Collective hypnosis, totalitarianisms versus dictatorships, etc. : the vision of Mattias Desmet

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(Excerpts)

The media play a major role in mass formations and in totalitarian thought. It's true.
But there is more than the media of course. It is necessary to have several very specific conditions before mass formation and totalitarian thought can arise in a society and these conditions are as important as the role of the media.
But, without the media, you cannot create mass training or crowd training at the level that we are experiencing now and at a level that we experienced just before WWII and in Nazi Germany and during WW2. part of the 20th century in the Soviet Union.
You need mass media to be able to create a mass phenomenon of this level, that's right.

At the start of the crisis, I studied the numbers and the statistics and noticed that these numbers were often blatantly wrong while at the same time people continued to believe in them, continued to believe in the mainstream narrative.
This is why I started studying [the phenomenon] from a mass psychology perspective because I knew that mass training has a very big impact on intelligent and cognitively functional individuals and I thought that it was the only thing that could explain the fact that highly intelligent people were starting to believe in narratives and numbers that were, on many levels, completely absurd.

There are 4 elements that need to be put in place if you want to bring about a mass phenomenon on a large scale. The first thing is that you need to have a lot of socially isolated people, people who experience a lack of social connections.
The second thing is that you need a lot of people who cannot find meaning in their life. And the 3rd and 4th conditions are that it is necessary to have a lot of "free-floating" anxiety and "free-floating" psychological discontent which means, for anxiety and discontent, that they do not. are not attached to a specific representation. So it has to be present in the minds of people without them being able to relate these feelings to anything concrete.
If you have these 4 elements, that is to say the lack of social ties, the lack of meaning in life, a "free-floating" anxiety and a "free-floating" psychological discontent, then the company is in. high risk with regard to the birth of a mass phenomenon.
And these 4 conditions were present shortly before the corona crisis. There was like an epidemic of burnouts. There were between 40% to 70% of people who considered their work to be meaningless as described in the book "Bullshit Jobs" by this Harvard professor whose name I always forget.
He passed away last year I think. And also, when we look at the use of pharmaceuticals, it was huge and it shows how much discontent was present in our society.
For example, in Belgium, Belgians, who represent around 11 million people, consume up to 300 million doses of antidepressants each year. It's enormous. And so we see that these 4 conditions really existed.
The lack of meaning, the lack of social connections, "free-floating" anxiety and "free-floating" discontent.
You should know that free-floating anxiety is the most painful psychological phenomenon that a person can experience. It is extremely painful, it leads to panic attacks and extremely painful psychological experiences.
And so, what people want in this case is to connect that anxiety to something. They are looking for an explanation for their anxiety. If this "free-floating" anxiety is highly present in the population and if the media provide a narrative which points to an object of anxiety and, at the same time, provides a strategy which allows to manage this object of anxiety, then all the anxiety connects to that object and people agree to follow the strategy to deal with that object no matter the cost [consequences]. This is what happens at the start of mass training.

Then, in the 2nd stage, people start a collective and heroic battle against this object of anxiety. In this way, a new kind of social bond and a new meaning of life emerges.
Suddenly life is directed towards this battle with the object of anxiety and as a result a new connection is established with other people. And the sudden switch from a negative state, a radical lack of social connection, to the opposite, to a massive social connection that is experienced within a crowd, that sudden switch leads to a kind of mental intoxication. and this is what makes mass training or crowd training the exact equivalent of hypnosis.
So, all the people who have studied this phenomenon of mass formation, like Gustav Lebon, McDuggal, Cannetty, noticed that mass formation was not similar to hypnosis but was its exact equivalent. Mass training is a kind of hypnosis.
So what happens at this point when people are experiencing this mental intoxication is that it doesn't matter if the narrative is incorrect, even blatantly. What matters is that it leads to this mental intoxication.
And that is why they continue to follow the narrative despite the fact that they might realize its absurdity by thinking about it briefly. This is the central mechanism of mass formation and this is what makes it so difficult to counter.
Because, to people, it doesn't matter that the narrative is wrong. And what we're constantly trying to do is show that the narrative is absurd, but for people that's not what matters. What matters is that they don't want to go back to that painful previous state of "free-floating" anxiety.
What we need to realize, if we're going to be a game-changer, is that the first thing we need to do is recognize this painful anxiety, reflect on what led us to this state of lack of meaning in life, of lack of social bonding, free-floating anxiety, massive free-floating discontent, and trying to tell people that we don't need a corona crisis to establish new social bonds between- we. We have to find other ways that can allow us to deal with all these psychological problems that existed before the corona crisis and try to find other solutions.
We don't need this kind of massive phenomenon to solve the problem. Mass training is, in fact, a symptomatic solution to a real psychological problem.
And, in my opinion, this crisis is above all a large societal and psychological crisis, much more than it is a biological crisis, let's say.
And so, from this state of mental intoxication, you can explain all the other phenomena related to totalitarianism. Mental intoxication leads to a narrowing of the field of attention, it causes people to see only what is indicated by the narrative.
For example, people see the victims of the coronavirus but seem unable to see, at a correlative level, the collateral damage of lockdowns and the victims of those lockdowns. They are also emotionally incapable of empathizing with the victims of lockdowns.
It is not out of selfishness, it is one of the effects of this psychological phenomenon. And, in fact, mass training does not lead to selfishness at all, quite the contrary.
Mass training focuses attention on a single point so strongly that you can take everything from people, their physical, material and psychological well-being, they won't even notice it. And this is one of the major consequences of mass training.
And it is exactly the same as with classical hypnosis. When someone's attention is focused on a particular point during hypnosis, you can cut off their skin without the person noticing.
This is what happens when hypnosis is used as a type of anesthesia during surgery. A simple hypnosis procedure is enough to make people completely numb to pain.
You can easily cut my skin off them, even going so far as to perform an open heart operation in certain circumstances where the surgeon cuts the bones in the chest area without the patient noticing.
This demonstrates that the focus of attention is so strong, whether in mass training or hypnosis, that people are completely unresponsive to any loss they suffer as a result.
Another consequence that is typical of totalitarian states is that people become radically intolerant of any dissonant voice. If someone tells another story or else someone says the official story is wrong then that person threatens to wake people up and they will get angry because they will be faced with anxiety and annoyance. psychological initials and therefore they will direct all their aggression towards these dissonant voices.
And, at the same time, they are radically tolerant of their leaders, the people who represent the voice of mainstream narrative. They [the leaders] can cheat, lie, manipulate, and do whatever they want, they will always be forgiven by the crowd because the crowd seems to think they are doing it for their good. It is also part of the mechanisms of mass formation.

If some of my colleagues were to be intentionally involved, causing this mass phenomenon, I don't think this is the case in my faculty.
I know that in England some psychologists have mentioned that they were hired by the government to cause fear and anxiety during the coronavirus crisis but I am not aware of similar techniques here in Belgium.

Being funded by someone decreases your ability to think independently. It happens all the time I think. And that's why scientists should always mention in their publications their conflicts of interest, where the funding comes from, because everyone knows that has an impact on the results.
It shouldn't be, but it has an impact and I think that impact manifests itself, to some extent, subconsciously. Sometimes even consciously, it is possible. But it does have an impact and, in fact, we've known it since 2005.
Right now the science is really in crisis and one of the reasons is that almost all of the research is funded by people who really shouldn't be involved in its funding.
That's part of the crisis, that's clear, but it's another thing to say that all scientists come to wrong conclusions or deliberately manipulate their data. Some do, it is also something we are certain of.

I don't know if you are familiar with the study that was published in 2007 I think by John Ioannidis called "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" [2005]. I did my thesis on this problem in psychology and I know it is true.

If you analyze most of the published studies deeply, you will find that the conclusions are wrong. Whether it is because of errors, negligence in methodology, questionable research practices or even fraud.
So we have huge problems in the academic world and I think the problems that we are seeing emerging now with the corona crisis are more or less the same as the ones that have been around for a long time and that we have refused to resolve until now. here. We are now the victims of our negligence.

I think the best perspective is to look at the people who set up the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. And one thing that is certain is that they are not typical criminals.
Because most of these people know how to behave according to social rules. Classical criminals break social rules while people in totalitarian states who commit the crimes are generally characterized the opposite.
They will follow the rules to the letter even if those rules are radically criminal. So that's a major difference.

Another thing that is interesting in this context is that people like Gustave Lebon and Hannah Arendt have claimed that while there is only one difference between mass formation and totalitarianism on the one hand, because the two are practically the same, and classical hypnosis on the other hand, is that while in classical hypnosis the person who hypnotizes is awake, therefore his field of attention is not narrowed, in mass formation and totalitarianism the field of attention is leaders of the masses, leaders of totalitarianism, is usually even narrower than that of the population.

This means that the leaders of totalitarianism and the leaders of the masses strongly believe in the ideology that they are trying to organize society. So they are convinced, for example, of transhumanism, mechanistic materialism, etc.
They are convinced of the ideology, they are convinced that this ideology will create an artificial paradise for the people because it is something which is common to all types of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism first saw the light of day at the start of the 20th century, this ideology did not exist before.
Before the 20th century, we had classical dictatorships. From the 20th century we have totalitarian regimes which is something totally different, you can't compare them [with classical dictatorships].
The leaders of the masses and the leaders of totalitarianism are ALWAYS, as Gutave Lebon and Hannah Arendt say, deeply convinced by ideology. And they want to use it to create an artificial paradise. We saw it in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, and I think that afterwards the ideologies of the Nazis and the Soviet Union were replaced by transhumanism in general.

I do not agree that a totalitarian state imposes laws. They actually impose rules, rules that change every 5 minutes. This is something Hannah Arendt has already noted, both in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany, there were no more laws.

Usually, only about 30% of people are really caught up in the mass phenomenon, in hypnosis. But there are also around 35% to 40% of other people who don't want to be dissonant voices in public space because they are afraid of the consequences.
So in general, there are about 70% of people who are silent. 30% because they are convinced of the mainstream narrative and 40% because they are afraid to speak. And there are between 20% and 30% who do not believe in the narrative and who say it loud and clear in certain situations.

There is a very interesting experiment done by Solomon Asch [Conformity Experiment], maybe you know it, on the impact of mass training and group pressure.
Regarding the question as to why some people are immune to mass formation, this is a very good question because what is certain is that the group that is immune is always highly diverse.
They come from all political orientations, from all social classes, it's really surprising that it's so diverse. This is something that has already been described in the Dreyfus case at the end of the 19th century in France.
The people who wanted the Dreyfus case investigated and who did not fall into mass hysteria against Dreyfus came from so different backgrounds that everyone noticed. They came from all political orientations, etc.

And so, what is it that connects these people? What causes someone to be immune? I think in order to answer this question it is necessary to go really deep into the psychology of individuals and ask yourself in what ways people try to establish psychological stability.
Some people do this systematically by agreeing with the group. And other people do it by staying very close to what they think is reasonable and are not afraid to speak out their opinions. And, in both cases, it provides a specific type of psychological stability and a specific type of psychological strength.
But it's very difficult to explain this in a few minutes.
I think there is this tendency to think independently, to think with our own head. I think that's typical of people who are more or less immune to mass formation. The other tendency to help people depends because people who are sensitive to mass training feel like they are doing all they can to help others. And that's exactly it, everything is done in a sense of citizenship, they do it for the community, for the community. They are convinced of it and that was also what Hitler said.
He expected any German to sacrifice his life without hesitation for the Germans. that was also what Stalin said. I agree that people who are oblivious to mass training want to understand what they believe and that they have this tendency to reason.
But I don't think that's enough to explain why someone isn't sensitive to mass training. I think we should refer to the concept of truth.
I think we can think of short-term solutions, things we can do now, but, let's be honest, I don't think we're going to wake up the masses in a few days.
But, like I just said, we can keep talking and in that way make sure that the mass phenomenon doesn't get too deep and people stay a little awake and a little open to corrective experiences.
I am sure it is possible and I am also sure that it is extremely important to continue to speak in a considerate and deliberate manner as we are doing at the moment.
At the same time, what can also be very effective but difficult is the use of humor. Because mass training, like all other types of hypnosis, is based on the assignment of authority, always.
The more authority a person attributes to someone, the more likely they are to be hypnotized by that person. And therefore to be humorous in a moderate, polite and refined way, because otherwise it will provoke aggression on the part of the mass, is very effective as an antidote to mass formation and hypnosis.
But even if we could wake up the masses now, they would fall prey to another narrative again in a few years and they would be hypnotized again if we failed to solve the real problem of this crisis of how, as What society, have we arrived at that state in which a large part of the population feels anxious and depressed, lacks meaning in life, feels socially isolated, etc. This is the real problem and, if we fail to find the source of this problem, then the masses are always likely to be lured by any leader in a mass formation.

So I think the real question in this crisis is what makes us, in our view of man and the world, in the way we see life, that we experience a lack of meaning.
And, in my opinion, it is our materialistic and mechanistic view of man and the world that leads us towards a radical destruction of real social structures and social bonds and the feeling that life has meaning.
If you believe that human beings are biological machines then by definition that implies that life is meaningless. What would be the meaning of a life, for a human being, which is reduced to being a mechanical cog in a larger machine represented by the universe?
If you perceive the human being and the universe in this way, then I am afraid that you will systematically conclude that life is meaningless and that you do not need to invest energy in relationships. meaningful social relationships, that you don't need to follow real ethical principles, and in doing so destroy your psychological energy and your ability to connect. And you end up in this "free-floating" anxiety etc.

I think most people who don't accept mainstream narrative oppose the mechanistic view of the immune system for example, oppose the mechanistic view of life.
I think that's also an important feature of what, perhaps, kinda distinguishes between the two groups. Not completely of course, but up to a point I think.
And I think it's as important to know that science itself, the fundamental scientists, the great 20th century scientists like Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, Schröndinger, but also the great mathematicians like Johann Bolyai, who was the one of the pioneers of non-Euclidean geometry and of the theory of the dynamics of complex systems.
They all concluded that one cannot fully and rationally understand reality and certainly not in mechanistic terms. And so, we have to try to know the world in a way other than that which is mechanistic.

Something in these systems seems to imply, inevitably, that all projects end in destruction. This makes the situation very difficult.
Because we now see that the mainstream ideology intervenes directly in the physical body of people and it seems that they are also in this mass phenomenon.
So we could already predict that all the measures that are taken, including vaccination and other things, could end in a dramatic failure.

If we can keep people even a little bit awake with our alternate voices, especially this group that isn't really hypnotized, until the damage to the system is clearly visible, then they could see it.
The completely hypnotized group will never see him, which is what is strange. You can destroy them completely, you can do whatever you want with them, they will suffer it and not wake up.
But the other group, the 40%, will be motivated, if there is more and more damage, to start speaking out loud. So this is the point at which someone can change.
And the sooner you reach that point, the more you can keep them awake. And that's why I think, and I have to be careful when I say this, that it's best that we all keep talking in public spaces.

https://textup.fr/573766iC

[Christophe]

Don't read, don't want to know!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Several people on this forum suffer from the symptoms masterfully described in this edifying text. Can you find which ones?

[Ahmed]

It is a text formally badly screwed up, but it is undoubtedly the fact of the translation ... Basically, the psychological analysis remains interesting but shows its limits, since it is limited to formulations specific to this discipline. .
The concept of "common sense" that is used represents a methodologically questionable tool. In addition, the "mechanistic" conception which is denounced is not explained and it is a pity because the systemic aspect which is briefly suggested would then appear very clearly.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It is a text formally badly screwed up, but it is undoubtedly the fact of the translation ... Basically, the psychological analysis remains interesting but shows its limits, since it is limited to formulations specific to this discipline. .
The concept of "common sense" that is used represents a methodologically questionable tool. In addition, the "mechanistic" conception which is denounced is not explained and it is a pity because the systemic aspect which is briefly suggested would then appear very clearly.

It's a dialogue, you have to read the whole thing, I made clear cuts arbitrarily.

[Exnihiloest]

It is a text formally badly screwed up, but it is undoubtedly the fact of the translation ... Basically, the psychological analysis remains interesting but shows its limits, since it is limited to formulations specific to this discipline. .
The concept of "common sense" that is used represents a methodologically questionable tool. In addition, the "mechanistic" conception which is denounced is not explained and it is a pity because the systemic aspect which is briefly suggested would then appear very clearly.

Yes, tend to agree. And then we see in it the usual quirks of the holders of the monopoly of clairvoyance: "if we can keep people even a little bit awake with our alternative voices ...", that is to say, " it is the others who are hypnotized but not us ". It still makes the speech of a proselyte priest who wants to convert to his creeds.

[izentrop]

Gloubi-boulga, dear to the puppet guignol des bois.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Gloubi-boulga, dear to the puppet guignol des bois.

You're hypnotized, you can't understand, otherwise it would be like throwing yourself into a bottomless pit ...

Ps: I notice that since his master was fired, he no longer calls me Guytou, but puppet horn ... the perfect mimicry of a good domestic animal.

[Ahmed]

Domestication generally has negative consequences on intellectual performance ... This also concerns the self-destruction of human societies; in the latter case, it is communication that increases global possibilities to the detriment of individuals. It is normal for a function to atrophy when it is partly delegated ...
Another interesting consequence is the neotenia which is the conservation of infantile behaviors in adulthood ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I was going to say it !