Desmet says on page 175, "Totalitarianism is the belief that the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society." Is that really the definition of totalitarianism? Does it even make sense? America was founded on the belief that "the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society": the founding fathers …
Desmet says on page 175, "Totalitarianism is the belief that the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society." Is that really the definition of totalitarianism? Does it even make sense? America was founded on the belief that "the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society": the founding fathers were thoroughly steeped in Enlightenment thinking, which Desmet takes pains to disparage. Was America totalitarian at the founding?
Why would Desmet say that?
On page 91, Desmet summarizes the mechanism for mass formation. The first point is that society is first gripped by a fanatical, mechanistic ideology prior to the formation. Was that true prior to Covid, or even during Covid? If there was a fanatical ideology akin to what Arendt describes, wasn't that the ideology of "stay safe" (which didn't exist prior to Covid to serve as a source of "fanaticism") carried to absurdity during Covid in exactly the manner that Arendt describes, although not to the extreme? THAT was Desmet's true handle if he did indeed wish to point out to us how we were seized by the ideology of a single idea. He missed it. Yet right there he could have found many fruitful parallels to Arendt's writing. And yes, that idea was indeed the real beginning of totalitarian tendency, not the insipid "mechanistic thinking," a term so broad it could cover all of science and technology.
If you think that Desmet's book doesn't prove there was no conspiracy-- if that wasn't his point-- then what was chapter 8 about and what was the Sierpinski triangle about?
The society prior to Covid was not the society that Desmet says it was but he has to dehumanize us because his main point is that it was all our fault and he must say that because his aim was to prove there was no conspiracy. Whatever he said after that, in public, was in my view simply trying to weasel out of what he wrote.
If someone is inconsistent, then we have to ask, well, what does he really mean? Does he even know? If you can say and not-say something at the same time, that's not the mark of a scholar. That's the mark of a charlatan.
All manipulation, all bad actors, all conspirators, everything, it didn't really happen. It was all an illusion like the Sierpinski triangle. Everyone was seized by an ideology that did the steering. The ideology did it. That's his point.
There was no decades-long orchestration: a conspiracy! There was only the ideology. Blame the impersonal ideology, please.
The book is one long apology for the conspirators. It's also a sustained denigration of Enlightenment reason, as if the Great Narrative can and should be our guide. But who decides what the Great Narrative is? Schwab? Desmet? Gates? Fauci? An oligarchy? A kleptocracy?
"The Psychology of Totalitarianism" is an insidious book. It's seductive; I actually agree with parts, but the whole makes no sense.
First of all, before I go any further, know that I don’t agree with everything Desmet says. A part of me even wonders why we are even having this debate. This is one persons theory on why so many people fell for the Covid narrative. And I have often used it not to blame, but rather to remove blame from the many who succumbed to the narrative.
As I thought from the beginning of the pandemic, it was like “yelling into a hurricane” to get the truth out there. It was impossible to quiet the panic and fear being perpetuated through propaganda 24/7. Or rather, it felt impossible.
I knew many people who are not stupid who succumbed to the narrative, and when I read Desmet’s writing, and heard his appearances I thought “this does to a degree explain what happened. In addition, Bonhoeffer and C.S. Lewis and I imagine there are many other voices out there that explain it as well. Not to mention Solzhenitsyn.
In the book I have, you speak of the start of chapter 11 which in pdf format is on p.158. You stopped too soon in this opening paragraph. Here it is in full:
“Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society. It aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly. In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society (see, for example, Bertrand Russell in The Impact ofScience on Society).”
I think the danger that is inferred in that definition of totalitarianism is the unconstrained view of society. The sad thing that "human intellect" fails to acknowledge is "human nature." The unconstrained view of humanity believes things like "socialism will work if it was done in a correct manner" or more recently "Masks would work if we wore them correctly all of the time." A more general way of thinking this is "we can do the impossible if we can simply leave behind our human nature.” Sorry, but some things don’t work, such as forcing others into what someone deems “doing the right thing.”
The general form of totalitarianism is defined as:
"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed."
If you look at the first paragraph of chapter 11 and this definition of totalitarianism, there isn't much difference. Technocracy is a form of government. And it does sound very much like an artificial society where it exercises absolute and centralized authority over all aspects of life to make sure that the "machine runs flawlessly."
You can't take one sentence of a paragraph out of context, and there is also a difference between an ideology and an idea. One of the founding principles of America is that each individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which to the definition Desmet presents above is incompatible with the totalitarian society.
Because in such totalitarian societies, liberty and happiness are "not essential." to this artificial society.
Concerning fanatical mechanistic ideology:
Yes there is, and to an extent. I think that ideology to an extent has been extended through some of our culture like “Star Trek” That we can create this artificial utopia where technology and human intellect can win the day. Bill Gates didn’t suddenly just emerge in 2020. He has been proposing technological answers to serious questions of our lives for years. Artificial meat, vaccines, etc. Hasn’t the digital connection to bank accounts solved problems? Do you remember life before ATM’s? Going to the bank on a Friday?
In fact, in a lot of things in life, don’t we use a technological metaphor to discuss our complaint for something that isn’t being done. “They can land a man on the moon, but can’t solve the homeless crisis.”
Overall this belief is that every human problem has a technological solution. That’s why it was so easy for people to buy into the vaccine. If you look at a lot of our TV shows and cultural works, there is an embedded almost ubiquitous trust in the state and science. Or if there is a distrust in the state…it is almost always seen as rather “a trust in another state as opposed to the state it is against.”
“Stay Safe” has been around for many years. George Carlin talked a lot about it in his comedy bit concerning germs…safety..and warnings of the government. Safety has been a huge way government has enforced and encroached into our lives. Go to California and try to do anything on a beach other than walk on it and maybe swim. Cars have seat belts, diving boards were removed, playground equipment has been “revised.” How do you feel about letting your kid go out and play for hours at a time unsupervised? All of this is under the banner of “safety
The point of chapter 8 was to show what part conspiracy played in the mass formation. That’s why the chapter is titled “Ideology and Conspiracy” and not “Ideology Rather Than Conspiracy.”
I’ve read some of Breggin's work and again, I have to disagree. None of this talk on mass formation removes the blame from leaders and such during the pandemic. Rather it explains why so many of us fell for it.
What was the society that Desmet says it was prior to Covid? How did he dehumanize us? To an extent it is all our fault that we fell for the narrative., but again that does not remove the blame from those who told those lies or spread that propaganda. Also it is not “dehumanizing” to say we all bear the blame in believing the narrative. In fact, that is “humanizing” us to do so. To admit a mistake in thinking is human-affirming.
If what he says in public to clarify his points does not meet with your approval, that is on you. I can tell you that many times I have written something, and then later realized the unintended consequences of writing it. I guarantee you that I am probably writing some things now that will need further clarification. Are you going to disregard my later responses as an attempt to “weasel out” of them?
He does not say that at all. Rather he says it was part of it, and a part of it perpetuated by them. At the same time, here is a thought…that has been proposed elsewhere. That at one point, some of these policies and propaganda were perpetuated by those that knew the truth, but over time they were replaced by other people that believed the adopted new"truth." And thus now, the scary thought is these people don’t realize that the narrative is even a narrative.
The Sierpinksi triangle shows us that following simple rules leads to a pattern.What you forget is that the rules could be added to and steered by manipulation, and within the confines of the ideology to make it appear credible and consistent within the framework of that mass formation.
I don’t think you understand what he is saying when he says “impersonal ideology.” Again, he isn’t saying there wasn’t a conspiracy, but rather there is a spectrum here. There is mass formation, there is ideology, and there is conspiracy. If you listen to the different agencies. The CDC, the media news outlets, the government. you realize either there is a funny shell game going on or it’s full of a bunch of incompetent ideologues and bureaucrats. They each pointing at one another going “I got my policies from you.” Which means that they all share the blame. The buck stops with all of them. You think that Desmet book excuses them, and blames those who succumbed. But I think the opposite is true. That he excuses those who succumbed to the mass formation and blames those that fomented and spread the propaganda, doing it within the parameters of the ideology it espoused. And no, it wasn’t personal. In fact, it was very “dehumanizing.” .
If you read anything else I write, know this, and I am going to write this in all caps. IN NO WAY DO I EXCUSE OUR GOVERNMENT, THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA, OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER COERCING OTHERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ARBITARY AND CAPRICIOUS POLICIES CONCERNING COVID-19. Finally, I want to ask you this, how is it I can believe the above statement and yet believe what I do concerning Desmet’s book unless it is not as insidious as you think it is.
You are welcome to copy some of your comments to my substack where we can continue our conservation. I'm going to try to be brief so as not to take up space.
Your comments on Desmet's definition of totalitarianism are a perfect demonstration of how misleading Desmet is. You believe that Desmet proved something. He proved nothing. He only strings three sentences together and deceives the reader-- and perhaps himself-- that he's said something.
Let's break it down. You quote Desmet:
“Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society. It aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly. In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society..."
First sentence: "Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society." This isn't a standard definition of totalitarianism, nor does it comport with the definition you provided later. Political philosophers since Plato have used their intellects to try to sort out guiding principles for society; this doesn't make them totalitarians. So if Desmet is giving us a non-standard definition, we'd expect him to elaborate.
Second sentence: "It [totalitarianism] aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly." OK, let's substitute the definition of totalitarianism given in the first sentence, thusly: "the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly." But this doesn't follow. The belief in the human intellect can, and has, led to all sorts of societies, including one wherein individual self-determination is the highest principle in a free-market atmosphere.
Third sentence: "In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society..." So let's substitute: "In this view [that the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society] the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society..."
This is simply stating something without having demonstrated anything. Human intellect has, among other things, led to democratic societies; nothing about the guide of human intellect necessitates a collective society. Political philosophy proves this; so does history.
So yes, totalitarianism does aim to subordinate individuals to a greater good that authoritarians have determined. But nowhere has Desmet demonstrated that the human intellect, seeking answers to problems and having already led to great advances in science, medicine, etc., leads necessarily to totalitarianism, yet that's exactly what his first statement says: that is his (non-standard) definition of totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism requires censorship, surveillance, and enforcement. It has very little to do with "the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society."
Why does Desmet want to demote Enlightenment reason? Perhaps because he wants to promote the ascendancy of narrative over reason? Perhaps because he doesn't want anyone to notice his sloppy logic? Or is it because he has written an apology for the conspirators and has to make stuff up to support his argument?
Desmet isn't misleading, he is nuanced in his definition of totalitarianism.
The problem is that when quoting Desmet, you attempt to separate the first sentence of the definition from the rest. That full quote is his definition of Totalitarianism. I guarantee if, if you challenged him on his definition of totalitarianism it would be the full paragraph definition. He would consider it odd that you would challenge just the first sentence, because I agree, the first sentence alone is not the standard definition.
However I will add this.Desmet warns against a society run on intellect alone, and perhaps that is what he is getting at here. Once you start down the path of coming at things from an intellectual/rational/mechanistic view that can only lead to bad ends. You start to view people statistically. You don’t see their intrinsic individual value.
Say what you want about our American system, but on the surface “liberty and pursuit of happiness” are not intellectual or rational. Why allow people the ability to make bad decisions? To enjoy frivolous activities that give them joy? When you pursue intellect as a guide to life and society and sublimate that to other less rational notions, such as endeavors of the spirit, and the needs afforded our human nature, then the inevitability of totalitarianism can be the only answer.
If you listen to Desmet talk, he does not speak of just any form of government where “human intellect can be a guiding principle.”
Regarding the second sentence of the definition, Desmet is clear though that what you are referring to is not what he is talking about. The first clue its he word “artificial.” The society of the United States has been, for the most part, organic. In that, until recently, we could come together, interact, organize, as we pleased.
A lot of what Desmet’s totalitarian definition entails is that most if not all of society would be recreated to ensure the machine of society runs flawlessly. It takes an “unconstrained” view of the world, thinking that any problem can be solved by the intellect. Reduce transmission, wear masks. Get infected, get a vaccine? Cases, increase, isolate and lockdown. The problem is, the intellect needs to understand human limitations and nature.
We shouldn’t be isolated for long periods of time, we shouldn’t be masked, we don’t need experimental chemicals injected into our veins. A huge component of societies, any society worth its salt has compassion as part of what makes it great. There is also the knowledge of the fact, that give people a choice, and many will do the right thing. Don’t give them a choice, and there should be a lot of self examination of the demands being made upon that society.
Regarding the third sentence, what Desmet shows here is that good intentions can lead to bad ends. Believe it or not, Desmet recognizes, as we all should that a lot of these regimes do not simply take a foothold if they started putting boots on people’s necks at the beginning. A lot of governments types and ideas look good on the surface. That first sentence is proof of that. Of course, the United States had a lot of great intellectual ideas that were part of its founding. But they weren’t straight intellectual ideals. There was mixed within spiritual and emotional components. There is the intrinsic belief that humans are born with a free will, and should have the capacity and choice to make bad decisions, or what they consider to be good decisions in their life.
It isn’t sloppy logic, it is nuanced thought. Here it is, human intellect has always led to totalitarian regimes. At the same time, human intellect has also led to great advances in our lifetimes as well, which is why he did not leave the definition of totalitarianism to that first sentence alone.
He demonstrates in his definition of totalitarianism that pursuits of the intellect and rational mind alone can only lead to bad ends, due to an unconstrained view of the world. Yes, the intellect seeking answers to problems have led to great advances, but part of that “seeking” is compassion, love, and a desire to heal. Sadly, such intellect can be turned and corrupted as well. When the intellectual pursuit begins to compromise on the compassion aspect, such as how many injuries and deaths can one accept for a given vaccine or drug being tested, then it begins to quantify the worth of life.Intellect then begins to think of people less as an end, but rather, a means to an end.
Desmet does not demote enlightenment, but rather shows that intellectual creation can easily lead to intellectual corruption. That the same faculties that can bring advances to our lives, can, if gone unabated, lead to horrible brutishness. I’d invite you to listen to Desmet speak more on the subject, but you would more than likely see it as “weaseling out.”
Of course totalitarianism requires censorship, surveillance, and enforcement. Because that is what will occur should the intellect be the pure motive at the expense of compassion. Think of it, freedom is frivolous if there is only one right answer. so why should any "wrong" answers even be considered?
"Once you start down the path of coming at things from an intellectual/rational/mechanistic view that can only lead to bad ends. You start to view people statistically. You don’t see their intrinsic individual value. "
Now you're pulling a Desmet. Your sentences make assumptions that have no empirical basis. We're a technological society, not a technocratic one, and just because we try to solve problems rationally doesn't mean that things will come to a bad end, nor does it necessarily means that we must therefore view people statistically. Any manager who works with people knows that you have to take each individual as they are and work with that. Any manager, who of course has to manage things rationally, knows that people are people and have lives and sometimes have bad days and personal problems.
You're assuming that reason excludes emotion or spiritual leanings. There's no reason that the intellect, which is basically that whereby we perceive things and order them, has to exclude emotion or spirituality, and in fact numerous books have been written about the relation of reason and logic to emotions and spirituality. We might say that much of philosophy is about the role of reason in relation to emotion and our humanity that excludes "logic," and certainly much of ethical philosophy is.
Stop making stuff up. Don't follow in Desmet's footsteps. I don't think you understand what Desmet is saying at all, and this is because you fall for his assumptions. He has to make these baseless assumptions because his core project is to excuse the perpetrators and to condemn those of us who believe there was a conspiracy-- and he most clearly and emphatically does condemn conspiracy thinkers.
Your bias is blinding you. Maybe you've made your mind up that Desmet makes sense, and you're not going to back down? Sorry. Desmet makes no sense at all.
Let me clarify, or in your parlance, "weasel out." What I mean by "intellectual/rational/mechanistic" is that in leiu of other approaches, such as the principled and moral aspect of weighing a problem. We saw that in the last three years. In a way we tried to "brute force" away respiratory virus at the expense of all other considerations.
While it is true, that traditionally we have been a technological society, it has shown many technocratic tendencies over the past three years, and perhaps much longer. How many times were we told to shut up because we aren't "the experts." How many times have many of us even appealed to our own experts to counter others with their experts?
Just so we are on the same page this is the definition of a technocracy:
Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-maker or makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.
Full disclosure, that is the wikipeadia definition. Here is another from Webster:
A government or social system controlled by technicians, especially scientists and technical experts.
This faith in our institutions and the expertise expressed within each has existed longer than three years. I can show you examples of it ubiquitous in fiction and non fiction alike. And over the last three years the overstepping of those boundaries is evident throughout. I don't have to give you examples of how often the CDC, Fauci, NIH, WHO or some other health organization was on the forefront of "recommendations concerning mandates." and how such measures while maybe not becoming "law" certainly because mandatory.
It is true that solving problems rationally won't come to a bad end unless, it is at the expense of all other considerations. Desmet makes that clear by not stopping at one sentence in his definition of totalitarianism. We went into a complete "unconstrained" view of our world during the pandemic, seeing that any measure to get rid of the virus was not only optimal, but mandatory.
I am not assuming anything, I am simply describing the guidelines by which Desmet makes it known what he defines as a "totalitarian state" or moving in that direction.
In regards to viewing people as statistics, a lot of fudging the numbers, of creating "covid cases" based on the faulty testing and just assuming Covid due to symptoms, served as a justification for many of the measures and mandates.
Of course numerous books have been written about the relation and logic to emotions, and spirituality. Desmet in his definition warns of such intellect subverting or pushing aside those other considerations.
I agree with you that reason does not necessarily exclude emotion or spiritual leanings. I thought I had made that clear when I mentioned our American system which provides two rights that are not necessarily rational in nature "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And Desmet does not believe that all uses of intellect for guidance in
I think at some point, I meant to say that not all intellectual guidance in life leads to totalitarian governments, but all totalitarian governments arise out of intellectual guidance in life and government. I thought I had made that clear in giving the example of our American system, but I can admit fault.
What stuff am I making up?
Presuming that I am making stuff up, what does it matter? And what does it matter if I follow in Desmet's footsteps or not. Aside which, I am not following in anyone's footsteps. In truth, I don't understand a lot of this such strong reaction to Desmet. He describes the process of mass formation which does well to describe a lot of what has been going on for the last three years. Also, it's a theory. And like theories I've often thought there are things we can take from it, and things we can leave.
I also read what Bonhoeffer wrote about German citizens who "became stupid" and I disagreed with his assurance that they became "stupid." I think simply other impulses subverted their intellect causing them to either be pressured or suffer from cognitive dissonance being presented with a narrative and reality, and finding themselves in compliance to the concensus as opposed to their better judgment. See also: The Milgram Experiment.
In terms of what Desmet is and isn't saying, I do believe I know what he is saying. I have shown that in spite of what is said elsewhere, he is not excusing the people behind this. I think what it is you don't like is that he is not as critical enough of those who were purveyors of this propaganda and that leads you to the belief that he is giving those who contributed and fell for the narrative the mantle of victimhood. I disagree. Rather, he describes why it is that so many succumbed to the narrative, which to me does not exclude from responsibility those who inflicted the policies that erupted from the narrative.
He doesn't condemn those of us who believe there was a conspiracy, nor does he condemn conspiracy thinkers, he simply believes that the conspiracy is less involved than perhaps they believe. Also, I think that perhaps you are thinking that because these people who are leaders who believe the ideology they espouse, and from which motivates them to act in such a controlling matter excuses their behavior. I again, do not see evidence of this. I haven't heard him say that "Hitler was excused for believing in the ideology" or that others were either.
I honestly don't know how far the conspiracy may go. I will admit I am biased,but we are all biased. That's why throughout the last three years and longer, I've laughed at fact checkers, and sites that can give you a litmus test of "bias." Like the sites that measure bias aren't biased.
I am skeptical of going too far in either direction, maybe that makes me lukewarm. I read one article, and it makes it sound full conspiracy, I read Eugyppius and he is more along the lines of "incompetent screw ups' that lead the way. This by the way seems to follow the line of thinking that Desmet has, that we are ruled by these technocratic elites that are bureaucrats and not necessarily the sharpest scissors in the drawer.
I know there are many bad actors out there. I am also of the belief that among them are incompetent people who actually bought this BS, and are "true believers" in the ideology, not necessarily the narrative. Do I know, who and what and how much? No, which is exactly why I will not go "full conspiracy" but it would be foolish to also deny "any conspiracy" as I have seen a lot of evidence of it, as have you.
Final remarks. About 10:40 on Tucker Carlson's interview of Desmet, he say that mass formation can be artificially created through indoctrination/propaganda. Do you think that in so doing, he is saying that mass formation is a victimless crime?
Around 32:55 he speaks to the mechanistic view...that a rationalist view disconnects us from the social/natural environment. That alone can lead to the mass formation. If you are disconnected to the world around you, then how much easier is it to believe in a narrative? That all aspects of life can be reduced to our own rational thinking.. At the same time elites, through this understanding of psychology, learn how to manipulate and control the population.
He goes on to talk about how in a representative democracy, the elite realize that since leaders are elected, they have to "follow the masses" rather than control them, and so they use propaganda and indoctrination to constantly control the masses to make sure they are not ruled by them. What do you think he is saying here, that these elite and leaders are blameless?
He goes on to say that the ideology is the thing he really wants to fight against, and I would have to agree, but that doesn't mean at the expense of those who have inflicted and controlled people and tried to inflict this ideology on others.
If there is anything I am biased about it is the non violent speaking of the truth against the narrative and these people. Peaceful noncompliance and calling out the narrative are my guidelines. This means speaking rationally, but at the same time weighing things through moral principles as well. In the end, to a degree, it is out of my selfish wish to remain free that I argue against this narrative and idealogy as it can only promise more control, surveillance, and enforcement as more and more policies are instituted that artificially go against our nature which is to interact with one another and our environment.
Oddly, when you say that "Desmet makes no sense at all" throughout your interactions here, you have said that he does make sense at times. That at times, you even even see" mass formation" you just don't agree with it's origins.
Desmet says on page 175, "Totalitarianism is the belief that the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society." Is that really the definition of totalitarianism? Does it even make sense? America was founded on the belief that "the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society": the founding fathers were thoroughly steeped in Enlightenment thinking, which Desmet takes pains to disparage. Was America totalitarian at the founding?
Why would Desmet say that?
On page 91, Desmet summarizes the mechanism for mass formation. The first point is that society is first gripped by a fanatical, mechanistic ideology prior to the formation. Was that true prior to Covid, or even during Covid? If there was a fanatical ideology akin to what Arendt describes, wasn't that the ideology of "stay safe" (which didn't exist prior to Covid to serve as a source of "fanaticism") carried to absurdity during Covid in exactly the manner that Arendt describes, although not to the extreme? THAT was Desmet's true handle if he did indeed wish to point out to us how we were seized by the ideology of a single idea. He missed it. Yet right there he could have found many fruitful parallels to Arendt's writing. And yes, that idea was indeed the real beginning of totalitarian tendency, not the insipid "mechanistic thinking," a term so broad it could cover all of science and technology.
If you think that Desmet's book doesn't prove there was no conspiracy-- if that wasn't his point-- then what was chapter 8 about and what was the Sierpinski triangle about?
I've linked to Breggin; you should read what he says and consider it. My own essay should be helpful, too. https://jimreagen.substack.com/p/on-the-psychology-of-totalitarianism But if not, then there's nothing else I can say.
The society prior to Covid was not the society that Desmet says it was but he has to dehumanize us because his main point is that it was all our fault and he must say that because his aim was to prove there was no conspiracy. Whatever he said after that, in public, was in my view simply trying to weasel out of what he wrote.
If someone is inconsistent, then we have to ask, well, what does he really mean? Does he even know? If you can say and not-say something at the same time, that's not the mark of a scholar. That's the mark of a charlatan.
All manipulation, all bad actors, all conspirators, everything, it didn't really happen. It was all an illusion like the Sierpinski triangle. Everyone was seized by an ideology that did the steering. The ideology did it. That's his point.
There was no decades-long orchestration: a conspiracy! There was only the ideology. Blame the impersonal ideology, please.
The book is one long apology for the conspirators. It's also a sustained denigration of Enlightenment reason, as if the Great Narrative can and should be our guide. But who decides what the Great Narrative is? Schwab? Desmet? Gates? Fauci? An oligarchy? A kleptocracy?
"The Psychology of Totalitarianism" is an insidious book. It's seductive; I actually agree with parts, but the whole makes no sense.
First of all, before I go any further, know that I don’t agree with everything Desmet says. A part of me even wonders why we are even having this debate. This is one persons theory on why so many people fell for the Covid narrative. And I have often used it not to blame, but rather to remove blame from the many who succumbed to the narrative.
As I thought from the beginning of the pandemic, it was like “yelling into a hurricane” to get the truth out there. It was impossible to quiet the panic and fear being perpetuated through propaganda 24/7. Or rather, it felt impossible.
I knew many people who are not stupid who succumbed to the narrative, and when I read Desmet’s writing, and heard his appearances I thought “this does to a degree explain what happened. In addition, Bonhoeffer and C.S. Lewis and I imagine there are many other voices out there that explain it as well. Not to mention Solzhenitsyn.
In the book I have, you speak of the start of chapter 11 which in pdf format is on p.158. You stopped too soon in this opening paragraph. Here it is in full:
“Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society. It aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly. In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society (see, for example, Bertrand Russell in The Impact ofScience on Society).”
I think the danger that is inferred in that definition of totalitarianism is the unconstrained view of society. The sad thing that "human intellect" fails to acknowledge is "human nature." The unconstrained view of humanity believes things like "socialism will work if it was done in a correct manner" or more recently "Masks would work if we wore them correctly all of the time." A more general way of thinking this is "we can do the impossible if we can simply leave behind our human nature.” Sorry, but some things don’t work, such as forcing others into what someone deems “doing the right thing.”
The general form of totalitarianism is defined as:
"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed."
If you look at the first paragraph of chapter 11 and this definition of totalitarianism, there isn't much difference. Technocracy is a form of government. And it does sound very much like an artificial society where it exercises absolute and centralized authority over all aspects of life to make sure that the "machine runs flawlessly."
You can't take one sentence of a paragraph out of context, and there is also a difference between an ideology and an idea. One of the founding principles of America is that each individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which to the definition Desmet presents above is incompatible with the totalitarian society.
Because in such totalitarian societies, liberty and happiness are "not essential." to this artificial society.
Concerning fanatical mechanistic ideology:
Yes there is, and to an extent. I think that ideology to an extent has been extended through some of our culture like “Star Trek” That we can create this artificial utopia where technology and human intellect can win the day. Bill Gates didn’t suddenly just emerge in 2020. He has been proposing technological answers to serious questions of our lives for years. Artificial meat, vaccines, etc. Hasn’t the digital connection to bank accounts solved problems? Do you remember life before ATM’s? Going to the bank on a Friday?
In fact, in a lot of things in life, don’t we use a technological metaphor to discuss our complaint for something that isn’t being done. “They can land a man on the moon, but can’t solve the homeless crisis.”
Overall this belief is that every human problem has a technological solution. That’s why it was so easy for people to buy into the vaccine. If you look at a lot of our TV shows and cultural works, there is an embedded almost ubiquitous trust in the state and science. Or if there is a distrust in the state…it is almost always seen as rather “a trust in another state as opposed to the state it is against.”
“Stay Safe” has been around for many years. George Carlin talked a lot about it in his comedy bit concerning germs…safety..and warnings of the government. Safety has been a huge way government has enforced and encroached into our lives. Go to California and try to do anything on a beach other than walk on it and maybe swim. Cars have seat belts, diving boards were removed, playground equipment has been “revised.” How do you feel about letting your kid go out and play for hours at a time unsupervised? All of this is under the banner of “safety
The point of chapter 8 was to show what part conspiracy played in the mass formation. That’s why the chapter is titled “Ideology and Conspiracy” and not “Ideology Rather Than Conspiracy.”
I’ve read some of Breggin's work and again, I have to disagree. None of this talk on mass formation removes the blame from leaders and such during the pandemic. Rather it explains why so many of us fell for it.
What was the society that Desmet says it was prior to Covid? How did he dehumanize us? To an extent it is all our fault that we fell for the narrative., but again that does not remove the blame from those who told those lies or spread that propaganda. Also it is not “dehumanizing” to say we all bear the blame in believing the narrative. In fact, that is “humanizing” us to do so. To admit a mistake in thinking is human-affirming.
If what he says in public to clarify his points does not meet with your approval, that is on you. I can tell you that many times I have written something, and then later realized the unintended consequences of writing it. I guarantee you that I am probably writing some things now that will need further clarification. Are you going to disregard my later responses as an attempt to “weasel out” of them?
He does not say that at all. Rather he says it was part of it, and a part of it perpetuated by them. At the same time, here is a thought…that has been proposed elsewhere. That at one point, some of these policies and propaganda were perpetuated by those that knew the truth, but over time they were replaced by other people that believed the adopted new"truth." And thus now, the scary thought is these people don’t realize that the narrative is even a narrative.
The Sierpinksi triangle shows us that following simple rules leads to a pattern.What you forget is that the rules could be added to and steered by manipulation, and within the confines of the ideology to make it appear credible and consistent within the framework of that mass formation.
I don’t think you understand what he is saying when he says “impersonal ideology.” Again, he isn’t saying there wasn’t a conspiracy, but rather there is a spectrum here. There is mass formation, there is ideology, and there is conspiracy. If you listen to the different agencies. The CDC, the media news outlets, the government. you realize either there is a funny shell game going on or it’s full of a bunch of incompetent ideologues and bureaucrats. They each pointing at one another going “I got my policies from you.” Which means that they all share the blame. The buck stops with all of them. You think that Desmet book excuses them, and blames those who succumbed. But I think the opposite is true. That he excuses those who succumbed to the mass formation and blames those that fomented and spread the propaganda, doing it within the parameters of the ideology it espoused. And no, it wasn’t personal. In fact, it was very “dehumanizing.” .
If you read anything else I write, know this, and I am going to write this in all caps. IN NO WAY DO I EXCUSE OUR GOVERNMENT, THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA, OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER COERCING OTHERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ARBITARY AND CAPRICIOUS POLICIES CONCERNING COVID-19. Finally, I want to ask you this, how is it I can believe the above statement and yet believe what I do concerning Desmet’s book unless it is not as insidious as you think it is.
You are welcome to copy some of your comments to my substack where we can continue our conservation. I'm going to try to be brief so as not to take up space.
Your comments on Desmet's definition of totalitarianism are a perfect demonstration of how misleading Desmet is. You believe that Desmet proved something. He proved nothing. He only strings three sentences together and deceives the reader-- and perhaps himself-- that he's said something.
Let's break it down. You quote Desmet:
“Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society. It aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly. In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society..."
First sentence: "Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society." This isn't a standard definition of totalitarianism, nor does it comport with the definition you provided later. Political philosophers since Plato have used their intellects to try to sort out guiding principles for society; this doesn't make them totalitarians. So if Desmet is giving us a non-standard definition, we'd expect him to elaborate.
Second sentence: "It [totalitarianism] aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly." OK, let's substitute the definition of totalitarianism given in the first sentence, thusly: "the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society aims to create a utopian, artificial society led by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly." But this doesn't follow. The belief in the human intellect can, and has, led to all sorts of societies, including one wherein individual self-determination is the highest principle in a free-market atmosphere.
Third sentence: "In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society..." So let's substitute: "In this view [that the human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society] the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society..."
This is simply stating something without having demonstrated anything. Human intellect has, among other things, led to democratic societies; nothing about the guide of human intellect necessitates a collective society. Political philosophy proves this; so does history.
So yes, totalitarianism does aim to subordinate individuals to a greater good that authoritarians have determined. But nowhere has Desmet demonstrated that the human intellect, seeking answers to problems and having already led to great advances in science, medicine, etc., leads necessarily to totalitarianism, yet that's exactly what his first statement says: that is his (non-standard) definition of totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism requires censorship, surveillance, and enforcement. It has very little to do with "the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society."
Why does Desmet want to demote Enlightenment reason? Perhaps because he wants to promote the ascendancy of narrative over reason? Perhaps because he doesn't want anyone to notice his sloppy logic? Or is it because he has written an apology for the conspirators and has to make stuff up to support his argument?
Desmet isn't misleading, he is nuanced in his definition of totalitarianism.
The problem is that when quoting Desmet, you attempt to separate the first sentence of the definition from the rest. That full quote is his definition of Totalitarianism. I guarantee if, if you challenged him on his definition of totalitarianism it would be the full paragraph definition. He would consider it odd that you would challenge just the first sentence, because I agree, the first sentence alone is not the standard definition.
However I will add this.Desmet warns against a society run on intellect alone, and perhaps that is what he is getting at here. Once you start down the path of coming at things from an intellectual/rational/mechanistic view that can only lead to bad ends. You start to view people statistically. You don’t see their intrinsic individual value.
Say what you want about our American system, but on the surface “liberty and pursuit of happiness” are not intellectual or rational. Why allow people the ability to make bad decisions? To enjoy frivolous activities that give them joy? When you pursue intellect as a guide to life and society and sublimate that to other less rational notions, such as endeavors of the spirit, and the needs afforded our human nature, then the inevitability of totalitarianism can be the only answer.
If you listen to Desmet talk, he does not speak of just any form of government where “human intellect can be a guiding principle.”
Regarding the second sentence of the definition, Desmet is clear though that what you are referring to is not what he is talking about. The first clue its he word “artificial.” The society of the United States has been, for the most part, organic. In that, until recently, we could come together, interact, organize, as we pleased.
A lot of what Desmet’s totalitarian definition entails is that most if not all of society would be recreated to ensure the machine of society runs flawlessly. It takes an “unconstrained” view of the world, thinking that any problem can be solved by the intellect. Reduce transmission, wear masks. Get infected, get a vaccine? Cases, increase, isolate and lockdown. The problem is, the intellect needs to understand human limitations and nature.
We shouldn’t be isolated for long periods of time, we shouldn’t be masked, we don’t need experimental chemicals injected into our veins. A huge component of societies, any society worth its salt has compassion as part of what makes it great. There is also the knowledge of the fact, that give people a choice, and many will do the right thing. Don’t give them a choice, and there should be a lot of self examination of the demands being made upon that society.
Regarding the third sentence, what Desmet shows here is that good intentions can lead to bad ends. Believe it or not, Desmet recognizes, as we all should that a lot of these regimes do not simply take a foothold if they started putting boots on people’s necks at the beginning. A lot of governments types and ideas look good on the surface. That first sentence is proof of that. Of course, the United States had a lot of great intellectual ideas that were part of its founding. But they weren’t straight intellectual ideals. There was mixed within spiritual and emotional components. There is the intrinsic belief that humans are born with a free will, and should have the capacity and choice to make bad decisions, or what they consider to be good decisions in their life.
It isn’t sloppy logic, it is nuanced thought. Here it is, human intellect has always led to totalitarian regimes. At the same time, human intellect has also led to great advances in our lifetimes as well, which is why he did not leave the definition of totalitarianism to that first sentence alone.
He demonstrates in his definition of totalitarianism that pursuits of the intellect and rational mind alone can only lead to bad ends, due to an unconstrained view of the world. Yes, the intellect seeking answers to problems have led to great advances, but part of that “seeking” is compassion, love, and a desire to heal. Sadly, such intellect can be turned and corrupted as well. When the intellectual pursuit begins to compromise on the compassion aspect, such as how many injuries and deaths can one accept for a given vaccine or drug being tested, then it begins to quantify the worth of life.Intellect then begins to think of people less as an end, but rather, a means to an end.
Desmet does not demote enlightenment, but rather shows that intellectual creation can easily lead to intellectual corruption. That the same faculties that can bring advances to our lives, can, if gone unabated, lead to horrible brutishness. I’d invite you to listen to Desmet speak more on the subject, but you would more than likely see it as “weaseling out.”
Of course totalitarianism requires censorship, surveillance, and enforcement. Because that is what will occur should the intellect be the pure motive at the expense of compassion. Think of it, freedom is frivolous if there is only one right answer. so why should any "wrong" answers even be considered?
"Once you start down the path of coming at things from an intellectual/rational/mechanistic view that can only lead to bad ends. You start to view people statistically. You don’t see their intrinsic individual value. "
Now you're pulling a Desmet. Your sentences make assumptions that have no empirical basis. We're a technological society, not a technocratic one, and just because we try to solve problems rationally doesn't mean that things will come to a bad end, nor does it necessarily means that we must therefore view people statistically. Any manager who works with people knows that you have to take each individual as they are and work with that. Any manager, who of course has to manage things rationally, knows that people are people and have lives and sometimes have bad days and personal problems.
You're assuming that reason excludes emotion or spiritual leanings. There's no reason that the intellect, which is basically that whereby we perceive things and order them, has to exclude emotion or spirituality, and in fact numerous books have been written about the relation of reason and logic to emotions and spirituality. We might say that much of philosophy is about the role of reason in relation to emotion and our humanity that excludes "logic," and certainly much of ethical philosophy is.
Stop making stuff up. Don't follow in Desmet's footsteps. I don't think you understand what Desmet is saying at all, and this is because you fall for his assumptions. He has to make these baseless assumptions because his core project is to excuse the perpetrators and to condemn those of us who believe there was a conspiracy-- and he most clearly and emphatically does condemn conspiracy thinkers.
Your bias is blinding you. Maybe you've made your mind up that Desmet makes sense, and you're not going to back down? Sorry. Desmet makes no sense at all.
Let me clarify, or in your parlance, "weasel out." What I mean by "intellectual/rational/mechanistic" is that in leiu of other approaches, such as the principled and moral aspect of weighing a problem. We saw that in the last three years. In a way we tried to "brute force" away respiratory virus at the expense of all other considerations.
While it is true, that traditionally we have been a technological society, it has shown many technocratic tendencies over the past three years, and perhaps much longer. How many times were we told to shut up because we aren't "the experts." How many times have many of us even appealed to our own experts to counter others with their experts?
Just so we are on the same page this is the definition of a technocracy:
Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-maker or makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.
Full disclosure, that is the wikipeadia definition. Here is another from Webster:
A government or social system controlled by technicians, especially scientists and technical experts.
This faith in our institutions and the expertise expressed within each has existed longer than three years. I can show you examples of it ubiquitous in fiction and non fiction alike. And over the last three years the overstepping of those boundaries is evident throughout. I don't have to give you examples of how often the CDC, Fauci, NIH, WHO or some other health organization was on the forefront of "recommendations concerning mandates." and how such measures while maybe not becoming "law" certainly because mandatory.
It is true that solving problems rationally won't come to a bad end unless, it is at the expense of all other considerations. Desmet makes that clear by not stopping at one sentence in his definition of totalitarianism. We went into a complete "unconstrained" view of our world during the pandemic, seeing that any measure to get rid of the virus was not only optimal, but mandatory.
I am not assuming anything, I am simply describing the guidelines by which Desmet makes it known what he defines as a "totalitarian state" or moving in that direction.
In regards to viewing people as statistics, a lot of fudging the numbers, of creating "covid cases" based on the faulty testing and just assuming Covid due to symptoms, served as a justification for many of the measures and mandates.
Of course numerous books have been written about the relation and logic to emotions, and spirituality. Desmet in his definition warns of such intellect subverting or pushing aside those other considerations.
I agree with you that reason does not necessarily exclude emotion or spiritual leanings. I thought I had made that clear when I mentioned our American system which provides two rights that are not necessarily rational in nature "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And Desmet does not believe that all uses of intellect for guidance in
I think at some point, I meant to say that not all intellectual guidance in life leads to totalitarian governments, but all totalitarian governments arise out of intellectual guidance in life and government. I thought I had made that clear in giving the example of our American system, but I can admit fault.
What stuff am I making up?
Presuming that I am making stuff up, what does it matter? And what does it matter if I follow in Desmet's footsteps or not. Aside which, I am not following in anyone's footsteps. In truth, I don't understand a lot of this such strong reaction to Desmet. He describes the process of mass formation which does well to describe a lot of what has been going on for the last three years. Also, it's a theory. And like theories I've often thought there are things we can take from it, and things we can leave.
I also read what Bonhoeffer wrote about German citizens who "became stupid" and I disagreed with his assurance that they became "stupid." I think simply other impulses subverted their intellect causing them to either be pressured or suffer from cognitive dissonance being presented with a narrative and reality, and finding themselves in compliance to the concensus as opposed to their better judgment. See also: The Milgram Experiment.
In terms of what Desmet is and isn't saying, I do believe I know what he is saying. I have shown that in spite of what is said elsewhere, he is not excusing the people behind this. I think what it is you don't like is that he is not as critical enough of those who were purveyors of this propaganda and that leads you to the belief that he is giving those who contributed and fell for the narrative the mantle of victimhood. I disagree. Rather, he describes why it is that so many succumbed to the narrative, which to me does not exclude from responsibility those who inflicted the policies that erupted from the narrative.
He doesn't condemn those of us who believe there was a conspiracy, nor does he condemn conspiracy thinkers, he simply believes that the conspiracy is less involved than perhaps they believe. Also, I think that perhaps you are thinking that because these people who are leaders who believe the ideology they espouse, and from which motivates them to act in such a controlling matter excuses their behavior. I again, do not see evidence of this. I haven't heard him say that "Hitler was excused for believing in the ideology" or that others were either.
I honestly don't know how far the conspiracy may go. I will admit I am biased,but we are all biased. That's why throughout the last three years and longer, I've laughed at fact checkers, and sites that can give you a litmus test of "bias." Like the sites that measure bias aren't biased.
I am skeptical of going too far in either direction, maybe that makes me lukewarm. I read one article, and it makes it sound full conspiracy, I read Eugyppius and he is more along the lines of "incompetent screw ups' that lead the way. This by the way seems to follow the line of thinking that Desmet has, that we are ruled by these technocratic elites that are bureaucrats and not necessarily the sharpest scissors in the drawer.
I know there are many bad actors out there. I am also of the belief that among them are incompetent people who actually bought this BS, and are "true believers" in the ideology, not necessarily the narrative. Do I know, who and what and how much? No, which is exactly why I will not go "full conspiracy" but it would be foolish to also deny "any conspiracy" as I have seen a lot of evidence of it, as have you.
Final remarks. About 10:40 on Tucker Carlson's interview of Desmet, he say that mass formation can be artificially created through indoctrination/propaganda. Do you think that in so doing, he is saying that mass formation is a victimless crime?
Around 32:55 he speaks to the mechanistic view...that a rationalist view disconnects us from the social/natural environment. That alone can lead to the mass formation. If you are disconnected to the world around you, then how much easier is it to believe in a narrative? That all aspects of life can be reduced to our own rational thinking.. At the same time elites, through this understanding of psychology, learn how to manipulate and control the population.
He goes on to talk about how in a representative democracy, the elite realize that since leaders are elected, they have to "follow the masses" rather than control them, and so they use propaganda and indoctrination to constantly control the masses to make sure they are not ruled by them. What do you think he is saying here, that these elite and leaders are blameless?
He goes on to say that the ideology is the thing he really wants to fight against, and I would have to agree, but that doesn't mean at the expense of those who have inflicted and controlled people and tried to inflict this ideology on others.
If there is anything I am biased about it is the non violent speaking of the truth against the narrative and these people. Peaceful noncompliance and calling out the narrative are my guidelines. This means speaking rationally, but at the same time weighing things through moral principles as well. In the end, to a degree, it is out of my selfish wish to remain free that I argue against this narrative and idealogy as it can only promise more control, surveillance, and enforcement as more and more policies are instituted that artificially go against our nature which is to interact with one another and our environment.
Oddly, when you say that "Desmet makes no sense at all" throughout your interactions here, you have said that he does make sense at times. That at times, you even even see" mass formation" you just don't agree with it's origins.
Your comment has been noted.