tools of light

 

Forum Navigation
Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Psychology of Totalitarianism by Prof. Mattias Desmet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Psychology of Totalitarianism by Prof. Mattias Desmet PDF

Jenny Mortell

September 22

·

I was really lucky to get a ticket to spend 'An Evening with Mattias Desmet' last night, to listen to him talking with Sarah Haboubi and later with John Waters.  Most of you will know about his book called The Psychology of Totalitarianism which has been top of the best seller list for some time but pretty much ignored by the MSM.   All was good until he got a lot of attention on his recent tour of the US where he spoke to Tucker Carlson.  Since then unfortunately he is being attacked a lot, I suppose par for the course for anyone who goes against the propaganda.   Many of his recent interviews have been about the theory of Mass Formation.   I'd particularly recommend an interview he did with John Waters, very inspirational.   And it reinforces the wish of some of us to 'speak out' when we know that we are being lied to.

 

The Psychology of Totalitarianism

Summary

The Psychology of Totalitarianism by Mattias Desmet

Occasionally, there are books that try to make sense of a key moment in history - and become an indispensable guide to the times we live in.

This book is one of them.

 

 

 

In The Psychology of Totalitarianism, world-renowned Professor of Clinical Psychology Mattias Desmet deconstructs the societal conditions that allow collective psychosis to take hold. By analysing our current global situation and identifying the phenomenon of 'mass formation' - a type of collective hypnosis - he illustrates how close we are to repeating totalitarian behaviours within democratic structures.

Totalitarianism is not a coincidence and does not form in a vacuum. Desmet explains how it arises from a collective psychosis that has followed a predictable script throughout history, its formation gaining strength and speed with each generation - from the Jacobins to the Nazis and Stalinists - in lockstep with technological advances. He demonstrates how governments, mass media and other large, 'mechanised' forces use fear, loneliness and isolation to demoralise populations to exert control, persuading large groups of people to act against their own interests, always with destructive results.

Building on Hannah Arendt's essential work on totalitarianism, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Desmet offers a sharp critique of the cultural 'groupthink' that existed pre-pandemic but has steadily and inexorably advanced during the Covid crisis. He cautions against the dangers of our current societal landscape, media consumption and reliance on manipulative technologies and then offers simple solutions - both individual and collective - to prevent the willing sacrifice of our freedoms.

The Psychology of Totalitarianism describes exactly how, during this extraordinary time of loneliness, free-floating anxiety and fear, we are surrendering our freedoms and giving way to censorship and loss of privacy - driven by a dominant crisis narrative that excludes dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink.

Desmet's work on mass formation theory was brought to the world's attention on The Joe Rogan Experience and in major media around the globe.

'In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true.' - Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

'We can honor the right to freedom of expression and the right to self-determination without feeling threatened by each other,' Desmet writes. 'But there is a point where we must stop losing ourselves in the crowd to experience meaning and connection. That is the point where the winter of totalitarianism gives way to a spring of life.' - Mattias Desmet, The Psychology of Totalitarianism

'[Desmet] is waking a lot of people up to the dangerous place we are now with a brilliant distillation of how we ended up here.' - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The Psychology of Totalitarianism Reviews

As I walk through the halls of a major US medical center, I see eyes that divert themselves away from me as I pass. When we engage in our usual discussions on patients, the topic of COVID-19 vaccination brings a halting response: 'We don't want to talk about it.' I see fear, shame, and a never-ending cycle of groupthink that has been more contagious among physicians than aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 in a crowded elevator. Mattias Desmet, like a guided missile, has hit the target. The medical community is in mass formation and this led to a much larger penumbra that has enveloped the general population. In this book, Desmet has constructed an explanatory framework from which the cohesive fabric is suspended that clearly and concisely explains what is happening and what the next steps are that each and every one of us need to take to break the 'spell' and restore normalcy. A must read for our time.

-Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH; chief medical advisor, Truth for Health Foundation

Transcending medical controversies, this book offers an indispensable window into the social phenomenon we call COVID.

-Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics and The Coronation

Mattias Desmet is the world's expert on the phenomenon of mass formation-and one of the most sincere, thoughtful, and important intellectuals of the twenty-first century. If you want to understand why and how the coronavirus pandemic response unfolded the way it did at a societal level and-even more importantly-how to prevent such a travesty from happening again, The Psychology of Totalitarianism is essential reading. Desmet shows us how to reclaim our humanity in an increasingly dehumanized and mechanized world.

-Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, trial attorney; cofounder, Berlin's Corona Investigative Committee

In this masterful book, Desmet asks how we have arrived at the doorstep of totalitarianism. Taking the reader on a wild, scholarly ride through history, science, and psychology, he delivers answers both necessary and unexpected.

-Heather Heying, PhD, evolutionary biologist; coauthor of A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century

Desmet is waking a lot of people up to the dangerous place we are now with a brilliant distillation of how we ended up here.

-Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Mattias Desmet's theory of mass formation is the most important lens through which we can understand the COVID-19 pandemic and the social aberrations that accompanied it. In The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Desmet explains how and why people will willingly give up their freedom, how the masses can give rise to a totalitarian leader, and-most importantly-how we can resist these phenomena and maintain our common humanity. This is the most important book of 2022.

-Dr. Robert Malone, author of Lies My Gov't Told Me

Mattias Desmet's [theory of mass formation hypnosis] is great. . . . Once I kind of started to look for it, I saw it everywhere.

-Eric Clapton

The foundational thinkers on mass formation are joined by Mattias Desmet, who now stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Arendt, Jung and Freud. His understanding and analysis of contemporary group behavior in a destabilized society, presents a fascinating window into the minds of the most complex beings on the planet. Desmet's seminal work underlines the increasingly dangerous behavior of humanity - and he verifies that it must be understood and reversed if we are to survive as a species.

-David Marks, Writer and Documentary Producer

About Mattias Desmet

Mattias Desmet is recognized as the world's leading expert on the theory of mass formation as it applies to the COVID-19 pandemic. He is a professor of clinical psychology in the Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences at Ghent University (Belgium) and a practicing psychoanalytic psychotherapist. His work has been discussed widely in the media, including on The Joe Rogan Experience and in Forbes, The New York Post, Salon.com, and Fox News, among hundreds of other outlets. His interviews have been viewed by millions of people around the world. His previous books include The Pursuit of Objectivity in Psychology and Lacan's Logic of Subjectivity: A Walk on the Graph of Desire. Desmet is the author of over one hundred peer-reviewed academic papers. In 2018 he received the Evidence-Based Psychoanalytic Case Study Prize of the Association for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, and in 2019 he received the Wim Trijsburg Prize of the Dutch Association of Psychotherapy.

The convulsions of sophist Maarten Boudry

 
 
 

In the newspaper De Morgen, Maarten Boudry finds it necessary to wipe out his colleague professor Mattias Desmet. Desmet gets a whole series of reproaches thrown at him. Subsequently, a number of other professors jumped on Boudry's band. Ditto for a number of newspapers. It is striking that these subsequent critiques are mainly a series of insults and reproaches. There is very little criticism of Desmet's own statements on mass formation.

 

But what are the merits of Boudry's claims? And what techniques does he use to convince the reader of what he writes? An analysis.

- Professor of psychoanalysis at my own university Ghent University,

 

Maarten Boudry gives the impression of thinking that Ghent University belongs to him, but that university is also Desmet's. His opening lines are tendentious and pretentious and indicate that he thinks he is the emanation of the vision of Ghent University in contrast to Mattias Desmet. This salutation is a trick to make the reader part of the groupthink. While Desmet disputes exactly that. Attempting to make people part of the desire to reach a consensus that puts people's common sense aside is a well-known trick for persuasion. The technique of the ad Populum fallacy.

 

- … in his book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” sweeps the entire medical consensus on Covid-19 and vaccination off the table.

 

This statement is wrong twice.

- Mattias Desmet does not sweep everything off the table in his book. He has criticized a number of claims made by proponents of the measures. But it is not at all the case that he would reject everything. For example, he does not claim that the virus does not exist. Something that some opponents of the corona measures think.

- The story of the "medical consensus" is a myth that the proponents of the corona measures attribute to themselves, not without any pretension. However, this “consensus” never existed. The signatories of the “John Snow Memorandum”, of which Boudry is also a supporter, pretend to represent this consensus [1]and got a forum for it in The Lancet. This initiative came as a counter-action to the Great Barrington Declaration. If there was a consensus, then of course no counter-action was needed. In addition, the Memorandum has been signed by some 15% of The Great Barrington's signatories. The academics outside the consensus include professors from the largest universities in the world, including Harvard, Oxford and Stanford. So it is quite a bit of self overestimation in this statement by Maarten Boudry.

 

In addition, Boudry once again uses the technique of groupthink to address people's tendency to join consensus. The bandwagon fallacy.

 

- He has been doing this for two years now: it would be nothing more than a process of psychological 'mass formation', a kind of collective 'hypnosis' to which the entire population has succumbed, including all medical experts.

 

This statement is wrong 3 times.

 

- In his book, Desmet also describes other aspects of the problem that led to the wrong measures. Including the poor quality of medical studies and the mechanistic thinking. It is therefore about more than a process of psychological mass formation.

- Desmet describes in his book which percentages of the population are susceptible to mass formation and also refers explicitly to a part of the population that has not been and is not affected by mass formation. So it is untrue that he would have written that the entire population would have "succumbed" to mass formation.

- The same goes for the medical experts. Numerous medical experts have not followed the story of the wrong measures. Desmet does not write anywhere that all experts would have succumbed to mass formation.

 

By defining Desmet's theses as pertaining to the entire population, Boudry addresses the reader with the claim that he is also considered by Desmet to be part of the mass formation. Another manipulation technique based on a lie. Ad populum.

 

- According to Desmet, the measures against Covid-19 have no medical justification…

 

This claim is a caricatural falsehood. In his book, Desmet criticizes a number of measures, but not all of them. Although many measures indeed appear to have been ineffective, Desmet, for example, nowhere states that it would be pointless to ask sick people to stay at home.

 

- … but are part of a process of 'totalization' such as under Nazism and in Soviet Russia, which, according to him, threatens to culminate in violence, oppression and mass murder.

 

That is indeed in Desmet's book. However, this statement deserves the explanation that Desmet does not state anywhere that the corona measures are Nazi or communist. He even explicitly states that the now emerging totalitarianism is different in nature. It is now technocratic totalitarianism, led no longer by 'gang leaders', but by bureaucrats and tecnocrats. He does argue that the underlying mechanism of the emergence of the totalitarian state, as seen in the run-up to the success of Nazism and Comminism in the Soviet Union, is psychologically similar. The fact that such an evolution can lead to oppression and mass murder is clearly visible in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

 

- The millions of deaths from the virus itself apparently don't matter to him:…

 

Nowhere in his book does Desmet mention that the deaths from covid would be of no importance to him. On the contrary, Desmet acknowledges the seriousness of the condition and the fact that there have been deaths from the virus.

 

- The counter stands at an estimated 23 million people worldwide…

 

Boudry refers to an article in The Economist. Not exactly a good scientific source. The reality is that we don't have a correct figure for the number of deaths yet. But that the figure used by Boudry is by no means close to the so-called 'scientific consensus', which is evident from the fact that the WHO estimates the number of deaths at 6.5 million and has not yet adjusted that cuteness.

In Boudry's sense there is a contradiction. A counter is an object that counts precisely. A counter does not estimate. An estimated number is therefore not a counted number. Once again, Boudry uses a tendentious technique to give more credibility to the estimate.

 

- Hundreds of thousands of them died needlessly, precisely because they took to heart Desmet e tutti quanti's manifest science denial and misinformation about corona, and sincerely believed that the vaccine was more dangerous than the virus itself.

 

Boudry refers to an article from an American news site, which refers to a dashboard prepared by an American university. Neither the news site article nor the dashboard referenced in this article mention the reasons why a certain proportion of people in the US did not get vaccinated.

 

Attributing that to "science denial and disinformation" by Desmet about corona is in any case not possible. After all, Desmet's book was only published in the US after the period covered by the article. This is a post hoc fallacy manipulation technique of Boudry based on a lie by misrepresenting facts over time.

 

Desmet does not deny science, on the contrary. In his book he denounces the bad science that makes use of bad statistics and makes serious mistakes through carelessness among other things.

Desmet also never wrote that the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus itself. Boudry also fantasizes about that.

 

- Mattias Desmet's book has now been translated and he is browsing the international media with it

 

That's right. An author advertises his books. Wherever he can and is invited. No one can blame him for that. Boudry will also be promoting his books on national television. Abroad, this is less successful.

 

- For example, he was with convicted fantasist and conspiracy guru Alex Jones (InfoWars) and Tucker Carlson of Fox News

 

That in itself is correct. Only this sentence suggests “guilt by association”. Boudry uses the association fallacy here. A technique of branding people by association with other people with the faults of another. One of the causes of human errors in thinking about other people. A well-known manipulation technique that invokes the Halo effects. Moreover, Desmet himself invariably emphasizes that he is prepared in principle to speak to everyone, because dialogue between people, especially with more extreme figures, is the only way to counteract polarization.

 

- Especially the interview with Alex Jones is downright hallucinatory. Desmet nods and agrees with just about everything Jones says. The real totalitarian danger in the US, according to both gentlemen, comes from Joe Biden instead of Donald Trump, because his 'demonization' of Trump supporters would come straight from the Nazi handbook (in the background plays a photo montage of Biden with swastika and other Nazi paraphernalia).

 

Desmet does not agree with what Jones is spouting. It's not because he doesn't respond to everything that man says that he agrees. Desmet brought his own story and wasn't there to confirm or deny Jones's story.

 

- The whole world has been in a kind of collective hypnosis for two years, Desmet explains, except for 'the Wakkeren', like himself. The elite would be 'scared' of him precisely because he mercilessly exposes the mechanisms of hypnosis. But take heart: the Waken will save the world and if there is no genocide of 'dissidents' after all, it will be thanks to Desmet and his followers, who fought valiantly against the totalitarian threat.

 

This text, when abstracted from the ironic undertones and finery, is largely correct.

 

- It's mind-boggling how an intelligent person like Desmet has slipped so deep into this rabbit hole in the past two years.

 

This is an ad hominem argument. A persuasion technique in which a person is attacked without arguments, based not on deduction or syllogisms, but on a quality attributed to a person.

 

- The main thread running through his radicalization is a gross form of overestimation, characteristic of science deniers and conspiracy theorists.

 

Again an ad hominem argument, combined with an association of Desmet with science deniers and conspiracy theorists. While Desmet does not deny science. He criticizes some of the scientific work where serious mistakes are made. He is also not a conspiracy theorist because in his book he proposes another explanation for the scattered thinking about corona in the place of the conspiracy. He even goes against conspiracy theorists who also attribute mass formation to Desmet. In fact, there is international criticism of Desmet, formulated by conspiracy theorists, precisely because he refuses to reduce the complexity of the event to a conspiracy (see ao the series of articles written by Breggin and Breggin).

The claim that Desmet would radicalize is completely unfounded, untrue and ad hominem. Desmet has been saying the same about corona policy since the spring of 2020. He has elaborated these thoughts further and substantiated them in a book. There is no question of an evolution of radicalisation.

 

- Desmet developed a grandiose theory about the formation of fear and unease in our society, based on the psychoanalytic model (see below). In an attempt to interpret the pandemic within that theory, he (as a psychologist without any medical qualifications) comes to a conclusion that radically contradicts what almost all medical experts say.

 

In writing that it is a "grand" theory, Boudry uses the technique of irony as an ad hominem argument.

 

As indicated and demonstrated above, there is no consensus among the "medical experts" about the corona policy. Far from. Boudry nuances his position on the consensus here by stating that "virtually all medical experts" would say the same thing. It thus becomes a matter of determining how many of those medical experts have a different view and to what extent the word "almost" is appropriate. Judging by the comparison between the number of signatories to The Great Barrington and John Snow, this claim is already false.

 

But there's more. Here Boudry makes the mistake of claiming that fighting a virus is a purely medical matter about which a non-medical person cannot express an opinion because a non-medical person would have insufficient knowledge about it. According to Boudry, this would lead to self-overestimation. This statement is fundamentally wrong. After all, corona policy was not determined by doctors at all, but by mathematicians and computer specialists. Based on a number of very limited uncertain medical assumptions, those models were used as the basis for psychological techniques that should convince people to change their behavior so that they become less infected. The entire corona policy was not based on the intervention of doctors, medics,

 

Let Professor Desmet be a specialist in the field of psychology. The entire corona policy therefore belongs to his field of work and his specialization. It's amazing how Boudry is locked into his view that non-medics can't say anything about corona, while the entire politics he adheres to has been worked out by non-medics. And what's even more remarkable is that Boudry doesn't seem to realize that his statement - if true - would apply to him as a philosopher as well.

 

- Rather than wondering if that doesn't indicate that his theory may have gone a little off track somewhere along the way, Desmet concludes: "All my academic colleagues are in the grip of an anxiety psychosis and can no longer be reasoned with!" (paraphrase)

 

As shown above, Desmet has nowhere written that all his colleagues are in the grip of anxiety psychosis. In fact, Desmet has spoken out against the use of the term "psychosis" in mass psychology on many occasions. He did so explicitly because from an intellectual, strategic and tactical perspective he believes that the use of the term 'psychosis' should be avoided. This again shows how profoundly intellectually dishonest and mendacious Boudry's discourse is.

Desmet talks about some of his colleagues, including Boudry himself. Once again Bourdry starts from the non-existent “consensus” that would make Desmet address “all colleagues”. Boudry simply builds on his erroneous principles to make an equally erroneous line of reasoning.

 

- All figures are distorted, all statistics on deaths and infections are unreliable, every scientific institution is suspicious.

 

The technique of generalization leading to erroneous conclusions used by Boudry in this sense makes its content completely false. Desmet does not write anywhere that all figures, all statistics and all settings are unreliable. On the contrary. There are several scientific institutions that use the same statements in their critique of statistics as those put forward by Desmet. Not the least by the way. To name two: the universities of Stanford and Harvard. In the world ranking of universities the 2 best universities in the world. Also Prof. Heneghan from Oxford (evidence-based medicine) shares some of Desmet's critiques.

The criticism that Desmet has on the collection of figures and statistics is not met by Boudry. He limits himself to caricaturizing, generalizing and rejecting. This element also ensures that Boudry's discourse is nothing like a sedate intellectual-academic discourse. What he brings is an unsubstantiated pamphlet intended to damage.

- On the basis of some ill-digested philosophy of science and doubt, Desmet arrives in his book at a kind of vulgar relativism: with numbers and statistics you can prove everything, it is all manipulation and (self) deception, so we don't need the medical experts to take seriously.

 

Once again we get an ad hominem argument and a generalization. Desmet points out in his book that the poor use of statistics can lead to errors. He also shows, based on a study by Prof. John Ioannidis (Stanford) that a considerable part of the studies in the medical field (about 70%) turn out to be fundamentally wrong in retrospect because they were set up carelessly and incorrectly [2] . That is a significant factor. In a situation where the speed of setting up studies was noticeably increased with corona, the chance of errors is even greater. Boudry brands this criticism as “ill-digested philosophy of science and doubt, vulgar relativism too.

Again he talks about "medical experts" when the basis of the measures was not developed by medical experts but by mathematicians and computer specialists who have adopted what the Chinese have adopted as politics within their communist system and subjected it to their statistical projection methods. Moreover, these mathematicians and computer specialists themselves say that their models do not have a predictive character and should not be regarded as predictions. Boudry does not take this uncertainty inherent in the modeling into account.

 

- And this gives the psychologist free rein to speculate with the wet finger about the 'real' causes of the fear and the covid measures.

 

Psychology is not an exact science. Philosophy is even less of an exact science. Boudry does nothing but "speculate with the wet finger" all day long about anything and everything. It is striking that a philosopher of all people acts ad hominem denigrating a humanities scientist who has to work in an inexact scientific field. Would it not be known as a philosopher of science that the human sciences require a different approach than the exact sciences? The view of "medical" science in which Boudry dismisses any doubt and readily speaks of a "consensus" that actually does not exist, betrays that Boudry himself does not properly distinguish between exact science and inexact science. As a philosopher, he uses that argument ad hominem.

 

Incidentally, it is the greatest epidemiologist in the world, John Ioannidis, who in a recent publication [3] also cites mass formation as a problematic phenomenon. Boudry has repeatedly criticized Ioannidis to himself. As if as a young philosopher he knows better than the most quoted scientist in his own field. Boudry is no stranger to pretentiousness. But a little scientist correctly cites the state of the art and doesn't go and comb colleagues without mentioning that those colleagues are followed by impressive other colleagues.

 

Desmet is therefore not alone with his analysis. In his book Desmet presented an extremely elaborate point of view based on Freud, Le Bon, Lacan, Arendt, and many others. The claim that he places himself outside the scientific consensus is incompatible with the foundations of his work. The recent publication of Ioannidis underlines this. The book criticized by Boudry contains almost 20 pages of references and bibliography. Throughout the book it is explained from which sources Desmet drew inspiration to continue working on the insights of Le Bon and Arendt, among others. If it were so that Desmet would stand alone with his vision, this immediately means that all authors who have published on mass formation would not exist and that Desmet himself would be the inventor of mass formation as a psychological phenomenon of groupthink. That would be too much credit for Desmet.

 

- The book is full of that kind of overestimation. Desmet imagines that he is the only one who understands why positivity ratios are important in a pandemic, how to calculate excess mortality and attribute it to either the virus or the measures, or how to take underlying conditions into account when determining the cause of death.

 

Once again an ad hominem argument with an untrue exaggeration. Desmet never pretends that he is the only one who knows how these things are calculated. What he is doing is saying the same thing as a significant portion of the epidemiologists referred to above.

- He's kicking open doors about false positives in PCR tests, as if he's the only one who understands error management statistics.

 

In other words, Boudry complains that what Desmet writes is correct and known.

However, Desmet's point is not that Sciensano's documents do not mention false positive tests. The problem that Desmet cites is that these false tests were not taken into account in various aspects of corona policy. Desmet explains ignoring data known by the phenomenon of mass formation.

 

- If you are to believe Desmet, no medical expert or politician has ever considered the social and economic collateral damage of the lockdowns and other measures. In reality, extensive and meticulous research has now been carried out (completely ignored by Desmet), which clearly shows: the virus itself causes more economic damage than the measures and the countries that intervene the fastest and most severely suffered the least economic damage.

 

Once again a false exaggeration. Desmet does not write anywhere in his book that no one has considered the collateral damage of the lockdowns. On the contrary, he says that cost-benefit analysis did indeed take place on many fronts, but that these calculations of the collateral damage were hardly taken into account in the policy. In a recent interview, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged in the corona cabinet Johnson that this collateral damage was not even allowed to be discussed and that it was indeed not taken into account [4] . Earlier, a number of British epidemiologists, including top adviser Neil Ferguson, had also admitted in their testimony before the British House of Commons that they did not take into account the collateral damage [5]. They say that they have already made general mention of this, but that, to their surprise, politicians have not taken it into account. In Belgium, reports from GEES, GEMS and Celeval, as well as statements from governments, show that the economic impacts were taken into account in a fragmented way in sectors that were shouting the loudest at the time. But when it really mattered, the objections were simply brushed aside. An example of this is the statement by Minister Frank Vandenbroucke: “Den bloke on it!”

 

As was the case in France [6] . Contrary to what Boudry claims, it appears that the lockdowns did not strike a balance between the disadvantages of the lockdowns and the potential benefits. The belief was that the lockdowns would reduce the number of deaths. Everything had to change for that. There was no “mindful investigation” of the collateral damage.

 

The fact that there has been an academic who has written an article on the matter does not refute Desmet's statement that the collateral damage has almost not been taken into account in policy. For this, one should not browse through the publications, but rather through the documents and reports that describe how the decisions in the governments have come about.

Incidentally, the "mindful research" Boudry refers to is not exactly impressive. He refers to a study by an American Business School, and a short review in Our World in Data by the founder of this website. “Mindful research” is therefore a huge overestimation. Both studies date from September 2020 and are now completely obsolete. A whole series of studies that have since been published on the subject show that the measures have brought virtually nothing, but that they have caused particularly great socio-economic damage.

 

Below is a study by the authoritative Johns Hopkins Institute concluding: “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.” [7] A recent extensive study by John Ioannidis and Michaéla Schippers (6 June 2022) paints a picture of the measures and their usefulness that is completely the opposite of the picture that Boudry still conveys [8] . Among other things, these professors find that the measures have greatly increased social inequality. They conclude: “First, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies, should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity.” Their findings and conclusion show that collateral damage was indeed not taken or insufficiently taken into account in the decision-making process to arrive at the measures. Where Boudry accuses Desmet of ignoring scientific data,

 

Boudry's statement, in particular that without the measures the social and economic disasters would have been much greater, expresses exactly the fear that Desmet describes in his book. As a large part of the elite was – and in Boudry's case is – unable to put that fear into perspective and distance itself from it. He is unable to see clearly the real state of science and the mistakes made to arrive at his fearful assumption.

 

- Desmet even distorts the data from the World Health Organization (WHO) about increasing poverty (which is mainly due to the virus itself and not so much because of the measures).

 

Ioannidis and Schippers refute Boudry's statement in detail in the publication cited above. John Ioannidis is the most quoted epidemiologist on the planet. A specialist in the healthcare field. What cannot be said of Boudry. Who spoke of self overestimation again?

 

- He consistently trivializes the mortality rate of the coronavirus (which in reality is at least ten to fifteen times more deadly than seasonal flu)

 

A tune that Boudry has been singing for 2.5 years is the tune of the mortality of the coronavirus. He compares that mortality with that of the seasonal flu. That's comparing apples to lemons. After all, SarsCov2 is an outlier of the coronaviruses. A version with variants that have a higher lethality than the usual coronaviruses. There have also been such episodes in the past with influenza. Including the Hong Kong flu and the Asian flu. A sensible comparison is only possible with those episodes.

The annual number of deaths in the world is estimated by the WHO at 650,000. That number is underestimated because the registration of influenza deaths in the world is very poorly organised. The registration of corona deaths was a lot more advanced. In 2020 there were 2 million registered deaths. 3.5 million in 2021. With a much better registration, that means between 3 and 5 times more deaths than with influenza. Far from a factor of 10 to 15. We will only be able to get more accurate numbers in the near future. The graph to which Boudry refers is now more than a year old, and outdated.

 

- And he even exists to proclaim that the indirect (cancer) deaths due to delayed care will soon be registered as covid deaths!

 

In various recently published studies, the estimate of the number of deaths from corona was tested against the global excess mortality, which also includes the collateral deaths. That was already the case in the first studies by Molenberghs, among others, who had assumed that the number of collateral deaths would not have been meaningful, so that the excess mortality could be equated with the number of corona deaths for his study.

 

- His version of the drug argument 'the cure is worse than the disease' (which completely ignores the prevention paradox) is the most hallucinatory I've ever heard from an academic: “We're saving one person on the track by taking a whole train full of people to derail.” And that after 23 million deaths and a multiple of seriously ill and lung covid cases, figures that would be much higher without the measures and vaccines.

 

The statement that the cure was worse than the disease is not a version of Mattias Desmet, but a "version" of hundreds of scientists on this earth [9] . Recently repeated in the pre-cited publication of Ioannidis. Why does Boudry pretend these studies don't exist? So his superlatives are completely misplaced. As his example is totally misplaced. Desmet has never claimed that it is good to derail an entire train for one person. That's a grotesque lie.

The studies cited above refute Boudry's claim that without the measures the number of deaths and illnesses would have been much higher. Boudry does not show anywhere that these studies were flawed because of the prevention paradox. He just ignores them. Incidentally, it is not the first time that Boudry mentions this prevention paradox. In doing so, however, he repeatedly loses sight of the fact that the comparison is made with situations in which no or other measures have been taken. For Belgium, the reproduction number of infections had already fallen almost to 1 by the time the measures came into effect on March 13, 2020. The same phenomenon can be seen in other countries, including, for example, Germany, Great Britain and Norway.

 

But in Desmet's parallel universe, intensive care services were never full, half of the patients had no corona at all, all other causes of death were happily counted in the corona figures, and festivals and catering were deliberately closed to 'pain' the population and prepare for the approaching totalitarian society

 

In his article, Boudry links the claim that Desmet said that intensive care was never full with an article on the website of "De Wereld Morgen". That article does not say a word about intensive care. Although Desmet did not say that, intensive care in Belgium was indeed never full of corona patients. The expanded capacity was 2,700 patients, while there were a maximum of 1,500 patients in intensive care in the second wave. The rest were patients who did not have corona. Where intensive care was regularly overloaded, intensive care was never full of covids.

Desmet never wrote that all other causes of death were counted with the coronas. It is true that a considerable number of people who have died with corona were considered to have died from corona. That's what Desmet writes. Once again, Boudry exaggerates with the intent to harm, meaning that he writes falsely.

In his book, Desmet nowhere states that the aim of the measures is to torment the population in order to prepare them for the “imminent totalitarian society”. Nowhere does he write that the objective would be to evolve towards a totalitarian state. Desmet describes how a society gradually slides into a totalitarian state without achieving that totalitarianism as the conscious goal. With this sentence Boudry tries to get Desmet into the camp of the conspiracy theorists, while Desmet explicitly disputes the existence of this conspiracy and the objective of creating a totalitarian state.

 

- According to Desmet, the quackery called hydroxychloroquine is the panacea against this (non-dangerous) virus, while meta-analyses now show that it is completely ineffective and can even increase the risk of death.

 

This is an outright lie. Desmet does not write anywhere in his book that hydrocychloriquine is the panacea against the virus.

 

- And then Desmet sneers at the 'disengagement of the intellect' among medical experts, their 'collective insanity' and their state of 'hypnosis'. If I were a Freudian, I would probably mention 'projection': the way Desmet has surrounded himself with like-minded people for the past two years, the way he cuts himself off from any scientific information

 

It is striking that Boudry makes absolutely no mention of the scientific information to which Desmet refers. He even denies that Desmet refers to scientific information, which Desmet does. Boudry ignores the scientific information that goes against his position. And then he talks about “projection” on the part of Desmet. Boudry does not want to argue with opponents, with the exception of one debate with the undersigned. For which the undersigned even had to pay 500 euros. So it is Boudry who surrounds himself with like-minded people. Desmet is known to speak everywhere and with everyone. Even with people he disagrees with.

 

- Similarly, Desmet claims that the collective measures against Covid-19 in reality have nothing to do with the virus at all. No, the virus was only the target for the already present fear in society, which had been accumulating for decades. Until before the pandemic, that collective fear was indefinable and had no concrete object, but when the virus arrived, all that floating, objectless fear found a grateful outlet.

 

This claim is also a blatant lie. Desmet does not claim that the measures have nothing to do with the virus. His contention is that the measures were influenced by mass formation and a number of other phenomena. These phenomena resulted in the wrong measures being taken. Measures that have not been effective, and measures that have caused even more damage than they have avoided.

 

- In the parallel universe of Desmet, we all welcomed the lockdowns and curfews with open arms, because we could finally give some form of meaning to our indefinable fear and because the fight against Covid-19 created a sense of togetherness and solidarity that brought solace for all that loneliness. In other words: everyone actually enjoyed all the misery and we couldn't say goodbye to it when the virus was contained. Or did you not see those tens of thousands of people on the street demonstrating for the preservation of all corona measures?

 

Once again a lying deception. Desmet writes explicitly how people do not receive the measures with open arms, but willingly undergo them and even defend them to their own detriment. He explains this by referring to the groupthink of mass formation. Boudry never refutes that the fight against Covid-19 did indeed give rise to feelings of togetherness and solidarity. One remembers the clapping for care at 8 p.m., the "you are a hero" campaign for masks and the "you do it for someone else".

Nor does Desmet write that we enjoyed the measures. Boudry makes a lying caricature of what Desmet writes.

 
 

We will not go into further detail on the conclusion Boudry makes for himself. We have already sufficiently debunked the basis of his reasoning and spitting.

 

____________

 
 

Conclusion .

Boudry's analysis is based on a false portrayal of what Desmet says and writes. In his text Boudry repeatedly uses fallacy techniques aimed at misleading the reader. Boudry systematically conceals a large part of the science and scientific publications that do not fit his frame. He can do so because, unlike the United States and Great Britain, there has not yet been an extensive public debate in which these scientists have had their say. Boudry takes advantage of the impression that Desmet would be all alone in the world with his theses. Against the consensus. That is a blatant lie. Boudry does not support the statements of hundreds of scientists in the world who look critically at corona policy. Not the least scientists, by the way, but toppers in their sector that Boudry looks down on from his ivory tower in Ghent with his nose in the air. Boudry has to hurry because the international press is paying more and more attention to this scientific movement. It will not be long before we also have a discussion about this in our country and the Belgians will also meet scientists who undermine the "certainties" of the corona time.

 

Boudry also makes it appear that Desmet's theory of mass formation places himself completely outside science, outside the scientific consensus too, and would stand alone. That is a false representation. Desmet is not the inventor of the theory of mass formation. He has further developed this theory, which has existed for decades and has already been quoted by dozens of scientists, and has applied it to current developments in a society that is increasingly dominated by techniques, rules and technology. Anyone who criticizes this statement can clearly express this criticism by going into it substantively, and by revealing the weaknesses of the theory according to his insights. But Boudry remarkably does not do that. Boudry demonizes ad hominem, and pretends that Desmet's theories have no resonance whatsoever in the science of yesterday and today. That image is completely incorrect.

An honest and sincere scientist also mentions the statements of his colleagues that contradict his own. But this philosopher of science does not. He keeps that part of the scientific reality from his audience. He manipulates his readers and demonizes without substantive arguments.

 

A great sophism. That is this attack on Mattias Desmet.

Buying "De Morgen" is masochism

* De morgen is a belgian newspaper like " Le Soir" in France for example or " The Sun" in the UK all masonic mystery religion terms by the way but please please ignore that !
 

Let's analyze the impressive argument of “senior writer” De Ceulaer in De Morgen. The first lines that are an unspeakable laudatio for Mr. We leave Van Den Begin out of consideration. This is a well-known magic trick to give oneself more credibility when taking down a fellow man without arguments.

 
 

The arguments are the following:

 

- Van Den Begin points to Professor Mattias Desmet, who is a charlatan.

 

- Professor Theo Schetters is a wrong-way driver who drives against countless millions of other drivers.

 

- There is a robust, reliable international consensus on the safety and efficacy of corona vaccines.

 

- mr. Van Den Begin is the same dutch as the duts who voted for Trump.

 

The again insane encouragement to Mr. Van Den Begin to continue is not an argument but an attempt to ridicule someone, so that doesn't count.

 
 

Argument 1/

 

The first argument against Prof. Mattias Desmet is not an argument but an insult. 0 / 10. Professor Desmet does not say anything other than what tens of thousands of other doctors and scientists are saying. But for De Ceulaer these are probably also charlatans. Not only journalist De Ceulaer. He has a monopoly on the truth. The ultimate fact checker.

 
 

Argument 2/

 

The second argument about the “countless millions of other drivers” is a lie. There are 2 major declarations in the world that have been submitted to the medical and scientific world for signature.

 
 

- The Great Barrington Declaration, in line with the theses of Prof. Schetters: Signed 41,244 times by doctors and medical professionals, 13,618 times by health care scientists and 750,000 times by concerned citizens.

 

- The John Snow Memorandum, which pretentiously calls itself the scientific consensus and to which De Ceulaer also refers in his book, signed by less than 4,400 doctors, medical professionals and health care scientists together.

 
 

So the Great Barrington is 1246% John Snow. Or else John Snow is only 8% of the Great Barrington.

 
 

Schetters is therefore not a wrong-way driver, but he drives in the lane with more than 10 times as many cars as in De Ceulaer's. But De Ceulaer thinks there are tens of millions of cars on his lane, and nobody on the other side. He immediately occupied that strip, in his mind, and sees one car that should be a wrong-way driver.

In legal terms: physically and mentally unfit to drive a car, application art. 42 of the Road Traffic Act.

 
 

Argument 3/

 

The third argument is also a lie. The so-called scientific consensus on the reliability and efficacy of the vaccines does not exist. That is easy to punctuate with at least one more dissident who clearly does not agree with it. Professor Van Gucht. So not the least. But that will also be a ghost driver, surely? In addition to a lot of other wrong-way drivers who make the same reservations. Not least the reservations of the producers themselves, who did not even want to assume liability. But the manufacturers' leaflets are also charlatans and wrong-way drivers, perhaps? See the photos with Van Gucht's point of view.

 
 

Argument 4/

 

Another insult. But worse than that. A vote of no confidence in democracy. Voters who do not choose what Joël De Ceulaer would choose are “dozing”. What disdain. What a haughty pretense.

 
 

In conclusion: this is nonsense of the worst kind.

 
 

Would they really think at the newspaper that they would not make themselves endlessly ridiculous by allowing these kind of “senior writers” to publish such low-profile articles? You will not find this level in Day All yourself.

 

Do you still give money to have to read such nonsense? That's close to masochism.