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 Gran├╢gger (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 ├Йtienne de La Bo├йtie 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.
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 Gran├╢gger (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 ├Йtienne de La Bo├йtie 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.