Digital Holocaust: Nudged To Commit Suicide

Where will this end?

Nudge theory is a concept […] that proposes adaptive designs of the decision environment (choice architecture) as ways to influence the behavior and decision-making of groups or individuals. Nudging contrasts with other ways to achieve compliance, such as education, legislation or enforcement.^[5]

Wikipedia

The key words are “influence the behaviour and decision-making of groups and individuals […] to “achieve compliance”.

People usually do it to people, but computers and AI are increasingly used, as I recently learned the hard way. But that was insignificant compared to being nudged to commit suicide by an AI chatbot, which I will cover at the end of the story. In the middle, we do a deep dive into who owns and controls the nudge units and how they work. You will be surprised at how long they have been deployed on us unknowingly.

Individual Nudging Through Software

About two months ago, my Peugeot 207 reminded me via its onboard messaging system that the car’s service was due. I ignored it for a few weeks. Then, my car started stalling occasionally for no apparent reason.

I often needed several attempts to put it into gear to drive off. I topped up water and oil and checked for apparent causes but couldn’t find any.

Shortly after, I noticed that the gauges for oil and temperature were not working anymore. A few days later, when I turned the car off, the fan ran at full speed for at least ten minutes.

“The motor must have gotten hot”, I concluded and made a mental note to book a service the next day. In the morning, I started the car and turned it off again. The fan, once again, blew air at full speed for another ten minutes on a stone-cold motor.

That’s when I got a little suspicious.

In any case, it was high time to book a service. Unfortunately, I had to wait a week to get an appointment, and I still had to drive my car every day, which became increasingly difficult. I often needed ten attempts to get going and couldn’t reverse without stalling the car.

To get going, I had to push with my left foot on the brake pedal and accelerate with my right foot. As a result, the car shot out of its parked position like a rocket. It looked a bit like this:

Needless to say, I was desperate to get my car fixed.

When I picked it up from the mechanic, I asked: “So what was broken?”

“Nothing, really”, the mechanic replied. “I just did the usual service, cleared about two dozen error codes from the computer, reset the service kilometres, and she was good as gold. Hums like a baby.”

My jaw dropped. “The crazy running fan? The stalling? The broken gauges? You didn’t fix any of them?”

“Nope”, he replied. “It just needed a service urgently.”

I concluded that Peugeot programs their car computers to make the car go into a kind of “limp mode” if you don’t keep up with the service schedule, and this “nudges” people to do the service on time. I, the car's owner, have no say in this anymore. I found that a bit sinister and disturbing. This will be the last Peugoet I will ever buy.

When I told the story to my son (a millennial), he saw nothing wrong with it.

“It helps you not to blow up your motor and look after your car.”

To which I replied:

“Can you name one person that ever blew up a car motor? I am 61, and I can’t. And what if you can’t get into a mechanic or don’t have money for one? I don’t mind getting reminders from my car, but being strong-armed and having my car deliberately mal-perform? Seriously?”

Welcome to a world where more and more organizations think it is okay to “nudge” us into anything they see fit, justifying it with “this is best for you.” Or, even more disturbing: “This is required for the greater good”. And it is always them that define what “greater good” means.

Like getting an experimental novel and vastly untested and unknown substance injected in every arm.

Social Nudging

The term “nudging” exploded with a whole new meaning into our collective consciousness when the UK and other countries used their “nudge unit” to manipulate people into obeying COVID measures and policies that broke human rights and international law (Nuremberg Code, etc.)

They don’t call it “manipulating”, of course. While this practice, in conjunction with 5th generation psy op warfare, is well known amongst Substack readers, the general population is blissfully ignorant of this Orwellian control mechanism.

When I mentioned it recently in a social setting, I got laughter, disbelief, suspicious looks and even total denial and anger as spontaneous responses. Like: “Oh no, spare me another conspiracy theory, please.” Accompanied by a specific patronizing look and rolling eyes.

I noticed that since I researched and wrote my most popular story to date, Stupid People, my patience for them has run wafer thin because their ignorance, arrogance and stupidity are very dangerous for all of us. And I don’t care about my manners much if they treat me like that. I snap at them:

“You don’t think there are nudge units that manipulate us into doing what the government and those who control the government want us to do? Why don’t you fucking google it first before you categorically deny it? It is not even a secret.”

I lost a few acquaintances. Good riddance.

The Behavioural Insights Team - BIT

The Behavioural Insights Team - BIT - proudly states, “We are the original Nudge Unit” on their home page.

The Behavioural Insights team, popularly known as the "Nudge Unit", is playing a big role in helping the government formulate its response to coronavirus.

The Nudge Unit was established in the Cabinet Office in 2010 by David Cameron’s government to apply behavioural science to public policy. (Source)

They have been remote controlling people long before Covid:

The Nudge Unit has worked on a wide range of policy areas (detailed on its website) – but early examples included work on prompting people to pay their tax on time, turn up in court, work with Jobcentres to improve outcomes and increasing organ donation.

You don’t want to donate your liver? Not a problem. We make you “want” it. We know better what is good for society, and you will play your part - with or without your consent, with or without your knowledge. Most of the time, you won’t even notice. Welcome to your Orwellian future.

Since their humble beginnings in 2010 as part of the UK government, they became world leaders in “nudging” and now advise governments and private companies worldwide.

BIT has nine offices around the world, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US - the five eye states. If you followed international news during COVID-19, you might have noticed the identical messaging of the COVID propaganda in these countries. All of them likely hired BIT to nudge people into compliance.

Business is booming. They are a privately owned company and sell their services to whoever wants to manipulate people. In 2021, they became wholly owned by the innovations company Nesta.

Nesta is a registered charity with a fancy webpage. Their missions and goals lie between UN Agenda 2030 and woke ideology. It is left-leaning and doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased. They are convinced and excited by their mission to “improve” the world and its people.

It is funded mainly by the UK National Lottery - public money. They have an obvious political agenda and own the most advanced “nudging company” in the world, manipulating populations worldwide without a mandate or the knowledge of these people. Civil servants and bureaucrats hire them without consultation with the subjects of their “nudging”.

The Australian Arm Of BIT

Take Australia, for example:

Rory Gallagher, the head of the Sydney office of BIT, has no ethical problems with that. The Sydney Moring Herald, in an article from 2016, explains:

The methods include testing to see how the nudges, or unconscious pokes and prods, subtly influence people's decisions, pushing you towards what it believes are your (or society's) best interests, exploiting the biases and tics of the human brain uncovered by research into behavioural psychology.

In Australia BIT has doubled in size in the last year – in terms of personnel and income.

The article lists many success stories of “nudging” in Australia - from making people buy less sugary drinks, missing fewer hospital appointments, and trials on keeping commuters out of the city centre at rush hour.

Behavioural interventions are becoming a mainstream pursuit of civil servants in the UK and in other countries including Australia, Singapore and the US

They are being applied in education, policing, charity, traffic offences, tax collection and health

And Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, head of the British civil service, said the scale and level of ambition of behavioural science was rising, used in almost every government department

That was in 2016. Imagine how it is now. You don’t have to. On its website, BIT states:

We have run more than 1000 projects to date, including over 700 randomised controlled trials in dozens of countries.

BIT is not exaggerating. Entering search words like “Covid” or “Vaccination” on their webpage is truly eye-opening—it lists dozens of sophisticated trials, surveys and interventions on each topic. They have been busy and are upbeat about their work. They seem convinced that they create a better world and better people by nudging us towards it.

The Dangers Of Nudging For “The Greater Good”

Many examples seem to prove them right and support their idealistic, positive mission. How can you find a fault in nudging people to buy less sugary drinks by increasing the price by 20%? Or saving millions of dollars of public money by nudging people to miss fewer hospital appointments through cleverly designed and tested text messages?

One big problem is that what is “good” for society and the people is not always as clear-cut as sugary drinks and missed appointments. And they work with large numbers of people. If you get it wrong, the damage could be enormous, even with the best intentions.

Here is one example from one of their projects:

On World Immunization Week, we want to share some of the learnings from our work promoting vaccination against COVID-19. For example, in Colombia, we found that a simple reciprocity message increased vaccination intent by 15% among the most skeptical population. We estimate that if these messages were sent to the entire adult population of Colombia and these intentions were translated into actions, these messages would lead to an additional 2.4 million Colombians being vaccinated.

This was published on the 28th of April 2021. The vaccines were only deployed for a few months then. The vaccines were deemed as “good” for the population of Colombia, and the risk of myocarditis was not yet fully known and acknowledged. If they had implemented this “nudging”, they would have injured and killed thousands of people - despite their good intentions.

This reminds me of communist central planning - on steroids. Reality is too complex and unpredictable to be messed with on a big scale. Good intentions and dreams of a better world don’t matter - the road to hell is plastered with them.

But it gets worse. What about bad intentions?

Imagine this powerful technology to manipulate the behaviour of billions of people in the hands of a Stalin or Hitler-like psychopath. It gives me chills to think that everyone with enough money can hire these guys. In fact, the woke left currently owns them through Nesta. The danger of potential abuse is evident.

The below interventions are harmless, almost cute, and celebrated as a success.

The Nudge Unit is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in crafting the government response. The most visible manifestation of its influence to date is in the communication around hand-washing and face touching – in particular the use of “disgust” as an incentive to wash hands and the suggestion of singing Happy Birthday to ensure hands are washed for the requisite 20 seconds. 

However, the following nudging interventions are not cute or harmless and are not discussed on their website. I am talking about Matt Hancock’s nudge to “frighten the pants off everyone”, which I will show below.

I found five articles on the search word “Matt Hancock”. One of them starts promising:

We often say that behavioural science can be used for good or bad, just like any form of knowledge.

Now we are getting somewhere - talking about the dangers and dark side of nudging. So I thought. Only to get this:

One of the troubling applications – though brilliant in its own way – can be to nudge people to gamble too much. This week saw the decision to dramatically curtain the sums that can be gambled on fixed-odds betting machines. While gambling provides many people with enjoyment, this measure seems justified because of what we know about human behaviour.

Several searches with the words “abuse potential of nudging”, “nudging abuse”, “abuse”, etc. returned zero results. “Ethics” returned 19 articles, but only one was remotely related to “the ethics of nudging.”

Once again, it starts slightly promising:

The use of behavioural science in policy has exploded since the publication of Nudge in 2008 and the creation of BIT in 2010. We were asked to reflect on the team’s work for a new issue of Behavioural Public Policy, and we decided to be open about some of the challenges with applying behavioural science to policy. […]

One challenge is that we still often lack evidence for the long-term effects of interventions on behaviour.

So they admit that they often don’t know the long-term effects of their interventions - but they do it anyway. However, my hope that there was some reflection or acknowledgment of potential long-term harm if they got the interventions wrong was thoroughly squashed. All they care about in this context is this: Does the nudging still work 12 months down the track? I haven’t found one sentence, let alone one article, on what can go wrong and how ethical their interventions are.

After scanning their website for more than 30 minutes to find any ethical code or concern about intervention harm or nudging abuse, I concluded there are none. It is simply not a topic they engage with.

Only because of the brave actions of whistleblowers do we get hard evidence of the dark side of nudging.

Are they a one-off or just the tip of the iceberg? What else don’t we know about the dark side of nudging?

Matt Hancock, UK Health Secretary at the time. What a lovely, boyish, trustworthy-looking chap.

Here is the unmistakable evidence from his own leaked WhatsApp messages that shows the direct and deliberate abuse of nudging:

In an exchange between Mr Hancock and an aide from 13th December 2020 - five days before the government scrapped plans to relax rules for many over Christmas - the former health secretary discusses when to "deploy" the announcement of the new variant.

They are talking about the possibility of the London Mayor Sadiq Khan resisting a possible lockdown for London.

The Department of Health adviser suggests: "Rather than doing too much forward signalling, we can roll pitch with the new strain."

Mr Hancock says: "We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain."

The adviser responds: "Yep, that's what will get proper behaviour change."

The minister then asks: "When do we deploy the new variant."

Mr Hancock announced the new variant the following day.

(Source)

What cynical times do we live in? Thirty or forty years ago, the career of a public figure and MP would have been toast after being caught and embarrassed like that. (Several more leaked embarrassing messages on other topics show his significant character flaws.)

He was expelled from the conservative party but was still a sitting independent MP.

Nowadays, scum like him gets invited to reality shows, after which he cockily writes a letter to the Prime Minister.

In the letter, Mr Hancock said that the Conservative Chief Whip had told him that the whip would be restored “in due course”. [Meaning that he will be welcomed back into the party]

But the MP said that would be “now not necessary” and that he wants to “do things differently”.

The following quotes sound innocent to the general public but ominous to the “initiated”:

“I will play my part in the debate about the future of our country and engage with the public in new ways.”

“I have increasingly come to believe that for a healthy democracy we must find new ways to reach people — especially those who are disengaged with politics.

“I have discovered a whole new world of possibilities which I am excited to explore — new ways for me to communicate with people of all ages and from all backgrounds.”

What is concerningly absent in this man’s mind is the idea of a “mandate”. The democratic procedure is that the public elects someone and gives them a mandate to act and communicate for their country and its population. Something he has in common with Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, the UN, the WHO, CEPI and many other unelected billionaires and NGOs. Neither of them has a public mandate.

It is very concerning that Matt Hancock doesn’t seem concerned at all to lose his party's support and probably the British public's support over his arrogant and despotic attitude. He is also not retreating from politics. Quite the opposite. This means he gets superior support from somewhere else. Who might that be other than the globalistic WEF?

Who Controls The Nudging Of Entire Populations?

Let’s recap. We have a company like BIT, owned by a left-leaning idealistic charity that defines what is “good” and “bad” for societies or individuals. Other similar companies will follow, with different backers, ideologies and agendas.

None of them reports to or are controlled by an elected democratic body. They are experts in making millions of people do what they want them to do. During COVID-19, they were hired by and worked with government departments to design interventions. However, working with a particular country's government is not necessary to access the country’s population.

To be effective, these interventions must be communicated to the population via mainstream media, the Internet and social media platforms. No government is needed for that.

Therefore, a nefarious, powerful, rich player, hostile country or organization could bypass any government if they can hire a “nudging” company and own enough media bandwidth to access their target group. An app like TikTok or X could deploy sophisticated “nudging”. It has already been done for years with commercial nudging.

It is not unthinkable that millions of people in a country could be “stolen” through sophisticated nudging and manipulated to support a different country or ideology.

In their own way, religions have been doing this for millennia, gaining power over the behaviour of significant parts of the population within a kingdom or country through spiritual ideology.

This new technology in the digital age could achieve the same with rapid speed and minimum resources. China, for example, could target and “turn” the populations of Australia towards communist ideology and take over Australia from within. The WEF could undermine national sentiments in any country and nudge the population towards globalism.

We truly arrived in the age of psychological warfare, where each individual mind and behaviour is targeted and fought over through unconscious nudging on a massive scale. And it appears that the ideological left and the globalists now have the upper hand by owning the leading company.

Climate Change Nudging

If you wonder if BIT is involved in climate change nudging, enter “climate change” in the website’s search engine, and you get 88 hits.

The very latest, from July 2023, looks like this:

Net Zero relies on behaviour change. According to the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, the majority of future emissions reductions – 63% – will need to come from changes in how we travel, how we power and heat our homes, what we eat, and what we buy.

All this, of course, is as accurate and real as were the Covid fatality models of the Imperial College of London. All this serves the same purpose: To create fear and panic to make people, governments and other organizations compliant. Like with Covid, dissenting scientific voices are censored and character-assassinated, and a rational scientific debate is squashed.

It doesn’t mean there is no climate change going on. That’s not the point. It might or might not be as much as there might have been a coronavirus. As with the Covid response, the people in power want to shape the climate change response, and we once again have an alliance of different players that all gain from this approach. Much money can be made again for the greedy ones, and much more restriction and control can be implemented once again for those interested in power.

This is another example where what is “good” is defined by a narrow agenda for an incredibly complex issue, and nudging billions of people into one-dimensional actions could create immeasurable harm and suffering. There is corrective security in diversity, but these immature, stupid, power-hungry and greedy people involved in the climate agenda can not or don’t want to see that.

BIT doesn’t care. They are simply doing their job for their clients:

Reading their 11 suggestions to nudge people to make greener choices is a great way to recognize nudging immediately when we encounter it and understand how it works.

This doesn’t mean we reject or boycott each of them automatically.

For me, it is assessing what makes sense and aligns with my principles, values and lifestyle and exercising self-determination and personal freedom rather than being a helpless, clueless idiot being manipulated to follow the agenda of someone else.

Some of their wording makes me chuckle in disbelief:

Many green choices are perceived to be quite unattractive, from plant-based meat alternatives that are associated with being less tasty to electric vehicles being perceived as expensive or inconvenient.

They pretend everything is negotiable and simply a matter of changing perception. I don’t perceive Electric vehicles as expensive and inconvenient - it is an observable fact that they are costly and inconvenient because I talked to my sister, who has both types of cars and has a direct comparison. I never tried plant-based meat, but I know it is not a plant and is unlikely to taste like real meat. They make us question observable, simple facts and deny our own felt experience. It’s called brainwashing.

Some parents do it with their children who don’t like the taste of Brussels sprouts by saying: “No, no - they taste delicious. Eat them.” Done often enough, these children lose trust in their perceptions and are easy targets for the BIT nudge unit.

Fortunately, I was allowed to leave my Brussels sprouts on the plate and, therefore, are primarily immune against psychological nudging, confirmed and tested thoroughly during the relentless COVID nudging.

However, many people are easily manipulated and swayed by nudging.

That’s why I keep writing and doing my part to wake more people to the reality of it all. We all can do our part and what we are comfortable with. Writing, organizing protests, seeking elections, supporting activists or the right politicians, letters to editors, comments, sharing, reading, talking out loud and much more.

But the most crucial action is to stay in touch with reality and keep talking and exchanging ideas and perceptions with others. These manipulative masterminds are very clever. They chose highly sophisticated topics. The objective truth of how dangerous the coronavirus is or how damaging climate change will be lies in the hands of a relatively tiny number of highly specialized scientists. The masterminds that control most of them (and we only talk about a few thousand people) own the debate. It is difficult - but not impossible - for ordinary people to independently verify the truth about these matters.

But the truth will always come out with love, comment sense, research and communication with other people. Despite massive research and numerous nudging attempts to increase the booster uptake in Australia and other countries, as collected and exposed in this article, booster uptake dropped dramatically because people are not as stupid and “nudgable” as they think.

Not surprisingly, people from former communist countries, in this case Poland, are the least suspectable to propaganda and nudging. They haven’t forgotten how it works and are resilient to it. The spoiled, educated, woke Western populations have lost their common sense and access to their inner truth. They are the easiest targets for psychological assaults and fall for it left and right.

Our collective wisdom and, ultimately, our spiritual quest for self-determination and freedom will always prevail. Empires - an accumulation of greed and power - always fall.

Love, caring for each other, and awareness will always trump greed and power because it is sustainable. Greed and power are mental diseases that will self-destroy earlier or later.

We need to talk out loud and communicate our concerns and suspicions to get validated and strengthened. Not everyone will like what we say or do, but much is at stake. Isolation is our biggest enemy.

The majority still minimizes or ignores the obvious - an attempted total population control through sophisticated psychological warfare by a cabal of powerful colluding actors from governments, bureaucracy, mainstream media, charities and the predatory private industry pretending to work in our best interest. The unscared blind majority sleep-walk us into a disaster. Please scare them a little more.

I am of German heritage and learned history the hard way through listening to living witnesses full of tears and regret. I visited the Dachau concentration camp at age sixteen and stared in disbelief at a big room full of skulls and bones of the victims of another totalitarian controlling system. I listened to great uncles who went through it all and lost all happiness even after it was all over because of the shame and regrets of their cowardness.

The Future Of Nudging In The Wrong Hands

I don’t think we will have concentration camps coming again - at least not on the scale of the Nazis, Stalinists or Kmer Rouge. There are much more economical and sophisticated ways to silence, control and even kill us in the future if these people succeed entirely.

Total censorship and corruption of the mainstream media will silence us. New Internet and Social Media laws will force platforms to silence and ban us if they are not already doing it on their account.

Nudging units, sophisticated propaganda, social credit systems, and digital programmable money will be sufficient to control us.

And sophisticated nudging, labelled assisted dying, will take care of the killings. People can be manipulated into suicide very easily by nudging experts. These experts can even be Artificial Intelligence.

A “digital Holocaust” is looming, silently accepted by the lethargic masses scared into believing that there are too many of us and that we cause our planet to die.

This sad story tells it all:

According to his wife, the Belgian family with two small children lived a comfortable, everyday life until her husband became increasingly anxious about climate change (mainstream media “nudging”) and went into a six-week-long conversation with an AI chatbot. That’s when the story took a sinister turn. Please read the full story for a living example of how technology can remotely facilitate and encourage suicide.

"Without these conversations with the chatbot, my husband would still be here," the man's widow told Belgian news outlet La Libre.

Which brings us back to scumbag Matt Hancock who had no ethical issues to “frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain”. He has been the UK parliament's number one advocate for legalising assisted dying for two years and works tirelessly towards it. He even wants to make a documentary about it.

There are certainly legitimate and compassionate arguments for assisted dying, no doubt. Something I would consider myself in certain circumstances.

But it is a very slippery road, as shown in Canada, where they rapidly relax the safeguards and offer it to an ever-increasing cohort of vulnerable people. Fresh from the press brought to you by

Igor Chudov

To decrease the suffering of terminally ill people is a noble cause for a compassionate person. Matt Hancock does not strike me as a noble, human person at all. So we must ask ourselves: Why is he so interested in it?

Nudging, similar to shadow-banning, is unethical and dangerous to democracy because a high percentage of the population will be susceptible to it without even noticing that they are manipulated to change their behaviour to serve a particular agenda.

People can be nudged to vote in a desired way, securing power for a long time.

We can successfully defend against it by learning how it works. But to do so, we first have to accept and see that it is happening all around us and that many of our behaviours and beliefs are not really ours anymore - especially on climate change.

Stay strong, stay smart, question everything, don’t hide, speak up, share, and base it on love, hope, and compassion. Don’t let them nudge you. Don’t give in to fear.

Like always, I am looking forward to your comments and opinions and what you want to share on this topic.