Thanks, as always, for your insight on this Jim. BTW, you should cut and paste your comments on my YT, which were brilliant, on the Substack version. There is a conversation there that could use your insight also, although I think that person is running out of steam for the discussion too.
I've just posted a new YT called 'Is Malone the Zelensky of the Covid Con?' Here's the description: The Project Veritas 'gotcha' combined scientific nonsense with journalistic playacting and anti-woke dog whistles, while casting Robert Malone as the spokesperson for the dissent. While Zelensky foments anti-Russia fervor, is Malone out to turn us anti-China, as Matt Ehret claims? Or to promote biological weapons of defense, as Gigaohm Biologic states? Or to ridicule the woke, in which he's joined by Tucker Carlson, Bret Weinstein and Steve Kirsch? Or to deflect any criticism of they-who-must-not-be-mentioned as a slippery slope into Nazi Germany? https://youtu.be/N9KrLggqRi4
I'll get the text onto Substack today, where some are waiting to comment. But I'm glad you're staying with the question of 'why does it matter so much to THEM that we believe Desmet?' and I think it ties into my last point. The basis for his whole psychology is that good people can turn into genocidal monsters. The opposition says good people can be turned into genocidal monsters. But what if there were no genocidal monsters? What if we're all good people living under a terrible cannibalistic system? And who does that system benefit?
So I don't know if Desmet is a distraction or the clue to the main psy-ops, which might be more insidious than pharma profits and drugging dissenters. He may provide the 'victim shield' that any scrutiny of the royal family of Rothschilds, to whom all other royalty is beholden for their money system, is one step away from being a Nazi, as defined in their history of the noble war where pure good triumphed over pure evil. I know you saw this episode, but I'll attach it for anyone else reading: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/did-fascists-win-wwii?
I've been fairly busy but will circle back to the YT comments when I have time.
"What if we're all good people living under a terrible cannibalistic system?" Nailed it, Tereza. We really are all good people-- for the most part. Desmet is saying that yes, we're all good people but our perception has been contaminated by our blind adherence to mechanistic thinking.
I've never met a single person who's blinded by mechanistic thinking in the manner that Desmet says we are. But, he has to say this to make his bogus theory work.
And yes, I do believe he's a clue to the main psy-ops. But it seems that a coming economic disruption to introduce CBDCs may be the more important concern at this point, and where the resistance might be focused. I'm researching this now; others have a much better handle on it than I do.
Haven’t read his book, but “mass formation” was coined by Desmet (right?) and earned respect of trusted sources. Scientists often put forth hypothesis, and psych is his realm, so guess what, he’s got a psych solution. I think Desmet is just feeling his way through all the BS like every FREE American. (Desmet is European?) I agree w you Jim that “medical necessity” is the lever for all the BS. Thanks for your vigilance in guarding that door Jim and drawing my attention to it. Best, Scott
The difficulty lies in the way he has attempted to build on Arendt's thesis, incorporating elements of human behavioral analysis that weren't as well known when she wrote "Origins."
I've been asked to opine on his assertions, and found it difficult to reach any conclusion. I'm not ready, quite yet, to ascribe my reluctance to any obscurantism on his part; I've always had difficulty with anything with Jungian aspects.
I wouldn't even want to say that Jung is categorically wrong, but there's no denying the difficulties involved with verification of his assertions.
If you find it overly tedious, no one cold blame you for pivoting away from Desmet, but it's interesting and helpful that you're writing about him and his work.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the key issue with Desmet isn't his psychology but his lack of keen empiricism. He states that we were an fearful and confused society prior to Covid-- I believe the phrase was that we were "saturated with fear."
No, we weren't. But Desmet has to say we were to make his mechanistic theory work, which is ironic since his entire book is a diatribe against mechanistic thinking.
Just read what he says, notice the concepts, notice the structure of his argument, notice the contradictions, and notice especially when he says completely absurd things, such as that totalitarianism is the belief that the human intellect can solve our problems. You won't find that definition of totalitarianism in any dictionary, or in Arendt, either.
I've said elsewhere that Desmet's theory is an insidious one, and what I mean is that it's written so that one can come away believing that he nailed what happened during Covid. But actually he ignores completely what really happened during Covid to induce mass formation: massive censorship and propaganda. Instead he blames the fear and anxiety and confusion and obedience on we, the people, in our worship of mechanistic thinking. This is why people like Breggin are up in arms about his theory. It's a mystery why Malone, who seems to have a sharp intellect, fails to see that Desmet put up a completely false narrative regarding the cause of mass formation during Covid.
I concur with the second part if your criticism, namely his concentration on the psychlogical mechanism of the suppression and abscence of inquiry into the real-world-conspiracy. Then again, that seems to be a common feat with psychologists a.o. that they focus on the psychlogical aspects and not on the para-political research without which the current crisis is unintelligible. Given this limitations it's hard for me to see a basis for nefariousness. Concerning the first point, his analysis of a psychological state condosive to the psyop and predating it would seem to have a lot of merit to it. A case in point can be found in divorce rates, birth rates, gender confusion and other aspects of postmodern culture going mainstream (imo).
Of course the parapolitical researcher will be aware of this pre-"pandemic" state having been advanced with the generous support of Darpa, the secret services, the Rockefellers etc also
I can agree but also emphasize your last sentence, implying that fragmentation and fear induced in society were and are intentional, with the goal of making us amenable to central control by the G3P (global public-private partnerships.)
A critical mass of the wokerati were saturated with fear prior to covid. The relentkess mutiny against Trump used fear to invigorate the mutiny and suppress his supporters.
Yes, but countering Desmet I’d argue that the fear of Trump was intentionally directed, in his case more through propaganda than through censorship. But this was nothing compared to the 24/7 unrelenting fear porn during High Covid. That fear was largely based on censorship of contrary medical opinions and treatments, to amplify the danger and actual deadliness of what could’ve been a fairly minor ailment.
I see all of this as part of a conspiracy toward a supranational, powerful, centralized corporate-political alliance.
Thanks, as always, for your insight on this Jim. BTW, you should cut and paste your comments on my YT, which were brilliant, on the Substack version. There is a conversation there that could use your insight also, although I think that person is running out of steam for the discussion too.
I've just posted a new YT called 'Is Malone the Zelensky of the Covid Con?' Here's the description: The Project Veritas 'gotcha' combined scientific nonsense with journalistic playacting and anti-woke dog whistles, while casting Robert Malone as the spokesperson for the dissent. While Zelensky foments anti-Russia fervor, is Malone out to turn us anti-China, as Matt Ehret claims? Or to promote biological weapons of defense, as Gigaohm Biologic states? Or to ridicule the woke, in which he's joined by Tucker Carlson, Bret Weinstein and Steve Kirsch? Or to deflect any criticism of they-who-must-not-be-mentioned as a slippery slope into Nazi Germany? https://youtu.be/N9KrLggqRi4
I'll get the text onto Substack today, where some are waiting to comment. But I'm glad you're staying with the question of 'why does it matter so much to THEM that we believe Desmet?' and I think it ties into my last point. The basis for his whole psychology is that good people can turn into genocidal monsters. The opposition says good people can be turned into genocidal monsters. But what if there were no genocidal monsters? What if we're all good people living under a terrible cannibalistic system? And who does that system benefit?
So I don't know if Desmet is a distraction or the clue to the main psy-ops, which might be more insidious than pharma profits and drugging dissenters. He may provide the 'victim shield' that any scrutiny of the royal family of Rothschilds, to whom all other royalty is beholden for their money system, is one step away from being a Nazi, as defined in their history of the noble war where pure good triumphed over pure evil. I know you saw this episode, but I'll attach it for anyone else reading: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/did-fascists-win-wwii?
I've been fairly busy but will circle back to the YT comments when I have time.
"What if we're all good people living under a terrible cannibalistic system?" Nailed it, Tereza. We really are all good people-- for the most part. Desmet is saying that yes, we're all good people but our perception has been contaminated by our blind adherence to mechanistic thinking.
I've never met a single person who's blinded by mechanistic thinking in the manner that Desmet says we are. But, he has to say this to make his bogus theory work.
And yes, I do believe he's a clue to the main psy-ops. But it seems that a coming economic disruption to introduce CBDCs may be the more important concern at this point, and where the resistance might be focused. I'm researching this now; others have a much better handle on it than I do.
Haven’t read his book, but “mass formation” was coined by Desmet (right?) and earned respect of trusted sources. Scientists often put forth hypothesis, and psych is his realm, so guess what, he’s got a psych solution. I think Desmet is just feeling his way through all the BS like every FREE American. (Desmet is European?) I agree w you Jim that “medical necessity” is the lever for all the BS. Thanks for your vigilance in guarding that door Jim and drawing my attention to it. Best, Scott
Desmet is so far off track that I can't believe that this was anything close to "feeling his way."
Mass formation is real. The cause of it that Desmet describes during Covid is not. An important distinction.
define and label emergent properties in this case? reassemble equation. solve replication crisis w/ peer acceptance/review.
"I hope I can stop writing about Desmet."
The difficulty lies in the way he has attempted to build on Arendt's thesis, incorporating elements of human behavioral analysis that weren't as well known when she wrote "Origins."
I've been asked to opine on his assertions, and found it difficult to reach any conclusion. I'm not ready, quite yet, to ascribe my reluctance to any obscurantism on his part; I've always had difficulty with anything with Jungian aspects.
I wouldn't even want to say that Jung is categorically wrong, but there's no denying the difficulties involved with verification of his assertions.
If you find it overly tedious, no one cold blame you for pivoting away from Desmet, but it's interesting and helpful that you're writing about him and his work.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the key issue with Desmet isn't his psychology but his lack of keen empiricism. He states that we were an fearful and confused society prior to Covid-- I believe the phrase was that we were "saturated with fear."
No, we weren't. But Desmet has to say we were to make his mechanistic theory work, which is ironic since his entire book is a diatribe against mechanistic thinking.
Just read what he says, notice the concepts, notice the structure of his argument, notice the contradictions, and notice especially when he says completely absurd things, such as that totalitarianism is the belief that the human intellect can solve our problems. You won't find that definition of totalitarianism in any dictionary, or in Arendt, either.
I've said elsewhere that Desmet's theory is an insidious one, and what I mean is that it's written so that one can come away believing that he nailed what happened during Covid. But actually he ignores completely what really happened during Covid to induce mass formation: massive censorship and propaganda. Instead he blames the fear and anxiety and confusion and obedience on we, the people, in our worship of mechanistic thinking. This is why people like Breggin are up in arms about his theory. It's a mystery why Malone, who seems to have a sharp intellect, fails to see that Desmet put up a completely false narrative regarding the cause of mass formation during Covid.
I concur with the second part if your criticism, namely his concentration on the psychlogical mechanism of the suppression and abscence of inquiry into the real-world-conspiracy. Then again, that seems to be a common feat with psychologists a.o. that they focus on the psychlogical aspects and not on the para-political research without which the current crisis is unintelligible. Given this limitations it's hard for me to see a basis for nefariousness. Concerning the first point, his analysis of a psychological state condosive to the psyop and predating it would seem to have a lot of merit to it. A case in point can be found in divorce rates, birth rates, gender confusion and other aspects of postmodern culture going mainstream (imo).
Of course the parapolitical researcher will be aware of this pre-"pandemic" state having been advanced with the generous support of Darpa, the secret services, the Rockefellers etc also
I can agree but also emphasize your last sentence, implying that fragmentation and fear induced in society were and are intentional, with the goal of making us amenable to central control by the G3P (global public-private partnerships.)
A critical mass of the wokerati were saturated with fear prior to covid. The relentkess mutiny against Trump used fear to invigorate the mutiny and suppress his supporters.
Yes, but countering Desmet I’d argue that the fear of Trump was intentionally directed, in his case more through propaganda than through censorship. But this was nothing compared to the 24/7 unrelenting fear porn during High Covid. That fear was largely based on censorship of contrary medical opinions and treatments, to amplify the danger and actual deadliness of what could’ve been a fairly minor ailment.
I see all of this as part of a conspiracy toward a supranational, powerful, centralized corporate-political alliance.
I did read his book. Thanks Jim for your writings and for the perspective -book and author.