"First, it should be clear that those who fully embrace the 'official narrative', even when facts contradict it, have their own form of 'good reason'. Marvelling at their perceived 'stupidity' is incorrect, hugely counter-productive, and will intensify the problem."
I could not disagree more, as far as their "good reason", and marvelling at their perceived 'stupidity' is incorrect. You are saying when obvious evidence is right before your eyes and you believe the opposite, that is not stupid? Intelligence is being able to assess things and come to a rational conclusion. The opposite of that is to come to completely inane, unsupported conclusions. That opposite of intelligence is stupidity, by my definition. I think your definition of stupidity is far, far different than mine. As far as whether CORRECTLY assessing the covidiots as stupid is counter-productive, and will intensify the problem, maybe that's true, although I doubt it. That's a far more complicated assessment to make, which I don't have the time or inclination to try to evaluate at the moment. Seeing them as stupid, however, is simple, direct, and obviously true. They are perfect examples of stupid. People like Feinstein, Pelosi, Newsome, and Whitmer, who by their behavior showed they didn't believe the narrative, are not stupid, just evil. The believers are uniformly stupid.
The point exactly is that to our normal perception, and according to our normal criteria, repeatedly ignoring clear facts in front of your face (or being unable to see them) is indeed a perfect example of 'stupid'. But when we understand how mass psychosis works we find that something else is going on. When fears and anxieties are numerous enough for long enough, a generalised state of fear sets in, and a fixation on a percieved cure or cures for just one of them causes a state of hypnosis in which nothing else can be seen, or will be accepted. (Hypnosis here is no metaphor - it is a well defined technical / psychological condition in which fixation on something renders everything else effectively non-existent. Another important point Desmet makes is that it is the people in that condition who make the situation so dangerous (that's already visible enough), and directing hostility toward them (or even berating them with yet more facts) actually makes them more dangerous. He's offering us a chance to avoid doing that.
I'm heartened to see your first sentence outright says you agree with me. Our disagreement may stem from my position that succumbing to psychological assaults that a rational person should be able to recognize for what they are is no excuse, where some think it's simply being a typical human who is susceptible to such manipulation. We're all human, and susceptible. The difference is some recognize exactly what's going on (it's not hard to spot, after all) and realize our tendency to fall for it is weakness and should be resisted, where others fall right in line like lemmings. So whether this weakness of the psyche belies stupidity or not seems at the heart of the disagreement whether "smart" people who fell for the scamdemic (or myriad other scams) are smart. A legitimate disagreement, I can't say you're wrong. Personally, I don't see how a smart person can put on blinders and turn clarity off, completely. That seems to cast aside all that should make one fully human, which is the ability to transcend animalistic responses and use our intellectual power instead. Animalistic feelings are fine and dandy, they drive much, maybe most pleasure. But they're neither smart nor stupid. Letting them affect assessments that should be made rationally is a mistake that a smart person avoids. I seem to not be hypnotizable (pros have tried), so there's likely a connection.
Fear can make people behave very stupidly, because it activates the very ancient parts of the brain, the limbic system that allows us to react to perceived danger with fight, flight or freeze actions, and when one is truly frightened, whether it be warranted or not, the more logical parts of the brain take a back seat unless one has trained ones self to control ones fears.
You hit on many of the aspects I've touched on throughout this whole ordeal.
The point that Brett Weisntein made is one I have made countless times in countless ways. To think that those pushing the narrative *don't* understand the potential outcome is not possible.
There was a study, "The Spars Pandemic Scenario." In which they discuss increasing public fear to drive the population towards their "desired outcome." They even delve into the use of social media and celebrities to influence people. Then to top it off they cover vaccine injuries, and mention how many government officials resign, once the truth starts coming out. If you haven't seen it, take a peek. It will remove any doubt that what happened was planned.
Many thanks for your feedback Ogre! Yes, indeed I saw that 'Spars' paper. One of so many things which indicated the planning and psychological preparation - together with the infamous 'Rockefeller Lockstep' document, Event-21, and the 24 books (!) published in the 18 months leading up to March 2020 all depecting how deadly and terrifying the Spanish flu was.
Well, thank you Michael for this well written overview of our ‘present’ state. If nothing else, and I believe it’s something more, it is an excellent summary of what has happened. This is something very shareable and in a way, scannable (meaning one can scan it and get a gist of it before diving into it word for word).
I’m curious what’s coming next, because I was a combination of frustrated and pleased with your summary ( I hope you don’t mind that label). Maybe “report” is better? “Article” isn’t good enough. Anyway... Your writing is truly addressing the “center” almost neutral position. It’s pretty impressive.
I will admit, my frustration was when my emotions reacted to your statements of the ‘narrative’ side. I can have my emotions without them ruling me. So while having them, I recognized your portrayals were fair and you can’t help where I stand on the issues! Any many on the ‘dissident’ or ‘questioning’ group (friends of mine) are all about the fight, and they are not listening or looking at an oversimplified argument. So they have also influenced me to be very leery of a neutral position, although I want a position to bring more people together than keep the divides. I’m a dissident too, no hesitation, with enough estranged relatives who wouldn’t listen and labeled me how the ‘narrative’ did.
I’ve shared with some, restocked, and look forward to the next piece. Thank you.
By the way, regarding 'what's coming next', if that's a reference to 'part two' of the piece: There's been some delay on that as I wanted to write other pieces -- but it will come eventually. It will really be a filling-in of the 'the rest of the summary of Desmet's so so good book'. It will major on the fallacies of 'technocratic thinking.' We have to root out some deep problems within the 'post-enlightenment worldview', while keeping the good stuff.
Seems to me we are necessarily in this battle for the long-haul, so we have to differentiate between the immediate term actions which keep us in the game, mitigate some of the horrors and get us moving in the right direction, and the deep revision of our entire way of thinking which will be necessary to really get the job done. Part two (and the corresponding elements of Desmet's book) are on that deeper and longer-term level. (As is my michaelwarden.substack.com/p/a-cure-for-21st-century-madness).
The immediate action we all have to work out together, but some of my thoughts are in:
Thanks again for stepping into the debate Rebecca! And for you 'qualified praise' of my neutrality.... I understand the impatience that can grow around the neutral position, given the urgency of the situation... I too am a dissident, or in the language of the piece, one of the 'outspoken'. There's a bit of a dilemma in this - abandoning the neutrality can result in stronger messages, but which maybe only preach to the converted. Nothing wrong with that if it is giving new information, inspiration and motivation to the 'converted'. But there's a lot of that out there already, so I decided to take the 'balanced' position because, as Desmet inspiringly highlights, it's the way to reach 'the unconverted'. So much as I can, I want to do both, but I feel its going to be very hard to make a real difference without bringing more people across the line. So that's where I am. I get very impatient with it sometimes too!
Very interesting insights which help to explain the hysteria. From day 1, I was firmly in the "outspoken/dissenting" group, so what I still cannot fathom is the reason the "aligned" became so hypnotized. It was mind-boggling to me that a majority of people I personally know (family, friends, colleagues, neighbors), many of whom I deemed well educated and intelligent, could fall for the quite obvious (to me) deceptions. In other words, what are the distinguishing characteristics of individuals that cause them to fall into each of the 3 groups? Do you address that in Part 2?
I guess most of us who are in the 'outspoken' group were there from day one. Not all, but most. And probably most of us found it incomprehensible how so may intelligent people could be so blind. You are right, it is mind-boggling - that is why I was so fascinated with the answers offered by Desmet.
I'd been feeling pretty sure for 18 months or so before that book that what was happening was a case of what Jung called 'mass psychosis', but Desmet added powerful new dimensions to that - especially the splitting into three groups, and something else that will be the subject of my parrt two (more on that in moment). So, why do we go to the camps that we do? The first word to consider is hypnosis. It's a literal and technical term / phenomenon in psychology - in which fixation on one thing becomes so strong that the hypnotised person becomes literally unable to see anything around it. Literally. It could be physical, wherein one is so fixated on a looking at an object, or becomes so psychologically fixed on that object, that one can't see other things, even though they immediately surround it. Strange to believe, but it happens. And it happens when the focus is conceptual too. This is the stuff I wrote (followng both Desmet, and Jung before him) about fear. When people have been exposed to enough things that cause fear and anxiety for long enough, they begin to tune out the individual issues, which have become too uncomfortable for too long, and end up in generalised state of fear and anxiety which becomes mostly unconscious and very powerful. They have lost awarenss both of theri state of anxiety, and the the things that originally caused it. Then comes a new crisis (like covid), and the subconscious mind attaches ALL of the fear and anxiety to that. There is an unconscious (and of course false) belief that to fix that problem is to fix everything, and all of the fears and anxieties can finally go away. Hypnosis. The powerful unconscious mind makes every other argument and issue invisbilbe,, or ridiculous etc. Total focus on the one issue. Total refusal to accept any other way of seeing things. Trying to wake them up to reality only drives them harder into the hypnosis, because it scares them.
Also conformity. It's hard to confronted with possibility that so many social institutions are saying things that are not true. Much easier to conform, and believe that the dissenters are mad.
So why do 20% or so of us not fall victim to that. One could say that courage is part of the answer, but I'd say that courage is often rooted in experience. Those who for whatevr reason have learned before that confronting uncomfortable truths leads to better consequences than burying them. Openness may be another factor. We all have different personality types (again much rooted in historical experience) and some are more open to considering different interpretations of reality than others. And then there are those kind of mid-way in that fear / courage / openness balance.
What inspired me most about this is that a) the msytery of why intelligent people can behave like that is solved (and has long historical precedent). b) we can save ourselves and others a lot of stress by not trying to convince those who are hypnotised. c) we have a very real opportunity to create change by working respectfully and patiently with the middle group, and allowing them gradually to come to new conclusions.
So, no, it's not addressed in Part Two, because (even if not necessarily easy to follow) it's really already addressed in Part One. Part Two (it will come eventually, but there is so much else to write about!) is more about why such situations arise in the first place. Two of the main ingredients in that are Desmet's suggestion (I think true) that a purely materialistic society must always gravitate toward totalitarianism over the long term. And also that when leaders become hypnotised (they are subject to fear too) they pursue strategies in which they sincerely believe in the ends that they strive for, and become entirely willing to use means that they know are wrong. Since that is so visible right now, it seems useful to come to better understanding of it. Beginning to address these two issues is long-term. It cannot help much with dealing with the current crisis (the three groups model is the key to that) but it is essential if humanity is eventually to transcend these terrible cycles.
And then I highly recommend reading Desmet's book - it's neither very big nor a very difficult read - quite the opposite. I came away feeling the whole world should read it, and the hope of encouraging a few more to do so was part of my motivation for writing the article!
Thank you for the additional explanation. It does clarify things a bit. I have read some of Desmet's work, and have found it helpful, so I'll look into his book. I will check out your other article, as well. Thanks!
"First, it should be clear that those who fully embrace the 'official narrative', even when facts contradict it, have their own form of 'good reason'. Marvelling at their perceived 'stupidity' is incorrect, hugely counter-productive, and will intensify the problem."
I could not disagree more, as far as their "good reason", and marvelling at their perceived 'stupidity' is incorrect. You are saying when obvious evidence is right before your eyes and you believe the opposite, that is not stupid? Intelligence is being able to assess things and come to a rational conclusion. The opposite of that is to come to completely inane, unsupported conclusions. That opposite of intelligence is stupidity, by my definition. I think your definition of stupidity is far, far different than mine. As far as whether CORRECTLY assessing the covidiots as stupid is counter-productive, and will intensify the problem, maybe that's true, although I doubt it. That's a far more complicated assessment to make, which I don't have the time or inclination to try to evaluate at the moment. Seeing them as stupid, however, is simple, direct, and obviously true. They are perfect examples of stupid. People like Feinstein, Pelosi, Newsome, and Whitmer, who by their behavior showed they didn't believe the narrative, are not stupid, just evil. The believers are uniformly stupid.
The point exactly is that to our normal perception, and according to our normal criteria, repeatedly ignoring clear facts in front of your face (or being unable to see them) is indeed a perfect example of 'stupid'. But when we understand how mass psychosis works we find that something else is going on. When fears and anxieties are numerous enough for long enough, a generalised state of fear sets in, and a fixation on a percieved cure or cures for just one of them causes a state of hypnosis in which nothing else can be seen, or will be accepted. (Hypnosis here is no metaphor - it is a well defined technical / psychological condition in which fixation on something renders everything else effectively non-existent. Another important point Desmet makes is that it is the people in that condition who make the situation so dangerous (that's already visible enough), and directing hostility toward them (or even berating them with yet more facts) actually makes them more dangerous. He's offering us a chance to avoid doing that.
I'm heartened to see your first sentence outright says you agree with me. Our disagreement may stem from my position that succumbing to psychological assaults that a rational person should be able to recognize for what they are is no excuse, where some think it's simply being a typical human who is susceptible to such manipulation. We're all human, and susceptible. The difference is some recognize exactly what's going on (it's not hard to spot, after all) and realize our tendency to fall for it is weakness and should be resisted, where others fall right in line like lemmings. So whether this weakness of the psyche belies stupidity or not seems at the heart of the disagreement whether "smart" people who fell for the scamdemic (or myriad other scams) are smart. A legitimate disagreement, I can't say you're wrong. Personally, I don't see how a smart person can put on blinders and turn clarity off, completely. That seems to cast aside all that should make one fully human, which is the ability to transcend animalistic responses and use our intellectual power instead. Animalistic feelings are fine and dandy, they drive much, maybe most pleasure. But they're neither smart nor stupid. Letting them affect assessments that should be made rationally is a mistake that a smart person avoids. I seem to not be hypnotizable (pros have tried), so there's likely a connection.
I agree that to not 'shut down' like that is to be more alive and thus more fully human, but fear is a very powerful thing....
So then the next logical question is (and as I asked in my original comment), what explains why 20%+ of us didn't fall victim to the fear?
Fear can make people behave very stupidly, because it activates the very ancient parts of the brain, the limbic system that allows us to react to perceived danger with fight, flight or freeze actions, and when one is truly frightened, whether it be warranted or not, the more logical parts of the brain take a back seat unless one has trained ones self to control ones fears.
You nailed it! What a well written piece!
You hit on many of the aspects I've touched on throughout this whole ordeal.
The point that Brett Weisntein made is one I have made countless times in countless ways. To think that those pushing the narrative *don't* understand the potential outcome is not possible.
There was a study, "The Spars Pandemic Scenario." In which they discuss increasing public fear to drive the population towards their "desired outcome." They even delve into the use of social media and celebrities to influence people. Then to top it off they cover vaccine injuries, and mention how many government officials resign, once the truth starts coming out. If you haven't seen it, take a peek. It will remove any doubt that what happened was planned.
http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2021/06/13/spars-pandemic-scenario-more-than
Many thanks for your feedback Ogre! Yes, indeed I saw that 'Spars' paper. One of so many things which indicated the planning and psychological preparation - together with the infamous 'Rockefeller Lockstep' document, Event-21, and the 24 books (!) published in the 18 months leading up to March 2020 all depecting how deadly and terrifying the Spanish flu was.
Well, thank you Michael for this well written overview of our ‘present’ state. If nothing else, and I believe it’s something more, it is an excellent summary of what has happened. This is something very shareable and in a way, scannable (meaning one can scan it and get a gist of it before diving into it word for word).
I’m curious what’s coming next, because I was a combination of frustrated and pleased with your summary ( I hope you don’t mind that label). Maybe “report” is better? “Article” isn’t good enough. Anyway... Your writing is truly addressing the “center” almost neutral position. It’s pretty impressive.
I will admit, my frustration was when my emotions reacted to your statements of the ‘narrative’ side. I can have my emotions without them ruling me. So while having them, I recognized your portrayals were fair and you can’t help where I stand on the issues! Any many on the ‘dissident’ or ‘questioning’ group (friends of mine) are all about the fight, and they are not listening or looking at an oversimplified argument. So they have also influenced me to be very leery of a neutral position, although I want a position to bring more people together than keep the divides. I’m a dissident too, no hesitation, with enough estranged relatives who wouldn’t listen and labeled me how the ‘narrative’ did.
I’ve shared with some, restocked, and look forward to the next piece. Thank you.
By the way, regarding 'what's coming next', if that's a reference to 'part two' of the piece: There's been some delay on that as I wanted to write other pieces -- but it will come eventually. It will really be a filling-in of the 'the rest of the summary of Desmet's so so good book'. It will major on the fallacies of 'technocratic thinking.' We have to root out some deep problems within the 'post-enlightenment worldview', while keeping the good stuff.
Seems to me we are necessarily in this battle for the long-haul, so we have to differentiate between the immediate term actions which keep us in the game, mitigate some of the horrors and get us moving in the right direction, and the deep revision of our entire way of thinking which will be necessary to really get the job done. Part two (and the corresponding elements of Desmet's book) are on that deeper and longer-term level. (As is my michaelwarden.substack.com/p/a-cure-for-21st-century-madness).
The immediate action we all have to work out together, but some of my thoughts are in:
michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-womb-part-one, michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-womb-part-two, and this week's piece, michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-high-ground
... and more will be coming!
By the way - will respond to your latest comment on 'Basis for Hope' shortly!
Thanks again for stepping into the debate Rebecca! And for you 'qualified praise' of my neutrality.... I understand the impatience that can grow around the neutral position, given the urgency of the situation... I too am a dissident, or in the language of the piece, one of the 'outspoken'. There's a bit of a dilemma in this - abandoning the neutrality can result in stronger messages, but which maybe only preach to the converted. Nothing wrong with that if it is giving new information, inspiration and motivation to the 'converted'. But there's a lot of that out there already, so I decided to take the 'balanced' position because, as Desmet inspiringly highlights, it's the way to reach 'the unconverted'. So much as I can, I want to do both, but I feel its going to be very hard to make a real difference without bringing more people across the line. So that's where I am. I get very impatient with it sometimes too!
I look forward to reading this!
Thanks Rebecca! Will be happy to hear any comments you may have!
Very interesting insights which help to explain the hysteria. From day 1, I was firmly in the "outspoken/dissenting" group, so what I still cannot fathom is the reason the "aligned" became so hypnotized. It was mind-boggling to me that a majority of people I personally know (family, friends, colleagues, neighbors), many of whom I deemed well educated and intelligent, could fall for the quite obvious (to me) deceptions. In other words, what are the distinguishing characteristics of individuals that cause them to fall into each of the 3 groups? Do you address that in Part 2?
Hi TeeJae,
I guess most of us who are in the 'outspoken' group were there from day one. Not all, but most. And probably most of us found it incomprehensible how so may intelligent people could be so blind. You are right, it is mind-boggling - that is why I was so fascinated with the answers offered by Desmet.
I'd been feeling pretty sure for 18 months or so before that book that what was happening was a case of what Jung called 'mass psychosis', but Desmet added powerful new dimensions to that - especially the splitting into three groups, and something else that will be the subject of my parrt two (more on that in moment). So, why do we go to the camps that we do? The first word to consider is hypnosis. It's a literal and technical term / phenomenon in psychology - in which fixation on one thing becomes so strong that the hypnotised person becomes literally unable to see anything around it. Literally. It could be physical, wherein one is so fixated on a looking at an object, or becomes so psychologically fixed on that object, that one can't see other things, even though they immediately surround it. Strange to believe, but it happens. And it happens when the focus is conceptual too. This is the stuff I wrote (followng both Desmet, and Jung before him) about fear. When people have been exposed to enough things that cause fear and anxiety for long enough, they begin to tune out the individual issues, which have become too uncomfortable for too long, and end up in generalised state of fear and anxiety which becomes mostly unconscious and very powerful. They have lost awarenss both of theri state of anxiety, and the the things that originally caused it. Then comes a new crisis (like covid), and the subconscious mind attaches ALL of the fear and anxiety to that. There is an unconscious (and of course false) belief that to fix that problem is to fix everything, and all of the fears and anxieties can finally go away. Hypnosis. The powerful unconscious mind makes every other argument and issue invisbilbe,, or ridiculous etc. Total focus on the one issue. Total refusal to accept any other way of seeing things. Trying to wake them up to reality only drives them harder into the hypnosis, because it scares them.
Also conformity. It's hard to confronted with possibility that so many social institutions are saying things that are not true. Much easier to conform, and believe that the dissenters are mad.
So why do 20% or so of us not fall victim to that. One could say that courage is part of the answer, but I'd say that courage is often rooted in experience. Those who for whatevr reason have learned before that confronting uncomfortable truths leads to better consequences than burying them. Openness may be another factor. We all have different personality types (again much rooted in historical experience) and some are more open to considering different interpretations of reality than others. And then there are those kind of mid-way in that fear / courage / openness balance.
What inspired me most about this is that a) the msytery of why intelligent people can behave like that is solved (and has long historical precedent). b) we can save ourselves and others a lot of stress by not trying to convince those who are hypnotised. c) we have a very real opportunity to create change by working respectfully and patiently with the middle group, and allowing them gradually to come to new conclusions.
So, no, it's not addressed in Part Two, because (even if not necessarily easy to follow) it's really already addressed in Part One. Part Two (it will come eventually, but there is so much else to write about!) is more about why such situations arise in the first place. Two of the main ingredients in that are Desmet's suggestion (I think true) that a purely materialistic society must always gravitate toward totalitarianism over the long term. And also that when leaders become hypnotised (they are subject to fear too) they pursue strategies in which they sincerely believe in the ends that they strive for, and become entirely willing to use means that they know are wrong. Since that is so visible right now, it seems useful to come to better understanding of it. Beginning to address these two issues is long-term. It cannot help much with dealing with the current crisis (the three groups model is the key to that) but it is essential if humanity is eventually to transcend these terrible cycles.
For another angle on the needed shift of world-view (already in progress) you could take a look at michaelwarden.substack.com/p/a-cure-for-21st-century-madness.
And then I highly recommend reading Desmet's book - it's neither very big nor a very difficult read - quite the opposite. I came away feeling the whole world should read it, and the hope of encouraging a few more to do so was part of my motivation for writing the article!
Thank you for the additional explanation. It does clarify things a bit. I have read some of Desmet's work, and have found it helpful, so I'll look into his book. I will check out your other article, as well. Thanks!
👍