They used to have the decency, or perhaps the shame, to conduct such psychological operations in the dark. Now they’re just coming out and saying it: engineered mass anger, guilt, and fear are what will propel their “climate change” agenda forward.
Via The Guardian (emphasis added):
Anger is by far the most powerful emotional predictor of whether somebody plans to take part in a climate protest, research suggests.
The study, which asked 2,000 Norwegian adults how they felt about the climate crisis, found the link to activism was seven times stronger for anger than it was for hope. The effects were smaller for other actions, but fear and guilt were the best predictors of policy support, while sadness, fear and hope were the best predictors of behavioural change.
On average, people reported having fairly mild feelings about the planet heating.
“The problem isn’t that people feel too scared about climate change,” said Thea Gregersen, a climate psychologist at the Norwegian Research Centre and lead author of the study. “The problem, in Norway at least, seems to be that they’re not scared enough.
Related: U.S. Government Now Using AI to Suss Out ‘Sentiment and Emotion’ in Social Media Posts
Via the above-mentioned study (emphasis added):
Analyzing responses to the open-ended survey question “What is it about climate change that makes you angry?”, we find that the most common reason was human actions causing climate change. Respondents also frequently pointed to responsible agents, especially politicians. Controlling for other climate emotions, as well as socio-demographics, anger strength was differentially related to three types of climate change engagement; it was the strongest predictor of self-reported activism, positively related to policy support, but not related to individual mitigation efforts*. Among those reporting anger, directing it towards human qualities or actions was consistently and positively related to individual behavior, policy support, and activism while referring to responsible agents was not related to either. ‘Contrarian’ anger, reflecting skepticism towards the threat of climate change or dissatisfaction with mitigation measures, constituted 10% of the responses and had a negative effect on all outcomes. Overall, we find that both the strength and content of climate anger are relevant for climate change engagement. Our findings illustrate the need to avoid simplistic discussions of climate emotions and their motivational potential.
Interesting, is it not, that anger correlated to “self-reported activism” and climate change “policy support,” but not to “individual mitigation efforts?” In other words: “I’m so angry that I believe the government should fix a problem I’m not willing to do anything about myself.” Sacrifice is always the job of someone else; alas, sadly, this seems to be universal and immutable nature — which is what makes Jesus Christ such a compelling figure to believers.
I know I have sometimes beaten this dead horse into the ground, but it’s essential to understand the very basic paradigm at play that the technocrats use over and over and over to advance their agenda du jour: problem-reaction-solution. The three-step process works as follows.
First, the social engineers either promote and amplify an existing actual problem of public import or, in the case of the alleged existential threat of climate change, essentially manufacture it out of whole cloth. Second, the public — or at least large elements of it — reacts in the intended manner, which in this case is with anger/guilt/fear. And third, on the back of that, the social engineers offer a novel solution that (surely only coincidentally) increases their own power — in this case, “zero carbon” crackdowns on energy and agriculture and, ultimately, depopulation.
