Controlling the 'Mark' after a Con Trick
Controlling the 'Mark' after a Con Trick
Is this what we're seeing in the MSM re vaccine injuries?
A couple of comments from yesterday’s ‘excess deaths’ post got me thinking.
Governments will never acknowledge any mistakes because a) the entire narrative would collapse, b) they are worried about liability and accountability and increasingly c) they are worried that there could be a massive wave of unrest if the people finally understand they have been systematically lied to and gaslighted.
and
Been saying this but lemme say it again: Government paid for the shots and PUSHED them hard on the peasants. Government will not investigate government for government wrongdoing.
So governments won’t investigate themselves (to avoid liability and narrative collapse) and they are worried about civil unrest if the population thinks they have been lied to.
But what do they do if the truth becomes too big to hide? Too many stories on social media and too many empirical observations of people getting sick or ill or dying. Excess death numbers reaching new highs. Trying to sweep it under the carpet is no longer doing the trick. What to do?
I may just be too suspicious for my own good but some things have not felt right recently. Well things haven’t felt right for a long time but recently it has felt like things are being increasingly manipulated.
More people coming out acknowledging vaccine harms is a good thing but is it all that it seems?
Today Elon Musk, who has arrived on the scene to emancipate the world, revealed he had major side effects from his booster. He also said his fit and healthy cousin was hospitalised due to myocarditis.
Elon isn’t exactly shy at expressing his views on Twitter so why tell us about vaccine damage now? Why not at the time?
As I say, I’m probably just too sceptical and I automatically want to take a step back when everybody starts flocking around the same thing but I wanted to have a look at how this could be part of some gameplay.
I came across Denis Rancourt from Correlation Canada who linked to the work of Erving Goffman. Erving was a Canadian-born American sociologist and social psychologist who became the President of the American Sociological Association. He was particularly interested in insane asylums but also in perpetrators of criminal fraud.
In a 1952 article called “On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure”, Goffman took a close look at confidence (con) men and how they would manipulate their ‘marks’. They allowed the ‘marks’ to win at first before conning them into transferring over their life savings. Once the money was transferred, some ‘accident’ would occur and the con men would disappear with all the ‘mark’s’ money. But the thing that is relevant to my article today, is what happened once the con men disappeared.
In fact, not all the con men did disappear.
“one of the operators stays with the ‘mark’ and makes an effort to keep the anger of the mark within manageable and sensible proportions. The operator stays behind his team-mates in the capacity of what might be called a cooler and exercises upon the mark the art of consolation. An attempt is made to define the situation for the ‘mark’ in a way that makes it easy for him to accept the inevitable and quietly go home. The ‘mark’ is given instruction in the philosophy of taking a loss.”
This technique was used by the con men when they encountered a mark who would not keep quiet. Usually embarrassment was enough to ensure the ‘mark’ didn’t go to the police but in cases when it wasn’t, “cooling the mark out” was used.
The “Cooling the mark out” strategy works and can be seen used in every day life. This video explains why “disclosure and apology is needed” when medicine goes wrong otherwise relatives start speaking out. The relatives didn’t talk about the fact that mistakes were made but that the doctors weren’t honest with them.
It can also be seen with crime and policing. When the general public or even police officers are asked ‘what makes a victim satisfied with the service they receive from the police?’, nine times out of ten the answer will be ‘catch the offender’. However, psychologists have found that this isn’t the case.
Of course victims want the offender to be caught but the thing that made victims more satisfied was reassurance. And reassured victims were more likely to be very or completely satisfied when a survey was undertaken.
So let’s assume that vaccine injuries did and are happening and that the evidence is getting stronger and stronger. Furthermore, people are hearing stories from friends and family they know and trust (rather than just reading about them online). Government’s would want to manage this situation so as not to have an unpredictable ‘rioting in the streets’ scenario.
Is this what we're currently witnessing with the BBC ‘accidentally’ letting Aseem Malhotra talk about vaccine harms? Is Elon Musk tweeting about it to make it seem normal? I’m not saying that this is what is happening or that either are complicit, just that information has been heavily supressed over the last few years so when suddenly it is ‘allowed’ to appear, I question why.
Maybe this is all to conspiratorial. It would take too much planning and keeping people quiet for the above scenario to happen. However, the planning part has already been taking care of.
In March 2020, John Hopkins - Bloomberg School of Public Health published “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication”.
Chapter 17 looks at vaccine injuries and messages that specifically address the topics of adverse side effects. It also looks at how to improve health authorities’ ability to respond to public distress about medical issues after a vaccination campaign.
Then chapter 18 deals with ‘acknowledging loss’. In the fictional scenario there is growing negative public opinion regarding the vaccines and the government’s perceived indifference to victims of the public health response to SPARS.
One senior health official argued that time and a robust medical monitoring program for vaccine recipients—the components of which were already in place—should be sufficient to determine whether public concern about long-term effects was, in fact, warranted: “We have to wait for the data. People need to understand that fact.”
However, people are increasingly worried about the long-term effects of the new vaccine. Therefore waiting until the science is clear is not an option.
The senior leaders in attendance concluded, after much prompting by Dr. Flynn, that no top political or public health figurehead had publicly recognized the collective sense of vulnerability that the pandemic had elicited or the strength that the public exhibited under threat of grave danger. Moreover, no national leader had publicly acknowledged the public’s broad willingness to accept a prescribed countermeasure that promised to end the pandemic, but whose long-term consequences were not fully understood at the time.
It was decided to devise behavioural guidance on how to strengthen the public’s coping skills, provide support for grieving individuals, encourage a forward direction and meet other SPARS recovery needs.
The President would go on air to acknowledge the emotional toll of the pandemic and give his gratitude to the people for remaining strong. He would also convey his appreciation for adhering to public health recommendations, including vaccination, to hasten the end of the pandemic in the face of considerable uncertainty.
Top risk communication advisors from the CDC, FDA, NIH, and SAMHSA conferred as a group about how best to frame the President’s remarks. The group vigorously debated whether it was appropriate for the President to acknowledge the sacrifice that vaccine recipients had made on behalf of their communities or to console them in their grief over that sacrifice.
Numerous politicians connected with the vaccination programme and health officials have resigned recently. Many of them, even though they are still young, have indicated that they won’t continue in public facing positions. Jacinda Arden is the latest. Does this resignation speech sound like a person who has decided to leave a job they love on their own accord? Yes the polls were terrible but it is a shock to everyone that she is quitting politics for good.
Are we witnessing Goffman’s con man playbook in real life? The con men are disappearing but leaving a few of their men in place to manage the public anger. Are the recent revelations a carefully managed release, just enough to keep the victims reassured?
Will we see more announcements thanking the public for their sacrifices during the pandemic? Will the messaging be similar to that in the SPARS scenario where the vaccinated are the brave citizens who defeated the virus but some unfortunately sacrificed themselves in the name of science?
Comments
Post a Comment