It seems that Dr. Breggin doesn’t like my ‘Suicidal Society’ substack. Please find his comments here. Let me first and for all say this to him: let’s talk. It’s time to have a proper conversation.
You might know what my ‘Suicidal Society’ article was about: the idea is gaining traction in public discourse that we would be better off if a major part of the population stopped to exist. Humans cause climate change; they are a virus proliferating on the surface of the earth. There is too many of them. Let’s start with eliminating the elderly through euthanasia – old people are costly and useless. We see how such ideas pop up more and more in the mainstream media.
And then comes the part Dr. Breggin seems to be quite angry about: I remark that such ideas can only gain traction in society when there is a strong suicidal wish in the population. Everyone can read the full article here.
In a nutshell: Dr. Breggin believes that I am blaming the innocent victims of propaganda while excusing the propagandists. And it is not the first time I do so. According to him, I did exactly the same with my mass formation theory: blaming the innocent people and excusing the criminal elite. And even before the coronacrisis, he claims, I walked this path already. He found a 2018 newspaper article reporting that I protected mass murderers in my psychotherapy practice.
Here is what I propose to Dr. Breggin (as I proposed before): let’s have a public conversation. I read some parts of his book. It seems to me that we have some common goals. And I add to this that I am grateful for his efforts to expose pharmaceutical crime.
For me this isn’t a matter of ‘winning a debate’ with Dr. Breggin – it’s an invitation to have an open-minded conversation. I propose people read ‘The dawn of everything’ by Graeber and Wengrow. In the first part of the book, the authors describe how the native inhabitants of North-East America succeeded in organizing their tribal societies almost without use of power or hierarchical relationships. How could they do so? Because they practiced the art of sincere speech in public space, hours and hours and hours a week.
That’s what I invite Dr. Breggin to: let’s practice the art of speech together. We have different opinions indeed. Unlike Dr. Breggin seems to believe, I don’t think that the problems of this society can be reduced to the actions of an ‘evil elite’. We are all part of the problem, also the people who fall prey to the actions of ‘the elite’. Dr. Breggin seems to interpret this as ‘victim blaming’. In my opinion, I rather make people aware of the fact that they are not powerless. We are all part of the problem and hence we can all contribute to the solution.
And we do so in the first place by openness and willingness towards those who have a different opinion than we have. As I remarked before, in my analysis, this is the essence of the metaphysical revolution we are going through: on the one hand we have a mass in the grip of this new kind of lie and manipulation which we call ‘propaganda’; on the other hand we see the emergence of a group of people united by sincere speech. In the mass, everyone has the same propagandized opinion. In the group, people all have their own, singular opinion. And that’s what makes them eager to talk and listen to one another. As soon as the group becomes energetically more powerful than the mass, the era of totalitarianism is over.
Dr. Breggin: let’s find out whether speech can unite us across our differences in opinion. I hope you kindly accept my invitation.
Mattias
I agree with Dr. Desmet, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not an opinion, but a finding is not the same. When we observe and study humanity, we can only admit that the problem of domination is our own.
I say this and write often, it is not accepted, it does not matter, as long as one does not understand the substance of the problem, this reaction is normal. However, as soon as we hear or read something like this, a sincere and objective reflection sometimes allows us to glimpse the reality of this statement.
So I would venture to say that the situation we find ourselves in now, not to speak of bygone times, is our own. When we let others manage our lives in societies or others, it is normal that at some point one or more people, influential or not, take over, this is usually done in a subtle way and little or not perceivable. And this is what has been going on for a very long time, people are encouraged to entertain themselves, to turn away from the essential questions.
It is obvious that an individual refusing domination can pay the price, but when it concerns a people, a nation or several, we can petre certain that it is impossible, it takes an tacit agreement, so that a plan such as the NWO can settle. Hence the media meanstream etc., otherwise it would not have resulted.
We are therefore collectively responsible, one can more than assume, that individually some have never diverted their attention from the responsibilities incumbent upon them. Whether we like it or not, it is only when we realize this fact that we can fully assume our responsibilities and act accordingly.
However, there are extenuating circumstances, we have been conditioned from an early age, we have come to conform, to think like others, or almost, to identify with a group, a culture etc.
However, this does not excuse our need, our desire etc. to let others manage our lives, part of our lives, the functioning of our societies.
It is obvious dr. Desmet is trying to protect the elites. And no, the world is not black and white, and no, it is not that there is nothing people can do, and maybe he has a point that as a society we need to change from within too. But a simple analogy to slavery will hopefully explain that putting the blame on those victims foremost is profoundly wrong. Slavemasters were the elites that enslaved people to do as told to make profits for themselves. The only way to survive would be to work along, otherwise you would die. In retrospective you can say, let’s not blame the elite and leave them be with their profits. Let’s all change our perspectives now and move on. It is theft and needs to be returned to move on. A status quo is not solving anything. Also not in tribal societies.