Zuckerberg, I translated it from German to literal English: āsugar mountainā , -who needs numerology when itās literally spelled out in words? A sugar mountain will melt in the sun, get sticky, and then harden up again when the sun goes down. Either way, itās still bad for your teeth
In his book *The Psychology of Totalitarianism*, Mattias Desmet warned about the dangers of excessive bureaucratic control and technocratic governance. He criticized the influence of mass formation and the role of technology and propaganda, often linked to governments exercising strict control. Through his appearances with right-wing and libertarian figures such as Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, he quickly became associated with a camp critical of "the establishment," sometimes showing sympathy for leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, who were perceived as dismantling these insidious mechanisms. This movement shares an anti-globalist and anti-bureaucratic discourse that aligns with Desmet's warnings about the loss of individual freedom.
However, there seems to be a shift in Desmet's thinking. Recent geopolitical developments, such as Trumpās growing authoritarian tendencies and Putinās war rhetoric, may be prompting him to reassess his perspective. Where he previously emphasized the dangers of bureaucratic control and limitations on freedom of expression, he now seems to recognize that dismantling these control mechanisms by charismatic leaders does not necessarily lead to greater freedom but rather to a different form of totalitarianism. This new totalitarianism is not based on gray, technocratic structures but on the personal power of leaders and their manipulative use of mass media and propaganda. It is no longer the dull bureaucracies driving propaganda but modern despots and corporations profiting from sensationalist news.
This creates a tension in his analysis. On the one hand, he criticized bureaucracy for its stifling control, but on the other, he might now acknowledge that bureaucracy also serves a stabilizing and regulatory function. Its absence can create a vacuum filled with chaos and arbitrariness. Moreover, while he has long warned about propaganda, which he primarily attributed to states and globalist elites, his recent articles suggest a growing awareness that populist leaders use propaganda tools with equal danger. While he remains critical of the influence of technology and AI on social media and censorship, he now seems to recognize that these instruments, in the hands of authoritarian leaders, can be even more destructive.
These developments suggest that Desmet may be moving toward a more nuanced position. He seems to realize that totalitarianism does not solely stem from bureaucracy but can also thrive in a populist context, where charismatic leaders dismantle bureaucratic structures to expand their personal power. Could he now, perhaps indirectly, be distancing himself from the camps with which he was previously associated?
It is possible to argue that in his earlier analyses, Desmet maintained a one-sided focus on the dangers of the technocratic elite while underestimating the risks of populist movements like Trumpism. His attention was primarily on the threat of bureaucratic control, mass formation, and technological totalitarianism, which he linked to globalist elites and governments. At the same time, he criticized the censorship and propaganda within those structures. This emphasis often associated him with right-wing and libertarian movements that criticize these elites.
However, this focus may have caused him to underestimate the dangers of populist movements and leaders like Trump, who use similar mechanisms of control, such as propaganda, censorship, and the mobilization of mass emotions. For many observers, the risks of such authoritarian tendencies have long been clear, given the historical pattern of charismatic leaders dismantling bureaucracies to consolidate personal power. If Desmet now recognizes this dynamic more clearly, it could be interpreted as a kind of "awakening."
If Desmet has recently come to realize that populist authoritarian figures pose an equally significant threat to democratic values, it would signify a shift in his thinking. This may indicate a late but important acknowledgment that totalitarianism is not only the product of dull bureaucracy but can also be embodied by charismatic leaders who use chaos, fear, and propaganda to amass power. This would imply that his earlier analyses missed broader threats, compelling him to refine and expand his vision.
While he likely would not describe himself as āwrong,ā it seems plausible that he now views his original focus as too narrow. I am pleased to see that what he now expresses does greater justice to the complexity of reality and the multifaceted nature of modern totalitarian tendencies.
many people are so afraid of being manipulated that they allow themselves to be manipulated by manipulators pretending to warn about manipulators. Covid-19 scared people.
Desmet might not be pro-Trump, but as antivaxxer he was leaning more to that side then the other. The republican/right side of the USA, the anti-Biden-camp, acted as if the anti-covid measures where the start of totalitarianism.
I'm still amazed Desmet never saw (or at least never mentioned anything about) the risk of Trump bringing this feared totalitarianism. Trump & co always pretended to warn about manipulators, defended free speech (his own, not the anti-vaxxers', he just used their sentiment to collect votes), and never never Desmet wrote or said anything about the possibility that those people warning for totalitarianism might bring it. With his interventions on the administration and against immigrants and gender-related laws, Trump has already begun to limit dissent and freedom. His consorts gain control over media and communication networks. Opponents are villified. Agressive war rethoric. I guess we're witnessing the rise of a new sort of totalitarianism, not the one Desmet warned us for, but the kind that comes from exactly those people who gave Desmet a stage for his 5 minutes of fame while they used him or he let himself be used to pretend they were warning for the danger the others would be, while it turns out they were the danger themselves...
Mattias you have more integrity and intelligence than all the scumbags who have attacked you! I have have supported you from day one, and so have so many others, these self proclaimed elites are really nothing because they have no spiritual connection with God so they are truly nothing. Those who are like you have much more than elites because in the end you know the truth and are remarkable human beings that will be rewarded for your efforts in the fight for freedom and God given rights.
I think FB exists because Zuckerberg and buddies saw a "need", communication, which existed and could be facilitated via the internet. This "need" was also noted by our intelligence agencies. It didn't take long for Zuckerberg (and others of that ilk) to realize that this base of social communication was also an opportunity to make money from peoples' public display of their wants and needs and associated information. The intelligence agencies saw immediately the value of such a club for collecting and using personal information and preferences, which people gladly broadcast over the universe. It is a logical result that the teckies and the spies saw the advantage to cooperating with each other. Zuckerberg, though he had power/control and much money, had a child-like joy in rubbing elbows with the spies and the politicians. Essentially, nothing has changed. Now, it is more imperative that the teckies and the spies work together. But, with the change of administration, and the fact that his "cover" was blown, Zuckerberg is giving the impression that the tiger has changed his stripes. Also, he enjoys socializing with a new set of politicians. The new Zuckerberg is still the old Zuckerberg. He has not changed. Only his hairstyle and hang-outs have changed.
I feel pretty much the same about Musk, by the way. His "change" is mostly for financial gain.
When you mentioned Zbig I was disappointed. He only saw the world as a way to eliminate Russia and Russiaās friends. He single-handedly brought on Iran hostage crisis by ignoring not only Intelligence reports but also the sitting Ambassador.
Zbig was some type of ā...pathā not sure which one but he was an animal who first looked to forcibly make countries align with his ideas versus diplomacy .
Oh man, I want to hear more of your thinking here Mattias. I feel like itās the footing I need. Alas, I must settle for this bit, and so, I thank you.
"a plan orchestrated by the great metaphysical forces of existence and the symbolic frameworks in which those forces are expressed........itās a bird flying in far rarer and higher skies than those of human understanding."
Perhaps I have missed other essays in which you have dealt with such notions, but as it is they stand out in this short, excellent piece as begging further explanation.
For it is one thing to identify materialism as a core thrust threatening to doom us all, but another to articulate what alternatives there might be to those of us living in these times.
It's in their blood. Jews lie and lie and lie and lie even if the world knows the truth they still lie and lie and lie because they believe in their lies when no one does. Then they accuse others of that which they are guilty of. However, one day all the lies will collapse under their own weight and the truth will once again triumph. Truth Always Prevails!
There's nothing he can say that I care about. He needs to be prosecuted and legally executed along with others like him and all their conspirators and every facet of society
I am reading The Creature of Jekyll Island for the first time about the origins of the Fed and all of the evil acts of āscrewing the taxpayerā that have occurred since. The extent of the matrix of power behind the global elites was far deeper, sinister and downright evil than I ever imagined.
I question the premise that Trump is an enthusiastic member of those swamp creatures. They are mostly bankers and public officials who understand and participated the game of āBailoutā they have played for 110 years. I sense that Trump swims with those swamp creatures because he has to in order to understand their game and figure out how to sabotage it.
I may be wrong, but I choose to believe that a David exists whenever a Goliath gets too dangerous.
Iām in resonance šš»
Zuckerberg, I translated it from German to literal English: āsugar mountainā , -who needs numerology when itās literally spelled out in words? A sugar mountain will melt in the sun, get sticky, and then harden up again when the sun goes down. Either way, itās still bad for your teeth
A French version:
https://dieudonnedard.substack.com/p/les-confessions-de-zuckerberg
In his book *The Psychology of Totalitarianism*, Mattias Desmet warned about the dangers of excessive bureaucratic control and technocratic governance. He criticized the influence of mass formation and the role of technology and propaganda, often linked to governments exercising strict control. Through his appearances with right-wing and libertarian figures such as Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, he quickly became associated with a camp critical of "the establishment," sometimes showing sympathy for leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, who were perceived as dismantling these insidious mechanisms. This movement shares an anti-globalist and anti-bureaucratic discourse that aligns with Desmet's warnings about the loss of individual freedom.
However, there seems to be a shift in Desmet's thinking. Recent geopolitical developments, such as Trumpās growing authoritarian tendencies and Putinās war rhetoric, may be prompting him to reassess his perspective. Where he previously emphasized the dangers of bureaucratic control and limitations on freedom of expression, he now seems to recognize that dismantling these control mechanisms by charismatic leaders does not necessarily lead to greater freedom but rather to a different form of totalitarianism. This new totalitarianism is not based on gray, technocratic structures but on the personal power of leaders and their manipulative use of mass media and propaganda. It is no longer the dull bureaucracies driving propaganda but modern despots and corporations profiting from sensationalist news.
This creates a tension in his analysis. On the one hand, he criticized bureaucracy for its stifling control, but on the other, he might now acknowledge that bureaucracy also serves a stabilizing and regulatory function. Its absence can create a vacuum filled with chaos and arbitrariness. Moreover, while he has long warned about propaganda, which he primarily attributed to states and globalist elites, his recent articles suggest a growing awareness that populist leaders use propaganda tools with equal danger. While he remains critical of the influence of technology and AI on social media and censorship, he now seems to recognize that these instruments, in the hands of authoritarian leaders, can be even more destructive.
These developments suggest that Desmet may be moving toward a more nuanced position. He seems to realize that totalitarianism does not solely stem from bureaucracy but can also thrive in a populist context, where charismatic leaders dismantle bureaucratic structures to expand their personal power. Could he now, perhaps indirectly, be distancing himself from the camps with which he was previously associated?
It is possible to argue that in his earlier analyses, Desmet maintained a one-sided focus on the dangers of the technocratic elite while underestimating the risks of populist movements like Trumpism. His attention was primarily on the threat of bureaucratic control, mass formation, and technological totalitarianism, which he linked to globalist elites and governments. At the same time, he criticized the censorship and propaganda within those structures. This emphasis often associated him with right-wing and libertarian movements that criticize these elites.
However, this focus may have caused him to underestimate the dangers of populist movements and leaders like Trump, who use similar mechanisms of control, such as propaganda, censorship, and the mobilization of mass emotions. For many observers, the risks of such authoritarian tendencies have long been clear, given the historical pattern of charismatic leaders dismantling bureaucracies to consolidate personal power. If Desmet now recognizes this dynamic more clearly, it could be interpreted as a kind of "awakening."
If Desmet has recently come to realize that populist authoritarian figures pose an equally significant threat to democratic values, it would signify a shift in his thinking. This may indicate a late but important acknowledgment that totalitarianism is not only the product of dull bureaucracy but can also be embodied by charismatic leaders who use chaos, fear, and propaganda to amass power. This would imply that his earlier analyses missed broader threats, compelling him to refine and expand his vision.
While he likely would not describe himself as āwrong,ā it seems plausible that he now views his original focus as too narrow. I am pleased to see that what he now expresses does greater justice to the complexity of reality and the multifaceted nature of modern totalitarian tendencies.
You managed to say the same thing 5 times over with different word. Brevity is golden . You lose people attention by writing this way.
I prefered to use some nuances.
I could put it this way too:
many people are so afraid of being manipulated that they allow themselves to be manipulated by manipulators pretending to warn about manipulators. Covid-19 scared people.
Desmet might not be pro-Trump, but as antivaxxer he was leaning more to that side then the other. The republican/right side of the USA, the anti-Biden-camp, acted as if the anti-covid measures where the start of totalitarianism.
I'm still amazed Desmet never saw (or at least never mentioned anything about) the risk of Trump bringing this feared totalitarianism. Trump & co always pretended to warn about manipulators, defended free speech (his own, not the anti-vaxxers', he just used their sentiment to collect votes), and never never Desmet wrote or said anything about the possibility that those people warning for totalitarianism might bring it. With his interventions on the administration and against immigrants and gender-related laws, Trump has already begun to limit dissent and freedom. His consorts gain control over media and communication networks. Opponents are villified. Agressive war rethoric. I guess we're witnessing the rise of a new sort of totalitarianism, not the one Desmet warned us for, but the kind that comes from exactly those people who gave Desmet a stage for his 5 minutes of fame while they used him or he let himself be used to pretend they were warning for the danger the others would be, while it turns out they were the danger themselves...
Mattias you have more integrity and intelligence than all the scumbags who have attacked you! I have have supported you from day one, and so have so many others, these self proclaimed elites are really nothing because they have no spiritual connection with God so they are truly nothing. Those who are like you have much more than elites because in the end you know the truth and are remarkable human beings that will be rewarded for your efforts in the fight for freedom and God given rights.
I think FB exists because Zuckerberg and buddies saw a "need", communication, which existed and could be facilitated via the internet. This "need" was also noted by our intelligence agencies. It didn't take long for Zuckerberg (and others of that ilk) to realize that this base of social communication was also an opportunity to make money from peoples' public display of their wants and needs and associated information. The intelligence agencies saw immediately the value of such a club for collecting and using personal information and preferences, which people gladly broadcast over the universe. It is a logical result that the teckies and the spies saw the advantage to cooperating with each other. Zuckerberg, though he had power/control and much money, had a child-like joy in rubbing elbows with the spies and the politicians. Essentially, nothing has changed. Now, it is more imperative that the teckies and the spies work together. But, with the change of administration, and the fact that his "cover" was blown, Zuckerberg is giving the impression that the tiger has changed his stripes. Also, he enjoys socializing with a new set of politicians. The new Zuckerberg is still the old Zuckerberg. He has not changed. Only his hairstyle and hang-outs have changed.
I feel pretty much the same about Musk, by the way. His "change" is mostly for financial gain.
When you mentioned Zbig I was disappointed. He only saw the world as a way to eliminate Russia and Russiaās friends. He single-handedly brought on Iran hostage crisis by ignoring not only Intelligence reports but also the sitting Ambassador.
Zbig was some type of ā...pathā not sure which one but he was an animal who first looked to forcibly make countries align with his ideas versus diplomacy .
Oh man, I want to hear more of your thinking here Mattias. I feel like itās the footing I need. Alas, I must settle for this bit, and so, I thank you.
Here is We The Patriots' experience with Mark
Zuckerberg since his January 7 video:
https://wethepatriotsusa.substack.com/p/meta-promises-free-speech?r=2yizpo&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
"a plan orchestrated by the great metaphysical forces of existence and the symbolic frameworks in which those forces are expressed........itās a bird flying in far rarer and higher skies than those of human understanding."
Perhaps I have missed other essays in which you have dealt with such notions, but as it is they stand out in this short, excellent piece as begging further explanation.
For it is one thing to identify materialism as a core thrust threatening to doom us all, but another to articulate what alternatives there might be to those of us living in these times.
For crying out loudā¦this guy is full of you know whatā¦
Here is Childrenās Health Defenseās challenge to Mark Zuckerberg:
http://support.childrenshealthdefense.org/site/MessageViewer;jsessionid=00000000.app30025b?dlv_id=24823&em_id=25501.0&NONCE_TOKEN=CB2870465826DAC62ED87C8949DA04F6
It's in their blood. Jews lie and lie and lie and lie even if the world knows the truth they still lie and lie and lie because they believe in their lies when no one does. Then they accuse others of that which they are guilty of. However, one day all the lies will collapse under their own weight and the truth will once again triumph. Truth Always Prevails!
https://www.alibris.com/New-History-of-the-Jews-Eustace-Clarence-Mullins/book/33918088
There's nothing he can say that I care about. He needs to be prosecuted and legally executed along with others like him and all their conspirators and every facet of society
I am reading The Creature of Jekyll Island for the first time about the origins of the Fed and all of the evil acts of āscrewing the taxpayerā that have occurred since. The extent of the matrix of power behind the global elites was far deeper, sinister and downright evil than I ever imagined.
I question the premise that Trump is an enthusiastic member of those swamp creatures. They are mostly bankers and public officials who understand and participated the game of āBailoutā they have played for 110 years. I sense that Trump swims with those swamp creatures because he has to in order to understand their game and figure out how to sabotage it.
I may be wrong, but I choose to believe that a David exists whenever a Goliath gets too dangerous.
After this book, go back to the original exposƩ Secrets Of The Federal Reserve by Eustace Clarence Mullins. Mullins was denied by 32 publishers (but let's have a look at your novel manuscript) and so he self-published for a number of years. It is suspected that Griffin plagiarized Mullins work (which reads like a crime report and indictment - because that is exactly what it is). This was my original "red pill" 30+ years ago. Then look up his bombshell revelation on the AMA titled Murder By Injection.
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=Eustace+Mullins&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
Niets is zo slecht of er zit schoonheid in.
NaĆÆviteit? ...vind je `n vriendelijk mens!
Als je met jezelf bevriend bent, heb je een vriend voor het leven!