It’s heartening to see C J Hopkins attacking Desmet’s Mass Formation Psychosis explanation of the Covid madness of the last two years, which he ignored at first but now believes is becoming dangerous because of its increasing popularity with those people who generally did not succumb to the Mass Formation Psychosis and who opposed lockdowns, masks, testing etc.
I'm reading Desmet's book at the moment and I believe he is on to something although I can't agree with his attribution of its origins to the Enlightenment and subsequent 'mechanistic' thinking. I think that we are all subject to ideologies of varying degrees of reach and severity. For example, we tend to take on the same political opinions as our parents. (Some of us never grow out of that!); we adopt the 'culture' of our workplace, even if it may grate on us, for a more peaceful and successful working life, and so on.
I don't think that our elites 'hypnotised themselves' but they did believe their own propaganda - which is sort of the same thing. This seems to be the way elites work: via a sort of cognitive dissonance - they're capable, for example, of believing in total lockdown while at the same time believing it doesn't apply to them. I think this is a necessary attribute of political elites. Just as you make progress through the echelons of a big corporation by not making waves, so you make political progress by 'going along'.
It seems to me that what we should address is the propensity for people to be influenced by ideologies small and large, benign and fatal. I think that is what the Enlightenment was about. Pity it didn't take off!
I still can't quite get my head around this explanation of the behaviour of the elite, who imposed lockdowns using fear and propaganda as their weapons, yet somehow believe in two mutually exclusive truths: that the restrictions applied to the common people work and that they save lives, whilst simultaneously being convinced that they are somehow immune to the risks and don't need to abide by the restrictions which they claim significantly mitigate those risks. I can believe that such a bizarre mental state might manifest in certain mentally ill individuals, but not that it would manifest so spectacularly, spontaneously and contemporaneously in so many of our supposed leaders.
thanks for the considered and rational reply. Of course I'm not entirely confident with the cognitive dissonance idea yet but it does seem to account for much of what we've seen. The idea is that this particular 'mental illness' is necessary to make progress in the world of politics so political leaders are highly selected for it.
Cognitive dissonance is pretty common : for example people drink too much even though they know there's a health risk - they just don't think it'll affect them. When leaders send people to war they tell themselves it's for the 'greater good' - which invariably means their own greater good.! They have to be able to convince themselves that they're doing the right thing even if the evidence shows, say, that the 'enemy' is no threat to them.
I don't know how much, if any, of the bad behaviour we've seen this picture accounts for but I'm not inclined towards grand conspiracies. Machiavellian plots, maybe, but I think the elites, as they have done through history, are always jockeying for power and trying to out-manoeuvre each other so there's not a lot of room for collaboration.
Thank you Jim. It's only by disagreeing with each other and calmly and rationally attempting to establish some mutually acceptable common ground, which may involve either side reconsidering their views, do we make progress.
I agree that, in life in general, there is some low level cognitive dissonance operating in each and every one of us, simply because we are stubborn as individuals and refuse to sacrifice behaviours and actions which give us comfort, knowing that those behaviours also put us at risk. I consider the 'cognitive dissonance' of our leaders to be of a much higher order, which is in fact evidence of psychopathy and sociopathy.
You say: "The idea is that this particular 'mental illness' is necessary to make progress in the world of politics so political leaders are highly selected for it."
Who or what is doing the selecting? Is it just an emergent, autonomous social phenomenon, or is it the case that sociopaths and psychopaths are being and have been deliberately selected for high office in multiple countries? This hints at 'grand conspiracy' theories but we have the fairly convincing evidence before our very eyes: 1. The undeniable existence of sociopaths and psychopaths in positions of power, in multiple countries, graphically illustrated to us over the last two and a half years, and 2. The admission by WEF, Blair and others, that they have placed these people in power (e.g. WEF Young Global Leaders). Personally, i don't believe these people clawed their way to the top via a process of natural selection which favoured the unhinged, the psychopathic and the deluded. I believe they were parachuted in from above. I could be wrong and I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Yes, I intended the term 'selected for' to be understood in the sense of 'natural selection' but I see that it could be interpreted as 'chosen' and that turns out to be another valid interpretation. I think there are several senses in which leaders and elites are selected and you're right to mention the WEF as an example. The two modes of selection are linked.
I see the primary elite selection route as the psychological environment of humans. Humans are pack animals like other great ape species. The human condition appears to be that we are made up of individuals who are in the dominance range between totally subservient (eager to please) and highly dominant (eager to control). Those who are keenest to become top dog are those best fitted to this environment - the devious sociopath, or worse. We see this in large companies so why not in government. In a more pithy form: slaves make tyrants just as much as tyrants make slaves.
A secondary route is the one you suggest whereby placemen (and placewomen) who show 'promise' (in the sense that they fit the desired psychological profile) are promoted and encouraged by the Schwabs, Gateses and Soroses of the world. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a whole network of lesser acolytes out there too. These people don't have to be told what to do - they already 'know' what's expected of them. An analogy would be Nazi Germany where Jewish councils were appointed by the Nazis to draw up lists of who went to the camps. The Nazis didn't order them to do it - they just knew it was what was expected of them.
I think at the end of the day we probably agree that there are people in power who very much don't have our interests at heart! The detailed mechanisms and structures of power are very complicated and would probably take many books to describe accurately. Please let me know what you think.
Great explanation Jim. The two selection mechanisms can of course both be operating simultaneously and indeed interdependently. Disentangling them and working out which (if any) was the dominant influence is a very difficult if not impossible task, guided only by imperfect observations of real events and our own instincts.
Great article. I like your questioning mindset. I have one too.
Apparently groupthink pits are a very easy trap for us all to fall into, and we as individuals need to be on guard against it constantly. It looks like divisions are forming amongst all who should be in it together, standing as one against the real enemies of humanity, as a result. I’ve now read 4 articles in one evening about the Desmit issue. Why is it reaching a sort of critical mass (stating to dislike that word, lol) at this exact moment? Same thing with the virus vs terrain theory arguments, which are also popping up all over the place and getting contentious.
The divisions now occurring make the most sense to me, if I consider the idea that they are not organic, but are being deliberately seeded to derail the fight against the true tyrants. (Not in ANY way accusing you of doing that). I am beginning to find the timing of it all rather suspicious. We must avoid the divide and conquer trap. The only ones who ultimately benefit off that are the evil monsters who continue to seek to destroy us all. Stopping the evil plans being implemented is the number one priority right now.
The marxists are the ones who love ideological purity tests. I can almost feel the idea of that, as a result of these hot-button topics, waiting in the shadows ahead to derail the momentum needed to take the bastards down. My views on many things are strong and deeply held. But I reject the notion that all must think exactly like I do on every point and at all points in time. It reminds me strongly of some of the things Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians. Unite on the great core truth. Don’t get sucked into or derailed by “I am of Paul, I am of Apollo” arguments. Do you eat meat sacrificed to idols or not, heretic?
Thanks for letting me wax on about all this. I appreciate learning the new information about a facet of Desmit’s view that prior to this evening I was unaware of. Those divergent viewpoints, God willing, can be addressed down the road once we stop the madness. My heart and gut are telling me now is not the time to get caught up in that controversy.
Thanks Nana. I very much appreciate you taking the time to contribute a long and thoughtful comment - I don't get that many! As you say, we must all be on the lookout for groupthink traps and confirmation-biased thinking as we are none of us immune. I tend to rely heavily on instinct to inform my initial thinking on major issues and I probably suffer from a confirmation bias which makes me generally rebel against any viewpoint which becomes fashionable or pervasive, so I could be very wrong about Desmet. But this particular 'hot-button topic', as you say, has the potential to divide us quite seriously, not least because it removes the culpability of certain malign actors in this play, or at least it provides them with a good excuse to claim diminished responsibility. I want to see these enemies of humanity go to hell, but prior to that I want to see them prosecuted and imprisoned for their crimes. Desmet's mass hypnosis theory, in my opinion, removes some of the impetus to achieve that. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others think differently. Of course they do but I have yet to read in detail what the supporters of Desmet think about the implications re. culpability for crimes committed against humanity and whether they do indeed think that labouring under the spell of a mass delusion is a legitimate legal or moral defence for committing criminal acts against one's fellow human beings.
And thank you for replying to me! I don’t get a lot of that myself either. Lol
I feel exactly as you do as far as what SHOULD happen to the evil ones who’ve orchestrated the global take down of humanity on so many levels. The possibility that they can somehow wriggle out of accountability is a horrifying one. Yet as you said, there has not been anyone from the mass delusion camp saying that exactly, although it certainly could provide cover for just such a defense.
My gut (which I rely on too) says as things accelerate to the breaking point, the righteous fury on the part of we plebes is only going to grow, and should anyone attempt to use the delusion get of jail free card for these globalist stakeholders, it will be utterly rejected. In the end, we are all accountable for our own actions. And actions always have consequences.
Since I am a Nana, I do want everyone to play nice and get along together. The conflict of opposing ideas is good and can be quite helpful in coming to greater understanding, I just worry it could be weaponized by the enemies of humanity against those who agree on the big picture of stop the evil. Yet at the same time history shows that when fashionable ideas like say, progressivism, are suddenly everywhere all at once, we’d do well to thoroughly look beyond the outer layer and delve into the particulars. That is often stifled or suppressed, and we can see how that played out for us.
I wish things were not so opaque and slippery. But these are the times we live in, so we can only do what we can do, stay true to ourselves and to the universal truths that have shaped us. Or as James 1:19 puts it, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”
I'm reading Desmet's book at the moment and I believe he is on to something although I can't agree with his attribution of its origins to the Enlightenment and subsequent 'mechanistic' thinking. I think that we are all subject to ideologies of varying degrees of reach and severity. For example, we tend to take on the same political opinions as our parents. (Some of us never grow out of that!); we adopt the 'culture' of our workplace, even if it may grate on us, for a more peaceful and successful working life, and so on.
I don't think that our elites 'hypnotised themselves' but they did believe their own propaganda - which is sort of the same thing. This seems to be the way elites work: via a sort of cognitive dissonance - they're capable, for example, of believing in total lockdown while at the same time believing it doesn't apply to them. I think this is a necessary attribute of political elites. Just as you make progress through the echelons of a big corporation by not making waves, so you make political progress by 'going along'.
It seems to me that what we should address is the propensity for people to be influenced by ideologies small and large, benign and fatal. I think that is what the Enlightenment was about. Pity it didn't take off!
I still can't quite get my head around this explanation of the behaviour of the elite, who imposed lockdowns using fear and propaganda as their weapons, yet somehow believe in two mutually exclusive truths: that the restrictions applied to the common people work and that they save lives, whilst simultaneously being convinced that they are somehow immune to the risks and don't need to abide by the restrictions which they claim significantly mitigate those risks. I can believe that such a bizarre mental state might manifest in certain mentally ill individuals, but not that it would manifest so spectacularly, spontaneously and contemporaneously in so many of our supposed leaders.
thanks for the considered and rational reply. Of course I'm not entirely confident with the cognitive dissonance idea yet but it does seem to account for much of what we've seen. The idea is that this particular 'mental illness' is necessary to make progress in the world of politics so political leaders are highly selected for it.
Cognitive dissonance is pretty common : for example people drink too much even though they know there's a health risk - they just don't think it'll affect them. When leaders send people to war they tell themselves it's for the 'greater good' - which invariably means their own greater good.! They have to be able to convince themselves that they're doing the right thing even if the evidence shows, say, that the 'enemy' is no threat to them.
I don't know how much, if any, of the bad behaviour we've seen this picture accounts for but I'm not inclined towards grand conspiracies. Machiavellian plots, maybe, but I think the elites, as they have done through history, are always jockeying for power and trying to out-manoeuvre each other so there's not a lot of room for collaboration.
Thank you Jim. It's only by disagreeing with each other and calmly and rationally attempting to establish some mutually acceptable common ground, which may involve either side reconsidering their views, do we make progress.
I agree that, in life in general, there is some low level cognitive dissonance operating in each and every one of us, simply because we are stubborn as individuals and refuse to sacrifice behaviours and actions which give us comfort, knowing that those behaviours also put us at risk. I consider the 'cognitive dissonance' of our leaders to be of a much higher order, which is in fact evidence of psychopathy and sociopathy.
You say: "The idea is that this particular 'mental illness' is necessary to make progress in the world of politics so political leaders are highly selected for it."
Who or what is doing the selecting? Is it just an emergent, autonomous social phenomenon, or is it the case that sociopaths and psychopaths are being and have been deliberately selected for high office in multiple countries? This hints at 'grand conspiracy' theories but we have the fairly convincing evidence before our very eyes: 1. The undeniable existence of sociopaths and psychopaths in positions of power, in multiple countries, graphically illustrated to us over the last two and a half years, and 2. The admission by WEF, Blair and others, that they have placed these people in power (e.g. WEF Young Global Leaders). Personally, i don't believe these people clawed their way to the top via a process of natural selection which favoured the unhinged, the psychopathic and the deluded. I believe they were parachuted in from above. I could be wrong and I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Yes, I intended the term 'selected for' to be understood in the sense of 'natural selection' but I see that it could be interpreted as 'chosen' and that turns out to be another valid interpretation. I think there are several senses in which leaders and elites are selected and you're right to mention the WEF as an example. The two modes of selection are linked.
I see the primary elite selection route as the psychological environment of humans. Humans are pack animals like other great ape species. The human condition appears to be that we are made up of individuals who are in the dominance range between totally subservient (eager to please) and highly dominant (eager to control). Those who are keenest to become top dog are those best fitted to this environment - the devious sociopath, or worse. We see this in large companies so why not in government. In a more pithy form: slaves make tyrants just as much as tyrants make slaves.
A secondary route is the one you suggest whereby placemen (and placewomen) who show 'promise' (in the sense that they fit the desired psychological profile) are promoted and encouraged by the Schwabs, Gateses and Soroses of the world. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a whole network of lesser acolytes out there too. These people don't have to be told what to do - they already 'know' what's expected of them. An analogy would be Nazi Germany where Jewish councils were appointed by the Nazis to draw up lists of who went to the camps. The Nazis didn't order them to do it - they just knew it was what was expected of them.
I think at the end of the day we probably agree that there are people in power who very much don't have our interests at heart! The detailed mechanisms and structures of power are very complicated and would probably take many books to describe accurately. Please let me know what you think.
Great explanation Jim. The two selection mechanisms can of course both be operating simultaneously and indeed interdependently. Disentangling them and working out which (if any) was the dominant influence is a very difficult if not impossible task, guided only by imperfect observations of real events and our own instincts.
Great article. I like your questioning mindset. I have one too.
Apparently groupthink pits are a very easy trap for us all to fall into, and we as individuals need to be on guard against it constantly. It looks like divisions are forming amongst all who should be in it together, standing as one against the real enemies of humanity, as a result. I’ve now read 4 articles in one evening about the Desmit issue. Why is it reaching a sort of critical mass (stating to dislike that word, lol) at this exact moment? Same thing with the virus vs terrain theory arguments, which are also popping up all over the place and getting contentious.
The divisions now occurring make the most sense to me, if I consider the idea that they are not organic, but are being deliberately seeded to derail the fight against the true tyrants. (Not in ANY way accusing you of doing that). I am beginning to find the timing of it all rather suspicious. We must avoid the divide and conquer trap. The only ones who ultimately benefit off that are the evil monsters who continue to seek to destroy us all. Stopping the evil plans being implemented is the number one priority right now.
The marxists are the ones who love ideological purity tests. I can almost feel the idea of that, as a result of these hot-button topics, waiting in the shadows ahead to derail the momentum needed to take the bastards down. My views on many things are strong and deeply held. But I reject the notion that all must think exactly like I do on every point and at all points in time. It reminds me strongly of some of the things Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians. Unite on the great core truth. Don’t get sucked into or derailed by “I am of Paul, I am of Apollo” arguments. Do you eat meat sacrificed to idols or not, heretic?
Thanks for letting me wax on about all this. I appreciate learning the new information about a facet of Desmit’s view that prior to this evening I was unaware of. Those divergent viewpoints, God willing, can be addressed down the road once we stop the madness. My heart and gut are telling me now is not the time to get caught up in that controversy.
Thanks Nana. I very much appreciate you taking the time to contribute a long and thoughtful comment - I don't get that many! As you say, we must all be on the lookout for groupthink traps and confirmation-biased thinking as we are none of us immune. I tend to rely heavily on instinct to inform my initial thinking on major issues and I probably suffer from a confirmation bias which makes me generally rebel against any viewpoint which becomes fashionable or pervasive, so I could be very wrong about Desmet. But this particular 'hot-button topic', as you say, has the potential to divide us quite seriously, not least because it removes the culpability of certain malign actors in this play, or at least it provides them with a good excuse to claim diminished responsibility. I want to see these enemies of humanity go to hell, but prior to that I want to see them prosecuted and imprisoned for their crimes. Desmet's mass hypnosis theory, in my opinion, removes some of the impetus to achieve that. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others think differently. Of course they do but I have yet to read in detail what the supporters of Desmet think about the implications re. culpability for crimes committed against humanity and whether they do indeed think that labouring under the spell of a mass delusion is a legitimate legal or moral defence for committing criminal acts against one's fellow human beings.
And thank you for replying to me! I don’t get a lot of that myself either. Lol
I feel exactly as you do as far as what SHOULD happen to the evil ones who’ve orchestrated the global take down of humanity on so many levels. The possibility that they can somehow wriggle out of accountability is a horrifying one. Yet as you said, there has not been anyone from the mass delusion camp saying that exactly, although it certainly could provide cover for just such a defense.
My gut (which I rely on too) says as things accelerate to the breaking point, the righteous fury on the part of we plebes is only going to grow, and should anyone attempt to use the delusion get of jail free card for these globalist stakeholders, it will be utterly rejected. In the end, we are all accountable for our own actions. And actions always have consequences.
Since I am a Nana, I do want everyone to play nice and get along together. The conflict of opposing ideas is good and can be quite helpful in coming to greater understanding, I just worry it could be weaponized by the enemies of humanity against those who agree on the big picture of stop the evil. Yet at the same time history shows that when fashionable ideas like say, progressivism, are suddenly everywhere all at once, we’d do well to thoroughly look beyond the outer layer and delve into the particulars. That is often stifled or suppressed, and we can see how that played out for us.
I wish things were not so opaque and slippery. But these are the times we live in, so we can only do what we can do, stay true to ourselves and to the universal truths that have shaped us. Or as James 1:19 puts it, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”