Stay informed on current events, visit www.NaturalNews.com

– Interview Introduction and David Wilcock’s Death (0:01)

– David Wilcock’s Transformation and Manipulation (1:49)

– Corey Goode’s Manipulation Tactics (7:23)

– David Wilcock’s Final Days and Health Issues (23:23)

– David Wilcock’s Legacy and Public Perception (25:32)

– Jay Widener’s Upcoming Film and Final Thoughts (25:48)

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/38478d2f-7df6-4525-a1af-d7ac2f12c301

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post Jay Weidner Joins Mike Adams to Discuss the Death of David Wilcock, Psychological Manipulation and Spiritual Deception PART 1 appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Drawing from his own extraordinary experience of being manipulated by social media systems, He explains how our attention, emotions, identity, and even worldview can be distorted by digital environments we falsely assume we control.
*
More importantly, Eric offers a roadmap for protecting ourselves and our families. He outlines the strategies for using AI as a productive tool rather than a trap, how to build mental resilience against algorithmic influence, and what parents need to understand about the psychological vulnerabilities of children online.
–
This conversation goes far beyond the surface-level warnings about screen time. It is a deep dive into the machinery shaping modern consciousness — and what we can do to reclaim our agency.

Source:  https://rumble.com/v74e2iw-the-psychological-war-online-how-they-target-you-eric-meder.html

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post The Psychological War Online – How They Target You | Eric Meder appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

During the covid crisis, nudging emerged as one of the primary psyops tools used by globalists, governments, non-government organisations (“NGOs”), and “security” (intelligence) forces against us.

In the following article, Dr. Robert Malone highlights some of the peer-reviewed papers which document just how effective the fear nudge has become.

For example, one study stated: “The nudging interventions such as mandatory PCR testing and small group seminars helped raise the rate of covid-19 vaccination; the most effective one is mandatory PCR.”

“This study took place in Turkey, but a physical intervention (mandatory PCR testing) was performed to coerce people into being vaccinated against their will,” Dr. Robert Malone writes.

Adding, “We all know, having lived through the covid crisis, that this intervention was performed informally throughout the Western world. These scientists just documented what governments and hospitals were doing to people worldwide.”

The Dark Arts: Fear Nudging

By Dr. Robert Malone

During the covid crisis, nudging emerged as one of the primary psyops tools used by globalists, governments, non-government organisations (“NGOs”), and “security” (intelligence) forces against us ordinary folk.

Recently, a number of peer-reviewed papers have come to light, exposing just how pervasive and damaging the use of nudges was during covid-19. They also reveal how nudging, including fear nudging, is being used to control people and populations on matters such as health, climate change, meat-eating, tobacco use, alcohol use, weight control, electoral candidates, political campaigns and more.

The PsyWar Campaign continues to work to control our hearts and minds on all matters of statecraft.

For those that need reminding, nudging is a form of psychological manipulation that is often used in psyops and psywar campaigns.

A nudge is a technique for modifying people’s behaviour in a predictable way by influencing people to behave in a desired outcome. Nudging is usually performed covertly, although that is not considered a criterion of the nudge. A nudge can be described as: “any aspects of the choice architecture that predictably alters people’s behaviour without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.”

Nudging alters the environment, triggering automatic cognitive processes to favour the desired outcome. Nudging makes it more likely that a person will make a particular choice or behave in a particular way.

Fear nudging involves using nudges that utilise a fear component to drive behaviour, opinions or decision-making. While this is a particularly effective form of nudging, it is absolutely unethical, in my opinion, and that of others.

The peer-reviewed papers below document just how effective the fear nudge has become and how globalists and governments alike routinely use this technique to control populations.

Abstract

Internet users are inundated with attempts to persuade, including digital nudges like defaults, friction and reinforcement.

When these nudges fail to be transparent, optional and beneficial, they can become ‘dark patterns,’ categorised here under the acronym FORCES (Frame, Obstruct, Ruse, Compel, Entangle, Seduce). 

Elsewhere, psychological principles like negativity bias, the curiosity gap, and fluency are exploited to make social content viral, while more covert tactics including astroturfing, meta-nudging, and inoculation are used to manufacture consensus. 

The power of these techniques is set to increase in line with technological advances such as predictive algorithms, generative AI, and virtual reality. 

Digital nudges can be used for altruistic purposes including protection against manipulation, but behavioural interventions have mixed effects at best.

Tactics of FORCES (Frame, Obstruct, Ruse, Compel, Entangle, Seduce), which are being used by governments, globalists, and NGOs to control populations

The above graphics are from the paper listed HERE.

Abstract

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people’s behaviour in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it.

Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioural prods. 

Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk.

Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review.

The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalising or moralising messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. 

The use of these nudges by specialised units during the covid-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. 

Major recommendations of the German Covid-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles or evidence-based data. 

(Shared decision-making) SDM was misused in the covid-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. 

The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticised and the unethical behaviour of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. 

There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

The link to the full paper is HERE.

The dark nudge is an incredibly effective fear-based tool that governments, political candidates, companies, NGOs, the security state and others use to control thought and action at the individual and population level. This psyops tool has been, is and will be utilised against ordinary people.

• A search on “covid-19 vaccine and hesitancy” in PubMed pulls up 5,550 results.
• A search on “vaccine and hesitancy” in PubMed pulls up 7,981 results.

The use of the nudge is a key strategy that many organisations resort to in order to “overcome” vaccine hesitancy.

The peer-reviewed paper below established that some hospitals used psychological torture and even physical discomfort to induce people to accept covid-19 vaccination.

The link to the full paper is HERE.  From the paper:

Abstract

Methods

We conducted an explanatory sequential designed observational mixed-methods study, including quantitative and qualitative sections consecutively in two different pandemic hospitals between 15 September 2021 and 1 April 2022. The characteristics of vaccinated and unvaccinated (vaccination of healthcare workers) HCWs were compared.

The vaccine hesitancy scales were applied, and the effect of nudging, such as mandatory PCR and education, were evaluated. In-depth interviews were performed to investigate the covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs according to the Health Belief Model.

Results

… After the mandatory weekly PCR request nudge, 83.33 % (130/156) vaccine-hesitant HCWs were vaccinated, and 8.3 % (13/156) after the small group seminars and mandatory PCR every two days.

Conclusions

The nudging interventions such as mandatory PCR testing and small group seminars helped raise the rate of covid-19 vaccination; the most effective one is mandatory PCR.

This study took place in Turkey, but a physical intervention (mandatory PCR testing) was performed to coerce people into being vaccinated against their will.

We all know, having lived through the covid crisis, that this intervention was performed informally throughout the Western world. These scientists just documented what governments and hospitals were doing to people worldwide.

The truth is that “the machine” (the system) did this to us. This goes beyond some small unethical breach, as using PCR testing to harass and cause physical discomfort of the unvaccinated was performed worldwide. Hence, fear nudging that applied physical discomfort and even pain was performed on millions of people worldwide.

The number of peer-reviewed papers documenting and encouraging the use of dark nudges is astounding. Often, these organisations don’t even know the name of this technique – they just do it because it is effective.

It is time that legislative action be considered to control the abuse of this psyops technique that can border on psychological and even physical torture.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/07/27/legislation-should-be-passed-to-control-the-abuse-of-nudging/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Legislation should be passed to control the abuse of “nudging” techniques that can border on psychological and even physical torture appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The government relied upon psychological experts in 2020 to advise strategies to deploy “non-consensual emotionally discomforting techniques” on the people of the UK which were more often than not in pursuit of their nefarious objectives. There has been a rising awareness of the techniques and strategies used that aimed to promote fear, shame and scapegoating to ensure mass compliance of damaging and ethically dubious interventions and who was responsible for them. Psychologists and behavioural scientists who are implicated as being significantly responsible for advising the strategies however, appear to be denying their involvement in such a process, according to Hart (source).

NUDGE DENIALISM: Why are the state’s psychological experts distancing themselves from behavioural science?

Is brainwashing no longer in vogue?

By Hart.

The state’s reliance on behavioural science strategies – ‘nudges’ – to facilitate the public’s compliance with covid restrictions has been widely documented. The many psychologists and behavioural scientists advising the government during the covid event (such as those in the SAGE subgroup, SPI-B, and the Behavioural Insight Team, BIT ) have, reasonably, been assumed to hold a significant degree of responsibility for using these methods of persuasion in communication campaigns.

Intriguingly, however, several prominent psychological specialists within these advisory groups have attempted to distance themselves from involvement in nudging, not only from the specific use of fear inflation but also – more recently – from being associated with all forms of this type of furtive persuasion. So what is the evidence that the state’s psychological experts are denying responsibility for the deployment of behavioural science strategies, and what could be motivating these claims?

Contrary to the evidence of the published outputs of the SPI-B and BIT, a series of behavioural experts have claimed zero responsibility for scaring people (the ‘affect’ nudge) into compliance with the covid-19 restrictions and subsequent vaccine rollout. In March 2022, Professor Ann John (a SPI-B co-chair) told a Government’s Science & Technology Committee:

‘We never advised on upping the level of fear. I think it was presented as part of the evidence base… we absolutely advised that fear does not work’.

In March 2023, four members of the SPI-B (Professors Reicher, Michie, Drury, and West) wrote an opinion piece for the British Medical Journal in which they claimed that politicians, not they, were responsible for fear inflation during the covid event:

‘When Hancock & Case advocated scare tactics they were going against the scientific advice they had been given’.

Reicher repeated his innocence plea when he appeared before the Covid-19 Inquiry in January 2024, when he said:

‘One of the criticisms made of SPI-B and of behavioural science in general is that we wanted to use fear to frighten people into adherence, but there is a huge difference between making people realistically aware of threat, so they can do something about it, and fear …So if you give people realistic risk information combined with information about how to mitigate it, actually it doesn’t increase fear, if anything it decreases fear because it empowers people.’

So in Reicher’s world, the multitude of people cowering in their own homes during the covid event were ‘empowered’ rather than fear ridden (see this previous HART article for a more detailed critique of this argument).

Professor David Halpern (the BIT chief) stated in his May 2023 witness statement for the Covid-19 Inquiry:

‘Frustratingly – given our internal advice, and that we didn’t have anything to do with campaigns such as “Stay Alert” (or “Look into her eyes”) BIT was later blamed for encouraging HMG to pursue a fear-based campaign’.

The pleas of blamelessness were repeated by Professor James Rubin (another SPI-B co-chair) in his October 2023 testimony to the Covid-19 Inquiry. When asked directly about his group’s involvement in scaremongering, Rubin claims that they ‘argued against it on multiple occasions’ and also sent a series of internal papers to senior Government officials discouraging the use of fear as a means of promoting compliance.

These serial denials of culpability for the widespread use of scare tactics during the covid event are unconvincing. Although these prominent behavioural scientists may not have been directly involved in the production of the ‘Look them in the eyes’ campaign (arguably, the most disturbing and ethically dubious of all the covid messaging), there are sound reasons to question the veracity of their assertions of innocence: for example, the documented outputs of these high-profile nudgers (collectively, as part of SPI-B and BIT, and – in some instances –  individually) have sanctioned the use of fear as a method of promoting compliance; some SPI-B members told investigative journalist, Laura Dodsworth, that the group was not averse to using scare tactics on the British people (A State of Fear, p94); and, despite a highly visible media presence, they did not publicly criticise the covid fearmongering campaign.

Two influential behavioural scientists have taken these denials a stage further by striving to also distance themselves from the entire process of nudging. When asked at the Covid-Inquiry whether the SPI-B was a ‘Nudge Unit’, Professor Rubin replied:

‘Instead of nudging, SPI-B’s work focused on providing support to people to help them to engage with the measures that were openly recommended by public health experts … SPI-B didn’t consider those (i.e. nudge) options, or rather it wasn’t a focus for us … SPI-B looked at the science of communication whereas these [other teams] were working on the operationalisation of that science’.

Similarly – during his appearance at the Scottish leg of the Covid-19 Inquiry – Professor Reicher said,

‘I’ve never been quite clear what “behavioural scientist” means … I’m perfectly happy with being called a psychologist and, more specifically, a social psychologist.’

Later in his interview Reicher offers further details of how he perceived his role as an advisor during the covid event:

‘It wasn’t us making people do anything, it wasn’t us telling people to do anything, it was how can we engage with the public and jointly do something … The key factor in adherence is not your individual risk, it’s the collective risk, it’s the risk to the community. So effecting a sense of community increases adherence. And all my interventions in a sense were about how do you achieve that, how do you scaffold that, how do you support that, how do you create that sense of community.’

It is informative to speculate as to the reasons why these two core participants in a group (SPI-B) – the primary remit of which was to enhance the effectiveness of government communications in promoting compliance with covid diktats – should now be striving to avoid the label of ‘nudger’. Three possibilities come to mind.

First, it could be construed as an attempt to suggest their academic superiority over other behaviour-change practitioners, a kind of intellectual elitism; a sense that we provide the overarching theoretical frameworks that enable the foot soldiers (such as those in the BIT, aka ‘Nudge Unit’) to implement the corresponding interventions. Unsurprisingly, Halpern (the BIT chief) appears to be at odds with this hierarchical differentiation, as indicated by his blunt comments in his Inquiry witness statement, where he says that the SPI-B group was ‘prone to producing vague & not always well-evidenced papers that policymakers & SAGE were underwhelmed by … … SPI-B members just stuck with the generalities of the existing behavioural literature .. … effective applied behavioural science cannot be a spectator sport’.

Of course, even if this claim by some behavioural scientists to occupy the higher intellectual ground could be justified, it would not deflect responsibility for the pervasive scaring, shaming and scapegoating of the British people witnessed throughout the covid event; for instance, equating adherence (to restrictions) with virtue – even when couched in euphemisms such as ‘platforming a sense of community’ – still constitutes the promotion of covert psychological manipulation, in this case in the form of an ‘ego’ nudge.

Second, the growing ethical concerns surrounding the state’s use of nudges may render it desirable to distance oneself from this form of psychological persuasion. The rising awareness that a government’s strategic and non-consensual deployment of emotionally discomforting techniques on its citizens, often in pursuit of dubious goals, is highly questionable might incentivise the state’s communication specialists to deny involvement in such a process.

Third, these prominent government advisors will be aware of empirical evidence suggesting that nudging is often perceived in a negative light. Thus, Sanders et al. (2021) examined the public and media discourse around the Government’s deployment of behavioural science in early 2020 and found that the term ‘nudge’ seems to ‘stir divisiveness’. Furthermore, these researchers discovered that expert groups were perceived differently:

‘We found two distinct clusters of actors and concepts in the behavioural science to be received differentially by both the media and public: BIT, Dr. David Halpern and “nudge” were viewed as embedded with the lockdown policy, coupled with negative perceptions; on the other hand, Prof. Susan Michie, Prof. Steven Reicher, and the SPI-B were perceived to be speaking out against these policies.’

The irony here, of course, is that this more favourably viewed group of influencers would have been ‘speaking out’ in support of earlier and longer lockdowns, advocating for more top-down authoritarianism and control. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a desire to avoid the negative perceptions associated with being categorised as a nudger might fuel a desire to distance oneself from this label.

In conclusion, these attempts by specialist government advisors to deny that they endorsed the use of behavioural science strategies on the British people sound rather hollow. Promoting theoretical principles that – directly or indirectly – encourage the deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating to lever the compliance of citizens, implicates them as holding significant responsibility for these often damaging and ethically dubious interventions.

Nudge methods of covert persuasion are now ubiquitous across all areas of government activity, yet the plentiful supply of experts offering psychological advice within the government infrastructure seem incapable, or unwilling, to own or challenge this unacceptable state of affairs.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2024/03/08/the-states-psychological-experts-are-distancing-themselves-from-behavioural-science-is-brainwashing-no-longer-in-vogue/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post The State’s Psychological Experts Are Distancing Themselves From Behavioural Science – Is Brainwashing No Longer in Vogue? appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.