"The accused murderer came from a Republican family but idolized Antifa"
You've no idea who this person was only what the media have put out there. We have plenty of reason to view "Antifa" as nothing more than a state-backed "counter gang" (cf Caleb T. Maupin)
Re your discussion with McGilchrist and the reference to Hannah Arendt's comment about the masses' support for totalitarianism.
Well of course Arendt had very personal reasons for not wanting to discuss why a significant proportion of the German public had come to support the NSDAP. She wouldn't for example want to discuss the comment from a Rabbi cited in "Separation and its discontents" that the NSDAP were simply mirroring the ethnic strategy of the Rabbi's group...
Let's be clear: there are ethnic conflicts in the world and that particular one didn't just appear out of nowhere and there are reams of evidence as to why that situation came about. But such an enormous taboo has been thrown up around that era that just mentioning it is to cast a shadow over oneself.
The freedom of speech cannot be absolute and cannot be separated from basic values.
If a persons expresses joy and celebrates the murder of a young father and husband, the expression is not free speech, it is a hurtful and disrespectful message. It celebrates murder over dialog.
Just imagine there were no social media and this would happen in a village.
How would the celebration of the murder written down in the local newspaper be welcomed?
Exactly, it would be strongly condemned by the whole village. It is not acceptable and not moral. It is not free speech.
On social media we believe we are protected by anonymity, but we are still part of the (global) village, with the same values of the local village.
Therefore I agree with teachers losing their job over their social media posts celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Free speech can never be a reason for disrespecting and hurting others.
Allowing public school TEACHERS to aggrandize murder is what leads to totalitarianism. Not their being fired, in which employers enforcing basic civility is a function of a free society! Desmet has it backwards.
This post by Mattias is special in the fact that it contains his somewhat unusually direct criticisms of what is happening under the reign of Trump/Maga/. This is quite remarkable, since his book and theory are about the rise of totalitarianism, and the events in the U.S. are a perfect example of that. What could be the reason for his silence, his long abstention from commenting?
Mattias Desmet has often repeated that the danger of our time does not lie in flamboyant leaders, but in the anonymous bureaucracy and technocracy that slowly suffocate our lives. It is not the juicy tyrants who lead us toward a new form of totalitarianism, he wrote, but the dry civil servant with his papers, numbers and protocols. Yet it is strange how little he applied this idea to the concrete events of recent years. When the crowd stormed the Capitol, one saw precisely the kind of mass formation he described so extensively in his book: individuals losing themselves in collective ecstasy, handing over their own judgment, swept away in a reckless drive. The textbook example of what he meant, but at the same time a moment about which he remained silent.
That is the first paradox. For where Mattias pointed to bureaucracy as the source of danger, in practice we often see the opposite. It is the checks and balances of a sluggish administration that sometimes still make the difference between arbitrariness and protection. It is precisely the slowness of procedures that can put up a dam against the onrush of a populist leader. When that slowness is swept away, as Trump attempts, no liberation arises but a vacuum that is immediately filled by authoritarian reflexes. The bureaucracy that supposedly was the core of totalitarianism then suddenly appears to be its last buffer. Also, Trump is an example of what a ‘juicy leader’ as Desmet called it, might be. Didn’t he say we wouldn't see such leaders in present totalitarianism?
There is more. In his book Desmet pointed to the crisis of science: the replication problems, the dubious numbers, the graphs that feign reality. That distrust is real, but it is something else entirely to draw from it the conclusion that science as a whole is a kind of fiction blindly believed in. The irony is that this very discourse – the continual undermining of trust in science, in healthcare, in media – has today become the pretext with which populist movements attack institutions. The anti-vaccine rhetoric of Kennedy, the systematic dismantling of public health by MAGA: it is precisely that climate which hollows out democratic structures, far more than a virologist making a mistake in a spreadsheet. The censoring of books is back, they also seem to plannthe prohibition of books about... you'd never guess... totalitarianism.
The peculiar thing is that Desmet was right that totalitarianism would no longer take the form of the old dictatorial spectacle. But his mistake was to think that bureaucracy would carry it. In reality we see how the dismantling of bureaucracy, the discrediting of science and media, has become the ideal breeding ground. Where he warned against technocratic totalitarianism, it now turns out that populist authoritarianism is the much more tangible danger. And that the two are mirror images: whoever tears down the “technocratic” institutions clears the way for the mass formation of the street.
The same applies to the criticism of the Digital Services Act or the European Shield for Democracy. Desmet reads in them the hand of censorship and the seeds of a control society. But what he does not mention is that such frameworks have mostly arisen in response to the excesses that were fueled, willingly or unwillingly, by his own discourse: the systematic distrust, the proliferation of conspiracy theories, the dissolution of a shared frame of reference. It is a bitter irony: those who claimed to wake the masses have helped create the conditions under which populist mass movements thrive.
That is why I think Mattias’ analysis at this point was fundamentally mistaken. It is not bureaucracy that pushes us toward totalitarianism, but its erosion. It is not the surplus of rules that opens the gate, but the dismantling of rules that were once intended to restrain arbitrariness. What threatens us is not the clerk ordering files, but the crowd setting the archive building on fire and the leader eagerly cashing in its applause.
That may be the tragedy of recent years: Mattias’ warnings against technocratic totalitarianism were eagerly taken up by exactly those currents that in the meantime are hollowing out the foundations of democratic institutions. And so what he thought he was fighting – mass formation, loss of common sense, erosion of freedom – manifests itself all the more strongly, but not from the corner he had in mind.
I didn’t read all of the comments here, but I didn’t see anyone questioning the veracity of the “incident” on September 10. I have been watching lots of videos and the questions keep mounting. Why was Charlie, usually seen in dark-colored shirts, wearing a white shirt that day? Why was the scene not treated as a crime scene? Why was it not roped off so it could be investigated? What bulged in Charlie’s shirt just before “impact”? Why did Charlie hold onto the mic after he was “shot” and fell over? Why was there no blood spatter on anyone else or the backdrop? Why was there no trail of blood to the SUV? Why was Charlie grabbed and carried away? Is that how a medical emergency is normally handled - to grab the person and run away? With all the drones being used, why were there not a couple drones in the air to work surveillance? Certainly after the supposed attempt on Trump - nearly exact same scenario - some lessons have been learned. (?) There are questions about the CIA connections to that city. There are different stories about where Erika and the children were. There are very odd things posted on Erika’s instagram. The questions keep piling up. Why did the Kirk’s have such a close relationship with Scientologists? Then there are hand gestures given by Charlie in photos. The same hand gestures are given by Charlie’s friends. There seem to be disturbing connections to freemasonry. There is a photo of Charlie and Candace Owens sitting together making the same Masonic hand sign.
I don’t know. I’m just taking in the data and questions … and wondering what is going on.
I am pulled in two directions on the issue of “freedom of speech.” Or maybe 20 directions.
There should be no teachers hired by the government. There should be no tax-funded government schools. Parents should directly hire teachers they trust to teach their children what is good and right. I can’t imagine sending my child off to school with a teacher selected by a bureaucracy. (And I didn’t. I homeschooled.) Since they do exist, teachers are fired for different kinds of inappropriate behavior - like one I saw recently, providing alcohol and a party venue to underage kids.
The first amendment was about questioning the government or politicians. Political discourse couldn’t be shut down. It doesn’t mean anyone can say anything and not be called to account by other people. Employers should be able to hire whoever they want and fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
As far as Jimmy Kimmel, I know nothing about him. I don’t know how the employment works in mainstream media or who makes those decisions. Firing him won’t help purge mainstream media or change its inherent rot, that’s for sure.
People unfamiliar with the u s constitution seem to think “freedom of speech” protects everything anyone wants to say, but that was not the original intent. Even if it were, is it okay to allow people to go around trying to undermine the very “freedoms” they are using to try to convince others to overturn our liberty and take it away?
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
This is the reason America is doomed. The constitution is no longer sufficient to deal with the corruption and deviancy in America because people don’t have the basic moral foundation our country was founded on - Biblical values and principles. Decent and intelligent discussion is quickly disappearing. The topics being discussed would shock our founding fathers. They would not be able to identify with current “issues” at all.
I’ve seen some videos about the Charlie Kirk incident. I’ve heard some talk about it too. I know enough about the corruption in the government to wonder what’s up. Really? A 20-year-old kid pulled this off on his own? I smell a rat.
Call me contrarian, but I think the principles around good taste are being evenly applied in this situation as they were after Charlottesville and the Summer of Love.
Kimmel’s program is on “public airwaves” which are regulated by the FCC. Programs are expected to be at least fair. Kimmel’s comments were so far beyond the facts of the case (shooter’s Antifa beliefs were etched on his bullets) the FCC indicated they could fall under “hoax” criteria. Additionally, Kimmel’s program was so unprofitable, and the local providers of the program were calling to say they did not want Kimmel’s crass program…it was a simple business-wise opportunity to can the little jerk.
You naive if you don't see the enormous attack on freedom of the press & media in the US under Trump's Regime.
In the past 8 months books & words have been forbidden, gov. websites have been censored, the freedom of speech and right to protest have been under pressure and opposition has been attracted.
Many more of the Regimes actions go against the Constitution and the soul of America.
Mattias only realized that now, after Kirk got shot.
Sorry but you are listening to corporate media…have you paid attention to the Twitter files wherein Jack Dorsey (creator of Twitter) testified and exposed Biden’s censorship of Tweets contrary to his admiration? Look up Arctic Frost! Obama’s admended Smith-Mundt Act which allows propaganda used on US outlets…
I think you have confused the protection of "free speech" as guaranteed by the "1st Amendment" with an employer's right to protect their business model. In point of fact, the 1st Amendment protection of free speech ONLY limits government overreach... not the rights of private industry to act in accordance with their financial bottom line. In effect, private industry has an inherent right to limit, curtail, suspend, dismiss, and otherwise remove any adverse effect that its own employees have on the organization's public face.
I agree with you, but I would frame it as "liberty" vs "freedom" since liberty, by it's very defination, has constraints... in point of fact, the corporate environment is a business environment, and should be treated as such, and not an arena to discuss one's personal beliefs and values... and especially so wrt what might be considered inflammatory topics. Those conversations are better left outside the workplace. Personally, I see no contradiction in maintaining our beliefs and values while simultaneously keeping our mouths shut about them.
Wrt Mr. Kimmel, he didn't "suggest" anything; his comments were not only crass, but were an out-and-out false accusation. It's my opinion that the falsity of his remarks was his error.
On a related note, I think we as a nation have had WAY too much cherry-picking, out-of-context rhetoric from both sides of the aisle in the public forum meant solely for the purpose of inciting discord between opposing political/cultural camps.
correction: Trump was banned from Twitter as the sitting president. Biden was surely the admin of censorship when he was in office and ran all the ludicrous lawfare against Trump that we knew would result in the backlash of now. and likely that "continuity of government" is the baton passed between to run with in the uniparty that is the instrument it will implement next
What bothers me most about the comments is not the comments themselves but what it says about a person’s heart. A black heart has no place in a classroom with kids. They can say anything they want to but they must know they will suffer consequences. I am continually reminded of the doctors and nurses who were summarily fired for their comments about ivermectin, covid treatments, the politics around covid and its origins. Everyone thought private companies had every right to fire them. Military people were routed out of service by exercising their belief is bodily autonomy, which is a form of free speech. This was our own government firing them. This ship needs to be righted.
Professor Desmet, I appreciate so much your description of, explanation of, and prescribed remedy for mass formation, and I like your substack posts. Here, what I really appreciate is that you point a finger at a behavior (cheering or laughing about an assassination, firing someone for voicing an opinion) rather than at any specific group of people. By doing so you place the human and the humane at the center, where they belong. Thank you so much! K. B.
"The accused murderer came from a Republican family but idolized Antifa"
You've no idea who this person was only what the media have put out there. We have plenty of reason to view "Antifa" as nothing more than a state-backed "counter gang" (cf Caleb T. Maupin)
Re your discussion with McGilchrist and the reference to Hannah Arendt's comment about the masses' support for totalitarianism.
Well of course Arendt had very personal reasons for not wanting to discuss why a significant proportion of the German public had come to support the NSDAP. She wouldn't for example want to discuss the comment from a Rabbi cited in "Separation and its discontents" that the NSDAP were simply mirroring the ethnic strategy of the Rabbi's group...
Let's be clear: there are ethnic conflicts in the world and that particular one didn't just appear out of nowhere and there are reams of evidence as to why that situation came about. But such an enormous taboo has been thrown up around that era that just mentioning it is to cast a shadow over oneself.
Which of course is rather totalitarian.
Where are the people who can speak and listen out of sincerity?
The freedom of speech cannot be absolute and cannot be separated from basic values.
If a persons expresses joy and celebrates the murder of a young father and husband, the expression is not free speech, it is a hurtful and disrespectful message. It celebrates murder over dialog.
Just imagine there were no social media and this would happen in a village.
How would the celebration of the murder written down in the local newspaper be welcomed?
Exactly, it would be strongly condemned by the whole village. It is not acceptable and not moral. It is not free speech.
On social media we believe we are protected by anonymity, but we are still part of the (global) village, with the same values of the local village.
Therefore I agree with teachers losing their job over their social media posts celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Free speech can never be a reason for disrespecting and hurting others.
Allowing public school TEACHERS to aggrandize murder is what leads to totalitarianism. Not their being fired, in which employers enforcing basic civility is a function of a free society! Desmet has it backwards.
This post by Mattias is special in the fact that it contains his somewhat unusually direct criticisms of what is happening under the reign of Trump/Maga/. This is quite remarkable, since his book and theory are about the rise of totalitarianism, and the events in the U.S. are a perfect example of that. What could be the reason for his silence, his long abstention from commenting?
Mattias Desmet has often repeated that the danger of our time does not lie in flamboyant leaders, but in the anonymous bureaucracy and technocracy that slowly suffocate our lives. It is not the juicy tyrants who lead us toward a new form of totalitarianism, he wrote, but the dry civil servant with his papers, numbers and protocols. Yet it is strange how little he applied this idea to the concrete events of recent years. When the crowd stormed the Capitol, one saw precisely the kind of mass formation he described so extensively in his book: individuals losing themselves in collective ecstasy, handing over their own judgment, swept away in a reckless drive. The textbook example of what he meant, but at the same time a moment about which he remained silent.
That is the first paradox. For where Mattias pointed to bureaucracy as the source of danger, in practice we often see the opposite. It is the checks and balances of a sluggish administration that sometimes still make the difference between arbitrariness and protection. It is precisely the slowness of procedures that can put up a dam against the onrush of a populist leader. When that slowness is swept away, as Trump attempts, no liberation arises but a vacuum that is immediately filled by authoritarian reflexes. The bureaucracy that supposedly was the core of totalitarianism then suddenly appears to be its last buffer. Also, Trump is an example of what a ‘juicy leader’ as Desmet called it, might be. Didn’t he say we wouldn't see such leaders in present totalitarianism?
There is more. In his book Desmet pointed to the crisis of science: the replication problems, the dubious numbers, the graphs that feign reality. That distrust is real, but it is something else entirely to draw from it the conclusion that science as a whole is a kind of fiction blindly believed in. The irony is that this very discourse – the continual undermining of trust in science, in healthcare, in media – has today become the pretext with which populist movements attack institutions. The anti-vaccine rhetoric of Kennedy, the systematic dismantling of public health by MAGA: it is precisely that climate which hollows out democratic structures, far more than a virologist making a mistake in a spreadsheet. The censoring of books is back, they also seem to plannthe prohibition of books about... you'd never guess... totalitarianism.
(https://www.standaard.be/media-en-cultuur/van-1984-tot-the-handmaid-s-tale-ook-klassiekers-ontsnappen-niet-meer-aan-boekencensuur-in-de-vs/93628816.html) Soon Mattias's book will be forbidden by the very movement that adopted and interpreted his anti-scientific stance in a more extreme way. The irony...
The peculiar thing is that Desmet was right that totalitarianism would no longer take the form of the old dictatorial spectacle. But his mistake was to think that bureaucracy would carry it. In reality we see how the dismantling of bureaucracy, the discrediting of science and media, has become the ideal breeding ground. Where he warned against technocratic totalitarianism, it now turns out that populist authoritarianism is the much more tangible danger. And that the two are mirror images: whoever tears down the “technocratic” institutions clears the way for the mass formation of the street.
The same applies to the criticism of the Digital Services Act or the European Shield for Democracy. Desmet reads in them the hand of censorship and the seeds of a control society. But what he does not mention is that such frameworks have mostly arisen in response to the excesses that were fueled, willingly or unwillingly, by his own discourse: the systematic distrust, the proliferation of conspiracy theories, the dissolution of a shared frame of reference. It is a bitter irony: those who claimed to wake the masses have helped create the conditions under which populist mass movements thrive.
That is why I think Mattias’ analysis at this point was fundamentally mistaken. It is not bureaucracy that pushes us toward totalitarianism, but its erosion. It is not the surplus of rules that opens the gate, but the dismantling of rules that were once intended to restrain arbitrariness. What threatens us is not the clerk ordering files, but the crowd setting the archive building on fire and the leader eagerly cashing in its applause.
That may be the tragedy of recent years: Mattias’ warnings against technocratic totalitarianism were eagerly taken up by exactly those currents that in the meantime are hollowing out the foundations of democratic institutions. And so what he thought he was fighting – mass formation, loss of common sense, erosion of freedom – manifests itself all the more strongly, but not from the corner he had in mind.
I didn’t read all of the comments here, but I didn’t see anyone questioning the veracity of the “incident” on September 10. I have been watching lots of videos and the questions keep mounting. Why was Charlie, usually seen in dark-colored shirts, wearing a white shirt that day? Why was the scene not treated as a crime scene? Why was it not roped off so it could be investigated? What bulged in Charlie’s shirt just before “impact”? Why did Charlie hold onto the mic after he was “shot” and fell over? Why was there no blood spatter on anyone else or the backdrop? Why was there no trail of blood to the SUV? Why was Charlie grabbed and carried away? Is that how a medical emergency is normally handled - to grab the person and run away? With all the drones being used, why were there not a couple drones in the air to work surveillance? Certainly after the supposed attempt on Trump - nearly exact same scenario - some lessons have been learned. (?) There are questions about the CIA connections to that city. There are different stories about where Erika and the children were. There are very odd things posted on Erika’s instagram. The questions keep piling up. Why did the Kirk’s have such a close relationship with Scientologists? Then there are hand gestures given by Charlie in photos. The same hand gestures are given by Charlie’s friends. There seem to be disturbing connections to freemasonry. There is a photo of Charlie and Candace Owens sitting together making the same Masonic hand sign.
I don’t know. I’m just taking in the data and questions … and wondering what is going on.
I am pulled in two directions on the issue of “freedom of speech.” Or maybe 20 directions.
There should be no teachers hired by the government. There should be no tax-funded government schools. Parents should directly hire teachers they trust to teach their children what is good and right. I can’t imagine sending my child off to school with a teacher selected by a bureaucracy. (And I didn’t. I homeschooled.) Since they do exist, teachers are fired for different kinds of inappropriate behavior - like one I saw recently, providing alcohol and a party venue to underage kids.
The first amendment was about questioning the government or politicians. Political discourse couldn’t be shut down. It doesn’t mean anyone can say anything and not be called to account by other people. Employers should be able to hire whoever they want and fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
As far as Jimmy Kimmel, I know nothing about him. I don’t know how the employment works in mainstream media or who makes those decisions. Firing him won’t help purge mainstream media or change its inherent rot, that’s for sure.
People unfamiliar with the u s constitution seem to think “freedom of speech” protects everything anyone wants to say, but that was not the original intent. Even if it were, is it okay to allow people to go around trying to undermine the very “freedoms” they are using to try to convince others to overturn our liberty and take it away?
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
This is the reason America is doomed. The constitution is no longer sufficient to deal with the corruption and deviancy in America because people don’t have the basic moral foundation our country was founded on - Biblical values and principles. Decent and intelligent discussion is quickly disappearing. The topics being discussed would shock our founding fathers. They would not be able to identify with current “issues” at all.
I’ve seen some videos about the Charlie Kirk incident. I’ve heard some talk about it too. I know enough about the corruption in the government to wonder what’s up. Really? A 20-year-old kid pulled this off on his own? I smell a rat.
Kimmel is a partisan, political animal, not some innocent.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Thank you for your ongoing commitment to health , life and humanity .
Call me contrarian, but I think the principles around good taste are being evenly applied in this situation as they were after Charlottesville and the Summer of Love.
https://open.substack.com/pub/promethianimpulse/p/fired-for-celebrating-charlie-kirks?r=3vboxn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=post-publish
The the head of the FCC making threats muddied the waters, yes. But using the bully pulpit is different from direct action from the executive branch.
Kimmel’s program is on “public airwaves” which are regulated by the FCC. Programs are expected to be at least fair. Kimmel’s comments were so far beyond the facts of the case (shooter’s Antifa beliefs were etched on his bullets) the FCC indicated they could fall under “hoax” criteria. Additionally, Kimmel’s program was so unprofitable, and the local providers of the program were calling to say they did not want Kimmel’s crass program…it was a simple business-wise opportunity to can the little jerk.
You naive if you don't see the enormous attack on freedom of the press & media in the US under Trump's Regime.
In the past 8 months books & words have been forbidden, gov. websites have been censored, the freedom of speech and right to protest have been under pressure and opposition has been attracted.
Many more of the Regimes actions go against the Constitution and the soul of America.
Mattias only realized that now, after Kirk got shot.
Sorry but you are listening to corporate media…have you paid attention to the Twitter files wherein Jack Dorsey (creator of Twitter) testified and exposed Biden’s censorship of Tweets contrary to his admiration? Look up Arctic Frost! Obama’s admended Smith-Mundt Act which allows propaganda used on US outlets…
I think you have confused the protection of "free speech" as guaranteed by the "1st Amendment" with an employer's right to protect their business model. In point of fact, the 1st Amendment protection of free speech ONLY limits government overreach... not the rights of private industry to act in accordance with their financial bottom line. In effect, private industry has an inherent right to limit, curtail, suspend, dismiss, and otherwise remove any adverse effect that its own employees have on the organization's public face.
I agree with you, but I would frame it as "liberty" vs "freedom" since liberty, by it's very defination, has constraints... in point of fact, the corporate environment is a business environment, and should be treated as such, and not an arena to discuss one's personal beliefs and values... and especially so wrt what might be considered inflammatory topics. Those conversations are better left outside the workplace. Personally, I see no contradiction in maintaining our beliefs and values while simultaneously keeping our mouths shut about them.
Wrt Mr. Kimmel, he didn't "suggest" anything; his comments were not only crass, but were an out-and-out false accusation. It's my opinion that the falsity of his remarks was his error.
On a related note, I think we as a nation have had WAY too much cherry-picking, out-of-context rhetoric from both sides of the aisle in the public forum meant solely for the purpose of inciting discord between opposing political/cultural camps.
correction: Trump was banned from Twitter as the sitting president. Biden was surely the admin of censorship when he was in office and ran all the ludicrous lawfare against Trump that we knew would result in the backlash of now. and likely that "continuity of government" is the baton passed between to run with in the uniparty that is the instrument it will implement next
What bothers me most about the comments is not the comments themselves but what it says about a person’s heart. A black heart has no place in a classroom with kids. They can say anything they want to but they must know they will suffer consequences. I am continually reminded of the doctors and nurses who were summarily fired for their comments about ivermectin, covid treatments, the politics around covid and its origins. Everyone thought private companies had every right to fire them. Military people were routed out of service by exercising their belief is bodily autonomy, which is a form of free speech. This was our own government firing them. This ship needs to be righted.
Professor Desmet, I appreciate so much your description of, explanation of, and prescribed remedy for mass formation, and I like your substack posts. Here, what I really appreciate is that you point a finger at a behavior (cheering or laughing about an assassination, firing someone for voicing an opinion) rather than at any specific group of people. By doing so you place the human and the humane at the center, where they belong. Thank you so much! K. B.