I came across an interesting little theory the other day, that went something like this...

Most people in the world, say 80-85%, are normies: conventional thinkers, shaped and led by social norms, who do what they're told and trust authority. 'The normie' is by far the most prevalent human archetype in the world, and has been all throughout history. But it's not the only one. If normies are seen to be broadly "in the middle" of the human personality spectrum, then, at either end, we have two specific groups of outliers: the psychos and the schizos.

The psychos, we all know about: they're the ruthless, dead-eyed serial killer subtype, who will do anything, to anyone, at any time, in order to get what they want. Far from mostly being in prison (although many are), psychos are more often to be found in the world's most distinguished institutions: as top CEOs at Fortune 500 companies, as high-profile politicians and media figures, and as decorated celebrities of all stripes.

This is because psychopathy, with its attendant empathy deficits and love of sadism and humiliation rituals, is an excellent predictor for success in highly competitive, hierarchical professions, and so, psychopaths are disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of our society. The ruling classes are said to intentionally induce psychopathy in their children, through MK-Ultra style conditioning, as they see the condition as highly advantageous to worldly accomplishment and success.

The neurological architecture of a psychopath is so different to that of an ordinary person, that they could almost qualify as a different species, and this is why they're often known as 'human predators', whilst ordinary people - normies - are their prey. And, just as a lovely, harmless lamb grazing in a field could not possibly conceive of why the gimlet-eyed wolf eyeing them from the bushes would possibly want to do them any harm, nor can normies really comprehend the inner architecture or motivations of the psychopath.

As normies are mostly motivated by wanting to do the right thing and be a good person, even if they don't always get it right, they assume that everyone else is, too. This makes them very easy prey for the psychos, who relentlessly manipulate and exploit their good nature, consistency deceive and mislead them, and harm them in a multiplicity of malevolent ways. All carried out with a charming disposition and a smile (a wolfish grin, even).

This is why, when one tries to explain to a normie what a certain evil individual or organisation is really doing to them, they dismiss it with, "no, they would never do that".

The normie means that they themselves wouldn't - and that no normie would.

Psychos, however, not only would, and do, but they actively enjoy it. They delight in it. They thrive on doing evil, causing harm, and destroying people. That is literally what motivates and drives them forward in life. Cruelty, crudity, and sadism are the currencies in which they deal.

However, just as the psycho is the predator of the normie, the psycho has a predator of its own - the schizo.

'Schizo', in this instance, does not refer to someone who is literally schizophrenic, hearing voices and so on, but to the small percentage of people who, whilst they possess the same empathy and basic neurological wiring as the normie, also possess the ability to see through social illusions, and notice things about the world that the normie does not - and thus, often find themselves labelled by normies as 'mad' or 'delusional' (or, indeed, 'schizo').

Another term for 'schizo', therefore, might be 'conspiracy theorist' or 'critical thinker' - and one of the first things critical thinkers notice about the world when they enter the territory known as conspiracy theory, is that the world is run by psychopaths. Not simply by greedy or selfish people hoarding wealth, as normies believe - but by literal ruthless and sadistic psychopaths, who revel in creating and maintaining human suffering.

Hence, the existence of the schizos is deeply problematic for the psychos. After all, psychos delight in how easy it is for them, when left unimpeded, to manipulate and harm normies. So they utterly despise the 'schizos' who see through them, and who cannot be manipulated and controlled so effortlessly.

They especially hate the schizos when they throw spanners in the works of the psychos' rampages of destruction, by helping people to, for example, avoid vaccinations, or dismantle psyops. That's when the psycho's suave, charming mask slips, and you see the real snarling wolf underneath

We've seen a lot of this lately in "the truth movement", an environment which of course psychos - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing - have infiltrated very heavily.

They behave the way they do - perennially trying to deceive and manipulate others, and flying into an intemperate rage if they are exposed - because of the one thing that matters to them above all else:

Control.

They must be able to control the narrative. They must be able to control other people's actions. And, most of all, they must be able to control other people's minds.

This is because, to the psycho, there is no such thing as objective reality or absolute truth, but rather, they see the world as their own personal playground, where they define what's real and what's not, what's good and what's bad, and who people should listen to and trust - and who should be smeared and condemned.

Normies relentlessly fall for this, taking their cues from what psycho media talking heads tell them, but 'schizos' often don't. They see through the lies, expose them, and fight back. At that point, the hunters - the psychos - become the hunted, as 'schizos' get better and more expedient at identifying them and flushing them out.

So, that's the theory in a nutshell: the world is divided into normies (80-85%), psychos (5-10%) and schizos (5-10%),

The psycho hunts the normie; the schizo hunts the psycho; the psycho hates the schizo, and tries to convince the normie to hate them too, by labelling them crazy and evil (the things that, in fact, the psychos - master projectors - are themselves).

Okay, you may be thinking, interesting theory... but what has all this to do with the recent death of celebrity journalist, Rod Liddle?

For those who've never heard the name, Liddle - who died earlier this week, aged 66 - was a highly controversial scribe, seen by supporters as a fearless purveyor of challenging opinions and dark humour, and by detractors, as a foul-mouthed, wife-beating paedophile apologist.

As he was a member of the celebrity media class, it won't surprise readers to learn that the detractors have a point. In 2005, Liddle accepted a police caution for assaulting his pregnant partner, and he has written more than one article appearing to support paedophilia.

Whilst his fans have labelled this 'satire', one of these articles was published in the earnest, hand-wringing Guardian, not really known for its 'satirical' takes on anything, let alone the morality of viewing online child pornography. This, after all, is the same Guardian that published a letter from LGBT campaigner, Peter Tatchell, defending adults having sex with children as young as nine.

Subsequent to Liddle's article, the Guardian published a letter from a reader effusively supporting his "courageous" position, and agreeing that viewing child porn should not be illegal.

It would seem, then, that a lot of people don't know what satire is, or perhaps, it's more accurate to say, they pretend not to know when it suits them. Satire is not just saying something disgusting and then claiming you didn't really mean it. That's not skilful or clever or funny, and actual satire is all three of these things - and very difficult to do well. Few writers possess the ability. Liddle certainly didn't, nor do I believe that he was aiming in any way to practice the art.

Effective satire, that lands as it is supposed to, does so by lampooning power and privilege. That's the point of it. Monty Python's 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch is a brilliant example.

Sexually exploited children, however, are the complete antithesis of a powerful or privileged group, so claiming to "satirise" the subject, by stating a desire to "shag kids" (kids not "much below" 14), as Liddle did, is not "satirical" by any reasonable metric. It's also not a joke, because jokes have to be - bear with me here - funny. To qualify something as a joke, one has to be able to explain how and why it is comedic, even if it doesn't make one 'lol' oneself.

So, in the interests of full transparency, and to avoid accusations of "pearl-clutching" (more on that later), let's examine what Liddle actually said about his desire to have sex with children, quoted fully and in context:

"[T]he one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. It seemed to me virtually impossible not to, and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one. We’re talking secondary school level here, by the way — and even then I don’t think I’d have dabbled much below year ten, as it is now called. I just thought we ought to clear that up early on.

"At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy in a Pot Noodle scuzzy kind of way — she copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl.

"As pupils, we didn’t remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days, the fury and the righteous anger."

('Fifth-form' is what would today be called year 11, with pupils aged 15 and 16, and fourth-form is year 10, ages 14-15 - the age Liddle wouldn't go "much below".)

Liddle added, towards the end of end of the piece, that:

"I suspect — and it is only a guess — that thousands of teachers up and down the land conduct sexual relationships with their older charges and that in most cases no harm comes of it."

Can someone please explain the 'satire' here, or the joke, because I'm afraid I simply don't get it.

Of course - and as all honest commentators know - it's patently obvious that Liddle wasn't being satirical, or even making a sick joke: he was being completely serious. He asserts that teacher-pupil sex does no harm "in most cases"; that pupils at his own school didn't mind teachers having sex with children; and, hence, he considers any objections to adults having sex with their 14-year-old pupils to be "deranged howling".

Rod Liddle wasn't a satirist. He wasn't a comedy skit writer, either. Instead, he was what passes in mainstream journalism for "edgy" - which basically means he was tasked with saying exactly what most of the media classes really think, but pretend not to when they're in polite company. That's why they could all titter over him, "ooh, Rod, you are naughty, you can't say that!", whilst all privately agreeing with him.

What's most surprising, though, is not just that Liddle's ideological equals are defending and venerating him in death, lashing out unedifyingly at critics, but that his supposed opponents are as well.

Arch left-winger, Terry Christian, who has made a career out of his unemployed northern yoof schtick, despite now being a very wealthy OAP, gushed over Liddle, dismissing his detractors as humourless Mary Whitehouse types.

When Liddle's Spectator article, regarding teachers having sex with children, was shown to Christian, he described it as "pure comedy", suggested that people who objected to the content were "clutching pearls", and sarcastically invited them to continue because: "I'm sure it will help feed hungry kids and hoyse [sic] the homeless".

A very odd remark, which could easily be interpreted as implying that it is perfectly acceptable to sexually exploit children, so long as you provide them with food and shelter first. Maybe other gifts, too, like clothes and mobile phones. A few drinks and other substances, perhaps. I believe that this is indeed a modus operandi a lot of child abusers practice.

Meanwhile, avowed feminists and women's rights campaigners, Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock, were quick to join the chorus of voices celebrating wife-beater Liddle (who abandoned his first wife, and mother of his two children, during their honeymoon, to return to his 22-year-old mistress - the woman he later assaulted).

Boris Johnson, Piers Morgan, Richard Tice, the list of high-profile characters, on both the 'left' and 'right' of the political spectrum, celebrating Liddle, gives us a great deal of insight into how our world really works:

People with vile personal characteristics are elevated to the top, and then permanently protected and lionised by those at similar levels, and with similar characteristics, regardless of how opposing their views may on the surface appear to be.

This is because, whatever particular views a world stage player may publicly espouse; whether they profess to see themselves as on the 'left' or the 'right', that isn't the tribe to which they have ultimate allegiance.

That's to the club - the one big one that they're all in, and that you have to be in, in order to gain serious wealth and success on the world stage. And that club is very disproportionately composed of those at the 'psycho' end of the human spectrum.

So, when one of them dies, they all must sycophantically celebrate the deceased party, and say how utterly, splendidly wonderful they were, with effusively exaggerated eulogies, whilst savaging anyone who dares to point out that maybe, just maybe, the wife-beating paedophile apologist - and virulent vaccine pusher - wasn't quite so wonderful, after all.

If you do that, you will be utterly excoriated, often in very crude terms, thereby exposing the untruth that these individuals always come up with when defending fellow, seemingly indefensible, club members: that they don't always have to see eye-to-eye with someone to like and respect them, and can be friends with others with different views.

Well, no, you demonstrably can't. Or you would be just as jolly hockey sticks about those criticising Liddle (or Widdecombe or Ed The Techie or whoever), as those praising them. Haha, what larks, we're all friends here, practicing our free speech rights and respecting each other's different opinions, right?

Wrong, of course. Oh-so woefully wrong. These people show you who they are when you criticise one of "them", and, if you didn't know the person was "them" before criticising them, you'll certainly find out after, when the sustained, pathologising, coordinated character assassinations start.

This behaviour is not because the people attacking you genuinely experienced deep feelings of awe and admiration for the person they're now eulogising. It's not about that at all. Often, they've never even met them, or, if they have, had a very superficial and transient relationship.

The real reason for these tributes isn't typically deep and authentic personal admiration. Rather, it's because of the eulogisers' allegiance to their club, to ritual and to hierarchy, and to their need to revel in the notion that they are in a special, superior club, and you're not.

When someone in their club dies, therefore, whether they knew them well or not, they're keen to show the rest of the lowly world how much the special person's death matters - much more than a non-special person's - because the special person was in the special club, that they are also in. It's really about affirming their own superiority - and ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the plebs - not about the person who's died.

We saw a very illustrative example of this with the now-notorious "death of Ed the Techie". An unremarkable man, with a foul mouth and nasty temper, whose contributions to "the truth movement" were of very little note, nevertheless, members of his club - his "original crew", as state asset Lucy Connolly put it - gushed over him like he was, well, Princess Diana (the widely shared commemorative cartoon to Ed mimicked Diana's funeral).

Even people who had supposedly held vastly differing views to Ed's joined in the gush-fest regarding his demise - and the unorthodoxy of the extensiveness of the fawning became especially marked when compared to other activists - who had made far more significant contributions than Ed had - who died around the same time. People such as Graham Atkinson (otherwise known as the Red Pill Pharmacist) barely got a mention online compared to Ed.

This contrast exists because, with one death, we have the club signalling to the club that "this person is special. One of us. Not like the nobody normies. We have to remind them that we're special and they're scum."

And indeed, anybody who at the time dared to question the authenticity of the exaggerated, amplified Ed-gush-fest, was certainly very vigorously reminded of this "fact".

The one key thing about psychopaths, though, and those who are psychopath-adjacent (i.e., not quite deranged enough to get the top jobs, but can be useful as sycophantic puppets to prop up the psycho's image and ego) is that they are so arrogant, they think they're infallible and untouchable. That they can do and say as they like, with no comeuppance. And that's always what exposes them, in the end.

They make errors of judgement regarding how other (non-psychopathic) people feel and think, and therefore, the degree to which they can be controlled and subdued. Psychos believe that, once they've lashed out at someone, or tried to smear them to others, that's it: the person has been successfully quashed and everybody will now hate them.

When this doesn't happen, the psycho reels in resentment and shock, because they have such supreme and unwavering confidence in their own abilities, and such sneering contempt for everyone else's, that they simply cannot believe that other people are not behaving as they've been ordered to: that others have agency, and minds of their own.

When it becomes clear to psychos they are losing control in this way, they will throw outraged temper tantrums, often rather reminiscent of Rumplestiltskin. This is when we see them for what they really are.

In a similar vein, they also often reveal themselves by the kind of putrid language they use, particularly when under pressure. I'm not talking about everyday swearing, the odd "F off" or whatever.

I'm talking about language so vile, crude, and depraved that psychologically healthy people can't tolerate hearing much of it without having a visceral reaction of repelled disgust.

Such language is described as "cursing" for a reason, and people who frequently use, and delight in using, grotesque language, are, indeed, cursed. They are poisoned. They are poison.

However, because they're psychopathic, and therefore devoid of empathy, they don't actually realise how irregular and off-putting this kind of language is to the vast majority of humanity, who are not psychologically poisoned, neurologically lacking, or spiritually ill.

They actually think it's normal. They think "everyone talks like this when they're amongst friends".

No. They don't. They really don't. Only degenerates, perverts, and psychopaths do. Not coincidentally, the three top qualifiers for membership of our ruling classes.

That's why the infiltrating psychopathic assets online so often deploy this kind of disgusting and depraved language - it's used as a homing beacon to others who possess the same sick proclivities they do, to draw them in, and then use them in future operations. Many of the male assets engage in 'catfishing', posing online as women, in order to draw in other deviant men, who they can then blackmail and control.

You may recall that, rather famously, the fake-awake state asset, Dan Wootton, engaged in precisely this behaviour. Wootton is one of the few that got publicly exposed, but this kind of thing is rife all over the controlled, infiltrated "truth movement" (an example here, explicit content warning).

Indeed, many significant names in the "movement", including Wootton, have direct links to Emma Sayle, director of the elite, Eyes Wide Shut style "sex parties" known as 'Killing Kittens'. We may want to question what alleged anti-establishment warriors for morality and truth are doing cosying up to such a person - who just so happens to be good pals with future Queen, Kate Middleton - and what it suggests about who these "thought leaders" really are.

To summarise, then, we are in a war - the same age-old war humanity has been in for a very long time - although not everyone's equally equipped to fight it. So, if you're not a normie, and you're not a psycho, while you may not want to exactly embrace the epithet 'schizo' (and I agree the term needs some work marketing-wise), you are nevertheless exactly the kind of combatant that we need.

Forget 'staying safe'.

Instead, stay schizo.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.