Loading ...2022 THE REAL WAR : How experts Weaponized Behavioral Psychology and fueled government psyops against us, and what we can do about it.
JEFF CHILDERS HAS UNCOVERED THE BEGINNINGS OF THE PANIC PORN AS FAR BACK AS MAY 2020.
HE HAS IDENTIFIED WHO CREATED IT AND WHY . IT WAS A GROUP OF BEHAVIOURAL PSYCHOLOGISTS .
The article is here for members
For non members I have pasted it in a comment. This is Earthshattering Information on the genesis of all the Uniform Fear Porn the Governments were “greenlighted” to use and are still using .
This is evey bit as important as the Mass Formation Psychology Theory from Matias Desmet.
Everyone of us needs to be aware of this
Here is a Canadian Poll Jeff came across which demonstrates the point he is making perfectly
Good morning, C&C supporters! Today’s essay discusses what we are learning about how experts weaponized behavioral psychology and fueled government psyops against all of us. Then I suggest what we can do about it.
? *THE C&C ARMY POST* ?
Something is starting to break loose in the thought world and it is incredibly important for bringing accountability to the evil people responsible for the government’s worst excesses during the pandemic, and for the more important goal of developing countermeasures to a horrible monster the experts created which is now totally out of their control and is rampaging across the entire world.
The first thing that got my attention yesterday was a notification from my Epoch Times subscription about a live video interview of Laura Dodsworth headlined, “State of Fear: How Government Weaponized Fear and Human Psychology During the Pandemic.”
Even though I wasn’t able to watch it (thanks first to a stretch of frustratingly low cellular coverage and then later some technical issues with the Epoch Times’ app), it still started me thinking about an issue I’ve been pondering for some time.
A couple hours later, as coverage picked up, I providentially stumbled onto a video podcast on YouTube on the exact same topic while I was looking for something to drown out an extended argument by the junior lawyers in the car about the finer points of Dungeons & Dragons rules, including but not limited to a furious debate over the relative merits of the battle horse versus the war elephant.
Anyway, the podcast did the trick, and featured two young psychologists, Dr. Jeff Spence and Dr. Dan Smilek. Their ongoing video series is titled “The Manipulation Check.” I listened to Episode 8, “How the behavioral sciences are being used to manipulate your behavior, Part I.”
Fist, take a quick second and click the link to give a “thumbs up” their video, then come right back. If you watch it, please leave them an encouraging comment. The podcast’s “likes” should be a lot higher given the quality and importance of the material.
In Episode 8, Spence and Smilek review a series of academic papers mostly published in May 2020, beginning with this one: “Using Social and Behavioral Science to Support COVID-19 Pandemic Response.” (Nature / Human Behavior). They noted the paper had something like 45 distinguished authors and over 250 footnotes — over only ten pages.
This paper was just one example of a flurry of similar papers published in the journals in late April and May of 2020, as the pandemic was just picking up steam, and while we all remained under the delightful delusion that life would be back to normal soon after a few more weeks of curve flattening. You know, back when we still believed what the government said.
Anyway, it looks like once the pandemic was underway, the entire behavioral psychology industry shifted into its top gear and started trying to convince world governments to use all the most effective tools of psychological manipulation against citizens to halt the worst outbreak since the Black Death in 1346 A.D., and to literally save humanity from itself. The key was, these tools had previously been considered unethical. But now, given the urgency of the pandemic, the experts were falling over themselves to teach governments now wielding unlimited emergency powers how to use them.
These behavioral psychologists appear to have shared a common set of bad assumptions, and these false assumptions led them over the cliff of medical ethics into the lake of pure molten evil. Their awful assumptions included:
— People are inherently selfish and won’t sacrifice for the common good without the government’s “help.”
— People react “best” to negative emotions like fear and shame.
— Optimism is dangerous because it makes people under-appreciate they could be killed any minute by Covid.
— People don’t make good decisions for themselves without help from government experts.
— Coercive paternalism can be consistent with democratic ideals if it’s done for a good purpose and in good faith.
— There is no ethical problem whatsoever with manipulating people’s emotions without their knowledge — if you have a good enough reason.
— It’s perfectly fine to lie to the public if it accomplishes a virtuous purpose, as defined by experts.
Now, all those assumptions are NOT TRUE, are morally condemnable, unethical, unbiblical, probably illegal and, to be blunt, are plain evil. But these Mengele-like psychological “experts” gave governments permission to manipulate us through fear and shame. Then the governments created permanent psyops teams to use fear and shame to make the public do what the government wants. Now that the government has a taste of it, it’s never going away.
Want an example? Look at Ukraine. A recent Canadian survey suggested that highly-vaccinated people are MUCH more likely than others to believe that “Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine.” It’s not even close. In the survey, only about 3% of people who received 3 or more doses disagreed with that statement. Whereas about half of unvaccinated folks disagreed:
Why? I don’t think it’s because the vaccines are a mind-control device. I think it’s much simpler than that. The people who took the most vaccines are MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to government fear/shame manipulation than are people who’ve managed to hold out for the last year under a relentless barrage of psychological torture. And now the government is using its new staff, software, and psychological techniques to manipulate the public into supporting the war by blindly hating Russians. And it’s working.
I’m sure you’ve noticed, like I have, the shaming effects that spring into action when anyone expresses any skepticism about the official war narrative. That’s a direct result of all these tools created by the behavioral scientists. They’ve given the governments those tools and the permission to use them. The cat is out of the proverbial bag now, and it’s insatiably hungry.
Back to the May 2020 paper. It had one key goal:
Slowing viral transmission during pandemics requires significant shifts in behaviour.
Uh huh. The researchers carefully explained to governments how to get us to do things by psychologically harming us. Take a look at the first figure from the paper:
See? You are the ignorant caucasian blindfolded woman in pants about to walk over the cliff because you obstinately refuse to take your blindfold off. The government is the attractive black woman in a nice dress under the heading, “Leadership.” Trust and compliance is what good leadership produces, according to these “experts.”
And, all the way back in May 2020, they were already scheming about “misinformation,” labeled in the diagram as “fake news, conspiracy theories, and PERSUASION” under the heading “Science Communication.” In other words, they were saying using the shibboleth of “science!” to negate non-compliant speech. The paper suggests governments consider:
Preparing people for misinformation and ensuring they have accurate information and counterarguments against false information before they encounter conspiracy theories, fake news, or other forms of misinformation, can help inoculate them against false information.
PREPARE people for misinformation. INOCULATE (vaccinate) people’s MINDS, “against false information.” Meaning, information that opposes the government’s goals to control us, for our own good. Remember, this is from MAY 2020. This is where the whole misinformation thing came from, which is now being used as cover by governments to CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATE citizens for free speech. The behavioral psychologists handed the “misinformation” weapon to governments on a silver platter and now the governments are aiming it at anybody they don’t like.
The paper’s primary focus is about HOW to use fear to get people to do the right thing. The authors seem to have no concern for — or even interest in — the ethics or the truth, referring to appeals to fear drily as just another pair of pliers in the old tool box:
A meta-analysis found that targeting fears can be useful in some situations, but not others: appealing to fear leads people to change their behaviour if they feel capable of dealing with the threat, but leads to defensive reactions when they feel helpless to act. The results suggest that strong fear appeals produce the greatest behaviour change only when people feel a sense of efficacy, whereas strong fear appeals with low-efficacy messages produce the greatest levels of defensive responses.
It sounds they are telling the government how to use fear in a way that you can keep it going without causing people to panic and become completely irrational, and that’s how Spence and Smilek interpreted it. But I read this differently. They aren’t so much telling governments how to limit the fear as showing the government how to USE fear correctly to compel desired behaviors. In other words, you have to link the fear with the thing you want them to do, which people will then use to mitigate their resulting anxiety.
In other words, first you show folks a government-approved commercial featuring an attractive 20-something woman in a hospital bed, gasping for breath, obviously dying, hooked up to a ventilator and a bunch of other tubes and wires. Then a voice over: “Covid can kill anyone including YOU and you’ll die screaming. So just WASH YOUR HANDS.”
Ta-da. The desired result is an epidemic of obsessive hand-washing, as fearful people compulsively scrub their hands over and over trying to get some relief from the oppressive anxiety manufactured by the thought of an invisible, ubiquitous, mysterious, and deadly threat. A threat they can’t do anything about except for the thing the government wants them to do. Fill in the blank: wash your hands, don’t touch your face, socially distance, take an experimental drug, hate your unvaccinated neighbor.
Even more disgusting and revealing, the authors explained that, during a pandemic, optimism can kill people. Optimism — hope — is a “bias,” a prejudice, and the government has to BREAK IT DOWN:
Communication strategies must strike a balance between breaking through optimism bias without inducing excessive feelings of anxiety and dread.
The authors explain that optimistic people don’t calculate risks properly. In other words, they’re stupid. The government needs to do the thinking for them:
Negative framing captures attention, especially for people who are less mathematically skilled.
See? The government should make you fearful because you can’t even add two and two. Remember that line, repeated endlessly during the early pandemic, “we’re all in this together?” That sprang from the behaviorists, who noted the use of shaming — the fear of being in an “out” group — and the power of social collectivization through repeated use of language about the common good:
One of these factors is an emerging sense of shared identity and concern for others, which arises from the shared experience of being in a disaster . This feeling can be harnessed by addressing the public in collective terms and by urging ‘us’ to act for the common good.
I love how “us” was in quotes. It doesn’t include the experts, of course, because they already have their heads right. The paper introduced the diabolical concept of “nudging”:
Another way to leverage the impact of norms falls under the general category of ‘nudges’ which influence behaviour through modification of choice architecture (i.e., the contexts in which people make decisions). … For instance, a message with compelling social norms might say, ‘the overwhelming majority of people in your community believe that everyone should stay home’. Nudges and normative information can be an alternative to more coercive means of behaviour change or used to complement regulatory, legal and other imposed policies when widespread changes must occur rapidly.
When changes must occur rapidly. In other words, when you don’t have time to do it the ethical way. Ethics just slow things down.
And these bad ideas are metastasizing. Spence and Smilek go on to discuss the bestselling 2021 book “Nudge” by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. Nudge presents a “new theory” of “libertarian paternalism” that encourages governments to manipulate citizens into doing the “right” thing, without their knowledge, but of course for good reasons. This book is a direct result of 2020’s excesses of behavioral psychology. Observers are recognizing how effective it was to use fear and shame to make people into mindless, compliant robots, and are busy figuring out how to use the same formerly ethically verboten, but now ethically permissible, means to get the public policy outcomes that THEY want.
But some scientists involved in the programs are starting to have second thoughts. In Britain, a government office with the dystopian name Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) ramped up during the pandemic. But in autumn last year, British media began expressing concerns. The UK Telegraph found several scientists who were concerned about the government’s overreach.
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist and member of SPI-B said, “clearly using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.”
Another SPI-B scientist was reported to have said, “There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian…The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
The Telegraph reported several other SPI-B scientists spoke out against official fear-mongering during the pandemic. One reportedly said they were “stunned by the weaponization of behavioral psychology…psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.
It’s a good start, but it wasn’t enough to shut down the programs. Why would it? The tools are too effective.
The problem is that the pandemic proved that these newly-ethical strategies WORK. True, people are now gobbling antidepressants like sweet-chili-flavored Doritos, but who cares? The ends justify the means.
There will come a day — hopefully sooner rather than later — when the world recognizes that a massive evil was perpetrated against society in the name of “science” during the so-called Covid pandemic. Hopefully the behavioral psychologists who inflicted all this on us will get the legal justice they deserve. And we can help make sure that happens, first by informing ourselves about HOW it happened, then by talking and writing about it a LOT.
? *COUNTERMEASURES* ?
Because governments have a taste for it now, they are NEVER giving up these shiny new toys. We have to figure out how to make these psychological techniques so ineffective that governments will get bored with them and give them up as useless.
My first call to action is to ask our academic types — anybody who knows their way around the databases — to search for pull down all the related papers. Search PubMed and similar sources and save PDFs of the papers into a dropbox where a team can find and review them. Name them with the date, title, and journal like this: “20200510 Using Social and Behavioral Science to Support COVID-19 Pandemic Response — Nature.”
Here’s the dropbox I set up.
Once we have a good list, we can form a review team and assemble a database or something describing all the techniques they are using against us now along with examples. Then we can start figuring out how to harden society against these unethical techniques, one by one if necessary. We can do this! They’re going to hate it; it’ll be great.
Have a blessed Sunday! Schedule permitting, I’ll be back tomorrow with a regular C&C roundup.
Perfect correlation.
3 clot shots = sheep = cannon fodder for the war.