In the wake of the Covid-19 “pandemic”, a majority of world leaders continue to insist their draconian decisions have been informed by “science”.
But, truly, what is the exact nature of this “science”?
Turns out – to no one’s surprise – these world leaders are deliberately misleading the public when they refer to “science”.
In the case of countries such as the UK and the US, it can be confirmed, behavioral science is being used to “nudge” the public into compliance with the draconian decisions of these so-called leaders.
Considering the perils of an alleged “pandemic”, if the dangers to the public’s health and welfare were as self-evident as so widely claimed, why would governments resort to psychological wizardry?
But the relationship between behavioral scientists and governments existed long before the MSM, in 2020, began their incessant baying about an apocalyptic “pandemic”.
Ironically, a mainstream news source has divulged, the presidential administration of US president Barack Obama, as early as 2015, relied upon the forecasting of a team of behavioral scientists.
Yet another mainstream news source reveals that, more recently, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has employed the services of BIT or Behavioral Insights Team which, according to Wikipedia, is known ‘unofficially’ as a “Nudge Unit.”
The term “nudge”, as everyone shall soon discover, is yet another sinister euphemism for the execution of psychological warfare.
THE SCIENCE Of DECEPTION
Though most may never have considered the matter, the Latin etymology of the term ‘government’ alludes to the practice of deliberate deception – often backed by nothing other than the strategic advantage of the threat of brute or armed force — towards achieving the end result of ultimate control over vast numbers of human populations.
The derivation of the word ‘government’, along with an explicit description of the true nature of its behavioral characteristics, appears in the following video, displayed below.
While perusing the text, everyone should take especial note of one particular excerpt: “Therefore, a direct etymological deconstruction of the word “GOVERNMENT” yields us the term ‘mind control’. It is thus no fault of reason or logic to deem the ENTIRETY of government to be, by very definition, a psy-ops or PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATION.”
If that isn’t sobering enough, the implications of the following information, which everyone will glean from the video posted immediately below, regarding “pandemic bonds” issued by the Crown Temple controlled World Bank in 2017, are positively staggering.
Consider, for a moment, the moral implications of this quote from the following video: “Essentially, the World Bank is waiting for the disease to spread and cause more fatalities so that it can allocate these funds. This is not just a villainous idea, but counter to the purpose of these instruments. Investors have cashed out on millions, while Africa waits for the lifeline. The World Bank has faced extensive backlash from critics regarding this. Olga Jonas, an economic advisor at the Harvard Global Health Institute and ex-World Banker, stated that “It was a good deal for investors, not for global health. Absurdly, discussions on a second PEF are under way.”
One could very well guess, given the implications of the aforementioned statement by an ex-employee of the World Bank, this is why doctors, in both the US and the UK, were so sternly instructed to inflate and outright fabricate the statistics of “coronavirus” fatalities and to falsely claim “Covid-19” as the cause of death on all death certificates.
But more than this, additional in-depth research demonstrating there exists an intimate working relationship between behavioral psychologists and the US and UK governments, and in connection to the “coronavirus outbreak” should qualify as equally eye opening.
While reading on, everyone will assuredly gain keen insights into how governments truly make decisions and how the practice of manufacturing consent, through the practice of deception, has been routinely, willfully, and often covertly utilized.
Therefore, the following headlined enquiry seems most appropriate.
ARE THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS ADVISING GOVERNMENTS SELLING LEMONS?
Imagine, if you will, a group of social scientists whom have studied your personality, your personal tendencies, and those of your friends and family.
Not only are these scientists familiar with your hopes, pleasures, vices, doubts, and dreads, they know how to manipulate them, and at will.
One could conceivably expect, this is the sort of information governments – regardless of ideological stripe – would want to keep under wraps, at all costs.
But, it turns out, a mainstream periodical has endeavored to reveal – from, of all sources, ‘America’s Newspaper of Record’ and ‘Old Gray Ledger’, the New York Times – the Obama presidential administration, back in 2015, employed a team of behavioral scientists which helped to formulate public policies.
Though it may appear, the prestigious periodical appears to be performing its due journalistic diligence, it also seems, most likely, the account published by the Times could be termed as a ‘limited hangout’.
Though, it may seem, the Times would wish to proffer the impression the US government’s decision to utilize behavioral scientists is a recent phenomenon, or, perhaps, even an eccentric oddity, such close relationships, for decades, have existed between social scientists, government bureaucrats, and officials, and do not represent a novel occurrence.
The Times article, dated September 29, 2015, goes on to detail the Obama administration’s efforts to “apply academic research on human behavior to the business of running a government.”
Of course, the Times attempts to generously ‘spin’ the administration’s sinister exercise as if it were executed with the best of intentions to benefit the public good.
“The idea is that a little science might help the government collect taxes, distribute benefit payments and even help people find jobs, get an education or save for retirement.”
While the former intention – “help the government collect taxes” – may seem to be a plausible enough motivation to efficiently streamline the collection of federal taxes, the several latter intentions which the Time’s lists as being carried out in the public’s best interests are, at best, dubious.
The US corporate government, as do all governments, has always acted solely to service its own best interests rather than those of the people it claims to represent.
The Times article went on to report, “This month, the White House announced the creation of a Social and Behavioral Sciences Team to lead this push, and President Obama issued an executive order encouraging agencies to conduct their own experiments.”
Yes folks, everyone read that correctly – “experiments”.
The NY Times goes on to provide a quote from one of the hack ‘scientists’, hired by the Obama administration, who offers a specious sentiment that the administration’s efforts are only meant to “help people”.
“The goal is to help people who want to take a given step but may face some barriers,” said Maya Shankar, an Oxford-educated behavioral scientist, “You can do everything to make sure a program is well designed, but if its not getting into the hands of people who are supposed to be benefitting from it, everything up to that point was for naught.”
The altruistic spirit of Shankar’s statement, however, is belied by the Time’s in the proceeding paragraphs.
“Governments generally operate on the assumption that people are rational. One of the basic implications of mainstream economic theory is that public policy works best when people are treated as rational decision makers.”
The very next paragraph of the Time’s article, which most of its readers probably skimmed over or chose not to afford much credence, tellingly spells out how governments commonly characterize the behaviors of the average tax paying citizen: “Yet a growing body of research has found that people are not only irrational on occasion, but they tend to be irrational in some consistent and predictable ways. People tend to be influenced by the last thing they heard. They tend to fear losses more than they like profits. They tend to be a little lazy.”
Yes folks, both the faceless bureaucrats employed by the corporate US government and the pretentious cocktail sipping pseudo-intellectuals at the New York Times view those populated among the American general public as an irrational herd of slothful animals all-too-easily given to fearfully reacting like stringed marionettes to any and all manner of bombarding mainstream media stimuli.
This rather candid characterization, offered by the New York Times, is revelatory, providing a poignant glimpse into the role of behavioral science within the halls of governance.
Assuredly, the Times will adamantly refuse to report there was a well-known host actor, who, for eight years, hid behind the CGI-animated mask of US President “Barack Obama”.
As everyone may recall, in a past installment, ear biometric, facial recognition (matching facial landmarks, architecture of teeth, facial geometry of the chins, as well as diameter and geometrical structure of the brows) and extensive image comparison analysis have positively confirmed actor-comedian Jerry Seinfeld as the host actor who portrayed “Barack Hussein Obama”.
That’s right folks, the fabricated character scheme of “Barack Hussein Obama” was thoroughly created and exists as a prime example of Post-Modern Reality Simulation.
In retrospect, it is now possible to determine, the controversy over Obama’s alleged “birth certificate”, which the MSM tantalizingly dangled before the American general public, was also thoroughly manufactured.
In fact, no such documentation resembling a birth certificate ever existed for anyone named “Barack Obama”.
The two-term US president only existed as a live role playing image matched with a tailored pseudonym and fabricated biography, both of which, were deemed legally verified by hidden (high-degree freemasons) third parties.
How was this character illusion – fabricated from the anatomical mold of a well-seasoned host actor, Jerry Seinfeld – of “Barack Hussein Obama” created?
The following series of videos, which will help to comprehensively explain and to demonstrate the Hollywood-derived utility of CGI facial masking, latex, silicon, and makeup stippling, should give everyone concrete ideas as to how such illusions are successfully created, maintained, and even expediently utilized in the world of politics to create popular personae and cults of personality which become part of the phenomenon we’ve come to understand as Post-Modern Reality Simulation.
CGI Faces in Movies:
Clip from Robert Downey Junior in “Tropic Thunder”:
Silicone Transfer Makeup:
RULING FAMILIES IN CONTROL OF THE COMMON MOB
The irrational behavioral nature of people reported in the New York Times reflects the ages old attitude of the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families towards generations of human resources over which, for centuries, they have maintained profitable dominion.
Indeed, since before the era of the medieval historical period, those among the noble and royal ruling classes have always viewed the subjects over which they rule as a monstrous and unruly mob whose behaviors and appetites must be wisely managed, manipulated, and even controlled.
Centuries ago, the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families discovered how to identify the unique behavioral and psychological characteristics of crowds or mobs and, more significantly, how to manipulate and even tailor the mob’s most commonly observed behaviors to work to their supreme political advantage.
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY & FIRST WAVE FEMINISM
There exists extensive documentation that, going back almost a century, the art of behavioral sciences were also employed to increase the gross quarterly profits of American cigarette manufacturers.
The most conspicuous historical document of such a relationship happens to be well-known.
This well-documented narrative tells the story of the relationship which expediently developed between the field of behavioral science and an American cigarette company which was looking to expand its market share.
In 1920, George Washington Hill, the president of the American Tobacco Company saw the growing potential of an untapped female consumer market and, to help him exploit these new economic potentialities, he looked to an expert in the field of behavioral science, Edward Bernays, a relative of the renowned psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
In helping Hill to exploit a newly burgeoning market, Bernays saw profitable potential in the convergence of the nascent American feminist social movement, beginning in the first quarter of the 20th century, with the growing demographic of female tobacco consumers, who, due to existing social taboos, had been content to keep their smoking habits out of the public’s eye.
Back in 1929, a public relations campaign was launched by the American Tobacco Company to increase sales among female consumer demographics.
Most insidiously, the psychological operation campaign, devised by Edward Bernays, wedded the concept of freedom with the consuming of tobacco products.
During the era of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, due to Bernays and his ubiquitous ad campaign, the bold act of women publicly smoking tobacco became symbolically synonymous with the concept of women’s liberation in the minds of the American general public.
As the decade of the ‘roaring’ ’20’s came to a close, and as greater numbers of ‘liberated women’ began boldly smoking cigarettes in public, rather than in private, Bernays saw to it his ad campaign began referring to cigarettes as “Torches of Freedom”.
Even then, “behavioral scientists” such as Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations”, saw the great value of how effectively euphemisms and infectious but simple slogans could collectively mold and shape the public’s perceptions.
The influential legacy of Edward Bernays in the field of behavioral science still lives on today.
Empirical evidence suggests, however, there existed a clear nexus between the public relations work of Bernays and the establishment of London’s Tavistock Institute, a close relationship which, decades going forward, would spawn a virtual cottage industry of private organizations dedicated to the advancement of the behavioral sciences and its practical applications to the arts of politics and governance.
Now, in the 21st century, a “nudge” unit of behavioral scientists has not only begun to work very closely with the UK government, but, according to a recent article published at spiked-online.com, has also managed to secure a firm position within the Prime Minister’s cabinet and within the councils of his inner political circles.
BORIS THE SPIDER & BIT
More recently, the UK government, led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has latched on to the idea that behavioral science might help with thoroughly convincing the British general public of the threatening seriousness of the “coronavirus pandemic”.
As the article at spiked-online.com details, British PM Boris Johnson – undoubtedly, at additional tax payer expense – has chosen to bring in an entire team of behavioral scientists to intimately work with him at 10 Downing Street.
According to the article, published at spiked-online.com, however, the “expert” advice generated by a “nudge” unit of behavioral scientists called Behavioral Insights Team is “entirely suspect”.
What is Behavioral Insights Team, everyone may be wondering?
At the official website (https://www.bi.team/what-we-do/policy-areas/) it is explained- under the subheading of “What We Do” – exactly what services BIT provides: “The Behavioral Insights Team, often called the ‘Nudge Unit’, applies insights from academic research in behavioral economics and psychology to public policy and services. In addition to working with almost every government department, we work with local authorities, charities, NGO’s, private sector partners and foreign governments, developing proposals and testing them empirically across the full spectrum of government policy.”
Surely, everyone noticed NGO’s (Non-Government Organizations) were mentioned in connection with the “scientists” at BIT?
In a recent installment, the key role of NGO’s and their interlocking relationship to the United Nations in successfully branding and bringing to fruition the well-laid global plans of Agenda 2030 (formerly Agenda 21) was fully outlined.
The following verbatim quotation from the article, at spiked-online.com, seems to more than adequately characterize the dubious advice of BIT’s “experts” given to British PM Boris Johnson, regarding the Covid-19 “pandemic”: “The problem here is not just that the government is exploiting expert authority for political ends. It is also that the expertise being relied upon is entirely suspect. For nudge theory is a theory premised on the belief that the public no longer consists of rational decision-making beings, but of half-conscious, half–baked consumers who need to be subtly guided in what experts deem to be the right direction.”
But, in the following paragraph of the article, the negative characterization of the “science” produced by BIT is more sharply barbed: “In fact, this is not really a science at all – it is a patronizing world view, couched in psychobabble.”
Somehow, one couldn’t have articulated it any better.
“Nudge Units”, like those employed by BIT, are instruments of psychological warfare, trained to indoctrinate the public-at-large that the concept of freedom is equivalent to conformity and synonymous with – a word everyone seems so fond of regurgitating lately – the concept of “safety”.
Nevertheless, yet another article, published at thebridgelifeinthmix.info, delves into deeper detail concerning the derivation of the unholy political relationship forged between 10 Downing Street and Behavioral Insights Team.
According to thebridgelifeinthemix.info, even before former London mayor Boris Johnson took office as Prime Minister, the “experts” at BIT were sought out by, then, Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012.
Apparently, according to the researchers at thebridgelifeinthemix.info, there is a connection between London’s Tavistock Institute and BIT: “In 2012, we learned of a sinister group of Lords moving to change the behavior of the UK population. Of course the idea of government changing minds is nothing new but medicating behavior change to get the outcome they want, outside of some form of psychiatric institution, most certainly is. A step down from the House of Lords we found the main agenda of the Cameron/Clegg coalition was to change the behavior of the British public to accept the serfdom of the new world under climate taxation. Its all a bit messy but here is the government team happy to twist your mind in tune with the Tavistock Institute and its psychological warfare against the people.”
Next, the article lists links to papers composed by the BIT team which, according to the researchers at thebridgelifeinthemix.info, consists of exactly – you won’t believe this, folks – THIRTEEN behavioral science “experts”.
One the most interesting and informative of these articles is entitled “Applying behavioral insights to charitable giving”, which is linked to the British government’s official website at http://www.gov.uk.
Extensive research has demonstrated that “charitable” organizations are yet another hidden method of making profits and hiding them away in trusts or offshore accounts in connection with holding companies where such profits cannot be legally subject to taxation.
The nefarious psychological warfare activities of the Tavistock Institute have been previously chronicled and, at the pair of links listed below, everyone will discover further information explaining the involvement of Tavistock in the destruction and reshaping of Western society.
Though British PM Boris Johnson appears to have taken popular political stances – pro-Brexit – in fierce opposition to the prevailing economic and political influence of the EU, such appearances are deceptive.
“Johnson” is merely appearing to play an oppositional role to the globalism favored by the European Union.
His well-designed characterization represents a political steam valve for those among the British public who, faced with the overwhelming barrage of multi-cultural and globalist propaganda, still remain anchored in traditional conservatism.
The public image of the current British PM has been well-designed – similar to that of “Barack Hussein Obama” and “Donald Trump” in the US – as the personification of ‘hope’, a savior for the British public’s mounting political frustrations.
However, if history has demonstrated anything which resembles a paramount warning, the people should never fully invest their trust or the preservation of their vested interests in any politician, regardless of ideological persuasion.
Consider also, if you will, that ear biometric, facial recognition, and image comparison analysis have identified “Boris Johnson” as yet another fabricated political character scheme portrayed by a genealogical family member hailing from the royal House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha AKA “Rothschild”/”Windsor”.
In fact, Johnson’s host actor, Prince Edward Earl of Wessex, is genealogically linked – through King George VI – to Edward VII AKA US president “Teddy Roosevelt”, the father of former and legendary British PM Winston Churchill AKA Alistair Crowley.
Both “Johnson” and Prince Edward Earl of Wessex are similar in height, and were also both born in 1964, making them the identical age of 56.
More intriguingly, Johnson’s character moniker harbors occult origins.
The moniker’s prefix, “John”, is a reference to the Knights Templar which, according to Wikipedia, are known by the full name of The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple of Jerusalem and of Saint John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes, and Malta.
The suffix of “Son”, of course, is an occult reference to the Sun, through which, according to freemasonic and occult lore, flows Lucifer, the ‘light of the world’.
The Sun is the occult object of holy worship and spiritual reverence held by those at the highest degrees of the Jesuit order, whom, as everyone has learned, are in control of both the Vatican and the International Brotherhood of Freemasonry.
While performing ocular comparison analysis between the images posted below, everyone will notice Johnson’s host actor, Prince Edward, dons what appears to be a purposely ill-kept and disheveled hairpiece while portraying his character in a public setting. The hair piece is designed to distort the ocular perceptions of the public, therefore, ensuring that the royal host actor beneath the veneer of the political character remains well-hidden.
Nevertheless, if studied very closely, everyone will begin to take note of the identical similarities of the facial geometry between the royal host actor and the fabricated political character scheme, especially regarding the region of the eyes as well as the geometrical proportions of the cheek bones.
Prince Edward Earl of Wessex:
British PM Boris Johnson:
Yes folks, though he has been posed as a populist savior before the British public, “Boris Johnson” is a revolting spider intent on entrapping as many victims as possible within his web of deception.
- To see a recently published update on “Boris Johnson” See: Behind the Curtain of Boris’s Big Top