From: roffexx@gmail.com   
      
   Citing from June 17, 2022:   
      
   “-Aha.., so here every morning at about the last half year or more we got   
   the combination of the déjà vu method and the “humanitarian” action.   
   -How intricate and evil.   
      
   Why such professional brainwashing actions?”   
   -- End of cite. --   
      
   ...   
      
   .. -Here we got the Evilness. People behave in an evil manner. It’s proven.   
   So, why? According to my layman reasoning we got four brain related basic   
   reasons...   
      
   (I have to warn that further reading can be both academic and confusing. But I   
   think that most of it holds some or rather much legitimate ideas, postulates   
   and thoughts.)   
      
   * The absence of one or both back skull lobes (neck lobes).   
      
   * The existences of ally/foe I me/self instinct versions compared to the   
   single ally/ally version.   
      
   * The big brain’s (cerebrum) setting of a risen resource urge.   
      
   * The little brain’s (cerebellum) settings of /homer /fighter /thief.   
      
   Basically, we can postulate that “evilness” (here abbreviated to E') needs   
   the absence of one or both neck lobes. This absence is by itself manifesting   
   the three other brain reasons till combined “evilness”, E’’. Therefore   
   the other three    
   brain reasons by their own can not be manifested being E’.   
      
   -The missing neck lobe(s) does only by itself create a universal   
   “non-participation” status, E’, for the individual having this deficit.   
   -This is a crucial fact which has an immense and an unconditional impact on   
   the person with this disposition.   
      
   If starting to combine the cerebellum genetic natural dispositions, /homer   
   /fighter /thief (/h /f /t) - with - the absence of one or both neck lobes we   
   can show that the book of law really is involved with this combination.   
      
   So, when combined with the cerebellum’s three configurations, /h /f /t, it   
   creates E’’ at the individual, though /h /f /t only by itself does not   
   generally manifest E’.   
      
   One example is if an individual has the thief, /t, cerebellum disposition it   
   does by itself not make him or her a thief according to the book of law. He or   
   she does not have the true urge to break the law, though being a cerebellum   
   /t. But if this    
   individual got missing neck lobe(s) the probability for this person breaking   
   the law does rise in a significant manner. -We got the template for a evil   
   thief, /t’’, compared with the template of a good thief, /t.   
      
   One can then combine the other cerebellum dispositions, /h and /f, with   
   missing neck lobes(s) and get templates of evil homers, /h’’, and evil   
   fighters, /f’’. For instance, my knocking, tapping and banging neighbors   
   probably got a combination of    
   missing neck lobe(s) with the cerebellum homer layout, /h’’.   
      
    -And combined with cerebellum- fighter, /f, layout, get the template of a   
   evil fighter, /f’’. I.e. being an evil soldier/ officer, for instance.   
   Compared with, for example, being a law and rule abiding soldier/ officer.   
   -The probability for law    
   abidance, in any tough battle, rises if the soldier/ officer not is missing   
   the neck lobes.   
      
   -So we can here notice the immense importance of having both neck lobes   
   intact. In a way we have with this post in RMD Google News Groups   
   schematically explained or postulated both why and how OP 57/68 was launched.   
   -It’s all brain deficit caused. -And    
   the top perpetrators were aware of this from the beginning.   
      
   Bob Dylan was not aware of this when he “passed Rubicon” and began his   
   career in the early 1960’s. -Didn’t George Harrison once in a recording   
   session call Bob Dylan for “Mr Lucky”?   
      
      
   Regards   
   LeoK   
   June 18, 2022   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)