Reposted from: https://thinkforyourself.life/2021/12/11/3-psychological-experiments-2-syndromes-that-explain-why-so-many-people-conform-with-tyranny/
by Makia Freeman, at The Freedom Articles, Dec. 12, 2021 [edited]
People are walking around in a COVID trance, also called COVID hypnosis. The orchestrators of the so-called ‘pandemic’ understand human psychology very well and have been able to exploit our psychological weaknesses.
In the article, How the Masses Were Hypnotized Into the COVID Cult, I discussed Desmet’s ideas of mass formation and how those who buy into the official narrative are part of a cult.
In this article, I will summarize three experiments and two syndromes that shed light on how conformity is socially conditioned.
We must be aware of these tendencies within ourselves as we strive to remain sovereign, free, and autonomous individuals as much as possible.
Also, see The COVID Cult and the 10 Stages of Genocide.
1. The Asch Conformity Experiments
The desire to belong is a deep-seated human drive. The Asch Conformity Experiments, conducted in 1951, were used to determine the degree to which people would adjust their behavior to belong to an in-group.
Researcher Solomon Asch told the participants it was an experiment about visual perception. He first had them answer a simple question alone where they were comparing the length of three different lines on the right to the one on the left and answering which line on the right was closest in length to the one on the left. 99 percent answered correctly.
Then, he put the participant in a room with others, where some of the others were actually confederates with the researcher. The confederates would at times deliberately give the wrong answer. This had the effect of swaying the participant to give the wrong answer, denying their own senses. They did this to conform with the group.
Asch found people would go along with the group 37% of the time, but for different reasons: (i) some because they thought they must be wrong (when so many others or “the group” has a different answer); and (ii) others because they wanted to avoid the discomfort of standing out. Asch also discovered that when he gave the participant a partner (i.e. another participant who was participating at the same time), then conformity dropped from 37% to 5%.
You can watch an excerpt of the experiment here. The following is a revealing excerpt:
“Sometimes we go along with the group because what they say convinces us they are right. This is called informational conformity. Sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called normative conformity … The partnership variation shows that much of the power of the group came not merely from its numbers, but from the unanimity of its opposition. When that unanimity is punctured, the group’s power is greatly reduced.”
[NB – The same experiment was demonstrated through an experiment in which everyone in an elevator faced to the side. The individual getting on felt uncomfortable facing forward and also turned to the side.
It’s comparable to the medical tyranny we’re caught up in now, insofar as most people want to conform to the groupthink they see around them and adopt the attitude that the masks and vaccines and other restrictions are necessary – even though many of them know better.]
2. The Milgram Experiments
The Milgram Experiment, conducted in 1961 showed that ordinary people can be tricked into following orders and committing horrible acts if they believe the commands are coming from a legitimate authority.
The results show that 50 to 65 percent of people will obey authority figures — in particular medical authorities– even if doing so conflicts with their moral conscience or ethical principles they adhere to.
The experiment was set up by telling volunteers they would be helping with research to see how well people learned via punishment. They needed to read questions to someone in another room, and if that person answered incorrectly, they were to administer an electric shock, each time at an increasing voltage.
As the experiment went on, they could hear the yells of pain after they inflicted the punishment, and they were led to believe they were causing it. The person in the other room was actually an actor, not in pain.
Although some of the volunteers clearly felt uncomfortable and objected, the researcher in charge, who wore a white coat and introduced himself as a scientist, would merely say things like “the experiment requires that you continue.” Many continued and administered the highest shock, under orders. They didn’t realize they were the ones being studied.
Stanely Milgram: “The results, as I observed them in the laboratory, are disturbing. They raise the possibility that human nature cannot be counted on to insulate men from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authorities. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act, and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.
“If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could successfully command adults to subdue a 50-year-old man, and force on him painful electric shocks against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects.”
[NB – The Milgram experiment is comparable insofar as most people are deferring to medical authorities, blindly, against basic moral principles, eg. imposing authoritarian vax passports and mandates.]
3. Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971. Student volunteers were told they would be adopting the roles of prison guard and prisoner, participating in an experiment to study the psychological effects of prison life.
The researchers set up a simulated prison and carefully noted its effects on the behavior of all those within its walls. Very quickly, those playing the role of prison guard fell into sadism, and those playing the role of prisoner fell became submissive and depressed.
These were volunteer strangers who had no previous affiliation. The experiment was stopped after six days for ethical reasons and concern about the mental, emotional, and physical health of the participants:
“Blindfolded and in a state of mild shock over their surprise arrest by the city police, our prisoners were put into a car and driven to the ‘Stanford County Jail; for further processing. The prisoners were then brought into our jail one at a time and greeted by the warden, who conveyed the seriousness of their offense and their new status as prisoners.
“Each prisoner was systematically searched and stripped naked. He was then deloused with a spray … The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards. Instead, they were free, within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners … On the fifth night, some visiting parents asked me to contact a lawyer in order to get their son out of prison.
“They said a Catholic priest had called to tell them they should get a lawyer or public defender if they wanted to bail their son out! I called the lawyer as requested, and he came the next day to interview the prisoners with a standard set of legal questions, even though he, too, knew it was just an experiment.
“At this point, it became clear that we had to end the study. We had created an overwhelmingly powerful situation – a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically. Even the “good” guards felt helpless to intervene … I ended the study prematurely for two reasons.
“First, we had learned through videotapes that the guards were escalating their abuse of prisoners in the middle of the night when they thought no researchers were watching and the experiment was “off.” Their boredom had driven them to ever more pornographic and degrading abuse of the prisoners.
“Second, Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw our prisoners being marched on a toilet run, bags over their heads, legs chained together, hands on each other’s shoulders. Filled with outrage, she said, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.”
You can watch the film here.
[NB – This is comparable insofar as many of us have begun to oppress one another by forcing medical tyranny: wear a mask, social distance, get a vaccine. It could not be done without the cooperation of ordinary people willing to tell others what to do. The speed with which they turned into petty tyrants mirrors the Stanford experiment. We see this also with healthcare professions, politicians, police, and media — all complicit in oppressing others through medical tyranny.]
4. Stockholm Syndrome
The term Stockholm syndrome was first used by the media in 1973 when four hostages were taken during a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden.
The hostages defended their captors after being released and would not agree to testify against them in court. They had developed a connection with and an affinity for their captors.
Stockholm syndrome is thus defined as a condition in which hostages develop a psychological bond with their captors.
The following an excerpt from Stockholm Syndrome by C. S. Sundaram, which lists 4 key components that characterize Stockholm syndrome:
- A hostage’s development of positive feelings towards the captor
- No previous relationship between hostage and captor
- A refusal by hostages to cooperate with police forces and other government authorities
- A hostage’s belief in the humanity of the captor, ceasing to perceive them as a threat, when the victim holds the same values as the aggressor.
[NB – This is comparable insofar as the majority of people defend Trudeau, Biden, Fauci, etc. The very people holding them captive and robbing them of freed, they will defend.]
5. Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy
Munchausen syndrome was first described in 1951. It relates to a group of patients who invented stories about supposed illnesses, and convinced doctors to perform unnecessary surgical procedures on them. The theory is that these people were unconsciously doing this because they craved attention or care.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a variation. It is a specific form of child abuse first described in 1977. The parent or the caregiver, almost always the mother, invents stories about their children and attempts to substantiate the stories by fabricating physical symptoms and signs.
Usually, families or caregivers bring the child to the hospital with symptoms that cannot be explained easily. These symptoms occur only when the child is with the parents.
[NB – This is comparable insofar as Covid-19 is an unremarkable illness around which there’s an irrational mass hysteria right now. This is perhaps the weakest comparison of the five since the perpetrators are not seeking attention; just power.]
In so many ways, Operation Coronavirus is a psychological operation, a psyop.
It works by leveraging fear to induce conformity, docility, obedience, and a blind trust in authority. Huxley and Orwell both novelized it. It works by attempting to make you doubt your own sanity and capacity to assess your own state of health.
Although it is vital to expose the numerous medical and scientific fallacies of the official COVID narrative (and there are many), it is even more important to understand the powerful psychological manipulations taking place. We must do this in order to break free of the COVID trance propaganda and reclaim our freedom and autonomy.
Go here: Three psychological experiments and two syndromes that explain why people conform to tyranny for the article in all its formating glory
Leave a Reply