Psychological Inoculation.

A currently-used manipulative theory from 1961.

“Inoculation Theory,” also referred to as “Psychological Inoculation,” or “Attitude Inoculation,” was developed and perpetuated by William McGuire in 1961. This is a pre-gaslighting strategy that is used before a message is delivered, in order for the person to protect themselves from change or a counter argument, or even a fact that is being shared that is the opposite of one’s belief. It’s essentially a social-engineering and verbal-manipulative trick that is used to subdue a human being into believing that any future message they hear or see from a person or group of people, is false, or that any change that is proposed must be negative, because of who is saying it. It’s a strategy designed to keep one’s belief system consistent against what they’re hearing from others regarding opposing view points.

This theory is made up of two variables: threat and refutational preemption. As stated by iresearch.net:

The threat component of an inoculation treatment raises the possibility that a person may encounter persuasive challenges to existing attitudes. It is designed to get people to acknowledge the vulnerability of existing attitudes to potential change. Threat functions as the motivational catalyst to resistance. Once a person accepts that attitudes are vulnerable to change, they will expend the effort to strengthen attitudes.

The refutational preemption component of an inoculation treatment raises—and then refutes—specific arguments contrary to attitudes. It is designed to provide the specific content that people can use to defend attitudes and to provide people with a model or script for how to defend attitudes.

In essence, an individual or a group will seek to convince a person or another group that their belief system is not just a belief, but a fact, even thought it probably isn’t. Then the messenger will pre-load or “pre-bunk” what someone is about to hear from an opposing party or person, by letting them know what they think the messaging will be and how that messaging will be harmful and untrue. Therefore, the listener/receiver of such messaging (before the message is even formulated or spoken by an opposing party) will dig their heels into their own delusion and convince themselves that what they are hearing from the so-called opposing party is false, because it’s not only the opposite of what they already believe to be true, but also because they were warned in advance about what they may hear from a so-called allied party. Moreover, what is being said to them by a so-called opposing party, must be a lie.

Given this election year, this manipulative strategy is being used with a high rate of frequency in a last-ditch effort to further brainwash anyone who currently supports one political party or another. While the Left in American, and specifically those who support Joe Biden, are using this frequently, such as the show hosts on The View, inoculation theory is a strategy that has also been used by the so-called Right.

In the example below, not only does the first host of The View pre-load the question with blatant falsehoods, she attempts to pass them off as facts and as “positives” that are occurring within society, that Joe Biden is responsible for.

Jill Biden repeats, at least twice with the first question, the saying; “We have to get the message out.” This doesn’t mean the truth is being told. It’s simply means we have to get a message out of what we want people to believe to get their vote, so if they hear something to the contrary, they’ll believe that what is being said by the counter argument, is a lie. (Play video—8 minutes).

Joy Behar then responds by looking at Jill Biden and saying; “We’re helping you.” (While smiling). This brief interaction is an open admission that they’re simply repeating the same messaging, or “pre-bunking” strategies on specified issues to keep people believing something that is not real or aligned with their own belief system.

A discussion then starts, referencing age, competence and mental sharpness. I don’t think that requires any analysis on my part. It’s painfully obvious. Just watch the upcoming debate with Trump and Biden, if it actually takes place. If it does take place, I guarantee it’s going to be revealing, even to those who are dead asleep.

Jill Biden then takes the approach of saying “you have two choices.” This is the “threat” aspect of Inoculation Theory. You have Joe Biden as one option, or on the other hand “you have chaos” (i.e., Donald Trump). You are then told by the blonde host that Donald Trump will “gaslight.” When a supporter of Biden hears that, they will foreclose on this being a fact. Then, when Donald Trump speaks, he must be lying or being manipulative, yet it’s this environment and line of comments and questions from The View hosts themselves that is clearly engaging in gaslighting and determining what the answers are for the listener or the audience, before a specified topic is even discussed.

Jill Biden then states that the microphones are going to be turned off “so people don’t ramble.” This is a modern debate rule that is going to be used to stop the person who is not making any sense from verbally speaking, in an effort to auditorily inoculate the listener who may not see the bigger picture.

I wonder who that strategy was designed for? You can bet that the microphone will be turned off for Trump, when he tells the truth about something, too.

Jill Biden then states; “The American people deserve to see the two men running for this office, because your choice is going to be clear.”

She’s got that right.

The brunette host who plays the token conservative (clearly she isn’t conservative), uses the word “fearful,” twice, in her line of questioning. That a vote for Donald Trump or a second Donald Trump administration should make people “fearful.” Then, Jill Biden responds by using the dichotomy of “Good vs. Evil.” This, too, is an inoculation tactic that is being used across the board, with endless people; that people should be fearful that Donald Trump will be targeting people for justice. The question people aren’t asking, is why are they vocally fearful and telling people about it publicly? Have they done something in the past they shouldn’t have, and now they’re afraid of being held accountable?

Now, this is where the conversation in The View episode became interesting for the multidimensional thinker, if they caught it.

Jill Biden said that we should believe Trump when he says, ‘dictator, bloodbath, third-term, and violence;’ and that when Trump uses these words “we should believe him.” First of all, in what context does Donald Trump use those terms? He uses them in reference to Joe Biden. That Joe Biden is the one allowing for these things. However, the “third-term” comment is the interesting part. Those of us who are aware, fully know that Donald Trump is legally The Commander in Chief. This is why the “third-term” comment is interesting. Technically, Trump’s next term would be his third term, which is legal in war time, in particular given that he signed the Insurrection Act on January 6th, 2021 after the stolen election and the psy-op of the J6 riot. Why would Jill Biden say “third-term?” Is she controlled by good guys? Is the entire Biden “administration” controlled by good guys as well? Does she know that Trump is still the legal Commander in Chief?

Jill Biden ends by stating, “we will lose all of our rights and freedoms.” This is more fear, or inoculation via threat.

---

Before I continue to describe Inoculation Theory, consider this, too. Why would Joe Biden continue to be placed in situations where he’s visibly and verbally incompetent to everyone? In any other election cycle from past decades, such an exhibit of incompetence would not only be the end of a candidate, but the administration around that candidate would never put them in any compromising situation ever again, for fear of repetition. Remember Ross Perot’s vice presidential candidate, retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale saying, “Who am I? Why am I here?” during the vice presidential debate? Remember Michael Dukakis riding in the tank? Remember Gary Bauer falling off of the stage at the Pancake breakfast in 2000? Remember “Lying Ted!” from 2016, in reference to Ted Cruz, and then Ted Cruze awkwardly pushing his wife out of the way to hug his father on stage, then awkwardly hugging his wife later? That was the end for them all as candidates. Yet, time and time again, Joe Biden is placed in social situations where he falters, and embarrassingly so. This should provide yet even more proof that we’re watching something that is being controlled by one side or the other, for another motive.

Not to mention, why does Donald Trump’s hat have “45 (dash) 47” on the side of it? 45 through 47? The dash stands for “through.” 45, 46, and 47 perhaps? It doesn’t say 45 “and” 47, does it?

If this is being controlled by some good guys to convince the American people that Biden is not only incompetent, but that the Democrat party that supports him is equally as criminal, then I’d say it’s working. If this is being controlled by some bad guys, to usher in a new Democrat candidate in the future to replace Biden before the end of the Summer, I’d say that’s working too. Perhaps both strategies are being used by the good guys, too. Perhaps all strategies are known.

Frankly, and sadly, Inoculation Theory works. Just look at the 75-85% uptake on the COVID lie, mask wearing, and the acceptance of the bio-weapon over the last four years, in particular the fear that was generated in 2020 and then 2021.

This leads me to play the next video. Below, is Dr. Anthony Fauci from June 18th, 2024, on CBS Mornings. Watch the video below and listen carefully to what he says and what he is asked. (Play video—8 minutes).

There are two major admissions here that have never been mentioned before. Yes, we know he thinks the shots saved lives. They clearly didn’t. Yes, he says masks saved lives. They clearly didn’t. What Fauci actually admits, is that Donald Trump looked him right in the face and told him that COVID was a “hoax.” If this conversation actually took place, then Donald Trump was right.

Then when asked about the fitness of Donald Trump to be the President again, Fauci said he doesn’t want to get into “fitness,” and avoids the topic in regards to Donald Trump. But when asked again, regarding Biden’s “fitness,” this time, Fauci responds in the affirmative and says that Biden is very fit. He even says; “Absolutely.”

The hosts, in particular Gail (Oprah’s friend), allows Fauci to play the victim and sympathizes with him. All of this, too, is psychological inoculation. Fear, threats, security, and excuse making for past actions and results, and then justifying those past moves and what could be done better in the future. All of this, again, is pre-loading one’s mindset with a predetermined, inoculated answer, for both past and future events to come.

Remember, the National Security Council, HHS, DHS, and FEMA, ran point on the entire COVID lie. Fauci is just an administrator and a narcissistic tool. He’s exactly what government and global NGO’s like the Tavistock Institute, want and love. That’s one of the reasons he was out in front. Trump knew he was dirty from the word GO! That’s also why Trump contradicted him in those “Task-Force” meetings with regularity. Trump also knew that anons would dig into Fauci’s past and expose the truth, and we did.

At the end, you can hear Gail saying loudly, over her co-host’s voice;

“And thank you for saving lives, Dr. Fauci! Thank you for saving lives!”

CBS’s psychological inoculation, in this case, as in most cases, is bookended with lies. This is why the media, those who run it and those work within, continue to be the enemy of the people.

---

The iresearch.net article continued and stated the following about Inoculation Theory:

Subsequent studies by Michael Pfau indicated that inoculation works, in part, through the theorized mechanisms of threat and counter-arguing, but also by eliciting anger, making attitudes more certain, rendering attitudes more accessible, and altering the structure of associative networks.

Evidence of threat’s motivational role in resistance is found in the consistency of findings by McGuire and Pfau that inoculation-same and inoculation-different treatments are equally effective in conferring resistance to attacks. Refutational-same inoculation treatments cover the same counterarguments raised in later attacks, whereas different treatments employ counterarguments that are completely different than those raised in subsequent attacks. Because inoculation-different treatments feature unique content, effectiveness cannot be attributed to the refutational-preemption component of the treatment; instead, it can only be explained by the threat component, which motivates people to bolster their attitudes.

The power of inoculation stems from the fact that treatments spread a broad umbrella of protection—not just against specific counterarguments raised in subsequent treatments, but against all potential counterarguments.

Inoculation is an interesting and useful theory. Research during the past 20 years has revealed numerous real-world applications of inoculation theory. For example, studies indicate that it is possible to inoculate, for example, political supporters of a candidate in a campaign against the influence of an opponent’s attack ads; citizens against the corrosive influence of soft-money-sponsored political attack ads on democratic values; citizens of fledgling democracies against the spiral of silence which can thwart the expression of minority views; commercial brands against the influence of competitors’ comparative ads; corporations against the damage to credibility and image that can occur in crisis settings; and young adolescents against influences of peer pressure, which can lead to smoking, underage drinking, and other harmful behaviors.

Even the author(s) themselves use this theory to their own so-called advantage, by claiming that this is a strategy that their own enemies use, specially those who seek to thwart “democracy.” Therefore in their explanation of inoculation theory, they are attempting to inoculate the reader into believing that if you hear of anyone threatening so-called “democracy,” then they must be doing so, as clearly “democracy” is a good thing, so they say.

Now do we live in a democracy, which is technically defined as a dictatorship, or are we supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic? After all, the two are not the same.

Not only does inoculation theory work, but it comes with inoculating verbiage to further its agenda in the hands of the beholder, as the above article proved. For example, the use of the words “misinformation” and “disinformation.” These words have never been used with such regularity before, and yet neither political party is clearly defining this social-engineering vocabulary. Even papers are published furthering this vernacular agenda in an effort to normalize their use, individually and collectively.

In the 2022 paper above, titled, Psychological inoculation can reduce susceptibility to misinformation in large rational agent networks, the abstract states:

The unchecked spread of misinformation is recognized as an increasing threat to public, scientific and democratic health. Online networks are a contributing cause of this spread, with echo chambers and polarization indicative of the interplay between the search behaviours of users and reinforcement processes within the system they inhabit. Recent empirical work has focused on interventions aimed at inoculating people against misinformation, yielding success on the individual level. However, given the evolving, dynamic information context of online networks, important questions remain regarding how such inoculation interventions interact with network systems. Here we use an agent-based model of a social network populated with belief-updating users. We find that although equally rational agents may be assisted by inoculation interventions to reject misinformation, even among such agents, intervention efficacy is temporally sensitive. We find that as beliefs disseminate, users form self-reinforcing echo chambers, leading to belief consolidation—irrespective of their veracity. Interrupting this process requires ‘front-loading’ of inoculation interventions by targeting critical thresholds of network users before consolidation occurs. We further demonstrate the value of harnessing tipping point dynamics for herd immunity effects, and note that inoculation processes do not necessarily lead to increased rates of ‘false-positive’ rejections of truthful communications.

Keywords: misinformation, inoculation theory, complex systems, belief updating

The above authors, who formulated this abstract, clearly show their political leaning, yet they can’t understand that it’s they themselves who have been the victims of this inoculation, while they’re perpetuating the very thing that they’ve been victimized and manipulated by. They even use the term “belief updating” within their keywords. Perhaps “useful idiots” should be in their keywords too.

Social media is a common whipping boy for the need for more psychological inoculation. In a 2023 study titled, Psychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic, the abstract states the following:

Misinformation can have a profound detrimental impact on populations’ wellbeing. In this large UK-based online experiment (n = 2430), we assessed the performance of false tag and inoculation interventions in protecting against different forms of misinformation (‘variants’). While previous experiments have used perception- or intention-based outcome measures, we presented participants with real-life misinformation posts in a social media platform simulation and measured their engagement, a more ecologically valid approach. Our pre-registered mixed-effects models indicated that both interventions reduced engagement with misinformation, but inoculation was most effective. However, random differences analysis revealed that the protection conferred by inoculation differed across posts. Moderation analysis indicated that immunity provided by inoculation is robust to variation in individuals’ cognitive reflection. This study provides novel evidence on the general effectiveness of inoculation interventions over false tags, social media platforms’ current approach. Given inoculation’s effect heterogeneity, a concert of interventions will likely be required for future safeguarding efforts.

Again, the authors have concluded a need to pre-load determined responses to so-called “misinformation,” that they deem to be a message that is false, in order to assist the inoculation process by manipulating a reader or viewer of a social media post, as to either put them off from the message that is being sent, or entice them to emotionally react to it in an effort to deter others from being “misinformed,” so they think.

They actually warn people about “echo-chambers,” too, yet, it’s they themselves that are building the foundation where the walls of their own echo-chamber will reside.

---

Finally, in an article titled, Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media, the authors again point to social media as being both their enemy and a weapon that can be used against their perceived enemy, as long as they use inoculation theory to their advantage. They state in their abstract from 2022:

Online misinformation continues to have adverse consequences for society. Inoculation theory has been put forward as a way to reduce susceptibility to misinformation by informing people about how they might be misinformed, but its scalability has been elusive both at a theoretical level and a practical level. We developed five short videos that inoculate people against manipulation techniques commonly used in misinformation: emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks. In seven preregistered studies, i.e., six randomized controlled studies (n = 6464) and an ecologically valid field study on YouTube (n = 22,632), we find that these videos improve manipulation technique recognition, boost confidence in spotting these techniques, increase people’s ability to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy content, and improve the quality of their sharing decisions. These effects are robust across the political spectrum and a wide variety of covariates. We show that psychological inoculation campaigns on social media are effective at improving misinformation resilience at scale.

It’s an open admission that social media needs to be used to flood the space with their own messaging and criticism, in an effort to gaslight viewers and inoculate ones God-given ability away from them, so they don’t attempt to think on their own and discern for themselves what is accurate and what is not. “Listen to us, we aren’t lying” is their strategy, and it’s been set on a repeat setting. This, again, is why we’re hearing the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” today, with a repetition we’ve never experienced previously with those made-up terms.

EU President Ursula von der Leyen, and her open admission of the EU’s plan.👇🏻

---

Messaging manipulation, via psychological inoculation, will certainly continue. The scheduled debate with Donald Trump and Joe Biden this month on June 27th (if it actually takes place), can’t be an accident. Inoculating the public from the truth will most assuredly be impossible, with what our eyes and ears would be giving us—again, if that debate actually occurs.

The same inoculation attempts are ever-present with the COVID lie, even to this day. Even though endless people are dead and injured from the bio-weapon shots, while those around them fail to suspect the shots as being the culprit, the truth will always find a way of reaching everyone. This is continuing to happen, whether one is ready to know the truth or not.

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. -Luke 8:17 (KJV)

---

BIO: Dr. Sean M. Brooks is the host of the podcast American Education FM and the author of several books including; The Unmasking of American Schools: The Sanctioned Abuse of Americas Teachers and Students. He’s also on Gab, Truth, X, Bitchute, Rumble and everywhere audio podcasts can be heard.