Why are there still people who have notbeen vaccinated against COVID-19 until this moment?
Do you think that those who found out information on the issues of the mRNA therapeutics in the beginning would be keen to do go out and get the shots now?
Considering the information that is coming out at a regular pace about the issues they have caused / still cause, considering the resignations and back-tracking of health officials as the narrative falls apart, considering the leaders of the world and their aides now gaslighting people with the “we never forced anyone to get it” lie, and the now begun law suits for vaccine injured people, it would be somewhat of an interesting person to now succumb to the propaganda and say, “What the hell, I might as well get the injections now and forget everything I know”.
All the catastrophising by the media about the so-called lethality of the virus, applied to all age groups, was nothing but a fraction of the truth to mislead the public opinion, paid for by advertising revenue and financial interests, to get the people to ignore their common sense and do what the “men and women in white coats” said.
It was the biggest Asch Conformity Experiment and Milgram Experiment
combined of all time!
One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University.
He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on “ obedience
” – that they were just following orders from their superiors.
The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:
Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).
Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures, as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.
Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.
The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher.’ The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).
The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).
Procedure
Volunteers were recruited for a controlled experiment
investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception).
Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.
At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).
They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed, and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).
Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used – one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.
The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes.
After he has learned a list of word pairs given to him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).
The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.
There were four prods, and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.
Prod 1 : Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3 : It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4 : You have no other choice but to continue.
Results
65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).
Conclusion
The individual explanation for the behavior of the participants would be that it was something about them as people that caused them to obey, but a more realistic explanation is that the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did.
Some aspects of the situation that may have influenced their behavior include the formality of the location, the behavior of the experimenter, and the fact that it was an experiment for which they had volunteered and been paid.
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.
People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.
Milgram summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), writing:
“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.
I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.
Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.
The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
The Milgram Experiment – Simple Psychology
Many don’t want to realise they themselves have been psychologically manipulated to accept an intervention that, at best (according to their own ARR results), did nothing, but at worst, injured people to the point of loss of life at the extreme or severe debilitating effects. The manufacturers who have infiltrated and coerced the regulatory authorities into accepting anything they said, provided a repeatedly failed platform against a rapidly mutating virus to sweep up the financial benefits and any law suit penalties will be mere drops in the ocean to them. The lives they damaged, and of those around them, will be scarred, and to the Big Pharma, that was just business.
No one who has refused up until now (2023) will be very keen to participate, but they’ll be far better armed to distinguish lies and fiction now than the majority of the population.
