caught up in 'mass formation'...me? never applied to me and I know you my readers, they tried with that to bullsh*t you...tell them take their mass formation sh*t and shove it! up yours!
The mass formation is not bullshit. It explains perfectly how so many people fell for the narrative. If you have most media outlets telling you 24/7 there is an emergency, chances are, you are going to believe there is an emergency. Think of what happened accidentally the with radio program "War of the Worlds" to get a small example of what can happen.
This does not excuse the actions of doctors and officials that made policy though. It's one thing to fall for a set of ideas, it is another thing altogether to coerce others to participate in that mass formation. I don't excuse anyone, especially those that think "we didn't know."
But 80% od the people around us were vaccinated, are we going to hold them all responsible for the Covid response?
Mass formation shows how regular, garden variety people, were duped into believing it all. They were duped into wearing masks, taking the jabs, believing that 50% of anyone who got Covid was hospitalized.
I agree with you. Desmet has clearly stated that this doesn’t excuse anyone from falling for it, or perpetrating it. I don’t know why so many are confused about this.
I disagree. In chapter 8 Desmet very clearly says there was no conspiracy and that it only looked like a conspiracy, and that those who think there was a conspiracy should be handled psychologically.
Desmet also, on page 131 I believe, says there was manipulation but on the same page he says it wasn't really manipulation.
To understand Desmet we have to understand that he's engaging in doublespeak, saying and not-saying the same thing. But chapter 8 makes clear what his real intention is, and that's to dismiss conspiracy. The chapters preceding describe the mechanism for mass formation that arises naturally from a society saturated with fear. Were we, prior to Covid, a society saturated with fear?
Yes, there was a "mass formation." We can grant that. But the key is that it was induced whereas Desmet says it wasn't induced, except peripherally and in a minor way through propaganda. Yet is was exactly a massive and unrelenting and purposeful (not minor) propaganda campaign that induced the fear that then induced the mass formation.
I've said before that Desmet's book is an insidious work because it seems to say one thing but says another, and many of the things he says we can agree with. Thus, unless we're prepared to read him very carefully, we might tend to assent to his overall thesis. But he must be read very, very carefully.
To make a long story short, Breggin is correct about Desmet, and so is the perceptive CJ Hopkins.
No he isn't. He rather says that in some way, we all bear the weight of responsibility, but he also does say there are bad actors behind the scenes that steer and manipulate as well.
And yet in his reply to the Breggins' same formal complaint he's backing off his apparent 'blaming the victim' stance and says "[N]or did I claim there was no conspiracy."
I need to catch up on some things... Hope we continue this debate - it's evolving.
First, I am glad you disagree with my disagreement. The thing is, I never mentioned "Conspiracy" in my arguments. Also, he never said there was no conspiracy. He did however say that "talk behind closed doors" was overestimated. Here is a quote to speak to that in Chapter:
"There is acertain conspiracy dimension in most social upheavals—those in power may even have little choice but to contrive things behind closed doors—but it is
easily overestimated. If anything rules from the behind the scenes, it’s not so
much secret societies, but ideologies. There is a steering and organizing
body, but it does not primarily consist of a conspiracy elite that manages the
world in a planned and coordinated way, but rather of a typical way of
thinking, an ideology."
Does this sound like he is denying that there can be a conspiracy that hijacks and steers mass formation?
In regards to manipulation this was said:
"Furthermore, the one-sidedness with which the mainstream media
reported about the coronavirus crisis seemed to indicate at first that there
was an intentional and planned manipulation of the reporting. Why do we
hear hardly any “dissident” voices? How can one repeat the same
misinformation over and over again? And yet, I know several
“coronacritical” journalists who told me that there was no systematic,
planned steering of the reporting. There was sometimes implicit pressure,
that’s true. For example, some politicians suggested that it was not the right
time to sow confusion by broadcasting all kinds of criticism with respect to
the national policy. In a sense, that was undemocratic influence over the
press—journalists knew that politicians would give them fewer scoops if
they allowed too many critical voices to be heard—but that is still more
accurately described as self-censorship rather than censorship."
Most recently, we heard similar accounts how the data regarding transmission and infection in reference to the vaccine was removed because it wanted to prevent "vaccine hesitancy." This doesn't sound like manipulation as much as a dogmatic adherence to a bad policy due to a logical fallacy.
"I'm not going to tell you about how bad an ineffective the vaccine is because it may cause you to think twice about getting it."
Further, Desmet says this concerning manipulation:
"Is there not 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 primarily not a steering by
individuals; 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."
Desmet is not engaging in double-speak, but rather viewing what has happened in a nuanced manner. He is not "saying and not saying the same thing," he is reporting that "it's not simply all this or all that."
Let's say that I knew something that was an adopted belief/fear that people had. In a very old case. Let's say that many believed that volcanic eruptions were the gods showing their displeasure of us humans. Let's say as a result, humans thought that if they behaved differently in some way this would appease the gods. They would offer food and tribute to the gods, they would devote more of their time in worship of them. That would be "mass formation."
But now an enterprising leader steps in and asserts that not only is he a leader, he is a mouthpiece for that god. He is the spokesman for the volcano. And that in addition to all the other things, the most beautfiful women of the village should be with him so that it will appease the gods. And that in addition, certain money and tribute must go to him as well. This is a manipulation of that which already existed.
Was the mass formation induced, or was it ever present? I remember the swine and bird flu pandemics, and there were attempts during those times to sensationalize them. I think the fear of sickness and dying is ever present. Did the CCP originally induce on the world, or rather, did it unintentionally get out and they chose instead to take advantage of it?
If I was going to go full conspiracy theorist, I would say that the US/China released the virus intentionally to decimate the population with a virus of AIDS like properties and then because it was not as effective, such efforts would be hastened by the introduction of the vaccine which in turn also decimated the human immune system.
DEsmet doesn't say one thing and then another, but rather, weighs them. He doesn't say conspiracies do not exist, but on the other hand, sees most of what is going on as "mass formation."
I don't know who Breggin is, or CJ Hopkins...but I suppose I should read them as well.
Re-read what Desmet wrote, and pay close attention to his key concepts. Pay attention to his definitions (one of his definitions of "totalitarianism" is a real howler.) Can one have manipulation and not-manipulation at the same time? So which is it? Manipulation! But Desmet clearly says not-manipulation in the form of no conspiracy. Also it isn't really manipulation ("steering") by people, but by an ideology. The ideology manipulates and steers. Manipulation that isn't real manipulation. Is it conspiracy or not? No! Yes! No but manipulation???? Desmets concepts are slippery, fluid, open to interpretation; they aren't precise and clear, as one would expect of a scholar.
This isn't "nuance." This is shoddy expression due to either shoddy thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The point of his book really is to prove there was no conspiracy. That's the conclusion that his prior points support, although as I've demonstrated elsewhere, Desmet is making stuff up. We are not the people he says we are. Yes, some of us are "mechanistic thinkers" but the mass of us certainly is not. But, he must say we are because this is a key premise in his theory.
As others have pointed out, his psychology supports a future society wherein we medicate those whom we track biometrically as conspiracy theorists who need to be corrected for the greater good. Desmet's book justifies this, doesn't it? Note I'm not saying that Desmet personally would support this but his words do, whether he intended that or not.
It's scary stuff. Reading Desmet is a test of whether we're paying close attention to what's being said. We have to be a bit critical and ask, as we read, if what he says makes sense, and slow down and think about that. Yes, some of what Desmet says does make sense-- some of it is spot-on. But there are passages that should make us pause, and other passages where if we think about it, it doesn't jive with what was said elsewhere. Some of it is just plain bizarre.
I find myself in strong agreement with you, and greatly appreciate your emphasis on the required critical thinking to truly evaluate a thesis--if I'm not giving Desmet too much credit with that term. Frankly, I wont bother to read his book or writings at this point. I saw his presentation in interview (or two) when he was first splashed onto the scene and had a reaction that this guy is trying to invent more "pop-psychobabble" and pretty much dismissed it as insignificant/unworthy. It was only when I heard Breggin put it in context (confirming my evaluation, btw) that I realized the threat appropriating his "stuff"presented to truth, freedom and health"--whether intended by Desmet or not. Whether put up to it in some way or not. Thank you for doing the leg work to delve into his book and reveal the paucity of intellectual consistency (honesty) and profundity--and the danger therein.
First of all, not knowing one person means not knowing another person? That's just not true.
As far as re-reading Desmet, I have read this numerous times already. I didn't just read through it once.
He never said there is non-manipulation and manipulation at the same time. He said that mass formation often evolves organically in response to an existing fear, and that in turn can be manipulated, sensationalized, and augmented by the media and other propaganda sharing entities.
It is nuanced.
If you are going to tell me Desmet's ideas are open to interpretation, then how do I know that your interpretation is the correct interpretation? Still it is hard for me to interpret things differently than the quotes I provided by him. If you can slowly go over where he says on the one hand there is no manipulation and show it in context, and then show me there is "manipulation" then please do. So far, all you have shown me is that you interpret the quotes differently than I do.
Concerning his definition of totalitarianism...what do you say it is?
The book does not prove their was no conspiracy. And that wasn't even the point of the book. The point of the book was to show "how could everyone fall for this." He explains different components of it, one of them being bad actors who were acting behind the scene. I doubt Desmet would say that the twitter files didn't show there was some conspiracy to censor the truth.
Where specifically does Desmet support medicating people and biometrically track them whom we deem are conspiracy theorists? What words support this idea?
It is an interesting work. I don't know if it's scary. And we should pay attention to what's being said. And of course always slow down and think about it.
Which parts are just plain bizarre?
Finally, show me one human that doesn't have some element of intellectual inconsistency and I will be truly amazed.
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.
Desmet does not understand how psychopaths work together. Psychopaths tend to become like friends. Like Epstein and all his political friends and science friends had no problems with misusing young girls.
"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.
Because they parrot what the demented (or actual chaos agents) Bregginses spout without thinking for a sec, or, god forbid, actually look at what it's really saying.
But the key is that the formation was induced and the result of a deliberate conspiracy. This isn't what Desmet says at all.
This is an important point and one that many people miss when reading Desmet. This isn't just a side issue or a minor squabble with Desmet. His entire book is an extended polemic whose entire point is to prove "no conspiracy." His entire book leads to chapter 8, wherein he argues that no one conspired to do anything during Covid. And yet he also says there was manipulation, so beware: it's doublespeak. But what he really means is apparent on careful reading and by paying attention to his concepts, and Dr. Alexander is overall correct (although as usual expresses himself forcefully.)
I thought when Dr. Malone brought the mass psychosis explanation to the table on Rogen that people jumped on to it desperate to explain what happened because we knew at a deep level that something was very wrong. How could so many go along with all this nonsense? The public needed something to help make sense of it all. I don’t think it was his intention to mislead, misdirect or try to get anyone off the hook. I guess Dr. Alexander thinks it was. I’m not sure it matters. It helped some people to finally see the truth while allowing them room to forgive themselves for being blind. To me that’s a good thing. Never should those who created this mess be allowed off the hook. They knew exactly what they were doing and profited greatly. Those people we should have no mercy upon. None.
Desmet says some good things and yes, he does explain to some degree how people were deceived. But that doesn't excuse his complete disregard of those who induced fear and confusion by unrelenting, 24/7 fear porn and outright lies, except to call them out as manipulators and then say "they weren't really manipulators" (merely mechanistic thinkers captured by an impersonal ideology.)
The "mass formation" was induced by an orchestrated conspiracy, and my saying so means that I'm psychologically imbalanced and need to be "handled psychologically," according to Desmet.
The central point of Desmet's book, the main theme, is "no conspiracy." The big clue that this is so is chapter 8. If we understand this, then we understand that the previous chapters were merely a lead-up to chapter 8 because the previous chapters offer an alternative explanation to "conspiracy."
Desmet's work is an apology for the conspirators, plain and simple. Moreover, it's a warning to conspiracy thinkers and a justification for future measures to control such thinkers lest, as Desmet himself says, their fear and confusion leads to a dangerous mass formation.
Thank you for your analysis. I do appreciate it and as you describe it, it doesn’t seem as benign as I thought. Desmet, I believe was accused of not reporting a patient of his who was killing patients in the hospital and he somehow explained it away. I found that disturbing.
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.
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.
I would argue that we don't know if it was induced or if it was manipulated. A lot of what motivates us as humans is imitation. It's why mass formation works. We see one person reacting in a certain way, and the inclination is to cooperate. In this case, the stimulus was the Chinese response to the virus. Was our response mirroring theirs do to their inducement, or do to the fact of imitation? Either way, their treatment of their people is reprehensible. Sorry, but you can't excuse it, and I don't think Desmet does either, that "hey what can you do, mass formation made me do it."
But it doesn't prove "no conspiracy." As I've shown earlier, he states that for every social upheaval, there is a conspiracy aspect to it. How is that saying "no conspiracy?" And conspiracy/no conspiracy also ignores what he says fundamentally, that all of us who succumbed to it are all responsible for it. Now I think that those who spread the mass formation...aka the mass media, bear a bigger responsibility than someone getting the vaccine to keep their job, but both bear a measure of responsibility to account for.
No one can force anybody to listen to the mainstream media. If people fail to think beyond what nonsense they hear and see, that's their choice. The majority is usually wrong and has lost all sensibility when it turns into a mob.
Think back over the last 20 years, if you are old enough. Were you wrong about anything? Did you ever trust the wrong person or group? I myself have been fooled into believing many things that I now know were completely false. It helps me keep things in context. No one is perfect, but can they admit they were duped? That, to me, is the key to redemption and healing.
You say that as if you don't know anyone who listens to NPR. I do. I know lots of people who do, and I was one myself, and I know exactly how that subtle propaganda can blind good and decent people.
Stop saying that it's all those stupid M-F's faults! Stop thinking that you're superior to "those people"! Good and decent people were lied to and since they were/are good and decent people, they believed the lies. Some of them are waking up.
Stop thinking that "those people" got what they deserved! For God's sake, the problem isn't the people, the problem is the lies.
We are one people. We were lied to and are being lied to still. Sometimes good and decent people can't believe that such insidious and nasty things could be done.
Do not fall into the trap Desmet set of dehumanizing us and saying it's all our fault.
Actually, I don't think that way at all. That "those people got what they deserved."
I've been of the assertion that if I believed the mass media and the 24/7 fear porn, I would be in the same boat. And I feel the undertow all the time. The main reaction I get on twitter for those so firmly ensconced in their beliefs is condescension, derision, and their responses to me are usually based on ad hominem attacks and appeal to experts.
But to degree, it is all of our faults. We all play a part. And those that exploited, manipulated, and conspired at the top are the most guilty. You think Desmet discounts them, where he has taken a more nuanced analysis that shows to what degree they have been involved.
Desmet does not dehumanize us. Not sure where you get that idea from at all.
He paints a very real portrait at what it means to be human, and that means not ignoring the bad that is in all of us.
And it's so easy to get sucked into some sort of scam or manipulation. That's why scammers abide.
I think Desmet is partially correct. Most of the people in my world got the jab for work and to live a normal life. Many of them regretted it early on. It was more a matter for those who clung to the narrative and their the inability to critically think who went mad. Critical thinking is a “patriarchal white privilege” thing as we now know so they’ve never been taught this skill. The hysteria was tribal and mostly on the left. Desmet doesn’t seem to blame the media, officials and government who, those of us that do still us reason in our decision making know, did everything for control and to shift money upward from the middle class and poor - he blames the people who believed them and includes the those institutions as victims of the so called “Mass formation”. It made sense to me the first time I listened to one of his lectures but then I thought about it more and realized it became more of virtue signaling political thing as time went on. I’ve a feeling many people spouting anti “anti-vaxer” rhetoric knew deep down they were wrong early on but will never admit it. They don’t possess the faculties to do so.
Reading his book lays out the logic of his theory, and that's where we can find out what he meant when he had the time to think carefully about what he'd put in a published book his colleagues would read.
None of this actually addresses what Desmet is saying. If it does, explain it.
Peaceful noncompliance is not only a good goal, it is a very difficult one, but ultimately will prevail.
I know it doesn't jive with what the world currently is. And I have to be honest here, I don't know what I would do if faced with my loved ones being attacked. More than likely, I would take up arms against those who would harm another.
But if it is just me alone. I will not comply. And there is a good chance I will get beaten or tortured. So teh answer is to peacefully not comply. And I die. I have no ridiculous notions that it is something that is easy.
My answer to that is. If they succumbed to the narrative and did not influence others to do the same, then they are a victim. If they took the shot to keep their job, or they wore a mask because they thought it would protect them, or if they stayed at home becaase it would keep them safe. They are a victim. But if they got their kids vaccinated, sorry, but there is some blame to go there. And if you yelled at others about masks, then again, you have some blame.
What about those of us that knew masks didn't work and vaccines were ineffective and didn't say anything? I think to a degree we are culpable as well. We are all responsible. Desmet himself says this. We are all responsible.
Desmet says:
"The whole of society has a part in its rise inone way or another; every person bears a responsibility in it. That’s why this nuanced statement is usually unsatisfactory for those who thirst for certainty and seek to vent anger and frustration by pointing out one main culprit."
Also, it is definitely happening. Imagine someone saying that to solve Covid, all you had to do was wear a mask, social distance, and take an experimental vaccine.
I'm in a fairly unique situation. I have a sister who is a retired RN with a Masters in Community Health, (dealing with vaccines and epidemiology) and a nephew with a degree in Respiratory Therapy, who is a top sales representative for a company making ventilators and other respiratory medical devices. To my knowledge, they completely swallowed the "official" narrative about the viruses, vaccines, therapies, masking, shut-downs etc. My own sister was shocked that I, as a "scientist" would question the value of wearing masks, and all the other, what I called nonsense, involving the handling of this "pandemic"
This has been very hard on me. Yes, I'm a scientist, a geologist or what I prefer to call an Earth Scientist, trained and experienced to apply the scientific method to propose and test multiple "working hypothesis" to solve complex problems with limited data. This requires critical thinking to an extreme degree. To complicate matters even further, I'm a spinal cord injured paraplegic, (SCI), paralyzed in the lower 2/3 of my body, for the last 45 years. I have poor blood circulation in my lower body and limited lung capacity. I knew I would suffer greatly and was at risk of complications if I contracted the Covid 19 virus. But I've been through many medical challenges related to my disabilities and I've had much more experience with the medical industry than anyone should have. All that considered, I smelled something terribly wrong with how this virus was being treated right from the beginning. I knew something was wrong. It was experimental, an untested new gene therapy and the evidence was obvious we were being lied to and being sold a "bill of goods". So at great personal emotional cost, I refused the vaccines. I trusted my immune system, and I've never had anything more than a "runny nose". I have no regrets, but still, I've paid a price. It can be very lonely to go against where the herd is going, even if you're sure it is over a cliff.
Yes. Beautifully written! I know that loneliness & loss too well. I’m grateful to have many awake family members but I’ve lost almost all of my friends. It’s as if we’re being collectively punished for our ‘wrong think.’ NONE of us deserve this, especially not you
I'm not a scientist, and I smelled a rat from the get go.
Back in December of 2019 I remember reading/hearing about covid the first time. I remember thinking to myself "they will try to make this into another bird flu thing."
I knew we were okay then because I knew two things most people seem to overlook. First, a someething can exist before we discover it, and second, it was already here in the US and around the world. We're people dying in massive quantities? No.
There were stories of hospitals having difficulty here and there, that much is true. but was it to the "epic proportions" they modeled?
I think Desmet addresses your unique situation and many others, and that is "why did so many people we know to be smart fall for the narrative?"
I don't think the answer is an easy one. It would be easy to simply blame the propaganda alone. But there has to be something to "push" in order for that push to work. Also there had to be something to make the narrative believable. Inthis case, it was the sources reporting it.
There also was a lot of "priming" going on in the population previous to Covid-19. Other breaks from reality were being reported as truth.
I think the impulse people feel to be part of a popular group, to fit in, to do what others think is right, makes them feel comfortable and secure. I think it is a very powerful instinct developed in people during the thousands of years of human evolution, as a survival mechanism. Often it is true, there is strength in numbers. I think this explains why so many people went along with the masking, distancing, shut downs, mandates, and vaccine passports, even when such things became obviously wrong, and even harmful. In fact they now say around 70% of people have been "vaccinated" with this novel gene therapy. The damage is done. All that remains is hoping we survive, because it is looking like the vaccines are far more dangerous than the viruses.
Wish I could hug you & kiss your cheek for that raw, honest testament you gifted us here. There is something to be said about intuition, yes? I, like you also declined the Poison19 with COPD & Asthma. The feeling of " something is not right" persisted until I finally turned off the TV with it's daily death tolls and began deep diving into alternative media like Rumble/Bitchute. One of the first videos I watched was Dr Peter McCollough 's first testimony to the Texas Senate. BOOM! I was instantly validated that early treatment was being suppressed & anyone speaking out was being censored. I tried to warn my family and a few heeded my advice but most didn't. My Mother's last words to me on the way to get her 1st booster were, " I do not know you or want anyone like you in my life who would be so selfish as to openly choose to die alone on a ventilator in a hospital" That was about 17 months ago. I thank God I trusted my intuition and I'm glad that many others such as you did as well. Peace & Blessings to you Peter!
It can be very difficult for people to admit they were wrong, especially about deeply-felt or emotional issues. Hubris, or false pride is very common. Once again, just like Mattias Desmet's "Mass Formation", it seems to be a deeply rooted aspect of human behavior. I don't know why. Maybe it is simply a lack of humility. If someone has suffered enough defeats, it is easy to admit to being wrong, to be open about questioning "authority", and to always attempt to find and follow the truth. Some might say that ability is a sign of maturity and learning to deal with life's ups and downs, and move on. Personally, I try to be patient with people and empathize with their feelings, as long as they don't do something illegal or sinfully wrong. If your mother has her wits about her, I'm guessing she'll come around. It is becoming more obvious every day that the vaccines have been a monumental and deadly failure.
As soon as they put out all those PSAs telling people "if you have symptoms, stay home", for a very serious respiratory situation, I knew something was off. And that was early, like Jan-Feb. They fired up the death counter from the very outset.
We were fortunate enough to discover Dr. Z and his prevention protocol. Then switched to FLCCC. We're the only ones in our large extended family who didn't follow the crowds, and thank God for that gift of discernment. And a little street smarts.
Yes. Very surreal to hear her speak them but I am not angry with her. Mad as heck at the perpetrators of mass propaganda & censorship who target and scared the daylights out of so many good people.
The PROPAGANDA was military spec - the psychological pressure was huge . . unfortunately, I have a disposition where if anyone tries to force me to do something - I do the opposite. I can however see alot of weak-minded sheeple going along with the Government narrative, including doctors & others who benefited to turn a blind eye . . $$$$$$$$. Almost all of my friends did take the quackcine & I used to think they were quite intelligent . . now I'm not so sure . . as "It doesn't take Sherlock" says . . the Nazi's did "whatever it was" very successfully . . they fooled a nation . . what you call that is up to you! #mass hypnosis #stupidity #history #psychological manipulation #nudging #77thbrigade
The minute they said lock us down to flatten the curve I was yelling B.S. I grew up in the 70s in the era of general strikes. I guess general strikes are only ok if the oligarchs are organizing it.
No worries. I and my family are so grateful for your tireless work to expose these greedheads and criminals. You are a great patriot and a godsend to us all
I think that the mass formation psychosis is an actual phenomena, and that many people were under somewhat of a spell during the beginning and middle of COVID, brought on by fear and propaganda being broadcast in the media. Nearly all of my friends and family were under this spell. I think that some people are more susceptible to it than others. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it should not be an excuse for doctors and scientist, who's bad decisions cost lives.
To me, this can never be an excuse for anyone. It can only be a “teaching moment” that includes accountability and lessons learned. And that is the best outcome for someone who can acknowledge they were caught up in it. Even having the self awareness to feel ashamed of it is a positive thing. Many others will try to forget it ever happened, but we cannot let them.
The mass formation is not bullshit. It explains perfectly how so many people fell for the narrative. If you have most media outlets telling you 24/7 there is an emergency, chances are, you are going to believe there is an emergency. Think of what happened accidentally the with radio program "War of the Worlds" to get a small example of what can happen.
This does not excuse the actions of doctors and officials that made policy though. It's one thing to fall for a set of ideas, it is another thing altogether to coerce others to participate in that mass formation. I don't excuse anyone, especially those that think "we didn't know."
But 80% od the people around us were vaccinated, are we going to hold them all responsible for the Covid response?
Mass formation shows how regular, garden variety people, were duped into believing it all. They were duped into wearing masks, taking the jabs, believing that 50% of anyone who got Covid was hospitalized.
Also, they were not critical thinkers. Critial thinking is far from in their wheelhouse. A lot of what happened echoes one person's sentiments spoken on twitter "The whole world locked down for the pandemic, that is good enough for me."
Thank you. The ability of demagogs or apparatuses to use fear to manipulate public opinion, and the very weakness of our rational faculty to resist that power of fear, these are well known and exploited characteristics of humans and even other mammals. Once fear reaches a certain proportion, the critical faculties evaporate and become tools of the effort to escape that terror. The testimony of many of our best soldiers who became prisoners of the North Koreans, for example, shows how effective is propaganda blended with terror. Those men all broke, eventually. (One can check out William Sargant's "Battle for the Mind" in this regard for a concise synopsis). And the examples of the effectiveness of what we have lived through (and will continue to endure) have myriad tragic examples throughout our history.
I said -- out loud--the whole world locked down for this “pandemic “ and it’s never EVER been done in history. It just makes zero sense. Can’t be. It’s so mind boggling to me.
It was a masterful, globally orchestrated enterprise. And its effects are quite with us still. That segment of the population that was captured by fear is still overwhelmingly in the enemy's camp now. Yes, mind boggling; we have no experience with this sort of "march through the institutions" style preparation and subsequent execution. But we had better become quick studies because there isn't much sand left in the top of the hourglass. As, I believe, Lenin said, "There are decades in which nothing happens and then days in which decades occur" (or whatever it was in Russian).
I don't know.. But it is typical for us to think that our own correct perception of a reality is how everyone ought to have perceived it. In other words, it is the universal self-deception that our world view is the only one. This is the common delusion of our species and it is not compartmentalized into discrete political or religious categories. It's just what we do and provides the fuel for all the self-righteousness all of us know too well. The best and the worst of us carry this 'pathogen' within.
I’m certainly open to changing my opinion if I receive more, better information. I think that is something we should all strive to do. I’m not threatened by disagreement; I think it’s healthy and natural.
The great news is, I can view the world however I want to view it as long as I am not imposing that view on others. Even now I still maintain that if anyone wants to get vaccinated, it's their body. I'll tell you all the reasons not to take it, but I will fight for your right to do so.
Aimee, could you be a little more specific as to what precisely you posit the Dr. Alexander does "not see"? I rather think his vision in the matter is quite clear.
In one form or another we all were victims of crimes exercised through propaganda, threat, and coercion. Another dimension of the crime (neglected to specify previously), which arguably falls under the category of coercion, is bribery. Yes, the creeps in the medical and governmental positions who went along with the BS and profited from their complicity were technically victims in a sense. That does not assuage their guilt and culpability, IMHO.
But all this is essentially an "academic" concern in the worst sense at best. What is needed is to get on with the prosecution of crimes committed. The only definitions needed are those which the American legal system, when it operates properly, will have no big problem spelling out. I am positive that there are brave lawyers and prosecutors--who will need support from the public to carry through with their functions, but are nonetheless capable of executing justice.
Dr. Alexander thinks mass formation is “BS”. I think it is real, for many. It’s not an excuse. It’s just an observation of behavior. People don’t realize that psychology in the west is based on a very different philosophy than in Europe. Breggin and Desmet are from two different schools of thought. Both have merit.
Some of these things have been done. That's the weird part. They have "quarantined the healthy" before to bad effect, and masks were worn during the "Spanish Flu Pandemic." There is a reason why the tradition did not carry over for each flu season.
Any doctor seeking absolution from crimes against humanity by claiming to have been a victim of mass formation psychosis is a doctor I will never trust. Extraordinary unacceptable excuse for failure to abide by the Hippocratic oath.
"That’s bullshit being fed to us to get us to absolve the wrongdoers almost"
Only that that's a strawman that's peddled by people who actually want to confuse.
Mass formation never was about absolving anyone, neither explicitly nor implicitly, it's an attempt of explaining the machnisms of crowd psychology - not even a new concept (see Gustave le Bon)
Let me add that, even if that model would "absolve wrongdoers" - even that wouldn't make it automatically wrong.
Look up "argument from consequences" logical fallacy. Your lust for payback doesn't negate reality if in the way. That's the "logic" of evil itself.
His essay on the “evil of banality” and suggestion that he knows these alleged “wrongdoers” and that they are just stupid ignorant dumb bureaucrats (you know, his former peers that he inherently saying that he is smarter than) who have led us unknowingly down the wrong path.
He wants it both ways....we are fighting for our freedoms from some sinister unseen opponent who knows no bounds and well, it is just the agencies that are layered over to the point they know not what they do.
Sorry, can’t have it both ways. Was there intent to harm or not along the way? Was there knowing disregard for the truth that cost millions? And why? Not buying the negligence theory. We are dealing with intent or knowing disregard/recklessness that rises to the level of intent. The violation of rights was from the start against science....can’t explain it away on a global scale. Unless Mattias wants to talk about the governments suffering from mass formation psychosis in their strange global lockstep governance.
I disagree.
The mass formation is not bullshit. It explains perfectly how so many people fell for the narrative. If you have most media outlets telling you 24/7 there is an emergency, chances are, you are going to believe there is an emergency. Think of what happened accidentally the with radio program "War of the Worlds" to get a small example of what can happen.
This does not excuse the actions of doctors and officials that made policy though. It's one thing to fall for a set of ideas, it is another thing altogether to coerce others to participate in that mass formation. I don't excuse anyone, especially those that think "we didn't know."
But 80% od the people around us were vaccinated, are we going to hold them all responsible for the Covid response?
Mass formation shows how regular, garden variety people, were duped into believing it all. They were duped into wearing masks, taking the jabs, believing that 50% of anyone who got Covid was hospitalized.
I agree with you. Desmet has clearly stated that this doesn’t excuse anyone from falling for it, or perpetrating it. I don’t know why so many are confused about this.
I disagree. In chapter 8 Desmet very clearly says there was no conspiracy and that it only looked like a conspiracy, and that those who think there was a conspiracy should be handled psychologically.
Desmet also, on page 131 I believe, says there was manipulation but on the same page he says it wasn't really manipulation.
To understand Desmet we have to understand that he's engaging in doublespeak, saying and not-saying the same thing. But chapter 8 makes clear what his real intention is, and that's to dismiss conspiracy. The chapters preceding describe the mechanism for mass formation that arises naturally from a society saturated with fear. Were we, prior to Covid, a society saturated with fear?
Yes, there was a "mass formation." We can grant that. But the key is that it was induced whereas Desmet says it wasn't induced, except peripherally and in a minor way through propaganda. Yet is was exactly a massive and unrelenting and purposeful (not minor) propaganda campaign that induced the fear that then induced the mass formation.
I've said before that Desmet's book is an insidious work because it seems to say one thing but says another, and many of the things he says we can agree with. Thus, unless we're prepared to read him very carefully, we might tend to assent to his overall thesis. But he must be read very, very carefully.
To make a long story short, Breggin is correct about Desmet, and so is the perceptive CJ Hopkins.
Yes. Desmet is essentially placing the blame on people for being fooled, which absolves the miscreants.
No he isn't. He rather says that in some way, we all bear the weight of responsibility, but he also does say there are bad actors behind the scenes that steer and manipulate as well.
And yet in his reply to the Breggins' same formal complaint he's backing off his apparent 'blaming the victim' stance and says "[N]or did I claim there was no conspiracy."
I need to catch up on some things... Hope we continue this debate - it's evolving.
Bingo! Desmet's program is to dehumanize us to that he then can say it was all our fault and there was no orchestration.
Not at all, actually.
First, I am glad you disagree with my disagreement. The thing is, I never mentioned "Conspiracy" in my arguments. Also, he never said there was no conspiracy. He did however say that "talk behind closed doors" was overestimated. Here is a quote to speak to that in Chapter:
"There is acertain conspiracy dimension in most social upheavals—those in power may even have little choice but to contrive things behind closed doors—but it is
easily overestimated. If anything rules from the behind the scenes, it’s not so
much secret societies, but ideologies. There is a steering and organizing
body, but it does not primarily consist of a conspiracy elite that manages the
world in a planned and coordinated way, but rather of a typical way of
thinking, an ideology."
Does this sound like he is denying that there can be a conspiracy that hijacks and steers mass formation?
In regards to manipulation this was said:
"Furthermore, the one-sidedness with which the mainstream media
reported about the coronavirus crisis seemed to indicate at first that there
was an intentional and planned manipulation of the reporting. Why do we
hear hardly any “dissident” voices? How can one repeat the same
misinformation over and over again? And yet, I know several
“coronacritical” journalists who told me that there was no systematic,
planned steering of the reporting. There was sometimes implicit pressure,
that’s true. For example, some politicians suggested that it was not the right
time to sow confusion by broadcasting all kinds of criticism with respect to
the national policy. In a sense, that was undemocratic influence over the
press—journalists knew that politicians would give them fewer scoops if
they allowed too many critical voices to be heard—but that is still more
accurately described as self-censorship rather than censorship."
Most recently, we heard similar accounts how the data regarding transmission and infection in reference to the vaccine was removed because it wanted to prevent "vaccine hesitancy." This doesn't sound like manipulation as much as a dogmatic adherence to a bad policy due to a logical fallacy.
"I'm not going to tell you about how bad an ineffective the vaccine is because it may cause you to think twice about getting it."
Further, Desmet says this concerning manipulation:
"Is there not 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 primarily not a steering by
individuals; 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."
Desmet is not engaging in double-speak, but rather viewing what has happened in a nuanced manner. He is not "saying and not saying the same thing," he is reporting that "it's not simply all this or all that."
Let's say that I knew something that was an adopted belief/fear that people had. In a very old case. Let's say that many believed that volcanic eruptions were the gods showing their displeasure of us humans. Let's say as a result, humans thought that if they behaved differently in some way this would appease the gods. They would offer food and tribute to the gods, they would devote more of their time in worship of them. That would be "mass formation."
But now an enterprising leader steps in and asserts that not only is he a leader, he is a mouthpiece for that god. He is the spokesman for the volcano. And that in addition to all the other things, the most beautfiful women of the village should be with him so that it will appease the gods. And that in addition, certain money and tribute must go to him as well. This is a manipulation of that which already existed.
Was the mass formation induced, or was it ever present? I remember the swine and bird flu pandemics, and there were attempts during those times to sensationalize them. I think the fear of sickness and dying is ever present. Did the CCP originally induce on the world, or rather, did it unintentionally get out and they chose instead to take advantage of it?
If I was going to go full conspiracy theorist, I would say that the US/China released the virus intentionally to decimate the population with a virus of AIDS like properties and then because it was not as effective, such efforts would be hastened by the introduction of the vaccine which in turn also decimated the human immune system.
DEsmet doesn't say one thing and then another, but rather, weighs them. He doesn't say conspiracies do not exist, but on the other hand, sees most of what is going on as "mass formation."
I don't know who Breggin is, or CJ Hopkins...but I suppose I should read them as well.
If you don't know who Breggin is then you don't know who Desmet is. https://breggin.com/Threats-from-the-Desmet-Malone-Mass-Formations-and-Mass-Psychosis
Re-read what Desmet wrote, and pay close attention to his key concepts. Pay attention to his definitions (one of his definitions of "totalitarianism" is a real howler.) Can one have manipulation and not-manipulation at the same time? So which is it? Manipulation! But Desmet clearly says not-manipulation in the form of no conspiracy. Also it isn't really manipulation ("steering") by people, but by an ideology. The ideology manipulates and steers. Manipulation that isn't real manipulation. Is it conspiracy or not? No! Yes! No but manipulation???? Desmets concepts are slippery, fluid, open to interpretation; they aren't precise and clear, as one would expect of a scholar.
This isn't "nuance." This is shoddy expression due to either shoddy thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The point of his book really is to prove there was no conspiracy. That's the conclusion that his prior points support, although as I've demonstrated elsewhere, Desmet is making stuff up. We are not the people he says we are. Yes, some of us are "mechanistic thinkers" but the mass of us certainly is not. But, he must say we are because this is a key premise in his theory.
As others have pointed out, his psychology supports a future society wherein we medicate those whom we track biometrically as conspiracy theorists who need to be corrected for the greater good. Desmet's book justifies this, doesn't it? Note I'm not saying that Desmet personally would support this but his words do, whether he intended that or not.
It's scary stuff. Reading Desmet is a test of whether we're paying close attention to what's being said. We have to be a bit critical and ask, as we read, if what he says makes sense, and slow down and think about that. Yes, some of what Desmet says does make sense-- some of it is spot-on. But there are passages that should make us pause, and other passages where if we think about it, it doesn't jive with what was said elsewhere. Some of it is just plain bizarre.
I find myself in strong agreement with you, and greatly appreciate your emphasis on the required critical thinking to truly evaluate a thesis--if I'm not giving Desmet too much credit with that term. Frankly, I wont bother to read his book or writings at this point. I saw his presentation in interview (or two) when he was first splashed onto the scene and had a reaction that this guy is trying to invent more "pop-psychobabble" and pretty much dismissed it as insignificant/unworthy. It was only when I heard Breggin put it in context (confirming my evaluation, btw) that I realized the threat appropriating his "stuff"presented to truth, freedom and health"--whether intended by Desmet or not. Whether put up to it in some way or not. Thank you for doing the leg work to delve into his book and reveal the paucity of intellectual consistency (honesty) and profundity--and the danger therein.
First of all, not knowing one person means not knowing another person? That's just not true.
As far as re-reading Desmet, I have read this numerous times already. I didn't just read through it once.
He never said there is non-manipulation and manipulation at the same time. He said that mass formation often evolves organically in response to an existing fear, and that in turn can be manipulated, sensationalized, and augmented by the media and other propaganda sharing entities.
It is nuanced.
If you are going to tell me Desmet's ideas are open to interpretation, then how do I know that your interpretation is the correct interpretation? Still it is hard for me to interpret things differently than the quotes I provided by him. If you can slowly go over where he says on the one hand there is no manipulation and show it in context, and then show me there is "manipulation" then please do. So far, all you have shown me is that you interpret the quotes differently than I do.
Concerning his definition of totalitarianism...what do you say it is?
The book does not prove their was no conspiracy. And that wasn't even the point of the book. The point of the book was to show "how could everyone fall for this." He explains different components of it, one of them being bad actors who were acting behind the scene. I doubt Desmet would say that the twitter files didn't show there was some conspiracy to censor the truth.
Where specifically does Desmet support medicating people and biometrically track them whom we deem are conspiracy theorists? What words support this idea?
It is an interesting work. I don't know if it's scary. And we should pay attention to what's being said. And of course always slow down and think about it.
Which parts are just plain bizarre?
Finally, show me one human that doesn't have some element of intellectual inconsistency and I will be truly amazed.
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.
Desmet does not understand how psychopaths work together. Psychopaths tend to become like friends. Like Epstein and all his political friends and science friends had no problems with misusing young girls.
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.
Because they parrot what the demented (or actual chaos agents) Bregginses spout without thinking for a sec, or, god forbid, actually look at what it's really saying.
Breggin is 100% correct about Desmet. There's no contest.
Desmet talks psychobabble; Breggin lays it on the line.
It really is a shame that there's such a feud over Desmet. Those who are promoting him are the real chaos agents.
Dr. Alexander is right.
But the key is that the formation was induced and the result of a deliberate conspiracy. This isn't what Desmet says at all.
This is an important point and one that many people miss when reading Desmet. This isn't just a side issue or a minor squabble with Desmet. His entire book is an extended polemic whose entire point is to prove "no conspiracy." His entire book leads to chapter 8, wherein he argues that no one conspired to do anything during Covid. And yet he also says there was manipulation, so beware: it's doublespeak. But what he really means is apparent on careful reading and by paying attention to his concepts, and Dr. Alexander is overall correct (although as usual expresses himself forcefully.)
I thought when Dr. Malone brought the mass psychosis explanation to the table on Rogen that people jumped on to it desperate to explain what happened because we knew at a deep level that something was very wrong. How could so many go along with all this nonsense? The public needed something to help make sense of it all. I don’t think it was his intention to mislead, misdirect or try to get anyone off the hook. I guess Dr. Alexander thinks it was. I’m not sure it matters. It helped some people to finally see the truth while allowing them room to forgive themselves for being blind. To me that’s a good thing. Never should those who created this mess be allowed off the hook. They knew exactly what they were doing and profited greatly. Those people we should have no mercy upon. None.
Desmet says some good things and yes, he does explain to some degree how people were deceived. But that doesn't excuse his complete disregard of those who induced fear and confusion by unrelenting, 24/7 fear porn and outright lies, except to call them out as manipulators and then say "they weren't really manipulators" (merely mechanistic thinkers captured by an impersonal ideology.)
The "mass formation" was induced by an orchestrated conspiracy, and my saying so means that I'm psychologically imbalanced and need to be "handled psychologically," according to Desmet.
The central point of Desmet's book, the main theme, is "no conspiracy." The big clue that this is so is chapter 8. If we understand this, then we understand that the previous chapters were merely a lead-up to chapter 8 because the previous chapters offer an alternative explanation to "conspiracy."
Desmet's work is an apology for the conspirators, plain and simple. Moreover, it's a warning to conspiracy thinkers and a justification for future measures to control such thinkers lest, as Desmet himself says, their fear and confusion leads to a dangerous mass formation.
Thank you for your analysis. I do appreciate it and as you describe it, it doesn’t seem as benign as I thought. Desmet, I believe was accused of not reporting a patient of his who was killing patients in the hospital and he somehow explained it away. I found that disturbing.
The "no conspiracy" main theme is untrue. Rather it is "less conspiracy than others would have you believe."
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.
Every reply of yours is brilliant. Thank you. 👍🏻
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.
I would argue that we don't know if it was induced or if it was manipulated. A lot of what motivates us as humans is imitation. It's why mass formation works. We see one person reacting in a certain way, and the inclination is to cooperate. In this case, the stimulus was the Chinese response to the virus. Was our response mirroring theirs do to their inducement, or do to the fact of imitation? Either way, their treatment of their people is reprehensible. Sorry, but you can't excuse it, and I don't think Desmet does either, that "hey what can you do, mass formation made me do it."
But it doesn't prove "no conspiracy." As I've shown earlier, he states that for every social upheaval, there is a conspiracy aspect to it. How is that saying "no conspiracy?" And conspiracy/no conspiracy also ignores what he says fundamentally, that all of us who succumbed to it are all responsible for it. Now I think that those who spread the mass formation...aka the mass media, bear a bigger responsibility than someone getting the vaccine to keep their job, but both bear a measure of responsibility to account for.
No one can force anybody to listen to the mainstream media. If people fail to think beyond what nonsense they hear and see, that's their choice. The majority is usually wrong and has lost all sensibility when it turns into a mob.
Think back over the last 20 years, if you are old enough. Were you wrong about anything? Did you ever trust the wrong person or group? I myself have been fooled into believing many things that I now know were completely false. It helps me keep things in context. No one is perfect, but can they admit they were duped? That, to me, is the key to redemption and healing.
You say that as if you don't know anyone who listens to NPR. I do. I know lots of people who do, and I was one myself, and I know exactly how that subtle propaganda can blind good and decent people.
Stop saying that it's all those stupid M-F's faults! Stop thinking that you're superior to "those people"! Good and decent people were lied to and since they were/are good and decent people, they believed the lies. Some of them are waking up.
Stop thinking that "those people" got what they deserved! For God's sake, the problem isn't the people, the problem is the lies.
We are one people. We were lied to and are being lied to still. Sometimes good and decent people can't believe that such insidious and nasty things could be done.
Do not fall into the trap Desmet set of dehumanizing us and saying it's all our fault.
Jim Reagen
BOOM! SPOT ON!
Actually, I don't think that way at all. That "those people got what they deserved."
I've been of the assertion that if I believed the mass media and the 24/7 fear porn, I would be in the same boat. And I feel the undertow all the time. The main reaction I get on twitter for those so firmly ensconced in their beliefs is condescension, derision, and their responses to me are usually based on ad hominem attacks and appeal to experts.
But to degree, it is all of our faults. We all play a part. And those that exploited, manipulated, and conspired at the top are the most guilty. You think Desmet discounts them, where he has taken a more nuanced analysis that shows to what degree they have been involved.
Desmet does not dehumanize us. Not sure where you get that idea from at all.
He paints a very real portrait at what it means to be human, and that means not ignoring the bad that is in all of us.
And it's so easy to get sucked into some sort of scam or manipulation. That's why scammers abide.
I'm going to say something contradictory here:
Don't read Desmet's words. Read his concepts and his argument.
Try that.
I have.
I think Desmet is partially correct. Most of the people in my world got the jab for work and to live a normal life. Many of them regretted it early on. It was more a matter for those who clung to the narrative and their the inability to critically think who went mad. Critical thinking is a “patriarchal white privilege” thing as we now know so they’ve never been taught this skill. The hysteria was tribal and mostly on the left. Desmet doesn’t seem to blame the media, officials and government who, those of us that do still us reason in our decision making know, did everything for control and to shift money upward from the middle class and poor - he blames the people who believed them and includes the those institutions as victims of the so called “Mass formation”. It made sense to me the first time I listened to one of his lectures but then I thought about it more and realized it became more of virtue signaling political thing as time went on. I’ve a feeling many people spouting anti “anti-vaxer” rhetoric knew deep down they were wrong early on but will never admit it. They don’t possess the faculties to do so.
Reading his book lays out the logic of his theory, and that's where we can find out what he meant when he had the time to think carefully about what he'd put in a published book his colleagues would read.
Yes it does. And from what we have seen, there are various ways to interpret what his thoughts are.
You said what I would say as well. Thank you
What do you think Desmet is saying? The solution he expressed at the end of chapter 8 was peaceful noncompliance, and speaking out against it.
None of this actually addresses what Desmet is saying. If it does, explain it.
Peaceful noncompliance is not only a good goal, it is a very difficult one, but ultimately will prevail.
I know it doesn't jive with what the world currently is. And I have to be honest here, I don't know what I would do if faced with my loved ones being attacked. More than likely, I would take up arms against those who would harm another.
But if it is just me alone. I will not comply. And there is a good chance I will get beaten or tortured. So teh answer is to peacefully not comply. And I die. I have no ridiculous notions that it is something that is easy.
My answer to that is. If they succumbed to the narrative and did not influence others to do the same, then they are a victim. If they took the shot to keep their job, or they wore a mask because they thought it would protect them, or if they stayed at home becaase it would keep them safe. They are a victim. But if they got their kids vaccinated, sorry, but there is some blame to go there. And if you yelled at others about masks, then again, you have some blame.
What about those of us that knew masks didn't work and vaccines were ineffective and didn't say anything? I think to a degree we are culpable as well. We are all responsible. Desmet himself says this. We are all responsible.
Desmet says:
"The whole of society has a part in its rise inone way or another; every person bears a responsibility in it. That’s why this nuanced statement is usually unsatisfactory for those who thirst for certainty and seek to vent anger and frustration by pointing out one main culprit."
Also, it is definitely happening. Imagine someone saying that to solve Covid, all you had to do was wear a mask, social distance, and take an experimental vaccine.
Dr. Alexander seems brash at times, but he's actually very restrained. Why isn't my doctor like this -- why did he try to kill me instead?
It's still so early in the Reckoning ...
The medical mafia makes more money killing patients than curing them.
Thank you for telling exactly how it is, Doc ♥️👏🫡
I'm in a fairly unique situation. I have a sister who is a retired RN with a Masters in Community Health, (dealing with vaccines and epidemiology) and a nephew with a degree in Respiratory Therapy, who is a top sales representative for a company making ventilators and other respiratory medical devices. To my knowledge, they completely swallowed the "official" narrative about the viruses, vaccines, therapies, masking, shut-downs etc. My own sister was shocked that I, as a "scientist" would question the value of wearing masks, and all the other, what I called nonsense, involving the handling of this "pandemic"
This has been very hard on me. Yes, I'm a scientist, a geologist or what I prefer to call an Earth Scientist, trained and experienced to apply the scientific method to propose and test multiple "working hypothesis" to solve complex problems with limited data. This requires critical thinking to an extreme degree. To complicate matters even further, I'm a spinal cord injured paraplegic, (SCI), paralyzed in the lower 2/3 of my body, for the last 45 years. I have poor blood circulation in my lower body and limited lung capacity. I knew I would suffer greatly and was at risk of complications if I contracted the Covid 19 virus. But I've been through many medical challenges related to my disabilities and I've had much more experience with the medical industry than anyone should have. All that considered, I smelled something terribly wrong with how this virus was being treated right from the beginning. I knew something was wrong. It was experimental, an untested new gene therapy and the evidence was obvious we were being lied to and being sold a "bill of goods". So at great personal emotional cost, I refused the vaccines. I trusted my immune system, and I've never had anything more than a "runny nose". I have no regrets, but still, I've paid a price. It can be very lonely to go against where the herd is going, even if you're sure it is over a cliff.
Yes. Beautifully written! I know that loneliness & loss too well. I’m grateful to have many awake family members but I’ve lost almost all of my friends. It’s as if we’re being collectively punished for our ‘wrong think.’ NONE of us deserve this, especially not you
Beautifully written.
I'm not a scientist, and I smelled a rat from the get go.
Back in December of 2019 I remember reading/hearing about covid the first time. I remember thinking to myself "they will try to make this into another bird flu thing."
I knew we were okay then because I knew two things most people seem to overlook. First, a someething can exist before we discover it, and second, it was already here in the US and around the world. We're people dying in massive quantities? No.
There were stories of hospitals having difficulty here and there, that much is true. but was it to the "epic proportions" they modeled?
I think Desmet addresses your unique situation and many others, and that is "why did so many people we know to be smart fall for the narrative?"
I don't think the answer is an easy one. It would be easy to simply blame the propaganda alone. But there has to be something to "push" in order for that push to work. Also there had to be something to make the narrative believable. Inthis case, it was the sources reporting it.
There also was a lot of "priming" going on in the population previous to Covid-19. Other breaks from reality were being reported as truth.
I think the impulse people feel to be part of a popular group, to fit in, to do what others think is right, makes them feel comfortable and secure. I think it is a very powerful instinct developed in people during the thousands of years of human evolution, as a survival mechanism. Often it is true, there is strength in numbers. I think this explains why so many people went along with the masking, distancing, shut downs, mandates, and vaccine passports, even when such things became obviously wrong, and even harmful. In fact they now say around 70% of people have been "vaccinated" with this novel gene therapy. The damage is done. All that remains is hoping we survive, because it is looking like the vaccines are far more dangerous than the viruses.
Peter Smith
Wish I could hug you & kiss your cheek for that raw, honest testament you gifted us here. There is something to be said about intuition, yes? I, like you also declined the Poison19 with COPD & Asthma. The feeling of " something is not right" persisted until I finally turned off the TV with it's daily death tolls and began deep diving into alternative media like Rumble/Bitchute. One of the first videos I watched was Dr Peter McCollough 's first testimony to the Texas Senate. BOOM! I was instantly validated that early treatment was being suppressed & anyone speaking out was being censored. I tried to warn my family and a few heeded my advice but most didn't. My Mother's last words to me on the way to get her 1st booster were, " I do not know you or want anyone like you in my life who would be so selfish as to openly choose to die alone on a ventilator in a hospital" That was about 17 months ago. I thank God I trusted my intuition and I'm glad that many others such as you did as well. Peace & Blessings to you Peter!
So sorry about your mother's comments and attitude. Is she still with us? Stay strong.
Peter Smith
Yes she is fortunately still alive and I pray for reconciliation as she is 80.
It can be very difficult for people to admit they were wrong, especially about deeply-felt or emotional issues. Hubris, or false pride is very common. Once again, just like Mattias Desmet's "Mass Formation", it seems to be a deeply rooted aspect of human behavior. I don't know why. Maybe it is simply a lack of humility. If someone has suffered enough defeats, it is easy to admit to being wrong, to be open about questioning "authority", and to always attempt to find and follow the truth. Some might say that ability is a sign of maturity and learning to deal with life's ups and downs, and move on. Personally, I try to be patient with people and empathize with their feelings, as long as they don't do something illegal or sinfully wrong. If your mother has her wits about her, I'm guessing she'll come around. It is becoming more obvious every day that the vaccines have been a monumental and deadly failure.
As soon as they put out all those PSAs telling people "if you have symptoms, stay home", for a very serious respiratory situation, I knew something was off. And that was early, like Jan-Feb. They fired up the death counter from the very outset.
We were fortunate enough to discover Dr. Z and his prevention protocol. Then switched to FLCCC. We're the only ones in our large extended family who didn't follow the crowds, and thank God for that gift of discernment. And a little street smarts.
Wow. Your Mother’s words cut deeply.
Bridget
Yes. Very surreal to hear her speak them but I am not angry with her. Mad as heck at the perpetrators of mass propaganda & censorship who target and scared the daylights out of so many good people.
The PROPAGANDA was military spec - the psychological pressure was huge . . unfortunately, I have a disposition where if anyone tries to force me to do something - I do the opposite. I can however see alot of weak-minded sheeple going along with the Government narrative, including doctors & others who benefited to turn a blind eye . . $$$$$$$$. Almost all of my friends did take the quackcine & I used to think they were quite intelligent . . now I'm not so sure . . as "It doesn't take Sherlock" says . . the Nazi's did "whatever it was" very successfully . . they fooled a nation . . what you call that is up to you! #mass hypnosis #stupidity #history #psychological manipulation #nudging #77thbrigade
x100
Must say, I agree. It’s a little too convenient for “them” to say, oh, I was not myself (for near on 3 years!!!). No, not buying it.
Falling for the con does not absolve one of responsibility for wrongdoing while under the delusion and deception.
But yes, they will use it as an excuse for absolution.
The minute they said lock us down to flatten the curve I was yelling B.S. I grew up in the 70s in the era of general strikes. I guess general strikes are only ok if the oligarchs are organizing it.
Dr Alexander
No worries. I and my family are so grateful for your tireless work to expose these greedheads and criminals. You are a great patriot and a godsend to us all
Thank you
PDC
I think that the mass formation psychosis is an actual phenomena, and that many people were under somewhat of a spell during the beginning and middle of COVID, brought on by fear and propaganda being broadcast in the media. Nearly all of my friends and family were under this spell. I think that some people are more susceptible to it than others. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it should not be an excuse for doctors and scientist, who's bad decisions cost lives.
To me, this can never be an excuse for anyone. It can only be a “teaching moment” that includes accountability and lessons learned. And that is the best outcome for someone who can acknowledge they were caught up in it. Even having the self awareness to feel ashamed of it is a positive thing. Many others will try to forget it ever happened, but we cannot let them.
mass formation is not horseshit but a real phenomenon. But just because you got caught in it, doesn't mean you are absolved.
God bless you for this one, Dr. Alexander! Pretty much how I've felt about it.
I disagree.
The mass formation is not bullshit. It explains perfectly how so many people fell for the narrative. If you have most media outlets telling you 24/7 there is an emergency, chances are, you are going to believe there is an emergency. Think of what happened accidentally the with radio program "War of the Worlds" to get a small example of what can happen.
This does not excuse the actions of doctors and officials that made policy though. It's one thing to fall for a set of ideas, it is another thing altogether to coerce others to participate in that mass formation. I don't excuse anyone, especially those that think "we didn't know."
But 80% od the people around us were vaccinated, are we going to hold them all responsible for the Covid response?
Mass formation shows how regular, garden variety people, were duped into believing it all. They were duped into wearing masks, taking the jabs, believing that 50% of anyone who got Covid was hospitalized.
Also, they were not critical thinkers. Critial thinking is far from in their wheelhouse. A lot of what happened echoes one person's sentiments spoken on twitter "The whole world locked down for the pandemic, that is good enough for me."
Thank you. The ability of demagogs or apparatuses to use fear to manipulate public opinion, and the very weakness of our rational faculty to resist that power of fear, these are well known and exploited characteristics of humans and even other mammals. Once fear reaches a certain proportion, the critical faculties evaporate and become tools of the effort to escape that terror. The testimony of many of our best soldiers who became prisoners of the North Koreans, for example, shows how effective is propaganda blended with terror. Those men all broke, eventually. (One can check out William Sargant's "Battle for the Mind" in this regard for a concise synopsis). And the examples of the effectiveness of what we have lived through (and will continue to endure) have myriad tragic examples throughout our history.
I said -- out loud--the whole world locked down for this “pandemic “ and it’s never EVER been done in history. It just makes zero sense. Can’t be. It’s so mind boggling to me.
It was a masterful, globally orchestrated enterprise. And its effects are quite with us still. That segment of the population that was captured by fear is still overwhelmingly in the enemy's camp now. Yes, mind boggling; we have no experience with this sort of "march through the institutions" style preparation and subsequent execution. But we had better become quick studies because there isn't much sand left in the top of the hourglass. As, I believe, Lenin said, "There are decades in which nothing happens and then days in which decades occur" (or whatever it was in Russian).
How can Dr. Alexander not see this? It’s puzzling to me.
I don't know.. But it is typical for us to think that our own correct perception of a reality is how everyone ought to have perceived it. In other words, it is the universal self-deception that our world view is the only one. This is the common delusion of our species and it is not compartmentalized into discrete political or religious categories. It's just what we do and provides the fuel for all the self-righteousness all of us know too well. The best and the worst of us carry this 'pathogen' within.
I’m certainly open to changing my opinion if I receive more, better information. I think that is something we should all strive to do. I’m not threatened by disagreement; I think it’s healthy and natural.
As it should be.
The great news is, I can view the world however I want to view it as long as I am not imposing that view on others. Even now I still maintain that if anyone wants to get vaccinated, it's their body. I'll tell you all the reasons not to take it, but I will fight for your right to do so.
I agree!
Aimee, could you be a little more specific as to what precisely you posit the Dr. Alexander does "not see"? I rather think his vision in the matter is quite clear.
In one form or another we all were victims of crimes exercised through propaganda, threat, and coercion. Another dimension of the crime (neglected to specify previously), which arguably falls under the category of coercion, is bribery. Yes, the creeps in the medical and governmental positions who went along with the BS and profited from their complicity were technically victims in a sense. That does not assuage their guilt and culpability, IMHO.
But all this is essentially an "academic" concern in the worst sense at best. What is needed is to get on with the prosecution of crimes committed. The only definitions needed are those which the American legal system, when it operates properly, will have no big problem spelling out. I am positive that there are brave lawyers and prosecutors--who will need support from the public to carry through with their functions, but are nonetheless capable of executing justice.
Dr. Alexander thinks mass formation is “BS”. I think it is real, for many. It’s not an excuse. It’s just an observation of behavior. People don’t realize that psychology in the west is based on a very different philosophy than in Europe. Breggin and Desmet are from two different schools of thought. Both have merit.
Thanks for your reply! You seem like a good-hearted person.
Some of these things have been done. That's the weird part. They have "quarantined the healthy" before to bad effect, and masks were worn during the "Spanish Flu Pandemic." There is a reason why the tradition did not carry over for each flu season.
I agree with you
Any doctor seeking absolution from crimes against humanity by claiming to have been a victim of mass formation psychosis is a doctor I will never trust. Extraordinary unacceptable excuse for failure to abide by the Hippocratic oath.
"That’s bullshit being fed to us to get us to absolve the wrongdoers almost"
Only that that's a strawman that's peddled by people who actually want to confuse.
Mass formation never was about absolving anyone, neither explicitly nor implicitly, it's an attempt of explaining the machnisms of crowd psychology - not even a new concept (see Gustave le Bon)
Let me add that, even if that model would "absolve wrongdoers" - even that wouldn't make it automatically wrong.
Look up "argument from consequences" logical fallacy. Your lust for payback doesn't negate reality if in the way. That's the "logic" of evil itself.
His essay on the “evil of banality” and suggestion that he knows these alleged “wrongdoers” and that they are just stupid ignorant dumb bureaucrats (you know, his former peers that he inherently saying that he is smarter than) who have led us unknowingly down the wrong path.
He wants it both ways....we are fighting for our freedoms from some sinister unseen opponent who knows no bounds and well, it is just the agencies that are layered over to the point they know not what they do.
Sorry, can’t have it both ways. Was there intent to harm or not along the way? Was there knowing disregard for the truth that cost millions? And why? Not buying the negligence theory. We are dealing with intent or knowing disregard/recklessness that rises to the level of intent. The violation of rights was from the start against science....can’t explain it away on a global scale. Unless Mattias wants to talk about the governments suffering from mass formation psychosis in their strange global lockstep governance.