A piece like this is disappointing not because I disagree, but because you are directing your derision and vitriol toward a complete mischaracterization of Desmet's ideas. You've set up a straw man to fling darts at. It's clear that you haven't read his book, and I wonder if you've ever even listened to him interviewed.
Desmet is not…
A piece like this is disappointing not because I disagree, but because you are directing your derision and vitriol toward a complete mischaracterization of Desmet's ideas. You've set up a straw man to fling darts at. It's clear that you haven't read his book, and I wonder if you've ever even listened to him interviewed.
Desmet is not saying that people are not responsible for their own behavior. He is however, offering a sound psychological explanation for why otherwise intelligent people are
a) choosing to believe preposterous explanations unsupported by any credible data
b) intolerant of all explanations that oppose the official narrative, even while they are supported by mountains of highly credible data.
If you're going to attack his ideas on why he thinks this is so, read the book or at least listen to an interview. Then if you write something critical, you'll at least be criticizing what he actually put out there, not some crap you made up because you're in a bad mood or you hate psychology.
He is not saying people aren't responsible for their choices and decisions. On the contrary, he's in agreement that we as individuals are absolutely responsible for our own thinking, including the choice to let other people think for us. He, like others is also arguing that there is a massive and well executed effort to propagandize and manipulate people, to unconsciously influence their choices and decision making process. It's been going on in advertising for decades, and in countless well -documented government operations. Part of the solution according to Desmet is for those of us who are awake and aware, to stay vocal. This keeps hard core people from becoming completely comfortable with their decision to go along with the propaganda, and may succeed in bringing some others off the fence in the direction of sanity.
Agree, Teresa. Jon obviously didn't even make an attempt to understand what Desmet is saying. Same with Catherine Fitts, who interestingly made the polar opposite dismissive of Desmet, claiming he's "blaming the victims".
I usually love hearing from Jon and Catherine, but on this issue they're being entirely irrational.
When Desmet initially released his book then went onto several podcasts to promote it he didnt present any solutions or what was lacking in the individual which made them so susceptible to a mass adoption of mass formation.
It was a confirmation of sorts, implying that the billions spent in propaganda research and mass media advertising was succesful. To a lot of us on the outside (so to speak) a phenomena like Mass Formation made sense, helped explain as to why the global sapping of rebellion or any kind of individual objection happened.
Its weird that there is fresh debate raging over Desmet and Mass Formation now, wasn't any months ago when his book first came out
Not true! He said in interviews that the more educated a person was, the more susceptible they were to the Psyop. That made sense to me, because out of my family, I'm the only one without a DEGREE in something. And I'm also the only one who didn't believe the Lies. The rest bought the Kool-Aid! They are all 4 shots in and waiting for the 5th! I don't understand it at all.....and nothing I say, nothing I show them,...absolutely nothing can change their minds. Not one thing.
There's a bell curve of IQ in that sort of scenario, the lowest 5-15% on the curve distrust it, the highest 5-15% also distrust it and the majority in the middle which represents 70-90% of the population just go with the flow.
Also he would say that wouldn't he? He's very educated with degrees, making him either susceptible to the psyop or a promoter of it, whether intentionally or not!
A piece like this is disappointing not because I disagree, but because you are directing your derision and vitriol toward a complete mischaracterization of Desmet's ideas. You've set up a straw man to fling darts at. It's clear that you haven't read his book, and I wonder if you've ever even listened to him interviewed.
Desmet is not saying that people are not responsible for their own behavior. He is however, offering a sound psychological explanation for why otherwise intelligent people are
a) choosing to believe preposterous explanations unsupported by any credible data
b) intolerant of all explanations that oppose the official narrative, even while they are supported by mountains of highly credible data.
If you're going to attack his ideas on why he thinks this is so, read the book or at least listen to an interview. Then if you write something critical, you'll at least be criticizing what he actually put out there, not some crap you made up because you're in a bad mood or you hate psychology.
He is not saying people aren't responsible for their choices and decisions. On the contrary, he's in agreement that we as individuals are absolutely responsible for our own thinking, including the choice to let other people think for us. He, like others is also arguing that there is a massive and well executed effort to propagandize and manipulate people, to unconsciously influence their choices and decision making process. It's been going on in advertising for decades, and in countless well -documented government operations. Part of the solution according to Desmet is for those of us who are awake and aware, to stay vocal. This keeps hard core people from becoming completely comfortable with their decision to go along with the propaganda, and may succeed in bringing some others off the fence in the direction of sanity.
Desmet has a whole chapter in his book poo pooing conspiracy theories, as if there is no cause or point of origin with this C0\/!|) bullshit.
Dr Breggins artfully dismantles that chapter and basically helps the reader realise that Desmet is running cover for the perpetrators
Agree, Teresa. Jon obviously didn't even make an attempt to understand what Desmet is saying. Same with Catherine Fitts, who interestingly made the polar opposite dismissive of Desmet, claiming he's "blaming the victims".
I usually love hearing from Jon and Catherine, but on this issue they're being entirely irrational.
When Desmet initially released his book then went onto several podcasts to promote it he didnt present any solutions or what was lacking in the individual which made them so susceptible to a mass adoption of mass formation.
It was a confirmation of sorts, implying that the billions spent in propaganda research and mass media advertising was succesful. To a lot of us on the outside (so to speak) a phenomena like Mass Formation made sense, helped explain as to why the global sapping of rebellion or any kind of individual objection happened.
Its weird that there is fresh debate raging over Desmet and Mass Formation now, wasn't any months ago when his book first came out
Not true! He said in interviews that the more educated a person was, the more susceptible they were to the Psyop. That made sense to me, because out of my family, I'm the only one without a DEGREE in something. And I'm also the only one who didn't believe the Lies. The rest bought the Kool-Aid! They are all 4 shots in and waiting for the 5th! I don't understand it at all.....and nothing I say, nothing I show them,...absolutely nothing can change their minds. Not one thing.
There's a bell curve of IQ in that sort of scenario, the lowest 5-15% on the curve distrust it, the highest 5-15% also distrust it and the majority in the middle which represents 70-90% of the population just go with the flow.
Also he would say that wouldn't he? He's very educated with degrees, making him either susceptible to the psyop or a promoter of it, whether intentionally or not!