Psychological Warfare

The second article in this series on the “WHY’ question asked by so many advocates. Why do they (our government, BLM, DOI, Politicians like Rep Chris Stewart) get away with blatant lies? WHY doesn’t anyone see what is really happening? WHY can’t we protect our wild horses?

©CAES 2018, Val Cecama-Hogsett


I was doing research recently on systematic desensitization and came across a video done by Simply Psych on Piaget’s Cognitive Theory.

I work for a non-profit called Citizens Against Equine Slaughter. We have been working to protect wild horses in this country. We recommended, during a legal case, that all employees who are making decisions for the wild horses undergo a psychological evaluation. We noticed that the ’empathy’ was lacking in these people who acknowledged the horses as living, sentient beings. One example was a veterinarian who wanted to experiment on pregnant mares. I did n interview with him. I asked about the possibility of aborting their foals, or even the death of the mare. He told me they likely would abort their foals in the first and second trimester and that in the third there was more probability that the foal would survive. In talking further about the mares that had died with his first experiment he said: “well, you know it’s all a learning curve.” Additionally, he went on to express how much he hoped he could do this second experiment so that he could perfect the procedure. I again asked if he thought mares or foals would die. His response was that of course some of them would, but it was necessary to get the surgical procedure correct.
We have, since that date watched this issue, attempting to constantly step back and look at the big picture. I was informed by an employee in the Department of Labor that the main agency, the one who manages the majority of wild horses, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), had ordered a study to determine how to “Deal with us (the public) while introducing ideas like sterilizing mares and possible slaughter or euthanasia of wild horses.”

I watched a situation that I compare to the theory, many call a conspiracy theory, about the Iraq war. That theory was that our (American) involvement was really about oil, not weapons of mass extinction. First, there was the introduction of the idea, Iraq gassing their own people, in our case an advisory council recommended the killing of all horses the BLM deemed excess.

Next, they calm us down. The BLM puts out a statement that they would never consider this. Whew, ok, well that was scary. But now we have that possibility in our minds. People and children are being gassed, that’s bad, or wild horses are overpopulated and starving, again, that’s bad.

Then we had the accommodation phase of cognitive theory. In the Iraq example we had the constant news reports, the information on the possible types of gas, the effects of those gasses, and the question, ‘could this be used against us”. In the case of the horses, we have town hall meetings, certain politicians who are funded heavily by the livestock industry who wants the horses gone, speaking about how the horses are starving, if we love them shouldn’t we do something. The media who will not report what we are saying, which is we know there is no crisis, we know the photo being used of a starving mare and her foal are from one isolated incident, not the norm. But the public, who by a majority, including members of Congress voting on the action to be taken will not hear our ‘side of the story’. So the people are being desensitized to killing the horses or invading Iraq, by a constant stream of information supporting a fake crisis that demands we take action.

Finally comes the government, we have to invade Iraq because the safety of our people, people around the world, could be at risk. We have to kill the horses so that the remaining horses will have enough food or water. We have now gone through the process described in cognitive theory, and we have been systematically desensitized to the result the government and a well-organized, powerful industry desired. The awful thing is that we know the entire thing is based on this fake crisis, the lie.

How, do I as an advocate do anything about this? How do we take control of a situation that is so corrupt, and powerful that even a formal ethics complaint against the main voice in Congress telling the lie, is not even heard or talked about? We are now seen as conspiracy theorists, and no one will listen. We are blacklisted in the media, even other advocate groups choking any income we get for lawsuits, and telling people we are wrong about laws we know are broken, even convincing people to sign petitions to support FY 2018 Department of Interior Senate bill, that didn’t even exist because it was never heard by the Senate. How do you reconstruct the schema of a nation?


We need to compare the brain scans of people who are animal abusers, proving the link of psychopathy to the employees like this veterinarian, the politician, and others who can speak about death of a living being as if it is something good, or necessary, knowing it is a lie that will achieve the agenda of those providing money to them. I believe the brain scans would be similar to those of animal or even human abusers.

In this video linked below The Moth, a name James Fallon gives himself, he reaches a conclusion that is a good question. Does society need sociopaths? This question is based on the need for some professions to have people performing tasks that keep empathy separate from the job they perform. He uses the example of a surgeon. Would the surgeon be as effective or successful at his job if he were experiencing high levels of empathy? When we transfer this question and assumption of the need to be a sociopath to be good at your job, in some careers, we can ask the same of a veterinarian, or these wildlife managers, politicians and others that can recommend experimenting on sentient beings, or even the death of healthy animals.

Research into the empathy of the veterinarian who does animal research has not been heavily done but the field is beginning to receive some mandates on this. The Animal Welfare Institute talks about this in a quote from another report, found in Halpern-Lewis, 1996:

“There are now signs also in the USA that the importance of a positive human-animal relationship in the research laboratory is appreciated more seriously, and that “in addition to knowledge and skills, primary attributes [of animal research personnel] must be feelings of compassion and sensitivity toward animals”

So how do we compete with money, power, and behavior dominated by sociopathic behavior while those same entities are employing the weapons of cognitive theory and systematic desensitization to gain the trust of the majority?

When this author can find some answer to this there will be a part three in this series, but that may be a long time given the lack of research in the connection of sociopathic behavior in what seems to be ‘normal’ making of laws that solve a fake ‘crisis.




Click to access cost_of_caring.pdf