I read Desmet carefully and took extensive notes. I also read Arendt, whom Desmet sources for much of his thinking. Arendt is profound; Desmet is not. I have training in philosophy and logic, so I look for the concepts and contradictions and where his argument is going.
I read what Desmet says, and use his words. His work is insidious, in my opinion, because he says and not-says the same thing, so that people take what they think he says and don't pay attention how he subtly undermines what he says, oftentimes on the same page. That's because he really wants to undermine the notion of conspiracy: that's his goal, and that's why he provides us with a natural, mechanistic explanation of how many of us fell into mass formation because we were already mechanistic thinkers in a society saturated with fear.
Really??? His program is to dehumanize us (we're most of us dehumanized mechanistic thinkers) so that he can prove that we really did it to ourselves.
No one induced the mass formation, no one made us fearful and confused so that we'd perhaps be steered into vaccine passports, no one deliberately and viciously suppressed safe early treatment for Covid, it was just the "ideology." Really? The WEF is just "the ideology." Gate is just the ideology, Fauci is, everyone is, no one is to blame except the ideology! Sure, Desmet says someone is to blame but as he giveth, he also taketh away, because he insists that the manipulators were themselves captured by the ideology.
The ideology did it! There was no conspiracy. Read chapter 8.
Desmet: "Focusing on conspiracy would have meant simultaneously pushing the boundaries of my expertise as a professor in clinical psychology and putting myself at risk of being cancelled so thoroughly that my speech would not have an effect anymore. I acknowledge that this is hardly an excuse."
And yet he lectures us on speaking truth! Give me a break.
This sounds suspiciously like an "appeal to experts" argument when you speak of "logic and philosophy" training. I would think that any of us could make similar claims.
He doesn't say and not say the same thing, rather he sees a spectrum of different things occurring. Think of it like a stampede. A stampede is an organic thing. It can be induced, and it can also be manipulated. But the Stampede itself is a mass formation. It was used by Scar in the lion king to kill Mufasa.
As a result of such an event, who do you blame for Mufasa's death? Do you think it is victimless? Scar did not create the stampede, but the stampede was used and manipulated to kill his enemy.
I was biased in favor of Desmet until Malone sued Breggin, and that compelled me to read what Breggin had to say. It also caused me to look more closely at what Desmet said, since what Desmet says is a key issue in the Malone/Breggin feud.
When all is said and done, Breggin is 100% right about Desmet.
No, he is not. He simply sees things differently. If Breggin produces evidence of his claims against Malone in court, IтАЩll change my opinion. I donтАЩt believe he has any evidence. He simply has a difference of opinion.
Nowhere in that article does he state that he believes what we now KNOW happened. The creation and release of a bioweapon. Period. It's a stunning word salad about turning people into zombies, but says nothing about the actual crime committed.
You are deliberately misrepresenting what Desmet has said.
https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/am-i-an-expert-in-mass-formation
I read Desmet carefully and took extensive notes. I also read Arendt, whom Desmet sources for much of his thinking. Arendt is profound; Desmet is not. I have training in philosophy and logic, so I look for the concepts and contradictions and where his argument is going.
I read what Desmet says, and use his words. His work is insidious, in my opinion, because he says and not-says the same thing, so that people take what they think he says and don't pay attention how he subtly undermines what he says, oftentimes on the same page. That's because he really wants to undermine the notion of conspiracy: that's his goal, and that's why he provides us with a natural, mechanistic explanation of how many of us fell into mass formation because we were already mechanistic thinkers in a society saturated with fear.
Really??? His program is to dehumanize us (we're most of us dehumanized mechanistic thinkers) so that he can prove that we really did it to ourselves.
No one induced the mass formation, no one made us fearful and confused so that we'd perhaps be steered into vaccine passports, no one deliberately and viciously suppressed safe early treatment for Covid, it was just the "ideology." Really? The WEF is just "the ideology." Gate is just the ideology, Fauci is, everyone is, no one is to blame except the ideology! Sure, Desmet says someone is to blame but as he giveth, he also taketh away, because he insists that the manipulators were themselves captured by the ideology.
The ideology did it! There was no conspiracy. Read chapter 8.
Desmet: "Focusing on conspiracy would have meant simultaneously pushing the boundaries of my expertise as a professor in clinical psychology and putting myself at risk of being cancelled so thoroughly that my speech would not have an effect anymore. I acknowledge that this is hardly an excuse."
And yet he lectures us on speaking truth! Give me a break.
This sounds suspiciously like an "appeal to experts" argument when you speak of "logic and philosophy" training. I would think that any of us could make similar claims.
He doesn't say and not say the same thing, rather he sees a spectrum of different things occurring. Think of it like a stampede. A stampede is an organic thing. It can be induced, and it can also be manipulated. But the Stampede itself is a mass formation. It was used by Scar in the lion king to kill Mufasa.
As a result of such an event, who do you blame for Mufasa's death? Do you think it is victimless? Scar did not create the stampede, but the stampede was used and manipulated to kill his enemy.
You're confusing mob activity with deliberate orchestration to induce fear and confusion in a population, which according to Desmet didn't happen.
Sorry, I'm not going to be in the Desmet fan club.
That is abundantly clear. You are biased.
I was biased in favor of Desmet until Malone sued Breggin, and that compelled me to read what Breggin had to say. It also caused me to look more closely at what Desmet said, since what Desmet says is a key issue in the Malone/Breggin feud.
When all is said and done, Breggin is 100% right about Desmet.
No, he is not. He simply sees things differently. If Breggin produces evidence of his claims against Malone in court, IтАЩll change my opinion. I donтАЩt believe he has any evidence. He simply has a difference of opinion.
Every reply of yours is brilliant. Thank you. ЁЯСНЁЯП╗
Nowhere in that article does he state that he believes what we now KNOW happened. The creation and release of a bioweapon. Period. It's a stunning word salad about turning people into zombies, but says nothing about the actual crime committed.