1,656,598 signatures...

🚨 We've just written to Keir Starmer urging him to ABANDON any plans for a mandatory digital ID

A digital ID would tear up our rights & make us all reliant on a digital pass to go about our daily lives

We're saying no to digital ID & a checkpoint Britain. Read our joint letter⤵️
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/press-releases/rights-groups-urge-starmer-to-abandon-plans-for-mandatory-digital-id/

Subscribe | @BigBrotherWatchHQ

1,824,568 signatures

‼️ DIGITAL ID TUBE OUTREACH - THE BRITS ARE FIGHTING THIS HARD

Yesterday, as a team of young minds, we hit the tubes to fight back and take this message directly to the people. Reaching the public face-to-face is the best and only way to wake people up to this incoming dystopia!

This is not about “convenience” or “security” – it is about control. Digital ID is the gateway to a Chinese-style social credit system where your freedoms depend on compliance. It means censorship, debanking, restrictions on protest and free speech, no-driving zones, constant tracking, and mass data breaches waiting to happen.

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
🇨🇦PCN | t.me/PrivateCanadianNews
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

WOW! Secretary Bobby Kennedy just took a MAJOR victory lap on Big Pharma and the medical establishment by listing major MAHA victories.

"Removing harmful chemicals from our food, including petroleum-based food dyes...defining ultra-processed foods, front-of-package labeling for ultra-processed foods, requiring nutrition and metabolic health courses for medical schools...improving food for military, schools and hospitals, updating water quality standards...reforming SNAP by removing soda and candy from the program."

2,000,056

🇬🇧 Labour Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy’s poor attempt to justify Digital ID. (1 min, 54 sec)

2,163,169 signatures - if you agree, please share 🙂

I've analysed pro digital ID posts/talking points from politicians over the last 3 days for psychological manipulation and it's of course there

Here's some examples

Framing

Starmer and other Labour politicians presenting the policy in a positive, narrow lens (e.g., as "security" or "modernisation"), while omitting broader and serious implications. This is a common tactic to shift focus to the "common good" idea. In this case, digital ID is framed as a fix to illegal migration. This is manipulative because it exploits public anxiety about this issue. Also the attempt to link digital ID to "fairness" and "modernity," is reframing authoritarian-leaning policy as benevolent, making opposition seem irrational and backward. This is evident in Starmer's empathetic opener in his speech ("I know you're worried"), which co-opts public fears

Carrot and stick

This was obvious in Lisa Nandy's Sky interview. She offered incentives (convenience, security) for adoption, while implying penalties (inability to work/access services) for non-compliance. This creates a false binary: comply for "benefits" or face exclusion from society/economy. This preys on economic fears and goes for those root needs at the base of Maslow's heirachy of needs (I discussed this in my video on Friday)

Gaslighting

This is a common one. Lots of minimising or invalidating concerns (e.g., privacy fears) by portraying critics as alarmist, misinformed or our old fave, conspiracy theorists, through the process of "normalisation" ("all these countries have it"). This undermines legitimate privacy/surveillance and control concerns by equating them to paranoia

Over the coming weeks I expect to see the leveraging of "official voices" or "influencers" in an attempt to build credibility around this issue, in order to reduce scrutiny. This will be to play to reliance on trust in authority in order to bypass debate, making the policy seem inevitable (creates loss of hope and acceptance via "inevitability mindset)

It's important to know all this so that you do not get caught out by it, do not get angry or fearful, and that you call it out for what it is. Please also consider teaching others about it

Cont'd below

Social media posts that are pro digital ID are currently mostly from politicians & media outlets, although some large "influencer" accounts have started to make some noise. However, look out for the subtler posts from smaller, seemingly random "normal" people saying things like "all this fuss about digital ID makes me laugh, they have all our ID already" or "all you X users with a blue tick paid to give your ID for that, so what's the problem". This is psychological manipulation, through the technique of false equivalence. These types of arguments oversimplify complex issues, equate distinct scenarios, & subtly undermine legitimate concerns to normalise or dismiss opposition

False equivalence can be a tool of gaslighting when it’s used to undermine legitimate concerns, by reframing them as overreactions and inconsistencies. It is a rhetorical tactic that compares two situations as if they are morally, functionally, or contextually equivalent, when they are not

This manipulation works by:

normalising surveillance through implying that digital IDs are no different from existing data collection, which is false

deflecting scrutiny by redirecting focus from privacy or control risks to a false sense of inevitability, ("they already have your data")

shaming critics by painting opponents as inconsistent or overreacting, leveraging social pressure to discourage dissent

False equivalence reduces a complex policy (mandatory digital ID with potential for surveillance, exclusion of 3M+ offline citizens, or data misuse) to everyday actions like using online banking or verifying on X. This ignores scale, intent, and consequences (e.g., government vs. private control, mandatory vs. voluntary)

By saying “they already have your ID” or “you paid for a blue tick,” these arguments imply critics are naive or hypocritical, sowing self-doubt. This aligns with gaslighting. The “fuss makes me laugh” tone also minimises and shames dissenters, framing them as out-of-touch/paranoid. This taps into social conformity, discouraging public opposition, especially when paired with authority appeals

The exact “blue tick” or “they have our ID” phrasing didn’t appear in the initial speeches by politicians but guess what. Those sentiments surfaced in news coverage and replies to Starmer’s posts on social media. This suggests false equivalence is more common in secondary discourse (e.g., comments from smaller (likely govt operated) accounts), which are then amplified (on purpose) by large platforms such as BBC and GB news

Please note that there will be repetition of this theme going forward as a way to embed all of the above into people's psyche through manipulation intensity: Subtle and policy-wrapped, rather than overt propaganda, it works by emotional leveraging, social shaming and normalisation, potentially eroding resistance over time and wearing down skeptics

In conclusion false equivalence, as in “they already have our ID” or “you paid for a blue tick,” is a manipulative tactic that oversimplifies digital ID risks, shames critics, and normalises state control by equating it to routine actions

Know thy enemy

As you know I've got substack articles coming out about psychological manipulation. One of the most important things I'm going to discuss is the tactic of setting up the archetypal hero, who has seemingly been with people on major issues, but then performs a bait and switch on a really obvious and crucial topic

We saw this set up through "Covid" and then deployed on the Israel Palestine issue. It's a really important long term strategy that is developed, and that you must know about to overcome effectively

Stay tuned to my Substack for more

When you know what they hid, it should make your blood boil.. How many lives have been ruined because they covered this up?

Join: @davidavocadowolfe 🥑