The Milgram Experiment: Covid was worse, but this time, on a global scale–what did we learn?

We know one thing for sure about the massive government takeover experiment of Covid-19, they attempted to throw the entire world under a rule by authority, and it failed along the same lines as the Milgram Obedience Experiment indicated in the 1960s. The reports have been out there for a long time; the governments of the world and all the power players who want to use governments for their own aims of global domination know what Stanley Milgram, the psychologist, intended to demonstrate, that a dangerous percentage of any society is willing to obey orders even if those orders go against their own self-interest. That was what the dumb lockdowns were all about and the social distancing; it was the Milgram Experiment on a massive global scale. When Stanley Milgram wanted to know to what degree and percentage a sampling of men he had brought in to conduct his experiment would perform under pressure, he was unveiling a riddle that authority types would salivate to and abuse for their own evil intentions in the years to come. Corporations and governments would often use the Stanley Milgram Experiment in the future but never had anybody witnessed the entire world attempting to perform the experiment on such a mass scale. The guilty parties would be the usual suspects, the Desecrators of Davos, so to unleash Klaus Schwab’s The Great Reset. But why they thought it would work was based on those initial test results that nobody in academia would ever get away with today. Although, as I say it, the entire world, based on the activism of Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci almost exclusively, performed the same test hoping for a different result. So for those who say that the Milgram Experiment could never be done in modern times, we just lived through it with Covid. 

Milgram hired an actor to pretend to receive an electric shock from several participants who would respond to instructions from an authority figure, the person giving the test. If the actor got a question wrong, the test administrator would instruct the participant to administer various degrees of electric shock to the actor. Of course, the participants had no idea that the shocked recipient was an actor. They believed that they were genuinely administering electric shock and that the screams they heard from the actor were real. So when told to administer a shock, the participant would turn a dial-up to conduct the pain. The shocks would start at 15 volts, then increase to 150, 330, then ultimately go all the way up to 450. The astonishing aspect of the experiment was that out of all the participants, 65% of them administered the lethal amount of 450-volts even as they could hear the pain of the actor screaming from concealment. In some of the cases, the actor went so far as to pretend to have died, but the participants did as they were told by the administrator anyway. The experiment proved something terrible about people. Even though they knew better, if told to do something, most people would do it because their need to comply with orders was more substantial than their free will to think for themselves. 

Well, those in the world who love to have power over other people salivated over this news. And since the experiment, they have been taking advantage of that 65% of the population ever since. Now there has been some debate about the validity of the study. For instance, all the original participants were men because it was the 60s, and that’s how it was then. So it could be argued that women would have had more empathy toward their screaming victim and perhaps would have been less inclined than 65% to administer the shock. Or perhaps women were more willing to follow orders, and the percentage might have been higher. Many say we will never know, but as the results of Covid show, we do have a better understanding. Out of all the earth’s population, the final numbers look to be in the 40% range of all people who will follow orders in society even to their own detriment. We can base that on the reaction of people who adopted masks when the CDC told them to wear them. We can see who took the vaccine shot in the opening days of administering them. We can see who complied with the stay-at-home orders, chose to work from home during the pandemic, and toughed it out, and ignored social distancing and other mandates. The gamble that Gates and Fauci and their many conspirators within the world’s governments made was that the percentage would be higher for the compliant, more like the Milgram Experiment from the 1960s rather than what they ended up in reality. Many people complied to the government’s face but did what they wanted when they thought nobody was looking. This is important because of what China just did to Shanghai. China had, over the years, killed off many of their non-compliant types, so the experiment there was to see how many people they could lock in their homes to the point of starving to death, only patrolled by a little dog-sized robot in the streets telling them to stay put. In America and places in Europe, the population proved to be way too independent for that kind of control. 

So, what did we learn? Well, I think the news is good. America was founded on far less a percentage of people, somewhere between 15% and 30% of the population. We know that if a movement can gain that much of a following, there will always be between 40% to 60% of any given population that will follow the orders of the minority, even if they disagree. That is how corporations have been ruling over their workforces for years, but they haven’t been able to change the nature of the people themselves. Only their social behavior. That same problem arose during the Covid mass experiment and international execution by denying hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to Covid patients even though it would have saved lives. By allowing people to take medicine, it would have been the same as letting the participants of the Milgram Experiment know that the person receiving the shock was only an actor. And the scam wouldn’t have worked, which was, in this case, a massive power grab by the Desecrators of Davos for a global Great Reset of all economies into communist-controlled centralized planning, that, of course, they would oversee through the United Nations. Yet not the correct percentage of the global population fell for it, and two years into the scam, there were way too many non-compliant and even angry people. They always knew that a certain percentage of the population would do whatever an authority figure told them to do. After all, we start as babies being told what to do by a parent. Then we are told what to do by our teachers in public schools. By our church. All kinds of authority figures. Most people never grow out of that mode and learn to think for themselves. But what is that percentage? Well, the experiment of Covid, which was a massive Milgram Experiment on a global scale, showed that not enough people would fall for it, and for those who want to rule the world through fear and anxiety, that was terrible news. Which, for the rest of us, is very good. 

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

The Evils of Consensus Building: Its happening to you every day to cover massive government crimes

Consensus Building is Evil

There is a pattern to all the evils we are witnessing for those who haven’t noticed yet.  But it isn’t new; I’ve published hundreds and hundreds of articles on the topic, which can be found with an easy search of my site here.  About a decade ago, we called it The Delphi Technique, a method of building consensus among groups of people in school districts toward justifying progressive budget justifications.  They have since changed the name of it to many other things. Still, consensus building is now the primary objective in just about every social behavior. It means that the government has chosen to manage mass groups of people with a very top-down communist approach, which is very unsatisfying, even to people who lean to the political left.  The reason is that consensus building is designed to apply peer pressure on the participants to act against their intelligence and individual ability to think.  The intent is to make it clear to all that whatever decisions are made are for the good of all, not the satisfaction of the few.  Its collectivism 101 and is now used in every social interaction that we have.  Media heads are using consensus building to establish that there was no voter fraud in the last election.  Or that we should trust everything the CDC told us about Covid-19.  Or that we should elect politicians who are friendly, not practical.  Critical race theory is just another consensus-building exercise meant to establish in our minds that Democrats are here today in the 21st century standing to fight slavery.  They will never teach in public schools that Democrats held slaves and fought a war to keep them as the American Constitution sought to free them under Republicans.    

Most people have from their birth a certain level of trust in others that their intellects have never matured into thinking on their own.  This leaves them particularly vulnerable when it comes to manipulative people who try to sell them cars, condos, or big government plans created by rich billionaires meeting in Davos so they can do what all A-Type personalities since the beginning of time wanted to do, rule the world.  In public schools, consensus building was always used to justify the out-of-control spending school boards and the labor unions present to the public that has to pay for all the nonsense, in business its to mitigate the needs of management to conduct a business when labor unions demand the façade of being joint owners of the management activities from the perspective of the worker.  That is usually when a company must hire a consultant to defend production from the social expectations of communism which has seeped into the foundation of every labor union and is as anti-American has to put a communist flag on a front porch instead of an American one.

The premise of consensus building is to convince people, such as in a jury of our peers, to agree on what is presented despite their personal beliefs.  We accept that what’s good for the many is best for the whole, and if you are an offshoot of thinking, you need to get with the program.  That is essentially what lawyers do in court; they build consensus toward the guilt or innocence of their clients.  If jurors ever want to go home from deliberation, they will have to reach an agreement with their peers.  That is very democratic, but our nation was never intended to be anything but a republic.  We elect representatives to cover us in the legislative process so we can do other things.  But rule over the affairs of our country is not majority rule as they say in democracy. It’s meant to let logic reign supreme and let individual input debate the premise of a collective mass and to convince thinking people to change their minds, perhaps.  Consensus building is hidden behind the same intent; only the goal is to prove a preconceived notion and then inject it into a group setting and drive approval among that group through consensus building, surrendering their private thoughts to the thoughts of the mass group. 

The psychological goal of wearing masks by government mandate during the recent Covid experiments where governments worldwide were testing what they could get away within the public was that the masks were meant to build consensus.  No matter what you thought of the virus, the act of wearing the masks was forced compliance to admit that there was a threat to our society.  If you didn’t believe that the virus was deadly, you would be forced to think the government could put you in jail for not wearing one or that they could destroy your business, your life, and everything you would ever hope to be.  So you had to accept some level of danger, allowing the government to build a consensus in society.  Once that was established, when the subsequent crises came along, people were already trained to accept the consensus-building efforts on a mass scale, which in America was accepting election fraud.  It’s no accident that all the media outlets and government participants, even in the GOP, were trained to accept without question that any mention of election tampering was taboo and off the table.  Many people have been trained to think that individuals must sacrifice for the greater good; they bought into their self-preservation technique.  That is the point where Liz Cheney got into trouble along with Mitch McConnell.  They may have thought something different about the election results or saw that the attack against Trump helped them with their political futures, so they came to a consensus on the matter for all those reasons and more. That’s how consensus-building is used to cover up crimes when in fact, we should be using thought and intellect to expose crimes. 

That is why it is evil to utilize consensus building in any endeavor.  Getting along in society is not more important than uncovering any truth, whether the topic is UFOs flying around or election fraud.  As thinking human beings in a representative republic, we should always seek intellect over the agreement.  Self-interest will allow the best idea to surface through debate.  But to bend society to the will of the masses and use consensus-building tricks to expose the weaknesses of our childhood training into a cover-up of mass crimes and budget overreach is pure evil.  The scheme is being used to perpetuate massive criminal intent by the world’s governments by making innocent people complicit in the process.  And that is where we find ourselves today.  These consensus-building tools are not new, but their variants have moved from something you could name like The Delphi Technique to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.  Those are not methods of communication as much as they are consensus-building tools on a mass scale to take local opinions and connect them to the world at large, not for the enhancement of communication, but to attach the individual mind to the masses of group consensus.  If people disagree with you, they can criticize you just as they might in high school, where many people learned consensus-building social behavior through a simple rewards system.  Do what the masses say; they will like you.  Buy the popular jeans, be at the big party or be chastised, or even take the latest drugs, drink too much alcohol, or be labeled a freak.  Now that is done on Facebook to hide crimes of government and their meddling in our elections.  And that is why consensus building is a vast evil that needs to be eradicated, but before we can do that, you have to know, dear reader, that it is happening every day, and to you directly, just about everywhere you go.

Cliffhanger the Overmanwarrior


Share, subscribe, and see you later,https://rumble.com/embed/vciikp/?pub=3rih5#?secret=bniNjt4gIIhttps://rumble.com/embed/vd9a53/?pub=3rih5#?secret=I8cwvuaVB9


Sign up for Second Call Defense at the link below. Use my name to get added benefits.
http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707