated media characters truly qualifies as nothing short of deceptive wizardry. If one is to credibly accept the biographical information available for Stephen Clark Rockefeller, his birth year is verified as 1936, while the birth date of 1946 is listed for the concocted serial killing character of Ted Bundy – meaning folks, the perpetrators of this colossal media hoax manufactured Bundy’s character utilizing backdated photos of Stephen Rockefeller, the identical method of operation utilized to create the simulated victims at Sandy Hook, Connecticut in 2012. This protects and insulates the identity of the live host actor from any connection ever being made to the portrayal of the character simulation.

Thus, while the common masses are made to tremble in fear from serial killing boogeymen like Ted Bundy, the ruling elites, with help from their willful handmaidens of the mainstream media, prey on and revel in that dark energy of fear, shaping it to not only control mass psychology and perceptions, but to mock those they consider an inferior breed as they remain untouchable and perhaps, even inscrutable.





Leave a Reply