DISCLAIMER: I am not medically qualified and this article is in no way intended as medical advice. If you feel ill you should seek a professional medical opinion.
In Part 1 we defined the UK State and looked at the driving forces behind its lockdown response to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) declared COVID 19 “global” pandemic.Please read Part 1 first to appreciate the context of this article.It appears that COVID 19 has been exploited to bring about a new global economic, social, cultural and political paradigm. Encapsulated as the Great Reset, this affords a technocratic parasite class, often wrongly referred to as the elite, centralised global control of all resources, including all human resources.Though influential, the UK State is just one national component of this global agenda. In order to prepare us for global technocracy, which will be a dictatorship, we need to become more accustomed to obeying orders without question.Consequently the Lockdown response has been characterised by conflicting, ever shifting advice, both to condition people to arbitrary diktat and psychologically unbalance the public to better facilitate behaviour change.We will cover a lot of ground in this article and I should warn you, it does not make comfortable reading. But please, if you have the time, grab yourself a coffee and we’ll discuss these important issues.The WEF using COVID 19 for their Great Reset
THE UK STATE & COVID 19 BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Population wide behaviour change techniques were promoted in the UK Cabinet Office’s 2010 document Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. Behaviour change (modification) has been widely adopted by the UK State as a means of controlling the populace.
So successful was the subsequent “nudge unit” that the UK State later privatised it, forming the Behavioural Insights Team. This enabled them to make a profit by selling their behaviour change expertise to other States, similarly seeking to control their own people.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lead authors of the seminal MINDSPACE document included representatives from Imperial College, whose wildly inaccurate COVID 19 computer models underpinned lockdown policies, on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Rand corporation, a US military industrialist complex think tank who former UK Chancellor Denis Healey described as “the leading think-tank for Pentagon.” The MINDSPACE authors state:
Approaches based on ‘changing contexts’ – the environment within which we make decisions and respond to cues – have the potential to bring about significant changes in behaviour […] Our behaviour is greatly influenced by what our attention is drawn to…..People are more likely to register stimuli that are novel (messages in flashing lights), accessible (items on sale next to checkouts) and simple (a snappy slogan) […] We find losses more salient than gains, we react differently when identical information is framed in terms of one or the other (as a 20% chance of survival or an 80% chance of death) […] This shifts the focus of attention away from facts and information, and towards altering the context within which people act […] Behavioural approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’. This raises the question: who decides on this choice environment?
In response to the novel coronavirus, the UK State has defined our choice environment. It is the environment that best suits its policy objectives. One created by exploiting the COVID 19 pandemic in order to prepare all of us for the Great Reset.
This behavioural change approach avoids the need to make convincing arguments with facts and information. This could risk potential challenge. Evidence-based debate is not welcome, and not part of behaviour change.
Better to target the population with fear inducing propaganda, censor any dissent, and frame public opinion within an altered context. Thus moving the people away from being autonomous individuals, who make rational decisions, towards situated decision makers controlled by their choice environment.
With the real risks of COVID 19 well known, on March 19th 2020, just over a week after the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic, both Public Health England (PHE) and the UK government Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) agreed that COVID 19 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID.) They downgraded it due to low overall mortality rates.
The UK State knew that COVID 19 was unlikely to kill sufficient numbers to justify the massive re-engineering of society and economic destruction required to bring about the Great Reset. Therefore, it resorted to coercion, statistical manipulation and propaganda to convince the people be terrified of the relatively low level COVID 19 risks.
With the support of the ever obedient mainstream media (MSM,) who have been directly funded by the UK government throughout the crisis, the UK State turned to its behavioural change experts. They included the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B for short.)
Spi-B’s role, during the crisis, has been to advise the State how to use behavioural change techniques to convince the people to obey its orders without question. Three days after COVID 19 was downgraded from an HCID, Spi-B recommended the following (Bracketed information added):
- Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat.
- Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others.
- Consider use of social disapproval (via the MSM) for failure to comply.
A free and independent media could not be “used” in this fashion to scare people without cause. Only a controlled MSM propaganda machine can possibly achieve this. The convincing myth that the western MSM is a free and independent media is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history.
Spi-B don’t believe that anyone who disagrees, and subsequently refuses to comply, with the UK State’s tranche of Lockdown policies, has any legitimate concerns. Rather they call them complacent.
To ensure that resulting non compliance doesn’t take hold, those who do stand against the tyranny of the common interest, are to be marginalised by subjecting them to the social disapproval of the terrified majority. Spi-B recommended:
Guidance now needs to be reformulated to be behaviourally specific […] The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging […] Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others […] Consideration should be given to use of social disapproval.
LED BY NOTHING
Thanks to the behaviour change efforts of the UK State and its MSM, if you scrutinise the official COVID 19 statistics, social disapproval, alleging that you don’t care about people dying, is heaped upon you. This is nonsense, but effective. Not because it stops criticism, but because it frames the objections as the acts of callous monsters. Hence, the MSM’s reliance upon hard-hitting emotional messaging.
Early in the crisis, an example of the hard hitting emotional message came in the form of MSM stories about NHS staff who had all supposedly died from COVID 19. In any rational society it would go without saying that, of course, these people’s deaths were a tragedy.
Analysis from the Health Service Journal showed that, with millions of employees, NHS staff were statistically less likely to die from COVID 19 than the general public. While the MSM didn’t report these findings, it was left, as usual, to the so called alternative media to question power, and reveal the deceptive use of the statistics to as many people as they could.
Using snappy slogans, the UK State encouraged the nation to “clap for the NHS.” In combination with the hard-hitting emotional messages, this was part of the process of creating the controlled choice environment.
For a wider public of situated decision makers, this further strengthened social disapproval of anyone who questioned Lockdown health policies. To point out that the health impacts of the Lockdown would be significantly worse than COVID 19 was to question the NHS. An act of heresy.
This strategy was essential for the UK State because the COVID 19 statistics do not support its own fearful narrative. Even if you accept the official accounts, should you contract COVID 19 in the UK, the chances of it leading to death are between 0.3 – 0.4%. If you are infected, you have at least a 99.6% chance of survival.
This almost certainly explains why the UK State decided not to report recovery rates. The rationale given for this was that the “modelling used to calculate it was complex.”
However, to date, despite promising to publish this statistic, the UK State still doesn’t report recovery rates. It seems counting people diagnosed with COVID 19, who don’t die, is too complex. While it is incapable of simple subtraction, most people are willing to accept all the other UK State COVID 19 statistics that the MSM report to them ad nauseam.
Claimed UK deaths from COVID 19 are nominally 41,486 (at the time of writing) This means, according to UK State statistics, the global pandemic has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population with the median age of death being 82 in England and Wales.
Like nearly every other mortality risk, the chances of dying from COVID 19 increase significantly with age. Mortality distribution is practically indistinguishable from standard population risk. Bluntly, the belief that COVID 19 presents some sort of dire, plague like threat is irrational and based upon nothing but persistent fear porn.
Initially, the UK MSM widely reported that COVID 19 could kill more than half a million British people. On the 12th March the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a press conference in which he warned of significant loss of life. Preceded by the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who repeated the preposterous suggestion that more than half a million people could die, Boris Johnson told the British public:
It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.”
This terrifying statement was not based upon the WHO’s declaration of a pandemic. The WHO has nothing to say about mortality, only the worldwide spread of a disease. Johnson’s statement was not based upon the available data either.
It was founded entirely upon computer modelled predictions of Imperial College’s COVID 19 Response Team.
So far in 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG) have given Imperial College more than $86 million.
As is the norm with the Imperial College’s modelled pandemic predictions, they were hopelessly inaccurate. On every occasion they have grossly overestimated mortality and have never erred by way of underestimation. Always for the financial gain of pharmaceutical corporations.
Imperial College’s lunatic COVID 19 predictions were questioned by the wider scientific community at the time. Nobel laureate biophysicist Michael Levitt immediately highlighted the problems with their models; Professor of global public health Devi Sridhar pointed out that Imperial had presented nothing more than a hypothesis and microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, questioning the predictions, called the global state Lockdown response “grotesque” and warned that it would be far more dangerous than COVID 19.
Scientists from around the world raised their concerns. They repeatedly warned that the science underpinning the alarm was weak.
However, their voices were largely censored as the UK MSM advanced the UK State narrative without question.
Perhaps, in part, because they were paid to do so by the UK State.
Imperial College’s pandemic predictions have consistently delivered nothing but statistical dross. To imagine that no one within the UK State knew this, prior to cherry picking their report as claimed justification for their subsequent lockdown, is ridiculous.
Whether written for the purpose, or seized upon to fit the purpose, it seems Imperial College’s fantasy predictions were selected solely to promote Lockdown policies. With tight control of the MSM narrative, the UK State simply ignored the real science and trotted out its meaningless “led by the science” propaganda soundbite.
A simple, snappy slogan maintaining the public’s altered context within their choice environment.
It is not credible for Professor Mark Woolhouse, a member of Spi-B, to now state that the Lockdown was a monumental mistake.
Practically the only body of scientific opinion which believed Imperial College was the one firmly attached to the UK State, including Spi-B, who were equally committed to nonsensical Lockdown policies.
The UK State had to disregard the weight of global scientific opinion, deliberately choose the fictitious computer models and actively deceive the public, falsely claiming their policy was “led by the science.”
It was no mistake.