Pandemic Timeline

Depositions

Reiner Fuellmich interviews Mattias Desmet

Tags:

Prof. Mattias Desmet explores the causes of mass delusion and cognitive dissonance which have eroded common sense on a mass scale.  It is the result of a type of hypnosis.  This phenomenon of mass formation has implications for politics as well.

According to Prof. Desmet, four things are needed to create mass formation psychosis.

  • Isolation and lack of social bonds
  • Lack of meaning making or sense making
  • Free floating anxiety
  • Free floating frustration and aggression

We have had all of these in the run-up to the pandemic.

The cause of cognitive dissonance is wanting to avoid the state of floating anxiety that preceded the state of mass delusion.

Confusion combined with stress are components of a method of hypnotic induction that can put even the most resistant subjects into hypnosis.  In clinical hypnosis, this type induction can take the following form:  The subject is asked to count forward by 3s, except when the hypnotist snaps their fingers.  Then the subject is instructed to count backward by 2.  This type of induction creates a stress in the subject as they try to think through the number sequence of counting by intervals and pay attention to the hypnotist at the same time.  The change in direction of count adds an element of confusion. The resulting psychological state prepares the subject to accept suggestions he might otherwise reject.

Anthony Fauci created some level of confusion with his changing of strategy. “Masks help.” “Masks don’t help.” Add to this the stress of the political situation and the delusion enforced by the mass media, and we have the perfect storm for mass formation.  This is further enforced by the censorship of information that contradicts the desired narrative.  Catherine Austin Fitts determined during her efforts to expose the missing money that the mainstream media outlets she approached during these efforts were in fact criminal enterprises.  Thus, the main part of the public has been driven into mass psychosis.

Prof. Mattias Desmet believes that science is in a crisis because all science is funded by people that it should not be funded by.  Science yields the results that are sought by those funding it.  Being funded by someone diminishes the capacity to think independently.  This is why funding sources must be mentioned in publications because everyone knows this has an impact on results.  It is not necessarily that scientists are willingly drawing wrong conclusions or willingly manipulating their data.  As Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg of interjected,

You can’t see things when your salary is dependent on that you don’t see it.

Public funding of science was intended to protect objectivity, but we have found ourselves in a situation where the funding government organizations also have a profit motive. Further, the these organizations are accepting funds directly from those with an interest in promoting a vaccine-only solution.  Thus, the public’s intent to achieve objectivity through public funding of science is subverted and nullified.  Scientists in these departments are now subject to the same biases that would be found in the private sector.

To correct this problem, there must be adjustment in the patent laws to prevent government from profiting from patents held by the government, and also the acceptance of private money by government agencies must be banned. A situation in which government agencies may have a profit motive to support corporate agendas ahead of the public good should never exist.  The public asked for the creation of these agencies to protect the public good, but those who run them have since adopted a priority toward corporate profit at the expense of the public good.  We see this occurring in this crisis with the discouragement and even banning of inexpensive drugs and generally in the suppression of the market for natural alternative treatments.

With regard to the current crisis, Reiner Fuellmich says, based on depositions to date, that the crisis has never been about health.  Something evil is going on.  This is intentional destruction of businesses and human life.  This is apparent in the writings of those who planned it.  Reiner Fuellmich asked what type of people would do this.

Prof Desmet (00:23:07): I think that the most fruitful perspective to take to answer this question is to look at the people who installed the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and then Nazi Germany. And one thing is sure. They are not common criminals. Because most of these people perfectly know how to behave according to social rules. And so while a classical criminal actually transgresses all kinds of social rules, people in a totalitarian state who commit the crimes are usually characterized by the opposite. They stick to the rules even if the rules are radically criminal in themselves. That’s a major difference. And also a very—

Reiner Fuellmich (00:24:01): —That’s why they stick to the rules because they make these rules.

Prof Desmet (00:24:04): Yeah maybe. Yeah that’s possible. Yes. That’s possible for their own advantage. It’s perfectly possible. 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 the one hand and a classical hypnosis on the other hand, then it is that while in classical hypnosis, the one who hypnotizes is awake. His field of attention is not narrowed down. In mass formation and in totalitarianism, the field of attention of the leaders of the masses—of the totalitarian leaders—is usually even narrower than the field of attention of the population. Meaning that the totalitarian leaders and the leaders of the masses usually really believe in the ideology, according to which they try to organize society.

(00:25:12): So they are convinced, for instance, of transhumanism. They are convinced of mechanistic, materialism, and so on. They are convinced of the ideology. They are convinced that this ideology will bring people into a kind of artificial paradise because that’s something that is common to all kinds of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism, actually for the first time arose in the beginning of the 20th century. Before it it didn’t exist. Before the 20th century we had classical dictatorships. Starting from the 20th century we had totalitarian regimes which is something radically different. You cannot compare it to each other. But the leaders of the masses and the totalitarian leaders usually—not usually, always said Gustave Le Bon and said Hannah Arendt, they are really, deeply convinced of the ideology that they want and they want to use it. They want to use it to create an artificial paradise.

(00:26:15): We’ve seen this in the Soviet union. We’ve seen this in Nazi Germany. And I think that later on, the ideologies of the Nazis and the Soviet Union were replaced by transhumanism in general. I wrote about this in an article. It’s not translated in English but it will be translated I guess and I can send that to you if you want. So the leaders of the masses are convinced of their ideology and that’s why they have this huge mental impact on the masses. But—and that’s important—they feel that without any problem, they can sacrifice a part of the population to realize this paradise. For instance, Hitler felt that he could, without any problem, sacrifice a part of the population to bring about this rule of the German race over the world. He felt like it was perfectly justified to do that because in the end the whole undertaking would result in a paradise which was the best possible place for everyone. And the same with Stalin.

(00:27:29): So they are convinced of their ideology. And that’s why they feel like almost everything can be sacrificed to make this ideology real. To realize this ideological fiction as Hannah Arendt says. So usually it’s this type of person who leads the masses. Yeah, I try to describe it in a very short time now. But okay. Well,

The resulting “artificial paradise” may be a seeming paradise for the leaders who benefit from it, but it is usually hell for the masses. A key to identifying a hellish result for the masses is the use of force and other criminal tactics in implementing the model society.  While the totalitarians may have rules, those rules often do not include established rules such as are contained in the Ten Commandments or the Eight-Fold Path.

John 10:10 (ESV)

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

The totalitarians are willing to steal, kill, and destroy to accomplish their goals. They are thieves.  This is perhaps why totalitarians attempt to destroy religion from the people.  They cannot have their followers living by a moral compass that includes rules that contradict the rules of the totalitarian leaders.  The masses would eventually reject the immoral philosophy of the totalitarian.

The greatest deceptions are accomplished when a single lie is delivered cloaked in a great immensity of truth.  The totalitarian may succeed for a time, but eventually the lie will be found.  In this pandemic, the lies are huge.  Censorship cannot prevent the truth from coming out for much longer.  Already, the dam is beginning to burst.

Reiner Fuellmich (00:27:58): One thing. If I were—what’s his name?—Lauterbach [sp?], I would call myself a psychiatrist because I had one semester of psychiatry when I was in law school at UCLA. Of course that’s a lie. I mean, I did have that one semester but that doesn’t make me a psychiatrist. But if I look at what you’re explaining to us from a legal standpoint, if I were a judge and these people were before me, I would sentence them to jail, at least. I would sentence them to jail. Because it does—none of what you’re saying is a justification for them. And it’s not—there’s no apology either. There’s no excuse. Because what you’re saying is they know precisely what they’re doing except that they believe in their own lies. That’s why they themselves are also hypnotized. 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 new political party right now—same people—same people have infiltrated this party when we put them on the spot they lie. And they know that they’re lying because if you confront them with what is actually happening and with what they’re trying to make it look like, then they squirm and they try to find a way out. But they can’t. So I don’t see any—from a legal standpoint, that is—I don’t see any, of course there’s no justification, but there’s also no excuse. So from a legal standpoint I think they’re liable. They’re guilty.

As Prof. Desmet said, the reason that the people cling to a lie in a state of cognitive dissonance is because they are afraid of returning to the painful state of free-floating anxiety that preceded it.  For this insight, we should be grateful because it points to a way out.

Perhaps this is why the ancient Israelites had to wander in the desert for 40 years.  The generation raised in slavery in Egypt was incapable of letting go of the fear generated in their slavery.  The generation that had been enslaved in Egypt had to pass away so that a new generation could take possession of the Promised Land.

For those stuck in cognitive dissonance, they must be helped to see that the alternative to the lie can be better than what they were experiencing before the crisis.

To do this, among other methods, open discussion must be restored.  The following will likely need to be part of the solution:

Prof Desmet (00:33:00): I think it could be very important to put people with a different opinion and people who choose a different side together and to let them talk with each other. That’s extremely important because I think that actually most people who believe in the mainstream narrative, who even supported publicly even those who present themselves now as experts and virologists, that very often, they actually are not aware of bad intentions in themselves. So I think for these people that really makes sense to put them together with people with a different opinion and to let them talk. I also experience it myself. When I talk to someone who is convinced of the opposite narrative, who has a really different opinion as me, it almost always, if I continue to talk and if I try to really exchange ideas, I will always find out that for me, it opens up my mind a little bit.

(00:34:09): That’s something that Gustave Le Bon says, for instance: that it’s very difficult if mass formation happens at a very large scale in a society, it’s very difficult to wake up the masses. He says that usually you cannot do that. It’s impossible to do. Because the masses only wake up after a lot of destruction usually. But he says that if people who do not agree with the mass narrative, if they continue to talk, they prevent the masses to commence their largest crimes. That’s very important, you can make the hypnosis less deep by continuing to talk. And that’s what we all have to do. The people who have different opinions, the people who know about the different narrative, they have to continue to speak in the public space. That’s extremely, extremely important. I’m convinced that in this way, we will succeed in keeping open a certain part besides the mainstream.

Dr Wodarg (00:35:24): Yes. I think we are just building space for those who don’t follow the narrative, who are in the streets in Paris, who are on the streets in Rome now. If we speak about it, they don’t follow the narrative and they need more space. I think we have to build this space with our theories and with our talks. And I think it’s very important that we take serious all the other peoples who are not on the street. Who are in their offices, who are afraid to lose their job when they say what they really—they don’t get to say it, but there is something in their head that makes them doubt. They see the real numbers but they have to speak differently. So there is a conflict in many people. And I think we have to strengthen them. We had to give them power that they dare. That they don’t feel alone. I think this is our function.

Prof Desmet (00:36:22): And we also have to do it, somewhat paradoxically, for the individuals who are believing in the mainstream narrative and who are grasped in this process of mass formation. Because if we stop speaking the hypnosis will get deeper. That’s, something that’s very interesting from a historical point of view. Around 1930 in the Soviet Union, and around 1935 in Nazi Germany, the opposition was completely extinguished. Then you see something that is fairly typical for a totalitarian state. Then a totalitarian state starts to show its most aggressive face. And it starts to destroy—Hannah Arendt says literally—it starts to devour its own children. It starts to destroy its own children. Stalin extinguished 50% of his Communist Party.

(00:37:19): Totalitarianism and mass formation are intrinsically self-destructive. That’s something, for instance, that is completely different in a dictatorship. Because in a classical dictatorship, once the opposition is overwhelmed, the dictator starts to lessen, to get milder. Because he realizes that he needs the population to be on his side. He needs to make them content with him. And that’s what the totalitarian state does not realize. Because the totalitarian state is really based on a kind of mass hypnosis which makes it unaware of reality and in that respect it reacts in a radically different way. So I think 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 need us both I think and I think you guys all do a wonderful job for that.

In other words, the tyranny typically does not end when the opposition is silenced, but it instead will intensify.  The hypnosis of totalitarianism also intensifies when opposition is silences.  We need to continue to keep speaking in the public space.  Prof. Desmet suggested the use of humor.  Mass formation, as with all hypnosis, relies upon the attribution of authority.  Humor delivered in a gentle way is an antidote to mass formation.  Ultimately, even if we do manage to awaken the masses, in order to prevent the occurrence of mass formation again a few years later, we need to work to correct the causes of anxiety, depression, and feelings of isolation.  The mechanistic view of human life exacerbates these problems.

According to Gustave Le Bon in the 19th century, the higher degree of education, the more susceptible the person is to mass formation.  In other words, education including higher education does not encourage thinking for oneself; rather, education more often programs a person to think in a specific way.  Therefore, education does not protect a person from mass formation.  This explains how even highly educated people can fall for the lie that becomes mass formation.

Viviane Fischer (01:08:02): I want to, I think you had the information that we’ve been, I think during our conversation, we have been cut off on YouTube. So we seem to have been spot on. The live stream on YouTube, we had been broadcasting through a variety of channels, but on YouTube, we were cut off during the conversation with you. They deleted the stream. So we must have been spot on.

According to an unknown psychologist quoted by Todd Callender, there are three ways to break this kind of conditioning:  shock, humor, and repetition.

Sources:

Related:

Comments are closed.