The corona hoax seems to be over and the people are throwing themselves into normal life. Full terraces, holidays are booked, the groceries are done, the petrol tanks are filled, children go to school, no longer working from home. It is all a lot more expensive but yes, that is because of the Russians of course. The naive people believe that we are done with corona. But the Hague toolbox with all the nonsense rubbish measures is only for a moment on the side. After the summer, like a third-rate magician at a children's party, the regime conjures up the next threat with great bravado like a rabbit out of a top hat; the mutated virus.

However, the consequences of the corona hoax are being felt in all parts of society. In education that suffers from a huge backlog despite the regime claiming that parental care and online teaching would be just as effective as regular education. In healthcare, which is again being cut back considerably, the waiting lists are growing to an extent that the waiting lists under Kok's Paars I and II seem like a piece of cake. The economy is in a deep crisis, despite Rutte and his accomplices solemnly promising that there would be no crisis with 'intelligent' lockdowns. Pension funds' reserves are evaporating like a snowman in the Sahara. Well, you could go on for a while.

From the huge mountain of released documents, it appears that there was indeed a globally orchestrated hoax surrounding a virus that in fact turned out to be no more dangerous than an average flu. Why are conspiracy theorists confused people? The fact that it was a hoax is carefully concealed by the MSM. If they do publish it, they have two options. Or they play the murdered innocence; 'Wir haben es niet gewüst', or they have to confess that they have not done their job. Meanwhile we are in the following hoax; the war between Russia and Ukraine. That war in itself is not a hoax, certainly not for the civilian population affected, but the whole hyped story surrounding it is. Propaganda everywhere and the number of times that bubble of misleading reporting has been punctured is beyond counting. But the people firmly believe that it is all true, just like with the corona hoax. Putin is the devil and the Ukrainian regime is made up of honest, honest people only. FYI, Ukraine is dangling from it tail of the middle bracket in terms of corruption in the worldwide corruption ranking (no. 122) and Russia in 136th place. Compare that to the corruption here in the Netherlands and your hair will stand on end.

In short, the continuous brainwashing and indoctrination from the regime, fully supported by the MSM, has paid off; the masses follow the regime uncritically. And all under the motto: 'When a sheep says béé, it also means béé'. Regardless of whether it is about a flu virus with a different name or the war between Russia and Ukraine. 'When stupidity wants to act royally, it disguises itself as public opinion', according to writer, journalist and historian Otto von Leixner† Whose deed.

The psychology behind the (corona) hoax

The question is what psychological backgrounds this docility, that blind, uncritical obedience has? How is it enforced? What are the effects? Why is it that such a large part of the population uncritically accepts the most idiotic measures, allows their private lives to be dictated, their companies destroyed, their wallets emptied through taxes without, excusez le mot, the mess breaking out?

In a series of articles, four psychosocial experiments are presented that provide a possible explanation for the phenomenon of servile submission. Mind you, statements make that you may understand what is happening. That's different from approving.

The Milgram experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, The Wave and the Stockholm syndrome are discussed.

Part 1 – The Milgram Experiment

Stanley Milgram was a professor at Yale University in the USA in the XNUMXs. He led a team that examined the extent to which subjects are inclined to obey people in authority. That authority can be the traditional legitimate authority; a policeman, mayor, minister. But a chef, director, coach, trainer, researcher or doctor can also take on this role.

Milgram was looking for people to join the experiment under the cover of a memory study. Its purpose was ostensibly to test the effect of punishment on learning ability. There was financial compensation for those who took part in the experiment. In the memory experiment, the subject asked questions to another participant. In reality, that was an actor in cahoots with the scientists. But of course the test subject, the questioner, did not know that. He thought that the actor, like him, participated in the memory study and the effect of punishments on memory.

The experiment started with a draw that was also a good one; the subject asked the questions and the actor has to answer them. The memory study consisted of learning word pairs; dog-cat, boulder-chimney, tree-ankle, etc., etc.. The subject named one of the words and the other, the actor, had to choose the matching word from four options. When he was wrong, the subject had to punish him with an electric shock. Each subsequent mistake meant a greater electric shock.

Of course there were no shocks in real life. Every response from the interviewee, the actor, was taped. Thus, each new test subject received exactly the same reactions with each subsequent shock he gave. In shocks of 135 volts, the actor also started banging on the partition wall between the rooms, supposedly giving pain reactions and increasingly worse screams; actually the recording. When the voltage ramped up to 300 volts, the actor pounded on the partition, complained of his heart and stopped responding to follow-up questions. But the experiment continued to lethal shocks of 450 volts.

Crucially, the subject could stop at any time. When indicated, the researcher stepped into his role of authority figure and politely but urgently urged the subject to continue. He used four standardized responses: 'Go on, please', 'The experiment requires you to continue', 'It is essential that you continue', 'You have no choice; you must continue'. When the subject was concerned about the other person's health, the researcher said that although the electroshocks were painful, they did not cause any harm. Even after the actor stopped responding after the 300-volt shocks and the subject wanted to stop, he was admonished to continue: "The student may not like it, but you must continue until he has learned all the word pairs." The experiment ended when the scientist had used his four standard reactions and the candidate nevertheless indicated that he wanted to stop. Otherwise it continued until the heaviest shock was delivered.

The researchers had expected that only a few subjects, sadists, would sustain up to 450 volt shocks. However, 65% of the participants continued up to 450 volts. That is deadly. Some wanted to drop out at 135 volts, but the assurance that the subject would not be harmed and they were not responsible for it convinced many and went on to the end. Even when they felt uncomfortable about it.

Milgram's conclusion was that the vast majority of people (65%) do not feel responsible for their actions when carried out on behalf of an authority. He showed that the vast majority of mankind is capable of atrocities when authority is justified in the eyes of the subject. Even if that goes against the norm and value system of the test subject.

Hannah Arent, a German-American philosopher of Jewish descent who fled from the Nazis wrote a book about the lawsuit against Eichmann† He was on trial in Jerusalem for the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. The title was A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). She argues that those involved may have no malicious intent, but that critical thinking skills are absent or deliberately disabled when uncritically following orders from above.

Economist Robert Shiller also contributed to the explanation of Milgram's results. He argued that people are taught that when experts say something, it probably is. Even if that doesn't seem to correspond to what people see happening around them.

Half, three quarters of a century later…. The Game of Death

The world has changed after WWII, the Nuremberg Trials, Milgram's experiments. Technology took giant strides, the standard of living increased, especially in the west and also in many Asian countries, there was more and better education that is accessible to everyone, information is literally at your fingertips. The question is whether this also affects the ethical values ​​and standards of global citizens.

A French team of researchers asked themselves this question and repeated the Milgram experiment. They added one extra element; television. In essence, the design of the experiment was the same as Milgram's. However, it took the form of a television quiz show called The Game Of Death. People could register for this quiz and 80 candidates were selected from thirteen thousand registrations. After the explanation by the fake producer of the show, all the candidates agreed to administer the interviewed electric shocks and signed a contract to do so. The draw was also tampered with here. The interviewee was always a hired actor just like with Milgram.

An audience was also present. The audience was ignorant of the experiment and was instructed by a warm-up who instructed them to applaud, disapprove of actions, etc., etc. The warm-up acted as authority for the audience. That audience is an important difference from the setup like Milgram did. The audience actually acted as the social environment in which we all live on a daily basis. Social pressure or peer pressure causes people to be convinced or to conform against their will for fear of being excluded.

The 80 candidates were tested in ten days. All with an audience and an actor whose reactions, like Milgram's, were all preprogrammed. A well-known host acted as the authority for the candidates asking the questions. Like Milgram, she too has four standard responses when candidates are in doubt. On the panel that the subjects sat behind, the severity of each electroshock to be administered and its effect could be read. Also here, very importantly, any candidate could stop whenever they wanted without it having any actual consequences.

After ten days of experimentation, the team evaluated the results. Whopping 81% of the candidates went on to the bitter end; administering a deadly electric shock of 460 volts. At Milgram it was 65%† A TV station can thus undisturbed sentence a person to death under the guise of entertainment with the consent of the public. Eight out of ten people obey.

The question was, of course, 'Why?'

The answer is obedience† The documentary goes deeply into this, as does the question of how television, the main stream media, has acquired the role of authority figure for many. An authority figure whose values ​​and standards you must obey and follow. Obedience is often seen as complying with demands imposed by individuals or agencies or even the TV regardless of whether that is legitimate or not. A related concept is compliance or servitude. The tendency to join the largest group, not to want to rise above the ground.

The documentary highlights how the interrogators try to cheat, try to excuse their actions, explain away, ignore them during the quiz. The moment candidates want to stop, they get the prospect of a positive end result: 'The interviewee will be grateful to you later'.

When that doesn't help either, the public gets involved to pressure the candidate to keep going. Only nine candidates quit very early because it goes against their values ​​to obey and carry out inhumane orders. Seven stop in the final phase† The rest continues to the bitter end; the deadly shock. Also, when the hired actor begs to stop, complains of chest pain and finally refuses to cooperate.

It's not exactly uplifting, but it's oh so instructive. For those who want to see this hair-raising one and a half hour documentary, click here† Or Youtube – search term 'Milgram experiment – ​​Jeu de la mort (NL subtitles)'. I'm just warning you; this is not light-hearted entertainment.

The similarities and differences with the Milgram experiment

In the French team setup, 81% of the participants behaved like torturers. The vast majority followed the instructions even if they went against the values ​​and norms one was taught at home; you do no harm to your fellow man.

Some had doubts but went ahead anyway. A large part, however, never doubted. Just like during the corona hoax, 80% followed the orders of the regime and met the most idiotic demands. A good part of it with full conviction. But with or without a doubt, Befehl ist Befehl behavior ultimately has the same result for the victim. One harms another, inflicts suffering or injury.

The participants had the option to stop at any time. There were no sanctions or other negative consequences for them. But the current regime arbitrarily and disproportionately punished anyone caught committing violations during the corona hoax. Just look at how the torchbearer who came to light the garden at Kaag was treated. Willem Engel's threat, however, was slapped on the fingers and admonished: 'Foei, don't do that anymore'. And when the regime does not punish, the masses punished the dissenters; social exclusion. That makes holding a dissenting opinion dangerous, because man is a social being. Besides, there was no escape from that madness. It was literally everywhere. Now it seems a little less, but that's just an appearance. Anyone who now says that the Netherlands, NATO, the EU has nothing to do with Ukraine will receive a similar response as during the corona hoax when you showed that you viewed it fundamentally differently.

On the French team's TV set, the interrogators were on their own. No support from anyone. Negotiation was impossible. Normally (!) everyone can seek support in the network of family, relatives, neighbours, colleagues, friends, from other companies in the industry. Or one can negotiate in such situations. Or, as the ultimate step, take the matter to court. But there was and is little or no support for dissenters. The majority slavishly followed the doctrine. Including the judge. Law firm Maes Law stopped with corona cases because you can't win from 'this government.' Please note, overheid en judge is two different entities in a democratic constitutional state† Normally then. But not in this country anymore.

The Silence Spiral

In the French experiment, the pressure was exerted directly by the TV, as it were. But the average person watches one and a half times as much TV in his entire life as he works. The way TV and other MSM wards off and discourages other opinions is becoming the spiral of silence called. The basic premise is that people irrational respond: 'Have you seen those scary images? So what the government says is correct.' That message is endlessly repeated in all keys. The people are being brainwashed. The media's message is accepted as 'The Public Opinion'. But Churchill hit the nail on the head when he said, "There is no public opinion, only published opinion." Either way, the viewer conforms. If not, social isolation will follow. In this way television is parasitic on the fear of the average viewer.

The spiral of silence also applies to the MSM itself, by the way. When a TV station or newspaper does not conform to the majority, it is excluded by other media, advertisers, etc., etc. The influence and power of television (MSM) is enormous and is not controlled or curtailed in any way.

Conclusions

It is estimated that 80% of the people slavishly followed the most idiotic corona measures imposed on them by the regime. And none of them wondered how that related to their moral compass. And those who did wonder almost always fell into compliance, service to the regime or bow to peer pressure.

The harm that that 80% did to fellow human beings is indescribable; locking up the elderly and (mentally handicapped, excluding fellow human beings who did not have a QR code or had a different opinion, firing people or cutting their salary if you did not allow yourself to be tested, mentally blackmailing schoolchildren in schools by proclaiming that the untested grandchild could cause the death of grandpa or grandma Yes, they are beautiful educators in those schools.

Those 80% obedient, servile, uncritical followers have seamlessly transitioned from the corona hoax to the Ukraine hoax. Despite the fact that the integration of refugees has failed time and again in the past decades, there is a housing shortage, we are in the middle of a deep economic crisis, the herd is blindly following the regime. Everyone knew the negative consequences for others, companies, the elderly in nursing homes and weaker groups in our 'society' during the corona hoax. Even now regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine, the behavior of the naive, servile herd is skilfully manipulated by politicians and MSM. While making a moral choice, a reasoned choice is possible for everyone, the vast majority ignore their internal moral code of right and wrong and fall into slavish obedience to black-and-white thinking. And so they follow the Thou-Support-the-Ukraine doctrine. Befehl is, after all, Befehl! The fact that there are also armed conflicts in Mozambique, South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Congo, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and dozens of other places is conveniently ignored. These people obviously do not need help, are not pathetic, their lives are not destroyed.

The Milgram experiment provides insight into how such processes work. But that doesn't make the behavior of that eighty percent majority any less morally objectionable.

I wish you freedom and wisdom to deal with it wisely.

Karel Nuks

Part II

The Psychology of the Hoax – Part 2: The Stanford Prison Experiment