The importance of fighting the ‘indoctrinated brain’

A decades-old study on behavioral psychology might explain everything.

When One Person Can’t be Cowered by the Mob: The movie Twelve Angry Men shows if one person can persuade one other person - and once it’s not “1-against the world” - dubious narratives CAN be questioned … and change.

A recent interview by Del Bigtree of the The HighWire produced a Eureka! understanding of the behavioral psychology which probably explains our New Normal mass psychosis.

The same interview might also provide members of The Resistance a template to reverse this descent into global insanity.

Bigtree interviewed Dr. Michael Nehls, the German author of The Indoctrinated Brain. In the interview, Dr. Nehls referenced an important psychology/sociology experiment from decades ago.

Observing the influence of peer pressure and groupthink …

Researchers were studying the influence of peer pressure and how this affects those who are repeatedly subjected to one “authorized narrative.”

Study designers recruited 10 participants and asked them to debate or discuss a controversial topic. Significantly, nine of the participants were “plants” who were instructed to lobby for a certain position. Researchers were interested in observing how the one person not in the know would respond to intense group persuasion.

Per repeated experiments, social scientists discovered that approximately 80 percent of the non-plants would yield to or embrace the position of the rest of the group - even though this position was false or wrong.  

The experiment’s most-important finding was that only 20 percent of the population is confident enough to resist massive peer pressure and go against the authorized narrative or the popular propaganda.

Albeit disturbing, this finding comports with the common-sense view that the masses can be easily swayed by groupthink or peer pressure even if the “accepted” position is false. 

However, the study’s findings might also provide a measure of hope as this experiment showed that 1-in-5 citizens are critical and independent thinkers and are capable of rejecting bogus or dubious dogma even in the face of hostile peers.

The study’s even more-important finding …

The study also revealed another very important finding. If just one - and then two - people in a random group of 10 people suddenly start to speak up and go against the authorized narrative, the “control” subject is far more likely to change his view.

I think I’d heard of this experiment before, but I hadn’t fully considered the implications of these findings, which probably explain how every harmful policy in our world actually happened, but also might provide a key strategy to reverse the toxic Status Quo.

In a nutshell, this experiment proves that people want to remain a member of the “herd” and are afraid to go against the group consensus (even if said consensus is wrong and dangerous).

The Nazi narrative-controllers were right - tell a lie enough times, and forcefully enough, and the vast majority of people will believe said untruth. Even if they don’t really believe it, they’ll be afraid to state this publicly.

Without question, this finding explains how 80 percent of the population bought into all the Covid lies.

The shocking part of this study is my realization that our “leaders” love this study because it proves how easily they can intimidate and control at least 80 percent of the population.

Instead of celebrating the wise contrarians in the study, our leaders want to replicate this peer pressure dynamic to control every important narrative … which is what they’ve done.

What might give us hope …

But the optimistic take-away from this seminal study is that some citizens can’t be fooled and then bullied by a group into remaining silent or changing his views. 

Furthermore, once a couple of people show their support for the non-authorized view, the rest of the group is more likely to change their thinking or not be as hesitant to express the minority opinion.

Eureka! This, I think, tells us what needs to happen throughout society. All the world needs is a few more people with real courage who are willing to speak up, thus giving more people the fortitude to support the correct analysis.

A classic movie explores this same theme …

It occurs to me that this experiment was actually depicted in the plot of the memorable movie Twelve Angry Men.

In this movie, Henry Fonda plays the one member of a jury who’s not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime.

Fonda’s character votes “not guilty” and has the courage to say why he voted this way. Initially, he’s attacked unmercifully by the other 11 jurors, but he doesn’t back down.

Eventually, Fonda persuades one other juror to change his vote. As the jurors begin to discuss questionable details of the prosecution’s case, more jurors change their vote until, at the end of the movie, all 12 vote to acquit.

What this movie shows is the importance of one contrarian who can’t be cowered. 

The film’s fictional defendant might have been sentenced to death if Henry Fonda’s character hadn’t been selected to be on the jury. But the key moment was when one other juror spoke up and gave credence to Fonda’s POV.

In my opinion, the entire Censorship Industrial Complex was created to lessen the likelihood that characters like Fonda’s could have any influence on important debates.

Our Shadow Rulers fear and detest citizens who have the traits of Henry Fonda’s character. They fear independent thinkers because they know they can influence other people to reject or question the authorized narrative.

As I’ve written ad nauseam, the reason massive criminal frauds are possible is that all important organizations are completely captured. Sadly, no Henry Fonda-type character serves in any leadership position in any of society’s important “truth-seeking” organizations.

Our Shadow Leaders also know the vast majority of any group will go along with the consensus view if the contrived narrative is repeated a million times and enough of the population is militaristic in espousing said view(s).

But they also know from this important psychology/sociology experiment that just a few contrarians can jeopardize their continued control.

Journalists definitely ‘follow the pack’ …

This is why it’s so important that 100 percent of the “watchdog” press remains captured.

If one - and then two and then three - influential news organizations started questioning the pronouncements of those with absolute power, pretty soon the jury of public opinion might flip just like the jurors in Twelve Angry Men did.

I don’t know who coined the term “pack journalists” to describe the world’s sorry “journalism,” but this person told us exactly what we have when it comes to the group that defines (and then defends) all our official narratives.

What must terrify our corrupt ruling class is someone breaking away from the pack and acting like Henry Fonda’s juror. Because if the right pack member starts questioning the narrative, other members of this club might become emboldened enough to perform apostate journalism as well.

Or one brave and persuasive politician might change the narrative

Or, instead of some publisher breaking ranks from the captured journalism profession, it might be an influential politician. 

I know this: Anthony Fauci wouldn’t like someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. serving on his jury.

The reason the leaders of the Democratic Party wouldn’t allow Kennedy to participate in any debates is simple: they know he would/might win that debate. Why risk a potential narrative-changing or Status-Quo-imploding outcome if you can prevent it?

Again, we see the whole purpose of the massive Censorship Industrial Complex.  The Bad Guys know that 20 percent of the population can’t be bullied into silence and, more frightening to them, might convince another 40 percent of the population they’ve been missing the real spreaders of disinformation all along.

I now feel better about what I’m doing …

Lastly, watching this HighWire interview helped me understand why I do what I’m trying to do.

Like my readers, I’m in the 20 percent who hasn’t drunk the Kool Aid. (Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I would have told the nine people trying to bully me in this experiment to go stuff it). 

Sometimes I wonder why I keep screaming, “The Emperor has no clothes!” … because I know I’m not in the “important” class and will be ignored by the organizations and leaders who actually matter.

Still, for some reason, I keep writing what I write. 

But now I get it. Deep down, at some level, I must think I could influence the right person … who might influence others. 

According to this experiment on group behavior, if any Substack contrarian can get just one person (the right person) to change his views, many people might ultimately follow.

This is why I keep doing what I’m doing. This is why Del Bigtree’s doing the work he’s doing. This is why Bigtree’s guest spent so much energy writing his important book. 

This is also why Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News … or Julian Assange was arrested. The Powers that Be see all independent thinkers with a little courage as potential Henry Fonda’s in Twelve Angry Men.

Our Shadow Rulers know they’ve got 80 percent of the population in the bag … but the other 20 percent must scare the the hell out of them.