Signs of Coercive Control

How covert abusers violate boundaries and consent in relationships and society

In light of recent news trends exemplifying language that appears to signal the early stage of another tyrannical roll-out, it’s important to review the definition of coercive control.

While most people can recognize overt force as abusive, many people are not aware of coercive control, which is the more covert form of the violation of boundaries and consent.

Covert narcissists and psychopaths are adept at tricking people into doing what they want through the meticulous use of coercion tactics. The most sophisticated ones can even get the target to think it was their own idea.

Their favorite tools to carry out these acts are gaslighting, guilt-tripping, shaming, pity ploys, fear campaigns, goal-post moving, triangulation, future-faking, stonewalling, the silent treatment, smear campaigns, minimization and rationalization.

Once the target suffers a devastating loss or otherwise gets hurt, the covert abuser will say, “but it was your choice,” effectively washing their hands of all responsibility.

It is no surprise that we are already hearing this phrase by many covert abusers on the global stage as millions of people have been harmed or killed by the experimental injections or lost their job, education, medical care or the ability to see loved ones and travel if they didn’t submit to the jabs.

Coercion is NOT consent.

The first tenet of the Nuremberg Code gives the best definition of coercive control vs. voluntary consent. This can be applied to medical experiments and just about anything else that a person is asked, expected, required, mandated, compelled or intimidated to do.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/medical-magazines/nuremberg-code-establishes-principle-informed-consent

Let’s unpack that a bit with the help of Merriam-Webster. There are some very important keywords and phrases used here to help us understand coercive control.

You might also recognize the following as a checklist for all the violations of the Nuremberg Code regarding the COVID vax.

exercise free power of choice = it’s entirely your choice

without the intervention of any element of = the following must be absent:

force = the use of physical force or violence to compel or restrain

fraud = the intentional perversion of truth to induce another to part with something valuable or to surrender a right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting; trickery

deceit = the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid; an attempt to deceive or trick; the quality of being dishonest or misleading

duress = forceable restraint or restriction; compulsion by threat

over-reaching = to get the better of especially in dealing and bargaining and typically by unscrupulous or crafty methods

or other ulterior form = going beyond what is openly said or shown; hidden

of constraint = the state of being checked, restricted or compelled to avoid or perform some action

or coercion = the act of overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual or threatened violence or pressure

To clarify, “it’s for your good” is not an exemption clause for the Nuremberg Code. That’s indeed the exact phrase that every covert abuser and tyrant ever said to justify their actions and policies.

Coercive or controlling behavior is a crime in the UK—but only at home.

In 2015, the UK passed a law to protect domestic abuse victims from coercive and controlling behavior by making it a crime. This is from an official government site.

Yet just a handful of years later, the British government (and those of its modern day colonies) went full-on into the coercive control plan with COVID restrictions and vax mandates. Apparently it’s only coercive control in the UK if it’s a micro domestic issue because macro domestic issues are exempt.

Victims who experience “extreme psychological and emotional abuse, can bring their perpetrators to justice.” Does that mean British citizens can apply the same to their country’s domestic abusers?

It’s interesting how they assure the safety and protection, especially of women because, “No one should live in fear of domestic abuse.”

First of all, this assumption that abuse only happens to women and girls is a myth. There are both men and women who abuse men, boys, women and girls. Women are often better at the covert form of abuse. I suspect that’s one of the main reasons why the suicide rate for men is so much higher than that of women. The covert form abuse usually causes the target to hurt themselves.

Secondly, it sounds a lot like the hypocrisy of some politicians who say they support women’s rights, then advocate for biological males to be allowed into women’s prisons, women’s military locker rooms, women’s restrooms and female sports competitions.

The UK government claims to be sending “a clear message that it’s wrong to violate the trust of those closest to you.” Does that mean they believe that it’s only wrong to violate the trust of people close to you and that it’s okay to violate the trust of those who aren’t close to you? Is that how they justify the abuse of society?

It also mentions “emotional and controlling abuse will not be tolerated.” What about all the emotional abuse that was used by politicians, governments, media and other institutions to terrify or threaten people into taking the jab and following other mandates that violated their rights?

Another interesting quote here is: “it is a purposeful pattern of incidents that occur over time in order for one individual to exert power, control or coercion over another.” That’s exactly what happened since 2020, though it was at the hands of many individuals and institutions.

Are they really so incompetent that they can only see how coercive control happens in intimate partnerships and families?

Do they believe that’s where the human condition stops?

Or is it convenient if people can only recognize these patterns of abuse in their personal lives and not in society?

Coercive control fits under the umbrella of narcissistic abuse. It’s interesting to note that most experts in the field of narcissistic abuse fell for the biggest narcissistic, psychopathic con in the history of humanity.

When they’re exposed, they double down.

Once the abuser’s coercive control is exposed, they predictably have the same response.

After covert abusers coerce their targets into doing something that they don’t want to do, the targets get victimized. When the targets/victims realize that they’re hurt and were tricked into doing something harmful to themselves, they call out the abuser who then says, “it was your choice.”

That’s only a partial truth and it’s also deception. While each of us is ultimately responsible for the choices we make—and we ought to make those wisely—the full truth is that in the case of coercion, a person makes a false choice under duress or deceit, through fraud, constraint or other forms of overreaching. Therefore it’s a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

For example, during the jab mandates people were given a false choice or double bind: get jabbed OR lose your job, education, ability to travel, to go to the doctor or hospital, to visit loved ones or even to go to restaurants, bars, concerts, conventions, sports and other events. Many people didn’t want either option. I’m hearing of more people every week who say their biggest life regret was making the decision to get jabbed but they felt deceived into it. And they were. They were pressured and tricked into hurting themselves.

Here are some examples of gaslighting used to justify coercive control and then blame-shifting:

• a montage of some of the loudest global voices that promoted “no jab, no life.”

• a bunch of politicians saying that “it was a choice.”

Here is Jimmy Dore’s segment on many of the “criminal liars” who said “nobody was forced to have a vaccine.”

“The first lie was the vaccine would stop the transmission and the pandemic. The second lie was we never said the vaccine would stop the transmission and stop the pandemic. Now the third lie is that everyone had a choice and we never made anybody take it.”

In that segment with Dore, Brett Weinstein adds,

“I think I know how it is that they’re telling this lie. What they mean is no one was physically forced. They were obviously coerced, threatened, unemployed if they didn’t follow through.

This was all sorted out at Nuremberg. Informed consent was codified at the Nuremberg Court because the Nazi doctors violated a principle that even though it had not been spelled out, the court believed every doctor should understand, which is that not only does the patient have a right to refuse any experimental treatment, they have a right to full information about what that treatment is.

The fact is that we were not well-informed, we were lied to. Consent was coerced. That’s a double violation of the Nuremberg Code. This is something over which seven doctors were literally hanged until dead. That’s how important this principle is and we are pretending it never happened. This was an obvious violation and we ought to remember that.”

Here are a couple more of the big players gaslighting the people and linguistically justifying the violation of the Nuremberg Code:

Chris Hipkins (New Zealand’s Prime Minister) “There was no compulsory vaccination. People made their own choices.”

Justin Trudeau (Canada’s Prime Minister) “While not forcing anyone to get vaccinated…”

Feel free to add others in the comments!

Tony Blair (UK’s former Primer Minister) on the other hand, until recently has continued to push jabs as well as the digitalization of the data regarding who is vaxxed and who isn’t. He also promises “a whole slew of new vaccines, injectables that are going to deal with some of the worst diseases of the world that are going to give us the opportunity to make big changes in the health of the world.”

But wait, there’s more.

Now the philanthropaths are gearing up for an even more stealth method of violating consent. This time they won’t be able to say it was a choice. When they get called out, they will skip right to the “it’s for your good” part, just like they do with geoengineering, which they claim is for cooling the planet.

The Vigilant Fox asks, “Is it hard to believe that the people who were willing to take away your job or deny you a life-saving operation for being unvaccinated might also try to surreptitiously vaccinate you against your will?”

Imagine this: You’re tasked with vaccinating the population, but there’s a large swath of people, no matter what you bribe them with or take away, who simply won’t go along with the program. This noncompliant demographic (the unvaccinated) represented somewhere between 19% and 30% of the U.S. population during COVID-19, depending on how you do the numbers, as reported by The Epoch Times.

Yale for the win. Yale is now coming out with an aerosol “vaccine” called Prime & Spike. “It can radically change the way people are vaccinated.”

So, what do you do about the noncompliant?

Well, researchers at Yale have recently made a scientific breakthrough. According to their paper titled, “Polymer nanoparticles deliver mRNA to the lung for mucosal vaccination,” they successfully developed a new airborne method of delivery for mRNA vaccines.

Do you think the same people, institutions and corporations who brought you all the self-righteous coercive control “for your good” since 2020 might feel entitled to spray this (or another) substance in the skies or distribute it through the climate control systems of buildings without even letting you know?

Yale is the same institution that did the 2020 study to determine which messaging would be most effective in emotionally manipulating people into getting vaxxed. Highlights from those messages were: Trust in science, Personal freedom, Economic Freedom, Community Interest, and Guilt.

These were the 5 objectives of the Yale study, simplified below:

1. Get people to get vaxxed

2. Get people to trust the vax

3. Get people to get other people to get vaxxed

4. Get people to fear the unvaxxed

5. Get people to socially judge the unvaxxed

Clearly some of their fear campaigns worked better than others and those are the ones we heard repeated the most by the abusers and parroted by their enablers.

Yet perhaps the philanthropaths realized that it would be easier to just bypass the human psychological and behavioral elements and instead go straight for a more covert violation of consent where they don’t even tell us what they’re doing in order to get 100% compliance. If they distribute aerosols without our awareness and people suddenly start getting sick, that would be a convenient method of delivery, ripe with plausible deniability and gaslighting potential.

The aerosol exposure would be similar to the poisoning by geoengineering, which none of us consented to but are all being exposed to. For all we know, they could be already spraying those aerosols in the mix.

If you think it sounds nuts that the philanthropaths would actually spray a “vaccine” in our skies without our awareness, well it might be time to take off the rose-colored glasses. Toto, we’re not in Kansas any more.

In a 2019 bioethics study called Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert, the abstract reads:

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

That’s chilling. Though it’s no surprise that the “science” shows it’s more effective to be covert. The covert form of abuse is much more dangerous because it can go so much farther before people realize what’s happening. It’s also much easier for the abuser to maintain their image of virtue and blame the victim.

It’s already been shown in the Pfizer documents (which they tried to keep secret for 75 years) that the vaxxed are already transmitting substances to those who didn’t take the injections. In other words, those of us who didn’t consent to taking the experimental shots have been exposed anyways. And the corporation knew it. But you didn’t see that on the news, brought to you by Pfizer.

In an article reposted from Epoch Times (for those who aren’t subscribers to ET), you’ll find out that the COVID jabs were authorized without doing any studies to assess the transmission of those toxins to others. However, the corporation already knew that such transmission—AKA the covert violation of consent—could result in adverse reactions for those of us who didn’t take the shots.

COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology like Pfizer and Moderna were authorized globally without studies into the possible expression of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) containing the mRNA or of the spike protein manufactured by the cells of a recently vaccinated individual.

A confidential Pfizer document (pdf) disclosed through a Freedom of Information Act request suggests an unvaccinated person could be exposed to the contents of COVID-19 vaccines through the air or skin of a vaccinated individual and references the possibility that an adverse vaccine reaction could result from such exposure.

So it turns out we are all participating in the science experiment to some degree, whether we wanted to or not.

Some people who actually took the jabs enthusiastically weren’t even aware that they were participating in a science experiment, even though the philanthropaths didn’t hide that it was Phase 3 clinical trials but also didn’t explicitly tell every recipient.

Normally in Phase 3, 50% of the participants receive the placebo, but as my astrophysicist friend says, there was nothing normal about what happened since 2020.

Recently, a bombshell study of one of the jabs suggests that there were approximately 30% placebos. Maybe that’s why people were told they needed to take more than one dose. The more doses you take, the less likely you are to get all placebos. Of course, some people might actually be upset to find out that they got saline instead of the real deal. Again, there was a lack of informed consent.

Gearing up for the next one

Journalist Natalie Winters recently revealed some federal government contracts that suggest they are preparing for another “pandemic” starting this fall.

In other impeccable timing, the CDC’s V-Safe website was recently shut down, just before the new shots come out as well as the aerosol delivery. No reason or explanation was given. For some reason, they don’t want to hear about any more vax injuries and deaths. That could be a way to pretend that everything is fine and keep up the medical fraud. If they don’t measure it, then it doesn’t exist, right? Science. Safe and effective.

Most people are done with the COVID fear campaign, so I think the only way they can carry out the next steps would be to utterly terrify people with something new and unknown, and potentially far more dangerous. Then offer perceived acts of kindness, and many people will be right back in the State of Captivity, AKA Stockholm Syndrome.

Surely some have already been sensing something is coming down the track. It’s like when you’re standing on a platform and you start to feel the subtle vibrations under your feet. You can’t see the train yet, but you know it’s coming. The rumbling grows stronger as the train approaches.

Hopefully many of us have learned lessons during the last few years and become both wiser and stronger. Keep cultivating your inner resources like you’re training for a marathon, not a sprint. Remember you have the power of choice.