I was taken aback by some of the vitriol that Desmet has faced from people who ought to have welcomed an attempt to analyse the phenomenon we witnessed in 2020. I started calling it mass psychosis myself beginning in late March ‘20. It’s possible that the hostility towards Desmet has to do with his association with Arendt who likewise gets slammed from rather unexpected quarters.
Well said. I've had similar thoughts, having read Desmet's book, and read both praise and vitriol about him and his writing.
Many seem to be stuck on his dismissal of a coordinated conspiracy that is destroying and segregating societies. My understanding of his premise is that there is not a singular person, or group of persons, orchestrating the demise of homo sapiens. But rather the uniform adherence to destructive ideologies (uniformity, collectivism, a controlling elite, etc) which meets its confluence at totalitarianism.
Therefore it is ideologies that are silently driving the decisions of masses of people, and no conductor (other than the ideology) is required.
I will admit that I don't accept all of his philosophical ideas, but I can accept to some degree his idea of an ideological driver.
Having now read the entire article written by Hughes, Kyrie and Broudy, I have additional opinions. I don't see how Demet's book "works to normalize key aspects of totalitarianism". I also failed to see any real solutions short of a worldwide Reign of Terror, just complaint and criticism (some well-founded, some seemed quite petty). Many folks are pushing back on Desmet's idea that the majority went along with the minority that fell into full lockstep with the tyranny that used COVID as an excuse for more control. And my sense is many are feeling a bit uneasy because while everyone here was against the stupidity and ignorance that reigned over our societies for the past three years now (wow, hard to fathom three years, I had to think about that for longer than I'd like...), most likely very few were actually pushed back against the bureaucrats, the hall monitor door guards, the asinine spacing, masking, vax-ID requirements, the false medical requirements for a job, for a flight, for time with loved ones, let alone physically pushed back when armed neo-gestapo in riot gear threatened our freedoms and liberties, all in the name of "The Science".
Who refused to comply? Who walked past the temperature checks? Who refused to give their vax status? Who protested in the streets, at the court houses, at the halls of government? Some to be sure. But my guess is most of us, wrote, ranted online, yelled at friends and family, and then wore a mask to get groceries...
None of us wanted to comply, to be complicit with the lie, but my guess is, most of us did. We were manipulated. We have been manipulated for decades. The pump was well primed. The last three years was not new, just stronger, less opaque and much, much, more devastating. We were nudged with constant propaganda, constant coercion, constant physical and mental abuse. By people following the same ideology. A newer, malevolent, "invisible hand". And therefore we participated in the delusion, albeit against our better rational judgements, we were still a part of the history of what we all hated. I don't think any of us "got what we asked for", but we were most likely also not, valiant warriors using every weapon to defend our sovereignty.
Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo showed us decades ago the fallibility and probability for normal people to be complicit in terrible things. This psychologist and his book are not the end all answer, but there is plenty in his writing that does clearly resonate with reality.
I think we should move beyond the guilty feelings of "Why didn't I do something more?" and learn from our recent mistakes to make our societies better, smarter and healthier.
"None of us wanted to comply, to be complicit with the lie, but my guess is, most of us did. We were manipulated. We have been manipulated for decades. The pump was well primed." Isn't that one of the main points made by Hughes et al? Manipulate and forced into compliance as opposed to an innate mass formation inline with the dictates of the government against the deadly pestilence. Maybe I wasn't reading it correctly.
Anyway, I thought it was a good alternative perspective - from the comments, it seems I'm the only one.
Worth a good chat about anyway. I certainly don't discount all Desmet offers, and as I pointed out I thought Harrison's multi-part review was very good, and he certainly saw much value in the book.
By the way, I, my family, and a good deal of friends did refuse to comply. We did walk past the temperature checks. We did refuse to give our vax status. We did protest in the streets, at the court houses, at the halls of government (in some very stifling heat). Something that guest writers O'Brien and Mr Charrington will attest to. Yes most did not do this, but a good deal of people resisted, even though the pump has been well primed. Not that I hold anything against those who went along with the official narrative, I know the propaganda and coercion was strong and consequences serious (loss of jobs, healthcare, etc). I was my own boss so I didn't have the fear of getting sacked and I probably have less fear of confrontation with authority than the majority - probably due to pig headed syndrome ;-) . The whole damn thing has been tragic.
Good comment thanks. The big danger is see is the underlying assumption that people are helpless against these quite real conspirators and fall into mass formation. Therefore, lost to mass formation, they are then helpless to understand or contest.
Although I have found the concept to work at a superficial level it also feels as if the theory of mass formation invokes a rather schizophrenic mix of both blaming the victims and learned helplessness .
I think much of the actions/reactions are on a bell curve distribution.
A few are very positive and healthy. A few are very sick and twisted.
Most are subject to the influence of others, the most liked comment, the large following post, the mass media consensus. Most people do not have the tools or time to sort through multiple sources and perspectives to arrive at a well thought out conclusion.
My perspective is not one of fault, more of it is what it is.
Same here. Reading his book, I got the impression that he was trying to make a more nuanced point that takes into account conspiracies AND unconscious social dynamics, though with an emphasis on the latter. That emphasis has caused a lot of people to say, "But what about the conspiracies??" As if he completely rejects that there are conspiracies, which he doesn't. (My main beef with him is that he denies a role for psychopathy, with very little justification.)
To be fair, I think he probably downplays the conspiracy angle TOO much, but I still see the point he's making. It IS largely an unconscious process, and mass/group-formation can and does happen spontaneously. It doesn't require central control/direction. (Though that's not to say it can't be directed.)
I tried to tease this stuff out in my review series of his book. Basically, it's both, like you say. The conspiracy folks tend to downplay the responsibility of ordinary people, and while Desmet doesn't deny conspiracy, he does downplay it in relation to group dynamics. I tend to see them as two ends of a stick - you can't have one without the other. And the main organizing principle of the "conspiracy" itself is largely a shared worldview, not a centralized group directing everything in all its details.
My understanding is that the following sentence from the book's review is key: "And yet, the notion that populations asked for what they got, and got what they asked for, is wholly divorced from the material realities of Covid-19."
There is a feedback mechanism at work in the "covid response" (CR). At an early stage, there was a palpable "fear of the unknown" which was equally shared between "government" and "governed". In different jurisdictions, governments offered an initial solution which, I suppose, would have been, a priori, the solution that would have the best level of acceptance by the governed. In Canada, e.g., the "14-days-to-flatten-the curve" and "we are all in tjhis together" tickled the collectivist nature of my country. From this point, a utilitarian approach to the covid-19 problem took hold, and people asked for and received more: obligatory masking, mRNA injection mandates, exclusion of the uninjected from bars, restaurants, flights, buses, trains, and boats.
While the Canadian federal government has been particularly vicious through this process, and has had a helping hand in steering public opinion through "MSM", the stark naked truth, and I know this from personal experience, is that most of the average Canadians asked for and supported measures that would keep them "safe" at the expense of other citizens concerns, which involved forceful injection of poorly tested substances in their fellow citizens, the segregation and exclusion of the uninjected, and the denial of employment to those who did not support such measures. All this behaviour was achieved without coercion from the government, indicating, to me, that large swaths of the Canadian population had the desire, which was supported by government actions, to suppress the actions of, and discriminate against, a parcel of the population that saw beyond the con job. "The material realities of Covid-19" has government coercion from the onset, and MANY people desired it.
Notice how utilitarianism is always invoked on false premises--bad facts and bad "science"? That's really what ethical altruism is. It's John Stuart Mill premised on falsehood.
Yes, and some of those public desires were much darker than what governments executed, but it was based on instigated fear. The whole vibe was a fabricated tune, driving on mutual reinforcement.
Absolutely. The really terrifying thing is that the rhetoric (particularly some recent commentary from the WHO regarding "unvaccinated being a force of death" or something along those lines) is still highly biased, still leading people to embrace the injections and to despise those who made informed decisions by weighing risk-to-benefit ratios.
OK so I've REALLY missed something here - I didn't see all the vitriol (violent hatred expressed through severe criticism) you people are talking about, only massive amounts of attention toward Desmet as the Arendt of the 21st Century. Likewise I must have missed most of the vitriol aimed at Arendt as well - in my circle it's quite the opposite.
Anyway, that's my own ignorance I guess.
Nevertheless I fee the review in question is a valuable addition to our understanding. Don't miss the point that there is mass psychosis at play in both theses (so my namesake is still valid lol) but the prime mover may be more top-down than Desmet suggests - i.e. there's more of the horse before the cart (assuming the cart represents the people's mass madness).
The Bregginses are two of his main detractors (the people Malone is suing, I believe). I haven't been following it all very closely, just here and there.
Hannah Arendt became and remains a controversial thinker, especially in Israel, following her coverage as a journalist of the Adolf Eichmann trial, later compiled into a book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Those who wished to see the Nazis as unnatural monsters, outside the normal course of humanity were outraged at Arendt's portrayal of Eichmann as a petty official motivated, not by fanatical malice, but by indifference and complacency.
and knowing they can thought project in your mind to make you think a certain way, makes me think they were using the thought projection device for covid control. I woke up more than one morning mouthing "get your vaccine." There is also an article in the January 2009 issue of The Idaho Observer of how they can transmit thoughts on the HDTVs, a heavily subsidized change from analog.
It was a long article and got through half of it before my mind went to skimming. ;-) Will have to go back and finish. Thanks!
Desmet made a valuable contribution which can stimulate further analysis. Here's mine - The Anatomy and Dynamics of Mass Formation: Diane’s Deep Dive on Desmet #1
I don't think Desmet blames the victims and the criticism of him is not helpful or productive. Everyone who writes a book selects content and relies on specific sources. You can accuse any writer of what they didn't address and which sources they didn't use. Desmet did not use the term "mass formation psychosis" His book does a good job of showing our progressive disconnection form nature and promotion of a mechanistic view of humans and turning science from a method to an ideology. He does not address gender - but the whole thesis can also be viewed through a lens of gender. I don't fault I'm for what he didn't write.
Understood, however I do think criticism can be helpful, even productive, and I think that is the case here. Mass psychosis is a real phenomenon (that's why I named this stack escaping from mass psychosis) but I don't think Desmet has encapsulated the complete picture (as you say, an author has to pick an angle and is limited by the limitations of the medium) and so I think it important to consider other views, even contrary views - and in this review in question there is more 'different angles' than contrary I think.
I've published non-fiction and been at the receiving end of criticism (it's unavoidable) but I do learn some valuable things from my critics.
I didn't read his book, but the most righteous people hate him so I figured he got something right. All I know for sure is, we are in the midst of an ongoing atrocity that looks very much like a depopulation plan, so I'm worried less about Mattias than I am about the people actually perpetrating the atrocity.
Really? The most righteous people hate him? I've just pointed you to an alternative perspective that sees atrocity as the central point, I doubt the authors 'hate' Desmet, but they see a more salient focal point.
I'm sure Desmet got something right as well. I agree with him about the mechanistic world view as poison and some of his solutions (which the authors don't particularly appreciate) as also worth considering.
Anyway, I'll be sure not to mention Desmet or his detractors again as he seems to be some sort of holy ground.
I feel the same as you do in regards to what seems to be a depopulation plan. I thought the Hughes, et al, article put the spotlight back on the perpetrators of such a plan and not so much blame our propensity for groupthink. But alas, the majority have spoken and it seems I'm in error for bringing the review to this table.
I sit in sackcloth and ashes and contemplate my next article.
What Desmet has charted is a hypothesis, not a scientific endpoint. Many wild 'conspiracy theories' are based on a very simple and dualistic view of observations, making them easy to knock down. It goes without saying that the academic Desmet would not simply go down this path. He does touch on a mystical subject more in the vein of a Jacques Ellul than Arendt. He touches on the phenomenon of what is called an eggregore, born of a mind virus. This perception of an entity, sometimes named 'The Machine' - others call it Ahriman - is not new. An interesting book that highlights an example historically is this one by John Haslam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tilly_Matthews#Illustrations_of_Madness.
All things considered, Desmet describes the intra-psychological movements and keeps his distance to point out any culprits, for the simple reason that you can't easily prove this and, for that matter, it is not within his academic expertise. However, one does not necessarily get in the way of the other. The nudging teams have demonstrated with their psychological operations to have knowledge (Dark PR) of what Desmet describes.
Thanks for the link to Haslam's writings - I was aware of this via the most excellent book by Louis Sass, Madness and Modernism - another 'classic', although first published in 1992, not that long ago, Sass contributes much to the conversation about the sanity of the modern age. There is, it seems, a mass schizophrenia, albeit extremely subtle, that adds weight to the mass psychosis of a people under such pressures as we experience today.
Such a long list of referrences, i feel so over-studied, no wonder my sleep is troubled...
And such studies are a two-edged sword, they'll be read by the bastards who want to stomp on my face forever with their jackboots...The studies will be read by those bastards to learn how much stomping it'll take to have me voluntarily surrender...
I found it hard to 'get into' Desmet's theory, so much seem obscured or hidden behind use of "hypnosis" - "Hypnotism" doesnt explain anything ! (There are zombies who dont appear 'hypnotised', and there are apparently 'hypnotised' who dont act like zombies should !)...
'Covid-19' should be seen as a trial run , to get rid of any bugs , before The Real Thing...
Side Effects were expected, but not intentional - which doesnt mean there were no opportunists who saw an advantage...
A trial run was deemed necessary...How much resistance, what form would it take, when the New World Order was imposed...Implementing the NWO would be chaotic if the control mechanisms failed to do their job (Though it seems most likely it will be imposed 'overnight', the assumption of total power over World Health by The WHO suggests a slower process, unless this latter is merely the tool for mopping-up resistance)...
I see 'Covid-19' as a trial run of the techniques for mass persuasion which is now being studied for a more efficient, and speedier implementation of the WEFs New World Order...
As for the masses: "Why dont the masses revolt ?" asked Wilhelm Reich in 1930s Germany...
Nothing wrong with a critique of Desmet, but the complaints of Hughes, Kylie and Broady didn't resonate with me. They apply individual characteristics to societal behavior:
"We, the victims of mass deception, are encouraged to turn the critical lens on ourselves, to contend with our own foolish naïveté."
Except that isn't "us." "We" didn't do the bad stuff. I'm with Desmet. The alternative is to conclude that "authorities" are pure evil. They aren't. They are statists. Desmet's thesis (and that's all it is) is consistent with the behavior documented by Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland."
What of the argument that the subject area isn't Desmet's area of expertise? I do not direct this to Winston Smith whom I've come to respect. However I don't care about pedigree complaints in a field dominated by P-hacking social scientists.
Not much else is wrong with Desmet but the fact that he is saying nothing new, invents new terms for profusely-investigated phenomena, and elaborates on his "findings" in a hugely pseudo-scientific manner. His stuff is pseudo-intellectual baloney for those, who seek cognitive security, instead of the truth:
Little bit of column A, little bit of column B?
I was taken aback by some of the vitriol that Desmet has faced from people who ought to have welcomed an attempt to analyse the phenomenon we witnessed in 2020. I started calling it mass psychosis myself beginning in late March ‘20. It’s possible that the hostility towards Desmet has to do with his association with Arendt who likewise gets slammed from rather unexpected quarters.
Well said. I've had similar thoughts, having read Desmet's book, and read both praise and vitriol about him and his writing.
Many seem to be stuck on his dismissal of a coordinated conspiracy that is destroying and segregating societies. My understanding of his premise is that there is not a singular person, or group of persons, orchestrating the demise of homo sapiens. But rather the uniform adherence to destructive ideologies (uniformity, collectivism, a controlling elite, etc) which meets its confluence at totalitarianism.
Therefore it is ideologies that are silently driving the decisions of masses of people, and no conductor (other than the ideology) is required.
I will admit that I don't accept all of his philosophical ideas, but I can accept to some degree his idea of an ideological driver.
*****
Having now read the entire article written by Hughes, Kyrie and Broudy, I have additional opinions. I don't see how Demet's book "works to normalize key aspects of totalitarianism". I also failed to see any real solutions short of a worldwide Reign of Terror, just complaint and criticism (some well-founded, some seemed quite petty). Many folks are pushing back on Desmet's idea that the majority went along with the minority that fell into full lockstep with the tyranny that used COVID as an excuse for more control. And my sense is many are feeling a bit uneasy because while everyone here was against the stupidity and ignorance that reigned over our societies for the past three years now (wow, hard to fathom three years, I had to think about that for longer than I'd like...), most likely very few were actually pushed back against the bureaucrats, the hall monitor door guards, the asinine spacing, masking, vax-ID requirements, the false medical requirements for a job, for a flight, for time with loved ones, let alone physically pushed back when armed neo-gestapo in riot gear threatened our freedoms and liberties, all in the name of "The Science".
Who refused to comply? Who walked past the temperature checks? Who refused to give their vax status? Who protested in the streets, at the court houses, at the halls of government? Some to be sure. But my guess is most of us, wrote, ranted online, yelled at friends and family, and then wore a mask to get groceries...
None of us wanted to comply, to be complicit with the lie, but my guess is, most of us did. We were manipulated. We have been manipulated for decades. The pump was well primed. The last three years was not new, just stronger, less opaque and much, much, more devastating. We were nudged with constant propaganda, constant coercion, constant physical and mental abuse. By people following the same ideology. A newer, malevolent, "invisible hand". And therefore we participated in the delusion, albeit against our better rational judgements, we were still a part of the history of what we all hated. I don't think any of us "got what we asked for", but we were most likely also not, valiant warriors using every weapon to defend our sovereignty.
Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo showed us decades ago the fallibility and probability for normal people to be complicit in terrible things. This psychologist and his book are not the end all answer, but there is plenty in his writing that does clearly resonate with reality.
I think we should move beyond the guilty feelings of "Why didn't I do something more?" and learn from our recent mistakes to make our societies better, smarter and healthier.
"None of us wanted to comply, to be complicit with the lie, but my guess is, most of us did. We were manipulated. We have been manipulated for decades. The pump was well primed." Isn't that one of the main points made by Hughes et al? Manipulate and forced into compliance as opposed to an innate mass formation inline with the dictates of the government against the deadly pestilence. Maybe I wasn't reading it correctly.
Anyway, I thought it was a good alternative perspective - from the comments, it seems I'm the only one.
Worth a good chat about anyway. I certainly don't discount all Desmet offers, and as I pointed out I thought Harrison's multi-part review was very good, and he certainly saw much value in the book.
By the way, I, my family, and a good deal of friends did refuse to comply. We did walk past the temperature checks. We did refuse to give our vax status. We did protest in the streets, at the court houses, at the halls of government (in some very stifling heat). Something that guest writers O'Brien and Mr Charrington will attest to. Yes most did not do this, but a good deal of people resisted, even though the pump has been well primed. Not that I hold anything against those who went along with the official narrative, I know the propaganda and coercion was strong and consequences serious (loss of jobs, healthcare, etc). I was my own boss so I didn't have the fear of getting sacked and I probably have less fear of confrontation with authority than the majority - probably due to pig headed syndrome ;-) . The whole damn thing has been tragic.
In addition, one can invoke yet another 'invisible hand', that of world-old human nature 😇
A propitious opening to plug my long-favourite longread, a sobering account of the inner makings of Nazi state. Germans were nothing special indeed --> https://brownstone.org/articles/they-thought-they-were-free/ 😟
Good comment thanks. The big danger is see is the underlying assumption that people are helpless against these quite real conspirators and fall into mass formation. Therefore, lost to mass formation, they are then helpless to understand or contest.
Although I have found the concept to work at a superficial level it also feels as if the theory of mass formation invokes a rather schizophrenic mix of both blaming the victims and learned helplessness .
I think much of the actions/reactions are on a bell curve distribution.
A few are very positive and healthy. A few are very sick and twisted.
Most are subject to the influence of others, the most liked comment, the large following post, the mass media consensus. Most people do not have the tools or time to sort through multiple sources and perspectives to arrive at a well thought out conclusion.
My perspective is not one of fault, more of it is what it is.
In a word, most are Apaths from the triad enacting the Sociopathic Transaction --> https://psychopathsinlife.com/the-sociopath-empath-apath-triad-explained/ <-- that's how it goes, ever been so 🤷
Same here. Reading his book, I got the impression that he was trying to make a more nuanced point that takes into account conspiracies AND unconscious social dynamics, though with an emphasis on the latter. That emphasis has caused a lot of people to say, "But what about the conspiracies??" As if he completely rejects that there are conspiracies, which he doesn't. (My main beef with him is that he denies a role for psychopathy, with very little justification.)
To be fair, I think he probably downplays the conspiracy angle TOO much, but I still see the point he's making. It IS largely an unconscious process, and mass/group-formation can and does happen spontaneously. It doesn't require central control/direction. (Though that's not to say it can't be directed.)
I tried to tease this stuff out in my review series of his book. Basically, it's both, like you say. The conspiracy folks tend to downplay the responsibility of ordinary people, and while Desmet doesn't deny conspiracy, he does downplay it in relation to group dynamics. I tend to see them as two ends of a stick - you can't have one without the other. And the main organizing principle of the "conspiracy" itself is largely a shared worldview, not a centralized group directing everything in all its details.
Well said.
"Little bit of column A, little bit of column B?"
My understanding is that the following sentence from the book's review is key: "And yet, the notion that populations asked for what they got, and got what they asked for, is wholly divorced from the material realities of Covid-19."
There is a feedback mechanism at work in the "covid response" (CR). At an early stage, there was a palpable "fear of the unknown" which was equally shared between "government" and "governed". In different jurisdictions, governments offered an initial solution which, I suppose, would have been, a priori, the solution that would have the best level of acceptance by the governed. In Canada, e.g., the "14-days-to-flatten-the curve" and "we are all in tjhis together" tickled the collectivist nature of my country. From this point, a utilitarian approach to the covid-19 problem took hold, and people asked for and received more: obligatory masking, mRNA injection mandates, exclusion of the uninjected from bars, restaurants, flights, buses, trains, and boats.
While the Canadian federal government has been particularly vicious through this process, and has had a helping hand in steering public opinion through "MSM", the stark naked truth, and I know this from personal experience, is that most of the average Canadians asked for and supported measures that would keep them "safe" at the expense of other citizens concerns, which involved forceful injection of poorly tested substances in their fellow citizens, the segregation and exclusion of the uninjected, and the denial of employment to those who did not support such measures. All this behaviour was achieved without coercion from the government, indicating, to me, that large swaths of the Canadian population had the desire, which was supported by government actions, to suppress the actions of, and discriminate against, a parcel of the population that saw beyond the con job. "The material realities of Covid-19" has government coercion from the onset, and MANY people desired it.
Notice how utilitarianism is always invoked on false premises--bad facts and bad "science"? That's really what ethical altruism is. It's John Stuart Mill premised on falsehood.
* effective altruism, Orwellian as it sure is 😉
"effective" - I stand corrected.
Yes, and some of those public desires were much darker than what governments executed, but it was based on instigated fear. The whole vibe was a fabricated tune, driving on mutual reinforcement.
Absolutely. The really terrifying thing is that the rhetoric (particularly some recent commentary from the WHO regarding "unvaccinated being a force of death" or something along those lines) is still highly biased, still leading people to embrace the injections and to despise those who made informed decisions by weighing risk-to-benefit ratios.
OK so I've REALLY missed something here - I didn't see all the vitriol (violent hatred expressed through severe criticism) you people are talking about, only massive amounts of attention toward Desmet as the Arendt of the 21st Century. Likewise I must have missed most of the vitriol aimed at Arendt as well - in my circle it's quite the opposite.
Anyway, that's my own ignorance I guess.
Nevertheless I fee the review in question is a valuable addition to our understanding. Don't miss the point that there is mass psychosis at play in both theses (so my namesake is still valid lol) but the prime mover may be more top-down than Desmet suggests - i.e. there's more of the horse before the cart (assuming the cart represents the people's mass madness).
The Bregginses are two of his main detractors (the people Malone is suing, I believe). I haven't been following it all very closely, just here and there.
Hannah Arendt became and remains a controversial thinker, especially in Israel, following her coverage as a journalist of the Adolf Eichmann trial, later compiled into a book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Those who wished to see the Nazis as unnatural monsters, outside the normal course of humanity were outraged at Arendt's portrayal of Eichmann as a petty official motivated, not by fanatical malice, but by indifference and complacency.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-05-11/ty-article-magazine/.premium/why-does-hannah-arendts-banality-of-evil-still-anger-israelis/0000017f-db1a-df9c-a17f-ff1a90bc0000
It seems too much of the blame gets put on the shoulders of the people through Desmet, but having read "The Next Voice You Hear" https://educate-yourself.org/mc/nextvoiceyouhearA29jan04.shtml
and knowing they can thought project in your mind to make you think a certain way, makes me think they were using the thought projection device for covid control. I woke up more than one morning mouthing "get your vaccine." There is also an article in the January 2009 issue of The Idaho Observer of how they can transmit thoughts on the HDTVs, a heavily subsidized change from analog.
It was a long article and got through half of it before my mind went to skimming. ;-) Will have to go back and finish. Thanks!
Long article, but well worth reading.
Desmet made a valuable contribution which can stimulate further analysis. Here's mine - The Anatomy and Dynamics of Mass Formation: Diane’s Deep Dive on Desmet #1
https://coronawise.substack.com/p/the-anatomy-and-dynamics-of-mass?s=w
I don't think Desmet blames the victims and the criticism of him is not helpful or productive. Everyone who writes a book selects content and relies on specific sources. You can accuse any writer of what they didn't address and which sources they didn't use. Desmet did not use the term "mass formation psychosis" His book does a good job of showing our progressive disconnection form nature and promotion of a mechanistic view of humans and turning science from a method to an ideology. He does not address gender - but the whole thesis can also be viewed through a lens of gender. I don't fault I'm for what he didn't write.
Understood, however I do think criticism can be helpful, even productive, and I think that is the case here. Mass psychosis is a real phenomenon (that's why I named this stack escaping from mass psychosis) but I don't think Desmet has encapsulated the complete picture (as you say, an author has to pick an angle and is limited by the limitations of the medium) and so I think it important to consider other views, even contrary views - and in this review in question there is more 'different angles' than contrary I think.
I've published non-fiction and been at the receiving end of criticism (it's unavoidable) but I do learn some valuable things from my critics.
I have to admit I didn’t read your article. But I await a synopsis. Or even better, a synopsis of the synopsis.
I didn't read his book, but the most righteous people hate him so I figured he got something right. All I know for sure is, we are in the midst of an ongoing atrocity that looks very much like a depopulation plan, so I'm worried less about Mattias than I am about the people actually perpetrating the atrocity.
Really? The most righteous people hate him? I've just pointed you to an alternative perspective that sees atrocity as the central point, I doubt the authors 'hate' Desmet, but they see a more salient focal point.
I'm sure Desmet got something right as well. I agree with him about the mechanistic world view as poison and some of his solutions (which the authors don't particularly appreciate) as also worth considering.
Anyway, I'll be sure not to mention Desmet or his detractors again as he seems to be some sort of holy ground.
I might have more accurately said "self-righteous"
That makes more sense.
I feel the same as you do in regards to what seems to be a depopulation plan. I thought the Hughes, et al, article put the spotlight back on the perpetrators of such a plan and not so much blame our propensity for groupthink. But alas, the majority have spoken and it seems I'm in error for bringing the review to this table.
I sit in sackcloth and ashes and contemplate my next article.
What Desmet has charted is a hypothesis, not a scientific endpoint. Many wild 'conspiracy theories' are based on a very simple and dualistic view of observations, making them easy to knock down. It goes without saying that the academic Desmet would not simply go down this path. He does touch on a mystical subject more in the vein of a Jacques Ellul than Arendt. He touches on the phenomenon of what is called an eggregore, born of a mind virus. This perception of an entity, sometimes named 'The Machine' - others call it Ahriman - is not new. An interesting book that highlights an example historically is this one by John Haslam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tilly_Matthews#Illustrations_of_Madness.
All things considered, Desmet describes the intra-psychological movements and keeps his distance to point out any culprits, for the simple reason that you can't easily prove this and, for that matter, it is not within his academic expertise. However, one does not necessarily get in the way of the other. The nudging teams have demonstrated with their psychological operations to have knowledge (Dark PR) of what Desmet describes.
Thanks for the link to Haslam's writings - I was aware of this via the most excellent book by Louis Sass, Madness and Modernism - another 'classic', although first published in 1992, not that long ago, Sass contributes much to the conversation about the sanity of the modern age. There is, it seems, a mass schizophrenia, albeit extremely subtle, that adds weight to the mass psychosis of a people under such pressures as we experience today.
Desmet aka Shiri's Scissor 🙃
maybe. I'm on a quest to read (or rather listen to) his book with, as much as I can, an open mind.
Such a long list of referrences, i feel so over-studied, no wonder my sleep is troubled...
And such studies are a two-edged sword, they'll be read by the bastards who want to stomp on my face forever with their jackboots...The studies will be read by those bastards to learn how much stomping it'll take to have me voluntarily surrender...
I found it hard to 'get into' Desmet's theory, so much seem obscured or hidden behind use of "hypnosis" - "Hypnotism" doesnt explain anything ! (There are zombies who dont appear 'hypnotised', and there are apparently 'hypnotised' who dont act like zombies should !)...
'Covid-19' should be seen as a trial run , to get rid of any bugs , before The Real Thing...
Side Effects were expected, but not intentional - which doesnt mean there were no opportunists who saw an advantage...
A trial run was deemed necessary...How much resistance, what form would it take, when the New World Order was imposed...Implementing the NWO would be chaotic if the control mechanisms failed to do their job (Though it seems most likely it will be imposed 'overnight', the assumption of total power over World Health by The WHO suggests a slower process, unless this latter is merely the tool for mopping-up resistance)...
I see 'Covid-19' as a trial run of the techniques for mass persuasion which is now being studied for a more efficient, and speedier implementation of the WEFs New World Order...
As for the masses: "Why dont the masses revolt ?" asked Wilhelm Reich in 1930s Germany...
Nothing wrong with a critique of Desmet, but the complaints of Hughes, Kylie and Broady didn't resonate with me. They apply individual characteristics to societal behavior:
"We, the victims of mass deception, are encouraged to turn the critical lens on ourselves, to contend with our own foolish naïveté."
Except that isn't "us." "We" didn't do the bad stuff. I'm with Desmet. The alternative is to conclude that "authorities" are pure evil. They aren't. They are statists. Desmet's thesis (and that's all it is) is consistent with the behavior documented by Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland."
What of the argument that the subject area isn't Desmet's area of expertise? I do not direct this to Winston Smith whom I've come to respect. However I don't care about pedigree complaints in a field dominated by P-hacking social scientists.
Not much else is wrong with Desmet but the fact that he is saying nothing new, invents new terms for profusely-investigated phenomena, and elaborates on his "findings" in a hugely pseudo-scientific manner. His stuff is pseudo-intellectual baloney for those, who seek cognitive security, instead of the truth:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-mass-formation-of-morons-using
The phenomenon he addresses can be described in less than a page:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-most-powerful-mode-of-manipulation
Mass manipulation is not as mysterious as it is presented by the self-appointed "experts":
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-can-be-done
Though I would like to read the article I'm not willing to install any of the browsers required.
Big thanks to Hughes, Kyrie and Broudy for producing this deep reaching essay.
There are some good elements to Mattias’ theories, however I find that a deep understanding of metaphysics gives you the real energetic story.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sinatana/p/identify-yourself_its-required?utm_source=direct&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web