"Is there any steering and manipulation at all then? The answer is a resounding yes, there most certainly is all kinds of manipulation. And with the means available to today’s mass media, the possibilities are simply phenomenal. Such steering, however, is rarely done by individual persons; the most fundamental steering is impersonal in nature. The steering is first and foremost driven by an ideology—a way of thinking. Ideologies organize and structure society progressively and organically. As we have described in detail in the previous chapters, the dominant ideology is mechanistic in nature....
"It is at this fundamental level that we have to situate the “secret” forces that direct individuals in the same direction and ultimately organize society as a whole. Remember drawing the Sierpinski triangle; if everyone follows the same rules, strictly regular patterns emerge."
And
"If we keep in mind the definition of a conspiracy—a secret, planned, intentional and malicious scheme—we immediately notice two things: it’s not much of a secret since all the aforementioned “plans” are available on the internet." [But because the plans have been published does NOT mean that there are no plans!]
And
"These are examples of how an ideology gets a grip on society, not evidence of the execution of a conspiracy."
Such steering (i.e. conspiratorial manipulation) is, however, impersonal in nature. The steering is done by an ideology. So then do you understand the doublespeak? There is manipulation that is no manipulation: it's driven by the ideology.
Desmet's first chapters are to prove how ideology takes over rational thinking, so that he can then say, in chapter 8, that any notion of conspiracy and manipulation is deeply mistaken because the impersonal ideology did it.
Please pay close attention to the doublespeak. That's why his book is so insidious. I doubt that Desmet even conceived the book; I suspect that he was given the outline and talking points, because my sense is that he isn't a devious person. However, he most likely did sell out. Reward? How about massive promotion?
This of course is speculation on my part but the alternative is: he's a very sloppy theorist. Which could be true, but honestly I don't know how anyone could write such misguided and contradictory thinking with a straight face.
If something is blue and I say it's blue and you say orange, OK, we can agree to disagree, I suppose. But the damn thing is blue.
Notice how, after Desmet quotes himself in your link, he then says: "Do they [Breggins] really believe that I claim that long term mass-formation arises in a completely spontaneous way, without someone ever intentionally steering and manipulating the masses?" But that's exactly what Desmet claims, as above: "Such steering, however, is rarely done by individual persons; the most fundamental steering is impersonal in nature. The steering is first and foremost driven by an ideology—a way of thinking."
The "most fundamental steering." The steering is "first and foremost" driven by an ideology. It's impersonal.
Desmet seems like a decent person to me-- I've watched a number of his interviews-- and at first I accepted the consensus view on him. But reading his book carefully, it's obvious that it contains an insidious doublespeak and there can be absolutely no doubt that his central point and the thrust of his book, as stated clearly in chapter 8, is to dismiss any notion of conspirators acting against we, the people, to induce mass formation. But, we did not do it; we did not induce mass formation on ourselves, and self-hypnotize through a massive propaganda campaign 24/7, which as you recall is what happened. It was done to us.
People are confused by Desmet's words. Pay attention to his concepts and how they relate and to the logic of his arguments.
To tell the truth, I don't pay much attention to postmodern deconstructionist syntax and hermeneutics, although I did pick up on references to Foucault.
I pay attention to concepts, contradictions, definitions, and the structure of the arguments.
We can agree to disagree then. Desmet explains it here. I choose to believe him.
https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/am-i-an-expert-in-mass-formation
Here is what Desmet says:
"Is there any steering and manipulation at all then? The answer is a resounding yes, there most certainly is all kinds of manipulation. And with the means available to today’s mass media, the possibilities are simply phenomenal. Such steering, however, is rarely done by individual persons; the most fundamental steering is impersonal in nature. The steering is first and foremost driven by an ideology—a way of thinking. Ideologies organize and structure society progressively and organically. As we have described in detail in the previous chapters, the dominant ideology is mechanistic in nature....
"It is at this fundamental level that we have to situate the “secret” forces that direct individuals in the same direction and ultimately organize society as a whole. Remember drawing the Sierpinski triangle; if everyone follows the same rules, strictly regular patterns emerge."
And
"If we keep in mind the definition of a conspiracy—a secret, planned, intentional and malicious scheme—we immediately notice two things: it’s not much of a secret since all the aforementioned “plans” are available on the internet." [But because the plans have been published does NOT mean that there are no plans!]
And
"These are examples of how an ideology gets a grip on society, not evidence of the execution of a conspiracy."
Such steering (i.e. conspiratorial manipulation) is, however, impersonal in nature. The steering is done by an ideology. So then do you understand the doublespeak? There is manipulation that is no manipulation: it's driven by the ideology.
Desmet's first chapters are to prove how ideology takes over rational thinking, so that he can then say, in chapter 8, that any notion of conspiracy and manipulation is deeply mistaken because the impersonal ideology did it.
Please pay close attention to the doublespeak. That's why his book is so insidious. I doubt that Desmet even conceived the book; I suspect that he was given the outline and talking points, because my sense is that he isn't a devious person. However, he most likely did sell out. Reward? How about massive promotion?
This of course is speculation on my part but the alternative is: he's a very sloppy theorist. Which could be true, but honestly I don't know how anyone could write such misguided and contradictory thinking with a straight face.
If something is blue and I say it's blue and you say orange, OK, we can agree to disagree, I suppose. But the damn thing is blue.
Notice how, after Desmet quotes himself in your link, he then says: "Do they [Breggins] really believe that I claim that long term mass-formation arises in a completely spontaneous way, without someone ever intentionally steering and manipulating the masses?" But that's exactly what Desmet claims, as above: "Such steering, however, is rarely done by individual persons; the most fundamental steering is impersonal in nature. The steering is first and foremost driven by an ideology—a way of thinking."
The "most fundamental steering." The steering is "first and foremost" driven by an ideology. It's impersonal.
Desmet seems like a decent person to me-- I've watched a number of his interviews-- and at first I accepted the consensus view on him. But reading his book carefully, it's obvious that it contains an insidious doublespeak and there can be absolutely no doubt that his central point and the thrust of his book, as stated clearly in chapter 8, is to dismiss any notion of conspirators acting against we, the people, to induce mass formation. But, we did not do it; we did not induce mass formation on ourselves, and self-hypnotize through a massive propaganda campaign 24/7, which as you recall is what happened. It was done to us.
People are confused by Desmet's words. Pay attention to his concepts and how they relate and to the logic of his arguments.
But its not "insidious" and it's not "doublespeak" rather it weighs the different aspects of what is going on and sees them in a nuanced fashion.
Great work - Thank you🙏 A psychoanalyst are you also getting a sense of postmodern deconstructionist syntax and hermeneutics in his writing? 🤔
Thx very much 🙏
To tell the truth, I don't pay much attention to postmodern deconstructionist syntax and hermeneutics, although I did pick up on references to Foucault.
I pay attention to concepts, contradictions, definitions, and the structure of the arguments.
Word salad, after the fact. Doesn't change what was written in the book.