Elizabeth Hayes here. Two days ago OffGuardian published an article asking for responses to Mattias Desmet's theory of mass formation. If you frequent this site you've likely come across some or all the videos in that article, which you can access here if you want to see and understand them. Here, I want to discuss specifically this part of the article:
While Prof. Desmet’s theories are indeed interesting and provide much potential insight into many aspects of the covid phenomenon (and ourselves), a fast-trending hashtag is a likely target for spin.
What could that spin be?
As the pandemic narrative self destructs, could mass psychosis provide a moral hall of mirrors? Could it let some very culpable and unsavoury characters off the hook with an easy plea of temporary group insanity?
If too much blame is laid at the feet of a sociological phenomenon, might we become drunk on new-found forgiveness and dewey-eyed reconciliation with our fellow man, and lose our vigilance? Might we turn around to discover the history books have been quietly rewritten, that evil truths have been airbrushed away and COVID erected in their place, and that a globalist agenda has been stealthily working behind the scenes?
If we can avoid the traps, there is potentially a lot to be gained by a greater understanding of ‘mass formation’, integrated into a wider pursuit of truth and justice.
Here's what I think. Desmet notes that more intelligent people are more apt to fall in with mass formation, so you can't reason with them. Maybe he's being kind, or more likely, the psychologists' definition of intelligence is askew. When you say to an “intelligent” person that, for example, Covid hardly affects children and show them the data, and that what's being called a vaccine has done an alarming amount of harm to children and thus they should not be vaccinated as there's no evidence that those who are asymptomatic transmit the virus, and yet they agree that children should be jabbed, how can that be called intelligence if intelligence is defined as “the ability to think, to learn from experience, to solve problems, and to adapt to new situations”? Such people can't, or won't, put two and two together. They are stupid, as Bonhoeffer saw. I call it stupified.
Most everyone has sufficient innate capacity to do all those things the psychologists point to in defining intelligence in 99.9 percent of situations where those mental faculties are required, and figuring out that children shouldn't be taking the jabs isn't one of the 0.1 percent exception. That schooling is dumbing us down, intentionally, is largely recognized by those who have looked into it. I except most teachers, who are trained in their own mass formation. But the problem isn't confined to the fact that an alarming percentage of the population can't make change or read or write with any useful literacy after 12 years of “academics.” The much larger problem, as we're seeing at present with this Covid mass formation, is that those who succeed in school to become Experts do well in school because they desire a well-paying career and/or prestige, and as Chomsky and many others laid out, they're willing to obey in doing tasks they know are stupid. The end justifies the means, and they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them, so they'll go along with the dominant narrative for the same reason they did stupid things in school: for the sake of a lucrative/prestigious career. That's what “intelligence” means in a very sick society. This guarantees that most anyone who achieves prestige and power is easily corruptible. It really is that simple.
That humans are social creatures who need acceptance in the group is a given; at one point in human history a person would likely starve if they failed to achieve that. The point of education is to go against this instinct; the point of schooling, which is what we have, is to go with it. So how do we deal with this problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment