I thought that the claims by the Breggins were addressed by Desmet in a recent substack? I've heard Dr. Breggin speak about his own book. It appears that the infighting has begun. It is unfortunate, as it leaves many of us with information that creates further head-spinning we must sort through.
At this point, I think this parallels the nature vs nurture battle. Clearly, a combination of evil intentions, coupled with massive brain-washing techniques have rendered many hypnotized. History shows us that people will carry out very evil acts when in such a state. Essentially, both Desmet and Breggin each have a piece of the puzzle.
Every day I am grateful for my suspicious nature that rendered me able to see through (eventually) the lies. I also remain grateful for all fighting for truth. United we stand.
I read Desmet's book, and before I ever read the Breggins' review, I was appalled and very disturbed Chapter 8, "Conspiracy and Ideology", so much so that I put the book aside, planning not to finish it. I did finally read the last part, which I liked, but was still very uneasy that he could have written Chapter 8, which I considered little more than an incoherent, self-contradictory spewing of the "conspiracy theorist" propaganda we get from the MSM.
I then read the Breggins' article, which I largely agreed with but thought they misrepresented Desmet's overall theory of mass formation. Then I read Desmet's apologia and did not find it satisfactory.
This information is hugely revealing and upsetting to say the least. I will add that I knew of and admired Dr Breggins from before this whole "covid" psyop and have faith in his integrity and sincerity (even while understanding that that does not necessarily mean every part of his arguments are completely valid). Mattias Desmet I have known only since I've seen him interviewed by Reiner Fuellmich and several other video channels, and through his book.
I had the same reaction, putting the book aside when he started calling "conspiracy theorists" mentally unbalanced -- well, I nearly threw it across the room. I never did finish it.
I've found psychologists and psychiatrists to be self aggrandizing, narcissists who're trying to figure out their own fked up lives. Never trusted them, never will. Read the Bible, you'll find direction and how to behave morally and ethically. The Torah is so honest it holds our forefathers accountable for their bad behaviors. What other canonized religion refuses to whitewash its own failings and seeks to correct them?
I saw a few interviews with DeSmet and found most of what he said about the mass psychosis to be according to what I saw myself. But I was not convinced about the rest and decided against buying his book. Thanks for the warning, I will certainly not buy it.
Yeah I think you are having a visceral reaction to the label Conspiracy Theorist. Keep in mind that Desmet is a professor in Europe and they may look at differently than we do here in the US and right of center. One could argue that the vaxx proponents are a form of Conspiracy Theorists who happen to have large groups and political power. But I also have not read his book.
Oh, he was using "conspiracy theorist" in basically the way it is used here. He gave a definition of "conspiracy" that was straight out of a CIA talking points manual, and his whole discussion was classic say (or imply) that people who see bad actors, planned manipulation, and actual conspiracies are "nuts". I'm not saying he necessarily did that as an "intelligence" asset; it is entirely likely he is quite brainwashed on the subject. After all, he is part of the academic world and I can tell you from first-hand experience, that is a very brainwashed world indeed.
For a more complete understanding of Desmet, perhaps you should watch his interview with Tucker Carlson. Putting down a book before finishing it is dumb.
Well, I did finish the book and I still found Chapter 8 appalling and extremely disturbing. I don't understand your logic in suggesting that a person who has actually read *most* of the book is "dumb" to decide finishing it isn't worth her valuable time. Chapter 8 is followed by Part 3, which while I liked it, is mostly a discussion of the philosophy of science and in no way undoes the damage he did in his "conspiracy theorist" diatribe. And, honestly, it is perfectly reasonable and far from "dumb" to decide not to finish a book for any number of good reasons, including that the author has shown poor reasoning, and compromised argumentation.
I bought a book by a scientist I thusfar had admired for great articles. The book was a gathering of good and bad articles and I did not finish it. By a third into it I had already discovered two mayor mistakes and did not even take it to the second hand shop. I threw it in the garbage. It has lots of great critics online. I put on mine, did we read the same book ?
Yours is the argument I could count on hearing from all my former university students who had no intellectual curiosity. You aren't being invited to "like" a book like this; we read books like Desmet's in order to consider them critically and analytically. Whether we "like" a book is immaterial. It's difficult to imagine what could be more valuable than being exposed to a new perspective on the world, especially at this time in world history. Desmet's having come onto an hypothesis of mass formation is a valuable contribution to understand the uniqueness and danger of this moment. He deserves our respect and we owe ourselves the experience of reading all of it.
The chapter on conspiracy does not belong in the book. I suspect his editor and publisher required this chapter as the price of publication. IMO--Mathias Desmet sold his integrity for a few shekels.
I had similar thoughts about it, or that he wrote it late, under time constraints, without thinking it through very carefully. However, I'm more inclined now to think that this is just something he hasn't thought through at all, and has just absorbed and internalized the pervasive propaganda. The incoherence and contradictions in that chapter are jarring in comparison to the rest of the book.
And I would add, not liking a book can often be a perfectly acceptable response, and does not necessarily indicate that the reader has not understood it, or engaged with it, or considered its arguments. In fact, it's possible to understand a piece of writing very well, even agree with it, and not "like" it. And with many types of books, not liking it, not enjoying the experience of reading it, can be as good a reason as any not to finish it. We are not your students seeking a good grade on the latest assignment.
Huh? How do you come to the conclusion that you can characterize anything I wrote here as simply saying I didn't "like" Desmet's book. I made a pretty clear statement of what I found wrong with it. And yes, I did mention that there were parts I liked, but I didn't think a comment on this Substack was a place for an extended and detailed review of the book. I assure you, I have gone into more lengthy analyses of Desmet's book and the Breggins' critique of it in emails and discussions with friends, but I don't think a comment on someone else's writing is the appropriate place for that. And you obviously don't either, as you have simply given him your praises without penning a detailed review any more than I did, or rather, less.
Ah, now I understand why you're dumb and call people names for not doing what you think is right. You're a college professor who thinks the sun rises and sets in your butt. FYI, it doesn't. College professors are self-centered, egotistical, a$$hat$. Congrats, you're ruining the critical thinking ability of young people. 🤢🤮
On a smaller scale like reading half way through a online comment and understanding where its going and where it is not. In some cases I'd throw the book down and give it a book across the room. The dog is free to make of the book on the floor what he will.
He did and there are nuances to his explanation, that didn't leave me feeling comfortable. I can't speak to his intent, and I operate on the assumption of "good intent" until I'm proven wrong. I found much of what Desmet said to be reasonable - with some concerns - and also assumed sincerity.
I think the Breggins - who have been aware of the march towards totalitarianism a long time and have been warning humanity - are sincere as well.
That is the hope that the Great Reset instils in anti-vaxxers. That's why they are pushing this Great Reset nonsense
You are already enslaved... actually farmed is a better term ... they control you by paying you.
They already own everything because they own the Reserve Currency.
What they are doing is exterminating us ... before we hit a critical point and BAU collapses - that would put 8B very angry predators on the streets in the dark ... hungry.
Fortunately the men who run the show recognize that -- and are doing something to head that off.
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
I don't get why we didn't build more fission reactors to cool the spent fuel ponds, and just scale that up until we have other new energy systems, though.
How about you test this out -- turn off your power - use no petrol -- and don't buy any food (cuz that food involves loads of fossil fuels in its production) for a week.
Then come back and tell us about it (no internet... don't cheat)
I don't think this kind of post is helpful, really. Zoning in on particular people when we have far bigger problems to address.
Also, v briefly, I don't believe the mass formation theory indemnifies the actual perpetrators; I think it just goes some way in explaining how they get away with it as part of their plan. Some are susceptible to it, some aren't.
None of is perfect. We all have history and things that we might chance if we had the chance to go back again. We are living through an incredibly difficult period. Many of us who are ‘awake’ to any extent are struggling to know who we can believe and some of those whom we thought were acting from a place of sincerity and truth are being revealed as either having been misled themselves or are insincere.
I have grave doubts as whether this ‘outing’ of people is helpful. Personally, I take everything with a large pinch of salt. I am drawn to some more than others but I take no-one’s word as gospel. I have to believe something/someone though otherwise how on earth are we going to get through this nightmare?
I have grave doubts about people who suppress information necessary to protect humanity from manipulation and exploitation by the psychopathic elites who rule over us as if we are cattle in the feed lot.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
That famous quote is from the first chapter of Bernays' book "Propaganda" (1928). Here's a bit more:
"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that...we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind...and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."
Speaking of shrinks and manipulators, Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew. He was also a consultant to William S. Paley, founder and chairman of CBS. Paley himself was a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), along with his star reporter Edward R. Murrow, and served as a Colonel in the Psychological Warfare Division during WW2.
The CFR and its network of affiliates still controls the propaganda machinery, and CFR members have been key players in every US administration since WW2. See chart: swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/
Anyone who dismisses this as mere "conspiracy theory" is either unwilling to do a few hours worth of research, or is actively helping the conspirators maintain the mass hypnosis.
It has always been people, often charismatic, that drive ideologies, events and dogma. It is therefore beholden to human beings to learn that lesson, to be less susceptible to following, and to vet, to use discernment, and to choose wisely.
I agree with most of what you said, though, despite the potential of distraction these kinds of debates open us up to, when the debate is serious and the players are in persuasive roles - as Breggin and Desmet are - it's important to flesh it out. Wherever you end up on the debate isn't as important as the transparency in getting there.
CJ Hopkins has said as much in his recent exchange with MAA:
“The same people that conformed to the old structure of power (simulated democracy) are conforming to the new structure (pathologized totalitarianism). Their conformity looks different, not because the people have changed, but because the structure of power has changed.”
“It’s a red herring because it focuses your attention on the result rather than on the cause. You don’t defeat totalitarianism by ‘curing’ people of mass psychosis. You end the mass psychosis by dismantling the totalitarianism that caused it.”
“To those who are upset that I called Desmet’s theory a red herring ... my point is simple. It’s a red herring because the causality of the phenomenon is reversed. Mass psychosis doesn’t cause totalitarianism. Totalitarianism causes mass psychosis. Always. It is an essential part of the structure of totalitarianism. The people who conform to the dominant system of power will conform to ANY dominant system of power. Change the structure of the system of power, and their conformity to it will look different.”
"The people who conform to the dominant system of power will conform to ANY dominant system of power. " That's true.
Therefore, dismantling a totalitarian power system is not the cure on its own.
Knee-jerk obedience to a systemic authority is a common human condition. Release the conformists from the grip of one tyrant, and they will just look for another one to run their lives for them.
I'm with the commenters who argue that this needs a both-and solution.
People as individuals have to take responsibility and decide today to make sure that a given directive from above checks out, before falling in line.
After all, we agree that our best chance to disrupt the mass submission to the totalitarian framework of today is SG the 2nd's motto: DO NOT COMPLY. That's an action initiated on the individual level.
In short, we are personally accountable to break the cycle. Regardless of who "formed" it or "induced" it or how much "mass" it has.
Yes, thank you, that was an interesting essay and collection.
It was also unsettling.
The conclusion at the end (and the comments that followed) implied that experiments are being performed on us everywhere, all the time -- you can't trust anyone, anywhere, to be straight with you. Even the few well-meaning people in authority are being duped by those higher up.
But no one can live like that. You would have to retreat into a fantasy world where stuff that that doesn't happen, or become exhausted by endless suspicion while trying to navigate the real one.
The only way to fight back is to be able to trust your life to a higher and more righteous Authority than any on earth, to consider yourself accountable only to Him, and to know that the evildoers will someday have to face His wrath. That's how I will make it through this dark time with my soul intact.
Finding the core of the self ( which (imo) - does not exist) - unfettered by the language/spells cast by those that would seek to control & separate one -is essential. There, in the quiet, in the space between breaths, lies "god".
I agree (fwiw) the impulse-or coordinating principle of all religions ( and by extension all modern precepts towards belief) is to co-opt what is already inherent in the human organism and direct it in some way...
Yes, the desire to submit to a higher power IS inherent in the human soul.*
Because of that inherent reality, those who insist on the black-hole notion that they are their own 'higher power' are the most vulnerable.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and that pull is taking you somewhere, whether you admit it or not.
Even Darwinists are now acknowledging that their system is a secular religion. (yep, look it up.)
(*I do not comply with the implications of pairing "belief" with "human organism". Your convictions and principles, sir, are not just electro-chemical reactions in a bag of carbon-based matter. And with all due respect, you know it!)
And that's why the first thing every totalitarian regime does is announce that unfettered Bible-based faith is the best thing that ever came along, and everyone needs to embrace it.
Especially prized is that verse, "We must obey God rather than men." Rome fell in love with the statement soon as it was uttered, the Nazis put it on their belt buckles, I think China now has it on their flag.
Sep 6, 2022·edited Sep 6, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World
Agreed. Mass Induced Psychosis is a more appropriate label since most, if not all, of the catastrophes we have witnessed worldwide, especially since 9/11, have been completely orchestrated events.
I finally understand your problem with Desmet. You finally got through to me on this.
However, the matter of agency can be, “both Desmet and Elite Theory are right.” It’s not either/or.
Elite Theory I think explains a lot of how the world has worked, continues to work, and always will work.
But Desmet’s theory explains how the masses are susceptible to believing in what the Elites tell them.
So if you believe that there are Elites that want to destroy the present standards of living and liberal society, to “build back better”, e.g. form a world government and totalitarianism without the ability to escape…STILL you can believe easily enough in Desmet’s theory about how people will drink the Koolaid, and how 30% of them will never change their minds and will adhere to what they were first told, and how there will be some who don’t believe it and will never believe it and who can break free…
I don’t see it as a binary thing. Both theories are correct.
I am very much against either/or thinking on the whole.
We are just establishing fact patterns here, and extrapolating to the best of our abilities.
I never trusted Malone, and there are serious problems with mass formation psychosis, as such this substack will be using the modified term mass induced psychosis.
Anybody that studies Jonestown, Waco, Germany in 1938, etc HAS to contemplate what happened to the people who followed and did horrible things to others. In my own contemplations there was a strong drive to look for a single bullet as the root cause: "It was Jim Jones!" "It was Adoph Hitler!" "It was Pol Pot!" Find that source causality and eliminate it and you eliminate the problem, right?
It's just not that simple. There ARE predators among us, no doubt. But the deeper question in the sorts of cases I just mentioned is WHY do they gain traction? What sort of power do they have over their followers that would take what appear to be regular folks and turn them into monsters (please do not read me to say we should have any pity for the likes Jospeh Goebbels and his ilk--they were monsters who were attracted to somebody that would let them be the full psychopaths they in fact were). How did a church goer and family man become the ghoul that (relucantly or not) was responsible for dropping zyklon gas into the showers at Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Desmet is wrestling with that problem. He is actually building on the earlier work by author, Gustav Le Bon, who's amazing work The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind was mind blowing for me. Look him up--I think the work, published in 1895, is available online for free (if it hasn't been purged!)
Desmet is asking a fair question: How did this happen? How did 2/3 of the western world completely fall for the storyline spun by the likes of a little bespectacled wart and his scarf-wearing hand maiden? What super power did they wield that captured the minds of otherwise brilliant people and made them shut down their businesses, inject their babies, scream at non-compliant friends and family?
The stark answer is something like "because we wanted them to."
Le Bon's basic thesis is just the opposite of what we first think: People get the leaders they, as a crowd, want. We, as a crowd, select for the answers we in our heart desire. The effective leader simply discerns what strings to pluck that will resonate with what we want. In that view, if Hitler had been eliminated in 1932 by a freak bus accident, the German people would have simply "found" another purveyor like him to take his place.
I've read the Breggin's book and found it helpful.
I've read Desmet's recent defense of his view point and found it very compelling and much more nuanced look into my own heart and thinking.
I'm willing to accept both at this point as different viewpoints contemplating the problem that humanity is. The name calling isn't helpful. I would imagine that even the Breggin's have failures in their practice that they aren't proud of. I found their accusation of Desmet's "failure" (if indeed, it is true) as a cheap shot.
Folks, we are the problem. Desmet and Le Bon are asking each of us to look deeply in our soul's mirror and imagine that darkness lives there.
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Waco wasn't what the media would have you believe. If we've learned one thing, it's that the MSM has been lying for decades. From Randy Weaver to David Koresh, it's gov't propaganda. If you've lived near and known some of the citizens that our gov't has gone after, you understand.
I understood with Waco. Ruby Ridge too. and Little Elian in Miami forceably returned to Castro's Gulag. OK City Feral false flag. All under the Clintonista Regime.
9/11 and 20 Years War started under the Bushie Cartel. All NWO & Deep Statist DC Ferals.
Solzhenitsyn was on the right track as all of have some secrets we would rather not have exposed.
He also recognized that man is basically good, but with "sin" and can eventually be consumed by evil.
There are however 2% of mankind that once consumed by Evil are enveloped and lose their basic goodness. 20% of the population are easily influenced by this 2% due to their own gradations of evil leading towards the 2%. These 20% are the Sycophants that are mindless, heedless followers of death and destruction, but if disconnected from active pressure from the 2% do recover somewhat, but not fully.
No offense intended. The scary part for me (and I admit to being overly broad in my accusation) is that I've concluded that those who followed the Pots, Hitlers, Maos, Jones' etc did so with absolutely NO doubt they were doing God's Will. Some at the top might be fully aware of their evil, but somewhere not too far down in the stack people begin to feel like special agents of truth and justice. The end justifies the means.
In my own experience (flawed like everbody else), humans in general (hence the "we") are fully capable of doing what somebody else would term as evil and doing so with a clean (unexamined) conscience.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
So Pascal identifies ‘religious conviction’ to a vulnerability to do evil cheerfully. In broad terms, mass induced psychosis, seems like a modern secular equivalent exploiting the same vulnerability. The cloth of the modern perpetrators is not quite so colorful, but unmistakable traces of religiosity remain.
Absolutely! The "religious" motivation is on full display, both right and left. That's not to say there isn't something "true" in the universe, but our individual grasp on it is weak. The "ME" culture has eroded what should be a foremost humility in every human. "Maybe I'm NOT the center of the world, maybe I'm wrong" has been lost on most television/tiktok/facebook/telegram/twitter/blahblahblah channels. We're sitting ducks for the first spark to come along and ignite the whole brushheap into an uncontrollable forest fire.
Not trying to gloss over the problem. There ARE monsters among us (heck, under the right circumstances, I might be one!). But what does Desmet's failure have to do with his basic thesis? We hung many at Nuremburg and imprisoned many more. Did that fix the problem? I'm not saying that justice isn't due for the likes of Biden, Fauci, Birx and hundreds more. But why did WE go along (I know. I know. About a third of us didn't. This time.) That's a fair question, isn't it?
I just read a substack article by Bari Weis this morning. I encourage everybody to go over and read and contemplate what she is reporting about "Spoonies." These are mostly young women that revel in being sick. They talk endlessly on TikTok about their illnesses and how they will intentionally lie to doctors to get the diagnosis they want. See how it works? Is a doctor who will surgically alter another person without REAL cause the evil genius that needs to be eliminated? Sure, but the ROOT cause is the girl that identifies as sick and will relentlessly look for somebody that will confirm her in her sickness and give her the treatment she wants.
Thank you. This is amazing information. We need it. We need all the facts we can get. By the way, I tremendously appreciate the term you use for what has been done to people: Mass Induced Psychosis. INDUCED - it puts the responsibility on the inducers. It does not soften what has been done with the minimizer word: formation. It is accurate. And wow!! What incredible arrogance on the part of Mattias Desmet, to believe he knows a mass murderer (hundreds of murders) will murder no more, because Desmet has such utter faith in his therapeutic approach.
No, at best a very few Psychiatrists are sane. Most are Insanely dictating and destrotying the lives of their victim patients. "One Flew over the Cuckoo Nest" was not a fiction of their "profeSSion".
"If" Psychs have such a workable technology, in addition to "curing" people; Can they Raise IQ? Can they Improve a Normal Person to a Better Person?
If you Doubt me, Go see a Psych and see if You get "better". You will be put on drugs, because They View Everyone as Insane or a "borderline case".
This just in from Robert Malone: "The “personality” launching the attack is an MD with Pharmaceutical industry experience . . . ."
Well, I don't know any MD without pharmaceutical industry experience. And I doubt that any MD, pre-Covid, had been as big a thorn in the side of the pharmaceutical industry as Peter Breggin. So that sounds to me a little misleading, to put it mildly. It's a bit like saying that Ralph Nader has automotive industry experience.
I myself do not have the time to get much into this debate. Suffice it to say that I never saw a need for this mass formation theory.
However, even before this column's bombshell, I would side with Breggin -- or a hairstylist or a bar tender -- over a psychoanalyst like Desmet. Breggin says psychoanalysis is a cult. I would go even further: it is an intellectually violent assault on the patient. It establishes the doctor as God, and God proclaims truth about the patient's inner psyche.
I realize that in calling a nonphysical action to be a violent assault I may sound like an SJW saying that giving an opinion is violence. But there is a crucial difference: the physician patient relationship. The patient, particularly in psychiatry, is vulnerable, and places himself in a subordinate position to the physician. It is not an equal playing field.
And psychoanalysts do not give their opinions: they give truths, often extrapolating far beyond the facts.
Not surprisingly, the psychoanalysts I have met have a marked tendency towards arrogance.
More upsetting, their patients do not improve. I have tried to work with people who have had years of psychoanalysis. Maybe at this late stage of my career I could help them, but back then I could not. Their previous treatments had done too much damage.
Mass-induced psychosis is a much better description because it, as you say, points to rather than hides the evil intent. I also like (as a descriptive term, not as a phenomenon!) trauma-based mind control. This term points to the evil intent and names the mechanism.
Let the truth prevail, but let's also give people the benefit of the doubt. I agree with previous comments that Desmet's work doesn't suggest removal of accountability for our actions due to mass formation. It simply explains our vulnerability to propaganda. Something that others have also touched on in their books.
Having said that, let the authorities tackle the issue of his accountability for concealing the crimes of a serial killer. It seems to me that there's a lot of guilt to be spread around. I'm thinking pharmaceutical companies whose drugs destroy the minds of people and induce psychosis in many known mass murderers. Not to mention an entire culture that is omnicidal and worships power and money. Then there's patriarchy itself, a relatively recent social phenomenon, which creates a system of dominance and hierarchy that distorts and deforms human relationships. One only needs to look at gonzo porn to see how young men are being taught to view the world. All of these factors come into play when we see social breakdown. The world becomes divided into the the exploiters and the exploited.
It wasn't meant to be this way. Human beings, brought up in a loving, nurturing home placed in a wise and caring community in a healthy thriving environment free from fear and scarcity simply do not manifest mass psychosis. Somehow we lost our way as a species. I fear we may never find our way back.
Sep 12, 2022Liked by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World
Mark Twain did famously post that "Like the moon, every man has a dark side almost no one sees"...
I know nothing about this controversy of mistrust concerning Dr. Robert Malone, who seemed very likeable, intelligent and believable - but at this point nothing would surprise or shock me.
The Breggins are exceedingly unhelpful in our fight against medical tyranny. I read Desmet's piece that Robert Malone published and thought Desmet handled it in a mature and reasonable fashion. The Breggins sound like nut jobs, something every movement has an element of. My biggest objection to the Breggins' critique is that Desmet is "blaming the victims." What the Breggins fail to understand is that in a mass formation, there is a symbiosis between the controllers and the controlled. The covid believers, to cite one example of mass formation, support their "superiors," don't question them, and so have an equally important role to play in mass formation. Being a victim is very fashionable these days. I think we need to consider the strong probability that the so-called victims are also agents. And then there is this: Desmet discussed this issue thoroughly in his book, which apparently the Breggins (who also seem to be in the thralls of another kind of mass formation) failed to read.
The Breggins appear to have outright lied in their review of Desmet's book and in the above article. Make of that what you will, but there's a legal concept of "false in one, false in all". Why are you publishing this bullshit? You're likely to lose readers if you keep this up.
Breggin: "We have previously described Desmet as protecting the people behind the mass murder of millions of individuals during COVID-19 by declaring that the masses originated the problem and that there was no malicious or organized planning behind it."
Desmet's book: "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...
... institutions were created that make plans about what future society should look like and how the ideal future society should respond to crisis situations. The Lockstep scenario of the Rockefeller Foundation, Event 201 of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (in collaboration with John Hopkins and the Rockefeller foundation), and The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab are examples of such endeavors. For many people, these events and publications are the ultimate proof that the social developments we’re experiencing are planned and the product of a conspiracy, since long before the outbreak these “plans” described how society would go into lockdown as the result of a pandemic, that a biopassport would be introduced, and that people would be tracked and traced with subcutaneous sensors...
There are countless other examples that seem to point in the direction of a plan being implemented, such as: the fact that the definition of “pandemic” was changed shortly before the corona crisis; the definition of “herd immunity” to imply that only vaccines can achieve it; the counting method for corona deaths was adjusted by the WHO so it was higher than the number of flu deaths; that the registration methodology of vaccine side effects led to serious underestimation (by, for example, labelling those that become apparent during the first fortnight after vaccination as not vaccine-related); that all key political positions when the crisis started were held by politicians who were pro-technocracy (all people referred to as the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders)."
1. The perpetrators / predators are real and they must be thwarted and pursued to the fullest.
2. Mass Formation Psychosis is also real and understanding it is key to point 1.
3. "No professional should ever give himself the right to avoid reporting a confession of mass murder by one of his patients."
Footnotes:
The Mass Formation, although not called as such, is well documented by scholars past - Arendt, Merloo et al. Desmet expanded on it in timely and helpful ways.
Desmet should be allowed to have his say and the process permitted to run its course.
I thought that the claims by the Breggins were addressed by Desmet in a recent substack? I've heard Dr. Breggin speak about his own book. It appears that the infighting has begun. It is unfortunate, as it leaves many of us with information that creates further head-spinning we must sort through.
At this point, I think this parallels the nature vs nurture battle. Clearly, a combination of evil intentions, coupled with massive brain-washing techniques have rendered many hypnotized. History shows us that people will carry out very evil acts when in such a state. Essentially, both Desmet and Breggin each have a piece of the puzzle.
Every day I am grateful for my suspicious nature that rendered me able to see through (eventually) the lies. I also remain grateful for all fighting for truth. United we stand.
I read Desmet's book, and before I ever read the Breggins' review, I was appalled and very disturbed Chapter 8, "Conspiracy and Ideology", so much so that I put the book aside, planning not to finish it. I did finally read the last part, which I liked, but was still very uneasy that he could have written Chapter 8, which I considered little more than an incoherent, self-contradictory spewing of the "conspiracy theorist" propaganda we get from the MSM.
I then read the Breggins' article, which I largely agreed with but thought they misrepresented Desmet's overall theory of mass formation. Then I read Desmet's apologia and did not find it satisfactory.
This information is hugely revealing and upsetting to say the least. I will add that I knew of and admired Dr Breggins from before this whole "covid" psyop and have faith in his integrity and sincerity (even while understanding that that does not necessarily mean every part of his arguments are completely valid). Mattias Desmet I have known only since I've seen him interviewed by Reiner Fuellmich and several other video channels, and through his book.
I had the same reaction, putting the book aside when he started calling "conspiracy theorists" mentally unbalanced -- well, I nearly threw it across the room. I never did finish it.
I've found psychologists and psychiatrists to be self aggrandizing, narcissists who're trying to figure out their own fked up lives. Never trusted them, never will. Read the Bible, you'll find direction and how to behave morally and ethically. The Torah is so honest it holds our forefathers accountable for their bad behaviors. What other canonized religion refuses to whitewash its own failings and seeks to correct them?
I saw a few interviews with DeSmet and found most of what he said about the mass psychosis to be according to what I saw myself. But I was not convinced about the rest and decided against buying his book. Thanks for the warning, I will certainly not buy it.
I love that one!! Since we'll be the only ones not dead of a COVID jab, you could be right.
Yeah I think you are having a visceral reaction to the label Conspiracy Theorist. Keep in mind that Desmet is a professor in Europe and they may look at differently than we do here in the US and right of center. One could argue that the vaxx proponents are a form of Conspiracy Theorists who happen to have large groups and political power. But I also have not read his book.
Oh, he was using "conspiracy theorist" in basically the way it is used here. He gave a definition of "conspiracy" that was straight out of a CIA talking points manual, and his whole discussion was classic say (or imply) that people who see bad actors, planned manipulation, and actual conspiracies are "nuts". I'm not saying he necessarily did that as an "intelligence" asset; it is entirely likely he is quite brainwashed on the subject. After all, he is part of the academic world and I can tell you from first-hand experience, that is a very brainwashed world indeed.
For a more complete understanding of Desmet, perhaps you should watch his interview with Tucker Carlson. Putting down a book before finishing it is dumb.
Well, I did finish the book and I still found Chapter 8 appalling and extremely disturbing. I don't understand your logic in suggesting that a person who has actually read *most* of the book is "dumb" to decide finishing it isn't worth her valuable time. Chapter 8 is followed by Part 3, which while I liked it, is mostly a discussion of the philosophy of science and in no way undoes the damage he did in his "conspiracy theorist" diatribe. And, honestly, it is perfectly reasonable and far from "dumb" to decide not to finish a book for any number of good reasons, including that the author has shown poor reasoning, and compromised argumentation.
I bought a book by a scientist I thusfar had admired for great articles. The book was a gathering of good and bad articles and I did not finish it. By a third into it I had already discovered two mayor mistakes and did not even take it to the second hand shop. I threw it in the garbage. It has lots of great critics online. I put on mine, did we read the same book ?
Yours is the argument I could count on hearing from all my former university students who had no intellectual curiosity. You aren't being invited to "like" a book like this; we read books like Desmet's in order to consider them critically and analytically. Whether we "like" a book is immaterial. It's difficult to imagine what could be more valuable than being exposed to a new perspective on the world, especially at this time in world history. Desmet's having come onto an hypothesis of mass formation is a valuable contribution to understand the uniqueness and danger of this moment. He deserves our respect and we owe ourselves the experience of reading all of it.
The chapter on conspiracy does not belong in the book. I suspect his editor and publisher required this chapter as the price of publication. IMO--Mathias Desmet sold his integrity for a few shekels.
I had similar thoughts about it, or that he wrote it late, under time constraints, without thinking it through very carefully. However, I'm more inclined now to think that this is just something he hasn't thought through at all, and has just absorbed and internalized the pervasive propaganda. The incoherence and contradictions in that chapter are jarring in comparison to the rest of the book.
And I would add, not liking a book can often be a perfectly acceptable response, and does not necessarily indicate that the reader has not understood it, or engaged with it, or considered its arguments. In fact, it's possible to understand a piece of writing very well, even agree with it, and not "like" it. And with many types of books, not liking it, not enjoying the experience of reading it, can be as good a reason as any not to finish it. We are not your students seeking a good grade on the latest assignment.
Huh? How do you come to the conclusion that you can characterize anything I wrote here as simply saying I didn't "like" Desmet's book. I made a pretty clear statement of what I found wrong with it. And yes, I did mention that there were parts I liked, but I didn't think a comment on this Substack was a place for an extended and detailed review of the book. I assure you, I have gone into more lengthy analyses of Desmet's book and the Breggins' critique of it in emails and discussions with friends, but I don't think a comment on someone else's writing is the appropriate place for that. And you obviously don't either, as you have simply given him your praises without penning a detailed review any more than I did, or rather, less.
Ah, now I understand why you're dumb and call people names for not doing what you think is right. You're a college professor who thinks the sun rises and sets in your butt. FYI, it doesn't. College professors are self-centered, egotistical, a$$hat$. Congrats, you're ruining the critical thinking ability of young people. 🤢🤮
On a smaller scale like reading half way through a online comment and understanding where its going and where it is not. In some cases I'd throw the book down and give it a book across the room. The dog is free to make of the book on the floor what he will.
Calling someone names because they don't like what they're reading that they bought and paid for, is dumb.
I rarely finish a book.
You and Samuel Johnson! Good company.
He did and there are nuances to his explanation, that didn't leave me feeling comfortable. I can't speak to his intent, and I operate on the assumption of "good intent" until I'm proven wrong. I found much of what Desmet said to be reasonable - with some concerns - and also assumed sincerity.
I think the Breggins - who have been aware of the march towards totalitarianism a long time and have been warning humanity - are sincere as well.
It all tends to come out in the end.
So mass distraction BS, Kathleen. And that is why we're going to end up slaves or dead.
No one is ending up a slave.
We will win.
And it's mass induced psychosis from henceforth.
That is the hope that the Great Reset instils in anti-vaxxers. That's why they are pushing this Great Reset nonsense
You are already enslaved... actually farmed is a better term ... they control you by paying you.
They already own everything because they own the Reserve Currency.
What they are doing is exterminating us ... before we hit a critical point and BAU collapses - that would put 8B very angry predators on the streets in the dark ... hungry.
Fortunately the men who run the show recognize that -- and are doing something to head that off.
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: https://energyskeptic.com/2021/the-end-of-fracked-shale-oil/
The full plan https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=220
I don't get why we didn't build more fission reactors to cool the spent fuel ponds, and just scale that up until we have other new energy systems, though.
Oh?
How about you test this out -- turn off your power - use no petrol -- and don't buy any food (cuz that food involves loads of fossil fuels in its production) for a week.
Then come back and tell us about it (no internet... don't cheat)
I pray you are right.
Nah. Humans win.
perhaps, to potentially engage in a false dichotomy, truth cannot exist without lies...?
I don't think this kind of post is helpful, really. Zoning in on particular people when we have far bigger problems to address.
Also, v briefly, I don't believe the mass formation theory indemnifies the actual perpetrators; I think it just goes some way in explaining how they get away with it as part of their plan. Some are susceptible to it, some aren't.
None of is perfect. We all have history and things that we might chance if we had the chance to go back again. We are living through an incredibly difficult period. Many of us who are ‘awake’ to any extent are struggling to know who we can believe and some of those whom we thought were acting from a place of sincerity and truth are being revealed as either having been misled themselves or are insincere.
I have grave doubts as whether this ‘outing’ of people is helpful. Personally, I take everything with a large pinch of salt. I am drawn to some more than others but I take no-one’s word as gospel. I have to believe something/someone though otherwise how on earth are we going to get through this nightmare?
I have grave doubts about people who suppress information necessary to protect humanity from manipulation and exploitation by the psychopathic elites who rule over us as if we are cattle in the feed lot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
Edward Bernays
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That famous quote is from the first chapter of Bernays' book "Propaganda" (1928). Here's a bit more:
"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that...we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind...and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."
archive.org/details/bernays-edward-l.-propaganda-1928-1936_202107
Speaking of shrinks and manipulators, Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew. He was also a consultant to William S. Paley, founder and chairman of CBS. Paley himself was a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), along with his star reporter Edward R. Murrow, and served as a Colonel in the Psychological Warfare Division during WW2.
The CFR and its network of affiliates still controls the propaganda machinery, and CFR members have been key players in every US administration since WW2. See chart: swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/
Anyone who dismisses this as mere "conspiracy theory" is either unwilling to do a few hours worth of research, or is actively helping the conspirators maintain the mass hypnosis.
Mass Induced Psychosis or Mass Contrived Psychosis. Take your pick, with either being an upgrade to mass formation.
Mass designed engineered & executed psychosis?
It has always been people, often charismatic, that drive ideologies, events and dogma. It is therefore beholden to human beings to learn that lesson, to be less susceptible to following, and to vet, to use discernment, and to choose wisely.
I agree with most of what you said, though, despite the potential of distraction these kinds of debates open us up to, when the debate is serious and the players are in persuasive roles - as Breggin and Desmet are - it's important to flesh it out. Wherever you end up on the debate isn't as important as the transparency in getting there.
CJ Hopkins has said as much in his recent exchange with MAA:
“The same people that conformed to the old structure of power (simulated democracy) are conforming to the new structure (pathologized totalitarianism). Their conformity looks different, not because the people have changed, but because the structure of power has changed.”
“It’s a red herring because it focuses your attention on the result rather than on the cause. You don’t defeat totalitarianism by ‘curing’ people of mass psychosis. You end the mass psychosis by dismantling the totalitarianism that caused it.”
“To those who are upset that I called Desmet’s theory a red herring ... my point is simple. It’s a red herring because the causality of the phenomenon is reversed. Mass psychosis doesn’t cause totalitarianism. Totalitarianism causes mass psychosis. Always. It is an essential part of the structure of totalitarianism. The people who conform to the dominant system of power will conform to ANY dominant system of power. Change the structure of the system of power, and their conformity to it will look different.”
Absolutely correct.
seems to ring true...
"The people who conform to the dominant system of power will conform to ANY dominant system of power. " That's true.
Therefore, dismantling a totalitarian power system is not the cure on its own.
Knee-jerk obedience to a systemic authority is a common human condition. Release the conformists from the grip of one tyrant, and they will just look for another one to run their lives for them.
I'm with the commenters who argue that this needs a both-and solution.
People as individuals have to take responsibility and decide today to make sure that a given directive from above checks out, before falling in line.
After all, we agree that our best chance to disrupt the mass submission to the totalitarian framework of today is SG the 2nd's motto: DO NOT COMPLY. That's an action initiated on the individual level.
In short, we are personally accountable to break the cycle. Regardless of who "formed" it or "induced" it or how much "mass" it has.
well- in order to achieve that of which you speak, I think we need to address the following:
https://off-guardian.org/2022/09/03/5-psychological-experiments-that-explain-the-modern-world/
Yes, thank you, that was an interesting essay and collection.
It was also unsettling.
The conclusion at the end (and the comments that followed) implied that experiments are being performed on us everywhere, all the time -- you can't trust anyone, anywhere, to be straight with you. Even the few well-meaning people in authority are being duped by those higher up.
But no one can live like that. You would have to retreat into a fantasy world where stuff that that doesn't happen, or become exhausted by endless suspicion while trying to navigate the real one.
The only way to fight back is to be able to trust your life to a higher and more righteous Authority than any on earth, to consider yourself accountable only to Him, and to know that the evildoers will someday have to face His wrath. That's how I will make it through this dark time with my soul intact.
Finding the core of the self ( which (imo) - does not exist) - unfettered by the language/spells cast by those that would seek to control & separate one -is essential. There, in the quiet, in the space between breaths, lies "god".
I agree (fwiw) the impulse-or coordinating principle of all religions ( and by extension all modern precepts towards belief) is to co-opt what is already inherent in the human organism and direct it in some way...
Yes, the desire to submit to a higher power IS inherent in the human soul.*
Because of that inherent reality, those who insist on the black-hole notion that they are their own 'higher power' are the most vulnerable.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and that pull is taking you somewhere, whether you admit it or not.
Even Darwinists are now acknowledging that their system is a secular religion. (yep, look it up.)
(*I do not comply with the implications of pairing "belief" with "human organism". Your convictions and principles, sir, are not just electro-chemical reactions in a bag of carbon-based matter. And with all due respect, you know it!)
Uh huh.
And that's why the first thing every totalitarian regime does is announce that unfettered Bible-based faith is the best thing that ever came along, and everyone needs to embrace it.
Especially prized is that verse, "We must obey God rather than men." Rome fell in love with the statement soon as it was uttered, the Nazis put it on their belt buckles, I think China now has it on their flag.
/s
Agree 100. Well said
Exactly
Yes---totalitarianism is the inversion of reality.
Brilliant and very clear
Agreed. Mass Induced Psychosis is a more appropriate label since most, if not all, of the catastrophes we have witnessed worldwide, especially since 9/11, have been completely orchestrated events.
Or good old fashioned hysteria.
I've witnessed a few examples best described as hysteria.
I finally understand your problem with Desmet. You finally got through to me on this.
However, the matter of agency can be, “both Desmet and Elite Theory are right.” It’s not either/or.
Elite Theory I think explains a lot of how the world has worked, continues to work, and always will work.
But Desmet’s theory explains how the masses are susceptible to believing in what the Elites tell them.
So if you believe that there are Elites that want to destroy the present standards of living and liberal society, to “build back better”, e.g. form a world government and totalitarianism without the ability to escape…STILL you can believe easily enough in Desmet’s theory about how people will drink the Koolaid, and how 30% of them will never change their minds and will adhere to what they were first told, and how there will be some who don’t believe it and will never believe it and who can break free…
I don’t see it as a binary thing. Both theories are correct.
I am very much against either/or thinking on the whole.
We are just establishing fact patterns here, and extrapolating to the best of our abilities.
I never trusted Malone, and there are serious problems with mass formation psychosis, as such this substack will be using the modified term mass induced psychosis.
glad to hear it, it makes sense. I am uneasy about Dr. Malone as a result of your reporting and others too.
Anybody that studies Jonestown, Waco, Germany in 1938, etc HAS to contemplate what happened to the people who followed and did horrible things to others. In my own contemplations there was a strong drive to look for a single bullet as the root cause: "It was Jim Jones!" "It was Adoph Hitler!" "It was Pol Pot!" Find that source causality and eliminate it and you eliminate the problem, right?
It's just not that simple. There ARE predators among us, no doubt. But the deeper question in the sorts of cases I just mentioned is WHY do they gain traction? What sort of power do they have over their followers that would take what appear to be regular folks and turn them into monsters (please do not read me to say we should have any pity for the likes Jospeh Goebbels and his ilk--they were monsters who were attracted to somebody that would let them be the full psychopaths they in fact were). How did a church goer and family man become the ghoul that (relucantly or not) was responsible for dropping zyklon gas into the showers at Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Desmet is wrestling with that problem. He is actually building on the earlier work by author, Gustav Le Bon, who's amazing work The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind was mind blowing for me. Look him up--I think the work, published in 1895, is available online for free (if it hasn't been purged!)
Desmet is asking a fair question: How did this happen? How did 2/3 of the western world completely fall for the storyline spun by the likes of a little bespectacled wart and his scarf-wearing hand maiden? What super power did they wield that captured the minds of otherwise brilliant people and made them shut down their businesses, inject their babies, scream at non-compliant friends and family?
The stark answer is something like "because we wanted them to."
Le Bon's basic thesis is just the opposite of what we first think: People get the leaders they, as a crowd, want. We, as a crowd, select for the answers we in our heart desire. The effective leader simply discerns what strings to pluck that will resonate with what we want. In that view, if Hitler had been eliminated in 1932 by a freak bus accident, the German people would have simply "found" another purveyor like him to take his place.
I've read the Breggin's book and found it helpful.
I've read Desmet's recent defense of his view point and found it very compelling and much more nuanced look into my own heart and thinking.
I'm willing to accept both at this point as different viewpoints contemplating the problem that humanity is. The name calling isn't helpful. I would imagine that even the Breggin's have failures in their practice that they aren't proud of. I found their accusation of Desmet's "failure" (if indeed, it is true) as a cheap shot.
Folks, we are the problem. Desmet and Le Bon are asking each of us to look deeply in our soul's mirror and imagine that darkness lives there.
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Waco wasn't what the media would have you believe. If we've learned one thing, it's that the MSM has been lying for decades. From Randy Weaver to David Koresh, it's gov't propaganda. If you've lived near and known some of the citizens that our gov't has gone after, you understand.
I always make sure to refer to Bill Barr as William "Ruby Ridge" Barr.
Perfect! And leopards do not change their spots, so he is just as much an evil weasel now as he was then.
I understood with Waco. Ruby Ridge too. and Little Elian in Miami forceably returned to Castro's Gulag. OK City Feral false flag. All under the Clintonista Regime.
9/11 and 20 Years War started under the Bushie Cartel. All NWO & Deep Statist DC Ferals.
Loved your post. Well done 👍🏻
Solzhenitsyn was on the right track as all of have some secrets we would rather not have exposed.
He also recognized that man is basically good, but with "sin" and can eventually be consumed by evil.
There are however 2% of mankind that once consumed by Evil are enveloped and lose their basic goodness. 20% of the population are easily influenced by this 2% due to their own gradations of evil leading towards the 2%. These 20% are the Sycophants that are mindless, heedless followers of death and destruction, but if disconnected from active pressure from the 2% do recover somewhat, but not fully.
Keep the ‘we’ to yourself Quinbus51.
No offense intended. The scary part for me (and I admit to being overly broad in my accusation) is that I've concluded that those who followed the Pots, Hitlers, Maos, Jones' etc did so with absolutely NO doubt they were doing God's Will. Some at the top might be fully aware of their evil, but somewhere not too far down in the stack people begin to feel like special agents of truth and justice. The end justifies the means.
In my own experience (flawed like everbody else), humans in general (hence the "we") are fully capable of doing what somebody else would term as evil and doing so with a clean (unexamined) conscience.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
So Pascal identifies ‘religious conviction’ to a vulnerability to do evil cheerfully. In broad terms, mass induced psychosis, seems like a modern secular equivalent exploiting the same vulnerability. The cloth of the modern perpetrators is not quite so colorful, but unmistakable traces of religiosity remain.
Absolutely! The "religious" motivation is on full display, both right and left. That's not to say there isn't something "true" in the universe, but our individual grasp on it is weak. The "ME" culture has eroded what should be a foremost humility in every human. "Maybe I'm NOT the center of the world, maybe I'm wrong" has been lost on most television/tiktok/facebook/telegram/twitter/blahblahblah channels. We're sitting ducks for the first spark to come along and ignite the whole brushheap into an uncontrollable forest fire.
Most human beings are 100% suggestable 100% of the time.
Not trying to gloss over the problem. There ARE monsters among us (heck, under the right circumstances, I might be one!). But what does Desmet's failure have to do with his basic thesis? We hung many at Nuremburg and imprisoned many more. Did that fix the problem? I'm not saying that justice isn't due for the likes of Biden, Fauci, Birx and hundreds more. But why did WE go along (I know. I know. About a third of us didn't. This time.) That's a fair question, isn't it?
I just read a substack article by Bari Weis this morning. I encourage everybody to go over and read and contemplate what she is reporting about "Spoonies." These are mostly young women that revel in being sick. They talk endlessly on TikTok about their illnesses and how they will intentionally lie to doctors to get the diagnosis they want. See how it works? Is a doctor who will surgically alter another person without REAL cause the evil genius that needs to be eliminated? Sure, but the ROOT cause is the girl that identifies as sick and will relentlessly look for somebody that will confirm her in her sickness and give her the treatment she wants.
Thank you. This is amazing information. We need it. We need all the facts we can get. By the way, I tremendously appreciate the term you use for what has been done to people: Mass Induced Psychosis. INDUCED - it puts the responsibility on the inducers. It does not soften what has been done with the minimizer word: formation. It is accurate. And wow!! What incredible arrogance on the part of Mattias Desmet, to believe he knows a mass murderer (hundreds of murders) will murder no more, because Desmet has such utter faith in his therapeutic approach.
No, at best a very few Psychiatrists are sane. Most are Insanely dictating and destrotying the lives of their victim patients. "One Flew over the Cuckoo Nest" was not a fiction of their "profeSSion".
"If" Psychs have such a workable technology, in addition to "curing" people; Can they Raise IQ? Can they Improve a Normal Person to a Better Person?
If you Doubt me, Go see a Psych and see if You get "better". You will be put on drugs, because They View Everyone as Insane or a "borderline case".
Perfect timing, I just saw this interview with Peter Breggin, the first 15 minutes of the video, going over the Malone/Desmet issues.
https://banned.video/watch?id=6315e2004002d249c0d4b4ff
Yes, Malone currently still involved in NIH ACTIV program is beyond a red flag.
He’s been very open about his ties since the outset.
That was very interesting. Didn't know about Malone's current role in NIH ACTIV. Maybe he's mentioned it and I missed that. Feels... significant.
Thank you Alice, appreciated.
This just in from Robert Malone: "The “personality” launching the attack is an MD with Pharmaceutical industry experience . . . ."
Well, I don't know any MD without pharmaceutical industry experience. And I doubt that any MD, pre-Covid, had been as big a thorn in the side of the pharmaceutical industry as Peter Breggin. So that sounds to me a little misleading, to put it mildly. It's a bit like saying that Ralph Nader has automotive industry experience.
I myself do not have the time to get much into this debate. Suffice it to say that I never saw a need for this mass formation theory.
However, even before this column's bombshell, I would side with Breggin -- or a hairstylist or a bar tender -- over a psychoanalyst like Desmet. Breggin says psychoanalysis is a cult. I would go even further: it is an intellectually violent assault on the patient. It establishes the doctor as God, and God proclaims truth about the patient's inner psyche.
I realize that in calling a nonphysical action to be a violent assault I may sound like an SJW saying that giving an opinion is violence. But there is a crucial difference: the physician patient relationship. The patient, particularly in psychiatry, is vulnerable, and places himself in a subordinate position to the physician. It is not an equal playing field.
And psychoanalysts do not give their opinions: they give truths, often extrapolating far beyond the facts.
Not surprisingly, the psychoanalysts I have met have a marked tendency towards arrogance.
More upsetting, their patients do not improve. I have tried to work with people who have had years of psychoanalysis. Maybe at this late stage of my career I could help them, but back then I could not. Their previous treatments had done too much damage.
Mass-induced psychosis is a much better description because it, as you say, points to rather than hides the evil intent. I also like (as a descriptive term, not as a phenomenon!) trauma-based mind control. This term points to the evil intent and names the mechanism.
Let the truth prevail, but let's also give people the benefit of the doubt. I agree with previous comments that Desmet's work doesn't suggest removal of accountability for our actions due to mass formation. It simply explains our vulnerability to propaganda. Something that others have also touched on in their books.
Having said that, let the authorities tackle the issue of his accountability for concealing the crimes of a serial killer. It seems to me that there's a lot of guilt to be spread around. I'm thinking pharmaceutical companies whose drugs destroy the minds of people and induce psychosis in many known mass murderers. Not to mention an entire culture that is omnicidal and worships power and money. Then there's patriarchy itself, a relatively recent social phenomenon, which creates a system of dominance and hierarchy that distorts and deforms human relationships. One only needs to look at gonzo porn to see how young men are being taught to view the world. All of these factors come into play when we see social breakdown. The world becomes divided into the the exploiters and the exploited.
It wasn't meant to be this way. Human beings, brought up in a loving, nurturing home placed in a wise and caring community in a healthy thriving environment free from fear and scarcity simply do not manifest mass psychosis. Somehow we lost our way as a species. I fear we may never find our way back.
I heard his work was to give cover to cult members. I am just a beginner in this subject, but there are different viewpoints
Examine the source of the vector and the motivation---in other words, "We have a vector for you!"
Mark Twain did famously post that "Like the moon, every man has a dark side almost no one sees"...
I know nothing about this controversy of mistrust concerning Dr. Robert Malone, who seemed very likeable, intelligent and believable - but at this point nothing would surprise or shock me.
That is precisely the point.
We need to stay open and have spirited and civil debate while we offer total nonviolent noncompliance.
The Breggins are exceedingly unhelpful in our fight against medical tyranny. I read Desmet's piece that Robert Malone published and thought Desmet handled it in a mature and reasonable fashion. The Breggins sound like nut jobs, something every movement has an element of. My biggest objection to the Breggins' critique is that Desmet is "blaming the victims." What the Breggins fail to understand is that in a mass formation, there is a symbiosis between the controllers and the controlled. The covid believers, to cite one example of mass formation, support their "superiors," don't question them, and so have an equally important role to play in mass formation. Being a victim is very fashionable these days. I think we need to consider the strong probability that the so-called victims are also agents. And then there is this: Desmet discussed this issue thoroughly in his book, which apparently the Breggins (who also seem to be in the thralls of another kind of mass formation) failed to read.
The Breggins appear to have outright lied in their review of Desmet's book and in the above article. Make of that what you will, but there's a legal concept of "false in one, false in all". Why are you publishing this bullshit? You're likely to lose readers if you keep this up.
Breggin: "We have previously described Desmet as protecting the people behind the mass murder of millions of individuals during COVID-19 by declaring that the masses originated the problem and that there was no malicious or organized planning behind it."
Desmet's book: "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...
... institutions were created that make plans about what future society should look like and how the ideal future society should respond to crisis situations. The Lockstep scenario of the Rockefeller Foundation, Event 201 of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (in collaboration with John Hopkins and the Rockefeller foundation), and The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab are examples of such endeavors. For many people, these events and publications are the ultimate proof that the social developments we’re experiencing are planned and the product of a conspiracy, since long before the outbreak these “plans” described how society would go into lockdown as the result of a pandemic, that a biopassport would be introduced, and that people would be tracked and traced with subcutaneous sensors...
There are countless other examples that seem to point in the direction of a plan being implemented, such as: the fact that the definition of “pandemic” was changed shortly before the corona crisis; the definition of “herd immunity” to imply that only vaccines can achieve it; the counting method for corona deaths was adjusted by the WHO so it was higher than the number of flu deaths; that the registration methodology of vaccine side effects led to serious underestimation (by, for example, labelling those that become apparent during the first fortnight after vaccination as not vaccine-related); that all key political positions when the crisis started were held by politicians who were pro-technocracy (all people referred to as the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders)."
I went back and reread Chapter 8, Conspiracy and Ideology. Thanks!
In order of importance:
1. The perpetrators / predators are real and they must be thwarted and pursued to the fullest.
2. Mass Formation Psychosis is also real and understanding it is key to point 1.
3. "No professional should ever give himself the right to avoid reporting a confession of mass murder by one of his patients."
Footnotes:
The Mass Formation, although not called as such, is well documented by scholars past - Arendt, Merloo et al. Desmet expanded on it in timely and helpful ways.
Desmet should be allowed to have his say and the process permitted to run its course.