Revisionism - Phony psychology? - Milgram, Zimbardo, others

Ramifications of nuclear issues are everywhere: subjects loosely or remotely linked to the nuclear bomb myth

Revisionism - Phony psychology? - Milgram, Zimbardo, others

Postby voerioc » 30 Apr 2011 19:10

Another phony experiment : the Milgram One.

The problem is : this experiment is unbelievable (the sad thing is people are so naive that they believe it without asking any question. It's scary).

As if ordinary people were going to kill other people for 50 bucks. It's pure nonsense.

They explain this behavior by saying people obey the authority. This is why they would obey the scientist of the experiment. Complete bullshit. Those people were not in the twilight zone. They were in the USA in the 60's. So, there was a much more powerful authority than the one of the scientist (someone they didn't know one hour before) and with much more consequences for their future. It was the authority of the Police. Those people couldn't have forgotten that in just thirty minutes. Thus they would have automatically said to the scientist that his experiment was illegal and that they refused to continue.

Those people would have immediately thought that they were committing a very grave crime and that it would not have been the authority of the scientist which would have protected them from being put in jail for murder. Which can lead you to the death penalty or, at best, being put in jail for the rest of your life. So, they would have very quickly ended this experiment. Or wouldn't even have participated to it.

And trying to make us believe that someone would think "ok, your are a scientist. I respect your authority. Let's kill this guy" is ridiculous.

So, this experiment was phony. People would never have killed other people in that kind of experiment. Milgram was a lier who falsified his experiments (or even never did them).

So why was all this made ? And why wasn't it debunked by journalists ?

Was it only a lie in order to gain fame ? I don't think so. If it wasn't debunked by journalists and other scientists, but to the contrary, applauded by them, it means there was something bigger behind this.

Once you understand that this experiment was phony, and when you know a little bit of history, the answer to the why is easy to find. It's once again a jewish manipulation.

This phony experiment was popularized in order to justify some parts of the holocaust story, to make them pass as credible. It was also a manipulation trick done to make goyim as a whole feel guilty ; because the experiment led to the conclusion that everybody could do this. Thus everybody (every goy) is potentially capable of doing this to those sooooooo poor and sooooooo innocent jews. Thus, we, goyim, are evil by nature. Jews like to make us feel guilty.

One of the problem of the holocaust story was to explain why ordinary people would have participated to it. The Milgram experiment came to give an explanation to that. It was made to give support to the theory developed in the HAnnah Arendt's books about the "banality of evil" (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951, and Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, 1963).

This is why all the medias (completely controlled by jews, as everybody knows) instead of mocking this phony experiment, treated it with respect, even enthusiasm, and popularized it.

The timing of the experiment was not innocent. It corresponds to the date of the Eichman's trial. It was published just one year after his execution.

Of course Milgram was a jew, as we could expected it.

In fact, Milgram didn't even hide that his experiment was conduced with the purpose of explaining the behavior of people involved in the holocaust. We can read on Wikipedia :

"The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?" Milgram's testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs."

So it's Milgram himself who tells us that it was not an innocent experiment just to advance science about human mind but that his real motive was elsewhere.

Of course, his claim that his motive was only to explain honestly the behaviors behind the holocaust is another lie. There was no desire to explain anything honestly. He never intended to conduce any experiment. His lie was made on purpose for more powerful jews : the jewish leaders. And those ones knew already that this theory was a complete bullshit. They just wanted to have a credible explanation for their holocaust story (credible because of its appearance of science). They didn't make any experiment. They lied from the beginning. They gave Milgram a false publication (already written) and he published it under his name. That's it.

It's true that other experiments were made with the same results. But most of the scientists involved had jewish names : Ancona & Pareyson (1968), Rosenham (1969), Mantell (1971), Power & Geen (1972), Kilham & Mann (1974), etc...

Another one as famous as the Milgram experiment was conduced by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. It was called the "Lucifer effect". But then again it seems he was a jew. Zimbardo stated that he knew Millgram when he was young because both lived in the jewish ghettos of the Bronx in New-York (in this movie And he also said "I was discriminated against because I was Jewish, Italian, black and Puerto Rican.". So very probably jewish (his face clearly is).

Of course, all those other experiments were all complete lies. The zimbardo experiment is especially unbelievable. It only lasted 6 days. As if people were going to change so quickly and so much after just 6 days. This is really ridiculous.

Of course the "work" of Milgram was very well publicized. Since the beginning, it wasn't intended to stay in the little circle of psychologists but to make an enormous publicity about it to "explain" the holocaust and to make goys feel guilty.

Milgram created a documentary film titled "Obedience" showing the experiment and its results. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.

A TV movie was made in the USA with Travolta and William Shatner : "the tenth level".

In France, a movie from 1979, made by Henri Verneuil (real name Ashod Malakian, said to be orthodox Armenian but has a jewish face) with the jew Yves Montand (a jew, real name Livi) was famous for showing the experiment during one scene.

And since then, there has been numerous references made to the Milgram experiments into movies, series, cartoons, etc... Thus, this experiment is very well known now.

In fact, the real subject of this experiment is the goy who believe this canard. By believing this ridiculous story because people with pompous titles at the television tells it's true he is the one who obey blindly the authority as the experiment concludes.
User avatar
Posts: 86
Joined: 30 Mar 2011 08:29

Re: Milgram experiment : phony

by mooninquirer » 20 May 2011 18:55

Yes, a great problem with the INTERPRETATION of the Milgram experiment is that it explained the ( supposed ) holocaust. But I think the Milgram experiment is a great asset is understanding the lies of the Jewish media, including the nuke bomb hoax. And, yes, the Milgram experiment, illustrating obedience to authority, ALSO shows why so many people not only accept the holocaust, but refuse to question it.

The Milgram experiment is VERY similar to the ASCH CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT, which shows that people will not trust what their own eyes are telling them and their own judgment, and just accept as factual the opinion of other people. Test subjects agreed that one line is shorter than another when they could easily see that it was not.

The ASCH CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT ----- and I urge you to type that into youtube to see this experiment for yourself, has had a profound effect on ME, because I questioned the moon landing, not from the day I first saw it ( I was only 4 at the time ), but from the day I was told that the moon has one sixth the gravity of the Earth, and that, for example, a rock that weighs 120 lbs on Earth would weigh only 20 pounds on the moon. And people could jump 6 times higher on the moon, and projectiles could go six times higher on the moon. And thus, people should feel like they were SUPERMAN on the moon ! But I NEVER recalled seeing any great feats of lifting boulders or anything else ! And the sand was kicked up exactly like sand on the beach ---- but it should have gone between their waists and their heads from normal walking on the moon. Children's books written BEFORE 1969 discussing a possible moon mission drove home this point with watercolor illustrations of astronauts gleefully and easily lifting boulders.

Although my teachers and professors in grade school, high school and college have said the moon landing is a hoax, I personally did NOT accept this a true, because I accepted as a GREATER AUTHORITY what the media and government said ! So, this is similar to OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY in the Milgram experiment. Only when I accepted that 911 was an inside job ( a Zionist job ), and I was very angry at the media for lying to me, did I lose all my faith in the media and the government. When an internet friend tipped me off that the moon landing was a hoax, I accepted it immediately.

You have to account for the masses of the American people just mindlessly accepting what the media says is factual. Don't forget, the media said Bin Laden was responsible, and he was in Afghanistan. Most Americans agreed that not only a war would be justified, but a very brutal war would be justified. Many Americans thought it would be morally justified to nuke Afghanistan ! And it was all a TOTAL LIE, in which the majority of the American people thought it was morally justififiable to kill tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, who had nothing to do with 911. THAT was a real life demo of the Milgram experiment !


Re: Milgram experiment : phony

Postby rerevisionist » 21 May 2011 13:42

Very interesting comments, including the early 1960s date.

Note added 27 Dec 2015
Interesting page by 'Dave' of Daveweb: from Lies My Psychology Professors Taught Me (part of his book, The F-Word which I think was published in hard copy, i.e. as a real book, presumably paperback. Interesting on Watson and Skinner (and their kids), and also Milgram and Zimbardo, identified as 'assets'. Dave unfortunately shares the paranoia about 'Nazis' which of course was generated by Jewish propaganda. Lots on 'MK-Ultra' but without sources. Probably 'Dave' felt sources were very secret, or unobtainable, or unreliable.

I'd suggest a motive might have been to pretend to show that the murderousness of Jews (as in the USSR and eastern Europe, including Armenia) wasn't peculiar to them.

And another possible motive was to prepare ordinary people for more wars. If it's accepted that ordinary people are happy to kill on command, then it's normalised. The US in Vietnam were notably bloodthirsty, and many were turned into killers - quite apart from the bombing - with a greater tonnage than the whole of WW2 - mostly of civilians and helpless peasants.

Added 15 Nov 2015 Another motive is to pretend 'Jews' are originators. This is Herbert Spencer in 1861-ish:
Our first step must be to classify, in the order of their importance, the leading kinds of activity which constitute human life. .. (1) those activities which directly minister to self-preservation; (2) those .. which, by securing the necessaries of life, indirectly minister to self-preservation; (3) those activities which have for their end the rearing and discipline of offspring; (4) those .. involved in.. proper social and political relations; (5) those miscellaneous activities which fill up the leisure part of life..
Abraham Maslow's Motivation and Personality was published in 1954, with 'Maslow's Hierarchy'.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Re: Phony psychology? - Milgram, Zimbardo, others

Postby rerevisionist » 05 Aug 2011 21:46

BBC Radio piece of light enterrtainment 'science' - 50 years since Milgram. The BBC is such garbage; it really makes me sick!
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Re: Revisionism - Phony psychology? - Milgram, Zimbardo, oth

Postby rerevisionist » 18 Nov 2011 15:34

Quite an interesting series of TV programmes by Derren Brown (ONLY AVAILABLE FOR A FEW WEEKS FOR DOWNLOAD) - my comments here
Mind-Body Problem - Brainwashing - Derren Brown

One of them, 'The Gameshow' shows Derren Brown running a pilot gameshow intended to test whether anonymous crowds behave in a way individuals wouldn't

It's a sort of variation of the Milgram experiment. An audience is led to believe they are part of a new gameshow, or at least a pilot, presented by Derren Brown. They see a video link, presumably on a large screen, of a set with really quite an amazingly high number of actors and hidden cameras - actors including barman, single girl at bar, seated couple; and more or less ditto in a nearby shop. The 'target' (seems the right word) is with two friends, on an evening out, who both know what's happening, and who also have supplied a key to the target's house. The audience is encouraged to think it's in on the trick - the actors, presumably fitted with radio and earphone connections, wave on audio command.

The audience are supplied with masks, which look white ceramic - I'd guess glossy shaped card. When they are about to vote, they are lit with deep red light; but also there is 'music' played of the repetitive synth single note type, and white loight is played over the audience. There's no show of hands - voting results are announced by Brown, and invariably show the audience to have voted for the unpleasant choice out of two offered - haranguing by some ridiculous woman and her naff boyfriend, false accusation of shoplifting with fake police, a faked phone call saying he was about to be 'made redundant', ending with a faked run and simulated road crash - the latter using a stunt double in a shirt of the same pattern as the 'target'. It's impossible to tell whether the audience did in fact vote for the claimed options.

In fact there are so many coincidences, and such a high chance of the thing going wrong, I'd guess the whole thing was probably staged.

However the point is that the audience seemed legitimately to feel they'd been very bad, nasty people. It seems to have been another version of Milgram.

Another minor point is a strange homosexual vein here and there - jokes about rimming, a male confederate in the man's house making jokes about the bed.

One theme in these programmes is the restricted local area of the people - country house, disused building cut off from the outside, convivial meeting, party room - and audiences. No doubt similar things apply in parliament, cabinets, boardrooms, union 'chapels', TV control rooms - probably with their controllers, too, and equally liable to secret manipulation. Many of Brown's tricks rely on a huge effort to bring things briefly to the attention of the subjects, who then have to be worked before the effects wear off or are replaced. Coloured lights, distinctive sounds, slogans, tunes, patterns, diagrams, posters, layouts... Just as in Pavlov, where his dogs were kept in isolated buildings...

[Added 9 Feb 2013 by Rerevisionist]

From TheOccidentalObserver (of Kevin MacDonald) online:--

Posted by Achaean November 4, 2012 - 4:32 pm
Re: Phillip Zimbardo’s claim that blacks were 8 times more likely to engage in heroic behaviour, I would reply, first, that he is half Jewish, and, second, that his definition is cultural Marxist to its core. A hero, for him, is someone who works to advance liberal egalitarian principles despite attendant costs to oneself, primarily non-whites who work for progressive causes, and whites who don’t act in their own ethnic interests but dedicate themselves to advancing the status of non-whites. In the very first minutes of his TED lecture, we learn only about heroic blacks who stood up to racist whites, that Hitler = Evil, whereas Gandhi, who enjoyed sleeping with very young girls, is the embodiment of Good. We also learn that whites who helped Jews are heroic. We hear, for example, about Rosa Parks, and about a Polish woman, Irena Sendler, who risked her life to save Jews. His goal is to increase the number of heroes in Western societies, which means the number of non-whites and whites who sacrifice themselves to non-white causes. His concept of heroism is just that, anti-white propaganda. I cannot believe this trivial man was given such a prominent forum,
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Return to Other Revisionisms, Hyper-Revisionisms & Off-Topic Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest