Living in Denial

[Red Phoenix]

Living in Denial - The psychological blocks that prevent people from dealing with the evidence in front of them

 

Why do people dismiss or refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of them?

That universal phenomenon is very evident in the denial of the harms by the mRNA vaccines.  No matter the every growing mountain of evidence that these rushed experimental shots are slowly but steadily undermining people's immune system resulting in very serious adverse effects, the 'believers' keep on lining up for their booster shots to 'protect their health'.  

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote "The majority of men... are not capable of thinking, but only of believing, and... are not accessible to reason, but only to authority."  True words.

And even when people have been betrayed by these authorities countless times, they rather defend the lies and obfuscation by the so-called 'experts' than admit that they have been conned (once again). 

The article by Joshua Stylman linked below explains in common language the background of such denial, and why it is futile to provide them with the evidence.  If that evidence threatens their world-view, they will use any kind of excuse to reject it often even refusing to consider the matter  The 'accepted narrative' - no matter how many times it was proven wrong and watered down - used as a shield not having to think about it themselves.  It is only when they acknowledge that their blindness to the inconvenient reality is a (harmful) defense mechanism to protect their beliefs, and are willing to brutally confront these beliefs, that they will be open to actually 'see and hear' the facts that they have been avoiding at all costs. 

Here a short excerpt from the article:

The Cost of Admission

Consider the mRNA vaccines. For parents who rushed to get their children vaccinated, or doctors who enthusiastically promoted them to patients, acknowledging potential harms isn't simply a matter of updating their risk assessment. It would mean confronting the unbearable possibility that they may have harmed those they love most.

Healthcare workers were prioritized for vaccination, locking them into the narrative early. Once you've taken the shot and pushed it on patients, your identity - professional judgment, ethics, self-image as a healer - hinges on its safety. The cost of admitting error becomes psychologically prohibitive.

The cost becomes devastatingly personal. Several friends now take their children to cardiologists for issues that developed after vaccination. Only one has privately confided that he believes the shots caused his child's condition. For the others, acknowledging this possibility would mean confronting an unbearable guilt - that they may have harmed their child by following what they believed was responsible medical advice.

This explains why some of the most dedicated defenders of these interventions are often healthcare providers who administered them. As psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues demonstrated in their landmark 1957 study ‘When Prophecy Fails,’ when evidence contradicts a core belief, many people don't abandon the belief – they double down on it while dismissing the evidence….

For many educated professionals, their social standing depends on being seen as informed and rational. Admitting they were fundamentally wrong about important matters threatens not just their beliefs but their status. If you've built your identity around being "evidence-based" or "following the science," acknowledging you were misled challenges your core self-concept.

This explains the vehemence with which many defended increasingly incoherent COVID policies. Their fierce attachment wasn't to the policies themselves but to their self-image as rational followers of expert guidance. Changing their position wasn't merely a factual update – it meant losing face.

You can read an excerpted version of the article here:

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-psychological-blocks-that-prevent

and here the link to the full version, aptly titled 'The Prison of Certainty"

https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-prison-of-certainty

= = =

[Ralf001]

I do find it amusing the sheeple are now realising that getting the wuflu jabs prolly was not the smartest thing to do !

[Stiddle Mump]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Living in Denial - The psychological blocks that prevent people from dealing with the evidence in front of them

 

Why do people dismiss or refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of them?

That universal phenomenon is very evident in the denial of the harms by the mRNA vaccines.  No matter the every growing mountain of evidence that these rushed experimental shots are slowly but steadily undermining people's immune system resulting in very serious adverse effects, the 'believers' keep on lining up for their booster shots to 'protect their health'.  

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote "The majority of men... are not capable of thinking, but only of believing, and... are not accessible to reason, but only to authority."  True words.

And even when people have been betrayed by these authorities countless times, they rather defend the lies and obfuscation by the so-called 'experts' than admit that they have been conned (once again). 

The article by Joshua Stylman linked below explains in common language the background of such denial, and why it is futile to provide them with the evidence.  If that evidence threatens their world-view, they will use any kind of excuse to reject it often even refusing to consider the matter  The 'accepted narrative' - no matter how many times it was proven wrong and watered down - used as a shield not having to think about it themselves.  It is only when they acknowledge that their blindness to the inconvenient reality is a (harmful) defense mechanism to protect their beliefs, and are willing to brutally confront these beliefs, that they will be open to actually 'see and hear' the facts that they have been avoiding at all costs. 

Here a short excerpt from the article:

The Cost of Admission

Consider the mRNA vaccines. For parents who rushed to get their children vaccinated, or doctors who enthusiastically promoted them to patients, acknowledging potential harms isn't simply a matter of updating their risk assessment. It would mean confronting the unbearable possibility that they may have harmed those they love most.

Healthcare workers were prioritized for vaccination, locking them into the narrative early. Once you've taken the shot and pushed it on patients, your identity - professional judgment, ethics, self-image as a healer - hinges on its safety. The cost of admitting error becomes psychologically prohibitive.

The cost becomes devastatingly personal. Several friends now take their children to cardiologists for issues that developed after vaccination. Only one has privately confided that he believes the shots caused his child's condition. For the others, acknowledging this possibility would mean confronting an unbearable guilt - that they may have harmed their child by following what they believed was responsible medical advice.

This explains why some of the most dedicated defenders of these interventions are often healthcare providers who administered them. As psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues demonstrated in their landmark 1957 study ‘When Prophecy Fails,’ when evidence contradicts a core belief, many people don't abandon the belief – they double down on it while dismissing the evidence….

For many educated professionals, their social standing depends on being seen as informed and rational. Admitting they were fundamentally wrong about important matters threatens not just their beliefs but their status. If you've built your identity around being "evidence-based" or "following the science," acknowledging you were misled challenges your core self-concept.

This explains the vehemence with which many defended increasingly incoherent COVID policies. Their fierce attachment wasn't to the policies themselves but to their self-image as rational followers of expert guidance. Changing their position wasn't merely a factual update – it meant losing face.

You can read an excerpted version of the article here:

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-psychological-blocks-that-prevent

and here the link to the full version, aptly titled 'The Prison of Certainty"

https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-prison-of-certainty

= = =

Thanks Red for keeping us up to date on perhaps the biggest crisis humans have ever faced.

 

I'm in the process of writing a series of essays on the body, illness and cancer, on TT (AN's sister platform). 'Natural health in a toxic world.'

 

Much of what I write about is directly associated with toxicity. To the body; the mRNA (especially) is toxic filth. The other vaxxes that we (mostly kids) take are also junk. But the mRNA is another leap into the abyss.

 

Let's be perfectly clear. There is no advantage for the body by taking any vaccine what-so-ever. They - none of them - are safe, effective or necessary.

 

When I hear that babes of just a month or two old are given a vaxx, it makes me want to weep and cry out. In part one of the essay trilogy, I investigate how, and why, the body renews itself. Four times before the age of 23. So by our mid-20s we have had 5 completely new outfits. It is my belief that vaxxes hinder this natural body renewal process, As a result, unvaxxed people are healthier and will not suffer from many of the 'modern' complaints that the heavily vaxxed do.

 

Why do people believe the utter tripe dished out by Big Pharma and their pimps? Not just on the mRNA stuff, but mostly all medical interventions. It starts at an early age. And simply continues through to adulthood.

 

Nature has the answers we seek.