Collective Hypnosis

$$ Recent Findings

videos	topics
	30% Were Deeply Hypnotised to Accept the Experimental Shots (Aug 26 2022)

Collective Hypnosis

Dr Mattias Desmet, lecturer in psychoanalytic psychotherapy, lecturer and professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, explains that the world is a state of mass/collective hypnosis in relation to the COVID-19 narrative. This causes a deep state of fear and anxiety, and this makes people compliant and willing to go along with extreme orders. Every totalitarian regime depends on this fear-driven mass hypnosis and victims don’t want to come out of the trance. Dr Desmet explains how and why this works, in fascinating detail. This is a fascinating interview and a deep insight into the psychological dynamic of the COVID-19 situation. [109]
Dr Reiner Füllmich: Why did people fall for the COVID-19 narrative? It’s probably the media’s role in destroying people’s ability to use their common sense.
Dr Desmet: The media plays a major part in mass formation in a totalitarian regime. There’s more than the media alone. There needs to be very specific conditions before mass formation and totalitarian thinking emerges in a society. These conditions are as important as the media itself. But that doesn’t take away. Without the mass media, you cannot create mass formation, crowd formation at the scale that we experience now, and at the scale that it has been experienced shortly before World War and Nazi Germany, and in the first part of the 20th century in the Soviet Union. You need the mass media to create mass phenomena at that scale. That’s true.
Dr Füllmich: You specialise in the mechanisms of mass formation and totalitarian thinking.
Dr Desmet: I also have a master’s degree in statistics, but in this crisis I’m taking the perspective of mass psychology. In the beginning of the crisis I have been studying the statistics and the numbers, and I noticed they were often blatantly wrong, and at the same time people continued to believe in them, to go along with the mainstream narrative, and that’s why I started to study it, rather, from the perspective of mass psychology. Because I knew that mass formation has a huge impact on individuals’ cognitive functioning. I had the feeling that this is the only thing that could explain why highly intelligent people started to believe in the narrative and the numbers, in many respects, utterly absurd.
Dr Füllmich: Apart from mainstream media, what is it that has caused this illusion for so many people, that they don’t see the reality, but a totally different picture of what really goes on?
Dr Desmet: Four things need to be in place if you want a large-scale mass phenomena to emerge:
- The first thing, is that there needs to be socially isolated people, who experience a lack of social bond;
- the second one, there needs to be a lot of people who lack sense making in life;
- the third and fourth: there needs to be a lot of free-floating anxiety, and free-floating psychological discontent, which are not connected to a specific representation. In the mind, but without people connecting it to something.
If there is a lack of social bond, lack of sense, free-floating anxiety and psychological discontent, then society is highly at risk for the emergence of mass phenomena. And these four conditions existed before the corona crisis. There was an epidemic of burn-out, 40-70% of the people experienced their jobs as completely senseless (described in “Butcher Jobs”), and if you look at the use of psycho-pharmaceuticals, you can see how much discontent there was in our society. For instance, in Belgium, every year, Belgians, who are 11 million people, use over 300 million doses of anti-depressants, alone. That’s huge. These conditions really existed.
You have to know that free-floating anxiety is the most painful psychological phenomena. It’s extremely painful, leads to panic attacks, extremely painful psychological experiences.
People want something to connect their anxiety to. They’re looking for an explanation for their anxiety. And now, if the free-floating anxiety is present in the population, and the media provides a narrative which indicates an object of anxiety, and at the same time, describe a strategy to deal with the object of anxiety, then all the anxiety connects to this object and people are willing to follow the strategy, to deal with this object, no matter what the cost is. That is what happens in the beginning of mass formation.
In the second stage, people start a collective and heroic battle with this object of anxiety, and in that way, a new kind of social bond emerges, and a new kind of sense making. Suddenly, life is all directed at battling the object of anxiety, and in this way, establishing a new connection with the other people. That sudden switch of a negative state, a radical lack of social connection, to the opposite, to the massive social connection that is experienced in the crowd, is a mental intoxication, and that’s what makes mass or crowd formation the exact equivalent of hypnosis. All people who have been studying mass formation, such as Gustave Le Bon, for instance, William McDougall, James Kennedy, have remarked that mass formation is not similar to hypnosis, it is equal to hypnosis. Mass formation is a sort of hypnosis.
At that moment, when people experience this mental intoxication, it doesn’t matter any more whether the narrative is correct or wrong, even blatantly wrong. What matters is that it leads to this mental intoxication. And that’s why they continue to go along with the narrative, even if they could know, by thinking for one second that it is wrong. That is the central mechanism of mass formation. And that makes it so difficult to destroy, because for people it doesn’t matter whether the narrative is wrong or not.
And what we all try to do is to show that the narrative is wrong, but for people, that’s not what this is all about. It’s about the fact that they don’t want to go back to this painful state of free-floating anxiety. So, what we have to realise, if we want to change this state of affairs, is to acknowledge this painful anxiety, to think about why we got into the state of lack of sense, lack of social bond, and try to tell people we don’t need a corona crisis to establish a new social bond.
We have to look for other ways of dealing with these psychological problems that existed before the corona crisis, and try to find other solutions. We don’t need this kind of mass phenomenon to solve the problem.
Mass formation is a symptomatic solution for a real psychological problem. In my opinion, this crisis is a large societal and psychological crisis, much more than a biological crisis.
From this state of mental intoxication, you can explain all the rest of the phenomena of totalitarianism. The mental intoxication leads to a narrowing of the field of attention, makes people only see what is indicated by the narrative, for instance, people see the victims of the corona virus, but they don’t seem to see at the cognitive level the collateral damage of the lockdowns, and all the victims of the lockdowns. They cannot feel empathy for the victims of the lockdowns. Not because they are egotistic, just an effect of the psychological phenomenon.
As a consequence of mass formation, people do not get egotistic at all. Rather, to the contrary, mass formation focuses the attention so much on one point, that you can take everything away from people, their psychological and physical well-being, their material well-being, and they will not even notice it. And that’s one of the major consequences of mass formation. It is exactly the same as classical hypnosis. When in hypnosis, someone’s attention is focused on one point, you can cut in his flesh and the person will not notice it. It happens when hypnosis is used as anesthesia during surgical operations. A rather simple hypnotic procedure is sufficient to make people completely insensitive to pain. In mass formation, people become totally insensitive to all the personal losses they experience as a consequence.
Another consequence, that is very typical for totalitarian states, is that people become radically intolerant for dissonant voices, because when someone claims that the official story is wrong, this person tries to wake them up, and they get angry because they are confronted with the initial anxiety and the initial psychological content, so they direct all their aggression at the dissonant voices. And at the same time, they already are tolerant of their leaders, for the people who enunciate the mainstream narrative. The leaders can cheat, lie, manipulate and do whatever they want. They’ll always be forgiven by the crowd, because the crowd seems to think they do it for their own sake. That’s also part of the mechanism of mass formation.
Dr Füllmich: What do you think? This is not an accident. Who’s responsible for this mass hypnosis? Is it colleagues of yours?
Dr Desmet: That’s a good question. I have no idea. I describe it, of course, but I don’t know about the origins. Sometimes it rises spontaneously, sometimes it is provoked artificially.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg: If someone has a lot of money, billions, he can buy science, he can make universities, he can pay anything. They know how many colleagues had the same education that you have, work in such firms that make consultants to those who go for money, go for power. The market can be bought. What percent of skilled people like you, do you think, are working in such organisations?
Dr Desmet: It’s a strange thing that most psychologists do not really recognise these processes in the present state, in this crisis. It took me six months to understand that we are dealing with a problem of mass formation. From the beginning of the crisis I noticed that there was something wrong. In one way or another, nobody seem to see that lots of the numbers and figures, about the mortality rates of the virus were radically wrong. And then I started to think, “what is happening here at the psychological level?” It took me to until the Summer of 2020, before I realised this is a problem of mass formation, and I had been lecturing about it for 3 or 4 years. I’m sure a lot of the psychologists themselves are not aware of what is happening. If there are some of my colleagues involved, intentionally provoking this mass phenomenon, at my faculty, I don’t think so. I know that in Great Britain they had some psychologists hired by the government to provoke fear and anxiety during the corona crisis.
Dr Wodarg: I was vaccinated twice: I experienced very intensively the bird flu and the swine flu. And I did some research and found that for the swine flu, the son of Murdoch was hired as a director in Glasgow to direct the media into their business. So we know that science gets money from the state, from private enterprise, from sponsors, on how to influence people. Before, the state had to control that there is no misuse of science. Now, the state themselves gives money to people who do science to achieve the result they’re looking for. So it’s not corrective any more. There’s no money for independent science. When the states are also involved in this big business, if it is a private-public partnership making us afraid, then there’s no one to pay the money for science that could help us.
Dr Desmet: Of course, being funded by someone diminishes your capacity to think independently. That happens all the time, I think. That’s why scientists always have to mention their funding on their publications, because everybody knows that it has an impact on your results. It should not be like that, but it has an impact. This impact manifests itself unconsciously, sometimes consciously. We know this since 2005. At this moment, science is really in a crisis. One of the reasons is that all of science is funded by people who should not be involved.
There’s something else than saying that most scientists are willingly drawing wrong conclusions or willingly manipulating their data.
Dr Wodarg: You can see some things, but when your salary is dependent on that, you don’t see it.
Dr Desmet: I agree. Are you familiar with those publications that appeared in 2005, John Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings are False” [244]. I was doing my phD research in psychology. It’s really true. If you scrutinise most scientific publications you can find that the conclusions are wrong, due to mistakes, due to sloppiness at the level of methodology, due to questionable research practices, or due to straight fraud.
We deal with huge problems in the academic world, and the problems we see surfacing now in the corona crisis are, more or less, the same as those who existed already for a long time, and that we refused to solve in time. We become the victims now of neglect, our laziness, and our lack of honesty.
Dr Füllmich: I understand you try to stick to the facts, and not to make any judgements. Now, we are all of us lawyers here, since this is something we don’t have personal knowledge about, we depend on the testimony and on interviewing experts like you. If I look at the totality of the evidence that we have seen over the course of the existence of the Corona Investigative Committee, there is no other conclusion than that:
- this has never been about health,
- there is something sinister and evil going on, just like Dr Ardis just said,
- this is intentional destruction of business and of human lives,
- and when you read what the people who are behind this have written, this is not hidden any place, but out loud, including in the “Great Reset” and other papers, this is distinctly what they’re trying to do: destroy.
What kind of people do this? Do you have to be crazy? Do you have to be a sociopath, or a psychopath? What kind of people do this?
Dr Desmet: The most fruitful perspective to answer this question is to look at the people who installed the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany. One thing is sure: They are not common criminals. Most of this people perfectly know how to behave according to social rules. While a classical criminal transgresses all kinds of social rules, people in totalitarian states who commit crimes are usually characterised by the opposite. They stick to the rules, even if the rules are radically criminal in themselves. That’s a major difference.
Dr Füllmich: They stick to the rules, because they make these rules.
Dr Desmet: That’s possible, for their own advantage. Another interesting thing in this context is that people like Gustave Le Bon and Hannah Arendt claim that if there is one difference between mass formation and totalitarianism, because the two are almost identical: on one hand in classical hypnosis, the one that hypnotises is awake, his field of attention is not narrowed down. In mass formation and totalitarianism, the field of attention of the leaders of the masses is even narrower than the population. Meaning that, totalitarian leaders, and leaders of the masses, usually really believe the ideology according to which they try to organise society. So they are convinced, for instance, of trans-humanism; they’re convinced of mechanistic materialism, and so on. They are convinced of the ideology. They are convinced that this ideology bring people in a kind of artificial paradise. This is something that is common to all kinds of totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism arose at the beginning of the 20th century. Before it, it didn’t exist. Before, we had classical dictatorships. From the 20th century, we had totalitarian regimes, which are radically different.
But the totalitarian leaders of the masses always say, according to Gustave Le Bon and Hannah Arendt, that they are really convinced of the ideology. And they want to use it to create an artificial paradise. We’ve seen this in the Soviet Union, and in Nazi Germany. Later on, the ideologies of the Nazis and Soviet Union were replaced by trans-humanism.
The leaders of the masses are convinced of the ideologies, and that’s why we have this huge mental impact on the masses, but, that’s important, they feel like, without any problem, they can sacrifice a part of the population, to realise this paradise. For instance, Hitler felt that, without any problem, he can sacrifice a part of the population to bring about this rule of the German race over the world. He felt it was perfectly justified to do that because, in the end, the whole undertaking will result in a paradise which was the best possible place for everyone. And the same with Stalin. They are convinced of their ideology, and that’s why everything can be sacrificed to realise this ideological fiction. It is usually this type of person who leads the masses.
Dr Füllmich: If I look at what you’re explaining to us from the legal standpoint, if I were a judge and these people were before me, I would sentence them to jail, at least. Because none of what you’re saying is a justification for them, and there’s no apology either; there’s no excuse. Because what you’re saying is that they know precisely what they’re doing, except that they believe in their own lies. Why, they themselves are also hypnotised. But they know that they’re lying because whenever we put them on the spot, and ask them concrete questions, we’re just witnessing this in our own, in this political party right now, same people have infiltrated this party. When we put them on the spot, they lie. They know they’re lying because if you confront them with what is actually happening, they try to find a way out, but they can’t. So, of course, there’s no justification, but there’s also no excuse, from the legal standpoint, they are liable. They’re guilty.
Dr Desmet: You would even wonder if there would make a difference if they would not know that they lie, because as Sigmund Freud said, “you’re responsible for your own conscience”. I advice everyone to read this book: “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, Hannah Arendt. [246] It deals with all these questions, because she’s confronted with someone who, in many respects, does not behave like a common criminal, but is responsible for what he does. It’s an extremely interesting book because she is not simplistic, she acknowledges the complexity of the person of Eichmann. Everybody should read it with this other book: “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, it shows how totalitarianism arises in a society.
It is good to balance out the impact of conscious and unconscious processes. Some people ignore that there is intentional misleading in this situation, and other people try to reduce everything to intentional processes, and end up in extreme conspiracy theories, which are also wrong. We hav to acknowledge the complexity of the situation, and try to build an image that is as realistic as possible. All of us try to reduce the complexity of reality; either believe in the mainstream narrative, or ends up in radical conspiracy theories. Very often we need both perspectives to really understand what’s going on.
Dr Wodarg: I’m fascinated by what you tell us. It is very important. One question: when people were convinced that they are doing right, when you think about the apartheid regime in South Africa, of the brutality, there were those Truth Commissions, afterwards, trying to confront those people, to have those two realities in one room to find out what happened. Do you think this is an instrument, a possibility to digest this as a society? Do you have experience with such processes?
Dr Desmet: Not at that scale. I think it would be very important to put people with a different opinion, people who choose a different side, together to let them talk. That’s extremely important because most people who believe in the mainstream narrative even support it publicly even those who present themselves now as experts in virologists. For these people it makes sense to put them together with different opinion and let them talk.
I also experience it myself, when I talk to someone that is convinced of the opposite narrative, who has really a different opinion as me, almost always, it opens my mind a little bit.
Gustave Le Bon says that mass formation occurs at a very large scale in society; it is very difficult to wake the masses up. Usually you cannot do it; it’s impossible to do. Because the masses usually only wake up after a lot of destruction. But he says that if people who do not agree with the mass narrative, continue to talk, they prevent the masses from committing their largest crimes. You can make the hypnosis less deep by continuing to talk. That’s what we have to do. Continue to speak in the public space. That’s extremely important. I’m convinced that, in this way, we will succeed, and keeping open a certain path decides the mainstream narrative.
Dr Wodarg: We are just building space for those who don’t follow the narrative. We need more space. We have to build this space with our theories, with our talks. It’s important to consider seriously all the other people who are not on the streets, who are in the offices, who are afraid to loose their job, when they have doubts in their heads. There is a conflict in many people. We have to strengthen them. We have to give them power so they don’t feel alone. This is our function.
Dr Desmet: We also have to do it, somehow paradoxically, for the individuals who are believing in the mainstream narrative, who are grabbed in this process of mass formation. If we stop speaking, the hypnosis will get deeper. That’s something very interesting. From the historical point of view, around 1930 in the Soviet Union, and around 1935 in Nazi Germany, the opposition was completely extinguished, and then you see something that is very typical for a totalitarian state. In a totalitarian state starts to show its most aggressive face and it starts to devour its own children, starts to extinguish 50% of the communist party. Totalitarianism and mass formation are intrinsically self-destructive. That’s something something, for instance, that’s completely different in a dictatorship. In a classical dictatorship, once the opposition is overwhelmed, the dictator starts to lessen, to get milder, because he realises he needs the population to be on his side. He needs to make them contempt with him. And that’s what the totalitarian state does not realise. It is based on mass hypnosis, which makes it unaware of reality, and it reacts in a radically different way. So we have to speak for both, the people who are in the masses, and for the people who refuse to go along with the masses. They both need us. You guys are doing a wonderful job for that.
Dr Justus Hoffmann: One of the bigger problems that makes a totalitarian regime so alluring, in the short term, is that it creates very orderly societies. In my opinion, that’s what makes talking to people rather difficult, because you can’t say “well there’s no more rule of law”, they all think of a classical dictatorship where there’s just one figure that does whatever he wants and creates chaos. The problem is the totalitarian regime creates a very strict, very orderly society with a very strict rule of law. Look at the Nazis: they create more laws, more agencies, more policing, more everything. That’s what we see here. You cannot say “there’s no more rule of law”. In fact, you see more police on the street, more court rulings against minorities. And they say “what do you want? We still live under the rule of law”.
Dr Desmet: I do not agree that totalitarian states impose law. They actually impose rules that change every 5 minutes. Both in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany there were no laws any more. Even in this situation, there’s a big risk that the “pandemic law”, erases all other laws. From now on, we will live by rules that change, no matter how the situation evolves.
Dr Viviane Fischer: Why can we see it? What’s our mental immune system that we have not been affected? There was a poll done by the university of Eaford(?) of 900 people, and found that only 30% believed the government, related to the corona situation. There seems not so many people are under a full-blown hypnosis, but they just cannot draw the right conclusions of what they’re seeing. I wonder why we can see it? We hear that someone, all of a sudden, wakes up and takes a closer look. What’s different with our state of mind, or psychological profile? Is there a way of breaking the spell?
Dr Desmet: Usually is about 30% that are grasped in the mass phenomenon of mass hypnosis. An additional 35-40% does not want to raise a dissonant voice in a public space because they’re scared of the consequences. Usually 70% shut up: 30% because they are convinced of the narrative, and 40% because they don’t dare to speak up. There’s an additional 20-30% who do not go along with the narrative, and speak out loud against it in certain situations.
There’s a very interesting experiment of Solomon Asch of the impact of mass formation and group pressure [184].
Why some people are immune to mass formation? One thing is sure: the group that is immune is always highly diverse. They come from all political orientations, from all social classes. It is described in the “Dreyfus case” (“Dreyfus affair”) [245]. At the end of the 19th century in France, the people who wanted an investigation into the Dreyfus case who did not go along with the mass hysteria against Dreyfus were really so highly diverse that everybody noticed it. And they came from all political orientations, and so on.
So what connects these people, and what makes someone immune? To answer that question we need to go really deep into individual psychology. Ask ourselves in what way people try to establish psychological stability. Some people always do it by going along with the group. Other people do it by staying very close to what they think is reasonable. Both approaches give a specific kind of psychological stability. It’s very difficult to explain this in a few minutes.
Dr Viviane Fischer: We did a little survey with 20 people, some from our political party, some from other areas of “resistance”. It turned out that what we all could agree to, our main driving forces, were:
- we have a very strong sense of freedom,
- we care very strongly about justice,
- we have an extraordinary wish to help other people; the type that walks to the homeless, while everybody else passes by,
- we didn’t have a mistrust against authorities, but feeling that, just because someone wears a white coat, or has a title, we don’t necessarily trust in what they say. We require to be convinced, reasoning through questions. Same with police, we do not accept silly answers.
Dr Desmet: There is a tendency to our own thinking, with our own heads. This is a characteristic of people who are immune to mass formation.
The tendency to help people depends, because the people in the masses who are susceptible to mass formation have the impression of themselves of doing everything to help the others. They do everything out of a sense of citizenship. They do it all for the collectivity, for the community. They’re convinced of that. That’s what Hitler said, “I expect for every German to sacrifice his life without hesitation, for the German people.” “Solidarnost” (“solidarity”), was what Stalin said.
The people susceptible to mass formation want to understand what they believe, and they have a certain tendency to stick to reason, but is not sufficient to explain why someone is not sensitive for mass formation. Actually, we have to refer to the concept of truth.
Dr Wodarg: If you have been betrayed very severely, and you still want to trust, the only solution is to always find out whether your trust is justified. For this, you need transparency of the relationship to others. You need the possibility that you could control, and if you have this possibility, you don’t even use it, because the possibility is there, and the other one knows it too. Is the basis of justified trust. This has to do with time. Whether you have the time to establish such relationship. It has to do with the size of the social system you are working in. It is very difficult in a big system to build up trust, because you don’t have the capacity to control everything. Many people have been cheated, and which has destroyed their lives. We should offer them a society where trust can be easily justified.
Dr Desmet: I agree.
Dr Hoffmann: For my personal experience, a trait that is common with everyone I’m talking to is that they ask questions. They are not very agreeable. They are not shy from confrontation, like other people. Other very intelligent people are shutting down, and follow the rules. I know a number of psychologists and psychotherapists, and the overwhelming majority of them don’t want to hear about it. The only thing they’re concerned with is how to reach the “conspiracy theorists”. Everyone who disagrees with them is a “conspiracy theorist”. Their whole scientific knowledge is focused in “reaching those people, because they are wrong and have some sort of pathology”. Sadly, this is consistent with history. Assigning a “pathology” to everyone who disagrees with you is not only unprofessional, but dangerous. I’ve found this in my experience, with people with high academic credentials like lawyers, doctors, psychologists. To me, they seem to be more susceptible to this kind of manipulation. On my father’s side, there are other members of the family who don’t have degrees, such as mechanics, and hairdressers, construction workers, handymen, you can have a conversations with them. They don’t have an academic background, and are more open to discussion, more open to being convinced that you may be into something.
Dr Desmet: That was already mentioned by Gustave Le Bon in the 19th century, the higher degree of education, the more susceptible to mass formation.
Dr Fischer: Why is that?
Dr Wodarg: Just think about what education means. (laughing)
Dr Desmet: You can see education as “a process in which you learn to think for yourself”, but you can also think of it as “a process in which you learn to think like everybody else”.
Dr Fischer: Do you think there is a way out of this, I mean, not just by questioning things, to get beyond the spell by this people? Could there be a wake up call? Is it about emotions at all? Or cannot even the emotional level wake them up?
Dr Desmet: We can think about short-term solutions, things we can do now. We have to be honest that we cannot wake the masses up, I think, in a few days. We can continue to talk, and in that way, make sure that the mass phenomenon doesn’t get too deep and that people stay awake a little bit, and remain a little bit open for corrective experiences. I’m sure it is possible. In this respect, it’s extremely important to continue to talk in a thoughtful and deliberate way, as we do now.
At the same time, something that can be very efficacious, but it’s difficult, is the use of humour. Because mass formation, just as every type of hypnosis, relies on the attribution of authority. Always. The more authority someone attributes to someone else, the more susceptible they are of being hypnotised by this person. So it’s always good to be humouristic in a gentle and polite way. That’s something that’s very good. If it is not in a gentle and polite way, you’ll provoke the aggression of the masses. Refined humour is very efficacious as a kind of antidote against the mass formation and the hypnosis.
Even if you succeed in awakening the masses now, they’ll fall prey to a different story in a few years. And they’ll be hypnotised again, if we do not succeed in solving the real problem of this crisis, namely, why we, as a society, get in this state in which a large part of the population feels anxious, depressed, experiences a lack of sense, feels socially isolated. That is the real problem. If we do not succeed in finding out where this problem comes from, then, the masses will always be susceptible to leaders who try lure them into a mass formation.
So, the real question in this crisis is: what is there in our view of man and the world, in the way in which we look at life, that makes our experiences lack of sense. And in my opinion, we must conclude that there’s something in our materialistic, mechanistic view of man in the world, that leads up to radical destruction of the real social structures, and social bonds, and of the feeling that life makes sense.
If you believe that a human being is a biological machine, then, by definition, this implies that life is senseless. What is the sense of life for a human being if it is reduced to being a little mechanistic part of a larger machine of the universe. If you look at the universe, and at the human being like that, I’m afraid you’d end concluding that life is meaningless, and that you don’t need to invest energy in social relations, that you don’t need to follow ethical principles, and, in this way, you destroy your psychological energy and your connectedness, and you end up in free-floating anxiety, and so on.
Dr Wodarg: You feel like you’re a burden for the big machine; they don’t need you. You have to feel that you are the machine, a wonder. This is where we have the dignity of humans, as a principle of all our laws. It is the individual, the dignity of the wonderful individual. All different, all equal. We have to help each other feel that, each of us, is a wonderful thing. That we are a beautiful thing. We get forlorn being a small wheel in a machine. This is the way of looking at each other, the image we have of ourselves, and we have to help each other to get that image again.
Dr Desmet: That’s something also important, I think, the question of the difference between the people who are grasped in the masses, and those who are not. The people who do not go along with the mainstream narrative object against the mechanistic view of the immune system, for instance; against the mechanistic view of life. That’s an important characteristic that maybe distinguishes a little bit between the two groups. Not entirely, of course, but to a certain extent.
The seminal great scientists of the 20th century, such as Neils Bohr, Werner Heissenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and great mathematicians, such as János Bolyai, one of the pioneers in Non-Eucledian geometries, all concluded that one cannot completely rationally understand the reality, and definitely not in mechanistic terms. We should try to arrive at knowing the world, instead of the mechanistic way.
Dr Wodarg: We are our own narratives. We can exchange narratives.
Dr Fischer: If we have 40% silent majority, just going along, who have not bought into the narrative as a whole, they’re just afraid. If there is a crowd where life seems more fun, going in another direction, and they see that this is something attractive, do you think they can just switch gears and turn around and run in the other direction?
Dr Desmet: Yes, of course, and they will sooner or later. But first, our story, our alternative view of man in the world must be concrete enough, and there other factors that will play, of course.
Totalitarianism and mass formation has one main characteristic: that it is always self-destructive. That was something observed by Hannah Arendt, by McDougall, by Gustave Le Bon. The masses in a totalitarian system are only capable of destruction, never construction. It was very stricking that no matter what totalitarian leaders, such as Stalin or Hitler, did, it always ended as a failure, always ended up in destruction. That’s, for me, one of the very dangerous things in this situation. I’m not a biologist, I’m not a vaccinologist, I’m not an immunologist, but just relying in the psychological law that the masses are only capable of destruction, and totalitarianism is only capable of destruction, something in these systems seems to cause that inevitably. Each project ends up in destruction. That makes it a very difficult situation, of course, because now that the mainstream ideology intervenes immediately in the physical body of the patients, and they are also part of a mass phenomenon, then we can already predict that all the measures they’re taking, including the vaccination, and all the rest, could end up as a dramatic failure.
If we can keep people with our alternative voice, even a little bit awake, in particular this group who is not really hypnotised, if we can keep them awake, until the facts, the damage done by the system, is so clear, then they might see it.
The fully hypnotised group will never see it. You can destroy them completely, they will undergo it, and they will not wake up.
But this other group, the 40%, if there is more damage, will be motivated to start speaking aloud. That’s the tipping point. The point when someone can change. If we reach this point quicker and faster, the more we can keep them awake.
It’s better for us all to continue speaking in the public space.
Dr Hoffman: It is common sense, that this kind of society is not sustainable. You can’t create such immense rift, such a divide, and expect the society to uphold itself. It’s impossible.
Dr Desmet: Agree.
Dr Fischer: In Nazi times, if you were part of the “good” crowd, you could join “power through happiness”, like a holiday vacation they provided, where you could enjoy privileges. Instead today, if you play along, if you stick to these crazy rules, you have even less fun. Is it necessary to provide something that is a little bit fun to lure people into totalitarianism? Does having fun play any role at all?
Dr Desmet: I don’t know. Referring again to Gustave Le Bon, he observed already in the 19th century that the masses always have a preference for harsh and strict leaders who are cruel to their own people. I hope our leaders don’t realise this, but the harsher they are, and the more they take from the people, the more success they will have.
Dr Wodarg: They run the risk to be ridiculous. If we see this risk, we can point with our finger to that. They are naked. This is what we can laugh about.
We should work together with the comedians. That’s a very good suggestion. Work with artists, comedians, musicians, to find this human space that gives a bit of freedom, so you can fall back, and so you’re not so fixated on this problem. Humour is good to have in this space, even if you’re hypnotised.
Dr Hoffmann: Thank you for your very insightful comments on the situation.