I had a unique experience of traveling abroad and then having to almost immediately return to the US the week international travel was shut down days prior to the 15 day BS. This was a lockstep planned operation meant to psychologically terrorize the world. It was rolled out on a coordinated schedule with well thought out propaganda. …
I had a unique experience of traveling abroad and then having to almost immediately return to the US the week international travel was shut down days prior to the 15 day BS. This was a lockstep planned operation meant to psychologically terrorize the world. It was rolled out on a coordinated schedule with well thought out propaganda. The response by the public was a result of their purposeful actions and they have admitted they used military developed psychological tactics on the people to elicit fear and obedience. Yes a certain part of the population bought it hook line and sinker and some did not as would always be the case. Over a period of 4 days I witnessed the rollout out in multiple countries of printed propaganda, temperature sensors, armed military in airports wearing masks/gloves, and I overheard a pilot talking to another pilot confirming that was his last flight a day before the official announcement no further international flights would be allowed. When I arrived home and ran to our local small town grocery store they had set-up the wait in a line outside six feet apart BS that every store ‘suddenly’ thought of doing in lockstep along with playing communist recordings about being stronger together. Desmet is just ensuring those responsible never get any scrutiny by blaming the victims.
No. It's simply wrong. As Hopkins is wrong. Desmet never "blames the victims". Why is this notion being spread so aggressively right now? It's utterly dishonest.
There are at least 4 people I am aware of (Catherine Austin Fits, Dr. Peter Breggin (and his wife, Ginger) Ulrike Granögger (her review of Desmet's book can be found on Solari.com) and now CJ Hopkins who've come to a different interpretation than you based on what they've read.
That's all. They see a problem with some aspects of the theory. You don't have to agree.
I also had some problems with Desmet's book, not least that it was a rushed work, but that does not mean there was not also a lot of value to be found in it. Furthermore, and I will say it again, Desmet was not the first to write about the Mass Formation, and it would be a mistake to let issues related his personal credibility cloud all else on this issue. Desmet may have given it a new name, but the concept of the Mass Formation has been well explored by giants far greater than him in decades past. You can even see it in the work of Étienne de La Boétie nearly 475 years ago.
I believe the dishonesty Phillip above is referring to relates to conflating all lines of inquiry relating to Mass Formation with some kind of ploy aimed at letting our globalist totalitarians off the hook. That would certainly be dishonest, but that is how this is starting to come across. The Hegelian Dialectic strikes again. It is almost as if there is a sudden push to suppress debate and discussion. (I thought that was what the other side does?) Again, I concur with Philip. It seems artificially aggressive. Why all the infighting, when it's pretty clear to most of us on this page who the real enemies are and where the threats to We the People are coming from - Mass Formation or not?
I think JohnSmith above has it right where he says, "The "mass formation" behavior pattern is prepared by decades of psychological manipulation and propaganda, and triggered by engineered "crises" which create stress and fear. The herd then stampedes in the desired direction."
If our globalist totalitarians are the ones who have set a Mass Formation in motion, as many of us who are probably with you and 2nd Smartest in most other respects believe, why would we not want to try to understand and undo it, which is something I believe Desmet advocated and provided practical advice for in his book?
Perhaps we're all having a misunderstanding here, but something doesn't seem right. It also seems as though 2nd Smartest has moderated his position somewhat in his comments. It just seems a bit odd, that's all.
Breggin has made it clear he's happy to debate Desmet, which I would love to see - they are both in the same field. And like in any field, people disagree.
I think there is room for interpretation and nuance and I also think those who've been warning humanity for years - CAF and Breggin, Rappoport - have opinions, for me, with weight.
It's a difficult environment right now, and many people are eager to see actual accountability because we never ever get accountability, and so those in the truth movement are sensitive to any argument that pops up and veers people away from understanding this was a plan, there was global coordination, we know many of the names, and they need to be held responsible. (This does not exclude individual responsibility either - it's a matter of emphasis and orientation.)
Obviously we have serious people who read the book and are interpreting his words this way. Not everyone. For those who do, he will be viewed as suspicious (I think) because we all understand something about controlled ops and are alert to infiltrators. That doesn't mean, Desmet is that. It doesn't mean, his book and argument don't have excellent points and are useful as a working theory for some. All of that can be true at once.
The mass formation theory, yes, been around a long time. Not everyone agrees with the theory. (Why would they and if they did wouldn't that also be an ex of mass formation?)
I think some of us in the "resistance" are resistant to the criticism those not in camp with the theory, are getting.
Desmet probably has a piece - just a piece of it - of a much larger phenomenon. I think sophisticated technologies around mind-control have a bigger piece and frequency vulnerability.
We all wanted something to make it make sense - Desmet's book felt like an answer - I drank it up too. Over time it will likely find its place in our growing understanding of what happened.
You seem to be a bit agitated over this. Are you personally acquainted with Prof Desmet? On what basis do you claim to "understand his work"? Why so quick to disparage others as "utterly dishonest"?
It seems curious that this obscure author has suddenly received so much attention. Perhaps, as others suggest, there are some subtle aspects to his work and his motives that are not immediately obvious and deserve further scrutiny.
You call that an argument? You're hardly supporting your claims by fusing me of being "agitated". You really have nothing better to do than literally troll a comment section of substack?
There are a lot of nuances that some may not be fully appreciating.
I'd like to add that there is mass induced psychosis (my term) and lifelong indoctrination which creates much of the death cult compliance.
French philosopher and self avowed Marxist Louis Althusser touched upon this in his seminal essay Ideological State Apparatus.
Mass induced psychosis is as real as it is deliberate and it is all pervasive via media, BigTech, and various other State propaganda nodes.
We see the work of Leni Riefenstah and how she mass induced hatred through her powerful films, or Joseph Goebbels and his ministry of propaganda. If mass induced psychosis did not work, then our enemies would not be actively deploying it against us 24/7/365.
Mass induced psychosis puts the blame squarely on TPTB and is wholly inorganic whereas Desmet claims that his mass formation IS organic and not centrally planned. And this is the crux of the matter.
Nearly 100 years ago, Edward Bernays wrote the following:
"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." -- Edward Bernays, "Propaganda", chapter 1 (1928)
It doesn't get much more clear than this. Bernays, the "father of public relations", was an advisor to CBS founder William Paley. Paley was also a long-time member of the CFR, which has "controlled the public mind" with increasing sophistication to "bind and guide the world" ever since.
Gents, thanks, but Bernays’s work was certainly not lost on me. I don’t see any contradiction here. I think CJ and 2nd have been overzealous, if not in their characterisation of Desmet’s position, then in the significance they ascribe to that particular position, at the expense of all else that the work has to offer. Simple as that. Thanks.
RE: "Mass induced psychosis puts the blame squarely on TPTB", I agree completely. I think leading with this argument would have been the ideal way to approach this from the start as this is not how it came across... Ditto for CJ's article, assuming he agrees with you here.
RE: "... is wholly inorganic whereas Desmet claims that his mass formation IS organic and not centrally planned." I did feel Desmet was soft or noncommittal in ascribing blame for the Mass Formation Psychosis, but maybe he did not feel competent to do so at the time. And, it is certainly possible to set something "organic" in motion. Regarding it "not being centrally planned" did Desmet truly take that position? I think I would remember if he had, but I don't honestly recall, so I'm asking?
Is it possible that this is a squabble over terminology? BTW, I like your term better.
I see everything you outlined as exactly WHY Desmet is correct! His paradigm for mass formation was EXPLOITED by TPTB to induce fear, disconnectedness, hopelessness. The constant drumbeat of coordinated propaganda was used specifically to induce the irrational behaviors they did, just as they did with other greatest hits like "Climate change!," "Trump is literally Hitler," "Russia!," "Ukraine!" Both can be true: Mass formation is the phenomenon, and this was done to society on purpose.
I had a unique experience of traveling abroad and then having to almost immediately return to the US the week international travel was shut down days prior to the 15 day BS. This was a lockstep planned operation meant to psychologically terrorize the world. It was rolled out on a coordinated schedule with well thought out propaganda. The response by the public was a result of their purposeful actions and they have admitted they used military developed psychological tactics on the people to elicit fear and obedience. Yes a certain part of the population bought it hook line and sinker and some did not as would always be the case. Over a period of 4 days I witnessed the rollout out in multiple countries of printed propaganda, temperature sensors, armed military in airports wearing masks/gloves, and I overheard a pilot talking to another pilot confirming that was his last flight a day before the official announcement no further international flights would be allowed. When I arrived home and ran to our local small town grocery store they had set-up the wait in a line outside six feet apart BS that every store ‘suddenly’ thought of doing in lockstep along with playing communist recordings about being stronger together. Desmet is just ensuring those responsible never get any scrutiny by blaming the victims.
Perfectly observed and explained.
No. It's simply wrong. As Hopkins is wrong. Desmet never "blames the victims". Why is this notion being spread so aggressively right now? It's utterly dishonest.
There are at least 4 people I am aware of (Catherine Austin Fits, Dr. Peter Breggin (and his wife, Ginger) Ulrike Granögger (her review of Desmet's book can be found on Solari.com) and now CJ Hopkins who've come to a different interpretation than you based on what they've read.
That's all. They see a problem with some aspects of the theory. You don't have to agree.
That doesn't make any of them dishonest.
I also had some problems with Desmet's book, not least that it was a rushed work, but that does not mean there was not also a lot of value to be found in it. Furthermore, and I will say it again, Desmet was not the first to write about the Mass Formation, and it would be a mistake to let issues related his personal credibility cloud all else on this issue. Desmet may have given it a new name, but the concept of the Mass Formation has been well explored by giants far greater than him in decades past. You can even see it in the work of Étienne de La Boétie nearly 475 years ago.
I believe the dishonesty Phillip above is referring to relates to conflating all lines of inquiry relating to Mass Formation with some kind of ploy aimed at letting our globalist totalitarians off the hook. That would certainly be dishonest, but that is how this is starting to come across. The Hegelian Dialectic strikes again. It is almost as if there is a sudden push to suppress debate and discussion. (I thought that was what the other side does?) Again, I concur with Philip. It seems artificially aggressive. Why all the infighting, when it's pretty clear to most of us on this page who the real enemies are and where the threats to We the People are coming from - Mass Formation or not?
I think JohnSmith above has it right where he says, "The "mass formation" behavior pattern is prepared by decades of psychological manipulation and propaganda, and triggered by engineered "crises" which create stress and fear. The herd then stampedes in the desired direction."
If our globalist totalitarians are the ones who have set a Mass Formation in motion, as many of us who are probably with you and 2nd Smartest in most other respects believe, why would we not want to try to understand and undo it, which is something I believe Desmet advocated and provided practical advice for in his book?
Perhaps we're all having a misunderstanding here, but something doesn't seem right. It also seems as though 2nd Smartest has moderated his position somewhat in his comments. It just seems a bit odd, that's all.
Thanks.
I agree something isn't quite right.
Breggin has made it clear he's happy to debate Desmet, which I would love to see - they are both in the same field. And like in any field, people disagree.
I think there is room for interpretation and nuance and I also think those who've been warning humanity for years - CAF and Breggin, Rappoport - have opinions, for me, with weight.
It's a difficult environment right now, and many people are eager to see actual accountability because we never ever get accountability, and so those in the truth movement are sensitive to any argument that pops up and veers people away from understanding this was a plan, there was global coordination, we know many of the names, and they need to be held responsible. (This does not exclude individual responsibility either - it's a matter of emphasis and orientation.)
Obviously we have serious people who read the book and are interpreting his words this way. Not everyone. For those who do, he will be viewed as suspicious (I think) because we all understand something about controlled ops and are alert to infiltrators. That doesn't mean, Desmet is that. It doesn't mean, his book and argument don't have excellent points and are useful as a working theory for some. All of that can be true at once.
The mass formation theory, yes, been around a long time. Not everyone agrees with the theory. (Why would they and if they did wouldn't that also be an ex of mass formation?)
I think some of us in the "resistance" are resistant to the criticism those not in camp with the theory, are getting.
Desmet probably has a piece - just a piece of it - of a much larger phenomenon. I think sophisticated technologies around mind-control have a bigger piece and frequency vulnerability.
We all wanted something to make it make sense - Desmet's book felt like an answer - I drank it up too. Over time it will likely find its place in our growing understanding of what happened.
Desmet doesn't - ever - blame the victims! You, and Hopkins, clearly don't understand Desmet or are deliberately lying about his work.
You seem to be a bit agitated over this. Are you personally acquainted with Prof Desmet? On what basis do you claim to "understand his work"? Why so quick to disparage others as "utterly dishonest"?
It seems curious that this obscure author has suddenly received so much attention. Perhaps, as others suggest, there are some subtle aspects to his work and his motives that are not immediately obvious and deserve further scrutiny.
You call that an argument? You're hardly supporting your claims by fusing me of being "agitated". You really have nothing better to do than literally troll a comment section of substack?
There are a lot of nuances that some may not be fully appreciating.
I'd like to add that there is mass induced psychosis (my term) and lifelong indoctrination which creates much of the death cult compliance.
French philosopher and self avowed Marxist Louis Althusser touched upon this in his seminal essay Ideological State Apparatus.
Mass induced psychosis is as real as it is deliberate and it is all pervasive via media, BigTech, and various other State propaganda nodes.
We see the work of Leni Riefenstah and how she mass induced hatred through her powerful films, or Joseph Goebbels and his ministry of propaganda. If mass induced psychosis did not work, then our enemies would not be actively deploying it against us 24/7/365.
Mass induced psychosis puts the blame squarely on TPTB and is wholly inorganic whereas Desmet claims that his mass formation IS organic and not centrally planned. And this is the crux of the matter.
I hope that helps.
Nearly 100 years ago, Edward Bernays wrote the following:
"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." -- Edward Bernays, "Propaganda", chapter 1 (1928)
archive.org/details/bernays-edward-l.-propaganda-1928-1936_202107/page/9/mode/2up
It doesn't get much more clear than this. Bernays, the "father of public relations", was an advisor to CBS founder William Paley. Paley was also a long-time member of the CFR, which has "controlled the public mind" with increasing sophistication to "bind and guide the world" ever since.
Precisely!
I will add this quote to the latest article i just posted.
Thanks.
Gents, thanks, but Bernays’s work was certainly not lost on me. I don’t see any contradiction here. I think CJ and 2nd have been overzealous, if not in their characterisation of Desmet’s position, then in the significance they ascribe to that particular position, at the expense of all else that the work has to offer. Simple as that. Thanks.
RE: "Mass induced psychosis puts the blame squarely on TPTB", I agree completely. I think leading with this argument would have been the ideal way to approach this from the start as this is not how it came across... Ditto for CJ's article, assuming he agrees with you here.
RE: "... is wholly inorganic whereas Desmet claims that his mass formation IS organic and not centrally planned." I did feel Desmet was soft or noncommittal in ascribing blame for the Mass Formation Psychosis, but maybe he did not feel competent to do so at the time. And, it is certainly possible to set something "organic" in motion. Regarding it "not being centrally planned" did Desmet truly take that position? I think I would remember if he had, but I don't honestly recall, so I'm asking?
Is it possible that this is a squabble over terminology? BTW, I like your term better.
I see everything you outlined as exactly WHY Desmet is correct! His paradigm for mass formation was EXPLOITED by TPTB to induce fear, disconnectedness, hopelessness. The constant drumbeat of coordinated propaganda was used specifically to induce the irrational behaviors they did, just as they did with other greatest hits like "Climate change!," "Trump is literally Hitler," "Russia!," "Ukraine!" Both can be true: Mass formation is the phenomenon, and this was done to society on purpose.