“Mass Formation” or Mass Psychosis

He deliberately lied on both Tucker Carlson and then Alex Jones, and then his explanation for it is absurd to me.

He said intentionally that open heart surgery is performed via hypnosis all the time. Meanwhile that literally NEVER happened. So I don’t trust him at all, you don’t have to agree with me.
He somewhat corrected himself on this case on Facebook. He's not a native English speaker, and most probably not used to the popularity he got during the COVID-19 craze. I can empathize with him on that part, I too can easily get stressed in Zoom meetings and say stupid things, especially when the meeting is conducted not in my native language, and under the pressure. But I agree to some extent, not too sure if "I watched a series of documentaries" is a good kind of evidence to seriously back one's claims. His Facebook post (auto-translated):
Dear All, Over the past few days a few people have contacted me to express their surprise at a certain topic that was touched off sideways in the interview with Alex Jones. I described there how a simple hypnotic procedure is enough to make a person so insensitive to pain that a surgeon, without anesthesia, can perform an operation without the person noticing, even open heart surgery. I want to clarify a few things about that. About 15 years ago, when I first gave a lecture on that subject, I did a lot of research about it, contacted hypnotherapists, dentists, doctors; i have even seen in vets' practice that in a curious way, by a calm way of speaking and acting with the animal, they can put it into a kind of hypnotic state in which they can perform painful procedures on the animal and the animal interventions and undergoes calmly. I can only say one thing: it exists and it works. In addition, I watched a series of documentaries - including a documentary on Canvas about Professor Faymonville who frequently operates under hypnosis in Liège and is a world authority in this - in which you can also see such operations under hypnosis. And that, in rare but extreme cases, according to testimonials and the literature, also includes open heart surgery (see for example this popular article of Turkish doctors performing open heart surgery under hypnosis, the academic paper referred to is difficult for me to get hold of from America: Turkish surgeons using hypnosis for open heart surgery see also the description of using the Esdaile hypnosis state to open heart operations without additional anesthesia; in the comment section I will add some more articles). In my book there is also a reference to an academic article where you will find an overview of all types of operations that can be performed under hypnosis. However, I must correct a false impression created by the interview. And I plead guilty on that count. In the interview I answer in the affirmative to Jones's question whether I have seen such an operation. That is not true. When I listen to the interview, I ask myself why I answered that way. It may have had something to do with the difficult nature of the interview. The setup was very strange, I hardly knew whether to look at the interviewer or at the camera or at a screen; the interviewer sat next to me, without my seeing him; the interviewer's English was also not always easy to understand, so that I sometimes hardly knew which question to answer; the interview was frequently interrupted by commercials so that it was all very short blocks where I had to rush to get something said, and so on. When Jones asked me if I had seen such open heart surgeries under hypnosis, I hesitated for a moment and then said 'Yes, absolutely', but that answer actually came in a sort of confusion. What exactly did he mean? Seen on video or seen in real life? I hesitated because I first wanted to give a nuanced answer (Yes, I have seen many operations on video, perhaps also open heart operations, or at least, it is reported in the literature that it is possible, I had checked that with an association for hypnosedation when writing my book, etc.), but I was not really concerned about it, feared that it would lead too far and that I would not be able to continue with the argument I wanted to make. I just decided to say “yes” and then added “absolutely.” When I watch the video, I now also see that I undeniably give the wrong impression that I myself, in a physical presence, have seen an open heart surgery performed. I have to say that I think it's a mistake on my part and I want to put it right with this one. If we really want to revalue truth-telling in our society, then we must not let our own shame hold us back and have the courage to admit our own mistakes. I tried to do that with this one. Mattias
 
He somewhat corrected himself on this case on Facebook. He's not a native English speaker, and most probably not used to the popularity he got during the COVID-19 craze. I can empathize with him on that part, I too can easily get stressed in Zoom meetings and say stupid things, especially when the meeting is conducted not in my native language, and under the pressure. But I agree to some extent, not too sure if "I watched a series of documentaries" is a good kind of evidence to seriously back one's claims. His Facebook post (auto-translated):

His Facebook explanation makes me even more leery, but again. That’s just my opinion and no one has to agree with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJS
Desmet's thesis, although it has many merits and a lot can be learned from it, has a few holes, especially in the what regards the intentionality behind the mass hysteria, the weaponization of psychology and so forth. It could be a blind spot, a strategic non-confrontation with with the ptb, or a bias in character. As usual, one takes from any thesis what is useful and forms a more complete picture from other information, analyses, and proper thinking.
That he made a mistakes and then recognized that mistake is no big deal, he's human and it happens to everybody. That's far better than the likes of Sam Harris who make mistakes, and double down.

I'm more concerned about R. Malone, who popularized the "mass formation" thesis on the internet, sues people who are opposed to big pharma, and pushes the narrative that Covid is China's doing to undermine the poor victim that is the US regime. It looks so far like Malone is a controlled opposition, a cointelpro agent of some sort.

Matt Ehret expresses some "polite" reservation on this character's actions here:
 
Desmet's thesis, although it has many merits and a lot can be learned from it, has a few holes, especially in the what regards the intentionality behind the mass hysteria, the weaponization of psychology and so forth. It could be a blind spot, a strategic non-confrontation with with the ptb, or a bias in character. As usual, one takes from any thesis what is useful and forms a more complete picture from other information, analyses, and proper thinking.
That he made a mistakes and then recognized that mistake is no big deal, he's human and it happens to everybody. That's far better than the likes of Sam Harris who make mistakes, and double down.

I'm more concerned about R. Malone, who popularized the "mass formation" thesis on the internet, sues people who are opposed to big pharma, and pushes the narrative that Covid is China's doing to undermine the poor victim that is the US regime. It looks so far like Malone is a controlled opposition, a cointelpro agent of some sort.

Matt Ehret expresses some "polite" reservation on this character's actions here:
Yea, now Malone is advocating for people to demand that we look into the “gain of function” research at Pfizer just because it was supposedly exposed by Project Veritas.

Pretty convenient for the MIC and other guys doing the real research.

I wonder if Malone is aware of where the real research is happening. He did rub elbows with those three letter agency types for decades.
 
I haven't kept up with the concerns arising about Robert Malone, and find his lawsuit against the Breggins baffling at best, but in one of the articles cited by Anartist ( Sins of Information Warfare ) Malone made some points which may speak to his motives:

"For what its worth, I hold “our side” to higher standards than I have come to expect from corporate (broadcast and published) media. I reject the assertion that, on the battlefield of the current 21st century unrestricted media and information war which we are immersed in, it is acceptable to employ the tactics of our opponents.
I have previously written regarding the business model of Stoking Rage for the up and coming podcaster, and in my opinion this strategy is fundamentally the same as the “fearporn” business model of corporate media - and in particular CNN.

I have consciously and intentionally chosen to cross-post the Daily Skeptic and Josh Guetzkow commentaries concerning “Died Suddenly” because I believe that they have made important points which should be discussed, (i.e.)... the apparent breaches of accuracy in the current “Died Suddenly” video, wherein (apparently) an example of sudden death is being used which is demonstrably unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) vaccination)... but in so doing I have become a target for a small troll army which has swarmed those threads with accusations that I have a personal vendetta with Stew Peters.

These types of “artistic license” distortions of truth cause damage to the credibility of the arguments being made (which may otherwise be valid)

Allow me to provide a counter example from recent history. The Jeff Hays video production of “The Real Anthony Fauci,” a full-length feature documentary based on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s runaway bestseller, was meticulously (internally) fact checked before being released. Anything stated during the many interviews which were used to generate the final product which could not be documented was left on the cutting room floor. It did not rely on either hyperbole or misrepresentation. And (unfortunately) it did not go viral. But it will withstand the test of time.

Alex Jones, whatever his personal flaws, is the real deal. Just read his book, which analyzes the Klaus Schwab/King George III “Great Reset” agenda. Solid. Factual. Insightful."
 
Back
Top Bottom