Obama’s Three Step Plan to Brainwash America

September 19th, 2015

Awake Goy

On September 15, 2015, Obama granted himself the authority to perform an act against the American people that even I did not anticipate he could do with the totality of what he intends to perform this action. What am I speaking about?

Obama has ranted himself the authority to brainwash America. Don’t do a double take, Obama has initiated another Executive Order in which he promises to employ psychological tactics and techniques in order to get the American people to bend to the will of his administration. Even if this Executive Order was not true, it would not matter, because Obama is doing precisely what is laid out below. He is fundamentally transforming the minds of almost all Americans.

Here is how a duplicitous leader can use the psychological forces associated with brainwashing to bend a nation to his will on behalf of the bankers.

The Shock and Awe of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is why most Americans do not recognize the multi-faceted and ominous threats to their survival.

Whenever a government engages in a sea change which includes the purposeful or accidental inducement of poverty for the masses as well as the wholesale loss of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, the nation’s purveyors of social and political change can be the temporary beneficiaries of a psychological conditioning phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is psychological in which an individual or group is intellectually and emotionally paralyzed because of dramatically changing circumstances. The individual and group psyche of a civilization seeks out a state of homeostasis (i.e. the status quo). And when the status quo is significantly altered, the defense mechanism denial rears its ugly head and a population will deny what is happened.

Cognitive dissonance is not a permanent condition, but it does buy time for those seeking to perpetrate a dramatic social, political and/or economic change. The people, as a whole, will deny the new reality and this will buy time for the so-called changing of the guard.

President Obama explains the purpose of FEMA Camps. In a page right of the movie, The Minority Report, the President says President said, “People are not going to be arrested for past crimes, but for the crimes that they might commit”. The NDAA is the precursor event which will precede mass roundups and incarcerations and worse.

To those in the independent media who are falsely telling their readers that “There are no FEMA Camps”, the following statements from Obama should send chills up and down your spine and break through your veil of blindness induced by cognitive dissonance.

Some stories need very little elaboration. Therefore, in just over 100 words, I have told you all that you need to know and President Obama and his love affair with FEMA Camps as we let the President tell you in his own words.

Inducing Passivity Among the America Population

For a nation such as the United States, with its 300 million hand guns, it would be necessary to conquer the minds of the people prior to actually conquering the nation as a whole. And the manner in which this can most efficiently be achieved is through the introduction and application of what psychologists call learned helplessness.

Learned Helplessness

Why won’t America stand up for herself? Why is the country, once a country which possessed courage and conviction, now sitting idly while allowing itself to be taken to the slaughter without so much as a whimper?

The answer to the above question lies in the psychological concept known as “Learned Helplessness” as discovered by Martin Seligman in the 1960’s.

“Learned helplessness” occurs when an animal, or a person, is repeatedly subjected to an aversive stimulus that it cannot escape from. Eventually, the animal will stop trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness will prevent any action”.

Phase One

In the first phase of the learned helplessness experiment, Seligman placed a dog on an electrical grid, shocked the dog and noted that the dog would demonstrate the ability to escape the aversive stimulus.

Phase Two

In the second phase, the dog was barricaded on the grid and was unable to escape the painful shocks. Eventually the dog laid down and passively accepted the shock.

Phase Three

Seligman then removed the barricades and the dog could have easily escaped the shocks. However, the dog, conditioned by the prior set of events, simply laid down and accepted the shocks, without mounting any resistance whatsoever. This, in large part, is where America is at today.

Learned Helplessness In America

Today, we lay down in the face of the abject criminality of our government. We accept GMO’s, chemtrails, unabated child sex trafficking, the theft of our mortgages, the murder of dissidents, constant surveillance, unsafe medicines and foods (e.g. Vioxx and Celebrex), and the privatization of our most vital resources which are being priced out of our reach (e.g. water) and now we are soon going to be experiencing the loss of the truth in the form of the free Internet.

We have the ability to fight back (phase one). We have done it before (e.g. Revolutionary War, Civil War). However, this was before the omnipresent MSM came on the scene.

We are conditioned by an apathetic Congress that our opinion does not matter (phase two). The media tells us we are the most free nation on the earth. As a case in point, we honor our veterans and subsequently let the VA murder them. We are conditioned by these factors and the corporate controlled media that our actions can make no difference.

As I have written about on numerous occasions, America has 92 million fulltime working adults. In contrast, America has 102 million people of working age who are not working fulltime. Cognitive dissonance and learned helplnessness have a force multiplier effect and they combine to keep most Americans from appreciating the gravity of this new economic reality. As a result, most Americans will never realize what has hit them when the economy crashes and burns.

Keeping people in the dark and inducing passivity, is one thing. Getting the people to become unwitting accomplices is quite another but it has happened many times before in places like Nazi Germany. To understand how the powers that be can get us to become our worst enemy and actively participate in our demise, we must take a look at a third psychological phenomenon known as “group think”.

Group Think Has Provided Humanity With Some of Its Darkest Days

The masses at the old Roman Coliseum and concentration camps of Nazi Germany are shining examples of how a populace can be manipulated into not only accepting state-sponsored mass murder, but to also become complicit in these heinous acts that taint the pages of our history books.

Conformity to Group Norms: The Solomon Asch Experiment

Do you think of yourself as a conformist or a non-conformist? If you ask most people the same question, you would find that most people consider themselves to be a non-conformist and would be able to stand up to a group when they know they are right. However, can nonconformists actually resist the peer pressure to blend in with the rest of their peers?

In the 1950’s, Polish born psychologist, Solomon Asch, conducted a conformity study. The participants signed up to participate in a psychology experiment in which they are asked to complete a vision test. This was a deception. The real experiment attempted to answer the question, can people resist peer pressure to conform to a false belief?

Seated in a room with the other participants, the research participants are shown a line segment and then asked to choose the matching line from a group with three segments of different lengths.

Asch conformity experiments - Image courtesy Nyenyec

The experimenter subsequently asked each participant individually to select the matching line segment. On some occasions everyone in the group chooses the correct line, but occasionally, the other participants unanimously declare that a different line is actually the correct match. Unknown to the main subject of the experiment, everyone else in the experiment is a confederate and their answers have been preplanned for the purpose of determining whether, or not, the participant’s answer can be determined by the people deliberately giving the wrong answer.

Nearly 75 percent of the participants in the conformity experiments went along with the rest of the group at least one time. After combining the trials, the results indicated that participants conformed to the incorrect group answer approximately one-third of the time.

At the conclusion of the experiments, participants were asked why they had gone along with the rest of the group. In most cases, the students stated that while they knew the rest of the group was wrong, they did not want to risk facing personal criticism. A few of the participants were so weak-minded that they suggested that they actually believed the other members of the group were correct in their answers.

These results suggest that conformity can be influenced both by a need to fit in and a belief that other people are smarter or better informed. Given the level of conformity seen in Asch’s experiments, conformity can be even stronger in real-life situations where stimuli are more ambiguous or more difficult to judge. For example, a soldier, in attempting to decide if they will fire upon innocent civilians, will be forced to weigh their own risk. If they fail to obey the command to fire upon American citizens, will they face disciplinary action, or even death?

Asch also found that having one of the confederates give the correct answer while the rest of the confederates gave the incorrect answer dramatically lowered conformity. In this situation, just five to ten percent of the participants conformed to the rest of the group. Allies, committed to a central belief, is what drives many in the alternative media to relentlessly pursue the truth and then inform as many people as will listen.

The Milgram Experiment and Group Think

The world of psychological research provides the definitive answer as to whether we should fear our military in the coming storm ahead in the form of a phenomenon called group think. Group think is often described as a decision-making process whereby the group members go along with what they believe is the consensus. Group think has also been used to describe individual acquiescence to authority even when the authority has limited power to enforce compliance. Group think often causes groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s leadership and balance.

Just how far will people go to please authority figures and subsequently do what they know to be immoral? The first known laboratory test for groupthink occurred in 1963 by Yale professor, Stanley Milgram. Subjects for this landmark study were recruited for the Yale study through newspaper ads and direct mail. The participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees.

Milgram wanted to determine what percentage of people would willingly administer enough progressive electric shocks which would result in death simply based on the orders of a perceived authority figure (i.e., the experimenter).

There were three participants in the experiment:

1. The Teacher was the real subject in the experiment. Their role was to administer shocks for each wrong answer provided by the learner. How far would they go, was the true subject of the experiment. Would they actually kill a person for failing to provide the correct answer on a word pair test? Would they mindlessly follow the orders of the experimenter to continue with the abuse, regardless of the results and obvious harm being perpetrated upon the pretend victim in the experiment?

2. The second participant, the Learner, was actually a plant in the experiment. The Learner would sit in an adjacent room and pretend to be shocked for each wrong answer that they would purposely give. Eventually, they would cry out for help and beg the Teacher to stop administering the electric shocks. Their cries included pleas of mercy that were often based on an unknown level of self-expressed cardiac distress that they were pretending to experience.

3. The Experimenter was a stern looking fellow who carried a clipboard, wore a lab coat, and would urge the Teacher to continue regardless of the make believe pleas of the Learner.

The “Teachers” were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning. However, as has already been stated, this was not the goal of the experiment.

The “Teacher” was given a list of word pairs which was used to teach the Learner. The Learner was actually a confederate, or a plant, in the experiment. The Teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The Learner would deliberately press the wrong button to indicate his response. Since the answer was incorrect, the Learner would receive an electric shock, with the voltage progressively increasing with each wrong answer. Therefore, the
subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the Learner was receiving an ever increasing level of actual shocks which would eventually result in death.

In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate (i.e., Learner) was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds of pain and distress for each successive level of shock. After a number of voltage level increases, the Learner would bang on the wall which divided him from the subject (teacher). After several instances of banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the learner provided no further responses to questions and no further complaints. The fate of the Learner was left to the imagination of the teacher. The silence was met with the command to continue with the experiment. Although the Learner was not being harmed, the Teacher believed that they were administering progressively dangerous shocks. From the instrumentation panel, the Teacher could clearly see that their shocks were approaching the level of lethality. Was the Teacher being forced to capitulate and continue with the experiment? Quite the contrary was true, the prompts to continue administering shock were encouraged by minimal prompts and absolutely no threats were offered by the Experimenter.

If at any time the subject hesitated or expressed a desire to discontinue the experiment, the subject was given a planned and verbatim succession of verbal prompts by the experimenter:

1. “Please continue.”

2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”

3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue. ”

4. “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

If the Teacher still wished to stop after having listened to four successive verbal prompts, the experiment was discontinued. Otherwise, the experiment was terminated after the subject had administered the lethal 450-volt shock three times in succession.

Milgram expected that less than one percent would actually administer a fatal electric shock. The actual results were so stunning that he decided to film the results on the final day, fearing that nobody would believe his results. And what were the results? Despite expressing some measure of discomfort and the minimal use pressure, in Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65% (26 out of 40) of the subjects administered the experiment’s final and hypothetically fatal 450-volt shock. Amazingly, no participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level!

Milgram’s results were confirmed when Dr. Thomas Blass performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. Blass found that the percentage of participants who were willing to administer fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%.

The results of Milgram’s and Blass’ work are stunning in their final conclusion which demonstrated that almost two-thirds of all Americans will mindlessly follow the commands of a “perceived” authority figure even when the authority figure has no real power over the people. Can you imagine how the 65% rate will dramatically climb when they authority figure had “real” power over the people being ordered to fire upon American citizens?

The Zimbardo Prison Study

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram was interested in expanding upon Milgram’s research. He wanted to further investigate the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

The research question the researchers asked was how would the participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment? Zimbardo had previously speculated that, “Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place, or, would their goodness triumph?” The results of the experiment haunt many of us in the psychology field, today, as we ponder how far would Americans go in the enforcement of a brutal and vicious tyranny?

Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building, and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The assignment of roles was accomplished through random selection. The participants were selected because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues and had no major medical conditions. Therefore, the participants in the study were far more psychologically and physically healthy than any group of modern day military force, police force or FEMA camp guards. The volunteers agreed to participate for a one- to two-week period.

Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24-hours a day for the duration of the study. Guards, on the other hand, were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, guards were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift. Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards through the use of hidden cameras.

The experiment was originally scheduled to last two weeks, but it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became exceptionally abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress, anxiety and nervous breakdown.

The prisoners and guards were allowed to behave in any manner they chose. However, the interactions were generally hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began behaving in an aggressive and abusive manner toward the mock prisoners. Subsequently, nearly all of the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience such severe and acute anxiety, that they had to be released from the study early.

Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect that “Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class” . Even Zimbardo lost his objectivity and the experiment was only halted when his girl friend at the time, Christina Maslach, a graduate psychology student, voiced objections and threatened to break off her relationship with Zimbardo if the experiment continued.

The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally act in their everyday lives or in other situations. By putting a prison guard uniform on the participants, issuing sun glasses and a baton made the participant guards act in accordance with their perceived role. This has dire consequences for the ability of uniformed personnel to resist orders from their commanding officers to fire upon American citizens. People will act according to the role that they have been assigned to play. Finally, based upon the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, what kind of treatment could you expect at a FEMA camp?

How Does a Nation Lose Its Identity?

There is a very thin veil between a civilized society and a barbaric, genocidal nation. People are easily manipulated and can be bent to the purpose of thoese in charge. The only saving grace is that the research shows that prior knowledge of these psychological phenomenon can negate many of these effects. Just like they say in the Geico commercials, “Now You Know”.