I'd like to draw focus to something Mattias said in his article which you linked to: "What we need is a new consciousness, a new awareness of what the essence of life and the essence of our human existence is"
... I think this should be the point of unification and/or contention. This is a statement I believe most of us (who are following along) can agree with, though we will all have some very different views on what this new consciousness should look like. But fundamentally, this statement is a recognition that the systems in place are keeping us bound in servitude from reaching our potential, both individually and collectively.
And, I might even extend this to something that the transhumanists believe as well. It's this very belief (of a new sort of collective consciousness) that is driving many of the machinations at play right now. The stark difference is their take being anti-spiritual at it's core, and runs counter to the direction many of would choose to go. (Also, it maintains a core elite in the control room, with the rest designated as guinea pigs. Kind of how things have always been.)
It's those who are willfully ignorant of all the shenanigans who don't want to re-evalue their lives or roles within the corporate pyramid; these are the people who would not agree with that statement, as it inherently conflicts with many modern conveniences and luxuries which would require re-evaluation and potential sacrafice, should we collectively agree that we need new change. The "conspiracy theorist" hurdle becomes more of an impenetrable wall from this context. I don't have any answers for how to penetrate this division, though I think our "modern conveniences" have been used as leverage to prevent real change from occurring throughout the last number of decades.
I'm not trying to throw another wedge into this important discussion. I agree fully with your commented response on his article. But as the narrative appears to collapsing rather quickly, there is a bit of a fork in the road towards how to best utilize this momentous shift. Highlighting ALL transgressions is critical. Holding all those accountable might be a relatively futile expense of energy though. If I could invoke a punishment, I think unanimous shaming and a legitimate form of exile (NOT a country club prison) could be the most transformative approach, as opposed to drawn-out legal proceedings or a mob-mentality vigilante justice approach. Any tactics involving vengeance will be spiritually expensive, and risk losing sight of fundamental change for the system itself. Thus, something akin to "get out of here and I better not ever see your face again" might be the most efficient way of dispensing of the puppets, so that we can trace the strings back to their controller. (A compromise approach might be along the lines of how the Inuit dealt with the kunlangeta.)
This is a well articulated post. Controlled opposition is a mindfuck of a topic.
We feel that punishment is not a priority. Public awareness of what happened is the priority. It's doubtful that we'll get much say in the matter of punishment, anyway.
(see our article Scrying on Congressional Inquiries Future).
Our focus is entirely on penetrating the cognitive dissonance and not letting history be written by the perpetrators alone. That's what all this discussion amounts to. The only reason this has happened is because so few people could imagine such a thing could or would be done.
If we move forward from this moment and that hasn't changed, we're in for a whole lot more of where that came from.
Right on. Thank you for clarifying. I think my initial interpretation of your post was lumped into the polarized camp of "these people must be punished!", where a number of Mattias' critics seem to be voicing that position. I probably should have had my morning coffee before diving into this.
I'd like to think that Mattias' arguments are aligned somewhere within that nuance of acknowledging what happened while trying to avoid invoking mob mentality and knee-jerk revenge mode. My takeaway from his article (I admit I haven't read much of his writing beyond that article, let alone his book) is he recognizes that the public often reverts to finger-pointing rather constructive problem solving, and is trying to bypass that behavior by asserting a witch-hunt amongst the elite is unnecessary. Witch-hunt isn't the right word. But I worry that many out there who are justifiably angry by these transgressions require blood to be spilled. It's my speculation he is trying to deflect away from that compulsion for vengeance. Maybe it's more of a hope.
I believe you are focused on the right thing here. There are so many moving parts, but narrative control is the crux of this moment. I'd like to believe there are enough vigilant folks out there to turn these tides.
And you know, from that point of view, there's something to be said for dialing down the rage. We've always resisted accusations of "controlled opposition" as they've come down, around Vanden Bossche, and Malone himself. We've heard it about everyone-Del Bigtree, RFK, jr.--usually based solely on connections to the power grid.
We have always rejected that, because if people are bucking the system, they should be encouraged. And this is a delicate "Highwire" to walk; we're sure that Desmet is coming from a good intention with his treatment of these topics. Personality demonization is demoralizing and turns us to a mob. The unfortunate reality is that he created what he sought to avoid, disunity and personality-oriented conflict within the freedom movement.
We truly hope he sees why these good intentions backfired.
To be fair the Breggins never attacked Desmet personally; they attacked his premises and, if anything, a world-view different from their own ; they agreed with him on some points but did not like his emphasis on individual responsibility being a driving force or the lack of which contributed to mass formation; the Breggins argued from the victims' side and the powerlessness of the victim to fight back under insurmountable circumstances and mention the Holocaust as an example; one can still argue from both sides or consider that both are right in their perspectives; " good intention" does not promote transparency or full accountability or whether one's real motives are in fact "good".
It's not really true that they never attacked him personally. Have you seen the latest about his patient who wound up killing his family? It's getting heated.
Now, we decided as a policy not to side with either party. The Breggins make a strong case. IF they are right about him, they are fully justified, but we have not decided that they are. We're not really interested in criticizing them, they're doing their thing and it's up to them, but they have gone pretty hard after him, not just as an author, but also as a therapist. We're still discussing the ethics of this and have not come to a conclusion.
Somehow, we wish we could engage the ideas without the personalities, but that's unavoidable considering the social and political implications at play.
You're too generous in ascribing motives to Desmet; if there is a genuine fear of invoking mob mentality it has been deliberately aided and abetted and planned by the very power elites we have been afraid to confront; the "transgressions" were and are based on power and control and an elitist mentality will not give that up easily; Desmet's emphasis on individual responsibility and change in our world views away from the mechanistic and materialist are fine words; but individual identities have all but been destroyed and replaced with "groupthink" and it is hardly a simple matter of education and enlightenment which will change everything; no, we don't want to exchange the "old devil" with a new one but that is precisely why the old devils must be exposed and held accountable for being the "false gods" they are.
Well, following his example, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. After two months of trying to figure out if he really feels this way, or was trying to appease some interest which had power over him, we'd rather take him at face value.
It's a golden rule kind of thing. We'll certainly know more after his next article.
Well stated, but justice doesn't mean vengeance! Would it have been better not to have the Nuremberg trials? Was that a "futile expense of energy"? It produced the Nuremberg Code which the "power elites" ignore at all costs and for good reason; in any case we are now at point where any "conspiracy" theory or narrative has outlived any usefulness or explanation for anything because the truth and the facts are being revealed by many others who have already surpassed the need for much of the present discussion.
The Nuremberg trials are likely a great example of the precarious nature in choosing targets for prosecution ; there were far too many who slipped through the cracks, and instead placed in powerful institutions (scientific and medical research especially) which has in many ways led to the present pharma-industrial complex. Though it probably spans well beyond, into all the industrial complexes of the system as a whole. I'd have to research into this topic more thoroughly point to specific examples. It's likely ripe for allegory.
You are quite right and that is a very astute observation; historically we know there were many more who were as guilty as the Nuremberg defendants ; those "who slipped through the cracks" thanks to the allies did become an influential part of the scientific and medical hierarchy and the mentality that still drives medical research to this day; but consider that without Nuremberg there would have been no accountability at all or nothing resembling justice; the trials exposed much of the Nazi era that was hidden due to lies and deception and willful blindness(sounds familiar!?) We have not fully absorbed the lessons from Nuremberg and ,as usual, failed to learn from history; we may soon expect to hear in our time that "I was only following orders" , a defense that was unanimously rejected at Nuremberg ; equally important is this admonition: " A country is what it stands for, when standing for something is most difficult; this is what we stand for: truth, justice, and the value of a single human being!" ("Judgment At Nuremberg" , one of the finest films ever made).
There are at least a handful of major items that simply cannot be attributed to incompetence.
I am thinking specifically of the war/suppression of re-purposed drugs. This by itself is clear evidence of something more than just stupidity. Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives were lost due to this alone.
"There are at least a handful of major items that simply cannot be attributed to incompetence."
This is a strong fact by itself. But how much stronger is it when we point out that we had the same decisions by tens of thousands of interconnected leaders across the globe? We're talking millions of "coincidences."
How many coincidences before coincidence is impossible?
At the global, systemic level we're talking millions of "coincidences." Simply not possible.
Yes, people make mistakes, and dumb people make a lot of dumb mistakes. But to have all the mistakes all fall the same way (to result in death everywhere) for hundreds of key decisions almost in lock step? Zero chance this was mistakes.
So if it's not mistakes or coincidences, what explains the decisions? Willful commission of crimes among a group of people with the same goal. A conspiracy.
Regarding Mattias' focus on the mass psychosis, I see that as a societal conditioning that enabled tolerance of extreme actions that exploited blind, misplaced goodwill. So I think he got the "why we went along" part right, but (to me) that has no bearing on what our response should be to the criminals.
I'm late to the party here, but I wanted to just say this: I really resonate with your perspective.
I wasn't "up" on this specific book controversy prior to opening this stack today, but I did read through the rebuttal to the harsh book review, your comment, and this stack before posting.
I've been labeled (in my admittedly tiny social circles) as a conspiracy theorist for a couple decades now. You described what it's like perfectly. I've become so tired of those that do not seek truth deriding me, only to have the facts I've learned surface 2-3+ yrs later. Popular news is like watching an old movie for me...
Once you see how they operate, you can't un-see it. And you are correct that is the most important driver here... if people see and understand how it was pulled off, the same psyop won't work again for at least a few years. And as you said, if we don't learn that collectively, we'll get more and more of the same.
We need to revisit and heed the warnings of media and communications guru Marshall McLuhan; he not only predicted the internet over two decades ago but described how the new electronic age would affect everything, including human perspectives and personal identity; if he were alive today he would undoubtedly have a lot to say about such concepts or theories such as mass formation; he would see it as an effect rather than the cause of our societal state, an effect which keeps us from understanding the root cause because we are totally immersed in an environment controlled by media propaganda; individual and analytic thought are replaced by "groupthink" and the dis-ease that is so rampant causes violent reactions in various forms as we struggle to rediscover our stolen identities; McLuhan offers some hope in stating that we can exert some control over technological forces(including their misuse and abuse) and avoid inevitable negative effects as long as we are willing and make the effort to understand what is happening around us; as for a remedy to deter violence he recommends the need for continuous DIALOGUE and discussion which never includes "controlling the narrative" which, sadly, has become the status-quo today.
My Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by malice. Corruption, deception and conspiracy are the norm of public relations; it is good faith and honesty that are fringe tendencies. This is especially true in politics where everyone is a competent liar.
An excellent and insightful analysis that has been missing from much of the commentary and discussions; the reality is that the Breggins have been vilified much more than either Desmet or Malone but perhaps not surprisingly as that just reflects the ideological divisions so prevalent in today's society in general; one has to read Desmet's statement or rebuttal (defense?) very carefully in that it reveals some hint as to his personal motivations and vulnerability; his arguments are strong but apologetic at the same time as he reveals that he is also a victim who is not free to speak his mind fully without consequences (as many others who have spoken up have suffered) ; there is a tone of protesting too much, especially when discussing such terms as "conspiracy theories" and "elites", terms which he either avoids or de-emphasizes, all of which detracts from his credibility; Malone does the same to this day and openly states that there is a lack of certainty to point to evil and planned intent (which is almost laughable considering the mountain of evidence coming out each day!). Enough for now....
As an unapologetic fan of Mattias Desmet, I take issue with both your initial review and today's essay. Eugenics has been universally condemned despite the fact it is practiced worldwide through extermination facilities like Planned Parenthood. At the risk of sounding like a Nazi sympathizer, it is not hard to imagine the proud people of Germany grating under the crushing sanctions of Versailles. As a children's protective services worker, I found myself believing that pedophiles and certain sadistic and insane murderers should be castrated. The psychological question posed by the nurture v nature controversy will probably never be satisfactorily answered.
Let me take a giant step in logic and imagine that Hitler was not an insane monster before he was the victim of a poison gas attack in World War I.
The people of Germany responded to him in the same way that people in the USA are responding to Joe Biden and his court jester Tony Fauci. Faced with a seemingly new crisis (on top of the population explosion and the alleged global warming), people were ready to have their constitutional rights removed by what they saw as a benevolent government.
Those in power, from Trump to Biden and back to our new ruler Obama, were moved to take some action that would calm the masses. Of course, once the initial shock of COVID had worn out, the 3rd Obama administration demanded (per Desmet's book) that more and more restrictions be established to cope with what we were told were new variants of COVID.
If people continued to read Hannah Arend's THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, Dr. Desmet might not have had to write his book.
It is a blessing to the literate world, however, that he did so. It is likely we will soon see our one-time friends ratting us out to the government for subversive thoughts.
Maybe, initially, our government actually wanted to protect us from the Fauci Flu. Sadly, this desire has been abandoned and replaced with policies of control and, ultimately, violence, imprisonment, and death to those who dare to have independent thought.
People were misled, used as guinea pigs in desperate search of efficacy by the ticking biological clocks of the elite, with the only regard to safety being to the degree of flying under the radar. It is the oversimplfication of various unproven ideas and how they hoped application of mRNA sequencing algorithms would work in a human being which failed miserably. I do not believe depopulation is the overarching factor, as is advancing and testing enticing technologies, so experimental that people did not want to be subjects, unless convinced it was safe, effective, or they would lose their job. People are seen and treated as expendable and used until no longer found useful. My belief is the 95% efficacy was the score for approximating the spike protein alone with zero consideration of the N protein, adverse reactions, the instability of mRNA in vials, and later as an approximation of the spike protein alone, which can change shape as it travels through the body due to temperature and pH changes, moreover with the ability of breaking through the blood brain barrier per LNPs - whether synthetic cutting edge graphene or full-fat - I do not know.
Robert Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' is one of my favorite books (specially the revised version that was published after his demise. The revised version was actually the original story but it was decided to published a more likable version :)
I'd like to draw focus to something Mattias said in his article which you linked to: "What we need is a new consciousness, a new awareness of what the essence of life and the essence of our human existence is"
... I think this should be the point of unification and/or contention. This is a statement I believe most of us (who are following along) can agree with, though we will all have some very different views on what this new consciousness should look like. But fundamentally, this statement is a recognition that the systems in place are keeping us bound in servitude from reaching our potential, both individually and collectively.
And, I might even extend this to something that the transhumanists believe as well. It's this very belief (of a new sort of collective consciousness) that is driving many of the machinations at play right now. The stark difference is their take being anti-spiritual at it's core, and runs counter to the direction many of would choose to go. (Also, it maintains a core elite in the control room, with the rest designated as guinea pigs. Kind of how things have always been.)
It's those who are willfully ignorant of all the shenanigans who don't want to re-evalue their lives or roles within the corporate pyramid; these are the people who would not agree with that statement, as it inherently conflicts with many modern conveniences and luxuries which would require re-evaluation and potential sacrafice, should we collectively agree that we need new change. The "conspiracy theorist" hurdle becomes more of an impenetrable wall from this context. I don't have any answers for how to penetrate this division, though I think our "modern conveniences" have been used as leverage to prevent real change from occurring throughout the last number of decades.
I'm not trying to throw another wedge into this important discussion. I agree fully with your commented response on his article. But as the narrative appears to collapsing rather quickly, there is a bit of a fork in the road towards how to best utilize this momentous shift. Highlighting ALL transgressions is critical. Holding all those accountable might be a relatively futile expense of energy though. If I could invoke a punishment, I think unanimous shaming and a legitimate form of exile (NOT a country club prison) could be the most transformative approach, as opposed to drawn-out legal proceedings or a mob-mentality vigilante justice approach. Any tactics involving vengeance will be spiritually expensive, and risk losing sight of fundamental change for the system itself. Thus, something akin to "get out of here and I better not ever see your face again" might be the most efficient way of dispensing of the puppets, so that we can trace the strings back to their controller. (A compromise approach might be along the lines of how the Inuit dealt with the kunlangeta.)
This is a well articulated post. Controlled opposition is a mindfuck of a topic.
We feel that punishment is not a priority. Public awareness of what happened is the priority. It's doubtful that we'll get much say in the matter of punishment, anyway.
(see our article Scrying on Congressional Inquiries Future).
https://icthruit.substack.com/p/scrying-congressional-inquiries-future
Our focus is entirely on penetrating the cognitive dissonance and not letting history be written by the perpetrators alone. That's what all this discussion amounts to. The only reason this has happened is because so few people could imagine such a thing could or would be done.
If we move forward from this moment and that hasn't changed, we're in for a whole lot more of where that came from.
Right on. Thank you for clarifying. I think my initial interpretation of your post was lumped into the polarized camp of "these people must be punished!", where a number of Mattias' critics seem to be voicing that position. I probably should have had my morning coffee before diving into this.
I'd like to think that Mattias' arguments are aligned somewhere within that nuance of acknowledging what happened while trying to avoid invoking mob mentality and knee-jerk revenge mode. My takeaway from his article (I admit I haven't read much of his writing beyond that article, let alone his book) is he recognizes that the public often reverts to finger-pointing rather constructive problem solving, and is trying to bypass that behavior by asserting a witch-hunt amongst the elite is unnecessary. Witch-hunt isn't the right word. But I worry that many out there who are justifiably angry by these transgressions require blood to be spilled. It's my speculation he is trying to deflect away from that compulsion for vengeance. Maybe it's more of a hope.
I believe you are focused on the right thing here. There are so many moving parts, but narrative control is the crux of this moment. I'd like to believe there are enough vigilant folks out there to turn these tides.
And you know, from that point of view, there's something to be said for dialing down the rage. We've always resisted accusations of "controlled opposition" as they've come down, around Vanden Bossche, and Malone himself. We've heard it about everyone-Del Bigtree, RFK, jr.--usually based solely on connections to the power grid.
We have always rejected that, because if people are bucking the system, they should be encouraged. And this is a delicate "Highwire" to walk; we're sure that Desmet is coming from a good intention with his treatment of these topics. Personality demonization is demoralizing and turns us to a mob. The unfortunate reality is that he created what he sought to avoid, disunity and personality-oriented conflict within the freedom movement.
We truly hope he sees why these good intentions backfired.
To be fair the Breggins never attacked Desmet personally; they attacked his premises and, if anything, a world-view different from their own ; they agreed with him on some points but did not like his emphasis on individual responsibility being a driving force or the lack of which contributed to mass formation; the Breggins argued from the victims' side and the powerlessness of the victim to fight back under insurmountable circumstances and mention the Holocaust as an example; one can still argue from both sides or consider that both are right in their perspectives; " good intention" does not promote transparency or full accountability or whether one's real motives are in fact "good".
It's not really true that they never attacked him personally. Have you seen the latest about his patient who wound up killing his family? It's getting heated.
Now, we decided as a policy not to side with either party. The Breggins make a strong case. IF they are right about him, they are fully justified, but we have not decided that they are. We're not really interested in criticizing them, they're doing their thing and it's up to them, but they have gone pretty hard after him, not just as an author, but also as a therapist. We're still discussing the ethics of this and have not come to a conclusion.
Somehow, we wish we could engage the ideas without the personalities, but that's unavoidable considering the social and political implications at play.
You're too generous in ascribing motives to Desmet; if there is a genuine fear of invoking mob mentality it has been deliberately aided and abetted and planned by the very power elites we have been afraid to confront; the "transgressions" were and are based on power and control and an elitist mentality will not give that up easily; Desmet's emphasis on individual responsibility and change in our world views away from the mechanistic and materialist are fine words; but individual identities have all but been destroyed and replaced with "groupthink" and it is hardly a simple matter of education and enlightenment which will change everything; no, we don't want to exchange the "old devil" with a new one but that is precisely why the old devils must be exposed and held accountable for being the "false gods" they are.
Well, following his example, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. After two months of trying to figure out if he really feels this way, or was trying to appease some interest which had power over him, we'd rather take him at face value.
It's a golden rule kind of thing. We'll certainly know more after his next article.
Well stated, but justice doesn't mean vengeance! Would it have been better not to have the Nuremberg trials? Was that a "futile expense of energy"? It produced the Nuremberg Code which the "power elites" ignore at all costs and for good reason; in any case we are now at point where any "conspiracy" theory or narrative has outlived any usefulness or explanation for anything because the truth and the facts are being revealed by many others who have already surpassed the need for much of the present discussion.
The Nuremberg trials are likely a great example of the precarious nature in choosing targets for prosecution ; there were far too many who slipped through the cracks, and instead placed in powerful institutions (scientific and medical research especially) which has in many ways led to the present pharma-industrial complex. Though it probably spans well beyond, into all the industrial complexes of the system as a whole. I'd have to research into this topic more thoroughly point to specific examples. It's likely ripe for allegory.
You are quite right and that is a very astute observation; historically we know there were many more who were as guilty as the Nuremberg defendants ; those "who slipped through the cracks" thanks to the allies did become an influential part of the scientific and medical hierarchy and the mentality that still drives medical research to this day; but consider that without Nuremberg there would have been no accountability at all or nothing resembling justice; the trials exposed much of the Nazi era that was hidden due to lies and deception and willful blindness(sounds familiar!?) We have not fully absorbed the lessons from Nuremberg and ,as usual, failed to learn from history; we may soon expect to hear in our time that "I was only following orders" , a defense that was unanimously rejected at Nuremberg ; equally important is this admonition: " A country is what it stands for, when standing for something is most difficult; this is what we stand for: truth, justice, and the value of a single human being!" ("Judgment At Nuremberg" , one of the finest films ever made).
Very well said.
There are at least a handful of major items that simply cannot be attributed to incompetence.
I am thinking specifically of the war/suppression of re-purposed drugs. This by itself is clear evidence of something more than just stupidity. Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives were lost due to this alone.
"There are at least a handful of major items that simply cannot be attributed to incompetence."
This is a strong fact by itself. But how much stronger is it when we point out that we had the same decisions by tens of thousands of interconnected leaders across the globe? We're talking millions of "coincidences."
How many coincidences before coincidence is impossible?
At the global, systemic level we're talking millions of "coincidences." Simply not possible.
Yes, people make mistakes, and dumb people make a lot of dumb mistakes. But to have all the mistakes all fall the same way (to result in death everywhere) for hundreds of key decisions almost in lock step? Zero chance this was mistakes.
So if it's not mistakes or coincidences, what explains the decisions? Willful commission of crimes among a group of people with the same goal. A conspiracy.
Regarding Mattias' focus on the mass psychosis, I see that as a societal conditioning that enabled tolerance of extreme actions that exploited blind, misplaced goodwill. So I think he got the "why we went along" part right, but (to me) that has no bearing on what our response should be to the criminals.
I'm late to the party here, but I wanted to just say this: I really resonate with your perspective.
I wasn't "up" on this specific book controversy prior to opening this stack today, but I did read through the rebuttal to the harsh book review, your comment, and this stack before posting.
I've been labeled (in my admittedly tiny social circles) as a conspiracy theorist for a couple decades now. You described what it's like perfectly. I've become so tired of those that do not seek truth deriding me, only to have the facts I've learned surface 2-3+ yrs later. Popular news is like watching an old movie for me...
Once you see how they operate, you can't un-see it. And you are correct that is the most important driver here... if people see and understand how it was pulled off, the same psyop won't work again for at least a few years. And as you said, if we don't learn that collectively, we'll get more and more of the same.
We need to revisit and heed the warnings of media and communications guru Marshall McLuhan; he not only predicted the internet over two decades ago but described how the new electronic age would affect everything, including human perspectives and personal identity; if he were alive today he would undoubtedly have a lot to say about such concepts or theories such as mass formation; he would see it as an effect rather than the cause of our societal state, an effect which keeps us from understanding the root cause because we are totally immersed in an environment controlled by media propaganda; individual and analytic thought are replaced by "groupthink" and the dis-ease that is so rampant causes violent reactions in various forms as we struggle to rediscover our stolen identities; McLuhan offers some hope in stating that we can exert some control over technological forces(including their misuse and abuse) and avoid inevitable negative effects as long as we are willing and make the effort to understand what is happening around us; as for a remedy to deter violence he recommends the need for continuous DIALOGUE and discussion which never includes "controlling the narrative" which, sadly, has become the status-quo today.
My Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by malice. Corruption, deception and conspiracy are the norm of public relations; it is good faith and honesty that are fringe tendencies. This is especially true in politics where everyone is a competent liar.
Well said!
An excellent and insightful analysis that has been missing from much of the commentary and discussions; the reality is that the Breggins have been vilified much more than either Desmet or Malone but perhaps not surprisingly as that just reflects the ideological divisions so prevalent in today's society in general; one has to read Desmet's statement or rebuttal (defense?) very carefully in that it reveals some hint as to his personal motivations and vulnerability; his arguments are strong but apologetic at the same time as he reveals that he is also a victim who is not free to speak his mind fully without consequences (as many others who have spoken up have suffered) ; there is a tone of protesting too much, especially when discussing such terms as "conspiracy theories" and "elites", terms which he either avoids or de-emphasizes, all of which detracts from his credibility; Malone does the same to this day and openly states that there is a lack of certainty to point to evil and planned intent (which is almost laughable considering the mountain of evidence coming out each day!). Enough for now....
As an unapologetic fan of Mattias Desmet, I take issue with both your initial review and today's essay. Eugenics has been universally condemned despite the fact it is practiced worldwide through extermination facilities like Planned Parenthood. At the risk of sounding like a Nazi sympathizer, it is not hard to imagine the proud people of Germany grating under the crushing sanctions of Versailles. As a children's protective services worker, I found myself believing that pedophiles and certain sadistic and insane murderers should be castrated. The psychological question posed by the nurture v nature controversy will probably never be satisfactorily answered.
Let me take a giant step in logic and imagine that Hitler was not an insane monster before he was the victim of a poison gas attack in World War I.
The people of Germany responded to him in the same way that people in the USA are responding to Joe Biden and his court jester Tony Fauci. Faced with a seemingly new crisis (on top of the population explosion and the alleged global warming), people were ready to have their constitutional rights removed by what they saw as a benevolent government.
Those in power, from Trump to Biden and back to our new ruler Obama, were moved to take some action that would calm the masses. Of course, once the initial shock of COVID had worn out, the 3rd Obama administration demanded (per Desmet's book) that more and more restrictions be established to cope with what we were told were new variants of COVID.
If people continued to read Hannah Arend's THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, Dr. Desmet might not have had to write his book.
It is a blessing to the literate world, however, that he did so. It is likely we will soon see our one-time friends ratting us out to the government for subversive thoughts.
Maybe, initially, our government actually wanted to protect us from the Fauci Flu. Sadly, this desire has been abandoned and replaced with policies of control and, ultimately, violence, imprisonment, and death to those who dare to have independent thought.
Nobody needs you to apologize for liking the book, but not one word of this relates to any of what we've said about it.
We like Desmet, too, and agree with most of what he has to say.
Just not this part which is raising controversy.
People were misled, used as guinea pigs in desperate search of efficacy by the ticking biological clocks of the elite, with the only regard to safety being to the degree of flying under the radar. It is the oversimplfication of various unproven ideas and how they hoped application of mRNA sequencing algorithms would work in a human being which failed miserably. I do not believe depopulation is the overarching factor, as is advancing and testing enticing technologies, so experimental that people did not want to be subjects, unless convinced it was safe, effective, or they would lose their job. People are seen and treated as expendable and used until no longer found useful. My belief is the 95% efficacy was the score for approximating the spike protein alone with zero consideration of the N protein, adverse reactions, the instability of mRNA in vials, and later as an approximation of the spike protein alone, which can change shape as it travels through the body due to temperature and pH changes, moreover with the ability of breaking through the blood brain barrier per LNPs - whether synthetic cutting edge graphene or full-fat - I do not know.
Incompetence, ignorance, negligence, malice, corruption, evil, fraud?
Yes, in my eyes, all of the above.
Robert Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' is one of my favorite books (specially the revised version that was published after his demise. The revised version was actually the original story but it was decided to published a more likable version :)