Jul 27, 2024

Judging Character

Todd Hayen

I do think it is interesting these days that people can no longer accurately judge character. This seems to be a borderline-esque example of a lack of object constancy—where a person has a difficult time averaging out another person’s behaviour and only looks at the last thing they did to assess them. This is all probably due to the indoctrination we are all experiencing now, and have been experiencing for years.

I also think we have been inundated with movies for decades that show people acting out of character in surprising unexpected ways. For example, the really nice guy next door who ends up being a serial killer. That sort of character inconsistency just doesn’t happen in real life (explanation to follow).

Yet people always think it could happen—or even that it is likely to happen, no matter how clear it is made that it most likely would not happen. It is a huge fear of human beings that someone they trust will suddenly turn on them—they are then apt to trust them too thoroughly in order to avoid that risk. But again, this turning typically doesn’t happen in real life (not in radical ways—except in romantic relationships where people’s judgement are clouded by “love”).

If someone is an asshole, you usually can tell, intuitively that they are an asshole, and if someone has good character, usually that good character is consistent in their actions and behaviour. There are outliers, of course, and you do have to nurture the skill of intuitive assessment to be decent at making a reasonably reliable evaluation.

However, we are constantly told we cannot “profile” people based on intuitive assessment, so we are being trained to not trust anyone outside the agenda’s list of approved experts. Believe it or not, this also means that those we do trust (those on the list), are often untrustworthy, and it is nearly impossible to stop trusting them. This seems to be a contradiction, but this is what we observe happening right before our very eyes.

Let me further explain and give some answers.

If we have lost the natural ability to assess character, then we, like a blind person, will rely on others to tell us who to trust, who to like, who is decent, and who is not. We determine who we will assign this task (who we will rely on) based on several criteria, none of which depend on our own ability to make these determinations.

The criteria we use to find the person that will lead us to character discernment usually includes something as stupid as a person in authority, a person in a position in government, medical doctors, or maybe other “experts”—but in our current culture, usually sweet talking, lying, politicians. People we have been told to trust, and if we do not trust them, then we are lowly, stupid, deplorable, conspiracy theorists.

Think of this process as being similar to a newborn chick who imprints on whatever it first encounters to be its mother. We imprint on people or positions (such a president or prime minister) we are told to trust. Government we trust. And the imprinting sticks.

This again is an example of losing certain God-given abilities and sensitivities, but not losing them organically, or through some sort of evolution of being, but rather losing them because we are being coerced into losing them, maliciously, intentionally, and nefariously.

We simply have lost the ability to assess our environment properly. The environment includes everything that we come into contact with, whether it be concepts, ideas, medical interventions, climate (weather) or even people’s character. The inner system that used to evaluate, judge, and assess these things has been replaced with an outer system that unfortunately does not have our better interests at heart.

In fact, depending on how far you want to go down the rabbit hole, this “external system” could be as innocuous as a bunch of blowhard narcissists trying to stroke their ego or as mind-numbingly diabolical as Satan himself. And anything in between, such as evil greed and a thirst for political power. As I have made many descents into the rabbit hole, I am tending to believe the answer is rather close to the bottom, and may be at the bottom itself.

Do you see a recurring theme in my writing? I do not do this purposefully, but it seems the same basic ideas keep coming up with just different ways to look at them. Bear with me (or is it “bare” with me—pun intended).

Now, back to the specifics of this article. If we can no longer trust our intuitive assessment of character (and, of course, it isn’t ALL intuitive), then the external system (i.e., “they,” “the powers that be,” “the agenda,” “GloboCap,” or Beelzebub himself) is going to tell you exactly what that character is. This external system will say Fauci, for example, has good character, whereas Dr. McCullough, or Dr. Pierre Kory, does not.

How do they actually tell us this?

Primarily by discrediting who they deem “poor character” through media, censorship, lost licenses, etc. Sheep cannot tell if these discrediting tactics are based on fact, nor can they tell if discrediting someone like, for one example, Dr. McCullough, cuts through their own gut response to his character (assessed through his past credits and past actions, as well as an intuitive, heartfelt, analysis). They should be able to, but they have lost that ability through years of indoctrination (see this article for one possibility as to how this was done).

Could all of the positive information gathered about a McCullough-type be falsified? Technically that is possible, but that is very unlikely. Particularly for a doctor, his or her past accomplishments are well documented. Can we trust our heartfelt assessment? We used to be able to, but I think few of us can anymore. The psy-op to destroy that ability has been very powerful and effective.

Most shrews I have talked to immediately pegged Anthony Fauci as dubious. Was that due to his short stature? His New York accent? His weasley mannerisms? I don’t think so (but maybe his mannerisms do make a negative impression) “Something about that guy . . .” Then Kennedy’s book came out, which only served to document, in one place, a history of dubious activity. Then Covid, then the Senate hearings, then more to come in exposing his evil intentions later down the road. But the shrew gut knew, for quite some time.

We, as a human race, are losing the ability to think, to reason, to logically put dots together, and to trust our intuitive sense of what is right and what is wrong. We are being taught to see things in a polarized fashion, black or white, and then taught to listen to only one source that tells us which is black, and which is white. We no longer (or soon to be) can determine by instinct what is good for us, we cannot discern art from computer junk, we cannot see a human face in such a way that divulges malcontent or benevolence, we can no longer see blatant lies.

Of course, these “senses” are not foolproof, but they give us information that is a part of what we use to determine what is and what is not dangerous in our environment. We have passed this on to others to do for us. And those others do not give a rat’s ass if we live or die.

Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here