Download mp4
Listen to the Interview MP3 audio file
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak.
Not to act is to act.”
~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer
By Catherine Austin Fitts
Mass Formation is a theory that has circulated over the last year. My immediate reaction upon hearing it was that I could not fathom why anyone would take it seriously. It was proposed by a Belgian professor named Mattias Desmet. To explain why it bore little relationship to the reality of current events, I published an interview with Ulrike Granögger, Control and Freedom Happen One Person at a Time.
I was online last month with ally and friend, Dr. Peter Breggin for the Doctors for Covid Ethics Symposium. Peter’s resume, credentials and experience in the field of psychology and psychiatry are second to none. His nickname is “the conscience of psychiatry.” Somehow the theory of mass formation came up – and it turned out Peter shared my criticisms but from a place of much greater expertise. Peter’s brilliant wife Ginger had just finished Desmet’s book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism.” She encouraged Peter and I to read it and help our audience understand the issues involved.
So we read the book. Peter has written a book review (to come) as has Ulrike. Peter joined me yesterday for a discussion. His insights, as always, were right on the money. Our destiny is to confront the evil before us. We are not made safe by theories that distract us from seeing the control grid that is steadily invading all aspects of our life and work or identifying and stopping the people who are lavishly spending our money and resources to build it.
Related Links:
Related Reading:
Threats from the Desmet/Malone Mass Formations and Mass Psychosis
The Desmet/Malone Ideology of Mass Psychosis Blames the Citizens and Not the Global Predators
Mattias Desmet: Mass Hypnosis Expert or Trojan Horse? The Full Story – America Out Loud
43:00) Catherine, please tell us the name of the book about the EARTH CHARTER discussion.
If Desmet doesn’t properly understand “love,” then he’s beyond “weird.” He’s a sociopath, clear and simple.
I put this comment on the book review, but adding it to the discussion here as well:
Thank you for sharing. I was not aware of Desmet’s stance on elites/conspiracies. I assumed that he believed that the conditions for mass formation were created and capitalized on by the Schwabbies, et al.
Now, it seems like Desmet is ready to be the leader of the gaslighting campaign, should the masses awaken to what’s been done. He got to practice and polish his message. They can roll him out on CNN and calm the masses by explaining that no elites are to blame. The populace did this to themselves with tragic outcomes.
I wanted to add that the key messages that I heard from Desmet were:
1. 30-40-30; About 30% of the population is likely to fall under the “spell.” Another 30% sees it for what it is. The middle 40% follow along with whoever seems to be winning the public debate. That aligned with my experience in a way and gave me some confidence to start speaking out more than I was.
2. One of the ways to prevent the “spell” (my word, not his), was to speak out. Creating friction for those following along was a key counter tactic. Again, I felt more empowered to speak out. In some way, it made me feel like I had a duty to.
3. The idea that there is free-floating anxiety that now has a target. Amen! So much anxiety around, it’s getting ridiculous. First, this perfectly describes my mother. She’s lived with undiagnosed anxiety her entire life that she manages by trying to control others. When the news coverage started, she was fixated. It was as if the danger she knew was out in the world was suddenly being recognized by others.
Having grown up with that in my life, I noticed that all of my closest friends also suffered from the same pattern. They were the first to join the covidians.
(Dr B – if you’re reading, a side benefit of the shut down was that it brought into light that growing up with emotionally immature parents left me emotionally stunted and co-dependent. Yikes! Making great strides now and on my way up!)
4. I assumed (amateur mistake. Lol) that Desmet subscribed to the fact that an evil group was driving the scamdemic. It didn’t even occur to me that he wouldn’t.
Maybe I only listened to short clips, or maybe my personal filters let the victim-blaming slide through undetected. Who knows?
But, this is my explanation of how smart people bought into his message. Desmet’s message also didn’t make me feel compelled to do nothing. I actually felt the opposite, much to my family’s chagrin.
I did not buy or read his book. The above is based on video clips. I often wondered how his voice wasn’t getting censored on YouTube. Now I know why.
Suggest you read the book. My impression from reports from his interviews is that his presentation is quite fluid.
I have confidence in you and Dr B. I’m willing to change my opinion based on things you both brought to light.
I’m still working my way through Kennedy’s book, so by the time I got to this one, I might have grey hair!
My recommendation is just to read Part II. You will see the problem and save a lot of time. Could not find anything useful in the first and last parts. Meantime, Kennedy’s book is pure gold.
A big caveat to my comments here – I have not read Desmet’s book (though I did purchase it, and it is in my queue, perhaps on a downward slide for the time being). I saw two interviews with him on Corbett and The Highwire, which prompted me to forward this on to a couple of my normie relatives (and buy his book for myself). They actually watched it and were engaged with me on the topic afterwards. I was glad to hear more about this after hearing both Malone and McCullough refer to the same general phenomenon, calling it “mass formation psychosis”. Some of the interesting points in the interview on Corbett and Highwire that I was able to glean is Desmet’s theory (which he attributes to others) of the tendency for people to align/affiliate with a cause rather than with each other, which was accentuated by the isolation. Harrowing example of a mother turning in her son to be executed for not being righteous enough – prioritizing the alignment with the cause over interpersonal relationships.
My overall feeling is like this: 1. waking as many people up as quickly as possible is paramount, 2. waking people up may be broken down into two major steps of realization – one, you have been massively duped, and two, evil conspirators are the ones that have done this (and perhaps 2b., they are not even close – the worst is yet to come).
From my observation of normie relatives, after watching the Desmet interview, they were open to 1. above – they are even glad to be able to tell themselves, “see there is no conspiracy after all” (and to a certain extent, this betrays an internal struggle they must have been having admitting that “something isn’t right here…”). So at least they are part of the way awake at that point. Conversely, if they must swallow both 1 and 2 together (and likely 2b), they tend to reject the proposition altogether and are repelled back to the other side even more. Something about a conspiracy is a non-starter for a lot of people I think (the op on that word has been vey successful, almost as much as that of the “anti-vaxxer” pejorative).
So pragmatically, Desmet’s theory may be a useful starting point for waking up a larger proportion of the population. From there, a slow walk to the global conspiracy of Mr. Globaloney / Spector (whom we can presume are strict behaviorists when it comes to psychology – their only goal is to manipulate an outcome) can come along naturally. We can speculate that they utilize the mechanism that Desmet describes (along with AI to game the best outcome for their ends) to their advantage. That could be a criticism of the Desmet hypothesis that can lead to points 2 and 2b – there is no evidence or even theoretical limit within even his own hypothesis here preventing an evildoer from leveraging this mechanism (e.g., it need not be a spontaneously emergent phenomenon).
Last I want to express my utmost respect for Dr. Peter Breggin in your interview with him. Clearly he has a distaste for the Psychoanalytical tradition of Psychology, and with good reason (I personally have never taken very much stock in this branch, and have an even lower opinion of it after hearing Breggin’s points). The context he provides with Freud’s Oedipus Complex and the child molestation / rape / incest is paramount, and disgusting to say the least.
I welcome any feedback, criticisms or suggestions.
I disagree that Desmets theory is useful for waking people up. It is simply the road into another fantasy and one that can be used to support great evil, walking away from reality. I think the best way to wake people up is to show them practical options for action that progressively increase their resilience and protect them from the various health and financial risks they face. Authenticity and truth matter. They work. Especially when they help people reduce the risk in their lives. Walk them out of the danger zone, not into it.